Committee Transcript 2000-Jun-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Association des conseillères et des conseillers des écoles publiques de l'Ontario ; Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques
M^me Louise Pinet
M. Rhéal Perron

Parent Network
Ms Pat Middleton
Ms Linda Querel

Ms Lamar Mason

Mr Ron Hungerford

Ottawa-Carleton Assembly of School Councils
Ms Betty Tait
Ms Cynthia Pohran
Mr Ken Slemko

Mr David Spencer; Ms Divina Yee

Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, Upper Canada Local
Mr Randy Frith

National Capital Secondary School Athletic Association
Ms Sue Fleming

Ms Shelly Corlyon

Mr Tom Nephin; Ms Betsy Smith

Mr Frank Kinsella

Mr John McEwen; Ms Ariane Carriere

Mr Danny Thomas

Mr Robert Steinman

Ottawa-Carleton Catholic Educational Community
Mr Sean Borg
Ms Donna Marie Kennedy
Ms Anne Plante-Perkins
Ms June Flynn-Turner

Ms Michele Perry

Catholic Principals' Council of Ontario
Ms Mary-Catherine Kelly

Mr Brian Van Norman

Ms Margaret McCornock

Mr Neil Benjamin; Ms Lori Taylor

Ms Dale Johnston

Mr Gordon Hough

Ms Lisa Cholowski; Ms Sally Dewey

Mr Rob Umpherson; Ms Mary Lynn Paull

Mr Paul Bullock

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Chair / Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South / -Sud L)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier L)
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South / -Sud L)

Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial

Staff / Personnel
Ms Elaine Campell, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0900 in the Weston Hotel, Ottawa.

EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION

Consideration of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Education Act to increase education quality, to improve the accountability of school boards to students, parents and taxpayers and to enhance students' school experience / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation pour rehausser la qualité de l'éducation, accroître la responsabilité des conseils scolaires devant les élèves, les parents et les contribuables et enrichir l'expérience scolaire des élèves.

The Chair (Ms Marilyn Mushinski): I call the meeting to order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We do have a full day, many delegations. Individuals will be given 10 minutes in which to speak and groups will be given 15 minutes.

WARREN DELIMA
JILL LAPIERRE

The Chair: The first presenters of the morning are Mrs Jill LaPierre and Mr Warren DeLima. Good morning.

Mr Warren deLima: Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, thanks for coming to Ottawa. I hope you're having a good time on your arrival.

We're here to talk about Bill 74, of course, and to talk about the Ontario government's side.

"Ecker intends to introduce the proposed Education Accountability Act which would, if approved by the Legislature, amend Ontario's Education Act to ensure that school boards:

"Provide co-instructional activities such as sports, arts and special school activities;

"Actually meet the provincial standards set two years ago for the amount of time secondary teachers spend performing key teaching duties;

"Meet other province-wide standards and fulfill their legal, educational...."

This is a response to respond to the grassroots of Ontario's students, Ontario education and of course, Ontarians all over.

"`Many aspects of school life contribute to a good education.... Parents know that activities like sports, arts, and parent-teacher interviews are not an extra.

"`When we introduced provincial standards for instructional time in 1998, teachers reminded us that co-instructional activities were an important part of both professional and school life. But lately, the story has changed, and these activities have been used as a bargaining chip.

"`We can no longer allow teachers' unions to threaten to withdraw, or actually withdraw, from offering these important experiences to students. Our proposed amendments would recognize all these important co-instructional activities and require school boards to provide them.'

"The amendments would also ensure that boards and teachers' unions meet the government requirements on teaching time for secondary school teachers.

"The provincial standard first established in 1998 required that teachers provide an average of four hours and 10 minutes of instruction a day for a total of 1,250 minutes a week. That requirement would now be restated in terms of course loads. School boards must ensure that secondary school teachers are assigned to an average of 6.67 credit or credit-equivalent courses a year.

"If a school board is not following provincial standards or laws respecting co-instructional activities, instructional time, class size, payment of trustee remuneration and expenses, funding allocations or curriculum, the minister could order an investigation. Following a report, the minister could direct the board to comply.

"Ontario will also strengthen its province-wide education standards with lower average class sizes....

"Amendments to the Education Act, if approved by the Legislature, would set maximum average class size of 24 pupils to each teacher for junior kindergarten to grade 3, with an overall maximum average class size for all elementary classes, junior kindergarten to grade 8, of 24.5 pupils to each teacher. The maximum average class size for high school would be lowered to 21 pupils to each teacher All these new class size standards will be effective September 2000.

"Annual funding of $101 million to lower elementary class size was announced in the May 2 Ontario budget.

"Ecker announced that the government is now committing an estimated further $162 million in the 2000-01 school year to lower average class sizes in secondary schools."

In 1998, Ecker announced that they set provincial standards for class size. This halted a trend of increases in average class size and ended the practice of school boards and teachers' unions negotiating increases in class size.

"`Now, we're taking the next step and lowering class size for children in the earliest years of their education and the challenging high school years.'"

Ms Jill LaPierre: Hi. My name is Jill LaPierre. I'd just like to preface this by saying I am a second-year university student. That means I am two years out of high school. I had wonderful high school teachers and a great education from them all.

I support Bill 74. I find there has been a lot of fear-mongering by the unions about Bill 74. I think a lot of people need to learn the truth that's contained within the bill. For instance, myth number 1 would be that the government's real agenda is to cut teaching jobs. The Ontario government has invested, through this bill, in smaller class sizes for both elementary and secondary schools. More classes mean more teachers. Some $101 million was announced in the May 2 budget to reduce class sizes in the primary grades, and a further $162 million was announced on May 10 to reduce class sizes in high schools.

Myth number 2: The government, through this act, is forcing teachers to teach another class. High school teachers, as mandated in the law in 1997, must still spend an average of four hours and 10 minutes of instructional time per day in the classroom. This is also a board-wide average, which many people don't understand. Individual teachers have varying workloads and will always continue to have that.

Myth number 3: This new law will mean voluntary activities are now mandatory. The vast majority of teachers have traditionally done an amazing job of making co-instructional activities a part of their work and available to their students. But unions have always used as a bargaining chip-and I find very unfairly as a bargaining chip-the withdrawal of co-instructional activities through the work-to-rule campaign. Teachers' unions have nothing to worry about unless they intend to withdraw co-instructional activities for this bargaining.

Also, in the definition of co-instructional activities, what the teachers say is to be considered voluntary includes: parent-teacher interviews, staff meetings, school functions, reference letters for students to accompany scholarships and calling parents to report students' absence from school. Bill 74 would like to also remedy this to ensure that none of these things can be withdrawn through a work-to-rule campaign.

Bill 74 would not result in teachers being called upon to provide co-instructional activities 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It would require that boards and principals, in consultation with school councils, would develop and implement plans for providing co-instructional activities. You and I both know there is little demand for a football practice at 2 am on a Sunday morning.

Myth number 4: The extracurricular issue has only been a problem in Durham region. This is also false. Sporting and other activities I know were cancelled in the fall of 1999 in the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. My school board, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, also had, during my school year, work to rule for a little while. These problems have existed for at least two years, and there have also been many threats of work to rule that end up getting squashed. But we don't want to allow it to continue, because co-instructional activities should not be used as a bargaining tool.

0910

Myth number 5: Teachers will be unable to give students individual attention. This too is false. Some of the time teachers spend providing remedial programs to students is already included in the definition of instructional time. So within the four hours and 10 minutes that's given for that, to some extent certain remedial programs will be considered as part of that.

The Ontario government has made a number of investments to ensure that Ontario's students receive the supports they need to succeed, which include: $64 million for the teacher-adviser program, which allows assigned teacher-advisers to hold regularly scheduled meetings with their students to monitor their progress; an additional $25 million to be used for remedial programs for students who need extra help in stuff like math and language; $5 million in additional funding to help boards offer summer programs to help students preparing to enter the grade 9 program; $70 million for school-based programs to assist children in kindergarten to grade 3 in building their reading skills and other skills which are very important in early learning; and another $70 million to help in the early identification of learning problems and other exceptionalities.

Myth number 6: Bill 74 will take all decision-making away from parents, teachers and local school boards and move it to Queen's Park. This is fear-mongering at its finest. Bill 74 will take from teachers' unions the power to use co-instructional activities as bargaining chips. It will close some of the creative loopholes which teachers' unions have found to avoid complying with Bill 160.

The government believes in a strong partnership among parents, teachers and the community, to result in student achievement. Our government has taken a number of steps to include parents in the decision-making process in education, for example, ensuring that there is a process in place where boards of education must consult with parents before they decide to close a school. School councils ensure that parents have opportunities to have meaningful input and the ability to influence decisions that will impact their children in local schools.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms LaPierre and Mr deLima. You've taken your full 10 minutes.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: The next speakers, on behalf of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, are Mr Smith, Mr Richard Bercuson and Ms Michelle Hurley-Desjardins. You have 15 minutes, Mr Smith.

Mr Jim Smith: I'm Jim Smith, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. The association represents 34,000 elementary and secondary teachers. Included in our presentation today there is a written brief, together with a second paper which was sent out to every member of the Legislature two weeks ago. It's entitled Implications of the Education Accountability Act for the Education Landscape of the Province of Ontario. It's a paper which I would urge all of the members of this committee to read and study very carefully, since it underlines a very real and palpable danger if this bill is implemented; that is to say, the health and safety of the children in the schools of this province.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Institute for Catholic Education, it's a coordinating body which represents the Ontario Council of Catholic Bishops, the CPCO, the Catholic Principals' Council of Ontario, OECTA, the parents, OAPCE, together with the supervisory officer. This report on the health and safety implications of Bill 74 was put together in consultation with all of those groups. I'm surprised today that CPCO is not a group which has standing in this set of hearings, because they could have shed more light on the statistics and the real and viable dangers which they outline in this bill.

At this point in time I'm going to turn it over to my two colleagues, who are classroom teachers from Ottawa-Carleton, and give them an opportunity to make some statements about what their perception of the bill is on the classroom. Richard Bercuson is a secondary school teacher at St Matthew High School and co-op in physical education and is a frequent contributor in print and TV on education issues. Michelle Hurley-Desjardins is a primary teacher from Good Shepherd Catholic school, grade 2. She is the recipient this year of the Prime Minister's award for excellence in teaching. I think both of these individuals will provide you with some perspectives about the implications of Bill 74 above and beyond the very obvious ones in health and safety.

Mr Richard Bercuson: Honourable members of the committee, fellow teachers, guests, I've been a teacher for 20 years in the private system as well as in the public and Catholic ones. I've taught English, math, science, physical education, cooperative education and art-but we won't go there on that one. I've done my share of coaching and other extracurriculars. I can state confidently and unequivocally that teachers are the finest people I've ever known.

Teachers are accommodating to a fault, remarkably resilient. We bend with the political winds like a stately tree. We adapt and change. We forge on with the job of educating children in spite of resentment and occasionally open criticism. Study after study clearly indicates that teaching ranks among the highest stress-related professions, neck and neck with police officers and air traffic controllers.

Still, we teach. We find a way; always have, probably always will. Even with this Medusa's head staring us full in the face, we shall not turn to stone. We will quite likely soldier on. And the price to be paid? Well, what existed before Bill 74 will pale in comparison to the aftermath.

I don't know what the motivation is for such a piece of legislation. I'm not sure if there is a hidden agenda. Were I a devout conspiracy theorist, I'd say there must be a method to this madness. But keep in mind that I believe too that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and that Marilyn Monroe was indeed murdered.

This bill has made it personal for every one of us. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves-the US, England, the Orient, Australia, Colombia. Just yesterday, British Columbia teachers were advised not to seek jobs in Ontario.

You see, we've survived transitions and the common curriculum and teacher advisory groups and secondary reform and unwieldy report cards and cutbacks. We are limping through the current high school curriculum which provides us with untested, unproven and unpiloted programs, with neither the time nor the resources to make them work properly.

Teachers are exhausted. Teachers are sick and tired. Teachers are sick and tired of being sick and tired. This year, provincial LTD benefits are over $40 million. Why do you think that's so? Why are so many jumping through the 85-factor window? There are fewer teaching assistants, specialists and psychologists. Students at risk before are at even greater risk now. Students under stress before are often left to fend for themselves now. Meanwhile, we have been shoved into the roles of educator, social worker, counsellor and nurse.

Are you aware that the compacting of courses has resulted in near panic among many students who can't cope with the increased levels? Not to mention the impending stress of the double-prong grad class in three years. I see the erosion daily.

I've tried to look for a rationale and understand the logic, but nothing makes sense. You plan to increase the number of classes I teach to 6.67, a class time workload increase of 11%. The gesture to decrease average class size from 22 to 21 is nothing more than a gesture since that number is an average. Can you explain why my grade 9 English class has 25 students and why so many of my colleagues have similar class sizes?

What kind of magical math proves that increasing the number of classes I teach will help students? With an increase to 6.67, when do you expect me to advise my students or give them extra help? When will I have time to find more resources and mark more papers and prepare more tests and contact more parents? For every 75-minute class I teach, it can take 50 to 75 minutes to do the preparation and evaluation. This does not include conferencing with students. In just one class, if I give a single 200-word assignment, it means reading 5,000 words, which must be read, re-read, corrected, graded and recorded. How many of you have the time to simply read 5,000 words of a novel in an evening?

The argument that teachers work only a 35-hour week is patently ludicrous, given the marking, preparation and research. To give you an example, I took two entire weekends to research information for my OAC physical education classes, for just one anatomy unit, because there was no textbook, no provincial guidelines and no school board resource person-because there was no money. This government cut it all out.

We do so much more than teach classes. It is difficult to quantify what a teacher does outside class hours. To put it in perspective, it is tantamount to saying that lawyers don't just make court appearances, firefighters don't just put out fires, journalists don't just write articles and politicians don't just sit around the House.

0920

Extracurricular, co-instructional, a rose by any other name: forced activities at the discretion of the principal. You want to make compulsory what we already do and then possibly punish us for wanting a life. Why? I don't understand that logic either. You want us available at the principal's beck and call any day, any time, anywhere. Are you? Is anyone? What do you expect will be the result?

And non-compliance as a strike action? This bill allows a teacher to be reported by any resident in whose opinion the teacher does not comply. The first word which comes to mind is "spying." Will this create a positive climate for teachers and kids? Can you fathom working in such an environment?

The government claims it is standing up for the children. Really? A student already has eight teachers per year. Under this bill, it will be more than that. In semestered schools like mine, it could conceivably be as many as 16 teachers in a year, what with shared courses and the awkwardness of timetabling. Add in the TAG teacher and it could be 17. And this fact is incontrovertible: Increase classes from six to anything and you will have fewer teachers available for a myriad of extras, including supervising the school.

Safer schools? How? It is mathematically impossible. I still don't grasp the logic in all of this. I don't see how I will deliver the same quality instruction and guidance to more students with less time. Parents, who already have a distorted view of the profession, will have every right to complain bitterly about their children's education system as it slithers into oblivion.

Are you aware that the constant barrage of negativism towards teachers has already eroded respect for the profession? I don't know how I will be able to maintain the energy level necessary in such a high-maintenance, high-needs, on-stage profession, while my resources and time are lopped off like a gangrenous limb. I love teaching and I love working with these kids. However, I genuinely fear that within a couple of years I will choose to teach outside of Ontario, or else be out of the profession entirely.

Yes, we teachers are very resilient and very accommodating, but this is the breaking point. Thank you.

Ms Michelle Hurley-Desjardins: Good morning. I would like to address co-instructional activities at the elementary level.

A little bit of history: I teach grade 2. I have been teaching for 32 years. I have been a principal, a consultant and a teacher. I really love my job. I love teaching children.

I think our profession attracts caring individuals. I know it's a job that just never gets easier. There's always a challenge to it. Our children today are very different than they were 32 years ago. They change all the time. We just have to watch TV and see how they're influenced.

To give you an example, presently, this year, I have 24 children, one with Asperger's syndrome, one with cochlear implants, four taking Ritalin and nine from single-family homes. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but all of those nine children have experienced it-and remember, at four and five years old. When I'm teaching, I'm looking at the social, emotional, cognitive and spiritual aspects of the children. A lot of my time is spent dealing with the emotional with these children.

Now I'd like to look at my extracurriculars. Dealing with the class that I just had, it's nothing to have four phone calls every evening to parents; the twice-a-year interviews which are mandatory-I mean, there are many more interviews than that. There's lunchtime duty. I always eat lunch with my children. They have to be supervised. None of them go home. We're in a neighbourhood school. There are rainy days when you might have time just to go to the washroom. They're attached like Velcro.

Program, my extracurricular: In the last two years, we have had 10 new programs. Elementary teachers are supposed to be specialists in every subject. You get those programs but they don't just get implemented right away. You have to learn what's in them.

Report cards for the new program: We were reporting on some things that we hadn't received the programs for. Report cards used to take me 20 hours of input. Now we have computers. This weekend, I'll be having my extracurricular at school: 35 to 40 hours just of inputting, and that's not the correcting and whatnot.

Sports: Volleyball and track are my sports, and I do it and I love it. I teach in a Catholic school. First Communion has just come and gone, but it's not like it used to be, if any of you are from the Catholic faith. They all do it on different days. I was attending three masses for two weekends because I wanted to.

I love what I do and I always have. I do these things because I want to do them for children. I treat my children with respect and I know that they return it. I feel very disheartened by this bill because it seems to lack respect for what I've been doing and what my colleagues have been doing. Why would anyone want to squash the spirit of the willing horse? Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Hurley-Desjardins, Mr Smith and Mr Bercuson. You've taken your full 15 minutes.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION

The Chair: The next speaker is Mr Earl Manners, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. Good morning, Mr Manners.

Mr Earl Manners: Good morning. I'm joined by Mark Ciavalgia from our staff as well.

Government ads would have you believe that Bill 74 is only about mandated voluntary activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Bill 74 is just about mandated voluntary activities, then OSSTF can, I believe, point you in a direction that will allow the government to repeal Bill 74, which has received so much bad attention, so that we can get on with negotiating stable teaching and learning conditions with our employees and the school boards, which we were doing prior to the introduction of Bill 74.

I would point out that OSSTF has always accepted the definition of a "strike" that was in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. That definition stated:

"`strike' includes any action or activity by teachers in combination or in consort or in accordance with a common understanding that is designed to curtail, restrict, limit or interfere with the operation or functioning of a school program or school programs or of a school or a schools, including, without limiting the foregoing,

"(a) withdrawal of services,

"(b) work to rule,

"(c) the giving of notice to terminate contracts of employment ..."

We never had any problem with that definition and we worked with it for many years, as did many governments and school boards. Unfortunately the irony is, your government repealed that definition two years ago under Bill 160. If you're so concerned about mandated volunteerism, why did you repeal that definition of a strike?

We know the government is using mandated volunteer activities as a red herring to deflect attention from the real intent of Bill 74. Bill 74 is about fewer teachers in every secondary school across the province. It's about increased workload for the remaining teachers-an extra class for each and every one of them. It's an attack on the right to bargain and the right to negotiate. It dictates cuts, terms and conditions of employment that don't even meet the minimum employment standards for non-union people who may work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. In fact, teachers in 1907 had more rights and better working conditions than the teachers will have if Bill 74 is passed.

0930

It does undermine some very basic democratic principles. It encourages individuals to charge teachers who speak out against government cuts at the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It allows the minister to fire trustees who vote according to their conscience or according to the will of their constituents, if that conscience or will goes against the minister's direction. It rips up current collective agreements and negotiated staffing plans that were in place for next September.

The sad thing: The OSSTF plan, the OSSTF alternative, is better for students but obviously too good for this government.

Let's compare the OSSTF alternative with Bill 74. The staffing arrangements that we were negotiating with school boards throughout the spring increased the time teachers spent with every student. Under Bill 74, you increase the number of students that each teachers sees. The OSSTF alternative guaranteed remediation opportunities for every student every week with subject specialists. In Bill 74, if there's any remediation at all, it's hit and miss and probably not with subject specialists. Under our plan, there was a full range of voluntary activities. Under Bill 74, there is a limited range of mandated activities. In our plan, the funding maintains the pupil-teacher ratio and also provides a reasonable salary increase for teachers. Under Bill 74, there are fewer teachers to fund a salary increase. Under our plan, there is a real reduced class size. Under your plan, there's one more class for every teacher.

This does have an effect on every school and does have an effect on every student. In our plan, a school of 1,000 students would have 60 teachers. Under Bill 74, they would have, at best, 55. We guarantee 125 minutes per week of guaranteed remediation. Under Bill 74, there's less time and fewer teachers. In our plan, the school is characterized by collegial and co-operative relations. Under Bill 74, it's adversarial and dictatorial. Under our plan, you allow innovating teaching opportunities. Under Bill 74, there is a much narrower definition of what teaching is.

In conclusion, Bill 74 is bad for education, it's bad for the school environment and it's bad for the learning environment. I would ask you to make up your mind. Are you or are you not the employer? You keep interfering and you keep blaming others, especially school boards, for all the problems in education. You want to make all the decisions, but you don't take any of the responsibility. I ask you to make no mistake. We believe in local school boards. We believe in local autonomy. We believe that taking control of funding has hurt public education. If you are going to take control, then take responsibility. Treat teachers like every other employee. Come to the table and negotiate. Don't dictate, don't legislate, but be responsible for the decisions and the directions you want to make. Don't hide behind legislation with fancy names. Don't hide behind red herrings. Say what you really want. Come to the table and negotiate that. Put it on the table. Thank you very much.

The Chair: We do have about six minutes for questions, so I will allow two minutes each from each party.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): First of all, I want to thank you for being at our sham hearings. We are very limited in our discussions. We would have liked to have heard from many more of the people you represent, among others, including parents and students.

I wonder if you can help us understand. What you said was that your proposal would have 60 teachers per 1,000 students, and the government's proposal would be 55.

Mr Manners: When you ask every teacher to teach an extra class, that means you have fewer teachers in that school to cover the curriculum that's available. In our plan, we ensure that the current pupil-teacher ratio is maintained and that there is more opportunity for individual attention. Under Bill 74, there will be fewer teachers in every school, enrolment being held constant.

Mr Kennedy: Has your federation calculated the net effect of Bill 74 in terms of the loss of teaching positions?

Mr Manners: We had originally thought there would be about 1,500 to 2,000 public secondary school teachers who would be lost. With the change in the class size, it would go down to somewhere between 500 and 1,000, depending on the regulations that come out later, which we haven't seen.

In our report, you can see that since 1995, the number of teachers per 1,000 students has decreased dramatically. Only in 1998 did it remain constant, because we negotiated teaching and learning conditions that kept teachers in classrooms and schools. What the government is proposing in Bill 74 is to reverse that and make further cuts to the pupil-teacher ratio across this province.

Mr Kennedy: We've heard allegations from the government that this is a necessary bill. They don't want to talk about the money that is being cut out for the fewer teaching positions; they're talking about extracurricular activities being withdrawn. The assistant deputy minister of education has said there's no report, no analysis, nothing to prove that there's a problem with extracurricular activities. Are you aware of wide-scale problems with extracurricular activities that would justify our passing a law to force people to do them?

Mr Manners: In fact we've been working with the sports community and we participated in a sports symposium looking at post-Bill 160 athletic activities. I heard there that the participation in extracurricular activities has been maintained and has increased in many areas. I know you're going to hear a report later from OFSAA, and I'm sure they could confirm the studies they have done. There is no work-to-rule occurring anywhere in this province and there are athletic activities going on everywhere in this province, including in Durham, although it is reduced there because every teacher is teaching an extra class. In our report you can see the number of volunteer coaches and the number of students who participated, on page 6.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have three quick questions. The first one is, you are the union boss that the minister always makes reference to. Why are they so afraid of you?

Mr Manners: I always try and live up to my last name.

Mr Marchese: A very good, sharp and short answer.

Mr Manners: But in doing that, we also have been trying to make sure that public secondary education is not cut apart by the dramatic and drastic changes that have taken place over the last five years. I think it is important for teachers and support staff to speak up and participate in the education process and play a role. Bill 74 takes that away.

Mr Marchese: Of course. I have two other quick things. My worry, and what I hear from teachers, is that forcing teachers to do the extracurricular activities may kill the program. I fear that. The second one is that forcing teachers to teach an extra period will bring about so much stress to the individual life of that teacher that it's going to affect, in my view, the quality of the education the student is going to get.

Mr Manners: You can't mandate school spirit. You can't legislate putting a smile on every worker in the province, although this government seems to think they can. If you ask people to do an extra class, it's the same as asking every worker-which has been happening throughout the 1990s-to do more with less. We've been doing more with less for over a decade. It's about time, in an era of prosperity, when there's a balanced budget, when there's more money than the government knows what to do with, to start reinvesting in our infrastructure, in our public services and in people, so that they can live a better quality of life, rather than having to spend more and more time and getting less and less.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): Mr Manners, welcome to Ottawa and thank you for being here.

Mr Manners: Thank you. I lived in Ottawa for many years and I enjoyed living here.

Mr Guzzo: I'm aware of that. You make a couple of very valid points. I don't agree with everything you say, but one of the concerns I do have, and I can tell you it's consistent in our caucus, is that we recognize the lack of respect teachers receive in society today. It's considerably below what it was years ago. As a lawyer, let me tell you that the same can be said for lawyers, and I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Law Society of Upper Canada. We've gone from a noble profession in society to a point below used car salesmen, but we're still ahead of pimps. We worry about teachers and where they are heading as a result. I've talked to a number of teachers and they put the blame squarely on your shoulders for that; for illegal strikes and for breaking the law. Do you have any comment in response to the criticism that I've heard from your members with regard to your leadership?

0940

Mr Manners: The biggest attack on teachers in this province has come from this government, from a Minister of Education who said that he had to create a crisis in education and that they would have to do things that people wouldn't like in order to make the kind of drastic changes you had in mind. The respect, sir, doesn't come from your government when it comes to education or teachers.

When it comes the membership, I can tell you that on this issue I have talked to more people, both in the community and among our members, than you ever will, and I would urge you to hold as broad a consultation as we have on this bill instead of just a day and a half of hearings if you really do want respect.

Mr Guzzo: Let me make it clear, sir-

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Guzzo, we've run out of time.

Mr Guzzo: -that our hearings may be limited to a day and a half but our consultation isn't. But again, thank you for coming back to Ottawa. It's nice to see you back here.

Mr Manners: It's always great to be here. I worked here with the Youth Services Bureau, I went to school here, and it's an important part of the province.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Manners.

COLIN MCSWEENEY

The Chair: The next speaker is Mr Colin McSweeney. Mr McSweeney, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Colin McSweeney: I promise you I won't take 10 minutes. That's quite an act to follow.

I'd like to thank the committee for travelling to Ottawa today to allow parents and others to voice their concerns on the education system in Ontario today.

I'm going to come right upfront and tell you that I am a supporter of the present government. I think most of the things they've done have boded well for the province of Ontario. But today I'm here as the parent of a child in Mr McGuinty's constituency, at McMaster Catholic. I have two children. One is just finishing her first year of junior kindergarten and the other will be entering the school system in a few years. I must say I've been quite impressed with the body of work my daughter has completed this year. I feel her teacher and the school both have done excellent jobs in her first year of education and that's why I'm here today.

I believe the changes the government made in the curriculum, starting right at junior kindergarten, have been a benefit to my child. I think the more we challenge kids, the more we ask of them, the more they will achieve and reach for. Her cousins are now in grade 1, and I know for a fact that, coming out of kindergarten, they definitely did not know as much as my daughter does and weren't as challenged as she was. To give you an example, my daughter, who just turned five, can write and read her own name, her address, and she knows all the letters of the alphabet. These are things her cousins in grade 1 are having trouble with. So I think the new curriculum, with its emphasis on basics, is coming through.

That brings me to the topic of today's discussion, mostly extracurricular activities. When I decided I was going to come and speak here, over the past couple of weeks I've had discussions with other parents and some teachers and people I come across during my work. I deliver groceries for a living so I'm in a lot of people's homes and I chat with them and get their feedback. They know that I'm politically involved, so they definitely let me hear their opinions, because I solicit them. Every single teacher, parent and student that I spoke to feels that extracurricular activities are a right. It's something that's been done in Ontario for as long as teaching has been around, and they feel that students deserve this.

