STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 October 1997
Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, Mr Snobelen /
Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation,
projet de loi 160, M. Snobelen
Ministry briefing
Ms Nancy Naylor, manager, education finance branch
Mr Bill McInerney, education officer, school governance branch
Mr Drew Nameth, director, capital and operating grants administration branch
Ms Margot Trevelyan, special adviser, elementary secondary policy division
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
Wednesday 15 October 1997 Mercredi 15 octobre 1997
The committee met at 1144 in committee room 1.
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We have a quorum present and representatives from all three parties. This is a sitting of the administration of justice committee pursuant to an order of the House dated October 6, 1997.
On our agenda this morning is consideration of the subcommittee's report dated October 9, 1997. Could I have a motion adopting that report?
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Chair: Am I to understand then that, pursuant to the time allocation motion passed by the Legislative Assembly, holding a meeting today will cut the number of the days we have for public hearings from eight to seven? Is that correct?
The Chair: That is accurate, Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: Thank you.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Chair, you're placing the motion of the original subcommittee agreement as to what would constitute a fair and balanced public hearing following the closure motion the government introduced?
The Chair: I've asked for a motion. I have not received it yet.
Mr Wildman: I would so move.
Mrs McLeod: I would second that motion.
The Chair: I don't believe we need a seconder, but it is properly moved. Is there any discussion regarding the motion by Mr Wildman to adopt the subcommittee report dated October 9, 1997?
Mr Wildman: The motion as presented sets out the consensus that was arrived at among the three caucuses at the subcommittee meeting. It was an attempt to deal with the eight days allocated by the time allocation motion to ensure that as many groups as possible who have an interest in education could be accommodated in hearings on Bill 160, both here in Toronto and across the province. It proposed to hold three days of hearings in Toronto -- on one of those days there would be an evening session -- to go from there to St Catharines and then to Chatham, and then the following week Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay and Ottawa.
Since there were at that point, I understand, 800 individuals and groups who had indicated an interest in making a presentation to the committee on Bill 160, it was obvious that we could not accommodate all of the groups. It was proposed that the representatives of each of the three caucuses would choose from that list groups they felt should be heard and that we would allocate 20 minutes. We would also have a presentation at the beginning from the ministry to brief members. The minister would be allowed to make a presentation, I understand, and the opposition critics would be able to respond, as well as the government, at the beginning for opening statements. Then we would commence the hearings October 20.
I understand now that we have about 1,000 groups and individuals who have indicated an interest in making presentations. It's unfortunate that because of the time allocation motion we can't accommodate all of the people who are interested, but the subcommittee's unanimous recommendation makes it possible to ensure that we hear from as many groups and individuals as possible and to have as balanced a set of hearings as possible. For those reasons, I would encourage the members of the committee to accept the agreement arrived at by the subcommittee.
Mrs McLeod: I would speak very strongly in support of the recommendations that have been made by the subcommittee as Mr Wildman has just set them out. Let me be on record: It's no secret that we did not like the closure motion. We didn't like debate on this very contentious piece of legislation being cut off in the Legislature, but at least we took some comfort from the fact that the government had seen fit to schedule eight days of public hearings. We felt this would provide some opportunity for there to be a public discussion about this bill. This bill is one which introduces changes never before contemplated in education in the province, so the public hearings, in our view, were important. As Mr Wildman has said, there have already been over 1,000 groups or individuals who have requested to make a presentation, and that is essentially before there has been any advertising of the dates and places where the committee is going to be.
The time lines were very tight. As of yesterday, we were advising concerned groups that were calling our office that they only had until Thursday at 5 o'clock to submit their indication of interest to make presentations to this committee. I think it's a measure of public concern about this bill that even before that information had gone out to people, we had over 1,000 groups or individuals who wanted to present.
1150
I am deeply concerned that we now are in a committee meeting to consider the subcommittee's recommendations, which, as you well know, Mr Chairman, was a totally unnecessary committee meeting. This committee did not have to meet if the subcommittee's recommendations were to be accepted. The subcommittee's recommendations, which had unanimous support of all three parties, would have gone ahead. The committee dates were scheduled. I believe notification has gone out that these would be the communities we would be visiting, and on which dates. People were calling in.
We have now lost one full day of those hearings. We will be losing a day's hearings in Toronto because the government has seen it as necessary to convene this committee today. I very much regret that we have already lost one full day of our committee hearings.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs McLeod. Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Wildman's motion? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favour of adoption of the subcommittee report? All those against? The subcommittee report is not adopted.
Mr Wildman: I would ask for a voice vote.
The Chair: It's too late. I will note that both opposition parties voted for the motion.
Mr Wildman: I would also like it noted for the record that nobody on the governing party side gave any explanation as to why they are voting against a unanimous agreement of a subcommittee.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. Mr Smith.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I would like to present the following motion with respect to the business of this committee.
I move that the committee conduct its business as follows:
1. That the committee meet according to the following schedule:
Wednesday, October 15, 1997, in Toronto for the purpose of organization and technical briefing by the ministry staff.
Week 1:
Monday, October 20, 1997, Toronto: 9 am to 10 am for opening statements; 10 until 12 noon for hearings; 1 pm until 6 pm for hearings; 7 pm until 9:30 pm for hearings.
Tuesday, October 21, 1997, Toronto: 9 am to 12 noon for hearings; 1 pm until 5 pm for hearings.
Wednesday, October 22, 1997, St Catharines: 10 am to 12 noon for hearings; 1:30 pm until 5 pm for hearings.
Thursday, October 23, 1997, Chatham: 10 am until 12 noon, hearings; 1:30 pm until 5 pm, hearings.
Week 2:
Monday, October 27, 1997, Sault Ste Marie: 10 am to 12 noon, hearings; 1:30 pm until 5 pm, hearings.
Tuesday, October 28, 1997, Thunder Bay: 10 am to 12 noon for hearings; 1:30 pm until 5 pm for hearings.
Wednesday, October 29, 1997, Ottawa: 10 am until 12 noon for hearings; 1:30 pm until 5 pm for hearings.
2. That the Chair and the clerk of the committee be authorized to vary the travel schedule as required according to logistics.
3. That notice of hearings be provided by advertising on the Ontario parliamentary channel.
4. That notice of hearings be provided by advertising once as soon as possible in English or French as appropriate in the daily newspaper of each community outside Toronto that the committee will visit for public hearings.
5. That the text of the advertisement be as follows:
"Bill 160 -- Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997
"The standing committee on administration of justice will meet to consider Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size.
"Hearings on Bill 160 are scheduled to commence in Toronto on Monday, 20 October 1997, and to continue in: St Catharines, Chatham, Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, and Ottawa.
"Interested people who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 160 should contact the committee clerk by 5 pm on Thursday, 16 October 1997. Those who do not wish to make an oral presentation but who are interested in commenting on the bill may send written submissions to the committee clerk at the address below by Thursday, 30 October 1997.
"Copies of the bill may be purchased through Publications Ontario at 1-800-668-9938, or at 326-5300 in Toronto.
