STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
ORGANIZATION FOR QUALITY EDUCATION
ONTARIO HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
Monday 20 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
Statement by the ministry
and responses
Mr Bruce Smith, parliamentary assistant
Mrs Lyn McLeod
Mr Bud Wildman
Ontario Education
Alliance
Ms Jacqueline Latter
Mr Stan Kutz
Mr Doug Little
Canadian Taxpayers
Federation
Mr Brian Kelcey
Ontario English Catholic
Teachers Association
Mr Marshall Jarvis
Mr Claire Ross
Ms Sheila Morrison
North York Parent
Assembly
Ms Shelley Carroll
Mrs Maria Miller
Organization for Quality
Education
Mr John Bachmann
Mr Ted Johnson
Ontario College of
Teachers
Ms Donna Marie Kennedy
Mrs Margaret Wilson
Mr John Cruickshank
Ontario Home Builders'
Association
Mr Peter Goldthorpe
People for
Education
Ms Kathryn Blackett
Ms Gay Young
Ms Alanna McDonagh
Ms Sherry LeBlanc
Ms Annie Kidder
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair /
Président
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
ViceChair /
VicePrésident
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 David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence L)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Also taking part /
Autres participants et participantes
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale ND)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine 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
Monday 20 October 1997 Lundi 20 octobre 1997
The committee met at 0908 in committee room 151.
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a hearing of the administration of justice committee considering Bill 160. It is traditional in this place to have representatives of all three parties. However, in view of the very substantial schedule we have today and tomorrow, and being 10 minutes after the start time according to my watch, I feel I must exercise my discretion and proceed at this time, at least with the opening statements. Mrs McLeod, you had a statement to make first?
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Chairman, it won't be a statement. I have three procedural questions just before we begin the hearings themselves. I certainly don't intend to make a speech out of them and I'll leave the opening statements to Mr Smith.
My first question is just to clarify an understanding of the amendment that affects our procedures from this point on. It was certainly my understanding that those on the minister's list would have a half-hour to present. I had failed to realize and I think my error -- and the clerk has clarified that but I just want to be sure that I understand it correctly now -- is that anybody in any community who is not on the minister's list in any community, whether chosen through the process of each committee member's selections or chosen from caucus lists by the clerk, after this will only have a 10-minute slot to present. Is that correct?
The Chair: That is my understanding, Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: I realize it may be no longer possible to suggest this, but is there any way to consider having even some combination? I really believe 10 minutes is such a limited time for the groups and organizations that are affected in a major way by this to address even one portion of the bill, let alone the full bill. I ask that we have some consideration given to either extending the 10-minute slot outside the minister's list and recognizing a difference between groups and organizations and individual presenters or at least grouping those individuals when they represent groups.
The Chair: I'll discuss that with the clerk and see if that's possible.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that, Mr Chairman.
My second question is: I look at the Toronto list, and if my count is right -- and we've just seen the list, as you know, Mr Chairman, within the last few minutes -- of the minister's list that was presented to us on Wednesday, only seven of the presenters today were on that list. I assume that everybody who's in a 10-minute slot was not on the minister's list; otherwise they would have the half-hour.If my count's correct, seven of our presenters today are from the minister's list, some 32 are not on the list.
I'm obviously appreciative of the fact that of this thousand people who had asked to present -- and I suspect it's well over a thousand as of Thursday at 5 o'clock, and the clerk might update us on how many people have called as of Thursday at 5 o'clock to present -- at least some 32 of them have been able to get on, but I also note that we still have eight vacancies. This is not a critique of the clerk in any way, because I think the clerk has been working triple time to fill the committee's speaking list given the change in process. But I'm wondering whether the eight vacancies can still be filled if there are people present who had asked to present, whose names are on the list, if we can use those names to fill the vacancies. There is precedent for that, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: The clerk advises that there are calls out to more than enough people to cover those eight in 10-minute slots.
Mrs McLeod: As long as people who are on this list get to fill any vacancy, I would be quite satisfied. Can I assume that if by any chance we are facing a 10-minute slot where we do not have somebody speaking and there is somebody in the audience whose name is on the list, that person could be called, even on short notice, to speak?
The Chair: That will be up to the committee, but I can see no reason they wouldn't be.
Mrs McLeod: My last question is that I've done a quick count on Tuesday's list -- those are the only two lists we have -- and, if I'm correct, another 16 people from the minister's list are slotted for Tuesday. That means that a total of 23 of the 50 people from the minister's list are slotted. That's less, obviously, than half the minister's list. My question is, does that mean the minister's list will continue to take precedence in every community we visit so that local people will not get their opportunity to present?
The Chair: Could the clerk, since he has been dealing with it, address that?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): More than 23 of the list of 50 have actually been scheduled. A number of organizations were based outside of Toronto and requested a presentation in another location, so a number of others from the list of 50 have been scheduled in other locations.
Mrs McLeod: In each case would they have a base in that other community?
Clerk of the Committee: Not necessarily.
Mrs McLeod: Do you have a total count as of Thursday at 5 o'clock?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. As of Thursday at 5 pm, 1,145 requests were received by our office. A number of late requests were received after 5 pm and over the weekend.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a couple of procedural questions and then I would like to move a couple of motions on procedural matters for the committee's consideration.
From what the clerk has just said, I understand that essentially we are going to be able to fill the spots that are available. My colleague from Fort William is quite correct that it would be bizarre if we had empty spots with so many people who have an interest in making presentations and who have been unable so far to get on the list.
I have a motion that I would like to put in that regard, but first I have another matter which I would like to put before the committee. Prior to putting the motion, though, I would like to ask a question. What is the schedule re opening statements? Is the minister going to be making an opening statement?
The Chair: I understand he is not. Mr Smith will be making the opening statement.
Mr Wildman: I have the greatest respect for Mr Smith, but I really would like to hear from the new minister since we had a rather interesting situation last week where the committee had made an agreement prior to the cabinet shuffle that was completely changed after the cabinet shuffle. The new minister obviously had a different position and a different point of view as to how the committee should proceed.
I understand that the minister is meeting with representatives of the teachers' federations today, and obviously things may be in a state of flux in terms of the potential disruption of classes for students in Ontario. With that in mind, I hope the minister would make a presentation to the committee, and if he is not available prior to the meeting, which I understand is this afternoon, I hope the minister would appear before the committee subsequent to his meeting with the teachers' representatives so we could have some idea of what the possible outcomes of that meeting might be, particularly as it relates to the possibility of a work stoppage later on this week which would affect all of the students in Ontario.
With that in mind, Chair, since the minister is meeting today with representatives of the teachers regarding Bill 160 and an impending teachers' walkout, I move that the Minister of Education and Training appear before this committee immediately following the meeting today, that is, the meeting between the minister and representatives of the teachers' federations, to report to the committee and to the public on the status of the talks.
I have it in writing.
The Chair: Mr Wildman, could you please assist me. Is this a request or is this in the nature of a subpoena by this committee?
Mr Wildman: It's not a subpoena. I'm sure the minister will come willingly. I'm certainly not suggesting that we would subpoena. I'm not sure that the subcommittee, or for that matter the House leaders, in discussions about the time allocation motion which cut off debate on Bill 160, gave this committee subpoena powers. The wording could be changed if you think it would be more appropriate that we invite the minister to appear before the committee immediately following his meeting with the teachers' representatives to report to the committee and to the public on the possible outcomes of his meeting with the teachers.
The Chair: As an invitation, I think the motion is in order. Is there discussion in regard to the motion?
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I certainly appreciate the comments the member for Algoma has raised. It has been indicated to him that I'll be making a brief presentation on behalf of the minister today. I think I can assure you that the comments I'll be making reflect the same principles and objectives that will be expressed to teacher representatives this afternoon.
We will not be supporting the motion as is. Certainly the minister wants to proceed with those discussions with teachers' organizations in a productive manner, such that we can find some conclusions or alternatives or suggestions on how to improve Bill 160. Not that this would compromise that, but he certainly sees this process as one that would parallel any efforts he is making and, as well, a process that's complementary to the work this committee will be doing. Very briefly, the government caucus won't be supporting the motion you have presented.
0920
Mrs McLeod: As I understood the purpose of the motion, it was not so much to find out what the minister might be saying before he goes into a meeting with the teachers, and I accept the fact that the parliamentary assistant will be presenting those remarks on his behalf this morning, but that this committee be apprised of any result of those negotiations and discussions which might have a direct bearing both on the bill and on our subsequent deliberations. I think that is only fair. Perhaps there can be a condition to the motion that, assuming that there is some progress made and something to report, this committee would receive a report from the minister.
Mr Wildman: I agree with what my friend from Fort William just said.
In response to the parliamentary assistant's comments, I really haven't heard from him why he says the government members on this committee would not support this invitation to the minister. I appreciate the fact that he will be making a statement on behalf of the minister, putting forward the principles the minister is following going into the meeting, but that is before the fact. What we are attempting by this motion is to give the minister the opportunity to talk to the committee about the progress that is or is not made this afternoon.
There are an awful lot of parents out there who are very, very worried about whether they are going to have to find alternative child care for their children later on this week or next. There are an awful lot of teachers out there who are very uncertain about whether progress can be made without resorting to political action, to withdrawing services. There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the education system.
If significant progress is made today, a lot of that uncertainty could be cleared up, there could be a lot of fears allayed. I hope the minister would like to come to the committee and say, "Things are going well and we are looking forward to fruitful discussions." I'm not suggesting that he should somehow negotiate with the teachers before this committee. That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that he come before the committee and indicate to us whether progress has been made and whether he is optimistic that changes can be made to Bill 160 which will serve the interests of the students of Ontario, allay the concerns of the teachers of this province and give us some indication of where the government is intending to go with this legislation. That will certainly affect the rest of these hearings.
If the government is prepared to make a major change as a result of the discussions with the teachers, that will certainly affect what presenters will want to talk about before this committee. It would be a little bit bizarre to have people appearing before the committee making presentations on the current draft of Bill 160 if the minister is discussing major changes at the very same time with the teachers' federation, so I hope the government members would reconsider and invite the minister to come before the committee. The minister can always refuse. He can say no if he doesn't want to. Why would the members of the committee not invite him? To shut down the possibility of inviting him seems a little bit strange to me.
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I think the motion is very appropriate at this time, because given the nature of the discussions, what can result from those discussions may alter the proceedings of this committee. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for us to continue, not knowing the status of those discussions taking place between the teachers and the minister. The outcome of that could affect these proceedings before the committee. It's rather pointless to carry on if we aren't able to determine the outcome of those discussions before we enter into clause-by-clause of this bill. It's rather pointless that the committee would carry on with a bill that could conceivably change fundamentally and as a result our work is redundant.
I think it is in every member's interest, as members of the Legislature proceeding with the processing of this bill on committee, to make that point that this committee will not be deemed to be redundant by actions taken by the minister outside of these committee hearings which could have a serious impact on the legislation before us that we are to address. I think the motion is very much in order, and I see it as pointless for this committee to continue to have these hearings if there is a drastic fundamental altering of the bill and we don't know about it.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion before I put the motion?
Mr Wildman: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Cordiano, McLeod, Wildman.
Nays
Boushy, Newman, Rollins, Smith.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Interruption.
The Chair: Members of the audience, I have really enough difficulty attempting to control the members of the committee. I do not need additional persons to whom to extend my jurisdiction. I therefore ask you to control yourselves. If you cannot, then I will take other steps, and I would prefer not to.
Mr Wildman: In that regard, Chair, I would like to move another motion in relation to the issues that were raised by Mrs McLeod and myself earlier.
Whereas there has been overwhelming public interest in Bill 160 and that requests to appear before the standing committee on justice far exceed the number of spaces available; and
Whereas the government has appropriated most of the time allocated for witnesses by passing a motion with their majority on October 15, which incidentally cut the number of days available for hearings;
I move that this committee recommends to the government House leader that when the House returns on November 17, 1997, that the order with respect to Bill 160 be amended and that the bill be returned to the standing committee on justice so that further public hearings can be arranged;
Further, that this committee recommends that the three House leaders meet as soon as possible to discuss this issue.
The Chair: Does everyone understand the motion before us made by Mr Wildman? Is there any discussion with regard to the motion?
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to begin by indicating how shocked I was last week, although I shouldn't be shocked any more, when the government pushed through a motion affecting the way in which groups and individuals would be allowed to present before this committee. This is the first time I'm aware of in the history of this province that a government has used its majority to appropriate most of the time before a committee and to essentially, in the colloquialism, stack the process and the views that will be presented to the committee.
I was particularly shocked because I had had a discussion with the new Minister of Education just the night before to try and ascertain why this meeting was being called on an emergency basis when there were to be no committee meetings last week, why the government Chair of this committee was calling a meeting, whose request he was acceding to. I was told that there was a minor issue of the time limit for presentations, that the current subcommittee and committee process had determined that there would be 20-minute presentations by groups and individuals and that there had been some concern raised about that, and they thought it was perhaps more appropriate that groups be given 30 minutes and individuals be given 10 minutes. I expressed my surprise that the government would force a committee meeting to be called to deal with such a minor issue and that we would be losing a day of hearings as a result of that.
0930
I suggested that a much simpler way of dealing with it would be for the subcommittee members to have a telephone conference. This government wants to point out all the time that we don't need to travel to communities because we can do teleconferencing and television conferencing. All they had to do in this case was pick up the telephone -- it's older technology -- call the subcommittee members, see if there was agreement to amend the time frames, and if there was, that could have been simply ratified at the beginning of the hearings this morning.
I was at a loss to understand, from Mr Johnson's reasons that he put forward to me, why this meeting was being called last week, and of course, when we arrived here, I found out that I had not been told the whole story. It's unfortunate when you no longer have an ability to even share information on a full basis so that all parties know what the government's intention is. The motion that was put forward is scandalous. It is an abuse of democratic process.
Mr Wildman: That's the motion last week.
Ms Lankin: That's the motion last week. Yes, Mr Wildman, you're right. Yours is an attempt to correct the abuse of democratic process. It's extraordinary that the government would use its majority to invite groups to come forward that had not even expressed an interest in presenting on this bill, in fact groups that you had not even contacted to find out if they would be interested. I understand there are a number of those groups who have rejected the offer -- not enough to restore any integrity to the process.
Here we are in a situation where there are so many individuals, in particular parents, who want to have an opportunity to participate in these hearings and to present before this committee. Because you have taken up virtually all the time at least of the Toronto hearings with your hand-picked group, your pro-government toadies who will be coming in here, and because you have cut off a day of hearings, there are many people who will not have an opportunity to be heard.
I was at a meeting of parents on Friday night and I was struck by a number of the contributions to the meeting that parents made, but there was one woman who stood up and said: "Why is it that we don't know anything more about the content of this bill? Why is it all happening so fast? Why are we, just before the bill is going to go to committee and then within weeks it's going to be finished and we could have a teachers' strike, only now just trying to find out what the content was?"
The answer to her is that we have had not just a revolution in the government's terms of a Common Sense Revolution, we've had a revolution in the democratic process in this province in which bills are rammed through in time frames, with time allocation motions, rapid debate in the House, constrained debate in committee, which leaves the public without an opportunity to have full participation because in many cases they don't have full information to form an opinion.
Parents are meeting out there as we speak, and as more and more parents meet, more and more parents will want to come forward and participate in these important discussions. This is not just about the government's goals with respect to their so-called reform of education; this is about what parents and families want out of the education system. The government should not at this point in time truncate that debate and that discussion. I think it is essential, given the level of interest that has been demonstrated already by parents in this province and others in the community who are concerned about our education system, it is absolutely necessary that the government consider the possibility of extending the time for hearings.
We have an additional week, for example: the constituency week before the House is called back. There could be more hearings at that time. The first week the House is called back more hearings could be scheduled. It doesn't have to affect the government's overall timetable, although I would argue that it should. But it would be an indication to the public and to the teachers that the government is willing to listen to the people of this province with respect to this very important issue and the future of the education system for our kids.
I support Mr Wildman's motion and I hope that the government members would understand how appalled many people are as they have learned in the last few days about the motion you passed last week, about the way you've hijacked a committee process. I hope you would want to attempt to restore some integrity to it.
Mrs McLeod: I already had ample opportunity and will have more, I'm sure, to express my absolute dismay at the abandonment of any semblance of democracy in this committee hearing process. I will certainly support any motion which calls for more public hearings, but I want to express my concern that further hearings prior to the House coming back or further hearings after will not address the most immediate problem we have, which I think Mr Wildman's first motion addressed and which my proposals to at least have some additional time for presenters while these hearings are going on, might help to address.
I think we recognize that we're at a very critical point of time, that unless there is something meaningful which comes from the discussions between the government and the teachers this afternoon, we are facing a confrontation and a crisis of a magnitude never before seen in this province. That could come as early as this week or at perhaps the latest at the end of next week. I think the focus has to be on whether or not there's any way to turn these committee hearings right now into something that might have some influence on the government members, who in turn could influence the minister who seems determined to be absent from the hearings themselves.
I'm pessimistic because the way these committee hearings have been turned around from anything which has any precedent before suggests to me that the new minister and the government on whose behalf he's acting intend to do whatever they have already decided to do and that the hearings we're going through are largely farcical. Nevertheless, I believe we must provide the public with some opportunity to be heard, whether the minister is going to pay attention to it or not.
Mr Cordiano: It stands to reason, given the extent and the numbers of parents interested in commenting and having their say on this bill, that this bill has such an extraordinary impact on not only students but parents, people right across the province. The response has been so overwhelming and the government's response in terms of committee hearings is so feeble that there is obviously something wrong.
It's incumbent upon the government members of this committee to ask themselves, is it legitimate that over a thousand people have requested time before this committee and have been rejected, by and large? Except for those who have made it on the list, quite a number have been rejected. It stands to reason that we are obviously concerned about that. This is not an attempt to suggest that the government has no right to proceed with its agenda. It was elected as a majority government; there is no question about that. No one questions that on the opposition side
On the other hand, it's the time-honoured tradition in this province and a hallmark of our democracy that people be given their say before something as fundamental as this moves forward. That's what we're asking for, and the claim of people that this government is not willing to listen and that you have turned completely away from that process is quite legitimate. These hearings become a sham, in our opinion, because as a result of your disinterest in listening to all those people out there, these committee hearings cannot have any kind of broad-based, consultative measures take place and that's what committees are supposed to be doing. I think the motion to extend hearings is quite appropriate. It's the very least you could do at this point: to extend those hearings so we may accommodate more parents who are interested in speaking before this committee.
Mr Smith: Not to repeat perhaps much of the debate that occurred last Wednesday -- I fully understand the situation Ms Lankin spoke of. I've recognized on both occasions the different approach being utilized here today. I think it's one that can be positive over the course of the next seven days. It's not about stacking the lists, and I would encourage all members of the committee to scrutinize that list. While I don't want to prejudge the contents of any deputant's submission, I don't suspect you'll find the list is dominated by pro-government organizations or groups. We've added some hours. We've added lot spots for deputants to make presentations. I feel, as does the minister, as do my caucus colleagues, that the list is balanced and fair and we're attempting to capture a range of stakeholder input into this process.
0940
I don't want to belabour the historical issues here, but if we take the time to look at the amount of public hearings time that has been secured or pursued by this government in the 36th Parliament, we will see comparatively that we're spending more time securing public input, more time in committee than certainly the previous government. I would compare that to the Liberal government.
Mr Cordiano: -- minority government.
Mr Smith: I would encourage you to go to the legislative library, Mr Cordiano, and research it. Spend a few minutes researching for a change. Even as we sit here this morning, we still have opening statements from both, I assume, Mr Wildman and Mrs McLeod, as well as the government side on behalf of the minister. As a result of the time spent in debating this particular motion, we have effectively lost spots for six people to make presentations.
I would encourage the committee to move ahead. We've had this debate in part. I think Mr Wildman clearly expressed his viewpoint last Wednesday. I received it, I understood and I disagree with it. None the less, we feel strongly as a government caucus that it's time to proceed with the hearings and for that reason we'll not be supporting the motion that has been presented by Mr Wildman this morning.
Mr Wildman: I must say I'm disappointed at Mr Smith's intervention. I make no apologies for putting forward a procedural motion designed to provide more time for people to make presentations to this committee and I make no apologies for the fact that it has taken up some time this morning.
The government has done something in terms of the procedures before this committee that has never, ever been done, according to the Clerk's office, never in the history of this assembly. The government has essentially, I think, skewed the process.
As my colleague said, you could argue that the attempt has been to stack, in other words, to try to make it appear that there are far more presenters among the over a thousand who have indicated they want to make presentations who support the government than there are in fact.
I believe that we need more time. We have over over a thousand groups and individuals who have indicated they want to make presentations before this committee. We don't have nearly the time, and we have far less time now because of the government's motion last week which puts forward a list, and then on top of that says that each member should be able to choose two presenters subsequently, which basically means the government will always have more than those in opposition.
I think we need more time. Certainly we need more time in relation to the fact that the government's moves last week denied one day of hearings. We extended the hearings, on my suggestion, into the evening to try to make up for some of that time, but it doesn't make up for all of it. I believe that we didn't have enough time, thanks to the government's time allocation motion, in the first place. We couldn't meet the demand. The demand has been overwhelming.
To say now that we will not even ask the House leaders to discuss the possibility of extending the hearings is just completely unacceptable. I don't understand why the government would not want to invite their own minister to make a presentation before this committee, why the government members would not want to hear from the individual who is given the responsibility of carrying this bill in the public and who is given the responsibility of negotiating with the teachers, who are very upset about the provisions within Bill 160 and who have indicated that if it is not changed substantially, they may withdraw their services. We'll have a work stoppage and thousands and thousands of students and their families will at the very least be inconvenienced. It may mean significant disruption for the education of students in this province.
The long-term effects of this, no matter what happens in terms of morale for the teachers and the effects on the organization and operation of our schools and thus on the education of our students, cannot be weighed. I think we have an obligation to make more time available to those who wish to make presentations before this committee on Bill 160 and I'm very disappointed in the government's position.
It seems almost as if we are running a railroad here and Mr Smith is the conductor and he just keeps saying: "All aboard, all aboard. Let's get going." All right. Let's have a vote and let's see whether this government is interested in having people make presentations, whether the government is interested in listening to the public of this province.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Just to comment: You talked about the motion of last week. It was actually an amendment to the motion by myself to extend the number of hours of hearings. We hear from the opposition today about extending the amount of time of hearings and we have actually increased the hours of hearings here in Toronto. For some of the members of the opposition here today who weren't here the other day, they will find that's what is happening. The hearings are travelling across the province.
Ms Lankin: You cut a day off the hearings, Dan. You took five hours back.
Mr Newman: We are travelling across the province seeking input. I think what's important to keep in mind with any bill is that there are always more people who want to speak to bills than there is time available for. I am sure both opposition parties, when they were the government --
Mr Wildman: Particularly if they're controversial bills that people don't want.
Mr Newman: The great thing is that written submissions can be accepted by the committee. I know that members of the government side read the written submissions that are brought forward in forming their decisions. I would encourage the opposition members to read the written submissions that people bring forward.
Ms Lankin: Don't be insulting.
Mr Newman: Ms Lankin also spoke about committee members having the opportunity to submit names. I think she might be surprised to see some of the names that government members have submitted.
Ms Lankin: I'm aware of them. I'm not surprised at all.
Mr Newman: I think you ought to be. Look at some of the names and you might find that out before you make your decision.
What's really important to keep in mind is that with Bill 160 and every other bill that has been introduced during the 36th Parliament, any committee hearings that are held exceed the number of committee hearings in time that the NDP had when they brought in the social contract. They literally rammed the bill through without any public consultation. There were no public hearings, and I think that's important to keep in mind.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Newman. I would remind the committee, and I'm not trying to put any limits on debate -- you're entitled to debate as long as you wish pursuant to the standing orders. However, we now have 10 minutes remaining, theoretically, before 10 o'clock, which is our first presentation of individual presentations of each party. You are allotted 20, which means we may not be able to break for 12 noon for our lunch-hour. We only have allotted one hour. There's going to be problem and I'll ask for your assistance down the road as to what we should do.
Mrs McLeod, did you --
Mr Wildman: I'd be happy to sit through lunch if it means we can hear more presentations.
The Chair: I don't know whether I'm capable of that, Mr Wildman.
Mrs McLeod: I won't extend the debate. I just think it has to be put on record that any extension of hours was solely to make up for the hours that were cut by the fact that the government saw fit to bring in an amendment and use up a full committee day to bring forward that amendment.
I don't think there is any point in prolonging the procedural debate. We have the clock ticking for 126,000 teachers and 2.1 million students. I think this government has it absolutely clear that in spite of that anxiety that's out there, in spite of the time pressures, they are not prepared to use these next few days to really hear the concerns, so we might as well get on with the little bit they're prepared to give us.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs McLeod. If there's no further discussion, I will put the question. The motion was made by Mr Wildman and requests that the House consider extending the sittings of this committee with regard to Bill 160.
Mr Wildman: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Cordiano, McLeod, Wildman.
Nays
Boushy, Newman, Rollins, Smith.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Mrs McLeod: If it would expedite getting on with the presenters today, I have a motion following my original request that the committee give some consideration to having groups and organizations other than those on the minister's list given 20 minutes to present, and 10 minutes for individuals. I'll table the motion with you, if I may, but if you would like to hold debate and the vote until hopefully there can be some consideration of it.
The Chair: Until a more appropriate time, yes. Thank you. If there are no other further preliminary matters, we'll start.
