Committee Transcript 1997-Oct-21 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, Mr Snobelen /
Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation,
projet de loi 160, M. Snobelen

Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario
Ms Maret Sadem-Thompson
Ms Florence Keillor

Ontario Teachers' Federation
Ms Ruth Baumann

Ontario Christian Home Educators' Connection
Mrs Colleen Takahashi
Mr Jake Zwart

Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation
Ms Phyllis Benedict

Metro Parent Network
Ms Kathleen Wynne
Mr Gord Garland

Mrs Nancy Wagner

Robert Service Senior Public School Parents Advisory Council
Ms Deborah Anne Rinneard-Knapp

Ontario Education Alliance, York Region
Mrs Cyndie Jacobs
Ms Jean Davies
Mr Steve Bull

Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents
Mr Albert Lubberts

Ontario Coalition for Education Reform
Ms Maureen Somers
Mr Brian Oxley
Mr David Hogg

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation
Mr Earl Manners

Mr Rob MacDonald

Ontario Chamber of Commerce
Mr Ian Cunningham

Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Ms Leah Casselman

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Chair / Président

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel

Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0905 in room 151.

EDUCATION QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997

LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION
DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION

Consideration of Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.

FEDERATION OF WOMEN TEACHERS'
ASSOCIATIONS OF ONTARIO

The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are starting somewhat late, but I have assured the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario that they will receive their full 30 minutes. I would ask that you identify yourselves for the purpose of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation.

Ms Maret Sadem-Thompson: Good morning, and thank you for your time this morning. I'm Maret Sadem-Thompson, president of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, representing the 41,000 women who teach in Ontario's elementary public schools. I have to my right Florence Keillor, the first vice-president of the federation, and Barb Richter from our staff here on our presentation regarding Bill 160.

Bill 160, like this government's other so-called omnibus bills, covers a great many issues having a great many impacts. At the same time, for all its inclusiveness, many of the underlying issues, in this case education funding and the funding umbrella, are not addressed at all. On the one hand we must respond to over 200 pages of proposed changes to our education system while, on the other we must do it in a vacuum with respect to funding and to implementation.

The Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario is fearful, therefore, about what is in the bill and what is not in the bill.

What we know with certainty is that Bill 160 is not about improving the quality of education in Ontario; it is about centralizing power over education in the cabinet, about giving the government unprecedented control over our education system. It gives the government the unfettered power to dismantle our education system, to take from the system any amount of money, $1 billion, two thirds of a billion, half a billion, without any public debate.

Teachers know that there are always improvements which can and should be made in education. We have been participants in changes in education for years. We have worked with parents, with trustees, and yes, with governments, to ensure that our education system meets the changing needs of students, but if Bill 160 passes as is, that kind of consultation and cooperation will be a thing of the past.

Bill 160 creates law by regulation. It proposes to do by regulation things which have for years been done through open public debate and collective bargaining. It would give the government of the day, more accurately the cabinet of the day, the power to determine all the parameters of our education system as they saw fit because - and this is extremely important to keep in mind - nothing in Bill 160 tells us or the cabinet how those parameters would be defined.

Right now, teachers and school boards can negotiate any term or condition of employment put forward by either party. Bill 160 effectively removes that right, and this matters not just to teachers but to parents and students, because teachers' working conditions are students' learning conditions. Class size, preparation time, professional development will all be established by regulation.

The government has said it wants to reduce teacher preparation time. Why? To cut costs. There can be no other reason. Preparation time does not affect the amount of instructional time a student has. It only reduces the scope of learning that takes place. Bill 160 doesn't say this; in fact, it doesn't even say how much preparation time will be cut.

This government has said it wants to limit class sizes. Limit them to what? Bill 160 doesn't say. The only effective way to limit class size is to ensure that there are enough teachers in our schools.

The government says it wants to allow non-teachers in classrooms right after it establishes the College of Teachers. Why? To cut costs? There can be no other reason. Schools and teachers use non-teachers now in non-teaching functions, but we all know that knowing how to do something and knowing how to teach it are two different things.

Bill 160 permits the cabinet and the minister to extend the school year but doesn't say by how much. Bill 160 permits the minister and the cabinet to limit professional development days for teachers but doesn't say by how much. The level of uncertainty which Bill 160 introduces into education is staggering. Is it any wonder that teachers and parents alike are dismayed by this bill? The government is robbing teachers, school boards and communities of all control over their working and learning conditions. They are doing this without even telling us what the new working and learning conditions will look like. They tell us that they need to do this because teachers and trustees cannot be trusted and that the education system is in crisis. We want to say today that this government cannot be trusted. This government has placed the education system in crisis. Bill 160 doesn't fix the crisis; it magnifies it.

The government says it wants the highest-quality education at the lowest possible cost. It says Bill 160 gives it the tools to create that education system. But Bill 160 will fail. A high-quality education is built on the efforts of all those who work in and for it, that is, the teachers, the parents, the trustees, the students and our communities. A high-quality education system needs high-quality teachers and resources. A high-quality education system needs appropriate funding. A high-quality education system does not need Bill 160.

Before we answer questions, I would ask Flo Keillor, our first vice-president, to refer you to a section of our brief entitled "Other Issues of Concern in Bill 160" and to the conclusion, for they too deserve your attention.

Ms Florence Keillor: Florence Keillor, first vice-president, Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario.

Other issues of concern in Bill 160 - Occasional teachers: FWTAO welcomes the occasional teachers into the existing teacher bargaining units. This is something that we have long believed makes sense. However, two issues of concern arise in this regard. First, FWTAO does not see why we need to wait for the second agreement to include the occasional teachers. Second, the definition has been changed to allow the use of occasional teachers for almost two years, up from one year. This ensures that more women - 90% of occasional teachers are women - are kept in temporary employment relationships, with little job security.

Seniority: Bill 160 states that the new district school boards may determine seniority for the transition period, after consultation with the bargaining agent. Seniority provisions are a part of collective agreements and have been bargained in good faith over the years.

The right to strike: Section 32 of Bill 160 states that regulations may be made providing for "such matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable to prevent disruption in the education of pupils." FWTAO strongly recommends that this section be amended to make it explicit that this section could not be used to limit teachers' right to strike.

School year and days of work: Bill 160 provides for regulations requiring teachers to work the five-day period prior to students beginning the school year. We find it surprising that this should be a focus of regulation. There has been no demonstration that teachers are not ready for the school year. This government should treat teachers as professionals.

Professional activity/professional development: The government has indicated it wants to reduce the number of professional activity days from the current maximum of nine down to five. This government has created the College of Teachers, has emphasized its desire for more technology and has brought in extensive changes to the elementary curriculum. Coupled with the intent to reduce preparation time, reducing professional development days would seriously limit teachers' ability to keep up and to integrate the changes to the curriculum.

The Education Relations Commission: The ERC was established in 1975 with the passing of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. Over the past 20 years, it has proved to be a very useful body in assisting the parties work through their bargaining disputes.

Having a neutral third party provide relevant data to the parties has meant that disputes about the relevancy and bias of the information are minimized. FWTAO recommends that some way be instituted to maintain this function. We feel that the Ministry of Labour would be the most logical body to continue this function.

Teacher contracts and boards of reference: Bill 160 removes the teacher contracts that give teachers a level of security and assurances of fair treatment. Without such contracts, teachers must be guaranteed that dismissal is only for just cause, with the reasons clearly given in writing, and that they will be given a fair hearing of any disputes.

Probationary period: Currently, the maximum probationary period for experienced teachers beginning employment in a new board is one year. Bill 160 states that the maximum probationary period for teachers will be two years, regardless of any previous experience. FWTAO believes that the current standard should be maintained. Extending the probationary period to two years for experienced teachers is unnecessary.

Both the Premier and the previous Minister of Education and Training of this province have stated that teachers and school boards cannot be trusted. In doing so, they created a crisis of confidence in public education. To fix the resulting crisis, the government introduced Bill 160 to remove the ability of teachers to bargain for a quality education system.

The elementary teachers of this province have long prided themselves on working to provide a high-quality education for all children. FWTAO has exercised leadership through public education, lobbying and negotiating collective agreements to provide the working conditions for teachers that ensure a positive learning environment for their students. Bill 160 will limit our ability to do this in the future.

This government argues that its goal is higher student achievement, yet it has cut the funding to education. You cannot get more for less. A high-quality education system needs high-quality teachers and resources. A high-quality education system needs appropriate funding. A high-quality education system does not need Bill 160.

We thank you for hearing our presentation, and we'll be pleased to answer any questions.

The Chair: Thank you. We have over five minutes per caucus.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I want to thank you for being here this morning, particularly on a morning which is going to be a very difficult one for you and for all your colleagues. I wasn't sure whether you would be able to stay calm and focused enough to come and participate in the community hearings. I appreciate the fact that in your brief you've dealt with a number of the areas where, if we ever actually get to the point of sitting down and saying, "What could people live with in this act, and in what way could it be amended?" your suggestions are going to be very helpful.

In terms of questions I want to take you back to your opening statement and your conclusion, and I'm not even sure it's so much of a question. I've met with a number of your members. I met with a group of FW folks a couple of weeks ago in my home riding; it happened that a regional group was gathering. I've never experienced the kind of emotional level, the level of concern, the conviction about the importance of a cause that I was feeling from those members. These are not normally politically active people. You know your members are really happiest when they're just teaching kids, and this kind of action is certainly not something I think they feel in any way comfortable with but just felt a level of commitment that seems to create a solidity.

The other thing is that clearly the government strategy has been to say that this isn't an issue for elementary school teachers. I just want to ask you, where is that kind of strength of feeling coming from? What has taken your members to this point?

Ms Sadem-Thompson: Over 101,000 teachers across this province have attended information sessions about Bill 160, and they understand, every single one of them, regardless of whether they're elementary or secondary, francophone or Catholic, that there are so many unknowns in Bill 160 to make us insecure in the classroom, and that has raised their level of concern. That is what is making it difficult for them to continue to focus every day on what is at the heart of the professionalism of all of us as educators in the province, and that is the work with our boys and girls in the classrooms.

They are very concerned about the regressive nature of the legislation, the vacuum of unanswered questions that leaves to a very small number of people the decision-making power about those unknowns. They are informed about the whole of Bill 160 and its 260 pages, and that is why they have given us the firm mandate to outline for you today and to outline for the public our very serious concerns.

0920

Mrs McLeod: I guess one of the things that surprises me - in fact "surprise" is not the right word - is that I've just never seen, as I say, this level of concern across the whole membership that I've been witnessing in the last weeks. I've been indirectly or directly involved in the politics of education for almost 30 years now. I've typically found that teachers, no matter what they're bombarded with, whether it's from their local school board or the provincial government, basically just go in, close the classroom door and teach kids, and they manage. Why can they not do that any longer? I want you to say a little bit about what has taken them to this point.

Ms Sadem-Thompson: Bill 160 is predicated on trust, because there are so many unanswered questions. We have been told for two years that we should trust this government not to make cuts to education, that the cuts wouldn't hurt the classroom. Yet 53 school boards have lost special education, ESL has been cut in many boards, music has been cut, design technology has been cut, family studies have been cut, library doors are closed and there aren't any teacher-librarians in many of our libraries.

Twenty-six school boards cut out junior kindergarten. Three hundred educational assistants lost their positions to serve children as a result of those cuts. Over 40% of the Ontario school boards' consultants, who would normally work with the new curriculum outlines that have been provided by this board and made units and long-range activities from those, have been cut to our schools. Six per cent of the clerical staff have been cut. The cuts have hurt the classrooms. The classrooms have grown larger.

Bill 160 relies on faith and trust, and for two years we have been shown time and again that there's no reason to trust this government. That's why the 101,000 teachers who have attended our all-affiliate meetings are seriously concerned about the agenda of Bill 160.

Mrs McLeod: So when the government says, "Bill 160 is giving us control, cabinet control of education; trust us," your members are saying, "The evidence of the record is too clear; we cannot trust"?

Ms Sadem-Thompson: Absolutely.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I truly appreciate your presentation. It's very concise and very clear. I think the issues have been highlighted well. I want to step back and ask you some contextual questions.

Picking up on what you just said, that there is no sense of trust at this point in time, in talking to teachers in my riding, I have a sense of incredible demoralization right now. To be told that they can't be trusted to run the education system, to be told that they're responsible for increasing class sizes and they have to be stopped, the government has to be able to stop teachers from increasing class sizes just so they can get more money in their salary packets and that the legislation has to allow teachers to spend more time in the classroom - force them to spend more time in the classroom - more time with students, all of that implies to the public an image of a group of people who are overpaid, underworked, care about their own job security and union rights - because that's the other thing they throw in a lot, the unions, not the teachers - it paints a picture.

I firmly believe that this government has set out for a number of months now to create a confrontation with the teachers to bring us to a point where they can characterize this as a fight between good and evil; in their view, good being the government and evil being unions, and the teachers have been targeted. Do you agree with that assessment, and what hope is there for us to try to avert the major crisis that's about to descend on the province when you have a government that has actually provoked the situation?

Ms Sadem-Thompson: Teachers in the province are demoralized. They have been told that they can't be trusted. Bill 160 goes further than that by asserting to put unqualified people into the schools in Ontario when the government has just also set up a College of Teachers that expects a certain level of qualifications of teachers, professional development from teachers, and that they all be subject to the same discipline.

For the government to come out in Bill 160 and say, "We are going to create this whole other group of unqualified people not subject to the College of Teachers," is saying to teachers, "Even though we're going to regulate you by a college, we're going to set up a totally different group." I believe parents need to be concerned about that. They need to be concerned about a government that says one thing on one hand, and on the other, puts something into legislation that is so abstract and so limited to a small group of people to make decisions about that it takes it away from the hands of the trustees, it takes it away from the hands of the parents. Over and over again in the last two years, teachers have been confronted by this kind of legislation, by this kind of dogma and this kind of lack of democracy in our schools and in what we work with with our boys and girls in the classrooms.

Ms Lankin: It really doesn't give a lot of hope to the possibility of a solution being arrived at today if you agree with my premise that there is purpose in the government's strategy of carving out teachers as the group that they were going to go head to head with in order to prove that they run the province. The problem with that is that it's very difficult in communicating to the public what's happening.

I was listening to Mr Johnson this morning saying things like, "This bill is to allow teachers to spend more time in the classroom" and "This bill is to decrease class size." Of course, the bill doesn't do either of those things. It just leaves regulations that someone at some point will make some decisions about, and I think anyone who knows anything about it realizes this is fiscally driven.

How have you found the public response and the parent response? I've been amazed at the level of activity of parents getting themselves educated about this bill as well. Can you comment on what you've seen?

Ms Sadem-Thompson: We know that over a thousand parents wanted to have spots on the hearings with this committee and that they have been turned down. We also know there are people making hearing presentations today and throughout the process whose students, for example, are involved in home schooling, so they won't even be impacted on by Bill 160. Yet they have been given preference and priority over parents who have children in the schools in Ontario.

I say to the parents who have children in our schools and to the public who were educated in Ontario during a time when there was democracy in this province, when parents and the public were heard, that they should be really concerned about this lack of democracy. They should be concerned when the government says preparation time, which is used by teachers to counsel students, to contact parents, to plan the units for the new curriculum that is out there for us to use, to understand the new report card that has a handbook that had to be rewritten by school boards because the handbook doesn't provide enough information to our teachers, preparation time that is used to put together marks and assessments under the new assessment philosophies, to prepare for the new testing in Ontario, to prepare for all of the things that make a difference to our children so that we can have quality education, that preparation time is at risk. That means our children are at risk, and that means the education system in Ontario is at risk.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Good morning and thank you for appearing before the committee. I've read with interest throughout the various provincial press that several teachers, maybe not from FWTAO but from other federations, are speaking out against what teacher unions are doing. There's one vice-president from a local bargaining unit of the OSSTF in Kingston, Bill Graydon, whom I think you've read about in the newspaper, who has resigned his position in protest to what the teacher unions have done. He basically has said that he wants no part of the hooting and hollering, the we-won't-back-down approach currently being employed by his union.

We have another OSSTF staff president in the Kitchener-Waterloo area who actually wrote a column in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. His name is Barry Lillie, and he has been a teacher for 28 years and he says: "Most alarming was the way the May 1997 strike mandate was obtained. Our executive told our staff prior to the vote that this would be a legal job action, that it was a legal protest. No one is saying that now. The legal claim was done to obtain support from reluctant staff." He goes on, talking about the federation fearing the loss of the right to strike yet it supports an illegal job action. "Who needs the legal right to strike, if you believe you can ignore contracts whenever you choose?"

Here we have two individuals who are speaking out against actions that teacher unions are threatening.

My question to you is, in the event of an illegal walkout by teachers, can you guarantee me today that no action, no reprisals or no intimidation tactics will be used against individual members of your union who choose to cross the line and not participate in an illegal walkout in this province?

0930

Ms Sadem-Thompson: First of all, Mr Newman, I think you need to refer your questions to OSSTF and to Mr Manners -

Mr Newman: No, I clearly indicated they weren't your federation, but I'm asking -

Ms Sadem-Thompson: - and clearly, Mr Newman, I appreciate your raising the question because I answered that question many times at our affiliate meetings.

This is an illegal protest action and clearly we have said to our members that there is no intention on the part of the federations to take action against those individuals who exercise personal choice to not support the provincial protest action, because this, sir, I say to you, is an act of personal choice. I believe it is an act of courage on the part of the people to stand up to a very undemocratic process, and I, for one, as a provincial leader, as well as my other colleagues, have no intention of taking action against individuals for their personal choice. I appreciate your asking the question.

Mr Newman: I appreciate it. It's the first time I've had a chance to ask you that.

My second question would be, have your members, the members of the FWTAO, had an opportunity to vote by secret ballot as to whether they support this illegal walkout?

Ms Sadem-Thompson: Why would you ask somebody to vote on a secret ballot with no name on it when they have to put themselves in a very difficult position of taking a provincial protest action?

Mr Newman: But haven't some unions had that opportunity?

Ms Sadem-Thompson: The only way, I submit to you, sir, that people will be taking action on this is by taking their feet out of the doors personally. It's a personal commitment that they would need to make. I wouldn't know who had put an X on a piece of paper with no name on it if it were a secret ballot.

Mr Newman: No, I just asked, have you had a secret ballot? That was my question.

Ms Sadem-Thompson: There would be no point in having a secret ballot on this issue, sir.

Mr Newman: So you haven't had a vote of your members to find out if they support it or not? That's what I'm saying.

Ms Sadem-Thompson: The people will vote with their feet, sir.

Mr Newman: You also made a comment that you can't do more for less. Can I ask you if you can do better for less?

Ms Sadem-Thompson: I don't believe education in Ontario should be no frills. I don't believe children should be lined up at a teacher's desk to get their work marked because there are 39 students in the class. I don't believe they should have fewer resources. I don't believe the dollars should be frozen. As we were told clearly during the 39 hours of discussions with the government in September, for the 25,000 new students who are coming into the classroom - we were told by the team there would be no new dollars for any of those 25,000 new students who are coming into our system every year for the next five years.

Mr Newman: So are you saying there are no savings that can be found in the education system at all?

Ms Sadem-Thompson: I'm saying we have more boys and girls coming in. Our dollars in education have been frozen and cut back substantially over the last two years and, in order to deliver services to boys and girls in the province, I submit to you that with the number of immigrant students, the number of ESL students, the number of special-ed students, with the services that parents in Ontario provide, technology that parents in Ontario expect, we cannot do that with fewer dollars and an unknown funding formula that has no dollars attached to it.

Mr Newman: I take that as a no, then.

The Chair: There's about one minute left, if you wish to summarize your presentation.

Ms Sadem-Thompson: I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak with you. I'm clearly disappointed that the eight days originally for hearings have been cut down to seven. Again, that to me is a demonstration that there is a lack of democracy in this process. I believe there are very many people who would have liked to make presentations about Bill 160 and I urge you to reconsider and extend the invitation to the other people who have their very serious concerns to raise about this issue. I thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here this morning.

Our next presentation is the Ontario Teachers' Federation.

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I had asked yesterday, and it was genuinely a question because I didn't know the answer, about whether contracts for non-teaching personnel employed by school boards have to be renegotiated if their board is not being amalgamated. I know there is considerable media interest in the answer to this question and I just want to ask Mr Smith whether he has had a chance to get some clarity on that.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): We've placed the question and I'll attempt to secure the answer for you as soon as possible. It's forthcoming.

ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION

The Chair: Good morning. I'd ask you to identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed.

Ms Ruth Baumann: I'm Ruth Baumann, senior staff of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. With me this morning is my colleague David Aylesworth. Our president, Eileen Lennon, and the secretary-treasurer, Susan Langley, are unable to be here this morning because of meetings that are occurring, while we talk, with the government. So we're the designated hitters.

The Ontario Teachers' Federation is pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the standing committee to present its concerns and recommendations on Bill 160. The federation represents 124,700 teachers, all of the elementary and secondary teachers in the publicly funded system in Ontario: public, separate, francophone, English.

The Ontario Teachers' Federation is a statutory body established under the Teaching Profession Act by the government of Ontario to "promote and advance the cause of education, to promote and advance the interests of teachers, and to secure conditions that will make possible the best professional service."

On October 5, World Teachers' Day, Jan Eastman, the president of the 245,000-member Canadian Teachers' Federation, noted:

"As perhaps never before in our history, teachers today are providing a relevant, stable learning environment in a world often characterized by rapidly shifting social values, major technological and curricula changes, education restructuring, and a family environment too often marred by a climate of stress, poverty and violence."

That the school system today functions as well as it does is largely due to the skill and dedication of its teachers.

Reduced resources and rapid change are not new to Ontario schools. The pace of change is taking its toll. Today an atmosphere of instability pervades schools and the system as a whole is nearing a state of crisis. There have been at least half a dozen major curriculum changes in the past 15 years that have undermined the stability and credibility of the system and forced the diversion of valuable resources to facilitate implementation, or in other cases have gone forward without resources for implementation and then been criticized because they weren't well implemented.

Since 1993, the number of teachers in our schools has declined by 7%. During that same period, however, the number of students has increased by 8%, bringing about an effective increase in the pupil-teacher ratio of 15% as a direct result of reductions in provincial expenditures. Between 1991-92 and 1995-96, per pupil expenditure in Ontario dropped by 5%. Support declined again last year and again this year.

Teachers are now retiring as early as possible. June 1996 retirements were 57% above projections. The number of applicants to faculties of education has declined from 10,000 in 1996 to 6,500 in 1997.

Ontario's ranking, based on per pupil expenditure, against Canadian provinces and territories, the 50 states of the United States and the District of Columbia, has fallen from 42nd of 63 in 1994-95 to 49th today. We're just ahead of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas.

Bill 160 is a blunt instrument designed to facilitate the removal of an additional $1 billion from the education envelope and to centralize control of education in the hands of the provincial government. If the goal of the government is to reduce costs and improve achievement, the experience of the private sector strongly suggests that this approach won't work.

Judith Gibson, senior research associate of the Conference Board of Canada, in a recent article, A Decade of Private Sector Restructuring: Lessons for Educators, notes:

"Consistently, that research shows that those organizations which have been most successful regularly distinguished themselves in three fundamental areas:

"They brought a long-term perspective to restructuring decisions, with a compelling view of the future they are moving towards;

"They had a strong focus on people, treating employees as assets rather than costs;

"They responded to pressures to cut costs as opportunities for strategic repositioning, in response to changes in their markets.

"Overall, available research indicates that the most common downsizing strategy employed by firms - rapid, top-down, across-the-board workforce reduction - is the approach most strongly correlated to declines in organization performance and effectiveness."

We believe this will be the effect of Bill 160.

Lessons from health care: Cuts without redesign have compromised the ability of Ontario's health care system to respond adequately to the needs of its clientele. Daily stories chronicle the plight of individuals denied proper and appropriate care.

The recent study by the team of management researchers from the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario concluded that merger, restructuring and reorganization on a tight time line with drastically slashed budgets is an impossible task. The researchers further noted that effective multiple, simultaneous forms of change require careful planning and longer time horizons. Education today is faced with multiple, simultaneous forms when you include new bargaining rules, restructured school boards and new curriculum at the same time.

0940

Research into the effects of de-skilling hospital staff shows less than positive cost-benefits due to the high turnover and a drastic reduction in the overall quality of health care. the replacement of nurses with less qualified and unregulated staff has not produced the expected savings. These lessons should not be lost. Once the system is taken apart, it's difficult to put it back together.

