EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION
CONTENTS
Tuesday 28 May 1996
Education Amendment Act, 1996, Bill 34, Mr Snobelen / Loi de 1996
modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation, projet de loi 34, M. Snobelen
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Agostino, Dominic (Hamilton East / -Est L)
*Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC)
*Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
*Johns, Helen (Huron PC)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
*Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC)
*Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr Agostino
Bartolucci, Rick (Sudbury L) for Mr Gerretsen
Skarica, Toni (Wentworth North / -Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Boyd, Marion (London Centre / -Centre ND) for Mr Laughren
Clerk / Greffière: Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Marilyn Leitman, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1534 in room 151.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation.
The Vice-Chair (Mr John Gerretsen): I call the committee to order. First of all, I'd just like to point out that the amendments you should have in front of you are the ones with the date stamp on them. I think they're the latest version and have all the various amendments that have been filed in them.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have another amendment to file. It's a duplicate of one of our other amendments that just has a typographical error as to the subsection number. I propose to file that.
The Vice-Chair: Can we start off then with the clause-by-clause deliberations and vote. First of all, dealing with section 1, are there any amendments to it?
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): We have an addition to suggest that this will come in later on when you take a look at the other amendments to this section.
I move that paragraph 27.1 of subsection 8(1) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding "and of per pupil expenditure reports under subsection 234(16)" at the end.
This would enable the strengthening of codes of account for boards. What it attempts to address is those boards which may have been frugal in anticipating required cuts having pre-empted themselves and then been caught with kind of double jeopardy where there is really nothing left to cut and they are forced to cut in a certain category. What this would do is establish a level that is reasonable and justifiable; that would be able to flag that for all concerned and appreciate that a board may not be able to take money from that particular area but maybe from another.
Mr Skarica: The government is intending, as you can see from the sunset clause, to bring in comprehensive education finance reform. The government's position is that this motion would be premature at this point, particularly in light of the evidence we heard in the last few days of the hearing that when these expenditures are broken down, you're comparing apples to oranges as opposed to apples to apples. Accordingly, we feel this would be premature, but we would welcome a similar type of provision when education finance reform goes through.
Mr Patten: How about in the meantime?
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Are there any further amendments to section 1?
Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
Section 2.
Mr Skarica: Mr Patten, do you want to act for the NDP? Why don't we hold the NDP motions until they're here, to be fair? I don't mind standing it down until they come.
The Vice-Chair: All right. Section 3. We have basically the same amendments to it, both moved by the Liberals and the NDP.
Mr Patten: I think this one is self-evident, having heard the testimony that in the program of adult education, for example -- well, this is what it is -- universality becomes an issue. We heard from some of the northern boards as to where they would be if this were dropped by necessity for economic reasons, financial reasons. In some communities there is no other option, and therefore universality is greatly affected.
I move that section 3 of the bill be struck out.
1540
The Vice-Chair: It's my understanding that since the amendment is directly contrary to what's being proposed here, the amendment is out of order.
Mr Patten: Thanks a lot. I thought you were a friend of mine.
The Vice-Chair: I'm ruling that the amendment to section 3 is out of order.
Mr Patten: The same for the next two?
The Vice-Chair: Just a minute now. Then we have the NDP amendment to section 3, which is the same as the Liberal amendments, and for the same reason I rule that that's out of order.
Mr Patten: You're saying sections 3 and 4?
The Vice-Chair: We'll deal with that when we get to section 4. Are there any further comments on section 3?
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Returning to section 2 -- Mrs Boyd, we skipped section 2 because there was no one here from your caucus. For the same rationale that I used with respect to the Liberal amendment to section 3, I'm ruling that your amendment to section 2 is out of order as well because it's directly contrary to what's being proposed.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm curious as to why you started when there wasn't a member of each party here, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Well, we waited about 10 minutes, and there was a quorum.
Mrs Boyd: It is usual practice to wait until a member of each party is available --
The Vice-Chair: If that's the usual practice, then --
Mrs Boyd: -- when you are just coming to order.
The Vice-Chair: Right. If that's the usual practice, then I stand corrected and I'll endeavour to see it doesn't happen again. But we did wait over 10 minutes for someone to arrive.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Mr Chairman, we put all the NDP -- we stood down; we didn't just carry on.
Mrs Boyd: That may be, but --
The Vice-Chair: But they also didn't have the opportunity to comment on the two sections that we did deal with, namely, sections 1 and 3.
Are there any further comments with respect to section 2?
Shall section 2 carry? Carried.
We're dealing then with section 4.
Interjection: Did we deal with section 3?
The Vice-Chair: Yes. We did do section 3. Shall we deal with section 4 then? I see there are two amendments as well that are the same as the amendments to section 3, in that that particular section be struck out, which is directly contrary to the section itself, what's being proposed. So I'm ruling that they are out of order as well.
Are there any comments on section 4?
Mr Patten: Just that we consider this to be a radical amendment.
Interjection: That's why it's out of order.
The Vice-Chair: Just a minute now. Whether or not it's a radical amendment, it's directly contrary to it. So the way in which you express your opposition to it is by voting against it.
Mr Patten: Yes, I am aware of that. It's proposed legislation and we want to suggest that it not be proposed. Anyway, proceed.
The Vice-Chair: I understand your point, but is there any further comment on section 4? Shall section 4 carry?
All those in favour of section 4 carrying? Opposed? Carried.
Section 5: I notice that there's an NDP motion that section 5 of the bill be struck out, and I'm ruling that out of order as well.
Any comments on section 5?
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): We don't like it.
The Vice-Chair: Then we have an amendment to subsection 5(2.1).
Mr Patten: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2.1) Subsection 170(1) of the act is amended by adding the following paragraph:
"Retirement option
"17.1 use its best efforts through negotiations under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, to provide retirement options to teachers employed by it in order to encourage early retirement."
The rationale for this is that in some discussions and some representations made to us, some boards found that the 85 option was pretty heavy. However, some expressed the view that if there were options of 86, 87, 88 or something in between, not quite as costly, any sign of an incentive to those nearing retirement or close to retirement might be enough to attract certain senior teachers to exercise that particular option, hence leaving room for some new teachers to be retained.
Mr Skarica: The government comment is that early retirement options right now are being discussed between the Ontario government and the Ontario Teachers' Federation, and negotiations are going on at this point. Until those negotiations are complete -- the government is basically doing this anyway, but the government doesn't support this amendment.
Mr Patten: You're doing it anyway, but you don't support it. I see. Not very friendly.
Mr Wildman: If the government is doing it, why would they object to the amendment?
