CONTENTS
Wednesday 1 May 1996
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
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
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
Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC) for Mrs Johns
Skarica, Toni (Wentworth North / -Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Boyd, Marion (London Centre / -Centre) for Mr Laughren
Froese, Tom (St Catharines-Brock PC) for Mr Newman
Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC) for Mr Preston
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West / -Ouest PC)
Ministry of Education and Training
Church, Anu, counsel, legal services branch
Clerk / Greffière: Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Marilyn Leitman, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1010 in room 151.
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.
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.
The Vice-Chair (Mr John Gerretsen): Can we get the meeting going, please, since we're a few minutes late. Are there any preliminary matters, anyone? Then we should go back to the items that were placed in abeyance yesterday. The first one I have is subsection 15(1), paragraph 6.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Mr Preston, who asked for this to be stood down, isn't here. I gather he had some reason for that. We said we would discuss that this morning. Is he expected in the committee?
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): No. We're prepared to proceed right now. We deferred this so that we could discuss our position, and I have it now.
The government is opposed to this amendment for these reasons: The government agrees there should be an aboriginal advisory committee, but it does not agree that it should be a statutory committee, as outlined in the proposed amendment. The executive committee, registration appeals committee, investigation committee, discipline committee and fitness to practise committee are defined in Bill 31 because they directly impact the licence to teach in Ontario. Other acts have dealt with committees in the same fashion. Employees of the college will establish in regulation a number of standing, special and ad hoc committees including an accreditation committee, a standards of practice and education committee, a communications committee, an election committee and a nomination committee and an aboriginal advisory committee, if they so wish.
The self-regulating college should be given latitude in determining the number and types of additional committees it will require. The question of aboriginal self-governance, including governance of the education of aboriginals, must be resolved between federal and provincial governments and aboriginal peoples. The college must have the flexibility to respond appropriately to changing circumstances as aboriginal governance questions are settled. Enshrining a specific committee in the legislation itself will limit the ability of the college to respond to changing circumstances. The word "governance" in the title of this committee is quite inappropriate because it would not actually give governance to aboriginals. So that's the government position.
Mr Patten: This is in response to 15(1)?
Mr Skarica: Subsection 15(1), yes.
Mr Patten: In terms of the aboriginal teacher educational governance committee.
Mr Skarica: That's correct.
Mr Patten: I'd welcome a comment from legal counsel on this in terms of what the minister's powers are at the moment in relation to instructing the college to address a particular issue or to somehow deal with something such as this, for example.
Ms Marilyn Leitman: In terms of the constituencies represented on council?
Mr Patten: Yes. Well, in terms of this particular recommendation, let's say.
Ms Leitman: There are two places; one is in terms of representation among the elected members of council. You have to look at the reg-making power in subsection 37(1), where the college has the power to define constituencies along regional, occupational and other lines and prescribe the number of representatives for each constituency defined in that way. Those regulations are subject to the approval of Lieutenant Governor in Council. For appointed members of council --
Mr Patten: No, I'm thinking particularly of the committee that would deal with the aboriginal issues related to 15(1).
Ms Leitman: As in whether such a committee would be established absent something in the statute?
Mr Patten: The message I've received is no, we don't want to do this because we don't want to tie the hands and the flexibility of the college; however, the government is supportive of having the college address it, which I take is acknowledging the validity of some special attention being given to the aboriginal education system. But if it's not going to be here in the legislation or the regulations, what responsibility will the college have in responding to a minister's request, or can the minister direct the college to address a certain concern?
Ms Leitman: There are a few answers. Clause 12(1)(b) allows the minister to "require the council to do anything that, in the opinion of the minister, is necessary or advisable to carry out the intent of this act." There's the issue of constituencies under council regs and under regs governing appointment which would affect representation on council, which has the power to establish committees. Other than that, it's the council's business to establish other committees as it sees fit.
Mr Patten: All right. I'm searching for trying to be supportive of the intent, and I gather we share the intent. Does that mean that the minister can, under clause 12(1)(b), "require the council to do anything that, in the opinion of the minister, is necessary or advisable to carry out the intent of this act," so that the minister could require or could request the council to address this issue and consider a committee or whatever it is or ask them to institute something?
Ms Leitman: If in the opinion of the minister that was advisable to carry out the intent of the act, yes. There is some evidence in the act that it intends to have broad representation from different constituencies. That's as much as I can help, I think.
Mr Patten: Okay. Toni, are you suggesting that the minister would be prepared to make a request of the college in addressing the unique concerns of the aboriginal educational system?
Mr Skarica: I think the minister's prepared to leave it to the college itself initially, and if that becomes a concern, then as it was indicated, the minister then can intervene as required.
Mr Patten: That doesn't give very much hope, it seems to me, that this might happen if the college addresses this, and if it doesn't, what's the point of having something in there that says if the minister believes that something is necessary or even advisable to carry out, he wouldn't be prepared to stand up and be counted in the interests of our aboriginal brothers?
Mr Skarica: You can make the same argument for other groups that haven't been included, such as francophones and so on. It's obviously not the intent to exclude them either.
Mr Patten: People keep comparing -- I think it's apples and oranges. All the others are within the funding situation and there's a direct relationship with the Ministry of Education and Training. The aboriginal people are caught between a rock and a hard place. They're funded primarily by the federal government, except the federal government has requirements that they be recognized under the certificates for practice as teachers by the provinces and so they are obligated to come to the province to deal with the recognition factor.
We know their total system is quite different. We have a lot to learn from them, it seems to me. I think they have rationally and intellectually and compassionately put forward a request in a highly reasonable manner. I believe that we have a responsibility to try to satisfy that.
In the absence of defeating the motion here, in the absence of a commitment from the government or the ministry to support the aboriginal people in a situation not of their making, as is typical, usually considered an afterthought -- not thinking of them, thinking of them just as numbers is an embarrassment. It's not just numbers because they're not really of our particular system. They have a completely different cultural context, methodologies, historical, traditional ways of coming at education that I think we should be respectful of, and this is one way in which we can demonstrate that.
Frankly, I'm quite disappointed and I think you'll see that the aboriginal community will be very disappointed in this one as well.
Anyway, I'll still move that subsection 15(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:
"6. aboriginal teacher education governance committee."
The Vice-Chair: That was moved yesterday.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Just to follow up on the comments made by my colleague, as we know, we heard from the Aboriginal Education Council, the Aboriginal Education Network, the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, and they put forth a very, very good case that their groups should be recognized. They indicated that all of the teachers had to have Ontario teaching certificates to teach within their system. I think the government is certainly letting them down by not listening to what I thought was a very good case put forth by these groups. They indicated that their numbers in terms of success within the aboriginal communities were far behind those of the system in terms of other students in the system. They made a good case for that.
I think what they were looking for was some recognition. Through this amendment and motion that we put forth, I think this would have given them that recognition that they were looking for. So again, I'm very disappointed that the Conservative members on this committee have decided that their case was not a worthwhile one.
1020
Mr Skarica: I would only add that there still can be a committee. It's up to the college itself now to formulate it.
Mr Miclash: But we did have the chance to put it in the bill, and that's the important thing; you did not do that. I think that's what's going to upset these groups very much, that we chose not to put that as part of the bill, which they were asking for. I think that's where they're going to be very disappointed.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I apologize for being late. I had a meeting downtown.
I just wanted to make the one point that may have already been stated, that while we recognize the difficulty the government might face in accepting such an amendment, and we also recognize the need of many other groups to be represented, whether they be francophone or visible minorities, disabled and so on, all of whom have special needs and concerns, I want to register our serious concern about suggesting that aboriginal people are an interest group or a group like any other.
In fact, they are not a group like any other. Unlike all of the other groups we mentioned, other than the francophone groups, aboriginal people are the only ones who are specifically singled out in the Constitution of Canada as a group that has rights that are not enjoyed by the rest of us. It is quite inappropriate to see them simply as a group like any other.
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I apologize as well for being late.
I'm surprised, frankly, that the government members would not support this, because we remind the members that this is inconsistent with what you're coming down with in the workfare proposals. It's ironic that in the discussion papers that have been bandied about in relation to workfare, there's clear reference to setting up specific programs for aboriginals. There's specific reference acknowledging that special role to acknowledge that uniqueness, that distinctiveness that is there and the fact that they're not just another group.
