CONTENTS
Thursday 2 May 1996
Education Quality and Accountability Office Act, 1995, Bill 30, Mr Snobelen / Loi de 1995 sur l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation, projet de loi 30, M. Snobelen
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Gerretsen, John
(Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Agostino, Dominic (Hamilton East / -Est L)
*Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC)
Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
Johns, Helen (Huron PC)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
*Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC)
Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)
Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L) for Mr Gerretsen
Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC) for Mrs Johns
Skarica, Toni (Wentworth North / -Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC) for Mr Preston
Clerk / Greffière: Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Marilyn Leitman, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1010 in room 151.
EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'OFFICE DE LA QUALITÉ ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 30, An Act to establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office and to amend the Education Act with respect to the Assessment of Academic Achievement / Projet de loi 30, Loi créant l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation et modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'évaluation du rendement scolaire.
The Acting Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The committee will come to order. We are here to deal with clause-by-clause of Bill 30 and we'll start at the beginning, which is fairly normal on these occasions.
Are there any comments or amendments on section 1? Shall section 1 carry? Section 1 is carried.
Moving on to section 2, any comments on section 2? Shall section 2 carry? Carried it is.
Moving on to section 3, I think there's some action on section 3.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to move that paragraph 1 of section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out "education" and substituting "programs."
It's more measurable and more specific to talk about the educational programs rather than just education amorphously, the whole system as such. It seems to me we're talking about the programs we institute within the system. That's the rationale for it.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): The background to these amendments from our analysis is that they're similar to the Ontario Teachers' Federation submissions, supported by the affiliated teachers' federations, that recommended the mandate of the EQAO be restricted to assessment of student achievement. The objects of the office, as outlined in section 3, provide for a much broader scope, including the evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of elementary and secondary education. In our analysis of the Liberal motions, this is an attempt to restrict the mandate of the EQAO. The restriction would significantly reduce the mandate of the legislation and of the agency.
The EQAO as an independent agency will implement Ontario's assessment program and provide a credible, objective picture about how Ontario's education system and students are doing, and that's the objective. The EQAO will make recommendations to the government on ways to improve the education system, enhance the accountability of the system and support excellence in education. This scope of responsibility requires a broad mandate. This amendment would restrict that mandate in the government's submission.
The Acting Chair: So there.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In our view, the government's too sensitive. We support the amendment.
The Acting Chair: Any other comments on this? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Patten's amendment, please indicate. Those opposed? The amendment is lost.
Mr Patten: I move that paragraph 3 of section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"3. To develop systems for the assessment of academic achievement in order to evaluate the quality and the effectiveness of elementary and secondary school programs."
Mr Skarica: This, as the previous amendment, would limit the mandate of the agency to the assessment of academic achievement and would result in a narrower base of information on which to make recommendations. The intent of the government is to examine broader indicators to determine areas that need improvement and identify areas of success in elementary and secondary education.
Mr Patten: I don't see how you can continue to evaluate just the system. At some point you've got to break it down into a specific thrust, a specific program, a specific initiative that's definable, measurable and quantifiable.
The Acting Chair (Mr Joseph Cordiano): Any further discussion or debate? Shall Mr Patten's amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Mr Patten: I move that paragraph 5 of section 3 of the bill be amended by adding "in relation to the assessment of academic achievement" after "boards" in the second line.
In other words, you're not evaluating boards per se. It's in relation to the information on strategies for improving. You're not evaluating the general public accountability of the board per se. It's just a qualifier.
Mr Skarica: The government feels that school boards should be accountable in areas beyond the assessment of academic achievement. Parents and taxpayers have indicated to us that they want a range of information about the value they are getting for their tax dollars.
The Acting Chair: Further debate? Shall Mr Patten's amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Interjection.
Mr Patten: Why don't we do that then?
The Acting Chair: No, I think we have to deal with each one separately.
Mr Patten: I have to go through this charade?