"Gerry Martiniuk, MPP, Chair
"Douglas Arnott, clerk
"Room 1405, Whitney Block
"Queen's Park, Ontario
"M7A 1A2
"Telephone: 416-325-3506. Facsimile: 416-325-3505. TDD: 416-325-3538. Collect calls will be accepted."
6. That the deadline for receipt of requests to make oral presentations be 5 pm on Thursday, October 16, 1997; and that the deadline for receipt of written submissions be 5 pm on Thursday, October 30, 1997.
7. That opening statements be scheduled for a maximum of 20 minutes per caucus on Monday morning, October 20.
8. That the staff of the Ministry of Education and Training be scheduled to provide a technical briefing on the bill for a maximum of 30 minutes.
9. That the time for those requesting to make oral presentations be allocated as set out in section 10 of this report.
10. That the Chair and the clerk of the committee schedule witnesses on the advice of the subcommittee, with the following conditions:
(a) Invitations shall be issued to the following organizations:
Ontario Teachers' Federation, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, Ontario Public School Boards' Association, Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario, Conseil des écoles catholiques de langue française, Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, Council of Ontario Directors of Education, Ontario Public Supervisory Officials' Association, Ontario Principals' Association, Ontario Secondary School Students' Association, Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, Ontario College of Teachers, Education Improvement Commission, Bill 100 Review -- Chair Leon Paroian, Ontario Coalition for Education Reform, Ontario Education Alliance, Teachers for Excellence Ontario, Teachers for Quality Education, Organization for Quality Education, Ontario School Board Reform Network, Ontario Alternative Education Association, Quality Education Network, National Foundation for Family Research and Education, Ontario Parent Council, parent council representatives, Parents in Action, Parent Network (Ontario), People for Education, Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents, Ontario Christian Home Educators Connection, Canadian Alliance of Home Schoolers, Chiefs of Ontario, Indigenous Education Coalition, Home-based Learning Network, Dominion Institute, Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Taxpayers Coalition Ontario, Ontarians for Responsible Government, Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters, Ontario Homebuilders' Association, Urban Development Institute, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, C.D. Howe Institute, and the Ontario Federation of Labour.
(b) Each committee member shall have the opportunity to name two individual witnesses of their choosing to appear before the committee and shall provide such names to the clerk by 12 noon, Friday, October 17, 1997.
(c) Other witnesses shall be selected by the Chair of the committee from lists provided by the three caucuses from the committee clerk's list of individuals and groups who have asked to make presentations.
(d) Presentations by witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes, except for those invited pursuant to section 10(a), who shall be allotted 30 minutes.
(e) Cancelled slots will be filled at the discretion of the Chair with names from the appropriate caucus list.
(f) Within these parameters, final scheduling authority shall be delegated to the Chair of the committee.
11. That the research officer provide a summary of presentations prior to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
1200
Mrs McLeod: I actually came in this morning believing that the newly appointed Minister of Education might just mean what he said when he said he wanted to sit down and talk. I thought he wanted to find some resolution to this, but clearly I was misreading the words. What this government has done with this amendment today is to declare war, not just on teachers -- that's a given -- but on public education. I cannot believe that this minister, who just a few days ago began by purring about conciliation, would today take this kind of step and do that in face of 126,000 teachers who had their strike plans ready to go but were prepared to put them on hold until they had a chance to hear what this new minister had to say to them.
Today we see what the new minister has to say to those 126,000 teachers. With this amendment we see absolute evidence, if any more evidence was needed outside of Bill 160 itself, that this government's agenda is to take total control. Never before -- and you can ask anybody who's been here any length of time; ask any of the clerks, ask anybody who's chaired a committee before -- have we seen a government amendment to a subcommittee decision that constituted taking over total and complete control of the public hearing process. That's what this does. Make no mistake about it. The government has given us a list. That list at this time contains some 47 names. I suspect that although we have proposed other names, and I will propose amendments to add those other names to the list, those 47 names are the ones that are going to go forward.
Anybody else, any of the 1,000 or more groups or individuals who have called and said they wanted to make representation will be excluded unless they are on the minister's hand-selected list. On top of that, if there is not now time to hear all of these groups on the minister's list before we leave Toronto -- and we have a day's less hearings in Toronto because of this change -- any of the groups that have not been heard from the minister's list will be heard first in other communities before anybody from those other communities can be heard.
The other thing that will happen, even if we get through this handpicked list by the minister, is that when we do get to the process of selecting -- and of course we know we can't accommodate all of the people who call and want to be accommodated. This has nothing to do with trying to create more opportunity for people to be heard; this is about excluding people. But at least in every committee we've all participated in before, when we've sat down to look at those lists of the thousands of people who want to make their views known, we've had a process of selecting where the opposition parties get to choose some of those people to present and the government members get to choose some of those people to present. That process is essentially gone.
For the first time ever, that process that brings some balance and fairness to the public hearings is being thrown out the window by the government with this small part of the amendment; it's (b), and the parliamentary assistant skimmed over it fairly quickly. What it says is that the government members will call 15 witnesses to this committee while the opposition members will call a total of nine. If there's any time left over after the government's control exercise is carried out, then there might be time for the odd other individual to get on the list.
I want now, because this may be one of my only opportunities, just to acknowledge some of the people who have suddenly been excluded from this process by the unilateral development of a list by the Minister of Education, although let me also make it very clear that there is no way I believe David Johnson as the new Minister of Education has suddenly produced a list of people that includes every right-wing educational group and every home-based schooling group that you could find anywhere in Ontario. He didn't have time to do that.
I think it's pretty clear that the production of this list on Monday morning tells us who is running education in Ontario. It is not the Ministry of Education and it is not the Minister of Education; it is Mike Harris's office. If we want to name names, from everything we hear, let Guy Giorno come and testify to this committee and tell us why he has produced a list of people, an exclusive list of people that includes every right-wing education group and every home-based schooling group and every advocate for privatization of education he could find in the province.
Let me tell you some of the people who have just suddenly been excluded by this government's list. I met with a group of Scarborough students yesterday. They represented the students of all the Scarborough student councils. They are a representative group of students. They came with a petition. They came asking to know how students could have their voices heard and they said what I hear from an awful lot of students, "This affects us more directly than it affects anybody else, but nobody ever asks us what we think." I said: "We will make sure you are heard. Give your name to the clerk. You've got to decide by Thursday, but you as students have the right to come forward and make your views known in a public hearing."
They were excited about that opportunity. They couldn't quite believe that the democratic process would give an opportunity to them as representatives of their student bodies to come forward and publicly, directly state their views. I have to go back after this meeting and phone them and tell them, "I'm sorry but the democratic process just suddenly changed in Ontario, and you're not on the minister's list so you're not going to be heard."
There is, I acknowledge, the Ontario Secondary School Students' Association. There are some groups that the minister couldn't leave off his list. He had to put the official representatives of teachers on his list so they could at least be heard at some point in this process, and he has a representative of the students' association. I'm glad they're there. I had called to ask if they would make a presentation as well, but I am truly sorry that those Scarborough students, who particularly asked if they could come and be accommodated after school so they wouldn't miss any school to make their views known, are going to be told that their views can't be heard at all.