You've acknowledged that in workfare; I find that interesting, that you would acknowledge that in a program that many of us see as punitive, that many of us see as degrading to people, you've chosen to go ahead and take the aboriginal community and say, "Okay, we're going to set up different programs here," but you've chosen not to do that here in an educational system. If you're going to be consistent, let me suggest that if you've done that in workfare and if it's appropriate to do it there, then it's appropriate to do it here as well. Maybe someone can explain to me what the rationale would have been behind setting it up in the workfare proposals and the documents and the discussion papers that have been set out, and not doing it here. Because it's totally inconsistent.
Mr Skarica: Speaking of consistency, to respond, the provisions here are very similar to the health professions provisions which were introduced by the last government. Again, the aboriginal peoples are not precluded from having an advisory committee; it's just that it's not legislatively mandated. There can be an advisory committee set up by the college itself through the self-governing provisions in the act.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): That's all very well, but the experience of aboriginal people in this province and in this country has been that when they are put in a position like that and it's left up to a group on which they have no assurance of representation, they are shut out. They were very clear in their representations here that that has been their experience, and that without a positive action on the part of government, such as we did in 1991 by putting an aboriginal education institute in place so that they had an official voice, in fact they are not heard.
I think it is very important and it will be watched very carefully as an opportunity for this government to be very clear that they recognize the exceptional position of aboriginal people in these circumstances, that it is a very important issue of work between the federal and provincial governments; the federal government, quite rightly, wanting to ensure that they are not infringing on the province's rights by saying that someone has to hold a valid teaching certification, but then the province is saying, "But we do not recognize the very specific needs that aboriginal people have brought forward."
I think it will certainly be seen as further evidence, if that were required, that this current government does not recognize the importance of government-to-government negotiations, government-to-government decision-making, around the issues that affect aboriginal people.
It is not a minor matter, and it is scant comfort to aboriginal people to be told, "Well, there's nothing to preclude their being included," because their experience has been that they are systematically excluded unless there are specific actions taken to include them.
Mr Wildman: I would just add very briefly to that, and I'm sure it's been alluded to this morning, that compared to almost any other group in the population, the lack of success in reaching secondary school graduation among aboriginals is almost unique, unfortunately. Surely all of us should be doing what we can to empower aboriginal people to be able to have a greater say over the education of the children and the qualifications of people who are responsible for that education in order to try and turn around what is a horrific record in terms of failure to meet the needs of aboriginal kids.
I want to emphasize that I'm certainly not being partisan about that. I think that all governments of whatever stripe have failed to meet those needs.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Shall the amendment carry?
Mr Agostino: Can we get a recorded vote?
Ayes
Agostino, Boyd, Miclash, Patten, Wildman.
The Vice-Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Carroll, Ecker, Froese, Pettit, Skarica, Smith.
The Vice-Chair: The amendment is lost.
Mr Wildman: Just a point of interest: Aboriginal people of course would not have had a vote like that. They would have continued debating the topic until there was unanimous agreement.
Mr Skarica: We'd never leave.
Mrs Ecker: You go talk to your House leader and we'll talk to our House leader.
Mr Patten: Subsection 15(2.2) and section 15.1: If this is defeated then this follows and wouldn't take effect. However, I would undertake to share this with the college to consider in their own way and hopefully the minister will find it within his vision to acknowledge the necessity of the college addressing the aboriginal school in the educational system. So I withdraw these two amendments.
Mr Miclash: Have both the amendments been read into the record?
The Vice-Chair: They were all moved and read into the record yesterday.
Is it the pleasure then that section 15 be carried, as amended? There were a number of other amendments made to it yesterday. These numbers were stood down. All those in favour of section 15, as amended, carrying? Opposed? That's carried.
1030
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Mr Chair, 15.1, 15(2.2), they're all gone?
The Vice-Chair: Yes, because they follow 15(1), and since 15(1) didn't carry, we don't need to deal with them.
The next amendment that we still have from yesterday was your amendment, Mr Patten, dealing with subsection 37(4). Any comments, Mr Patten?
Mr Patten: Yes, of course. This one was presumably asked to be stood down on the basis of the reference to "at least one of the elected members of the council has had their candidacy approved by the Aboriginal Education Council." This section wasn't read into the record yesterday.
The Vice-Chair: It was not read into the record to the best of my recollection.
Mr Patten: Let me read it in and then I'd like to make a comment.
I move that section 37 be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Representation on council
"(4) The regulations under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of subsection (1) must ensure that after each election,
"(a) a majority of the members of the council are elected members who are employed as teachers by a board;
"(b) at least one of the elected members of the council is employed as a teacher in a private school as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act; and
"(c) at least one of the elected members of the council has had their candidacy approved by the Aboriginal Education Council."
This has two issues, but I think it's the heart, frankly, of this whole legislation. As many of you know, there certainly were no teacher federations or the OTF or any body on the professional side that did not say they felt there was not a clear majority of practising teachers on council. We're in touch almost daily, as I'm sure many of you are, with most of the federations and I would tell you that a good number of the federations would support this particular amendment.
I would refer back to a comment that was made by former Premier Davis where he said, "No model should go forward without the enthusiastic support of the teaching profession." That's been cited numerous times. While you know there is resistance throughout the federations and the OTF, there is some acknowledgement that, "All right, if this is going ahead, then at least let's get it right." They have done a lot of homework, they have made presentations, they have made amendments and have presented to committee what they'd like to see changed.
I believe this is the heart of whether or not you have what I would call -- I'm not even sure if it would be half, but you'd have a significant proportion, because right now it's about 90% against, 94%, something in that neighbourhood.
If you believe in what Premier Davis said -- and I do; I think it's important that we're talking about a self-regulating body of practising teachers -- then it's not there right now. The NDP who put forward the idea and formulated the implementation committee had the wisdom to change their minds based on representation. They could have stuck and said, "It's our recommendation, therefore we won't make any changes," but they recommended the addition of members. That was not supported by the government side.
So we come down to this, the last recommendation for dealing with the composition of the council. It recognizes and acknowledges the overall number of 31, it acknowledges that 17 are elected, but it recommends a movement of two people. In the grand scheme of things, this is, in my opinion, the symbol of the whole of the college, two people, and that those two people are from our practising teachers, in other words, they're engaged by a school board as teachers -- which can still accommodate the recommendations of involving supervisory staff or representatives from the faculties of education as part of the appointment process and honours the overall balance, but it clearly sends a message and, believe me, would be welcomed somewhat reluctantly by a good portion.
I'm hesitant to say whether this would represent half of the teachers, but a good portion would truly welcome that, would then say that at least it's moving in the right direction and I think would not go as far as the BC model but would give classroom teachers or practising teachers a one-person majority on the council who are supported from the public side.
It acknowledges the private, and it suggests in clause (c), and if there is a problem with that, we could deal with the subsections individually, but it will be on the basis, frankly, of this that will enable us to recommend to our caucus which way we go in terms of supporting the legislation.
But regardless of that, the power is there on the government side. You can do what you want. You can listen to it, you can respond or you can ignore it. I suggest to you that if you ignore it, an overwhelming majority of teachers are not supportive and it flies in the face of, "No model should go forward without the enthusiastic support of the teaching profession," as Premier Davis had said. I think that most members would want to propose something to a profession that would be welcomed and embraced and that we would start off in establishing a college with teachers being highly enthusiastic, rather than feeling somehow they were placed into a corner and all of the negative assumptions about maybe a very tiny few, as there would be in any profession, is the reason why this is being set up and not because there's a recognition of the quality of the teaching profession as we know it now, and of course this would help to improve it if we were to make the corrective amendment.
I truly plead with the committee to consider this very carefully, for I believe it's the seminal point that remains in order to gain the support of a good number of the teaching profession.
The Vice-Chair: Just for clarification, so there's no mistake about it, the Aboriginal Education Council is a different organization than the aboriginal teacher education governance committee that you --
Mr Patten: Yes, it is.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. There was some confusion about that.
Mr Wildman: I want to say that we are in support of this amendment. Keeping in mind that the committee in its wisdom, or lack of it, decided not to vote in favour of the amendment we put forward on section 4 and also to vote down the amendments we put on section 25 that would have changed the approach of the college to be more in line with the BC model, although not in terms of membership, I think it's all the more important then that the committee very seriously consider this amendment.