The Acting Chair: Yes, you have to go through this.
Mr Patten: I move that paragraph 6 of section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"6. To report to the public and to the Minister of Education and Training on,
"i. the results of tests,
"ii. the quality and effectiveness of elementary and secondary school programs, and
"iii. the public accountability of boards in relation to the assessment of academic achievement."
Mr Skarica: Perhaps I'll just indicate that my submission will be the same for the majority of the Liberal motions, that words such as "programs" and "assessment of academic achievement" narrow the mandate of the agency.
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion? Shall Mr Patten's motion carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
1020
Mr Patten: Paragraph 7, forget it. If you don't accept the word "program," then it doesn't apply. I'll withdraw it.
I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Pupil profiles
(2) In reporting on results of tests under paragraph 6 of subsection (1), the office shall provide profiles of the pupil populations tested and shall provide a breakdown of test results in relation to those profiles.
"School councils
"(3) The office shall ensure that Ontario school councils have access to information on test results and pupil profiles sufficient to enable the councils to assess the academic achievement and profiles of pupils in their schools in relation to the academic achievement and profiles of pupils elsewhere in Ontario.
"Identification of problems
"(4) Where the office identifies a problem in any aspect of test results or in any part of a pupil population, the office shall:
"(a) conduct further studies into the causes and nature of the problem; and
"(b) make recommendations for corrective measures to the appropriate authorities and to the Minister of Education and Training."
Mr Wildman: With regret, I don't support my friend's amendment, for a number of reasons. First, I think the office -- which I think has support of all three parties, the proposal for the office -- and its staff should be able to determine how they operate. If there is need for direction from the minister, I suppose that could be done by regulation. But I would hope they would have a pretty wide range in which they can operate. That's one reason.
The other reason is that I'm very concerned about the suggestion that school councils should be able to use the information to compare one school with another and the performance in one school with another or, for that matter, one board with another. That is not the purpose, as I understand it, of the office. The office is set up to try and deal with Ontario's success or failure in terms of serving students and, recognizing that certain students in certain regions and certain socioeconomic or ethnic groups may have different needs, to serve those students in those ways. But it's not to enable parents or students to pick and choose one school over another, which is sometimes seen as the purpose of having universal testing. That's not the purpose of this operation at all. I'm worried that, on occasion, members of the media tend to use the information from tests in this way, and that is not the purpose. For that reason, I'm unfortunately unable to support this amendment.
Mr Skarica: In addition, subsection (3), among other concerns indicated by Mr Wildman, seems to infringe on the privacy rights of students. It would seem Ontario school councils could have access to any student information. The government has concerns regarding that type of invasion of students' privacy. Accordingly, the government as well is opposed to this amendment.
Mr Patten: I take those comments as valid. That certainly isn't the intent of this. The intent of this is to identify when we do comparisons, because comparisons are made, and it's not school by school. I would think school councils in a board would want to look at the nature of testing and who is being tested for what, so that if we're talking about, say, immersion students or students who are in ESL, English as a second language, there is some acknowledgement that that is what's being tested. It would not be fair, for example, to take the same test and ask a French immersion grade 3 student in English and then test them in comparison to English that's been full-time for a grade 3 youngster.
It's not to say whether somebody is black or blue; it's not to say whether somebody has pink eyes or white eyes or that kind of thing. The attempt is to understand the program that they're in so that you are comparing and making comparisons. Likewise, when you do a testing in French immersion, for example, there are some variables there that are very significant and important, and it can jeopardize the program if people don't have some understanding of who is part of the whole pool of the test. This was the intent of this.
The Acting Chair: Any further debate? Shall Mr Patten's amendment carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Subsection 4(1.1).
Mr Skarica: Could we defer this? The government has some privacy amendments in section 27, and perhaps after we deal with that we could return to this.
Mr Wildman: Okay. I have an amendment I want to move to 4(1)(b).