I am very concerned that none of the principals' associations are going to be heard, unless the government members will consider an amendment to this amendment. We had a group of principals who came from Scarborough last week and who found it very difficult to come and hold a press conference to make their views known. But they were so concerned about what's happening in their schools and what they believe this government's agenda and this government's bill will do to their schools that they felt they had to come and speak out. They also asked if they could come and be witnesses in the hearings that were supposed to be public, and they've been told today that they cannot have a voice at these so-called public hearings.
The Ontario Education Alliance has not made it on to the minister's list. I can understand why from the government's perspective, because Jacqueline Latter has been, I guess it's fair to say, a thorn in the side of the government's agenda from the time that agenda started manifesting itself in legislation. Jacqueline Latter has actually managed to bring together a network of parents across this province who are concerned about education. She has been effective in building that network, she has been effective in giving parents a voice, and I guess the government just doesn't feel they can afford to have anybody who could actually bring some cohesion and public voice to parents' concerns.
Who do we have representing parents here? We have the Ontario Parent Council. The government will say, "We've got parent councils represented and we've got parents represented through Bill Robson, senior policy analyst for the C.D. Howe Institute," who by the way get time of their own on the list. The Ontario Parent Council will be represented formally and officially only through the direct appointees of the Minister of Education. But there is not room on this list any longer and there will not be time left in our committee hearings to choose any of the other parent councils that have asked to make presentation, as parents concerned about education, to this committee, because they've been excluded.
1210
Those are just a few of the groups that have been excluded with this amendment. I am going to ask the parliamentary assistant if he would consider adding those groups to the list so that they can at least be heard. That will not make up for the, I don't know, 965 other people who are on the list who are about to be shut out of the process, but at least those groups that I know well could be added.
Lastly, I want to say that I am personally deeply angered that I would come into this committee to participate in a democratic process which I think has been the underpinning of everything we've done in this Legislature and be faced with what is pure and simple blackmail on the part of the minister. We came into a meeting prior to this committee and we were told that we could get back our extra day of hearings and we could even get my two or three groups that I felt really anxious to have included on the minister's list, we could get those on providing we would agree to give up all precedent and all tradition in the opposition's role in ensuring that there is balance in the witnesses who are heard in public hearings.
We could not get give up that role. We could not accept being blackmailed, nor could we give up the role that we play as opposition in ensuring that those who are critics of the government get a fair hearing. If this government is determined to silence its critics, it will do so, but it will do so in a public way. We know that Bill 160 signals the end of any kind of public debate on education in this province because from this point on everything that is done in education will be decided by cabinet. It will never get back into the Legislative Assembly. There will be no public debate; there will be no public hearings. But we could not accept that with this last set of public hearings on education we would agree to having the public hearing process turned into a sham.
I would just add, finally, that there is no need to try and make a pretence that this committee is going to use its time usefully this morning by having a technical briefing. Mr Wildman and I have already had a technical briefing with the ministry. If the government members needed a technical briefing, I'm sure they could have availed themselves of that outside of committee time. It would have been inexcusable to have used even half an hour of this committee's time from the public hearings on Monday; it is unnecessary today.
Mr Wildman: I want to express sincere disappointment at what's happening here this morning, first that we are losing a day from the hearings in Toronto that were agreed to unanimously by the subcommittee last Thursday. I'm also disappointed that the government members who voted against that unanimous recommendation of the subcommittee did not give any explanation as to why they were rejecting that proposal.
But I want to get to the parliamentary assistant's motion in particular. The most important parts of this motion are 10(a), (b) and (c). In my view, 10(a), (b) and (c) are unprecedented in this House. What is really disappointing is that this is from a new Minister of Education who as House leader always maintained the position that committees of this assembly set their own agendas. What we have here is an attempt by the minister and his staff, and I suspect the Premier's office, to stack the presentations before this committee, to make a mockery of the whole public hearing process.
What we have is a list from the minister under 10(a) which includes every right-wing group that has demanded cuts in education or privatization of education, voucher systems, charter schools, home schooling, every one of them -- and they're each to be accorded a half an hour. We also of course have the teachers' federations; they couldn't avoid putting them on the list. But they don't have any -- oh, they have one. Sorry, there is one parent group which might be seen as being opposed to Bill 160. All of the other groups that are listed on here are either going to be in favour of Bill 160 or, frankly, will think the government isn't going far enough.
In 22 years in the assembly I have never seen this happen. When we have a time allocation motion and we have a limited number of days set aside for hearings on a bill that has tremendous public importance and has an enormous amount of public interest, we are always presented with a problem because inevitably we always end up with too many groups and individuals who have expressed an interest in making presentations to be accommodated.
What do we normally do? There are two procedures that have normally been followed in committees. One is for the subcommittee to have each of the caucuses choose from the list of people who have expressed an interest, so that they can gain some balance. In most cases, those lists are agreed to unanimously and recommended to the full committee by the subcommittee. Then if we are able to accommodate all of those groups and there's still time left, we can choose from the rest of the groups that have said they want to make representation. That is the most commonly used approach.
The second approach that is sometimes used in committees is for each of the caucuses to choose from the list but also for the Chair to choose from the list, so that there are four lists then and you rotate them. In the subcommittee that approach was also suggested and was rejected, I might say, by the government representative on the subcommittee. So we set about as per the subcommittee agreement to choose from the 800 or so individuals and groups that have indicated they wanted to make presentations, and now we are presented with this list.
This list will more than take up all of the time of the Toronto hearings. There's about a 30-20 split -- 30 for the government, 20 opposed -- on this list. Now if that's not an attempt to stack, I don't know what it is, when you consider that the vast majority of the groups and individuals of the now thousand who have indicated they want to make presentations are not in favour of Bill 160.
Then you go to 10(b) on the motion and it says, "Each committee member will have the opportunity to name three individual witnesses of their choosing to appear before the committee and shall provide such names to the clerk by 12 noon, Friday, October 17, 1997." This means that each individual member of the committee will be able to choose three. Inevitably that means the government members will have 15 and the opposition will have nine. I somehow doubt that the government members are going to choose to hear local teacher organizations when we go to these communities. I suspect they'll be more like the Ontario Coalition for Education Reform or the Ontario Alternative Education Association. But I don't want to prejudge it; perhaps the government members will be balanced in the groups they choose.
But I want to point out that I checked with the clerk of this assembly on this proposed amendment. No committee of this assembly has ever used this approach -- ever. In the history of this place it has never been done this way. Again, this is an attempt to stack, it's an attempt to ensure that the government has more presenters in favour of their position than presenters opposed, which is not, I might say, representative of the thousand groups and individuals who've indicated an interest in presenting to this committee.
1220
My friend from Fort William has indicated that some of the groups that were obvious are not on the list: students, the education alliance. I'd like to know why Jacqueline Latter is not on this list when groups like the Organization for Quality Education are. I'd like to know why, since this legislation mandates school councils, there are no school councils on this list. The Ontario Parent Council is not representative of anyone but the minister. That was demonstrated in the hearings on Bill 104 when they appeared in favour of Bill 104 and every other parents' group that appeared before that committee opposed it. Any pretence that the Ontario Parent Council represented active parents interested in education in this province was destroyed in those hearings. The principals, as was mentioned, are not on the list either.