0950
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
Mr Smith: Welcome, everyone, to the committee hearings on the Education Quality Improvement Act. Over the next several days I, along with my caucus colleagues and the Minister of Education and Training, look forward to hearing presentations from a wide variety of education stakeholders, including students, parents and taxpayers. We also look forward to seeing the many written presentations of people and groups who will send their comments to this committee and certainly give them the due consideration owed to those presentations.
Education, as I'm sure everyone in this room would agree, is a very important issue, not only for our students today but also for the future prosperity of our province. Education is an issue that I and my colleagues from all parties hear about every day from our constituents. Time and again, parents and students have told this government and its predecessors that they are concerned about the quality of education and how their tax dollars are spent. They are concerned that national and international tests have consistently reported Ontario students' achievement below the Canadian average. At the same time, Ontarians have seen their property taxes going up and up, an average property tax increase of 120% over a time of 10 years.
Clearly, our system has not been meeting the needs of our students and of our teachers in terms of meeting our province's needs and outcomes. This government is prepared to change the system, and there have been 24 separate studies on education in my lifetime alone. The problems are well documented and now it is time for action.
This government is prepared to make the tough decisions to ensure that our students come first. We are committed to having the highest student achievement in Canada at the most efficient and effective cost. We have been meeting that commitment by introducing clear, challenging, consistent province-wide curriculum, regular standardized tests and standardized report cards so parents and students know exactly how they are doing. We are introducing a new four-year streamed high school program with clear standards and rigorous curriculum and we are ensuring more of our dollars are spent in the name of education, going directly into education and into the classroom and not the boardroom.
Previous governments have shared the Ontario government's concern. Former Premier Bob Rae wrote in a letter to his Minister of Education on October 15, 1991, that he was concerned about the appearance of a system that is overbureaucratized and still not as accountable as we want it to be. He continued to write, "The financing issue must obviously be addressed but in the context of making the system more efficient as well as fair."
Premier Bob Rae later repeated his concerns in an interview with the press. He said: "We spend per capita more than most other places in the world. I think it's a question of focus and a question of how we get the system to do its job."
We all know that our children are as capable as students anywhere else in the world, we all know that our teachers are some of the most highly trained and capable teachers in the world and we all know that over $14 billion in spending on education in Ontario is not a question of money. The Fewer School Boards Act reduces the number of school boards by half and the number of politicians by two thirds. These quality initiatives are the first steps that will provide students and teachers with the skill sets they need to move ahead and will allow parents to better understand how their child is progressing through the system.
The proposed Education Quality Improvement Act is about taking the next step. It would help ensure a smooth transition for new school boards by improving the governance of schools, increasing the involvement of parents and simplifying the financing of the education system. The bill would allow the government to set standards of quality, such as class size, instructional time between teachers and students, the amount of time students spend learning, and give students greater access to professionals.
David Cooke, the former NDP Minister of Education, and Ann Vanstone, former chair of Metro Toronto's public school board, in their roles as co-chairs of the Education Improvement Commission, released a number of recommendations which they said would improve the quality of our education system. In their report, Cooke and Vanstone indicated that elementary teachers spend the same average number of hours per day in the classroom as teachers in other provinces, but the EIC also indicated that high school teachers spend up to 20% less time in the classroom than the national average. The EIC recommended that high school teachers should spend more time with their students. The legislation would allow the government to set these standards.
The Education Quality Improvement Act would allow the government to set regulations that give our students more time to learn. The EIC recommended that students would benefit from more instructional time. The bill would allow us to improve student access to professionals with the special expertise they need. This is a recommendation from both the Education Improvement Commission and the Royal Commission on Learning.
In the past, class sizes have been negotiated between school boards and unions during wage and benefit negotiations. Parents have been concerned that class sizes have become a bargaining chip during negotiations. Under this legislation, the Ontario government would be able to make regulations that would effectively limit class size.
The bill would help us make the school system more accountable to parents. It would mandate school boards to establish advisory school councils in every school. Advisory school councils would give parents and others in the community a voice in how schools operate both inside and outside the classroom.
The bill would also stop the spiralling property tax increases. The province would be responsible for setting all educational tax rates and those rates would be frozen. The province would introduce a province-wide education tax rate on residential and multiresidential properties beginning in 1998. A uniform rate structure for residential properties is fair and is consistent with the government's plan to ensure that students across the province have access to high-quality education.
Prior to the introduction of the Education Quality Improvement Act, the government met with teachers' unions. They said that there could be a smooth transfer to a new school system if they maintained their right to strike. We accepted their input. The unions said that principals and vice-principals could continue to be effective educational managers while remaining a part of the union. Again we accepted their input. The unions said that teachers, professionals, would be best represented through their current teachers' federation structure. Once again we accepted their input. Free collective bargaining will be maintained.
During the transition to new school boards and after, unions and school boards would bargain freely under the framework set out in the Labour Relations Act. Negotiations for a first collective agreement would begin on January 1, 1998. Existing contracts would continue during the new negotiations.
We are committed to improving the quality of education, not just in the name of cost-effectiveness. The proposals in this legislation would establish the administrative and financial framework that supports our efforts.
Most important, this legislation has been shaped by discussion with people and groups interested and involved in the education of our children. Ontarians agree. They want to see reform in the education system. They want their children and their neighbours' children to have the highest achievement records in Canada and they want to have an education system that is accountable to them, a system that respects the hard-earned dollars that Ontarians put into the system. This government is committed to these goals. We have listened and in the days ahead we will continue to listen. We will reflect on what we have heard and we will respond to what we will hear because, although we have an unwavering commitment to our goal of the best student achievement and the best value in our education system, we are open to other proposals on how to get there. Thank you very much.
Mrs McLeod: I have to begin my remarks by indicating my objections to the way the hearings are being run. We've had some chance to do that already this morning. I don't think "objection" is a strong enough word to describe my reactions, as a parliamentarian and as somebody who actually believes in the democratic process, to the way the minister has completely distorted the purpose and the normal procedures of committee hearings.
To the greatest extent possible to him, this minister has attempted to turn these hearings into minister-controlled, government public relations exercises. He has created an exclusive list, and only if you are on the list will you get 30 minutes to present, otherwise you get 10 minutes. We have an omnibus bill on education in front of us with the most sweeping changes ever proposed. They go even beyond the government's Bill 104, and people cannot address the concerns with this bill in 10 minutes. The minister has shut out any opportunity for over a thousand concerned individuals to present to this committee. He talks on one hand about his open-door policy and then he slams the door shut on more than a thousand concerned people who had asked to make their views known. This minister has unilaterally exercised the majority control of government to attempt to silence the voices of dissent and of criticism, and that is totally intolerable in a democratic system.
1000
This minister has unfortunately -- tragically, I think, given the fact that the clock is ticking for 126,000 teachers and 2.1 million students -- made it only too clear that these hearings will not serve a purpose of influencing the government to bring about changes. The government will do what it wants to do when it wants to do it and it seems the public can be damned.
We saw exactly the same thing in the megacity debate. We shouldn't be surprised by this, when the government rammed its legislation through in spite of the expressed opposition of some 76% of the population affected. We saw it most recently on Bill 136 when the government announced that it would bring in amendments but wouldn't present them until after the committee hearings so that the hearings became meaningless.
When you combine this distortion of the committee hearing process with the rule changes for the Legislative Assembly that will allow the government to ram through the legislation with little or no debate, you see how opposed this government is to any semblance of democratic process. The reality is, and it grieves me as a parliamentarian to say it, that under Mike Harris we no longer have democracy in Ontario.
Interruption.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mrs McLeod. It seems we have a number of individuals in the audience who lack self-control. We have a special room, committee room 2, and I will not tolerate demonstrations in this committee room. I will clear it or I will adjourn it. It's up to members of this committee. I have an obligation to the presenters who will be presenting before this committee to do so without intimidation. I will not tolerate intimidation of my presenters, whether they be for or against a particular object.
Interjection: Mrs McLeod, do you feel intimidated?
Mrs McLeod: I was not feeling intimidated at all.
The Chair: I'll clear it, unfortunately, if that's what you wish. It's up to the members of this committee to back me up that we do not permit demonstrations. You know the rules, and I won't permit it. It's as simple as that. Sorry, Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: Chairman, I will return to the fact that I believe what we have in the province of Ontario under Mike Harris is an autocracy. It is not even rule by majority; it is rule by cabinet. As we all know, it is not really even rule by the elected members of cabinet because we are effectively being governed by the backroom boys in Mike Harris's office, the ideologues who sit, as I believe the former parliamentary assistant to the former Minister of Education had said, with a copy of Machiavelli in one hand and the Common Sense Revolution in the other and not much in between.
Let me say to the Conservative backbenchers who sit on this committee and who serve to give Mike Harris and his henchmen their pretence of an elected mandate: Look at this bill that you have in front of you and understand how you have been disfranchised as parliamentarians by this bill. Your voice is no longer going to be heard in education or, for that matter, on taxation for educational purposes. Your vote won't matter because under Bill 160 there will virtually be no further votes on educational matters. Every decision that is to be made in the future if this bill is passed will be made without coming back to the Legislature. There is absolute power being placed in the hands of cabinet to act through regulation.
Look at the power to decide whether teachers should have time with students outside the classroom, look at the power to determine class size, look at the power to decide who should even be a teacher, and these decisions are by cabinet alone. Look at the power to levy property taxes for education and remember that they are still going to be 53% of business taxes and 27% of residential taxes and realize that those powers to tax need no bill. They will be a cabinet decision, and I suspect that is not even constitutional.
Look at the clause in this bill that gives cabinet power, if it decides it is necessary for financial reasons, as broadly as that may be interpreted, to take over a school board. Finally, look at the clause that gives cabinet power by regulation to override not only this act but any other act, and ask yourself whether there is any semblance of democracy left in educational governance when this bill passes.
Do you really trust your cabinet colleagues so much? Are you so convinced that achieving the agenda is worth it at any price that you are prepared to give up your elected accountability as legislators?
This bill is about giving total control to cabinet. I don't know if you remember Justice Archie Campbell, who described one clause in Bill 104 as the Henry VIII clause. He said it was a clause that gives the power to amend by regulation an act itself. It is known to legal historians as the King Henry VIII clause because that monarch gave himself power to legislate by proclamation, a power associated since the 16th-century executive autocracy. When Justice Archie Campbell sees this bill, he will realize that Parliament is being essentially disbanded in Ontario because our Legislature will be rendered as ineffective as if we didn't exist at all.
The government has made no secret of its need and its intent to cut educational spending. They can do that, and they have done that, to the tune of almost $1 billion without this bill. They have cut junior kindergarten funding directly, they have cut adult education funding directly, but the rest of the cuts have been made to the operating grants of school boards. The government obviously doesn't like to hear the stories about what those cuts have meant. They have meant larger class sizes, they have meant the loss of special education programs, they have meant boards have been forced to close junior kindergarten programs.
As the parliamentary assistant today has said on behalf of the minister -- and it's a line we've heard often -- quality of education isn't a matter of how much we spend, because if they were to acknowledge that the cuts have actually hurt education they might have to take some responsibility for those cuts. They want to pretend that the cuts haven't hurt students, they haven't hurt the classrooms. What they say is: "We will convince the public that somehow you can't trust the boards and the teachers to deal with the government cuts because they've cut in the wrong places. They've negotiated higher class sizes in return for higher salaries." Direct words of the Premier of the province of Ontario, the lines that had been fed him by the ministry I suppose.
It is simply wrong. Let me just state that once again for the record. Look at any of the salary contracts that have attempted to deal with the cuts that this government has made and you will see, almost without exception, that any salary increases were solely there to restore equity to junior teachers that was lost under the social contract. If you know anything about teachers' salary grids, you will know that in those settlements the majority of teachers who are senior teachers benefited not at all. It was simply a matter of equity for junior teachers. It is a blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion to say that you cannot trust teachers and trustees. It is a blatant attempt to say: "Give us all the power that we want. Trust us."
This government will still not be accountable when it has all these powers. They won't be accountable for what happens to students when they are taught by unqualified teachers; they won't be accountable for what happens to students who can't get tutorial help after school because the teacher has too much marking to do; they won't be accountable and maybe they won't care, when the high school basketball league folds because teachers don't have time to coach any more.
Let's not be under any illusions that the Harris government agenda for education has changed. Mr Eves is not backing off the need for cuts, based on his statements last week. Read carefully what he had to say. He said: "I don't think $1 billion will be removed from education. There are savings that can be had in administrative and non-classroom aspects of education." Where have we heard that before? When will the government acknowledge that all of its vaunted administrative savings through amalgamation amount to $150 million, and when will they actually commit to at least reinvest that in education?
1010
When I hear the Minister of Finance talk about the savings to be found in non-classroom aspects of education, I'm back to John Snobelen's $6-billion myth of the money that is not spent in the classroom. You look at the $6 billion and realize that it is spent on such basics as heat and light and what I consider to be essentials, like special education and libraries. But these are indeed the areas that the government is giving itself the power to cut, and those cuts can still mean 10,000 fewer teachers. The minister says, "I don't think the net result of the cuts will be $1 billion." They are clearly still talking about very big cuts.
Even when the Minister of Finance last week talked about some reinvestment in education, it was reinvestment in technology that he was talking about, not reinvestment in teachers to teach kids. It makes me think that the confidential document that I have reflecting Mr Snobelen's musings about paperless and virtually teacherless classrooms really does reflect government policy and not just the previous minister's verbalizations. Even the minister for women's issues, for some inexplicable reason, was commenting on how the government will reinvest money in education and said it would be in co-op programs in preparation for work.
All of this may be worthwhile reinvestment, but it is not a reinvestment in teachers. There is no doubt that this government intends to use the powers it is giving itself under Bill 160 to cut costs by cutting teachers. This bill is an attack on teachers but it is also just the beginning, because if the government carries out its agenda, the attack on teachers through the cuts they make will be sustained, and there is no doubt in my mind that education of our students will suffer as a result.
The government members have been told to say this is not an attack on teachers, just on unions. I say to the government members, if you have met with any representative group of teachers lately, you will know how deeply and how passionately they feel about what you are doing to them -- but not to them; they are passionate about what you are doing to education. As one teacher said to me just on Saturday: "I don't want to leave my classroom, I love my kids, but I can't let this happen."
Is this about teachers' jobs? You'd better believe it is. But what this government refuses to recognize is that teachers -- not technology but teachers -- are the cornerstones and the building blocks of a quality education system, and it is through the time with teachers, indeed the time with teachers that students spend both in and outside the classroom, that our students' needs are met. There is one basic equation that even people who run on common sense alone should understand, and that is that fewer teachers teaching more subjects to more students means less time with individual students, not more. The idea that the government's proposed cuts are about giving teachers more time with students is simply spin, the opposite of what will actually happen if this government carries out its plan.
Let me remind us all that they are just plans. There is nothing specific in this bill. The power to cut teachers, to remove the need for certification, is there. Nothing about how this power will be used is there. There is nothing in this bill about class size, except the power to decide what it will be. There is nothing about providing smaller class ratios for special needs students. All of this is to come later, and any decision this government makes in any of these areas can be changed by a single decision of cabinet at any time.
The title of the bill is to convince the public, and I think the Tory members, that this is about improving quality, but there is nothing in this bill that speaks to quality. There is nothing that speaks to guarantees of how government would improve quality. There are no standards of accountability for decisions cabinet will make. There are no criteria here to guide the decisions. There is no route to challenge cabinet if the quality of education deteriorates. There is nothing in this actual bill but power and control, and even the five-year review that is built into the bill is only a review of whether funding meets a test of fairness in the allocation between public and separate boards and English and French boards. It has nothing to say about whether the government's decisions have been fair to students' needs.
Mr Chairman, I believe I have 20 minutes and I have about five minutes longer.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mrs McLeod: I'm clearly not going to be able to address specifics of the bill.
Government members like to speak about improvements to curriculum -- even the parliamentary assistant today has addressed the issues of the need for educational change, educational improvement -- and nobody would disagree that there can be constant improvements made to our educational system. But when I hear government members address curriculum changes and the need for standardized testing, I say again, look at the bill. This is not what Bill 160 is about. What needs to be done in this area or what the government believes needs to be done is already being done. Some of it I agree is needed, some of it I even acknowledge is good, but none of it has anything to do with Bill 160.
The government does now have the power to set curriculum standards and to require standardized testing, and it is doing it. It has the power to make class size smaller. It can do it by providing the funding to make classes smaller. But none of that is part of this bill. This bill speaks directly to only three issues.
It seeks to set out some provisions to deal with the absolute chaos that is going to be created as a result of the government's Bill 104 on school board amalgamation. In the interests of rapidly receding time, I'm not going to get into too many details other than to acknowledge that it's going to create even more chaos.
If we want to talk about legality or illegality of any proposed job actions, you might wonder about what right the government has to unilaterally abrogate every single teacher's contract as of January 1, which is what this bill does, and require every teacher's contract to be renegotiated by September 1.
The bill also deals with how you combine assets in amalgamated school boards. It sets out the basis for how new schools can be approved. There is going to be chaos when parents start to realize that students in one school can be bused somewhere else in the new amalgamated area because there is space further away. That will be another issue for the future.
The bill gives the government the power to raise property taxes for education, the second area this addresses. It is, as I have already said, an unprecedented power given to cabinet to raise taxes through regulation, and I will be interested to see how municipalities and business taxpayers in particular respond when they see that Mike Harris the Taxfighter is raising their educational taxes. If in fact this leads to lower taxes because the government is concerned about exploding taxes in the past, I wonder what areas in education are going to pay for that, because tax increases in the past have served to provide smaller class sizes in grades 1 and 2, to provide junior kindergarten, to expand special education, to meet the individual needs of students. Some day, somebody in government is going to tell me which of those areas they think is wasteful and should be cut when they take over taxation and the control of funding.
The third area, quite clearly, that the bill addresses is that it gives cabinet power to do whatever it wants to education. In areas where boards and teachers have had some power to negotiate in the past, the government clearly believes that they have been in the way, and this bill gets them out of the way.
You tell me, in what ways in any of these three areas does this bill have anything to say about quality education?
Something else this bill does, and I believe we'll see that, is open the doors to privatizing public education. All we have to do is look at the minister's list of people he believes are affected by Bill 160 to realize that it is an expected outcome of this bill.
I think we will hear, as a result of the minister's list, from every known advocate of radical education reform, from those who want to abolish school boards and who want to move immediately to a voucher system and to charter schools. We will hear the arguments of those who believe that this bill will bring about improved quality through competition. We will hear the Reform agenda of the Harris backroom ideologues who believe that the marketplace is the only determinant of what is good for society.
People who believe that the goals of publicly funded education must indeed be the achievement of excellence but must also ensure equality of educational opportunity will know that this bill opens the doors to our worst fears of multitiered education where those whose parents can provide the best in terms of support and extra resources will be just fine, while those who are disadvantaged in any way will have to manage with what the government will likely want to call the average, or less.
Teachers and a whole lot of parents believe that the opposition to this bill is a fight for quality in publicly funded education, and as someone who has been committed to publicly funded education for almost 30 years, I could not agree more.
The Chair: There will be a five-minute recess. We will reconvene at 10:30.
The committee recessed from 1021 to 1028.
The Chair: You have the floor, Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: I must say that in listening to the presentation by the parliamentary assistant, we didn't hear anything new and I had hoped that today we would, considering the confrontation that may be going to occur later this week and the fact that the minister is meeting today with the representatives of the teachers in an attempt, I hope, to avoid such a confrontation that would disrupt education for the 2.1 million students in Ontario.
This bill is not really about teachers, it's not really about boards of education and trustees, it's not really about taxpayers; it's about what this government can do that will benefit or will hurt those 2.1 million students in the province. Because what this government intends to do is centralize control over education. Despite with the parliamentary assistant said about accountability, this bill in effect ends local accountability.
Complete control over education now will be centralized in the hands of the Minister of Education and Training and the Minister of Finance in the provincial cabinet. The cabinet will be able to make major changes that affect those 2.1 million students simply by passing regulations behind closed doors, and those regulations can be changed at any time when a cabinet and the minister decide to do so.
The questions that are central are, what kind of funding is going to be made available for the education of those 2.1 million students and what does this government intend to do to ensure they have quality education? There is nothing in the bill that indicates there is a desire on the part of the government to improve the quality of education.
The parliamentary assistant says that he looks forward to hearing the presentations, yet this bill is over 260 pages in length. It is a major piece of legislation. Because of the government members' decision last week before this committee, most of the presenters from the general public will be limited to 10 minutes. How on earth can they deal with the myriad of issues that affect the 2.1 million students in Ontario in 10 minutes? It's just impossible.
The parliamentary assistant says the government wants to ensure quality of education at the most efficient and effective cost. There is a tremendous amount of confusion out there about what the government's real intentions are. That's why we had hoped the minister would come before this committee and make it clear, because his parliamentary assistant apparently has not been able to. He has simply repeated the positions taken previously by the previous minister. There's a tremendous amount of confusion.
The Minister of Finance said last week that this government shouldn't have to take a billion dollars out of education to try and defuse the concern that is out there among the public, among parents, among teachers and among trustees about what the future of education is in this province, how much funding there will be. The government has refused to give us the funding formula to let us know how this government intends to fund education.
If the Minister of Finance was saying that the money will be reinvested in education, that's one thing, but he didn't say that. He said we shouldn't have to take a billion dollars out. The question then is obviously, how much is the government going to take out? How much money of the $14-billion annual expenditure on education is going to be cut by this government as a result of the powers that are centralized at Queen's Park under Bill 160?
The parliamentary assistant says this government is committed to ensuring money is invested in the classroom, yet they won't give us the funding formula. The government has already taken out about a billion dollars on an annualized basis from education in Ontario. I think it's important for all of us at this table to recognize that in a service industry, if you want to use that term, like education the vast majority of the budget is in salaries. About 70% of every school board budget is teachers' and support education workers' salaries. If the government is determined to take $500 million or $800 million out of education, the only way they can do it is by cutting staff. That's the only way it can be done.
What this bill is also about is fewer teachers. When the government talks about preparation time and about time in the classroom, they're not talking about increasing the amount of time that students have with teachers. What they're talking about is cutting the number of teachers. The previous minister himself admitted that. He said that as a result of these changes there would be about 4,200 fewer teachers in Ontario. Other estimates say about 6,000 and some as high as 10,000.
We're not sure because we don't know what the funding formula is, neither do we know what the class size is because while this bill will give the government the power to set class sizes by regulation behind closed doors, it doesn't say anything about the numbers. It doesn't say whether the government is going to set an average class size or whether the government is going to set maximum class sizes. If they are going to set maxima, are they going to be lower than they are now, are they going to be the same as the average now or are they going to be higher? There's nothing in this bill that indicates the answer to that question, and you wonder why teachers are upset.
The parliamentary assistant quoted the Education Improvement Commission. He pointed out the Education Improvement Commission found that in Ontario teachers spend about 20% less time at the secondary level -- I think that was the number he used, and it's certainly the number the EIC used -- in the classroom than the average in Canada. Then the government in Bill 160 says they will legislate change, and the previous minister indicates that they are going to cut it by 50%. The parliamentary assistant says they're following the Education Improvement Commission. That's more than double what the Education Improvement Commission talked about. You're going to cut the amount of preparation time for secondary teachers by 50%. That's not what the Education Improvement Commission suggested at all.
The way government members talk about preparation time indicates a complete misunderstanding of what preparation time is and what it's used for. Most of the government members, when they talk about preparation time for teachers, ignore that they are working for students, the 2.1 million students in this province. They seem to think that preparation time is somehow wasted most of the time, ignoring the fact that teachers use that time to prepare classes for students, to get resources for lessons, to help students who need remedial help, to do marking, to attend conferences with parents, with other teachers, with psychologists and other education workers, particularly as it relates to students who need special education.
Simply cutting the preparation time is not going to increase contact with students. What it's going to mean is fewer teachers. Fewer teachers will mean larger classes, which means less contact individually between students and teachers. It's the opposite of what the minister has said.
This government often cherry-picks from the Royal Commission on Education. I wish they had just heard the one central theme the commissioners put forward about education in this province. The commissioners described teachers as the heroes of the education system. The commission understood that in serving the 2.1 million students we have in this province the teachers have the central role. They are the most important resource. As the commissioner said, a dedicated, knowledgeable, caring teacher is the most important resource we have in the education system. Yet since this government came into power, the previous minister has spent most of his time insulting teachers, saying, in a very patronizing way, they were overpaid and underworked, saying they were inefficient and he wanted to help them become efficient.
1040
The Premier has said that teachers and trustees cannot be trusted to provide good-quality education for students. In that he's not just attacking teachers, he's attacking all of those who are interested enough in education to put their names forward to run for school boards in this province because they care about quality education for the students in their communities.
The Premier should listen and understand what the word "trustee" means. Why are people who are members of school boards called trustees? Because we entrust them with the education of our students. That's why they're called trustees. For him to say that they could not be trusted to provide quality education makes me wonder why there are any school boards left, because obviously this government doesn't believe in school boards, doesn't believe in local accountability over education, doesn't believe in local control over education. They want to centralize it all here at Queen's Park.
Under this bill, as the parliamentary assistant says, the Minister of Finance, not even the Minister of Education and Training, will set the mill rates for education across the province -- $6 billion in taxes will be set by the Minister of Finance -- and this parliamentary assistant and this government say they're increasing accountability in the education system?
In order to have real accountability, every voter in this province would have to be able to vote directly for the Minister of Finance, because the Minister of Finance will be the one deciding how much they pay in taxes, not their local trustees. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education and Training will be the ones deciding how much is spent on education in their local communities, not their trustees.