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: I didn't have the table, I'm sorry. I just have two small amendments I want to make. In light of the comment Mr Skarica just made, I'll stand down my amendment until we see that.
The Acting Chair: We'll postpone section 4. Moving on to section 5, Mr Patten, you have further amendments?
Mr Patten: No, it's a government motion.
The Acting Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. It's a government motion. Pardon me.
Interjection.
Mr Skarica: No, 27 is the privacy section.
The government moves that section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Agreements re tests
"5. (1) The office may enter into agreements with a person operating,
"(a) a private school, as defined in section 1 of the Education Act;
"(b) a school provided by a band, the council of a band or an education authority where the band, the council of the band or the education authority is authorized by the crown in right of Canada to provide education for Indians; or
"(c) a school provided by the crown in right of Canada,
"about administering tests to pupils enrolled in the school, marking the tests and reporting the results of the tests.
"Fees
"(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), an agreement may provide for the charging of fees by the office to a person operating a school described in subsection (1).
"Capacity to enter agreements not limited
"(3) This section shall not be interpreted to limit the ability of the office to enter into agreements with any person."
The background, if I may make a couple of comments, is that subsection 5(1) provides authorization for the office to enter into agreements with persons operating private schools and to charge fees for the provision of services. Groups presenting on native issues spoke to Bill 31 during the standing committee process. The groups spoke about the need to recognize the needs of native students, teachers in native culture and legislation. Although the groups did not reference Bill 30 specifically, an opportunity to improve Bill 30 in relation to native education has been identified, and it is hoped that this amendment addresses the native concerns.
The Acting Chair: Any debate? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Carried.
Moving right along, shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.
Mr Skarica: If I could just make one further comment to section 5, no decisions have been made yet whether or not to charge fees. I would have mentioned it earlier but I just found out myself two seconds ago.
Mr Wildman: I'm sorry. What was that?
Mr Skarica: No decision has yet been made as to whether to charge fees or what those fees are going to be, in section 5, as amended.
The Acting Chair: There are no amendments to sections 6 through until 17. We have an amendment at 18.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): Mr Wildman has one on section 9.
The Acting Chair: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr Wildman: It's being run off, I guess. Perhaps if you don't have it in hand --
The Acting Chair: Shall sections 6, 7 and 8 carry? Carried.
Mr Wildman, section 9, you have an amendment.
Mr Wildman: I have an amendment to 9.
The Acting Chair: Do you have copies of that amendment?
1030
Mr Wildman: It's being circulated. Again, maybe it should be stood down, pending whatever the parliamentary assistant is going to propose with regard to information and privacy, because it relates to the same issue.
The Acting Chair: All right. We'll stand down section 9. That takes us to section 10.
There not being any amendments, shall sections 10-17 carry? Carried.
On section 18, there is a further government amendment.
Mr Skarica: The government recommends striking out section 18.
The background is that specific appropriations by the government for the agency are not required, as funding for the office is to be achieved through the Ministry of Education and Training budget allocation. Additional allocations need not be made.
Mr Wildman: The thing is that the ministry is going to be transferring funds from something else to this.
Mr Skarica: It will be coming out of the Ministry of Education and Training budget. That's all I can tell you.
Mr Wildman: Will that mean fewer years of testing then?
The Acting Chair: If you don't want to support the section as printed, then you would vote against it.
Shall section 18 carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The section does not carry.
Mr Wildman: Can we assure everyone this is not a matter of confidence in the government?
The Acting Chair: Oops, forgot to mention that.
Subsections 19 (2) and (3), a Liberal motion.
Mr Patten: I move that subsection 19(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(2) Despite subsection (1), no fee shall be required from any board in the absence of a written agreement between the board and the office in respect of the fee.
"Same
"(3) Despite subsection (1), the approval of Management Board is not required for a fee where the person who is to pay the fee has agreed to the fee in writing."