I guess where teachers and Mr Manners would disagree is whether that should be mandated or not. I am of the opinion that as long as the teachers' unions-and I know there are many teachers who don't agree with their own union, because I've spoken to them-are going to use these extracurricular activities as bargaining chips in negotiations and withdraw these services from students when they feel the negotiations aren't going well, they have to be made mandatory. I think that's the most contentious part of this bill.

If the unions were willing to put into a contract that that would never be done, that they would never withdraw extracurricular activities, I could see the government maybe withdrawing that part of that bill. But parents and students don't want to have the rug pulled out from under them halfway through the year, three quarters of the way through a year, on these extracurricular activities. I think they're just as important as the classroom time and teaching in the classroom. It makes for a well-rounded, balanced education.

Briefly, on the time that teachers spend in the classroom teaching students, I think the more time teachers spend with students, the better their education is going to be. I believe that in the classroom environment is the best way to do it. Yes, teachers spend a lot of time marking papers and preparing for courses and that, but the really important time, in my opinion, is the time they spend teaching the students, whether it be in front of 24 students or whether it's helping an individual student while the rest of the class is working independently. I think the amount of time a teacher spends in front of a student is very, very important, so that's why I support that part of the bill.

The last point that I'm going to make today is the issue of school boards saying the government's going to step in and take away their autonomy and their power. I've listened locally and attended a couple of meetings here in Ottawa on different topics that the school boards have. One of them is definitely school closings. It's something that's very high on everybody's agenda. I feel that for the past two years the school boards here in Ottawa have pitted parents against each other-teachers, school councils. They've had meeting after meeting. They've put out lists to the press saying, "We're going to close XYZ school." Then the next week, "No, we decided we're not going to close XYZ school; we're going to do this." Then they have hearings and meetings on special education, where they say, "Yes, we have enough money for special education." Then the next week, "No, we don't have enough money for special education." They're confusing the issue and I don't know why.

If a school is half full, then make the decision. Do the job that you were elected to do, the job you ran for-I'm talking about school board trustees at this point-make the decision. I know this doesn't have anything to do with school closures, but boards do sit on their hands, Mr Patten, on a lot of things and then turn around and blame the provincial government for it. And if they're going to blame the government for it, then maybe the government should take back the responsibility of making some of those decisions.

The Chair: I would appreciate it if you would refer your comments through the Chair.

Mr McSweeney: Anyway, I guess I've made the points I came to make today and, once again, I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to do this. Believe it or not, I have an utmost respect for politicians. I'm one of, I guess, the minority in Ontario. I think that anybody who puts their name forward to run for political office and gets elected and puts themselves under the scrutiny that you guys do deserves our respect and admiration. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr McSweeney. We have about a minute and a half altogether, so time, perhaps, for one quick question from each party.

Mr Marchese: You came voluntarily; nobody forced you, I hope.

Mr McSweeney: No, absolutely not.

Mr Marchese: That's good.

Mr McSweeney: I actually took the morning off work.

Mr Marchese: That's even better-a committed Conservative. This is really good. Just on the question of extracurricular activities, you know that people do it voluntarily now. Football coaches, as one example, do it because they love it, right?

Mr McSweeney: That's right.

Mr Marchese: What if you tell me, all of a sudden, "Sorry, Marchese, I know you love to do it and you were doing it voluntarily, but you've got to do it now, whether you like it or not." Marchese says, "Hmm, I don't think I like coaching football any more." How are you going to make me be a good coach of football if you take the spirit out of it? I decide: "OK, I'll do it. They can do what they want; they go on the team. I don't have the spirit, I don't coach them any more because you took the spirit right out of my body." What's the benefit to the students now?

0950

Mr McSweeney: To answer your question, what's the benefit to the students if the union representatives can tell the teacher, halfway through the season when they're going to the city championship: "Sorry, can't coach you, can't supervise you next week, because we're on a work-to-rule. So your season's shot, ladies and gentlemen."

You're right. The teachers do it out of love, and I think they will continue to do that. You're not giving enough credit to teachers who want to coach these teams.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr McSweeney. Mr Marchese and yourself took up the full minute and a half.

Mr McSweeney: Thank you very much.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS

The Chair: The next speakers are Mr Colin Hood, executive director, and Katie Shaput-Jarvis, vice president of the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations. You have 15 minutes.

Mr Colin Hood: Thank you for inviting OFSAA to participate. OFSAA is the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations. I'm the executive director of OFSAA. I'm one of the small paid staff. With me today is Katie Shaput-Jarvis, who has the daunting task of becoming president starting later in June. Katie is also principal of Laurentian High School here in Ottawa.

OFSAA is a provincial federation responsible for conducting 33 provincial high school events and overseeing the delivery of high school sport and working with our 19 member associations throughout the province. Our handout package outlines in great detail how and what we do, and there is a detailed handout about our Bill 74 position.

Some 52 years ago, the government of the day was instrumental in setting us up. It set us up as an arm's-length organization to manage school sport. For 52 years we've had ministry representatives on our board, on our executive. We've had, if you look at the letters, some very positive response from the ministry over the years. We seem to have been good people-they like us. It's been less government in school sport, and we've managed.

Our first concern, then, with Bill 74 is that after 52 years of a very positive relationship with this government, when this government has recognized us as the leaders in school sport, we have not had any input into what is the most contentious issue surrounding Bill 74. The minister has continually ignored our letters. The previous minister, Johnson, met with us. This minister has not met with us, and for the last year the ministry liaison person who sits on our board has conveniently not been able to attend any of our executive meetings or our board meetings.

You can appreciate that is a frustration. We're not a political lobby group. We're not affiliated with unions. We have teachers and principals and community people working with us. Our sole response is to provide co-curricular activities for young people in this province. So the first concern is, no input.

The second concern is, this is a radical change. What's being proposed here is not minor. You are changing a system that has been based on volunteers for 52 years. We have 20,000 teachers, 4,000 community coaches, teachers. You're changing a volunteer to a legislated employment responsibility. That is a major change. It's being enacted at the same time as teachers' workloads are being increased. What's going to happen? I'll give you five points that even the ministry staff who were in our briefing agreed with. I've not yet met a director of education, a parent, a teacher, who doesn't believe this is going to happen.

The first thing is that there are going to be fewer students participating than at present. Our brief outlines why. There's going to be less quality instruction; Mr Marchese hinted at that earlier. There's going to be an increased cost to boards. I live in Burlington where a study was done that showed, of the money going into high school sport, only one third comes from the board. The other two thirds comes from the students' pockets and the teachers who are out fundraising. Where's that coming from? The fourth thing is that there's going to be complete inequity. Some will play, the rich will still continue to play; the poor won't. And finally, you're going to have fewer teachers spending time with students in co-instructional activities.

We all want our students coached by teachers who have the skills and knowledge and who really want to be there. We don't want anything else; nobody wants anything else.

The above results have been acknowledged, as I said, by everybody. Does it make sense to introduce a new delivery model that provides fewer opportunities, creates friction within a school, alienates the very people who make a significant difference in people's lives and then you, the taxpayers, are going to take more money out of your pockets to pay for it? Does that make sense?

The argument being put forward, of course, is that it makes sense because there will be more people because those teachers are going to withdraw their services. You've heard it here today. Work-to-rule is a red herring. In Durham the teachers are not working to rule. Some are still coaching-many are still coaching. Some have reduced their coaching commitment based on family and additional teaching responsibilities. We, as an organization that works with volunteers, recognize that you nurture volunteers. You have to understand that family comes first. We respect that. I believe this government must respect that.

In point of fact, last week at OFSAA track and field, the Durham region won 30 medals, the national capital won 10, the region of Peel won 11 and York region won nine. So even though people say, "Oh, it's terrible in Durham," there are teachers participating. A lot of them won and did very well. Some schools weren't there. The delivery model that's being proposed will make sure that there are even fewer there next year than are currently participating.

Last year we ran every one of our championships, in a difficult time. There were people there at our championships who were on work-to-rule, with the full support of their local athletic associations. The courts have mandated that schools under work-to-rule must be allowed to participate. Work-to-rule is a red herring. Earl Manners gave you a solution earlier and gave you the reason why you have the power to deal with that.

It's clear, though, that the government has recognized that if they increase teachers' workloads, some teachers will reluctantly say, "I have to reduce my commitment." The government's solution of making coaching mandatory is not the answer; it's morally and fiscally irresponsible. If you look at the article from the London Free Press, you can't legislate volunteerism. It's there. That's being said right around the province.

What's the solution? Apparently a month ago there was a potential solution. There was a solution that was based on 1,250 minutes. The government moved the goalposts. Why did they move the goalposts when in the parent meetings that I'm attending right now, everybody is crying out for remediation that the new curriculum and the new program changes have made? They want their teachers to work more with their students in those areas, but the goalposts were moved, so that no longer can work.

I have the best job in the province. I work with 24,000 committed volunteers who want to work with kids. I love that job. In September they're not going to be volunteers. Our organization is going to be there, we'll do our best-after all, we're there for kids-but it's going to be a pretty daunting possibility.

The solution? I believe Bill 74 must be either substantially amended or withdrawn, and the government and district school boards and teacher federations must begin to negotiate in a climate of conditions of employment which will ensure teachers want to continue to volunteer and enrich the lives of the students. I don't believe that's very difficult, because most of our teachers want to do that.

We at OFSAA are willing, at a moment's notice, to bring back the workshop that we started in late January, hosted by the University of Toronto. We pulled together everybody who has any interest in school sports: We had government people of various ministries; we had the sports community so that we could work with the sports community; we had parents; we had Ontario Parent Council representatives there; we had coaches. We had everybody there, and for three days we debated what were the best solutions. How could we ensure that kids participated? With a day and a half left in the workshop, when we started talking about options, and some of those options were far more unpalatable to our federation people than they were to the government, who got up and left so that we didn't have anybody there? The Ministry of Education representative left, when we were there to talk about options.

1000

We are willing, at a moment's notice, to bring those people back; in fact, one of the solutions in the workshop was that we should move forward. If the government is not at the table, it's pointless. We are willing to bring people to encourage and support and try to provide those opportunities. It is very frustrating as an organization, because we are again there to pick up the pieces.

The government insists that Bill 74 is medicine to help make our schools better places for our students. My physician tells me that for every medical remedy there's an adverse side effect. It's clear that one of the adverse side effects of Bill 74 is to significantly reduce the co-instructional opportunities of students in Ontario. I hope that we can all do our part here today to make sure that does not happen. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hood. Ms Shaput-Jarvis, did you wish to add anything?

Ms Katie Shaput-Jarvis: Yes. If Colin has the first-best job in the province, I think I have the second-best. I am the principal at Laurentian High School. It is a school of approximately 700 students and 60 caring, competent, compassionate, expert teachers. Last night I had the opportunity to attend the Laurentian High School athletic banquet. We probably have about 20 teams at Laurentian High School. We have a minimal student fee to participate because of the socio-economic background of many of our students, and every sport in the school has more than one teacher volunteer coaching that sport. We sat last night to an audience of probably 250, and that was our first annual athletic banquet.

As vice-president of OFSAA, as a former volunteer teacher-coach, volunteer athletic director, intramural athletic coordinator, volunteer convenor of local, regional and provincial athletic leagues and tournaments, I speak against Bill 74. Activities outside the classroom, specifically school sports, are vital to the school climate and student-teacher rapport. They enrich the curriculum. They provide opportunities for students to learn, to pursue new interests, to practise time management, to make new friends. School sports involve directors, administrators, convenors, minor officials, eligibility committees, boards of reference, people willing to take on the responsibility, the time commitment, well beyond the school day.

Bill 74 will result in monetary and social costs to boards, to schools and to students. It will result in reduced opportunities and fewer volunteers with expertise and commitment to the role. Two months ago the board negotiated agreements within the legislation. It's disconcerting that at that time the rules were changed, and I urge that you withdraw this bill and sit down to discuss other options to ensure sports opportunities for all students in the province.

The Chair: Thank you. There are about two minutes for questions.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I appreciate your submissions here today. Certainly from a co-instructional aspect, it's much broader than just athletics, as you know. We've heard this morning from one of the submissions about the duties that are required of teachers in terms of parent-teacher interviews and consultations with parents after hours etc.

Certainly your organization's role is very important. But I guess in terms of what we have heard and what we have seen out there, trying to balance athletics and cultural and also dealing with how your child is developing and learning within the school system is very important for parents in terms of co-curricular. Trying to make sure that happens is the challenge we have. We heard from the separate school trustees this week that they were very concerned that the unions have used that, that during strike negotiations the withdrawal of co-instructional has been used as a tactic, and they would like to see that stopped.

How would you respond in terms of dealing with that as the reality of labour relations in the field today?

Mr Hood: In terms of labour relations, our advice has been that once a union gets into a strike position, for us to directly interfere gets involved in the labour relations bill, and I will be held in contempt by both sides.

I wish to assure you that our organization, which is always caught in the middle, has spent considerable time with OSSTF and OECTA representatives whenever there are any potential strikes or work-to-rule situations occurring. We've been able to work with them to make sure kids have come on. As I said, last year at our championships there were a lot of students participating who were in those kinds of situations. Our frustration is that we're a group that can work in that area and we've been ignored in that process. We understand those things.

In Toronto a couple of years ago, when there was a proposed work-to-rule, we worked to make sure that the kids-and the local federation did agree to allow the students to finish their seasons before anything happened.

Here is a group that really understands and is willing to work, but ultimately a strike or work-to-rule, as I understand it, is part of a legitimate action under the Labour Relations Act. For me to start involving myself in that, I am held in contempt.

Mr Tascona: I'm not suggesting that.

Mr Hood: On the other hand, very clearly you have the right, as I understand it now, to make sure that doesn't happen within the parameters of government. Durham was legislated back. The Durham teachers aren't on strike or work-to-rule.

Mr Tascona: You're an important voice for athletics. But there is another aspect in terms of the parents who are dealing with co-curricular in terms of interviews, talking to teachers afterwards, and other things that teachers do, and there's not a voice out there and there has to be.

Mr Hood: I agree. Our organization has often wondered whether we should actually take on some of those roles. Quite frankly, we're a small group and we want to make sure that what we do is well done and we haven't really expanded into that area.

The Acting Chair (Mr Steve Gilchrist): Thank you both for coming forward today to make your presentation.

Mr Hood: This is not a bribe, but I have some OFSAA pins that I will distribute to the clerk to make sure that you all go back proudly wearing your OFSAA pin.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. We appreciate that.

ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION

The Acting Chair: Our next presentation will be from the Ontario Teachers' Federation. We have three representatives: Ruth Baumann, Roger Régimbal and Susan Langley. Good morning. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Roger Régimbal: Good morning. The Ontario Teachers' Federation, la Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de L'Ontario, OTF/FEO, welcomes the opportunity to address the justice and social policy committee hearings on Bill 74, the Education Accountability Act.

My name is Roger Régimbal and I am OTF's first vice-president. Currently I am a classroom teacher teaching computer science to students from kindergarten to grade 8. Accompanying me today are Susan Langley, general secretary of OTF, and Ruth Baumann, executive assistant.

The purpose of our presentation is more to present the long-term impact of the changes proposed in Bill 74, rather than a detailed dissection of the bill. It is important that you, the members of the Legislature, and mostly the members of the government, pause and reflect on the deep-rooted effect that this bill will have on our children, our teachers, our society. We cannot keep sacrificing generation after generation of students while we take the time to understand and work out our differences.

In early March, the Ontario Teachers' Federation, along with three of its affiliates, AEFO, OECTA and ETFO, sent out their olive branch to this government. In a very positive campaign we expressed our desire to work to better our system and continue to ensure the best for our elementary and secondary students. The answer we received was Bill 74. One has to ask why.

1010

"The `best and brightest' minds around the world will always have plenty of options, and as mobility becomes even easier, it is essential that Ontario is seen as an attractive location for these people to bring their talents. Ensuring Ontario's attractiveness is also key to stopping the brain drain of homegrown Ontario talent going to other jurisdictions."

The Ontario Teachers' Federation believes that this statement applies to the teaching profession, but the words are not our own. It is a quotation from a March 1999 report by the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board to Premier Mike Harris entitled A Road Map to Prosperity.

We in Ontario need to keep our best and brightest elementary and secondary teachers at home teaching Ontario's students to ensure the best and brightest future for all of us. A recent Statistics Canada report, Brain Drain and Brain Gain, in the Education Quarterly suggests that "movers seem to be concentrated in knowledge-intensive sectors." Elementary and secondary teachers are disproportionately represented in the numbers leaving Canada and moving to the United States to pursue their careers. The report records that for the years between 1990 and 1997, the ratio of outflow to inflow of elementary and secondary teachers in Canada was 3.9; that is to say, for every teacher who comes to Ontario, we lose 3.9 to the United States.

Ontario is experiencing a serious shortage of qualified teachers, as are other provinces, the United States and Europe. In the fall of 1998, the Deputy Minister of Education convened the Task Force on Teacher Recruitment and Renewal to examine a number of issues related to the recruitment, renewal and retention of Ontario's teaching force.

At the end of April 1999, the task force received a report from the data working group on school board requirements for new teachers for the fall of 1999. At that time, the boards had already hired 5,640 new full-time teachers and were looking for an additional 3,700 for September 1999, and that's not counting the 8,000 occasional teachers needed.

It has been known for years that the first decade of this century would see massive teacher retirements, as teachers hired in the late 1960s and early 1970s to teach the baby boom came to retirement age. What must now be added to this known demographic fact is the effect that Bill 74 will have on the retention of current teachers and the recruitment of new teachers. Today we would like to address working conditions in Ontario's schools. We would specifically like to address what impact the provisions of Bill 74 would have on our ability to hold on to and attract the best and the brightest to teach in Ontario schools.

Margaret Wente, in a column that appeared in the Globe and Mail on May 9, 2000, draws a direct connection between the current Ontario climate and the growing attractiveness of other jurisdictions for both young and experienced Ontario teachers.

Data from the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board shows that the number of new pension cases opened in the last two weeks of May 2000 is 50% higher than for the same period in May 1999. Bill 74 was introduced on May 10, 2000.

Tens of thousands of teachers have given willingly of their time for years to coach student teams, organize plays and concerts, chaperone and lead school trips, and sponsor clubs and school councils. In 1998-99, almost 15,000 public and Catholic secondary school teachers were involved in coaching over 200,000 student participants, according to the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations. Teachers are personally hurt and deeply offended by Bill 74, because it has transformed the gift of time freely given into an obligation to be rendered.

Principals are required to ensure that extracurricular activities are staffed by assigning teachers to these duties. These assignments can be made on school days, on days during the school year that are not school days and during any part of any day during the school year. Bill 74 further provides that these co-instructional duties and assignments are explicitly excluded from collective bargaining. Teachers are already specifically excluded from those provisions of the Employment Standards Act which provide basic protection for hours of work, minimum wages, overtime, public holidays and vacations with pay. Bill 74 represents one more step in a series of successive squeezes on the scope of collective bargaining. The Education Improvement Act, 1997, regulated average class size and instructional time. The new Ontario funding model has restricted the ability of school boards to build effective local solutions to local problems.

Bill 74 further restricts the interpretation of instructional time by requiring classroom teachers to teach the equivalent of 6.67 credits. This provision forces an increase in the number of students and courses for which each teacher is responsible. The previous requirement of 1,250 minutes of instructional time, which would have increased teaching time for each course and the teacher time available for each student, is no longer possible.

Bill 74 represents the desire of the Harris government to micromanage the school system. At the same time, Bill 74 undermines the chief resource required for the effective operation of the schools and the good will and co-operation of those responsible for the day-to-day learning of our children. We are already experiencing shortages in certain geographic areas and in subject specialties such as math, science, technology and French. Graduates in many areas can make more money in business and industry than in teaching, with working conditions that are far more humane and human than the proposed legislation will provide.

On May 9, 2000, Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail wrote of teaching, "Why take a job at $30,000 a year in a field where morale is bad, when IBM will hire you at $60,000 and give you a car, a cellphone, plenty of appreciation and a fast track to promotion?"

At a time when Ontario needs to be making teaching a more attractive professional choice, the government introduces legislation that will do the opposite. Whether or not these consequences are intended, the people of Ontario, and especially the children of Ontario, are going to have to live with the consequences.

The educational community-trustees, superintendents, principals and teachers from the public and Catholic, elementary and secondary, French and English systems-has signed a joint letter to Minister Ecker asking her to reconsider her position; I can leave you a copy if you wish. They have asked for a meeting with her. Again, we were denied this opportunity. Can all the education community be so wrong and so misguided while this government is the only one to possess the whole truth and the only vision?

To conclude, we recommend the complete withdrawal of Bill 74.

The Chair: We have about two, maybe three, minutes for questions.

1020

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Thank you very much for your presentation. I believe the only way we can possibly deliver quality education in all Ontario communities and inside each school is by means of a partnership. The partners are government, trustees, teachers and parents, and that partnership has to be built on a foundation of trust and respect. I am of the firm view that Bill 74 is going to drive a stake through the heart of that foundation of trust and respect.

I want the government members to pay particular attention to your presentation and to the one made just prior to yours by an arm's-length body which advocates on behalf of 20,000 volunteers who are telling us this is going to cause irreparable damage to volunteerism among our teachers. I also want to applaud you, our presenters, for acting as signatories to a letter that was recently sent to the Minister of Education. This is a very important letter, dated June 7, and I believe it is unprecedented in the history of education in Ontario. It is signed by 14 groups representing everybody and anybody who has anything to do with the delivery of publicly funded education in Ontario: Catholic, public and French-language representatives for teachers, principals, trustees, superintendents and directors. Everybody has signed a letter saying: "Listen, put the brakes on this bill. Let's take the time. There's something not right here, something that is about to cause serious damage to the state of publicly funded education in Ontario."

I don't have so much a question as a comment, and through you to congratulate those people. My dad was a trustee in his board for 16 years, three of my sisters are teachers and my wife happens to be a teacher, and maybe that makes me partisan in some ways. One of the things my father used to impress upon us was that teaching, first and foremost, wasn't a job, wasn't a profession; it was a calling. We were impressed with the very heavy sense of responsibility about giving the very best to our kids, because it was in our own enlightened self-interest to do so.

My fear is that Bill 74 is a step in the opposite direction from all those values that have informed and inspired people committed to publicly funded education for so long in Ontario.

The Chair: If you would like to respond, 30 seconds.

Mr Régimbal: In quick response, my deep belief-and I've been in teacher politics for quite a few years-is that I believe in teachers. I believe that teachers are professionals, and in spite of any legislation of any government, I believe that teachers are the reason this system still works today and will continue to work. But there is a breaking point where there is just so much time and so much commitment that an individual can give to their students. When I'm in front of my classroom, like I was this week, and I see my students in front of me, I want what's best for them. But I need the time to prepare and I also need the time to be able to say, "I want to get into this or that activity." So please reconsider. Thank you.

MAURICE LAMIRANDE

The Chair: The next speaker is Mr Maurice Lamirande. You have 10 minutes, Mr Lamirande.

M. Maurice Lamirande : Good morning. Bonjour. Ça me fait plaisir, en tant que parent, et conseiller scolaire du Conseil catholique de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton, de vous faire part de ma réflexion sur le projet de loi 74. J'aurais pu écrire peut-être 10 pages, mais le temps me manquait parce que j'ai eu l'information tôt hier. Alors, j'ai préparé quelque chose pour vous présenter un peu ce qui reflète dans l'éducation à travers la province, en notre conseil comme ailleurs, ce que je pense, qu'on a certainement des choses à modifier.

Il y a certainement des choses avec le projet de loi 74 qui touchent plusieurs aspects. Entre autres, on parle des étudiants, on parle des enseignants et des enseignantes et on parle aussi des parents, des conseils d'écoles, des directions d'écoles, et en fait je pense qu'on touche à tout ce qui peut se rapporter à l'éducation.

Je vais faire ma réflexion sur le projet de loi 74, et si vous avez des questions sur autre chose, ça me fera plaisir d'y répondre.

La démonstration le 3 juin sur la colline parlementaire par les enseignantes et les enseignants n'est pas, à mon avis, quelque chose dont nous devons nous enorgueillir. Ces enseignantes et enseignants ne sont pas d'accord avec tous les aspects de la Loi 74. Il semblerait que ces personnes se sentent lésées dans leur désir de vouloir participer librement aux activités parascolaires. De plus, ils considèrent que le contrôle de l'éducation devrait se faire au niveau local.

Il faut toutefois se rendre compte que les enseignantes et les enseignants ont forcé le gouvernement à agir à cause de leur refus de continuer d'offrir les activités parascolaires. Ce refus fut employé comme prétexte par le syndicat des enseignants afin d'inclure ces activités dans leur convention collective. Si nous examinons de près ce qui se passe dans d'autres disciplines de la société, nous réalisons que dans d'autres domaines privés et publics ces employés ont dû faire face à des augmentations de salaire très minimes et un plan de pension moins généreux que celui des enseignantes et des enseignants.

Soyons logiques avec nous-mêmes : les enseignantes et les enseignants ne sont pas demandés de faire des activités qui ne relèvent pas de leur fonction normale en tant qu'enseignants. L'union des enseignants ont saisi d'une opportunité qui s'est présentée à eux pour s'en servir afin d'accaparer plus de pouvoir au syndicat. Si le syndicat veut faire avaler une pilule amère au gouvernement, il s'ensuit que le gouvernement, qui gère les deniers publics, doit les protéger contre, parfois, des demandes abusives du syndicat des enseignants. Je suis convaincu que si le projet de loi 74 présente aux enseignants des inconvénients déraisonnables, le gouvernement devrait être prêt à négocier de bonne foi avec le syndicat des enseignants. II faut réaliser que ceux qui sont les plus pénalisés par l'intransigeance du syndicat des enseignants, ce sont les étudiants qui fréquentent l'école pour apprendre et s'instruire.

Les enseignantes et enseignants sont considérés comme un groupe élite de notre société. J'ose croire que chacun d'entre eux jugera sa fonction d'une façon honorable et ne se comportera pas comme quelqu'un qui veut défier 1'autorité gouvernementale pour des motifs partisans.

Ceci clôt mon allocution, ce que j'ai eu le temps d'écrire. J'aurais aimé écrire sur tout le projet de loi dans son ensemble, faire la réflexion au complet.

J'ai remarqué qu'on a parlé des conseils d'écoles, avec les directions d'écoles qui consultent les conseils d'écoles, ce qui est important, à mon avis, parce qu'on sait bien que le conseil d'école est formé de parents, en partie, de la communauté, et ils peuvent répondre aux besoins de la communauté.

J'espère que ceci a su quand même vous éclairer quelque peu. Si vous avez des questions, je suis prêt a y répondre. Merci. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lamirande. We have about four minutes. Mr Marchese.

1030

M. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina) : Merci, M. Lamirande. Vous savez que ces activités sont faites volontairement en ce moment. En ce moment, 99 % des conseils scolaires le font volontairement, et ce gouvernement dit que dorénavant ces activités ne seront pas faits de façon volontaire mais que les enseignants seront obligés de les faire. Pour moi c'est un problème. Je pense que pour tout le monde c'est un problème. Cela veut dire que pour beaucoup de professeurs ça va détruire la participation des étudiants dans ces activités, et ça va détruire le désir des enseignants de les faire. Que pensez-vous de cela ?

M. Lamirande : Je comprends votre question et je suis entièrement d'accord avec vous quand vous dites que beaucoup d'enseignantes et d'enseignants font déjà les activités parascolaires. Il y en a qui en font, c'est bien heureux, et félicitations, et si on veut s'assurer quand on parle d'éducation, je pense qu'on parle de l'ensemble de l'éducation, qui comprend aussi les activités scolaires. Les jeunes, quand ils sont à l'école, ne sont pas là jusqu'à l'âge de 40 ans. Il y a un laps de temps.

C'est bien que les enseignantes et les enseignants y participent, mais il y a encore des enseignantes et des enseignants qui ne participent pas. Étant donné que ceci sera dans une loi, je pense que ça deviendra une routine de travail de la part des enseignants. Cela devrait faire partie de la routine normale du travail et puis les gens qui le font déjà ne seront pas pénalisés. Félicitations aux gens qui le font déjà. J'en connais qui le font. Merci.

The Chair: You can take another 30 seconds, Mr Marchese.