Then the parliamentary assistant has the temerity to say that free collective bargaining is maintained under Bill 160. He points out that the government is leaving the right to negotiate salaries and benefits, the requirement to belong to a federation to teach, the privilege of principals and vice-principals to be members of the federations, all things that this government, not anyone else, threatened to take away in the first place. It's as if they threaten to steal your wallet and then they give you 50 cents back and they want you to be thankful.
What this bill really does, it doesn't maintain free collective bargaining at all. It severely constricts the scope of collective bargaining for teachers and school boards in this province simply to be able to deal with salaries and benefits and nothing else. The irony of that, of course, is that because of the other provisions of Bill 160, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education and Training, because of the centralization under this bill, will prevent the boards from having any flexibility in negotiations, not only to deal with matters of teachers' salaries but also to deal with the amount spent in the classroom in their local communities. The Minister of Finance will decide the mill rates and the Minister of Education and Training will decide the level of grants. The school boards will not have any say. How they're going to negotiate anything meaningful is beyond me.
We mustn't forget that when we talk about negotiations what the teachers are talking about are not only their own working conditions but the learning conditions of students. When the right to negotiate class size is taken away from boards and teachers and centralized here at Queen's Park and essentially given to some unknown bureaucrat in the Ministry of Education and Training who will advise the minister, then we're not increasing accountability, we're decreasing it substantially, we're taking it away, because local communities will not have any control over class size and they won't be able to vote the minister out if he makes the wrong decision as far as the local community is concerned. They could do that with their trustees, and you say you've increased accountability.
Teachers want to be able to negotiate class size, not because they want to increase class sizes in exchange for higher salaries, as the Premier alleges, but because they care about students, they care about learning, they care about enabling kids to meet their potential. They know that lower class sizes mean greater opportunity for teachers to have individual contact with students. Lower class sizes, particularly for students with special needs, are essential. They should have a say. They are the professionals. They know something about students and students' needs.
Don't pretend that Bill 160 maintains free collective bargaining. It does exactly the opposite. That free collective bargaining that is being constrained and constricted by this legislation doesn't just hurt teachers, it takes control away from trustees on boards and, in my view, it hurts kids. Parents will not be able to hold boards accountable because boards won't have any say or any control.
It's strange that a government that professes to care about getting services closer to the people, about giving local governments more responsibility and control over services and taxation in communities, would be doing the exact opposite in education under Bill 160. How can this government square what it purports to be doing on the municipal side with what they're doing in Bill 160, centralizing control here at Queen's Park so that some gnomes over at the Ministry of Education and Training can decide everything they want and nobody in the local communities will have any real control or any say?
I suppose people can go and talk to their MPPs and MPPs can raise concerns in the Legislature and that may have some effect, but MPPs won't have any say over this either, because it's not going to be matters that are raised by amendment to legislation in the assembly. The changes will be made by regulation, regulation that will be decided behind closed doors at the cabinet table on the recommendation of the minister. It won't be open to public scrutiny. There won't be any accountability and there certainly won't be any local control.
Why are teachers so upset? Why are they so concerned about the 2.1 million students in this province? Because they believe that this government is centralizing control for one reason and one reason only. Not because they care about the quality of education for students but because they see dollar signs. They see the opportunity to take a significant amount of money out of education to help pay for the tax cut. They are going to take money out. The question is, if it's not $1 billion, as the Minister of Finance indicates, how much? We need to see the funding formula, we need to have a commitment that this government will reinvest in education, and we don't have either of those things from this government.
In that sense, I suppose these hearings are a bit of a farce. I look forward to the presentations. I hope they will persuade the government members to rethink their position and to make a recommendation to the government for major changes to Bill 160, but if we don't hear from the minister, we don't have any indication from the parliamentary assistant that there are going to be real changes in this legislation.
It appears to me that at this point the government is headed for a confrontation, a confrontation with teachers who care about the 2.1 million students in the province, a confrontation that will have long-lasting effects for education in this province and one that could be avoided if the government was seriously interested in the quality of education.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wildman.
1050
ONTARIO EDUCATION ALLIANCE
The Chair: Our first presentation is the Ontario Education Alliance, Jacqueline Latter, founding member. I understand you are accompanied by Stan Kutz and Douglas Little. Welcome. I believe the members should have received part of a written presentation. Some backup materials, is it?
Ms Jacqueline Latter: No, I don't believe that's ours, Mr Chair.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Douglas Arnott): It is.
The Chair: The clerk advises me that it is.
Ms Latter: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, it is.
The Chair: Okay. Please proceed.
Ms Latter: My name is Jacqueline Latter. I'm a parent of two students in the Toronto Board of Education in the high school system. To my right is Doug Little and to my left is Stan Kutz, who will both be speaking after I've made some opening remarks.
I would, first of all, like to commend the opposition for their valiant attempts to introduce some democracy into this sham of a process. The fact that the Minister of Education is not even here to make opening statements is not only puzzling, but I find it offensive to the number of people who are here to make presentations. If the minister can't take the time to come and listen to some of this at least, what is the point of the hearings?
I would also like to comment on the fact, as has already been commented on this morning, but I think you're going to hear this repeatedly, that over a thousand citizens of this province applied to speak to this committee, and I don't consider that the committee hearings visiting six locations for a total of less than 50 hours is extensive public consultation. I just repeat, I think it's a sham of a process.
The list of organizations that the government had originally put out of people they wanted to invite contains four organizations that are concerned with home schooling. I fail to understand, as a parent and a taxpayer and a supporter of the publicly funded education system who sends her children to the school system, why four organizations who don't participate in the education system and choose to home-school would even be invited to these hearings. I also note that at least seven organizations are from either the quality education reform groups or the charter schools supporter groups or the Ontario Parent Council whose chair happens to be a member of the C. D. Howe Institute, which also happens to be another invited group.
But when I went through the list, as I read the list of other groups invited by the government, including the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters, the Ontarion Homebuilders' Association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, I realized what had happened and I'm going to enlighten the government members because they clearly haven't realized the mistake their administrative people have made. They've used the list of their campaign contributors and, now that I've pointed it out to them, I'm sure they will make amends and I'm sure they will make sure that the list is revised accordingly and the person who made this dreadful error will be severely censured.
As we all know, the now-demoted Minister of Education created a crisis. He promised to do that, he did that and he has now suffered the consequences. However, you now appear to me to be a government in crisis. The Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, is interestingly misnamed because it's certainly not about quality. It would take an incredible stretch of the imagination to assume that it was about improvement and, to my mind, it has very little even to do with education.
What it does have to do with is about stripping powers from local communities and enormous amounts of funds from a system to fund a promised tax cut. By the way, I think you've heard this repeatedly over the past two years, your promised tax cut benefits very, very few people and they tend to be people on the wealthier side who could probably manage quite well without the tax cut.
The lack of information on the funding formula is of grave concern because we realize that a lot of the attention in the media and with the general public has been focused on certain aspects of the bill that may cause a province-wide walkout of the teachers which, by the way, we would support because we feel they're justified in any action they take, given this government's draconian measures on the education system. The lack of information on a funding formula is of grave concern to us because without any information on how you are planning on funding the system, parents and communities and taxpayers have no way of responding to other parts of the bill.
What the government has managed to do in the past two years, particularly with its education policies, is they've managed to upset almost everyone on this province all of the time. The Ontario Education Alliance would consider nothing less than the withdrawal of the bill to be an acceptable way of resolving this crisis and immediate information produced for the citizens of this province on the funding formula.
I would like to turn the proceedings over now to Stan Kutz.
Mr Stan Kutz: I'm a retired senior citizen. I recently retired as principal of a high school in Metro Toronto. I'm the former president of the Catholic Principals' Council of Ontario.
I would like to deal with a few of the specifics in this bill. In the novel 1984 George Orwell told us that, "A time could come when language would be used to deceive, when the lie would be regarded as the truth, when fear is love, slavery is freedom," and I would add, "When destruction is disguised as improvement."
One of the cleverer, and I do give the ministry and its minions credit for cleverness, deceptions that is included in the buzz of misinformation that is going out from the ministry around Bill 160 centres around the issues of prep time and teacher-pupil contact time. They have cleverly managed in the eyes of many of the public, I fear, to give the impression that there is a positive connection between these two things. I want to disabuse the government members of that notion, if they do suffer from it.
Loss of teacher preparation time does not mean that students will have more time with their teachers. What it does mean is that teachers will be spread more thinly and that therefore the actual amount of time and certainly the quality of time that students have with their teachers is diminished, not improved.
But as I say, the spin doctors have managed to create the impression that there is a positive relationship between a reduction of teacher prep time and an increase of pupil-teacher contact. It means that teachers will indeed be in contact with more students, but they will not be in contact with them for one minute longer and they will certainly not be able to give those students more because they will be dealing with up to 25% more students if the government's wishes were carried out.
This so-called improvement has nothing to do with education. It has everything to do with reducing spending on education and with laying off teachers. If the government members need a slogan, a mantra to work with, let me suggest the following: that teachers' working conditions are students' learning conditions.
1100
A second area I would like to deal with is the issue of unqualified or uncertified teachers in the classroom in areas like guidance, kindergarten, industrial arts, library, music, visual arts, physical education. I understand, if the media are to be believed, that the very new minister has said, "Oh, we never intended that should mean that uncertified teachers would" -- I believe his language was -- "head the classroom." Ladies and gentleman, I suggest to you that either the minister doesn't know what he's talking about or he certainly doesn't understand what the drafters of this bill intended.
It has always been possible, it has always been the case that teachers, to the extent that resources were available, would bring experts into the classroom from whatever field was appropriate to enhance the instruction of students. That has always happened. The only things hindering it happening more were the lack of resources and funding. For the minister now to suggest that's all they had in mind is clearly that either he doesn't understand what the drafters of the bill really had in mind or he is deceiving the public as he backs and fills and tries to escape some of the more bizarre dimensions of this document.
I was a Roman Catholic educator. I'm still a Roman Catholic. Although I'm no longer an active educator since my retirement. As a Roman Catholic I must applaud one and only one dimension of this bill, and that is the one that guarantees equal per capita funding to the Catholic separate school students of this province, though even that still leaves open huge questions in my mind about the inferior physical plant and facilities that for the most part characterize the separate school systems throughout Ontario.
How those deficiencies are going to be made up on a basis of equal per capita funding is not at all evident to me, if indeed the intent of the bill is to provide a truly level playing field for every student in the province. But assuming that is taken care of, I have serious concerns about issues of governance as a Roman Catholic. In this bill, for example, the minister can transfer schools from one board to another and there's no mention of any denominational guarantees. Theoretically, at least, the minister could transfer a school from a Roman Catholic board into a public board.
For that matter, since schools will now be financed totally as of January 1 out of provincially levied taxes, what is the significance, constitutionally and legally, in terms of the upcoming election for trustees of the distinction between public and separate school electors? It used to be that you were a separate school elector if you dedicated your taxes to the separate school system. After January 1, and that's whom we're electing these trustees for in November, taxes are going to be collected from everyone on whatever basis the Minister of Finance determines and will be assigned to school boards presumably on a per capita basis, in terms of how many students they have.
Given that situation, why can't I, for example, on November 10 vote for both a public school trustee and a separate school trustee since my tax money is going to be supporting both systems equitably on a per capita basis? I think I have an interest in both. Conversely, because I am a candidate for trustee in the elections, why can't a public school supporter vote for me if he so chooses, in other words vote for both trustees in both systems? I see no evidence in the bill that the government has thought about this issue, much less come up with any rational response to it. It will certainly be my intention very shortly to seek a ruling from the chief electoral officer on this matter.
The bill creates an absolutely intolerable situation for the newly elected trustees. That's been alluded to by members of the opposition already, because it will leave trustees in the situation of having responsibility for a host of things, including negotiation with teachers and other employees, including making decisions about which programs have priority within a funding system over which they have absolutely no control. Trustees are left with all of the local responsibility and absolutely no power to deal with it in any responsive way within the local community. Their hands will be absolutely tied by the funding formula that is determined not by the Minister of Education but by the provincial Treasurer.
I don't know how the government members imagine that you can have responsibility without power. The effect of this anomaly will be as follows: The government will determine the funding model. The trustees will be left to divvy up an inadequate package as best they can because it's clear the government intends to take money out of the system. The trustees will then gather all the flack and anger and outrage from parents, from students, from teachers, from the community generally, because they're the ones on the local scene.
Then within three years the government will be able to achieve its true final purpose, namely, to say: "This isn't working. School boards don't work any more. They can't handle it. They're not doing what we would like them to do. Therefore in the next round we won't need school boards at all and we will move towards what we always wanted to achieve anyway, which is a privatized system either through charter schools or by whatever formula." That will end up giving us what this government has already striven to achieve in the area of medicare: a two-tier system where those who have the resources or the connections can do very well for their children and those who don't are left with what is left.
Ladies and gentleman, given that there's one thing in the bill that I do approve of, I would like to imagine that it could be improved, but I don't believe it can. I would suggest to the government that they follow their own modus operandi with respect to what to do with this bill, because to improve "education" they are really setting about to destroy publicly funded education as we know it in Ontario. I think to improve Bill 160 you're going to have to destroy it as well. Kill the bill. Thank you.
1110
Mr Doug Little: My name is Doug Little. I'm presently a teacher in the Toronto Board of Education and a founding member of the Ontario Education Alliance. In previous incarnations I was a trustee on the Toronto Board of Education, a trustee on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, a founder of Our Schools/Our Selves magazine, and I write periodically for Now magazine on education issues.
I would like to draw your attention to the documentation I gave you called The Alternative Ontario Budget Papers, figures which put the lie to a great deal of the misinformation we are getting in Ontario that we have a bloated system that needs cutbacks. Out of 50 states, the District of Columbia, 10 provinces and two territories in Canada and the United States, Ontario ranks a shocking 45th in spending per pupil measured in US dollars.
Ontario is spending just a little more than half as much as states like New Jersey, New York and Connecticut and far less than comparable border states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Ontario is even outspent by poorer states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri. Within Canada, although Ontario is the nation's second-richest province in terms of per capita income, it is outspent by poorer provinces like Quebec and Manitoba as well as by comparable provinces like British Columbia.
Pupil-teacher ratio is a much misunderstood figure since it fails to consider huge numbers of teachers such as principals, guidance, library and low-ratio teachers like special education. That is why we still have classes in Ontario of 35 to 40 students. Nevertheless, it is a wisely used figure since it's easy to calculate and at least measures the total number of teachers employed by a jurisdiction in relation to the students. It is the only figure that all jurisdictions seem to keep.
Here again on the charts in the documentation you've been given, Ontario has an abysmal record, according to the alternative budget people. The pupil-teacher ratio in Ontario is 18.5 students per teacher. Once again, that is deeply into the bottom half of North American jurisdictions, in 45th place out of 64. The chart shows very poor jurisdictions such as West Virginia, Arkansas, Puerto Rico, Louisiana, Alabama and even historically backward Mississippi employ more teachers per student than Ontario does. Figures on this chart come directly from the US Department of Education and the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training.
Every two years the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto publishes a comprehensive study on Ontario's attitudes towards education. The most recent 1996 study contains figures which work hand in hand with those of the alternative budget. The study recorded by Professors Livingstone, Hart and Davie at OISE was reported by Professor Livingstone to a meeting of the Ontario Education Alliance recently.
Professor Livingstone summarized his study of Ontario education opinion polling by showing that only 13% of Ontarians actually want to cut the education budget as the government is doing. Of all other Ontarians, 34% want the education budget maintained -- that would be holding it at least at $14 billion -- while 48% of Ontarians want it increased.
Livingstone continued that a slim majority of Ontarians would actually be willing to pay a tax increase for education if they could be sure the money would be used for education. A majority of 54% would much rather maintain support for education and health than for reducing the deficit, 29% of Ontarians, and cutting taxes, 8% of Ontarians.
Not surprisingly, you will see from the data, of all occupational groups only corporate executives prefer to decrease the spending on education. We are all well aware that it is these CEOs who have the ear of the Harris government and Education Minister Dave Johnson.
We are, overall, in a unique situation. The government says we spend far too much on education. They have already removed $1 billion and plan to remove most of another $1 billion. The comparative figures show we spend far less than most jurisdictions in North America and that most Ontarians, except CEOs, want us to spend more on education. We have yet to see who will win, the Tories and the CEOs or the other citizens of Ontario.
The Chair: We have a little over a minute per caucus for questions or statements.
Mrs McLeod: I wonder if any one of the three of you might be able to answer. Jacqueline, you particularly mentioned the numbers of alternative school advocates. The concern was mentioned about moving immediately to charter schools. Do you see aspects of this bill that lead you to believe that what we're opening the door to is increased privatization?
Ms Latter: Yes. First of all, I see the undermining of the democratic process at the local level and the reduction of the mandate for the school trustee as being the first nail in that particular coffin. Although we have what's now called the Fewer School Boards Act, I see that as the No School Boards Act. I would not be surprised at all if the next municipal elections in the year 2000 have no school board elections at all and there are no school boards and that charter schools and voucher systems and privatized education become the order of the day.
Mr Wildman: Is it your view that Bill 160, along with Bill 104, is a centralization of control over the education system within the ministry? If that is your view, beyond eliminating local control over education and school boards, what is the ultimate aim, as far as you can see looking at these two pieces of legislation together, of the provincial government?
Mr Little: One of the interesting things I've run across, I receive faxes from the Quality Education people, some of the groups that are most interested in charter schools and voucher systems. What is interesting is the contradiction. Some of them participated in the writing of the educational section of the Common Sense Revolution and they are now calling the present bill "Stalinist," "overcentralized" and "centralizing all power in the politburo in Ontario known as the cabinet."
There's a tension between decentralized conservatives and centralized conservatives. The people who want conservative local schools are in a conflict now with the people who want corporate-dominated schools and that will have to be worked out on the conservative side of the political agenda.
One of the most important privatizing tendencies within the bill is differentiated staffing. This is a demand by the people who would like to privatize education so that when they get into a privatized education system, they can hire all the teachers at $25,000 or $30,000, get the same grant as the school boards that pay $50,000 or $60,000 and then have the difference to spend on upgraded computers and gymnasia and so forth, and try to present that as a higher-quality system. It's a way to get the money for the grant but not spend it on teachers.
Mr Newman: There are some comments Ms Latter made about the groups that are coming forward. I spoke about the home schooling groups. What I'd like to hear from them is why they chose home schooling over the publicly funded system. You also mentioned the Ontario Home Builders' Association speaking on the bill. I think it's important to look at sections 145 and 146 of the bill, which deal with development charges. That may be the reason why they are indeed speaking on the bill.
I'd like to get your thoughts on the Toronto Star editorial of October 13, where it said: "Some boards spend twice as much on each of their students as other boards spend on theirs. While some of those differences can reflect different needs and costs, others can't be justified." The editorial goes on: "The second good reason for Queen's Park to take over education is accountability. Right now the system is run by a confusing and sometimes contradictory array of provincial laws, regulations and directives, school board policies and union contracts. The confusion lets each player duck responsibility when things go bad."
That's not me speaking, that's the Toronto Star editorial speaking. What I'd like to know is, does this confusion exist in the system today that allows each of the players to duck their responsibilities?
Mr Kutz: If I might respond to that: If you had read further in, I believe in the same editorial it says: "If the government were being honest, it would take over province-wide negotiations with teachers." In a subsequent editorial, the same Toronto Star refers to what is happening right here in this room as the Tory tea party.
Mr Newman: I asked you specifically about that point.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Newman. I'm afraid your time is up. Lady and gentlemen, I thank you very much for assisting the committee here today.
Is there anyone here representing the Canadian Taxpayers Federation? Yes. Okay, then I ask the committee: Our third group on the list, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, has asked for some guidance from this committee as to whether or not we will proceed through the lunch-hour, if that's possible.
Perhaps we could decide that. I don't know how we do this because it would mean a reduced committee, because obviously some of us would like to eat. What is the desire of the committee? I am subject to your guidance.
Mr Cordiano: As it's time-allocated, I don't think that would be appropriate at all.
The Chair: It would mean they would go over to the afternoon and it would bump from there.
Mr Cordiano: You certainly would not want to eliminate their time.
The Chair: So you are in favour of proceeding through the lunch-hour?
Mr Cordiano: Whatever accommodates the groups at this point, I think we have to do that. We're not going to cut out a group from its presentation.
The Chair: I understand your position.
Mr Wildman: I share the view of Mr Cordiano: whatever we can do to accommodate the groups. Maybe a suggestion from Doug would be that we have a half-hour for lunch rather than an hour.
The Chair: It would seem we have a consensus that we will proceed until our lunch-hour at 12:30 to 1. Is that agreed?
Mr Wildman: May I make one comment with regard to this? If we do that, as you've suggested, it would be better, I suspect, for the representatives of OECTA if they could appear before we break rather than after since they have to meet this afternoon with the minister, and they might actually find out something rather than just what the parliamentary assistant has to say.
The Chair: Yes, that's what we're trying to do. The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association will follow immediately upon this presentation before our lunch break.
1120
CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION
The Chair: Sir, would you please identify yourself and proceed.
Mr Brian Kelcey: My name is Brian Kelcey. I'm the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Just before I begin my written remarks, Mrs McLeod and Mr Wildman, you've both made some interesting comments, Mrs McLeod particularly on privatization and Mr Wildman on the regulatory issue, and I ask that you remind me to deal with those in the question period if possible.
For the second time in as many months, I have been asked to comment on a major piece of legislation despite the fact that its exact contents may be overtaken by events literally hours away. While there are good reasons for this, I hope members will forgive me if this inspires some generalities on my part.
Bill 160 is titled the Education Quality Improvement Act. It is, unusually, an attempt to use the law to improve education. At its simplest, its premier aim seems to be the conferral of greater powers on the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the ministry to set common standards across the system on curriculum, operations and finance, and in doing so to begin the province-wide renewal of the education system. During a recent tour by CTF representatives through the Kitchener-London region we made a point of raising this issue with ordinary Ontarians. That sample and our members have expressed widespread sympathy for this approach.
This terse summary belies the fact that the debate on this bill seems driven more by politics than by problem-solving. Take, for instance, the debate over class sizes, the fact that a glut of teachers is at the top ranks of the incremental pay grid, and the impact of that glut on class sizes and school finances has been virtually ignored so far in public discussion of the issue.
As another example of how the debate over the features of this bill has been simplistic, take a look at the issue of professional preparation and development, best expressed in Bill 160 in the amending section 81, which amends section 170 of the Education Act. The debate over this issue has ground down into calls for larger or smaller scales of prep time. Frankly, calls to preserve existing levels of prep time justifiably create suspicions among taxpayers. Many taxpayers have a hard time understanding why teachers must interrupt so much of the school year for preparation and development when there's an awfully big block of time annually, called summer, that can be used for precisely these purposes.
If teachers or members of the government are seeking some sort of quantitative compromise on this issue, that compromise could gain considerable public sympathy, I might add, on both sides if it addressed the ignored half of the problem, namely, the quality of preparation time and professional development, an issue that was touched on by earlier speakers. What seem to be missing from this bill are the means to make preparatory and development time accountable, which may answer some concerns of the taxpayers and may reveal some of the things teachers are talking about that we taxpayers don't yet understand.
Full school choice would be in our view the best alternative of achieving this, but there are others which conceivably could be worked into Bill 160: Ensure that material to be studied on professional development days is accessible to the public; make teachers individually accountable to the parents, students and ratepayers they serve for how prep time is used. We know what happens in class, so tell us what happens outside, specifically. As professionals who are responsible for some of our most vulnerable citizens, it's the least we can ask of teachers. Let ratepayers and parents see, at cost, minutes of educational discussions and seminars that they are paying for. Don't empower the province or the school boards to enforce these ideas. That would be micromanagement. Do empower school councils or individual ratepayers to do so.
That point made, with the committee's indulgence, I'd like to direct a couple of specific concerns heard among our members and supporters related to this bill and the debate about it.
To the government, this is an excellent time to note the poor political cost-benefit in inspiring heated resistance to what is seemingly only half a reform package. Further steps would have produced more rational changes with greater benefits. My predecessor, Mr Paul Pagnuelo, put our case this way in a 1996 presentation to a general meeting of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association:
"With funding having been taken over by Queen's Park, curriculum being provided by some unknown geniuses in the Mowat Block, testing and evaluation being carried out by an independent agency and school governance being handled by school councils, what's left for the boards?"
School boards as we now understand them -- this is why I wanted to touch on this case in detail, Mrs McLeod -- are obsolete. They have been made obsolete not even so much by the government's changes to school board finance powers but by increased use of such things as the phone, the Internet and the automobile. In an era when self-governance, specialization and healthy competition by individual public schools with considerable teacher and community input are possible, the obsolescence of school boards is a progressive development; or rather it could be a progressive development. Our support as an organization for the general direction of this bill is based on the fact that this is at heart, or seems to be at heart, an attempt to set standards, not to install centralized management of education. Micromanagement of education would not earn such support, since the system would better thrive with choice, diversity and innovation.
Micromanagement won't work. It won't help real teachers teach real students, it won't reward merit and it won't provide the renewed quality and efficiency our students need. The government must look at this bill as a framework to restore some basic confidence in the system, not as a framework to transfer bureaucracy from the hinterland to Queen's Park. Confidence in the basics is needed primarily so that Ontarians can become equally confident in greater innovation and local flexibility, and I might add local governance down the road.
To the opposition too a friendly word of warning: Anyone who's had any experience as an activist with high school students, as I do, can tell you that while schools are wonderful and uniquely enriching places to engage in well-rounded debates and activities, they are, conversely, uniquely exceptional breeding grounds for hysteria, misperception and ignorance if used as hosts for one-sided political discussion.