Now 10(c) says, "Other witnesses shall be selected by the Chair of the committee from lists provided by the three caucuses from the committee clerk's list of individuals and groups who have asked to make presentations," and then they will "be limited to 10 minutes." In other words, after we've heard this list that has been presented by the minister, after we've heard all of the presenters chosen by each of the committee members, only then will the other people on the list of over a thousand who've indicated interest have a chance to make a presentation -- only then.
Frankly, I believe it is bizarre that we might find ourselves in Chatham or in St Catharines listening to presenters on the minister's list because it's too long for the hearings in Toronto, particularly now that we've lost one day. We may in fact be hearing from the Metro Toronto board of trade in St Catharines instead of hearing people in St Catharines, which is the reason we're going to St Catharines.
I said this is disappointing. It's more than disappointing; I think it indicates unfortunately where this government is intending to go in this crisis. From the list that has been presented by the parliamentary assistant on behalf of the minister, it's obvious that in trying to stack the presentations to give the impression of greater support among presenters than there really is, the government is at the very least trying to give an inaccurate impression of the views of those who have indicated they want to make presentations, and at the worst the government is in fact intending to pick a fight, because in presenting this, they have picked a fight.
They picked a fight on the committee. They put the parliamentary assistant in an untenable position where he agreed to the subcommittee's recommendations on October 9 and now he's having to vote against them here today and present a motion on behalf of the minister which is in contravention and completely opposed to the recommendations of the subcommittee. It's obvious that this government unfortunately has decided not to make a compromise.
I was hoping that the cabinet shuffle and the appointment of Mr Johnson as minister was an indication that the government was prepared to move and try to avoid a confrontation with the teachers of this province that would disrupt the education of our students. I can only conclude from the list that has been presented by the minister and from the section in the amendment which will ensure that there will be more pro-government presenters than opposition presenters, that this is an indication that this government is going to bull its way through on this bill, that it's going to go forward. It's going to pass it over the objections of the very people who are responsible for delivering education to our students in this province.
To say the very least, I find that very disappointing. Wearing my other hat as the House leader for our caucus, I can tell you that there is no way I can agree to 10(b). It is unprecedented in committees, it has never been used in this assembly before and this committee cannot in any way be seen as setting a precedent that will allow the government to stack the presenters. It's not democratic, it's not in line with the practices of this assembly, it's completely unacceptable, and for that reason I'll be voting against this.
It's obvious that the government has the majority on the committee. If the government is determined with the minister to bull this through, it'll happen, but I'm afraid that's an indication of what they also intend to do with the legislation.
The Chair: We have Mr Smith and Ms McLeod.
Mr Smith: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and certainly for the opportunity to put some remarks on the record. I would, in fairness to Mrs McLeod, indicate to her that perhaps upon review of the motion she will see that the Ontario Secondary School Students' Association, the Ontario Principals' Association and the Ontario Education Alliance were read into the record, as well as a block set aside for parent council representatives. I know that's been left open and that you have interest perhaps in responding to that, but each of those groups will have a 30-minute time allocation dedicated to themselves in terms of making a presentation before this committee.
I freely admit as the person who is responsible for brokering agreement on behalf of the former Minister of Education last week that this is an interesting position to be in, but one that very clearly is reflective of the new Minister of Education's intention to solicit and receive, as much as possible, input from a range of perspectives on education reform in this province. I don't see it personally as an attack on teachers or an attack on public education, but as an exercise to ensure that we hear and receive a balanced representation from interested parties, including teachers, trustees, parents, unions, businesses and students. I think that should be made very clear.
Obviously the minister fully recognizes the obvious interest in Bill 160. His open-door policy in terms of receiving input remains in effect, notwithstanding the work of this committee, and the proposed motion before us doesn't compromise any dialogue in terms of what might happen outside of this committee setting occurring and continuing to take place.
I think we realize that today constitutes a committee day. We've attempted to extend the hearing dates and add additional times on Monday and Tuesday through evening sittings and by starting earlier. Certainly there are points of view that we want to hear while we're in Toronto. They're important points of view and we're attempting to accommodate them. The proposal that we have in the motion would effectively allow for approximately 23 additional deputants to make presentations within the context of the eight days that have been allotted for public hearings on this bill, so there are additional opportunities for people to make presentation.
Mr Wildman spoke to three contentious areas of the motion. Based on his 22 years of experience in the Legislature, at some point there is an appropriate time for some departure from that. We feel that by establishing the list there is a balanced representation pursued here. I guess under 10(b) the minister has felt very strongly. Too often we've heard criticisms from others about the ability of members to provide or have or solicit input from people who have expressed interest to them, to have them have a direct say. This clause effectively empowers every committee member in this chamber to bring forward deputants to make presentations before this committee.
It's an issue that the minister felt strongly about in terms of his ability to empower all members of the committee. In fact, once you look at it, and as I read into the motion, we're effectively dealing with two, not the original three, designations per member of the committee, which would leave the government in a position of designating 10, the official opposition four and the third party two.
Mr Wildman: So it's 10 to six groups rather than 15 to nine.
1230
Mr Smith: That's correct. We're talking about four positions; you're arguing over four deputants. I realize that's an important position for you to articulate, but I think in the context of what we're trying to achieve, there is a reasonable balance in terms of the numbers that have been identified in this motion. Certainly in terms of accommodating additional people we have had to move to the 10 minutes. I realize that is problematic for some people, but at the same time it should provide reasonable opportunity for deputants to speak clearly and concisely to the issues at hand within Bill 160, and at the same time some time for committee members to respond, either by statement or short question.
I think, by and large, recognizing where we have been, the fact that we have a new Minister of Education who wants to take a different approach in dealing with education reform, the business of this committee, we believe strongly that this provides a balanced approach to receiving input on education reform in this province.
Mrs McLeod: I originally put up my hand to speak again on this because I wanted to acknowledge the fact that there is a new list that has been produced in the 10 minutes that we broke between the subcommittee and the committee and that the Ontario Education Alliance made it on to the list as well as some minimal opportunity for additional parent council representatives.
But when I hear the parliamentary assistant attempt to speak to the minister's reasons for making these changes, it leads me to believe that what is happening here is exactly the strategy that the minister is likely going to use in dealing with Bill 160 in negotiating with teachers: You put forward your original position, and it is shocking, horrifying, totally unacceptable, and then you put a couple of bits and pieces back on the table and say, "Now you should be satisfied."
As Mr Smith well knows, we were prepared to live with the minister's list as long as we could get some additions to it and as long as there would be a balance in the selection which is contained in clause (b) and which is not addressed by simply having opposition members get to pick two each as well as the government members picking two each.
Mr Smith, I acknowledge that the education alliance is there. I don't know why they were not on the list in the first place. They should have been. I'm glad to see there will be some principals' representatives and some council representatives. But what this does, because there is no balance in the selection, is exactly what Mr Wildman suggested, which is make it necessary for even more groups, like the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, to be taking over the St Catharines hearings, so that people from St Catharines will not have an opportunity to be heard. I have to say if this is the new minister's idea of an open-door policy, then there is absolutely no hope for real negotiations with teachers.