I remember very clearly the position put forward by the representatives of OTS who appeared before the committee, and I think their parting remark at the end of their presentation was that it would be a very serious problem -- I'm paraphrasing, of course -- if the government, the Legislature, passed this legislation setting up a college that was opposed by the vast majority of teachers.
1040
I also remember the presentation made by the representatives of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario where they clearly said they were opposed to the model being put forward in this legislation while not necessarily being opposed to the concept of a college. One of the major problems with the model was the perception that this college would not be truly self-regulating, partly because of the membership on the council as well as a number of other issues related to the workings of the college proposed for Ontario, which would be quite significantly different from British Columbia.
Keeping in mind the comments made particularly by the representatives of OTF and the federation of women teachers, I would support this amendment and hope the committee would seriously consider it. I agree with my colleague Mr Patten that there are two issues being proposed here in this amendment. Clause (c) is a different issue, and I would hope that if the government members are not able to support the amendment in total, they might then consider at least dividing the vote so that we can deal with the membership as it relates to the concerns of teachers; that is, for (a) and (b) separate from (c), since they are two different issues. I also indicate of course that we are in support of the proposal in (c).
Mr Miclash: Let me just follow up on what Mr Wildman has said. I think it's very important that we divide the vote on this particular issue, and I go to clause (c), which says, "at least one of the elected members of the council has had their candidacy approved by the Aboriginal Education Council."
Again, I go back to the three presentations that we had made by aboriginal groups appearing before the committee. I think it was referred to earlier, what they said about the horrendous record on behalf of all governments in education among the aboriginal population. I have to say, as a former educator with a large native population in the schools in which I taught, I saw this and I think we have to ensure that we give this particular group every avenue we can in terms of government to allow them to bring these particular issues to the forefront. So I am certainly in favour of dividing the vote among the three different issues involved in this.
As well, I'd like to go back to what my colleague was saying in terms of the former Premier, Mr Davis, and just say to the committee that this is something I'm hearing from all the teachers as I travel throughout the province, and particularly in the riding, that they would like to be able to support the college but they certainly want to be able to have some changes in terms of the makeup.
So a very important motion, and I hope the government side will see fit to not only support all three parts, but particularly (c), which I have indicated would give aboriginal representation.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Just a quick point of clarification for Mr Patten: In clause (a) of the proposed amendment, "...members who are employed as teachers by a board," is that synonymous with members who are members of one of the teaching federations?
Mr Patten: No. What that attempts to do is to say they're employed as teachers by a board, meaning that they are a practising teacher.
Mr Wildman: They would be members of the federation. You can't teach without being a member of the federation.
Mr Carroll: Basically, the only people who are employed as teachers by a board, as you understand it here, are members of one of the teachers' federations?
Mr Patten: Yes.
Mr Carroll: So what you're recommending here is that members of the teachers' federations have a majority on the College of Teachers?
Mr Patten: I wouldn't say that.
Mr Carroll: Is that what this says?
Mr Patten: Well, you ask me, does this mean -- if they're teachers and they're members of federations, therefore the federations have a majority. Well, what does that mean?
Mr Carroll: I'm just trying to understand. This basically says that members of teachers' federations would have a majority on the College of Teachers if we pass this amendment. Am I understanding that correctly?
Mr Wildman: Members of OTF.
Mr Carroll: Right. Okay. I just wanted to understand that.
Mr Patten: If I could just respond, I know the worry, because it's been identified that people are worried about the federations somehow taking over the college and all this kind of thing. I think we should talk about that. I don't see it that way. It depends on the electoral approach as well, of course, and how that is developed. Teachers, I gather, are required to be members of these federations, so in a sense you can say yes. But does that mean the federations themselves are going to be involved in the actual elections of people?
Mr Wildman: No.
Mr Patten: No, they're not. So if you're attempting to raise the question of, does this increase the opportunity for the federations to somehow influence the whole electoral process, I would say no. It does give individual teachers and teachers collectively, though, as a self-regulating body, the majority, as it is in every other body that I see, because they are practitioners. It's defining practitioners, and the way to do it is to use the definition in the act, which says that a teacher is hired by a board to teach, essentially.
Mr Carroll: I guess my problem with it is that it defines a classroom teacher as a member of one federation, and I have a problem with that --
Mrs Boyd: The act does that.
Mr Carroll: -- because there are lots of other classroom teachers beside those who are members of the federation.
Mr Wildman: No, there aren't.
Mr Carroll: As I understand it, there are.
Mrs Boyd: No.
Mr Patten: I don't think so.
Mr Wildman: The Education Act requires them to be members of the federation.
Interjections.
Mr Carroll: They're appointed by school boards.
Mr Wildman: The act requires teachers, people who teach in the province, to be members of one of the affiliates of OTF.
Mr Carroll: Teachers in all schools?
Mr Wildman: In all public and separate schools.
Mr Carroll: Okay. That's my point.
Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): There are some significant editorial and logistical concerns with this particular amendment, which causes some of us some concern, but to speak to the main issue here, I've shared concerns, as I think many of us have, about how we make sure that teachers understand what is happening here and make sure that teachers are supportive of this. I think that's an important objective, and I've spent a lot of time talking to many front-line teachers to sort of wrestle with, how do we amend some of the things in the College of Teachers to gain that acceptance? Because there was much support for the concept of a college when this started from many of the groups and from many teachers, and I think the principle is supported, but there are some specifics that we as a government have attempted to change.
I was personally quite supportive of perhaps changing the makeup of some of the 17. I certainly agreed that a private school teacher is a teacher. I was open to an argument about supervisory and the faculty elected, because there is faculty appointed. But I must say that when I sat down to discuss that with some teacher representatives to sort of say, "Will this help if we were to change those two?" the reaction I got back was no, no, no; the proposal or the idea and the suggestion they wanted was to decrease the number of public significantly, down to around eight, and that making some change in the 17 was not going to help in terms of trying to get teachers to support and understand the role of the college.
This is a delicate balance that we have here. This college is something that, yes, is regulating teachers, but it's doing it in the public interest. I think there has to be seen to be credibility on the public side as well. I found that if there had been some room to perhaps gain some support from teachers by making some changes in those 17, I personally might have been prepared to argue for that, but I was told that wouldn't work, that it wasn't going to answer those needs. So therefore I have some concerns about this.
1050
You've mentioned the BC college. I think what we've been trying to do is to keep self-regulated professions within Ontario to have some consistency across the board, so therefore we've attempted to make the percentages on the council consistent with what's happening with the health professions. It is interesting to note, for example, that in the doctors' college, as I understand, and some of the others, the faculty reps are considered part of the professional majority. Those doctors who are part of faculty are still considered and accepted as doctors, as members of the profession.
On the final point regarding the Aboriginal Education Council, we've had the discussion about making a separate body on the college, but I think it is important to note that the teacher implementation committee has recommended that we have specific aboriginal representation on the council. It is my understanding that the minister agrees with that and that in terms of the appointed representation on the council there will be steps to try to acknowledge and to accept that recommendation.
I think, as Mr Agostino said earlier, there has been a recognition of some of the unique needs of the aboriginal community, certainly in the development of workfare. There is not legislation demanding that the government do this, but the government is trying to respond to that concern. It's a positive development and there is some sense that this government recognizes that and is prepared to respond in other ways to help meet the needs and the interests of the aboriginal community. So I believe the minister will be attempting to follow through on that particular committee recommendation.
Mr Agostino: This one here, I think, is critical. If you look at the general concept of the self-regulating bodies, generally the majority must be the individuals that are going to be affected by decisions, and that is the classroom teachers. The tie with OTF is really not a factor here, because clearly to be a teacher in this province you must belong to a teachers' federation if you're in a public or separate school. The issue of private schools is addressed with the amendment that there will be one member from the private schools across Ontario.
But the sheer reality is that the members who are going to be affected are members of the teachers' federation. It's that simple. They're the classroom teachers. You must belong to one of the affiliates of the federation to be able to teach in this province. That is something in the Education Act. That is something that has nothing to do with this bill. So it is not a back-door attempt by OTF to try to control this college. The reality is that you must be a member of OTF to teach in this province. That's really my view. It's not at all relevant to the issue of control. What is really at stake here is, are you going to give the individuals who are affected by the decisions made by this college directly, and that is the classroom teachers, the majority on this committee? It's that simple.