Education in crisis: Teachers are dedicated, caring and hardworking. They believe strongly that their efforts can make the world a better place to live in. They are absolutely committed to helping their students be the best that they can be. They are opposed to the dismantling of the education system. They have dedicated their lives to that system. That opposition is absolute, universal and unequivocal. Teachers know that unless they stand united now, the system they have helped build, the schools they work in, and with it the education of the students both currently in their care and those who will follow, will be irreparably damaged. Large numbers of teachers are taking pen in hand to express their opinions. They're eloquent in their frustration, their resolve and their anger.

Deborah Pappas, a teacher, in a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star published in September wrote:

"As a classroom teacher, (not a `union boss'), I have had to contend with the contempt shown to my profession by this government for some time now.

"Teacher bashing as a public sport is disheartening, to say the least, but as government policy it is unconscionable.

"The hostile disrespect that...the government...aimed at teachers (and in fact all workers) is unprecedented.

"The relentless attacks on the teaching profession and attempts to gut the education system (in the guise of `improving' it) have served only to unite and to mobilize teachers, a segment of the workforce that traditionally has gone about its business quietly, without much fanfare and despite difficult circumstances."

Lesley Hooton, a grade 1 teacher in Mississauga, had a guest column published in the Mississauga News in early October. I'll highlight some of the things she said. It was crafted as a letter to whoever might be called in to replace her in the event of a provincial protest.

"To my replacement worker: Welcome to room 3. You have the good fortune to be working with a truly amazing group of grade 1 students. You also face the awesome challenge and responsibility of instilling in these children a lifelong joy of learning and discovery...you will need to love these children as much as I do, for you must spend countless hours researching ever-changing curriculum documents, and writing up on a yearly, monthly, weekly and daily basis how to combine all these new initiatives into a complex and age-appropriate program.

"You will need to keep the parents regularly informed of their children's progress. This will involve many more hours of your own time, making phone calls and writing weekly newsletters.

"You will need to be truly and unselfishly committed to creating a rich, warm and exciting learning environment for these children. This will involve spending thousands of dollars of your own money to properly equip the room with manipulatives, educational toys and concrete teaching aids.... You will need to count on the generosity of our increasingly overburdened parent association to provide `extras' such as craft supplies, computers and software, new textbooks, performing arts and subsidized excursions.

"As you can see, although Mr. Snobelen" - the then minister - "assures us that cuts to funding will not affect the classroom, they already have.

"I wish I could be in my classroom today, but I know I must be the advocate for these young children who cannot address these issues on their own. I must do this despite constant contemptuous, demoralizing and misleading press releases from my education minister.

"So, take care of my precious `munchkins,' and love them with all your heart. Do whatever it takes to continue making grade 1 a happy, exciting world."

Teachers are not opposed to change. Teachers are not opposed to restructuring. Teachers will support strategies that are good for children and good for schools. Teachers will oppose proposals that are not.

Every teacher in this province is committed to the delivery of programs designed to provide meaningful improvement in mathematics and language skills, but the downsizing and restructuring initiatives of the Ontario government are predicated on a desire to put Ontario's financial house in order. Progress toward this objective has been steady and is now within reach. Further sacrifices on the altar of fiscal restraint are no longer required. From a fiscal perspective, the sole reason to cut expenditures in education yet again is to fund the next tax cut.

We'd like now to address briefly the bill itself. We believe that the bill is more about centralizing control and establishing who's in charge than it is about downsizing the profession and saving money; as much or more. It uses the same flawed blueprint as the government has used in health care, back to the multiple, simultaneous forms of change. The simultaneous amalgamation of school boards, implementation of major curriculum revision and introduction of dramatic changes to bargaining legislation are a recipe for disaster.

This bill proposes the enactment of provisions that would vest unprecedented regulatory authority in the Minister of Education and Training and with cabinet in respect of matters that directly impact on the manner in which education is provided. I would comment further that the regulatory authority, while the government has claimed it was for some very narrow purposes, when we come to issues like certification of teachers, is so broad as it's written in the bill that it would allow grade 3 teachers to be replaced and English teachers to be replaced. This regulatory authority would control a number of fundamental working conditions for teachers and would interfere with freely concluded collective agreements.

In no other sector of our society has a government sought so extensively to interfere with fundamental collective bargaining rights or to undermine freely negotiated collective agreements. The response of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and its affiliates to this legislation is based on these principles. Ontario's teachers are committed to the highest possible achievement for our students. Teachers are committed, and believe Ontarians are committed, to a universally accessible public education system equipped to provide the best education in Canada.

School boards must maintain their constitutional right to tax in order to be meaningful partners in any and all education decision-making.

We believe that teaching is a profession with a professional body of knowledge and professional standards. Ontario students deserve to be taught by teachers who possess that knowledge and who meet those standards. This means that every teacher in an Ontario classroom must be a duly recognized and certified teacher subject to professional standards and discipline.

It is a fundamental right in a free and democratic society for employees to be able to negotiate all terms and conditions of work with their employers. In education, those terms and conditions include class size, the time assigned to teaching duties, the time available to prepare lessons, assist students and consult with parents and other professionals. The provisions of collective agreements freely negotiated between employers and employees must be respected.

Restructuring in education must be for the benefit of students and must not adversely affect services and programs. Transitions must be smooth, providing the basic security necessary for students to learn and teachers to teach. Bill 160 in its present form will not allow smooth transitions.

There are alternatives the government can and should consider: to guarantee that there is a qualified, certified teacher in every classroom; guarantee that teachers continue to bargain all terms and conditions of their employment directly with their employers; keep to a minimum the regulatory control of the provincial government; recognize that our publicly funded school system is a shared trust among parents, teachers, communities and governments which is held on behalf of all Ontario students; maintain the Ontario Teachers' Federation as a statutory body under the Teaching Profession Act, with responsibility to promote and advance the cause of education, to promote and advance the interests of teachers and to secure conditions that will make possible the best professional service - Ontario benefits from an OTF that blends and unifies the voices of all the teachers; amend Bill 160 to allow OTF to retain responsibility for the collection of fees; and amend Bill 160 to require that occasional teachers belong to OTF.

The next 30 pages or so of our brief are the actual section-by-section analysis of the bill with suggestions for amendment, deletion and discussion. We are not going to go through those. I will move to the conclusion so that we hopefully will have time for some questions.

0950

In conclusion, then, Bill 160 is badly flawed. It purports to improve the quality of education while minimizing costs. In reality, we believe it will centralize control, reduce costs and downsize the workforce. The simultaneous amalgamation of school boards, the implementation of major curriculum revision and the introduction of dramatic changes to bargaining legislation in conjunction with massive funding cuts and workforce downsizing will result in a less productive, less effective public education system.

In the last two weeks, Environics has been in the field with their Focus Ontario omnibus survey. For the first time ever, as far as I know, education now has a number 2 spot for the issue of greatest concern to Ontarians, after unemployment. For the first time in more than two years, education has supplanted health care as the number 2 concern. Improved education with fewer resources is not a realistic goal. You can have improved education or you can have cheaper education. You cannot have both. The education of our children is too important to get it wrong. Thank you.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate your presentation. The issues you raise are clearly ones of common concern to a number of parents' organizations and teachers' federations that have been coming forward. I find myself at this point in time almost wondering what we're doing here. In these hearings we hear over and over again the specifics, that what the bill does is not what the minister says it does, what the goal of the government is, to take more money out of the system, and I support your interpretation of that. But the government members over there will say, "Oh, no, that's not what we're going to do," but they don't know what they're going to do because it's all to be done in regulations by cabinet and they're not members of cabinet, so I wonder what we're doing here. There's a sham of a process going on.

I suspect, if there's a resolution to the issues and challenges of reforming education and to the differing views of whether or not the government's initiatives at this time have anything to do with quality of education, they're going to be resolved someplace else other than in this room, around this committee table. They're going to be resolved in the discussions that are taking place between your organizations and the government, I hope. If not, they're going to be resolved on the streets and as a result of what and where public opinion and parent opinion come down.

Can you comment on where you see us at this particular moment? Your principals are meeting with the government. Failure to get any kind of movement from the minister at this point in time, at least an acknowledgement about what is really in his bill instead of the rhetoric we've been hearing, could lead us to work action as early as two days from now, as I understand it. Is there anything that can be done to take us a step back from the brink of the crisis right now and allow some cooler heads to prevail and the government to rethink its position?

Ms Baumann: I think our principals made it very clear to the minister yesterday that there were some key issues on which they believed he needed to step aside, in terms of what was in the bill, that they've been synopsized as the regulatory power. I think they've been specified as the issues that intrude directly into collective bargaining: the issues of opening up who can teach to unqualified people, of attempting to regulate issues such as assigned teaching time, planning time and class size, some of the critical ones that needed to be resolved in order to talk fruitfully about how to get on with making it a better system.

Ms Lankin: Can I ask you one other question on that? What about the funding formula and the budget? It seems to me those are the two key pieces that are absolutely missing from this debate. We keep talking about this bill as fiscally driven, and the government has successfully hidden under a shroud of cover over here what the actual fiscal numbers are, so we're left without all the information on the table.

Ms Baumann: It would be very helpful to us if we knew what the new funding model looked like in detail, as opposed to the conceptual model that has been put forward. I think we're as frustrated as the school boards and others in that we don't yet have those answers. I think it would be extremely helpful. It certainly doesn't help the process not to have that information.

If I can answer your question, though, about the purpose of being here: It may be that through this discussion and this public forum it is at least possible to identify some of those issues where the language in the legislation does not match the language that's being used around the intentions, the areas where the language in the legislation is so broad and so wide open and the power that's there is so sweeping that while a government today might wish to put limits on class size, a government in the future could decide to increase class size, that sort of thing. I think that is always a useful process.

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much.

Mr Newman: Thank you for appearing before the committee today. I just have a question. I'm sure you were here for the last presentation and I'm going to ask you the same question.

Some individual teachers across the province do not support an illegal walkout by teacher unions. There is one OSSTF vice-president in Kingston - I'm sure you're well aware of him, Bill Greydon - and another OSSTF staff president in the Kitchener-Waterloo area who has made some comments in the paper. My question to you is: In the event of an illegal walkout by teachers, can you guarantee us here today that no action or reprisals will be taken against those individual teachers who choose not to participate in an illegal walkout?

Ms Baumann: I can certainly guarantee you that the organizations will take no actions against those individuals.

Mr Newman: But you have not -

Ms Baumann: I can't tell you whether their colleagues will be angry.

Mr Newman: So it's quite possible their colleagues could be upset if they -

Ms Baumann: Yes, I would think it's quite likely, but the organizations have made it very clear that they cannot take any action and have no intention of taking any action.

Mr Newman: We've heard that it's a personal choice on the part of teachers. Are you doing everything you possibly can to ensure that those teachers who choose not to participate in this illegal walkout will not have any harm done to them?

Ms Baumann: I wouldn't expect them to have any harm done to them. I think I've answered your question. I've said the organizations have made it clear they will not in any way attempt to discipline people or anything else for not participating. How human relationships work at the grass-roots level in Meadow Valley Senior Public School is going to be a matter between those human beings.

Mr Newman: Can you enlighten me as to which of your affiliates would have had secret ballot votes to determine whether their members wanted to participate in an illegal job action?

Ms Baumann: To the best of my knowledge, the only one of the affiliates that undertook a vote was the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. It has been the position of the other organizations that this will be an act of conscience and that people will, as the person who was here earlier said, make their decision with their feet.

Mr Newman: When was that vote held?

Ms Baumann: They had a vote I believe in May.

Mr Newman: That was before Bill 160 came in.

Ms Baumann: It was before Bill 160. I don't have the wording of the question in front of me. "If the following kinds of things happen, would you be prepared to" was the way the vote was worded.

Mr Newman: I've heard that vote was actually about a legal protest.

Ms Baumann: I don't believe that's true. I think it was very clear it was talking about a provincial action that would not be in the context of normal collective bargaining.

Mr Newman: You also touched upon health care in this province. You mentioned individual cases. What's interesting is that there was recently a case in Sarnia where some comments were made by a family member about the quality of the health care system. The individual's spouse actually held a press conference the next day to say that the health care system in Ontario is doing quite fine. We're spending $18.5 billion on health care in this province, and that's in spite of over $2.1 billion in cuts from the federal Liberal government.

I think we're doing a very good job here in health care in this province by reinvesting each and every dollar - in fact, each and every penny - that's been found in waste and duplication and reinvesting it right back into the system. We see now that we'll have about 36 MRI machines in Ontario, which is far more than the rest of Canada combined. So your comments about the health care system I think are not valid.

1000

You also talked about the tax cut. There was an interesting article by a former Liberal policy adviser, Patrick Monaghan, I think is his name. He worked in the Premier's office for David Peterson. It was in the Globe and Mail and it actually said that the tax cut is paying for itself, that by lowering taxes the government of Ontario, in other words the taxpayers, have more revenue coming in with lower taxes. We saw, over the 10 years ending in 1995, that 65 tax hikes in this province brought less revenue to the government and the taxpayers of Ontario.

In addition to people being able to keep more of the money they earn in the first place, those tax cuts have also created jobs in this province. We have almost a quarter-million more people who are working today in this province than in June 1995, so I think that's something to keep in mind.

Mrs McLeod: It's somewhat unbelievable to me that 2.1 million kids are on the verge of being out of their classrooms and we're talking about whether the tax cut is paying for itself. A simple commitment by the Premier to reinvest any savings in education would have helped. Some recognition by the government of what FW just told us about the 25,000 students the government refuses to acknowledge for funding purposes might have helped, but not a discussion about whether the tax cut is paying for itself.

Ruth, I don't know which one of us has been around longer. My hair is greyer than yours. I can think of lots of discussions about disagreements between boards and teachers and between governments and teachers. I can think of lots of areas where there was cooperative effort that I think did some really good things. We've seen enormous changes, but I don't think either one of us ever imagined that teachers would be pushed to the point they are at today. If I'm feeling emotional about it this morning, I can well imagine how you're feeling and why that brings you to tears.

What I want to do is reiterate for any people who think this is "the unions" the statements you've made about how teachers are feeling today, so bear with me. I want to re-read your own statement.

Teachers "believe strongly that their efforts can make the world a better place to live in. They are absolutely committed to helping their students be the best that they can be.

"Their opposition to the dismantling of the education system they have dedicated their lives to is absolute and unequivocal. They know intuitively what the research demonstrates, that what is destroyed by slash and burn cannot be restored by after-the-fact restructuring. They know that unless they stand united now, the education system they have helped build, and with it the education of the students both currently in their care and those who will follow, will be irreparably damaged."

Then the incredibly moving statement of the grade 1 teacher who said:

"I wish I could be in the classroom today, but I know I must be the advocate for these young children who cannot address these issues on their own....

"So, take care of my precious `munchkins,' and love them with all of your heart. Do whatever it takes to continue making grade 1 a happy, exciting world of learning and adventure for them. I'll miss them deeply and can only hope that my devotions to my profession of 28 years and my actions of today can open up people's eyes to the wanton destruction to the education system my colleagues and I have worked so hard to develop."

Do you think those kinds of truly heartfelt statements from people who have devoted their lives to teaching kids for 28 years can help the public to realize what is really at stake here?

Ms Baumann: I certainly hope so. On the weekend I happened to be down in London at the Progressive Conservative policy convention, as part of my other duties in my job of working on government relations, and had a chance to talk to a number of teachers who were delegates to the convention who would style themselves I think as good Progressive Conservatives. They were as angry about some of what's happening right now as any teachers I've talked to. They were truly upset. They were saying to a number of us that they had spent the weekend talking to people at the convention about their concerns.

I was struck, in the policy discussions, by how little talk there was about cutting. There were recommendations from discussion groups about restoring junior kindergarten funding, about providing students with textbooks.

I think there is a level of public concern and concern among the teachers that is deep and profound. I'm concerned right now that the teachers feel very badly hurt, that teachers at this point did not distinguish, despite the hopes perhaps of the government, between statements that the system is broken and that the teachers aren't doing a good job, despite the fact that many people tried to tell me on the weekend that that was in fact the case.

When somebody tells a teacher that the system's broken the teacher says, "You're telling me I'm not doing a good job." It's a simple equation in the teacher's mind, because the teachers believe they are the system. Some of us know that there are bureaucracies and rules and provincial stuff and all the rest of that, but from the standpoint of that person in that grade 1 or grade 7 or grade 12 classroom, the system is their daily lives. To say that the system is broken as often as it has been said has provoked a very angry, very hurt response that I think is going to be very difficult to deal with.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today.

ONTARIO CHRISTIAN
HOME EDUCATORS' CONNECTION

The Chair: Our next presentation is by the Ontario Christian Home Educators' Connection. All members of the committee should have received a written brief. Good morning. For the purpose of Hansard, I would request that you identify yourselves and then proceed with your presentation.

Mrs Colleen Takahashi: Thank you for allowing me here this morning. People have been here a long and weary job, and I appreciate this. Sometimes I've seen animals at the zoo that look more enthused. I think you're all just worn out. But I appreciate having this opportunity to speak today. My name is Colleen Takahashi, and I'm a regional representative for Ontario Christian Home Educators' Connection. We call that OCHEC. It's a provincial organization for home schooling families.

Home schooling is becoming more of a growing choice for education choices in many families in Ontario and all across North America. There's approximately 60,000 families educating children at home in Canada, and most of those families belong to local support groups that provide positive socialization, field trips, group learning and activities. The local support groups join together to join the provincial organization of OCHEC. From that larger network, we can provide training and workshops, curriculum fairs and conventions.

When we're referred to as home schoolers, many people think of us as a family that keeps our children cloistered in our homes and they never see the light of day. That's not the reality, because we're more involved in the community and in family learning and taking advantage of a lot of diverse opportunities. I'm a teacher who's not in any fear of my class sizes growing and expanding unless I become pregnant, and if I want to increase my budget, we eat more hamburger.

Home educating children is not a vocation for the faint of heart or those who aren't willing to take a lot of initiative. It's not an option for every family, but my rights to choose this alternative form of education should be protected. Home education has provided a dynamic avenue for learning, an opportunity to discover and learn with our children and to see them catch a spark of interest and fan it into a flame of excitement that lasts a lifetime.

The whole point of education is to have that, isn't it, children who love to learn and are excited about new knowledge and growing and discovering new things every day. As a parent I want to ensure that learning is taking place, that my children are well prepared for the future, that they have the skills they need, that they will know more than just how to fill in the blanks; that they have problem-solving skills and be articulate and able to develop debate and insights.

Let me clarify a few misconceptions. Home schoolers are not all radical fundamentalists, but most are family-centred, with high values and expectations. These families' main reason for learning at home is not an anti-school thing. Many of the things in the system we don't agree with, but it's not the major decision for not participating in the public school. Those people who choose that option usually end up sending their kids back to school.

We do not dislike or mistrust teachers. In fact, the more we home school, the more we sympathize with teachers and what they have to deal with in a class of many diverse challenges.

It's not only fringe-type people who home school. The Internet and technology will make home learning more and more mainstream.

1010

There's been a lot of controversy about why I was invited to speak here. Why have somebody who has opted out of the public system come here to speak about issues relating to the public school system? Well, I am the epitome of a concerned parent. If I'm willing to say no thanks to free education, to free curriculum, if I'm willing to give up a career in finance and a head of hair for grey ones, I am a person who is interested in educational issues. The OCHEC community is very interested in the nuts and bolts as well as the administration and the cost-effectiveness of education.

One of my major concerns for Bill 160 as a parent would be the centralization of decision-making. The further that decision-making is removed from parents, the more difficult it is for parents to make the needed changes. No one wants a child's class to be less effective by having large classes or ineffective teaching, whether that's certified or non-certified people. But who better than a parent to keep an eye on the teacher's effectiveness and the curriculum content and on things like cultural diversity?

In our family situation, we're are able to specialize learning for each child. If something doesn't work, we find an alternative that does. This is impossible within a huge system. The larger the system, the harder it is to change direction. This is where parental input within the school system can customize the teaching for children.

I feel very strongly that parents need more avenues to input ideas and concerns into their local schooling situation. I would like to be assured that Bill 160 would include amendments that parents have the right, responsibility and authority to choose the education system or alternative for their children and have the ability to affect educational choices.

Governments don't love our children, although they feel they have the responsibility to ensure excellence in education. And teachers don't actually love our children, although they have abilities and talents to direct their learning. Parents, however, do love their children and do have a vested interest in the wellbeing and best interests of their children. Parents want their children to succeed and excel, so let's give parents the authority to be watchdogs and consultants concerning the issues of education. There are lousy parents, just as there are lousy drivers, but we don't make everyone use public transit because of a few bad drivers. Let's not take parents out of the driver's seat of education because of a few disinterested parents.

This is the part I want you to listen to. I believe the only way to make the educational process truly accountable is to use this triad of interests. Using the passions we have and that we have seen in the last week or so, the parents, the teachers and the government can work together and use these dynamic tensions to really make an impact, to make the best for our children. I think it's only this tension that's going to hold it together. Rather than the survival of compromise concessions, let's look at the possibilities of truly working together. Parents need the power to make changes. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. We have at least five minutes per caucus remaining. We'll start with the government caucus.

Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation this morning. It's been with some interest over the course of yesterday -

Ms Lankin: Excuse me, Mr Chair. Before we proceed, do I understand there is a second part to the presentation?

Mrs Takahashi: He has another 10 minutes.

The Chair: I'm sorry. Thank you very much, Ms Lankin. Please proceed.

Mr Jake Zwart: I'm Jake Zwart, and I also represent OCHEC, the Ontario Christian Home Educators' Connection. I'm secretary of the board. This board in Ontario represents roughly 25,000 children who are taught at home by their parents. Many of the things I'm going to talk about would represent private education interests as well as home education interests.

What do we want our system to do? Our interest as parents is to call our children to their highest and best. We believe and have evidence, as Colleen mentioned and as shown in this study, that home schooling does this. Home schooling children are consistently at around the 80th percentile compared to the population at large.

The Ontario system, however, is one of the poorest in Canada and in the industrialized world, as shown by the little leaflet that the government mailed out. Is the provincial public education system calling our children to their highest and best? The answer is an obvious and emphatic no.

What is the reason for this? The reasons are myriad and too complicated to get into here, but a lot of them are addressed in this book, which I would like to leave with you, called The Right Choice: Home Schooling. It goes through the history and gives a lot of those reasons.

What's actually required in the classroom? It's effective instructional time. I don't believe it's necessarily more time; it's more effective time, where the children actually get down to the nitty-gritty of learning. Part of that is class discipline. We need to expect our children to work. Over the years, if we look at from 1900 to now, in general class discipline is much worse than it has been.

The other aspect we hear so much about is self-esteem. I believe children get self-esteem from successfully completing a challenging curriculum, not from patting them on the back and saying they're okay when they're not really mastering challenging material.

In light of this, is change required? I believe the answer is yes. Who should have the authority or power in a changed system? We could ask, where does the education dollar come from? No, it's not really the government; it's the people who give their taxes to the government. Who has the greatest vested interest in the education of our children? Colleen said it so well. It's the parents, the same people who pay the taxes to educate the children. I believe parents need the ultimate authority in educating their children. They're the ones who pay the dollars and they're the ones who have the greatest vested interest.

Does Bill 160 measure up? It does effect change, and I laud the government for attempting to bring our education system up to par with the rest of Canada and the rest of the industrialized world. It does take power away from local boards and teachers' unions. Who does it give the power to, however? When I scan the bill, I see that the power goes to the Lieutenant Governor. Orders in council can change almost anything. I did a scan, and there are at least 65 places where the Lieutenant Governor can change things. Taking even the best-case scenario, where I can say I fully trust the current Tory government to make the changes required, I'd like to ask you, or Dave Johnson, would you trust the next elected government - say it's another NDP government - with all the powers within this bill? Are they going to take the interests of our children?

There's also the possibility of a cabinet shuffle and totally different people. Even if I can say I trust the current players, if there's a cabinet shuffle, could I say I trust those players? My experience with government is that it's not likely.

So even if we retain the bill as it is, I'd like to say the Lieutenant Governor's powers should be curbed after a fixed time period.

1020

Another concern of home schoolers is the little-talked-about section 266, where the Ontario education number for each child is brought forward. I believe this will give the government unprecedented powers to track our children - what they think, what they believe. Do we really want to bring George Orwell's 1984 a step closer? I think not.

Section 266.2 states that the minister and prescribed educational and training institutions are authorized to collect, directly or indirectly, personal information. They can go behind parents' backs to collect that information. They can administer tests in schools that are designed to collect family information. Your government may not do this, but who is to say that won't come, down the road, with another government?

In the past, there has been a move towards outcome-based education, where the state wants to prescribe what each child will be like when they come out of school. As a parent, I cannot give that type of authority to the state.

