Ministry of Training,
Colleges and Universities Statute Law Amendment Act,
2000, Bill 132, Mrs Cunningham / Loi de
2000 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait au ministère de la
Formation et des Collèges et Universités,
projet de loi 132, Mme Cunningham
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington PC)
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill PC)
Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale /
Toronto-Centre-Rosedale L)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Ms Catherine Macnaughton, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1551 in committee room
1.
MINISTRY OF TRAINING, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT DES LOIS
EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU MINISTÈRE DE LA FORMATION ET DES
COLLÈGES ET UNIVERSITÉS
Consideration of Bill 132, An
Act to enact the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence
Act, 2000, repeal the Degree Granting Act and change the title of
and make amendments to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities
Act / Projet de loi 132, Loi édictant la Loi de 2000
favorisant le choix et l'excellence au niveau postsecondaire,
abrogeant la Loi sur l'attribution de grades universitaires et
modifiant le titre et le texte de la Loi sur le ministère
des Collèges et Universités.
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): I call the committee to order for
clause-by-clause of Bill 132, An Act to enact the Post-secondary
Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, repeal the Degree
Granting Act and change the title of and make amendments to the
Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.
As is our protocol, instead
of opening statements, members are free to speak to the section
and/or anything that comes to mind, but your invitation to do
that would be my calling for any questions, comments or
amendments to section 1.
Mrs Tina R. Molinari
(Thornhill): Mr Chair, are you starting with some
opening comments and opening statements? Are we all doing
that?
The Chair:
If anyone wanted to make opening statements, this would be a good
time. If you'd rather reserve your comments to the relevant
sections, that also is in order.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Mr Chair, I want to put on the record
the fact that the parliamentary assistant has made some effort to
work with the opposition members as a way of-I'm not sure how
collaborative it is, but it is encouraging to see that some
members are interested in working with the opposition to try to
get some amendments through on the basis that they are fair and
reasonable and they would probably improve the bill.
I just wanted to congratulate
Ms Molinari for the efforts she is making. Quite frankly, I don't
see it too often, I must admit, since we've got a few moments. I
recall in the past when I used to do this, as a government
member, and found that some things you folks were saying on the
other side were reasonable. Finding them reasonable, I would go
to the staff and say, "What's wrong with that?" Then we'd go to
the whip and say, "I'm going to support this," and they would go
crazy. They would accuse us of freelancing and say, "What are you
doing?"
It is my view that often
opposition members can, obviously, contribute to making the bill
better, even if we disagree with parts of it or most of it. It is
the duty, I think, of the government members, while they are in
committee, to listen very carefully to what opposition members
have to say-that's not always been the case-and in so doing,
adopt some of the changes we are making. I wanted to say that for
the record.
On this bill, I am completely
opposed to the privatization of our university system. I think
it's wrong. I think there's no need for that. We believe that
very few people in Ontario believe there is a need for them. You
would have to scratch your head awfully hard and dig deep into
the ground to find a couple of them who might well agree with
private universities. I don't know too many, but I'm convinced
some of you know a couple who want private universities.
Generally speaking,
governments respond to a perceived need, or we respond to the
fact that people are demonstrating in the streets, saying, "We
want private universities." That's the way it works generally,
right? I suspect some of you might argue that you're leading on
this issue. Even though there is no groundswell of support out
there, you, as brilliant as you are-because you folks are
omnipotent and omniscient and so much more-know better than the
general public. For their benefit, because you are so benevolent,
you have introduced a measure that is really, really going to
help the people out there who are looking for choice and
excellence; not just choice, but excellence too. As I say, while
I haven't seen too many, I suspect you are looking way ahead,
anticipating the crowd and the groundswell of people who will
demand it some day, and you're ahead of the pack.
I wanted to make those couple
of points to suggest as well that you're not going to solve our
enrolment problem, our capacity problem. We have a capacity
problem that you're not
fixing very well. You would rather spend $1 billion in tax
rebates than building capacity of our university system to accept
these students who we should be accepting in our universities.