We came into these committee hearings believing that this was to be a genuine public consultation. The minister may think this is some kind of a negotiating game we're playing here; we didn't believe it was. But it has been turned into a complete and total sham, and the very nature of the minister's intention to take total control of these hearings and to provide a distorted perspective on this bill confirms what this government's real agenda is.
There is no doubt and should be no doubt in anybody's mind any longer that the first part of the agenda is to take total control, and the second part of the agenda, as clearly confirmed by the way in which these committee meetings will be stacked, is to move education in Ontario so far to the right that it will be unrecognizable and to open the doors indeed, but not to discussion with teachers, not to discussions about how we can improve the quality of publicly funded education, but to how we can open the doors to privatizing education in Ontario. This is a declaration of war; it is not an opening of a door.
Mr Wildman: Just in response to the parliamentary assistant, I think I have some understanding of his position. I'm not trying to shoot the messenger here. But the motion as presented is not just an argument over four spaces in making presentations but rather a question of fairness and ensuring that as many of the groups and individuals of the over a thousand who have indicated an interest in making presentations get an opportunity to do so.
The motion prevents that, and it is an attempt, as I said, to stack the presentations and to give the government the appearance of having more support among those who have expressed an interest in making presentations than they actually have. I must say I'm not too surprised, although I'm disappointed. Bill 160 is an attempt to centralize control over education here at Queen's Park in the hands of the minister, and it's obvious now that the purpose of this motion is to centralize control of the committee hearings in the hands of the minister.
I had hoped coming into these hearings -- and I honestly, genuinely mean this -- that we were going to be attempting to find some way out of an impasse that had occurred between the previous minister, Mr Snobelen, and the teachers of Ontario. I thought the shuffle and Mr Johnson's appointment might be a signal that the government was prepared to make changes to Bill 160, changes in its agenda on education, that might avoid a confrontation that would disrupt the education of students in Ontario.
Unfortunately, by presenting this motion, the government and Mr Johnson are sending the exact wrong message to the teachers. Basically what the government is saying and what Mr Johnson is saying is, "We are not particularly interested in dealing with your concerns with Bill 160; rather we want to hear a lot of presenters who will be in support of the bill as is or probably think that the bill doesn't go far enough." That just indicates to me that there isn't going to be real change and that we may face a strike among teachers before the end of these hearings.
I apologize to the parliamentary assistant for not seeing the two changes that he mentioned -- I was reading from the original draft -- but I cannot accept a situation which will make it impossible for as many people as could be accommodated from the list to be heard. For that reason, I am opposed to this, and I hope it doesn't serve as a precursor for the intention of Mr Johnson, who I understand is not meeting with the teachers this week, to just move forward on the agenda of Mr Snobelen.
What this does indicate is that this is a government agenda, it wasn't Mr Snobelen's agenda, and Mr Johnson apparently is just going to move forward with it and get as many supporters as he can before this committee. We're not going to see any kind of compromise or change that might avoid a confrontation that will bring an end to classes for students in this province, so we should be prepared, before the end of these hearings, for a work stoppage and closure of schools and students being out of school when they should be there.
Mrs McLeod: Just a question, Mr Chairman, for the parliamentary assistant: I realize there were a couple of names added very quickly in a five-minute space of time, and I don't know the answer to this question, but I'm not sure that there is an Ontario Principals' Association. There may be elementary principals, there may be secondary principals, there may be public principals, there may be Catholic principals, but I don't know if there is an Ontario Principals' Association.
Mr Wildman: I think there are probably two, public and Catholic.
Mr Smith: It may require some clarification on the group that we have labelled here. It was intended to meet the expectation you had in terms of having principals --
Mrs McLeod: I wanted a number of principals' associations. There is one that I know is already on the list, the Scarborough Principals' Association. I suppose technically you can still request by Thursday at 5 o'clock, although it becomes a moot point because nobody can get on the list any longer; Toronto is filled by the minister's list. Had they had a chance to request, we would have been able to select, say, an elementary principals' association, a secondary, a separate school. I quite frankly don't know how you attempt to accommodate the views of principals by having only one group, so I don't know how this invitation can even be issued, Mr Smith.
Mr Wildman: Somehow Johnson's list doesn't ring the same way as Schindler's list.
Mr Smith: I'll undertake to ensure that we've got the right label on the group.
1240
Mrs McLeod: It's not a single group, that's the problem.
Mr Smith: I hear your point of view. It was intended to provide a 30-minute time slot for principals' associations, so if there's clarification required we'll endeavour to do that very shortly.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I move that the motion be amended by replacing "5 pm" with "6 pm" in the Tuesday, October 21, 1997 hearing time.
I reviewed the subcommittee report and the motion and realized that there was an hour's difference in times. I spoke to the House leader's office and it was a transcription error. I think if we're going to have this motion, there should be the equal amount of time for public hearings.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Are we dealing with Tuesday, October 21?
Mr Newman: Yes, that the 1 to 5 pm slot be changed to 1 to 6 pm.
Mr Wildman: Since committees have their own agenda, I don't think it really was necessary to phone the House leader's office.
The Chair: Is there any discussion of the proposed amendment?
Mrs McLeod: Any extra time you get I'm happy to agree to, but I'm not sure -- you're saying equalize the length of the two days so we don't end up --
Mr Newman: No, the point is, Mrs McLeod, when I looked through what the subcommittee had and what was being moved here today, I wanted to ensure that the amount of public hearing time, in actual hours, be the same.
Mr Wildman: The same as if it had been three days.
Mr Newman: Yes. I'm just ensuring that we have the same amount of time.
Mr Wildman: I don't think we need to vote. I just think we need to agree.
Mrs McLeod: I like the idea. Could we ask the clerk of the committee to do a tally of exactly the number of hours we would have had and whether this equalizes, if it does.
Mr Newman: That's why the one hour. I did excel in math.
The Chair: We have Mr Newman's motion to amend, which simply gives one extra hour in Toronto. Is there any further discussion of the motion to amend?
Mrs McLeod: I'll support it, again on the grounds that any extra length of hearing time is desirable. I don't want the record to go uncorrected, though, that we somehow have with this opportunities for 23 more presenters to present. If we can get equal time in terms of time lost for hearings, that's one thing. But the government has also changed the subcommittee recommendation from 20-minute presentations to 30-minute presentations as well as presenting its very restricted list of who can present in that time frame.
Mr Wildman: Can I ask a question? Just in terms of logistics, how long does it take to drive from Toronto to St Catharines?
The Chair: Two hours as I understand it, approximately, but that depends on the traffic.
Mr Wildman: So conceivably the committee could leave on Wednesday morning at about 7:30 from Toronto rather than travelling on Tuesday evening, and we could hold hearings in Toronto in the evening.
Mrs McLeod: You could also start at 9, Bud.
The Chair: Anything is theoretically possible. The difficulty is that with the state of our highways these days we may not get there at our appointed time and that makes it very difficult for people who expect us to be there on time and are making presentations.