Mr Skarica: What I should explain is that we're supportive of the principle, but until the negotiations with the federation and the government are completed, we don't want to tie the hands of the negotiators.
Mr Patten: This seems to me to be fairly broad and probably would encompass anything that might result in terms of some kind of an agreement or understanding. It opens up the options actually.
Mr Wildman: I think Mr Skarica's argument would also then apply to the section of the bill that allows for the Metro Toronto School Board and the Ottawa Board of Education to enter into agreements. Surely the government would not want to tie the hands of the negotiators in those negotiations either, so I guess the government is going to remove that section from the bill.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Any further discussion with respect to section 5? Shall section 5 carry?
Mrs Boyd: No.
The Vice-Chair: Hearing no, all those in favour of it carrying? Opposed? Carried.
Section 6: Again we have the amendment that section 6 be struck out, and I'm ruling that out of order, it being completely contrary to the section itself.
Mr Wildman: I am completely contrary to the section, and I think that for all of the members of the committee who heard presentations here in Toronto and travelled to communities across the province and heard presentations, not just from boards and teachers, but also particularly from parents -- we didn't hear as many as we would have liked, but the ones we did were very, very effective and heartfelt, on the importance of junior kindergarten for young children's development and for their preparation for their academic careers and life in general.
1550
I really urge the government to consider very seriously the presentations that were made to the committee so that the hearing process was not just some sort of façade, but that the committee and the government are going to respond to the presentations that were made. We saw the video in Sault Ste Marie. It's just tremendously important that we not see the end of junior kindergarten.
The minister, in response to Mr Patten in the House, really didn't give a clear answer as to whether or not there is in fact a review going on. But since the minister has said in the past there is a review going to take place in the junior kindergarten, then it doesn't make sense to have it destroyed and collapse as a program.
Twenty-six boards across the province have announced they're not going to proceed with junior kindergarten so far. It doesn't make sense to have that happen and then find, after a review, that perhaps the government believes the junior kindergarten program should be continued; perhaps changed, but continued. So I really urge the government not to pass this section.
Mr Preston: The comments we heard here and on the road were from psychologists, psychiatrists, interested parents who were concerned with early childhood education. The federations were concerned with junior kindergarten. I still continue to differentiate between the two and therefore this doesn't affect early childhood education, which is the important matter.
Mr Patten: Of course it affects early childhood education for a number of people, probably those who can't afford other options. Boards themselves will have to let it go, as I think we all would know, not because they don't believe that the program is worthy because indeed we had a number of boards that had said they didn't exercise the option of junior kindergarten until it was mandatory, however, having installed the program, their experience says, "We now realize the value and the strength of it and its contribution to the child and therefore we do not want to give it up." They urged us to retain it as a mandatory program.
Whether it's mandatory or not is not the issue. If it's local option, that's fine with me because most boards, I would say, would keep it. It's the loss of the funding that determines whether the usage continues or not and that, in my opinion, does not provide for universality. It means that those who haven't got the economic means or the financial means are not able to exercise that option at all.
Mr Preston: I'm of the feeling that junior kindergarten should start -- I'm sorry. See, I'm even using the terms interchangeably. Early childhood education should be started earlier with differentiated sites, differentiated staffing, and that way we'll be able to afford starting it earlier but under a different program. When they get to regular kindergarten, they can do their educational continuum. That sounds wonderful. That's where they can do their intermingling and start the formal part of it. But I think early childhood education goes back earlier.
Mrs Boyd: I think none of us would disagree that there needs to be more than just junior and senior kindergarten in the schools in terms of early childhood education because there's no question that the research shows that the earlier children begin to experience the benefits of a developmentally based education, the more likely they are to be able to have good self-confidence, to have good skills and so on.
But what the member doesn't seem to understand is that early childhood education not provided through publicly funded education is only within the means of those who have a good deal of money and those who are subsidized and there's this huge gap --
Interjection.
Mrs Boyd: Oh, are we hearing then that the government is going to put money into early childhood education? Because that certainly is not what is suggested by your budget, and it is certainly not what is suggested by the way in which this particular government has talked about early childhood education.
The other thing that is necessary to understand is that where the research shows this to be of benefit, it shows it to be of benefit when it is high quality, where it is regulated, where it is available to the full range of children, not just to one group or another. I think the member may be correct that there are other ways to get early childhood education, but in Ontario in 1996 there are very few communities and very few parents who really see any choice.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, I won't prolong it, but I would say that from the presentations that were made in the hearings, this matter along with adult education were the two most important aspects of the government's legislation in terms of the concerns raised by many, many people who made presentations.
We heard from a lot of very worried individuals and groups about the future of junior kindergarten, all of whom said that junior kindergarten had benefited those 100,000 students who are currently enrolled in junior kindergarten across the province. This is affecting an awful lot of kids and a very, very wide number of families and communities.
If the government is serious about a review, I reiterate, it doesn't make sense to move this change now. Why not wait till the review is finished?
The Vice-Chair: Anyone else? Shall section 6 carry? All those in favour of it carrying? Opposed? Carried.
Section 7: There's an amendment to it.
Mr Patten: I move that subsection 171.1(2) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."
Again, for consistency and for fairness, many representations identified that they felt this should be a requirement of all boards. While one may say -- and I believe I understand the intent of the original legislation, which is, you say "may" in terms of entering into agreements, but each board must report. So presumably, if a board has done nothing, that board would find itself in a somewhat embarrassing position when called to task by the ministry or whomever it might be.
However, we also heard from boards that suggested that they had in anticipation entered into agreements and saved money, and will now be required in this particular area to find further funding. So their efforts prior to this legislation, of course, will mean double jeopardy for them. But, in fairness, the representations suggested, "Listen, require all boards to enter into agreements in terms of finding ways to be as financial frugally and efficient and effective as possible."
Mr Skarica: The reason for this amendment is that, although some school boards are currently involved in cooperative agreements, other school boards have indicated to the government they have no authority to enter into such agreements. Accordingly, this amendment clearly enables boards to enter into such agreements. Adopting the Liberal amendment would then force boards to enter into agreements with MUSH sector institutions and would in effect expand the jurisdiction of the minister to enable him to control institutions beyond the purview of the Education Act.
1600
Mr Patten: Can I ask a question? Which boards are not permitted to enter into agreements? This is without -- not coterminous boards but not other educational institutions -- this is outside of the educational area. Is that what you're referring to?
Mr Skarica: As I understand it right now, some boards are not entering into the agreements as other boards have done because they don't feel they have the legislative authority to do it. That's my understanding. This will clearly enable them to make those agreements.