The education number can easily be expanded to where it's something that's required before a child can enter the workforce or a post-secondary institution. In fact, the section contains provisions which can require the use of education numbers by prescribed educational institutions. This will be a blatant case of discrimination against home schooled and privately schooled children, who won't have this education number. In light of this, I request that you delete section 266 from the bill.

Provincial testing: A quick scan of the bill does not specifically mention province-wide testing, but a lot of the advertising surrounding the bill and improving the education system talks about province-wide testing. In fact, John Snobelen's statement on September 22, 1997, contained that statement. We, as private and home schooling parents, don't have anything to fear about testing in and of itself. Again, I hold this up to show that in general we are the 80th percentile. What we want to retain, however, is our right and control over what test is used and where that test is administered. For us, this means the home school mom and dad would administer the test and be able to select the test. One of the dangers of a state-mandated test is that it will ultimately determine the curriculum.

Another thing I don't see enshrined in the bill is parental involvement. There will be advisory commissions, but they don't have any authority to effect change. One of the best systems in the industrialized world is in Switzerland, where the parents have the right to hire and fire teachers.

How does this bill otherwise affect home schoolers? The Education Act states that children between the ages of 6 and 16 must attend school. One of the exceptions in the act is that if a child is receiving adequate education at home, they don't need to go to one of the public schools. In cases where the boards have been overstepping that authority, the courts have consistently reined them in. As home schoolers, we need to retain the protection of this very good law. The best legal advice I have is that Bill 160 does not affect this part of the law. I do, however, have some concern with the possibility that an order in council may change this. My question is whether the Lieutenant Governor can change that part of the Education Act. I also request that you add a section to Bill 160 that affirms that parents have the right and responsibility to direct the education of their children.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Doug Rollins): Thank you. That doesn't leave us a lot of time, but we have about three minutes per caucus. We start off with the Liberal caucus.

Mr Smith: I think it starts here.

The Vice-Chair: The Chair has Liberal, NDP and government.

Mrs McLeod: I think it is government.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. We'll give him the dickens when he comes back. We'll see that that happens.

Mr Smith: My thanks to Ms Lankin for her intervention so we could get the full presentation.

Over the course of the last day or so, we've had a couple of occasions where presenters have suggested that because you have effectively opted out of the public education system, you have no right to appear before this committee. I was wondering, recognizing that you did address that in part, what your comments might be to that suggestion.

Mrs Takahashi: It has been interesting. I've had a chance to talk to some teachers' unions since. When they heard our explanation that we were concerned parents and were concerned enough to at this point opt out of the public system, they understood that we did have a place here because we are very familiar with what's happening with educational issues. Just because we teach at home doesn't mean we don't keep an eye on what's happening with the system. Home schooling parents are very much up on the Education Act and the laws and how those things affect us. I think we are very qualified to be here, and I think we're also very interested to be here.

Mr Zwart: I'd like to add that we haven't opted out of education. We've opted out of the public system, but we're very much involved in education.

Mr Smith: You also suggested that parents need to have the power to make changes, and Bill 160 effectively mandates advisory school councils. What, in your opinion, would be the extent to which parents should have roles and responsibilities in terms of the level of decision-making within the school facility?

Mrs Takahashi: I was thinking last night, at 2 o'clock in the morning as I was working on this, that I wish I had more time to spend looking at those responsibilities that should be assigned to each partner in this decision-making in the education of our children. I think parents need the chance, when they see something happening in their classroom, to not be intimidated and to say to perhaps their principal or school trustee or all the way to the Ministry of Education: "This isn't appropriate. This isn't good enough. This isn't the high standard we expect for our children." I don't see that that happens. I think parents are often bullied and told, "Now, you just be quiet and go home and make your little chocolate chip cookies for the bake sale." I think they need to be assigned a certain process they can go through to effect some changes, and I think those checks and balances need to be set out in this bill.

Mr Smith: Time probably won't permit me, but if I could, Mr Zwart, recognizing the comments you made about the Ontario education number, I'd like to share with you some further information in terms of the expected benefit of that number and would welcome your further comments on the proposal in the bill.

The Vice-Chair: We'll switch over to the Liberal Party now, because your time has expired.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much, and I do appreciate your being here. I think it's important to put in context questions about home schoolers presenting to this committee. There would not have been questions if there hadn't been a change in the process and a concern about whether or not, on the minister's rather exclusive list, there was disproportionate representation of those who had chosen alternatives to the public system over those parent groups which have chosen to work within the public system. As you know, it was a list on which only invited people got 30 minutes. As it turned out in yesterday's hearings, we were able to hear from a number of parent council representatives, albeit with a 10-minute slot. But that was the concern, that there appeared to be an imbalance in the selection process.

Nobody would question your concern or your commitment to your children - that's obvious - in the commitment you've made to home schooling. But I think there is a realistic concern to make sure that those who have chosen to work for change within the public system on parent councils should be well represented at these hearings.

I appreciated the specifics of your presentation. I would be as interested as you in hearing Mr Smith's explanation of why the student number is there, because I don't think any of us are quite sure why it's there or what it's going to be used for. I trust the government will note your concern about whether or not home schooling should be very specifically protected under the act.

I can tell you that there was a very high degree of consensus between your concern with the increased centralization of power in the hands of cabinet through orders in council and the concern of every parent who presented to our committee yesterday. I hope that's a message the government is hearing, that no parents are comfortable with the decision-making for education being so far removed from the parents who are so intimately involved with their children's education. I think one parent counted it, and actually found 186 areas in which the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make orders in council that would change education without any public debate. So your point is very well taken.

My question would be whether or not Bill 160 provides anything positive from a home schooler's perspective. You said that at 2 o'clock in the morning you weren't sure you had time to think of ultimate visions, but I was wondering where you might see the role of school boards, for example, in an ideal world in the future, from your perspective.

1030

Mrs Takahashi: In an ideal world, teachers and home schoolers would work together more effectively than they do right now. I think at this point home schoolers often view teachers as all being part and parcel of the Ministry of Education. As soon as we say, "Can we share your resources? Can we help you? Can we bring our resources of home schooling into your classroom?" we are automatically put under some of the jurisdiction and some of the requirements that the Ministry of Education or the local board would put on us. We can't share in the way we should be able to. If my family has done a wonderful study that would complement a study a teacher is doing, if we have spent months collecting bird nests, we should be able to bring that into our local classrooms and say, "Let us share our bird nests and what we have learned." That can't happen right now. I think there is a real sharing process that could happen there. At this point, both of us have to hold each other at arm's length and mistrust each other.

I got quite a chuckle when the teachers' union thought we were pro-government. I said: "Pro-government? We choose not to take any money from the government. If they offered us money, we'd say, `No thanks, dear, we'd really rather not have any.'" We don't view ourselves as pro-government; we see ourselves as preferring to be held a little bit away, and we will choose to be accountable, because we're the parents, the end consumers. We don't need to have the government watching what we do, because we're watching what they do.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We'll move on to the third party.

Ms Lankin: I truly appreciate your presentation. Just before I begin, I would like to ask, Mr Chairman, if we could ask the parliamentary assistant to provide the committee with an explanation for the Ontario student number, with a list of its intended use and any restrictions the bill places on it, because I don't see a lot of restrictions. Also, I'd like to know whether there has been a review of this provision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner; if not, I think we should seek that advice as well.

The Vice-Chair: We'll ask for that.

Ms Lankin: Thank you. I was interested by the last comment you made in terms of the possibilities that exist of a greater sharing between home schoolers and the public education system, particularly in the area of resources. I was thinking of the important role family resource centres can play in the area of early childhood education as a link between organized child care centres and home care of different types, in the ability to come in and share resources and gain support. There is a model there that could be quite exciting. It's just a comment on what you've said.

The question I have comes back to, as Mrs McLeod says, the fact that many of the concerns you've raised are very similar to many of the representatives of parent councils who have been before the committee. It's a concern about the need to clarify the role of parents, to ensure that there is a meaningful role and a way to have input into the system that is listened to and can effect change where that is necessary. The concern those parents have raised is a concern about decision-making being taken further and further away from the individual classroom and local community setting; how, if all the decisions are being made by a cabinet advised by a Minister of Education, it's next to impossible for parent organizations on a local level to meet and influence that decision-making.

Mrs Takahashi: We could go on strike.

Ms Lankin: There's a possibility.

I was just wondering if you could comment on that. Mr Zwart, you spoke to this point as well, about the regulation-making power, the decision-making being taken further away from the locale where education is taking place, where the kids and the educators and the parents are, even if educators are parents, where the interests are very focused. Could you comment on that?

The Vice-Chair: You have less than three quarters of a minute.

Mr Zwart: People who are closest to the child are the best able to defend the interests of the child, to prescribe the curriculum. I agree with you that the further it gets removed, the more likely that people have other interests involved. I think in the long term this bill might be one of the greatest boons to home schooling just for that reason.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Newman: On a point of order, Chair: I have a presentation that my office received from St Nicholas Catholic School in my riding of Scarborough Centre. It's to the standing committee on administration of justice regarding Bill 160. It's some of their thoughts on class sizes, prep time, uncertified teachers and the role of the education minister. I've asked that it be handed out to the other members of the committee and that they give full consideration to the parents from St Nicholas.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL
TEACHERS' FEDERATION

The Vice-Chair: Would the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation take your seats now, please. You have 30 minutes to use as you see fit. If there's time at the end, we'll use that for questions and answers. Please introduce yourself for Hansard and proceed.

Ms Phyllis Benedict: Thank you, Chairperson. My name is Phyllis Benedict. I'm the president of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation. With me this morning are the first vice-president, Stan Korolnek; director of collective bargaining, teacher welfare, Duncan Jewell; and research officer Christine Brown.

The Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation represents 32,000 teachers, occasional teachers and educational support personnel who work in the public elementary schools across this province. Bill 160, the misnamed Education Quality Improvement Act, raises some very serious concerns about the democratic function of school boards and the right of employees to bargain their working conditions freely and fairly.

The proposed legislation basically eliminates the local control and management of education, which has been the cornerstone for schools in Ontario since the days of Egerton Ryerson. Bill 160 centralizes control and power in the Ministry of Education and Training, but decentralizes blame and responsibility. Further, the proposed legislation segregates teachers from any partnership in the provision of quality education for Ontario students. Unless Bill 160 is substantially amended, teachers can only view it as a total affront to their professionalism and the right to free collective bargaining and as an attack upon the quality of education in Ontario public schools.

What follows will be some of our specific comments on the provisions of the bill. With respect to education finance and governance, the federation has long advocated increased provincial funding for the cost of education. It does not, however, support the total removal of revenue-generating powers from local school boards. Local boards have local needs, and these needs are best identified and addressed by local residents.

As any trustee can attest, parental interest in the availability of such programs as junior kindergarten, gifted classes, language instruction and instrumental music is both high and ongoing. Parents have counted on having elected, accessible and accountable local trustees to assist them in their educational goals for their children. Trustees have responded to these concerns as existing resources and the ability to generate new resources have permitted. Centralizing taxation powers will not lead to increased democracy in the running of the school system.

Replacing of the taxing authority by boards by provincial determination of rates of taxation will likewise alter the dynamic of collective bargaining, since district school boards will be unable to bargain in any meaningful way. Centralizing control in this manner will enable the provincial government to extract unlimited dollars from the school system. The federation does not support this and believes that parents do not either. The federation recommends that a significant measure of ability to raise local tax revenues remain with local ratepayers.

In keeping with the general movement towards the centralization of power in the hands of the ministry, an entirely new permanent power has been granted to the minister in the form of the right to conduct an investigation of a board's financial affairs under certain circumstances. Other than as a vehicle to centralize power, the federation does not see the logic behind such new powers.

1040

In keeping with the other governance changes noted, ie, greater provincial control at the expense of local control, Bill 160 vests considerable power with respect to transitional matters in the Education Improvement Commission. Thus, unelected political appointees are to be making vitally important decisions with respect to the transfer of property, assets and liabilities and employees. Cabinet and the commission are to be given virtually unlimited powers to determine how restructuring will take place. Not only is there no mandatory provision for public consultation by the commission, there is no mechanism for public accountability. These powers will effectively suspend the democratic authority and responsibility of elected officials. The federation believes that the broad nature of the powers granted to the EIC under this legislation is intrusive and unwarranted.

With respect to advisory school councils, OPSTF has long held the view that parental involvement in their children's schools is key to educational success. The government perhaps would like us to believe that school councils are one more way that the average parent-taxpayer can have a direct say in the carrying out of public policy and the disposition of the public purse. In the face of changes to the governance and the financing of school boards proposed elsewhere in Bill 160, there is considerable irony to such a stance. This is a bill not about greater public control over the school system, but about the virtual elimination of public control.

The federation believes that school councils are no substitute for democratically elected, properly compensated school board members with the real power to make crucial decisions affecting the lives of students.

I would now like to turn to a number of collective bargaining issues for teachers. The partnership of teacher federations and school boards has, since the passage of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act in 1975, resulted in collective agreements which address the needs of the school boards and teachers. All items, as identified by either party, can be the subject of negotiations. This open scope of bargaining saw the inclusion of provisions related to preparation time, class size, lunchroom supervision, the school day and the school year, pupil-teacher ratio, continuing education programs, extracurricular activities and others, all of which led to improved learning conditions for students and enhanced working conditions for teachers.

Much of the proposed legislation contained within Bill 160 is included as an attack on the teachers of Ontario and does nothing to meet the government's stated goal of having the highest student achievement in Canada.

With respect to the legal framework under which teachers bargain, although the federation will have to make fundamental alterations to the manner in which it carries out this responsibility, the federation is not opposed to the transfer of collective bargaining from the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act to the Labour Relations Act.

At present, teachers and school boards have wide latitude to bargain the conditions under which teachers work and students learn. The proposed legislation would severely restrict the scope of bargaining through regulations on such critical issues as class size, preparation time, length of the school day, the school year, school holidays, instructional days, examination days, professional activity days and work days prior to the commencement of the school year.

The former Minister of Education and Training, John Snobelen, stated that these issues were too important to be used as bargaining chips. The federation believes it's too important not to have these issues as bargaining chips in order to protect and enhance quality education.

Limiting the scope of bargaining for teachers is a regressive and punitive use of legislative power. Teachers' workload will increase and student achievement will decrease. It is the federation's position that there must be no restrictions on the scope of bargaining. The federation believes that all terms and conditions of employment ought to be negotiable and that any changes in those terms and conditions should be negotiated. Collective bargaining has led to many improvements in the educational experience of children. Collective bargaining has not only helped teachers, but it has led to many improvements in the educational experience of children.

The federation is pleased that the government has recognized that teachers as well as other employees in the broader public sector should retain the right to strike. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation has language which would appear to give cabinet the right to squelch any teachers' strike or potential strike by implementing a regulation which says, "...to prevent disruption in the education of the pupils." If this is not the intent of this section of the bill, an amendment should be introduced which would clarify this situation.

With respect to regulating powers on the length and use of the school year, the government has proposed extending cabinet's authority to make regulations. The federation believes that the minister's existing powers in this area are sufficient. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence to suggest that manipulating the school calendar will further assist the government in meeting its stated objectives for the education system. The federation does not consider these broad powers to make regulations either necessary or useful and believes that such issues are best left to the process of collective bargaining.

With respect to the issue of differentiated staffing, among the more dangerous parts of Bill 160 are those which give cabinet the authority to override the present legal requirement that individuals who teach for a living should be certificated teachers. Once again, regulations made without public consultation or notice could be made which would transform the way education is provided to Ontario's children.

The federation does not believe that the real aim of these provisions is to give Ontario students access to experts in various fields, such as music, art and sports. Indeed, students already have access both through the talents of their own trained teachers and through a wide variety of school activities, including field trips, outside speakers and the like.

The federation believes that the true aim of section 81 is to extract money from the education system and to diminish the power of the teaching profession. Through this section, the government has stated its belief that teacher training is irrelevant. Will we eventually reach the stage where anyone with a willingness to take a badly paid job in a local school is entrusted with the important task of educating our young people? Will properly trained teachers eventually be rare sightings in the classroom? These are questions which any parent of students currently in the system should take very seriously indeed.

Teacher training means teachers who are subject to rigorous standards and expectations and aware that instruction in one subject area does not happen in isolation from the rest of the school program. They are trained in child psychology and development, able to recognize potential learning disabilities and to provide access to available remedial assistance, skilled in monitoring and evaluating a child's academic progress and versed in school law and classroom management techniques. Teaching is so much more than the command, however, of a given subject matter.

We also feel compelled to point out that, on the one hand, the present government passed the legislation establishing the Ontario College of Teachers with the stated aim of increasing professionalism and stricter standards for teachers, and yet it's this very government which proposes legislation which, if carried to extreme limits, could remove the need for teacher training all together.

Bill 160 also contains a provision which empowers cabinet to make regulations governing class size. Class size, indeed all aspects of staffing, has been the subject matter of collective bargaining since Bill 100 was passed in 1975. Teachers and boards who have directly negotiated this issue have developed considerable expertise in the subject. They have utilized their political skills in balancing off these matters and the related question of preparation time with establishing acceptable rates of local education taxes. The federation believes that this system has served Ontarians well and should not be tampered with.

As the bargaining record shows, teachers have fought hard to defend and improve both their student learning conditions and their own working conditions. Class size has been the core of OPSTF collective bargaining imperatives for many, many years. Smaller class sizes mean better learning conditions for students. Smaller classes mean that teachers have more time to spend with each individual student to ensure that no one slips through the cracks.

In recent years OPSTF members have reported dramatic increases in the sizes of their classes and the ministry's statistics have confirmed that this has occurred, but this has occurred not because teachers have willingly negotiated larger class sizes but because the funding has been drastically cut.

A further area in which Bill 160 infringes upon the existing scope of bargaining is that section which gives cabinet power to make regulations concerning pupil-teacher instructional time and preparation time. Preparation time, like class size, is a hard-won and much-valued component of teachers' working conditions. Preparation time is not a frill at either elementary or secondary levels, but is an essential component in a teacher's ability to do his or her job.

Any reduction in preparation time will seriously jeopardize the quality of education in Ontario. Cuts to preparation time will result in teachers having less time to offer a full range of activities and classroom methods and to respond to the individual needs of students. Less preparation time will mean fewer teachers in schools, which will affect everything from school safety to school morale.

The federation cannot support restricting free and full collective bargaining on working conditions and recommends that the proposed regulation-making powers in these areas be dropped.

1050

If you go through our brief, you will find a number of other areas where we talk about the definition of a teacher and the definition of teachers' bargaining units and you will read those at your leisure. I would like to take you now to the probationary and permanent contracts.

For teachers this forms the basis of the entire legal structure surrounding the treatment of teachers and their employment relations in school boards. The removal of the concept of contract teachers makes issues respecting the permanence of employment negotiable. The removal of these provisions signals a change that could lead to a major problem in the staffing of our schools and which could have a disastrous effect on the quality of education. With no notice period required to resign, a teacher could leave the classroom Friday evening and not return on Monday.

Further, the legislation removes the existing right to receive a board of reference. The provision in the Education Act provides a form of just cause for permanent contract teachers. The federation could endorse the elimination of the statutory forms of contract, provided that the rights currently guaranteed under such contracts were assured through other means.

Since 1986, this federation has held the bargaining unit rights for occasional teachers employed in the elementary panel of the public schools of Ontario. The proposed legislation amends the definition of occasional teacher to expand the period during which occasional teachers may be hired to substitute for an absent teacher. The federation has previously indicated support for an extended term for an occasional teacher who was replacing a teacher who is on pregnancy or parental leave, but the current proposals far exceed what is reasonable.

The federation has supported the inclusion of occasional teachers in statutory bargaining units for many years and supports this initiative and further recommends that such transfer of the bargaining rights occur with the first collective agreement after December 31, 1997.

The Education Relations Commission has served the needs of school boards and teachers well since its creation following the passage of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act in 1975. The federation does not support the intent of the legislation in this regard and recommends that the Education Relations Commission and its functions be transferred to the Ministry of Labour effective January 1, 1998.

In conclusion, Ontario's teachers are committed to quality education and student excellence. To the teachers of Ontario quality education means early education programs taught by qualified teachers for every child. It means sufficient textbooks and educational materials for every student without endless fund-raising drives. It means a full range of programs, such as art, music, drama, second languages, French immersion and computer instruction. It means clean, safe, well-maintained schools. It means time for teachers to work collaboratively to develop and enhance programs. It means adult education courses to ensure a fair chance for everyone to succeed. It means well-stocked and -equipped school libraries, staffed by qualified teacher librarians. It means a full range of support staff to meet the needs of every student, including educational assistants, secretaries, custodial and maintenance workers, speech and language pathologists, social workers, attendance counsellors and psychologists, and it means a positive working environment for teachers to ensure a positive learning environment for students.

It has been the experience of the citizens of Ontario to be governed by legislation which carries out the intent of the bill. The title of Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, is completely misleading. There is little in this bill which will assist this government in achieving its oft-stated goal of increasing student achievement and enhancing education in Ontario.

I respectfully request the committee to consider seriously the 13 recommendations that are found at the end of the OPSTF brief. On behalf of the 32,000 members of the Ontario Public School Teachers Federation, I thank the committee for this opportunity this morning to present.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have a little over two minutes per caucus, starting with the Liberals this time.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much and I appreciate your being here. I appreciate the thoroughness of your presentation. Minister Johnson is saying today that he has had no constructive recommendations from teachers. I think if he were here at the committee meetings or would even be prepared to look at the recommendations that are being brought forward this morning, he would see that there are some very constructive recommendations for changes to this legislation.

I particularly wanted to note one that came up in our discussions yesterday that you have emphasized, and that's that apparently the government is backing away from this notion that their legislation is intended to replace teachers in a classroom with so-called experts, that this is just to be a partnership. As you've so clearly said, if it's just to be a partnership, that exists already and it can exist, and you do not need these provisions in the act and the College of Teachers said they should be removed. That's a very easy amendment for the government to adopt right now and that would make some step towards improving the act.

But I think that this morning is not really the time to focus on the details. All I want to ask you is, tell us what you're hearing from your members. Tell us why your members are at the point they are today.

Ms Benedict: Our members, all of the teaching members in Ontario of all the affiliates, are to a point of frustration, to a point of feeling that this government does not listen, that this government continually puts forward the rhetoric that they are willing to sit down and have meaningful discussions. They come up with phrases like "Everything is negotiable" until you sit down and you find out that's not true. Everything is negotiable in Bill 160, apparently, except for structural change, and for structural change they perseverate on preparation time. They say it's only a secondary issue. Well, it's not a secondary issue.

If we open the door to tamper with preparation time and put it into the hands of the Minister of Education and the cabinet now, there is absolutely nothing in Bill 160 that prevents further intrusion in every aspect of the classroom. Teachers are frightened by that, and parents should be frightened by that. That's why we continue to meet, as frustrating as it is, with a government who says, "Yes, we're open to suggestions," and then turns around and accuses us of not coming up with proposals.

The Vice-Chair: We've got to move on to the third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Thank you for your presentation this morning. I know that there are a lot of things on your plate these days. Hopefully this presentation will be of some use in that whole process.

You talked about your concerns about centralization, about the regulatory power conferred on the minister and the cabinet and the control of education, every aspect of education. You've also talked about restrictions on the scope of collective bargaining between boards and teachers' federations. I'm hearing from teachers, grass-roots members of your organization and the other federations, even greater concerns about the future if the cabinet has complete control and it's not vested any longer in boards of education or separate school boards or in the negotiations process, about things like voucher systems and charter schools perhaps being on the horizon.

Is this just rhetoric and scaremongering, as some members of the Conservative Party have dubbed it, or is it in fact your view that not only is centralization designed to take money out immediately, but there are significant changes on the agenda for the future if this government is re-elected and has complete control of the education system?

Ms Benedict: Any of the indications we have received would lead us to believe about the privatization of education, but there is an even more alarming fact, the creation of a two-tier system within the publicly funded school system that we operate now. If you do not have the ability to raise some amounts of money at the local level to address the local needs of schools, and they talk about an equalization of the funding, what it will do will turn schools into haves and have-nots.

The responsibility goes back on to parents for fund-raising. If you happen to be in an affluent area, if that's where your school is located, obviously the children in that school will have a definite advantage over a downtown core school where the children come from homes that do not have the same type of economic background. To me, that's even more frightening than voucher schools and privatization of education: a two-tier system within our system.