That's your priority. You don't want to spend like the old
governments. No, no, that would not be your way, or certainly M.
Eves's way, who said today, "We're not going to go back to the
tax-and-spend ways." But $1 billion of tax rebates is something
that maybe you can afford to do. I understand. You found $1
billion by cutting education funding: elementary and secondary,
$1.6 billion; post-secondary, $500 million; and I would say in
total about $1.4 billion in operating funds. While you restored a
couple of dollars, by and large, you cut a whole lot of
money.
You're not dealing with the
capacity problem we've got and students are going to be strapped
to find a place. So you say, "That's why we're introducing
private universities, to deal with the capacity issue." Well, how
many students do you think that will accommodate? I don't think
you know. It might accommodate a couple of thousand students,
maybe. Some claim and say-
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): A couple of thousand
rich students.
Mr Marchese:
A couple of thousand rich students-God bless. There are rich and
poor. They all need to have choice and excellence.
The estimate is that you
would need, by the end of the decade, about 90,000 spaces for our
students. At the rate you're going, we're in trouble. You've also
got the double cohort problem you've got to deal with in three or
four years, and that's something I don't think you're planning
for very well. And, by the way, this will happen when the
recession is in full force, so you're going to face a whole heap
of problems. So while this private university of yours will
accommodate the wealthy young men and women who need choice, it
simply won't solve the capacity problem. To say that it does is
dumb. It's not logical. It's absurd. It's really dumb. What need
does it solve? I'm not quite sure. I really don't know why you
folks are doing this.
My opposition is particularly
to this introduction of private universities. We are afraid that
once the North American free trade agreements are applied to this
bill, we're going to face problems. Once you allow private
universities to come in, you have to apply fair treatment laws or
fair treatment principles to them, which means they will have to
be treated equally along with other public institutions. If that
is so, a whole lot of people are going to be unhappy about what
it means to treat them equally when they are presumably a private
university and presumably they're going to have to pay their own
way. You say the government is not going to provide any funding,
which, by the way, I doubt. That's why we've got some amendments,
to try to make it more difficult for the private universities to
have access to the dollars they're hoping they're going to
get.
Anyway, I don't want to bore
you too much. We'll have an opportunity, once this comes for
third reading, to speak to the public directly, and I will have
more to say on this and other things.
The Chair:
We certainly look forward to those comments.
Mr Marchese:
Of course.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I just want to make it clear that the
Liberal caucus does support this part of the bill. We agree with
the part that gives applied degrees to community colleges. We
think that's a timely and correct choice and it will make them
more competitive. We will be watching that those degrees are of
quality level and they're not just Mickey Mouse degrees, just a
piece of paper saying you've got a degree without an employer
actually respecting that piece of paper. We like that part of the
bill.
The part that we're against
is the private universities. We understand it's a majority
government, so of course it's going to pass. Our amendments are
made to protect the students. I too want to thank the
parliamentary assistant, Ms Molinari, for working with us in the
hopes that our amendments will either pass or be part of
regulation or be part of some process so that students are
protected during the enactment of this bill.
1600
We too believe that part of
the motivation for this bill was the fact that the double cohort
is coming and the government hasn't planned appropriately for it:
over 90,000 more students in 2003, and then the echo boom means
that this problem will continue even after those years. If this
is a solution, I think we're going to have difficulties in
2003.
Tuition has increased.
Deregulation of some programs, particularly medicine and law, has
made it the area of the rich right now. Research has shown that
students with families under $50,000 are accessing these
deregulated programs to a significantly lesser degree than nine
years ago. Those are some of the concerns we have. We don't think
this bill will address those concerns, but as an opposition all
we can do now is lessen the blow, protect the students, and hope
that times will change and that the public education system will
be funded more appropriately so that the need for private
institutions won't be there and they will close on their own
because the public institutions will continue to offer the
programs that they offer.
Just one last note: in all of
the Canadian embassies across the world, one of the bragging
points is the fact that we have only public universities, by and
large, in Canada. That ensures consistency of quality, and that's
one of the selling points of this country. It really saddens me
to see that the beginning of the end of this is in the province
where I reside.