There have been widespread and disturbing reports that class time is being used to discuss the political and contractual concerns of teaching unions without representation from opposing views. Our members have not been quiet in expressing opposition to such efforts, yet you have.
As far as classroom discussion is concerned, partisan members need to forget their views for the duration. Whatever your view or my view or a parent's view, a class on public policy is a place for well-rounded debate where opposing views must be heard. To fail to uphold this standard tacitly endorses one-sided classroom programming of students for a whole range of views that neither the opposition nor its critics might find so opportune in the future.
We are an organization that has always prided itself in the fact that the empowerment of all citizens, regardless, I might add, of their point of view, promotion of the vigorous and diverse public exchange of ideas and a quest for freedom of information are as important in our mission statement as the push for responsible use of tax dollars. Opposition members would do themselves and their cause credit if they would uphold a similar standard. So please loudly join the chorus of those opposed to the use of school or class time, officially or unofficially, to further a single political view.
Thank you for your invitation and consideration. With all sincerity on behalf of my members, with the need to avoid a catastrophic strike in mind, I wish the parties meeting this afternoon the best of luck in their conversations in the hope they may avert the coming strike.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Kelcey has left each caucus three minutes for questions. We start off with the third party.
Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. I note that in your opening remarks you indicate that you recently toured the Kitchener-London area. This may explain something that's been rather puzzling to me which I couldn't find an explanation for. Over the last three weeks -- when was your tour?
Mr Kelcey: A couple of weeks ago.
Mr Wildman: Over the last three weeks I've received this many letters from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. I went over to talk to Mrs Witmer, who represents that area, and asked her what was going on because I was getting so many letters from the Kitchener-Waterloo area, and she said, "Well, they're very upset."
Mrs McLeod: They've been provoked.
Mr Wildman: Perhaps they were provoked.
Mr Kelcey: If I may ask about what in particular, since one never knows.
Mr Wildman: In opposition to Bill 160 from parents, from teachers, some from educators at the post-secondary education level and so on. But I couldn't figure out why I was getting so many more letters from Kitchener-Waterloo than I was from other parts of the province. I guess you must have provoked some debate.
You quote your predecessor, Mr Pagnuelo, who appeared I think before a committee on Bill 104, about what's left for boards, and I agree with that statement. There isn't anything for boards in Bill 104 and Bill 160, the government's legislation. They really have nothing to do except take complaints, I guess, from the public.
I'm surprised an organization such as yours would support the concentration of power in the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- you refer to LGC -- the cabinet, in other words. Isn't this kind of centralization of control over a service that is so important to the whole community a bad thing rather than a good thing?
1130
Mr Kelcey: That touches on an issue I had hoped you would raise. Yes, I think it's a fair comment in some ways, that while the government may be seeking to look at regulatory changes as a means of doing this, and while there might be a legitimate argument for doing so in that, for instance, obviously circumstances are going to change as enrolment changes, we would see no harm in reversing that and installing sections of the act to accomplish the same purpose.
If the concern is whether or not there's going to be debate over when these changes take place and how they will change and whether there's going to be full discussion about them in the Legislature, certainly I would agree that's something we would have considerable sympathy with you on.
On the issue of centralization too, if you followed our comments in regard to the government's initiatives, particularly on municipal governments, very recently, in fact a couple of days ago, with concern about overcentralization of the health reform process, and to a certain degree the education process, yes, we're very concerned that the government seems to be in an era when we think more localized control by local taxpayers, and in this case teachers and members of the community, would be more useful, and the government's drift is towards centralization.
This is the one case where we've been giving the government the benefit of the doubt in the sense that what I've been hearing to a limited degree, and what Mr Pagnuelo heard before me from principals and staffs of various institutions and in education consultation sessions, is that the drift coming from principals was that they have been told that, as a result of the fact the school boards will have virtually nothing to do, more and more of that power will, whether it's by accident or design I don't know, devolve to the individual schools.
The point I'm trying to make is, if that's what is actually going to happen, that's good. If that's not what is going to happen, our position will change very dramatically and loudly as time goes by.
Mr Wildman: I understand your point, but you do say "its" -- meaning the bill's -- "premier aim seems to be the conferral of greater powers on the LGC," in other words, on the cabinet and the ministry.
Mr Kelcey: Indeed; fair comment.
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): There have been, at least as far as I'm concerned, some confusing statements made about unqualified teachers that I would like your opinion on. It has been said that there's opposition to our position to introduce unqualified teachers in the system, and yet today we heard that actually there are so-called unqualified teachers in the system right now. As a matter of fact, I understand in my own riding there have been about 50 of them. Give me your idea why there's such opposition if they are in the system right now.
Mr Kelcey: I don't think it will surprise anyone to say the two most obvious conclusions you could come to are that, on the positive side, I'm sure there are many teachers who have genuine concerns about bringing people who aren't professionals into the system, who can't be governed by the regulations which govern teachers; and on the negative side, you're dealing with a collective bargaining issue and bargaining units where there's concern that bringing in such people will begin to break down the power of the collective bargaining units and staff institutions which are now at work in the Ministry of Education and Training.
I will have to admit, though, that I too am confused as to precisely what the government's intent is with that particular section. If the government's position is to have teachers, as was said earlier, at the head of a particular class and bring in unqualified people as assistants and so forth, I can't see what the fuss is about on either side. That's the best answer I can give you, based on the information I have now.
Mrs McLeod: Just to clarify for Mr Boushy, I think as Mr Little said, the experts who can now be invited into the classroom and are regularly invited into the classroom by teachers are not heading up the class. Clearly the intent of this legislation is to replace certified teachers at the head of the class with uncertified personnel.
I share your wish that there was more time to discuss the educational issues that are indirectly at least being affected by this bill. I wish there were more specifics in the bill. If there was time for a greater public understanding we might even be able to deal with the issue of why preparation time cannot be used in the summertime, cannot serve the purpose in the summertime: Much of it is used to mark papers and students haven't written papers in the summertime. It can't be used to cover for teachers who are on sick leave, which is a significant use of preparation time by Ontario teachers, unlike other provinces. It certainly can't be used to set up chemistry labs or shops for the students' use that afternoon.
The question I want to ask you is, I re-read the brief very quickly and I would have thought that coming in representing the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, you would have wished to address the issue of taxation and the government's powers under this bill to levy property taxes for education. As you know, it is unprecedented in Ontario for the government to be levying taxes directly on property, so it's an intervention in the property tax base. Second, it's a power that is going to be exercised exclusively by cabinet, without recourse to any kind of tax bill. I don't believe there are precedents for taxation without a vote in the Legislature on a bill that is therefore presented for public debate. I wonder if you would comment on both the intrusion into the property tax base by the provincial government and the power of government to raise taxes by regulation.
Mr Kelcey: I imagine the member is correct, and if she is, I must apologize for not studying the bill more closely. I wasn't aware that the property tax power would be contained exclusively in cabinet. If so, obviously there is no need not to have such discussions inserted in budgets or for standard public debate, as any legislator would. That's clearly the kind of thing that should be out in the open.
As far as the powers are concerned, though, I have to admit I was somewhat sceptical of, I guess it was Mr Wildman's, arguments earlier, about the issue of accountability, in that there are all sorts of things governments are doing with ministers who aren't elected directly now, of various political stripes across the country, for which a lot of people would love to have direct accountability from those cabinet ministers.
Mr Wildman: To defeat the government.
Mr Kelcey: Yes. That's the only way, at this point. I'm pleased to see, in particular at least from what I've read of the submissions, that in the discussions of the use of initiative legislation recently by -- I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the committee --
Mr Cordiano: The Legislative Assembly committee.
Mr Kelcey: -- the Legislative Assembly committee, that the NDP for instance and the government both supported creation of initiatives because it could serve, indirectly, precisely that purpose. As for the transfer of power generally, I have to admit one of the most frustrating things on our end in dealing with the education issue is that you get school boards that play these games, and let's be blunt, they do, where if there's a provincial cut, the school board then cuts front-line teachers and blames the province, and then the teachers blame the province and the school board, and the school board blames the teachers and the province. You end up in this ridiculous shell game that's going around in circles.
At least here, if earlier submissions are correct and the public is eager for a tax increase to pay for education and wants more money to go into the system, then at least you'll know whom to vote for and whom not to vote for, rather than having to guess who's actually responsible for the cuts that are taking place.
Mrs McLeod: Do you believe at least that power should be in the legislative hands and not in cabinet's hands?
Mr Kelcey: Sure, I have obviously no problem with that.
Mrs McLeod: So you'd propose an amendment.
Mr Kelcey: If I may just add one brief comment in regard to the preparation time issue, obviously, some preparatory time is going to be needed between classes and so forth, but your comment was of course that some of that time is used. What taxpayers are eager to know is, what about the time that isn't used for those purposes? It's my understanding that in Saskatchewan, for instance, teachers are required to go through a simple process of justifying to the public, through available documents, what preparatory time is used for in general.
Mrs McLeod: It's unfortunate we won't ever be able to discuss that again after this bill passes.
Mr Kelcey: Well, there are always debates outside the Legislature.
The Chair: I apologize to the committee, because I only allocated 20 minutes. There is another nine minutes, so if there are further questions of Mr Kelcey we can still proceed and we can start off with the opposition once again, with two minutes per caucus.
Mr Wildman: I found Mr Kelcey's answers quite comprehensive and useful, and in the light of the constrained time frame we have, perhaps we could move forward if other members of the committee agree.
The Chair: Are there any questions? None from the government caucus? I thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Kelcey.
1140
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We are now proceeding with the next presentation, from the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association: Jim Smith, first vice-president, and Marshall Jarvis, president. Good morning.
Mr Marshall Jarvis: First of all, let me begin by thanking you for extending the hearings this morning. We have a meeting of some consequence later this afternoon with the minister, and we do appreciate that fact.
I'd like to introduce the individuals before you this morning. I'm Marshall Jarvis, and I'm president; Claire Ross is general secretary; Ray Fredette is a staff person; Jim Smith is our first vice-president.
Our organization represents 34,000 men and women who teach within the Catholic schools of Ontario. We cover the entire spectrum of education from junior kindergarten right through to the OAC. Moving directly to the point, we believe the Education Quality Improvement Act will not assist in any significant way in improving the quality of education in the classrooms of the province. Instead, what Bill 160 introduces is a significant shift in terms of power and money within the educational system. In actual fact, we believe it will be a move that will not assist in the smooth transition to the new district school boards, which seemed to be the focus of the reason for coming forward with Bill 160; instead, we believe it will actually further destabilize education in Ontario.
I point out the following to you just as an introduction to that: If you would turn to page 9, there is a table there. On that table it indicates the breakout in terms of the number of separate school boards that will exist after amalgamation, and that's 34. They are going to be extremely large in geographical area but we're not debating that point. That is not the point of the discussion here. Instead what I wish to highlight is this: 21 of those boards are not amalgamating, not changing; 13 are. Then when you turn over and you take a look at what the act requires, and that's on page 12, it requires that every collective agreement in the province must be opened on January 1, 1998.
Of course the fundamental question that one has to pose at this point in time is, why? Why is that needed? What is the requirement for over 70% of the students and teachers of Catholic schools in Ontario having to enter into another bargaining regime, which according to this government is not a good one under Bill 100 but which in actual fact has a 98% success rate? As a matter of fact, in the Catholic schools of Ontario, there have only been seven lost days in six years, and that occurred last year. Bill 100 seemed to work fairly well, but we'll open them all up at the same time and see what happens. The question is, why?
At the same time, if we're worried about the classroom, teachers are dealing with the new curriculum in grades 1 to 8, and there is the school board amalgamation, in which we're heavily involved in terms of seeing that it works effectively. We're also dealing with the new report card. We're dealing with secondary school reform and with the new professional standards the government is coming out with through the College of Teachers.
There is the milieu, and now we're going to add on a new layer of problems in destabilization. The strangest thing about it is this: What the government is doing is laying a provincial overview and then giving to the school boards the responsibility for implementing it, and so we have a responsibility on the part of the school boards and the teachers and absolutely no authority to affect what should actually happen in the schools in the province, because in actual fact it's the provincial government that will control all the key factors in terms of education.
What are some of those things? The first thing is the regulatory powers, and I am going to be rather succinct because I really do want to get into some questions here. The regulatory powers will reside with the minister and cabinet. What will those regulatory powers involve? They will involve the class size, and I want to correct a few misconceptions and misstatements that have appeared in the press. The teachers of Ontario have never openly bargained for an increase in class size; as a matter of fact, we have always bargained for decreases. For 25 years we have ratcheted down the size of classes. Why was that? Because when the school boards and the teachers sat down, they recognized the need to maintain as much resource as possible and come up with local solutions to staffing situations.
What we're going to do is introduce some number. We don't really know what the number is and we don't know how it's going to be applied, because the regulation gives the government full and complete control in terms of the reporting mechanisms, but the amazing thing about it is we will end up with some arbitrary number which will be the average.
The average is of about as much use as saying one size fits all in terms of clothing. It doesn't work. So my question is, what's going to happen and how are you going to fix that class up in Kenora one day of 40 grade 2s, or that grade 6 class in Atikokan where the government, which has provincial control, turned around and pulled out half a teacher and now that class has half a grade 6 teacher each day of the week, and for the rest of the day those kids are spread out across the school to try to get quality education?
It's going to be very hard to create a provincial picture, but if we use the 25 number with the number of students currently enrolled in the elementary schools of the province, somehow or other there's a shortfall of 24,000 teachers in the elementary system. Currently there are 70,000. The funding at 25 to one, if that's your class size, only generates 46,000 teachers. That's a significant shortfall. I'd like to know where they are coming from, because they are not coming out of the grants. You don't have enough money in those grants currently in the education system to fund that many teachers, so that's a good question that should be posed some time.
We can deal with the class size, because we agree with you that class size is important. It's unfortunate that the former Minister of Education wrote back to a teacher in the fall of this year and said, "After grade 3, it doesn't matter what the size of the class is; it has no impact upon learning." Motive is an important thing in life, and we want to determine what the government's is.
In terms of teaching and non-teaching time, I've heard a great deal about justification and we don't know what we did. Do you know what we did to assure the public about preparation time? We wrote down in our collective agreements what a teacher had to be doing. Because you know what? The trustees were concerned about that too, but then they saw the need for it.
You cut preparation time in the secondary schools by 50% and what you will do is take out 6,000 teachers, but even if that's okay by your standards, what you are going to do is destroy the entire program base in Ontario in the secondary schools, and you will constrict the program base to being a back-to-basics move in the secondary system. What that will mean is the liberal arts will fall by the wayside, because there will be so few teachers. The option component, because of the compression in the secondary, creates another dilemma. We would tend to ask, since we're going through a secondary school reform process, why are you going to change it arbitrarily up front without even looking in terms of the rest of the areas of secondary school reform that are being undertaken by this government? You've got a number of different pieces and suddenly you're plunking this one on the table. It leads us to concerns.
1150
In terms of the non-qualified teachers in our classrooms, I was interested in the exchange that occurred earlier. I would like to bring to your attention pages 29 and 30. These are the exact excerpts from the bill. I certainly have spoken to them across the province, and perhaps you witnessed some of those discussions.
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council is also empowered to make regulations 'designating positions that are not teaching positions and duties that are not teachers' duties and prescribing the minimum qualifications for a designated position or for performing designated duties.'"
That means the minister will decide what's a teaching job and what isn't in every school in the province, and some of those have already been highlighted. You're talking about computers, special education, guidance, early childhood education as opposed to junior kindergarten teachers, senior kindergarten teachers, grade 1, all those things.
If that's not enough, at the bottom of page 29 is the "No presumption" clause in your legislation; it starts off with the heading "No presumption." It says, "Moreover, Bill 160 also provides that, 'It shall not be presumed that a person is required to be a teacher solely because he or she holds a position that is not designated' as a non-teaching position," and the rest flows. So you can't even call yourself a teacher. You're not allowed to because you can't presume you're a teacher. That's your legislation. I urge you to read it.
Finally, since we often talk about business, I have with me -- and I'd be happy to read from it if it's required -- the report from the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations on What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future, which is a report that was given to the President of the United States about charting the course of America in the 21st century in their schools.
Myth number one: Anyone can teach. Myth number two: Teacher preparation is not much use. Myth number three: Teachers don't work hard enough. Myth number four: Tenure is the problem. Myth number five: Unions block reform.
I think it speaks volumes. We want to move ahead. You know what? We want to work with the government to move ahead. We've worked with other governments and created significant changes in education. It wasn't because of the Royal Commission on Learning that we have people in our classrooms. I've had "experts" come into my classroom -- doctors, some of them were my graduates -- to talk to my students about biology; I've had physics people come in and talk to my students about applications in molecular physics etc. Those are realities we all live.
We want to work with you, if that's your intent. But you know what? The wording in your legislation doesn't do that at all. What it does is destroy the teaching profession in Ontario, because it turns over the powers to the Minister of Education to decide who's going to be a teacher this year and who's not.
If you want to extract money, that's the way you do it. That's why we're going to now move on to finance, because what this bill does is lay the groundwork to take the $1 billion out, and according to your own people in discussions we had with them, the 25,000 new students every year over the next five years will not be funded in terms of new moneys. What we're going to find is cost efficiencies in the system. That works out, even at the lowest level of funding in North America, somewhere in the range of $150 million to $200 million a year. I've got questions about that and I'd like to entertain those, if you have as well.
I have concerns about what's defined as "adequate funding." On page 48 and 49 of our brief, it will be the government -- not the Minister of Education but the Minister of Finance -- who will decide what the adequate level of funding will be in schools of the province.
One of two things has happened: Either this is a completely economic exercise, and then we're going to define what our education system will look like after somebody sets what the mill rate is going to be and how much money will be generated -- and in doing so, I believe the Ministry of Education has given up its leadership in education. I think that's sad for our province. What should happen is education policy should be established and then the level of adequacy determined. Finally, in terms of funding, we have some concerns about a system out of Queen's Park, if that's where the entire funding equation is going to come out of.
The other fact is on the issue of governance. We believe that the combination of Bill 104 and Bill 160 seriously erodes the governance of the separate schools of the province. We can assure you, Mr Chair, and the rest of the committee here and the government, that we will constitutionally challenge the funding model because it does erode the constitutional rights of separate school ratepayers in the province.
If we're going to say that the governance of the system will be evolved to the school councils of the province, all I have to say to that is all the authority and the power will reside at Queen's Park. The school councils may be able to decide when the hot dog's vendor day is going to occur or when the hot meal is going to occur, but they will not make any major decisions that will affect local education.
I think we have a system that we can still improve upon. We want to work with the government on improving it, but we have to see fundamental changes to Bill 160; otherwise all the goodwill that has ever existed between the teachers, the government and the people of Ontario in terms of working together collaboratively to improve education is going to be seriously undermined.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jarvis. We start off with the government.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you for your presentation. I have a problem with some of the comments you made. I've met with teachers and boards in my riding. Obviously this issue has been discussed for a long time, certainly before the last two years that we've been in power. As you know, a lot of studies have been done on education reform and what we should do -- not this government; previous governments. Everybody has an opinion about education and how it should be run.
Those studies are documented. In the campaign leading up to the last election, the Liberals had their red book and they said some reforms needed to be done in education as well. The NDP ran, on education reform, on the Royal Commission on Learning. There were a lot of recommendations there as well. The Common Sense Revolution was very open and upfront with the reforms in education. So there's been a lot of debate and a lot of discussion about how reform is to be made.
Also, on some of the reforms that we're implementing, both the former government and the Liberals said some of the same things. Everybody says, and I've heard it from your organization locally, "Yes, changes need to be made." I'm very confused. Your organization criticized previous governments when they brought in their stuff as well, and here we are again.
What I'm trying to understand is, if you don't agree with what's being done, and clearly you've said you don't agree with it, and knowing reform for education has been debated -- everybody knows there needs to be less waste, more teaching and better results -- I'm confused about why you don't ever come with some recommendations.
You say you're willing to sit down with the minister, and I don't doubt that at all. As teachers' unions and teachers, I think you legitimately want to make education better. That's not an argument from me. I wouldn't debate that with you at all. I realize you want to do that. But where are your recommendations? All the years this has been studied, I've asked boards of education, I've asked teachers, "Give me something I can take to the minister on your recommendations" -- I think I might have a little bit of clout, being the parliamentary assistant to the minister, although my responsibility is colleges and universities -- and I don't get anything from either the boards or the teachers in the classroom. Why aren't we getting it from you?
1200
Mr Jarvis: Let's dispel a few things. First of all, in the summary conclusions on page 54, item 1 goes (a) to (h), and that's areas of support. Item 2 deals with transition matters. There are issues in here that, if amended, we could support. There are some issues, such as the regulatory powers, that we will never support.
Let's step back as well. Certainly the Catholic teachers of Ontario were in favour of a large number of initiatives, including the College of Teachers. As a matter of fact, we worked with the government, your government and the college, when it came on stream. We worked with the royal commission. We were in favour of the royal commission. We were in favour of destreaming under certain situations. We've been in favour -- I made the announcement on behalf of this association -- of your new curriculum. We had questions about why you introduced it so late in the year and the level of in-service. That became a major issue, which certainly didn't assist in this government's relationship with the teachers in terms of how it was reported out.
We were in favour of your new report card. I made that announcement on the last day of August with the minister there when the new report card came on stream. We were in favour of that. We have implemented three different new report cards in the past three years. We've had three major curriculum shifts in under five years. We've had eight ministers of education -- the change of this one was the eighth -- in 10 years. We're willing to work, but the sands shift far too fast, far too often.
But Bill 160 is something that takes change in education to a whole new level because it never allows for public debate ever again on some very major issues, and those are the ones dealing with the regulatory powers.
In the last two years this association has had one hour's worth of meeting time with the Minister of Education, so I would certainly entertain the opportunity to discuss in a meaningful way with the government.
Secondary school reform: a major, major initiative. We agreed with the minister's statements in late June. We agree with the consultation process that's gone on. The difficulty is, in terms of the reform itself, the work group of teachers that are there to assist the minister, along with universities and college people -- and you'd be aware of that because of your portfolio -- we never have the whole information.
When you announced the new apprenticeship program, we had never heard of it. That's a major issue in secondary school reform, because we believe in apprenticeships. We think we should come out with people with correct qualifications to enter the workforce. But there's a problem when you're left out of the loop and you're brought in at the last moment, or too late down the process to have any influence. It undermines the credibility.
I would put that to you: We do want to work with you. If you want some very relevant, important improvements to education, we can sit down and do that. We can bring some of the greatest expertise that exists, along with our colleagues probably from every other affiliate, that exists in Ontario. We can do that. We can turn this into the best system of education in the world, and that wouldn't be too hard because we've got a good standard to start from.
Mr Cordiano: Thank you for your presentation. I wanted to ask you, and I'm quite curious about this, why it is that under Bill 160 only 28% of the school boards are being amalgamated, so why is it that 100% of the boards are included for amalgamation?
Mr Jarvis: That's an interesting question. It's one that we posed to this very same committee on Bill 136 and it was amended. The bill was amended because the aim of the government under Bill 136 was not to create the opening up of agreements or to call into question the agreements that were not being altered by the formation of amalgamations, either municipal, hospital or education sector. But for the teachers of Ontario, we will open them all.
The only thing that I can surmise from that is this: Within the context of our collective agreements are issues that deal with class size, which deal with preparation time and which deal with the need for qualified teachers and teaching experts in the classrooms of Ontario. They are in there, because not only we believed it was important but the trustees did, and so did the local ratepayers, because they kept voting some of those people back into office, some of the people who sit in your government.
For that reason, I only have one question to the government: Why? Why do you have to open them all up? If it's not for the money, then what's the reason? Please dispel, either today, tomorrow or some time in this hearing process, which one is incorrect.
Mr Cordiano: It's too bad we don't have the minister here before us today to answer that question. I turn it over to my colleague.
Mr Jarvis: I certainly will ask him this afternoon.
Mrs McLeod: I think we know --
Ms Lankin: Maybe you can come back and tell us the answer because they won't let us invite the minister.
The Chair: Mrs McLeod has the floor.
Mrs McLeod: I think we know the answer. You cannot think of any reason why every collective agreement has to be opened on January 1 and a new agreement has to be negotiated by September 1, where every contract is essentially being abrogated by the government through this bill and where the renegotiations are based on not being able to look at working conditions, class size, teaching time with students. The government wants to exercise the power that it's giving itself under Bill 160. If they didn't want to exercise the powers, why would they give themselves the powers? Quite clearly, that's a way to cut costs, by cutting teachers. I think your statement about even a funding formula that has an average of 25 to 1 is still going to lead to a severe cut in the numbers of teachers we have is quite significant.
Let me just ask you -- I think there is only time probably for one other question. The constitutional challenge: The government I think believes it has answered the concern by saying that even though the government is going to levy the educational taxes, the taxes that are collected locally can be designated. Do you feel that responds to the constitutional issue?
Mr Jarvis: I'll start off the response and then I will allow Claire an opportunity to touch on that issue. I'd like to just touch upon your regulatory powers. Those powers are not limited in scope. The preparation time issue doesn't deal just with secondary; it just gives outright power over everything dealing with preparation time and unassigned time to the Minister of Education. There is no restriction in this, despite public pronouncements on everybody's part.
In terms of the protections in terms of the funding issue, absolutely not. The fact that somebody can distribute some moneys which are going to be lumped into particular envelopes, which they are not going to be able to move out of unless they get the government or the Education Improvement Commission, which is the right hand of the government now in terms of implementing educational reform -- the former Minister of Education under another government really didn't leave the post, it seems.
