Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

CONTENTS

Wednesday 26 March 1997

Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, Bill 104, Mr Snobelen /

Loi de 1997 réduisant le nombre de conseils scolaires, projet de loi 104, M. Snobelen

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Présidente: Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron PC)

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East / -Est PC)

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Ms Marilyn Leitman, legislative counsel

Mr John Tomlinson, senior counsel, legal services branch

Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum

Staff / Personnel: Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1305 in room 151.

FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Consideration of Bill 104, An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 104, Loi visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte, l'efficacité et la qualité du système scolaire ontarien en permettant la réduction du nombre des conseils scolaires, en créant la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, chargée d'encadrer la transition vers le nouveau système, en prévoyant certaines questions liées aux élections de 1997 et en apportant d'autres améliorations à la Loi sur l'éducation et à la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales.

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our committee hearings. As we start, I'd like to run through the purpose for our being here.

Pursuant to the government's time allocation motion, we held public hearings Monday through Thursday the week of March 17, 1997, and Monday, March 24, 1997, and Tuesday, March 25, 1997. Today we are here to consider the bill for clause-by-clause consideration and we will continue until we complete the clause-by-clause.

All proposed amendments, according to the motion, should have been filed with the clerk of the committee by 9 o'clock this morning, and at 5 o'clock this afternoon those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and I as Chair "shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a)." Further pursuant to the time allocation motion, one hour shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House and one sessional day allotted to the third reading stage of the bill.

Without further ado, we'll begin with --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Madam Chair: I just wanted to raise a point of order with regard to the procedure. When there is a decision to remove a section or subsection, whether it be a government recommendation or an opposition recommendation, often we find that legislative counsel will prepare an amendment which is a motion to delete. I would like you to rule on whether a motion to delete is in order. In my view it is not. If members of the committee wish to defeat a section or a subsection, they simply vote against it and therefore the vote is negative and the section is thus deleted.

The Chair: Any other points to be made on that point of order? Mr Wildman, it's my understanding that certainly a motion to delete a section is not in order but a motion to delete a subsection can be in order.

Interjection: Can be?

The Chair: Is in order.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Just to ask for clarification on that, you said that a motion to delete a subsection can be in order --

The Chair: It is in order.

Ms Lankin: It is in order in all circumstances?

The Chair: It is in order. That's correct. Very well. We therefore begin with --

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Chair, very briefly, can I make an assumption that there are no further answers to outstanding questions to be tabled before we begin?

The Chair: Mr Skarica, do you want to respond to that?

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): It's my understanding that the remaining answers to your questions have been prepared and they're on the way over.

The Chair: You have before you a list of the outstanding questions prepared by our researcher. There are a total of some 20 questions. It's actually only about 16 that are outstanding because there are four that the ministry provided responses for yesterday. The rest Mr Skarica says are forthcoming.

Mr Skarica: The minute I get them, I'll table them.

The Chair: Let me again express for the record the disappointment of the Chair that the answers were not given in a timely fashion for the committee to be able to consider them in an appropriate time.

Mr Skarica: If I might add to that, most of the answers outstanding are from March 25 -- not all, but most.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): If I can add to that, one of the questions had been posed the week before and not properly answered.

The Chair: In point of fact, there were a number of questions that were re-asked yesterday because the members did not feel they were given a satisfactory answer. I've already expressed my disappointment with the fact that the information was not provided in a timely fashion.

We begin with Bill 104, section 1. Any amendments to section 1?

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, are you calling the motions in the order in which they have been placed, and do you want us simply then to follow the sequence as the clerk has presented them?

The Chair: That's what I propose.

Mrs McLeod: Then probably the first motion is a Liberal motion which I am sure is going to be ruled not in order, because it is a motion in which we recommend voting against the entire bill. I will withdraw the motion if it's not in order, but I think it's important to begin clause-by-clause hearings with a reiteration of our position that this bill should not be before either this committee or the Legislature, that it has not been given careful consideration, that it has not had full consultation with people affected, and that it is being rammed through the Legislature in a totally inappropriate way.

Mr Wildman: My friend from Fort William is correct: It's not in order. But in our view neither is the bill, so we agree with the motion's intent even if it isn't in order. We believe the government should be withdrawing Bill 104.

Mr Skarica: We've had 10 days of hearings, and by my calculations we've heard from anywhere from 350 to 400 witnesses. I dispute the fact that there has not been consultation.

The Chair: Thank you for your interventions. As Mrs McLeod has rightly pointed out, the amendment is out of order and therefore we move on to the next motion.

Mrs McLeod: The second motion is also a Liberal motion.

I move that clause 1(d) of the bill be amended by striking out "1997" in the second line and substituting "2000."

There will be a number of amendments that we've placed which effectively would ensure that existing municipal elections would continue to elect existing school boards for 1997 and that any amalgamation of boards would be introduced for the voting year 2000. We have heard over and over again almost from every presenter that this is being done in much too hurried a fashion, that the bill that is actually before us gives very few specifics. Nobody knows exactly what the board boundaries are going to look like, nobody knows exactly how the harmonization issues are going to be dealt with, and it is indeed only one piece of a puzzle because we have no idea what all of the concomitant funding is going to bring.

The only way to make sanity of this whole thing -- I think of the presentation yesterday where they said, "Take the time to do it right." The only way to do that is if we not have this bill come into effect for 1997. If we recognize that the government is going to move towards change and provide the period of time which coincides with the period of time that's been given to the EIC to operate, to actually bring these new boards into existence, then I think the amalgamation could be carried out in a way which is thoughtful and in which all of the concerns can be adequately addressed. But it can't be done for the electoral year 1997.

Mr Wildman: I support the motion. Many of the government members on the committee and the minister have pointed to the fact that there have been amalgamations of school boards and a downsizing of the total number of school boards in other jurisdictions as a reason for Ontario following this same path. In saying that, they've ignored the fact that in those other jurisdictions there was a far longer period of time taken to complete the task. In British Columbia, for instance, it took three years to amalgamate a smaller number of boards; it was done in a consultative, proper way to ensure that all those involved were consulted in a way that would make it as smooth a change as possible. Even some of the very small minority of presenters who supported Bill 104 asked for it to be delayed. Many of them asked for it to be delayed for one year.

It seems reasonable that we should be saying if we're going to amend the legislation, going to amalgamate boards in Ontario, that we have it in place for the next municipal election, not this fall's municipal election. The time frame is far too short to deal with the serious concerns about administrative changes, merging collective agreements, seniority lists, dealing with assets and liabilities of various boards, dealing with new collective agreements, all those things. We have now only about eight months. It is impossible for this to be done in a way that is not going to cause serious disruption in January 1998, so I would support the amendment.

Ms Lankin: I won't repeat the arguments of my colleague. I am in support of the amendment. I just wanted to add an additional caution and concern about the timing as is proposed in the bill. Certainly we know that the Education Improvement Commission will be meeting with boards across the province and continuing discussions about the appropriateness of boundaries that have been proposed, and as we have heard during the course of the hearings, there are a number of areas in which alternative proposals have been put forward. I have even heard some sympathetic murmurings from government members with respect to some changes in those proposed boundaries.

I put it to you that this work needs to be undertaken and needs to be done in a way that is thoughtful, and then proceeded with, but it is unlikely that it can be done in a time frame that will give people adequate notice to be able to file the nomination papers for running for school boards, to run for a fall election. The government has moved with great haste to get this legislation in place by the beginning of April, which is the extended deadline put in place for candidates to register for the fall municipal elections. I put it to you that as of April 1, they won't know what boards they are in fact running for, that process is ongoing. This is being moved forward in a very hasty way, in a way which is not good governance, and I would urge the government members to give serious consideration to supporting this amendment.

Mr Skarica: We have heard there are substantial savings, sometimes referred to as only 1%, but still substantial savings of $150 million per year available once amalgamation does take place. Accordingly, to delay the matter to the year 2000 deprives the system of that money that can be used in the classroom as opposed to for administration and those types of things.

Mr Duncan: We don't believe your numbers, and we believe that you have deliberately engaged in a disinformation campaign. Let's take, for instance, the numbers we've talked about with respect to expenditure increases. You didn't take into consideration, when the minister was giving his speech, the consumer price index, a very simple calculation, for 10 years. That's one aspect, and we'll predict today that what you're going to do the way you're doing this is not only will you not save as much money; the capital costs associated with the changes are going to be that much higher.

Remember what Wells and Bourns said, that the cost of amalgamating at the upstart is high. Our projection is that if you don't take your time and do it right, not only are you not going to realize the full savings, which we believe you've exaggerated, but you're going to create chaos and you're going to be back in the Legislature trying to fix the mess you're creating. So to suggest somehow that you have to have this done by this year in terms of the school boards, in dealing with this amendment specifically, we think is just wrong. Not only are you affecting your ability to save money; we think you're going to create chaos that's going to cost us more money.

Mrs McLeod: I have to respond to Mr Skarica's reason for wanting to move ahead in 1997, because his answer flies in the face of the presentations that we've heard over the course of the 10 days of consultation. We have heard presentations from the Royal Commission on Learning co-chair, Gerald Caplan. They did extensive studies on amalgamation and found that there was no evidence anywhere, in any research, in any jurisdiction, that showed that amalgamation would indeed save money.

We had evidence of Brian Bourns, who did the study in Ottawa-Carleton, who had come to the conclusion that it would cost money. We had evidence presented by a number of boards that had done their own calculations on the amalgamation costs and could show individual board by board that it could cost as much as $3 million to $5 million, and that was without dealing with the issues of harmonization of contracts or harmonization of services. We had the ministry's own consultant study done by Ernst and Young, which says yes, you may possibly save $150 million on a $14-billion budget, but which also said amalgamation may lead to an increase in costs. These are all issues which this government wants to ignore, the fact that you may not only not save money, but it may cost more. The reason the government wants to proceed with this is that it wants the public relations statement that it has reduced the numbers of trustees and it wants control over educational finance and believes it has to do something with boards to achieve that. That's why this bill is here.

Mr Wildman: I agree with Mrs McLeod that even the government's own savings figure is only $150 million total, which is a little bit more than 1% of the total $13.5 billion spent on education per annum in Ontario, so I don't accept Mr Skarica's reasoning in that regard. However, I must say that he has been frank in saying that it's about money, because that's what it's about. This bill is not about education. It's not about anything other than control, the ministry taking centralized control over funding and expenditures and curriculum, particularly over funding and expenditures because, as we have seen, the ministry is coming forward with a new funding formula which will enable the ministry to take between $1 billion and perhaps $1.5 billion out of the education system on top of the $400 million it took out in 1996.

Yes, I can see the reason for the government wanting to do this in a rush. It's to get the money out. It's unfortunate that the government isn't attempting to improve education in the classroom, but rather is simply trying to find money to fund the tax cut.

1320

Mr Skarica: The opposition is obviously picking and choosing the evidence it wants. Perhaps I could actually quote from some of the presentations we've heard, one, for example, from Renny Maki, who is in the Lakehead Board of Education, which you're familiar with, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: He was not representing the board, Mr Skarica. I would correct the record.

Mr Skarica: Well, he's a trustee for that board, who had this to say --

Mr Wildman: The chair of the board didn't agree with him.

The Chair: Order. You will have your turn to respond to that, but Mr Skarica has the floor.

Mr Skarica: He indicated as follows: that his reason for running for a seat was the amount of concern expressed to him about education, particularly about the taxes:

"In Shuniah the education share makes up between 70% and 80% of the total property tax bill. And because of equalization, tax increases over the years have been astronomical compared to those in the city of Thunder Bay. It is little wonder that education quality and the value for tax dollars have been huge issues."

We heard that not only there but in Thunder Bay and Windsor as well, from trustees, those types of comments.

Mr Duncan: You deliberately set up witnesses in every community we travelled to and provided them with false information. We have not been able to find one school board that has raised its mill rate 120% in the last 10 years. You'll recollect the numbers the Middlesex board provided us with.

There has been a deliberate campaign of disinformation. Let me give you an example. One presentation was made by one of your government witnesses yesterday that referenced this document, which we managed to get from legislative research because the government wouldn't provide it. The presentation intimated, based on this, "At a time when jobs that pay well require higher skills levels, almost three million Canadians have very limited reading skills, while another four million have some difficulty with everyday reading tasks," that they don't have those reading tasks because of the failure of our education system. But if you read the paragraph before that, it says clearly and unequivocally that the longer someone has been in our education system the better they do in the job market.

That's yet another example of witnesses who were set up by the government with a campaign of disinformation that has done nothing to improve education, has done nothing to save any money for reinvestment in classrooms.

The Chair: Any further debate on this amendment?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'd like to put on record a statement I pay great respect to, and I'll just read it to make sure I get it right: "In Canada we spend more per capita, more than most other places in the world. I think it's a question of focus and a question of how we can get the system to do its job the best way possible." That's Bob Rae in the Ottawa Citizen in 1992.

I think there is general agreement that there are savings that must be made in the governance model, and I think that's what this government is trying to do: move forward. We have consulted and all three parties have a position that indicates restructuring of the governance model, and this government has the courage to move forward. That's for the record.

For all the people, it's long overdue. It was tried by the previous government, and I believe it's why David Cooke has taken the great task and the great challenge, not for political reasons but for the very reason that it's the thing that has to be done.

Mr Wildman: It doesn't explain why you have to do it in a rush.

Mr O'Toole: The consultation started with Mr Cooke before that.

The Chair: Before we move to the next amendment, there are just a couple of things. I'd like to remind members to speak to the amendment before us. It will make our tasks a lot easier. For the audience that I notice is standing, I'd like to advise you that we have an overflow room in committee room 1; you'll be able to follow the proceedings on television if you don't wish to stand. It's just down the hall to the right of the doors.

Very well. We move on to the --

Mrs McLeod: Shall we vote?

The Chair: Yes, of course; my apologies.

Seeing no further debate, all in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

With that motion, I put it to you, shall section 1 carry? All in favour?

Interjection: Don't we still have more?

The Chair: The third motion actually applies to subsection 2(6) of the bill. It's a typo; it's not 1(6). That is why we're dealing with section 1.

Any further debate on section 1? All in favour? Opposed? Section 1 is carried.

We move now to section 2.

Mrs McLeod: Again, I believe the first amendment on section 2 is a Liberal amendment.

I move that subsection 2(4) of the Education Act, which is where the confusion arises --

Mr Wildman: Point of order: Are we going to deal with these subsection by subsection, in other words, pass the subsections to which there are no amendments?

The Chair: I would prefer to deal with the amendments we have before us, unless members want to go through it subsection by subsection.

Mr Wildman: It doesn't matter to me.

Mrs McLeod: I think we'll have a long afternoon if we vote individually on each subsection, unless there's a proposed change.

Mr Wildman: It's going to be a long afternoon either way.

The Chair: With your indulgence, I prefer to deal with the subsections that are in question pursuant to the amendments.

Mrs McLeod: I move that subsection 2(4) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 2(6) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Constitutional rights and privileges

"(4) This act does not adversely affect any right or privilege guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 or by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including rights and privileges as they were enjoyed by separate school boards or their supporters under predecessors of this act as they existed immediately before January 13, 1997."

This is clearly a concern of the separate school trustees' association, who felt that protections had been afforded them under the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms but that there was a risk of other statutory rights they had previously enjoyed being affected by the change the government had proposed. We would restore the previous wording under the previous act.

Mr Wildman: This is an amendment that was requested that's similar to the amendment I have put forward. It's a request by the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association. If the government takes the position that there is no intention to adversely affect the constitutional rights enjoyed by Catholic school supporters in Ontario, I don't know why the government would not accept this as a friendly amendment.

Mr O'Toole: Perhaps I could ask the legislative staff to clarify. The current statement has only been extended. It doesn't change any of the current language within the bill before us except by being more specific or definitive with the rights of the separate school board. It says nothing to the French issue. I would ask the legislative staff if this indeed adds something, or is it redundant?

The Chair: Is there a response?

Mr John Tomlinson: Yes, there's a response. The concern of the ministry is that to continue that provision to the extent that it would apply to statutory rights of separate boards, it greatly restricts the ability of the government to recommend changes to things like -- one basic change is that they would have a right right now to have an election to existing boards next November. The proposal is that since the new boards are being set up, it makes more sense to have the elections in November to the new boards rather than to the existing boards, which, if the bill is all passed, would be dissolved at the end of the year. That's something that perhaps we couldn't do if we retained the provision that's being proposed at the present time.

1330

Mr O'Toole: It's my understanding that the current language does in fact ensure -- I am a separate school supporter, and I want that constitutional right guaranteed.

Mr Tomlinson: The current language of the bill you're talking about, sir?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, does it guarantee that?

Mr Tomlinson: Yes, it does. It guarantees the constitutional rights and it extends them to protect the constitutional rights for French as well.

Mr O'Toole: French as well. Thank you.

Mr Duncan: I think it's important to note, though, the subtle distinction in what the ministry responded; that is, that they are no longer affording the boards the same rights and privileges in statute that were guaranteed prior to this bill. That could become much more significant than we realize, not simply because of, for instance, the election of trustees but in many other instances on matters that pertain to statutes of the province of Ontario. Therefore, as the trustees' association expressed, we see, in my view, a much different Education Act as it applies to separate school boards with respect to provincial statutes.