1100

Mr Wildman: Can I ask one other thing? The previous Minister of Education and even the Premier have basically said that the problem around this legislation and the teachers' view of it is just because of union bosses. That's the term they've used. Since you are, I guess, one of those union bosses, I'd like to give you the opportunity to respond to this. I thought when I saw the demonstration at Maple Leaf Gardens and then over here at Queen's Park, if these were all union bosses, it's a very top-heavy union.

Ms Benedict: It certainly is. In the two weeks that we held our all-affiliate meetings, we had over 100,000 teachers attend those meetings. That's an indication that this is a movement from grass roots. We've also been accused of not being democratic and of ordering from the top. I can speak on behalf of my affiliate. We're very democratic. Just as you're elected to represent your constituents, so are our local presidents who come in with a mandate from their members. Not once, but twice, this federation has taken the stance of standing up to this government to extreme action of a strike.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We have to move on. Sorry for interrupting.

Mr Newman: Thank you for appearing before the committee today. I have a question. You talk about democracy within the OPSTF. Did your members actually get a chance to vote by secret ballot as to whether or not they supported an illegal walkout?

Ms Benedict: No. Our affiliate did not do that. As I said, twice we have taken - once with a council of presidents and once with our general assembly in August, which is a wider representation of our membership. Our members will vote on an individual basis according to their own conscience on the day. If it becomes necessary that we have to take this drastic action, if there is no movement by the government, then each individual teacher has that right and that's as democratic as we can be.

Mr Newman: That was August, before Bill 160 came in, you had your vote. If you're saying it's a matter of conscience and people making their own decisions whether or not they participate in the illegal walkout, will any actions or reprisals be taken against those?

Ms Benedict: Absolutely not. All of our affiliates have sanctions which would happen if it was a legal strike situation under Bill 100, and obviously this is not in that case. Any sanction would come from one's colleagues in the school.

Mr Newman: Okay. A quick question: Jeffrey Simpson today in Globe and Mail has a very well written article, I think, that deals with the issue of a pending teachers' strike. I'll read the third-last and second-last paragraphs, and I'd like your comment on it. He says:

"For almost a decade, successive Ontario governments have been struggling to get that improved performance taxpayers deserve and students require. It has meant a series of bruising battles with the province's teachers' unions, which are not accustomed to losing and can bring mighty pressure to bear on public opinion.

"Full-page newspaper advertisements and organized demonstrations are part of the unions' arsenal. The government has an obligation to talk to the unions, but at the end of the day the government, and not the unions, is responsible for the system."

Do you agree with Mr Simpson's comments?

Ms Benedict: I agree that the government is responsible for the system, but let's have a system of education that's worth having and that's not what is contained in Bill 160.

Mr Newman: The other question: You talk about inequities between schools. I think the argument can be made today, and quite rightly so, that there are inequities within Ontario today because it's based on the assessment in a particular area. You obviously represent people from right across the province and you have students in some boards, as the Toronto Star editorial said last week - I think the word was "sumptuous" art supplies - who have those in their schools, yet in other schools kids have to bring pencils to school with them because the school doesn't have them.

I think Bill 160 will help to address some of the inequities in funding -

Mr Wildman: Then everybody will be bringing pencils.

Mr Newman: I wouldn't be so pessimistic, Mr Wildman. I think you had an opportunity to fix that and it hasn't been done. But because we have a system right now that's based on property tax assessment and also the fact that -

The Vice-Chair: Mr Newman, I'm sorry.

Mr Newman: Can I just finish my question, Chair?

The Vice-Chair: Real quick.

Mr Newman: I'd like to know what the opinion of your union is with respect to this government taking the education portion off of the residential taxpayer. I know in my riding in the election that was an issue, a lot of seniors saying, "We don't want to have education on the property tax base." I'd like to know what your comments are because no one's really addressed that today.

Ms Benedict: My comment would be, to pick up on what Mr Wildman said, that there will be equity, but it will be at the lowest common denominator.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation today.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Chair: Could I put a question to the provincial Conservative caucus members on behalf of the government? I notice Mr Smith is not here, but he will return. Will the government give us the assurance that any saving from restructuring the education system will be reinvested in the classroom? Just make that commitment and we'll avoid the crisis that we're in right now. Can we get that from the government at this committee? Can we get an assurance that the government is not going to take $650 million out of the education system?

The Vice-Chair: I don't think we can give you that assurance from this committee, Mr Wildman. I don't think we're empowered to do that.

METRO PARENT NETWORK

The Vice-Chair: I ask for the Metro Parent Network. Kathleen Wynne, would you identify yourself and your guests.

Ms Kathleen Wynne: My name is Kathleen Wynne, and I'm here as the chair of the Metro Parent Network. Gord Garland, a parent from York, is also here. I'm glad the article by Mr Simpson was mentioned because I just want to follow up. I think Mr Simpson is very mistaken. Bill 160 doesn't give the government control of education; it gives the cabinet control of education. The alternative is not union control; it's democratic local control by citizens electing school trustees and negotiating a system with teachers. I think that whole article is skewed.

It's difficult to know where to begin in this climate of hostility and impasse. As I write this deputation, the government seems intent on pushing the teachers of this province to take job action to resist this latest assault on the education system. I have participated in many of the hearings that have been held over the past 10 months and have known that much of what has been said by parents and citizens has fallen on deaf ears. We know, for instance, that we are only here today by default, that this government would have chosen to hold these hearings without hearing from us at all and certainly without hearing from any of the 1,100 individuals and other groups that applied to speak.

This current situation makes it clear exactly how futile my efforts are and have been. But you are attempting to hurt our children, your own children and all our grandchildren, and we will keep coming back until you stop. Furthermore, in this past week, Jane Jacobs encouraged us that it is important that we listen to each other in our struggle to maintain a humane and democratic system. It's in that spirit that the Metro Parent Network has chosen to participate.

We are a loose connection of parents from the public and separate boards of education from the six municipalities in Metro. In fact you have heard from a number of our members in their capacity as representatives of their own parent associations. You've heard from the North York Parent Assembly, Shelley Carroll; you've heard from Laura Dark, speaking for the East York Home and School Council; you've heard from Debbie Gilbert, speaking for the Etobicoke Home and School Council. I am a Toronto parent, member of the parent involvement committee of the Toronto board and the vice-president of the parent association at Lawrence Park Collegiate in North Toronto.

The Metro Parent Network came together at the beginning of 1997 as we realized that the mega-board was about to be imposed on us. We have relied on each other for support and information as we worked to inform our own communities and enable individuals to take the actions they deemed most appropriate. The Metro Parent Network, along with groups like People for Education and the Ontario Education Alliance, are some of the unintended consequences of this government's actions.

When I first gathered the group together, I expected that there would be significant differences among us. We had been told, over the years, that parents really couldn't agree on issues around education and that we would not be able to speak with one voice. What we've discovered - and what I've discovered over the last year since the hearings on Bill 104 - is that the involved parents in all of our communities, the people who really know what's going on in the front line at schools, can agree and do agree. What I'm going to try to do today is attempt to capture some of that agreement for you.

Mr Harris is currently bragging about his revolution in Ontario, I believe in an attempt to build the myth that his destructive innovations have been successful, and that in preparation for the next provincial election. Bills 104 and 160 are the government's attempt to destabilize the education system, but we have to recognize that they are part of a much broader assault on the institutions and democratic system that has prevailed in Ontario throughout our short history. That assault has attacked our health care system, our social safety net, our municipal governance and our taxation system.

We suspect that this revolution, which is designed to limit freedom rather than to liberate, is really about destroying a highly functional public system in order to allow enough chaos that people will be grateful to corporations as they move in to create private schools and hospitals in their own image.

1110

The job action that teachers are being forced to take right now is in direct resistance to this agenda. It is not, as the government would have us and other citizens believe, about the specific numbers of hours of preparation time or about a specific class size. It is about the right of people who are affected - the teachers and the elected representatives of citizens, ie, the trustees - to have a say, through the collective bargaining process, in the education of all our children.

You heard parent after parent yesterday, and I presume today you will as well, challenging Bill 160's centralization of decision-making in the cabinet. Yesterday, Mr Froese from the government side asked Annie Kidder of People for Education why she and her group did not bring positive recommendations. Apparently, the government cannot extrapolate from the statements that have been made by parents over and over, so I thought I might articulate that positive statement for you.

In February 1997, a group of us at the Toronto Board of Education released a document called The Essential School: A Model for Public Education in Ontario. It's been available to the government since that time. It has been presented to the government by numbers of educators and parents as part of deputations to Bill 104. It was adopted by the Toronto board and reworked by the chair, David Moll, into his bill of rights for students. It was circulated province-wide during the debate on Bill 104 and has been adopted by councils inside and outside of Metro. It is one manifestation of the positive vision of parents who spend time in schools and understand what teachers are doing in classrooms.

We are, on the whole, an extremely positive group of people. Before the assaults by this government, the parents whom you have come to see as the enemy were the parents who were working in their communities to improve the system. We were working with teachers, helping out in classrooms, attending our children's sports events and dramatic performances, serving on board committees, pushing trustees and bureaucrats on a specific issues, and going on field trips. These are all positive, constructive activities, and a lot of those have been truncated over the last number of months.

Here's what we want, and I'll go through the list quickly, although I have a more extensive and fleshed-out version of this document if you should be interested in seeing it. Here's the list:

We want a strong and relevant instructional program for all students delivered by qualified teachers. That means junior kindergarten with a qualified teacher in each class, not one for four classes. We want a solid common curriculum. We want high-quality secondary school programs. We want regular class sizes of no more than 20 students in primary, 25 in junior and intermediate, and 30 in senior. We want teacher-librarians; physical education programs; visual arts and performing arts programs; computer technology, special-education programs and services; English as a second language; a variety of French-language program options; international and native languages; an inclusive curriculum; whole school guidance; psychological and social support services; child care and nutrition programs; opportunities for student leadership.

Second, we want a healthy and safe school environment. This means safe school buildings and facilities; positive school environment; indoor and outdoor recreational space.

Finally, we want community involvement. This means parent involvement; adult education programs; and community use of schools.

We want the money and resources in the system to provide these things. We want to see a funding model, before any further legislation goes through, that recognizes the importance of these components.

On the one hand, this is a lot to ask for. On the other hand, it is descriptive of much of what we have had to date, and it is what we must strive for in every school in the province. One of the problems we have had in dealing with this government is that we haven't seen your vision of education.

The Essential School document needs revision. There were things we missed; for example, outdoor education and environmental education. The most significant addition must be that we want all this in the context of a system that is democratic at the local level. We want to work with democratically elected school trustees. We want to work with teachers who have a say in their working conditions, which are our children's learning conditions. We want a Ministry of Education that is supportive of local initiative while providing leadership and guidance in the areas of curriculum, professional development and equity. We want public schools and separate schools to be equitably and adequately funded.

And we want you to listen to us.

There are those among us who believe that because your government backed down on Bill 136, you must hold tough on Bill 160, and that you believe you can do so with impunity because education is mostly about women and children. That is an extremely cynical view and we pray that it is not the case.

We need you to withdraw this bill. We certainly need you to withdraw the sections that the unions are asking you to at this point so the talks can continue. We want you to hold on to the concept of equity between public and separate schools, and take the time to bring in new legislation that will truly maintain the best of what we have and change what needs changing.

Gord Garland is going to speak briefly.

Mr Gord Garland: To begin, I'd like to leave with you a submission made by the Metro Parent Network to the Minister of Education in response to his 15-page document, Excellence in Education: Student-Focused Funding for Ontario - incidentally, a document that contains nothing about the funding level for education in Ontario. Our submission is longer than his document and speaks to every point he raises.

To begin with, my name is Gord Garland. I'm a businessman, I'm a taxpayer and I'm also a parent. I have three children in the public school system. Linnea attends Wychwood Tiger Daycare Centre and Hillcrest Community School. Allison attends Winona Drive Senior Public School, and my oldest daughter, Heather, is at Oakwood Collegiate. I am speaking to you today as a businessman, as a taxpayer, as a parent, but also as a citizen speaking out in a democracy.

What I would like to do is cover five areas very briefly. I would like to begin with an introduction, setting the context. I would like to speak briefly about non-profit child care, 40% of which is supplied through Ontario's school system. I would like to talk about what this government is doing to hospitals and health care, and then I'd like to move right into education. Finally, I would like to speak directly to the backbenchers on this committee.

Before Ontario's Conservative government came to power, there were battles, but the best interests of children were never hung completely out to dry.

What binds the Conservative cabinet together is the ideological belief that services in the public and non-profit sectors are by definition wasteful. Consequently, a 15% to 30% income tax cut, which will benefit the well-off, will answer all questions by leading to a necessary reduction in services. The impacts, effects and consequences are irrelevant. At ground level, this is a scorched-earth policy of wants and needs and deprivation, the creation of an underclass out of a dismantled middle class. Let us look briefly at some accomplishments.

In July 1995, the provincial policy to build new child care spaces into provincially funded schools and to fund junior kindergarten was cancelled. Between October 1995 and March 1996, 35 child care centres were closed and 27 new school-based centres failed to open. Since June 1995, cuts in payments to municipalities have led to the loss of more than 9,000 child care spaces, the shutting down of 30 programs, and the cancellation of 14 new programs and expansions.

As a businessman with a child in our non-profit day care system, I got together with a couple of other businessmen and we produced a video called Wychwood Tigers. It's a video about how non-profit day care operates, about the risks this government has put non-profit day care under, and about the effects and consequences. I'd like to leave this committee with one copy, urge you to sit down in one room together and watch it. I'll leave that with you.

Mr Wildman: Bill 160 prevents those kinds of things.

Mr Garland: I'd like to move briefly on to the issue of hospital closures and health care. Why? Because the Health Services Restructuring Commission is very analogous to the Education Improvement Commission in terms of having a concentration of power, so it informs the debate on education to look at health to find out what the government is doing in that field.

1120

Ontario is currently undertaking the largest shutdown of public hospitals in North American history. When it is over, Ontario will rank lowest in hospital beds per 1,000 people in Canada. In Metro Toronto, the Health Services Restructuring Commission has ordered the closing of 15 public hospitals, translating into the loss of 2,772 beds providing acute care, chronic care, rehabilitation and mental health addiction services. Those massive changes to our hospitals come at a time when the frail elderly population in Ontario is going to be growing by 42% within Metro Toronto. It is a massive abdication of public responsibility to the grandparents of the children in the day cares.

In terms of education, Bill 104 dealt with the issue of education governance and the concentration of power in the hands of the so-called Education Improvement Commission. Bill 160 takes up where Bill 104 left off. All power is now concentrated in cabinet. The province intends to do to education what it has done to health care and public hospitals. It wants to take $1 billion out of education, fire teachers, close schools and take total and absolute control.

Education spending in Ontario is not out of control. Ontario ranks 42nd in North America in terms of education spending. In Canada, we're right in the middle: Five provinces and territories spend more, six spend less. Under Bill 160, everything can be changed by regulation. That means it's not open to public scrutiny. That's totally unacceptable in a democracy.

One of the messes this government has been creating is the issue of standardized testing as a benchmark for quality of education. Let me tell you how it's done. It's pretty simple. You teach to the test, teach the student the materials they will be tested on, and they will improve dramatically. The second thing you do is that you select better students to be tested, and your test scores will go up. This is done in many of the jurisdictions you seem to be citing with standard, uniform tests, but you don't look at the testing procedure.

The key question for education is, where's the money? That has been the question that this government has been most reluctant to answer. Similarly, in terms of health care the issue of where the money is has not been answered.

I'd like to speak very briefly to the backbenchers. You people are members of provincial Parliament now. You will not be members of provincial Parliament for all your life. At some stage, you will have to look in a mirror as a citizen, you will have to walk down the street as a citizen, and you will have to ask your question, "What did I really contribute?" If in the end, all you can do is look in that mirror and say, "The shame, the horror," and admit you did nothing, then you are less than human beings.

Borrowing from my grade 13 teacher, I went to an anthology of verse to try to find a few words that would perhaps sum up the reluctance of members of this government to speak out in the public interest. I'd like to quote a few lines:

We are the hollow men

We are the stuffed men

Leaning together

Headpiece filled with straw.

You have the opportunity to change that. You have the opportunity to say to your government: "We've listened to the people. Bill 160 is unacceptable from a public interest point of view. Withdraw it." I thank you very much.

Applause.

The Vice-Chair: Please. You realize that demonstrations are not permitted. We won't tolerate that. Thank you.

We have approximately two and a half minutes per side. We'll start with Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was most eloquent. Kathleen, you mentioned in passing, on some of the issues about differentiation of staffing, so-called, that it wasn't acceptable to have in kindergarten or junior kindergarten one qualified, certified teacher and a bunch of other individuals, whether they be early childhood educators or whoever. I suppose you would say that could apply to any of the other areas, like music or physical education programs or art or computer technology, whatever.

Ms Wynne: Yes. I was just using that as an example.

Mr Wildman: We've heard from the Conservative members arguments about team teaching, that experts could be brought in to work with teachers. Right now we've heard from teachers that experts are brought into classrooms by teachers and they work with the teacher to provide their expertise to the students. What I'm hearing from you is that perhaps the team teaching concept may be changing so that the teacher isn't actually in the classroom. Somehow the teacher is responsible for supervising these so-called experts while they are in the classroom alone, leading the class. Is that what you're afraid of?

Ms Wynne: Yes. The way Bill 160 is written, it would be possible to have a so-called expert, who wasn't trained as a teacher, in the classroom. It may be that one of the suggestions could be, "We've got a trained teacher down the hall who is supervising that person." What team teaching means currently is that two qualified teachers work together on curriculum, on initiatives, on programs. It wouldn't be acceptable to us for teachers to have the supervisory capacity as well as the teaching role.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you for making your presentation. Education is important to all of us. You've said that your own children are in the public school system. I have four children in the system as well. One's in college, two are in high school, and one's in elementary school. To say we haven't listened to parents - I agree that there are parents who disagree with some of what has happened.

Ms Wynne: There are a lot.

Mr Froese: They didn't vote for us. But the argument has been made in your presentation, not specifically, but generally speaking, that we haven't been up front with the changes we would make to education. We have. We did that in the Common Sense Revolution; we did that before the election. Previous governments have also said they were going to change education.

You have the democratic right to come here and voice your opinion, but there are a lot of parents, a lot - if I go into my riding and look at those who have voiced their concerns, it's most recently seven to one in support of what the government is doing.

Ms Wynne: But where are they, Mr Froese? Why aren't they here speaking? Why weren't they at those hearings on Bill 104?

Mr Froese: Would you let me finish, please. I let you finish your presentation.

Ms Wynne: I was just answering your questions. Sorry.

Mr Froese: Some of this is just a difference of opinion.

I want to draw your attention to an article in the St Catharines Standard. It's an editorial that talks about the different roles all of us play in education. I'd like to get your opinion. I'll paraphrase it because it's too long to go into.

They want to clarify the role of what was happening in education. They suggest a model that features the customers, the management and service providers. They're saying that the parents are the customers within the system. The outcomes of the education system should be measured and evaluated by parents, and parents only. Next they turn to the government, the administrative branch of the education system. They represent the managers in the model, and their responsibility is for a long-term strategy, design enhancement of the education system, and changes, keeping in mind that they change it according to the needs of the customers, the parents. The parents are the customers, and if they're not satisfied with the outcomes, the judgement will come. Governments are aware of parents' concern, and that's part and parcel of why we're changing education.

1130

The teachers, in the model, are the service providers. It talks about the role as crucial, and I totally agree with that. They're the front-line delivery people who do that from day to day. However, it says it's dangerous to evaluate teachers beyond the important role they serve. Class size, curriculum and other standards of education have no place in a collective bargaining agreement or organized labour. The government has asked the teachers for alternatives to meet the targets of class size and teaching time and to reaffirm their resolve in meeting those targets. The article says the issues must stay in the hands of those responsible for designing the system, not those delivering it. I'd like your comment on it.

Mr Garland: That was excellent paraphrasing.

Ms Wynne: I categorically reject the analogy between the school system and a business. My children's souls and my children's lives are not a product, the way a shoe is a product, so I don't think you can make the comparison. I think it's flawed, so we can't even have that conversation.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not sure if it was the same poem, The Hollow Men, that ends, "That's the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper." Thanks to continued efforts by parent networks, which are in themselves new - the formation of parent networks is a function of response to Bill 104, where parents felt compelled to find ways of speaking out with a loud enough and a large enough voice that government might understand that this is truly as broadly based a voice of parents as you can possibly muster. It's a lot more than a whimper, and I'm glad you're still here.

I don't know how broad the network has to be. I don't know how many parent representative groups have to present to this government to make the government realize that these are real parent concerns. I sat through every hearing on Bill 104, as Mr Froese did. There was not one representative parent council presentation in support of that bill, yet that bill went ahead virtually unchanged in terms of the issues parents were concerned about.

Ms Wynne: That's right. The seven-to-one number is very questionable. I don't know where that would come from.

Mrs McLeod: If you were to ask people whether they agree that there could be changes in public education, whether we should have more centralized curriculum, whether we should have standards, whether we want excellence, I'd be surprised if you found one who wasn't supportive of that general direction.

The statement that struck me in your presentation was "the parents whom you have come to see as the enemy." What an incredible way for parents who come together to try to express their concerns for education to feel, that they have come to be the government's enemy on issues of the education of their children. I guess that's exactly the way teachers are feeling too, that government has now put them into the camp of the enemy.

Maybe it is a rhetorical question, but how does the government think they can actually improve the education of children by making parents and teachers enemies?

Ms Wynne: The only way I can answer that is that it goes back to this desire to compare the education system with business, the competitiveness and the adversarial nature that some people think is productive, so maybe by making us the enemy and having a fight, somehow we'll end up with something good. I think it's wrongheaded.

As a final word, I would ask that the folks here go and talk to your people and try to make a difference on Bill 160, so we can not have the kind of bang that we may have over the next number of weeks.

Mrs McLeod: Even businesses think employees are an asset, if you want productivity.

Ms Wynne: That's right.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation today.

NANCY WAGNER

The Vice-Chair: I call the next presenter, Nancy Wagner.

Mrs Nancy Wagner: Hello. My name is Nancy Wagner. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am a director of the Organization for Quality Education. My husband and I own a retail business in Waterloo. I am a member of the K-W Chamber of Commerce and sit on its education committee. I'm a registered nurse. I am a taxpayer in Ontario. Most importantly, I'm a parent of three children, and this is why I've asked to appear before you today.

The teachers' unions have done a masterful job of putting their side of the argument against Bill 160 in front of the public. I have received "the facts" about the bill hand-delivered to my home. Union reps have spoken at school council meetings with no one encouraged to present the government side. Although the official union position is that the classroom is not to be politicized, students are allowed to walk out of classrooms all over the province with few repercussions. When I found out this was to happen at my child's school, I asked what steps administration was taking. I was told that the students would be allowed a little time for their demonstration and then staff would thank them for their support and ask them to come back to class.

Recently, an Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association bulletin printed a speech by Annie Kidder. This speech, given at the rally at Maple Leaf Gardens, was distributed to teachers, who were asked to share its contents with school councils. In her text, Ms Kidder states that Bill 160 allows the government "to decide, if they want, that no one has to be a certified teacher in order to teach in our schools." These are very inflammatory words, which are allowed wide distribution without challenge.

Barry Lillie, a teacher and an OSSTF staff president, wrote a letter to our newspaper a few days ago. What follows is excerpted from his letter:

"I volunteered to be our school's OSSTF staff president. I did so because I was disturbed that our federation had joined the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) without directly consulting members. Most teachers were shocked at the disrespect this decision showed towards school units. Now teachers have the spectacle of Bob White (CLC president) and Sid Ryan (CUPE president) speaking on their behalf."

He goes on: "For the past 14 months, our staffs have been prepared for this moment by a relentless stream of material intended to indoctrinate or overwhelm teachers for the inevitable struggle against Mike Harris. Our executives' writings have likened the elected majority Harris government to the Nazis of the 1930s.... Most alarming was the way the May 1997 strike mandate was obtained. Our executive told our staff prior to the vote that this would be a legal job action, that it was a legal protest. No one is saying that now. The legal claim was done to obtain support from reluctant staffs.... Truth was set aside for the cause."

Mr Lillie goes on to say: "Our federation feared the loss of the right to strike, yet supports an illegal job action. Who needs the legal right to strike if you believe you can ignore contracts whenever you choose?

"At this moment in every school, war rooms are being formed. They are trying to identify those teachers who, driven by conscience, would cross the picket line, or what teachers are too soft to effectively man the lines. I am in this group."

At the end, Mr Lillie states, "It is time for the following to take a public stand for a new, fair negotiating process: my colleagues who have wanted to avoid confronting the movement to illegally strike; the parents' councils who are sitting on the fence trying not to offend the teachers; and the media, who have been a part of the spectacle."