Mrs Boyd: For a number of years there's been encouragement for boards to do this. Some boards have complied and been very happy with the results. There are some boards whose legal advisers suggest to them that they don't have the authority to do that under the Education Act, and the government is just saying, "Yes, you can do this under the Education Act," and that's why they're doing it.
I think if you said "shall," you would have the effect you said; you didn't want to disadvantage those who had already entered into such agreements, and it seems to me that you might find you had done so.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: No, that's fine. My colleague made the comment.
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I agree with Mrs Boyd. In the area I represent, one school board feels that it would be to the detriment of their taxpayers to be forced to enter into an agreement, because they're a lower-spending board. As much as I try very hard to get them to do things that make financial sense, if they had to enter into every sector, for example, transportation, purchasing, in some cases it would be to the detriment of that board.
I feel very strongly that I can't accept the Liberal amendment because it would do some very serious damage to one of the boards in my riding, for example.
Mr Patten: That wasn't my intent obviously. It just meant that there would be some obligation to demonstrate effort. You'll be able to pick that up by the reporting process, of course, and if it is not possible in one area versus another, it's explained as to why it would not be advantageous, but I think it would keep a level playing field in that there is some effort shown.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments with respect to the amendment? All those in favour of the amendment? Was that two or one in favour? Just one. Opposed? That's lost.
Any further comment on section 7? Shall section 7 carry?
Mr Patten: There's another one in there.
The Vice-Chair: No, the next amendment is the addition of section 7.1. What we're dealing with now is just section 7 itself.
Shall section 7 carry? Carried.
Now an addition, which is section 7.1.
Mr Patten: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"7.1. The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Maximum allowance
"191.1. For the 12 months beginning on December 1 in each year, the amount received by any member of a board under section 191, not including reimbursements for travel expenses, shall not exceed $20,000."
For obvious reasons, a cap was likewise addressed by some representatives, in particular parent councils, parent groups, and was one of the recommendations of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force.
Mr Skarica: As you recall, the Ontario Royal Commission on Learning recommended a similar cap for compensation for trustees. The Royal Commission on Learning also recommended a careful review of the responsibilities of school board trustees. The concerns raised in this motion will be considered as part of the broader review of school board restructuring presently under consideration in response to the Sweeney report.
At this time, the government does not support the amendment because, along with the capping of the salaries of trustees, one has to consider their responsibilities.
Mr Patten: Am I to take it that you're saying this is not required because the government has some plans to review or change the nature of governance of boards across the province in any event?
Mr Skarica: As you can see from our amendments to section 9, it's clear the entire area of education finance reform is going to be looked at, and this is one of the areas that is going to be looked at under that review. That's my response to you at this time.
Mr Patten: So you would lump governance under finance review?
Mr Skarica: No, I wouldn't, but that's my response as to why we don't support it at this time.
Mr Patten: I see.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments with respect to this amendment? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? It's lost.
You have a further amendment, section 7.2, Mr Patten.
Mr Patten: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"7.2 The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Limit on number of board members
"233.1(1) The minister shall,
"(a) develop a formula to limit the number of members of a board in relation to the number of pupils enrolled in schools or classes under the jurisdiction of the board; and
"(b) propose amendments to this act to give effect to the formula.
"Same
"(2) The minister shall use his or her best efforts to meet the requirements of subsection (1) in time to affect the number of board members to be elected in the 1997 regular election under the Municipal Elections Act."
Mr Skarica: The government is opposed to this motion, given the concept that was proposed in the Sweeney report. The government currently is reviewing school board restructuring as proposed by the Sweeney report. Until that review is done and until decisions have been made as to what to do with the recommendations of the Sweeney report, we feel this is premature at this time.
Mrs Boyd: Could I ask a question about the language in here? "Develop a formula," does that mean the scheme would include dealing with the number of aboriginal students and the number of francophone students, for example, both of whom have constitutional rights and have representation on school boards now? I'm just curious as to what a formula would mean in this area.
Mr Patten: I don't mean it in the sense of being limiting of any group. It really is in terms of the numbers related to the enrolment. It's not meant to be discriminatory in terms of who makes up the representation.
Mrs Boyd: Then obviously we would have to oppose it, because right now, given the percentages of francophone and aboriginal students certainly in some southern school boards, having a formula that was strictly based on enrolment might very well be discriminatory. I think it needs to be addressed and I understand from Mr Skarica that it will be addressed in terms of the ongoing discussion. I think to put this in could very well be prejudicial.
I look at our particular area. We have one aboriginal representative and three francophone representatives on our public school board. If you were doing it strictly by enrolment as opposed to specific constitutional interests, you might very well not come up with those numbers, and that could be a problem.
1610
Mr Wildman: I agree with my colleague and recognize that the proposals have been made, and were being considered when we were in government, for limiting the number of trustees. Mr Sweeney has made some recommendations, and I look forward to the government's response. Right now there is provision for one aboriginal representative to be on a board if a board is educating students from the aboriginal community. If you don't have that in your amendment, then you might be open to being accused of abridging those constitutional rights.
Mr Patten: The spirit in which this was proposed was certainly not to limit the required -- this was essentially taken from the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force, and I assume there would be minimum numbers and maximum numbers and that those took into consideration a required representation that would be called for constitutionally. That certainly wouldn't be the intent. If that's the only thing standing in the way, I would entertain a friendly amendment to acknowledge that this is done recognizing the constitutional representational requirements. It is merely meant to be frugal in having the number of trustees sit on a board but still honouring the representation that's required.
Mrs Boyd: I'm quite sure that the minister does not need to be empowered by this amendment to offer amendments to the act once a formula is determined. The minister can do that to his act now. The purpose of this appears to be to empower the minister, once this decision around formula is made, to bring forward amendments, and that is absolutely unnecessary and redundant in the act.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments? If not, I'll call for a vote on the addition of section 7.2. All in favour? Opposed? That's lost.
Dealing with section 8: Mr Patten, an amendment.
Mr Patten: I move that section 8 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(4) Section 234 of the act is further amended by adding the following subsections:
"Tables specifying per pupil spending limits
"(13) The minister shall prepare tables specifying the maximum amount to be spent annually by a board, on a per pupil basis, in each category specified by the minister for the purpose.
"Same
"(14) The tables may specify different maximums for different boards or classes of boards.
"Same
"(15) The minister may amend the tables from time to time.
"Per pupil expenditure report
"(16) The treasurer of every board shall prepare a per pupil expenditure report in respect of every year and shall submit a copy of the report to the ministry at the same time that it submits copies of the financial statements and auditor's report in respect of the year under subsection (9).