Mr Wildman: With all due respect to the counsel for the ministry, that's one lawyer's opinion. I'm sure there could be other lawyers who would have different opinions. The fact is that his explanation raises the exact concerns that were raised by the trustees' association and by various separate school boards that appeared before the committee. They are concerned not only about the constitutional rights they enjoy under the Constitution of Canada but also the statutory rights that have been accorded to them and were in effect until January 13.

For one thing, they are concerned that in the future some government -- I'm sure not this one -- might decide to treat school councils as the governing bodies for schools and that they might then argue that the rights of Catholics under the Constitution are being maintained because school councils for various Catholic schools were being maintained and were the governing bodies, thus removing the requirement to have Catholic school boards, particularly now that under the proposed amended boundaries, all of the boards in the province will be coterminous.

The fact is that the trustees' association has taken the government at its word that the government does not intend to remove the rights of Catholics; therefore, they want it stated overtly in the legislation. If the government doesn't want to state it explicitly in the legislation, one is suspicious that the government may have an ulterior motive.

The Chair: Any further debate? Seeing none, we'll put that amendment to a vote.

All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

We move to the next amendment, which deals with the same subsection.

Mr Wildman: Since the Liberal amendment was defeated, my amendment would also be defeated.

The Chair: You withdraw it?

Mr Wildman: No, I'm not withdrawing it. I think we should just forget about it.

The Chair: We can either withdraw it or put it to a vote.

Mr Wildman: I don't think we need to go through the ritual of another vote. We see what they're going to do.

The Chair: So you withdraw it?

Mr Wildman: Yes.

The Chair: The next amendment is to subsection 2(7).

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, I had indicated that there are a number of amendments which we have asked legislative counsel to take the trouble to draft, because we really believe this bill should not be implemented until the municipal elections of the year 2000. We have conscientiously gone through the bill and identified all those areas in which the time lines would need to be changed in order to ensure that existing boards could be elected for the 1997 period and that the processes of change which would be needed to carry out a carefully considered process of amalgamation could be put in place for the year 2000.

Given the defeat of the first resolution, I will simply withdraw subsequent amendments that relate to the changing of the dates to the year 2000. Having said that, I must raise one aspect of the continuance of the Education Improvement Commission to the year 2000. I may place that amendment when we come to it later on, because I find it absolutely appalling that as we look towards the year 2000 -- and it appears that will be the second election of the new district boards because we're going to be forced to elect new district boards in 1997 -- when the second election is being held for the new district boards, the Education Improvement Commission will still be required to monitor the election process.

It seems to me we're getting very close to an analogy with a Third World country which is experiencing its first efforts in democracy when, some three years after the first election of the district boards, we are still going to have an arm's-length, appointed body monitoring and supervising a democratic election in Ontario. I find it absolutely appalling to think that the government is anticipating such chaos between now and the year 2000 that it's still going to need its arm's-length commission to be supervising the second election.

The Chair: Ms McLeod, you're withdrawing amendments 4a and 4b?

Mrs McLeod: I will withdraw that and I will withdraw the next amendment as well.

The Chair: Very well. We move to the next amendment dealing with subsection 2(7).

Mr Skarica: Before we do that, Madam Chair, I have the answers to the last 20 questions and I'll table them at this time.

The Chair: We'll arrange for copies and distribution. I'll also tell members at this time that the summaries of the hearings of this bill are completed and available. I believe all members have been given copies. You should have them in front of you; if not, please advise the clerk.

The next amendment, Mr Wildman?

Mr Wildman: Since you've decided to rule that we can move to strike out subsections, I would move that subsection 1(8) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 2(7) of the bill, be struck out.

This was a request of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. Their argument is that if school boards are to retain any ability to tax, there must be taxation with representation; we shouldn't be having a residency requirement.

Mr Duncan: I think it needs to be said again that in our view the government is deliberately setting up a situation that's going to create chaos. We heard repeatedly from delegations that what can be implemented by 1997 or what can begin to be implemented by 1997 won't come close. I think we're going to see three years of utter chaos. We think these types of amendments, as requested by people in the field, people who are going to deal with the results, are in order and appropriate.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not totally sure what the impact is of simply deleting that subsection, because we already have unanswered questions about what will define a separate school elector subsequent to the --

Mr Wildman: Chair, excuse me. I think it should be sub (8) of the bill, not (7), that the amendment applies to. That's the one that deals with the residency requirement.

The Chair: It's 1(8) of the Education Act.

Mr Wildman: It's 1(8) of the Education Act and 2(8) of the bill, not 2(7).

Mr Duncan: It's 2(7) of this bill; 1(8) of the Education Act. The bold numbers reflect it. There is no 2(8) of this bill.

The Chair: It is 2(7), Mr Wildman.

1340

Mr Wildman: But there are two sevens in here. Which one are we dealing with?

The Chair: Yes, because one is the rewording. The clerk will assist you, Mr Wildman. Any further debate on this amendment?

Mr Wildman: If you look at the last part of (8), it says, "a person is not qualified to vote for a member of a district school board or school authority for an area unless the person resides in the area at some time during the qualification period." I'm trying to remove that residency requirement. That's the purpose of the amendment.

The Chair: Any further debate? Are we ready to put it to a vote?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Why would you not want them to have some residency somewhere along during that year?

Mr Wildman: The Ontario Public School Boards' Association made this request. They read this to mean principal residence. In other words, if someone owns a cottage in your riding but lives in Toronto, they would not be able to vote. They don't think that's proper; that would be taxation without representation.

Mr Skarica: The reason that is in there is because there will no longer be taxation so there's really no need for a residency requirement any longer.

Mr Wildman: If your argument is that there is no taxation, that the provincial government is going to cover all the costs of education through grants, that of course does not relate to commercial-industrial, but to use the example I was talking about, that's fine. If that's the case, why do you need this in there at all? Why do you need a reference to a residency requirement if there's no question about that, no concern about it?

The Chair: Any further debate? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Any further amendments to that subsection?

Mrs McLeod: On subsection 2(7) still, Madam Chair, I will withdraw the next Liberal amendment because again it would have changed the date for the election of the first district board to the year 2000.

I would then move that subsection 2(7) of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 1 of the Education Act. I'll read the entire amendment because what this does is add a children's bill of rights to the Education Act. This is a bill that was proposed by Mr David Moll of the Toronto Board of Education, and I will present it. The addition to section 1 would read:

"Children's bill of rights

"(11) Every district school board shall maintain the standards necessary to ensure that the following rights of children are respected:

"1. The school programs meet all of the children's individual needs sufficiently to give each of them a reasonable opportunity to learn.

"2. The curriculum for each school has clear standards that are meaningful, inclusive and pedagogically sensible.

"3. The measures used to evaluate the achievement of each child are realistic, reflect the diversity of the children and can be used to improve school programs.

"4. Access is offered to junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten.

"5. No class in the primary division has more than 20 students and no class in the junior or senior division has more than 25 students.

"6. Each school has a library staffed by a teacher librarian.

"7. Physical education programs with suitable indoor and outdoor recreational space are available.

"8. Strong programs in visual and performing arts are available, including music, art, drama and dance.

"9. Strong language programs are available, including English as a second language, French and international and native languages.

"10. Math, science and technology programs adequate computer resources are available.

"12. There is a full range of special education programs that meet the needs of exceptional learners.

"13. Psychological and social services are available to support student learning.

"14. The second school program prepares students for whatever future they choose.

"15. Adult education is available as needed, including literacy, numeracy, English as a second language, citizenship courses, instruction for completion of high school education and employment skills training.

"16. Child care is provided in schools to ensure quality care and to help young children with the transition from home to school.

"17. Schools are safe and healthy and are clean and well maintained.

"18. Schools provide a dedicated professional staff of teachers and support staff to ensure high learning and safety standards.

"19. Meaningful parent involvement is encouraged with sufficient support to make participation in the school system effective."

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Wildman: On a point of order: If you turn to page 34 in our amendments, you will find that we've moved a similar amendment -- exactly the same -- only we were moving it to section 8, which was amending subsection 335(2.1) of the Education Act. Could the Chair request legislative counsel, just for the sake of order, to give us an opinion as to which would be the better place for this amendment to be put?

Ms Marilyn Leitman: They actually do two different things. Although the goals are identical, as listed in the paragraphs, the amendment just moved requires the district school boards to maintain those standards. Your motion to 335 requires the commission to follow those standards when carrying out its mandate.

Mr Wildman: Okay. So if by chance Mrs McLeod's amendment doesn't pass, then my amendment would still be in order.

Ms Leitman: That's right.

Mrs McLeod: If by chance my amendment doesn't pass, I will certainly be supporting Mr Wildman's amendment at a further point in the debate. But in all seriousness, I did want to give credit to David Moll and his board for having put the effort into wording this particular proposal for a children's bill of rights. I'm not optimistic, nor is Mr Wildman, I think, of the government supporting it, but the reason it's here is because we would like this debate to be about children and the education of children. There really is nothing anywhere in this bill that speaks to the education and the needs of children and there are absolutely no guarantees in any of this that the needs of children are going to be addressed.

There will be a number of amendments we put forward which set out ways in which we feel that the needs of children for adequate programs and the special needs of children have to be addressed in any proposals put forward for the school board amalgamations that can be carried out without any further recourse to legislation under the terms of this act. We felt that by putting forward the children's bill of rights as a proposal we would at least be recognizing that the focus here should be indeed not on getting control of governance or getting control of educational finance but on how some effort is made to carry out a commitment to children.

Ms Lankin: We will be supporting this amendment in both locations in the bill. We want to indicate our congratulations to the Toronto board for supporting this wording and putting this forward to this legislative process. I did want to point out, however, that it wasn't the Toronto board that developed this wording. I think it's important for government members to know that parents in our Toronto schools came together and did the work to develop this children's bill of rights, parents who care about what's happening in their kids' classroom. That's their prime focus.

All the discussion that has been taking place over the last number of months about savings that can be made in the system -- we even heard the parliamentary assistant today say that he wanted to proceed with the date 1997 so that these savings could be achieved and could be put back into the classroom.

If people actually believed that money was going to be reinvested back into the classroom, you would be easing some of the concern that's out there, but certainly we have heard from the minister himself predictions of another $1 billion being taken out of the education system, and people wonder exactly where that will come from.

We're not given any comfort by the minister's ongoing statements that so much of the education dollar is spent outside the classroom. In fact, he incorrectly quotes those figures. Also, as you know, he includes in the definition of what's outside of the classroom many of these very essential services that parents and others in the education system believe are absolutely critical to the education of our children, things like our librarians and librarian-teachers, things like the music programs and the sports and physical education programs and the arts programs.

I just want to share with you an opportunity I had of attending a conference of over 350 secondary school students who participate in the student councils of our Ontario secondary schools. I did a series of workshops on Bill 104. In talking to them about their concerns in the education system and what they were experiencing, their plea was for those of us in governments, in the legislatures, to understand the importance of these various areas that the minister continually refers to as being outside of the classroom to the production of a well-rounded adult coming out into our community, into the workforce. I talked to students who were pursuing careers in arts and couldn't understand how the minister didn't realize the importance of these programs to their education.

I just recently, on Friday, as many of us I hope did, participated in the Take Your MPP to School Day and went to two elementary schools in my constituency and met with students who were participating in library programming, who were doing real learning in the library with a librarian-teacher, and also in arts programming and music programming -- that, by the way, offering preparation time to their teachers to do further work on their classroom studies that would be upcoming.

1350

The system as it is set up is strained and we know that, but if we continue to have a government that seems dedicated in its purpose to removing funding from the system and that defines these essential programs as being outside of the classroom, many educators and many parents worry in terms of what that means for our kids coming out of our school system.

This doesn't commit you to money; this is not a financial amendment. But this does commit you to supporting the spirit of what our schools should be accomplishing: focusing on children and children's needs. This does set a framework of what we as legislators, after having listened to educators in the system and having listened to parents who are speaking on behalf of their children and what they want for their children, having listened to them, it does set a framework of what we all collectively want to see accomplished in our school system for our children. The finances that are available will be applied to these key areas.

If this is an exercise that is about more than cutting funds from the system, if this an exercise about improving the quality of education in our system, as we have heard often, then surely you must support an amendment that simply seeks to put a guarantee in place for parents and for their children that these services are not going to be considered to be extraneous to the classroom, that you're going to understand that these are critical elements of a child's education. There's no better time to guarantee that than when we have this opportunity before us in the legislation today, so I urge you to support this.

Mr Duncan: I'd just like to say to the government, we have heard repeatedly from supporters of the bill that they want to have an opportunity to discuss the broader questions in education, not just governance. They want to talk about curriculum, they want to talk about extended curriculum, ie, those services that are currently available in schools that they want to see maintained that the government doesn't view as being part of the classroom. They also want to talk about accountability and this deals specifically with accountability and it deals with the framework for accountability.

Finally, the biggest question that we've heard from delegation after delegation at our committee hearings and in special forums that we organized, they want to talk about everything in the light of funding. This gives us, in our view, and the reason we endorsed it and brought it forward, the opportunity to discuss the broader questions in education, issues that affect children, issues that affect the classroom and the quality of education we provide in this province, not simply one of who's going to govern what and not simply one that overlooks the key questions in education: curriculum, extended curriculum and accountability.

Mr Wildman: Chair, I had hoped that we would have heard from a member of the government --

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: Okay. A few moments ago I said that in my view this bill was not about education, it was about control and money and taking money out. This amendment changes the character of the bill, in my view, but if the government maintains that it is indeed determined to meet the needs of all children, then this states it explicitly. This amendment gives the government members the opportunity to reinforce the view that Bill 104 deals with the needs of kids and that the government is determined to deal with the needs of individual children in our schools.

The first right listed: "The school programs meet all of the children's individual needs sufficiently to give each of them a reasonable opportunity to learn." I won't go through them all but I would also highlight a couple that have been raised repeatedly by deputants, whether they be students in some cases, parents in many cases, boards in many cases, and teachers in many cases, as well as others.

Number 17: "Schools are safe and healthy and are clean and well-maintained." Because of some provisions later on in the bill with regard to outsourcing, there is a serious concern, not just among CUPE members and support staff people who might be directly affected immediately but among teachers and parents about the safety of their children if there is contracting out.

There was a lot of concern expressed by deputants before the committee about the coming funding formula and what it would mean in light of the definition, which my colleagues have referred to, that the government uses as defining "out of classroom." Many were concerned that junior kindergarten programs, and perhaps senior kindergarten programs as well, are doomed if the government maintains the view that junior kindergarten is somehow outside of the classroom.

The Legislature has already expressed, in support of a Liberal private member's bill, its desire to limit class sizes in Ontario. This puts it in this government legislation and makes it the responsibility of the ministry to enforce limits on class sizes, because we've seen the increase in class sizes has been raised repeatedly by deputants before the committee. We've also heard the arguments about the importance of libraries, as well as some of the other programs, so I won't go through them all.

This amendment gives the government members an opportunity to demonstrate explicitly that they are determined to ensure that the education system serves the needs of kids in a safe, healthy learning environment. I implore the members of the committee to support this amendment unanimously.

Mr O'Toole: I'm pleased to report that I have met with and spoken to David Moll on a number of occasions and I'm pleased to see him bring this forward. Who could argue with the children's bill of rights, really? In the broadest context, even the news today is telling us of our concern to be guardians of children's rights. But you know, if I look at the very depth of this bill and its history and its purpose, today, really, the system is fraught with inequities. Much of what you said in this is inconsistent with what's happening under the organization of boards' governance today.

This bill attempts to address the inequities and I believe this is completely a Toronto view of the educational system --

Interjections.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, order, please.

Mr O'Toole: I'd like consistency and equity for each child throughout all of Ontario and that's really what I think all of us want.

Mrs McLeod: There is nothing in this bill that addresses the issue of equity. What this bill does is make it much less likely that local trustees are going to be able to address the issues of equity within their own school systems. I believe what Mr O'Toole is referring to is his hope that the government's subsequent decisions on funding may assist in the development of something more equitable, but all the indications are that the government is looking to make major cuts in the funding of education.

The statement that was made yesterday by one of our presenters perhaps summarizes those who bring a great concern to how the government will approach the issue of equity, and that was the person who said: "Equity at the lowest common denominator is not progress, and it is certainly not progress for children." If there is really to be equity and if this government's goal beyond Bill 104 is to provide the funding resources that would ensure that there can be equity for every student, that meets every student's needs, as the minister has said, then they should welcome this statement of the bill of rights and feel comfortable supporting it.

Ms Lankin: I shouldn't be surprised at Mr O'Toole's comments, but let me say very directly to him: If in fact you believe it is the goal of your government to bring equity to the children in our school system, no matter where they live in the province, then how could you be opposed to the elements set out in this children's bill of rights and those being enshrined in the legislation?

1400

Every child in this province -- I agree with you on that point -- should have access to the kinds of provisions that are set out in this children's bill of rights. This should be what reform of the education system is about. Unfortunately, we are dealing with this in a piecemeal fashion. Unfortunately, we don't have the funding formula in front of us today. Unfortunately, there are other elements of curriculum reform that aren't here before us today. But what we have before us today is a redefinition of the governance and the role of governance in the system.