With that, I go in good faith
that the government will at least acknowledge that some of the
amendments are good and that they will protect the students when
this bill is enacted.
Mr George Smitherman
(Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I am happy to take the
opportunity to put on record my concerns with respect to what I
do see as the slippery slope toward the loss of the traditional,
and I would have hoped enduring, values that Canadians relate to.
With bills like this to
allow for private universities I think we see the essence of what
is Canada heading down a very, very treacherous and slippery
slope.
It seems to me that Canadians
associate well-funded systems of public health and public
education as key elements, defining characteristics, of their
country. We saw in the recent federal election campaign
extraordinary debates around one-tier or two-tier. In my view,
this is the two-tier equivalent of the debate that went on with
respect to the health care system.
I would say that, for those
who, like me, feel a great sense of angst in the face of this
increasing trend on an economic level toward globalization and
the threats that come with it in terms of whether our country-a
small country in the grand scheme of things-will be able to
sustain itself and the things that we value in the face of these
extraordinary global pressures, the government has caved in on
this for what amounts in some sense to a land play, as I hear
about it discussed in York region and from prominent members of
governments past. Traditional Canadian values are put at risk by
this legislation, and the hope that Canadians share in these
common values of a well-funded system of public education and
public health-they are made much less likely to be enduring
Canadian values as a result of the government's willingness to
allow a different set of rules to play for those who have no
limit to cash. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you. Further debate?
Mrs
Molinari: I welcome the opportunity to speak for a few
moments before we get into the actual debating clause by clause
of the bill.
I want to first of all thank
all the presenters who came and took the time and effort to make
presentations before this committee, and also all of the people
who participated in our ongoing consultation process that the
minister and I engaged in through the months of May and June.
Some of the issues that came through those consultations and the
presenters-there was a consistent theme, and I believe the
legislation that is put forward addresses that theme that we
heard through the consultation process.
I want to also thank the
opposition members for their interest in the bill. Although we
differ philosophically in a number of issues, I think the time
and effort that they spent in putting together the amendments
that they've presented and in the research that they've done
certainly says they have a real interest. I thank them for their
effort and their willingness to work co-operatively. I really
appreciate that.
I want to clarify the intent
of this legislation. If enacted, the proposed legislation would
allow the government to implement its access to degree programs
initiatives to provide more choice to students and promote
improvement and excellence in our post-secondary system.
I also want to clarify that
this bill is not designed to address the double cohort or
increasing enrolment, as has been stated by both the opposition
members. The government invested over $1 billion through
SuperBuild to create 73,000 student spaces. In essence, this bill
is about choice for students. We have never said that this bill
would be what would be addressing the capacity issue.
I also want to put on record
some of the concerns that were expressed in some of the
presentations; specifically, the impact of NAFTA and GATS, the
General Agreement on Trade in Services. Under the existing North
American free trade agreement, Canadian governments have the
right to adopt or maintain their own policies in respect of
social services such as public education and public training.
Ontario's ability to provide financial support to its public
universities will not be affected by NAFTA. As Canada's Minister
for International Trade advised the House of Commons in May 2000,
"It is Canada's right to regulate and protect fundamental
Canadian values within the health care sector as well as in
education."
With respect to the GATS,
education is not part of the existing GATS agreement. The federal
government has consistently stated that education will not be
part of the negotiations for a new GATS agreement. With respect
to the current GATS negotiations, Canada's World Trade
Organization ambassador and former Minister of International
Trade, Sergio Marchi, appeared before the House of Commons
standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade in
March 2000 and stated, "Let me assure you that Canada's health
and education services will not be on the table during these
discussions." This position has been supported by Ontario's
Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who has stated on
numerous occasions that Ontario will not support any new WTO
trade liberalization agreement that jeopardizes the provision of
public education, health and social services in the province.