I believe the above examples illustrate that students are mere pawns in the war between the government and unions for control of education's purse-strings. This battle has been going on for years and it did not begin with this government.

On April 23, 1992, Dalton McGuinty, Liberal MPP, introduced a private member's bill, Bill 14. This was An Act to amend the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. It was debated at second reading on May 7, 1992. Although Mr McGuinty obviously recognized the need to limit teachers' right to strike, his bill did not pass.

The previous government's education minister, the Honourable David Cooke, established the Royal Commission on Learning. Its report was titled For the Love of Learning. On page 11 of the short version it states:

"In the schools we envision, by no means would all educators be formally certified teachers and therefore members of one of the teachers' unions or federations. The fancy name for this is differentiated staffing, and we know full well that it is an idea that has met resistance at the union level in the past. We understand and are wholly sympathetic with the mandate of the unions to protect the legitimate job security and benefits of its members. But there is a principle even more overriding than this one: The interests of good teaching and good learning must always come first. We can only hope that the unions cooperate for the sake of the students."

Gerry Caplan, now a spokesperson for the unions, was one of the co-chairs of the Royal Commission on Learning.

Partisan politics should be set aside and the leaders of all three parties should be working for a better educational environment for our children.

I applaud the government's decision to reduce the number of school boards and trustees. For too long parents have had the illusion of accountability. It is the rare group of trustees who are able to fend off the manipulations of board staff. Unfortunately, our elected representatives are mere rubber stamps to decisions made before trustees are even able to debate their merits.

1140

I cite the following example: At the Waterloo County Board of Education, trustees were surprised to find that a school had been built, designated as a multi-age grouping school, without their knowledge. Outraged trustees were assured that this mistake would not be repeated nor would trustees be bypassed again. Two years later the scene repeated itself, only this time two multi-age grouping schools were under way. If this is local accountability, I am happy to centralize power at Queen's Park.

Real accountability at the school level will happen when we have school councils that are not merely advisory in nature. School councils should have the authority to do school testing and report to parents. They must be able to make important decisions such as how to spend the school's budget and what the particular identity and characteristics of the school should be. Are school councils, as presently constituted, ready to take on these responsibilities? Probably not.

Just as astronomy classes tend to draw more serious students than astrology classes, so too do advisory committees appeal to quite different individuals than decision-making committees. Councils with no decision-making powers are run by the principal, who is in de facto command.

What is at the heart of this dispute between the government and the unions? It appears to be more about teachers' collective bargaining rights than children's' education. The unions see themselves as the guardians of education. If they are also the guardians of students, then beside the button that says "Cuts Hurt Kids" will be another button that reads "Strikes Hurt Kids."

Finally, I want to find out who is running the education system in the province of Ontario. If it is the government, then I have made my presentation in the right place, here at Queen's Park. If it is the unions, then I should be down at federation headquarters, because I am wasting my time here.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for that presentation. We have less than a minute per side. We'll start with the government; try to keep it down to the minute, please.

Mr Newman: I'll be very quick. Thank you very much for coming and making that presentation today.

An article appeared in the Globe and Mail today by Jeffrey Simpson. I don't know if you've read it. I'd like your comment on it. In the second- and third-last paragraphs he says:

"For almost a decade, successive Ontario governments have been struggling to get that improved performance taxpayers deserve and students require. It has meant a series of bruising battles with the province's teachers unions, which are not accustomed to losing and can bring mighty pressure to bear on public opinion.

I'd like your comments on what he said today.

Mrs Wagner: I agree with that. That is why I'm here today. It's not in the capacity of any of the other roles I take. I don't want my children as pawns any more. I'm asking the government to get on with the changes. I didn't really speak about quality of education today, because these battles between the government and the unions are getting in the way of quality education.

Mrs McLeod: I just want to note for the record that the statement that was made by Ms Kidder that Bill 160 allows the government to decide, if it wants, that no one has to be a certified teacher in order to teach in our schools is an accurate, legal reading of Bill 160.

Mrs Wagner: And you believe that is what the government would do and that's not an inflammatory statement?

Mrs McLeod: If I may, I'm correct. I am making it very clear that Ms Kidder's statement was absolutely accurate in terms of the powers that are given, not even to the elected majority in the Legislature but to the cabinet of Ontario, to make those kinds of decisions, to make a decision as explicit - it's in the bill. It says that no one needs to be presumed to have to be a teacher just because they are teaching a class. From that point on, it says the cabinet can decide who indeed needs to be a teacher in order to head a class. The College of Teachers, an independent body established by this government to ensure that teachers met a standard of certification and a standard of professional behaviour, came yesterday and said those clauses have to come out.

Ms Lankin: Thank you for your presentation. Obviously, you come at this issue from a different perspective than the presenters who were just here, but you're both representative of parents' voices. The one thing I hear clearly from all parents who have come forward is a call for accountability, clear lines of accountability, and the role for parents as well.

One of the criticisms we have heard of this bill is that, just as Mrs McLeod said, too much is left in terms of regulatory powers. Would you support spelling out the roles of the council more clearly in legislation or setting the maximum class size in legislation or setting what groups of people would be considered, other than teachers, in what areas? Would you support a move that brings more of that into legislation and leaves less control behind closed doors, where parents, legislators, unions and anyone else can't have comment on it?

Mrs Wagner: I'm not an expert in legislative language, but I do know that in the system we have right now people seem to be worried about the secrecy behind closed doors at Queen's Park. We have that in every school board right now. Every issue that comes up that the school board doesn't want the public to know about becomes an in camera meeting.

Ms Lankin: Would you support those kinds of amendments?

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We wish it was a little bit longer, but time doesn't permit.

ROBERT SERVICE
SENIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL
PARENTS ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Vice-Chair: I call the next presenters, the Robert Service Senior Public School Parents Advisory Council.

Ms Deborah Anne Rinneard-Knapp: Good morning. My name is Deborah Anne Rinneard-Knapp. I'm with the Robert Service Senior Public School Parents Advisory Council. I am the chairperson. On October 17, 1997, we had an emergency meeting. This emergency meeting was about Bill 160. As parents who are very concerned, we got together and composed this letter. It states:

"Bill 160 is very long and covers many areas, but it has no specific details. As members of the Robert Service Senior Public School council, we have the following questions concerning Bill 160 and require a definitive response which sets out the details and parameters so that we know how the bill will affect the education of our children.

"(1) Is it constitutional for a non-elected group, the EIC, to make such far-reaching decisions which will have dramatic impact on how education will be delivered in Ontario that are `final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court'?

"(2) The government has said that Bill 160 will improve the quality of education. Where would the accountability be to the Legislature, the public and the students if the minister or the EIC makes mistakes with some of the details put into the regulations?"

I'd like to add to this that I've made this two-way. The Oxford English Dictionary says that accountability means being liable, responsible and called to account for your actions. I'm questioning the accountability in Bill 160. Where is the accountability going to come from? Just voting the governing party out of office is not good enough. We need accountability here. Police officers are accountable to the special investigations unit, doctors are accountable to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, lawyers are account to the Law Society of Upper Canada and teachers are now accountable to the College of Teachers. Where will the EIC and the minister be accountable to? That's a very valid question.

"(3) How will a board's funding be determined? What criteria, guidelines or special needs will be used or taken into account? Will there be special consideration for English as a second language, for busing, for immigrant students, for a large population of low-income families?"

I come from the Scarborough Junction, and just in that area alone we have a lot of immigrants and a lot of low-income families. We need these issues addressed specifically, especially for our area, because we have a lot of special needs.

"What is considered `in a fair and non-discriminatory manner'? Does that mean an equal amount of funding per student no matter what special situations are present?

"4) What is appropriate class size? Will this be the same for all grades? How will class size be determined?

"(5) With regard to school advisory councils, how can you legislate a body which is, by definition, made up of volunteers? Will the government be providing training for members of the school advisory councils since they will have increased powers?"

Another reason to ask this question is that our school is only a two-year school, so the parents only have two years on the council. We need training for the parent advisory council so they know what they're doing when they're coming in.

"Legislation should be specific, detailed and limited in scope and power. We need the details before a law is enacted."

My husband and I were discussing this last night, just as a couple. We were looking at this and saying it's like building a house. You've got the structure there and you've got the outside wall there, but the regulations you're planning on putting in is like stuffing a wall, and you're going to stuff it after the law is implemented. I believe we need to know the regulations before the law is implemented and before the law is enacted.

"Real change can only happen when it is well understood, properly paced and supported by appropriate funding and training. These are only a few of our many concerns. We would appreciate a direct response to our questions.

"The Robert Service Senior Public School council."

1150

I would also like to add a personal point. I have three children, Tanya, Tasha and Brandon. Tanya and Tasha go to Walter Perry, Brandon goes to Robert Service. They're all in the Junction area. They're all special-needs children with special education needs, and they're getting that support right now. I'm very concerned. If they don't get that support, what are they going to do? Are they going to be discouraged? Are they going to drop out? I try to encourage them as much as I possibly can.

The teachers in this area are doing a terrific job, a very good job. I admire the principals. They work very hard at what they do. I even believe sometimes that they're underpaid for all the pressures they are put under. I am not a spokesman for the school principal. I am speaking as a parent, and I am speaking from the point of view of our parent advisory council. I'm not a puppet in anybody's hand. I also want to know, personally and as a parent. I just don't want, if you make a mistake, to vote you out; I want to be able to know that there is some type of accountability for any mistake that is made.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We're getting close to the time. We have about 30 seconds per party, starting with the Liberals.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): You are speaking as a parent. How well aware of the contents of this bill are the parents out there?

Ms Rinneard-Knapp: The parent advisory councils in the area are getting pretty active. They're beginning to understand the implications of the bill. They have been reading up on it. As a matter of fact, even myself - Dan was good enough to give me a copy of Bill 160. I received it last night and I read 170 pages, to be precise. I did find it quite vague, with a lot of legalese, but I am beginning to understand.

As for the other parents in the neighbourhood, yes, a lot of parents are upset because the government isn't listening. They are glad there are these public hearings happening right now so we can come forward and speak our minds.

Mr Sergio: If you had a message for the government, what would it be?

Ms Rinneard-Knapp: Accountability, definitely. We need a type of structure for accountability.

Ms Lankin: Picking up on that, the previous presenter didn't want to answer my question at the end and sort of sidestepped it. Let me ask you: Would you prefer to be debating legislation and having in legislation what the class size will be? Would you prefer to be debating what the government's plans are in terms of using non-certified instruction, in what areas they plan to use that and in determining whether those things actually contribute to quality? Do you think this bill provides accountability, the way it's structured?

Ms Rinneard-Knapp: At this time, the bill is vague, not specific. It doesn't state numbers. It doesn't get to specifics, it doesn't tell detail, and that seems to be a very bad problem there.

Mr Newman: Thank you, Deborah, for coming to Queen's Park today to express the views of the Robert Service school advisory council.

I just want to give you my assurance as your local member that I will do whatever I can to get those questions you have answered, get those answers from the Ministry of Education for you.

Ms Rinneard-Knapp: I appreciate that.

Mr Newman: I had a chance to visit Robert Service during the Take Your MPP to School Day. Deborah was there, and we had a good discussion. I think we're meeting again.

Ms Rinneard-Knapp: As a matter of fact, this Friday. We have other issues to discuss.

Mr Newman: Yes. I checked my schedule today, and we're meeting on Friday.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for the presentation.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I appreciate that Mr Newman just committed to follow up and get that information for Deborah. I think it would be information the committee would appreciate having as well. For example, what is appropriate class size? We have been wanting to have that information in front of us, and we should have that before the bill is passed. I appreciate that you have undertaken to get that information, and perhaps you'll share it with the rest of us.

ONTARIO EDUCATION ALLIANCE,
YORK REGION

The Vice-Chair: I call the next group, the Ontario Education Alliance, York Region. Please introduce yourselves.

Mrs Cyndie Jacobs: My name is Cyndie Jacobs, of the Ontario Education Alliance of York Region.

Ms Jean Davies: My name is Jean Davies, from York region as well.

Mr Steve Bull: My name is Steve Bull.

Mrs Jacobs: As parents and teachers from the Ontario Education Alliance, we believe that all of our students, their parents and their teachers will be adversely affected by the provisions of Bill 160. It is therefore incumbent upon us to speak against this legislation.

The government has insisted that its primary goal is to improve the education our students receive. This is a noble goal, and as teachers, we have always had the best interests of our students in mind. However, we do not believe that most of the provisions of Bill 160 will improve the education system for our students. As teachers, parents, taxpayers and socially conscious citizens, we believe that certain principles must be maintained in any educational initiative.

First, there must be no adverse impact upon students and educational programs. Second, every student in an Ontario classroom must be taught by a qualified teacher. Third, teachers have a right to have all terms and conditions of employment negotiated through direct and free collective bargaining. Finally, local school boards must maintain their constitutional right to levy taxes to meet the needs of their local circumstances. Bill 160 is both unacceptable and undemocratic since it violates all these principles.

The first thing that must be understood is that teachers are not resistant to change. Educators take it upon themselves to implement changes they believe will benefit students. The Royal Commission on Learning stated it best when it remarked that it witnessed countless positive changes implemented by schools, administrators and teachers across the province.

Despite government rhetoric to the contrary, change takes place continually in education. What educators find distressing is the fact that governments make changes far too often and tend to do this for political rather than pedagogical reasons. With each change in government comes a change in initiatives. Teachers are never provided the opportunity to implement changes fully before they are told that what were new initiatives only two to three years ago are now being replaced. With respect to curriculum changes, for example, one educational expert at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education has stated that curriculum usually takes five years to be fully implemented. You can imagine the chaos created in classrooms when governments force boards to change curriculum every three to five years. Change for the sake of change is not progress. Democratically elected governments have an obligation to understand the consequences of their actions.

1200

As the royal commission concluded with respect to implementing change, changes that serve to bewilder families, demoralize teachers, confuse students and alienate the community seem a rather excessive price to pay in the hot pursuit of education reform. Whether better schools are really the key to Ontario's competitiveness in a harsh new world seems to us debatable at best. But surely a destabilized education system can be guaranteed not to help. Our current government has not learned the lessons of recent history nor considered the implications of its current reform agenda. The government's reform policies and Bill 160 are destablizing Ontario's public education system.

Ms Davies: In our opinion, as educators who deal with students on a daily basis, virtually all aspects of Bill 160 will have a detrimental effect upon our students, either directly or indirectly. Students will feel the impact of significantly fewer teachers when preparation time is cut or eliminated and unqualified instructors replace professionally qualified and trained teachers. Among other things, course selection will be drastically narrowed, there will be fewer extra- and cocurricular activities, class size will increase, students will receive less individual attention, and there will be less evaluative feedback on assignments.

The cuts which will result from Bill 160 are on top of those already imposed by the previous government's social contract and the cuts made by this government. In fact, this government's removal of funding for junior kindergarten and adult education and proposed cuts to Ontario academic credit courses make no sense in light of its assertion that the time students spend in school is important to the quality of learning. These cuts suggest that the goal is not to improve the quality of education but to reduce funding to Ontario's public education system.

Just over a year ago, the Minister of Education and Training introduced the College of Teachers, stating that with such a college ensuring high standards for the teaching profession, parents could be assured that students were receiving the best teaching possible by the best teachers. Bill 160, however, makes provision for replacing many teaching positions with unqualified instructors. This legislation is not about improving the quality of education but about eliminating qualified teachers and reducing funding to the education system.

Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, permits any term or condition of employment to be bargained and the Ontario Labour Relations Act does not exclude any item from bargaining. Yet Bill 160 proposes regulatory control of (a) class size, (b) teaching time, (c) non-teaching time, (d) teacher qualifications, (e) the school year, school day, professional activity days etc, and (f) work time prior to Labour Day for teachers. These controls virtually eliminate all negotiable items.

Apart from excluding teachers from true free collective bargaining, the regulatory control of these items contravenes democratic conduct as set down by the International Labour Organization, a branch of the United Nations. In addition, the provision which would bind arbitrators to consider the employer's ability to pay is a most dangerous one. Arbitrators must put pedagogical needs ahead of monetary ones. Having to consider the ability to pay could allow programs to be underfunded or eliminated. There is no provision to maintain or improve upon the system. If a board grows and requires additional funding or wishes to improve its programming, there is no guarantee the funding will be there. The bottom line wins out over the needs of the students.

Mr Bull: Bill 160, in combination with Bill 104 and the proposed funding model, emasculates local boards and removes local accountability from trustees. It places it with the more distant and therefore unapproachable provincial powers. Gone will be the days when a parent whose child is at a community school can call a trustee who has the understanding of the local school and of the individual needs of the students. In a democratic society, autonomy and accountability must remain at the local level.

We believe that in order for real improvement to occur in the public schools across Ontario, the government must be committed to:

(1) Adequate funding for all students. Ontario ranks sixth in per pupil expenditures when compared to the other nine provinces and two territories and 46th when American states are included in the ranking.

(2) Allowing school boards the right to set educational taxes locally to ensure local programs can be maintained or improved.

(3) Guaranteeing free collective bargaining of all terms and conditions of employment.

(4) Reinstating full funding for junior kindergarten. All research shows that this is extremely vital to the education of all young children.

(5) Ensuring that a varied course selection is available in all secondary schools.

(6) Removing or drastically reducing regulatory control of the education system and reinstating shared decision-making, ensuring educators are consulted extensively and meaningfully.

(7) Encouraging, through adequate funding, boards to limit class sizes.

(8) Discouraging high-stakes system-wide testing. All available research indicates that such testing is detrimental to student learning.

(9) Providing educators with professional development free of charge in conjunction with school boards, universities, teachers' federations and other professional agencies.

(10) Ensuring that educators have adequate non-instructional time to complete assessment and evaluation, parent contact etc, through adequate funding.

Bill 160 is called the Education Quality Improvement Act, but we find little in the way of improvement for our students. The previous Minister of Education promised to create a useful crisis in order to change the education system. Our provincial government has succeeded in this regard. But as we have argued, change for the sake of change is not progress. Democratically elected governments must understand the consequences of their actions. We do not believe that the implications of Bill 16O for the education system have been adequately or critically understood by the government.

The Vice-Chair: Your time limit has gone; it does go by very quickly.

This brings to the end the morning session. We will resume at 1 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1208 to 1300.

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Ms Lankin?

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I wanted to begin this afternoon by raising a point of significant concern. You will know that through the course of these hearings we have on a continual basis raised our concern that we are holding hearings on a bill absent a very critical piece of information, which is the government's budget for the Ministry of Education and their intentions with respect to further cuts from the education budget.

Over the past number of months, there had been speculation that $1 billion was to be cut from the education budget. We know that in the last two weeks the government has been suggesting that's not correct and that that information is erroneous. Yesterday my colleague Bud Wildman, who is our education critic, put forward in the course of discussion with one of the groups that it is our understanding the budget cuts that are intended are in the order of $600 million, and that is absolutely unacceptable to a quality education system.

That number has been pooh-poohed, but I think it's important for the committee to know this has now been confirmed. In fact the leader of my party, Howard Hampton, and Bud Wildman about an hour ago released to the media copies of the performance contract of Veronica Lacey, the Deputy Minister of Education and Training, in which it spells out very clearly that her performance this year will be judged by her success in achieving a $667-million cut to the 1998-99 budget of the Ministry of Education.

In light of that information, I feel this whole committee process with respect to Bill 160 has been completely compromised by the government. This information has been known to the government and I suspect to at least the parliamentary assistant, if not the government members of the committee, and we have repeatedly asked for conformation about whether there would be cuts to the budget and have not had that information provided. That this certainly casts a completely different light on the contents of Bill 160 without specifying in the legislation what class sizes will be, what non-certified instructors' positions will be, all the things we've been raising concerns about. To look at that in light of a $667-million cut to the budget of the education ministry for elementary and secondary education in this province - we understand very clearly what the intent of the bill is and it's entirely different from what has been presented, from what was presented by the parliamentary assistant in his opening remarks to this committee.

I look for some guidance from you, Mr Chair, because I believe the members of the public who have been asked to come forward have not been provided with full information, so the context of their remarks has changed dramatically by this information. I believe it would be appropriate for the committee to be adjourned until the minister can come forward and confirm what the budget intentions are, so that this bill can be seen very clearly in the light of the fiscal directives of the government to give us a fuller understanding of what the impact of the bill will be.

I suspect the parliamentary assistant will want to make some comments. I won't put a motion forward at this time, but it strikes me that given the urgency of clarity, given the discussions taking place between the federations and the minister at this time, given that we could be 48 hours away from a potential province-wide strike affecting over two million children and given that we have all been asking for this information and now have confirmation of the government's intent to cut another $667 million from the budget, it would be appropriate for the minister to come forward and for this information to be confirmed on the record prior to any more public deputations being made, in order to inform those public deputations and the members of the committee.

The Chair: Is this a point of order?

Ms Lankin: It isn't a point of parliamentary order. Obviously what I am raising is a very significant concern which I believe has a dramatic impact on the course of these public hearings. I will, if you wish, put a motion forward at this time, but I would first like to offer the parliamentary assistant an opportunity to respond to the concerns I've raised and see if there is a consensual way we could proceed at this time.

The Chair: Number one, it is not a formal point of order, which is the only matter I have to deal with under the rules. Secondly, as you are not a member of this committee, you cannot propose a motion at this time.

Ms Lankin: Yes, I can. I can't vote on it, Mr Chair, but I can propose a motion.

The Chair: Perhaps we'll have to consider that statement. You're telling me that even though you are not a member of this committee, you have the right to move a motion?

Ms Lankin: I can draw on precedents on a number of other occasions where I have been allowed to do so by the Chair. At this point, however, Mr Chair, what I am trying to do is actually raise an issue of significant concern. There may be a consensual way with the parliamentary assistant that we could agree to proceed. I believe it has direct bearing on the continuation of these hearings and the context in which public deputants are coming forward. I'm bringing this information to inform the committee and asking that we may have a brief discussion about how that should affect our proceedings at this point in time.

The Chair: Okay. Number one, it is not a proper point of order. Number two, you are not a member and therefore cannot move a motion. However, you have posed a question to the parliamentary assistant, which is permissible. He can answer it now or at some later time.

Mr Smith: I'm certainly prepared to respond to it. From my perspective - I don't know what material Ms Lankin is speaking of, even though she has indicated I have some familiarity or understanding of the numbers that have been proposed by her.

What I can say to this committee and to others who are in attendance here is that the government has made very clear its intention to stabilize funding through the 1998 year up to $14 billion. There have been no final decisions as to the new funding formula.

I have been here, as have you. I fully appreciate the concern and interest in that funding model. We have been consulting with expert panels since May of this year. We continue to consult and seek advice, to ensure that the funding model appropriately addresses all issues of concern to parents and teachers and students. Those decisions have not concluded, so it's difficult for me to respond to speculative numbers, because those decisions have not been made. In fact, the commitment to provide stabilized funding through the next school year is there and in place.

I would leave that with the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I appreciate the issue she's trying to address. From my point of view it would be the government's viewpoint that these proceedings should continue. Certainly the suggestion that the member has made does not compromise the context or the remarks we are receiving from deputants here today. I'm duly noting the concerns that are being expressed about availability of funding formula.

I can assure people here that we are taking every opportunity available to us to ensure the funding model is right. We are taking time to do that. In the interim we have recognized that there is a need to provide stable funding through a transition period. Those are the decisions that have been made to date, and nothing beyond that.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair -

The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Lankin. I've made a ruling that it's not a proper point of order. You've asked a question; you've received the answer.

1310

Ms Lankin: I have another question to ask. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant to obtain and file with this committee - I'll even make available a copy of it to him, but I'm sure he'll want to obtain it from the ministry - the 1997-98 performance contract for Veronica Lacey, the Deputy Minister of Education and Training. I would ask him specifically for clarification - if you look to the documents attached to the environmental scan, you'll see the ministry-specific expectations. It's on page 2 of that, under the key result areas, dealing with elementary and secondary school. The results expected spell out the following:

"A new funding model in place, September 1998" - which we haven't seen yet at this committee - "that will allocate education revenues fairly among school boards, provide resources to ensure high-quality education, protect the investment of special education, children at risk, and ESL programs.

"Capital investment - "

The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Lankin, there's no need to read a document.

Ms Lankin: I'm asking for clarification.

The Chair: Ask the question.

Ms Lankin: There are three points I'm asking for clarification on. I'm just reading those three points. I'm not reading the whole document.

"Capital investments of $650 million during 1997-98 and 1998-99 to renew and build schools." And most specifically, I say to the parliamentary assistant, "Plan for the 1998-99 $667-million reduction" to be "in place."