What this bill of rights sets out to do is to ensure that within the governance of our school system the needs of children are put foremost. The roles and responsibilities of those in the district school board shall be to ensure that every child in our school system in Ontario has access to a basic, minimum, equitable series of programs and services in the education system. That's not at odds with what your minister professes your government's education reform is all about. It's not at odds with what you said, other than your anti-Toronto comments.

Let me just say to you, last week when I joined your committee in Thunder Bay and in Barrie, I heard parents and educators and others make these very points on behalf of their children. I believe parents across this province want to see their children have access to these very basic, minimum programs and services and I think you do them a disservice if you and your colleagues vote against this.

Mr Duncan: I'd just like to say, as somebody who's not from Toronto, that in Windsor we'd certainly like to see these kinds of things. School programs that meet children's individual needs: We support that. Curriculum with clear standards that are meaningful and inclusive: That's not a Toronto thing; that applies to the whole province. Measures to evaluate the achievement of each child that are realistic and reflect the diversity of the children: That applies everywhere; indeed it agrees with what a number of you have said about having meaningful comparators and statistics.

Access to junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten: I'm proud that my board, a program my son went through, has been able to maintain that in spite of your cuts, and I think it's something the people in our community support and will continue to support. Class sizes: That's a key issue. Again, parents, whether they live in Toronto or Windsor or Red Lake, support smaller class sizes. Everybody knows there's a direct correlation between class size and a teacher's ability to impart.

I don't see this as Toronto-based; I see this as children-based. It doesn't matter if you live in Windsor or Red Lake or Toronto or Ottawa, these points make sense. These points, in our view, represent a full debate and constitute the broader issue of education, which is what we should be discussing, not simply an attempt to take out $150 million from the education system.

Mr Wildman: I must say I'm disappointed by the intervention by Mr O'Toole. I've looked at this very carefully and tried to figure out what in it he would say is a Toronto view, since we've heard requests for these kinds of things from presenters in every community we've gone to outside of Toronto, as well as in Toronto. I am not a member from Toronto. I represent a rural northern riding, one of the largest ridings in Ontario. I live in the Central Algoma Board of Education jurisdiction. It is one of the poorest boards, one of the lowest assessments in Ontario.

I'm proud to say that board has had junior kindergarten programs for 20 years, and this year, thanks to the cuts that your government made, they've maintained that program but they've had to put it on alternate days full-day, rather than half-day every day. They're very worried that the new funding formula will mean that junior kindergarten will be cut out next year, particularly if they're amalgamated, as is proposed in 104, with the other boards in the area -- the Sault Ste Marie board, that doesn't have junior kindergarten; an assessment-rich board that has chosen not to have junior kindergarten.

Central Algoma has recognized that in their area, where there are many disadvantaged rural children, junior kindergarten is an important program to give those kids a head start on their educational career and on their lives.

My four children all went through those programs. I have a little girl at home now who in two years I hope will be going to junior kindergarten. I want this in this legislation so that my little girl will have the same opportunity that her older brothers and sister had. Let's vote for it and put it in here. This is not a Toronto view. This is an Ontario view. This is a children's view.

Applause.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, education is a very important subject and we all feel very passionate about it, but I would ask you, in the interests of getting through the exercise, please refrain from intervening.

Mr Skarica: Ms Lankin said, "This doesn't commit you to money." While I wish that were true, I don't think it is. The title is "children's bill of rights," and I'm looking at paragraph 15, which talks about adult education. It's my understanding that children are under the age of 18 and adults are over 18.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please.

Mr Skarica: It says "children's bill of rights" and it refers to adult education and that would have a financial implication. We'd all like to fund all of these things in a perfect world, but we know there is a debt and deficit problem and there are limited moneys to deal with programs.

Going further, paragraph 18 indicates, "Schools provide a dedicated professional staff of teachers and support staff to ensure high learning and safety standards." In my reading of that, it would preclude certain initiatives that are already under way in the province, such as the early childhood education program in Ottawa that we heard from when we were in Ottawa.

Currently the Ottawa board does provide junior kindergarten at the cost $1.7 million. They are having a pilot project, and the preliminary results are that the early childhood educators, who are not professional teachers but are college trained -- there could be an argument made that they are not teachers. In any event, the preliminary results show that those kids are doing just as well as the kids in JK with unionized teachers. Alia Kent was quoted in the Ottawa paper as saying that if the Ottawa board couldn't provide JK with unionized teachers they shouldn't provide the program at all.

Paragraph 18 could be well interpreted that that pilot program would not proceed and that we couldn't have early childhood educators in JK.

Number 19, another example: "Meaningful parent involvement is encouraged with sufficient support to make participation in the school system effective." What does "sufficient support" mean? I would interpret that to mean financial support.

Going back to Windsor, we heard, Mr Duncan, from the Roman Catholic separate board parent council, where they have raised millions and millions of dollars on their own volition. They're not asking for money; they're asking for more participation in the school system, and they want to be full partners.

Interjection.

Mr Skarica: I have a right to give my position as well as they do.

When I'm looking at 19, "sufficient support" could well be interpreted to mean that there is a requirement for financial support, which in fact many parents aren't asking for; they're just asking for more involvement in the system.

Finally, dealing with the equity argument, I've been through the province now three times in the last year, and we've heard over and over and over again that one of the main problems with education was the equity of funding, which varies from $4,200 per student to $9,000 per student, depending where in Ontario you go. This has been a problem that apparently has been outstanding for some 20 or 30 years or for whatever, and no government has had the courage to deal with it. This government now is finally going to deal with that issue to ensure that every child in the province gets an equal education. This is part of the legislation to deal with that problem that has been outstanding for a long time but that no one has been prepared to have the courage to deal with.

1410

Mrs McLeod: We could spend a lot of time on this and maybe we should, because this is really the crux of the presentations we heard and the concerns we have heard from trustees, from teachers, from union members, and most particularly from parents and indeed from the few students who were able to present to our committee.

I submit again that it is the Minister of Education for this government who has blithely assured people that his goal is to meet the needs of every child; that there will be no second-class students in the province of Ontario. We believe that this bill of rights simply provides support to make that statement something which the minister is held to.

Since the parliamentary assistant wants to keep taking this bill back to the matter of money, and since that indeed is all this bill is about, let's just deal with some of the issues of money, because that is the concern people have raised: that when the money is put in place it will not be enough to meet the needs of children or, yes, Mr Skarica, of the adults who didn't get that equal chance at an education and who need that equal chance at some point past the age of 18.

I'm not going to take as long as I should, but I can't help but start with the last point that Mr Skarica made, which is that parents aren't asking for money. If we heard one thing from parent councils over and over again -- and these are the official representatives of parent councils, and we heard from hundreds of those parent councils through official representatives -- they said: "We want to be involved. We will not take on the role of the school boards as volunteers. But even to have the level of involvement that we want, we do need training, we need resources, we need to be able to communicate."

To suggest that meaningful participation of parents might involve some dollars and therefore you couldn't support even that part of this bill of rights certainly isn't responding to the concerns you've heard from those very parents.

The junior kindergarten and child care: I'm not sure why you would bring up that example of "child care is just as effective as junior kindergarten is," particularly given the kinds of submissions we've had, one in particular which gave us a very clear articulation of the fact that, as important as both child care and junior kindergarten are, they are different. We need both, and that's why this bill of rights speaks to both.

Mr Wildman has already touched on some of the areas that are outside the definition of classroom education that are here. There is a concern that things like libraries will disappear. Special education is here because of the number of presentations we've had from parents who are concerned that the special needs of their children are not going to be met and have reason to be concerned, because of that $150 million that you said this was all about that you're going to save. You know full well that $1.3 million is coming directly out of educational assistance that would provide support for special education learners.

Psychological and social services: We've had presentations on how those are not classed within the realm of the classroom, and they're liable to disappear.

Finally, on adult education, Mr Skarica, it worries me you singled this out. One of the great fears we've heard is that, given the cuts to adult education that have taken place, where the government provides grants for adult education outside of Toronto and Ottawa and given the fact that some 85% of adult education has been lost in some of those boards, Toronto and Ottawa see the writing on the wall and are desperately concerned about the survival of adult education. I'm sorry you focused on that one as something that should be excluded.

Having said that, if you would support the bill of rights with a friendly amendment that makes adult education something we commit to in another area, I'd accept that as a friendly amendment in return for your support of the balance of the bill of rights.

Ms Lankin: That is the point that I was going to make. Let me first of all very briefly comment on the points raised by Mr Skarica with respect to child care and number 18 in the bill, which calls for schools to "provide a dedicated professional staff of teachers and support staff to ensure high learning and safety standards." I do not know how you could be opposed to that kind of principle, but let me say your arguments around child care and the cross-use of different education professionals hold no water when you look at the wording here.

Early childhood educators are professional teachers, Mr Skarica. They are a professional group of educators who work in child care settings. As we know, there are experiments taking place in different parts of the province where we have seen junior kindergarten being offered coterminously with child care programs in child care centres, as well as child care being offered in schools. This does not at all mandate the use of one type of professional teacher over another, and I think it, like in many other areas in this bill of rights, sets out a broad goal to be achieved. The means by which we achieve that are open to the debate, the consultation, the decision-making that is normal within the education system.

Similarly, your comments about meaningful parent involvement -- we heard over and over again from parents who were saying: "We don't even have the resources to get information to our parents, to make photocopies, to get phone calls out there, to pay for the long-distance phone calls in the large boards. We're not getting the support and the training we need from the ministry to feel confident in the jobs and the roles set out for us now, let alone an evolving role, to what, we don't know, as proposed under this new legislation."

In a broad sense, this government is proposing to bring more powers and more involvement to parent councils. You couldn't commit yourself to ensuring that there's sufficient support to make participation in the school system effective. That's all it says. If you want it to be effective, you give it the support that's required. That level of support, that type of support, surely will be part of the consultation that you'll undertake with parent councils as you develop the new, evolved role, with greater responsibilities inherent in that for parent councils.

With respect to adult education, I agree with the point that has been made. If you take great offense at that because this is entitled the children's bill of rights, let's delete that section.

Mr Wildman: We could change it to an education bill of rights.

Ms Lankin: My colleague says we could change it to an education bill of rights. I still believe that adult education should be available as needed, and that's all that's said here is "as needed, including literacy, numeracy, English as a second language, citizenship courses, instruction for completion of high school education and employment skills training."

With this government's focus and emphasis on giving people a hand up instead of a handout, you would think that some of these skill development programs are things that you would, in a broad sense, in terms of setting out a goal and a vision for what our education system should be about and what it should be accomplishing -- I fail to see how you could not support that. But if that's the problem, let's take this out.

This whole section is attempting to set out, once you perform your magic of equalization in funding -- and that's another whole debate we'll have at that time, when we see the details of it, and whether it is sufficient to serve the needs of children in the system -- but once you have equity in financing, there's still a question of what it is you're purchasing with those dollars, what it is you're providing with those dollars.

What does equity mean? Equity doesn't just mean equity in the dollars you spend. It means equity in terms of the kind of programs you attempt to provide to our children; that's what this is about, with whatever dollars are available. We suspect that they will be too few and we suspect that school boards will be strangled in their attempts to meet the needs of kids.

Be that as it may, that is a fight for another day. Right now, what we are trying to do is spell out what must be considered, what must be part, what must be considered to be essential in the education of our children, what school boards must hold as primary in their decision-making with respect to delivery of programs and services to our kids. If it's not all rhetoric, what you say about improving the quality of the system and ensuring that there's equity for our kids, if that's not rhetoric, you have to be prepared to set out in legislation what it is you expect the education system to provide for our children.

This is the parents' view, parents who care about their children. This is a child-centred view. Surely you can bring yourselves to support this. Mr Skarica, I would say to you one more time that this does not commit you to one cent. You will make that decision as a government. You will be judged by the decisions you make with respect to that, but whatever money is available in the system, it must be spelled out somewhere: what we believe, as legislators, that money should be spent on in providing services and education for our children. This is an incredible step towards providing true equity in the province.

Mr Wildman: I won't prolong this. My colleagues have made the arguments well. I just want to respond to two specific things that the parliamentary assistant said. He said, in regard to 19, that the words "meaningful parent involvement...with sufficient support to make participation...effective" was something he couldn't accept. That then tells me that despite all of the rhetoric in the bill, as well as the comments made by members of the government about wanting parents to be more involved, it's just that, rhetoric, because the government isn't prepared to give the parents the support that makes it meaningful.

Mr Skarica has basically said that to us, that he cannot accept a requirement to give parents the support needed to make their involvement meaningful. I find that really disappointing. With regard to the argument about adult education not fitting into this, I would propose a friendly amendment that the words "children's bill of rights" at the head, be changed to "education bill of rights." I think that's a friendly amendment.

1420

The Chair: As you well know, Mr Wildman, despite what might be the wishes of the committee, we can't propose amendments. They were due this morning at 9 o'clock. We are constrained by the rules.

Mr Wildman: You can't amend amendments?

The Chair: That is the case, unfortunately.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not optimistic that we are going to get agreement of all three parties, but is there not a process by which there could be an agreement of all three parties to a friendly amendment?

The Chair: I don't believe that's the case. The rules provide for amendments having been tabled this morning at 9 o'clock.

Mr Wildman: The debate of the amendments is meaningless, then.

Mrs McLeod: If I may then, Madam Chair, add my continuing concern --

Mr Wildman: Why bother debating them? Let's just vote on them.

The Chair: We are following the time allocation motion which the government has passed, as you know, and therefore we can't entertain any amendments.

Ms Lankin: Madam Chair, not to question your ruling, but perhaps I could ask to seek clarification in this area. I have participated in committee hearings before in which there have been amendments that had been properly tabled before the committee and, during the process of debate, those amendments were further amended through the committee process. I believe there is a process available to us and perhaps we need clarification on how we can achieve what, at some point in time, might actually be a mutual goal of all the parties.

Mr Wildman: Particulary if it's a friendly amendment. It's not something that tries to change the impact of the motion, it's simply to deal with a wording problem.

The Chair: Let me say that regardless of what might be the wishes of the committee, the time allocation motion speaks very clearly. I'd be happy to read it again; it's the reason I read it at the beginning of the session. All amendments had to be filed by 9 o'clock this morning and we simply cannot go beyond that, pursuant to the terms of the motion that was passed.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, I think it's an exercise in futility anyway, but I would find it hard to believe, in interpretation of that -- indeed party amendments had to be placed by each caucus at 9 o'clock this morning -- that it would necessarily eliminate a process of friendly amendment agreed to by all three parties.

As you well know, that time allocation motion was almost impossible to achieve any due process with, because those of us who have been with this committee throughout all 10 days of its hearings arrived back in Toronto last night at 10:30 and our amendments had to be on the legislative clerk's desk by 9 o'clock this morning. We met those time lines.

We've put in a considerable amount of effort by telephone in order to get amendments tabled. I was making amendments to my amendments as recently as 10 minutes to nine this morning, attempting to incorporate what we heard in the hearings yesterday. I would think that some interpretation that allows at least the consideration of friendly amendments to the process would be in order.

The Chair: Ms Lankin, are you speaking to this point?

Ms Lankin: I would like to take it a point further than Mrs McLeod. I don't believe it's just simply a question of friendly amendments. I understand the time allocation motion. I understand that all three parties had to file their major amendments to the bills by 9 o'clock this morning and all three parties met that requirement. I put it to you, however, in your role as sort of guardian of the democratic process, that when committee members come forward and now see those amendments for the first time, in debate of those amendments there must be, for democracy to be served, a process available to committee members to be able to move amendments to the amendment. Not to put forward wholesale new amendments to the bill; I understand the time frame for that is gone. But if we have an amendment before us and if in debate there is an opportunity where we see consensus is emerging with amendments to certain of the language that had been put forward, we are able to achieve an improvement in the legislation that reflects what we heard through the public input, in that process of public input, surely that must be allowed for in the system.

I believe that it is your responsibility as Chair to find a way to facilitate that. I stress again, not to allow brand-new amendments but, as amendments are being debated, to allow those to be subject to the normal democratic process of further amendment on the floor of debate.

The Chair: Ms Lankin, I appreciate the difficulties that all opposition members have had with respect to bringing in their amendments in a timely fashion. I hope you'll appreciate that I'm constrained by the motion which indeed has passed. However, if the members of the committee have some way that they think we can proceed further, I'd certainly be happy to hear how we can. Until that point, I am looking at a time allocation motion which does not allow for unanimous consent on anything. Therefore, we have to operate within the strict rules of that motion. I will certainly listen to whatever you have to say. If you can find a way, I'd be happy to entertain it.

Mr Wildman: I'll try to be helpful here. I mean that sincerely. As I understand the time allocation motion, it required all parties, government and two opposition parties, to file their substantive amendments by 9 am. Further reading of the motion I think will tell you that it does not say there cannot be debate of those amendments and that there cannot be votes on those amendments.

If we debate the amendment and everybody comes to a consensus and says, "Yeah, that makes sense," surely the time allocation motion does not mean that we can't agree to something. That seems to be what you're saying to me.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, as I said, I'm certainly open to ways in which we can fulfil our obligations as legislators and also work within the spirit of the time allocation motion.