The issue of the fact that we're going to end up with a scenario whereby the government will determine all the priorities in terms of spending and raising of moneys, I don't see how anyone can govern beyond that other than to say, "Yes, we will agree with that allocation and put the money there." I'll leave the remainder of that to Claire.
Mr Claire Ross: Very briefly, the right to tax is not a frivolous right. The right to tax, which is guaranteed under section 93, is rooted in the fact that from the right to tax flows the right to govern the system; the right to manage, the right to make significant decisions at the local level.
What appears to be happening is that the constitutional embrace around the separate schools, their right to govern, has been shattered. It has been shattered because we have the transfer of the right to tax and thereby the right to govern. It is now vested in Queen's Park. There is no question in our minds that the power of finance, the power of money, can be significantly used to mirror-image the boards, and in the mirror-imaging of the boards, I suspect, together with the demise of the trustees -- and I think most of us know the Education Improvement Commission is embarking around this province to try to define what the role of the trustee will be under Bill 104 and Bill 160. Some of us would submit that this is mission impossible.
With the demise of our trustees and with the vesting of authority in Queen's Park, you have I think, preparatory, the end of the separate school system. Thus it is that my president has said very strongly that we will challenge constitutionally to the Supreme Court of Canada this direction in which the government is moving.
1210
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have two questions. The first one is around prep time and the regulatory power that you've spoken so strongly about, and the second one is on your meeting this afternoon.
On the first issue, the previous minister himself admitted that there would be about 4,200, he said, fewer teachers in the province because of the changes to prep time. He admitted publicly that it was about getting rid of teachers. Other estimates are 6,000, perhaps as high as 10,000, depending on how the formula works. Why would a government want to get rid of so many teachers in the province if it is truly interested in improving the quality of education as per the title of this bill?
Mr Jarvis: If your goal is to take $1 billion out of education, and let's do the math on this one, you lose one out of every seven secondary teachers in Ontario by cutting prep time.
Interjection: How much?
Mr Jarvis: One out of seven. All you have to do is this: Draw eight little squares and colour in six of them. You call one prep time and you call the other one supervision, which isn't prep time, it's other assigned duties. Set those up for seven different teachers. Take one of the teaching periods and plunk it on the first teacher from the seventh one. Take the second one on the seventh one, give it to the second teacher and so on. You know what? When you get to that seventh teacher, they have no more teaching schedule. All they have are supervision duties and they then get added into the other people and now you've lost one out of every seven teachers. That's a 15% reduction.
I'll leave it to my colleagues in AFO to discuss what the impact is on their system. I know the impact on our small schools will mean we will completely collapse our system in some of our smaller areas.
That 15% reduction means that --
Mr Wildman: You won't be able to provide the options.
Mr Jarvis: That's the key. You lose experts every time you take out a teacher.
One of the things that has to be rationalized in this is, irst and foremost, what do you want secondary school education to look like in Ontario? If we want to maintain a broad program base, with our technologies, with the visual arts programs, all of the things that generate thought, then we're going to have to ensure that we have staff in place. If you don't, then you can extract until the cows come home.
Mr Wildman: My other question was on the meeting this afternoon. I know there's a new minister and he had to be briefed. I think it's unfortunate that he didn't choose to meet at least in a preliminary way with the teachers' federations last week. Have you had any indication from the minister, his political staff or the ministry bureaucracy that he is going to propose to you significant changes in Bill 160 as per the positive suggestions you make beginning on page 54 in your brief?
Mr Jarvis: I've had the opportunity to read the media, which is one way we can discuss between each other, and I'm aware of some of the ideas there, and that's fine. We both do it, both sides, so we both play the game. But I'm looking at the aspect of the parliamentary assistant for the minister, and the parliamentary assistant said the comments this morning are similar to the minister's this afternoon. Basically it's: "This is what's here. This is what you've got." If that's the case, then I hold very little hope for what's going to occur this afternoon.
To that end, I just have to say this: We will not be silent on this. We will not be silent on Bill 160. We understand the tremendous implications of the decisions that we may make, either this afternoon or very shortly in the near future. It's not an easy one for anybody, but I will tell you right now, the teachers will do what is required to try to influence the government, because we didn't have the upfront stuff in terms of influencing the formulation of the bill. We got it just prior to its enactment and afterwards. Had we had the same opportunity for input as perhaps other groups did who are involved in the educational community, we might have had a bill that we could all agree on.
The Chair: We have about a minute, Ms Lankin.
Ms Lankin: Very briefly then, that's a sombre note to conclude on and we are faced with being on the brink of a potential crisis here.
It seems to me the government has been attempting to change their public positioning on this by saying: "Maybe it won't be a billion dollars that we take out," "Maybe it won't be a 50% cut in prep time" or "Maybe we won't put non-certified people in as the head of class." It's all getting very murky. It seems to me that all of those changes, and you've made this point, are directly related to fiscally driven decisions within the government. It's about money.
Many people have called for the budget and the funding formula to be put on the table. Would we see the teachers continue services at this point in time if the government was to stand down this bill, put it to the side, bring the funding formula and the budget forward and allow us to have a consultation of all of the items together? Would that in the short term at least avert the crisis that we are on the brink of experiencing?
Mr Jarvis: As you've stated, if Bill 160 was set aside, we took a look at the funding formula and we found out what the true goal of the government was, I think it would go a long way and potentially allow us to have an intelligent discussion, and so I could say yes to that on the part of the Catholic teachers of Ontario.
The Chair: Mr Jarvis and gentlemen, thank you very much for your thoughtful presentation.
Mr Jarvis: I thank you again. I realize that you didn't expect the warmest welcome from us, but I thank you for allowing us the opportunity.
The Chair: Good luck this afternoon.
Mr Jarvis: Thank you.
SHEILA MORRISON
The Chair: Our next presenter is Sheila Morrison. Members have received a copy of Ms Morrison's presentation, passed out earlier, first thing this morning.
Mr Wildman: May we leave our material here, Chair?
The Chair: Yes. The door will be locked, I understand.
Welcome, Ms Morrison. We have a very short period of time for you, so I'd ask you to proceed.
Ms Sheila Morrison: I talk faster than most of the people you've listening to. I think that might be a change for you. I must say I appreciate the opportunity. This is the first government in 20 years, and I've been badgering them all, that has attempted to improve the school system in response to parents' concerns. There are a lot of parents out there concerned. There are 650 private schools, all of which certainly are not of the élite Upper Canada College vintage.
The other thing -- and this is not in my brief so you better listen to me because some of the stuff I've just sort of thrown in, having listened now for the last hour -- the students are never mentioned. The concerns of the students are not mentioned at all. All they're talking about are their own concerns, which I think is not really proper for a group of people who say they're such caring individuals.
The first issue that I'm going to deal with is limiting class size. The special education class sizes have been mandated for at least 15 years -- more than that, 20 years. So why everybody's fussing suddenly about limiting class size -- I think it's just a crock. This has been sort of foisted on gullible parents all these years: "Oh, the classes are too big. They won't learn anything." Well, they would if they were teaching, but that's the problem. They haven't been teaching properly. There hasn't been a specific curriculum in this province for 20 years. The last four or five has been this wishy-washy, "As long as they're good citizens and they're not bigoted," and all this sort of rubbish. They're encouraged to be trendy, to act as facilitators rather than as teachers, to allow students to make their own decisions regarding what, how and if they want to do specific subjects.
The resulting chaos of course meant that any class size is difficult to handle. Since the lack of discipline was the result of these experiments, the teachers were hard put to do much effective teaching even when they tried. To be fair, few teachers got any support from the principals or vice-principals when they did try to discipline, so many of them gave up trying. It was much easier to blame the parents for not making their offspring behave. I was in the public system for 30 years and I know exactly the problems that you had with some principals if you did try to do any disciplining.
There's also the additional complication of the makeup of the class. Due to the nefarious policy of social promotion, wherein students are promoted on size and age and whether they take their vitamins, never on academic progress or accomplishment -- this is the part that has been so absolutely appalling and the results have been just ghastly in the schools and on our children. I think this is my concern: The children have been shortchanged over the years with these trendy things that have been going on.
For instance, a grade 5 teacher could have a range of students with skill levels from grade 1 to grade 7. What does even the most dedicated teacher do? Plead for an aide? Oh, no, that's too expensive. Yell for help? You can't be heard because the other grade 4 teachers and all the rest of them are all yelling for help too. Call in special education? Obviously that hasn't worked because surely the grade 4 teachers are also yelling for help in special education. Use some prep time to tutor students? Maybe. Suggest private tutoring to parents? Probably.
They do withdraw students for extra help, but this defeats its purpose as it contributes to the pupils' already low self-esteem because every kid in the class knows where he's going and why. The kid himself knows too. This doesn't help at all.
1220
The added problem in regular classes is a result of the social engineers who insist children must be made aware of their rights. If you tell them young enough, and they do, by the time they arrive in high school many of them are out of hand and disruptive in class. Again, they are making their own decisions.
Of course, they are so cognizant of the fact that their skills are weak and any attention is better than none. If they did drop out, they could hopefully end up as successful as Mr Snobelen. I think it's a shame that nobody pointed that out as often as they could have. The thing that I'm trying to get across here is that the class size issue, if the teachers were coming along and saying, "These are the reasons why we want the class sizes to be limited," or whatever, they would be getting a lot more support than they are just running around yelling and saying, "Oh, they're going to make them smaller and smaller and smaller." There's nothing wrong with small class sizes of course, but you can do it with larger. You have to use common sense.
The other thing is you have to worry about parents, with all this so-called stuff going on. They've got three kids; they may say it's time for them to take out the garbage, but the child refuses. He's making his own decisions. He's been told he's supposed to by the schools. Multiply that by three and you realize how difficult it is for parents. They too have been brainwashed into thinking that if they discipline their offspring, said offspring will be traumatized and scarred for life.
So there is more to the issue of limiting class size than meets the eye. From a practical point of view, depending on where you live in the province, the mobility of the population is not controllable. Almost assuredly it has to be left to the judgement and decision of the principal. Where do you put seven kids who land in mid-October? You haven't got time to build another school. You have to put them in somebody's class and if he has a bigger class than you'd like, well, that's tough beans.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel because of this government. With the advent of a specific curriculum and goals for each grade as introduced in June, there should be some accountability. This last group were weeping and wailing because the teachers had a curriculum. They ought to be thankful. When teachers finally know exactly what to do and are supported and encouraged, standards are bound to rise. Putting cheap, cheap, cheap proven standardized tests in place will also contribute to success. The money that we have spent on testing this last while is unconscionable.
Mind you, what is going to be done about the poor lambs currently floundering below grade level now in the system is another massive problem to be faced. However, once the revised structured system is in place it will cut special education classes by at least 75%.
Specialists in the classroom, not qualified teachers -- they started bleating about that. You know, there have been teacher aides in the classroom for the last 20 years. They got paid. Has anybody mentioned that? They were hardly specialists, they were unqualified. They're somebody's mother. I don't object to this at all, but I don't see any reason why we have to suddenly say, "Unqualified people in the classroom? Heaven forbid."
They used to have itinerant music and art teachers go around. When I was teaching in North York, for instance, they had itinerant music teachers who came to the school one day a week and went to all the classes and art teachers who came around and gave you some help. I think that was a very sensible idea. I don't see why you have to have a full-time art teacher and a full-time music teacher in every school. Some of the teachers do it because they like it and it was one of the things they did. But these also were professionals in their spare time, not their prep time.
As for librarians, why do they have to be teachers? We have librarians all over the countryside and they're not teachers. They do quite a commendable job I think. I also don't know how schools justify secretaries and full-time principals who don't teach. Except in September and the end of the year, much of the work done by the secretaries is unnecessary paperwork and jobs for the teachers.
I know because I was a PA, which was a principal's assistant, at one time in a 17-room school, 650 students. I taught grade 8. The principal taught my class for one hour, from 10:30 till noon. There was 15 minutes, recess. I did all the office work, did all the ordering of all the supplies for the janitor and the art and all that sort of stuff, and we didn't have a computer. We had a telephone and me. Also, mind you, we discouraged parents for just picking up the phone and calling unless there was an emergency.
Preparation time: Until 1970 preparation and marking, remedial help and detentions were done after --
The Chair: Ms Morrison, sorry, we only have about one minute left. You've been ad-libbing --
Ms Morrison: Listen, that's fine. I agree. I appreciate your letting me speak. But on the other hand, the first people spoke for one hour, and I think I'm entitled to this. I have about five minutes more presentation.
The Chair: I'm sorry, I cannot permit that. I am bound by the rules of this committee and we have allocated only 10 minutes. I'm pre-warning you that we're talking through your last minute at this moment, so I'd ask you to wind it up. We'll finish the rest of your written report, which I'm doing right now.
Ms Morrison: I'm insulted.
The Chair: I was hoping to get the next listener on, from the parent council, because they've been waiting all morning. Were you not told, Ms Morrison, that you had 10 minutes?
Ms Morrison: I was, but I was here at 11:30. I was here at 11 o'clock, as a matter of fact, and I have been waiting for over an hour. The rules should be the same for everyone, I would think.
The Chair: Yes, organizations were provided with 30 minutes, but individuals --
Ms Morrison: Certainly it was more than 30 minutes you gave the first people. I was here and they were still going.
The Chair: Which first people? I can assure you no presenter received more than 30 minutes this morning.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, concerning the organizations, as you know, if you were on the minister's list you received 30 minutes, if you're not on the minister's list --
The Chair: Well, I believe they are.
Ms Morrison: I could have finished in the time you're arguing. I could have finished it.
Mr Wildman: Why don't we stop arguing and let Ms Morrison finished.
The Chair: We have two more minutes then, Ms Morrison.
Ms Morrison: Okay. In 1970 everyone else did their preparation time after school. The guidance counsellors nowadays -- this is a pet peeve of mine, because when I was teaching kids were allowed to go out of the class, go to the guidance counsellor, make an appointment and not tell the teacher. The guidance counsellor should be expected to do their counselling, such as it is, after school.
The length of the school day and the school year isn't going to make any difference at all to anybody unless they start doing what they are supposed to be doing in school, which is teaching.
Eliminating the semester system is another thing. The ministry actually did a study that proved it was not successful and not beneficial to children but it was never released. Those findings were given to me by one of my school inspectors.
Parent councils: I don't think parent councils are going to be the panacea that they are supposed to be because it's going to be a glorified Home and School. They're all complaining now about this sort of thing. Anyway, I am here to support what the government is doing and I think the parent councils, one of the things they do -- we should have enough faith in the principals we appoint that they don't have to be helped by parents or people who are unqualified. The people who necessarily get on them are not necessarily the best people to do it. Most people are busy making a living. But the principals should be able to help the teachers identify incompetence when they see it and hope for the best.
This government has done some very good things and Bill 60 is a giant step in the right direction. They must still cope with ministry bureaucrats, who are mired in trends and fads and flowery language and educationese and who are having difficulty facing the reality of what is actually out there in the schools and in real life. The government is batting 1,000 so far. All they have to do is keep it up.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Morrison, for your excellent presentation. The time is now 12:30. I apologize to the North York Parent Assembly and Ms Miller, but the last two this morning will be leading us off this afternoon, starting at 1 o'clock.
We are adjourned. The room will be locked, so you can leave your papers here if you wish.
The committee recessed from 1229 to 1302.
The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It now being shortly after 1 o'clock, I see a quorum and I'd convene the committee.
NORTH YORK PARENT ASSEMBLY
The Chair: Our first presentation is the North York Parent Assembly, Shelley Carroll. Is Ms Carroll present? Ms Carroll, welcome. I apologize for putting you over to the afternoon. You've been sitting here waiting patiently.
Mr Wildman: It was entirely my fault.
The Chair: We have 10 minutes allotted to your presentation, and I'd ask you to proceed.
Ms Shelley Carroll: Thank you, Mr Wildman, for saying it was entirely your fault. I think it was.
Good afternoon, Mr Chair and members of the committee. I have a brief presentation. I haven't gone section by section through Bill 160 for you because I knew the opposition members of this committee would amply explain my objections section by section of the bill, and they have. I was very interested to listen to the presentations this morning from Ms McLeod and Mr Wildman.
I'm going to use my time in this public forum to extend my compliments to the Ministry of Education and Training. They could not have picked a better time to introduce a bill that removes parents and all of us in this room from partnership in the education system.
I'm here because I spend countless hours in North York encouraging parents to take part in their kids' education and to network with other parents. I can tell you that September is the ideal month to introduce a bill that gives the cabinet absolute and permanent power to close schools or to abolish boards and seize their reserve funds. Most parents haven't the time to read a 262-page document that is written in legalese in the month of September.
Even the most loving parents breathe a sigh of relief when they drop the kids at school after Labour Day, so September is the perfect time to announce that schools may take them back even earlier. Urban parents smile at the suggestion. They smile until they realize that it also gives any cabinet in power the ability to contract the school year or to configure it however they like. The parents may not be familiar with the tale of the Calgary mother who has three elementary school children on three different vacation schedules due to year-round schooling and has given up her job because of it. The cabinet will have the power to put me in a similar situation.
By the end of the last school year, I was extremely proud of the parents in my North York community and their attempts to learn about Bill 104 and then to oppose it. Many families sacrificed large blocks of their time rallying their neighbours around this issue. The cabinet chose to ignore them. Exhausted and demoralized, they decided over the summer to try to get back to the job of raising their children. So this September they were at swimming or Scouts or Girl Guides registration when the Minister of Education and Training introduced a bill that gives the cabinet the power to wipe out whole programs and to import non-teachers to the classroom.
If I may insert, I think the last speaker should be a fly on the wall when this ministry irresponsibly includes my autistic daughter in a class of 25 and then sends her to a library where a non-qualified librarian tries to engage her and the 24 other students in a group activity. I think she would find it very interesting.
I can tell the authors of this bill that they picked an excellent smokescreen in teacher bargaining issues. It has helped them in two ways. Reporting on the removal of class size, preparation time and professional development from the collective bargaining process has eaten up all of the media space. They have driven the teachers to the brink of an unprecedented job action, and, let's face it, nothing sells more papers than the daily strike threat updates. But the second benefit of this smokescreen is that they have picked issues that make this bill very difficult to talk about in a local school advisory council.
Parents are just beginning to feel comfortable about the current form of parental involvement that includes teachers and non-teachers in the process. Principals and trustees are just beginning to find ways to help parents work through the weightier topics included in a school council mandate, and now you have thrown essential collective bargaining issues right on the school advisory council table. But once again I can be proud of my community. At every school council that I have attended in nine different schools in North York since Bill 160 was introduced in September, we have worked through all of the issues, and the parents at those councils have grasped the truly nasty implications of this bill. In view of the fact that they cannot organize fast enough to take all parents and their children out on strike, they have agreed to support any teacher attempt to kill this bill, including province-wide job actions.
At each meeting that I attended, council executives and other members signed these requests that you see in this pile in front of me to speak on behalf of local parents at these public hearings. I am happy as chair of the parent assembly to come here and speak on their behalf but, make no mistake, I am speaking on behalf of many parents. They are the users of public education. They should be here. They would speak much more eloquently than home schoolers and home builders.
These people are ready and willing to engage in meaningful consultation, and we're not talking about the totally inadequate and nonrepresentative form of consultation that has taken place with the Education Improvement Commission. To take 30 Metro parents -- and I should say they were chosen basically on the basis of who was around town on July 7 -- ask them to express their views on class size, professional development, preparation time and the length and structure of the school day and the school year, and then to give them only one hour and 15 minutes to express themselves on these issues on behalf of the parents of 300,000 students, has to be the most insulting approach ever taken towards parents in modern history. We are ready and willing to consult in an improved forum.
If this government chooses to proceed with Bill 160 in any form, parents and children will join the teachers and their union supporters on picket lines. All across our community, parents are organizing babysitting co-ops and stocking up on coffee to deliver to the picketers who care about our children's future.
1310
Every MPP in this room is threatened by this bill. If education is administered solely by regulation and not legislation, no opposition member will ever again have the opportunity to debate the issues that most affect my family and the families of the members of the North York Parent Assembly. No Progressive Conservative caucus member will ever have any more power over education than my locally elected school board trustee. Like her, you will no longer be able to properly represent your constituents. Perhaps, as happened to my trustee this year, someone in power may suggest that the change to your role should be reflected in your remuneration. I hope not.
I can guarantee that Bill 160 will be a major provincial election issue, so I suggest that everyone in this room, every member of this committee and the public gallery, should go out and join teachers in their struggle to kill the entire Bill 160. It seems that teachers are the only group that has the ear of the Minister of Education this afternoon, and I include in that group yourselves.
The Chair: We have one minute per caucus.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the effort that you and your fellow parents have made to not only be involved at your school, but to continue to be involved in the political aspects of education, which I know you hadn't counted on getting involved in quite so heavily when you took on the job. I know it would be a lot easier not to have to take that on.
What I hear from parent councils at home is that one of their frustrations with trying to respond to Bill 160 is that there's actually nothing there in terms of the specifics they would like to be debating around the school council table. As you've noted, and I can't expand on that, it's this total control that is the frightening part.
If we think for a moment that one of the ultimate goals, at least one of the potential uses of this power, is for the government to turn over the management to either the home schoolers or the school councils or whatever other alternatives exist in the name of parent choice, how do you as a parent feel about that?
Ms Carroll: I can speak for myself and I truly can speak on behalf of many school advisory councils in North York. The parents are not ready for it, pure and simple. I'm not sure they ever will be. I can tell you that I personally will never be ready for it. It's enough just to make them come to school advisory councils so they can really get involved in their child's education in the local setting. To ask them to begin to take part in the site-based management that this bill implies is just unrealistic, and I'll go as far as to say ridiculous. They simply won't do it.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Carroll. We have to move on.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Thank you for all the work you've been doing on behalf of the parents in North York and across Metro. What we're hearing is that the funding formula -- the lack thereof -- and sweeping regulatory powers, therefore lack of democratic control of our schools, are the two major problems here. You know about the meeting this afternoon between the new minister and the teachers. I'm wondering: What would you like to see come out of that meeting this afternoon?
Ms Carroll: If the minister is listening to the teachers, he will understand that they have met with the same challenge we did. We sat down as parents with Bill 160 and thought, "Maybe we can make some suggestions as to what we can live with if they're going to make amendments." Dave Cooke told us in a consultation with the EIC on Thursday, "Just jot down the amendments you'd like to see." But they fall like dominoes, and you really can't do anything but go back to the drawing board when a parent reads that. I have a feeling that the teachers may end up having to say the same thing.
The Chair: Mr Newman, you have one minute.
Mr Newman: I appreciate you coming before the committee today. I just had a couple of comments with respect to your reference to home schoolers and home builders. One thing we can all learn from home schoolers is to ask them why they chose home schooling over the public system. Maybe we can learn from them what they thought was wrong with the system, why they pulled their children out of the system. I think there's some relevance in having them there.
With home builders, part of the bill deals with education development charges, so I think they too have a responsibility to appear before the committee, as do parents, teachers, principals and taxpayers. That's just something I wanted to put on the record.
Also, you mentioned about joining teachers in asking for the withdrawal of Bill 160. Earlier today we had the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association in. There are sections of the bill they do agree with. It's not "totally withdraw"; they're saying there are parts they do agree with. I just wanted to mention that.
Ms Carroll: May I respond to Mr Newman's comments briefly?
The Chair: I wish you could, but unfortunately we have used your allotted time.
Ms Carroll: If I may just respond to one point. He made several; I'm only asking to respond to one.
The Chair: Ms Carroll, you chose to use the majority of your time, unfortunately or fortunately, on your presentation. That's fair; that's your choice. That leaves very little time for questions from anyone. Thank you very much.
MARIA MILLER
The Chair: Our next presenter is Maria Miller. Welcome, Ms Miller. I ask you to proceed.
Mrs Maria Miller: My name is Maria Miller. I'm a parent at Franklin School in Toronto. I'm speaking here as an individual, but I'm also a member of the Metro Parent Network and the East End Parent Network.
I appreciate the comments that have been made today on this issue. It's a very serious issue. As I sat down to think about this presentation, I asked myself what I could possibly say, as merely a parent, that would make a difference as far as this bill is concerned. I decided that perhaps if I looked at the bill carefully enough, I might find some amendments I could suggest be changed, and that might be a constructive way to make my contribution.
How could Bill 160, the bill to improve the quality of education in Ontario, be changed for the better? I found one clause near the beginning, on page 13, that I think could be removed. It doesn't really have too much to do with improving education quality in this province, so perhaps it's not really needed. It reads, "The minister may make regulations prescribing any property, work, undertaking or matter for the purposes of the definition of 'permanent improvement' in subsection (1)."
I think it's reasonable -- don't you? -- to ask the minister to think ahead a bit on this one and figure out what regulations he would really like to change and incorporate that information in the bill for us. This could make the bill a little clearer for the people who would like to know what it's about. It seems odd that these particulars weren't included in the first place, but I guess the minister didn't want the bill to be too boring or straightforward. If the government could take out this one little clause or change it to be a little more clear, it would certainly improve the bill.
Of course, I should mention there's a similar clause on page 33 which starts, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting any matter...." The same thing could apply in this case.
Anyway, can you tell me why the government is in such a hurry? Why can't it just take the time to write down right in the bill what it wants to do, plain and simple? I think the people of Ontario would appreciate that. They would understand if the government took a little extra time to think this part through from the beginning and write it all down in the legislation. After all, we don't want to rush, do we? Education is very important for the people of this province, and this bill is supposed to improve our education system a great deal. As a parent and a taxpayer, I think it would be a good idea to remove this clause from Bill 160 or take the time to add a whole lot more of something by way of explanation.