M. Marchese : Ça ne vaut pas la peine. Merci.

M. Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex) : J'aimerais prendre l'occasion pour vous remercier pour la présentation ce matin. Je n'ai pas le temps de vous poser une question, mais je pense que je vais mentionner ces activités à la Chambre.

M. Lamirande : Ça me ferait plaisir.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lamirande.

Mr Lamirande : I thank you.

ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS

The Chair: The next speakers are Guy Matte, Lise Routhier Boudreau and Stéphanie Charron from l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens.

M^me Lise Routhier Boudreau : Bonjour. Merci pour cette occasion de vous adresser la parole ce matin. Je suis la présidente de l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens.

Notre organisation représente 8000 enseignantes et enseignants qui oeuvrent dans nos écoles élémentaires et secondaires, tant au niveau public, aux conseils publics, que catholiques. Je suis accompagnée de M. Guy Matte, qui est directeur général, et de M^me Stéphanie Charron, une jeune enseignante qui termine cette année sa troisième année d'enseignement et qui a monté au cours de l'année une pièce de théâtre, dont elle saura vous parler tantôt, qui a eu toute une couverture médiatique dû au succès que ses élèves ont connu.

Dans la deuxième partie de la présentation, Stéphanie pourra vous parler un petit peu de comment s'organisent ces activités parascolaires présentement dans son école et de quel effet l'annonce du projet de loi 74 a eu sur l'ensemble des enseignantes et des enseignants.

Je vais être très brève. On a préparé un mémoire dans lequel on adresse de façon plus précise les articles qui sont problématiques pour nous. Je vais tout simplement prendre les grandes lignes de ce qu'il y a dans le mémoire mais je vous invite, évidemment, à en prendre connaissance. C'est important pour notre système d'éducation publique.

Alors, vous savez que depuis un an, nos écoles secondaires, les enseignantes et les enseignants, vivent présentement le 1250 minutes d'enseignement. Alors, nous sommes certainement en position de pouvoir vous dire concrètement qu'il il y a des difficultés sérieuses reliées à cette nouvelle définition. Ce que ça représente, c'est de moins en moins d'enseignants pour de plus en plus d'élèves. Les classes sont nombreuses. Nous avons des enseignantes et des enseignants qui oeuvrent dans des classes de 30 et de 35 encore, présentement. Le temps pour la préparation des cours pour un nouveau curriculum qui est très rigoureux n'est pas là. La disponibilité pour rencontrer les élèves qui ont des difficultés particulières avant que les problèmes s'aggravent et que ces enfants accusent des retards, ce n'est plus possible pour ces enseignantes et ces enseignants. Il n'y a plus de temps disponible. Les enfants doivent recevoir leurs travaux en retard, parce que la correction n'a pas pu être faite à temps. Alors, c'est la réalité, mesdames et messieurs. C'est ce qui se produit dans nos écoles présentement. Ça fait un an que nous le vivons.

Pour ce qui est des activités parascolaires, ça fait des années que dans nos écoles françaises les activités parascolaires sont organisées et encadrées par les enseignantes et les enseignants. D'ailleurs, on vient de faire un sondage qui démontre qu'à l'élémentaire nos enseignantes et nos enseignants y consacrent quatre heures, et neuf heures dans nos écoles secondaires.

Ce projet de loi a eu pour effet de bafouer la dignité et le professionnalisme de nos enseignantes et de nos enseignants. C'est un projet de loi qui s'attaque à de faux problèmes. Ce gouvernement a choisi de pénaliser, de punir, des innocents, des gens qui sont dévoués, plutôt que de tenter de trouver des solutions aux endroits où il y avait des problèmes qui étaient soulevés. Alors, évidemment, les enseignantes et les enseignants se sentent placés dans un mode de servitude et, malheureusement, ce projet de loi aura un effet contraire de ce qui est souhaité par le gouvernement. Ce seront nos élèves qui seront les premiers perdants.

Malgré la politique, le bénévolat, ça ne se légifère pas ; un sourire ne se légifère pas. Une vente de garage en fin de semaine et un berçothon pendant 24 heures ne se légifère pas. C'est ce que ça prend pour recueillir les fonds nécessaires pour que ces activités parascolaires aient lieu, puisque le gouvernement ne suggère aucune mesure financière pour s'assurer de la survie de ces activités.

L'autre problématique que ça occasionne, c'est toute la question de recrutement. Je pense qu'il y a eu d'autres présentations qui ont été faites à ce niveau-là ce matin. Moi, je peux vous dire que chez nous, nous perdons de plus en plus d'enseignantes et d'enseignants possédant trois ans dans la profession. Ils sont recrutés par des entreprises privées. C'est un personnel qui est hautement qualifié. On les recrute avec des salaires qui sont beaucoup plus alléchants. Alors, c'est une énorme inquiétude pour la francophonie.

Vous avez, comme francophones, des modèles à taille unique qui sont conçus pour la majorité. Nous qui vivons dans un contexte minoritaire, ça ne peut pas toujours répondre à nos besoins particuliers. Tout ce qui touche dans le projet de loi à l'autonomie qui est enlevée à nos conseils scolaires, à nos droits, légiférant ce qui est fait au niveau de la négociation, nous évite au niveau local de trouver des solutions qui peuvent répondre à nos besoins. C'est une grande problématique qui est présentée dans le projet de loi.

1040

En terminant, parce que je veux que Stéphanie ait du temps à vous jaser, il est très difficile pour nous d'accepter, après que ce gouvernement ait apporté des compressions budgétaires importantes depuis son arrivée, après avoir tous ces changements à un rythme accéléré, ce que nous vivons. Ce sont des classes nombreuses, un manque de manuels, un manque de personnel spécialisé. Nous avons une profession qui est essoufflée, qui est démoralisée. On a besoin de stabilité, on a besoin de support, on a besoin d'appui, et on comprend très mal que le gouvernement dépense ses énergies et ses sous à s'attaquer à de faux problèmes.

Alors, on demande que ce projet de loi soit révisé au complet.

Je passe maintenant la parole à Stéphanie.

M^me Stéphanie Charron : Bonjour. Je veux vous parler un petit peu de notre école, de ce qui s'est passé dans notre école, parce que c'est quelque chose de pas mal intéressant et qui a pris des ampleurs un peu plus grosses que je croyais, puis cela a eu un bon engouement autour de la communauté puis autour de notre école. Alors, c'est à l'école Jeanne Sauvé d'Orléans. C'est une école élémentaire d'environ 600 élèves avec des enseignants et des enseignantes de tout âge, jeunes et moins jeunes, qui ont fait déjà beaucoup, beaucoup d'activités, plusieurs activités parascolaires tant au niveau culturel, artistique ou sportif. Il y en a déjà pas mal.

Dernièrement, ce dont je veux parler, c'est qu'on a monté quelque chose de pas mal bien. C'était Notre-Dame de Paris et son époque. Alors, on a recréé un peu la comédie musicale de Notre-Dame de Paris de Luc Plamondon. On a travaillé pas mal fort là-dessus. Cela nous a pris beaucoup d'énergie, mais le succès y était et on en était pas mal contents. C'était un spectacle d'une heure trente, environ, avec cinq chanteuses, des danseurs, une troupe de 30 danseuses, une chorale de 50 élèves des troisième et quatrième années, avec des décors, des costumes, un immense arrangement technique-beaucoup, beaucoup d'implications au niveau des enseignants et des enseignantes. On pouvait y mettre jusqu'à trois heures par semaine de travail. C'est depuis le mois de novembre ou décembre qu'on a travaillé là-dessus. Puis les talents de tout le monde-comme je disais, ceux qui pensaient qu'ils n'avaient pas de talents ont découvert qu'ils en avaient. Les enseignants et enseignantes se sont vraiment embarqués pleinement dans ce projet et ont voulu s'y impliquer.

Puis tout ça, évidemment, c'est fait sur une base volontaire. Je n'ai tordu le bras à personne pour embarquer dans ce projet-là, du tout. Mais quand ils ont vu l'engouement et le plaisir qu'on avait à le faire, tout le monde y a embarqué. Ça n'a pas pris deux secondes.

Ça, c'est au niveau de notre école, mais il y a aussi eu beaucoup d'implications. Quand ils ont vu le plaisir qu'on avait à le faire, il y a eu des parents qui s'y sont embarqués. Dans la communauté en général, on a eu des journaux qui sont venus voir ce qui s'est passé. On a fait des petits reportages. On a eu la radio. On a eu des commentaires. On a eu plein de choses comme ça. Cela a fait boule de neige. Ça a pris de l'ampleur et, succès qu'il était, cela a pris beaucoup plus d'ampleur que je ne croyais justement. Puis, on veut recommencer. Ce que je tiens à vous dire, c'est que ça s'est fait tout dans le plaisir. Les enfants vont se souvenir pour le restant de leurs jours de ce qui s'est passé.

Les points importants : on a donné quelque chose de nous-mêmes. On l'a fait avec un grand sourire. On est fatigués. On est contents de ce que cela a donné. Puis, il se peut que les circonstances vont faire que l'année prochaine, on ne sera pas capables de recréer quelque chose comme ça parce que-je ne sais pas, moi. Il peut arriver plein de choses. Mais ce qu'on veut vous dire, c'est qu'on l'a fait parce qu'on le voulait bien. On ne peut pas s'attendre à ce que chaque année ce projet-là va revenir, parce qu'on ne sait pas ce qui peut se passer. En obligeant, en imposant-déjà là, le sourire y est moins, le mot est un peu forcé déjà en partant. Et puis, il serait peut-être moins le « fun » de le faire, justement, comme ça. Je ne sais pas. C'est une fierté de le faire.

The Chair : Thank you. Is that the completion of your presentation?

M^me Charron : Oui.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about four minutes for questions.

M^me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): Je veux vraiment féliciter l'AEFO de cette présentation. C'est sûr que vous avez touché à des points que d'autres groupes ont touchés, mais quand même, c'est sûr, comme madame la Présidente a dit, que les francophones ont quand même des besoins différents de la province.

J'ai vraiment aimé quand vous avez parlé de la dignité et du professionnalisme de nos enseignants et de nos enseignantes. C'est sûr que ça existe.

Vous avez dit que ce projet de loi apportait de faux problèmes et punissait des innocents, je dirais même qui punit des dévoués qui croient à ce qu'ils font. C'est vrai, ce que vous avez dit et ce que beaucoup d'autres ont dit : qu'on ne peut pas légiférer le bénévolat, on ne peut pas légiférer l'enthousiasme. Il faut que ce soit quelque chose spontané. Il fait des années que ça se fait.

Vous avez loué leur professionnalisme, mais dans votre présentation vous ne parlez pas, ou je ne l'ai peut-être pas entendu, du moral des enseignantes et des enseignants dans nos écoles dans le moment. Je pense qu'il serait très important qu'on sache comment est le moral de nos enseignants.

M^me Routhier Boudreau : Il est évident que les enseignantes et les enseignants ne comprennent pas d'où vient cette nécessité d'encadrer de telle façon les activités parascolaires. Nous n'avons connu dans nos écoles que du succès à ces niveaux-là. Les enseignantes et des enseignants y participent avec plaisir. C'est la seule occasion qu'on a comme enseignants de démontrer à notre façon ce qu'on veut faire en surplus pour et avec nos élèves. Ce sont des relations très spéciales qui se développent avec les activités parascolaires, ce qui est à l'extérieur de l'encadrement rigide de la journée scolaire, et les enseignantes et les enseignants sont tout à fait démoralisés parce que, ce qui se produit, c'est qu'ils se sentent attaqués, bafoués, et certainement pas reconnus pour tout le travail qui est fait jusqu'à aujourd'hui.

M^me Charron : Je suis là depuis trois ans, et déjà je vois des enseignants qui viennent de commencer et qui disent : « Mon dieu, c'est fou. C'est fou si on nous en demande encore plus. » Il y en a beaucoup qui décident même de laisser tomber et d'aller ailleurs. Je le vois, moi. Je suis autour de ça, et on continue. J'ai le goût de continuer mais pas avec les restrictions, les bâtons dans les roues. On le fait vraiment parce qu'on a du plaisir, puis les enfants le voient aussi. On a un bâton dans les roues en se faisant dire qu'il faut le faire, il faut le faire. Il me semble que, quand on nous impose quelque chose, on veut faire tout le contraire. C'est ça ce qui se passe.

M^me Routhier Boudreau : Je voudrais tout simplement ajouter que nous ne sommes que, avec ce projet de loi, de simples exécuteurs. Il n'y a plus de place pour l'initiative. Tout est faibli, tout est encadré.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

The Chair: The next presenters are Charlotte Monardo, chairperson of the Ontario school board coordinators committee; Sylvia Sioufi, research officer; and Antoni Shelton, executive assistant, Canadian Union of Public Employees. Good morning.

Ms Charlotte Monardo: Good morning. The Canadian Union of Public Employees is Canada's largest union, representing 460,000 public service workers across the country. In Ontario, CUPE represents nearly 46,000 school board employees, in almost every district school board and in all four systems-English and French, public and Catholic. Our membership has grown significantly as a result of recent representation votes; over 11,000 new members have joined CUPE, clearly establishing CUPE as the voice of education support workers.

The services our members provide are integral to a high-quality public education system. Students know it. Teachers know it. Parents know it. Although the funding formula lumps most of the work we do into a "non-classroom" category, it is hard to imagine a classroom without the services provided by CUPE members. We are the ones who keep classrooms clean, keep schools healthy and safe, and do all the important administrative work that puts students and teachers in the classroom. We are the ones who provide services to enhance education in the school and in the community.

We are the educational assistants, the custodial and maintenance workers, the clerical and secretarial support, the adult education and second-language instructors, the technical staff, the library staff, the seniors' instructors, the counsellors and social workers, the board and administrative staff, the bus drivers, the parenting instructors, the aquatic staff, the music instructors, and more.

CUPE members are long-term employees dedicated to students and committed to a high-quality public education system. We are also parents with children in elementary and secondary schools. So, whether at the bargaining table or in the community, we advocate for initiatives to protect and build on Ontario's public education system.

1050

The Canadian Union of Public Employees would like to thank the members of the standing committee on justice and social policy for the opportunity to share the views of education support workers on Bill 74, the Education Accountability Act. The work of the committee is very important, because it is essential that everyone have an opportunity to contribute to the formation of public policy. We regret, however, that more individuals and organizations are not afforded the chance to address their concerns to the committee.

Bill 74, despite its official name, does nothing to "increase education quality," is not about improving "the accountability of school boards to students, parents and taxpayers" and will create such disruption that it is difficult to imagine how it can "enhance students' school experience."

CUPE believes that this legislation fits well with the government's education reform initiatives, which have seen the province take control of education not, as the education minister claims, to "keep Ontario's publicly funded education system firmly on the path toward quality," but rather to cut education funding.

CUPE members are concerned that Bill 74 will see the provincial government take further control over our education system, will erode the principles of democracy by limiting the ability of elected school boards to respond to the needs of their community, and is a direct attack on free collective bargaining.

The Harris government has maintained a theme of smaller government and less interference in the lives of Ontarians. Their actions, however, tell a very different story. This government has taken control of education and concentrated power in an unprecedented way.

Since taking power in 1995, this government has cut the number of school boards and trustees, imposed a one-size-fits-all funding model, implemented province-wide curriculum and testing, limited the decision-making power of elected trustees, introduced a provincial code of conduct and announced teacher testing and recertification. Bill 74 further entrenches the minister's supremacy over every aspect of our education system.

The government has justified this centralization of power by saying that education is a provincial responsibility. However, this principle implies only that education is not a federal responsibility. Historically, provincial governments have understood their role to be one of broad policy-setting rather than dictating and micromanaging the education system.

Schools are the oldest form of local democracy. We have always elected school trustees to represent the needs and interests of our communities. It seems that this government is suggesting that this democratic institution is unnecessary.

School boards are already struggling to meet local needs under the government's rigid funding formula. What little flexibility boards have to respond to local needs will be seriously eroded by Bill 74.

This government is also taking control of the collective bargaining process. They have undermined the principles of local governance and the rights of employees. By limiting the flexibility of boards, the government is taking away the rights of education workers to improve their working conditions. Bill 74 is a further intrusion into the long-established relationship between education workers and school boards.

As a result of Bill 160, this government has already given itself the power to assume control of a school board if the board operates in a financial deficit. When the Greater Essex County District School Board attempted to protect programs and quality education, the minister stepped in to stop the challenge to the Tory funding model.

We believe that Bill 74 has been introduced to send a message that the government will not tolerate dissent to its education reforms. Rather than showing leadership by encouraging best practices, this government and this minister have chosen to impose a cookie-cutter approach where even the thought of being different is punishable.

Bill 74 gives the minister sweeping powers to investigate and take over the operations of democratically elected school boards. School boards can be investigated whenever the minister "has concerns that the board may have done something or omitted to do something and the act or omission contravenes, indicates an intention to contravene or may result in a contravention" of a broad list of ministerial requirements and legislative provisions: curriculum matters, extracurricular activities, class size, instructional time, trustees' remuneration, funding formula.

In other words, the minister can initiate a full investigation on the smallest pretense. To make matters worse, the minister is not obligated to appoint an impartial person to carry out the investigation. The investigator is given broad, police-like powers such as search and seizure. This essentially brands any school board which is under investigation as a criminal operation. Only, unlike criminals, school boards will have no guarantee that they will receive a fair and impartial hearing. This questionable process can actually result in a board being placed under trusteeship, completely at the discretion of the minister.

This erosion of democracy has a very direct impact on education workers and the system as a whole. Education support staff have been the target of cuts as a result of the funding formula imposed by this government. The funding formula essentially dictates to school boards how much to spend and on what, regardless of local needs and practices. It is becoming increasingly clear that this minister does not recognize nor value the contribution of support staff to the education of Ontario's students. What happens if a board believes a certain level of support staff is needed, beyond what the ministry deems as necessary? Will that board face an investigation? It is CUPE members who ensure the health and safety of students and staff by cleaning the schools, securing the grounds, fielding calls, supervising lunch. Will boards be forced to choose between ensuring proper health and safety and meeting the ministry's arbitrary funding formula?

Bill 74 will lead to an unprecedented level of uncertainty in the education sector. With school boards stripped of meaningful say over the delivery of education, who can students, parents, teachers and support staff turn to? Who can be held accountable?

Bill 74 marks the beginning of the end of free collective bargaining in the education sector, and perhaps in this province. We don't believe this is too strong a statement. The ability of school boards to negotiate in good faith has already been seriously compromised by the funding model. However, Bill 74 is an overt attack on hard-won and legally established employment rights.

The idea of mandatory volunteerism should raise concerns for every worker in this province. Bill 74 suggests that teachers can be assigned virtually any school-related activity, any day, any time. In fact, the definition of extracurricular, or so-called co-instructional, is so broad that we have to wonder, can teachers be asked to clean classrooms or drive the buses?

CUPE supports the teachers' federations in their efforts to protect their right to free collective bargaining.

CUPE members, like all in the education sector, have been subjected to a complete overhaul of the education system without even a minute to catch our breath. This government has imposed change after change, not to improve education but rather to cut costs.

Hundreds of CUPE members have lost their jobs. The workloads of those who are left behind become unbearable, and staff morale is at an all-time low. It is time for accountability, to be sure. It is time for this government and this education minister to be held accountable for the crisis they are creating in education.

Bill 74 will not improve accountability. Bill 74 is nothing more than a mean-spirited piece of legislation that tells the education sector: "Don't even think about challenging the government. We can take away your rights as workers, as employers, as voters, as parents and as democratically elected trustees. We can take away your rights as students to a high quality public education system built on values of freedom of speech, mutual respect and democracy."

1100

What a lesson for Ontario's students. What a lesson for us all.

CUPE can't even begin to make recommendations for improving Bill 74. There is nothing in this piece of legislation worth implementing.

CUPE urges the standing committee on justice and social policy to strongly recommend the withdrawal of Bill 74.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Monardo. There are about two minutes for questions, and I suspect it will all be taken up by Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Thank you for your presentation. You've covered a different angle that some others haven't touched on. I agree with your conclusion. Some people think that you might be able to tinker with this bill; I don't believe you can. The only thing you can do is either accept the badness of this bill or simply reject it altogether.

You raised an issue on page 5, "Bill 74 has been introduced to send a message that the government will not tolerate dissent to its educational reforms." On page 13 it speaks to that: "The board and each of its members, officers and employees shall comply with the orders, directions and decisions of the minister under this part in any matter relating to the affairs of the board, and any such person who knowingly fails to comply with any such order, direction or decision, or who, as a member of the board, votes contrary to such order, direction or decision, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000."

Their silence will be legislated, which is what I think you were saying here.

Ms Monardo: Correct.

Mr Marchese: Again, I think you've touched on different parts of this bill that we need to talk about, because although we were talking about teachers, it affects the non-teaching side as well in many ways, and I appreciate that contribution.

With respect to the hearings, we had one day, today, and two hours in Barrie. Do you think that's a sufficient amount of time for making the government accountable to itself, or do you think maybe a little more time might have been useful in the accountability debate?

Ms Monardo: I think it's safe to say-

Mr Guzzo: Be honest.

Ms Monardo: I'm being very honest. It's very safe to say that, as outlined in the brief, the public and organizations that are part of the school communities that our members are part of, no, have not had opportunity to address this particular bill.

Clearly, a day and a few hours in another city within the province are not enough for those of us who are involved in education, and that includes parents, who have a say in education. We have not had an opportunity to address this bill and the impact of it.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Monardo. That's your two minutes.

CHARLIE MAZER

The Chair: The next speaker is Mr Charlie Mazer. Good morning, Mr Mazer. You have 10 minutes.

Mr Charlie Mazer: Good morning and thank you for having me here this morning. If you don't mind, I'm going to take my opportunity to fix up some of these dry proceedings here.

The Chair: Please do.

Mr Mazer: Thank you very much for allowing me to appear before you today to express to you what I see as a very positive aspect of this legislation. I am speaking to you today not as a representative of any particular organization; I don't belong to one. I'm happily retired. I'm speaking to you today as a grandparent of four small children, two of whom are already in the school system and two who will be entering within a few years. I have some grave concerns about their future.

My concern is with the growing level of disruption in students' access to the very important area of extracurricular activities. This aspect of the education process is being used more and more as the target of both political protests and the collective bargaining process outside of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as it applies to teachers.

The greater problem, as I see it, is that the loss is borne not by the parties whose interests are in dispute in the collective bargaining process but by a particular group of students who participate in those activities.

Extracurricular activities are an important part of school life, and they are the avenue to the development of life-long skills of leadership, team work and problem-solving. These activities form positive civil behaviors in students as a result of the inter-personal skills learned in the process of achieving goals in athletics, the production of yearbooks, drama clubs and the whole host of other extracurricular activities that students have participated in in the many years that the Ontario school system has been running.

The collective bargaining process for teachers is spelled out in labour relations legislation, and it provides for legal solutions and legal sanctions up to and including a strike. In a legal strike, each side must be and is prepared to accept the normal financial and political costs of seeking their own interests. That's what the legislation is founded on.

In a work-to-rule campaign involving only the withdrawal of extracurricular activities, the teachers suffer no loss of income and the board, happily, keeps the academic portion of the program running. The cost in collective bargaining is borne by a select group of students and their parents, and their grandparents, namely those people participating in extracurricular activities. Thus there is no equality in bearing the disruption. The effects are felt by one distinct group of students and their parents. I ask you, how can this be fair?

Another problem is that generally not all teachers participate in the targeted activities, causing division within the working environment. The way I see it, Bill 74 puts the withdrawal of extracurricular activities in the category of a strike within the labour relations law. In these circumstances, the action creates a direct cost to the parties seeking to further their own interests and would be carefully considered by those parties before such action is undertaken.

In this respect at least, Bill 74 corrects the increasing use of work-to-rule situations where only students who participate in these activities, and their parents, suffer the consequences of other parties, each seeking to further their own interests. As such, I think the bill should be favorably considered by the committee.

Thank you very much for your kind attention. To the limited extent that I have expert knowledge in the other matters of Bill 74, I'd be glad to answer questions to the best of my ability.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mazer. We have about four minutes for questions. Government side, Mr Guzzo.

Mr Guzzo: Thank you for coming here. I wonder if you wouldn't just elaborate on your background. You're retired now, but what did you do for a living?

Mr Mazer: I was a high school teacher for 33 years.

Mr Guzzo: Here in the Ottawa area?

Mr Mazer: Yes, I was here in the Ottawa area, and I took part in two strikes on behalf of the local union, in the mid-1970s and again in the mid-1980s.

Mr Guzzo: During your years as a teacher, you were involved in extracurricular activities?

Mr Mazer: My organizational skills were not the very best outside the classroom. I remember my one unhappy experience in coaching athletics involved track and field. I guess I didn't quite take the right attitude towards this. I insisted that the students go out there to have fun and learn a little bit more about themselves. I don't think I had quite the kind of competitive spirit that led to the direction of winning teams, so I was very quickly replaced by the head of track and field. The students went on to have a lot of fun anyway and I think some actually placed fairly close to winning.

Mr Guzzo: Thank you for coming down, sir.

Mr Mazer: I'm glad to be here.

1110

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You talked about your four grandchildren. Are you suggesting that they have had extracurricular activities withdrawn from them or denied them?

Mr Mazer: What I'm concerned about is that the framework in which extracurricular activities are delivered now leaves them to be arbitrarily withdrawn as an unofficial strike. I believe teachers need the right to strike. I would not want to see a situation where teachers are placed in a position where they simply have to accept the dictates of another party.

Mr Patten: So your grandchildren have not been adversely affected?

Mr Mazer: Let me just finish my answer and I'll get on to your point. My thinking is that the process has to be such that teachers have some avenue of making their views known. It could be that binding arbitration is the answer, rather than strike. But I believe there has to be some process for teachers to make their views known and to actively participate in that. So I believe that the right to strike is essential. That's exactly my point. I don't see that the withdrawal of voluntary services, or the withdrawal of extracurricular activities, is really within the spirit, and maybe not even within the letter, of the labour relations law, because it does put the onus only on a select group of students. I think it's arbitrarily decided, because it has no foundation in the labour relations law. Does that sort of get to your point?

Mr Patten: No, you didn't mention your grandchildren.

Mr Mazer: My grandchildren. I'm concerned-

Mr Marchese: I have a question.

The Chair: Mr Marchese?

Mr Marchese: May I ask you a question?

Mr Mazer: Yes.

Mr Marchese: We're running out of time. It's good to know you were a teacher. You know what makes the extracurricular activities is the voluntary nature of it, and that people do it because they have a desire and skill. You ended up doing track and field, and you said you wanted them to have fun; they wanted to compete. God bless, there's a difference here, but, generally people do it because they want to do it and it's part of that, right?

Mr Mazer: Yes.

Mr Marchese: They're saying what was voluntary is now forced. Some 99% of boards are doing it, including Durham, we heard, where, in spite of the forced arbitration they had, many people are still doing extracurricular activities. Some, because of the changed nature of the extra work, are deciding, "I don't have the time any more, because I've got a family and I have a life." They're now saying they're going to be forced to do it. Do you think teachers are going to find the desire and the interest when you tell them they've got to do it? Do you think it's going to be done now?

The Chair: You have about 10 seconds to answer that.

Mr Mazer: I'll tell you very frankly, under Bill 74 I don't see that a whole lot is going to change.

Mr Marchese: Well, you're wrong.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mazer.

WENDY FISH

The Chair: The next speaker is Wendy Fish. Good morning, Ms Fish.

Ms Wendy Fish: Good morning and thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns about Bill 74. My name is Wendy Fish, and I'm the mother of a nine-year-old son who has been seriously affected by the continuing cuts to education in Ontario. Because of these cuts, programs for gifted children have disappeared, and my son's learning has suffered. It has taken four frustrating years to get the proper testing done to acknowledge that my son is both gifted and learning disabled at the same time.

In the meantime, I have fought a top-heavy system full of administrative red tape and too few qualified personnel, who are the key to support for special-needs students. Instead of cutting unnecessary administrators, it has been psychometrists and special-education teachers who have lost their jobs. How does this help special-needs students in Ontario?

Bill 74 is yet another smokescreen set up by Mike Harris to fool the people of Ontario and to take even more money out of an already poverty stricken system. Fewer teachers teaching more students does not equate to a quality education for my son or for anyone else's children in this province. What it does equate to is more money in the government's pocket and less money for the programs and teachers our children desperately need.