Mr Wildman: This is not a new substantive amendment.

The Chair: I hear you, Mr Wildman. Mr O'Toole, is this on the same point?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, it is. It's my understanding that the motion also said there would be committee of the whole before this bill was voted on. At that time there could be proposed amendments, I suspect; I'm not an expert.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr O'Toole, but that doesn't deal with the issue at the moment, which is --

Mr O'Toole: Please excuse me, it does, because it would leave one with the impression that we're resistant to the debate that's being held here, and that is not the case.

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, I really don't think that speaks to the issue. I'm going to suggest to members that we take a five-minute recess and consider this matter. If there is any way in which members can be helpful in this issue, I certainly will be happy to listen.

The committee recessed from 1429 to 1452.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, I've spent considerable time reviewing the matter and I want to thank the clerk for looking through all available precedents to assist me in my decision.

It is unfortunate, but we are constrained by the wording of the time allocation motion. Ms Lankin did refer me to the proceedings in Bill 26 which she thought might be a precedent for allowing even friendly amendments. The time allocation motion on Bill 26 in fact allowed for three days of clause-by-clause, then the time allocation motion was invoked and amendments had to be deposited and there were no further amendments possible at that time.

I would say to the committee members that the only exception would be editorial changes. I don't believe that the changes that have been contemplated are in the nature of editorial changes.

Mr Wildman: Chair, I have a proposal to make, then, that might resolve our problem, although I would think changing "children's" to "education" is an editorial change. Anyway, why don't we vote on each of these rights individually?

The Chair: Well, what I have before me, Mr Wildman, is one amendment which includes 19 portions to it, not 19 amendments.

Mr Wildman: That's right, but we vote on each of the 19, whether we accept them or not, and then we vote on the whole after we're finished.

The Chair: I think for that to happen we should have had 19 amendments, and I do regret that we will have to deal with it in this fashion.

I still have some speakers to the original amendment.

Mr Duncan: I just wanted to respond to Mr Skarica's response. I think his response is very instructive because it indicated and said very clearly that the intent of this bill is money. I don't think any of us would debate or argue with the notion of making better use of existing resources that are used in education, but I think four points need to be pointed out.

You reference the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board parents' council. They very clearly said that they don't want to be in the business of fund-raising. They do it because they care about their kids and they do it because of the cutbacks that have happened in education.

We talk about equity financing and equity funding, and I keep coming back and harking back to the points we had all made about how funding may be equitable, but if it's not enough, we've got a big problem, and that's the concern everyone has. When we see unnamed sources from the Ministry of Education more than confirming what the minister himself had said with respect to the amounts of dollars that will be taken out of education, I think that's cause for great concern.

This amendment, in our view, permits equity in terms of programming. It permits students, no matter where they come from -- large urban areas, small rural areas, north or south -- to access these kinds of programs.

The final point I wanted to make was that again we've seen, in my view, the distortion of facts. For instance, we now have an answer. The government, including the minister, has been saying that local taxes have gone up 120% in 10 years. I asked a very specific question about mill rates, because we have been calling boards and we have yet to find a mill rate that's gone up by that much. Now, in our response, we see why. When they talk about the local share, oops, they forgot to include full funding for separate schools. Oops, they forgot to include the share of additional new mandated programs. Oops, they don't have mill rate increases, and I can tell you that mill rate increases have nowhere approximated the 120%. And oops, we forgot to count the fact that not only have GLGs not gone up; they have gone down substantially in total since 1990.

So when the parliamentary assistant speaks against this motion because of increased cost, we think we should be putting the needs of our children first and we should be discussing those needs not only in light of the existing funding envelope but in light of what we need not only to be competitive but to be the best, because the other statistic we've heard is that in terms of North American jurisdictions, Ontario is 46th in terms of per pupil spending. I would much rather spend more money on our kids than give a big tax cut.

Mr Skarica: I agree with Mr Duncan's last comment that the needs of children should be paramount and should be first.

While each one of the 19 provisions independently no one really can argue with, collectively there are implications, both financially and otherwise. I'll give you two examples.

"18. Schools provide a dedicated professional staff of teachers and support staff to ensure high learning and safety standards." Who could argue with that? But my definition of "teachers," and the definition of teachers I've heard from the unions, doesn't include early childhood educators. So to go back to the Ottawa Citizen, if it does include early childhood educators, the Ottawa board could save $700,000 of the $1.7-million cost of their JK program.

However, it has other implications. For example, if you tie that in with 4, "Access is offered to junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten," to enforce both those, it has implications that are non-financial. For example, Alia Kent, president of the Women Teachers' Association of Ottawa, said if the Ottawa board can't provide a junior kindergarten program with unionized teachers, they shouldn't provide any program at all. That seems to be contrary, from the teachers' own unions, regarding the right to number 4. But then again you go back to, what is the definition of teachers? Does it include early childhood educators or not? I don't know.

Dealing with another aspect, class size, number 5, I'd like to go to Mr Wildman's own riding, and I'm glad you're back because I don't like to talk behind your back, Mr Wildman.

1500

Mr Wildman: I was over there looking for some tea.

Mr Skarica: Motherhood issues are of course that we should have the lowest class sizes possible. The lowest class size board that we heard in our hearings is a board in Mr Wildman's riding called the Hornepayne board. They have classes that are as low as five kids in a class, as we heard. You see, we were listening, Mr Wildman.

Interjection.

The Chair: All right. Mr Wildman, I'll give you lots of time to respond if you wish.

Mr Skarica: We're always accused of not listening, but we were listening, Mr Wildman.

The Hornepayne board meets the number 5 criteria very comfortably, but combine that with number 10: "Math, science and technology programs, adequate computer resources are available." We heard from the Hornepayne board people that they cancelled all their technology programs because there aren't the resources there to do it right now. If we mandated both 5 and 10, Hornepayne would easily fit into 5 but would not fit into 10. Then the core question is, where are the funds coming from?

Interjection.

Mr Skarica: If I could just finish. Then we go back to Ms Lankin's comment: These bills of rights don't commit you to money. Yes, they do; they must. Hornepayne, for example, would have to somehow come up with the money for the technology programs.

Interruption.

Mr Skarica: I heard the comment, "You come up with the money." This again goes back to that we have a debt and deficit problem that people do not want to acknowledge.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please, let's have some order.

Mr Skarica: The tax cut had nothing to do with Hornepayne cancelling its technology program. It has nothing to do --

Interruption.

Mr Skarica: I don't want to debate with the people in the crowd.

The Chair: I would appreciate some order, please.

Mr Skarica: The tax cut has nothing to do with Hornepayne's problems regarding technology. They're far more complex than that.

While each and every one of these are basically motherhood issues, once you start tying them in and seeing what's happening around the province, it's just not that simple and there are in fact cost implications and other implications. One of the criticisms that we've heard, quite frankly, is, "You haven't looked at this carefully enough," and those type of things. That criticism applies full force with this bill of rights.

Ms Lankin: Mr Skarica, I get more worried every time I hear you open your mouth. The bottom line is that you as a representative of the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education are prepared to sit here and say that it's fine by you that Hornepayne doesn't have adequate resources to provide computer and technology training to the kids in that class. That's all the more reason why this is needed in the legislation.

Madam Chair, I respect that you have made a ruling. I just want to say that I think it is a damn crime that this government could proceed with a time allocation motion that would limit the ability of members of a committee to deal substantively with debate and change to amendments that have been filed by the parties to this legislation. It is beyond me to understand a democratic process which forbids, once an amendment is on the floor, the members of the assembly who are there to debate that, from having ownership and control over that amendment, from further amending it and refining it to reflect the common will, the common wish of the majority of those assembled. It is beyond me that this government could construct time allocation motions that continue to trample on the democratic process.

I do not intend to go on any further. There are many other amendments that we want to have time to discuss. I simply say to the government members that if you believe that your approach to education is all about saving money no matter what it means in the classroom, then you'll vote against this. You'll support the comments of the parliamentary assistant, who has made it very clear that this is simply about money and that to support broad principles and broad goals of what we want to accomplish in the education system is not appropriate because it may need resources.

Your choices are clear. If for you this is about money and cutting money out of the education system despite what happens to our kids -- damn the kids in the class -- then you support Mr Skarica and his approach on this and you vote against this. If on the other hand you're prepared to say to your own government and to those governance structures that are established under this bill, the district school boards, that with whatever resources are provided there are some fundamentals that must form the basis of the education system for our children, then you support this amendment and you work alongside all of us in the future to ensure that we have the kind of economy, the kind of social conscience, the kind of commitment to support adequate funding in the future.

Mrs McLeod: I don't have any need to prolong the government's attempts at rationalization, so I think we should move on. I would just suggest to Mr Skarica, though, for consistency, if you believe that we should have all the details of implementation and all the details of cost before you pass legislation, you should join us in voting against Bill 104.

Mr Wildman: Madam Chair, I wasn't intending to intervene again in this debate, because we have been around the horn, but I've been stimulated by Mr Skarica's references to Hornepayne. I think it's important for us to recognize the very special circumstances of a very isolated small community in northwestern Ontario and not to try to apply it to the rest of the province.

I think everyone on the committee in Sudbury, when we heard the very good presentation of Ms Janice Beatty, the secretary-treasurer of the Hornepayne Board of Education, was impressed by the special circumstances of that very small isolated community. I think all members of the committee -- and I mean this sincerely -- tried to respond to that concern, and I appreciate Mr Skarica's concern about it.

But let's be clear: The reason Hornepayne faces the kinds of difficulties it does are the circumstances of its isolation. It is a very small community, a railroad town, with very little industry other than the railroad and a very small enrolment. Those are the special circumstances in Hornepayne. There is a solution for it, I believe, a solution that fits into the context of Bill 104. That is to have it treated as an isolate board, to have it treated the way the isolate boards are treated in Bill 104, to have them designated as school authorities. Hornepayne Board of Education should be designated as a school authority. That's I think how you'd start to deal with the concerns of the people of Hornepayne and the needs of those students.

You don't then say that because Hornepayne has special circumstances, you shouldn't vote for this. Of course Hornepayne has very small classes. It has a high school, for instance, of only 84 students in total. They can't provide many of the programs. We should understand that historically when they haven't been able to provide programs in math, science and technology that their students want, that board pays tuition for those kids to be boarded out in another community that can provide them with those programs. One of the reasons they only have 84 students in their high school is that many students are living in Barrie or Sudbury or Thunder Bay or Toronto with relatives and attending school in those other communities, and the Hornepayne Board of Education and the Hornepayne taxpayers are paying the tuition for those children to go to those schools. It's unfortunate. Everyone would like kids to be able to get their education where they live, with their families, but people in isolated northern communities have to make do with the situation they face.

I think we should be responding to the needs of Hornepayne. I think the Education Improvement Commission must, and I think again that it should be designated as a school authority under this bill, if it passes. But I don't think the Hornepayne situation gives us reason to vote against this bill of rights at all.

Mr Duncan: The parliamentary assistant's response just further -- remember, we are now taking the financing of education to the province. Your response just heightens our concern about the availability of money.

It's very instructive that you raise the notion of computer resources. Two years ago, just after the minister froze capital spending for schools in this province, the Americans set an agenda that every classroom in the United States will be online and wired by the year 2000. Why? Because they recognize the significance of investing in education and investing in our kids.

The $5 billion in revenue that you're sacrificing for the tax cut in our view would be better applied to schools and improving our ability to educate our children.

1510

The Chair: Any further debate on this amendment? Seeing none, all in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

We now vote on all of section 2. Any further debate? All in favour of section 2? Opposed? Section 2 is carried.

We've received no amendments with respect to sections 3 to 6. Is there any debate with respect to those sections? The next section on which we have amendments is section 7. If there's no objection, we could deal with all those sections together: sections 3 to 6.

All in favour of sections 3, 4, 5 and 6? Opposed? Sections 3 to 6 are carried.

We move to section 7.

Mr Wildman: I've an amendment to section 7 subsection (327)(3)(d)(vii.1) of the Education Act.

I move that clause 327(3)(d) of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subclause:

"(vii.1) representation on district school boards, by peer election or appointment, of the interests of students attending senior elementary and secondary schools of those district school boards."

The purpose of the amendment is to respond to the many suggestions that were made by students and in some cases by boards in the hearings that there should be student representation on boards of education to represent the concerns and views of the students, who are obviously the central people in the education system. They're who the education system is for.

We heard representation in a number of places we went to from very articulate, intelligent and informed young people who came before the committee to make their views known about the effects of Bill 104, which just served to reinforce for me the very positive role that students can and should play in the deliberations of boards. So the purpose of this is to ensure that there's a mechanism for getting student representation on the boards.

Mrs McLeod: We support the amendment. Should it, by chance, not meet with favour on the part of the government members, we will be moving a further amendment asking the EIC to look at student representation on the boards and how that might be achieved. I completely concur with Mr Wildman that one of the concerns we heard, from the very few students who were able to present to our committee, was that they were not going to be heard. They were very concerned that they had not been heard in the process of consultation on a bill which will certainly have an impact on their education. They want to be sure they have some chance to be heard in the future.

Mr Duncan: I want to mention in support of this amendment that just last week the Windsor Board of Education filled a vacancy that was created by the death of a trustee by appointing a young woman who had been serving as a student representative to fill out the term. That young woman by all accounts did an excellent job as a student representative on the board and will now fulfil that mandate. It makes sense to us that students can be representatives.

Mr O'Toole: The government, I believe, has proposed an amendment that deals with that in subsection 327(6.1). In that section it says that appointments to the board do not include any person elected or appointed to the district school board under (3)(d), which is the section we're dealing with.

Mr Wildman: What page number?

Mr O'Toole: It's page 16.

Mrs McLeod: That does not deal with students.

The Chair: In any event, we're dealing the motion at hand. We will get to the motion on page 16 at another point.

Any further debate with respect to this amendment?

Ms Lankin: With respect, I just want to make sure that Mr O'Toole and the government members are clear. If they think they have an amendment which accomplishes this, they may well vote against the amendment before us. If others around the table are right, that the amendment they are thinking of deals only with separate school representation, we shouldn't --

Mr O'Toole: If I may, through the Chair, for a point of clarification, page 16 is the government's motion and I believe it deals with, not the separate issue, but the trustee issue.

Mrs McLeod: It doesn't deal with students. It deals with separate school appointments to public boards where there is no separate school board for secondary school purposes.

Mr Wildman: If I could use the example Mr Skarica raised, Hornepayne, at the high school level there is no separate board in Hornepayne, so the separate school ratepayers who support the elementary separate board, which is an isolate board, elect two people to represent them on the board of education when the board is dealing with secondary school matters. That's what the government motion deals with, that kind of circumstance. It doesn't relate, as my motion does, to student representation.

Ms Lankin: Just to clarify, the government motion deals with two sections under (3)(d), subclause (vi) and (vii), subclause (vi) being "representation on district school boards, by election or appointment, of the interests of supporters of rural separate schools and combined separate schools, for secondary school purposes," and (vii) being "representation on district school boards, by appointment, of the interests of members of bands in respect of which there is agreement under this act to provide instruction to pupils who are Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act (Canada)."

The proposed amendment we have before us that has been put forward by my colleague Mr Wildman adds a subclause to this which would allow for either the election or appointment of student trustees, for those representations of their interests to be made at the school board level. This is permissive; it addresses the concerns we have heard. There are many boards, as you well know, that have instituted this practice, and we would not want to see that precluded as a result of the legislation.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I want to say first off that in my board I've dealt with the student trustees and I think they do a terrific job, so I think it's incumbent on us to somehow ensure we get student trustees. My issue with this -- I don't know how we can deal with this, but the issue that I think is important is that we're changing the number of trustees. We have to figure out how we get the trustee representation on the board, how that happens, whether it be through elections or how that happens, and what the percentage should be. I don't see how that's answered here. I certainly want the same objective as you do. It certainly couldn't be the same student trustee if we were going to trustees of five or six, so maybe we could have a little chat about that. It's important for me to understand.

Ms Lankin: I understand the point that you're raising. If you look to the section we're dealing with, subsection (3): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for..." Then it sets out a number of things including representation on, and election to, district school boards in a number of areas. Those clauses allow, in the area of rural separate schools, cross-appointed representation of Indian bands in those situations where boards have people who are determined to be Indians under the Indian Act.

We're saying that the Lieutenant Governor in Council should be able to make regulations to set out representation on boards by elected or peer-appointed students. We're not determining the number. We're not determining the proportion. It's permissive. We are allowing that to take place in the future and a regulation to be made to govern that. You may not, in the future, do it.

1520

Mrs Johns: Mandatory or permissive?

Ms Lankin: It's permissive because it says "may." It says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for." If you don't have it in here, you may well find yourself with your hands tied with respect to being able to have official status or recognition of student trustees in the future. With it in here, you allow yourself the opportunity, through consultation and cabinet decision-making, to put in place a regulation in the future that would govern that situation.

Mrs McLeod: Further to that, may I help Mrs Johns? The amendment that we've proposed to deal with student representation asks the EIC to advise the minister on how to accommodate student representation on boards, and that's consistent with everything else. I mean, there's nothing that is determined here in terms of how many trustees on each board; that's something the EIC will advise the minister on.