That clearly specifies there has been a fiscal decision taken. I would ask you to go back and clarify with the ministry and provide us with a clarification of that specific direction to your deputy minister.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Lankin.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF
TEACHING PARENTS

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents. Good afternoon. I'd ask you to identify yourselves and proceed with your presentation.

Mr Albert Lubberts: Thank you very much. My name is Albert Lubberts. I'm the president of the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents and one of the founding members. This is my assistant here, who happens to also be my daughter Marnie. She's with us today as well.

Our presentation is going to be from the perspective of home-based educators and the experiences we've had with school boards, with the ministry, and how we see that tying into the new proposed Education Quality Improvement Act.

First of all, to introduce the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents, we were organized in 1987 to address the common concerns of home schooling parents in Ontario, and to this day we still do that. We are a non-sectarian, non-profit organization, and we strongly support parental choice in education and we support the parent's right to due process of law. We also act as a link between many home educators in Ontario and the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, and also we lobby on behalf of our constituents.

We believe the Ontario Education Act is very good in respect to home-based education. We believe it is one of the best in Canada, as such, as far as home-based education is concerned, though we do recognize that some changes for the better could be made in regard to private schools.

Historically, throughout the history of the Education Act and the way it has come to us today, the people of Ontario have clearly expressed a desire to have choice for how their children should be educated. The act allows that. The act, for example, allows parents to choose to send their children to the taxpayer-funded public or Catholic schools. Parents may choose to send their child to one of 600-plus independent inspected schools which use the Ontario curriculum and employ certified teachers. Further, parents may choose to send their child to a non-inspected private school that employs teachers who meet the standards of that particular group of parents. As well, parents may choose to educate their children at home. The Education Act allows each one of these options for parents today.

The Education Act, though, has a system of checks and balances. It's not that children would not be ensured of receiving the education they deserve between the ages of six and 16. There are all sorts of checks in there that make sure children are actually educated. We have compulsory education in Ontario, but not compulsory public school attendance, and there is a difference between the two.

The Education Act not only ensures that the Ministry of Education and Training is notified, but also allows for the inspection of private school records to ensure a system of instruction is in place. The Ministry of Education staff are not given the right to impose public school standards on independent schools that do not use certified teachers or follow the Ontario curriculum. Section 16 of the Ontario Education Act governs all our private schools.

The same principles apply to parents educating their children at home. Section 21(2) lists eight different reasons where a child is excused from attendance at school. "School," as used in the Education Act, always refers to the taxpayer-funded public or Catholic school systems. Section 21(2)(a) is of special interest to home-based educators because it says,

"(2) A child is excused from attendance at school if,

"(a) the child is receiving satisfactory instruction at home or elsewhere."

This permits the parents to set up a program of education for their child that they are satisfied with. As in all other cases, the parents have the right to choose whatever program they believe is most satisfactory for their child. This may be in the public school, in an inspected private school, in a non-inspected private school or at home with a program designed by the parents.

Section 24(2) allows the provincial school attendance counsellor to set up an inquiry procedure to determine "the validity of the reason or excuse for non-attendance and the other relevant circumstances, and for such purpose shall appoint one or more persons who are not employees of the board that operates the school that the child has the right to attend to conduct a hearing and to report to the provincial school attendance counsellor the result of the inquiry."

Again we have this set of checks and balances that ensures each and every individual child in Ontario receives the proper education. It's always the parents that determine what is satisfactory for the child.

Therefore, in a taxpayer-funded education system, close cooperation between parents, teachers and administrators is a must. We cannot operate a public system without it. Mutual trust must exist to ensure that the educational needs of each and every child at every age level are met, and that is not easy. Children do not always learn at the same rate. Some learn reading easier than others and at an earlier age than others. Some learn adding and subtracting at an earlier age than others. That does not make the other children stupid; it just points out the fact that all children learn differently.

This of course makes teaching children a very daunting, challenging and rewarding task. So there is a lot of work to do with this, that teachers have, that parents have, and it has to be a cooperative effort all the way around. Parents must always have a say in the education of their children, whichever form they decide to employ in Ontario. No one knows the needs of the child better than the caring parent.

An education system should foster an environment that encourages learning, an environment that encourages the child to reach out for his or her best. It should encourage the child to develop meaningful sets of experiences that would help the child to learn particular skills or trades, especially in the secondary school level. Credentialism and expertism - two new words I just made up, I guess - run rampant in our society but can often mean little in reality. Real life experiences are not often included as counting for much today, which is exactly the way the public system has got itself into the mess we see today. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here, having hearings on how to revitalize the education system.

Another thing OFTP cannot accept is the current concept that children are "clients" of an education system. Parents are paying for the Catholic or public school systems, and for many, there is no alternative. They have no means of having their children educated any other way. There can be no switching to a different system as one might change doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants etc, if one is not satisfied with the original, so the taxpayer-funded system must meet the needs of each and every child it enrols.

Another point in respect to the proposed act: The centralization of power allows a very few bureaucrats to make important decisions on behalf of many, with few checks and balances. This increases the risk of personal biases and prejudicial decisions can be the result. This is not idle speculation. I would like to give you just a few examples of how we, as home schooling, home-based educators have been affected by that because we are governed right now by very few bureaucrats with tremendous power.

The first point I would like to make is that parental rights can easily and often have been violated by school board and Ministry of Education staff, especially with respect to when school boards inform social service agencies and/or children's aid agencies about home-based educated children, alleging lack of instruction and/or child abuse. Due to receiving this information, social service agencies have improperly withheld funds and children's aid agencies have initiated investigations of child abuse about parents who have legally chosen to educate their children at home.

In one area in Ontario the situation got so extreme that the local CAS passed a resolution that they would no longer investigate home-based educating families based on complaints from the local school board. There simply was never any evidence of abuse and the school board's requests were wasting the precious resources of the agency. Evidence clearly shows that parents who educate their child at home do so out of love and concern for the wellbeing of their child.

1320

Another area where we've had difficulties is in the attempted closure of private schools by Ministry of Education and Training staff. Parents have, as we stated earlier, the right to associate and operate non-inspected private schools. Certain staff at the ministry are refusing to recognize this parental right by refusing to recognize the duly filed notice of intent to operate a private school, as required by section 16. The Ministry of Education and Training states that these private schools, although being recognized for the last 10 years or more, suddenly do not meet the definition of "institution" when there was no amendment in the Education Act in this respect.

OFTP firmly believes this violates the written opinion of the counsel for legal services of the legislation branch of June 24, 1992. In writing, legal counsel says: "Private schools are, by definition, institutions. This does not mean that they are prohibited from operating on various campuses. The campuses may be at the homes of pupils, and the teachers may also be the parents of the pupils. However, unlike home schools, all campuses of the private school are covered by section 16. They must be identified to the ministry through the principal, headmaster, or person in charge of the private school. Ministry inspection powers apply to campuses."

As this unmistakably shows, parents have the right to operate home-based private schools. This is also supported by local zoning bylaws.

A third area in which we've had difficulty is regarding registration demands of home-based educators. School board superintendents are demanding that home-based educators register and request permission for home-based instruction of children. As noted earlier, section 21 allows parents to teach their children at home. They determine that this method will satisfy the needs of their child.

Counsel of legal services, legislation branch, agrees with the parents. In the same written document as I quoted earlier, he states, "There is no express requirement for the parent to notify the ministry that home schooling is being conducted." Despite this, parents are threatened with legal action if they do not register.

The following ad was placed in the local newspaper by a school board superintendent at the beginning of September, and I'm going to read it to you. It says:

"Notice to home schoolers: Parents who intend to home-school their children this year must obtain approval for their children's program from the superintendent of education with the Haliburton board of education. Please phone 457-1980 and ask for Julie to obtain registration forms. Parents failing to register with the board are in violation of section 30(l) of the Education Act and are therefore, upon conviction, subject to penalties imposed under the act. Please register by September 15, 1997."

Section 30(l) of the Education Act states, "A parent or guardian of a child of compulsory school age who neglects or refuses to cause the child to attend school is, unless the child is legally excused from attendance, guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $200." But children who are educated at home are legally excused by section 21(2). Yet the superintendent stated he had checked with the Ministry of Education and Training and was given the go-ahead for the advertisement.

This is not the only case. There's another one we've had in Oxford county. An Oxford county supervisor of student services demands that all parents who seek to teach their children at home fill out a home schooling letter of intent. The supervisor also states that he or his designate will determine satisfactory instruction and approve the home schooling program provided. Yet in the same letter the supervisor quotes section 24(2), stating "persons who are not employees of the board that operates the school that the child has the right to attend to conduct a hearing" to determine the validity of non-attendance at school. Obviously he contradicts himself in the very things he says.

During this last school year, there have been nine "satisfactory instruction" cases instigated by the provincial school attendance counsellor. In each case it was determined that the program of education satisfied the requirements of the parents of the child. Non-attendance at school was determined, in each case, to be valid under section 24(2).

All of these incidents can be traced back to the Ministry of Education staff and it is they who use their puppets in the school boards to carry out a personal agenda.

Further, and more serious, all these actions are taken without support from the Education Act. There is, as well, no official numbered policy memorandum that is being followed. This was confirmed by letter from the former Minister of Education Mr Snobelen to OFTP this summer.

These are areas where we've had difficulties with the Ministry of Education and the school boards and we're always dealing with only one or two individuals. So centralization of power, if the new act does that as well, can be an extremely dangerous thing and that's a major concern by OFTP constituents.

As well, OFTP families and children do all of this at their own cost. They pay their taxes. They support the public funded system. They don't complain about that for the most part. They freely and lovingly give to their children the time and resources required to meet the needs of their children.

These are all things that home-school families or home-based educators do freely with no help or funding from the provincial ministry. Yet these same home-based educators probably save the government $1.3 million in per capita funding alone every year. There are approximately 20,000 children who are educated at home or in parent-operated private schools. That of course does not go to say anything about hiring additional teachers if all of these were in the public school, or providing facilities for them. So the costs are much greater than just those saved by parents teaching their children at home and are legally doing so.

What has all of this got to do with the Education Quality Improvement Act? It's just this: It shows the ever-increasing need for parents to be more involved in their child's education. No, OFTP does not expect the government to dismantle the public system, but parents must be encouraged to get involved in the classroom and in the decision-making process. The new Bill 160 does not clearly outline how this would be attained, even though there are parent advisory councils that will be set up. That should be clarified in the act and parents must be more involved and encouraged to be more involved.

It's clear that too many officials in the school boards have absolutely no understanding of the Education Act or are wilfully ignoring it. Worse still are the Ministry of Education and Training staff, who from all available evidence are following their own agenda and forcing it on school boards. This government has done nothing to foster trust and cooperation, especially with the home-based educator groups. This government must start showing that parental desires to meet the needs of their children come first and foremost.

Money, when spent, must be spent in the classroom to benefit children with the latest state-of-the-art technology, innovative teaching methods, and constructing alliances with industry, business and professional organizations to provide student work skill, real life experiences. Administrative costs must be kept to the minimum.

We look forward to the time when parental rights will be respected and honoured by this government. Home-based education has flourished and has established a successful track record in Ontario. Families have worked well together to do that. There is no door closed to home-based educated children. They can go on to further education in colleges and universities. They can choose whatever career they want, just as they could through the public system.

We trust that the Ontario government will look long and hard at the changes it wants to make with the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, to see if these really meet the needs of children as determined by their parents.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for that presentation. That leaves us a little over two minutes a caucus and we'll start with Ms Lankin, in the NDP caucus.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate your both taking the time to be here today. I was struck by the problems you outlined that you've had in dealing with staff at board level or at ministry level - not you personally maybe but members of your organization.

One of the things we've heard from parents, whether they are parents who are involved in some of the parents' councils, some of the networks that have formed, parents have come forward from the quality education organization or home-teaching parents - there's been a common theme around this issue of accountability. One of the things that has disturbed me most about the particular bill in front of us is that despite the words that this is intended to improve quality of education, there are no measures in the bill that actually improve the quality of education. There are a number of areas which, depending on the government in power, whether it be this government or any other government, if they took those powers and acted one way it might improve quality of education, and if they took them and acted another way it would not improve quality of education. I worry that this kind of power is being taken into the centre of government without the checks and balances and parent involvement.

Do you feel this bill is of concern in that respect and would you support amendments that bring some of the government's stated intentions like a maximum class size, that information and specifics, directly into the legislation, in that and a number of other areas?

1330

Mr Lubberts: I think the proposed bill should do that simply because if you leave it to generalities, the Lieutenant Governor can do basically as he or she pleases. Usually these decisions can be left up to senior bureaucrats and so on and they can impose whatever they please, and it can change from government to government. That's what worries me. We may have a Conservative government for a number of years. We may have a Liberal government. We may have an NDP government. If they can pick and choose and do what they please with these things, we can have a real switch in how schools are operated every five years, for example, and that would be a real danger.

I think there have to be specifics mentioned in the act, outlined as such, as to exactly what the government is going to do. That way, it will stay stable for years to come unless there are specific amendments to the act and then everybody, again, can comment on them and have that particular input as well.

Mr Smith: Thank you both for your presentation today. Over the course of the day and a half that the committee has been sitting, we've heard some suggestions from groups and organizations that effectively they're confused as to why a group like yours would be invited to a committee to deal with public education. What would be your response to that suggestion?

Mr Lubberts: We were a little bit surprised ourselves, actually, that we did get invited to make a presentation at this particular hearing. We do have of course a very close interest and follow very closely what happens in the public system. In that sense, many of the children who are educated at home for the first elementary school years of their lives go to public high schools and so on afterwards, or they even go into schools later on. The children have to fit into that system without a major difference. Otherwise, it would be catastrophic to the child's learning process. We want to be able to work along with that to keep things streamlined in that respect so that we can always make sure the best happens for our children, because home-based education doesn't always go through for 12 years of a child's learning process in that sense. So yes, we are very involved in that sense. We are also still taxpayers as well, in that we support the public system in that way.

So both from our children's point of view, who may enter the system at any time, and through being taxpaying citizens of this province, we still want to maintain close contact with the public system. We're not anti-public-school in that sense, is what I'm trying to say.

Mr Smith: The legislation itself mandates the establishment of advisory school councils, and one of the questions that needs to be answered, obviously, is the extent and the roles and responsibilities that parents will play. I think you in your presentation, as have some others, suggested that the use of the word "advisory" automatically minimizes the role of school councils. Could you share with the committee your views in terms of the extent to which parents should be involved in their school community and its operations?

Mr Lubberts: Parents should be, first of all, as I mentioned, allowed in the classrooms themselves to see and have input on what is going on - not of course interrupting the class as it goes along - and if they see that things are not being done properly, there should be a mechanism in place where parents can actually raise that concern and, if the majority agree, have it changed. They should have input directly into classroom content and they should have input into the way these particular schools are run on a financial basis as well, as to what is happening from that perspective. They should be in the decision-making process from the financial end and have direct input as to what the curriculum and the priorities of the local area are.

"Advisory," of course - when one gives advice, it can be ignored. That's one thing that we are always a little leery of when that term is used.

Mrs McLeod: Since Mr Smith continues to attempt to be provocative with the question of whether there were criticisms of your being here, let me just for the record say that any concerns that were raised about home schoolers presenting to this committee were solely in the context of a very exclusionary process that had been introduced by the minister in which there did appear to be an imbalance of those who were involved in alternatives to the public system versus parents from parent councils and other parent groups who had chosen to look for change inside the public system. If the process was not exclusive, there wouldn't have been any questions raised at all.

I'm glad to see your presentation. Bear with me if I emphasize a couple of things that you've repeated twice, because I think in today's climate it's an important message, and that is that close cooperation between parents, teachers and administrators is a must. Mutual trust must exist to ensure that the educational needs of each and every child at every age level are met. And you note about MET staff, ministry staff, who from all available evidence are following their own agenda and forcing it on school boards. I don't think that comes exclusively from ministry bureaucrats. It think there is very definitely a government hand behind that. But your statement really is that the government has done nothing to foster trust and cooperation. I really believe that's true, and I think it's leading us to some very, very sad outcomes almost as we speak.

I also note, and people who presented on behalf of home-schooling parents this morning made the same point, that you're concerned about centralization of power in the hands of a very few people. As others have gone through the legislation, they've noted 186 areas in which not the government by vote, but the cabinet itself can make decisions that fundamentally affect education.

One of the things that surprised me in your brief, though, was the concerns you have with the way in which they are dealing now with private schools and with home schools. I'd like to ask you just to comment on how you see the role of the ministry and perhaps how you see the role of school boards. I would assume you think the ministry does have a responsibility for ensuring that for children who are exempt as home schooling, a certain standard is being met.

Mr Lubberts: Certainly the Education Act right now gives the ministry, through the provincial school attendance counsellor, the right to examine the program that the parents have set up for their child. Section 24 sets up that inquiry process to do just that. It's a very unbiased inquiry process if and when it's followed, which is very rare, because it employs people who are not directly involved. They are employees of the other school boards or ministry staff that are not directly involved with the particular case or with the school board that operates the school that the child would otherwise attend.

The process is there to ensure there is a program in place for educating that particular child. The inquiry process is there. We don't object to that. We think it's a good thing. It has to be there. Children deserve an education, and as concerned parents and caring parents, all parents would want to make sure their child receives an adequate education. Today's Education Act does that quite well. Unfortunately, these procedures are not being followed by both the school boards and ministry staff, and that's where our difficulty lies.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Your time has expired. We appreciate your presentation.

ONTARIO COALITION
FOR EDUCATION REFORM

The Vice-Chair: At this time, I'd like to call on the next group, the Ontario Coalition for Education Reform. If you would identify yourselves for the Hansard record and then proceed, as the time has started.

Ms Maureen Somers: My name is Maureen Somers. I'm co-chair of the Ontario Coalition for Education Reform. With me are my colleagues David Hogg, director of the OCER; Brian Oxley, director of the OCER; and Cindy Chatterson, director of the OCER. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

The OCER was founded in 1993 as an umbrella organization serving a wide range of educational groups. Member groups include teachers, parents, school trustees and ratepayers dedicated to improving Ontario's education system. The members of the OCER would like to take this opportunity to generally support the government's efforts to establish, through Bill 160, reasonable and meaningful ways to control education costs and improvement, and to improve the quality of education in Ontario.

Bill 104 was one small but important step. The OCER sees Bill 160 as another crucial step on a very long road towards improving the quality of education for each Ontario student.

We applaud efforts to establish control over spiralling increases in education spending that have often had no effect on increasing the quality of education. Unfortunately, many school boards and teachers' unions believe the spending of massive amounts of money and the quality of the education received are directly related. This clearly has not been the case.

1340

The latest set of test results at the grade 4 level from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS, released in June 1997, showed Ontario students at the bottom of the participating Canadian provinces. These latest dismal results again stress the need for substantial change in the education system.

We support a move to establish minimum teacher-student contact time. This should not be in the local board collective agreements, but should be consistent across the province. It is the OCER's view that it is perhaps even more essential to examine the quality of contact. It is a matter of quality, not quantity.

We recognize the value of school day preparation time for teachers. However, this is not the only time they have to prepare their lessons. It is unrealistic for any teacher to expect a working day from 9 to 3. We concur that decisions regarding the allocation of preparation time for individual teachers may be made by the school principal in consultation with the school staff and in recognition of the varying needs of different teachers with different workloads.

We strongly believe in the need to limit - limit - the size of classes. Classroom sizes have increased with some school boards because of lack of control. Teachers' unions during the collective bargaining agreed to larger pupil-teacher ratios to recoup lost wages after the NDP social contract. They agreed to do this for their own financial benefit. Setting class sizes cannot be a local responsibility or an issue which is tied to the financial interests of any particular group.

The Economist, March 29 to April 4, 1997 - I have included a copy of this publication with our presentation for the committee to read - published the Third International Mathematics and Science Study in which Canadian 13-year-olds placed 18th in both subjects among 500,000 of their peers in 41 countries. The study showed that factors such as instructional techniques, school leadership and the type of programs being offered had a significantly greater impact on student learning than change to class size alone. The theory among the teaching profession that children are bound to do better in smaller classes doesn't stand up.

It is critically important that the public have confidence that teachers can deliver quality education. We recommend that principals and vice-principals be removed from the teachers' unions. At present, there is no effective agency that protects and promotes teachers' professional image. If the public has no confidence in the teachers' professionalism, the education system is undermined. Confidence must be based on respect and trust. We see principals and vice-principals as those best positioned to protect and promote teachers' public confidence, professionalism and image. They cannot do this if they are forced to toe the union line and thereby cannot be seen as a neutral and unbiased party. Further, this membership in the teachers' unions compromises their management responsibility to censure or replace inefficient staff.

We support the establishment of parent councils being legislated. We do, however, question the wisdom of prescribing their role as advisory. School councils must be permitted to make decisions on things that really matter. We believe that by prescribing "advisory," it will weaken the efforts of parents to have an effective role in the governance of their schools.

The quickest way to demonstrate how such a council can be effective and at the same time allow parents an alternative to the public system would be to introduce a chartered school concept through legislation.

We support legislation that would allow the government to ensure students have the opportunity of greater access to specialists with professional experience. We also believe students can benefit from having access to professional guidance staff who have actually acquired experience in the non-academic workforce. The present practices used in Germany should be studied, where business and industry are effectively represented by the guidance staff.

We support the concept and use of alternate professionals; for example, early childhood specialists, computer programmers, graduates of library science programs, art and music professionals.

We realize the problems in Ontario education appear difficult, but the solutions are not mysterious. An effective school system is one where a core curriculum of subject matter exists with clear, high expectations for all students; regular and clear province-wide tests; grade 12 exit examinations; effective teacher training - going through a faculty of education does not necessarily make a person a good teacher; effective techniques of instruction; and parental choice.

We regret the recent grandstanding and confrontation by Ontario's teachers' unions. We would look to them to follow the example of the National Education Association, the largest teachers' union in the United States, and become part of the solution by cooperating and contributing from their expertise. The NEA decided not to hamper its own effectiveness by being on the wrong side of the education reform debate for too long.

Teachers enjoy guaranteed wages, pensions, gratuities and specific working conditions. They have for many an enviable contract. If they violate this contract, they are breaking the law.

Generally, Bill 160 is a step this government must take to bring real accountability to Ontario's education system. The members of the OCER believe this government has the responsibility to control costs and improve the quality of education for each Ontario student. Bill 160 is not a collective agreement and it does not need to be negotiated.

We thank you for taking the time to hear our views and will now take your questions.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have over five minutes per caucus, and this time we start with the government caucus.

1350

Mr Froese: Thank you very much for your presentation. We've heard in the last day and a half from a number of groups. The government is listening to parents. Some of the groups have come in and said that the parents are totally against what we are doing as a government, yet in your organization you have members who are teachers, parents, school trustees, ratepayers. I found that in my own riding.

We monitor the calls that come into my office with respect to all issues, including education reform. If I take away the teachers who are calling in in the last number of weeks because they have a set agenda, they've been protesting my office and so on and so forth, if I take away this specific time period from the teachers who are protesting my office, I'm not hearing what those groups have been saying to us. I just want your comment on what your organization - you have teachers and parents involved, and you have school trustees. Do you feel you're getting a balanced approach or getting the real concern of the parents? Anybody can answer it.

Mr Brian Oxley: I'd like to answer that, and I'm glad you raised it. We were all aware, over a number of years, of a growing groundswell of public opinion concerning education. You've only got to look at the number of commissions, reports and public consultations, going back 20 years at least, and there is a theme through there. It is that we have been slipping, we have been stubbing our toe, we haven't been getting there.

As a result of this groundswell, a number of different organizations sprang into existence. They weren't just parent groups either. There were trustee groups and many teacher groups. It was only when we realized that these groups were all saying the same thing that we said: "Hey, wait a minute. We ought to get together." The result was the OCER. We're just an umbrella organization; we don't have a direct membership. We do reflect the opinions of those groups, which, as you pointed out, contain a lot of parents and a lot of teachers.

I rarely, if ever, talk to a teacher who doesn't substantially agree with the things that we say, in private. What is striking to me is that despite this general dissatisfaction with the status quo - and this is not a political statement, believe me; you don't know what my politics are. Suddenly, we have a government that looks like it's doing something, and we get all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork defending the status quo when there's been a rumbling in the mountains about that for a long time. Suddenly: "You want to change it? Oh, you can't do that."

Who has the right to change something like the length of the school year? This is where the crunch comes in Bill 160. It's unfortunate. I think an earlier presenter said something about how Bill 160 doesn't deal with some quality issues. It doesn't. It tries to address the governance and some itty, bitty things. I hope the whole issue is resolved very quickly, because then we can get on with some of the real quality issues like the curriculum and like the grade 12 exit examination this year.