I am also here as a high school teacher with an incredible passion for my profession and for my students. Over the course of my 17-year career, I have voluntarily, and with a great deal of pride, spent thousands of personal hours coaching volleyball, curling and track and field, often to the provincial and national levels. I recently attended the provincial high school track and field championships in Windsor, and I continue to be amazed at the spirit of volunteerism shown by my colleagues with this kind of bill sitting in front of us. I have organized and supervised innumerable field trips, including an annual three-day excursion with 45 students to Stratford, Ontario. No one forces me to volunteer.

Bill 74 cannot tell me to love what I do and to love the kids with whom I work. In fact, it may well take that away from me and from my students. What it has already done is make me question how someone can have the arrogance to legislate me to perform duties that I do voluntarily, while at the same time forcing me to teach more students and making me available to my principal 24 hours a day, seven days a week, anywhere in the world. If people think principals won't exercise that power, then they haven't met some of the principals I know. I will no longer be able to plan time for my family with an extra class to teach and with a principal who can demand my attendance anywhere, any time; and they'll do it whether you believe it or not.

The concept of a personal life outside of teaching will become merely a dream with Bill 74. Bill 74 is yet another way for Mr Harris to demoralize the people who care for and educate the children of this province. How is that going to assist the government in providing quality education? How is that going to prepare our children to be future leaders? What an example to set. Trampling people's civil rights by removing the ability to collectively bargain their working conditions puts us in line with countries run by dictators who consider themselves above the law.

The children of Ontario deserve better. Bill 74 puts the minister and her decisions outside of the labour laws of this province and removes the most basic of democratic rights. It destroys the pride and dedication of the people who influence children on a daily basis. How can such undervalued and demoralized teachers then provide quality education?

In their May 29 issue, Maclean's magazine ran a cover story entitled "What the Boss Needs to Know," and I think perhaps it's time the government read the article and paid attention to it. I would like to quote a few facts from the article. Did you know that teachers are among the most committed workers in Ontario? How can commitment be legislated? It can only be destroyed. Another point is made: "Even jobs that look great from the outside"-obviously teaching-"can become nightmarish when employees feel frustrated at every turn by management. Typically, attitudes turn sour, motivation dries up, and an otherwise innovative and productive person sinks into resignation or anger, and sometimes worse." I hope that sounds familiar to some of you.

Bill 160 began that process for teachers, and Bill 74 will finish the job. My son and all children in Ontario deserve better, and I urge you to demand that Bill 74 be removed from the floor of the Legislature immediately, before it's too late. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Fish. Ladies and gentlemen, I would appreciate it if-cellphones are very, very disruptive, so if you could please turn them off. It was something I neglected to ask you to do at the beginning of the morning, so I apologize for that. But I would appreciate it if you would please respect the speakers.

We have about three minutes. Mr Kennedy.

1120

Mr Kennedy: Ms Fish, I wonder if you could comment-

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): It's our turn.

Mr Marchese: I spoke last.

The Chair: I'm sorry. There were three questions that were asked, and when we have three questions asked, we change the rotation.

Mr Marchese: All right. Go on, Madam Chair.

The Chair: So don't question me, please. Mr Kennedy.

Mr Kennedy: I wonder if you could elaborate for us a little bit more. The government is obviously trying to take money away by firing some of your colleagues or, because so many are retiring, by just not having teaching positions there that used to be there. They're trying to cover this up by provoking you with this extracurricular stuff. I don't think we fully get it. I think for the rest of us you must feel like you're teaching on the moon. It often must feel like people don't understand what it's like in the classroom.

What do you think the impact is going to be the day after Wednesday? The members opposite have invoked closure, which is an ironclad-slam-undemocratic use of rules that says this will be voted on. No matter what you say today, these sham hearings are just a cover, just a patina of democracy to go with the rest of it. What will be the impact now? How are your colleagues feeling? What will they feel next? How does this translate in the real world to the students in terms of the ability of people to reach down and do things for them?

Ms Fish: Morale, I would say, is at an all-time low. In 17 years of teaching I've never seen people so destroyed by a government. I think the impact is going to be devastating for everyone. The amount of energy I'm going to be left with will be barely enough to keep me alive, let alone have some time for my son, let alone have time for my students after school, in the evenings. To all the grad students who are in contact with me on a regular basis I'm going to have to say: "I'm sorry, I don't have time. My principal has told me I have to do this, this and this." I think it's going to be absolutely devastating.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, one minute.

Mr Marchese: Thank you for your presentation. I think we often separate the issue of extracurricular activity as being volunteer, and now a forced one, and separate it from the fact that you're now being required to teach literally an extra period. It's not a half-period, it's an extra period. We need to see that in conjunction with each other and the double effects of it. It is a double whammy, in my view. Do you agree that we should put it in the context of one and the other in terms of the effects it has on you individually and collectively?

Ms Fish: Absolutely. I'll go back to my comment that having fewer teachers teaching more students does not create quality education, plain and simple, and they don't separate out. If you care for what you do and you care for your students, you can't take that apart. Bill 74 will.

Mr Tascona: I was curious about your comment, "They didn't cut unnecessary administration, but they cut specialized support." Can you elaborate on that?

Ms Fish: Yes. I'm coming from the Upper Canada District School Board, where there were four amalgamated school boards, and they're very top-heavy. I don't think that in the amalgamation process there were more than a couple of jobs lost at the administrative level. We have two psychometrists to do the testing process for students in over 120 schools. It took me four years to get somewhere with my son, and I know the system. I feel very sorry for the people who don't know it.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Fish.

ASSOCIATION DES CONSEILLÈRES ET DES CONSEILLERS DES ÉCOLES PUBLIQUES DE L'ONTARIO
ASSOCIATION FRANCO-ONTARIENNE DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES CATHOLIQUES

The Chair: The next speaker is Louise Pinet, executive director of l'Association des conseillères et des conseillers des écoles publiques de l'Ontario. Good morning.

M^me Louise Pinet : Bonjour, madame la Présidente, membres du comité de la justice et des affaires sociales, mesdames et messieurs. De toute évidence, je ne m'appelle pas Daniel Morin, qui est le président de l'association et qui présente ses regrets. Il a été impossible de se rendre à la rencontre de ce matin.

Je suis Louise Pinet, et je suis la directrice générale de l'Association des conseillères et des conseillers des écoles publiques de l'Ontario, l'organisme qui représente les quatre conseils scolaires du système des écoles publiques de langue française.

Permettez-moi de vous présenter M. Rhéal Perron et M^me Lorraine Gandolfo, de l'Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques, à qui nous avons accordé un peu de notre temps afin d'assurer que tous les conseils scolaires de langue française ont l'occasion de se faire entendre.

L'ACÉPO veut souligner des éléments qui, dans la loi 74, affecteront le vécu quotidien de tous les élèves francophones et le rôle des employeurs que sont les conseils scolaires. L'ACÉPO tient à vous dire qu'elle appuie la réduction de l'effectif moyen de l'ensemble des classes et voudrait même que cet effectif soit réduit davantage pour que l'ancienne norme des premières années d'études soit de nouveau en vigueur.

Notez aussi que l'ACÉPO enjoindra les conseils scolaires membres de respecter la loi si elle est adoptée. Mais comment est-ce que cela se traduira-t-il au jour le jour ? C'est ça, la question. Enrichir l'expérience scolaire des élèves grâce à l'adoption du projet de loi 74, est-ce un non-sens ?

Rappelons-nous le temps que nous avons passé à l'école : en ville, en campagne, petite école, grosse école, bonne école, moins bonne école, chaque école était en mesure de mettre de l'avant ses priorités, ses besoins éducatifs, son propre programme d'activités complémentaires, son code de vie à la lumière de sa communauté à l'intérieur d'un encadrement. Rappelons-nous aussi notre relation avec chacun de nos enseignantes et enseignants. Souvenons-nous de nos amis, les élèves : les élèves en difficulté d'apprentissage, les élèves en difficulté de comportement. Et puis, faisons le lien avec le projet de loi qui nous préoccupe tant. Pour que le projet de loi ait du bon sens, il faut que la vie scolaire de l'élève sous la responsabilité du conseil scolaire soit améliorée. Le sera-t-elle ?

Nous ne voyons pas comment. Il ne s'agit pas de dire qu'il n'y a rien à changer ou à améliorer. Il ne s'agit pas de dire que les élèves ne sont pas pénalisés quand les activités éducatives et culturelles ne sont pas offertes. Il ne s'agit pas de dire que les conseils scolaires ne veulent pas être tenus responsables de la gestion qui leur incombe. Il s'agit de voir comment les changements de pouvoirs prévus dans le projet de loi serviront à atteindre l'objectif avancé par le gouvernement.

Du point de vue du conseil scolaire responsable de gérer la mise en _uvre, qu'est-ce que le nouveau projet de loi apporte ?

(1) Dans l'application pratique de l'exigence d'assurer des activités complémentaires, quelle politique permettra à un conseil scolaire d'assurer que chaque école offre toutes les activités prévues par la loi de façon équitable pour les élèves ? Les activités complémentaires tiennent du bon vouloir des gens, et l'on ne peut pas gérer le bon vouloir. Voilà le dilemme.

Comment les conseils scolaires peuvent-ils être tenus responsables de la façon dont les activités complémentaires seront offertes ? Car on sait tous qu'il est possible de contribuer à faire échouer un projet tout comme il est possible de contribuer à son succès. De façon réaliste, dans le contexte actuel, nous craignons que les impacts de l'adoption du projet de loi 74 soient bien plus négatifs que positifs.

Tout nouveaux sur la scène de la gestion des écoles, les conseils scolaires de langue française ont mis de l'avant des politiques de consultation, de concertation et de partenariat qui ont soutenu une collaboration, pour la plupart efficace, dans l'offre des activités complémentaires. La présente loi fait fi des travaux accomplis et impose un nouveau contexte d'action alors que nous avons eu à peine le temps de faire sécher l'encre.

(2) Quant aux conséquences pour un conseil scolaire de ne pas respecter la loi, le pouvoir du ministre de l'Éducation serait d'une très grande portée. En se fondant sur une « crainte » de son propre chef, ou pour donner suite à une plainte d'un conseil d'école ou de contribuables, le ministre aurait le pouvoir de surveiller la capacité de gestion globale, par exemple la responsabilité financière, et aussi la capacité de gestion spécifique, par exemple le nombre d'heures d'enseignement, les activités éducatives, sociales et culturelles. Le pouvoir serait susceptible d'excès.

En ce qui touche les activités complémentaires ou parascolaires, le conseil scolaire aurait la responsabilité légale d'assurer le respect de la loi sans avoir la capacité financière d'assurer l'offre des activités, car les activités complémentaires sociales et culturelles sont des activités qui engendrent des dépenses financières. Pensons aux frais de transport, au coût de l'équipement, à l'aménagement de sites ou à la location de locaux, pour ne mentionner que quelques exemples. Le projet de loi modifie les conditions de la prestation des services complémentaires, mais rien ne garantit que la qualité en sera améliorée.

Le conseil scolaire peut-il jouer son rôle d'employeur efficacement pour rehausser la qualité de l'éducation et accroître sa responsabilité si le projet de loi est adopté ? En ce qui concerne le temps d'enseignement, les conseils scolaires des écoles publiques veulent demeurer responsables de gérer toutes les clauses des conventions collectives des employés du conseil afin d'assurer un encadrement cohérent qui tient compte de la prestation des services en français dans un milieu minoritaire.

1130

Ça étant dit, l'objectif est de rehausser la qualité de l'éducation. Un des moyens choisis par le gouvernement est d'augmenter les heures d'enseignement par enseignant ou enseignante tout en conservant le même nombre d'heures d'apprentissage pour les élèves. En quoi cela améliore-t-il la performance éducative ? Difficile à dire.

Dans ce débat, nous avons l'impression que ce n'est pas l'objectif à atteindre qui a motivé l'action mais un problème à résoudre. Puisque la situation financière de la province est maintenant améliorée, ne devrait-on pas plutôt revoir le projet à la lumière de l'atteinte des objectifs d'amélioration de rendement des élèves, de la mise en oeuvre du nouveau curriculum et des problèmes à résoudre ?

Les conseils scolaires sont des corps publics, élus pour gérer l'offre de l'éducation élémentaire et secondaire sur un territoire donné. II nous semble alors qu'il devrait y avoir une capacité d'action locale, dans le respect des grandes politiques et orientations provinciales.

Les études menées sur les progrès accomplis dans la mise en oeuvre des conseils scolaires ont été, dans leur ensemble, positives. Les améliorations à apporter ont été soulignées. Parfois, il est arrivé que les recommandations avancées par la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation ont été revues, car celle-ci n'avait peut-être pas eu accès à toutes les données nécessaires à la prise de décision. Cela a quand même confirmé que la réforme a eu des retombées positives.

Cependant, l'ACÉPO estime que toutes les réformes apportées n'ont pas encore porté fruit et qu'il faut un temps pour la mise en oeuvre, avec une capacité d'analyse continue de celle-ci. Nous croyons que les solutions apportées par le projet de loi 74 visent des éléments de mise en oeuvre qui peuvent être résolus localement. II faudrait envisager du point de vue provincial un processus de résolution de différends pour les situations qui posent des difficultés insurmontables. À notre avis, cependant, cela serait plus efficace et beaucoup moins coûteux en termes financiers et surtout en termes humains.

À ce moment-ci, j'aimerais passer la parole à M. Perron, président de l'AFOCSC.

M. Rhéal Perron : Madame la Présidente, bien chers amis, mon nom est Rhéal Perron. Je suis président de l'Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques, l'AFOCSC. En plus de présider l'association, je suis également président du Conseil scolaire catholique français Franco-Nord, et président de la Société d'aide à l'enfance dans ma région de Nipissing-Parry Sound, ce qui me donne une bonne idée de ce qui est bon pour l'enfant à l'école.

L'Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques représente les huit conseils scolaires catholiques, ainsi que les administrations scolaires de langue française qui regroupent plus de 70 000 élèves dans la province. Déjà depuis 1944 par l'entremise de l'association prédécesseure, les francophones revendiquent afin d'obtenir une éducation de qualité et équitable pour leurs jeunes. C'est avec cet objectif en tête que nous vous offrons aujourd'hui nos propos concernant les changements proposés à la Loi sur l'éducation.

Les conseils scolaires de langue française sont fondés sur une tradition et une habitude de collaboration. Depuis plus de 100 ans, les francophones ont eu à travailler avec la communauté de langue anglaise afin d'obtenir des écoles dans lesquelles leur langue première pouvait faire l'objet de l'enseignement. Plus tard, en tant que sections de langue française, nous avons vu à la mise en oeuvre du curriculum dans les nouvelles écoles de langue française pour lesquelles nous avions une juridiction exclusive. Tout au long du cheminement vers la gestion complète de nos institutions, la collaboration a toujours été un principe sur lequel le futur était envisagé : avec les comités de parents, le personnel enseignant, les élèves, les administrateurs, les paroisses, et la collaboration importante avec le ministère de l'Éducation.

Ce principe de collaboration s'inspire de la passion que nous avons pour la réussite scolaire des élèves catholiques de langue française et également notre passion pour l'épanouissement de la communauté franco-ontarienne, du berceau au tombeau.

C'est dans cette perspective que nous avons pris connaissance des modifications proposées à la Loi sur l'éducation, et nous nous questionnons sérieusement sur les raisons de ces changements. II faut comprendre que nous ne sommes pas opposés aux changements positifs, et nous en avons vécu plusieurs avant d'obtenir la gestion de nos écoles. Nous croyons, cependant, que non seulement le rythme des changements est problématique, mais nous ne sommes pas certains de bien comprendre les raisons qui les motivent.

Depuis les deux ou trois dernières années, le système d'éducation s'est vu confier la responsabilité de la mise en oeuvre de plusieurs changements. Franchement, nous aimerions connaître une période de stabilité afin de permettre aux élèves de faire la transition requise d'un changement à l'autre.

Nous ne comprenons pas pourquoi il est nécessaire de légiférer la bonne volonté du personnel enseignant en imposant les activités parascolaires comme charge additionnelle de travail, d'autant plus que l'on exigerait que le personnel enseignant soit disponible n'importe quand. Nous estimons que ceci va à l'encontre des droits des travailleurs et fait fi des principes de justice sociale. Les enseignantes et les enseignants des écoles catholiques de langue française ne sont pas avares de leur temps ni de leur dévouement. Nous jugeons ceci comme une mesure réactionnaire qui a pour but de régler une seule situation en Ontario.

Dans les conseils scolaires catholiques de langue française, les activités parascolaires sont une partie intégrale de la communauté. Plusieurs activités offertes en français ne sont disponibles qu'à l'école et servent à freiner l'assimilation. Pourquoi tenter de réparer quelque chose qui n'est pas brisé dans nos conseils ? Est-ce un problème réel ou un faux problème qu'on veut résoudre ? Est-ce que ce changement va dans le sens de l'épanouissement des élèves catholiques francophones ? Nous sommes d'avis que non. Nous sommes également d'avis que ceci créera un climat de confrontation au sein de nos écoles, et nous n'avons aucunement besoin de telles confrontations.

Dans les modifications proposées à la Loi sur l'éducation, il est proposé de donner des pouvoirs accrus au ministre de l'Éducation afin de permettre à cette personne, une seule personne, de prendre les affaires d'un conseil en main au besoin. Nous comprenons difficilement comment ceci aura un impact positif sur l'épanouissement de l'élève catholique francophone. Les principes de démocratie sont ancrés dans notre société depuis des années. Il existe déjà des mécanismes en place pour corriger les situations indésirables au sein des conseils scolaires. Cette modification se veut une atteinte à la démocratie locale. Elle est très insultante pour les élus en place. Les conseils scolaires se voient attribuer bien peu de discrétion, ce qui constitue un changement radical du temps où les préoccupations locales étaient prioritaires. Encore une fois, nous jugeons que cette modification est en réaction à une situation isolée et n'est aucunement fondée sur la réalité.

Dans son dernier rapport, La voie de l'avenir IV, la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation offre l'opinion suivante : « À notre avis, le processus de restructuration a été couronné de succès... Nous avons constaté des progrès dans tous les secteurs des opérations des conseils que nous avons étudiés. »

Nous gérons nos conseils scolaires de langue française de manière responsable et nous avons l'intention de continuer à le faire. II est regrettable que les changements proposés jettent un doute quant à la capacité des décideurs démocratiquement élus de s'acquitter de leurs tâches.

Nous continuons à nous questionner sur la pertinence de ces changements sur la qualité de l'éducation dans nos écoles. Allons-nous vraiment vers l'épanouissement des élèves catholiques francophones avec ceci ? Allons-nous contribuer à créer des communautés ouvertes et respectueuses des collaborations en place ? Sommes-nous vraiment assurés que ces changements n'auront pas pour effet la réduction du bénévolat du personnel enseignant dans nos écoles ? Comment allons-nous assurer la relève autour de la table du conseil et attirer des candidats et candidates de calibre dans ce climat de doute ?

Comme vous pouvez le constater, nous avons plus de questions que de réponses. Cependant, nous sommes d'avis qu'aller de l'avant avec les modifications discutées ici aujourd'hui contribuera à créer une situation des plus difficiles dans nos écoles et ne fera rien, absolument rien, pour soutenir la passion pour l'éducation de toutes les personnes impliquées dans l'éducation.

Je vous en remercie.

M^me Pinet : Madame la Présidente, l'ACÉFO vous demande, à vous et aux membres du comité, de revoir le projet de loi en fonction de sa capacité de mise en oeuvre et de son effet sur le leadership local, leadership exercé par les conseils scolaires et les écoles. À une exception près, soit celle de réduire l'effectif moyen des classes, le projet de loi tel qu'il est rédigé en ce moment ne contribuera pas à rehausser la qualité de l'éducation, ni à accroître la responsabilité des conseils scolaires devant les élèves et les contribuables, ni à enrichir l'expérience des élèves.

Mesdames et messieurs, le projet de loi 74 ne nous offre pas une solution pratique. Trouvons une autre solution.

The Chair: Thank you. Your full 15 minutes has been allocated.

1140

PARENT NETWORK

The Chair: The next speaker is Pat Middleton of the Parent Network.

Ms Pat Middleton: If it's possible, I would like to share my time with Linda Querel, who is also a member of the Parent Network.

The Chair: Yes. You represent an organization, so you have 15 minutes.

Ms Middleton: Thank you for allowing us to speak to you today. My name is Pat Middleton, and I am a parent of four children ranging in age from two to 20. I have been in the public system as a parent for 16 years. I have held positions on school committees and councils for all those years, and at present I am the school council chair for Tagwi Secondary School in Avonmore. I am also a member of the steering committee of the Upper Canada Assembly of School Councils as well as a member of both the Parent Network and the Organization for Quality Education.

I became involved in all these organizations because, as a parent, I felt I wasn't a partner in my children's education. Things were occurring that I wasn't happy with. My children weren't always receiving the education I believed they were entitled to, and I felt I had no input to the situation. The few times when I approached my child's teacher, principal or school board about specific things, I was left feeling that my concerns were not important. Schools and teachers could do as they wished, there was no accountability and I was told that my only recourse was to remove my child from the public system.

I am very pleased with most of the changes that have occurred recently in the education system. I am pleased there is a provincial curriculum in place and that I now know what my children will be taught at which grade. I am pleased there is a provincial funding formula in place that will tell me where the money for education will be spent in my school board. I am pleased that school councils have been strengthened to allow parent input to their children's schools. But none of these changes will help parents if they have no way to ensure these changes are implemented, and implemented properly. This brings me to Bill 74.

I am amazed at the amount of rhetoric that surrounds this bill, and yet I have heard nothing in the media about how this bill empowers parents and the school community. This bill gives parents and taxpayers the ability to make the school system accountable. If a teacher is not following the curriculum, parents know they can bring it to the attention of the board and the board will have to act. If a school board is misspending funds, taxpayers can bring it to the ministry's attention and the ministry will act on it. Finally there is something we can do to ensure our children receive the education they deserve.

This bill also strengthens school councils. It actually puts school councils into the Education Act, finally. It allows us to take part in making sure the system is accountable. Without this role, many school councils were left spinning their wheels, frustrated that they had no real input to the school. This situation does not encourage the involvement of parents who wish to make a difference in their schools. Hopefully this bill will strengthen the role of councils and result in the involvement of many more parents.

I am pleased to see that the school councils will have input to any school plan regarding extracurricular activities. These activities are very important to our children's education. Because of the inequity of what is offered, students do not benefit equally from school to school. Without the opportunity to pick and choose schools based on what is offered, parents and students should have input to what is offered at the local school.

I am quite pleased with what is offered at my son's high school at present, but I have concerns about what will happen if the involved teachers leave. At the elementary level, extracurricular activities seem to be dependent on the skills of the teachers at the schools. For example, at my son's elementary school there is no teacher willing to organize a choir. I don't know if any of the teachers have the skills to lead a choir. Therefore, to ask for a choir when no one has the skills would be redundant. If a choir is very coveted, then it should follow that this skill should be looked for when hiring new staff. As it stands, it isn't often that staff is hired based on specific skills, and in fact school councils are never consulted when new teaching staff is added to the school.

The one concern I have with this bill is the increase in secondary school teaching time. Increased teaching time will result in fewer teachers at the school, and this will be very detrimental to the small rural schools. This will make scheduling very difficult and will result in more split classes and a greater chance that students will not have access to courses when they are needed. Tagwi Secondary School, my son's school, is a school of just under 500 students, and almost every teacher is involved in extracurricular activities. Decreasing the number of teachers in our school could result in a lack of manpower to supervise all the activities we now have and wish maintain.

Removing remedial help from the calculated teaching time is also a concern. This is an important duty of teachers and needs to be addressed. Supervision is also required, and if teachers are not given time to do it, then problems could arise. The hiring of supervisory staff separate from the teachers could fill the need and keep our schools safe.

Overall, I like the changes that are occurring in our education system in Ontario. I think this government is on the right track. There are some problems that are apparent in the implementation-sometimes the changes are occurring too quickly-but I believe these changes are required if we want our children to receive the education they are entitled to and deserve. Thank you.

The Chair: There is rather a lot of background noise, and I would appreciate that everyone present consider the speakers and respect everyone's right to speak.

Ms Linda Querel: My name is Linda Querel, and I am also from the Parent Network.

The latest polls indicate that 91% approve of the new code of conduct, 86% support standardized province-wide tests, 71% to 80% support mandatory teacher testing, 67% agree Tory reforms will improve education quality, 66% agree reforms will benefit students in the years ahead, 58% agree that the true challenge in improving public education is not to spend more but to spend more wisely and 52% agree that extracurricular activities should be mandatory. I would like to speak to the issue of extracurricular activities.

For the most part, the new changes to the Education Act to ensure that students can participate in school activities will not be a problem for most boards or teachers. In the past, and at this very moment, many teachers volunteer many hours to co-instructional activities. The fact that these activities are implemented on a volunteer basis is no guarantee for students or parents that these activities will be available from school to school, from year to year or in the event of any labour dispute. If a computer club or a sport is not offered from year to year once the equipment has been purchased, due to a lack of skill or lack of interest and a teacher does not volunteer, then this is not a good use of funds or resources.

We get a very clear idea of how much these activities mean to students when we hear of a soccer team taking the issue to court, a debating or sports team trying everything to find a way to participate in the finals, students and parents losing their deposits given as payment for some future outing or trip and students coming home and asking their parents to do something so their activities may continue. There have been many frustrated and disappointed students. Right now, some schools offer a full range of activities; others almost none.

Parents and students would like to see a certain number of activities offered at every school, the funds in place to implement these activities and the guarantee that once started they will continue at least throughout the remainder of that year. It is very difficult for both teachers and students, as well as parents, to keep up any enthusiasm when they know they may have to withdraw at any point along the way. I feel this issue was created because these activities have been so frequently withdrawn, and it is not fair to the students. Thank you.

The Chair: We have about five minutes, Mr Marchese-

Mr Marchese: Five?

The Chair: -split three ways. You have about a minute and a half.

Mr Marchese: As a socialist I like to share my time. You know that.

The Chair: I'm sure you do.

Mr Marchese: On the issue of extracurricular activities, I'm a bit concerned. You used-I had some wording that I wrote down, in terms of what you said, that in most school boards most teachers offer their time voluntarily. Remember, this is a voluntary activity. You as a parent would even like to have a say. That's OK. I think it's all right for parents to be able to have a say in terms of what activities might be there. But once this government forces teachers to do it obligatorily, I as a teacher won't any longer decide I will do football, chess or whatever activity, because prior to that I did it voluntarily and now you're forcing me to do it. I might decide I don't want to do that any more, and you as a parent and as a school board can't force me. And if you do force me, I may not put my heart into it. If that's the case, we may not have the activities you desperately would like to participate in.

1150

Ms Middleton: First of all, I don't agree that it should be a voluntary activity. I believe extracurricular or co-instructional activities, or whatever they are called, should be a mandatory part. I also believe that if teachers don't want to do it, and it seems to have been the domain of teachers, especially in my board, it should be opened up to any volunteer. As a volunteer, sorry it isn't; it should, and it isn't. It's a matter of having it both ways. Either let the volunteers in to do it and make it totally voluntary, or make it part of the teacher's job.

As far as I can see, and from talking to teachers in my high school, I can't see there is going to be a big concern, if this is passed, that there will be a withdrawal unless it's mandated by unions, I suppose; I don't know. But when I talk to individual teachers, it seems that everything will just go on as it was before.

Mr Marchese: God bless, Pat. It might be.

Ms Middleton: It might be.

Mr Tascona: Thank you very much. I appreciate your presentation. Certainly the intent of Bill 74 with respect to co-instructional activities is to have input and a role for school councils, a plan to be developed by the school board and implemented by the principal with the school council's consultation, and for teachers to have a role in that also.

I guess the flip side of the coin is that when there is a work-to-rule and there are sanctions put on the teachers, they have to comply with that. Have you experienced a work-to-rule situation with your children?

Ms Middleton: I'll defer to Linda, because my board has not been as bad as hers.

Ms Querel: Unfortunately, I have experienced quite a few, yes. Even grad activities that are to take place in the afternoon have been threatened, and I could never understand that. I've also been to the board with a team of football players, wearing their uniforms, asking if anything can be done. I've tried to organize parent volunteers to take over some activities. And unfortunately, even that was not carried out equally at different schools. At some schools, some activities were allowed to continue, and at others, where my children were, no activities were continuing.