The only thing that might need to happen is that the amendment that Mr O'Toole was referring to, which is a government amendment which allows certain individuals to be appointed as additions to the numbers set out in the bill -- student representation might have to be included in that, but that could be done, I presume, by government at committee of the whole, if you choose to have student representation considered on these boards.

Mr McLean: Do (vi) and (vii) of clause 327(3)(d) not cover what this amendment is asking for?

Mr Tomlinson: The proposed amendment, the (vi) and the (vii), is simply to ensure that if there are native representatives appointed to the board or if there are separate school supporters appointed or elected to a public board for secondary school purposes, they are in addition to the number of members provided for under subsection (6), which is 5 to 22. In other words, they aren't part of the distribution process.

That doesn't get to the point that is being discussed here, whether students should be able to be at the board. However, it seems to me that this does not preclude boards doing what they do now, where they invite students to come to meetings, as I understand it, not as members of the board but maybe as representatives of the students to perhaps participate in the discussions, but not to vote and not to have the other qualifications of members.

Mr Wildman: I don't think there needs to be a long debate on this issue. There are lots of other issues we need to deal with here.

If we look at page 5 of the bill, the key phrase, as my colleague indicated, is subsection (3), where it says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council," in other words, the cabinet, "may make regulations providing for," and I've just added this to it. It's not requiring them to, not telling the cabinet they have to, it just says they "may." It's permissive, so it's not putting anything on the government that the government might decide they don't want. It's just saying that the cabinet could decide to do this if they wish. I would hope that would make it possible for all members of the committee to support this. I'm not saying the government "shall," I'm saying they "may."

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the discussion on this particular issue. Today, in my area and some areas of the province, I know they do have student trustees under the current act. I don't know what provisions or empowerments allow them to do that, but they are there, and I agree with Mrs Johns that they do function very well. I know them.

That being said, I don't personally have a problem with this aspect. I think in the broader review of the role of trustee and their ability to operate in kind of a committee format -- that's my understanding. With the huge boards that we witnessed in part of Ontario compared to the size of France, they're going to have to operate in some kind of committee structure.

The role of the trustee as it would be defined in regulation, I gather, is more where I'd like to hear what the legislative counsel or the ministry counsel has to say on that.

Mr Tomlinson: I'm sorry, could you repeat your last question, sir?

Mr O'Toole: Is the role of the trustee going to be defined in regulation?

Mr Tomlinson: The present bill doesn't provide for that, nor am I aware of government motions which --

Mr O'Toole: How is that going to get defined?

Mrs McLeod: There would have to be changes to the Education Act.

Mr Tomlinson: I think that's the correct answer, that there would have to be a change to the Education Act for that to happen.

Mr O'Toole: That would be further legislation, then.

Mr Tomlinson: Other than informally the ministry sending out information or other groups sending out information as to what they saw the role of the trustee was under the present legislation, what areas the trustees should be concentrating their efforts on, as opposed to other areas where legally they could. But from a policy point of view, it would be considered that maybe it's not the best priority. For example, information could go out indicating to trustees that maybe it's better to spend less time in hands-on management of minor details and more concentration on education policy, that kind of thing. But that wouldn't be something that would have legal effect. For something to have legal effect, of course, you'd have to amend the act.

Mr Skarica: I have to admit that I'm in agreement with the comments of Mr Wildman, which makes me very nervous that I'm missing something. One of the problems I see is there's no definition of "students," but I think that's a pretty weak argument, so I intend to vote for the amendment.

Mr McLean: Could I have a clarification? Do we have any senior elementary and secondary schools?

The Chair: Who are you directing that question to?

Mr McLean: The ministry staff.

The Chair: Mr Tomlinson, are you in a position to answer that?

Mr Tomlinson: I'm sorry, I was just reading the amendment. Would you repeat the question?

Mr McLean: The question is with regard to senior elementary and secondary schools. Is that a definition? Do some boards have that as a definition?

Interjection: Grades 7 and 8.

Mr McLean: Do we already have it as a definition now?

Mr Tomlinson: As a definition for what particular purpose would that be?

Mr McLean: Senior elementary. I know there are elementary schools, but I didn't know there were definitions of it.

The Chair: The question is, is there such a thing in the Education Act as "senior elementary schools."

Mr Tomlinson: I'm not aware of that being in the act, but it doesn't mean it might not be in documents of the ministry.

The Chair: Any further debate on this amendment?

All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

We move on to the next amendment.

Mr Skarica: I move that subsection 327(3) of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(d.1) the transfer of assets, including but not limited to real and personal property, the transfer of liabilities and the transfer of employees of existing boards to district school boards."

The proposed amendment relates to the dispute resolution mechanism which is coming in a couple of pages. This proposed amendment would add a clause to authorize the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations providing for the transfer of assets, liabilities and employees from existing boards to new district school boards. We heard throughout the hearings that there were no real rules dealing with what was going to happen to employees in the dispute resolution mechanism. Some clarity is added to that concern.

Mrs McLeod: I believe this is another of the areas the government forgot when it was drafting its original legislation, just as students were somehow missed out in the representation on boards. As I understand it, this then gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council, in other words, cabinet, total and absolute power to make regulations regarding the transfer of all assets, all liabilities and all staff of existing boards.

The Chair: Are you asking a question or just stating your view?

Mrs McLeod: I'm asking to confirm; that's my understanding of what this amendment does.

Mr Skarica: It does, subject to the proposed amendment that's coming forward on page 13.

Mrs McLeod: I understand that. I do believe this would not have had precedents in prior amalgamations and that it's the sweeping nature of what the government intends to do that makes this total control necessary.

Mr Skarica: No, it's not page 13. I'm sorry.

Mrs McLeod: I know the reference.

Mr Wildman: Actually, that's the question I was going to ask, just if Mr Skarica could tell us the page number of the amendment.

1530

Mr Skarica: Page 18.

The Chair: Take a moment to refer to page 18.

Mr Duncan: As I understand this, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant can correct me, this gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council, that is, the cabinet, the right to override all collective agreements.

Mr Skarica: That's not my interpretation of it.

Mr Duncan: Can you tell me how that doesn't happen by this?

Mr Skarica: If we go to (8.8), on page 18b, the current employment contracts and benefits basically get transferred to the merged school board.

Ms Lankin: Which section is that?

Mr Skarica: That would be (8.7).

The Chair: It's on page 18b, for members who haven't found it yet.

Mr Duncan: Could I put a question to counsel? I would see those two, then -- clearly the government intends that these work together, but I see them working contrary to one another. If in this section you provide the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations providing for "the transfer of assets," da, da, da, da, "the transfer of employees of existing boards to district school boards," what section of the bill would we look to in the case where there is a dispute, say, on seniority?

Mr Tomlinson: Which section of the --

Mr Duncan: Which of these two sections that you deal with in these proposed amendments -- as I understand what the parliamentary assistant said, the two amendments are designed to work hand in hand.

Mr Tomlinson: That's right.

Mr Duncan: As I understand them, not having read completely through that amendment on page 18b, because we didn't get it until 1 o'clock this afternoon --

Mr Wildman: It's (8.6) on 18b.

Mr Duncan: I see that. The question's still valid. Even in spite of the proposed amendment, can the cabinet not then simply step in where a dispute cannot be resolved and override a collective agreement?

Mr Tomlinson: You start off with the first proposed amendment which allows the regulation to provide for the transfer of assets and employees. You then go to (8.6), that in making the regulations, the regulation has to ensure that all employees of existing boards are transferred to district school boards, so they're all going to go to one district school board or another. Then you get to the (8.7), which says statutorily, "Here's the rule that applies once they get there," and in particular in paragraph 2, basically all their employment rights continue.

The one wrinkle you'll have, of course, is you'll have separate groups of teachers from separate boards who will end up at the new board and each of those, say, three separate groups will have their own collective agreement rights that have gone with them, which is okay within that group, but when you ask how they relate to the other groups of teachers who are now with that board, there's no answer in this bill. It's intended that in the next bill it would be dealt with as far as the collective bargaining and the harmonization of the agreements and that type of thing.

Ms Lankin: Some further clarification. As I understand it, the amendment that's before us which gives the regulation-making power with respect to matters of transfers of assets, including property liabilities and transfer of employees -- I understand legal counsel's clarifications with respect to transfer of employees and how once the transfer takes place there are statutory guidelines that must be followed.

I would like it if you could walk us through the restrictions that are put in place on transfer of assets and liabilities. As I read very quickly here, it appears that in the other sections they are more permissive. In the amendments, on pages 18, 18a and 18b, with respect to assets and liabilities, they are permissive clauses which allow for, for example, processes that might be set out or continuation of legal or other proceedings that may occur. It's a complicated interrelationship between the two sections that we're dealing with here, and given that these have just been provided to us, we haven't had a chance to see them, could you give us an explanation of those other sections?

Mr Tomlinson: Yes, I'll attempt to give a fairly brief explanation, if I can. You start off, again, with that basic first amendment that would authorize the making of a regulation to transfer the real property, or just all property and assets, which is basically all property and all assets and all liabilities. You then go to (8.1) and it talks about what things may be included in the regulation. Subsection (8.1) deals mostly with processes that the regulation can set out for following in order to end up with the decision as to what assets go where.

In this regard it's instructive to look at (8.6), which sets out the conditions that the Lieutenant Governor has to follow when she approves the regulation for transferring the property. What she has to do, in clause (b), is "ensure that all assets, liabilities and employees" do get transferred. We can't leave anything behind -- they have to go to one new district board or another -- and she has to "have regard to the needs of each district school board." In other words, there has to be regard to the area that that new board was serving, the number of kids who were going to be going to the schools and where they were located in the area.

Ms Lankin: Where is that set out?

Mr Tomlinson: This would come under clause (a), "have regard to the needs of each district school board." That would be implicit in that, I think.

I think the intention would be that the regulation itself, since it's fairly general, would deal with the clear situations. For example, if you have an existing board that may have one school used entirely for French kids, the regulation might say that schools of existing boards that are used entirely for French-language instructional purposes automatically go to the new district French-language board as opposed to the new district English-language board. That's an easy case. That can be dealt with in the regulation; similarly with the schools that are entirely for English-language kids. Presumably the regulation in general would keep the separate school property within the separate school system and the public school property within the public school system.

To deal with situations that are difficult, where there's a mixture of kids in schools, part French, part English, or in some cases part separate school kids and part public school kids in a school, you would move on to (8.2). The regulation would delegate powers to the commission to deal with these difficult cases and make guidelines, but it could set controls on what the commission could do and how it could do it.

Ms Lankin: If I may, I think what flows from that, under those other sections, is continued refinement with respect to the assigning of powers and duties to the Education Improvement Commission and examples of rules that may be specified and criteria. You've already addressed the criteria.

Then on page 18c: "(8.8) An order or directive of the EIC...may be filed in the Ontario Court," and "(8.9) An order or directive that is filed...shall be enforceable as if it were an order of the Ontario Court," and "(8.10) Orders and directives of the EIC under this section are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned in any court."

The whole controversy with respect to the role of appointed boards, arm's-length boards of trustees, whether it be the Education Improvement Commission or, in another piece of legislation that we'll see amendments to tomorrow, a board of trustees, and their decisions being final or being reviewable by courts has not been addressed in this section. It hasn't been addressed in any other section of the legislation.

1540

Interjection: It has been.

Ms Lankin: Could you just explain to me what it means? Why this section? My understanding was that you had put limits on the role of the EIC and opened up the issue of reviewability of their decisions. Why is this section set out in a different way?

Mr Tomlinson: As you perhaps have noticed with the motions, it's proposed that the general provision which would have excluded the courts from reviewing any decision of the EIC be removed. The reason it was kept in for this one area is basically that it was felt that the effect of putting in a provision like that assists in minimizing the number of at least vexatious lawsuits. The idea was that it was very important that this process -- the transfer of assets, the transfer of employees -- be as efficient as possible so that once we got to January, the kids would know what school they were entitled to go to and what teachers they were going to have. That's what I think it comes down to. Because the efficiency of the process was essential in order to accomplish that, we felt it was justifiable in precluding the review of the courts.

I think the other point was, this is a matter, the transfer of schools and so on, which is something that judges don't have a lot of expertise in. It was felt, I think, that maybe there was justification from that point of view as well.

This would not preclude somebody from going for a judicial review if the commission acted -- well, they could go at any time they wanted, but it would not preclude the court from considering it and stopping the commission from doing something if the commission were clearly acting outside of what the regulation said it could do. Remember, we said the regulation can put all kinds of controls on the commission and how it acts. If it doesn't act property according to the regulation, the court can stop it. As well, if it's doing something that the court considers extremely unfair for whatever reason, the courts just ignore these clauses. That tends to be the result.

Mr Wildman: I won't prolong this, but I want to relate what was just said to the amendment, (d.1), and use a couple of examples that might be helpful.

In many parts of Ontario now there are school buildings -- secondary schools in particular, although there are some elementary as well -- which house two schools: a French school and an English school. In many cases these are under separate school board jurisdiction, but in some cases they're under public boards as well. The commission is going to have to deal with the transfer of assets. The question is, what do you do with one building that houses two schools?

I suppose they might decide that the building would stay with the new amalgamated separate English board or public English board and there might be some sort of lease agreement that the new French board would have with that board. That agreement would have to be worked out subsequently.

Mr Tomlinson: In fact, I think, Mr Wildman, that the commission would have the flexibility to order that. If it wanted the school to go to one board but the other board to have the lease, I think it could order that, yes.

Mr Wildman: Okay, but that then is not subject to judicial review.

Mr Tomlinson: Or it could order that the school go jointly to both boards.

Mr Wildman: But that is not subject to judicial review if that were an order issued by the EIC. If there were an order that said that this asset should remain with the English public board, and for whatever reason the French board felt it would be better within their ownership, they wouldn't have any right of appeal.

Mr Tomlinson: Presumably the regulation would build in a process whereby certainly they could make their disagreement known to the commission before the commission made its order final, but the intent of that provision would be that the court would be excluded, as I say, unless the commission acted outside of the process that the regulation set down or unless there was something completely unfair about it or unless there was some constitutional element that came in, because nothing that can be done here, of course, can infringe on the Constitution.

Mr Wildman: I don't want to get into the constitutional issue. Can I use another example? Currently there's a Dufferin-Peel board and it's being proposed that the Dufferin part of it be taken away from that board and amalgamated with Wellington. Correct?

Mr Tomlinson: I understood there has been talk of that, yes.

Mr Wildman: It's on the maps that are in the compendium.

Mr Tomlinson: I don't think anything is final yet. Actually, I think we have a member from the section here who --

Mr Wildman: I think it's in the maps, and it was a matter that was brought before the committee when we were in Midhurst. If the commission came to the conclusion, "All right, Dufferin is now going to be with Wellington and we'll transfer these schools and this amount" -- let's say they have a reserve fund and so they take a percentage of the reserve fund of the Dufferin-Peel board and transfer that to the new board, and the Peel separate board does not think they have been treated fairly; too much of their reserve fund has been taken and transferred to this other new board. What can they do?

Mr Tomlinson: Number one, if we're at the end of the process with the commission -- as I've said, the commission does deal with the situation, and if it has made its final order and there is a disagreement, the board, of course, can apply for judicial review. It's just a question of a judge looking at it, and if he feels, as I have said, that the situation is obviously unfair, judges tend to ignore that type of clause.

Mr Wildman: Then I don't understand something, and maybe it's just because I'm not learned in the law, but if you're saying that they could go to the judge --

Mr Tomlinson: Anybody can always go to a judge. I think it's the next step that's important.

Mr Wildman: Then why do you have this in here? Why do you say, "Orders and directives of the Education Improvement Commission under this section are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned in any court," if in fact you can go to the court and ask for review and question the orders of the commission? If you can do that anyway, why have you got this in here?

Mr Tomlinson: That doesn't deal with whether you can go to the court. That's the first step. It deals with whether the judge basically is going to deal with your application, think about it and possibly make a decision in your favour.

Ms Lankin: If I can jump in to make this clearer, this certainly would set a little bit of a higher barrier for someone to get over to get the judge to consider their complaint, wouldn't it?

Mr Tomlinson: That's basically what it does.

Ms Lankin: I thought that was basically what it did.

Mr Tomlinson: To go right back to the beginning, it was felt that it's justifiable to set that slightly higher barrier in this case so that the kids, when January comes, know what school they're going to and what teacher they're going to have. I think it was decided in the interest of that it was important.

Mr Duncan: Having just received these at 1 o'clock, I find it difficult in any event to understand everything, but I'll make a prediction about what these amendments in their entirety do. I think these are the first step in province-wide bargaining.

If you read it in light of the section on page 16 of the bill itself where it talks about the powers of the Education Improvement Commission, I think what you're seeing here in your amendment (8.6), "(a) have regard to the needs of each district school board" and "(b) ensure that all assets, liabilities and employees of existing boards are transferred to district school boards," it deals with what Tom Wells found in the Essex county case. That is, notionally, that if you go ahead with amalgamation, you won't get necessarily a lower-cost situation, but costs particularly associated with collective agreements will go up, because the lower-cost boards will be drawn up.