I really believe it will go a long way towards having teachers buy in. There will still be some teachers and there will still be some federations and there will still be people who will have some difficulty with the whole concept of a College of Teachers in Ontario. However, I think you will go a long way towards satisfying the needs and the concerns of many of the teachers and many of the federations across Ontario if you make this amendment.
If you refuse to do this, what you have set up is a very confrontational, very much us-against-them attitude towards this college and one that is not going to buy this government any goodwill with the teachers, and I think we'll continue to receive overwhelming opposition from classroom teachers in this province. It's something I would hope the government members will bend a little bit on and understand that for this concept to work, you've got to buy into this amendment that the classroom teachers have the majority. If you don't, this thing is doomed to fail right from the beginning and you're setting up years of confrontation between this government and teachers across this province.
Mrs Boyd: I think the real issue here is the view of the various teachers who appeared in front of the committee that if supervisory officers are one of these groups and education faculty are another, it means that people who are not teaching within a classroom, who don't have that perspective, would not have the majority on the council. I think they are saying there is a difference in perspective and in decision-making positions that would be taken by people who are in the classroom and those who are in a supervisory role.
Mrs Ecker suggested that physicians who teach in a faculty are the same as people who teach in an education faculty, and that is not the case. We've spent a lot of time, various governments, in trying to negotiate with medical faculty people who also practise how to deal with their salaries because they still practise. That has been a big issue and it has gone on and on. They still practise. They are still physicians.
In many cases they practise because they have a philosophical belief that they cannot teach someone else how to be a physician or surgeon unless they are practising at the same time and using their experience and learning the new techniques and doing that sort of thing, so I think the analogy is not very appropriate, whereas somebody who is a supervisory officer, who is part of the administration of a school board, who is out of the classroom, by necessity of their position takes a different position than a person who is in the classroom, and similarly with a faculty of education. You are in a position of teaching teachers, not of teaching children and youth, and that is a different perspective.
On that score this is a good compromise in that it meets some of the demands, and Mrs Ecker is quite right, not all the wishes of those who oppose the college, but it would certainly ameliorate to some extent the real problems that are there.
With respect to (c), there is a very big difference between someone who is appointed by the minister and someone who is elected from among their peers. While I am sure the aboriginal community would be the first to acknowledge the expression of goodwill on the part of the minister, that the current minister would necessarily see that as an important aspect of appointment, that waits on the pleasure of the minister of the day. Those appointments can be removed, whereas elected positions carry the full weight of the election of peers. There is a very big difference in those two things. If we are really concerned about having aboriginal teachers be part of this group and part of the decision-making power in the council, we have to recognize that those are differences.
I think this is a good compromise in terms of the real issue of controversy that has arisen. It maintains a delicate balance. It enables the minister to balance things out with the expertise of supervisors, with the expertise of faculty of education people, without offending against the principle that those who are actually practising the profession are the ones who self-govern. That needs to be taken into account by the government.
1100
Mr Wildman: I want to make a couple of brief points in response to Mr Carroll and Mrs Ecker. The fact that a practising teacher in the classroom must be a member of OTF under the Education Act does not necessarily mean that this amendment would give the federations as institutions control of the college. While I don't necessarily support this, I understand that the college is contemplating elections which would not allow for members of executives of the affiliates of OTF to be candidates, and they are not practising teachers themselves at this moment. Most of them are on leave from their particular boards to serve as executives of the federations.
We're not talking about leaders of the federations in this amendment; we're talking about people who are actually in the classroom who happen also to be members of the federations because of the law and because most of them want to be members of the federations. This is not an attempt to give the federations control; it's an attempt to ensure that classroom teachers have a majority in a self-regulating body, and not a large majority; a plurality, really.
The other issue raised by Mrs Ecker was that the presentations before the committee basically talked about the need to lower the number of public members appointed to the council rather than make changes in the 17 that would be elected. I'm sorry, but I didn't get the same impression.
Certainly a lot of members of the federations appearing before the committee indicated they would like to see a larger percentage of the total be members of the profession and a smaller percentage be members of the public. However, they made significant presentations with regard to the composition of the 17 and argued that supervisory personnel, for instance, should not be counted among teachers as a way of indicating that the teachers had a plurality. Recognizing that supervisory personnel in most cases must also have a teacher's certificate, the view was that they have a very different perspective from the practising teacher in the classroom, as it might be argued in some cases that executives of the federations might have a somewhat different perspective from both of them.
I hope that while all those groups, practising teachers, members of the federations and supervisory personnel, are interested in good education for students in Ontario, they come from different points of view on some issues. This amendment tries to ensure that the point of view of teachers in the classroom has some important sway in the council.
Mr Carroll: I don't want to belabour the point but I do need to set the record straight. Mr Agostino said you must be a member of OTF to teach in this province. That is not true. There are thousands of people in this province who are not members of OTF who are classroom teachers, so I think that statement needs to be corrected. I don't have any problem with classroom teachers having the majority of influence on this board.
Mrs Boyd: In a publicly funded system?
Mr Patten: They're in the private area.
Interjection: They're in the private sector and that's all they've been.
Mr Carroll: There are 130,000 members of OTF, roughly. There are 200,000 people with valid teaching certificates in the province of Ontario. You do not need to be a member of OTF to teach in Ontario. I just wanted to set the record straight.
The Vice-Chair: I think that comment that was made was corrected.
Mr Carroll: Mr Agostino said you must be a member of OTF to teach in the province. That is not true. You do not need to be a member.
The Vice-Chair: I know that's what he said, but I think it was corrected. Just go on.
Mr Carroll: I just needed to make sure. My point is that classroom teachers are not synonymous with members of OTF.
Mr Skarica: I just want to turn to the evidence that we heard during the committee hearings. It was interesting to listen to the Ontario Teachers' Federation because not once did they indicate they wanted control or that they wanted federation people on the council. They said the words "classroom teachers" over and over again. Let's look at that.
Of the 17 members who have a teacher's certificate, 14 will be federation members who will be classroom teachers. We heard from the private school sector, which teaches 75,000 children, that their representative will be a classroom teacher; we heard from the faculty of education people that their representative would be a classroom teacher in the faculty of education. That's 16 of 31 right there and that's a majority of classroom teachers as indicated by the federation. We also heard from the supervisory people, who told us that their representative, while not a classroom teacher, would in all likelihood have experience in the classroom. This means that of 31 representatives, 17 would be, by and large, classroom teachers.
What's really being proposed here, to put it bluntly and get right to the chase, is that this amendment, if passed, would give the federations the majority of members of the council.
I'm surprised that the third party is taking the position they have. I remind them that their House leader, Mr Cooke, indicated in the Legislature that the implementation committee that was set up by the third party indicated that the federations should not have control of the college. His words were, "Let's not play politics; let's get on with it," and that's what I suggest we do.
The BC College of Teachers indicated that when they set up their college, the federations there ran candidates in the college elections. That's what would happen here, and inevitably they would then get control.
Dealing with the aboriginal points on subsection (c), I note that it would really give a veto to the Aboriginal Education Council of a candidate before a single vote had ever been entered. I question whether that's democracy. It's not necessary in any event, because the implementation committee, which was set up by the third party, has recommended, and I can tell you that the minister will follow through with this, that one of the appointed people be an aboriginal candidate. That addresses that concern, in any event.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'm not part of the committee, but that's never stopped me before from offering my opinion.
Mr Wildman: You're welcome any time.
Mr Stockwell: Thank you. I suppose there are arguments the government is making, and my friend Mr Skarica, the member for Wentworth North, makes some superb arguments with respect to the makeup of this particular college, but in my opinion it comes back to a fundamental difference of opinion that I have with those in the Ministry of Education and Training. I'm coming from the municipal level. I've always felt a little ticked off that those who pay the piper don't necessarily call the tune.
The previous governments had opportunities to rectify what I consider to be a very unfair situation with respect to police services boards. In Metropolitan Toronto we have a seven-member board: Three are appointed by Metropolitan Toronto council and four by the provincial government, but 95% of the bill is paid by Metropolitan Toronto council. We have three people, a minority, paying 95% of the bill, listening to four people, the majority, who pay 5% of the bill. I don't think that augurs well for decision-making and processes that are put in place for people who are making the decisions to understand the ramifications of certain financial constraints etc.
It seems to me, when I've reviewed this particular approach to the college in other professions, there's a very clear delineation between who is a member and who is not a member, what constitutes a majority and what does not constitute a majority, and they've come to the conclusion that those people who are vested with responsibilities on these colleges are members without much debate, I would say categorically without any debate.