Mr Tascona: Was that the decision of the principal or the school board?

Ms Querel: I'm not sure who made that decision, but it was not equally done.

Mr Kennedy: In your endorsement of the government's approach, do you realize-and you probably do; you've studied the legislation. How does the idea, which the legislation presents, that the government will send in an investigator-we don't know what it costs. Every parent gets to complain and every complaint gets investigated by somebody from Toronto, presumably, or somebody from the ministry office. When that complaint is done, if your board is not already doing a good job-I heard a suggestion that if you don't find the board as well as the teachers are doing a good enough job and they need some legislative oversight, if it isn't good enough, the only measure the government has is to basically take over the board. In other words, if the public board, or whichever board you're dealing with, believes it's doing a good job now and says, "No, we disagree with your direction," then the government has to take the board, at whatever cost that entails. It strikes me that that doesn't seem like a very practical way of solving things that could be solved in the community.

Further, a final other thing I'd like you to contemplate: The measures in the bill don't have any restriction on how much could go to a certain teacher or another teacher. Wouldn't you agree that if they're going to be mandatory activies, they should be subject to, say, a 40-hour week or some kind of reasonable thing, so they're not done as an open-ended kind of thing? For example, would you like to have to do things open-ended in your own job? I just wonder if you could comment on those two subjects.

Ms Middleton: That's a lot. On the first part, I don't believe the government is going to run in and take over a board if one parent goes and complains about something.

Mr Kennedy: What I was saying is, it's the only power they have.

Ms Middleton: I understand that. From my experience-I don't want to get too specific here-I have had legitimate complaints. In one incident I took it straight to the board and was told: "We cannot make this accountable. We can't do anything for you." I was actually told by my school board to take my kids out and home-school or go somewhere else.

I feel that with this legislation, through the school council there is a way to make a complaint and have somebody listen.

Mr Kennedy: Someone from Toronto.

Ms Middleton: And if it takes it as far as having to come in and take over the school board, I'm sure these are reasonable people and they're not going to do it at the drop of a hat. If your party was in power, I believe you would be reasonable too.

Mr Kennedy: I appreciate that assumption.

The Chair: Actually, Ms Middleton, your time has expired. I appreciate your coming to address the committee.

LAMAR MASON

The Chair: The next speaker is Lamar Mason.

Ms Lamar Mason: I wish to thank you for allowing me to speak this morning concerning Bill 74. In light of the extremely limited hearings that are being held on this important legislation, I consider myself extremely fortunate to be here.

I am speaking today as the parent of four children in the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. They are presently in grades 12, 8, 6 and 5, so all of them will be impacted by the ramifications of this legislation. I am presently the co-chair of a secondary school, I have been the chair of an elementary school, I am the past co-chair of the Ottawa-Carleton Assembly of School Councils and I currently represent that organization on the special education advisory committee for this board. However, my comments today are based on my personal experience, observations and concerns.

While the stated legislation is to increase educational quality, I believe that the result will be a diminishment in that quality.

Bill 74 requires that teachers in the OCDSB move from teaching six courses per year to teaching 6.67. I am aware that this increase in workload will mean cost savings to school boards and to the province, because it means that fewer teachers will be required to deliver the same number of courses. No doubt this is a driving force behind this particular piece of legislation. But will such an initial cost savings be worth the long-term costs that will result from moving ahead with the legislation?

Increased workloads for teachers mean there is less time for preparation of an individual course, resulting in potentially lower-quality course delivery and content. The teachers at the secondary school that my son presently attends work extremely hard to provide stimulating, comprehensive course content. The school has a strong academic history, and the dedicated work of our teachers towards the quality of their programs ensures that our students maintain that high standard. Imposing additional demands on our teachers will not raise the quality of their work.

Teachers have generally been very supportive of the content and objectives of the new curriculum introduced at the secondary level. As a parent, I view this initiative by the provincial government as a good one. However, like all major changes, secondary school reform requires an extra effort on the part of those designated to implement it; in this case, the teachers. All teachers are being asked to learn the new content and develop the detailed lesson plans and resources needed to deliver the curriculum. This can only be accomplished through additional prep time, whether during or after school hours. But Bill 74 reduces the limited preparation time teachers presently have and, further, adds additional courses to their workload. If the province truly wants to see an improvement in the standards achieved by our students, it must provide the framework for effective delivery of the new curriculum. Bill 74 does not provide that framework.

Bill 74 includes a provision to reduce class sizes minimally. At the secondary level, this should mean that teachers would be dealing with fewer students and have more time for the individual. In fact, increasing the course load of teachers means they will be teaching more students and therefore will have less time for the individual.

The new secondary school curriculum places additional demands on students as well as on teachers. The first group of students to experience this new curriculum does not have the benefit of receiving the new elementary curriculum, which is intended to prepare them for the secondary changes. Consequently, these students need extra help from their teachers to be successful as the province moves ahead with its reforms. But their teachers will no longer have as much time to provide remedial help. Time that was previously used to help students, their prep time before and after school, will now be taken up preparing and teaching additional classes. Students will fall further behind and be less successful.

1200

I am particularly concerned about the time that teachers will have for students with special needs. I, in fact, have two children with learning disabilities, the first one entering high school this fall. These students regularly need additional help to be successful. Many of them, given the new curriculum, will also need a significant modification of that curriculum, and our teachers will not have the time to do that. They will be receiving less preparation time, and they are dealing with a far greater number of students who require modifications to the curriculum. Exactly where are these students going to receive the help they need to be successful under the province's new curriculum?

The dollars available to the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board to provide special services to these students outside the regular classroom have been drastically reduced since amalgamation and will be further reduced in the coming year. When special services are withdrawn, the responsibility of supporting exceptional students falls directly on the classroom or subject teacher. However, they will not available to provide that support. Without the support, there will be increased behavioural problems and a higher dropout rate among the students who require that support. These are hardly characteristics of a better quality education system.

From a student's standpoint, the additional course load imposed on teachers under Bill 74 means that in a semestered system they could have as many as four teachers teaching an individual course. How does this improve educational quality? Each teacher might have to give 0.5 of a course in order to balance his or her workload across the two semesters. Where is the consistency for the student? Where is the in-depth knowledge of the overall program that teachers normally have to tie the pieces of the courses together? How will this make a student's educational experience better? Bill 74 focuses on increasing the demands on teachers without giving any thought to the student. Where is the provincial government's accountability for quality in this legislation?

My last concern around increasing the in-class time of teachers is a safety concern. At present in my son's high school, teachers must do on-call duty. That means that during one of their preparation periods, they must be available to fill in for an absent colleague, to monitor the cafeteria where students spend spare periods or to provide supervision in the hallways. In a semestered school like ours, teachers could well have no preparation time during one of their semesters under the new legislation, since they will now have to teach 3.5 courses in one semester and three in the other. In a four-period timetable, that means we will be facing a significant decrease in the adults available for supervisory duties and to ensure the safety of our students. This may seem like a small issue, but in today's environment it is a significant concern to parents and students alike.

This brings me to Bill 74's provisions around co-instructional time. Let's be honest: This legislation requires a group of professionals to work outside their contractual obligations and to do so for no pay. If the province believes that extracurricular activities are an essential part of the educational experience, then it must provide school boards with the dollars needed to pay teachers for these added duties and to incorporate the obligation to perform these duties in the collective agreements. It is totally inappropriate to legislate volunteerism. This measure will not ensure our students enjoy the benefits that extracurricular activities provide. It will merely ensure that these activities are offered. The quality of the activity and the enthusiasm of the person delivering that activity cannot be legislated, and those are the elements essential to making the activity worthwhile.

The government is using a big stick to solve a small problem. Why not simply enact legislation that says unions cannot control the participation of their members in non-contract activities? Mandating volunteerism is not the route to go. As a parent, my immediate concern is that the province will turn next to legislating every parent's involvement on school councils or in the classroom. That would not improve the quality or number of school councils nor necessarily help out classroom teachers, but it would certainly alienate parents. Legislated extracurricular participation will unquestionably further alienate teachers.

Ontario is facing a huge shortage of teachers. It is a time when the provincial government should be doing everything in its power to make the working conditions of teachers attractive to existing professionals and to those who might be interested in this career. The quality of education in Ontario will not increase if we do not have enough teachers to meet our needs. Demoralized teachers will not provide quality learning experiences. Parents will look to private schools, where the government's autocratic rules will not apply, to ensure the quality of their children's education. Ontario will also have to deal with the many dropouts who could not keep up with the new curriculum and who could not receive the help they needed. Dropouts are not usually highly contributing members of society, and they represent added costs to our social and judicial systems.

For the sake of our students, I urge you to reconsider this legislation. Give our teachers the time they need to do a good job implementing the new curriculum, to respond to the needs of exceptional and regular students who need help outside the classroom and to ensure the safety of our students in school. Do not increase their in-class workload. And please, do not legislate volunteerism. What is given from the heart and of one's own free will is of far greater value and benefit than what is demanded without recognition. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Mason.

We will recess for lunch until 1 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1206 to 1303.

The Chair: I call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is a continuation of the public hearing into Bill 74, An Act to amend the Education Act to increase education quality, to improve the accountability of school boards to students, parents and taxpayers and to enhance students' school experience.

Just a reminder to some of you who may not have been here this morning: Individuals are given 10 minutes to speak and groups are given 15 minutes. I would just ask anyone who has a cellphone to please turn it off as they can be quite disruptive to people who are speaking.

RON HUNGERFORD

The Chair: The first speaker we have this afternoon is Mr Ron Hungerford.

Mr Ron Hungerford: Ms Mushinski and members of the committee, it's a privilege for me to be able to speak to you today and express my concerns surrounding the proposed legislation, Bill 74, which is currently before the Ontario Legislature.

I will begin by telling you that I'm proud to have been a teacher in the Ontario public education system for almost 30 years. My first six years were spent as a member of the teaching staff at a large, culturally diverse school in Toronto, namely East York Collegiate, and since 1976 I have been a member of the staff at Thousand Islands Secondary School in Brockville, save for one year when I was on a teaching exchange to Sydney, Australia. I have wanted to be a teacher since I was 12 years old, and although I will be eligible to retire in June 2001, I still have a passion for teaching. If Bill 74 becomes law, I believe that I can endure just about anything that it will present to me next year, but why should I have to? I want my final year as a teacher to be the best one in my teaching career for my students and my student athletes.

It is through the extracurricular programs which I have been involved in that I believe I have been able to teach some of the most meaningful lessons to my students. I have coached many sports over the years, including volleyball, hockey, wrestling and baseball, but the majority of my involvement has been in cross-country running and track and field.

A typical school year would see me conducting 100 practices of about an hour and a half each, plus taking athletes to 25 high school competitions, often leaving the school before 7 in the morning and not returning until midnight. In addition, I have convened many large competitions at the local, regional and provincial levels. Each year at my own school we have a large invitational track and field meet which attracts over 1,100 athletes from Ontario, Quebec and New York state. We've been doing this for 24 years.

I have also organized two overseas trips for my students, in 1990 to Belgium and in 1994 to Scotland. I am currently in the midst of organizing one final trip this fall, to North Carolina and Williamsburg, Virginia, for our runners. These trips are enriching educational, social and cultural experiences for the students and provide them with a lifetime of memories.

In the 1990s our school teams won three OFSAA cross-country team championships, and over 25 of our alumni have gone on to compete in university competitions in Canada and the United States.

What is most meaningful is not the races won or lost but rather the young people whose lives I have touched and who have touched my life. For instance, the young lady who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease in 1985, but who, with a combination of chemotherapy and a positive, competitive spirit, not only beat the disease but returned to run in her OAC year and subsequently graduated from university as a pharmacist. Or the young man who came into our school from grade 8 as a member of a gang and was headed for a life of crime. Four years later he had an OFSAA gold medal, had moved from a basic to a general level program and is currently studying in college. Or the young lady who arrived on my own doorstep at home as her mother neared death. She was from a dysfunctional family, to say the least. She is now a university graduate, is married and has two children. Or the young man who persevered through countless injuries to have an outstanding high school running career, went on to become a Canadian champion and his university's athlete of the year. I was both proud and humbled to offer a toast at his wedding later on.

Not only did each of these students learn valuable lessons outside of the classroom, but each in his or her own way became excellent role models for their peers.

Now, I quote from Bill 74: "It is the exclusive function of the employer to determine how co-instructional activities will be provided." I coach student athletes because I want to do it, not because my employer tells me that I must do it, and it is for this reason that I know I have made a difference to many of their lives. Mr Harris has been quoted as saying that 99% of my colleagues share a similar commitment to extracurricular activities as I do, so one must conclude that this bill is designed for the 1%, to keep them in line. It seems to me that this is planning to use a bulldozer to move an anthill.

Bill 74 plans to place teachers in the classroom for more time during the day by reducing scheduled time for planning, preparation and evaluation. I have personal experience already of teaching under such conditions. In the 1998-99 school year I taught the entire first semester, from September to February, with no scheduled preparation periods. Since our school board was unable to arrive at a contract with the secondary school teachers, despite the fact that all other boards in Ontario had done so, I had the misfortune to have to teach four out of four periods every day for the entire semester, even after our contract had been ratified in early January.

1310

Let me outline briefly some of the ways in which this reduced the quality of education my students received that semester:

(1) They were given fewer tests and assignments because I had less time to prepare and mark them. I believe that formative evaluation is a valuable learning experience for students, but some of this was lost during that semester.

(2) Because I had 25% more students and 75 fewer minutes per day, I had less time to mark homework and consult with students on an individual basis.

(3) Our school, like others, stresses the importance of keeping the lines of communication open with parents. However, there was less time available to make telephone calls, write letters or for face-to-face meetings.

(4) Living and teaching in a small community means that I have the pleasure of teaching many of the daughters and sons of my friends and neighbours. During my four-out-of-four semester, a number of neighbourhood parents spoke to my wife and me about how their children knew that I was not the same teacher in the classroom and they knew that the working conditions prevented me from doing the best job for my students.

(5) In the second semester, when I was back on a normal teaching timetable, I found that the physical and emotional toll of semester one meant that I was unable to coach or organize competitions for the remainder of the school year. I fear that had I attempted to get back up to speed as a coach, I would have ended up in hospital and not been in the classroom at all.

Bill 74 is proposing a similar increase in workload for all teachers, so that we will have fewer teachers teaching more students for a longer time each day. At the same time, students will spend no more time in the classroom and they will be taught by teachers who have less time to prepare their lessons. I fail to see how this will improve the quality of education.

Last week, I attended an open forum in Brockville about Bill 74. At that meeting, Mrs Linda Raby, who chairs our school council, spoke about the "mixed message" which our students are receiving from Bill 74. The new diploma requirements state that each student must perform 40 hours of voluntary service in their community in order to graduate. Now Bill 74 is telling the students that the teachers, who have served as role models when they have volunteered in the past, will be enlisted to supervise extracurriculars. I believe the term "compulsory volunteerism" is an oxymoron. Mrs Raby knows from her own two sons' experience that their teachers had no preparation period that particular semester. They weren't able to give extra help to students and had less time to help students to prepare for final exams.

At the same open forum, several of my colleagues had the opportunity to express their concerns to the parents in attendance. Ms Andrea Zuck, a second-year teacher at our school, is a dedicated young professional who wants to become a better teacher, and yet last year, when she had no free time during the school day, she had little time to consult with the senior staff member who served as her mentor. Ms Zuck continued by saying that in the second semester, when time was available to her and her mentor, she received invaluable assistance in planning lessons and preparing learning materials to meet the diverse needs and learning styles of her students. As a senior member of our faculty, I value the opportunities to work with young teachers like Andrea, because they continue to fuel my enthusiasm and provide me with a fresh new perspective on teaching.

Then Mr Richard Zeilstra, a teacher of 15 years, spoke. His subject area is auto technology, so he has many marketable skills for the private sector, but Mr Zeilstra wants to remain in teaching because he too has a passion for teaching and wants to have sufficient time to do his job properly. However, he is a dedicated family man who is not prepared to be on call for school business 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

In correspondence recently with one of my colleagues, Mr Gary Stewart, MPP for Peterborough, stated, "I am sure that a principal is not going to assign a teacher something to do at night or on weekends unless the teacher is involved in an extended school activity such as a school trip." Yet Bill 74 states that principals can assign duties to teachers and temporary teachers "(a) on school days and days during the school year that are not school days; (b) during any part of any day during the school year; (c) on school premise and elsewhere."

The Chair: Could you wrap up, please, Mr Hungerford.

Mr Hungerford: I'd like to conclude with some of the comments about the reality of Bill 74. First of all, it pits trustees versus principals versus teachers, since each group must comply with the vision of the Ontario public education system according to Mike Harris. If any person in any of these groups is perceived to be in non-compliance, they will be fined and/or dismissed, and the trustees will be barred from public office for five years. So compliance will be downloaded by the school board to the teachers.

Bill 74 is a direct attack on democracy. It ignores the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act, and sets a dangerous precedent by giving the Minister of Education power to investigate complaints from anyone in the community, to make unilateral decisions about school board management, and to take over elected boards. She would be able to dismiss trustees, principals and teachers subject to no other law or court of appeal. This undermines the basic democratic rights which my father, my father-in-law, my grandfather and uncles fought to uphold 60 years ago.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hungerford. Your time is up.

OTTAWA-CARLETON ASSEMBLY OF SCHOOL COUNCILS

The Chair: The next presenters are Betty Tait, Cynthia Pohran and Ken Slemko, representing the Ottawa-Carleton Assembly of School Councils. Good afternoon.

Ms Betty Tait: Thank you for the opportunity to allow us to present our views as a group of parents from the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. I'd like to introduce Cynthia Pohran, who is the chair of our assembly, and Ken Slemko, who is the chair of the secondary schools committee.

Ms Cynthia Pohran: We appreciate being here this afternoon and hope that you'll give us our full 15 minutes of time.

The Ottawa-Carleton Assembly of School Councils is an umbrella organization for school councils within the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Our constitutional mandate is to seek an education of the highest quality for each child according to his or her needs. Our board represents 150 public schools, serving approximately 80,000 students in the province of Ontario. We have an active membership of 130 school council members.

At our general meeting last month, our members discussed Bill 74 and overwhelmingly approved a motion to direct our executive members to address their concerns to the government and all regional elected representatives. We have communicated our position to the Premier, the provincial ministers and local elected officials. You will be provided with a copy of that position paper today.

As I said, we're very pleased to be invited to speak to you. I'll let Ken continue.

Mr Ken Slemko: As parents, we should start by saying we support many of the changes that have been made to improve the quality of education in Ontario. Increasing the number of actual instructional days during the school year, trying to put a cap on increasing class sizes and modernizing the curricula are all good things.

We would also welcome a further effort on the part of the government, to quote from Bill 74, "to amend the Education Act to increase education quality, to improve the accountability of school boards to students, parents and taxpayers and to enhance students' school experience." However, our assembly members do not believe that Bill 74, in its present form, will achieve these purposes.

Several weeks ago I attended the Whitton award ceremonies, which were originally set up by Mayor Jim Watson to honor the volunteer activities of individuals in the downtown area of Ottawa. One of this year's winners was Trudy Bradley, a teacher at Lisgar Collegiate, who was recognized for the enormous amount of time she has put in over the years to support the music program in her school. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister also presented her with an award for excellence in teaching.

When looking at Bill 74, we should ask ourselves, will it mean that we have more or fewer teachers like Trudy Bradley in the future? We believe the answer is that we will have fewer, as many professionals exit Ontario's education system to find positions where they feel they are being given more flexibility and respect. You simply cannot legislate the dedication and professional commitment that many teachers bring to their job.

The OCASC secondary schools committee, which I chair, includes representatives from the 27 high schools in the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. We meet each month to discuss the common issues in our local schools and to determine if there are any activities which we, as parents, can do to improve the situation.

1320

Three of the biggest concerns I have heard over the last year are the following: First is safety and security within our schools. Attention to this issue has intensified in recent months with the violence witnessed in our own school board. Second is the quality of the academic programs. Parents are concerned not only with what happens in the classroom, they are also concerned with the support outside of the classroom, particularly the help teachers can provide, often on a one-to-one basis, to help our children meet the demands, particularly the demands the new curriculum is placing on students. Third is the morale of the teachers. The new curriculum is taking its toll on teachers, and it's certainly putting more demands on them across the board, in our view.

At our last meeting, we examined Bill 74 in the context of these concerns. Our conclusions are supported by the entire assembly, which constitutes 130 school council members. By putting more workload on our teachers, Bill 74 will not, in our view, improve the safety of our schools. The reason for that is there will be fewer teachers in the schools. They will have less time for supervisory duties and to help resolve discipline problems within the school.

It's too simplistic to say we could replace teachers with security guards or other personnel. We do not want our schools to become US-style military compounds. We want individuals who can help to resolve conflicts and deal with individual student problems. In our opinion, the teacher is one of the best mediators for conflict resolution within the school, because relationships of mutual understanding and respect are nurtured in the classroom.

Will Bill 74 improve the quality of the academic programs in our schools? If teachers have less time to spend outside the classroom to meet with students having problems with their courses, it is hard to see how the quality will improve. This is a particular concern, as I mentioned before, with the new curriculum, where, as parents, we see the need for more outside help, not less.

Finally, what will Bill 74 do for the morale of the teachers? The vast majority of teachers are individuals, as I think you've heard here, trying to do the best for our children. They are not lazy, and in our experience, few are wide-eyed radicals. In fact, most teachers reluctantly comply with the orders or direction of federation leaders to work to rule, ie, withdraw volunteer activities during contract negotiations. Our school council members believe that, rather than mandating volunteer activities, the government should amend the bill to restrict federations from ordering or directing their members to withdraw volunteer activities that are part of an approved annual plan.

On a personal note, last year as the vice-chair of the Ontario Parent Council and two years previously as the chair of the education policies committee, I worked hard to make sure the changes that were being delivered were aimed at improving the quality of our schools, but ultimately the quality of education in Ontario depends on the willingness and dedication of professional teachers who must deliver the programs. Something will be lost if we tell them that the time they freely gave as part of their professional responsibilities is now mandated.

Bill 74 will also have the effect of radicalizing many of those teachers who may not always agree with the positions of the federation leadership. For instance, it is applying the same principle to elementary teachers for whom, as far as I can see, doing extracurricular work has never been an issue.

We recommend, therefore, that you amend Bill 74 to specify that high school teachers teach 6.17 out of eight classes per week. We put in the extra 0.17 because we believe the teacher advisory program should be part of the required work of high school teachers. The quid pro quo is that secondary school teacher federations agree that they will no longer withdraw support for extracurricular activities as a bargaining tool. As parents, we believe support for extracurricular activities is part of the professional responsibilities of teachers and that they must accept this.

In conclusion, we sincerely believe that, in its present form, Bill 74 will not achieve its objective of improving the quality of education in Ontario. It will likely also increase safety concerns and create more problems with teachers than it sets out to solve. We hope the government will seriously consider other options to bring stability to the education system and encourage our teachers to act as professionals in doing their best to improve the quality of education in Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Slemko. That's your presentation?

Mr Slemko: Yes.

The Chair: We have about four minutes for questions. We'll start with Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you for coming before us today and making your presentation. I thought it was a very balanced review of the legislation as you see it.

I'm struck by one of the lines in your written handout here, and if I may quote it: "However, our members have been long concerned about the withdrawal of these services"-these being co-instructional-"during contract negotiations and would support the government in its effort to ensure that teacher federations do not employ work-to-rule campaigns."

You elaborated a little bit about the challenge, if I can call it that, that could be thrown out. On a personal level, I suspect all of my colleagues from all parties have had visits from local teachers and the teachers' federation. In fact, when the gentleman from my area visited and suggested that his teachers accepted the 6.67-that wasn't the big issue but co-instructional was-I offered to him precisely the challenge you've just brought to us here: that if the teachers' federation is prepared to state categorically that a Durham-type situation would find little acceptance among the ranks of other teachers, that there would be peer pressure brought to bear, then do whatever they thought is an appropriate response to deal with the problem if this legislation is not the right solution. I must share with you, I've heard nothing back. At a personal level, he agreed with me that it would be appropriate for the government to do something if there was no offer coming forward.

If it's fair, what would you do in our shoes if in fact by the time this bill comes back to the House-everyone's read it. Everyone in the teachers' federation has long since had an opportunity to digest this bill, to digest the situation in Durham and other boards. What would you do in our shoes if in fact there is no alternative forthcoming to protect students, such as the people in Durham region?

Mr Slemko: I'm surprised that the person would come in and say, "We accept the 6.67," because in all the discussions I've had with the local union people, the federation people and so forth on this, the crux of the matter seems to be much more that they've never resolved the fact that they're moving from six to some other amount, like 6.67. That seems to have always been more the crux. My suggestion is that the government blink at this time, that it go back-I've just run through a whole bunch of things. I really believe that 6.0 or 6.17, in our view, actually gives you a better quality of education than 6.67 by basically increasing the amount of time. You'd offer that, and the federations have to come back to you and say, "We therefore withdraw any further use of the work-to-rule type of campaign."

I thought I had an agreement, but it turns out that once you go to the leadership of the federation, in fact you can't get them to put that in the agreement. I think that's what has to be on the table here. To me, that's the quid pro quo. The government goes back to, in our case, 6.17 and they agree once and for all that this isn't part of what they're going to do.

Parents are extremely frustrated when they get into a work-to-rule campaign. It's like you're looking at the teachers and you're expecting that part of their job is doing this extracurricular and they're not doing it. I think somewhere an agreement has to be reached. What really bothers me the most is that there's such a separation. Why can't we talk about it and come to some kind of agreement? That's what I would see as the kind of cut-off that might work.

Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate it.

Ms Pohran: If I could just add to that, Mr Gilchrist, we feel that Bill 74 goes much too far in mandating co-instructional or extracurricular activities, but, again, our focus here is on quality education. In examining the bill, though we have many concerns about many aspects of the bill, we focus again on how this bill will provide fewer teachers in the classroom who will have to spread their time among more students, and we think that reduces the quality of education.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you. We think the smaller class size will in fact have more teachers in the school, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Interjection.

The Chair: We really don't have the time. You've probably got about 15 seconds, so-

Ms Pohran: I'll take it. We'll take 15 seconds.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming in this afternoon.

1330

DAVID SPENCER
DIVINA YEE

The Chair: The next presenters are Divina Yee and David Spencer.

Mr David Spencer: Good afternoon and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak to you today on Bill 74 and give you our views as teachers. I'd like to begin by introducing myself. My name is David Spencer and I'll be reading from the blue sheet, if you're wondering which page to look at.

I am a teacher who, I think, does a relatively good job. I am effective at what I do. My students respect me and come back after first year university and thank me for the great background they received in my OAC classes. I am well liked by my students and peers. To me, teaching is what I always wanted to do and I have enjoyed doing so since I began nine years ago.

I take great offense at Bill 74 for many reasons. I'll just go through one of them here which is most pressing to me, but first I'll give you a small job description.

I teach senior level mathematics at St Lawrence high school. In doing so, I prepare young minds to enter university and become the leading scientists, engineers and high-technology professionals who are, as we know, in great demand, especially in this area. In addition to teaching, I, like all other teachers, have taken on many other duties without being asked to do so because, like other teachers, I am in this job to make our school and education in general work, regardless of what roadblocks are put in my way.

Some of my additional duties include maintaining a network of 154 computers in our school, 11 printers, two servers, kilometres of network cable, as well as many other gadgets that break down in the school. I do this job for free because it is important to me that the students, who rely heavily on computers, benefit from the exposure to the tools of high technology. In my mind, this job alone would command a hefty salary in many other organizations.

I do this job during my preparation period. This means that I prepare my lessons, do my marking, prepare remedial work and plan my courses at home during my own time. So what does losing my preparation period next year mean for our school? I suppose it means that I will do my marking, prepare remedial work, plan my courses and administer the school network on my own time. I don't think so. I can't think of any other organization that expects their network support staff to come in after working a full day and make repairs to the computers on their own time for free. Can you?

I also perform monthly health and safety inspections of the school, as well as a comprehensive annual inspection using a substantial checklist that I myself prepared for use in every school in the entire Upper Canada District School Board.