What this does is prescribe, much the way you did with arbitration, that the EIC and cabinet can therefore take into consideration the ability of the poorer school board to pay. So what you're doing in my view is you are fundamentally taking away the right to collectively bargain for teachers, and I think this is the first step. You indicated that there is more legislation, and I think you're forcing the government to consider those scenarios and that's what the intention of all these amendments is.

1550

Again, I was having trouble following some of this complicated stuff because I've only had it since 1 o'clock, but when you read this in light of page 16 of the bill where it deals with section 335 of the Education Act and also subsection (3), what the EIC can do, clause (e), I think what you're doing is dealing with what Wells found in Essex county and you're in effect taking away the right of teachers to collectively bargain.

I think that will be confirmed in the following -- you shake your head no, but just read it very carefully: "the Lieutenant Governor in Council" -- ie cabinet -- "have regard to the needs of each district school board." That is a limitation on what you provided in your first amendment that gives cabinet the right to make regulation with respect to the transfer of employees of existing boards to district school boards. Those limitations are there, so what it's saying very clearly, in my view, is that you will have to deal with those situations, and I'll make a prediction right now that you're going to have, first of all, a bill that deals with the Paroian recommendations, because you did indicate in your original response to me that more of this would be coming out in the next legislation. I'll make a prediction now that this is laying the groundwork for that, and it's basically saying that the commission or the cabinet have the right to take into consideration the ability of the poorer board to pay.

I think what you're doing is you're not even solving your own dilemma. You're going to have a mess with collective agreements all over this province, because where these amalgamations are occurring, there are huge problems, huge discrepancies. That's why I think you can't look at it in isolation of either province-wide or regional bargaining at all, and when you do take away the right to strike, what this tells me is that you're giving direction to the cabinet and to the EIC to take into consideration the ability of the poorer board to pay the same costs. Again, I don't know a lot of these complicated things, but in Windsor-Essex county, the Windsor boards are assessment-rich and have been able to negotiate more generous collective agreements than the county. This is going to, in my view, force the higher down, and it also tells me that the next step is going to be taking away the right to strike. It's going to also take away, in my view, the right to collective bargaining.

Mrs McLeod: My frustration is reaching almost unmanageable levels. We are now debating a motion which is related to the motion that is actually before us. Both motions are substantive in what they bring to the bill. They both, in my view, represent major areas which the government failed to address in its haste to bring forward this legislation. I am appreciative of the fact that at least there is some effort now to provide some initial protection to the contracts of staff who as of December 1997 are not going to have their existing employers.

I am distressed by the fact that the motion plays what is in my view a shell game by appearing to make the EIC no longer above the law but in fact giving it powers of compulsory arbitration over its own decisions, which I think is what is achieved with (8.10).

I don't know that there is much point in continuing to debate it. This is something which should have been before us in the original bill. It's something which should have been the subject of consultation with those who are affected by it, which are the boards holding the assets and liabilities and the employers and employees of those boards that are most directly affected. All of those individuals have expressed concerns to us about the lack of any protection for assets, liabilities and for employees on the transfer. The government has clearly understood that it missed that, and so now, at 4 o'clock, when we have significant other amendments that we have to deal with, we are attempting to understand a major piece of this legislation. I guess we will just have to take on faith that it's better than what was in the act before, or not in the act before.

The Chair: Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: I'll defer to Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: Actually, I had a further question, and then perhaps Mr Wildman would like to contribute some thoughts on this. This is to Mr Skarica. I believe the minister has come to the conclusion that the powers of the Education Improvement Commission should not be unfettered, that they should not be without a process of judicial review. Although I hear ministry counsel's suggestions of the reasons for setting out that these particular decisions with respect to transfer of assets, liabilities and property and employees should not be reviewable, I fail to understand the distinction being made here.

It seems to that in some of these areas the nature of disagreement or the sense of aggrievement on the part of individual parties may well warrant an airing and some finality of outside review and that that would be good for the process. I think it's consistent with the direction that your government is taking with respect to other aspects of this legislation and with respect to, as we know, another major piece of legislation, Bill 103, which we expect to see amendments on tomorrow.

Could you tell us why it is so necessary to limit the public's access to judicial review in this section? If it is not so necessary, could we find a way to reach an agreement that the rest of this amendment stands, but that perhaps in committee of the whole we will agree to delete (8.10)?

Mr Skarica: My understanding is that the way it was worded before, as we heard virtually every place we went, is that there were unfettered powers, as you indicated, and there were no appeal rights. What we've tried to do through these amendments is to fetter the commission and at the same time give appeal rights, except for the three areas included in (8.10), but even then the powers wouldn't be absolute any longer because there will be regulations as to what they can or can't do. Obviously, if they're outside of those powers, the prohibitive clauses would not prevent anyone from challenging what the commission is doing in court. That, in a nutshell, is what we're trying to accomplish.

Ms Lankin: I do understand that the regulations will set out restrictions on those powers and that if the Education Improvement Commission acts outside of those powers as set out in the regulations, its decisions or its actions would be reviewable. Fine. What I am concerned about is the decisions within those powers being reviewable. It strikes me that the very fact that the legislation sets out its powers and responsibilities and sets out directions to it is a protection to the Education Improvement Commission in and of itself. If there is a party that seeks judicial review of its actions or its decision, the court will have regard to the powers and the responsibilities of the EIC as has been set out in the legislation. We're sort of talking both sides of the same coin here.

The question is whether you fall on the side of providing an opportunity to parties who are being substantially reorganized, restructured, and whose assets over years of dedicated work have been built up, the question of whether they have a right to challenge how those are being dispersed. I would think we would want to err on the side of giving that right of challenge and allowing the courts to determine whether there are sufficient grounds in the application that's been brought forward.

Mr Skarica: Again, it's hard to anticipate with precision what exactly is going to happen in the future. As I understand it, the legislation is designed -- before, the criticism was, they could do basically whatever they wanted, and now there will be rules set out in regulation as to what they can or can't do so everybody will know what they can or can't do. Those rules will come as a result of Mr Cooke and Ms Vanstone giving recommendations to the minister and cabinet. That's not going to happen until there's consultation with the people affected.

Mr Wildman: My understanding in dealing with the amendment that's before us, a government amendment to section 7, is that this is to try and avoid the scenario where there would be complete chaos in January, so that we would know which schools were going to belong to which boards, which employees were going to be working for which boards. The accompanying amendment that we've been discussing along with it on page 18 would delineate how that might happen and with regard to employees, they would know that their existing collective agreements would continue in force.

The big question that faces everyone, I guess, is what happens after that. That relates to the new funding formula that is coming out and also relates to whether there will be negotiations between bargaining agents and the new boards with regard to the merging of collective agreements dealing with redundancies, dealing with seniority, dealing with early retirements in some cases and dealing with levels of pay and benefits. We can't deal with that in this bill, and that's why we object to the fact that we are dealing with this before we know what the new funding formula is. But at least this amendment will make it possible for employees and students and parents to know before January 1, 1998, where they're going to be as of that date.

Mr Skarica: That's right. We heard that concern throughout the hearings and we tried to address that.

1600

Mrs McLeod: It will not avoid chaos. If you want just one example of what will happen as they start to determine what this actually means, and I think my colleague used the example of seniority, there will be literally hundreds of people with a new employer who have exactly the same seniority rights and they are somehow going to have to be ranked in terms of who has the seniority that supersedes somebody else who has exactly the same seniority with the earlier board. Those kinds of disputes are going to be impossible to resolve. What this does, though, is at least make sure that as of January 1 they are legally employed by somebody.

The Chair: Any further debate on this amendment? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

We move to further amendments.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, I will withdraw this because once again it has to do with holding off the elections, until the year 2000, of the new district boards. I believe that then leads to subsection 327(3).

I move that subsection 327(3) of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(d.1) means of ensuring that an elector, student, parent or teacher in a geographic area represented by a member of a district school board can communicate with that member without incurring greater cost than would be necessary if the member were in the same locality."

It is clearly within the powers of the cabinet to make regulations ensuring that this would be addressed. It's an attempt to put some framework for looking at the board boundaries and to deal with the concerns we heard repeatedly that some of the board boundaries are so excessively large that it is going to be virtually impossible for individual constituents, members of a community, to communicate with their elected trustee. We felt that one of the ways in which you could have a guideline that the cabinet and the EIC could consider would be to look at the whole question of cost. If there are significant travel costs that would have to be incurred, long-distance costs in telephone communication, that's something that should be taken into consideration.

Mr Skarica: We have a resolution that we're going to ask the EIC to look at the problem as delineated by Ms McLeod, and I would prefer to leave it to the commission to make recommendations after looking at the committee hearings and any other information it receives.

Ms Lankin: In response to that, Mr Skarica, I point out that this is a permissive clause that's set out in a section that allows the Lieutenant Governor to make regulations. It doesn't say the Lieutenant Governor "shall"; it says "may." Like in many other areas, we will eagerly await the recommendations from the Education Improvement Commission. I'm sure that will give shape to the cabinet decision of what goes into the regulation that the LG puts forward. It's not inconsistent with your preferred direction.

The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, all in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mr Duncan: We withdraw the amendment that's on page 7a because again it goes back to the timing, which was already defeated.

I would move the amendment put on page 8, a packet of amendments that the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"(i) rules to ensure that the replacement of existing boards by district school boards will not have the effect of reducing funding or eligibility for special education programs."

Again this provides a framework with respect to special education, that cabinet may make regulations to provide for this "to ensure that the replacement of existing boards by district...boards will not have the effect of reducing funding or eligibility for special education programs." It simply attempts to set the parameters under which cabinet can make regulation.

Mr Skarica: Again it's the same. This will be dealt with in upcoming legislation to deal with the funding formula, and it's our suggestion that it would be redundant.

The Chair: Any further debate? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

We have a further amendment, Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: Yes, on page 9 of the packet that has been distributed.

I move that subsection 327(3) of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(j) rules to ensure that the replacement of existing boards by district school boards does not threaten existing programs offered at schools and that those programs are maintained."

Again it deals with the notion of setting parameters by which cabinet can make regulations.

The Chair: Further debate? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: Page 10 in the packet.

I move that subsection 327(3) of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(k) rules to ensure that the replacement of existing boards by district school boards does not lead to a reduction in classroom funding for schools within the jurisdiction of those boards."

Again this tries to set the parameters in which the Lieutenant Governor in Council, that is, the cabinet, may prescribe regulations. It is our view that cabinet should have the ability to make regulations when these amalgamations happen, but that they don't necessarily lead to a reduction in classroom funding for schools within the jurisdiction of the new district boards.

Mr Wildman: We would agree with this amendment. There has been a lot of discussion about harmonization and ensuring that each student has equal opportunity in Ontario.

We hope against hope, and we hope it is not a forlorn hope, that this harmonization will mean that each student in Ontario will have the same opportunity as those students who are now being served by boards that are so-called assessment-rich, that we're not going to harmonize downward to the point where people who have had programs in the past in their classrooms will see these cut because we're harmonizing to a lower point than other boards have experienced. We want to bring everyone up to the best possible level, not to move everybody downwards.

The Chair: Further debate? All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, Ms McLeod.

1610

Mrs McLeod: I move that subsection 327(3) of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(l) the authority for district school boards to generate 10% of their revenue through the property tax base so long as the money is used for local enrichment programs."

If I may speak to it, this is clearly a substantive motion. I put it forward, though, because I am genuinely concerned that what we are going to see is a loss of local governance and local decision-making. This motion is very similar to a recommendation of the Crombie commission. The Crombie commission, I will acknowledge, had suggested that there be a 5% discretionary local levy over and above what government would direct as the appropriate funding for education. I've suggested that should be 10% because it was 10% which was recommended to us by a number of presenters to committee who said, "At least leave that much on the local mill rate so that there can be some local flexibility to address local needs."

Clearly, it's presented in the belief that the government is going to move to changes in education funding. Clearly, we wish we knew what the education funding model was going to be before dealing with this, but I believe it's important that we make the case that there should be at least some discretionary funding flexibility left to these local boards and therefore I put forward this amendment.

Mr Wildman: I'm in support of this, largely because it's in line with what Mr Crombie recommended. To be honest with you, if we weren't in a straitjacket, I would suggest that we put a period after the word "base." I wouldn't limit it simply for local enrichment programs, I would allow boards to raise taxes for whatever needs of students they deemed fit, but I understand the reason for the amendment.

Mrs McLeod: A function of doing amendments at midnight.

Mr Wildman: I support the motion.

Mr Skarica: The government's position is that it wishes to move away from this type of taxation. Experience in Ontario has been that the range of spending on students is anywhere from $4,000 to $9,000 per student and often it depends not on student needs but on the resources available to the various boards. It's the government's intention to address problems of equity through the upcoming funding model as opposed to having the boards tax through the property tax base.

The Chair: Further debate? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Further amendment, Mr Wildman, page 12.

Mr Wildman: I move that section 327 of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Areas of jurisdiction

"(3.1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall not make a regulation under clause (3)(b) without first giving each of the existing boards a copy of a draft of the regulation and ensuring that each of them approves of the new boundaries for any district school board whose area of jurisdiction includes part of its area of jurisdiction."

The reason for this is simple. We believe in local autonomy. The existing boards are elected to represent the ratepayers in their districts. They are to speak for them with regard to education matters. If the government is determined to move forward with amalgamations, it seems reasonable that it should consult first with the existing boards to determine whether the new boundaries are reasonable and to ensure that the existing boards, the members of which, the trustees, represent the local communities, the parents and the students, agree. If they don't agree, then what we're suggesting is that the Lieutenant Governor in Council would have to go back to the drawing board and ensure that they redrew the boundaries in such a way that they were reasonable.

To use an example, when we were in Ottawa we heard representation from people from Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Prescott and Russell, and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. All of those local existing boards took the position that they were not opposed to amalgamation but they wanted the amalgamations that had been proposed by Mr Sweeney, not the amalgamations that are currently under consideration. Mr Sweeney had suggested two boards in that area. The current proposal is that there only be one board. It seems to me that it's reasonable that we listen to the local boards and we ensure that we follow their wishes since they represent the people of the region and the area.

Mrs McLeod: I support the amendment as it's presented. Should by chance it not be supported by the government, we have an amendment which attempts to accomplish something similar but which is based on precedent of government's existing legislation as it relates to municipal amalgamation. I would speak to that -- it's on page 25 -- at the appropriate time.

The Chair: Thank you. I'd appreciate it.

Mrs Johns: In listening to the explanation by Mr Wildman, I believe this particular amendment brings forward the height of the status quo: "If we don't want to change, we don't have to change here." I think it's important for us to recognize that, although people agree across the province that we should change the boards and do things, I don't think that we can always go to all municipal clerks, secretaries and existing board trustees and expect to get a consensus on where this might lead. If we followed through on this transaction and waited to everyone to agree, as we know from past history, it would not allow us to do that. If I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, Mr Wildman, please explain to me, but that's what I thought you said.

Mr Wildman: Actually, I don't think in principle you're misunderstanding what I said, but I think you're talking it a little further than I suggested.

Mrs Johns: I'm just explaining how I see it working in the system.

Mr Wildman: We're not suggesting you go to each municipal clerk.

Mrs Johns: That's what it says, Mr Wildman. Under (b) it says, "to municipal clerks, secretaries and existing boards and others." I don't know who the others might that you're suggesting we work with under (3)(b) but I think that would lead us to a time frame where we would never be able to move to consolidate school boards.

Mr Wildman: I'm sorry, am I missing something here? It says, "(3)(b) without first giving each of the existing boards a copy of a draft of the regulation and ensuring that each of them approves of the new boundaries...." It doesn't say anything about municipal clerks.

Mrs Johns: I might be in the wrong section, Mr Wildman, not you.

The Chair: Would you refer us to what page you're looking at, Mrs Johns?

Mrs Johns: I was in the bill.

Mr Wildman: I think you did understand the principle, but you were taking it further than I was proposing. I'm talking about the boards, not the --

Mrs McLeod: So now we look forward to your support.

Mrs Johns: No, I'm still saying that to get approval of every trustee within the boards is a monumental task, and I have to look and see what (3)(b) says.

Mr Wildman: No, I'm not suggesting every trustee. I'm suggesting the board. They usually vote by a majority to determine what their decisions are. I'm not suggesting we have to have unanimity among the trustees, just majority vote.

The Chair: Thank you. I think it's sufficiently clarified. Any further debate? All in favour of the motion? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Moving on to Mr Wildman again.

1620

Mr Wildman: Section 7 of the bill:

I move that section 327 of the Education Act, as set in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Public consultation

"(4.1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall not make a regulation under subsection (3) without first doing the following:

"1. Preparing and making available to the public a draft regulation.

"2. Giving notice of the draft regulation to the public in such a manner that it will come to the attention of interested people in all parts of Ontario.

"3. Providing in the notice that the draft regulation is available for review and comment by members of the public, informing members of the public of where and how to acquire a free copy of it, inviting members of the public to make written submissions concerning the regulation, asking members of the public if they would like to participate in a public hearing concerning the regulation and informing them of where to send their written submissions and their request for a public hearing.

"4. Allowing members of the public at least 30 days after the notice is given to make written representations concerning the regulation or to request a public hearing.