"Same
"(17) A report under subsection (16) shall be prepared in accordance with any guidelines issued under paragraph 27.1 of subsection 8(1) and shall state the amount that the board spent during that year, on a per pupil basis, in each of the categories included in the tables.
"Impact on legislative grants
"(18) When making legislative grants regulations under subsection 11(3), the minister may penalize a board that exceeded a maximum specified in the tables."
This is in response to the attempt to develop the kinds of codes of accounting that really need to be more universal when doing comparisons, and having some basis on which to do some comparisons, and likewise to enable the ministry to know, when making requirements of boards to reduce expenditures in certain areas, and it's contained to certain areas, that some boards may already have made some cuts beyond what is reasonable. I see it as two-sided, that there is an effort here to spell out what are the codes of accounts or tables, if you will, and the kind of reporting that can be done that will enable people to be more objective in their management of the resources and also of transfers.
Mrs Boyd: My question to the mover of the amendment is, is the intention here for dividing the entire budget, both what is raised municipally and what is given provincially, the entire amount of that to be divided by the pupil enrolment and that then becomes the per pupil cost, or are we talking about the instructional per pupil cost, which is a somewhat different figure and to which certainly in my recollection there was never a whole lot of agreement about how it was calculated, or is it some other method you were thinking of? There certainly would be differences in terms of school boards, and you provided that that might be different. Were you trying to get at the ceilings?
Mr Patten: This doesn't deal with the level of the ceilings at all. It just attempts to identify some degree of consistency, knowing that there will be some variables with different kinds of boards, but for comparative purposes and for the ministry to be aware of what a particular board is spending in an area already. So we see this as helping to strengthen the financial management, and appreciation for what is considered to be reasonable to spend in a particular area. If it's higher or lower for whatever reason, then there's an explanation for it, but to arrive at some kind of common codes of accounts in accounting for the expenditure of the resources. It doesn't deal with the level of the resources, which we would all agree are insufficient at this time.
Mr Wildman: Actually, when I first read the amendment, I was thinking that this would be, along with the other things that Mr Patten has mentioned, a way of starting to be realistic about the ceilings, because the ceilings are completely unrealistic in terms of per pupil expenditure. Right now, I think all the boards in the province, maybe with the exception of one, are spending way above the ceilings, so obviously that has to be dealt with.
Also, we need to come to some agreement across the province on what kinds of expenditures are what, because there are disagreements among boards and between the boards and the ministry. We saw that in the exchange in Sault Ste Marie between the director of education and one of the members of the committee, Mr Skarica, so I think that would be helpful.
Right now, though, perhaps what would be useful for the committee in determining how to deal with this amendment is if Mr Skarica or one of his colleagues could elaborate on how the general legislative grant is now arrived at. The ministry must have per pupil costs that they have -- I think they do -- so how is that arrived at and would this proposal from Mr Patten be of assistance in this process and getting some kind of figures and tables that we all can agree upon or not?
Mr Skarica: I can't answer that question. It was a surprise to me too. The ministry provided me with a breakdown of all the expenditures -- there are 10 categories -- and I had assumed that business administration was business administration. Then we found out late in the hearings that business administration for one board can be something different from another -- it's totally shocking -- and we could spend $14 billion a year and not know what we're spending it on and have every board have different definitions of their expenditures.
1620
It's my feeling and the government's feeling that this amendment is premature. What's really needed, and I think we heard this from everybody, there was consensus from everybody in the hearings, all parties, that we need dramatic education finance reform. We have to look at this whole question so that we know, we can compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. So the government's position is that this is just premature at this time.
The Vice-Chair: So are you withdrawing the bill until we get finance reform?
Mr Skarica: No.
The Vice-Chair: I thought I heard something like that, but I may have been hallucinating.
Mr Wildman: The whole bill is premature.
Mrs Boyd: You live in hope, don't you?
I would like Mr Skarica to confirm, however, that in fact it is possible now to know what is -- the way the GLG is calculated, if I'm right on this, is based on having a knowledge of what the board submits as a per pupil cost. Is that not true?
Mr Skarica: That's my understanding, and then there's a percentage rate of grant and it appears on this chart. How that's arrived at I have no idea, but I imagine there must be a basic --
Mr Wildman: It's based on their assessment.
Mrs Boyd: Their assessment base and so on. I'm not sure that the gathering of the information is enhanced by this particular motion. I think we all would like to know and sort out what exactly is meant by a per pupil grant, what's included in that and so on, and I think it became awfully clear, certainly in terms of reading Hansard, that there was no clarity on that. I can tell you that five years ago there was no clarity on that and empowering the minister to find this out doesn't work. The minister's already empowered to find it out and the minister hasn't been able to find this out for a long time.
Mr Skarica: We had three weeks of hearings and we weren't able to find out.
Mrs Boyd: I know, and that's a function of handing over a huge amount of responsibility to municipal school boards to run the school system over many, many years. The whole thing kind of grows like Topsy and the reason that I think most people working in the field have said there has to be a thorough examination of education financing is we have to find a way to phase in any changes so that no particular municipality is being overly affected. It's a very complex job, and this is not something that can be accomplished overnight.
Mrs Johns: I just want to confirm what Mrs Boyd said. The other day I met with my board of education and they came up with an administrative cents per dollar that they spend in their school board and they didn't take into account any principals' salaries. They weren't considered an administrative cost, although when you ask the principals what they did, half of their day was on administration. It's a vision that has become very clouded and I think we have to do a lot of work on that too, so I agree.
From my board's perspective, settling on maximums isn't what's going to solve the problems in my boards. We have to decide on what's a fair minimum and work with that dollar value. Because this, I don't think, stops the two-tiered education system we have in Ontario, which is that some boards have money and some boards do not. On the other side, we need to find a level that every student is entitled to have spent on them for education and then move forward with that number. I'm opposed to this amendment because I believe we should be looking at minimums to ascertain what our children need as opposed to saying, "You can't spend above that."
That also brings into effect what we do for special-ed children and people who may require a different value, where we stop them from getting the dollars they need. I think we have to allocate a minimum and then look at the special needs of people within our community and say, "How can we best help them?" This is counter to how I believe we should ascertain how our dollars should be spent in education, and I won't be supporting it.
Mr Wildman: I agree with a lot of what Mrs Johns has just said -- and I don't think you meant this -- not because we might be saying, "Okay, this is a minimum and that's it," but to determine what all students should be entitled to I think is a legitimate way to go.
I'm concerned about (18) here, where it says, "When making legislative grants regulations under subsection 11(3), the minister may penalize a board that exceeded a maximum specified in the tables."