I go to monthly meetings of all different flavours: staff meetings, parent-teacher nights, health and safety meetings etc. I counsel students who need someone to talk to about school life, life at home, relationships etc. I tutor students who have difficulty or have missed classes, whether or not they are my own students. I decided on my own to do these additional jobs in order to help out at my school and to help out students in general.

One reason I object to Bill 74 is that it effectively makes each and every one of these duties mandatory. I object to Bill 74 because it says to me that I cannot be trusted enough to take on these responsibilities without someone forcing me to do so. I entered teaching because it was a profession that was respected both by adults in general and by myself. I was always very respectful towards teachers when I was a student. I saw them as responsible adults who went out of their way to make life in school go smoothly. They were to be respected because of all of the time away from their families that they gave freely, without being asked to do so, so that life in school was pleasant for all parties involved.

The introduction of Bill 74 chips away at the respect that society in general has for teachers and teaching. It is as though we suddenly can't be trusted to make the right decision for the rest of the school. It is as if to say we're not mature enough to take on these extra duties without being forced to do so, under threat of firing and other forms of discipline. I have far more respect for teachers and for myself than that. I can't sit by and watch my profession be dragged through the mud by ever-changing legislation, rules that take what little control we had over our workday and reduce us to assembly-line workers who do things because we are threatened with disciplinary action if we do not comply.

And why should I? I have enough education to know that I can change careers. I have only been teaching for nine years. I look around at the workforce in Ottawa and Kanata and see high-tech jobs opening up for people just like me. Maybe it's time that teachers compare their working conditions to those of professionals in the high-technology sector, or for that matter to teachers in other countries. As I see it, legislation like Bill 74 is going to drive many people like myself-dynamic, hard-working, ever-learning people-out of public education. Who will be left to pick up the pieces and provide your children and grandchildren with a top-notch education? I honestly have no idea.

Will I remain a teacher? This is a question that I have been asking myself a lot lately. You can just ask my wife.

I'll pass the mike to Divina.

Ms Divina Yee: Ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee of the Ontario Legislature on justice and social policy, listen to your voice. Before I begin today, I will ask you to just close your eyes, take a minute and listen. Listen to that voice which is yours in your heart. We as a society today often miss out on so many very important things because we only listen to the Muzak which is playing in the elevator instead of paying attention to who is actually standing right next to us in that elevator. Listen to that voice which tells you to listen to the stories and experiences of others. Sometimes the simplest things said in a conversation will be the most important.

I stand before you today not as a politician but as a common person to ask you to listen to your own voice. Hear what it has to say to you. Hear the voices of the people here today.

My name is Divina Yee. I was born, raised and presently live in eastern Ontario. I am a product of a strong educational system and, to their credit, very good teachers. My parents came to this country with very little and they have worked very hard to instill in me the importance of education and of contributing back to the community.

I am a music and drama teacher at St Lawrence high school in Cornwall, Ontario. I am a proud member of the most honourable and most important profession in the world. In many countries the word "teacher" is respected, because passing life on to the next generation is the most important job in the whole world.

I believe that, like religious life, teaching is a vocation. I didn't choose it; it chose me. Yes, most people can teach what's written on the page, but the difference is seen in whether they are teaching just the black notes on a page or teaching the music that's written from the heart.

When I first started teaching three and a half years ago, I believed I was going into a field that had a good, supportive environment, conducive to helping me work and learn with students; a work environment where, yes, students could learn and teachers could teach. Idealistically, I believed that my energy and my enthusiasm could carry me for many years to come.

I must say right now, at this moment, that never in my life have I ever felt so demoralized and degraded as I do now. Some people do not think that what we do is important. This government does not think that what we as teachers do is important. Bill 74 is more proof of this fact. The unprecedented loss of civil rights and liberties with regard to the decision-making process at local levels and optional extracurricular activities is unfair, unsafe and undemocratic. Government ads have directly worked against me in my classroom and have bashed myself and other teachers to no end in the eyes of parents, other people and students.

It is not the educational system and teachers that have let me down; it is this Ontario government. Faith, trust and professionalism are bridges that this government has burned down. This Bill 74 leaves us with no voice. By nature, I am generally a quiet person-really. Willing to work hard, I am young and passionate about what I do in my life. I cannot sit complacently while this government tries, through bullying tactics, to quiet and divide the voices of the people. I speak as a tired teacher who should not be tired. I speak as a young teacher who should not be burnt out. I speak for myself and not my big union bosses-really. I speak for the fact that increasing our teaching workload will not only take away time from my life but also from the number of co-instructional activities that I will be able to do next year. Quantity is the name of the game here, not quality.

How does this government expect us to do a good job when there are fewer teachers teaching more students? I speak for the many hours that I spend with my students already in play rehearsals, at lunch-hour improv practices, at 7:30 am and after-school choir practices, setting up equipment for assemblies and concerts, driving students to Interact Rotary conferences on the weekend, chaperoning at school dances, rehearsing vocalists for music festivals, staging cabaret night, selling chocolate bars and candles, chaperoning on band and drama trips, attending parent-teacher interviews, typing out grade 9 report cards, the list goes on-all outside of my classroom.

1340

As a teacher, I expect to spend this time out of class. It is an investment of my time in my class and in my students.

The Chair: You have about one minute.

Ms Yee: I do it because it is an important and valuable part not only of my students' lives but of my school life as well. To be slapped in the face with the fact that I may be disciplined now if I do not do any of this greatly disturbs me. It is an insult to my intelligence and to my commitment as a teacher and as a member of society.

Bill 74 leaves us with no voice. Please, listen to our voices now. Bill 74 has seriously made me re-evaluate my reasons for staying in this profession. Why should I continue to just stand here and take this? I already have several colleagues who are leaving to move on to teach in other parts of this country and around the world. If the Ontario government's goal is to further discourage and alienate its teachers, especially its young teachers, it has succeeded in doing so very well.

If this legislation passes, I can only speak for myself in saying that I will be reconsidering my decision to teach in this province and moving towards giving back to this province what it has given to me: an empty voice. I ask you to defeat Bill 74, because that is what your heart is telling you to do. That is what your voice is telling you to do. Please, listen to your voice. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Yee. Unfortunately, we don't have time for questions.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' FEDERATION OF ONTARIO, UPPER CANADA LOCAL

The Chair: The next speaker is Mr Randy Frith, president of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, Upper Canada Local. While Mr Frith is coming up, I realize that some of you have travelled fair distances and may have missed lunch, so I welcome anyone who wishes to partake of the food to please share in the sandwiches that are on the table at the side.

Mr Frith, good afternoon.

Mr Randy Frith: Good afternoon to you. I did travel a fair distance and haven't had lunch yet and will partake after this-on Highway 416, which is a great improvement.

The Chair: Make sure that you save a sandwich for Mr Frith, OK?

Mr Frith: Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of the elementary teachers in Upper Canada. My name, as you said, is Randy Frith and I am president of the ETFO locally. Compared to a couple of the previous speakers, I am at the end of my career and in 15 days will be retiring. I speak as a union leader within our board, but I also speak as a very experienced teacher and someone who has dedicated his life to this career.

I represent approximately 1,300 teachers, as well as 350 occasional teachers. We teach in 94 work sites spread over a very large geographic area. The Upper Canada District School Board is an amalgamation of four former boards: Prescott and Russell; Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; Leeds and Grenville; and Lanark.

I will address this afternoon only the main elements in this proposed bill that directly impact-the way I see it, and I think my members too-elementary students and their teachers. Those elements are, obviously, the mandatory extracurricular activities, unilateral alterations to collective agreements, policing school boards and the new compliance provisions, and reduction in the class-size aggregates.

Before I begin-and I think this is gained over experience-I'll state clearly and emphatically that I have yet to see a piece of legislation where my members are as unified in their opposition. Perhaps parents in our communities-and we have had opportunity to see many and speak to many lately-if they truly understand the bill, and I say the same for teachers, who are just becoming educated with this bill, they don't see how this in any way improves the quality of education in our schools.

I want to mention the last thing, the reduction in the class-size aggregates. I do thank the government for doing that. It was a little late to implement it in our system, because we were in the middle of staffing. It did lead to 20 full-time-equivalent jobs. That's good for our system and even better for our students. I thank the ministry for that. The timing, as I said, made it a little difficult to implement, but we're making it happen because it will benefit us all.

First, mandatory extracurricular activities: Elementary teachers in Upper Canada, as well as in the rest of the province I'm sure, devote thousands of hours each year to organizing and running extracurricular activities. They do it voluntarily. They give of their own time before school, at lunch, after school, in the evenings, weekends. They do not add up the number of hours-this isn't a tally sheet-that they spend with student athletes, aspiring musicians, actors or science fair participants. The provisions in Bill 74, with its extremely broad scope and definition of "co-instructional activities," are totally unnecessary. These activities which enrich our students' lives occur already. Why make them mandatory?

We, as teachers, volunteer our time and energy because we want to and because we recognize the value of these extracurricular activities. As I said, I'm approaching the end of my career. Tomorrow I'm probably culminating something I've been involved in for many years, a track-and-field meet down in the Brockville area. I've done it because I love to. If you were there-and I invite every one of you-you would see a great collaboration of parents, teachers, retired teachers, people who want to be there. They will not be there in the future if it is made mandatory. If they are there physically, they won't be there in spirit.

Good teachers love what they do, whether it's in or out of the classroom. The enthusiasm and expertise which foster a student's passion for a sport or a hobby cannot and should not be imposed. All of us live in a society that respects and appreciates volunteerism. Making it mandatory is demeaning and will not serve the best interests of children, their parents or their communities.

In our schools and schools around this province, but I know definitely in Upper Canada, parents, volunteers, teachers and principals collaborate in providing for those extracurricular activities. We plan these. Together they sort out all the additional responsibilities that are involved on a school-to-school basis, not at a board level, just individual schools. We have a lot of small schools, and they do it.

At different stages of their careers, teachers participate to varying levels in extracurricular activities. It's something we work out. Teachers who have young families don't do as much sometimes. That's not a negative; that's a reality of the stages we're at. We get the job done. Teachers respect these individual circumstances, as I mentioned. This bill has serious potential to create hardship by forcing people who at particular times in their careers aren't able to do as much as others. That has never been a problem in the past.

Bill 74, the way I see it, places no restrictions on the number of extracurricular hours teachers must work or the conditions under which this work must be performed. This legislation has the potential to arbitrarily lengthen the working day of teachers. Since in most of my career that was close to 24 hours anyway, I'm not sure how we can lengthen it. This should be of concern to everyone in the province as it infringes, as many have mentioned, on an individual's human rights. No employer should be given this kind of power. This bill sets a troubling precedent for all workers in Ontario.

Bill 74 assumes total control over all the non-teaching aspects of a teacher's working life and grants no obvious protections that such powers will not be abused. It is a bill that is distasteful, perceived by my members as mean-spirited and punitive. Teachers, not just their unions, have become the enemy of the government. What a sad commentary-I find it a truly sad commentary; I mean that-on how we have evolved as a profession. I'm leaving a profession that I used to be proud of, and still am, but it's certainly not viewed in the same light as it used to be.

The extracurricular certainly has got a good part of the airtime, but the second part that concerns me just as much is the unilateral alterations to collective agreements. As it reads now, the bill specifically sanctions assignments which would violate the provisions of collective agreements. In contravention of international law, it removes the right of teachers to bargain with respect to fundamental aspects of their working lives. Bill 74 also provides school boards with the extraordinary power to alter terms and conditions of employment and existing rights, duties and privileges as a school board sees fit. In essence, this legislation kills the statutory freeze period that those involved in collective bargaining recognize and know.

1350

The amendments to the Education Act and the Labour Relations Act thus will escalate bargaining strife. It will force teacher bargaining groups to speed up the negotiation process to ensure themselves of a legal strike position to redress damages that can be done unilaterally by employer initiatives. There is the potential next September, and I sure hope it isn't true, for disruption of schools in this province. The negotiation process is generally slow, with provisions for mediation and conciliation as insightful pauses for both sides to reflect on their submissions. This is important to recognize. Our members have told us, and I'm sure the public and boards have told you, the negotiation process takes a long time, but that's good. People reach wise collective agreements because of the steps that are there. Outside people are brought in, mediators, conciliators. That's good. It makes you reflect back on it. This process, by eliminating that statutory freeze, just forces bargaining groups to get into a strike position, and that's not good for anybody. This proposed change to the existing negotiation steps will only force escalation of contractual impasses.

I don't want to spend much time on the second last thing, policing school boards and the new compliance provisions. The provisions of Bill 74 significantly expand the power, obviously, of the provincial government to investigate and take over the operations of school boards. These new powers continue the growing interference with the autonomy of locally elected school boards. The proposed legislation lists six areas in which the minister is empowered to investigate. However, there is no assurance that I see within this bill that these investigations will be conducted by an impartial individual or even in a fair manner. This just reinforces the increasing invasion of politicians, not educators, into managing those parts of education that have traditionally been handled locally.

In conclusion, the way it's perceived, at least in the educational sector, the sole purpose of this bill is control, not accountability. It is the proverbial smokescreen for what we see as further and continued damaging financial cuts to education. Teacher morale continues to be eroded by the atmosphere and reality of this enforced servitude. In a time when we are facing a teacher shortage, this government sours the educational environment for incoming teachers.

I will say very honestly-and I've been to faculties of ed this year; I've gone for years, trying to encourage candidates and get them to come to Upper Canada-it is a really tough sell now to convince myself to encourage people to continue in this profession. That's not said as a union leader. That's just the reality now; it really is. It's hard to get our teachers to feel wanted.

Thus, and I guess you're not surprised, my members clearly state to this committee that they recommend to this Legislature that Bill 74 be withdrawn. I thank you for the opportunity to present.

The Chair: We have about four minutes. I'm going to allow Mr McGuinty the full four minutes, because we did allow the government side the last time.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much, Mr Frith, for taking the time to join us here today. I only regret that the committee didn't have more time to allow more individuals to make presentations.

It seems to me that one of the ways in which Bill 74 is fatally flawed lies in the fact that it is wilfully blind to the fundamental principles of human motivation. I haven't been a coach, but I have had the opportunity to see my four teenage kids coached at a variety of different levels at school. One of the things you can see is that if coaches want to get 110% out of our kids, out of our athletes, out of the players on a team, somewhat like the way we want to get 110% out of Ontario's teachers, they don't criticize and undermine confidence. They don't berate. They build up confidence, they respect the athlete, and they inspire them.

When it comes to me, what I want from teachers for my kids is the 100%, of course, which we're entitled to legally, but I want more than that; I want 110%. How do we get 110%? How do we get 110% out of any group of employees anywhere? How do we get 110% out of the members playing on a team? We respect them and we inspire them. It's something that has to come internally rather than be imposed externally by means of legal obligations. That's the way I see it. What do you say?

Mr Frith: You get more than 110% out of the teachers in Upper Canada right now. This bill is not going to increase that; it's going to deplete the morale. We do it because we love it. I'm there tomorrow coaching, and I've been there for 33 years, because I love it. I recognize the benefits of it to my students. Teachers, if they're honest, will say because it's fun. We do it because it's part of our career. I made it part of my career and I would miss it, and I would miss doing it because someone told me to do it. You're right; teachers want to do these things, and they do them, but they don't need to be told to do them. It's just part of our nature. That's why we got into teaching.

Mr McGuinty: It's the kind of thing that we should be very reluctant collectively to tinker with. I think it was Mark Twain who said that it was important not to allow school to interfere with our education. By that I think he meant in part at least that there are some wonderful educational-type experiences that are to be enjoyed outside the classroom.

I spend a lot of time on the road. When I talk to my kids by telephone at night, they don't talk to me about math, they don't talk to me about science or English or French; they talk to me about what happened that day at the soccer game, what happened at water polo. Those are the things that are very important to me as a parent and I know are very important to my children. They are the kinds of things that I'm imploring the government to recognize and to avoid tinkering with. I have seen no concrete evidence which would lead me to believe that mandating volunteerism in our schools is better than nurturing volunteerism-nothing.

Mr Frith: I totally agree with you. You've put it perfectly. We would like to continue doing these things as volunteers, the way we've always done it, without the controls, because they happen because we love doing it and we see the benefits it brings to our students. It doesn't need to be told to us. Elementary teachers have done it forever.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Frith.

I would hope that my reminder to turn off the cellphones will have to be the last one this afternoon.

1400

NATIONAL CAPITAL SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

The Chair: The next speaker is Sue Fleming, executive director of the National Capital Secondary School Athletic Association. Good afternoon.

Ms Sue Fleming: Thank you, Madam Chair. You don't know it, but you share a picture with me on my mantelpiece as you presented me, when you were Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, with an award from this government for my volunteer participation in amateur sport.

I'd like to start by saying that from the ministry's own presentation of Bill 74, it was explained that Bill 74, to distinguish itself from Bill 160, proposes to accomplish three things: to further define or designate teaching time for secondary teachers, to define and mandate co-instructional activities for all teachers, and to define the powers of the minister with respect to compliance with Bill 74. I wish to discuss with this committee two of these purposes, the mandating of co-instructional activities and the defining of teaching time.

First, the issue of mandatory, compulsory, enforced, however you refer to it, participation by teachers in non-instructional, extracurricular activities: These are defined, by your explanation, as including activities such as sports, arts and cultural activities, parent-teacher and pupil-teacher interviews, letters of support for pupils, staff meetings, school functions etc.

The schools in Ottawa-Carleton-and I think we are typical of schools in the province-are active in all of the above. We are active in them because students, parents and teachers believe in their value. This past year, again a typical one, the 50 public and separate English and French high schools in this area participated in 27 sports and played over 6,000 games. There were numerous musicals, drama and improv productions. We are home to the Canadian champion Reach for the Top team. We have science fairs, produce yearbooks and school newspapers, take students on field trips to broaden their experiences, write letters to help students get jobs or into colleges or universities, organize and run dances, commencement exercises, charity fundraisers and so on, just like all of the schools in this province.

Teachers volunteer to lead these activities because they believe that, in addition to the course work of the mandatory curriculum, students should have available a variety of other experiences that they can choose or volunteer to participate in, and teachers do this as a part of their large, sharing family in each school, picking and choosing what to participate in according to their interest, helping out as the overall school program needs them, trading off with one another when demands such as our changing course load or family responsibilities make it necessary. As their participation, like the students', is voluntary, they are able to give and take to keep this overall school program working.

However, as previously stated, the government sees this method as somehow broken or, at the very least, lacking. Instead of trying to promote or encourage the structure, say, by providing increased funding to further these opportunities for public participation, this government wants to wield more control. You are trying to enact a law which states that it is the duty of teachers to participate in these co-instructional activities. To someone who observes these activities from the outside, this may seem to be the panacea for past labour actions or interruptions that have occurred in Ontario, but I say that is a very naive outlook.

If Bill 74 passes as written, you will have your designated sports coaches, your band conductors, your student council and yearbook advisers, but what happens next? Who will convene your leagues and administer your athletic associations? Who will organize the city-wide science fairs? Who will coordinate the all-school newspaper challenge? You have forgotten about the needed mandatory volunteers at this level.

Now that all of these co-instructional activities will occur, where does the money come from to run them? Currently schools are able to determine themselves what extracurricular activities they will run, with one of the deciding factors being what they can afford. Equipment, league fees, drama productions, music instruments and transportation all need money. Does it not follow that if these activities must occur, they must be available to all and hence they must be supported financially by the government? This bill also places principals in an unnecessary adversarial role with their staff and gives many parents the false impression that they can dictate their child's school's extracurricular program, with the sky being the limit.

Changing this part of school life from voluntary to mandatory will bring about a major attitudinal change. Teachers who now look forward to participation because it involves a personal interest or ability will now enjoy their activity less and they will value it less. We will be asking what exactly or what precisely is expected of us, and not feel guilty if we do no more than that. We will watch as fellow teachers are assigned duties for which they have little knowledge or interest. We will be concerned about safety. Perhaps of greatest concern, the most important lesson of extracurriculars, showing students by example that giving selflessly of your time is honourable, will be lost.

But I believe that mandatory co-instructional involvement is all a smokescreen. I believe that the reason this issue has seen the light of day is because the Minister of Education feels that many schools in her home riding have little or no extracurricular activity going on in them. To that I reply: Minister, you have come up with the wrong solution to this situation because you have misidentified the cause. The teachers of Durham want to participate in their schools' extracurricular programs. However, they are teaching an additional class already, and as a result, their working conditions do not permit them the needed time to coach, to produce the musical, to organize that fundraiser. The extra class, or 0.67 of a class, that Bill 74 assigns each teacher means less non-class time available to them. This extra time also means more preparation, more student contact and more marking to do in this reduced amount of non-class time.

In addition, your new curriculum has come at a very rapid pace. Teachers are frequently ill-prepared as textbooks and resources arrive late. This has already dramatically increased existing teacher workloads. They would like to do their classroom job well, but your process in relation to secondary school reform has frequently caused a scramble to catch up.

The addition of an extra class will also mean that teachers will have less time to contribute to their school community. There will be fewer bodies present in the school, fewer people available to supervise the halls, the library, and fewer people available to take that on-call for the teacher who is attending the now mandatory basketball game or music presentation.

The last two years have seen a very large number of retirees, and more will go this year and next. We all welcome the new, eager faces to the profession, but if veteran teachers are struggling with your classroom curriculum, the rookies need even more assistance. They need advice, guidance and mentoring, another area that requires time.

To conclude, the volunteer commitment of teachers to enrich their students' lives has always been one of the great values of formal education in Ontario. It has included an enviable extracurricular system at a minimal cost to taxpayers. Schools traditionally get from teachers on a volunteer basis much more than what can be mandated. Activities work well if those involved believe in their value. Forced participation does not result in this belief.

Agreements were reached in mid-April in London and some Toronto-area boards that followed the directions of Bill 160 while still allowing time for extracurricular activities to continue with volunteer teacher involvement and support. The ministry and this government should be asking themselves: "Where do we want teachers to spend their non-classroom time? In preparing or evaluating credit courses? In familiarizing themselves with a new curriculum? In contributing to their school atmosphere, ensuring a safe school and a well-run school? In mentoring new teachers? In participation with extracurricular activities?"

I think you'll agree that we would like involvement in all of these areas, and this requires time. If you don't have enough time to accomplish all of the tasks on your list, you must prioritize.

This government clearly has a vision of where it wants Ontario education to go and you have committed our schools to a new curriculum. The greatest resource that you have and the group you should be partnering yourself with are the teachers. Please allow them the time, as well as the resources, to achieve your vision. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Fleming.

Mr Marchese, if I say you've got three minutes, will you take two?

Mr Marchese: The others took four.

Sue, thank you for your presentation. You confirm that it simply isn't possible that so many of you who have these opinions could be wrong, and they so right.

My second point is, I find it very depressing that they can pass a law on perceived political gain and worry about consequences later. That's my depression over much of what they do, but particularly with this bill.

The third point I want to get to-to get to your comment-is that thousands of people are retiring. They're opting to leave because of the 85 factor, which goes on until next year. We're seeing a lot of people leave, and they're at the upper scale of salaries, so that means that they hire young teachers at the bottom end of the scale, and the province saves a whole lot of money. That money doesn't go back to the boards of education; it goes back to the government as a saving. They never talk about those savings, but people are leaving in droves.

The final point is this: Mr Gilchrist says, "But we're reducing class size." It's true they've announced funding to reduce the average class size, but isn't it true and obvious that as you increase through the redefinition of the instructional time to 6.67 periods, what it means in every board across Ontario is that there will be fewer teachers-fewer teachers, meaning some will have to be let go? Many will have to be let go on boards, so there are great savings in that regard. First of all, many teachers will be fired, because the ones remaining are doing more, and the other point is that it will give those who remain a hell of a lot more stress that they have to cope with in terms of the additional time, and you will have less classroom time to be able to help those students who really need it.

Ms Fleming: That's correct.

Mr Marchese: Please comment on all of those things again, so that Steve and others can hear it.

Ms Fleming: I didn't know whether to be amused or dismayed at the back when I heard Mr Gilchrist say that there would be more teachers in. I would say, either he cannot say that with a straight face or he needs a remedial math class. The reduction of one student-

Mr Gilchrist: I wouldn't quite say that math is my best subject, but thank you for the comments.

Mr Marchese: Then he knows what he's talking about.

Ms Fleming: That's right. The numbers just do not add up to insist that there would be more bodies present in the school with the instigation of reducing slightly the class average sizes and, at the same time, increasing teachers' loads from six to 6.67.

You are correct in saying that the older teachers probably cost almost twice as much as the new ones coming in. There is a huge savings being reaped by this government, and we don't know where that money has gone. It certainly has not come back to education.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Sue. Good luck.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

1410

SHELLY CORLYON

The Chair: The next speaker is Shelly Corlyon. Did I pronounce that correctly?

Ms Shelly Corlyon: That is correct.

Honourable Ms Mushinski, standing committee members, I thank you for inviting me to share my personal experiences.

My name is Shelly Corlyon and I come before you today as a concerned parent, a school council chair, a teacher and a volunteer. There are three main issues I would like to discuss with you today: the concern I have as a parent having my children's teachers being responsible for an extra 25 to 30 students daily; the worry I have as a school council chair being given the power to mandate what volunteer activities my children's teachers will be forced to do; and the demoralization I feel as a teacher who does much and is being told that I don't do enough. As I will clearly demonstrate, Bill 74 must be defeated if we want what is best for the students in Ontario.

Bill 74 will make it law that teachers in secondary schools teach an average of at least 6.67 courses. This worries me on two fronts. First, as a secondary teacher, I cannot imagine teaching another 25 to 30 students. How can this be better for my students and my children who are also students? Sure, it would mean extra contact time with students but, unfortunately, not with the students I currently teach. Instead of dividing my time between the 75 to 90 students whom I teach daily and the 20 students with whom I meet weekly in my TAP groups, you, the government of Ontario, with Bill 74, are asking me to meet daily with another 25 to 30 students.

As a parent, I am not so naive as to think that having my children's teachers being responsible for more students in one day can be beneficial to my son's or my daughter's education. The only thing 6.67 courses per year versus six will do is allow Mike Harris to make further funding cuts to education. At least two teachers in my school have already been told there will be no jobs for them next year. Lisa Cholowski, one such teacher, will speak with you later today.

Do we believe that a dairy farmer has it easy because he works only two hours a day, one in the morning and one at night, milking cows? Do we think that members of provincial Parliament only spend a few hours per week actually working-the hours in the House? Of course not. So why do we believe teachers are working only when in front of the class? For every hour in the class, I spend at least one more preparing for the class and marking students' work. In addition, I work with students in many voluntary activities, as I will discuss later.

As a teacher, I can offer no more. Just ask my husband, Steve, the number of times he rolls over in bed at 4:30 or 5 in the morning to discover that I have slipped quietly to my desk. Why do I do this? My family is so precious to me. We keep emphasizing the importance of family values and morals. I get up early or work after my children are in bed as much as I can so that I can spend some quality time with my children, helping them grow into kind, caring individuals. There are many times, however, when I must sit in front of that computer as my children say, "Please, Mommy, can't you just play with me for awhile?" I thank the Lord for my wonderful husband who loves to play with our children and is patient with me as I spend hours every night preparing for my classes.

If children are our future, we must protect them by not increasing a teacher's workload. If Bill 74 passes and teachers are mandated by law to teach 6.67 courses, I know that my students'-your children's-education will suffer. Teaching three out of four classes every semester is a huge responsibility. I give my heart and my soul to my students, helping to foster in them a passion for learning, and I do this through my love for teaching.

Second, the use of the word "average" in reference to teaching time is ludicrous. Let's draw an analogy to the private sector. Many hard-working people work 40 hours per week and are paid an annual salary. Although it is in their collective agreement, Mike Harris and the current government may pass a law to change the 40 hours per week to an average of 45 hours per week. Does it seem possible that one individual will be forced to work 50 hours per week while his co-worker, doing the same job, will be allowed to work 40 hours per week and earn the same salary? This sounds discriminatory and unethical to me.

Bill 74, in my opinion, is no different. If a government can override teachers' contracts at will, what is the value of any contract? Bill 74, if passed into law, will pit teacher against teacher, encouraging them to make sidebar deals with their principals. The resentment felt by some teachers as others are allowed a lower teacher workload cannot possibly foster a positive learning environment for our children. As a parent, I am very concerned by this inequality.