With respect to some of the
comments about provincial research funds, at present, only
publicly assisted universities, colleges of applied arts and
technology, not-for-profit research institutes and research
hospitals qualify for research funding under the competitive
programs at the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology; ie,
the Ontario research and development challenge fund, the Ontario
Innovation Trust and the Premier's Research Excellence Awards. If
a private university were to request eligibility or wished to
partner with a publicly assisted university, the issue of
institutional eligibility would have to be re-examined. A private
university would not qualify under the existing criteria.
Thank you, Mr Chair, for
allowing me to put that on the record. I am prepared now to
continue on with the passage of the legislation through the
committee and to go through the clause-by-clause.
Mr Marchese:
Just a couple of remarks. The issue of capacity is on the table.
Her minister and her government generally speak to this issue all
the time. I'm surprised Mrs Molinari says, "It is not an issue
for us or this bill," as if they're not connected or related and
we shouldn't even talk about it, because they have said it deals
with the issue of capacity on a number of occasions in a number of speeches that have been
made. So it surprises me that she would say that.
As a corollary, she then
said, "Ah, but we have the SuperBuild fund. That deals with
capacity." The SuperBuild fund is an inadequate fund. Just to
remind you, New Democrats used to spend more on capacity building
in a recessionary period than you folks are doing in this
wonderful economy of yours that you are so proud of. While you're
saying the SuperBuild fund is taking care of that, it is
inadequate. Proportionate to this great wealth of this economy,
it is less than what we were spending. Proportionate to the
needs, it is hardly commensurate. We've got a problem is what I'm
saying to you, Tina.
I know you've got to put a
good spin on it. That's fine, I understand, because that's what
you folks do all the time here in committee and in the
Legislature, and you're always performing, right?
1610
We always have to tell the
folks, on television or in print, these are the facts. I love
your minister. Today she says, "Our facts are different." She
knows about her facts, right? She has never put out these facts
by way of research, saying, "Here we've got the research." She
just says, "You're not telling the truth." You can't say that,
but she says to the opposition members, "No, no, no, those facts
are wrong." Does she say that, more or less? Presumably her facts
are right and she says that all the time. But it's not just
she-
Interjection.
Mr Marchese:
She's the minister. She's omnipotent; exactly.
With respect to the issues of
NAFTA and the multilateral agreement on investment, GATT is the
old group of people who were negotiating. That has been
disbanded. Now we've got a new group, MAI. Now we've got another
little group dealing with services.
You may not have heard about
it, Tina, but a whole lot of people in the background-those rich
countries that hire a whole lot of good bureaucrats, who work out
agreements for us little people-have services, which by the way
include health, education, culture and so on, on the table. The
Americans want this on the table and so do a few other
countries.
By the way, while you quoted
M. Marchi as saying one thing, some of those people federally are
doing another in the back scene. We've got to be vigilant at all
levels here. It's not just provincial members not knowing what's
happening out there, but at the federal level we may not be
getting the straight goods either. So services are on the
table.
I am quite concerned about
the fact that health is a big industry, and a whole lot of people
who want to make money want health to be on the table. You know
that. Education too is a big industry, and a whole lot of people
could stand to make a lot of money, and they want that on the
table too. International agreements, not just between us and the
Americans, right? I thought I'd put that on the record for
you.
With respect to the fact that
they wouldn't qualify for research, maybe I haven't seen any
amendment that you might have made, but you might want to clarify
that in the amendments, so you would say they don't qualify for
research funding. You might want to specify what they don't
qualify for so that we know, as opposed to saying they don't
qualify-you might want to spell it out in the bill, which would
be helpful. I would support it, I think.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Quickly, I want to corroborate my
colleague Mr Marchese's comments. The minister has in fact
addressed the capacity issue through this bill on a number of
occasions and said, "This is one way; we can't do it on our own."
Also, even if-and it's a big if-the SuperBuild was enough, that's
only walls and buildings.
Not one more professor was
hired, or there isn't any plan to hire one more professor, or
equipment, and those are operating dollars. So to say that you
have fulfilled the space problem for 2003 just by building
buildings is inaccurate.