It's very obvious, the intent, and that is that the office cannot just charge someone without some accountability and some agreement for testing of any kind.
The Acting Chair: Any debate? Shall the amendment carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Shall section 19 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.
Shall section 20 carry? Carried.
Shall section 21 carry? Carried.
Shall section 22 carry? Carried.
Shall section 23 carry? Carried.
Shall section 24 carry? Carried.
Shall section 25 carry? Carried.
Shall section 26 carry? Carried.
Now we have an amendment which would add a section. Mr Patten.
Mr Patten: Yes. I'll continue to go through the motions.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Review of office
"26.1 (1) At least once every two years, the Minister of Education and Training shall review the work of the office to,
"(a) evaluate the way in which the office is carrying out its responsibilities under this act; and
"(b) determine whether the responsibilities of the office under this act should be altered in any way.
"Report
"(2) The Minister of Education and Training shall include his or her findings, together with any recommendations he or she considers it appropriate to make, in a biennial report on the office.
"Tabling
"(3) The Minister of Education and Training shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then table the report in the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."
The intent of this obviously is ensuring regular review and public reporting.
Mr Wildman: I don't have any problem with this amendment at all, and I don't know why the government might, unless the two years is a problem and he would like to change the time frame. I can't see why anyone would be opposed to continuous review of an office with a view to improving it or making changes, if necessary, and reporting on that to the public. This is an office that is evaluating education in the province and making reports. Surely they should be subject to a similar type of approach.
Mr Skarica: Mr Wildman hit the nail on the head because of the biennial aspect. Section 26 of the bill already provides for the submission of an annual report to the minister and the tabling of that report in the assembly, so this section is not necessary.
Mr Wildman: In that regard, Mr Patten I'm sure would want to comment, but I'm not sure that Mr Patten's purpose is exactly the same as the purpose of 26 as already included in the bill. Section 26 as it is already included is a standard approach where an agency of a government makes an annual report. It's not quite the same as saying this is an evaluation of the work of the agency by the ministry.
Mr Patten: Precisely. The tabling of an annual report and giving an annual report is not -- this says that there would be periodic evaluation. If the government side has trouble with the time frame, I'll entertain a friendly amendment to say three years. But it seems to me the government is talking a lot about public accountability and this helps to provide focus, a reasonable time for periodic review and a public report by tabling this in the House.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I just had a question to Mr Patten. Would not section 24 of the bill address the concerns in terms of the provisions outlined there in terms of identifying an "annual plan of operation," "multi-year plan" and subsection (3) indicating the requirement for the minister to identify necessary changes to the office. Would the concerns you're outlining in your motion not be addressed in section 24?
Mr Patten: I'd like to respond to that.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Sections 24, 25 and 26 are all about reviews.
Mr Patten: Yes. Reviewing the plan of action -- I don't know; it seems to me if you stand back and do a review -- this is what the office will be doing on a regular basis and that those plans are reviewed.
But the evaluation, to me, suggests that you take a step back and you take a look at the whole office and its position in relation to how it's doing etc. What it does on a normal day-to-day basis is it develops plans, it develops programs etc. I see that as different.
The Acting Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Moving right along, section 27, we have an amendment by the government.
1040
Mr Skarica: Perhaps we could defer this. This is a housekeeping matter that deals with 27.1, so if we could move on to 27.1 and then deal with 27(1)(d).
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr Wildman: Does this in any way relate to the other matter you wanted to raise?
Mr Skarica: Yes.
Mr Wildman: Okay.
The Acting Chair: We shall defer or postpone -- the correct term. We'll deal with 27.1. There is a government motion. Mr Skarica.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section, under the heading:
"Obligation re personal information
"27.1(1) Before disclosing personal information obtained under this act, the person who obtained it shall delete from it all names and identifying numbers, symbols or other particulars assigned to individuals unless disclosure of the names or other identifying information is otherwise authorized under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
"Same
"(2) This section applies to personal information within the meaning of section 38 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and section 28 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."