Now I will share with you my concerns as the school council chair of St Catherine Catholic school. Bill 74 states clearly that the principal shall consult the school council at least once in each school year respecting the school plan providing for co-instructional activities. I am a parent volunteer on my children's Catholic school council. I choose to be involved with the school council as a means of keeping abreast of what is taking place in my children's learning environment. I worry that the principal is being mandated, in conjunction with the members of the school council-me-to assign duties relating to co-instructional activities to the teachers at my children's school. I have no idea what extracurricular activities the teachers are interested in and capable of pursuing, nor do I feel qualified in determining what activities should take place.

Can you imagine what will happen to a school where the parents strongly believe that there are too many bands or sports teams, costing the school too much money? What if the parents on a school council are only concerned about the money? As a school council chair, I am very worried about the power Bill 74 gives me to mandate the co-curricular activities that will take place in my children's school. Teachers best know what they love to do and can only be expected to give 100% to a club or team they desire to advise or coach.

Finally, I would like to explore, as a teacher, the problem with Bill 74 making voluntary activities mandatory. I volunteer to be the site administrator of computers in my school. I am responsible for over 150 computers, installing software, troubleshooting, administering log-ins, hours and hours of work a week. Why? Computers are my passion and they are needed by the students to meet curriculum expectations.

I volunteer to create, maintain and update my school's home page because it helps keep lines of communication open between students, parents and the school. It allows students to know what clubs and teams exist, encouraging them to participate in school life.

Furthermore, I am an academic adviser to the student council at the school. I help the executive organize dances, intramurals, student elections, canned food drives, spirit days, to name just a few activities. Is the responsibility huge? Sure it is, but so are the rewards.

What else do I volunteer to do? I am the computer gaming club adviser, I coach the junior and senior computer programming teams, I am in charge of makeup in our school plays, I am a member of the Upper Canada Computer Advisory Committee, I am a SIT trainer at the board level for our new curriculum, I am a member of the graduation committee, I write letters of recommendation for students when they ask me to, and I meet with students daily to help them with their work. Does it sound like I do a lot? Maybe, but I am a typical teacher at my school doing what I love most: helping my students grow to be better citizens. Can somebody else do what I do? Most definitely. But will they do it as well as I do if they are forced to do it? Definitely not.

North Dundas, my high school, has over 24 clubs and 27 teams-hear this-24 clubs and 27 teams: OSAID, drama, chess, bands, basketball, cheerleading, track, cross country-just to name a few, all being offered by teachers volunteering their time to make our school a great place to be. How demoralizing it is to me and to my fellow teachers to be told that we don't volunteer enough and that the government must pass a law to force us to do what we obviously already do because we love it. It may be teacher volunteer work being mandated today. Will we, the citizens of Ontario, be forced to volunteer in our communities next?

The cover page of Bill 74 states that it is "An Act ... to increase education quality and ... to enhance students' school experience." The government's new curriculum improves the quality of education, and I applaud the government's efforts with respect to the much-needed changes to the curriculum. The volunteer activities which currently are offered by the teachers in our schools-they enhance students' school experience. Bill 74 will not. It must be defeated and I urge you, the members of provincial Parliament, to vote no to Bill 74.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Corlyon. You took your full 10 minutes.

1420

TOM NEPHIN
BETSY SMITH

The Chair: The next speakers are Mr Tom Nephin and Betsy Smith.

Mr Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I understand that the minister may be making an announcement about government amendments to this bill. I'm wondering if the parliamentary secretary would like to share that with the committee as a whole in these hearings so we'd have the benefit of that information.

Mr Tascona: I don't know what you're talking about, Mr Kennedy. We're in the midst of hearings. You know the timetable we're dealing with for amendments. I imagine your party is considering it now. Your leader is here if he wants to make an announcement.

The Chair: I really don't want us to get into a debate about this this afternoon. We're here to hear public delegations.

Mr Nephin and Ms Smith, please proceed. You have 10 minutes.

Mr Tom Nephin: Good afternoon, and thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee regarding Bill 74. I am here today to ask you to withdraw Bill 74 and to stop the constant assault on the teaching profession.

My name is Tom Nephin. I am a parent of two. I am also the department head of business and computer studies at Carleton Place High School. I am here today with Betsy Smith, the chair of the school council, and she will share my speaking time.

Let me start by telling you that I've been a teacher since 1976. During my 24 years as a professional educator in the province of Ontario, I have taught for three different school boards, two community colleges, served on and chaired the Eastern Ontario Business Education Advisory Committee, served as a member of the Business Education Directors Association of Eastern Ontario, was the accounting contest chair for the Ontario Business Education Association, wrote curriculum and courseware, conducted professional development training sessions for teachers and worked for the faculty of education as a mentor for student teachers.

I worked for the Ministry of Education helping to evaluate curriculum, courseware and examination content in the area of business education. I've served on a number of committees for the ministry, the school board and at the school level. I've been a guest speaker for community groups, including the chamber of commerce. I moderated an AT&T global learning network and I've been involved in community programs for kids. I have fundraised thousands of dollars for schools. I've been a strong advocate for public education. I have taught hundreds of kids and am now teaching their kids. I've been around for a long time, and I've been involved. In addition to that I've coached both academic and athletic teams over my career.

Over the past 24 years I've seen a lot of changes. Teachers, as education partners, welcomed those changes. For the most part, the changes in the past were positive changes. The changes were there to improve the quality of education and the lives of students and give the students the skills they needed for professional success. In fact many of my students are now involved in the high-tech sector, and I am proud that I was part of their success.

Bill 74, like Bill 160, the bill that created the crisis in education, is not about positive change, nor is it about improving the quality of education or the accountability of any of the educational partners, other than Mike Harris. Bill 74 is yet another attempt by the Harris government to destabilize the public education system, to violate the collective rights of teachers, to demoralize the teaching profession, to sever the positive relationships between each of the educational partners, to remove any local control and accountability regarding education, and to move the centralized decision-making to Queen's Park.

The changes proposed in Bill 74, like Bill 160, and Bill 104 before that, the Fewer Schools Board Act, are like changing your underwear but having to pull on a dirty pair. The public might not be able to smell the cuts or identify the crisis in the education system yet, but, like the situation in Walkerton, those situations and cuts will have a long-term, profound, and negative impact on the lives of students and the future economic prosperity of Ontario.

Bill 74, the bill that will have school boards fire teachers, have fewer teachers teach more students and give students less opportunity to access teachers, is not about quality education. How can any of the following be good for quality education? Reducing the average class size from 22:1 to 21:1 is a joke. The classes at my school average nearly 24 to 30. Reducing the class aggregate is not about moving one student from one class. In fact, the computer class that I had, Introduction to Information Technology, had 24 students in it. That computer class had students with a range of abilities and experiences: the gifted kids, the kids with learning disabilities magnified by hyperactivity, kids with no computers at home, and kids with only one parent at home. In addition to that, I had to deal with the kids who had failed the course from the year before. Many of the kids will fall through the cracks as a result of Bill 74.

Another point: Increasing the workloads of the teachers in my school, who are tired and are under tremendous stress, will not improve the quality of education either. Some of those teachers have had to take time off. They were under professional care as a result of the stress they had to endure during their teaching last year. In fact, some of them are taking time off now and in the next school year.

Requiring teachers to teach and evaluate 24 to 30 more kids at the same time as implementing the new curriculum and providing guidance under the teacher adviser program will ensure that students get less service from teachers who have an increased stress level. A student's learning environment is a teacher's working environment. Both of those have to be positive and they're common.

Creating an environment where senior teachers are retiring as fast as they can get out, while at the same time new teachers are frustrated and demoralized, and are seeking alternative employment in foreign schools, as well as outside of the teaching profession, will not lead to quality education and will further reduce the number and quality of teachers in the province.

Giving the Harris government unprecedented powers to control trustees and to control the lives of and override the contracts of teachers in the province demonstrates clearly a lack of accountability.

Mr Harris, the brave new world is about building relationships, about being fair and trusting, about investing in kids; it's not about control, doublespeak, the unprecedented power to override contracts, to impose from Queen's park or to provoke the people who are the backbone of education in Ontario.

Again I ask you on this committee to use all your powers of persuasion to persuade Mr Harris to withdraw the bill and invest in students. They are our future.

Ms Betsy Smith: My name is Betsy Smith. I'm the mother of four sons and for the last few years have had the privilege of being chair of the school council of Carleton Place High School. Over the years I've participated in the formation of two co-operative nursery schools, three parent-teacher organizations in elementary schools and the formation of our school council. The focus of all of this has been to support and improve educational opportunities and experiences for our children. Yet now I find myself witness to the brick-by-brick destruction of all that I have given my adult life to enrich.

I feel as if I have spent the last two and a half years filling and piling sandbags in an attempt to protect our school and our students, to ensure that my youngest son will have the fine educational experience his older brothers had. With Bill 74, the barricade will be breached and it will take more than sandbags to salvage his final three years of high school.

Contrary to the government's claims, increased instructional time will hurt, not help, my son. As the number of students each teacher will teach increases, the time spent with each student becomes proportionately smaller.

Mandated co-curricular duties will ensure that what has been done as a result of the interests, skills, inspiration and creativity of our students and staff now will be performed with reluctance and a heavy heart. In fact, a mandated co-curricular program raises an interesting question. If teachers must provide this because it is an essential part of any high school education, then surely students should be required to participate.

With amalgamation of our school boards under Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, access to our trustees and their first-hand familiarity with our schools was severely compromised. With Bill 74, the trustees might as well pack it in. They will no longer have even nominal control over our schools.

Much can be said about the attack on teachers' bargaining rights and the potential and totally unnecessary labour strife that passage of Bill 74 will precipitate. But by far the worst effect of this bill will be the loss of teachers from the Ontario education system. Our most able young people are not going to choose teaching as a career and our young teachers are going to look elsewhere for jobs.

At the same time, our finest and most creative senior teachers are going to opt for early retirement or move into second careers. The loss of these teachers will also result in the loss of the mentorship that goes on now between experienced and new teachers.

This is not fantasy, this is reality. I can tell you who these people are at Carleton Place High School.

Last night at our school council meeting, unanimously and by secret ballot, our council asked me to convey to this committee its demands that this bill be withdrawn.

One final word from my 16-year-old son. He has asked me to give you a copy of George Orwell's Animal Farm. He asks that you read this before moving on to the passage of Bill 74 and that this government look for itself in the characters of Napoleon and Squealer.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Smith. There's no time for questions, unfortunately.

1430

FRANK KINSELLA

The Chair: The next speaker is Frank Kinsella.

Mr Frank Kinsella: Thank you for this opportunity. I am Frank Kinsella, a parent of five children, the youngest being Anthony, who is nine and in grade 4. I am chairperson of the parent advisory committee for Linklater/MacDonald Public School in Gananoque.

Our family has experienced four educational systems in Ontario: in northeastern Ontario at Matheson, outside of Timmins; in northwestern Ontario at Fort Francis; and in eastern Ontario at Picton and Gananoque.

In the late 1970s, while in Fort Francis, a local bank manager, a self-employed person and I coached the high school football team. None of us worked at Fort Francis High School. The closest team was 110 miles away in Kenora and the farthest in Red Lake at 220 miles. Fort Francis High School paid all the expenses for the football program. If you know the cost of equipment, you'll know how much that represents. The travel budget for the sports programs in the school was more than $26,000.

Why all this personal detail? Hopefully this will establish credibility in your minds and cause you to think about this statement: The schools, school boards and provincial government cannot afford mandatory extracurricular or co-instructional duties. The cost will be too great, resulting in many extracurricular activities being canceled due to the lack of funding.

In the past two years our parent council has raised over $16,000 for our elementary school. This year we have spent $4,000 for sports equipment so our children will have something to do on the playgrounds and in phys ed; $1,400 for our primary children to attend a play in Kingston and our grades 7 and 8 trip to Ottawa, our nation's capital; and $5,000 for upgrading of our older computers in the school. The total monies given this school year are $10,400, nearly a third of what our school has in its budget, which is $34,000 for school supplies and services.

As a parent council, we agree that we will not financially support any expenditure of funds raised for items or programs that fall under the mandate of the province or school board, ie, textbooks, school supplies etc. If co-instructional duties are mandated by the province, we will not financially support these. Either you provide sufficient funding for these events to occur or they will fail for lack of resources.

Let me explain why this bold statement is being made. In the past school year, Anthony has participated in the following school activities: soccer, soccer/baseball, track and field and a variety of club activities. The cost to us, parents, is zero. People have come to expect almost no charge for school-sponsored activities. You know the argument: "I pay taxes. Why should I have to pay for these?"

While Anthony was doing these activities at school, he also participated in recreational programs offered by the municipality: minor hockey, $200; power skating, $85; karate, $350 a year; basketball, $35; minor baseball, $35; basketball camp, $140. In addition there are guitar lessons, which add up to $672, and drama camp for $80. The cost to us, the parents, for community sponsored events: $1,597 per year.

Parents object to schools charging for extracurricular or co-instructional activities, yet are willing to pay for municipally offered recreational programs. Strange, is it not?

Is it possible to integrate the recreational programs offered by the municipalities and the schools? There would be greater coordination of effort and less duplication. Parents, if we are typical, seem willing to pay for municipally sponsored programs yet balk at paying for school programs.

What has changed in the education of Anthony that did not happen for his older sister and brothers? They did fundraising while in high school if the band or class went on a trip. In the last two years-I wish I had brought Anthony with me because I think he would be a great visual aid-Anthony knows what fundraising is. Remember, he is nine and in grade 4. This year he has raised: for magazine subscriptions, $340; Christmas gifts, $160; M and M fundraising, $120-all school-sponsored fundraising-multiple sclerosis readathon, $220; Jump Rope for Heart, $120, for a total of $960 of which $620 is for his school because of underfunding by the province.

One of Anthony's older brothers raises more than $5,000 per year for his high school hockey team. The costs of running a bare-minimum hockey program are ice rental for three exhibition and nine home games at $130, which gives $1,560; referees, $840; ice rental for practices, team sweaters etc, all give you a cost of $7,100.

Revenue: You can expect about $2,000 in funds from the school, and if you charge the 18 players $250 apiece, that gives you $4,500, for a total of $6,500. There's a deficit of $600 and that means there has to be fundraising.

There are more than 540 senior high school hockey teams in Ontario, with over 9,000 students playing. The minimum expenditure for high school hockey in this province is $7,100 times 540 or $3.834 million. That's just one event.

To be competitive with the private schools, Upper Canada and St Andrews etc, and have his team go to the All-Ontario finals four of the past five years, his hockey program costs more than $13,000 per year, resulting in his organizing fundraising events to generate $5,000. If mandated to run the hockey program, he will do it, but questions whether he would commit to the time and energy the fundraising requires. I want you to know that in their work to rule he continued to coach his hockey team, because he had a commitment to the students.

Some of his hockey players are also in the minor hockey system in the Toronto area where he coaches. The parents pay more than $4,000 per year to have their sons play on a rep team. His students pay $250.

Section 265 of the act is amended to read, "(4) The principal shall consult the school council at least once in each school year respecting the school plan providing for co-instructional activities."

Our message to the school council will be: Offer those activities that can be paid for from your school budget while not taking away the needed monies for instructional resources and textbooks. The prime purpose of our education system is to give our children foundation skills in literacy, numeracy and computer literacy. In later grades, extend these foundation skills by enhancing the acquisition of broader knowledge.

In closing, approve only those amendments that the school, school boards and the provincial government will provide resources for, because this parent and many I have consulted will not be doing fundraising for any mandatory programs dictated by the province. Second, I have not talked about this, but nobody with any common sense will run for the position of trustee with the changes proposed in Bill 74.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kinsella.

1440

JOHN MCEWEN
ARIANE CARRIERE

The Chair: The next speakers will be John McEwen and Ariane Carriere. Please proceed.

Mr John McEwen: My name is John McEwen. I'm a teacher of science, environmental science and physics. I thank the committee for this opportunity to appear. I have brought with me my friend Ariane Carriere. She is an elementary school teacher in the English Catholic system and she will make a few observations at the end of my presentation.

I have taught for 32 years. I love being with kids, seeing them develop, helping them through a difficult concept and watching as that light goes on and new understanding is reached. The rewards of my job are often found in the mall or on the street when a former student comes and tell me, "You made a difference."

It's satisfying, but it's also exceedingly intense. That intensity is expressed in the quotation I have provided from Teachers in Canada: Their Work and Quality of Life. Teachers and those who know teachers will testify to the veracity of that quote. I find that in recent years, with the reductions in teaching and support staff in our school, my colleagues and I have experienced ever-increasing workloads. New clerical and administrative tasks imposed by curriculum changes add to this, as does planning and implementing the new curriculum itself, frankly in a milieu of absent resources.

Time is my most precious, oversubscribed commodity. There is no time to research, to reflect and to plan. Statistics Canada finds that teachers as a group experience higher levels of unpaid overtime than any other employee group in the country. My experience and that of my colleagues confirms this.

Bill 74 is the last straw. Its proponents expect me to accept the revocation of some pretty fundamental rights: the removal of any influence over my own working life; an extraordinary increase in teaching load including at least, but not limited to, one extra class and no preparation time for that semester and new teacher advisory program duties; the assignment of any other duties the principal sees fit, be they clerical, custodial, administrative, fundraising or those formerly voluntary activities the minister likes to refer to; being at the principal's beck and call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Sundays and holidays included; and the imposition of a system of arbitrary discipline without any form of due process, formal review or fair treatment standard.

These are unprecedented, intolerable impositions. I will not accept them. As much as I love what I do, I will no longer do it, at least not in this province.

I will be found in a classroom, but it will be one in upstate New York. In that classroom in upstate New York, I will have a better pupil-teacher ratio, superior teaching conditions, more money and I'll commute the same distance from my home in Long Sault.

I will not be alone. The current teacher shortage in the United States is estimated at 300,000. Disaffected Ontario teachers, people with good training and high levels of ability, should find offers of employment quite easily. Eastern Ontario teachers, as you have already heard, have another outlet: Ontario's booming high-tech industries.

As a citizen, I also object to the compliance powers of the minister. It seems to me that she will be Parliament, crown, judge, jury and executioner. We can't accept that in a democracy. I'm sorry, it's just not on.

Yes, I worry about what will become of the students we will leave behind. But no one should have to teach where they are not valued or respected, and no one should have to surrender their fundamental rights to gain permission to teach.

I have appended to this paper several pieces of information that might be helpful, and I would like to very briefly cover them. First is a New York Times article on the great efforts and financial expense that states are going to to secure teachers, and I draw the attention of the committee to the final quotation from Governor Davis of California. I wonder if we will ever have a Premier of Ontario who will say this.

I would also point you to the second appendix, which has to do with teachers' salaries and my calculation that we are at the bottom of the range when compared with the United States. I would point you to my calculation of pupil-teacher ratios. There is no jurisdiction in the United States that has a pupil-teacher ratio as high as the one our new funding model predicts.

I know that what I have just said may be difficult for some folks to hear, and I appreciate your consideration as I spoke those words.

Ms Ariane Carriere: My name is Ariane Carriere. I teach grade 5 at Sacred Heart in Cornwall. I have 27 students, and that's the smallest class in the upstairs hall where the 5 to 8 classes are situated.

Last week we had our spring concert. The theme was "jungle safari."

By the way, I have nothing written; I'm sorry. This was a last-minute thing, so you're going to have to simply listen, as most of the students need to do in the classroom.

Also, I wanted to let you know that today is denim day at our school and that's why I'm dressed this way, because I was teaching this morning. The message on my T-shirt, "For the Birds," is for the environmental awareness of my students and it doesn't necessarily reflect my opinion of these hearings.

Last week we had our spring concert. As I said, the theme was "jungle safari." The teachers decided that they were going to get together and do something at the very end, because students appreciate seeing their teachers doing something, if they've been practising for a long time, and they really wonder what the teachers can get into. We decided we were going to use the Harry Belafonte song Day-O, where we have to do the counting of bananas. Someone made bananas for every single one of the teachers-full, life-sized bananas. When the music started, we all came out on the stage and we were doing our dance, and at the end, when we finished, we had a standing ovation.

We reflected about it the day after. The student MC who introduced us said, "Do you want to see the teachers making fools of themselves?" and of course every single person in that particular auditorium cheered. We had a rousing cheer at the beginning and we had a rousing cheer at the end. When we talked about it the following day, we talked about how much fun we actually had doing it. Then somebody said: "You know what? When somebody tells me next year that I have to do this, I am not going to make a fool of myself. I am not going to do this at all. I will not participate in a teacher number like that. I'll do what I have to do for the concert, if that's what I am told to do, but that's as far as I'm going to go."

I've been in this business for 33 years now and I'll survive for another year. After that, I'm gone. I'm out of here as fast as I can. But it breaks my heart when I hear my son, who has been teaching for two years, come home and tell me: "Mom, I've put my name on the Web page. I want to see about a job elsewhere because I do not want to stay here under these conditions." That's something, as a mother, that's very difficult to swallow. As a teacher, one more year, well, I can do that, even if people tell me what I have to do, but as a mother, I find it very difficult, and I urge you to turn down Bill 74.

The Chair: You've concluded your remarks?

Mr McEwen: We have.

The Chair: We have about two minutes for a question from the government side.

Mr Tascona: I appreciate your presentation. The information provided with respect to the United States is interesting, but you didn't provide any information with respect to PTR for the rest of Canada. Did you have any information on that?

1450

Mr McEwen: The problem is that the Americans do a much better job of collecting data than we do. I do occasionally get PTR data from the other provinces. I am aware, in talking with colleagues from Alberta and British Columbia, that those who teach six out of eight-and most of them do-have class sizes of about our size at present. The only other information I have is from the OECD, which reports that Canada as a whole is tied with Korea in having the highest pupil-teacher ratios in the developed world. So a comparison with another Canadian province would not be a particularly helpful one.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr McEwen.

DANNY THOMAS

The Chair: The next speaker is Danny Thomas. Good afternoon, Mr Thomas.

Mr Danny Thomas: First, I'd like to thank you for inviting me here. My name is Danny Thomas. I'm a taxpayer, I'm a parent and I'm a high school teacher. I've been teaching for 11 years in the Upper Canada District School Board, Rockland District High School.

I am here to express some major concerns about Bill 74 and how it impacts the school environment. My children are small. I am quite concerned about the impact that this bill will have on their education, should I choose to send them to public schools. I might consider otherwise if the bill goes through.

I have some serious concerns in areas such as the extra teaching time that my children's future teachers will have to do in any given semester, and that in courses like math where remedial help is quite often needed, my children will not get remedial help because the teacher might not have any prep time that semester or any period within that semester. How will teachers be expected to teach four periods out of four, whether for a full semester or a half-semester, and prepare for classes, correct assignments and tests, and even participate in extracurricular activities during the day?

When I look back on the 1999-2000 school year, I see the demands placed on students and teachers by the hasty implementation of the new curriculum, which has caused a crisis in grade 9 classrooms. Next year, with the new grade 10 curriculum, and some teachers doing four over four and preparing the new material and correcting and coaching extracurricular activities, it's starting to feel like we are moving backwards, not forwards.

I like to think that we are moving ahead and that the ever-increasing demands of a rapidly changing, rapidly progressing society require that more careful attention be given to our students to prepare them for the world beyond high school. There will not be enough time in a working day to deliver quality education and provide activities that make for an environment in our schools that is both intellectually stimulating as well as socially proactive. It isn't going to happen. This bill will do great harm to school spirit at the student, parent and staff levels.

During the first semester of the 1998-99 school year, there were strike actions against school boards for imposing seven over eight classes, which required some teachers to teach four over four. Although most boards settled with their teachers some time in the fall of 1998, we weren't so lucky. As a result, approximately 40% of my school's teachers taught four periods, with no prep time, for the whole first semester, right up until the end of January 1999. They had 10 minutes between classes, and a lunch break. These teachers-I was there-were on the verge of burnout. Many of them were hanging on only by the hope that, for example, when October 1, 1998, rolled around, hopefully there would be an agreement by the end of October. November 1 rolled around-no agreement. They're still doing four over four. They held on to the hope that: "Well, some of the other boards have settled. Maybe this will only drag on until the end of November," and so on and so on. They wound up doing four over four the whole first semester.

These teachers, I might add, were not doing extracurricular activities that semester, just four over four. I recall some teachers complaining that they didn't have time between 8:30 and lunch to go to the washroom. They didn't have time to go to the washroom from the end of lunch hour until the end of the afternoon classes. Why? Because they stayed behind, during their 10 minutes' travel between the periods in the morning and the afternoon, to help students who weren't getting any help any other time-10 minutes.

Staff morale and school spirit reached an all-time low that semester. By the time the semester had ended, the damage, I thought, was irreparable, and here we are, a year and a half later, and our school is still feeling the damage of that semester.

I do not know how it will be possible to teach with no prep time and coach and supervise extracurricular activities, especially when the spirit of volunteering has been ripped out of our schools by a bill that now empowers the provincial government to order teachers-or at least order the boards, and then principals to order teachers-to do extracurricular activities, order teachers to volunteer to build a better school community. There's something that doesn't make sense about that. I consider myself not just a teacher but a member of my school community. Schools are like microcosms of your communities. You work within your community, and you volunteer your own time to contribute to maintaining an active spirit and environment in your community. After all, you live there. Imagine there came a day when your community government was in the process of passing legislation that empowered it to order you to be active in your community, outside your job. Imagine someone coming to your door with an order for you to coach this sport or supervise this charity activity or that, and upon your refusal, it could impact on your job. How would this build community spirit? How will Bill 74 improve public education?

I have heard Premier Harris say that he appreciates the hard work that dedicated teachers do for their schools. I also often hear that teachers know what is best for education, just like doctors know what is best for medicine. We are at the front lines, in the trenches, so to speak. A few weeks ago, when we were polled by secret ballot on whether or not we favoured the Education Accountability Act, my school's teachers voted unanimously against Bill 74-zero for, 32 against. Then I discovered that province-wide the vote was 99.4% against the bill. So the public high school teachers in Ontario are voting 99.4% against a bill. How could 99.4% be wrong about what this bill will do to our schools and our classrooms and to our school communities?

I must admit that I am completely baffled by the lack of response I have received from my government on this bill. I read in the paper that the government is gearing up for an ad war. Even newspaper columnists who have supported this government's policies in the past have written that this time things have gone too far. How, in a time of unprecedented economic growth-and I'm paraphrasing the Premier; Ontario has one of the fastest economic growth rates in the western world, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong-can education be going in the direction of funding cuts and workload increases that will result in the laying off of teachers and a lower quality of education? To me, it doesn't make sense. This bill does not make sense. Unless Mr Harris gives me an even greater tax cut, to allow for me to afford to send my children to private schools, I'm not looking forward to the next few years, when I have to enroll my kids in public schools. I'm a firm believer in public schools. My belief is starting to waver. This bill is wrong. It doesn't make any sense. It makes no common sense.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Thomas. You took your full 10 minutes.

ROBERT STEINMAN

The Chair: The next speaker is Mr Robert Steinman.

Mr Robert Steinman: I'd like to thank you for asking me here to speak today.

Esteemed members of the committee, it would take much longer than the 10 minutes I am allotted to point out the countless undemocratic elements of this bill. Therefore, I have decided to spend my time speaking from the heart about what I know best.

1500

I am a high school drama teacher at Crestwood Secondary School in Peterborough. I have brought something to show you. It is a gift to me from the cast of my most recent school production. It is a small statuette of a rather adorable bear clinging to the edge of a craggy rock. Accompanying it was this beautiful card with my cast on the cover. Inside is the message they composed:

"Mr Steinman,

"Every time you look at this gift, labelled `Persistence,' know that we are grateful for yours. Your skill as a director, your respect and dedication as a teacher, and your encouragement as a friend enabled us to reach a height we didn't think possible. You reached inside of us and brought out our best, and together we reached the peak of the mountain.

"With heartfelt gratitude from the cast of The Diary of Anne Frank."

I offer these gifts as my prime credentials in speaking to you today. It is my hope that they give you a glimpse of what this experience has meant to these students and to me.

As a drama teacher, I have become an expert on extracurricular activities. A full-length school play involves well over 100 hours of rehearsal time alone. This is after countless hours I and a host of other dedicated teachers have spent selecting the right script, researching the time period, sewing elaborate costumes and handling the myriad of other production jobs. My commitment alone amounted to somewhere in the order of 300 to 350 total hours above my regular school day. It meant giving up countless weekends, evenings and most of my March break building sets, hunting down costumes and props, borrowing equipment, and the list goes on. It is a truly daunting task.