Unless we deal with the ceilings realistically, as long as those ceilings remain in place, a lot of boards could be penalized, and that doesn't just mean the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Education or the Ottawa Board of Education. It would be boards in every part of the province, because every one of them is above the ceilings or nearly all of them are.
While I really have sympathy with what Mr Patten is attempting here, I do think this should be part of an overall approach to financing education and reform of financing education, so I would be worried about that, not because I think this particular minister might come in and just say, "You can't spend so much more than this other board," or something, recognizing that the tables can specify different maxima for different boards or classes of boards in the amendment.
How those would be determined is really the central question. What is a decent level of expenditure for students in different parts of the province? You might be able to make arguments for saying in certain rural areas it should be more, in certain parts of the north it should be more, in certain urban areas it might be a little less, in areas where there is a large immigrant population it might be more. How are you going to deal with that? That's got to be part of an overall package, I think.
Mr Patten: I'm personally in agreement with these comments. In the absence of finance reform, I think everyone acknowledged there has to be some clarity around codes of accounts and definitions of what constitutes the various categories of expenditure, so this was an attempt to ameliorate that. Now I'm told, "You can expect finance reform." Fine, that's good. I think everyone will welcome that, but in the absence of actually having it, it was within this context that this was proposed.
Mr Skarica: I'd like to add that, although many of the Liberal motions are being voted against because they appear to be premature, I found the ideas within them very good and we're going to pass them on to the education finance reform, so you may see them resurface. I actually find favour with many of the ideas and I think it's pretty creative of Mr Patten.
The Vice-Chair: In that case then, you'll vote in favour of the amendment?
Mr Skarica: No. They're just premature.
The Vice-Chair: You'll still vote against them.
Mr Skarica: Just trying to be nice to him.
The Vice-Chair: He needs that every now and then.
Any further comments with respect to the amendment to section 8? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Any further comment with respect to section 8? Shall section 8 carry? Carried.
Section 9, and I'll take these in the order that they're in the package, so there is the government amendment.
Mr Skarica: I move that subsection 257.2(2) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by striking out "may make an equalization payment to the Minister of Finance" in the first and second lines and substituting "may enter into an agreement with the minister to make an equalization contribution."
These amendments are in response to concerns raised during the public hearings that money raised by local taxation for school purposes was being paid into the consolidated revenue fund and that a school board should be able to contribute its share of the expenditure reductions by means other than direct payment. In addition to other measures of the bill that support local decision-making and flexibility, the government believes that these amendments will provide options for school boards to ensure that students have access to quality programming across the province.
Mr Patten: Let me ask a question. If you remove equalization payments to the Minister of Finance from the section, where would these resources go in the final analysis?
Mr Skarica: There's another amendment that's coming after this --
Mr Wildman: I was just going to suggest, Mr Chair, it might be helpful if we had all the government amendments just read right into the record at the same time, because they are a package it looks to me.
Mr Skarica: They are a package. If we have consent to do that, I could do that.
1630
Mr Patten: You mean under section 9?
Mr Skarica: Under section 9.
The Vice-Chair: There's no problem with that on the understanding that they'll be voted on one by one.
Mr Wildman: Oh, certainly.
Mr Skarica: Moving forward, the next motion is really housekeeping based on the prior proposed amendment.
I move that subsection 257.2(5) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by striking out "the payment is made by the board to the Minister of Finance" in the fourth and fifth lines and substituting "the agreement in respect of the year is made under this section."
Moving forward to the next government motion:
I move that section 257.2 of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Contributions
"(5.1) If a board decides to enter into an agreement under this section, the board and the minister shall discuss ways in which the board may make the equalization contribution.
"Same
"(5.2) An agreement made under this section shall specify the ways in which the board will make the equalization contribution and may provide for any arrangements for the making of the contribution, whether direct or indirect, whether by means of transfer, setoff, forgiveness of a debt or otherwise and whether or not involving another board, a municipality or any other person.
"Same
"(5.3) A board may make an equalization contribution in accordance with an agreement under this section."
Mr Wildman: How do you define "setoff"?
The Vice-Chair: We can get into discussion on that after we have all the amendments. We have two more.
Mr Skarica: I move that subsection 257.2(6) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Deemed purpose
"(6) A sum contributed as an equalization contribution shall be deemed to be,
"(a) in the case of a board to which subsection 114(1) applies, a sum required for a separate school purpose, within the meaning of subsection 114(1);
"(b) in the case of a board to which subsection 236(1) applies, a sum required for a public school or secondary school purpose, within the meaning of subsection 236(1);
"(c) in the case of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, a sum required to meet an expenditure or obligation of the board under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, within the meaning of clause 139(1)(g) of that act; and
"(d) in the case of the Metropolitan Separate School Board, a sum required to meet a cost, charge or expenditure of the board under the Metropolitan Separate School Board Act, 1953, within the meaning of subsection 16(1) of that act."
Finally, I move that section 257.2(7) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by the following subsection:
"Repeal
"(7) This section is repealed on December 31, 1998."
The Vice-Chair: That last amendment you read is the one that replaces the other one because of the typographical error?
Mr Skarica: That's correct.
The Vice-Chair: Did you want to speak to all of the amendments?
Mr Skarica: Yes. As Mr Wildman pointed out, they come as a package. I've spoken to the first one. If I could go to the one that authorizes an agreement between the board and the minister to discuss ways in which the board may make the equalization contribution, these subsections provide that when a school board agrees to enter into agreement to make an equalization contribution, the board and the minister shall engage in discussions as to how the board might contribute.
The agreement might provide for offsetting of revenue that the board might otherwise receive from the minister or another board. For example, negative grant boards may educate pupils of coterminous boards. If the coterminous board does not pay a fee to the negative grant board, the province does not have to pay the grant on these fees. This money is credited by the province to the account of the negative grant board. These new subsections make transparent the process that was contemplated to take place between the negative grant boards and the minister.
Other ways could include setoffs and forgiveness of a debt, and could involve municipalities and other boards.
Mr Patten: What's a setoff?
Mr Skarica: Offset.
Mr Patten: You could set it off from this time to next time. It could be a time concept.
Mr Skarica: Dealing with the sunset clause, we heard from everybody during the hearings that it was clear that what's required in education is education finance reform. This amendment makes it clear that equalization contributions need be considered in the broader context of education financing. To reveal our determination to go through the process of education finance reform, this sunset date is set to coincide with the education finance reform process and is in response to the evidence and concerns we heard regarding the equalization payments from a variety of groups.