Mr Wildman: I understand that. I was thinking of that as a way of ensuring that perhaps at least the minister's total list for Toronto could be exhausted in Toronto rather than carrying over to St Catharines.
Mrs McLeod: I would certainly be amenable to sitting for at least another couple of hours and we could still go to St Catharines in the evening.
The Chair: Right now, we're dealing with Mr Newman's motion, which is a motion to amend Tuesday, October 21, to provide for a 1 pm to 6 pm hearing. That is the motion that is before this committee.
Mrs McLeod: You could accept a friendly amendment.
Mr Wildman: A friendly amendment that we sit from 7 to 9:30 in the evening as well.
Mr Newman: I think if you have the same amount of time as was agreed upon by all three caucuses, that's the important issue.
Mr Smith: Mr Chair, if I may intervene, I appreciate your call that we have a motion before us. We certainly would be agreeable to adding the additional time that both Mrs McLeod and Mr Wildman have spoken to. Perhaps to 8:30? I leave to your discretion how to deal with that motion.
The Chair: Okay, it's Mr Newman's motion and he is the one who has to agree to a friendly amendment. The suggestion is that there be an addition and we sit on Tuesday, October 21, from 7 pm to 8:30. Since we have to go to St Catharines, that makes sense. Mr Newman, does that amendment meet with your satisfaction? Mr Newman's amendment is therefore as presently stands to sit on Tuesday, October 21, 1997, from 1 pm to 6 pm, with an evening sitting from 7 pm to 8:30 pm.
Any further discussion of Mr Newman's amendment? If not, all those in favour of the amendment? The amendment is carried.
We are now dealing with Mr Smith's motion, as amended by Mr Newman. Is there any further discussion of Mr Smith's motion? If not, all those in favour? Did you wish a recorded vote?
Mr Wildman: Yes, a recorded vote.
Ayes
Boushy, Newman, Parker, Smith.
Nays
McLeod, Wildman.
The Chair: The motion is carried. There is a scheduled technical briefing. Perhaps we could take a five-minute adjournment and return for a briefing which is expected to take approximately 20 minutes.
Mrs McLeod: Chair, I realize ministry staff have been here for some length of time. As I indicated, Mr Wildman and I both already had technical briefings. I'm not planning to return for a further technical briefing. I'm not sure if the government members feel that this is the best time for them or not, but --
The Chair: We'll determine that. I have not received a technical briefing yet, so --
Mr Wildman: I appreciate that. But frankly, whether I have received a technical briefing or not, I be returning in protest of the fact that we're doing this and I'm opposed to the whole process. I'm opposed to losing one day's hearings in Toronto, and for that reason I won't be returning for the technical briefing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. We are adjourning. Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: Given the fact that the ministry officials have been here, I'd like to proceed with that technical briefing now if possible. Certainly the government members will be remaining in attendance for that exercise.
The Chair: Fine, we can proceed.
1250
MINISTRY BRIEFING
The Acting Chair (Mr Jim Brown): Would the ministry officials say their names for Hansard and specify who is going to begin, please.
Ms Nancy Naylor: My name is Nancy Naylor; I'm with the Ministry of Education and Training. I'm joined by my colleagues Bill McInerney, Drew Nameth and Margot Trevelyan. We'll be providing the technical briefing for the members.
We will be sharing with you three pieces of paper that I believe are being distributed now. One is a copy of Bill 160, one is a copy of the compendium that accompanies that bill and the third piece is the presentation we will be speaking to today, which provides a plain-language description of the bill's content.
Could I ask the members, do you have this? It should have the date October 15 on the front.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I want to know, what page does the plain language start at?
Ms Naylor: It's all plain language. I will just say briefly in introduction that this bill is an amending bill to the Education Act. It continues the implementation of the government's announced intentions to reform the Education Act, which were begun with the passage of Bill 104, which received royal assent on April 24 of this year.
This bill, the Education Quality Improvement Act, has three major sections, and we will be speaking to those in turn. Mr McInerney will speak to the governance provisions, Drew Nameth and I will speak to the finance provisions and Margot Trevelyan will speak to the collective bargaining provisions.
With that, I will ask Bill McInerney to begin on page 6 of your slide package.
Mr Bill McInerney: Bill 160 provides for the establishment of the new district school boards of which there will be 72, a reduction from 129. You can see on that slide that they will be comprised of 31 English public district school boards, 29 English Roman Catholic, four French public and eight French Roman Catholic.
The bill does not make any major changes to school authorities, which are usually small jurisdictions operating a single school. There are now and will continue to be 37 of them, including six hospital boards. There will be 21 public school authorities and 10 Roman Catholic school authorities, most of which are in northern Ontario -- not all, but most.
On the next page we talk about electors and supporters. Property taxpayers under this bill will continue to indicate or designate which of the four major types of school boards they will support with their property taxes. If no designation is made, the bill provides the same default process as currently exists in the English public school system.
Essentially, at the elementary level the right to attend falls to the child whose parent is a supporter of the school system. It's the supporter status that gives the elementary child a right to attend. At the secondary level, open access, which began with the extension of separate secondary schools in the mid-1980s, continues between public and separate boards so that students may choose to go to either public or separate secondary schools.
Between English and French district school boards there will be access for supporters of French-language boards, who would have the right to have their children attend schools operated either by the English-language board or the French-language board. Section 23 right-holders would have that option: English or French public to public or English-French separate to separate.
On the extension of separate schools, which I spoke about just briefly a moment ago, there are approximately seven school boards in Ontario now that are not extended, that is, authorized to provide secondary education. Under this bill all separate district school boards would be deemed to be extended, that is, authorized to provide secondary education, and in the past those boards which did not have secondary authorization elected members to represent the interests of the Catholics on the public school boards which provided secondary education for their children. That right will no longer exist under Bill 160 if it passes in its present form. Separate school reps on public boards would be removed.
The rights of those teachers who were protected from the mid-1980s until the present -- they were called designated teachers, after the extension of funding to Roman Catholic secondary schools -- would remain protected, so the bill provides them with the same protections as they had for the last 12 years. But there would be no new designations as a result of the possible extension of those remaining seven or so areas of the province.
With regard to trustees and trustee allowances, the district school boards will be allowed to set an honorarium, an allowance for their trustees, but it will be to a maximum of $5,000 for each member -- it can be reduced below that -- with an additional allowance for the chair and the vice-chair of that same amount. The school authorities will essentially continue to operate under the same provisions of allowance that they were operating under on December 1, 1996, for members, chairs and vice-chairs, with a provision in Bill 160 for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations in future governing the allowances for those members of school authorities.
Additional to the allowance for each member, boards and school authorities can adopt policies allowing for trustee and student representatives to be reimbursed for actual out-of-pocket expenses for things like travel and so forth.
The bill provides for the use of electronic means for the holding of meetings of the board or committees of the board, and there will be written guidelines for that to take place. The idea would be to make board meetings more accessible and to try to minimize travel. The bill provides that members who take advantage of that opportunity must be physically present for at least three meetings in a 12-month period.