There could be some argument made with respect to hijacking or usurping this agency by some faction within the teaching profession. If that is to be the case, I suppose we'll have to allow that to happen before we can react. You must give people who pay the piper and are charged with the responsibility of disciplining and those other important factors the opportunity to prove they're not capable of doing it before you can claim they're not capable of doing it.
Therefore, I've fallen off the table with respect to the government in this particular bill, specifically in that I don't think the bill is bad and I don't think the legislation is bad. I think it's probably good. It's more than that: It is good. I have some real concerns with respect to this specific clause and this specific amendment and I would be dishonest with myself if I didn't register these concerns publicly.
I think teachers hold a very, very coddled place in our society in a lot of ways. They have probably one of the better jobs in the province a lot of the time. Yes, it can be a difficult job, but considering their pension, their pay and their position, most of my constituents think it's a fairly good job.
Now we're going to try and adjust this and change the rules to some degree to have them govern themselves and keep teachers out of the classroom who should not be in the classroom. Knowing the teachers I know, vested with that responsibility and given that responsibility, I think they will act in a prudent and fair fashion.
1110
I have difficulty supporting the legislation as drafted. I think the amendments are reasonable, and I think any government that drafts a piece of legislation, if it goes to committee, must be prepared to read and review all amendments and accept them or reject them based on their merit. Having read the amendments offered by the opposition parties, I reject 99.9% of them categorically. But, to my friends on this side of the room and my friends on that side of the room, you can't be wrong all the time, and I don't think you're wrong about this.
I would ask, in reviewing this, quietly, without confrontation -- I don't believe, considering the history of these boards and colleges, that what teachers are asking is unreasonable. By offering and accepting this amendment, we will be showing that we trust their judgement and will vest them with that judgement. We always have the opportunity to say, "You screwed up, you messed up, you didn't handle this responsibility well, and we're going to take it back." But until they prove that, I'm not prepared to say, "You're not competent enough to govern your profession in the same way that other professionals govern theirs."
Mrs Ecker: I have learned in my brief political career here that preceding or succeeding Mr Stockwell is always a dangerous thing to do. I asked to speak because there were two things I wanted to clarify about my previous comments because I wasn't sure I had articulated them clearly.
First, when I was referring to the feedback I had had with teachers, I wasn't necessarily talking about the presentations that had come here; I was talking about a number of informal discussions and meetings I had subsequent to that to try and look for ways to come up with a compromise.
Second, I didn't hear all of Ms Boyd's comments, but the point I was trying to make when I referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons was that the faculty reps, regardless of whether they were part-time or full-time or whether they practised, were considered to be part of the majority representation by physicians in the field, so those faculty-appointed members -- there used to be five, and under the RHPA it came down to three -- were considered acceptable and members of the profession and were trusted to accurately represent the views and whatever.
If we didn't trust teachers to be self-regulating, we wouldn't be bringing forward a College of Teachers. That is an important point that needs to be made. That's why we have I think appropriate representation on the council and that's why there's a majority representation on the committees of teachers, to make sure there is an appropriate mix.
But what's important to remember is that the College of Teachers is not a body that is "representing the interests of teachers." The people who are elected or appointed to that council are not there as representatives of their constituencies, like we are; they are there to speak on behalf of those groups in the public interest. I think that is a very different kind of role, and there's no question that it is a new kind of role for teachers as a profession to be wrestling with. It is different and it is a different kind of step.
As I said previously, if I thought some of the changes within that 17 -- I asked the question, "Would this be of assistance, if we were to make those revisions?" and I was told no, that that sort of smaller change was not going to work, that there had to be more significant change that reduced public members; I can only go by what I was personally told.
I am concerned, as I said, about the support for teachers on this, but we have to be seen to be credible with the other side of the equation, if you will: the public, the other stakeholders who are in this mix. It's a very delicate balance, a very difficult challenge, but I think we have to proceed from where we are and let teachers proceed with this.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): My question is more of a technical nature, perhaps directed at counsel. I may be reading this incorrectly, but is there any contradiction between Mr Patten's motion and what the committee has resolved with respect to section 4? I recognize that section 4 dealt with composition of council and the motion deals with representation on council, but does it create a contradiction between those two sections, in your opinion?
Ms Leitman: It's tight. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say it's a contradiction. You've got a council of 31 people; 17 of them are elected, and 16 is a majority on council. Clause (a) is saying you've got to have 16 of your 17 elected members be board employees, so it's very tight. Your 17 comes under (b), so I think you'd have to interpret (c) as saying that one person whose candidacy has been approved by the Aboriginal Education Council would probably also have to qualify under (a) and be a board employee.
Mr Patten: That's correct.
Ms Leitman: There's no contradiction, but it's a complete, full take on how those 17 will be allocated.
Mr Patten: Mr Stockwell, I appreciate your comments. I'd like to underline one thing you said, that you don't engender trust without trusting. Janet, you made that point too, that it's important that you trust teachers. A lot of it is perception too. Personally, I guess because I'm critic for my caucus, I've had overwhelming representation from individual teachers, letters etc, saying they are not in the majority. You see, doctors and lawyers are self-employed people, so it's a bit of --
Mrs Ecker: Nurses aren't.
Mrs Boyd: Sometimes they are.
The Vice-Chair: Just a minute now. We're dealing with teachers.
Mr Patten: Anyhow, when we say these are employed individuals who are practising professionals -- and I suppose that's the way it's perceived by the teachers. This acknowledges the private school section which, rightly so, are not members of the federation as such.
The question of hijacking: This was a big concern in BC, and as we heard, it didn't turn out to be that way. As Mr Stockwell said, the minister has the opportunity to pull back something, redirect or instruct the council if something goes awry and it's not working out in terms of the intents or the objects of the college. But I truly believe that if you give a professional body self-regulating opportunity, they will respond truly responsibly, that they would not want to be seen as just being manipulated by their federations per se. This is a completely different set of responsibilities and I believe they will take that seriously. That can be said about most things that are created, of course, that there is a degree of trust you have to have.
I believe this particular issue will affect how teachers perceive the college. If they don't feel they have a majority -- which the classroom teachers don't have right now. By the way, in terms of classroom teachers in the faculties of education, yes, they're a classroom teacher, though at a university level, training teachers. It's not quite the same. They're not really teachers in the elementary or secondary school systems.
Unless other people have comments, I would like to ask if we might proceed with a split vote, if that would be useful.
The Vice-Chair: I've got three more speakers before that.
1120
Mr Wildman: Just to correct the record, in response to Mr Carroll, I think he was guilty of what my first-year university philosophy professor, dealing with logic, called undistributed middle. Just because 200,000 people in the province have teaching certificates and there are 150,000 practising classroom teachers who are members of the federation doesn't mean the other 50,000 are practising classroom teachers.
Mr Carroll: I didn't say that.
Mr Wildman: The fact is, a large number of people hold certificates in the province who do not teach. Some of them are supervisory people in boards and many of them have entered other professions but still hold teaching certificates. For anyone who teaches in a separate school or a public school in Ontario, the Education Act requires them to be members of an affiliate of OTF. If they're in the classroom in those schools, they are members of a teachers' federation. It is true that those who teach in the so-called independent school system or the private school system hold teaching certificates and are not members of those federations, but that is dealt with in the (b) section of this proposed amendment.
In response to what was stated about the BC college by Mr Skarica, let's keep in mind that the BC college has a very different distribution of appointed and elected members, and even in that experience, according to the presentation made by telephone by the members of the BC college to this committee, they did not indicate that the "federations had taken over" the BC college. They contradicted that.
I want to make one other point. It has been said a number of times by various members of the committee and by some who made presentations to the committee that teachers do not speak in the public interest when it comes to education issues, or at least that it would be a new role for them to do so. Frankly, I find that offensive.
The fact is that the majority of teachers are in education because they like kids and care about kids and are interested in education and interested in serving the community. When they see issues that affect the education of kids in the province adversely, they speak out. They don't just speak in their own interest; obviously, they do that as well, but they also speak in the public interest, so I don't believe this is asking teachers to take on a new role at all. I think it is just too expand the role they've played historically in this province.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): While I don't have a vote in this committee, unfortunately, because of the rules, I do have an opportunity to speak.
The Vice-Chair: It's getting awfully crowded at that end of the room. Do you want to move over here?