Mr David Hogg: I'd like to pick up on that if I may and quote from some of the documents that I have here, because I think there's a lot of misinformation going around.

I'm quoting from Annie Kidder's speech at Maple Leaf Gardens on October 6. One of the items is, "It allows them," the government, "to decide if they want that no one has to be a certified teacher in order to teach in our schools." I haven't seen that in the legislation, nor will it have an impact, just because we have contracts with teachers. They're in place.

Another statement that was made to a board of trustees: "The government wishes to introduce unqualified, uncertified `experts' into the classrooms. Would you want an unqualified doctor to operate on you?" I haven't heard that the government wants to introduce unqualified people. What I'm hearing is that rather than having certified unqualified teachers, they want qualified uncertified teachers.

I posed a question to my daughter. I said, "Who would you prefer to have teaching computers to your children: your mother, who is a highly respected teacher, or Joe Blow around the corner?" who is a friend of theirs. She just laughed. This man happens to be an expert in computers.

This is the sort of misinformation that unfortunately is taking place. "Would you want an unqualified doctor to operate on you? Would you want a GP to do brain surgery on you?" I don't think so. We have to get away from this rhetoric and invite the teachers as professional associations to engage in a meaningful discussion with us. That is one of the focuses of our presentation here.

Mr Smith: One quick question. If I heard you correctly, you said you didn't have a direct membership, but you must have some understanding of the scope of your umbrella in terms of the number of people you are speaking for today.

Ms Somers: Our organization is province-wide. The coalition itself, as Brian mentioned earlier, does not have a membership list. However, the smaller groups of parents, teachers, ratepayers etc across the province have their own membership lists and they could vary anywhere from 20 people up in North Bay to 1,000 or more in Kitchener-Waterloo. On our board of directors we have a representative, if not more, from the various groups we represent. Instead of bringing everybody with us, that's why we are here today speaking on their behalf as well as our own.

Mr Smith: Given the extent of your organization as a province-wide group, what in your opinion would be the expectations of those individuals in the event of an illegal strike by teachers in this province?

Mr Hogg: I'm not sure this is a membership reply, but I was out talking to a family, the husband of which had been unemployed for three years. Let me tell you, that person doesn't have any sympathy with the idea of an illegal strike by a group of people who are reasonably well remunerated, who have reasonable conditions and enjoy security that he obviously doesn't have.

Mr Oxley: I think the important point about that is it's a lousy example to set.

The Chair: Excuse me. We have to move on.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate two things: first of all, Mr Smith asking the first question I was going to ask, which was about not having a direct membership. I appreciate how difficult it is to offer a membership reply if you don't have a direct membership to consult.

I also appreciate your comments about the certification of teachers and the need to have qualified people at the head of a class, because indeed you would not want a general practitioner doing brain surgery. I have to quarrel with you, though, in terms of the legalities of the act and what is in the act.

In Ms Kidder's statement - I noticed the quality education representative this morning used exactly the same quotation from Annie Kidder's speech - she is absolutely correct. In the act are provisions that allow the cabinet, not government by legislation but cabinet, to determine who needs to be a teacher. There is a clause of non-presumption which basically says that it shouldn't be presumed that anybody who teaches a class has to be a teacher.

Mr Hogg, if you will, please, because you said let's not spread misinformation, I want to put the factual information clearly on the record. Given what you've said, you'll be concerned to know that this is in Bill 160.

The College of Teachers presented to our committee yesterday. The College of Teachers, which was given responsibility by this government for the certification of teachers, for standards and for standards of professional practice, asked that the specific clauses in the bill - and since I'm sure you'll want to support it, I'll give them to you: section 81 and section 118 of Bill 160 - be withdrawn in their entirety so the responsibility for certification remains in the hands of the College of Teachers. I suspect that's something you would urge the government to amend, given your earlier comments about the importance of having qualified teachers in the classroom.

Mr Hogg: I don't think it helps to exaggerate the situation. That's what's happened in this particular case. We have contracts with teachers, they have standing with the school boards, and it would be impossible to get rid of them. Let me tell you that there are other jurisdictions that have this ability within them. I would not have been a teacher if I'd had to be certified beforehand, because it would have been financially impossible for me. I haven't heard anybody tell me that I wasn't at least an adequate teacher. Some people have been kind enough to say things that are more flattering than that, and humbling.

I think there is balance here. It's this exaggerated rhetoric that is misinforming people, and this misinformation is lowering the debate to a level that we shouldn't engage in. I think what we want to do is to bring it up to a much higher level.

Mrs McLeod: If I may, it wasn't rhetoric coming from the College of Teachers, who asked that these sections of the bill be withdrawn. Did I hear you saying then that it would be the view of -

Mr Hogg: That's self-interest, you know.

Mrs McLeod: I beg your pardon?

Mr Hogg: I think that's self-interest; they're interested in certifying teachers.

Mrs McLeod: The College of Teachers was established by the Conservative government in order to provide for a standard of professional practice in teaching.

In any event, do I hear you saying that in your view - and I recognize it's not a membership view - you do not feel the College of Teachers should have responsibility for certification, that it should rest in the hands of cabinet?

Mr Hogg: No, you didn't hear that.

Mrs McLeod: So you would propose amendments to at least this section of the bill.

Mr Hogg: I would have to look at that very carefully.

Mrs McLeod: Do I have time for another question?

The Chair: One more minute.

Mrs McLeod: I'm interested in having comments from someone in your group about the role of school boards, given the comments you've made about your concern that the school councils would still be advisory in nature. Do you see a role for school boards in the future or do you see actually turning the management of schools directly over to school councils?

Mr Oxley: Sorry, I didn't quite catch the question.

Mrs McLeod: You've noted in your brief that you have concerns about the role of school councils as being advisory. I'm wondering where you see the role of school boards in the future, whether you see turning the management of schools directly over to school councils with essentially an abolition of boards or whether you see some combination of responsibility.

Mr Oxley: That, madam, is an issue which is clearly evolving as time goes on. In our discussions we see a transition first of all to the opportunity to introduce what is commonly known as the charter school concept, which is entirely a public school that operates within the public system and is subject to all the same regulations and so on, but would allow a school to operate more independently without the direct control of the school board.

1400

If that were to work, then at that point in time I think we should reassess the role of the school board. It could well be that in a local area, commonly referred to as a school board district, there would still be the need for a support mechanism for the school and for the teachers in that school, but whether it would be a school board in the present form is an open question. It's an evolving issue, but we're not ready to take that step yet.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate your presentation today. Just one comment: I understand the point you're trying to make about concerns, if people are representing the potential of a bill, to an extent beyond what you think a government would go, and that may be your faith being placed in the particular government of the day. But I think the concerns people are raising are when you take so much power into a government which will be there, don't forget, sir, when another party is government in the future and you may not be so kindly disposed to their points of view. There is a problem with that.

You were incorrect when you said the contracts will exist. The contracts are actually wiped out by this piece of legislation. Whether or not the government intends to do that is a question of faith. I suspect that they're not going to replace all teachers in the system, but that's a question of faith.

I think what has been put forward, and I feel this very strongly, is that what we should be having a debate about here is actually those elements the government feels are important to move on to improve the quality of education. After all, that's what their bill is called. They've said, for example, it's important to limit class size. Your brief says the same thing. The bill doesn't limit class size. The bill allows class size to be set in regulation. It doesn't set any differentiation. We're not having a debate here about what is an appropriate class size, which would be interesting to have public opinion on and expert opinion on, to be able to actually talk about the issues of quality as opposed to a framework which hands it over to essentially bureaucracy advising the cabinet and a system which you have said up to now has not produced the quality results.

I'm a bit flummoxed by the overall faith you're prepared to give over to a system which has, to date, not produced what you think it needs to produce.

I have a specific question just following up on your organizational structure, the member groups. I don't see a list of the member organizations here. Is that available?

Ms Somers: No. The membership lists of the majority of the groups we represent are confidential.

Ms Lankin: No, no, the organizations themselves. Sorry.

Mr Hogg: That could be made available.

Ms Lankin: I would appreciate that. I noticed, for example, that even your quote that you'd rather have a qualified, uncertified teacher than a certified, unqualified teacher was word for word from the brief from Ontarians for Quality Education and Principals for Quality Education and now the Ontario Coalition for Education Reform. I'm wondering, are they part of your organization?

Mr Hogg: Yes, they are a member organization.

Ms Lankin: How did this brief get put together? Without a membership base, how were these views brought together to be presented?

Mr Froese: By computer.

Mr Hogg: What happens in practice is that the right to make presentations of this nature is invested in the board of directors. That particular brief was surveyed by a number of the board members. But to go back, if you remember in the course of our presentation here the statement generally in support of Bill 160, and we, as everybody else, are aware that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, I think we see that in some of the machinations that have gone on with respect to Bill 160. It would have been better if there had been a rather freer voice made available instead of a few people making statements on behalf of a large number.

Ms Lankin: Would you be supportive in general - because I obviously don't have the specifics - of the concept at least of bringing amendments forward which took some of these general powers that are being given to cabinet and actually tried to spell out a little bit more in legislation what the quality standards are we're trying to achieve for our children?

Mr Oxley: I wish the exercise had been done the other way around, that we had started by determining what we're looking for in our graduating students, whether they're in a stream which is bound for post-secondary or directly into the workplace. I think if we had started out by defining that and the means by which their status of knowledge and learning would be assessed at the end of the period, then we could see more clearly the steps that would be needed to make the framework. However, there are elements in this bill which one way or another are going to have to be addressed. That's what this committee is about; this is what the whole public debate is about.

Ms Lankin: I too wish we were debating the actual specifics, but that's a very good point that you make. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation today.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL
TEACHERS' FEDERATION

The Chair: Our next presenter is the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. Members should have received the written submission and background materials, I assume. Welcome. We have allotted 30 minutes for your presentation. Proceed when you're ready.

Mr Earl Manners: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to present today, during the limited time you have over the next couple of weeks.

Let me first of all take the opportunity to introduce the people with me. My name is Earl Manners. I'm president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. On my right are Jim McQueen, vice-president; and on my left are Paul Inksetter, our other vice-president; and Maurice Green, our legal counsel.

The brief contains a very detailed clausal review of the legislation. I am not going to go through it clause by clause for you. Let me also say that while we'll be talking extensively about the teachers' right to have a say over the teaching and learning conditions of their classrooms, we're also speaking on behalf of students and parents and communities, who we also believe should have a say over the education system. So many of the concerns we have about the role of teachers and what's denied in this legislation I think also apply to communities, parents and students.

The name of the bill is something that can't go by without mention. Bill 160 is not about improving quality in education, it is about downsizing public education, it's about eliminating programs, it's about laying off perhaps up to 10,000 teachers and replacing teachers with people who don't have qualifications to teach. Nothing in Bill 160 supports the contention that its purpose is to improve the quality of education. The bill does not deal with curriculum, it does not deal with teaching methodology, it does not deal with teaching resources, the cornerstones of quality education and the issues to which this federation has devoted considerable time, energy and money in trying to provide advice and assistance to this government to improve secondary school curriculum over the last two years.

It is about increased central control. Bill 160 is about removing control of education spending and taxation from school boards and trustees and centralizing it at Queen's Park. The bill unnecessarily expands the government's current regulatory authority in an unwarranted attempt to control critical terms and conditions of employment for teachers.

OSSTF does not support the provisions of Bill 160 that remove the constitutional right of school boards to levy taxes locally in support of educational programs for children to meet local community needs and student needs. OSSTF also cannot support legislation which removes the right of teachers to bargain all the terms and conditions of employment and places those terms and conditions in regulations. The School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act provided for teachers and school boards to bargain any term or condition of employment.

Placing teachers under the Labour Relations Act - which we support, by the way; it's a measure within Bill 160 - should not diminish open-scope bargaining, as the labour act also puts no restrictions on what is negotiable. Yet under Bill 160, teachers would be denied this democratic right to bargain all terms and conditions of employment, a right which every other worker under the act enjoys. You wonder why the government seems to be picking on teachers in particular in this case.

Bill 160 also purports to be transition legislation similar to Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act. As you know, we put forward as part of a group an alternative to that legislation. But it goes far beyond Bill 136, dealing with transition matters associated with school board amalgamations to make substantive changes to education finance and the scope of teacher bargaining. So this bill is even more extensive than 136, and if Bill 136 was bad, as the government admitted, then Bill 160 has to be worse.

1410

It removes control of education finance from school boards; places total control of education spending at Queen's Park; neutralizes the influence of teachers and teacher federations on education policy and education costs; undermines public confidence in Ontario's school system; and I think it really creates the political climate to privatize and contract out education programs and services.

Let me tell you, it sets the stage for a provincial tax grab of hundreds of millions of dollars in the further downsizing of education. I think we saw that today in the performance contract of the Deputy Minister of Education, which was released, where Bill 2, which was the euphemism for Bill 160, is described with absolutely no mention whatsoever to quality of education. It was about education finance, government and labour relations. There was even no mention of it in the quality-of-education issues in her performance contract and it very clearly stated there that $667 million minimum was to come out of education spending in elementary and secondary schools and perhaps even more to come from capital expenditures.

There's an indication that $650 million is going to continue to be spent on capital programs, which would be the normal amount the provincial government would spend under the old regime, where local school boards had the power to tax. Now they're still allocating the same amount of money, but it begs the question, where's the rest of it going to come from if school boards don't have the power to levy taxes and debenture that debt?

On Bill 104 we said there was a ticking $2-billion time bomb. It's there, it's explicitly stated in the deputy minister's contract performance, and I understand there's $1.5 billion in debentured debt existing out there right now that the government has to take control over. It becomes part of the provincial debt, yet there's been no accounting for it in any of the downloading exercises and descriptions I've seen coming from this government.

Obviously this is a bad piece of legislation. We need to look at alternatives. I want to assure you today that when we met with the minister yesterday, we put forward as a group of teacher federations a set of alternatives that can see us through to the 21st century. We're here as one organization doing that today.

We're suggesting that you first of all guarantee under the control of local school boards the funding needed to ensure quality programs for students. We're asking you to guarantee qualified, certified teachers in every classroom and learning program. We're asking you to guarantee that teachers will continue to bargain all terms and conditions of employment directly with those responsible for teacher working conditions and student learning conditions - and that begs the question, who is our employer under this new regime? - and to minimize the regulatory control of Queen's Park and its educational bureaucrats; and reinstate shared decision-making on educational policy so that students and their programs are protected.

I say to you something I said yesterday: If you are truly interested in a smooth transition to district school boards, there are elements of this bill, with some amendments or accepted by us, that can ensure that we move to these new district school boards in a smooth, logical and secure fashion: Release the funding model to take away the uncertainty parents and students and teachers and education workers feel about what the real intent of this legislation is, and remove aspects of the bill that have nothing to do with transition. All those that are related to regulatory power, take them out, then you can avoid a confrontation and we can ensure that we can get to the new school boards and take the time to talk about quality-of-education issues in a proper manner. I think that is an alternative that will take us forward, not backwards.

What is acceptable? We provided a media advance yesterday with a whole list of items. I believe you have it in front of you. I'm not going to go through them, but I think you can see we have taken a very careful look at Bill 160 and there are many items in the legislation that deal strictly with transition that we can accept. There are some concerns we have about various aspects of the legislation related to transition where we have put forward solutions or amendments that I think are fair and less arbitrary, but there are those critical pieces that have to be deleted if we're going to avoid the crisis your government has created with this legislation. I would urge you to look at that carefully.

We urge you to withdraw those sections of Bill 160 which extend the regulatory control of the minister; withdraw those sections of Bill 160 which would permit non-qualified, non-certificate personnel to teach in Ontario schools; amend Bill 160 to allow district school boards the power to levy taxes and to make financial decisions independent of Queen's Park - if you can't do that because it's all mixed in with your downloading exercise, then at least refer this issue to the courts immediately for a constitutional reference so this does not blow up in our face six months from now, as I'm sure it will - and amend Bill 160 to ensure that teachers remain entitled to negotiate all terms and conditions of employment through direct and free collective bargaining with their employer.

I ask you to look at our conclusion on page 52 of our brief. We have been in an ironic situation today and yesterday where we had meetings with the Minister of Education, who suggests that we help him give up our rights to bargain our terms and conditions of employment, and he calls it negotiations. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in negotiations or you don't, and that teachers should have a say in that decision-making process.

If this is legitimate, what we've gone through the last couple of days - and I dare say, from what I've seen, it isn't - then at least recognize that if you're going to take power and control, you also have to take responsibility. We're saying in the second paragraph in our conclusion that we are prepared to bargain directly with our employers, if you are the employers, our terms and conditions of employment, and that we'll do so based on what you've already recognized in this bill would be the five separate organizations. We will negotiate on behalf of public secondary school teachers and we'll deal with issues like prep time, class size, qualifications, time on task, but we'll deal with you directly.

Don't play a game where you're suggesting we talk about downsizing or giving up these issues in the future through a negotiating process today. Either you believe in it or you don't. I would suggest to you that's really what this is all about. It's about a power grab. You want the power; you want to download the responsibility on to school boards and others in the future.

Other governments may have been criticized by us from time to time of politicizing education, but this government is just determined to sacrifice it, and I think we saw that today. That's why so much central control is mandated in Bill 160. That is why over 50 items in Bill 160 will never be debated again in our democratically elected Parliament at Queen's Park but will instead be determined by regulation: three cabinet signatures, quick, unencumbered, anonymous. Where is the accountability in government by regulation?

This minister has admitted to us that "removing the government's regulatory control in Bill 160 is against the government's objective." That's a quote from yesterday. The Common Sense Revolution lied to the people of Ontario when it proclaimed that less government was the objective. This government has proven time and again that it is power mad, and I don't need to go through all the legislation to remind you about that. It's all about centralized power and government control; I should say cabinet control, not government control.

Ontario finds itself mired in unparalleled labour strife as a result of this deliberate and provocative government action. I would suggest that it's this government which has through this legislation proclaimed its destructive agenda. If they say it's democratically justified, I don't know how they can, when it supplants and ignores democratically elected school board trustees; when it democratically justifies when it acts in ways either not mentioned in the Common Sense Revolution platform, on which it campaigned, or is contrary to that platform. How can it say it's acting democratically when it rips up collective agreements on working conditions established through 25 years of collective bargaining?

1420

There have been legal judgements, recently, and columns in various newspapers that compare the powers assumed in Bill 160, especially the Henry VIII clause, as having no parallel except in the War Measures Act. Whom are we at war with?

Our society values public education because it engenders the social participation and critical thought necessary to genuine democracy. Yet this government is determined to dismantle public education pillar by pillar: curriculum, governance, finance and collective bargaining. Our collective agreements were even termed "impediments" to the government agenda by the Education Improvement Commission. They're not impediments; they are the last roadblock in the way of this government's bankrupting public education.

Let me assure you we will defend our agreements and, through them, our students, our programs and our schools in the democratic traditions of public education which we have fought for that were won by earlier generations. They were not granted by this government and they do not have the right to summarily remove them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Manners. We have approximately five minutes left per caucus and we'll start off with Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your presentation and the fact that you have tabled a significant number of alternatives in spite of the fact that Mr Johnson continues to say that teachers have brought forward no constructive alternatives. But I don't want to deal with the specifics. Who knows when we're going to actually have a chance to look at amendments to this piece of legislation?

What I want to pick up on is the power grab, as you've described it, and particularly the way the government is trying to cast this confrontation that we're on the eve of as being a battle for control between government and teachers' unions. That angers me as a former school trustee because it certainly leaves school boards right out of the picture. But it also concerns me very greatly because I happen to believe we've had a very fine balance of responsibility for educational decision-making, with the province certainly having a role, school boards having a role, teachers and parents having a role, and yes, the collective bargaining table has a role in that as well. There have been times when there have been tensions as a result of that, no question about it, but by and large I think that balance of responsibility for public education has worked fairly well.

What we have here is without doubt, between Bill 104 and Bill 160, a total power grab not on the part of government, and you corrected that, Earl, but on the part of a cabinet, and that concerns me a great deal.

I think beyond that the government has actually made this an issue of trust, and that's what I want to ask you about today. The government is basically saying: "We want all this power. Trust us to use it wisely." We've heard several presentations today in terms of the effect of the cuts to date and the question of whether or not the government has merited trust based on the evidence of their record. Then today we have the clear evidence that the government's intent is to take another $667 million out of elementary and secondary school education in spite of Mr Eves's statements last week appearing to backtrack on this, although if you read it carefully, he was saying, "The net result of our cuts might not be as much as $1 billion."

I guess $667 million is not $1 billion, so perhaps he was coming close to telling us what they are planning to do. But we have today Mr Johnson saying: "This is absolutely not factual. We have no intention of taking $667 million out. We didn't. I know nothing about this," even though he was Chair of Management Board. It's hard for me to believe he would not know the government's fiscal plan.

Tell me, how believable do you think government is when they say on one hand they want to have essentially the lowest possible cost, the national average in spending, it means $1 billion, and then deny that their fiscal plan is indeed to take $667 million more out of elementary and secondary education?

Mr Manners: I wouldn't trust them, because I've seen the documents they presented to us as a backgrounder to Bill 160, where they unequivocally stated they were looking to take at that time $1 billion out of education in a number of different ways, $667 million of it directly out of the grants for elementary and secondary education, but other additional funds through privatization of support services and other types of cutbacks that are alluded to in the same document that was released this morning. They put that down on paper in front of us to look at and said that was non-negotiable from the very beginning. I find it hard when they then say to the public that this wasn't their intent when privately they were unequivocal in their presentations to us.

Either the deputy minister has been told a lie by the Minister of Education or the new minister is now hiding the facts, but I would not trust them when it comes to this. You just have to look at the document that came out this morning to show that this is totally a downsizing exercise.

Mrs McLeod: Let me ask you then, since I think I have another minute, about another aspect in which the government has tried to deny it has any intention of acting on the powers it's giving itself with this legislation: the powers it's giving itself to cut their costs by cutting teachers. We know that less than a year ago there was a very clear intent to cut as many as 10,000 teachers, and they looked at how they could influence public opinion in such a way that it would be met with some public sympathy. We know this bill provides a number of areas in which they can cut their costs by cutting teachers, both in the preparation time and in having non-certified teachers at the heads of classes.

The government members in the last 24 hours have rather carefully been trying to say, "This bill doesn't give you the power to have non-teachers at the head of classes, just to bring experts in as partners." Would you just like to comment on why all these powers are here in Bill 160 if it is not the government's intention to cut costs by cutting teachers?

Mr Manners: If they are not going to replace teachers with other non-certified personnel, then why do they need the regulation in the first place? That question was asked of the minister and the deputy minister today and there was no answer to that question except, "We're not going to cover every nitty-gritty situation; it's just in broad terms we're not going to take away all of this." Obviously they still are intent, in some areas, on removing teachers from programs or classrooms where they currently exist.

We also have received, under freedom of information, from the Ministry of Education that public relations document where they tried to figure out ways to sell the cutting of 10,000 teachers by talking about quality-of-education issues to manipulate public opinion when the real intent was a downsizing exercise.

It's very disturbing that this government is spending taxpayers' money on figuring out ways to manipulate public opinion rather than to gauge it and be straightforward with them about what their intentions are.

Ms Lankin: I'll start off and then turn it over to my colleague. I couldn't agree with you more, in terms of the last statement you just made. It is incredibly disturbing and it gets more disturbing as each day goes on.

There has been, through the course of the discussion around Bill 160, a ghost at the table, and that ghost has been, what is the funding formula? What is the budget for elementary and secondary that we're dealing with? As we look at the bill, the government's stated intent to limit class sizes is not written in the legislation. The government's stated intent to increase time spent between teachers and students is not written in the legislation. The government's stated intent, as we've now heard in the last couple of days, to bring in experts just to be supplementary, to be of assistance to teachers, is not stated in the legislation. The legislation does not do the things they say are their intent. We've already heard about the wide-open powers and powers being taken by the government.

We suspected all along that it was about reducing costs, and today we have the confirmation of a $667-million reduction in the budget. How can the ministry reduce the budget by $667 million, and presumably by using the elements of Bill 160, what will our schools look like? What will the impact be on the quality of education for our kids?

Mr Manners: There are a number of ways this legislation would allow them to reduce the costs. First of all, it would lead to the cutting of probably about 10,000 teachers, just through changes to preparation time in the secondary panel. Every seventh teacher would be laid off as a result of their proposals. That's 8,000 teachers across the province. That would have an impact on other parts of classroom instruction and support services for teachers, leading to further cutbacks. Some examples of that are included in our brief. That's the first step.