The minister may issue guidelines concerning the roles and responsibilities of trustees and senior staff and the EIC has been asked to provide the minister with recommendations in that regard. That's in fact what they're doing this week; they're moving around the province getting advice. They will provide that advice to the minister.
With regard to advisory school councils, in 1995 a program policy memorandum required that by June 1996 every school have a school advisory committee. This act will enshrine that policy memorandum in legislation and regulations would be written to govern the establishment, composition and functioning of those school councils. Almost all schools have a council in place now. Bill 104 asked the EIC to consult and to advise the minister further on the feasibility of strengthening parent involvement in school governance. In time, the EIC will do that as well.
Each district school board will be required to have a special ed advisory committee. The minister will have the power to regulate the composition, function and operating of them and he may also make regulations requiring school authorities to establish special ed advisory committees.
Special ed tribunals: some changes there. Although the special ed tribunals have been in place in the past, the Lieutenant Governor in Council would establish one or more special education tribunals. The regional special ed tribunals will be eliminated to streamline the process, as recommended by the Wood task force.
This bill provides for student representatives. District school boards and school authorities would be required to appoint at least one non-voting student rep to attend board meetings. Their expenses would be covered, but they would not be eligible to attend in camera meetings of the board or to vote. Regulations will be written, according to this bill, to establish the type of representation and their participation.
With regard to directors of education, all district school boards will now be required to have a director of education, although sharing will be permitted between boards if they wish. There will be no changes to the qualifications required for directors of education.
1300
The Languages of Instruction Commission, which was put in place to deal with disputes involving minority languages rights, is being continued, but downsized, and being put in place only for possible disputes within school authorities. There should no longer be disputes in school boards because there will be French-language school boards and English-language school boards now, so that area will no longer be needed. The number of members will be reduced. It will be retained to resolve disputes in school authorities, should it be needed.
There are some additional powers in this bill for the EIC, as we move from the school board situation to the district school boards. You can see them there: their ability to hold in trust, transfer and vest assets; the transfer of liabilities and so on among district school boards, employees as well. There will be a requirement of a district school board designated to provide for and on behalf of another district school board services they can't provide. When French-language school boards get established, some of them will not have the infrastructure in place to begin paying their people, to begin the benefits structure, to transport and maintain their schools, so a majority-language district school board would be empowered under the powers of the EIC to continue to provide for a period of time for them.
This bill will allow district school boards to have some organizational meetings prior to January 1, after the election, to do such things as the EIC identifies, but essentially to do things like adopting bylaws, hiring a director and selecting a chair. The new district school boards will not take over their full functioning until after January 1.
The last pages I will deal with briefly are the recommendations on improving the quality of education, a response to the EIC. The EIC, as you know, reported to the minister, as requested, on the areas listed at the top of that page. The former minister indicated that he accepted their recommendations in principle but was looking for further consultation. In order to provide for certain opportunities within the bill in case the minister and the government decide to act, the Education Quality Improvement Act contains provisions for new and clarified regulation-making power to give the government the ability to act on recommendations around limiting class size; increasing instructional time, including limiting exam days; reducing teachers' non-instructional time; and the others that you see there.
That finishes the governance section of it.
Ms Naylor: We will be moving on to the finance parts of the bill. On page 15 of the slide package there is a diagram which outlines how these provisions are structured. They are divided into six parts and they are labelled alphabetically. I'll be speaking quickly to each part.
Part A deals with general provisions which govern how a school board goes through its financial year and how it is required to govern its financial affairs. It contains provisions which allow the minister to provide grants to school boards, and this will be the regulatory authority which will allow the minister to make grants according to the new funding model to school boards.
I would bring to your attention one of the commitments in this part of the bill, which is that those grants will be provided in a fair and non-discriminatory way among the school boards. The drafting of this part of the bill commits the government to providing those grants in a way which respects both the constitutional and Charter of Rights and Freedoms standards as they apply to education funding in Ontario.
Other provisions in this section govern how boards do their annual budgeting, require them to have balanced budgets, and provide for any deficits which might arise as a result of the previous year.
I will note that the school board fiscal year is being changed from a calendar year to an academic year beginning in September 1998. There will be a short year run from January to August 1998 as we make the transition.
This section also deals with the ability of ratepayers to designate their education property taxes to a board of which they are a supporter. This continues an existing right in the Education Act. There are five types of boards: English-language public, English-language separate, French-language public, French-language separate and Protestant separate school boards.
Individuals will be able to enter a designation in respect of any residential taxes they pay. Business taxes will be distributed to school boards on the basis of enrolment, but both individuals and corporations that pay residential tax rates will be able to make that designation, and that revenue will be distributed to school boards in that manner.
There is a defined list of types of corporate ratepayers which are not permitted to designate. These are effectively publicly traded companies, crown corporations and a few other types of corporate entities which cannot be said to have a linguistic or denominational character to them, so they are not permitted to designate their residential taxes.
The act also provides for some changes in the borrowing and investment powers of school boards. These provisions are intended to ensure that boards can borrow money cost-effectively, avoid unnecessary interest charges by permitting improvements to the way boards can manage their cash and their finances, and provide that boards can maximize investment returns on any assets they may be holding either in trust or for purposes of a reserve fund and minimize risk on funds not immediately required. Boards will be permitted to invest in prescribed securities and borrow through the use of prescribed instruments. They will have additional flexibility to use money in reserve funds to meet their immediate financing requirements and to minimize their interest costs.
Boards will be able to issue debt for permanent improvements, which are defined as a range of capital expenditures which might be expected of boards operating an efficient provision of educational services to students. There will be limits on debt and financial obligations to ensure that boards remain in responsible financial positions.
There is considerable security for lenders in the drafting of these provisions to ensure that boards continue to meet their financial obligations and to assure to lenders, both previous and future, that debenture commitments to them will be honoured by school boards and will be met according to the terms of their contracts.
There are also provisions that would allow the province to establish a school board financing authority if school boards felt this would be helpful to them in borrowing efficiently and at the lowest possible rate of interest.
There is a range of provisions dealing with financial administration, such as annual audits required of school boards and the preparation of financial statements provided to the minister and to other parties the minister may require school boards to report to.
Division B of the bill relates to education taxes. It allows the Minister of Finance the ability to set tax rates for education purposes on residential properties and business properties. Residential taxes will be established using a uniform rate for both single-family and multiresidential homes.
Tax collection: Municipalities will collect these taxes and remit them to school boards as directed, either by the designations entered by individual ratepayers for residential properties or on the basis of enrolment for business properties.
There is a division C, which contains some existing powers that allow school boards to set tax rates. However, these provisions will be inoperative; they are made inoperative by clauses that follow in this section and are contained in division F of the bill.
Part D of the finance provisions contains provisions which would allow the minister to deal with boards that enter into financial difficulties. These provisions have been adapted from provisions that are currently in effect and contained in the Municipal Affairs Act, part III, and are applicable to municipalities and have been used in the past to deal with school boards that have gotten into financial difficulties. They have been brought into Bill 160 and are proposed to be included in the Education Act if this bill passes.
These provisions are essentially those that are in effect today. However, some additional protections have been entered in terms of requiring the minister to exercise these powers, should they be necessary, in a way that respects both linguistic and denominational characteristics of the board in question.