Mr Arnott: I want to indicate unqualified support for this amendment brought forward by the Liberal Party. It's something I have been putting forward to the government for quite some time, for some months now: the concept that a College of Teachers is supportable in principle but that the governing council should be controlled by active classroom teachers. Clearly, a majority of the positions on that governing council ought to be held by active classroom teachers.
There are a couple of reasons. I've always felt that if the effort behind the government's policy is to enhance the professional status of teachers by creating this self-governing college, if our objective is to improve educational outcomes, the College of Teachers is worthwhile looking at. But it's my concern and my belief, talking to the teachers in Wellington county, that they see this college as it's presently structured to be designed primarily as a regulatory body and not necessarily to enhance their professional status. You check any other profession's governing college and you find that a majority of the seats on those governing councils are held by active members of those professions, so I encourage all members of this committee to support this very thoughtful and I think constructive amendment.
Mrs Boyd: One of the things I would like to take issue with Mrs Ecker on is that all of us talk to people outside of the committee and all of us get views from people, but in front of this committee, on the record, we didn't hear any of the groups coming in front of us saying they wanted less public representation. That was not the issue. The issue was around classroom teachers being the majority on the committee, not that there be lessened public input.
It may well be that privately some teachers somewhere in the province have expressed that concern, but that oughtn't to be a swaying factor in terms of what this committee considers. Certainly the official kinds of representations we had were all about the majority being classroom teachers, not about the public having a lesser role. I think it's really important for us to recognize that this is a democratic process which gives an opportunity to large numbers of people to come in front of us and express those views, and those views about public representation being less were not expressed here. What was expressed was that the majority on the college needed to be active classroom teachers.
Mr Arnott is quite right that unfortunately this has taken on a vision of just a regulatory committee and the discipline part of it was always a minor part of it. The main focus of this whole teachers' college was the enhancement of the profession, the enhancement of professional development, control over professional development by classroom teachers, the improvement from a self-governing point of view of going forward in terms of improving the capacity of teachers to adjust to new methods and new times and to ensure that the college was very, very active in enhancing the role of professional teachers; the regulatory function being there but not being the primary function of this college. Unfortunately, because of this controversy around active classroom teachers, the regulatory function has taken on this huge proportion. I think that is very unfortunate indeed.
The Vice-Chair: I've got no further speakers.
Mr Agostino: A recorded vote, Mr Chairman, please.
The Vice-Chair: First of all, there was a request to split the amendments. Is there unanimous consent on that? Yes.
Mr Wildman: Splitting (c) off.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. The first part that we'll deal with is (a) and (b), and a recorded vote is requested.
All those in favour of amendments (4)(a) and (b)?
Ayes
Agostino, Boyd, Miclash, Patten, Wildman.
Nays
Carroll, Ecker, Froese, Pettit, Ross, Skarica, Smith.
The Vice-Chair: That's lost.
Dealing with clause (c), all those in favour? Was your request for a recorded vote on this one?
Mr Agostino: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Agostino, Boyd, Miclash, Patten, Wildman.
Nays
Carroll, Ecker, Froese, Pettit, Ross, Skarica, Smith.
The Vice-Chair: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall section 37, as amended, carry?
Mr Agostino: Recorded vote on that one as well.
1130
Ayes
Carroll, Ecker, Froese, Pettit, Ross, Skarica, Smith.
Nays
Agostino, Boyd, Miclash, Patten, Wildman.
The Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 38. Mr Patten?
Mr Patten: This one is not applicable any longer. I withdraw it.
The Vice-Chair: There's another amendment. I've got one here and there's another amendment.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that paragraph 20 of subsection 38(1) of the bill be amended by adding "other than those required by this act" at the end.
This is complementary to the change agreed to yesterday to add 9.1 to section 37(1), which actually was a Liberal amendment, I believe.
The Vice-Chair: Is it agreed? That's okay.
Shall section 38, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 39. Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: I have an addition to it. Do you want to carry the clause before we deal with --
The Vice-Chair: Shall section 39, as printed, carry? Carried.
Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: I move that subsection 39(1) --
Clerk of the Committee (Lynn Mellor): One second.
Mr Wildman: One second? What's the problem?
Clerk of the Committee: There's a government motion 39(2).
Mr Skarica: The government moves that subsection 39(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "clause (1)(d)" in the second line and substituting "clause (1)(c) or (d)."
It's a housekeeping matter, I believe.
The Vice-Chair: Shall that carry?
Mr Patten: Subsection 39(2)?
The Vice-Chair: This is 39(2).
Mrs Boyd: Subsection 39(1) goes first.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, I'm sorry. You're correct. Mr Wildman had the floor with 39(1)(b.1), and then we'll deal with 39(2).
Mr Wildman: I move that subsection 39(1) be amended by adding the following clause:
"(b.1) prescribing purposes for the purposes of clause 45.1(a)."
If you look at 45.1(a), if I can find it -- just a minute -- it says:
"Every person engaged in the administration of this act, including any person appointed under section 33, shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her duties and shall not communicate any of those matters to any other person except,
"(a) as may be required in connection with the administration of this act and the regulations and by-laws or any proceeding under this act or the regulations or by-laws."
Basically, I want to ensure that we know the purpose of the secrecy.
The Vice-Chair: Any comments?
Mr Skarica: The FOI act doesn't apply to this act, as I understand it, and it's not necessary for this amendment.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments?
Mr Wildman: We've had that debate already, I guess, and we lost in trying to ensure that the FOI act did apply to this. Have we not had that discussion yet? That's what it's about. I want the FOI act to apply.
Mrs Boyd: It doesn't until 45.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments?
Mr Wildman: We should stand this down, I guess, until we get to 45.
The Vice-Chair: Is it agreed that this stand down until we get to 45? Agreed. It's stood down.
Now dealing with subsection 39(2). Any comments? Is that agreed? Agreed.
Shall section 39 --
Clerk of the Committee: No, because you've postponed subsection 39(1).
The Vice-Chair: Okay, right. We'll deal with 39 later.
Section 40.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that subsection 40(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "made under any provision of this act" after "regulation or bylaw."
The Vice-Chair: Any comments by anyone?
Mr Skarica: It's a housekeeping matter, again.
The Vice-Chair: Is it agreed? Agreed. Shall section 40, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 41.
Mr Wildman: It's an addition, so I don't know whether you want to deal with the government amendment first.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, because yours is a new section, 41.1.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that section 41 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Definition
"(4) In this section, `dealings' means any service or procedure available to the public or to members of the college and includes giving or receiving communications, information or notices, making applications, taking examinations or tests and participating in programs or in hearings or reviews."
Mr Wildman: Sorry, Mr Chair, I don't seem to have this copy.
Mr Skarica: Yes, I didn't have it either.
Mrs Ecker: It was handed out today in --
Clerk of the Committee: I thought we handed it out today in one of the packages. It might be a little bit further down on your package, down with 44.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, it is. It's about four pages in with the government motions. It follows, I believe, subsection 44(3). The next page is 41(4).
Mr Wildman: I've got it. It was just out of order.
The Vice-Chair: It's been moved. Are there any comments with respect to it?
Mrs Boyd: Can I just ask the parliamentary assistant to explain what the purpose of this amendment is.
Mr Skarica: I just asked the same thing. I've read it out and it brings the Ontario College of Teachers into line with other professional self-regulatory bodies.
The Vice-Chair: Are you satisfied with the explanation?
Mr Skarica: It means "dealings" is the same definition as in the other bodies.
The Vice-Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried. Shall the section, as amended, carry? Carried.
Now then, 41.1, Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Right to representation
"41.1 A member of the college who is a party to a proceeding of a committee of the college has the right to be represented by counsel or an agent."
I think this is pretty straightforward. We're saying that if a member of the college is a party to any proceeding, they should have the right to be represented either by legal counsel or another agent of the member of the college's choosing. It just seems pretty straightforward. In most proceedings of certainly any disciplinary sort or investigative sort in Ontario, an individual has the right to representation and I would hope that there would be no argument with this.
Mr Miclash: We will certainly be supporting the amendment. I think it's a very important amendment. As Mr Wildman has indicated, it's very straightforward and I see no problem with this amendment.
Mr Skarica: Obviously I don't have any problem with it in principle. It's not necessary in that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act already gives everyone in the province a right to counsel under these circumstances.