The addition of this section is that the OTF and the affiliated federations raised concerns about privacy and the need for greater protection of personal information. As well, the Information and Privacy Commissioner submitted a clause for inclusion in the legislation to provide for anonymity of personal information and this government's purpose in tabling this amendment is to address those concerns.
Mr Wildman: I support the amendment, I just would make the observation that it's passing strange that the government would propose such an amendment to this bill when they refused the exact same wording for Bill 31.
Mr Skarica: With the other bill there were different considerations that were applicable and I don't think we need to get into it now.
The Acting Chair: All those in favour? Unanimous. The motion passes.
Section 27.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that clause 27(1)(d) be amended by inserting "for the purpose of carrying out its objects" after "office" in the seventh line.
It's a housekeeping matter to make the provision consistent with section 27.1.
The Acting Chair: Any debate? No debate. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Unanimous. Carried.
Shall section 27, as amended, carry? Carried.
We're going back to section 4 which was deferred.
Interjection: Postponed.
The Acting Chair: Postponed, excuse me.
Mr Wildman: I will move this amendment but I would then like some clarification from counsel.
I move that clause 4(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out the word "including" in the second line and substituting the word "excluding."
This is I think pretty clear what I'm attempting to do here. The advice I would seek from counsel is to have her opinion as to what effect, if any, the government amendment to 27 has with regard to section 4 and if it doesn't have any effect, then I will argue that we should pass this amendment.
Ms Marilyn Leitman: Well, they are related in terms of their subject matter, but the government amendment speaks to disclosure and removing any identifying material. Yours speaks to getting information.
Mr Wildman: Yes, they're only indirectly related and the point is, I don't think they should be collecting this and for that reason, I would hope the government would consider very seriously for this bill, as opposed to Bill 31, accepting this amendment.
Mr Skarica: The amendment would preclude the agency from, in many cases, marking tests, essentially. The concern is in disclosure of the information, not in gathering of it.
The Acting Chair: Any further debate? Seeing none, shall Mr Wildman's amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Patten's amendment.
Mr Wildman: I had one to 9(6) as well.
The Acting Chair: Yes. We'll deal with that later.
Mr Patten: I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Approval of Information and Privacy Commissioner
"(1.1) Before requiring a board to provide any information under clause 4(1)(b), the office shall obtain the approval of the Information and Privacy Commissioner."
The intent is the same as Mr Wildman's, and I think probably for all of us, which is that if the reference is made to the commissioner, then they can provide their advice on the nature of the information. It's as simple as that.
Mr Skarica: The government's submission is that this would create a bureaucratic nightmare and basically there would be a paper avalanche to the privacy commissioner. It's a very cumbersome provision, and again the government amendment has ensured that privacy information will not be disclosed by the agency.
Mr Wildman: I was almost going to agree with Mr Skarica until he used a sledgehammer to kill a fly in his comments. How can you argue that this is going to create a paper avalanche? Come on. It's pretty clear that we're simply seeking advice from Mr Wright, or suggesting that advice should be sought from Mr Wright. We're not interested in creating an enormous bureaucratic process here. If the government is so concerned about bureaucracy and how long it takes to get information or how much paper is involved with dealing with Mr Wright, then I wonder when they're bringing in amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Mr Preston: This again is talking to the gathering of information, not of giving it out. We just put an amendment in farther down the line that prevents giving it out. I feel that we should be free to gather the information, and it's protected at that point.
The Acting Chair: Further debate? Shall Mr Patten's amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Shall section 4 carry? Carried.
Moving along to section 9, we have Mr Wildman's amendment.
Mr Wildman: I move that subsection 9(6) of the bill be struck out.
This is the argument we've been having throughout this process in the last few minutes, the argument over whether it's okay to collect information and how the individual's privacy is protected. Listening very carefully to the government's arguments and the amendment that was moved by the parliamentary assistant to the later section, I still think the purpose of this office is to set up a system for evaluating education in the province and I really don't understand why they would need significant amounts of personal information about teachers or students.