Division E reflects education development charges. Mr Nameth will speak to those.
I will just briefly bring to your attention that there is a division F in the finance section. It contains provisions which make division C, the board-set school taxes, inoperative. It also contains a requirement for the government to initiate a review following the 2002-03 school year to determine whether the education funding respects the standard committed to at the outset of the finance provisions, which is that any education funding provided must meet both constitutional and charter standards of fairness. I'll ask Mr Nameth to speak to the education development charges section of the bill.
1310
Mr Drew Nameth: Division E deals with education development charges. Under the proposed funding model that was announced by the former minister in May, provincial grants will cover 100% of building-related costs in the future. Boards would be responsible for acquiring sites for new schools.
There are a number of options available to boards needing new schools to acquire those sites, one of which would be education development charges. Only boards in growth areas where enrolment exceeds the capacity of the board's existing schools would be permitted to impose education development charges. They could have one bylaw covering an entire upper-tier municipality in their jurisdiction in which the schools were to be constructed, or, if they wished, could subdivide an upper-tier municipality and charge separate bylaws in separate areas within the upper-tier municipality.
Education development charges would apply to both residential development and commercial-industrial development, as is the case for municipal development charges. Bill 160 aligns the processes related to education development charges with processes proposed for municipal development charges under Bill 98.
The processes before passing a bylaw would include a background study and a requirement for at least one public meeting, where the need for the development charge and the calculation of the charge in the jurisdiction would be documented. The appeal process, complaint process, collection of EDCs and exemptions for EDCs would all be similar to those in place or that would be in place for municipal development charges. The intention here is to have one way of doing business from the developers' and builders' perspectives, the individuals who would be paying the development charges and municipal clerks who would be collecting the development charges, one way of doing business for both education and municipal development charges.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council will have regulatory authority over the determination of EDCs. The value of the charge would reflect ministry benchmarks for sites for new schools, new elementary and new secondary schools, additional requirements that may be imposed by municipalities, whether for bus loops, additional parking and perhaps a septic field for rural schools, as well as the cost of land in the community.
Bill 160 also provides a method for valuing land for new school sites in new subdivisions. The bill stipulates provisions similar to those that are currently in the Planning Act which determine cash-in-lieu amounts for sites dedicated as parkland. As a condition of draft plan approval, owners of properties designated as school sites would be required to dedicate those properties to the school board at a price that does not exceed the value of the land on the day before approval of the subdivision was granted.
School boards which currently have education development charges, and there are a number of them which have charges for both a share of the cost of acquiring a site as well as the cost of acquiring buildings, may use those revenues raised prior to December 31, 1997, or a transition period which would be specified in regulations, to finance the local share of projects approved by the minister.
Effectively, Bill 160 precludes boards that do not now have education development charges from imposing education development charges under current legislation. The bill provides that any board that implements an education development charge from September 22 onwards, that bylaw would expire when Bill 160 is proclaimed and all revenues generated as a result of that bylaw would be refunded to those that paid them.
Bill 160 also includes provisions dealing with the sale of surplus schools related to our reform of the capital funding process. Regulations regarding the disposition of schools would be broadened. Currently there is a requirement for boards wishing to dispose of surplus property, and it would be boards that would determine when the property is surplus and whether or not to sell or lease that property.
Boards are required to offer that property first to other public sector agencies based on a priority list determined by the Minister of Education and Training. The intention here is to ensure that public assets continue to be used in the public sector. Regulations would be broadened to also include provisions governing the price or lease rate for the property and the use of the proceeds of the disposition of surplus property by school boards.
Boards would be directed to seek full market value for their surplus schools except when the purchaser is another school board whose enrolment exceeds the capacity of its existing schools, or a provincial school, or a publicly funded care and treatment facility that will be using the facility to offer programs leading to an elementary or secondary school diploma. The intention here is to have facilities that were built as schools to continue to be used as schools in the community if there is a need for them in that jurisdiction. In those cases the price of the surplus property, both for land and buildings, is not to exceed the provincial grant for new pupil places.
There are provisions in the bill that prevent speculation and property flips. The board that originally owned the property would have the right to reacquire it if the board that did acquire it under these provisions were to decide at some point in the future that the school was surplus to its needs. That concludes the education development charges section.
Ms Margot Trevelyan: The collective bargaining provisions of Bill 160 contain two components: One is long-term changes to the way teachers negotiate collective agreements with boards and the second is transitional provisions to address the new governance model of education which is being established in January 1998, the new financing and funding of the education system and also to assist boards and teachers in amalgamating collective agreements as a result of the amalgamation of school boards.
The long-term provisions would see teacher collective bargaining covered by the Education Act, which would provide that the negotiation process take place under provisions of the Labour Relations Act. It would define the bargaining units so that each board would have one bargaining unit for all elementary teachers and one for all secondary teachers. Principals and vice-principals would remain in the bargaining unit. The bargaining agents would be defined as the current five affiliates of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the right to strike would be maintained.
As a result of this, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, better known as Bill 100, would be repealed as of January 1, 1998. The function of determining when the school year is in jeopardy would be maintained at least temporarily with the Education Improvement Commission and could be transferred elsewhere by the Lieutenant Governor in the future, but it would be maintained permanently.
The act would also delete teachers' permanent contracts and boards of reference. These would be deleted on a date to be proclaimed to give boards and teachers an opportunity to negotiate into their collective agreements provisions which currently exist in those individual contracts. Teachers employed by the provincial schools authority would also negotiate under provisions of the Labour Relations Act, but they would remain in the Provincial Schools Negotiations Act.
There will be changes to the Teaching Profession Act to ensure that union dues are collected by the local rather than the provincial affiliate. It would empower the government to amend regulations and bylaws of the Teaching Profession Act and to ensure consistency with the new bargaining regimen.
The transitional provisions are to support boards and teachers in the amalgamation of agreements as a result of the new changes. New boards would be bound by the terms and conditions of employment for teachers that were in place at the previous school board on December 31, 1997. All boards and teachers would be required to negotiate new agreements as of January 1, 1998. That includes boards that have amalgamated and boards that have not.
The long-term provisions I've just outlined would be in effect as of January 1, 1998. If both parties choose arbitration under the first-contract provisions of the Labour Relations Act, they could do so by using their own independent arbitrators, and those arbitrators would be bound by the same criteria as are in Bill 136; that is, ability to pay and so on. Occasional teachers would be brought into the teachers' bargaining unit at the end of the first contract. That highlights the collective bargaining provisions.
Ms Naylor: I will close this briefing by bringing two other items to the committee's attention. There are changes to the school attendance section to amend the habitual absence section by removing an obsolete reference to the Juvenile Delinquents Act; and provisions to establish an Ontario education number, which will give us a consistent number to use on students who attend elementary and secondary schools and community colleges, with the possibility of other approved uses for other educational institutions and agencies. That concludes our briefing. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any questions of any member of the committee? If not, thank you very much for the briefing here this afternoon. I'm adjourning this hearing until Monday, October 20, at 9 am in room 151 in this building.
The committee adjourned at 1321.