Mrs Boyd: One of the criticisms we heard, though, from teachers around this was a perceived lack of due process. If in fact this does not change what will actually proceed in front of this, I think in terms of trying to reassure people around what they saw as lack of due process, this would go a long way to building more confidence in the activity. Everyone is not familiar with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
1140
Mr Skarica: As well, there's a drafting problem. "Proceedings not defined," what exactly does that mean? "Committee of the college," is that a legislative committee or is that one of the various committees that is going to be set up?
Mr Wildman: I'd be quite happy to have it drafted more precisely to satisfy the concerns of the parliamentary assistant. If he's offering to do so, I'd be quite pleased to have a friendly amendment.
Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the point the NDP is trying to make, but I think the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which if I recall correctly your government had amended to try to make sure that there were proper procedures -- I think we have covered that. That legislation is there, it protects the rights of teachers, and I don't think we should be writing legislation that is redundant with other legislation. As I'm sure Ms Boyd knows from her time in the legal portfolio in the government, you can get into a lot of unintended problems when you start to do that.
The right to be represented by counsel is extremely important. It is there, it is in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and I think you can say with great emphasis to teachers that they do have that right, as they should have that right.
Mrs Boyd: It can also be removed from the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. This government has removed a lot of rights from workers in the province, so you can imagine there is a certain feeling that an added protection here, given the controversy around this particular act, will be very much appreciated by the teachers.
Mrs Ecker: I would strongly reject Ms Boyd's implication that we would interfere with the right of teachers in a college to be represented by counsel. That is very irresponsible.
Mr Wildman: I'm just remembering what happened to Bill 40.
The Vice-Chair: Did you request that this matter be stood down earlier?
Mr Wildman: Oh, no. I was requesting Mr Skarica to give me a friendly amendment to deal with his concerns.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments then on this amendment? If not, does it carry? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Section 42, there are no amendments to it. Shall section 42 carry? Carried.
Shall section 43 carry? Carried.
Section 44.
Mr Wildman: I move that subsection 44(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "including" in the sixth line and substituting "excluding."
The Vice-Chair: Any comments?
Mr Skarica: If that were to be done, the college would be unable to obtain information that would be required for it to carry out its objects.
Mr Wildman: I think he was asking for my comments, Mr Skarica.
Mr Skarica: Well, would you like to give your comments now?
Mr Wildman: It's clear what we're attempting to do. Mr Skarica has perhaps given an extreme interpretation of it. The clause as worded now says that the college may require a school board, for instance, or other designated body "to provide the college with information, including personal information within the meaning of section 38 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or section 28 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, in respect of members of the college."
I don't agree with Mr Skarica's view that it would mean the college couldn't get any information. What it deals with specifically is personal information, and this is an attempt to protect the personal privacy of members of the college.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments? You've already stated your comments, Mr Skarica? Okay.
Shall the amendment carry? Opposed? The amendment's lost.
Any further amendments?
Mr Patten: I'll withdraw.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, 44(3) is withdrawn.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, I withdraw this amendment because it was in line with the other amendments that would have brought in the British Columbia model, and since the government chose to defeat that proposal, this amendment now does not --
The Vice-Chair: And those were amendments with respect to 44(3), (3.1). (3.2) and (3.3)?
Mr Wildman: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: What about the next amendment then, 44(5)?
Mr Wildman: Has 41(4) been dropped?
Interjection: Subsection 44(5).
Mr Wildman: Yes, 44(5), I want to put that amendment.
I move that subsection 44(5) of the bill be struck out.
Basically, this is to ensure that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies, that this bill does not override that other piece of legislation. It's pretty clear that was one of the main concerns representatives of the teaching profession who appeared before the committee had about the legislation, and it's a matter that was of significant importance to them. For that reason, I would hope the members of the committee would ensure that piece of legislation should apply.
As Mr Wright indicated when he appeared before the committee, he had made recommendations to the government for changes. Some of his concerns had been dealt with and he didn't think there needed to be all of the changes he had proposed, but he felt there was a need to ensure that the legislation applied. At the time he appeared before the committee, he said he had not yet received a response from the government to his proposals, and so as a result of that we are here encouraging the members of the committee to support this amendment so the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will in fact apply to members of the college.
Mr Skarica: The government's response is that the college will require information on who is qualified to teach in the province and what qualifications they have obtained. If this section were removed, the minister would be prevented from transferring information relevant to the college's responsibilities to the college. For instance, the minister is at present custodian of the qualification records of all Ontario teachers. In order to function, the college will require ministry records concerning the investigation and discipline of teachers.
Mr Wildman: If I could respond, let's not be precious about this. We're not here trying to prevent the college from finding out if an individual has a teaching certificate. What we're attempting to do is to prevent the college from delving into the private lives of members of the college and getting information that is not particularly relevant and would be an invasion of privacy. Surely, the intellects around the Ministry of Education and Training, the legal minds we have that have come up with this almost perfect piece of legislation, will be able to come up with some way of devising a process where the minister will be able to transfer information about a teaching certificate to the college without invading the privacy of members of the college.
Mrs Boyd: I'd like some clarification then, perhaps from the legal minds, as my colleague puts it. My understanding would be that if there's a request made, there's nothing to prevent the ministry from sharing that information. One is assuming that the minister would refuse to share that information, and that's ridiculous.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Any further comments?
Mr Wildman: Just as a matter of clarification, I want to ensure that everyone, for the sake of the record, knows that my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I described this as almost perfect legislation.
Mrs Ecker: That's too bad. I've written down the quote.
Mr Carroll: We realize that.
The Vice-Chair: For those of us who were able to observe you, we noticed that.
1150
Mr Skarica: I have just one comment. The college has to -- it has to be information for the purpose of carrying out its objects.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments with respect to this amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Any further amendments?
Mr Wildman: I have a similar amendment to subsection 44(6). I move that subsection 44(6) of the bill be struck out. They're all the same arguments.
The Vice-Chair: All right. Any further comments?
Mr Wildman: Again, I don't think the government should require the college to have personal information. This is, after all, supposed to be a self-regulating body.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, shall the amendment to subsection 44(6) carry? All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Any further amendments to section 44?
Shall section 44, as printed, carry? All those in favour of section 44 carrying, raise your hands. Opposed? That's carried.
Section 45: Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: Yes, I have an amendment.
The Vice-Chair: That's section 45.1, so that's a new section.
Mr Wildman: It's an addition, yes.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Shall section 45, as printed, carry? Carried.
Section 45.1:
Mr Wildman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Personal information
"45.1 Before disclosing personal information, within the meaning of section 38 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, obtained under this act, the person who obtained the information shall delete from it all names and identifying numbers, symbols or other particulars assigned to individuals unless,
"(a) disclosure of the names or other identifying information is necessary for the administration of the act or for a prescribed purpose; or
"(b) disclosure of the names or other identifying information is otherwise authorized under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."
The reason for this is, in light of the fact that the government has voted down the two previous amendments, we are attempting to protect personal information. We recognize that personal information for some particular purposes might be required, but in providing that information we would like the principles under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act followed under this act.
Mr Skarica: The confidentiality sections in the legislation are already very strong, and the government feels this is not necessary.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments? Hearing none, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Getting back to section 39, then, we did have the four amendments, or a number of amendments, there. There's one outstanding. Are you withdrawing that, Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, so that's withdrawn.
Shall section 39, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 46: Shall section 46 carry? Carried.
Section 47? Carried.
Section 48? Carried.
Section 49? Carried.
Section 50? Carried.
Section 51? Carried.
Section 52? Carried.
Section 53. There's an amendment. We try to be fair to all sides.
Mr Wildman: I move that subsection 53(2) of the bill be struck out.
If you look at the section it says, "A payment for the purpose of the Ontario teaching council implementation committee established by order in council to advise the minister in respect of the establishment and mandate of the college is a payment for the purpose of establishing the college within the meaning of subsection (1)."
The import of this is that it means that the teachers are going to have to pay for all of the work that the implementation committee has done. To say the least, this is a bit onerous. Some teachers have objected to the annual fee that they are going to have to pay to be members of the college, that's one matter, and that fee will be used for the ongoing operations of the college. But to say that in addition to that, the teachers should have to pay for all the work the implementation committee --
Mrs Boyd: It's insult to injury.