Mr Wildman: I still don't know what a setoff is. I think you may mean "offset," but I'm not sure.
Mr Skarica: They told me to withdraw it.
The Vice-Chair: Withdraw what?
Mr Skarica: The word "setoffs." These are some further examples of what we mean by that subsection.
Mr Wildman: This is a setup.
Mr Skarica: The Metropolitan Toronto School Board waived tuition fees for students attending its schools from the Metropolitan Separate School Board when the ministry reduced its grants to the latter boards. That's the type of situation -- offset/setoff -- that we're contemplating.
The Vice-Chair: Any discussion on these amendments?
Mr Patten: Of course. Which one are we beginning with here?
The Vice-Chair: The first one. It's the one that deals with subsection 257.2(5).
Mr Patten: It sounds like there's an increased capacity for skating around the issue. The intent of these amendments would be to expand the possibilities of retrieving funds from a negative grant board that would include transfers from another board, for example, and any other special grants that are there for special needs, or whatever it may be. I think that's in the legislation already, that the equalization payments are to be considered before any final grants of any kind are made to a board. Let me stop there. This is true? This gives you a wider range of being able to recoup funds?
Mr Skarica: That's not the intent of it. The intent of it is to address concerns we heard from the parent groups in Ottawa, for example. They did not want their property taxes paying for fixing the potholes in other parts of Ontario. The purpose of all these amendments collectively is to make sure that whatever moneys are recovered from negative grant boards stay within the education system. That's the intent and purpose of those amendments, to make sure that's clear.
Mr Patten: This bill is triggered by the $400 million required by the Treasurer, so if you don't satisfy the amount -- in other words, if the Ottawa board or the Metro Toronto board make their contributions and they would be in the neighbourhood, probably, of about $80 million, which is fairly substantial -- 20%, something in that neighbourhood, of the $400 million that's being asked for by the Treasurer -- and their contributions stay in education, where will that money be spent and what's the assurance that it truly does stay in education and doesn't go off into general revenues to support the deficit reduction or tax break?
Mr Skarica: It's important to realize that it's up to the boards; it's permissive. First of all, the boards have to come to an agreement with the minister and then the board as well goes into negotiations with the minister to direct where moneys go, so if any moneys do get transferred to the minister, the board has a say as to where they go. I can't imagine they would say it should go to fix potholes in the rest of Ontario.
Mr Wildman: I listened very carefully to the amendments and the explanation Mr Skarica has given, and I must say that I think the amendments are an attempt to improve the section.
Mr Skarica: Thank you, Mr Wildman.
1640
Mr Wildman: No, I think they are a genuine attempt to do that, but it still raises concerns in my mind. I'm happy that you've included in it a sunset provision, but that's, I guess, predicated on the assumption that education finance reform will be in place by the end of 1998, which may be a good thing, and may or may not happen, since we all know education finance reform has been talked about in this province for a long time. So while I see it as an attempt to improve it, I am worried. I'm worried because I'm not sure exactly how these negotiations might take place. It seems to me that if I were in the position of Ms Vanstone, for instance, I might take the position that I'm not interested in entering into an agreement.
I'm just wondering what the minister's response might be to such a decision by the Metropolitan Toronto board. I'm worried that he might -- I don't want to ascribe anything to him that is unfair, but I think he might be tempted to say to the board, "If you don't enter into negotiations with us, there are certain other things we might change." For instance, as Mr Patten mentioned, there are special grants provided, even to negative grant boards, for specific things that might be eliminated. Or, heaven forbid, the government might be tempted to say to the boards, "Why don't you take over the employer share of teachers' superannuation?" I'm sure that wouldn't be proposed, but it is a possibility, and --
Mr Skarica: I hadn't thought of it, actually.
Mr Wildman: -- that might coerce a board into entering into negotiations that it was not willing to enter into of its own accord. While I don't usually look for conspiracies everywhere, I think there might be an attempt by this government to coerce a board. While Mr Skarica says this is permissive, and while I admit the amendments are an attempt to improve it, I'm glad there's a sunset section in the amendments. I'm still worried about it.
Mr Patten: I didn't understand fully the way in which school boards would be assured that their funding would be for educational purposes. One way to assure the taxpayers that you avoid this dilemma in trying to find money from these boards is to require these boards to return a certain percentage of money to their own taxpayers that is equivalent to the requirements, what's considered to be a fair share, because the government of course is interested in seeing the tax cuts. That would be the neatest and cleanest way to do it.
I would be very sceptical. I can see the motivation for taking out "Minister of Finance" because immediately that says, "Here's money raised for educational purposes going to the Minister of Finance," and there's no indication that I saw in the last budget that the finances to education were increasing; in fact they're diminishing. There would be every reason for the taxpayers of certain boards to say, "What assures you from your legal counsel that the boards that are affected under these provisions are not vulnerable to being sued by their own taxpayers?"
Mr Wildman: I might add that some of the parents from Toronto who appeared before the committee indicated that was one thing they were considering.
Mr Patten: Yes.
Mr Skarica: Part of the thinking in doing the amendments was that the way it was before, the Minister of Finance would almost certainly open up litigation because we are open to the criticism, "Well, you're collecting property taxes and now it's going for provincial purposes, ie, repairing highways and so on and so forth." So the amendments are to alleviate that, in fact protect boards because now they have some control over where those equalization payments are being spent by way of agreement and negotiation with the minister. I imagine they will get legal advice and whatever agreement they arrive at would have to be in contemplation of lawsuits and litigation from their ratepayers.
Mr Patten: But now there still remains a discrepancy in that you may say: "These negative grant boards will enter into an agreement for X amount of money." They go to the Ministry of Education for educational purposes and let's assume that could be satisfied, then what do you do when the intent of the exercise in the first place was to find $400 million out of this budget year and you're going to be searching for another, let's say, $80 million or something in that neighbourhood, how is that $80 million to be made up to satisfy the requirements of the $400 million?
Mr Skarica: It's not $400 million because, as you know, it's about an $180-million freeze on capital spending. So we're talking $230 million.
Mr Patten: Two thirty-one, yes.
Mr Skarica: I know there's all kinds of different figures. I can't directly answer that question, but that's why it's left open for negotiation between the minister and the board, so that there's flexibility both for the government and the boards to recoup the moneys to satisfy our requirements and, at the same time, satisfy the concerns.
We heard at the hearings regarding taxation without representation. In fact, in Ottawa we heard that people there did not want to be taxed from their property base for provincial purposes. I really can't give you more of an answer on that at the present time.