As far as public monies,
thank you for reading that, but what you were quoting started
with "At present," which means the future is unknown.
I also want to go back to
last week's hearings, where the parliamentary assistant herself
said, "I can't guarantee you what other ministries will give or
not give, with respect to public monies, to these private
institutions." I saw the ministry employee squirm a little bit
when you said that, so maybe it was a mistake. Maybe there is
some sort of guarantee so other ministries cannot give to private
universities. Again, there is no assurance, so that part of the
bill is wishy-washy at best.
We should probably just be
honest with the public and say, "We believe in this and therefore
we'll give public money. Judge us at the next election." But this
wishy-washiness is very bothersome and I want to put that on the
record.
The Chair:
Thank you. Further debate? To section 1?
Seeing none, shall section 1
carry? Section 1 is carried.
Section 2, any comments or
amendments? Debate?
Seeing none, shall section 2
carry? Carried.
Section 3: Mr Marchese, you
are first up to bat. It would be the motion entitled A1.
Mr Marchese:
Subsection 3(7) of the bill, section 12 of the Ministry of
Training, Colleges and Universities Act.
I move that section 12 of the
act as set out in subsection 3(7) of the bill is amended,
(a) by striking out
subsections (1) and (2); and
(b) by striking out "$25,000
if the person is an individual or" in clause (5)(a).
The Chair:
Do you want to speak to your amendment?
Mr Marchese:
No. I think we can go through most of these things really
quickly.
The Chair:
OK. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment
is lost.
Further debate on section 3? Seeing none, shall
section 3 carry? Section 3 is carried.
Mrs
Molinari: I move that section 4 of the bill be struck
out and the following substituted:
"Commencement
"4(1) Subject to subsection
(2), this act comes into force on the day it receives royal
assent.
"Same
"(2) Sections 1 and 2 come
into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant
Governor."
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to the amendment?
Mrs
Molinari: Yes. This amendment is administrative. The
Post-secondary Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, will be
proclaimed at a later date if the bill is enacted. The current
Degree Granting Act will be repealed. Until the proclamation of
the Post-secondary Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, the current
Degree Granting Act will remain in force. All other parts of the
bill will come into force on the day of royal assent if the bill
is enacted.
The government feels it would
be prudent to give itself some administrative flexibility to
determine when sections 1 and 2 come into force. The new
Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board that will
provide the continuing quality control has not yet been
appointed. It has not yet developed criteria, which we feel
should be done carefully and with full consideration of
maintaining quality. When the board is appointed and has
developed its criteria and processes to ensure the competency and
ability of an applicant to provide a degree program and to ensure
consumer protection, we intend to proclaim these sections.
The Chair:
Further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
All those in favour? Opposed?
The amendment is carried.
Shall section 4, as amended,
carry? Section 4, as amended, is carried.
Section 5. Any debate or
amendments? Seeing none, shall section 5 carry? It is
carried.
Mrs
Molinari: I move that section 2 of the schedule to the
bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Exception
"(2) Despite subsection (1),
a person may directly or indirectly advertise and provide a
program or part of a program of post-secondary study leading to a
degree if,
"(a) the person provides the
program or part of the program under an agreement with another
person who is authorized by an act of the assembly or by the
minister under this act to provide the program or part of the
program; and
"(b) the degree to which the
program or part of the program leads is conferred only by that
other person who is authorized to provide the program or part of
the program."
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to the amendment?
Mrs
Molinari: Yes. This adds a subsection to section 2 of
the schedule to Bill 132. This schedule is the Post-secondary
Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000. Because we are
suggesting adding a new subsection, the numbering of section 2
will change. The current section 2 would become subsection
2(1).
1620
In submissions to the
committee I have heard, and the minister has also heard, that
there has been some confusion about the regulation of
collaborative programs between colleges of applied arts and
technology and other institutions. We believe this proposed
amendment clarifies and provides more concrete and specific
wording. It does not change the bill's intent from the previous
wording. The government encourages and, through this amendment,
confirms that collaboration agreements between colleges and other
institutions will be permitted as long as one of the partners has
authority to offer a program or part of a program and to offer
the degree under the proposed provisions of this act.