Mr Wildman: Yes, as my colleague says, it's adding insult to injury. For one thing, we don't know how much money the implementation committee has spent. There have been some estimates that have said it's as much as $1 million. Surely this is a piece of government legislation that was an initiative of the previous government and has been carried through by this government. Surely that is something that should be paid for by the government, by the taxpayers of the province.
The ongoing operation of the college, it can be argued, should be paid for by the members of the self-governing college, but surely not the work of the implementation committee in doing the consultations in preparing this legislation. That is a government activity and should be paid for as normal government activities would be paid for. It really is very onerous to require teachers to somehow come up with this, particularly since at this point we have no idea how much that total bill might be.
Mr Patten: I would just support this as well. It's moving forward in a manner which isn't even supported by the profession and then they get dinged with the bill without having the responsibilities to set up the college itself. I think it's quite an insult to any group to charge them with the costs of the implementation.
Mr Miclash: I would just like to repeat something that I said a number of times during the committee hearings and something we heard from a good number of presenters as well to the committee, that teachers are certainly upset with not only the fee but now an additional burden in terms of the cost. As Mr Wildman has indicated, this is certainly a government activity and one that the government should be responsible for.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments?
Mr Wildman: I was just going to ask for the question, Mr Chair, and a recorded vote.
Ayes
Agostino, Boyd, Miclash, Patten, Wildman.
Nays
Carroll, Ecker, Froese, Pettit, Ross, Skarica, Smith.
The Vice-Chair: The amendment's lost. Any further comments with respect to section 53? Shall section 53 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.
Shall section 54 carry? Carried.
Shall section 55, as printed, carry? Carried.
Now section 55.1, an amendment.
1200
Mr Wildman: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Safety not to be jeopardized by disclosure
"55.1(1) Despite any requirement in this act that the college or a committee or official of the college disclose information to a person who is the subject of a proceeding under this act, the college, committee or official may refuse to disclose the information where, in its opinion, to do so may jeopardize the safety of a person.
"Copies of documents
"55.2 (1) Where a person who is the subject of a proceeding under this act requests copies of documents that he or she is entitled under this act to examine, the registrar shall provide the copies.
"Reasonable charge
"(2) The registrar may charge a reasonable fee for copies provided under this section."
I think in the interests of time, it's pretty straightforward. I don't think I need to make any comments.
The Vice-Chair: Any comments? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? That's lost.
Section 56: There's an amendment to it. It was distributed this morning.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that subsection 56(10) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Copies of regulations, by-laws by registrar
"(10) Subsections 37(2) and (3) and subsections 38(4) and (5) apply, with necessary modifications, to regulations and by-laws made by the registrar under this section and, for the purpose, the registrar has the duties of the council.
"Copies of regulations, by-laws made by Lieutenant Governor in Council
"(10.1) The registrar shall ensure that a copy of each regulation and by-law made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under this section is available for public inspection in the office of the college and shall provide to any person, on payment of a reasonable charge, a copy of any regulation or by-law made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under this section."
This amendment is to complement the change made to clause 12(1)(c) where a motion was passed to remove the ability of the minister to require the council to make, amend or revoke a bylaw.
Mr Wildman: Could you clarify for me what is the difference under "copies of regulations, by-laws by registrar"? I understand the (10.1), but the (10) I don't quite see the difference here, and I may be missing something.
Mr Skarica: Maybe somebody else could address that.
Mrs Anu Church: Section 56, as currently drafted, enables the registrar during the interim or transitional period to do anything that the council can do when it is elected, including regulations and bylaws. There is also a provision saying that the minister can review what the registrar has done and require the registrar to make, amend or revoke a regulation or bylaw.
This provision simply provides that where the minister takes that action or where the registrar acts on her own behalf, copies of the regulations or bylaws made are to be made available for public inspection and available on a charge.
Mr Wildman: That's (10.1). I was asking about (10). I understand why you've got (10.1) in there. I don't want to prolong this. I just don't see the difference here between what's in the bill and what's being proposed. It refers to different subsections.
Mrs Church: That's right. Sections 37 and 32 of the bill require the council to ensure that copies of regulations made by them are available for public inspection, and also that the registrar make those available on payment of a reasonable charge. We're saying that those provisions apply with necessary modifications to this section when the registrar makes the regulation or bylaw.
Mr Wildman: All right. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any further comments?
Shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 56, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 57, as printed, carry? Carried.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Transition: elected council members
"57.1 Persons elected to the first council in the election referred to in clause 39(1)(c) shall be deemed, for the purposes of this act, to have been elected to the council by the members of the college under clause 4(2)(a).
The Vice-Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Section 58; Mr Skarica.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that subsection 58(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "and section 40."
The Vice-Chair: Any comments? That was deleted earlier.
Shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Shall the section, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 59.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that subsection 59(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "and section 40."
The Vice-Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Shall the section, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 60 carry? Carried.
Shall section 61 carry? Carried.
Shall section 62 carry? Carried.
Shall section 63 carry? Carried.
Shall section 64 carry? Carried.
Section 65; Mr Skarica.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that the bill be amended by striking out "Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996."
The Vice-Chair: Shall it carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour that the bill, as amended, be carried? Opposed?
Shall I be ordered to report Bill 31, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes, to the House, as amended?
Mr Skarica: We'd like it done with Bill 30. That was the agreement, that we do the two of them together.
The Vice-Chair: Do you want to postpone reporting then, or is there unanimous consent that Bill 31 be reported?
Mr Wildman: Mr Skarica made the point that we haven't dealt with Bill 30 and we were supposed to deal with both of them together.
The Vice-Chair: So there's no unanimous consent then that the bill be reported without Bill 30? It's my understanding that there's no order with respect to the clause-by-clause relating to both of these bills. Our time has now expired with respect to same so that the matter really has to be referred back to the House leaders, the way I understand it, as to how the clause-by-clause in Bill 30 is to be dealt with.
Is it your wish that Bill 31 be reported to the House, as amended? Is there anyone opposed to that? No, okay. So Bill 31 will be reported to the House.
Mr Skarica: I'm getting a nod from the House leader's office that they would like --
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: Bill 30 hasn't been dealt with on a clause-by-clause basis, so that has to be reported to the House leaders and they can make whatever arrangements they wish with respect to the clause-by-clause deliberations on that.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, you will recall at the beginning of this process I raised this problem and asked what would happen if we hadn't covered all of it at the end. At that time, we were told we would deal with it at the end. So here we are.
The Vice-Chair: And so here we are. We're dealing with it. There has not been any agreement reached between the House leaders as to what would happen if all the clause-by-clause work had not been done. All we can do, in my opinion, is simply report it back to the House leaders that Bill 31 has been dealt with on a clause-by-clause basis and Bill 30 has not and the House leaders have to decide how to proceed with that.
Mr Wildman: The reason I raised this at the beginning, Mr Chair, was that we didn't have an order from the House leaders that said that if we didn't deal with it all by the end of our time, we would deem all matters to have been dealt with. That was not part of the order.
The Vice-Chair: Exactly.
Mr Wildman: I raised this at the time, and I suppose we might have made a unanimous agreement at that time. I don't know that we would have, but it's possible that we might have made an unanimous agreement that we would deem things to have been done. I don't like that process, so I doubt I would have agreed to it. But in the absence of an order from the House leader and unanimous agreement it seems to me the only thing you can do is be requested by the committee to report Bill 31, as amended, and we have to let the House leaders know that Bill 30 hasn't been dealt with.
Mr Patten: I wonder if it's in order for the committee to request an hour, two hours, whatever it is, to go through Bill 30.
Mrs Ecker: My understanding, based on the advice from the House leaders, is that we would be prepared to not report Bill 31 back until we have finished with Bill 30.
The Vice-Chair: If that's the case then, all we can do is report to the House leaders that Bill 31 has been dealt with, Bill 30 has not been dealt with and they will have to allocate the proper amount of time to deal with 30. We can do that before we meet on Bill 34, which starts on Monday at 3:30, but that's really something for the House leaders to work out. As long as they don't call us back for the weekend, I think we could probably go along with --
Mrs Ecker: Don't tempt them.
The Vice-Chair: We'll just leave it at that for now?
Mrs Ecker: Just that the bill, as amended, carried and leave it there.
The Vice-Chair: This bill is amended and carried on a seven-to-four vote.
Mrs Ecker: It's carried but not reported.
Mr Pettit: Does that mean it will probably be tomorrow?
The Vice-Chair: We will have to talk to the House leaders.
This meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1214.