Mr Patten: Okay. It would seem that the other boards would have to make up the difference if the Treasurer he wanted X amount of dollars from education and that would be exacerbated in a more pronounced manner in the 1997-98 fiscal year when that $400 million becomes annualized to at least double the amount.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Just to clarify the record, the comment was made by Mr Patten about no moneys to education, and I wanted to point out that $40 million is going into technology in education and $1,000 per student in co-op programs and matching funds by the government for contributions to colleges and universities.
Mr Wildman: That's $40 million. There's a $20-million increase over what was already budgeted by the previous government and it's after all of the other cuts. It's also stated in the budget that those are to be matched. So if a board cannot match it, they're not going to get the money from you.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Don't we put 20 in?
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: Just a minute now. Are you finished, Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: Is there anyone else who wants to speak on these amendments?
Mr Patten: Yes, just on the date, which sounds risky. This is a very confident government. I would also suggest that can be used as a -- let me try and find a friendly term, although I can't find one. In a sense it can be perceived as a threat by the negative grant boards because it places before them: "Listen, we're talking about a new ball game. In the meantime, you better play ball with us because the whole shooting match is going to be reorganized in any case." So we're talking about a whole new funding system, but there's a short-term requirement for some cash. Frankly, it still doesn't hang together financially. I'll do some more homework on it and share my discoveries with you, Mr Skarica.
1650
But it seems to me that it doesn't square financially that there will be a missing amount of money that will have to be made up, unless the Treasurer's prepared to back off and say, "We do not need as much money from education as we were looking for." If that's the case, then it hangs together. If it doesn't, then it still leaves the ministry hunting for the money that they have to get right out of education because this money's all right out of education. It's not to be circulated within. So if you have boards kicking into education, it still doesn't solve the requirements.
I will cease and desist for the moment, but I'll be interested in the financial machinations that are sure to occur.
Mr Skarica: You recall that during the hearings we heard from a number of boards that were not in the negative grant position that they were very concerned that the equalization payment provisions were an attempt by the government as a first step to encroach on their property tax base. The reason for the sunset provision is to assure those boards basically this isn't that attempt, that this is a stopgap measure really, the act is, until we get to education finance reform.
Mr Wildman: I accept Mr Skarica's explanation on the date. I think that's obviously what the government is attempting here.
But I think Mr Patten raises a good point with regard to the actual funds and how much is coming and where it's going. I guess you could argue, for instance, that the $14.5 million that the government estimates small boards will get to try to alleviate the problems they might face because of the cuts might come from whatever the negative grant boards are contributing. Obviously it has been kept in education, but then what about the rest of it, where does it go and how does it contribute to the overall goals the Minister of Finance has set for this ministry to meet in terms of savings?
If it stays in education, the question is, how does that contribute to savings? Unless it means it will be applied to some of the moneys -- and this would be a bookkeeping measure, I suppose -- that are going to boards that receive grants, and so the Minister of Finance might even be giving less money directly to them than he's proposing now.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comment on these amendments? If not, we'll deal with them one at a time.
First of all, the one that deals with subsection 257.2(2). All those in favour of that amendment? Opposed? That's carried.
The next one is subsection 257.2(5). Any further discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.
The next one is subsections 257.2(5.1) to (5.3). Any further discussion? All in favour?
Mr Wildman: Sorry. Are we going to deal with the question that's set off? I mean that's a bit weird.
The Vice-Chair: Is that the one that has that in there? Yes. Were you proposing any further amendments, Mr Skarica?
Mr Skarica: No.
Mr Patten: Because it offsets. Because if it is, it's --
Interjections.
Mr Wildman: The term was always "offset." I don't want to be equivocal but --
The Vice-Chair: Legislative counsel, please.
Ms Marilyn Leitman: Setoff is a legal term used when someone owes --
Mr Wildman: That explains it.
Ms Leitman: -- when two people owe each other money and they're trying to collect from each other and you set off the amounts against each other.
Mr Wildman: Okay, fine. I'll accept it.
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion on that particular amendment? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Then 257.2(6): Any further discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Then the last one, 257.2(7): Any further discussion? All in favour? Carried unanimously.
Then we have two further amendments that are both out of order because they both state that section 9 of the bill be struck out so I'm ruling that they're out of order.
Mr Wildman: We'll just vote again.
The Vice-Chair: They're not even before you.
Any further discussion on section 9, as amended? Shall section 9, as amended, carry? No? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 10, there is an amendment which has been moved by the NDP that it be struck out, and I'm ruling that out of order as well, since it's contrary to the intent of section 10.
Mr Wildman: As you know, the reason for the amendment which you ruled out of order is that we oppose the section.
The Vice-Chair: I understand.
Mr Wildman: The reason we oppose the section is that we had representation, particularly from teachers' groups but also from boards, that indicated that teachers do not abuse their sick leave and that the number of days they have is not out of line with many other groups, such as nurses and other professionals.
It appears that really what the government is after here is retirement gratuities rather than sick leave, and the question was raised a number of times about so-called unfunded liability of boards on retirement gratuity when we had some boards who raised that as a concern, but others said, "Well, we've been able to set off this by the fact that when a senior teacher retires and is replaced by a junior teacher or new teacher, the cost in the immediate number of years as the teacher moves through the grid is less to the board than the retirement gratuity."
So the saving in terms of salary cost is set off. For that reason, I oppose the section.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments with respect to section 10?
Mr Skarica: I just have a couple of comments. Gratuities right now are subject to negotiation. We heard from the Roman Catholic board in Carleton where they don't have a gratuity, but virtually everywhere else it does exist. This doesn't remove it and it makes it subject to negotiation. There was some concern -- I think all of us heard that most of it is an unfunded liability and now approaching up to $10 billion.
As far as the 20 days, in the broader public sector sick time is not set out in legislation in any other area that we heard of. This basically makes the teacher legislation uniform with the broader public sector. Again it's a matter subject to negotiation.
1700
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion on section 10 itself?
Mr Patten: Yes, I have another amendment.
The Vice-Chair: No, that's 10.1. We're just dealing with any discussion on section 10 as it's before us, as printed in the bill. Mr Patten, do you have any further comments? No? Shall section 10 carry? All those in favour of section 10 carrying? Opposed? Carried.
You have an amendment, 10.1, Mr Patten.
Mr Patten: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"10.1. The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Junior kindergarten teachers
"261.1(1) Despite any other provision of this act or the regulations, a person who has an approved certificate in early childhood education need not,
"(a) hold an Ontario teacher's certificate or a letter of standing; or
"(b) be a member of the Ontario College of Teachers,
"to teach junior kindergarten.