Mr Patten: I think this one is really important. That particular act lays out the kinds of personal information. You're talking about health records, you're talking about a variety of things that really shouldn't be collected, and as Mr Wildman said, we're talking about testing individuals, and so we want to look at the results of the test. I fail to see to how a wide-open window of personal information needs to apply in this instance.
Mr Skarica: There is a proviso there, "for the purpose of carrying out its objects," and sometimes personal information may be required to determine whether the testing actually has any validity. The government adopts the same reasoning that Mr Preston used in his arguments in section 4 that persuaded the committee to vote against the other amendment.
1050
Mr Patten: What kind of information would you need?
Mr Skarica: "For the purpose of carrying out its objects, " a learning disability, for example, may or may not have an impact in the testing and assessment.
Mr Patten: I raised the question under profiles that if you're testing a special-needs class, for example, that should be identified, which wasn't legitimate there, but now you're saying it's legitimate here.
Mr Skarica: I don't think I need to say anything further.
Mr Wildman: Again, if the government isn't willing to strike out this section, I really would like to have some explanation of the kinds of information they anticipate the office would have to collect, and for what purposes. You indicated one, a learning disability.
Mr Skarica: Another example given to me was how long a pupil has been in French immersion, as an example, when there's testing dealing with proficiency in French. Again, the proviso is for the purpose of carrying out its objects. The office just can't collect personal information --
Mr Wildman: That's not personal information. How do you define attending a French immersion program as personal information?
Mr Skarica: I would consider it personal information. It's personal to that person.
Mr Wildman: Do you classify attending a math class as personal information?
Mr Skarica: No, but French immersion's a bit different than attending a math class.
Mr Patten: Personal information as talked about in the act is your race, is your blood type, is your sexual orientation, is your medical history. That's personal information.
Mr Wildman: I guess attending a separate school then would be personal information under the government's definition. Attending a private school would be personal information. I mean, this is a little bit --
The Acting Chair: Further debate? There being none, shall Mr Wildman's amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Laughren: A lot of reluctant hands over there.
The Acting Chair: Shall section 9 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The section carries.
Mr Patten: If I might make a comment, I'm a little disappointed that we don't even have a rationale. This hinges upon personal information. We don't have a rationale and yet it's just passed because the government has the votes. I find that disappointing.
The Acting Chair: Moving along, section 28. Shall section 28 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Unanimous.
Section 29. Mr Skarica.
Mr Skarica: The government moves that subsections 16(8.1) and (8.2) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 29(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Agreements re tests
"(8.1) The minister may enter into agreements with a person operating,
"(a) a private school;
"(b) a school provided by a band, the council of a band or an education authority where the band, the council of the band or the education authority is authorized by the crown in right of Canada to provide education for Indians; or
"(c) a school provided by the crown in right of Canada.
"about administering tests to pupils enrolled in the school, marking the tests and reporting the results of the tests.
"Same
"(8.2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (8.1), an agreement may provide for the charging of fees by the minister to a person operating a school described in subsection (8.1)."
This is basically now a housekeeping matter in line with the previous amendment.
The Acting Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? Unanimous. The amendment is carried.
Shall section 29, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 30 carry? Carried.
Mr Skarica: One final housekeeping matter, section 31, if I may.
I move that the bill be amended by striking out "Education Quality and Accountability Office Act, 1995" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "Education Quality and Accountability Office Act, 1996."
Mr Patten: What's the rationale for that?
The Acting Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Unanimous.
Shall section 31, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report Bill 30, An Act to establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office and to amend the Education Act with respect to the Assessment of Academic Achievement, as amended, to the House? Carried.
Shall I report Bill 31, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes, as amended, to the House? Carried.
This committee stands adjourned until further notice.
The committee adjourned at 1057.