The Chair:
Further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
All those in favour of the
amendment? The amendment is carried.
Shall section 2 of the
schedule, as amended, carry? It is carried.
Schedule 3 of the
section.
Mr
Marchese: I move that section 3 of the schedule to the
bill be amended by striking out "or by the minister under this
act."
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to that?
Mr
Marchese: No, it is quite obvious. I'll speak to this in
the House when we have time.
The Chair:
Any further debate?
Mrs
Molinari: I could speak on and explain all these
amendments. We won't be supporting this. This is in the opposite
direction of the government initiative and cannot be supported.
Sufficient scrutiny of the new private universities will occur,
under the bill's proposals, by expert academic assessors, by
representatives of all interested parties serving on the
Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board and by the
transparency process. The giving of a consent for a fixed term
will allow for further scrutiny on an application for renewal,
which presently doesn't exist. We will not be supporting this
amendment.
The Chair:
Further debate?
Seeing none, all those in
favour of Mr Marchese's amendment? Opposed? The amendment is
lost.
Shall section 3 of the
schedule carry? It is carried.
Section 4.
Mr
Marchese: Here I go again, Tina. I move that subsection
4(1) of the schedule to the bill be amended by striking out
"sections 2 and 3" and substituting "section 2." I want to hear
from Tina.
The Chair:
Further debate?
Mrs
Molinari: It is basically the same as the previous one,
so we will not be supporting it.
The Chair: Any further debate?
Seeing none, all those in
favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I move that section 4 of the schedule to
the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Exception
"(1.1) Despite subsection
(1), the minister shall not give a written consent to a person to
do one or more things described in section 3 if they are seeking
consent as a private university."
We believe the term
"university" should only be in the public domain. These private
things can call themselves institutes or schools, but we prefer
the term "university" be in the public domain.
The Chair:
Any further debate?
Seeing none, all those in
favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I move that subsection 4(4) of the
schedule to the bill be amended by striking out "and" at the end
of clause (a), inserting "and" at the end of clause (b) and
adding the following clause:
"(c) that the person has
made arrangements to ensure that students will receive a partial
course credit from another educational institution if the person
ceases to teach a course before the scheduled end of the
course."
Basically, this is to
protect students if these institutions, like their private
college cousins, either go under or professors or teachers-I have
part-time instructors in mind-quit in the middle of a course. It
just protects the students.
Mr
Marchese: Very reasonable, I think.
The Chair:
Further debate?
Mrs
Molinari: Just a comment on this amendment. We will not
be supporting it. There is no jurisdiction anywhere, of which we
are aware, that requires institutions to accept transfer
students. We intend to make it mandatory for consent holders to
advise students of transfer arrangements where they exist, and to
let students know if they do not exist. It is covered in a
portion of the bill, number 13(e) under the regulations.
This is unduly restrictive,
as the board will assess the viability of proposals and we do not
expect proposals to be recommended that will result in
closure.
The Chair:
Any further debate?
Mrs
Bountrogianni: There is a jurisdiction, and that's the
province of Alberta, but we'll go on to the vote now.
Mr
Marchese: Excuse me, they don't know that?
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Obviously not.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
All those in favour of the
amendment? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I move that section 4 of the schedule to
the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Minimum requirements
"(4.1) The Minister shall
not give a consent unless he or she is satisfied that,
"(a) the person seeking the
consent will have physical facilities containing equipment and
learning resources appropriate to the educational programs to be
offered and a sufficient number of full-time teaching staff with
appropriate educational qualifications to teach the programs;
and
"(b) the quality of
education and training to be offered will be comparable to or
better than the quality offered by educational institutions
operating in Ontario on a non-profit basis."
Again, this is basically to
protect the student with respect to the quality in the
institution. I understand there will be a board that will be
okaying the quality of institutions, but this is an added
insurance.