"5. If at least 10 people request a public hearing, giving at least three weeks' notice of a public hearing and holding a public hearing.

"6. Considering any written and oral representations of members of the public before making a final regulation."

This is patterned on the process that is currently followed with regard to changes in the municipal boundaries, and it seems to me that it's reasonable that we follow the same process with regard to school boards.

Mrs McLeod: Once again, we will support this motion. Should it not be successful -- although it should be because it is simply due process and process which is currently followed, as Mr Wildman has said, in any major municipal amalgamation -- should it not pass, we have a number of other motions which will attempt to bring into a more open forum for some consultation the specific decisions that are going to be made in establishing the new board boundaries.

Mr Duncan: This amendment, as both of my colleagues have said, simply attempts to establish a process that would ensure public input, public consultation in these matters. It's unfortunate that this even has to be brought forward, but because we're beginning to run out of time on discussion of the bill in its entirety, I think it needs to be re-emphasized that this motion, along with a number of others the opposition is bringing forward, simply attempts to provide a framework by which there can be better and fuller consultation on changes that, by anybody's reckoning, are both far-reaching and extraordinary.

Mrs Johns: I'd like to comment on this. I think we are aware that throughout the process Mr Skarica brought forward a motion that asked the EIC to consider some of the boundaries, as we heard during the hearings, and so we know the EIC will be cognizant of that issue.

I'd also like to suggest that when the other two parties were in government regulations were at that point gazetted, I believe. We will continue on the same philosophy as you people did with regulations and gazette them so that people know what we're talking about when we're talking about putting forward regulations.

Mr O'Toole: Just to support, I'll pose a question to Mr Wildman. It was his party that commissioned the Sweeney process to consult very broadly, and they did, and an insurmountable amount of material in evidence and opinion and draft was provided. Would he concur that was a great deal of consultation that did not, by the way, conform to the current process of amending municipal boundaries? Why did they not respect that process and does he respect the process they put in place?

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, I'm not sure this really speaks to the amendment. If Mr Wildman wants to respond, he may.

Mr Wildman: If I could respond, I would make two points. First, we know that the boundaries as proposed by Bill 104 are not the proposals that Mr Sweeney made after his consultation. For instance, in Leeds-Grenville, Lanark, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and Prescott and Russell, Sweeney proposed two boards. The proposal here is for one. There are many other instances of that across the province. That's number one.

Number two, the Sweeney consultation did not go through to fruition. When this government was elected, one of the first things they did was cut off the public consultation part of Mr Sweeney's consultation. In the fall, he was supposed to go around and hold public meetings across Ontario. The new Minister of Education said to him: "No, don't do that. Simply request the public to phone in or send in letters or send in faxes to you to get their opinions." He didn't hold public hearings, so this is to make up for the fact that this government cut short the Sweeney consultation.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate Mr Wildman clarifying the fact that what is before us is not Sweeney's recommendations, because there have been a number of times in which the committee has had reference to Mr Sweeney as if this simply was enacting Mr Sweeney's recommendations on board boundaries; it's not. But the issue of the consultation on the proposed board boundaries and the way in which trustees will be appointed or elected to those boards is even more basic than that.

First, I think committee members have been persuaded that the initial response on the board boundaries has raised some concerns and that they would expect the EIC to look at those concerns, so that we're not dealing with board boundaries which are set in stone. That's an assumption I make based on the responsiveness people have had. What this is saying is that once the board boundaries are defined in the way that is going to be put forward, there should be some opportunity to consult on those.

Second, many aspects of the numbers of trustees and how they're to be elected are not yet confirmed and there should be some opportunity to consult on that. Those are both part of the section Mr Wildman's amendment relates to.

I was told, for example, that there's already a directive from the ministry that says the clerk of the largest community will decide the area each trustee will represent. Now that is going to cause a lot of gnashing of teeth in some of the smaller communities that are going to be affected by this.

There are a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of incomplete information that really requires some further consultation.

Last, I point out that what we were consulting on with our committee hearings was not just the specific board boundaries, nor the overall numbers of trustees; it was the entire piece, and it wasn't a terribly focussed consultation. I think these amalgamations are sweeping enough that they deserve that kind of very specific --

The Chair: Thank you. Any further debate? Very well, I'll put the question. All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: Sometimes it's actually easier to be members of an opposition so that you can at least put things that you know are right. I see nods of assent across the room, but I don't see any votes in support. There's some giant whip somewhere out here. I can feel its presence over this entire room. Nevertheless, I shall continue this exercise in futility and place the next motion.

The Chair: Have faith, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: "I move that subsection 327(6) of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Number of members on a district school board

"(6) A regulation under subclause 3(d)(i),

"(a) shall not provide for fewer than five members on any district school board;

"(b) shall provide at least one member on any district school board for every 4,500 pupils of the board; and

"(c) subject to clause (b), shall not provide for more than 22 members on any district school board."

I place the motion because I am truly concerned that in addition to geographic size of some boards, we have some boards that are going to be so huge in terms of numbers of pupils that there simply cannot be adequate representation. I think this amendment would address some of the concerns that have been raised by public boards that have said we have a lot more students to serve with the same number of trustees and the same number of boards than separate boards have. I think if we looked at what is a reasonable student population to be served by each trustee, we'd have a guideline that was based on something other than just numbers pulled out of a hat.

Mr Skarica: I have a question. Then for Toronto, there would be how many trustees?

Mrs McLeod: I haven't done the calculation on that. I think it would be based on what one of the larger boards would have now.

Mr Wildman: We support the amendment.

Mr Skarica: It would be approximately 70 trustees in Toronto.

Interjection.

Mr Skarica: Maybe 700.

Mrs McLeod: No, I don't think that's correct, Mr Skarica. I think it's based on essentially trustee representation in large boards.

The Chair: Thank you. All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

1630

Mr Wildman: I think this is one we all can support.

I move that subsection 327(6) of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by inserting the word "elected" after the word "five" in the third line.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure, it's quite clear, that the appointed members of a board, for instance, native representatives or students, are in addition to the elected members, so that it's clear that when it's set out in numbers in the bill, that there be between five and 12, we're not including the appointed members in those numbers, that they are in addition to the elected members.

Mrs McLeod: I think we might like to facilitate debate by recognizing that this NDP motion, the government's next motion and the motion after that which will be placed by the New Democrats are all consistent and say essentially the same thing, which is to ensure that appointed members, as determined by cabinet, are in addition to the numbers of elected members.

The Chair: I thank you for that.

Mrs Johns: I just have a question about this. Given that we have already moved that students would be considered trustees and would probably be appointed by their peers, I don't know how they could be elected, so I don't know how we could support this, given that we have moved on our earlier regulation. Now maybe I don't understand, and if you'd like to clarify that for me, I'd like to hear that.

Mr Wildman: The point of this is that let's say, for instance, a board decided to have a student trustee. They could either be appointed by the board or there might be some process worked out where there was an election among the students for the trustee. That person is not included as the elected in the elected number of trustees. That person is in addition, just as a first nations person who is appointed to represent the first nations is not included in the total number on the board. They are in addition to those who are elected; that's all.

Mr Skarica: Perhaps I could get ministry counsel to address this issue, whether they're elected or not or it should go in that or not.

Mr Tomlinson: I've just had a brief discussion with the legislative counsel. To the extent that these three amendments, as Mrs McLeod pointed out, serve the same purpose, I think we would feel most comfortable being able to predict the consequences if the amendment the government was proposing was the one that was accepted.

Mr Wildman: You might not be surprised that I might feel my amendment is more comfortable.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wildman. In any event, we have to deal with each of the amendments as they come.

Mr Tomlinson: If only for the simple reason that we've had the opportunity to think through the implications of ours and we haven't had the opportunity to think through --

Interjections.

The Chair: Mr Tomlinson, I'm tempted to say that your comments are unparliamentary. In any event, we have a dilemma, because we have to deal with each of the motions, so we either vote on it or we'll withdraw it. The motion is on the floor.

Mr Wildman: Can I ask for advice from legislative counsel here?

Ms Leitman: What kind of advice?

Mr Wildman: Since we have three amendments here which are aiming at the same thing, I think we understand what the purpose is. Do you see any problem if this amendment were accepted?

Ms Leitman: Which one is this one?

The Chair: We are talking about the one on page 15, Ms Leitman.

Mr Wildman: If this amendment were accepted, does that then give a problem in dealing with the government's amendment? Does it preclude dealing with the government's amendment?

Mrs McLeod: The government needs one of Mr Wildman's amendments. You need either the first one or the second one, and the reason you do is because the committee has now passed the amendment allowing for student representation and your amendment only deals with separate school -- so if you want to defer it long enough that you can satisfy yourself there's nothing hidden here, that might be appropriate.

Ms Leitman: I don't think there's anything hidden, but I don't think any of them do what I think all of you want them to do, because the government's amendment did what the government wanted to do, absent the student representation, so obviously it doesn't cover student representation. Your amendment, Mr Wildman, deals only with members appointed, but that doesn't take into account the fact that separate school supporters can be elected, and indeed student trustees can be elected by the terms of the amendment we just passed. In the first one, elected again doesn't deal with appointed, so I think none of them quite do what I'm hearing all of you want to do.

Mrs McLeod: Fair enough, but how do you accommodate the earlier amendment?

Ms Leitman: There are ways to do it, but I don't think it's my role to suggest it.

Mr Wildman: We can do that. Unfortunately, we've been told we can't amend amendments.

The Chair: I think that is the constraint under which we are working and we continue to labour under, Mr Wildman: We cannot amend amendments.

Mr Wildman: This is unreasonable. We all know what we want to do and we can't do it because of an arcane government motion.

Mr Skarica: I would suggest you do what I'm going to do with the next amendment, Mr Wildman. I'm going to withdraw it and deal with it in the committee of the whole after giving legislative counsel an opportunity to deal with what we are all trying to accomplish.

The Chair: Mr Skarica, for clarification, which amendment are you taking?

Mr Wildman: On page 16; I'll be withdrawing that. I'm willing to withdraw whichever one needs to be withdrawn in order for us to achieve what we want to achieve.

The Chair: Very well.

Mr Wildman: This is difficult, but is it possible that we could -- I could withdraw my proposed amendments as well -- during committee of the whole put in an amendment that's required?

Mr Skarica: Yes, that's what I --

Mr Wildman: I'll withdraw mine too, then, on the understanding we're going to do something about that.

The Chair: Okay, 15 is withdrawn. Number 16?

Mr Skarica: Number 16 is a government amendment and I'm withdrawing it for the reasons just delineated.

The Chair: Is 17 also withdrawn? All right, but the record will clearly reflect that all three of these amendments are withdrawn on the understanding that there will be a new amendment proposed in the committee of the whole to reflect the discussion that has just taken place.

Mr Skarica: Page 18: As a result of many of the representations we heard in the 10 days of hearings, the government is moving, and I'm moving on behalf of the government, that section 327 of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Transfer of assets, liabilities, employees

"(8.1) Without limiting the generality of clause (3)(d.1), a regulation under that clause may provide for,

"(a) processes to permit participation by classes of persons or bodies specified in the regulation in decision-making processes related to transfers under clause (3)(d.1);

"(b) processes for the resolution of disputes among classes of persons or bodies specified in the regulation;

"(c) the continuation of legal and other proceedings commenced by or against an existing board and the enforcement of court orders and other orders affecting an existing board;

"(d) deadlines for complying with any provision of the regulation; and

"(e) any other matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable in order to achieve an efficient and fair transfer of assets, liabilities and employees of existing boards to district school boards."

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, a point of order: Sorry to interrupt, but since it is a long motion which we've already debated, is there any way to consider it to be tabled as we will be considering all motions placed after 5 o'clock?

The Chair: Apparently not. Again, because --

Mrs McLeod: Because it's before 5 o'clock.

The Chair: Yes, that's right.

Mr Skarica: I'll tell you what. In the spirit of cooperation, I'll move much quicker in reading it.

The Chair: That would be helpful, thank you.

Mr Wildman: I'd like you to do it to music.

The Chair: That would not be helpful.

Mr Skarica: "Role of Education Improvement Commission" -- by the way, I took a speed-reading course once, and now we'll see if it did me any good.

"(8.2) In a regulation under clause (3)(d.1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may provide for any matter referred to in that clause or in subsection (8.1) by assigning powers and duties to the Education Improvement Commission, including but not limited to powers and duties to,

"(a) issue directives to existing boards, minority language sections of existing boards, French-language advisory committees and other classes of persons or bodies specified by the commission respecting criteria to be applied and processes to be followed in developing recommendations to the commission on any matter referred to in clause (3)(d.1) or subsection (8.1);

1640

"(b) issue directives respecting the participation of classes of persons or bodies specified by the commission in the development of recommendations referred to in clause (a);

"(c) make determinations respecting the transfer of assets, liabilities and employees of existing boards to district school boards;

"(d) issue orders that the commission considers necessary or advisable to give effect to the determinations made under clause (c) and impose terms and conditions on its orders; and

"(e) issue directives establishing deadlines for complying with any directive or order made by the commission under the regulations.

"Same

"(8.3) In a regulation assigning powers and duties to the Education Improvement Commission, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize the commission to make interim and final orders and to vary any of its orders.

"Same

"(8.4) In a regulation assigning powers and duties to the Education Improvement Commission, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may,

"(a) specify procedures and other rules to be followed by the commission in carrying out its powers and duties;

"(b) provide that the powers and duties of the commission are subject to any terms and conditions specified in the regulation; and

"(c) provide for the establishment of panels of the commission and provide that a panel may exercise the powers and carry out the duties of the commission, subject to the restrictions, if any, specified in the regulation.

"Same

"(8.5) Examples of rules that may be specified under clause (8.4)(a) include,

"(a) rules requiring the commission to consult, in circumstances specified in the regulation, with classes of persons or bodies specified in the regulation;

"(b) rules requiring the commission to take into account, in any way that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate, recommendations made by classes of persons or bodies specified in the regulation.

"Criteria re transfer of assets, liabilities, employees

"(8.6) In making regulations under clause (3)(d.1) and in issuing directives or orders under subsection (8.2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Education Improvement Commission, as the case may be, shall,

"(a) have regard to the needs of each district school board; and

"(b) ensure that all assets, liabilities and employees of existing boards are transferred to district school boards.

"Employees

"(8.7) The following rules apply where an employee is transferred from an existing board to a district school board under a regulation made under clause (3)(d.1) or under an order issued under subsection (8.2):

"1. A person who is an employee of an existing board on the day the order or regulation transferring the employee is issued or made and who would, but for that order or regulation, still be an employee of the existing board on the day the order or regulation is to take effect is an employee of the district school board referred to in the regulation or order on the day the regulation or order is to take effect.

"2. The employment contract and the terms and conditions and rights and benefits of employment of an employee who becomes an employee of a district school board under the order or regulation together with the employment obligations of the employee are assumed by and continued with the district school board.

"3. A person's employment with an existing board shall be deemed not to have been terminated for any purpose by anything done under this part.

"Order, directive may be filed in court

"(8.8) An order or directive of the Education Improvement Commission under this section may be filed in the Ontario Court (General Division).

"Same

"(8.9) An order or directive that is filed under subsection

(8.8) shall be enforceable as if it were an order of the Ontario Court (General Division).

"Orders, directives final

"(8.10) Orders and directives of the Education Improvement Commission under this section are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned in any court."

The Chair: Well done. Debate. Mr Skarica, would you like to take a sip of water first?

Mr Skarica: No, I'm fine.

Mr Wildman: You don't have to debate at the same rate you read.

Mr Skarica: We heard daily that there were people who were concerned regarding what would happen to the transfer of assets, liabilities and employees. This gives some clarity to those concerns.

Another concern we had was that the Education Improvement Commission had unfettered discretion in dealing with basically anything. Again, this limits their ability to deal with assets, liabilities and employees, as they will be subject to regulation. I'm sure you'll have other comments, but those are some of the issues that this subsection is trying to address.

Ms Lankin: We've actually had substantial debate on this section already and I won't prolong it. I just want to put on the record that I believe this amendment is an improvement over the proposed bill and I think it is appropriate to set out more clearly in legislation some of the restrictions and directions to the Education Improvement Commission.

However, I still remain opposed to this section because it does provide a barrier to a review by court of the decisions of the commission. I believe that any court is going to look at whether or not the decisions of the commission are consistent with what has been set out in legislation, the direction that's been given to it, the responsibilities that it has been ascribed, and they are going to make their judgement about whether or not the commission's actions were reasonable in light of the intent and the direction in the legislation.

I see no reason, despite the arguments I've heard about finality by January, to preclude the opportunity of citizens or aggrieved parties from having access to the courts to attempt to make a case. I will be voting against it on that basis but I do want to say that I think it is an improvement over the proposed bill.

Mrs McLeod: As Ms Lankin has said, I am not going to prolong the debate. I believe it is absolutely essential to have something in this legislation which at least gives employees the right to be employed after January 1. I don't think it goes much beyond that, but at least it provides that. But I cannot support it as is because I cannot accept the continued ability of the EIC to have its rules and directives considered to be not subject to a court review.