"Same
"(2) The minister may make regulations specifying which certificates, diplomas or degrees are approved certificates in early childhood education for the purposes of subsection (1)."
This is not an easy one, because I know that the federations and a number of teachers are worried that the teachers who have certificates will lose their jobs. So this is not an easy amendment to make. However, I'm convinced that the only way some boards are going to be able to maintain the program is by some sort of a mix. I know of some boards that have already begun to do this in any case, and I know that some of these are related to collective agreements, but it enables them to maintain a program by having perhaps fewer certified teachers for junior kindergarten along with those who have some kind of recognition as early childhood educators.
What it does do is protect the program, because it is less costly. It is in that light that I believe for certain boards this will be their only option. The women's federation, I believe, also suggested that this may be a recourse for them to protect junior kindergarten.
Mr Skarica: We call it the Peter Preston amendment.
Mr Preston: Peter Preston Liberal motion. This is what I've been saying --
Interjection: Repetitively.
The Vice-Chair: Are you in favour of the amendment?
Mr Preston: Yes, I am.
Mr Skarica: In principle, the government's in favour of this amendment as well.
There is a problem in the Day Nurseries Act. There's a ratio of one to eight for child care as opposed to the one-to-21 ratio right now for junior kindergarten. So in effect, if this amendment was passed at this time, it would be more expensive for the boards as opposed to less expensive. Given the reductions, I'm not sure they could afford that expense.
Again, this is something that's going to be contemplated in the future, but it is premature at this time.
Mrs Boyd: There's absolutely nothing in this amendment that then would put those children under the Day Nurseries Act as opposed to under the Education Act, so that is not the problem. Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't be in favour of doing that. Let me say that 21 four-year-olds to one person is nuts. That's not education. So that's a problem. But there certainly isn't anything in this amendment that would suddenly move those children under the Day Nurseries Act.
All we're saying is that under the Education Act these people would be recognized as being able to teach junior and senior kindergarten, and it would still be under the Education Act. So I don't think that's a problem. Now, it might be the thin edge of the wedge, and that might be what worries the government.
Mr Wildman: I understand the purpose of this amendment, and we did hear from FWTAO, the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, that they were prepared to negotiate or discuss with the government something like this. But I want to emphasize that they took the position that such individuals as might be touched by this amendment should be under the supervision of a certified teacher, a person with a teaching certificate, and I'm not sure the amendment says that.
Mr Preston: Subsection (2), "The minister may make the regulations specifying which certificates, diplomas or degrees are approved...." If he specifies that there has to be a certified teacher supervising the ECE, he can do that, can't he, under the section?
Mr Wildman: He could, but the question is, would he? I think the FWTAO's proposal was a reasonable one, and I wish the government would take them up on it. They're saying, okay, you might have two junior kindergartens. There might be one teacher with a teaching certificate in charge of those two junior kindergartens and you could then have two of the individuals discussed in this amendment working under the supervision of that person in the program in those junior kindergartens and it might overall be less expensive than having two teachers with teaching certificates working in the two kindergartens.
I wish the government would take them up on that, but I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to support the amendment because it's not clear and I don't have the unqualified confidence in the minister that Mr Preston has.
Mrs Boyd: Or any minister.
Mr Wildman: Or any minister, yes. I'm not being --
Mr Preston: I do have one minor problem with this, and it's that it's in the negative, that the ECE "need not." Rather than saying what is needed to teach early childhood education, we're saying what's not needed, and that leaves it open, I believe. If indeed you didn't trust the minister, it would be wide open.
Mr Wildman: Yes, because then it's up to just the regulations.
Mr Preston: Yes. That's the only thing I have against it. In theory, in principle, this is what I've been talking about, as you know.
The Vice-Chair: You're starting to sound like the parliamentary assistant, Mr Preston.
Mr Preston: Well, yes. That's an "I agree with you, but..."
The Vice-Chair: He agrees with everything in principle too.
Mrs Boyd: That was my question. Is he suggesting an amendment to this? Because then we would definitely have to oppose it, because what you'd be saying then would be that the only people who could teach in junior and senior kindergarten would be people with an early childhood education thing, and I don't think you want to say that.
Mr Preston: No, what I'm saying is that this is possibly premature until we do the study and decide what is actually needed to teach.
Mr Wildman: The mythical study.
The Vice-Chair: That's a little bit different, yes.
Mr Wildman: I'm just pointing out that the study seems to be somewhat ephemeral.
Mr Skarica: I'm told there is something called a working group, and they're looking at the benefits of differentiated staffing at this time and will be reporting back to the minister.
The Vice-Chair: Any further amendment or any further discussion?
Mr Patten: Yes. Just to clarify, we did not see this as, "Kick out all the certified teachers and bring in less expensive early childhood educators." Not at all. That this would enable early childhood educators to work as part of a team under the supervision of certified junior kindergarten teachers was the intent. So we see this as enabling, with the school boards having the responsibility for the nature of the staffing and what proportion and all this kind of thing.
The Acting Chair (Mr Michael Gravelle): Any further discussion? Ready for the vote on this amendment then?
All those in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment fails, loses.
The next two amendments -- I'll do one at a time. The next amendment has been deemed out of order.
Are there any comments on section 11?
Mr Wildman: As you can see from our out-of-order amendment, we are opposed to the section for the same reasons we explained we were opposed to the changes in the other sections related to junior kindergarten.
The Acting Chair: That seems clear. Mr Skarica, any comment?
Mr Skarica: I have no comment.
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion on section 11? Shall section 11 carry? I didn't hear any "nos." All those in favour of section 11 carrying? All those opposed? Section 11 carries.
Mr Wildman: You were right.
The Acting Chair: As it turns out.
The amendment for section 12 is also out of order. Is there any discussion on section 12? Comments? Shall section 12 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 12 carries.
Any discussion on section 13? Shall section 13 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 13 carries.
Any discussion on section 14? Shall section 14 carry? Section 14 carries.
Shall the title carry? Any discussion on that question? All those in favour of the title carrying? The title carries.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Any discussion? All those in favour of the bill, as amended, carrying? All those opposed? Carried.
Shall the Chair report Bill 34, An Act to amend the Education Act, as amended, to the House? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
I think that's the end of our business today, ladies and gentlemen. The committee will adjourn. We obviously do not have a meeting tomorrow then. We've completed our business on Bill 34.
Mr Pettit: Mr Chair, I just want to commend you for the outstanding job you did as the Chair today.
The Acting Chair: It wasn't easy. It was very stressful. It was an onerous responsibility and I'm grateful for your support.
The committee stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1713.