As well, I want to refer
the government members to the institute in Mississauga-I can't
remember the name-which defrauded the government of $18 million
of OSAP. When investigated, it was a two-room joint. I just want
more assurance that that won't occur at the university level.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
All those in favour of the
amendment? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Mr
Marchese: I move that subsection 4(5) of the schedule to
the bill be amended by striking out clause (b).
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to the amendment?
Mr
Marchese: I want to hear from Tina.
The Chair:
Any further debate?
Mrs
Molinari: I can just say it's the same as the other
motions. They're all consistent, so the same comments I made on
your amendment number 3 pertain to this one.
The Chair:
Further debate?
Seeing none, all those in
favour of the amendment? Opposed?
Were you jumping the gun,
or are you opposed?
Mr
Marchese: I couldn't hear you well.
The Chair:
All those opposed? The amendment is lost.
Ms Molinari, with what will
likely be the last one under the wire at 4:30.
Mrs
Molinari: I move that subsection 4(6) of the schedule to
the bill be amended by striking out "section 3" and substituting
"section 2 or 3."
The original subsection,
along with subsection 7, which I will address later, provided the
minister with the authority to consider future development and
evolution of our Ontario college system beyond the granting of
applied degrees.
We think it is prudent to
provide this flexibility now, even though we are not
contemplating allowing Ontario colleges to grant other than
applied degrees or to have a college evolve into a university at
this time.
The original wording of the
subsection, along with subsection 7, however, allowed this
evolution to happen only if a college first became a university.
This presented an either/or situation for the future evolution of
colleges. In order to grant ordinary degrees, a college would
first have to become a university. There would be no middle
ground for a college to
be a polytechnic institute or a university college with the
authority to grant a limited number of ordinary degrees. Such an
evolution would require scrutiny by cabinet before it happened,
and any changes would need to be by regulation.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
All those in favour of the
amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
With that, I remind
everyone that-and I quote from the order given to the
committee-"Pursuant to standing order 46 that at 4:30 pm on the
final day designated by the committee for clause-by-clause
consideration of the bill, those amendments which have not been
moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair shall
interrupt the proceedings and shall without further debate or
amendment put every question necessary to dispose of all
remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto."
Therefore, you will find
the amendments numbered at the top of the page. We will proceed
on that basis.
The next amendment up is
number 10, an NDP motion.
All those in favour?
Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Amendment number 11, a
government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment
carries.
Shall schedule 4, as
amended, carry? Schedule 4, as amended, is carried.
Schedule 5, amendment
number 12, a Liberal amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? The
amendment is lost.
Number 13. All those in
favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Number 14. All those in
favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Shall section 5 of the
schedule carry? Section 5 of the schedule is carried.
Shall section 6 of the
schedule carry? It is carried.
The next amendment is
number 15, a Liberal motion. All those in favour? Opposed? The
amendment is lost.
Number 16. All those in
favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Shall section 7 of the
schedule carry? It is carried.
Amendment number 17. All
those in favour? Opposed? It is lost.
Number 18. All those in
favour? Opposed? Lost.
Shall section 8 of the
schedule carry? It is carried.
Section 9, amendment 19.
All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Shall section 9 of the
schedule carry? It is carried.
Shall section 10 of the
schedule carry? It is carried.
I am ruling amendment
number 20 out of order. Money bills or any amendment that
purports to spend money must first be assented to by the
Lieutenant Governor, which means we have no section 10.1.
Shall section 11 of the
schedule carry? It is carried.
Amendment 21. All those in
favour? Opposed? That amendment is lost.
Amendment number 22. All
those in favour? Opposed? That amendment is lost.
Shall section 12 of
schedule carry? It is carried.
Shall section 13 of the
schedule carry? It is carried.
Shall section 14 of the
schedule carry? It is carried.
Shall the title of the bill
carry? It is carried.
Shall Bill 132, as amended,
carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Bill 132, as amended, is
carried.
Shall I report the bill, as
amended, to the House?
All those in favour of my
reporting the bill to the House? Opposed? I shall report the bill
to the House tomorrow.
Thank you to all who
presented and to all the committee members for your attention to
this bill.