1430

The second one: By removing class size standards that are enforceable in a collective agreement and putting into regulation or legislation class size averages that are really meaningless, that are unenforceable, it allows for class sizes to go up and lead to the cutting of other programs and narrowing of what's offered in a school at the same time just to try and keep that average somewhere where it is. That's what would essentially happen. Through the use of non-certificate teachers, you would end up creating a two-tier pay scale for people in the classroom. All of those ways would certainly impact on the grants.

I think there are a number of other ways we have heard about as well. I wish we could see the funding formula to be able to see it. I think they're trying to promote the privatization of certain core programs like music, like the arts, by redefining them as non-essential programs. That could happen by regulation as well.

In each of these ways they reduce costs, but they are also reducing quality, narrowing the curriculum and making sure our public schools are not there to meet everybody's individual needs.

Mr Wildman: Last week the Minister of Finance - who will under Bill 160 have complete control over the mill rates and how much revenue is collected through taxation for education, to be centralized in his control - said the government probably didn't need to take $1 billion out of education, which is the number that has been around since Mr Snobelen let it slip in a scrum first. We now know they perhaps aren't going to take $1 billion out, it's only $667 million, "So why are you guys mad?"

Mr Manners: It's $667 million this year, and as I say, the funding formula will have an impact on a lot of other areas of the education system that this government doesn't define as classroom education, so there will be additional cuts in the future there. As well, once this legislation is passed there is nothing to stop, there are no checks and balances, whether they be school boards or teacher federations or parents or others, to hold back this government from making future cuts, and $667 million is on top of $1 billion that has already been cut out of education. How much more can you take out?

Mr Wildman: Isn't the only way you can save that money by laying off teachers? And 70% of -

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. We must move on.

Mr Newman: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for taking the time to appear before the committee today.

I'd like to turn to the subject of child and student safety in the event of an illegal walkout by teachers in this province. My question to you is, Mr Manners, as the president of the OSSTF, your union members, your union colleagues and the other affiliates: Will you commit today, not to me as a Conservative MPP but to the parents in our province, to the following: free access to all schools and day care centres in the province to children, parents, staff and volunteers -

Mr Wildman: Will you guarantee not to take $667 million out of education?

Mr Newman: - a commitment to refrain from any form of harassment or intimidation -

Mr Wildman: If you'd do that, we wouldn't have a walkout.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, no one interrupted you.

Mr Manners: Mr Newman, you don't need to go on, because the Minister of Education made the same political statement earlier today.

Mr Newman: I'd like the opportunity to ask the question, Mr Manners. We sat here and listened today to your presentation. I'd like the opportunity to ask my questions of you. That's what public hearings are all about. A commitment to refrain from any form of harassment or intimidation of children, parents, staff and volunteers entering and leaving schools and day care centres; given the special legal and managerial responsibility of principals and vice-principals related to the supervision of students, a commitment that all principals and vice-principals will continue to report to work throughout the strike and will be given free access to schools, free of harassment, coercion or intimidation; and last, a commitment to designate a reasonable number of members of your bargaining unit to each school to assist with supervisory activities? Will you commit to that today, Mr Manners?

Mr Manners: First of all, I don't think civil disobedience is necessarily illegal and it will be decided by others, not you or your government, about the nature of this action. We are engaged in a protest action. It will be peaceful, you can be assured of that. There will be no children in jeopardy, or their safety, as long as the schools are closed and alternative arrangements for them are made if we have to take this action because you refuse to withdraw sections of Bill 160 that are totally undemocratic.

I would ask you to guarantee some of the items we proposed as part of our alternative, including releasing the funding formula, withdrawing certain aspects of this bill and working cooperatively with school boards, teachers and educational workers to ensure a smooth transition to district school boards and therefore deal with what Bill 160 purports to be about, and that is transition. You've gone far further than that in this legislation. You've misled the public about what the real intent of this legislation is. I say to you that this question is irrelevant to the discussion about Bill 160, which you have some power to withdraw in light of the massive opposition to the bill by parents, students, the general public, teachers and education workers.

Mr Newman: I'd now like to turn to a column that appeared in today's Globe and Mail by Jeffrey Simpson. I'm sure you're familiar with it. I'd like to read you a couple of paragraphs.

My question is, just who is responsible for the education system in Ontario? The duly elected members of the Legislature, or is it the teacher unions? Just whose responsibility is it to set policy in this province?

Mr Manners: That's another false dichotomy, and I know your government likes to use false dichotomies. It's a shared responsibility between parents, students, teachers, educational workers, school boards and the provincial government. We've never denied that there's a role for the provincial government in setting policies, determining funding, but there's also a legitimate role to be played by school boards that's historic, that's constitutional. Employees have a democratic right as well to have a say over their terms and conditions of employment, including practices and policies regarding educational development and improvement.

This bill takes all that shared decision-making away. It takes away over 100 years of constitutional history with respect to school boards, 25 years of bargaining with respect to teachers and it denies education workers, through other pieces of legislation, a say. It certainly does not ensure that communities have any control over the education system in the future.

This is not a debate between the government and teacher unions about control; it is a debate about shared decision-making and undemocratic, unilateral control by a provincial government that is mad drunk for power.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Our 30 minutes is up.

1440

ROB MacDONALD

The Chair: Our next presenter will be Rob MacDonald. Welcome. Present 10 minutes. Please proceed.

Mr Rob MacDonald: First I'd like to thank the committee for giving me this time to speak. My name is Rob MacDonald, and I'm a small business owner in the Toronto area. More important, I have two young daughters who are going to be entering the education system. I assume that everybody here has the same intentions in mind, the teachers, the government and the parents, that Ontario has the best education system not only in Canada but around the world. I don't think we should settle for anything less. I think we've got the resources to be able to do that.

In listening to the debate between the teachers and the government over the last month over Bill 160, a couple of positions have really disturbed me. The first is that if the government does not scrap or drastically change this bill, then the teachers will illegally strike. I'm just shocked that the teachers would try to set this kind of example for our children.

Second, there is a newspaper article that was in the Markham Economist and Sun on October 11. This was put in by the teachers of Middlefield Collegiate: "The direct impact of lost preparation time will mean a longer school day and teachers will be forced to teach more classes." I ask the question, is this a bad thing? I don't understand how that could possibly be a negative. For me it seems like this is what we do need to improve our education system.

I have no axe to grind with teachers. My sister-in-law is a teacher - I probably won't be going to Thanksgiving next year. But I feel that the teachers have taken their eye off the ball. The teachers should be well compensated and they are well compensated, but they should also be ensuring that our children are receiving the best education, and study after study shows that Ontario students are slipping behind not only other countries but also other provinces. Obviously it's time for a change, and I feel Bill 160 is exactly what our education system needs. In reviewing Bill 160 and what I know of it, there seem to be a lot of commonsense initiatives. I hate to use that term, but it seems appropriate.

First, getting principals, vice-principals, department heads, guidance councillors, librarians - these are qualified teachers - back in the classroom teaching, even if it's for one class a day, it seems to me would allow us to keep our classes at an optimal level.

The big beef I keep hearing from teachers is less preparation time. It amazes me that a teacher who has been teaching the same subject for 10 years needs 25% of their day to prepare for a class, especially now when they are going to have curriculum-specific textbooks. To anybody in the real world who is out there trying to run a business, if I went to my client and said, "I'm going to charge you 25% more of my time," or use 25% more time to get a job done, "because I'm a professional," they would not understand that. I wouldn't be in business, and they wouldn't do business with me. The teachers have a job to do, and that is to teach our children.

The third point that seemed to make sense was auditing the school boards to ensure that the number of qualified teachers not involved directly in teaching do get teaching. The fact that we have to audit the school boards is a ringing endorsement of Bill 160.

The return of teachers to work five working days preceding the start of the school year should be mandatory, not an option. In this day and age I see no reason to have two months off in the summer, except in some rural areas. I understand with the farms and everything, that's fine, but 80% of this province is urban-based, and they should have no more than four weeks off in the summertime, if we're to stay competitive.

This bill, I understand, will regulate the school year, school terms, school holidays, examination days and professional activity days which now are regulated by individual boards, and they have inconsistencies right across the province, so hopefully this will structure that.

Fixing the minimum amount of time during which a teacher teaches classes is a positive initiative.

Assigning an Ontario education number to students so that we can track and properly measure the successes or failures of our education system is long overdue.

The teachers in Ontario keep saying they're professionals and they want to be treated as professionals, but over the last month, with their misinformation to the public, with their misinformation to their own membership, they're acting like a bunch of American Teamsters. They have lost my respect and the respect of a lot of my colleagues.

When I hear that teachers would be willing to illegally strike and not work within the system, I think this is the worst kind of example that they could be showing our children. What are they saying? If you don't get your way, break the law. In fact, on the way down here, on CFRB -

Interjection.

Mr MacDonald: This isn't civil rights here; it's something else altogether. Come on.

They had some kids on CFRB, and they were talking about the school year. "What do you think about the teachers? Should they go out on strike?" "They're not getting what they want, so yes, they should illegally strike." That's a great example to show them how to work within the system. We're electing a government to do a job, and they're doing it.

I cannot understand why Ontario students get shortchanged by up to 20 days compared to their counterparts in other provinces.

The Toronto Star reported on the weekend that two groups, the East End Parents Network and People for Education, were upset over Bill 160 and how much power it would give to the education minister. My question to these groups is, who is running the schools? Is it the teachers or is it the government? That's the people.

This is what Bill 160 has come down to: the question, who is running the education system? If you were working for Frank Stronach at Magna International and he came up with a new way of faxing something, you would either fax it that way or you would get a new job. If the teachers walk out illegally in protest of this bill, they are then saying they are running the education system. This is a sad example for our children to see. If these teachers feel that Bill 160 would be too much of a burden, then I respectfully suggest that they find another profession and let the many teachers who want to teach have their jobs.

The bottom line is the teachers have to do what the rest of the private and public sector employees have had to do over the last 10 years to remain competitive. I implore the government not to cave in to the teachers' pressures and make Bill 160 law. If the teachers look deep down inside, it is not the best interests of the students that they have in mind but their own selfish agenda. I appreciate the time.

The Chair: We have time for questions, one minute per caucus.

Mr Wildman: I apologize for interrupting before and thank you for your presentation.

You made one comment that if a teacher has been teaching the same subject for 10 years, he shouldn't need preparation time, and it reminded me of a story at university level of a very well known and respected elderly professor who used to come in and lecture - of course they don't teach at universities; they lecture. He used to come in and everyone knew that he liked people simply to regurgitate what he had to say back in the exam, so everyone took copious notes except for one young chap, and after about three weeks the professor looked at him and said, "Mr Smith, are you not interested in what I have to say?" The young man said, "Oh, yes, I'm very interested." He said: "Why aren't you taking notes? All of your colleagues are taking notes." He said: "Oh, I don't have to, sir. I have my father's notes."

That's the problem. If you have someone who teaches the same way for 10 years on the same subject area, that individual probably is not a very good teacher and not very good pedagogy is taking place. You have to initiate, you have to innovate and you have to continually change, and that is what teachers use preparation time for. It's not simply to look at their old notes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. We must move on.

Mr Froese: We have heard from a lot of parents who are in favour of the bill, and I guess I would like to get your opinion about a role clarification. I mentioned it before to some of the other presenters. I'd just like to get your opinion. It's from the St Catharines Standard - my riding is St Catharines-Brock. It's an editorial, and I will paraphrase a little bit because we don't have time to read it all, but the role clarification that they would suggest, the model where there is - I know people have problems, because I guess it's related to business; these are not my words; they are the editorial words, but -

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Froese. You have used your one minute. I'm sorry about that.

Mrs McLeod: I'm sorry I missed the first part of your presentation, but I was struck as I was coming in with your obvious support of very strong, top-down, let-the-boss-call-the-shots approach to managing education. It hasn't been the traditional approach in education where we have, as you may have heard me say earlier, put some premium on a balance of responsibility for education.

I don't think it's a particularly successful approach in business either, which I assume is the basis on which you're recommending it. Some of the most successful companies are successful because they have put a very high premium on their employees and see their employees as assets. I wonder if you'd comment on how you think it helps education for the government to make enemies of those teachers.

Mr MacDonald: I don't suggest that they make enemies of the teachers. It just seems to me that we don't have the same balance in Ontario that we have in the other provinces. They have already made some of the moves that are in Bill 160. Why are we dragging our heels here? I don't hear anything positive from the teachers. All I hear is, "If you don't scrap it, we're going to strike." I don't hear any positive feedback from them, so I guess after a time, the government has got to say, just like a corporation would have to say, "Look, this is the way it's going to be, and we'll take it from there."

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr MacDonald, for your presentation. Our time is at an end.

1450

ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Chair: Our next presenter will be the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Mr Ian Cunningham, director of policy. Welcome, Mr Cunningham. I would ask you to proceed.

Mr Ian Cunningham: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for this opportunity to appear this afternoon.

As members of this committee well know, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce is the voice of business in the province of Ontario, representing more than 60,000 employers through our more than 180 affiliated local chambers of commerce and boards of trade. Our membership includes firms of all sizes, small, medium and large-sized firms, located in every region of the province and operating in every economic sector.

Committee members should be aware that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has been an active participant in efforts to improve the education system for a long period of time. I should also point out that our education committee has been particularly active in this regard. We welcome the opportunity to appear before your committee to offer a few thoughts on Bill 160.

The quality of Ontario's school system has been the subject of a great deal of debate over the last six months or more. Some recent indicators are the recent TIMSS test, which was a test of grades 4 and 8 in mathematics and science, and on the written portion of that test, Ontario students performed only at the Canadian average, which I think most of us would agree is not really a satisfactory outcome. However, on the practical portion, the Ontario students performed above the international average, which is an excellent outcome.

In the 1994 international adult literacy survey, Ontario youth aged 16 to 25 were lumped in with New Brunswick, Newfoundland and PEI one year below the national average, which is not a particularly satisfactory outcome. I think we can all agree, however, that we can do better in Ontario and that we can achieve better learning outcomes, and that we can do so in a cost-effective manner.

Ontario has some wonderful teachers, and as a profession they're probably no different than other professions, like doctors, lawyers, engineers and even politicians. There are many truly outstanding ones - my own children have experienced some really outstanding teachers in our school system - there are some very poor ones, and there are teachers who fall everywhere in between.

While the process of education reform must not be reduced to teacher-bashing, the sense of entitlement that's being reflected in some of the comments of teacher union leaders in the media astounds very many people. Teachers cannot avoid being the subject of the economic, political and social change that has swept most of the industrial world. The status quo is just not on.

The focus of education reform must be on improved learning outcomes. Employers demand graduates with proficient literacy and numeracy skills, a sound knowledge base, critical thinking and an appreciation of culture which will enable them to be successful in post-secondary education, in further training, in employment and in life.

Let me touch on some of the provisions of the bill. First, the bill would allow the minister to set class size. We concur that class size is a factor for student success and should be a common standard, not the subject of local collective bargaining. However, a future minister not so committed to education quality but more focused on cost-cutting might choose to increase class size. Therefore, we would recommend a process involving open consultations whenever an increase in class size is proposed.

With regard to the use of non-certified specialists as teachers, we believe the system could be enhanced by allowing artists, musicians, computer programmers and human resources experts to bring their special knowledge to the classroom. However, they must have a sound knowledge base in their subject area, possess proven communication and teaching skills and have effective class management capabilities.

We are also concerned with teacher PA days. It's critical that our teachers are current and up to date, particularly in the more applied areas of the curriculum. Therefore, a reasonable regimen of PA days should be retained, with the majority scheduled during school breaks.

We also concur with the notion that the province should have the power to set the standard for instructional time. However, as with class size, we believe this standard should be set only following open consultation with stakeholders.

On the matter of funding, the business community has lost faith in local school boards, which have allowed education property taxes to increase far beyond the growth of the system, which have not proven to be effective in their collective bargaining activities and which have in many cases constructed elaborate head office facilities to serve board management and trustees.

However, we have serious concerns about the provisions of the bill which give the finance minister the authority to set the provincial property tax without open debate in the Legislature. We feel this matter should be subject to debate. Under the previous system, citizens had the ability to appear before the local boards to demand no increase in education taxes.

The objective that students across the province have access to the same high-quality education system regardless of where they live is a commendable objective. However, the special needs of Metro Toronto, with its large concentration of ESL students, and northern Ontario, with its expansive boards, must be taken into account.

With regard to collective bargaining, we concur with the abolition of Bill 100 and bargaining under the OLRA.

Finally, as employers we are confounded by the threats of union leaders to conduct an illegal strike. This action only serves to demean their professional status, sending a message to students and society that it's okay to break the law.

Ontario and its economy must not be held hostage by the teachers' unions. We would encourage the government to take strong, swift action to deal with this illegal strike.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear this afternoon. If there's time, I'd be pleased to take questions.

The Chair: We only have about 30 seconds per caucus for questions.

Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation today. It was interesting that you made the distinction between entitlement and quality. It's quality that I want to ask you a brief question about. In the opinion of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, is there anything in Bill 160 that would compromise the quality of education in this province?

Mr Cunningham: Yes, I think in a very general way the bill is focused on improving quality. Quality is paramount. In our view, cost and efficiency are secondary, and while we believe we can produce much better learning outcomes, we also think there is room for efficiency. I would say in general the focus of the bill is on improved learning outcomes.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. I appreciated particularly you recognizing that there are different ways of seeing those international tests. Just for the record, the two parts you touched on in terms of actually improving quality of education, the length of the school year and the minimum number of days of instruction versus PA days, are now under the minister's control without Bill 160, and class size of course can only be regulated by funding and providing enough resources.

Just quickly on the taxation issue that you raised, is the fact that taxation power is now not only being taken by the provincial government to tax property for education but also will be held by cabinet, there will be no legislative bill required, an issue that concerns the chamber?

Mr Cunningham: It's a concern for sure. We would like to see a more open process.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate that response and, frankly, your reasoned and balanced presentation.

Since we're so short of time, just in terms of one comment you made about the non-certified so-called experts who might be brought into the classroom, you qualified that by saying they had to have proven communication skills, teaching ability and so on. How do you think that might be measured, as opposed to the certification process that supposedly or hopefully measures it for teachers?

Mr Cunningham: I'm not convinced that the certification process for certifying teachers meets those criteria, and I would suggest that particularly new teachers and in fact probably many old teachers -

Mr Wildman: Senior.

Mr Cunningham: Yes, mature, senior teachers; I think teachers invented the word "burnout" - could use refreshers on how to teach, probably by looking back at one's work history, references and that kind of thing. I'm not convinced that every teacher in our system is an excellent teacher, a good communicator and would meet all the criteria for teaching and communication and classroom management that we would like to see.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Cunningham, for assisting the committee here today.

1500

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE
EMPLOYEES UNION

The Chair: Our next presentation will be the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Ms Leah Casselman. I'd ask you to proceed.

Ms Leah Casselman: I'm Leah Casselman, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

Bill 160 is not designed to improve public education in Ontario. Like previous Tory initiatives, its goal is to weaken our public services until they lose what remains of their public legitimacy. Ratcheting down public expectations is the first step in the Tory plan to privatize our public services. The Common Sense Revolution is really about creating opportunities for businesses, private sector parasites who can't make it in the real marketplace and who want to run our services for their profit.

We are here today for a number of reasons. First, we represent 3,500 workers in the education sector who will be hurt by these proposed changes; second, as a member of the common front, we stand in solidarity with Ontario's teachers; and finally, we are here as citizens, as parents, as students and as individuals concerned about the long-term effects of an underfunded education system.

These are some of the specific effects of this proposed legislation:

(1) It makes it easier for the Tories to take money out of the province's education system to help pay for their tax breaks for the wealthy.

(2) It reduces the number of teachers in Ontario.

(3) It allows school boards to replace professional teachers with underqualified and non-union workers.

(4) It further reduces wages for public sector workers.

(5) It forces school boards to look favourably at contracting out.

(6) It strips teachers of their past victories. By legislative fiat, the bill removes previously negotiated rules about hours of work.

In a nutshell, this bill is designed to reduce the quality of our public education system, not improve it. Others will give you more detail on these concerns, but in my brief time before you I want to focus on this bill's specific impact on OPSEU's own members.

As I said, we represent 3,500 people working in the elementary and secondary school systems across Ontario. More than 1,500 of these workers are occasional or substitute teachers; the other 2,000 are teaching assistants, education professionals, office and clerical staff and service employees.

Bill 160 steals occasional teachers', substitute teachers' right to choose their own union. Bill 160 says that substitute teachers will become members of teachers' bargaining units in the second collective agreement following December 31, 1997. Since the first collective agreement must have a minimum term of two years, occasional teachers would switch to teachers' bargaining units in 2000 or later. We oppose this. The substitute teachers we represent are with us of their own free will. The only way that our substitute teachers should be forced to change their chosen bargaining agent is through a democratic vote. This is how the labour relations system is supposed to work.

We have been able to meet the needs of our substitute teacher members by giving them excellent representation. Substitute teachers have made it perfectly clear that they wish to remain in OPSEU. Am I keeping you up? Good. The substitute teachers we represent don't want to lose the advantages of OPSEU membership. The idea that they can be assigned to another union with no say runs counter to even the amended Bill 136, which guarantees workers a vote where more than one union has representation rights. It certainly flies in the face of labour relations practices.

Substitute teachers replacing teachers on leave for up to two years: Subsection 4(1.1), on page 12 of Bill 160, redefines substitute teaching to permit the use of substitute teachers to replace an absent teacher for a temporary period which "shall not extend past the end of the second school year." That's up to two school years.

While this may look good for substitute teachers, we see it as simply another way to cut permanent teaching jobs and teaching costs. If occasional teachers are working as permanent teachers, then they should be permanent teachers or, at a minimum, receive the benefits of being a permanent teacher.

The effects of a longer school year: We represent the interests of all of our members in ensuring that they receive a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. If this government makes any regulatory change to lengthen the school year, we will work to ensure that our members are compensated accordingly.

Teachers versus non-teachers: Clause 170.1(3)(e) allows the government to designate positions that are not teaching positions and prescribe the minimum qualifications for these positions. We view this as an attempt to reduce the size and influence of the teachers' unions and reduce the wages of the people performing these jobs. We will try to organize these people as will other unions. We will not stand idly by and watch as their wages are slashed and their rights taken away.

I'd like now to return to our more general critique of Bill 160. In 1995-96 five Canadian provinces and territories and 40 American states spent more money per pupil on education than Ontario. Compared to Canadian and US jurisdictions, Ontario ranks 46th. Yet Ontario, with its increasingly diverse population and large number of recent immigrants, faces unique educational challenges.

It is not acceptable to starve the education system. Even Ernie Eves, in a recent Toronto Star article, wrote, "The greatest strength of our economy is our highly skilled and educated labour force." It is high time the Minister of Finance put his money where his pencil is.

We face a choice. We can maintain an education system that ranks in the bottom quarter of Canada/US jurisdictions or we can invest in our future prosperity. We would think that this government, with its focus on business and economic growth, would understand the direct relationship between education spending and the economy and act accordingly.

Privatization and contracting out allow government and school boards to cut salaries, eliminate benefits and break unions. They reduce the quality of service, increase complaints and do not result in savings. In summary, they are more about politics, the right-wing agenda of this government, than about economic common sense.

It is clear from Bill 160 that the government wants to reduce the wages of workers in the education sector. Whether through decertifying teachers, reducing education expenditures or encouraging privatization and contracting out, this government is punishing education workers. It is doing this even though their wage increases, if any, have lagged behind inflation and wage increases for private sector workers.

OPSEU represents 100,000 members in the public sector, 3,500 working for school boards. They are fed up with being made scapegoats for the government's lack of leadership.

In conclusion, we in OPSEU have seen this show before: our Ontario public service strike, Bill 7, Bill 26, Bill 103, Bill 104, Bill 136, Bill 142, Bill 152 and now Bill 160. This is just another in a long list of attacks on public sector workers and on labour relations in general.

The teachers aren't going to take this any more, and neither are we. The government must learn that the citizens of this province have had enough. People do not believe the provincial government any more, and they are not going to sit quietly by while it destroys the province and the education system. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. There's really no time for questions. You have about 30 seconds more. Is there anything you wish to add?

Ms Casselman: I just thought I'd brighten your day, since I realized the committee hearings have been stacked with people you really want to hear from. I was really pleased that I was able to be here and keep you awake for this afternoon. It was my pleasure to provide that stimulation for you.

The Chair: We certainly appreciate having you here. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Report continues in volume B.