You probably didn't know this if you read the bill like I did, but I have to admit I did find a few other clauses of a similar nature -- you probably know about it by now because other speakers have been referring to them -- which say the minister or the cabinet can make different regulations about a bunch of different things having to do with education. If a few of those clauses could just be taken out, I think it could possibly improve the bill quite a bit.
1320
I counted up the clauses for you. They are fairly easy to spot if you check the margins for references to regulations or powers of the minister, I found out, not being a lawyer by training. Just to be clear, I want you to know I didn't count the clauses which said that the minister could set guidelines or standards at his will or appoint inspectors or auditors or commissioners and other people and decide what they would be paid, and that he has the right to approve financial transactions by all the boards in Ontario. I didn't include those. Even so, it was quite surprising; in fact, it was very surprising. There were at least as many as 186 of those little clauses about making regulations right there in the bill. There might be more, allowing for the fact that I could have missed some. Some 180 clauses saying the government can make regulations. That's quite a lot: at least 25 pages of the 200-pages-plus bill.
Seeing as there are so many more of these clauses than we all expected, I'm guessing that you might not really be too keen to take them all out. After all, you wouldn't want to look like something is missing. So I think it would be okay -- I hope it's not asking too much -- if you replace all those little clauses with the details of what regulations the government is planning to make. At least it would be very good PR. It would give the minister a chance to show off all the ways he plans to improve education in this province. Parents, even teachers, could feel very enthusiastic, I'm sure, once they see the detail showing how this government is going to make education so much better for our children.
Of course, in fairness, we should discuss some of the downsides to including these details in your bill. For one thing, I suspect it would make the bill quite a bit heavier. I know you're on an economy drive and want to cut education spending, but still I think the extra printing costs would be worth it. When you add in all the extra details, you might add 100 pages or so. I think it would be worth it. You want the people of Ontario to believe that Bill 160 will make the education system much better. Wouldn't it be easier to spell out the changes right then and there? It would still read pretty well if you went ahead and took some of the guesswork out of it.
Of course, if you do decide to add the details to the bill, you would have to worry a bit about whether all the changes you're proposing for education really could be considered improvements. If there is any question -- if you're really intending to cut funding or programming or teachers, for example -- then the cat would be out of the bag, wouldn't it? Even the media would know what you are up to and there would be trouble.
We must not forget that Bill 160 is really a very good bill; it just needs a few changes. I've heard Mr Harris and the minister say so quite often on TV, even though I have to wonder sometimes why they never look at the camera while they are saying it. "Bill 160 will improve the quality of education in Ontario." Wow. Sounds great. Go for it. Who could argue with that? Mind you, it seems a little funny that that's all the Premier and the minister ever seem to say about the bill. Oh yes, the other day the minister said he might cut teachers' prep time a little this year. I think he means if the teachers are nice and don't go out on strike.
When you come to think about it, what is so good about Bill 160 anyway? I mean, all those pesky little regulations and clauses in the bill, what do they really mean anyway? Here's what they mean: They mean it's the minister's sandbox and he and his friends get to make all the rules, kind of like the school yard bully. Kind of undemocratic, if you ask me.
There are some reasons why it might not be the best thing in the world to go ahead and plow along with Bill 160. We know the bill concentrates power in the hands of the minister and the cabinet. Over the years we have, believe it or not, I think, learned a thing or two about education. We've learned that the education system works well when it has a stable base of funding and policies and procedures which, once established as worthwhile, remain in place from year to year, changing slowly to respond to changing times. Now Bill 160 says the minister and the cabinet get to make all the rules and they can change the rules however and whenever they like without consulting anyone and without telling anyone, not even the backbenchers.
It means that the decisions in education will henceforth depend on the whim of a particular provincial cabinet and all the cabinets to follow, regardless of whether or not the Minister of Education or anyone else in the government knows or cares anything at all about educating children. Decisions henceforth will be subject to the political breezes that blow from moment to moment. Funding could be up one day and down the next, especially if a school board has any of its own ideas about how its local education dollar should be spent.
Stability is important in building an education system, and children need stability in their environment in order to grow properly. The truth is, Bill 160, with all its regulations yet to be made, makes stability for Ontario's education system a thing of the past.
There are other reasons why Bill 160 just might not be such a good idea. There is the basic principle of democracy that has proved time and again that the wisdom of the many is better than the wisdom of the few.
The bill might make the government look bad. Who are we going to blame when things go wrong in our children's schools next year?
A fourth and not a final reason that Bill 160 might not be such a good idea is that it will alienate parents and students and just about everyone else who has anything to do with the education system. This bill does not make this education system more accountable. It does nothing to improve communication between parents and the ones who are running the education system.
I don't know if you noticed, but parents can't shout enough to be heard all the way here at Queen's Park. Did you know the government phones don't work too well for incoming calls? At least nobody answers. When we leave a message on voice mail, no one calls back. Our letters, faxes and e-mails don't reach the ministry either, it seems. I'm pretty sure they don't, because we never get any replies. In fact, you'd better tell us now while we're here: Do you want to come down to the school and have a meeting next year if there is not enough heat in the winter, or should we come up here? Or would you prefer that we just go ahead call the gas company ourselves? Can we still tell them to send you the bill?
The Chair: Excuse me, Mrs Miller. I've let you go one minute over your time. Just wrap it up, please.
Mrs Miller: Thank you. I guess I have to get back on topic and wrap it up.
I don't think there are going to be any amendments made to this bill because the intention of the bill is to concentrate all the power of decision-making with the minister and the cabinet. Unless it is rewritten completely, we can't make amendments. That's the basic tenet of the bill, and that has to be changed. The best thing would be to can the bill. Can you do it?
The Chair: There is no time left for questions. Thank you very much for your attendance here today and your presentation.
ORGANIZATION FOR QUALITY EDUCATION
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Organization for Quality Education. I believe you have a written submission. Mr John Bachmann is the president and Ted Johnson is the director. Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr John Bachmann: Thank you. We very much appreciate the opportunity of addressing the committee today.
I have to start with some candid comments. The Organization for Quality Education has very mixed feelings about the general thrust and specific features of Bill 160. That's because OQE was founded to promote improved learning results in Ontario schools. We have always seen decentralized decision-making as an important facilitator in this process. We would very much like to see issues such as class size and prep time decided at the local community level by governing school councils. However, such school councils don't exist as yet, so we have to deal with today's reality. Bill 160 is a bill to deal with today's reality, and so we support most of its components as necessary short-term evils.
In the following brief presentation we will comment on a general concern about Bill 160 and address just three of the items that are in it. We didn't feel there was any point to rolling through all of them, so we've just focused on three.
In general, though, there has been a lot of criticism of Bill 160 on the grounds that it removes from local control issues such as prep time and instructional hours. The reality is that these and other issues, especially wage negotiations, have not in reality been under local control for some time.
Wage settlements reached in negotiations between local boards and bargaining agents for provincial teachers' federations in the 1970s, 1980s and the very early 1990s were certainly not under control. It was only when the provincial government -- and remember this was an NDP government; it wasn't a Tory agenda -- wrestled control of wages from the school boards with the social contract that taxpayers' ability to pay became a factor for the first time in negotiations. OQE would like to see future legislation take it even further by removing bargaining completely from the board level to the provincial level where it belongs.
1330
Local boards have not been accountable on the key issues of learning outcomes. There are many things we're trying to accomplish in our schools, but certainly one of them has got to be preparing our children to be functioning, competent citizens and that includes being able to read, write and calculate. Sure there are a lot of other issues, but as a bare-bones, can't we insist on that?
When you look at what school boards have been doing in this area, they haven't been accountable. They have toed the teacher federation line that standardized testing is not only unnecessary but somehow destructive, that international comparisons are invalid, that publishing test results is not fair to teachers, but is anybody asking the question, what's fair to the students?
Local boards have, with the infrequent exception of collective bargaining issues, restricted the flow of information to parents to materials that are supportive of the federations' agendas. I have experienced this personally. I once tried to get an information meeting at the Peel board that involved just telling parents in Peel what the function of the Ontario Parent Council was and how they could work with it and benefit from it. I was told I was too political, and yet teachers' federation propaganda goes out regularly. That was just happening this past week, with speeches that were made at Maple Leaf Gardens being distributed to parents but certainly nothing on the other side. There is not local control. That's a myth.
For these and many other reasons, we are not concerned with the purported reduction in local control that Bill 160 represents.
Mr Ted Johnson: On the subject of preparation time, we see the proposed reduction in secondary teachers' prep time to match teaching time requirements in other provinces to be reasonable. We do not support the argument that high school teachers need to fulfil hall and lunchroom monitoring duties. We do not think the electorate that voted in this government supported the idea of $80,000-a-year hall monitors.
No one disputes that Ontario high school teachers aren't doing valuable things with their prep time, but what are they doing that requires so much more prep time than, say, their counterparts in gang-troubled high schools in west-central Winnipeg? Are Ontario students learning more because of these additional resources? The fact that more than half of the high school graduates entering Humber College in Toronto require language skill remediation suggests that this is not the case. It's time to apply a best-practices, learning-results-focused approach to our schools.
Mr Bachmann: On the topic of uncertified classroom instructors, our organization supports the use of uncertified but qualified instructors in, for example, the arts and technology areas. Although this may result in useful cost savings, we see the prime benefit of such a move being the introduction of more current thinking, additional talents and closer links with the community.
We feel there are other opportunities for differentiated staffing that should be investigated, prime among these being the use of properly trained child care workers in kindergarten and junior kindergarten. We have to make some tough choices about where the resources are going to be allocated. Our organization is a firm believer in investing in the early years of a child's upbringing and education, and we feel that some of the savings that are found, for example, with the reduction of prep time and applied to JK and early programs would be a very good tradeoff.
We'd like to point out that the potential problems caused by uncertified qualified instructors pale in comparison with existing problems with certified but unqualified or underqualified teachers in our schools. We believe it's time to insist, for example, that all grades 7 and 8 teachers of mathematics and science have a minimum of an undergraduate math or science degree, as is the requirement in just about every other province in Canada. In this regard, the recent grade 8 TIMSS results should give us a major reason for concern, given the importance of high technology to our future prosperity.
Another area that has us concerned is that the new language curriculum prescribes a phonetic approach to teaching because that has been shown over and over again to be the most effective way to get kids reading early, yet student teachers or graduates of teachers' colleges coming out of Ontario faculties of education have not been given a proper grounding in phonetics training and in that respect are underqualified. We feel that's a bigger concern.
Mr Johnson: Turning to the subject of the role of school councils in our restructured education system, OQE regrets that the word "advisory" has been placed in front of "school council" in the wording of the bill. The reduction in the number of school boards means that administrators and trustees will have far less time available to deal with issues that are local to individual schools, and we feel that governing, not advisory, school councils will be required to fill this gap. As long as school councils remain advisory and have their focus restricted to chocolate bar sales and school bus safety, parents experienced in management and other areas relative to the effective and efficient operation of our schools will not bother to participate. It'll be a waste of their time.
Not all school communities are immediately ready for governing school councils, but we suggest that the word "advisory" be removed so that those that are can be encouraged to operate on a governing basis.
The Vice-Chair (E. J. Douglas Rollins): Thank you, gentlemen. If that's your presentation, we have quite a bit of time left for each party. We'll start with the government side.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation this afternoon. The previous two presenters, at least in my opinion, made it very clear that as members of advisory groups and councils they were fairly comfortable with the rules and responsibilities they have now. I recognize you've made the recommendation to remove the advisory component. Perhaps you could give me a sense of what you feel would be the range and role and responsibility of school councils, what you would recommend in terms of the extent that parents should be involved in the management of schools.
Mr Bachmann: Certainly as a first step we believe they should be able to put on the agenda a lot of topics that are currently being kept off. We had the instance of a parent council north of Toronto in the spring that tried to bring up curriculum issues because they had some concerns about the curriculum that was being developed. They wanted it discussed at the school council and that was replaced by hot dog days when they showed up at the next meeting.
As a first step we've got to have an acceptance that all topics can be discussed in school councils. Ideally, we see them eventually becoming governing to the extent that perhaps they can even hire and fire principals when the community is ready and then have the principal hire the staff and run the school in concert with the school council, getting feedback from the community. It can go that far.
One of the other speakers suggested that no communities are ready to have governing school councils. We think that's really shortchanging a lot of communities. There are communities where people have tried to come forward and contribute their very considerable skills in areas that are relevant to our schools and have basically gone away thinking it's a waste of time.
Mr Froese: In your brief you talked about uncertified classroom instructors and you're talking about "uncertified but qualified" instructors. As you know, there's been a lot of discussion around this in Bill 160. There's nothing in the bill or even a suggestion by the government that we would get rid of certified teachers in the classroom.
When we were discussing the bill in my community, I've asked a lot of teachers to give us as a government, or just talk in general of, different ideas. What would your thoughts be around taking -- and I don't even know how you would do it; I'd just like to get your opinion on it -- teachers maybe out of the classroom on sabbatical for a year, those in technology or computers or something like that, and taking them into the marketplace, upgrading them in what's really happening there and then bringing them back into the classroom and teaching the kids those skills? Would that be a possibility? How would you see that working?
Mr Bachmann: I think it's a possibility and something we should encourage, especially in the technology area because it's a very tough area to keep schools current. When you think of the investment that has to be made just in equipment --
Mr Wildman: Great idea. It would cost a lot of money.
Mr Bachmann: That's why you have to start taking the school walls down and moving the school out into the community. That's why you've got to be more open to the idea of having non-certified but very qualified people working in the schools. That's why we have no problem with that part of the bill.
Mrs McLeod: You began by saying that you would support most of Bill 160's components as necessary short-term evils. Do I assume from this that you see the powers that are present in Bill 160 as being a prelude to the government's transferring much of that power to local school councils and potentially seeing school boards disappear altogether for want of any role to play at all?
1340
Mr Bachmann: I think that would probably be a logical sequence for it, because the reduction in the number of school boards, which was brought about because we wanted to put more resources down into to the classroom, requires that the responsibilities be kind of spread out, and school councils are the logical places to have that.
Mrs McLeod: I agree with you that from the government's perspective it is a natural sequence. I think Bill 104 provided the basis on which school boards were being neutralized and that Bill 160 gives cabinet powers it needs in the short term to make cuts, and in the longer term to get out of micromanagement, as somebody said earlier, and hand that micromanagement over to school councils.
What concerns me is that as I sat on the hearings for Bill 104, without exception other than the government-appointed Ontario Parent Council, every representative school council that presented their views at Bill 104 said they did not want to take over the sole responsibility for managing their schools, that they wanted to work with local school boards. They felt, although they often had their disagreements and their frustrations with local school boards, that they at least had some local elected accountability.
As a previous speaker said, parents can't shout loudly enough to get Queen's Park to hear them, but they are also saying: "We don't want that responsibility ourselves." Why do you think this should be forced on school councils that clearly are saying, "This is not the role we want to play in our schools"?
Mr Bachmann: We're not saying they should be forced to run governing school councils. We believe there are communities that have people who are qualified to do it, who are interested in doing it and they should be given a chance. We're kind of promoting a pilot arrangement to have some school councils, where they're ready, bring it in.
You've got to understand we're taking a system that has shut parents out from any meaningful input for decades and we're saying, "How come you don't want to run the school next year?" That's going to take time. That will take evolution.
Mrs McLeod: You won't find me arguing against a greater role and I don't think you'll find any of the parent councils that presented on Bill 104 arguing against a greater parent role. They're saying they do not want to have the sole responsibility for running their schools.
If you're talking about pilot projects, it seems to me that's still within the umbrella of a local school board managing the schools. What you've said to me is that you see Bill 160, combined with Bill 104, as the prelude to the eventual elimination of school boards, in which case we're not talking about pilot projects, we're not talking about a handful of charter schools; we're talking about parent-run schools as the only alternative to total control by the provincial government. Is that what you're advocating?
Mr Bachmann: Eventually, if that works, that's what we should move towards, but we have to make this next step work first, which is a reduced number of boards working with school councils that are going to have to be far more active and with a larger range of issues. If that works, then there's no need to take it to the next step. But what we keep getting from teachers all the time is that they keep saying: "We are buffeted, We're just overwhelmed with all these social issues. We get categorized oftentimes as just a testing group, that all we're interested in is the academics," but we know that teachers are trying to teach these kids mathematics, language skills and so on in the context of a very, very turbulent social setting in a lot of cases.
How do you deal with those issues? You have to get it to bubble up from the communities. That's where the solutions are going come from. You have to empower the communities. The more we can get that done through governing school councils, the happier we'll be, but if it can work with a reduced number of boards, and advisory school councils, so be it. Why not try different forms? Maybe a governing council and one board will do wonderful things.
Mrs McLeod: Then why did the government create a situation in which the local board's accountability is already taken away so that therefore there is no role for the school boards, so that they are likely to disappear? If what you're advocating is where I think there could be some measure of consensus among parent councils who have presented, among all of us who see a greater role for parents as being valuable -- you're talking about pilots within the existing system, yet the existing system has been destroyed between these two bills. There is no local accountability left. It's a question of the provincial government, cabinet, and whether they transfer that to parent councils. There will be no in-between.
Mr Bachmann: Aren't we kind of rushing a little bit? We presented to the EIC this morning about the roles and responsibilities of trustees in the new scenario of the reduced school boards of Bill 104, and to my understanding that hasn't been defined yet, what the roles and responsibilities of the trustees are. My understanding was that there are going to be significant roles and responsibilities. For you to say that they are not going to have anything at all, you're just playing the worst-case scenario.
Mrs McLeod: It's not me saying it; it's Bill 160.
Mr Cordiano: I was just curious as to how you would see a reduction in the number of teachers, which Bill 160 paves the way towards -- the minister has even admitted that as many as 4,000 teachers would be eliminated from Ontario's schools -- is going to improve the quality of education in Ontario.
Mr Bachmann: One of the difficulties we have with the bill is that it doesn't answer some of the questions like, what are they going to do with those dollars they save with those cuts?
Mr Cordiano: Right, so you agree with that.
Mr Bachmann: Yes. We'd love to have that answered, and maybe it'll happen in the next few days. I don't know. I guess our faith is that the government has said they're committed to maintaining quality of education, and if those cuts somehow start to show, and certainly Ernie Eves was quoted last week as saying he didn't think -- the $1-billion figure, by the way, remember, was kind of waved around like a red cape and it was silly to wave it around because I think a lot of it was conjectured.
Our group is saying: "Let's take those 4,000 cuts at the secondary level, and where do we need to apply those resources? Let's look at JK, let's look at kindergarten but let's look at doing it effectively, efficiently, using differentiated staffing, making sure we're not spending more in terms of staffing at those levels." Why not use qualified day care professionals working under the supervision of teachers and pull more kids into the school system early on so that they get on the track early?
Mr Cordiano: What you're saying essentially is that the $1 billion, or however much it is, has to go back into the classroom. We may disagree on how that should be done but you agree that any of those savings should go back in the classroom. You want that to be proven to you before you would go along with what the government is suggesting in Bill 160.
Mr Bachmann: I don't know if you can always be assured about every issue on the table. The government has said they are interested in quality education. They have put into place some programs. They have certainly developed the curriculum. They've got a testing program. As imperfect as it is, at least it's established. We've got improved report cards. There are a lot of good things happening and we have faith that they will continue and make sure that any cuts don't get down to the bone.
Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. It has certainly stimulated a lot of questions in my mind. I'd just like to pick up on a couple of things you've said in the last few minutes. You've said two or three times that you have faith. Faith is a good thing. I admire those who have strong faith. You've also said there's nothing in the bill that indicates where the money is going to go, and there's certainly nothing in the bill that indicates that the money saved will be reinvested.
Mr Bachmann: Is that enough reason to kill the whole thing?
Mr Wildman: No, there are many reasons. This is a very large bill. I'm just raising this one because it seems to me that the funding formula is crucial. I think you'd agree with that and I think everyone interested in education from whatever standpoint understands that the funding formula is a central issue. Unfortunately we don't have it.
There are lots of rumours going around. Some of them may be well founded and some may not be. At one point Mr Snobelen, the previous minister, said we might have it by mid- to late October. There has been the suggestion by Mr Eves last week that the government wouldn't take $1 billion out or wouldn't need to. He didn't say he wouldn't take the money out or wouldn't take any money out. He said he wouldn't take $1 billion out. I suspect that he may be talking in the range of, say, $600 million.
Mr Bachmann: You're guessing.
Mr Wildman: Yes. It's just a good guess. If the government is taking the money out, and I underline the "if," in savings to be used for whatever other purpose the government may have, does that in any way shake your faith?
1350
Mr Bachmann: Not if they retain a focus on what kids are learning in the schools and making sure that is not suffering, because that should be our primary focus.
Mr Wildman: I agree with that. I agree that it should be our primary focus.
There have been a lot of changes in education over the last few months. Some of them started with the royal commission, and other changes prior to the change of government, and have been completed now. Others have come in in the last two years. Was your group in favour of the establishment of a College of Teachers?
Mr Bachmann: Generally, yes, although some of the stipulations in there, like the automatic recertification, we had some problems with.
Mr Wildman: How do you square that with the suggestion that there are certified but unqualified teachers and there might be qualified but uncertified people who should be teaching? How does that square with your support for the College of Teachers?
Mr Bachmann: I think in most professions now there is an acceptance of the use of support staff, people with additional skills, paraprofessionals. There are ways in which you can put differently qualified people into the education setting, and sometimes teaching a class may be the most effective way to use those people. We'd love to see the teaching profession use Bill 160 -- I've said it -- as a wakeup call to move from being a trade union to a profession. That's really what they've got to do.
Mr Wildman: Could I just ask two more things in follow-up to that. Right now teachers bring non-teaching experts into classes to instruct, in consultation and working with the teachers. That happens a lot. Most of us think it should happen more. The real question is whether the qualified technical expert, musician, artist or whatever should actually be instructing the class without a teacher present. What is your view?
Mr Bachmann: I think in some cases that wouldn't be a problem at all. I don't know.
Mr Wildman: Even if the person has no training in pedagogy?
Mr Bachmann: Our feeling, especially at the high school level, is that there is far too much emphasis put on methodology and far too little on content. The best teachers are the ones who have full mastery of their subject matter. That's not enough, but that's definitely more than half the equation, so we don't foresee a problem there.
Mr Wildman: I'll just finish by saying that I wish I had more time. The government limited the time of presenters so I don't, but --
Mr Bachmann: All governments do.
Mr Wildman: Not as much as this one. This is unprecedented.
I would like to pursue with you at some point the apparent contradiction between your support for province-wide bargaining and your desire for a decentralized system, but I think my colleague has a question.
Ms Lankin: I just wanted to pick up on the issue you have stressed with respect to the importance of early childhood education. I think it was a very unfortunate decision that the government cancelled the early years program, the pilot projects that were being developed along that line, and we have seen as well a deterioration in junior kindergarten.
One of the issues we don't get to talk about much in terms of this bill, because the large focus is on the impending dispute with the teachers around the content of the bill, is a provision which would prohibit the minister in the future from making any capital allocations to the construction of child care centres in schools. Most of this bill is about taking powers and giving them to the minister. This one takes away a power.
We had a program in this province in which in every new school a child care centre was built. It was a move towards understanding the importance of early childhood education, the seamless day. It seems to me terribly shortsighted to prohibit that. Have you looked at that provision of the bill? Do you have a concern about that?
Mr Bachmann: No, to be honest with you, I haven't looked at it. As you know, there are 260 pages and there is a limit to what you focus on. I haven't talked to the people at the ministry as to what their motivation was for doing that, but I don't think it was because they sensed that early childhood development was any less important. Our concern is that --
Ms Lankin: It was fiscal. They cut the budget. They took money away and now they're saying it will never be put back. It's a fiscal decision.
Mr Bachmann: Then we're going to have to look at alternatives, at ways of bringing the resources out of the community. A lot of the problems in the system that we see addressed by Bill 160 are that money is poured in from the top to handle problems that are very, very local. We think the solutions are going to have to be local and we would love to see the government -- our discussions with them are that they are aware of the need to focus on early childhood. Obviously you can't include everything in Bill 160 or the other things that are going on, but it is part of the ongoing things they are reviewing.
Ms Lankin: I think you're stretching really hard to find a way to defend this. Given what you said about the importance of early childhood education, why would we support taking a step right now to prohibit the inclusion of the delivery of early childhood education services in a school setting, a community-based setting, in the future? That's what this little clause in this bill does. It seems to me to be shortsighted. It's not a necessary step at this point in time. It's because they made a fiscal decision to cut the budget.
Mr Bachmann: I can't really speak to that, but I would hope that what they're thinking of is that somehow they are going to use the community resources in some way other than through the school to look after those needs. That would be my hope, but I really can't comment beyond that.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for making your presentation. Your time has expired. On behalf of the government, we want to thank you for appearing before this committee.
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
The Vice-Chair: The next group appearing before the committee is the Ontario College of Teachers. If you would take your places and introduce yourselves, it would be appreciated.
Ms Donna Marie Kennedy: My name is Donna Marie Kennedy. I am chair of the Ontario College of Teachers. On my left is John Cruickshank, vice-chair of the college, and on my right is Margaret Wilson, registrar of the college. Thank you for inviting us to be here this afternoon as we address the standing committee on Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act.
The Ontario College of Teachers is the regulatory body which licenses, governs and regulates the practice of teaching in Ontario. It was established less than 16 months ago in response to calls for increased public accountability to students, to parents and to taxpayers.