The Chair: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Skarica: I might say I appreciate the comments of the members. That's all I'll say.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Skarica. That's a first.

We'll put it to a vote. All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 327 of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Geographic criteria for trustees

"(8.1) Before making a regulation under subclause 3(d)(iv), the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall establish criteria to ensure that the geographic areas established will allow the electors qualified to vote in the geographic areas to meet their members without having to travel an excessive distance and to speak with their members without incurring long distance phone charges."

Madam Chair, you'll recognize that this is similar to an amendment which was already defeated. It occurs under subsection 7(8), and subsection (8) in and of itself is the broadest, most inexplicable clause that I may have seen in a piece of legislation. I'd love to know what it means. I can only hope that it is going to be enforced, because it says: "A person who establishes a geographic area under a regulation made under subclause (3)(d)(ii)," which establishes the new board boundaries and representation, "shall have regard to any relevant submissions made by any person."

I suggest to you that we have had many relevant submissions made to us by many persons. I think your count was something in excess of 400 at the end of our committee hearings. I would think that as the board boundaries are further defined and representation determined, there are going to be many more relevant submissions made by many persons. I don't know how either the EIC or the Lieutenant Governor in Council proposes to have regard for those relevant submissions made by every and any person. I like the clause, but I would like to know how it's enforced.

In the attempt to be helpful and to recognize one of the major concerns for people in areas where the new board boundaries that are proposed are going to have huge geography, I'm at least suggesting that there are criteria that could be observed, and that is travelling excessive distances, which should not be incurred, and even a long- distance phone call. I don't think it's legitimate for somebody to have to phone long distance to talk to their school trustee. I know that doesn't help in the Metropolitan Toronto area, but it would certainly help in northern Ontario and I think it might even help in some of the southern Ontario communities, although I am not sure of that. In northern Ontario it would be very important.

Mr Wildman: I understand the intent of the amendment and I support it. I'm a little worried that the government might try to say they are responding to this amendment by establishing a 1-800-TRUSTEE number.

Mrs Johns: That's not a bad idea.

Mr Wildman: In parts of northern Ontario, that's the only way you're going to be able to ensure that there are not long-distance calls, unless we see a significant change in the boundaries that are proposed. Even with the Sweeney recommendations, there were going to be long distance calls and significant distances.

So I understand the intent of the motion and I will support it, but I must say I'm sceptical that the government will be able or willing to concur.

The Chair: Further debate? All in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is defeated.

Mr Wildman: I move that section 327 of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Native representation

"(8.1) The number of persons appointed to a district school board under subclause (d)(vii) shall, where possible, be enough to ensure that the proportion of persons appointed under the subclause is comparable to the proportion of native students served by that district school board."

1650

Speaking to the motion, first, just as an aside, I would raise objection to the wording that is used in the Education Act and is perpetuated in this bill that refers to first nations as "bands." That is an outmoded term. It is a term that I admit is used in the federal Indian Act, but it is a term that is no longer accepted by the aboriginal community as appropriate. I would think the government in clause-by-clause in committee of the whole might consider making that amendment.

But having said that, what this attempts to do is look at the number of students that each elected trustee represents in a new district board and ensure that where there are native students attending that same board, you don't have a significantly larger number of native students represented by one first nations trustee. In other words, proportionally you have the same number.

Of course, if there's a very small number of first nations students, then you would only have one trustee, but in some of the northern boards and in some of the boards around Brantford and so on, there are significant numbers of first nations students. It might also assist then in dealing with the problem that was raised in the north with regard to representing Cree and Ojibway and in the southwest by Chief Miskokomon in representing Ojibway and Iroquoian peoples, that they wouldn't necessarily have just one native representation. If you had enough students -- and I emphasize if you had enough native students -- you could have two, or I suppose more, but you probably wouldn't need more than two in most cases.

Mr Skarica: As I recall, the concern we heard regarding first nations is that there were significant Cree communities and Ojibway communities and that everyone would only be represented by one. If you have two native representatives, they may both be Cree, and that would still not solve that problem, would it?

Mr Wildman: I admit that. I didn't know, to be honest with you, how to draft the motion to deal with that problem. But at least if you have the option of two, then I suppose on a local basis the local boards in conjunction with the first nations could resolve that problem.

The Chair: Any further debate? All in favour of the amendment?

Mr Skarica: Sorry. Before we vote, the EIC apparently are going to be looking into this. This is something that I personally am somewhat sympathetic to but I'd prefer to have the EIC look into it.

The Chair: Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs McLeod: May I ask, given the fact that it is very close to 5 o'clock, whether or not we are required to place the motions in the order in which they are presented?

The Chair: I believe that is the case.

Mrs McLeod: We can't stick to certain motions so that we can have some debate?

The Chair: I will ask the advice of the clerk with respect to that.

We can if there's unanimous agreement. Five minutes.

Mrs McLeod: I would like to indicate then in just a couple of minutes that I have left, because the next series of amendments that we propose are to deal with the whole issue of both public consultation and due process in carrying out school board amalgamations which are indeed sweeping both in their consequences for governance and I believe in their consequences for education of children, that I don't believe these should be done simply by cabinet on recommendation of the EIC without there being some due consultation and public debate. So the next three motions actually present what I think are realistic criteria that there be a motion to the assembly so that there is debate on --

The Chair: Ms McLeod, could you tell us what motion you're on?

Mrs McLeod: I want to move through the next three motions to be able to debate specifically motion number 25.

Mr Wildman: We could defer the motions that precede it and move to the ones we wish to debate, if we can agree unanimously.

The Chair: We can indeed, if there is unanimous consent.

Mrs McLeod: I would move to defer the four motions, 21, 22, 23, 24, all of which I consider to be extremely important, but I'm just a little bit hopeful that the government might seriously consider motion number 25 if we have a chance to debate it.

The Chair: That has been moved.

Mr Wildman: And I would prefer, if we could, if we have time, to go to number 39.

The Chair: I remind you that we now have something like three minutes left.

Mrs McLeod: I'll move very quickly then, Madam Chair, if I may.

The Chair: Do we have agreement? Fine.

Mrs McLeod: The motion I'm placing is 25:

I move that section 327 of the Education Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Degree of support

"(8.6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall not make a regulation under subsection (3) establishing a district school board unless the regulation has the degree of support prescribed under subsection (8.7).

"Regulations

"(8.7) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

"(a) providing for the degree of support required to support

a regulation establishing a district school board; and

"(b) providing for the manner of determining the support."

I put this motion forward because I believe there has to be some consistency in process in carrying out amalgamations. Bill 26, this government's own legislation, set out terms that would have required that in a municipal amalgamation there had to be a majority of each council and then a double majority of an overall vote. I haven't even attempted to be that prescriptive, but simply to say that the government should bring forward some process which would be reflective of the kind of local empowerment in saying whether the boards to be amalgamated agree with the process that would be comparable to what they have allowed municipalities in a municipal amalgamation. It is non-prescriptive. It simply says you have an obligation to go back to boards in the same way that you believed in Bill 26 you had an obligation to go back to municipalities before you amalgamated them.

Mr Wildman: We support it because we've already debated it with regard to my motion. We support it.

The Chair: Seeing no further debate, all in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Mr Wildman: Shall we go to 39?

The Chair: We have 30 seconds. Do we have consent? Fine.

Mr Wildman: I move that clause 335(3)(f) of the Education Act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(f) conduct research and make recommendations to the minister on the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards."

The import of this amendment is quite clear: to move away from the facilitation and promotion of outsourcing to simply doing research and making recommendations by the Education Improvement Commission.

The Chair: We are at 5 of the clock. There is no further debate.

Mr O'Toole: Just a comment on the intent of what Mr Wildman is saying. I have some sympathy for --

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, there's no further debate. It's 5 o'clock. We are just about to go to a vote on 39.

All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Interjections.

The Chair: I appreciate the frustrations, ladies and gentlemen, but we have, unfortunately, the rules we have before us.

Mrs McLeod: I understand that at this point in time, not only is there no further debate but that we cannot even read our amendments?

The Chair: That's correct. All amendments, as of 5 o'clock, are deemed to be moved. Before we pass to consideration of the amendments, I want to alert members to the fact that you have received copies of responses from the ministry. You each should have a copy. We've done a careful tally, I hope, of all the questions; they appear to have all been answered, as of what was tabled today.

We deferred 21 to 25, so we're back to 21. All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

1700

Mr McLean: Madam Chair, could I get a clarification? In the rest of the amendments that we have, there are government amendments and there are opposition amendments.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr McLean: Are we going to pass certain ones and none of the others or are they all deemed to have been passed?

The Chair: No, Mr McLean, they are all deemed to have been moved. We now pass on to an amendment-by-amendment vote. That's what we're doing. If you wish to vote for any of the amendments, you may, regardless of where they originate.

Mr McLean: Could I move that all the government amendments be accepted and passed and reported to the House as part of the bill?

The Chair: Mr McLean, we are required to go through amendment by amendment, and we will do that.

Page 22, section 7 of the bill, subsection 327(8.3) of the Education Act. All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Page 23, section 7 of the bill, subsection 327(8.4) of the Education Act. All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Page 24, section 7 of the bill, subsection 327(8.5) of the Education Act. All in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment is defeated.

Skipping to 26, 25 having been voted on, section 7 of the bill, subsection 327(9) of the Education Act. All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Section 7 of the bill, subsection 328(2) of the Education Act.

Mrs McLeod: Can I withdraw it?

The Chair: Yes, you may. The amendment is withdrawn.

Ms Lankin: How can you? These are deemed to have been moved.

The Chair: Ms McLeod did state in the beginning that all the amendments dealing with time would be withdrawn by the Liberal caucus.

Ms Lankin: I don't want to be a stickler, but given that we are being sticklers about the rules, she said it was her intent to do that and as each amendment came up she withdrew those amendments. I put to you, Madam Chair, given that you have interpreted those time allocation motions absolutely to the letter, you have now put all the rest of the amendments that are before us. We are without any power, even if we wished to, collectively in unanimous agreement with each other, do anything about it. I suggest to you that you can't withdraw those motions at this point in time.

Mrs McLeod: Maybe one will accidentally pass.

Ms Lankin: There you go.

The Chair: Ms McLeod is withdrawing her withdrawal; therefore, we'll go to a vote.

All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Section 7, clause 329(2)(a) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 7, subsection 329(3) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 7, subsection 329(4) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 7, clauses 333(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 7, subsection 333(4) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Section 7, clauses 333(5)(a), (b) and (c) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 7, subsection 333(5) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Section 7, subsection 333(13) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Shall section 7, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 7, as amended, is carried.

Page 31, section 8 of the bill, subsection 334(2) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 334(13) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

Section 8, subsection 334(14) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Section 8, subsection 335(2.1) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(d) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? It's carried unanimously.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(e). All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(f) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

The motion on page 39 we have dealt with.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(f).

Mrs Johns: I think this out of order since we've already voted on --

Mr O'Toole: It's dealing with the same clause.

The Chair: Yes, it is; you're quite right. Page 39 we voted on before 5 o'clock, section 8, clause 335(3)(f).

Section 8, clause 335(3)(f), on page 40. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Dealing with the same clause, all in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(g) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(j) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

1710

Section 8, clause 335(3)(k.1): All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(l.1): All in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(k.1) --

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): No, this should be l.1.

The Chair: This is l.1? Page 46, section 8 of the bill, clause 335(3) -- that's an l?

Clerk of the Committee: It's changed on mine.

The Chair: Clause 335(3)(l.1): All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(l.2) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(l.3) --

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I believe this would no longer be in order because the children's bill of rights was defeated in an earlier amendment.

The Chair: Very well. You are correct, the motion is out of order.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(l.4) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(l.5) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(l.6) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(l.7) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(l.8) of the Education Act: All in favour?

Mr Wildman: Just a question of order: Has this already been dealt with because we passed that amendment, or not?

Mrs McLeod: This actually is now under the section where the EIC would advise the minister on how to do it, how to make student representation happen. This is one that the government probably wants to support, not that we can debate it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs McLeod, for not debating it. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(m) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, clause 335(3)(m) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 335(4) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 335(5) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 335(6) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 338(2.1) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 338(2.2) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 338(3) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 340(1) of the Education Act: All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clauses 340(1)(c) and (d) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 340(2) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 340(5) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, section 340 of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 341(1) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, subsection 341(1) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 341(1)(a) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 341(1)(b) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 341(1)(e) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 341(1)(e) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, clause 341(2)(a) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, subsection 341(2.1) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, subsections 341(2.1) to (2.8) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 341(3) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 341(5) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, section 341 of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsections 342(1) and (2) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, paragraph 2 of subsection 342(2) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Mr Wildman: That's one I would have liked to heard a debate on.

The Chair: There's always committee of the whole, Mr Wildman.

Section 8, subsections 342(4) to (4.2) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8 of the bill, subsection 342(6) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, subsection 342(6) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsections 342(8) and (9) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, subsection 342(9) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

1720

Section 8, subsection 342(10) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, subsections 342(2) to (10) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, section 342 of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 343(1) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 343(2) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 343(3) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, subsection 344(2) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, subsections 344(1), (2) and (3) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 344(2) of the Education Act. All in favour?

Mr Duncan: It's out of order.

The Chair: I'm sorry. We're going so quickly. Let me just read it through.

Mr Duncan: It's identical to 86.

The Chair: It is indeed. Thanks very much. The motion was out of order.

Section 8, section 344 of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, section 345 of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, subsection 346(6) of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Section 8, section 346 of the Education Act. All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.

We now move to section 8 as amended. All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried, as amended.

Section 9: There are no amendments to section 9. All in favour? Opposed? Section 9 is carried.

The motion on page 90 is out of order. I understand section 350 is not part of the Education Act, or at least it's not the subject of this legislation.

Mrs McLeod: It's section 10 of the bill that's being amended.

The Chair: Yes, but it is not --

Mrs McLeod: If you can change the Education Act by changing sections of the bill, why can't you change the Education Act by adding a section? It adds a section to the Education Act in the same way that every other motion affects the Education Act in this bill.

The Chair: Just give me a moment to read it, please, Ms McLeod. We're moving at such a clip that it's difficult.

I think the answer, Ms McLeod, is that 350 is not part of the bill and we can't add to it at this point.

Mrs McLeod: Actually, 10 is part of the bill and it's section 10 that I'm amending.

Interjections.

The Chair: I'm receiving conflicting advice. We'll vote on 90.

Mrs McLeod: Don't worry, it won't pass, but it is in order.

The Chair: The motion is in order. All in favour, section 10 of the bill, section 350 of the act? Opposed? Defeated.

We lost the motion, but we learned something new.

Mrs Johns: Was that in your non-partisan role that you said that?

The Chair: I meant as a committee. You know better than that, Ms Johns. I have done my damnedest.

Subsection 11(1) of the bill, subsection 1(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

Interjection.

The Chair: We are moving far too quickly. We have to go back and vote on section 10. All in favour? Opposed? The section is carried.

Now, subsection 11(1) of the bill, subsection 1(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Subsection 11(2), clause 6(4)(b) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Mrs McLeod: That was one last chance.

The Chair: Hope springs eternal.

Subsection 11(2), subsection 6(5) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

Now we vote on section 11. All in favour? Opposed? Section 11 is carried.

The amendment to section 12 of the bill, on page 94. All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is carried.

A further amendment to section 12, on page 95. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.

A third amendment to section 12, on page 96.

Mr Skarica: It's out of order.

The Chair: Yes, it is a repetition. It's out of order.

All in favour of section 12, as amended? Opposed? Carried.

Section 13. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

There being no further sections of the bill, the amendment that is on page 97 is out of order.

Shall the title carry? All in favour? Opposed? The title carries.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? The bill carries, as amended.

Shall I report this bill as amended? In favour? Opposed? Thank you very much.

Mrs McLeod: Point of order, Madam Chair: I recognize that the committee dealt with and defeated the motion raised in committee by Mr Duncan yesterday, but I'm wondering at what point in the procedure, whether now in clause by clause or in committee of the whole or at any point, the motion can again be placed for consideration that the government would voluntarily refer this bill to Court of Appeal to determine whether it is constitutional. At what point could that be reconsidered?

The Chair: I would think, Ms McLeod, because we're under the time allocation motion, that the place to raise it is in committee of the whole.

Mrs McLeod: Is it possible in committee of the whole for a member of the committee to place that motion?

The Chair: It is certainly not possible here, because we are not able to debate at this point. I'll seek advice of the clerk as to what we can do if it's not the committee of the whole.

Mrs McLeod: I'd appreciate it.

The Chair: It appears there is no avenue to debate Mr Duncan's motion other than perhaps in question period.

Mrs McLeod: It's not possible for a member of the committee or any member of the Legislature to place a motion related to this in committee of the whole. Would it not be possible for at least a private member's resolution to be brought forward in private members' hour? Is that the only recourse we would have to have that reconsidered?

The Chair: Or question period.

Mrs McLeod: Question period doesn't subject it to a vote of the House.

The Chair: It does not, but it does bring it to the attention of the ministers.

Thank you very much for what has been an incredible amount of work by everybody who has been on this committee. We acknowledged everyone's efforts yesterday. Let me acknowledge it again. You have been an incredible group to work with and travel with.

We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1733.