The college represents 161,000 qualified teachers in the province, including teachers and principals in public and private schools, supervisory officers, occasional teachers, qualified teachers working in the Ministry of Education and Training and some university professors and college instructors. For the purposes of the college's brief, which you have before you, we will only be commenting on those issues which we feel impact the regulation of teaching.
Mr Justice James McRuer, who chaired the 1968 Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights, set out the philosophy that has guided self-regulation in this province for the last 30 years:
"We have made it clear that the power to admit a licensee is not conferred to protect the economic welfare of the profession or occupation.
"The public has a genuine and very real interest in knowing that the members of the self-governing bodies are properly trained and have good ethical standards.
"The public must be able to rely on the judgement of those who are empowered to decide that persons licensed to practise a profession or engage in a self-governing occupation are qualified.
"That being so, the responsible and experienced members of a profession or occupation on whom the power of self-government is conferred should be in the best position to set the standards to be met and the qualifications of anyone who aspires to enter the profession or occupation."
1400
We are meant to operate in the public interest. It is our view that in establishing the Ontario College of Teachers, the government made a promise to the public in that regard. Last year, the Ontario Legislature recognized the teaching profession's specialized knowledge and skill and trusted the profession to use that knowledge and skill to advance and protect the public interest.
Professions are self-regulated in this province because there is the potential for a significant risk of harm to the public if the services provided are performed by someone who is unqualified or unfit. That is why parents, students and the general public expect that classrooms in this province are staffed by certified teachers who are appropriately qualified and accountable for their practice.
Our concern with Bill 160 is that it compromises these principles of regulation. Contained in the proposed Education Quality Improvement Act are a series of clauses that will give the Minister of Education and Training broad regulation-making powers that could be used to permit the hiring of individuals who are not teachers, and therefore not governed by or subject to the authority of the college. Section 81 of the bill in particular would allow the creation of two classes of teachers: those required to be college members, and subject to the requirements of the college; and those who are ineligible for college membership and cannot be held accountable for their conduct or teaching practice by the college.
The college believes these provisions of Bill 160 will undermine the work of the college. They undermine the public interest in ensuring that our teachers are knowledgeable, competent and qualified. They undermine the public interest in ensuring that our children are not in the care of incompetent or unfit instructors.
The teaching profession has accepted the responsibility for holding our members to a high standard of discipline. Less than two weeks ago, cabinet approved a comprehensive professional misconduct regulation developed by the College of Teachers, with full input and support of both the public members and the elected members. This regulation provides teachers and parents who put their children in our care with clear guidelines, far clearer than we have ever had before in decades of regulation by the ministry.
For parents and students, quality education means they have the right to expect that teachers who are licensed to teach have the knowledge and qualifications to do so. They have the right to expect that teachers have completed pre-service teacher education and are participating in ongoing learning activities that enable them: to plan the delivery of the required curricula over the school year in a manner which connects the content being taught to that of previous and future years of schooling and to other subject areas in the curricula; to adapt to evolving curricula and understand how it is organized and how it should be communicated; to develop varied strategies and design or select motivating tasks that best foster the learning of all their students; to assess and evaluate the progress and achievement of their students and to help them meet expectations and fulfil their potential; to understand and provide for the differing learning needs of exceptional students, as well as the differences within the classroom based on culture, language, family context, prior schooling, student potential and responsiveness to preferred approaches to learning.
Students also have the right to be taught the subjects covered by the province's curriculum guidelines by teachers who are qualified and accountable for their practice. Section 81 of Bill 160 leaves several questions unanswered with regard to the accountability of the new classes of teachers or instructors, their qualifications and their duties.
How will the designated positions that are not teaching positions and the duties that are not teaching duties be identified by the Ministry of Education and Training? How will the instructors in these positions acquire and maintain their qualifications? Who will determine the suitability of these individuals to work in Ontario's classrooms or what standards their performance will be judged against? What is the relationship between the teachers and the instructors intended to be? What outlet will parents, children and others have to deal with incompetent or unfit instructors? Who will protect our children from acts of professional misconduct? What will be the impact on students currently attending faculties of education and planning careers as teachers? Will regulations govern the qualifications and duties of the instructors as well as how the right to practise can be obtained or lost? Finally, will the Ministry of Education and Training create within itself a registrar's department paralleling that of the College of Teachers when the mandate of the college is to look after character, quality of instruction, competence and ethical standards?
There seems to be an assumption that possession of knowledge and skills is synonymous with the capacity to impart the knowledge and skills to elementary and secondary students. The research on effective teaching clearly shows that this assumption is wrong. Teachers are specially trained to teach children and adolescents. Music teachers, computer teachers and physical education teachers have successfully completed a pre-service teacher education program and are certified to teach in our classrooms.
Students require trained teachers who understand the curriculum to be delivered and know how to teach their students. In most school boards in the province, our members work with social workers, psychologists, speech pathologists, occupational and physical therapists, all of whom are already self-regulated. In addition, we work with teacher aides who are also school board employees.
There is an established practice in Ontario school boards of hiring teachers' assistants and paraprofessionals, in particular to assist teachers with children with special needs. Where this is the case, however, a qualified teacher is responsible for program planning and delivery, student assessment, liaison with parents, as well as supervision of the individual who assists in the classroom.
Parents have different expectations about the instruction a child receives when he or she joins a baseball team, receives swimming instruction or attends art classes on the weekend than they do about the education received in their child's school. The college cannot ensure that the training of these instructors meets the standards set by the college for the teaching profession. We certainly cannot ensure that these individuals will adhere to a code of ethics or be subject to professional discipline if they breach this code. That is why we are here today to recommend that references to clause 170.1(3)(e) and subsections 170.1(4) and (5) of the Education Act, as outlined in section 81 of Bill 160, and subsection 262(2) of the Education Act, as outlined in section 118 of Bill 160, be withdrawn.
We have communicated our concerns to the Minister of Education and Training in a meeting we had this morning. We have a further meeting scheduled with ministry staff on Tuesday in an attempt to find a solution. The minister was also in touch with the college by letter on October 17, 1997, wherein he indicated that it was not the government's intention to change teacher qualifications or alter the role of the college, and we are encouraged by both the tone and content of that letter.
The Ontario College of Teachers does not see the world engraved in stone. We are interested in sustaining and improving the quality of the teaching profession and therefore the service received by students, parents and the public of Ontario in our schools. The college has the mandate, the resources and the commitment to move forward. But we do not believe we can do that effectively when we are not sure who will be placed in the classroom and whether or not the individuals are competent or qualified to be there. We submit to you that it is one thing to augment and/or facilitate the teaching practice in the classroom through the help of trained assistants or paraprofessionals; it is quite another to contemplate the substitution of qualified teachers with individuals who are not trained to teach students.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for the presentation. That gives us quite a bit of time for each party, starting with the Liberals.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your being here, and I appreciate your particular focus on this section of the bill, because it has certainly been an issue of concern. I just want to re-establish the fact that you've mentioned section 81, which affects clause 170.1(3)(e) of the Education Act, that the cabinet can designate positions that aren't teaching positions. The second part of that is that there may be a regulation establishing "different requirements for different classes of teacher," and the other one is the non-presumption clause, that it cannot "be presumed that a person is required to be a teacher solely because he or she holds a position that is not designated under clause (3)(e)," which seems as wide open as it can possibly be.
What you're saying, equally clearly, is that any individual who could be allowed to head up a classroom under any of these regulations by a decision of cabinet would therefore not be governed in any way by certification, by standards or by disciplinary action that could be brought to bear for --
1410
Ms Kennedy: That's correct; that's our understanding of the reading of those sections of the bill.
Mrs McLeod: I'm encouraged to hear that you feel you've had some positive response from the new minister on this issue, because it's one of the major areas of contention in terms of this even being here, let alone the speculation on how that might be used in the future.
The Education Improvement Commission -- I struggle on the initials -- has very specifically identified a number of areas in which you could have non-teachers, experts in the field, not simply brought in at the teacher's recommendation to present to the class, but to head up the classroom. It is equally clearly a cost-saving measure as that's been presented. How do you feel the positive response of the minister today weighs against the equally clear recommendations of the EIC in this regard?
Ms Kennedy: I don't think we're prepared to comment on the EIC report because today we're being asked to deal with Bill 160. Clearly those are the sections of the act that we're concerned about and those are the sections that we want to address today in front of this panel. We are encouraged by the minister's meeting with us this morning and further encouraged by another meeting set up tomorrow morning with the staff of both the College of Teachers and the staff of the Ministry of Education. We did clearly say to the minister that these four sections of the act were our concerns and we asked him to address those issues with staff tomorrow morning.
Mrs McLeod: I hope we can see some progress on this because it is not an accident, is not inadvertent. It's not a drafting error that these provisions are here; it is absolutely consistent with what the EIC presented in its very glossy document, The Road Ahead. For the government to retreat from these parts of the bill would signal a very real change in the direction that was being set out on the government's behalf by the EIC.
One of the concerns I still have is the additional powers -- long past transitional periods -- that are going to be given to the EIC. We're going to have to be sure that if there's any change in these particular clauses, it's not in some later way transferred to the EIC to make the kinds of decisions you don't want cabinet making now.
Mr Cordiano: I was just curious. You mentioned that you met with the minister this morning. Had you been given an opportunity to talk to the minister prior to the introduction of Bill 160 in the Legislature? Were you consulted at all prior to that?
Ms Kennedy: No, we were not.
Mr Cordiano: You were not; interesting.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I don't want to appear melodramatic or as overdramatizing anything, but obviously one of the most important roles of the college is to ensure not only the standards of teaching but the safety of students, and to ensure that where disciplinary measures are required there's a process for dealing with that. When one considers some of the concerns that have been raised in other areas of our society, such as the coaching of athletic teams and the safety of adolescents and younger children, one can see the importance of the role you have in the teaching profession, representing teachers and trying to ensure proper professionalism. In your meeting with the minister this morning, which you found encouraging, did you pose the questions which are listed on pages 5 and 6 in your brief to the minister?
Ms Kennedy: Of the full report of our submission to you?
Mr Wildman: Yes.
Ms Kennedy: The questions that you're referring to are --
Mr Wildman: "What is the government's intent in introducing the clauses contained in sections 81 and 118?
"How will the designated positions that are not teaching positions and the duties that are not teaching duties be identified by the Ministry of Education and Training?
"How will the instructors in these positions acquire and maintain their qualifications?
"Who will determine the suitability of these individuals to work in Ontario classrooms, or to what standards their performance will be judged against?
"What is the relationship between the teachers and the instructors intended to be?
"What outlet will parents and others have to deal with incompetent or unfit instructors?" That's one I'm particularly concerned about.
"What will be the impact on students currently attending faculties of education and planning careers as teachers?
"What regulations govern the qualifications and duties of the instructors, as well as how the right to practice can be obtained or lost?" This is, again, another very important one.
"Will the Ministry of Education and Training create within itself a registrar's department paralleling that of the Ontario College of Teachers?"
Did you pose those questions, or some of them, to the minister this morning?
Ms Kennedy: Yes, all of those questions were presented to the minister. We provided the minister with information of what questions we would be bringing to this afternoon's meeting with this standing committee. The minister is quite aware of these questions and our concerns. I would just tell you that it was a half-hour meeting. It was an introductory meeting.
Ms Lankin: He didn't answer the questions?
Ms Kennedy: No, the questions were not answered. That's why we're here today also, to present to you our concerns and the areas of the bill with which the College of Teachers is very concerned.
Mr Wildman: I congratulate you for raising these questions because they are crucial and very important for the profession and for the safety and quality of education of students. I understand you're having another meeting tomorrow morning with staff.
Ms Kennedy: With staff of the two bodies, yes.
Mr Wildman: Chair, with your indulgence, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to give us the answers to these questions on behalf of the Ministry of Education and Training.
Mr Smith: There are a number of questions. I'll undertake to get the answers to you and furnish them to the committee as soon as I possibly can.
Mr Wildman: I hope so.
Mr Smith: I would as well, since you've raised the issue, be prepared -- if you've not already received it -- to obtain a copy of the minister's letter dated October 17 to the College of Teachers so that you have that as information.
Ms Lankin: You've raised the most important questions. They focus on all the concerns we have with respect to these sections as well. Let me come at this a different way. In the last week or so we've heard the government change its positioning around what the intent of these sections was. We believe that it is to replace teachers in the classroom, to head up curriculum program areas with people who do not have teaching certificates.
Lately what I've been hearing from government members and supporters of the governments is some wording around this being to set in place minimum qualifications for those who would come in who are not teachers who are coming in to assist teachers. If that was all it was, I think we would all perhaps think that was useful. That may be going too far, because there are lots of people you bring in from the community as experts who, when they're there with the teacher, don't need minimum qualifications. Can you comment on that? It seems your reading of it suggests that's not simply what it would accomplish and that it would allow them to replace certified teachers with non-certified instructors in a whole range of programs.
Ms Kennedy: That is a major concern for us. That's why we're having another meeting tomorrow morning with the ministry staff and with the staff of the college. I'll ask Margaret to respond further on that.
Mrs Margaret Wilson: The thing that is troublesome with that interpretation is that it doesn't match with the actual wording of the sections. I've spent 20 years of my life dealing with government regulations. The fact is that when you set up a regulation that prescribes qualifications for someone, you give that person a piece of paper that says "qualified." They have to have something to carry around. You also, in setting up the minimum qualifications, describe something about their education. You have to keep records of that.
If you give the piece of paper that says one is qualified to do something, you have to be prepared to take it away. So in clause 3(e), it's a regulation prescribing minimum qualifications, not a description of duties under schools general regulation 298. Subsection 4 is very specific, "A regulation may establish different requirements for different classes of teacher," which means that you would have a College of Teachers running a regulation, which was transferred to us on May 20 this year, on one class of teacher and apparently the Ministry of Education running a parallel operation.
I'll be honest: I find that confusing in more than one way because I thought the whole trend of modern government, not just with this government but with the previous two, if I may look at people on this side of the room, was that ministries were becoming policy ministries, were getting out of direct service, and that some of the downsizing and transfer of responsibility was to do that. Here you've got the ministry re-establishing something it just divested. One could get confused about the longer-term intention.
1420
Mr Boushy: I have a very brief question to you: How do you feel about Wayne Gretzky coming to your school and teaching hockey to a class?
Ms Kennedy: I think Wayne Gretzky would be welcomed into any school as a guest, a visitor. We do that every day in our classrooms across this province: bring in experts from different fields, invite them in to demonstrate particular skills. John Cruickshank, who is the principal of an elementary school, can give you some prime examples of those kinds of things happening.
Mr John Cruickshank: The question is interesting. Of course, anyone at that skill level will be welcome in a school to help present a particular skill to youngsters, but that's teaching in a very narrow area. There are few people in the world like Wayne Gretzky who can make a living out of it. For the vast majority of youngsters who are interested in it, that's not going to be their world. That would be a nice motivational thing for them, but it's not instructional programs.
We also have all kinds of examples of very proficient athletes who have gone beyond their athletic expertise, received teacher training and provided outstanding educational programs for youngsters in the school. But in and of itself, as the principal of a school, we need the trained teacher, not just someone with a very specific and narrow skill area who can't connect it to the broader base of an educational program that is critical for our young people as they move forward. We don't know what our graduates' world is going to look like 12 years from now, when I look at the kindergarten youngsters in my school, but we can't provide them with a narrow set of skills. We have to teach them at a much broader base.
Mr Wildman: -- training by quarterback Russ Jackson.
Mr Cruickshank: He was a colleague of mine on the Peel Board of Education.
Mr Boushy: I just want to follow up on a narrower scale. If Wayne Gretzky comes to you and says, "I want to teach a class for one month. I have a month off. I'm going to come in every week and teach a class," would you object to that, for one month or two months steady?
Ms Kennedy: I think we have to be very careful about what you're suggesting. We just established through the College of Teachers a misconduct regulation, with the full support of both elected and appointed members, to establish standards of behaviour. I hope no school board across this province would go out and say, "You can come into my school for a month," or, "You for two months." We particularly set standards for that very reason, not only in the area of misconduct, but also in the areas of standards of practice and all those other areas that we're very concerned about.
Mr Smith: I realize you steered away from a question that Mrs McLeod raised concerning recommendations of the EIC, but I would be interested, given the minister identified it in his letter to you, in your interpretation and perhaps application of what would be considered a team approach to staffing in order that professionals and other paraprofessionals work alongside certified teachers. What would be your understanding of that concept?
Ms Kennedy: I can speak about a team approach from my own personal experience. When I worked with profoundly handicapped students in a school, I depended heavily on a developmental service worker to work with me, to work with a teaching assistant, to work with occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech pathologists, and the list went on and on. We did very much work as a team to develop programs and to implement those programs, myself as a classroom teacher, to do that. There are many approaches to teams presently working in our schools. If that could be expanded upon, I think teachers across this province would be very open to that.
Mr Smith: Just as a matter of clarification, Mrs Wilson, could you just revisit the issue where you feel there's conflict, just so that I understand, the section that you feel conflicts with responsibilities of the college, with what's proposed in the bill and certification of teachers?
Mrs Wilson: If you look at both clause 170.1(3)(e) and subsection 170.1(4), very specifically they're proposing that a regulation be set up by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It would have to be under the Education Act and the regulation would prescribe minimum qualifications for designated positions, which certainly implies that there's a means of recording what the qualifications are. It's normally called a register for anything that's run this way. Then (4) has that the "regulation may establish different requirements for different classes of teacher." What I've said is you would then have two regulations running in parallel: the regulation under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, which was just transferred to us this year from the Ministry of Education, and apparently the Ministry of Education operating another regulation in order to describe another set of qualifications for another class of teacher in (4).
Mr Smith: It's basically clauses 170.1(1) through (5)?
Mrs Wilson: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation before the justice committee. We appreciate the presentation today.
ONTARIO HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the Ontario Home Builders' Association. If you would take your seats and introduce yourselves for Hansard, it would be appreciated.
Mr Peter Goldthorpe: Good afternoon. My name is Peter Goldthorpe and I'm director of public affairs with the Ontario Home Builders' Association. OHBA represents the home building industry across Ontario. It's a voluntary organization. We have 3,200 member companies across the province in 34 local associations.
Earlier this afternoon we heard Mr Wildman say that this is a very large bill, so I guess it's probably prudent for me to begin by clarifying what I'm here to discuss and probably what I'm not here to discuss as well. Mr Newman, who has left, surmised a little while ago that I'm here to comment on education development charges. That's correct. I'm also going to make a few comments about education financing in general to set the context for EDCs.
I'm not here to talk about the length of the school year, nor am I going to talk about preparation time, class size, who is qualified to instruct students or the whole plethora of thorny issues that are raised and tackled by Bill 160. These are all matters of great importance and I think your time would be better served if we confined ourselves to those aspects of the bill where the home building industry has some unique experience.
As you probably know, the Ontario Home Builders' Association challenged the constitutional validity of education development charge bylaws that were passed under the current Development Charges Act. A little over a year ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that education development charges are constitutional, but the court also accepted as a matter of fact that the charges are passed on to home buyers and other end users, and that would be tenants in rental apartments, it would be tenants in commercial developments that are paying the education development charges.
From a legal perspective, this fact turned out to be of little importance, but from the point of view of tax policy, it remains central. The fundamental issue in education finance is who benefits and who should pay. Those who defend unrestricted use of development charges to finance capital costs in education say the people in new homes benefit from new schools so they should pay for them. But let me submit that this view is both shortsighted and dangerous. It carries the potential for establishing a two-tiered education system in this province.
Affluent families who can afford to live in subdivisions where additional charges are being placed on their housing will be able to send their children to spacious, modern schools. Those who are less well off will have to live in older areas and make do with whatever school facilities are available. This is why we are pleased to see the province assuming responsibility for a larger share of education costs and it is why the Ontario Home Builders' Association is pleased to see the restrictions that Bill 160 places on the use of education development charges.
1430
Now, please do not take this last statement as unqualified endorsement of this new EDC regime Bill 160 introduces. The restrictions do not go as far as the industry believes they would in an ideal world, but they will substantially reduce the unfairness in the current legislation.
I would like to turn now to some specific provisions in the proposed legislation.
This legislation is modelled closely on the provisions in Bill 98 that amend the Development Charges Act. The home building industry remains concerned that Bill 98 will not reduce development charges in many municipalities. But we are very pleased with the procedural changes that improve accountability and make it easier to understand the charges. In this regard, Bill 160 benefits from Bill 98.
Having said that, there is one important aspect of education development charges that does not seem to be clearly established in Bill 160. One of the intents of Bill 160 is to allow school boards to use development charges to pay for growth-related net education land costs. But this principle does not appear to be explicitly stated in the legislation. I would suggest that the legislation should explicitly state that boards may impose education development charges to pay for growth-related net land costs, and they can model that provision after the similar provision in Bill 98.
As is the case for municipal development charges, Bill 160 sets a five-year term for EDC bylaws. But Bill 160 also allows boards to extend the term of the bylaw. Extending the term of a bylaw means that charges could be imposed during a period for which there are no estimates of growth, pupil place requirements and education land costs. This would make it virtually impossible to understand the charges. The provision for extending the term of the bylaw should be struck out. Alternatively, the legislation should clarify that the term of the bylaw can only be extended so long as it fits within the horizon of the EDC background study for that bylaw.
In the transition provisions, Bill 160 allows boards to continue education development charge bylaws until March 31, 1999. I believe the date is misprinted in the bill, but that is not why I raise the issue. Rather I want to underline the importance of two proposed restrictions to this continuation. These should not be altered.
First, the area to which a bylaw of an old board applies remains the area to which the continued bylaw will apply, even if the successor board may have a larger jurisdiction. To apply the continued bylaw more broadly would be to impose charges without the justification of a background study. This would substantially undermine accountability.
The other point is that boards cannot pass new bylaws that apply to areas to which a continued bylaw applies. Some boards may argue they need the old charges for projects that are already in the system and new charges for new projects. But a board may amend a continued bylaw under the old act. So it may, if it wishes, fine-tune transition to the new regime right down to a specific development. This allows it to derive full benefit from both EDC regimes without double-taxing any development.
There are just a couple of additional points I would like to touch on.
The first of these concerns the expiry of EDC bylaws passed on or after September 22, 1997, and the requirement that charges paid shall be refunded. I suggest this is reasonable. Over the summer several of OHBA's local associations met -- or I guess the operative word is "tried" to meet -- with school boards to discuss proposed EDC bylaws. The message our locals gave was always the same: At that point in time the government had given a clear signal of its intent to fundamentally alter education financing and contemplation of bylaws under the current act was premature.
The second point concerns provision for different EDCs for different types of residential development. The currently prescribed calculations for education development charges -- that's under the current legislation -- do not provide for variable residential charges. These are permitted for municipal development charges under both the current legislation and Bill 98.
As I read section 257.59 the new legislation will provide for variable charges but leaves it to the regulations to prescribe the calculations. The regulations should provide for variable charges based on the need for services that is anticipated for different types of residential development.
The last point concerns the proposed amendment to the Planning Act that requires the developer to offer a school site at market value on the day before draft approval as a condition of approval for the plan of subdivision. As I am sure you can appreciate, this quickly takes us into a myriad of equity issues. There are a number of ways of dealing with this concern. Suffice it today to say that I believe the principle should be established that no developer loses economic opportunity simply because a selected school site happens to be on his or her piece of land.
That rounds out my specific comments. As a closing remark, some of the school boards have already been critical about what they perceive as a restriction in funding from EDCs. In a sense they are correct. But this is only half the story. In a court of law, it is not sufficient to tell the truth; you have to tell the whole truth. The money available from EDCs may be less, but in this case the costs the school boards must finance are also less. The province is taking over the financing of school construction.
When I started, I explained how reliance on EDCs can establish a two-tiered school system. We are embarking on a new financing model of education. The fundamental principle in this new model is that everyone benefits from a sound education system, so everyone, based as much as possible on their ability, should pay.
If this is the principle, and OHBA believes it should be the principle, then there is little room for EDCs in a fair and reasonable education finance structure. Restricting the use of EDCs to site acquisition is one way to improve accessibility for all Ontarians to quality educational opportunities. Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to try to answer any questions you might have.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We will start off with the NDP. We have approximately six minutes per side.
Ms Lankin: I don't think we'll take that long. I appreciate your presentation; it has very specific issues in it. I have two technical questions. It's just not understanding this area of the bill well enough and therefore needing clarification on your comments.
On page 3 of your submission, in the fourth paragraph, you're suggesting there need to be restrictions on the transition provision for continuation of EDC bylaws. You suggest that "the area to which the bylaw of an old board applies remains the area to which the continued bylaw will apply, even though a successor board may have a larger jurisdiction."
Mr Goldthorpe: That's right.
Ms Lankin: That's what's currently in the act as it is before us?
Mr Goldthorpe: That's correct. Under the current legislation, you define a benefiting area in a development charge bylaw.
Ms Lankin: Do the transition provisions continue that?
Mr Goldthorpe: That's right. Some of the boards are amalgamating or merging, whatever the term is, and they'll cover a larger jurisdiction than a benefiting area that may have been defined by a current board. With Bill 160, that original benefiting area remains the benefiting area for the new amalgamated board.
Ms Lankin: That's why I didn't understand the next concern you raise, which is that you're saying, "To apply the continued bylaw more broadly would be to impose charges" without justification. I agree with that, but that's not what Bill 160 does, is it?
Mr Goldthorpe: No, it doesn't.
Ms Lankin: It doesn't. You're saying it's a good thing it doesn't.
Mr Goldthorpe: I'm suggesting this is a provision in the legislation which should remain unaltered.
Ms Lankin: Thank you. Sorry, that's why I was lost.
Mr Goldthorpe: That's okay. It's a big bill.
1440
Ms Lankin: The other question I have is with respect to your assertion that a developer should not suffer loss of economic opportunity because of the siting of a school on their particular property. Again, help me understand that in terms of what you're suggesting with respect to Bill 160. I'll give you an example. In my community of Beaches-Woodbine, near Greenwood Race Track there is a major new development going in. Part of the zoning work that went into that was to insist there be a piece of land put aside for a new school. The need for that school is only occasioned by the development. Why would you have a problem with that?
Mr Goldthorpe: The Greenwood Race Track situation may not be the best example of where the problem arises. Where the problem is likely to arise is in a greenfield development where a number of landowners may hold parcels of land which are making up part of a big secondary plan.
Ms Lankin: So you're saying the cost should be shared among the whole group of them.
Mr Goldthorpe: That's right. The school site may be on one parcel of land.
Ms Lankin: Bill 160 doesn't specifically deal with that, then.
Mr Goldthorpe: No, it doesn't.
Mr Wildman: I have one question which may be speculative, so if you can't answer it, fine.
Mr Goldthorpe: That's okay.
Mr Wildman: There have been musings by various members of the governing party from time to time over the last number of months that perhaps the way to go in terms of financing new school construction would be for school boards to make agreements with developers where the developer, or perhaps some other company the developer might have an agreement with, would build the school, the plant, and might then operate it, or I suppose contract out the operation of the school and lease it to the board, or there would be some sort of arrangement like that. Do you see anything in Bill 160 that might facilitate that kind of development in future?
Mr Goldthorpe: I wasn't looking for that in the bill when I was reading through it, but if my memory serves me correctly there are provisions for leasing arrangements, for leasing of land and acquisition of sites. I was on the expert panel on pupil accommodation over the summer and it's certainly something we discussed. It's certainly something that a number of developers and builders in the industry are prepared to talk to school boards about, and there has been some of that up in the Brampton Springdale area, I believe, where it's been tried and seems to be working. I think it's an option which is viable and this legislation leaves as viable.
The Vice-Chair: To the government side.
Mr Smith: Thank you very much. In your presentation you indicated the "restrictions do not go as far as the industry believes they would in an ideal world. But they will substantially reduce the unfairness in the current legislation." Could you elaborate, based on your experiences, on the type of unfairness you've been experiencing with the current provisions?
Mr Goldthorpe: Development charges are a regressive form of taxation, and with education serving in part as an aspect or a function of income redistribution, providing opportunities for those who are less well off to get the skills necessary to get established in this world and improve their life, education should be financed on taxes that are paid for on the basis of ability to pay, not on regressive taxes because regressive taxes affect those less well off disproportionately. To the extent that you conceive of education as in part an income redistribution program, it shouldn't be financed by regressive taxation. Development charges, as I said, are regressive.
Mr Smith: The bill on page 156 -- I'm not sure if you have a copy of it in front of you -- relates to the comments you made with respect to growth-related net education land costs. Clause 257.61(2)(c) addresses that issue. I'm not sure if that's the context with which you're --
Mr Goldthorpe: We can debate drafting here this afternoon if you want. My reading of this is -- particularly (c) is what causes me the problem -- you're asking for estimates of education land cost, estimates of the net education land cost, and estimates of the growth-related net education land cost, and it's not clear to me which of them is going to be financed by EDCs. I may stand to be corrected on that point.
Mr Smith: That was the nature of my question, to get perhaps your continued look at that particular section, and as well the definition that is provided concerning that issue on page 152, and provide further clarification. Those are all the questions I have.
The Vice-Chair: Anybody else from the government side with a question? To the Liberal side.
Mr Cordiano: I don't have many questions. I would just simply like to know from your perspective -- it seems to me you are suggesting the bill does not clarify certain of the discrepancies around development charges. You made mention of the uncertainty with respect to development charges being used to pay for growth-related net education land cost. There seems to be a lack of clarity in Bill 160 with regard to that. Could you further expand on that. I'm not quite sure what the uncertainty is.
Mr Goldthorpe: The point I just made is this question of interpretation of the legislation. My reading is that, if you look at Bill 98, there's a very explicit statement. I don't have the bill with me and didn't memorize the wording, but it's a very explicit statement that the municipal development charges will be collected to pay for services that are growth-related, and then a definition of growth-related. I don't see that in a single statement. You might be able to piece together a definition and another section and make the argument, and certainly the government's been clear in stating its intent in other places.
Mr Cordiano: It fits in with what we have concern about in Bill 160 regarding the minister's discretionary powers, and how virtually everything can be determined within the ambit of regulation passed by the minister. That yet again is another example of a lack of clarity and could presumably end up in the minister's hands for determination. Is that your reading of this? Is that the concern you have, that once again under Bill 160 the minister has a greater latitude for determining these matters with regulation.
Mr Goldthorpe: With respect, I don't see anything concerning this particular issue that would have it end up in the minister's office.
Mr Cordiano: Okay, so that's not a concern.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Goldthorpe, for making your presentation.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to recognize the fact that we are having a number of written submissions tabled before the committee from individuals who will not have an opportunity to actually present orally to the committee. I've been on committees where the practice is to at least record in the minutes the fact that these written submissions were received by each individual or group. I can do that by reading that into the record, but that would take some time, if we have concurrence that the names of people with written submissions can simply be entered in the record, obviously not the full submissions, just the name of the individual making the submission.
The Vice-Chair: We can probably do it at a later time if we catch up some time, but they will be put in, I would think.
Mrs McLeod: If I can have some assurance that the written submissions will be entered in just as a note, I will not take the time of the committee to read the names.
Mr Wildman: I have a couple as well.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, we'll put them in all in one group.
PEOPLE FOR EDUCATION
The Vice-Chair:. The next presenter is People for Education, please.
Ms Kathyrn Blackett: My name is Kathryn Blackett. I'm a member of People for Education. I just want to explain that some of the people here in black veils are effectively mourning what we see as the death of public education in Ontario. Some of us will read statements from people who were not allowed to be here. These are people from around Ontario who were not given the chance to speak at these hearings but wanted to, along with 1,000 or so other applicants.
Ms Gay Young: My name is Gay Young. I'm reading a statement from Alistair Thomson, co-chair of the school parent council of Cundle Heights Public School in Barrie, Ontario:
"My major concern with Bill 160 is the investing of draconian powers in the Education Improvement Commission. The erosion of democracy in this is frightening. No longer will elected officials, trustees, be able to freely make decisions in the best interests of the parents who elected them to do so.
"To use a club this heavy just because some(?) trustees abuse their power, because some(?) teachers abuse prep time is nothing more than a blatant grab for power by bureaucrats who have not seen the inside of a classroom in many years.
"If such a heavy club is necessary, it should be used to curb this atrocious abuse of power by this government."
1450
Ms Blackett: I'm reading a statement for Don Byng:
"I've been a parent of the St Luke Catholic School Advisory Committee for four years. During my time on the committee I've encouraged parents and educators not only in my school community but throughout the board to view the role of parents in the school as much more than bake sale organizers.
"I have found that I can telephone and speak with anyone at the board, including the director and the chair, even though the Metropolitan Separate School Board is a $700-million organization. Last winter I tried to meet with a special assistant in the Minister of Education's office and that person would not spend even five minutes with me.
"Instead of giving parents greater control over the education of their own children, Bill 160 moves decision-making power much further away. As an individual parent I believe I can influence decisions at my school board. I personally have seen my efforts change the way some administrators and trustees make some decisions. I can't imagine having the same impact if I don't even know what questions are being considered behind closed doors at Queen's Park.
"Some people tell me Bill 160 is good for the separate school system because it guarantees equal funding for Catholic children. Generations of parents have lobbied to get the same money for their children's education as that provided for their neighbours' children across the road. We never lobbied for public school families to lose resources -- to bring funding down to our level."
Ms Alanna McDonagh: My name is Alanna McDonagh and I'm a parent. I would like to read a statement from Colin Pacey, who is the president of the Brant County home and school associations:
"Basically this bill gives the government powers they shouldn't have. It's too extreme and it's being shoved through too fast. It is not well thought out, there are no concrete proposals in it and it could be used in many different ways depending on who gets hold of it. This wouldn't be a good bill no matter what political party was in power. It is a drastic bill and it shouldn't be put in place.
"Most of the media coverage about this bill has been about the teachers, but I don't think that's the main point of the bill. This bill is about power and about taking it away from everyone except the provincial government.
"When Mr Johnson talked about the part of the bill that has to do with uncertified people teaching, he said it was so people could come in and teach pottery and things like that. Well, that's already been happening in our schools for 20 years. All you need is a letter of permission to do that, you don't need new legislation. That part of the bill is a smokescreen to enable them to bring in non-professionals to teach our kids. We have had some problems with the teachers and some of the things they've been saying, but we definitely think it's wrong to cast teachers off as being uncaring and unwilling people.
"Last of all I want to give the government members a warning. They shouldn't take people's apathy or lack of response to what this government is doing to education as a sign that they accept it. People may not be being vocal about their dislike of this bill, but that doesn't mean they like it."
Ms Sherry LeBlanc: My name is Sherry LeBlanc. I'm reading a statement from Trish Eeisenhour, the chair of the parents advisory council, Larchwood Public School, Dowling, Ontario, part of the Sudbury Board of Education:
"We just had a meeting of our school council and we all agreed that our biggest concern about Bill 160 was the vagueness of it. There's too much left to the unknown. You can't tell what's going to come down the pike later after this bill is passed.
"In terms of specifics in the bill, first of all they have to address class sizes in a way that guarantees they will come down. We have classes with 35-40 kids in them. But they can't just make the classes smaller and then cut somewhere else. The reason the classes are so big at our school is that we have no money for any more teachers. We lost 30 teachers in this region in the last couple of years.
"Another concern in the bill is the idea of having people in positions of trust that lack proper training. We don't want just anyone coming in and teaching our kids.
"We're concerned about the nitty-gritty things like the caretaker," not international hockey celebrities coming to teach at our school. "These are the things that matter in a small school like ours. We've lost so much already, we have nothing left -- everything's gone. What are they going to do? Draw blood from our arms? The cuts were so bad last year that we had to get a different cheaper bus company to bus our kids. That meant the local company went bankrupt. People in the community lost jobs. Where's the good in that? We'd like to have books that don't fall apart, and a librarian. This bill isn't going to get us any of those.
"In terms of the teachers and their issues, parents here understand and support them." And it's not only in Dowling, Ontario. "Parents here understand bargaining. Lots of us work for Inco and Falconbridge -- we understand bargaining and contracts. What we don't understand is the idea that someone comes down the line like a dictator and starts taking stuff away. Teachers have a right to bargain for prep time. We support teachers here, and we empathize with them.
"We want our kids to have the best they can have. That's what we pay taxes for. The feeling here is that budget cuts have become the focus of this government and not the welfare of the students. If this government really cared about education and the future ability of our country to compete globally, and if they really cared about children, they would put their money where their mouth is.
"All the stuff that's going on now is unsettling for the kids. Morale is low here -- for students and teachers. I don't believe Premier Harris is in touch with the common folk. He wouldn't put his child in a school in northern Ontario the way they are now.
Ms McDonagh: This is a statement from Marilyn Logan, who is the chair of the Dufferin county home and school associations:
"I'm frustrated, I'm confused! I feel like a child whose parents are fighting. One parent is changing all the rules and the other is responding with frenzy. Neither is taking time to communicate. I'm left in the middle with no guidance or support, and trying to protect the rest of the family from the ugly beasts.
"Yes, there is room for change in Ontario's education system. But ignoring the value of input from the expertise in the field is wrong. The teachers are the experts here. When you ignore them you cause the pendulum to swing with equal force! You backed the federations against the wall, and now you claim they can't fight. What other choice do they have?
"And the press has seized the opportunity to make issues out of non-issues.
"You put the parents right in the middle of it all. And where has it left our children? Think about it! Not smart politics!
"Yes, the teachers will likely strike, we'll keep the kids home, or make alternative plans to spare them the confusion.
"Unless, just maybe, you revert to some more conventional method of effecting change!"
My last statement is written by myself, Alana McDonagh.
I have a daughter in grade 3 at Garden Avenue Public School here in Toronto and Bill 160 makes me want to cry. When I think of how the quality of my daughter's life at school will almost certainly be degraded by the effects of this piece of legislation, I want to cry. When I think of the way Bill 160 undermines the most democratic institution in our society, our public education system, I want to cry.
When I think of the way Bill 160 robs us of the last remaining traces of local community control over our schools, I want to cry. When I think of the way Bill 160 hands over absolute power over all aspects of our children's education to one man or one woman, I want to cry. When I think of the way Bill 160 hands over absolute power over all aspects of our children's education to one man or one woman, I want to cry. When I think of how Bill 160 decrees that our teachers will no longer have any say over classroom conditions, I want to cry. When I think of how this government has ridiculed both teachers and students, when I think of how this government has lied and attempted to manipulate public opinion in order to ram Bill 160 down our throats, I want to cry, and I want to scream, "Stop this ruthless and cynical attack on our children and our schools."
I beg you, members of the committee, to vote your conscience and recommend the withdrawal of Bill 160.
1500
Ms Annie Kidder: My name is Annie Kidder. I'm a member of People for Education and I'm a parent. People for Education is a parents' group. We represent parents from public and separate schools, parents from all over the province, parents who are Liberals and Conservatives and NDP. We are all parents who have been active in our children's schools. We have lots of different opinions about politics and about how our children should be taught, but we all believe in the importance of fully publicly funded education, and we all believe in the importance of democracy. None of us are afraid of change. We don't necessarily want everything to stay the way it is, but we believe it is terribly important that the process by which change is made be democratic and that when we do change the system, we ensure that we change it in such a way that democratic involvement will always be possible.
I know this is all supposed to be terribly official, but I just want to be a bit personal for a second. I have been working for the last two years fighting cuts to education, as my messy house and the bags under my eyes will attest, and the thing I've known all along is that you can't take any of it too personally. You can't get so emotionally involved that you take it personally that very few large battles are won. But when I read this bill, that changed. I lost my objectivity. This bill appals me, Annie Kidder. I don't just disagree with it; I am dismayed by it.
I was talking to my mother about this bill, and it reminded her of a judgement my grandfather made just after the Second World War. My grandfather was the chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. When he was on the BC Court of Appeal, he made a judgement against a government department that had to do with orders in council, and at the time he talked a lot about the danger of government through orders in council. He said that this way of governing was useful during the war because it made things more expedient -- democracy is a famously slow method of governing -- but that the problem with governing through orders in council was that it gave government departments too much power, and that once they had that power, they were loath to give it up.
This bill leaves everything up to orders in council. Every aspect of the education system is covered in this bill, and there are no details in it. Everything is to be done by regulation later, so if this bill passes, there will be no more chances for public involvement. There need be no more public hearings like this one. There will be no need for debate in the Legislature. The papers will not have articles in them about proposed changes, because we won't have to hear about changes until they are already made.
Our main and overriding objections to this bill have to do with its removal of democratic process in the education system. This bill creates an imbalance of power. All the power will rest in the hands of whoever happens to be the Minister of Education and in the hands of the Education Improvement Commission. The Minister of Education will be able to make fundamental changes to the education system behind closed doors.
It's bad enough that the Minister of Education will have all this power, but at least he or she will be elected. Even worse is the amount of power the bill gives to the Education Improvement Commission. They are not elected, they are government appointees, and if this bill passes, they will have the power "to make orders that shall be enforceable as if they were orders of the Ontario Court."
If the Liberals or the NDP were trying to pass this bill, we would object. It's important that the government members on this committee remember that if by chance they are not re-elected, then this bill will put all the same unrestricted powers in the hands of an NDP or Liberal education minister. Thus our education system is left open to change at the whim of politics. As parents, we fear for the stability of our education system. If this bill passes, will everything change every time there's a new government or a new opinion poll?
I was asked the other day if there was anything we liked in this bill. The one provision in the bill we wholeheartedly agree with is that education funding must operate in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. It is wrong that some boards have so little; the system should be made more fair. But as a parent, I know that when my kids complain that it's not fair that one of them has much more than the other, it does not solve the problem to make it so that they both have nothing. That is not fair either.
There are no details in the bill as to how the problem of fairness is going to be addressed, so parents are not particularly reassured by it. We are worried that this government thinks "fair" means making everyone do without libraries and librarians or junior kindergarten and special education programs. It would be a lot easier to have faith in this government's promise to legislate fair and non-discriminatory funding if they would show us the funding model first. Call me cynical, but it makes me a bit suspicious that they won't tell us how they are going to fund education until after they've got all the power.
When I talk about this bill, I always think I must be exaggerating, but I promise you I am not. I have read sections of it over and over again. It gives the Minister of Education the power to take over the administration of boards if he or she decides they are mismanaged. The minister may sell the assets of boards, and he or she may decide, without going through any more legislation, to amalgamate more boards. There would never have to be another Bill 104 to pass. Boards would just be amalgamated at the whim of a minister.
The bill states in some sections that the minister may make regulations that "may be made to apply with respect to any period specified in the regulation including a period before the regulation is made." Just by the way, in my grandfather's judgement he found against the government, he said the one thing that orders in council could not be was retroactive.
I want to address two specific sections of the bill which are of particular concern to parents: the class size provision and the non-certified teachers section.
The bill says, and it says this constantly in every section: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the size of classes in schools or boards and governing the method of determining the size of classes." That's it. It doesn't say anything more -- no details. The bill doesn't say anything about lower class sizes. It doesn't even spell out what the method will be for determining class size, and we all know how important it is how you count. The ex-Minister of Education said it was the fault of boards and teachers' unions that our children's classes were so large. He didn't mention the effect cuts have had on class size.
If this government is really interested in lowering class size, why doesn't the bill say that? Parents would like to see specifics in the bill. We want it spelled out. We want to know what the maximum allowable would be in each grade, and along with specific numbers, we want added to this section a specific guarantee as to how the cost of lowering class sizes would be covered. Keeping class sizes reasonable costs money. We don't want class sizes capped at the expense of other programs. We don't want smaller class sizes to mean more cuts somewhere else.
Then there's the "who can teach" section of the bill. I know you have been talking about this all morning, but I'm sorry, I just want to go through it one more time. It states: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations designating positions that are not teaching positions and duties that are not teachers' duties and prescribing the minimum qualifications for a designated position or for performing designated duties." Again, that's it. It's totally wide open. It doesn't say maybe a non-certified teacher might teach art or hockey; it says the Minister of Education can decide what positions are not teaching positions, and it puts no limits on him or her.
Then a bit later there comes my favourite part of the whole bill. I have it up on my fridge now. It's called the no-presumption clause, and it says: "It shall not be presumed that a person is required to be a teacher solely because he or she holds a position" that has been designated a non-teaching position. That's a lot of double negatives, but anyway, what this does is give an education minister the right to decide that no one has to be a certified teacher in order to teach in our schools. If this section of the bill is meant to allow non-certified teachers to help teach in the art room or in the hockey arena, why doesn't it say so? Why are there no specifics? And if this section is actually there so that real teachers can be replaced by non-teacher professionals, then there are many concerns.
I have two friends who were both very good theatre designers. They each went back to university so that they could become teachers. They are now both high school teachers. They took special courses to enable them to deal with kids with behavioural problems, with learning disabilities, and with kids who didn't speak English. Their training as theatre designers did not teach them how to teach.
Why are there no specifics in the bill about funding or about taxation? This bill gives the province the right to set education taxes, but it doesn't say how they will be set or if they can guarantee that the taxes won't go up in rural ridings. Why are there no details about what a minister can or can't do with boards' assets? Why are there no details about what a school council is? This bill will make it a law that we have to have them, but we have no idea what they are.
All the changes have to be made, all the new contracts negotiated and new boards up and running by September 1998. This is a guarantee of chaos in the months to come. Parents are not afraid of change, but they are afraid that by making changes too fast and without careful planning, our children will be hurt.
1510
There are times in the lives of governments when they have to do the brave thing. Sometimes the brave thing is to say, "Okay, let's pause for a minute and rethink." The brave thing for this government to do now, and the thing that would earn the respect of parents across the province, is to put this bill on hold, go back to the drawing board, and come up with a new bill with specifics in it. It is the provincial government that has set itself these unworkable deadlines. It is within their power to change them. I urge you on this committee to ask of your government leaders that they do the brave thing.
Mr Wildman: It was very eloquent.
The Chair: We have two minutes left per caucus.
Mr Froese: I've seen your group before at different committee hearings, particularly education. I know you're against everything this government does. There isn't one --
Ms Kidder: We are just against cuts to education.
Mr Froese: No. When you make presentations, it's always, "No, no, no, no, no." When you did your presentations and read from letters from different people in your organization -- I presume it's in your organization -- "No, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this. Don't do what you're doing." But I've yet to hear anything from your group -- if you're for education, why don't you give us some positive, constructive suggestions how to do it?
In my riding, we have action sheets. We take calls from people in the community, and it's seven to one on, "Make sure you reform education the way you said in the Common Sense Revolution, the way that both the NDP and the Liberals had agreed with some of the" --
Ms Kidder: They didn't agree to massive cuts to education. I'm sorry, sir. That's not true.
Mr Froese: What they've told us is that they want more instructional time for students.
Ms Kidder: This bill doesn't give them that.
The Chair: Excuse me. The member did not interrupt you.
Ms Kidder: Sorry.
Mr Froese: They want a tougher back-to-basics curriculum. We've done that. They wanted standardized province-wide testing, and we've done that. They wanted understandable report cards so that the students and the parents can understand what that report card says. They wanted the class sizes limited. There's no doubt about it. We have said that we would not increase class sizes. They want more say in education.
That's what they're saying. I would like to know why you can't give --
The Chair: Sorry, your time is up. You only had two minutes. We'll move on to Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: No wonder you're frustrated. You have made presentations throughout Bill 104, only to see Bill 104 totally ignore any of the concerns that you've raised. You've just listened to one of the government members say, "Well, we don't listen to you because you never come and tell us what you think we should be doing." My goodness, you've been saying over and over again, "Don't do to us, as parents, what you are doing with Bill 104 and now what you are doing with Bill 160." How can you be clearer?
You've said you want more involvement as parents in your children's education, but you want it within the context of school boards that you can work with; you want it in the context of local accountability. Where you see a role for provincial government, yes, it can be in curriculum, it can be in testing; no one's arguing with those, although we may argue with the methodology. But that's isn't what Bill 160 is about. Today you come here and say, "We're looking for some guarantees about what our children are going to receive from this government." All we get is Bill 160 with total and absolute control for government and no accountability built into this bill and no ability for parents to appeal.
I'm going to give you a chance to respond to Mr Froese. But, Annie, my last frustration that I want to share with you is that the letters you read, again, were not from single parents, not even representatives of single parent councils, but representatives of umbrella groups representing their parent councils in their areas. When is the government going to understand that this is not a handful of people who, for some reason that Mr Froese doesn't understand, are against his government? This is a broadly based representation of parents. Please some day listen to them, and to you.
The Chair: You've used that time up. We move to Ms Lankin.
Ms Lankin: I heard you during the Bill 104 hearings when you had a whole list of proposals that you presented to the committee, and I heard you today. I heard you say, "Put in the specific maximum class size." I heard you say, "Tell us in which areas non-certified instructors are going to be used." But Mr Froese didn't hear you. Annie, you've got the rest of this time -- I'll give it to you -- to put your positive suggestions forward so he can listen this time.
Ms Kidder: My concern is that the government keeps going back to, "We have done these things." I came here to talk specifically about Bill 160. Those things are not specifically in Bill 160. We did come with proposals. I did explain what our fear is about Bill 160, which is that it's government by regulation. That is our main fear about it, and that there are no specifics in this bill.
Mrs McLeod is right. These are not people who are part of our organization. One is the chair of the Brant County Home and School Association. These are not some radical flakes from west Toronto, and neither am I.
We are actually members of PTAs and we are concerned about what's going to happen and the powers that are given in this bill. We did come with specific requests. We want the class size provision in the bill spelled out. We want the non-certified teacher portion of the bill spelled out. We want the funding part of the bill spelled out. We want to know how education is going to be funded before this bill is passed. We want to know how the taxation system is going to work before this bill is passed.
We want to see the details. We are very, very frightened by the amount of power this bill gives. I promise you -- I mean it -- I would be frightened if this bill were in the hands of any political party. It's too much power and there are no details in it.
The Chair: Time is up.
Ms Lankin: I realize that. I have a point of order, Chair: I think that the series of questions that Ms Kidder just put out -- and they'll be recorded in Hansard -- are important ones. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant to undertake to respond to them so that we have a clear sense of what the maximum class size will be, what the funding formula will be, what the use of non-certified teacher instructors will be. That series of questions, as Ms Kidder spelled out, would be helpful for the committee to have, that information.
The Chair: Thank you, ladies.
Mrs McLeod: On a further point of order, Chair: The parliamentary assistant has just tabled the letter that was sent by the new Minister of Education to the College of Teachers in which the statement is made that the minister agrees that it is not this government's intention that Bill 160 would change teacher qualifications or alter the role of the college. I'd like to ask then for a written response from the minister, through Mr Smith, as to exactly why those particular clauses addressed by the College of Teachers are present in the original legislation.
Mr Wildman: Was that tabled?
Mrs McLeod: Just now.
Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Chair: It was just said that it was tabled. We do not have copies of that here.
The Chair: It wasn't tabled. It was passed around by the clerk.
Ms Lankin: Perhaps the clerk could bring more copies.
The Chair: Additional copies will be distributed.
Report continues in volume B.