I do it because I know I am giving these students an experience of a lifetime, not only in the magic we call theatre, but in the value of commitment and perseverance. It is an experience they will recall years from now when most of the thoughts of what they learned in school have long faded from their memories.

My commitment comes from my heart, from a love of theatre and the power of a play like this one. What makes it worth all those endless hours, all those sleepless nights when it seems like nothing will ever come together, is a reward like this gift, more valuable to me than any monetary compensation.

I am not alone. The teaching profession has a long and proud history of this kind of commitment. This has always been at the heart of my profession. It is this very heart which this government seems most bent on destroying.

Two years ago, when we went back to work without a contract, I was one of those unlucky teachers who were assigned to teach four classes a day. Classroom drama is a very active subject. It involves supervising several groups rehearsing at once with no time to catch your breath during the class. My time is devoted to encouraging, reviewing criteria, evaluating participation, previewing performances, keeping focus on the task at hand while meanwhile answering a constant barrage of questions. After teaching four 76-minute drama classes a day, with a four-minute break in between, I was physically and mentally exhausted. I had hours worth of marking and preparation to fill my evenings and weekends. Where, I ask you, would I find the 300 hours it would take me to direct a play?

Under the current system, I am free to decide when I have the time and energy to mount such a major undertaking. Extracurricular activities have always been coordinated between administrators and their staff in a spirit of mutual respect. Many factors may enter into this equation, creating a situation where teachers contribute at various levels, depending on the ebb and flow of their personal lives. A teacher who is in the midst of raising young children may not be able to commit as much time as a young single person. Teachers have always been allowed to assess their ability to give when and where they have been able, in open consultation with their administrators. What will become of this balance when teachers are forced to undertake their "fair share"?

Extracurricular activities are not currently funded by the Ministry of Education. In fact, much of the money comes from teacher-initiated fundraising. If extracurricular activities become mandated and forced upon unwilling participants, how will they be funded? By the ministry? Will teachers also be forced to raise the money to fund them or will this cost be passed on to already overburdened parents as user fees? Will well-meaning, compassionate principals feel pressured to disclose a teacher's personal and private crisis to justify what may appear as favouritism in an extracurricular load? Will some administrators use unfair extracurricular loads as punishment?

Good principals have always been educational mentors, promoted through the teaching ranks for their qualities of leadership and fairness, earning the respect and co-operation of their staff. They allow viewpoints to be shared openly with the common goal of creating the best learning atmosphere possible. Placing them in an adversarial position, by forcing them to administer extracurricular activities on an exhausted teaching staff, will erode the spirit of co-operation upon which this system is based. With legislation this wrought with logistical error and absence of foresight, the educational crisis John Snobelen promised us will continue unabated.

Last week, I heard a young teacher speak. She was from the Durham board, the only board in this province where teachers have refused extracurricular activities. Their refusal is to compensate for an imposed settlement which took away half their preparation time. This young woman is in her second year of teaching and only this semester has she finally been given a preparation period. She is demoralized, distraught and exhausted. She has had enough-enough of her weekends and her holidays spent trying to catch up; enough of the endless teacher-bashing propagated by this government; enough trying to mark four classes worth of essays while preparing four new lessons outside of the school day; enough of not having any extra time to offer her students when they need that extra help. The news that in the coming year she will be mandated to do extracurricular activities was the last straw. She came to a profession she fondly remembered as a student, as one where she thought she could make a dramatic and positive impact on young people's lives, and she found only exhaustion. She has decided to leave the teaching profession behind.

If this legislation is implemented, teacher burnout rates will soar. The best and brightest will no longer be attracted to this profession, but will find jobs teaching outside Ontario or working in the private sector. I know many who are updating their resumés.

Education is a people business, dependent on engendering good relationships and respect from the top down and the bottom up. If mutual admiration and respect does not permeate the system, how do we expect these attitudes to be reflected in our students who, like all of us, learn best by example? The unprecedented onslaught of teacher-bashing by this government has already taken its toll. What is the point? What benefit could possibly come to the people of Ontario by such mean-spirited actions?

1510

This government is sending a clear message to the public and to our students, in particular. It is not a message of respect for the people with whom students spend the bulk of their formative years. Rather, it is a message of disrespect, mistrust and outright hostility, and the greatest toll will be paid by our students. This will not be a hot media story like the breakdown of water testing in Walkerton. It will be the slow realization that the dropout rate is steadily rising, as more students slip through the ever-widening cracks without the extra help and mentoring they need and deserve. It will be found in spiritless schools across this province where teachers and administrators have become adversaries and where learning has lost its heart.

I beg you, ladies and gentlemen, do not leave this legacy to our children. Withdraw Bill 74.

Applause.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we are running a little late. I understand that this is a very emotional issue and I'm trying to allow as much leeway as possible, but please do consider that we have quite a long list to go. So I would appreciate it if you would also respect the next speakers who are coming.

OTTAWA-CARLETON CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY

The Chair: Donna Marie Kennedy, Ottawa-Carleton Catholic Educational Community.

Mr Sean Borg: Good afternoon.

The Chair: You don't look like Donna Marie.

Mr Borg: No. My name is Sean Borg. I'm an OAC student enrolled in the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board. I am also the student representative to the board of trustees. Accompanying me today are the chairperson of the board of trustees, Ms June Flynn-Turner, Donna Marie Kennedy, president of the Ottawa-Carleton unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, and Anne Plante-Perkins, the chairperson of the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Council Parent Association.

To begin, I would like to thank the members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly's standing committee on justice and social policy for providing us with an opportunity to present our observations and recommendations on some aspects of Bill 74, the Education Accountability Act.

Recently, our respective groups joined together in calling upon the provincial government to conduct public hearings on Bill 74. Although the scope of this current public consultation may not be as we had hoped, we are pleased to be provided with this opportunity to present our concerns.

Many groups in Ontario that are affected by education have made presentations to the government concerning certain provisions of the substance of Bill 74, as well as the legislative process employed in its introduction. Each of those groups put forward observations and recommendations specific to their unique perspective on the proposed act. While the content and tone of these various submissions may have differed, and in some cases may have been at variance, the overall theme of the dignity of individuals, respect for democratic process and a desire for inclusion in decision-making regarding accountability were paramount.

Recently a letter was forwarded to the honourable Minister of Education by all of the organizations and associations responsible for the implementation of education policy in the schools of Ontario. Together, we support their belief that effective school programs exist where there is a positive relationship between staff and students with a solid support from administration, the local school board and the school community. Also, we strongly concur that a strong and effective publicly funded education system, responsive to the needs of our students, is the cornerstone of a democratic society. All children have the right to an education given in a secure and stable school setting that nurtures their social, spiritual, emotional and intellectual growth and development.

Our presentation mirrors these provincial initiatives in relation to the legislation, its substance and its process. Soon each of our representative groups will outline concerns and recommendations from their unique perspective. The unifying factor lies in our commitment to the principles of dignity and respect.

Our Catholic educational community upholds the inherent worth and dignity of each member of our community: students, parents, teachers, administrators, support staff, trustees and ratepayers. We have worked together to support the development of lifelong learners striving for academic excellence in a nurturing, safe and vibrant community.

We thank you for your careful consideration of our remarks.

Ms Donna Marie Kennedy: I am Donna Marie Kennedy and I am a teacher. I represent 2,200 teachers in the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic District School Board, both elementary and secondary. Our teachers have reviewed the essential components of Bill 74, the Education Accountability Act, 2000, and they conclude that Bill 74 is a serious attack on democracy and threatens the education of our students. The bill does nothing to enhance learning; in fact, we believe the bill reduces the educational opportunities of our elementary and secondary students.

We have reached this conclusion after examining the changes contemplated to instructional time for secondary teachers, changes to what the act deems "co-instructional" duties and the intrusion of a central power through compliance edicts at the local level.

It should be noted that our secondary teachers fulfill the 1,250 minutes of instructional time as required, which is exactly the same amount of instructional time contemplated in Bill 74. Our secondary teachers meet these 1,250 minutes of instructional time by teaching six credit classes, providing remedial and doing on-calls. In fact, a few years ago, secondary teachers in this province offered to extend the school day, which would have meant more time instructing students. This approach would benefit students, especially the present grade 9 students.

We have problems with co-instructional activities, or the designation of mandatory voluntary activities. Catholic teachers of Ottawa-Carleton have always been heavily involved in co-instructional activities in a way that would benefit their students. When my nieces and nephews speak to me of their experiences at school, they rarely volunteer information about scientific theories or geometry or the main character in a novel. However, they always speak with enthusiasm about their experiences before, during and after the school day: non-classroom educational opportunities led by their teachers because of their dedication to the school and to their students. I bring to your attention today examples of the work our teachers volunteer to do in the name of community. This folder speaks to the level of commitment our teachers have always provided. I will leave that with the committee today.

Bill 74 seeks to slowly extinguish the spirit and commitment of teachers who have willingly given of their time, energy and expertise to support co-instructional activities in our schools. As Catholic teachers, we are committed to service over domination. Bill 74 disregards service and instead imposes its will on a group of professionals who have tried to instill the same spirit of service in our students.

The final nail in the education coffin is hammered home in the compliance provisions and the language which expands the power of a central authority over our duly elected representatives. We have always discussed common concerns and issues with our trustees. We haven't agreed on all matters; however, we have always worked towards solutions.

We have one recommendation to the committee and to the government: Withdraw Bill 74.

Ms Anne Plante-Perkins: Good afternoon. My name is Anne Plante-Perkins. I'm the representative of the parents in the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board. Thank you for seeing me this afternoon.

When I realized I was going to have the opportunity to speak to you today, I panicked a little. I usually research and analyze the topic of discussion, poll my "constituents" to arrive at a consensus and write a polished presentation, I hope. When it became apparent that the short timeline would not make this possible, I found myself with a nasty case of writer's block. But it occurred to me this morning that I did not have to do the sort of thing I usually do when faced with a presentation on an education-related topic. In fact, to do so would be perhaps ineffective, since it would involve going over the same semantic and emotional ground that has been well travelled by others.

For every 10 people who tell you that Bill 74 is draconian, reactionary and non-democratic, I would venture that you could find one who tells you it is firm, but fair and necessary. In fact, the experts at Angus Reid told us last week that the majority of Ontarians, who are non-parents, mind you, have a negative view of most elements of education. One can hope, though, that our provincial government would be ahead of public opinion rather than be led by it. But I digress.

1520

Why would I want to travel this path, therefore, when there is really only one overriding emotion that can express what most parents are feeling right now? Parents are feeling embattled, overextended, stressed out and weary. I will not debate or analyze the pros and cons of Bill 74, because at this point they are irrelevant to parents.

In the last three years in Ottawa-Carleton we have faced amalgamation, new elementary and secondary curricula, two years of school closures, program rationalization, boundary problems, funding formula changes and school structure debates. We have agonized over special education needs, English-as-a-second-language cuts and unbelievable overcrowding in our suburban schools. I might also throw in as a personal reference the double-cohort problem.

We are heartily sick of being told that change can be good. This bromide is usually delivered by those who have not had to adapt to even a modicum of what has faced parents and students recently. I think it is telling that when psychologists list the top 10 stressors on modern society, and individuals in society, they list among them positive events like marriage, childbirth and home purchases. Even positive change is stressful. This is particularly true if the pace of change is accelerated and the number of changes unrelenting. How much more exhausting is it to face changes that many consider less than positive?

It is more than time to give students and parents a break in the pace of change in education. Withdraw or delay the implementation of Bill 74. Parents feel as though they and their children are in a boat on a storm-tossed lake. The provincial government's attempts to rescue us are having the unhappy result of swamping the boat.

Thank you for your time.

Ms June Flynn-Turner: I'm June Flynn-Turner, the chair of the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board. You've heard from our parents, our students and our teachers, and I'm not going to add a lot to it. I do want to talk about what the essence of Catholic schools is, and our bishops have communicated this to the government.

We are a Catholic community, and community involves collaboration among all of our constituent groups; not confrontation, not aggressiveness, but collaboration and consultation. We've had that in the past. We have not always agreed and we will continue to not always agree. But when we don't agree, as a Catholic community, we find a solution we can all live with.

This bill will put our teachers in a confrontational, adversarial relationship with our principals. You are asking our principals to perform in a manner that is inconsistent with and against their Catholic faith and their Catholic beliefs. I have to tell you that as a trustee I have serious problems being asked by this government to be a policeman for the indentured servitude of our teachers. I cannot accept that and I won't. Thank you.

Ms Kennedy: Do we have time for questions?

The Chair: You have time for about one question.

Mr McGuinty: I want to thank you for your presentation. I note that one of the aspects that makes it particularly compelling is because we have representation here from the most important constituency groups: students, teachers, parents and trustees. As we've had the opportunity, limited though these hearings may be, to hear from people, there is a resounding consensus that has developed out there which should act like a brilliant red flare for the government so that they understand there's danger here. For us to move forward on Bill 74, given all of the concerns and objections that have been raised by people who are genuinely committed to publicly funded education in Ontario, would be a huge mistake.

We have gone so far, Gerard Kennedy and myself, to sponsor our own hearings to allow for greater input from the huge numbers of people who have expressed an interest in speaking to this bill.

One of the things Anne, the parent, talked about was something which goes unrecognized too often, it seems to me, by politicians when it comes to education, that at some point in time we have to recognize the right to legislative stability. The more I talk to people in education, the more they say to me: "Listen, we're just coping with the last change you shoved down our throats. We're just adjusting to that, learning how to execute that plan, and now you're talking about another plan. We still haven't been able to live up to our responsibilities created under the last plan." I wonder if you might speak to that a little bit more in terms of how you feel the parents are feeling today about this continuing turmoil.

Ms Plante-Perkins: I think it's having an extraordinarily detrimental effect on the level of volunteerism that has been permeating the school system from the parent level for a long time. When we were PTAs, when we were parent advisory committees, there was a degree of commitment and joy to the events that took place in the school. We were doing hot dogs, we were doing curriculum studies, we were reading to the kids. All the things that the Royal Commission on Learning said were the kinds of issues that the parents should be involved with were directly related to improving the education of the children-being able to take them on little field trips that supported the curriculum that was in place. There was a joy that was there.

I am in two schools, a high school and an elementary school, now. The elementary school used to have an enormous number of people volunteering to do an awful lot of things around the school council table. I am seeing a decline in the number of people coming around the table. They can't take any more. They really can't take any more. The one person who has summarized it for me is saying that essentially now we are legislated volunteers. There's no joy in it any more.

It is difficult enough to do the kind of work that you do during the day with two parents working or single-parent families and then to have to come to a meeting that has to continuously deal with adjustments that are so basic to the children's education instead of being able to do the kinds of things that we think would be really supportive and improve children's education. It's very discouraging. I am detecting a great deal of fall-off in energy, if you will. There will always be parents who will go and do no matter what, but it's not with joy any more.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Perkins.

Mr Guzzo: Just one point of information: We have no phone number and no mailing address for this organization. I wonder if you could leave it.

The Chair: We can certainly provide that.

Ms Kennedy: We'll do that.

The Chair: If you wish to give it, you can, but it is something, apparently, that you're not required to provide.

Thank you for coming this afternoon.

MICHELE PERRY

The Chair: The next speaker is Michele Perry.

Ms Michele Perry: My name is Michele Perry and I live in Brockville. I'm a stay-at-home parent and have been for eight years. I have three children, ages seven, five and one, so as you can see, I have a vested interest in the future of public education.

I come here today as a parent and a concerned citizen. I feel I also have some additional insights to offer, having taught in the past for five years, both in Ontario and overseas. I take this opportunity to speak very seriously. A government must listen to its citizens, and so I bring to this hearing not only my own concerns and comments but those of my friends, neighbours, and fellow parents, as well as several chairs and members of parent advisory councils.

I would like to address two main issues in relation to the provisions in Bill 74, these being its effect on the quality of education and its impact on the rights and freedoms of Ontario's citizens.

1530

No one single factor affects the quality of our children's experience in school more than the classroom teacher. I'm sure all of us have vivid memories of our school days. More often than not, these are focused around the individuals who taught us-most good, some bad perhaps. I want, as all parents do, the best for my children. When it comes to education, the best, to me, means excellent teachers teaching an appropriate curriculum in a safe environment with all the resources available to them to help our children achieve. We must encourage the best, the brightest, the most creative young people to enter the teaching profession. I don't believe this bill helps us to do that, unfortunately.

I think the provisions in the bill for limiting class size are a step in the right direction. Fewer students per class will certainly allow more time for each of them. But there is a danger here, and that is that we must not assume that because a class is smaller we no longer need the educational assistants or the special education resources. The reality I see in our schools every day is that special-needs children are going by the wayside. I don't know where the problem exists, but somehow in the scramble to cut budgets and implement new curricula, the resources are disappearing from the classroom. The education of all the children in my community is important to me. My Ontario is a place where the disadvantaged, the disabled, the poor are not left behind.

At the secondary level, again, we have limiting of class size-an excellent idea, especially in view of the new demanding curricula. But the same problem exists for our weakest students: not only lack of support but harder material for them to learn. Teachers will also have less time at the secondary level for each child, as they'll be teaching more classes. I fail to see how this is supposed to improve the quality of education.

If the point of this is to save money, then the government should say so. If we want our children to be able to move forward, we have to provide resources to students, parents and teachers, so that as many as possible can succeed.

I believe the most publicly recognizable part of this bill deals with the co-curricular activities, the mandating of volunteer activities. It seems like an oxymoron, and in truth, not a single person I talked to was in favour of this provision, but many understood that we want to preserve the experiences that our children have while playing in the band, or sports, or going on field trips. This bill seems to miss the nature of these experiences completely.

I understand that this provision is supposed to be an answer to the work-to-rule problem that exists in the Durham board, where students have been deprived of these activities. However, it seems grossly unfair to the large majority of teachers who cheerfully and willingly give of their time, interest and enthusiasm. Making teachers feel angry and unappreciated is hardly going to improve the quality of the classroom, or co-curricular experience, for our kids. Perhaps a more co-operative approach, working together with all involved, would work better.

The comments I received from parent councils mirrored this view, as well as some frustration that in fact they themselves felt forced into volunteering. Parent councils are having increasing trouble finding people to serve, leading to most positions being acclaimed because, and I quote from three different people, "No one else will do it."

Our own school council has many positions that we could not fill this year. We have no chair, no co-chair and no secretary. People find they have less time for a job that's growing past their knowledge, their expertise or their time available, and yet schools are required to have a parents' council. Are we already mandating parent volunteering?

One last point on the co-curricular issue: Would we force our children to participate in activities that we choose for them, regardless of their opinion? Of course not. These activities are supposed to be fun. I don't know if many of you deal on a daily basis with small children, but trust me, what little kids want to do is have fun. A valuable learning experience? Yes. But fun for everyone involved, and you can't mandate people to enjoy themselves.

The second issue I would like to address has more to do with quality of life, maybe, than quality of education and as such is perhaps more important. Upon reading the proposed bill, I found to my consternation a number of sections that appear to be not only unfair but unnecessarily restrictive or sweeping.

As a child of a World War II veteran who received his country's highest military honour, I have often reflected on the meaning of the freedom he risked his life for. I now find myself reflecting again on the meaning of freedom and how a government must balance the rights of its citizens versus the laws that are for the good of all. The sections of this bill that make legal contracts between school boards and their employees non-existent seem to go against the rule of law. We have contracts that control everything in our lives, from our car insurance to paying taxes. Contracts are, or should be, legally binding documents, and it upsets me to think that contracts of any type can simply be put aside with no redress by the government in power.

The Chair: You have about one minute left, Ms Perry.

Ms Perry: There doesn't appear to me to be any compelling public good that would be served by this. The restrictions placed on our trustees' ability to serve their constituents, the wide-ranging powers of the minister, the ability to terminate employees without redress-all of these things give me a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. I don't know whether these provisions are legal-I'm not a lawyer-but I know that they're morally wrong.

Educating children is not a factory in which you can speed up the assembly line and increase production. Education is about people and relationships, working together for a common good. I implore you to create an atmosphere of co-operation and good will with all levels of the education system. My children have to grow up in this Ontario. Please, for Scott and Sarah and Amy, use a handshake and not a hammer.

Thank you for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Perry.

The next speaker is Kristen Grillo.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPALS' COUNCIL OF ONTARIO

Ms Mary-Catherine Kelly: Good afternoon. My name is not Kristen Grillo. My name is Mary-Catherine Kelly and I'm here today representing 2,000 Catholic principals and vice-principals. The reason I am here at this table today is because OECTA had a position on this presentation panel today and Kristen is from Thunder Bay and was unable to make the trip here today. When the Catholic principals and the other principals' councils in the province asked to come forward to get on the presentation list, none of the principals' groups was accepted to come forward in your list. OECTA graciously gave us the position to be able to come and speak to you today. I ask your permission to do a brief presentation.

The Chair: That's OK.

Ms Kelly: As I mentioned, I represent 2,000 Catholic principals and vice-principals. We're very pleased that you are gracious enough to allow us to speak at your presentations today. Our members want to express our concern over several aspects of Bill 74 and the destabilizing effect it will have on our schools if this passes in its current form.

Our Catholic schools work because of the dedication and commitment of all of the staff to the education of the students in their care. They are places where success is determined through positive relationships as well as effective instruction. By removing certain rights from teachers and imposing mandatory compliance obligations on school boards and principals, Bill 74 threatens to drive a wedge between the very people who now enable students to benefit from their entire school experience.

The Catholic Principals' Council recognizes the need for clarification of the duties of teachers under the Education Act to ensure that the schools can work effectively for students. Activities that are essential to the proper functioning of schools, such as parent-teacher interviews and staff meetings, should not be considered co-instructional duties and should be mandatory for teachers. However, the Catholic Principals' Council recognizes that teachers, on a voluntary basis, have carried on other kinds of extracurricular activities for years. They genuinely love to be involved with students on field trips, retreats, after-school clubs, arts and sports activities. They offer their evenings and weekends for school duties such as parents' nights, curriculum nights and graduations. In our Catholic elementary and secondary schools, teachers are also involved in parish work and sacramental preparation that extend far beyond the school day. They are professionals; they don't punch a clock.

1540

By making such extracurricular activities mandatory, this bill infringes on the rights of all teachers and places principals in the untenable position of having to impose duties that otherwise would have been graciously volunteered. While principals will continue to take a fair and balanced approach to this task, the co-operative nature of their relationship with teachers will now be at risk. We are also concerned that at a time when there is a worldwide teacher shortage, this legislation will discourage people from considering careers in teaching or in educational leadership.

Much attention has been given in the past several years to ensuring that schools are safe places for students and staff. Safe schools are everyone's concern, and because of their positive relationship with students, teachers are in the best position to provide the kind of supervision that will ensure safe schools and positive learning environments. In many of our Catholic secondary schools the administration and teachers have worked together to implement measures that will discourage violence and vandalism. The change in teaching loads in secondary schools from 6.0 to 6.67 is expected to have a serious and detrimental effect on the ability of principals to ensure safe learning environments for the students in their care. It should be noted that the decrease in class size will not provide any child more time in classes. Our research indicates, however, that the number of teachers available in the school during any period of the day to supervise cafeterias, hallways and school grounds will be reduced by approximately 24%. During peak periods this could rise to 35%. This matter is of serious concern to secondary school principals. With less supervision, increases in vandalism, student harassment and violent incidents are anticipated.

Because of the increase in teaching time there will also be fewer teachers available for other duties. It will be difficult to cover classes when teachers are absent or out of the school, thus limiting the schools' ability to provide a wide range of co-curricular and extracurricular programs. What makes the co-curricular and extracurricular programs work in secondary schools is the ability to provide this type of coverage. With the reduction in teachers' availability to take on these duties, these programs will be very difficult to maintain.

In addition to the specific concerns I have outlined, as community leaders, Catholic principals are concerned about the undemocratic nature of this bill. The powers extended to the minister are excessive, and the bill unnecessarily intrudes on the right of school boards to determine how to meet the needs of their communities.

In summary, although the government claims Bill 74 will improve the quality of education, it is important for the public to know that the passage of this bill will result in an increase in the number of classes a teacher must teach, more pupils per teacher, fewer co-instructional programs, more difficulty in covering classes for absent teachers, fewer people choosing careers as teachers and principals, schools which are less safe and a destabilized system next fall.

The Catholic Principals' Council of Ontario urges the government to address the needs of students, parents and the school system through appropriate consultation and by working collaboratively with the stakeholders to find solutions that will enable the schools to operate safely and effectively.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Kelly. Unfortunately, we don't have any time for questions.

Ms Kelly: Thank you for the opportunity.

BRIAN VAN NORMAN

The Chair: The next speaker is Brian Van Norman. Good afternoon.

Mr Brian Van Norman: Hello. I think I'm in a little over my head here, but here goes. I've lived in Ontario all my life, and I'm sure you'll agree it has been a wonderful place to live. I've never concerned myself deeply with politics. I've voted in each election since I came of age, paid my taxes annually and occasionally followed news coverage of political events in the province. I think I have an average person's knowledge of the issues facing our government, but I don't pretend to be an authority on the complexities buried beneath those issues.

I'm here today because I became interested enough in Bill 74 through conversations with friends and letters to newspaper editors and reports of the progress of this bill to actually take the time to read the legislation, and it disturbed me. It disturbed me enough to call the committee offices and ask to be heard at these proceedings. I never expected to be selected and when I received the telephone call, I went into a kind of paroxysm of panic at the thought of being here. I wondered what I could say that might be of any value to a body of legislators who have heard from so many knowledgeable presenters already and are probably tired and reaching information overload from the intensity of these proceedings. So I thought the best thing to do was simply to offer a few perceptions of an ordinary citizen who, for once in his life, has taken the time to become more involved than usual, and I hope they may be of some use.

I said Bill 74 disturbed me, and I'd like to tell you why. I am aware that there is an intrinsic conflict at present between our government and teachers. I'm aware, too, that there are political agendas at work here that are beyond my scope. But it's not what I've heard that troubled me so much as what I've read. I've read a piece of legislation that seems to be an overreaction, or at least a desperate measure to curb a certain constituency to the will of the government. It goes beyond teachers and unions and education policies and, should this legislation pass, I fear it will open a Pandora's box of potential exploitation and abuses that could affect all citizens of Ontario.

What concerns me is its intrinsic unfairness. The first thing I noticed was the provision to make what had been known as "extracurricular activities" into "co-instructional activities" and to make those formerly voluntary activities mandatory. But more troubling was the indication that these activities could be assigned at any time during the day, seven days a week, with no specified maximum number of hours of work. This section of the legislation, combined with the increased instructional hours of teaching, seems to place an unfair workload on teachers which is clearly open to abuse in the potential case of a prejudiced or overly ambitious principal. We would all like to believe that our employers are equitable in their natures, but what if one or two, or five or 10, are not?

The bill goes on to prohibit teachers from appealing to an arbitrator should that unfortunate circumstance occur. It denies certain citizens of this province a fundamental tenet of law, that there should be some kind of court or tribunal for citizens to bring forward their legitimate grievances. This will certainly lead to resentment, and that resentment will lead to disruption in our schools. So the government's plan to improve the education system will suffer. Who wants to place their children in that type of environment? Apparently, any board employee or trustee who does not comply with the government's policies can be dismissed or fined with no recourse. This section of the act, then, has consequences reaching far beyond its apparent scope. Once in place as law, what is to prevent an unscrupulous government from expanding this law's provisions to other citizens of the province?

The next part that troubled me about Bill 74 was its apparent removal of teachers from negotiating reasonable terms of employment. It says in the bill, in section 170.2.2, "The Labour Relations Act, 1995 does not apply to prevent the board from altering terms and conditions of employment ... as the board sees fit to enable it to alter the level of teaching staff that it employs to a level that it considers appropriate." I always thought that a contract was a contract. What good is a contract if it can be arbitrarily changed or broken? There are thousands of people in Ontario today who work under negotiated contracts, short-term or long-term. Yet this part of the bill indicates that an employer will be enabled to alter a contract in midstream. This is not only frightening to any average citizen, I think it's illegal. But if this bill becomes law, it opens the way for potentially massive exploitation of every person in Ontario who signs a contract to complete a specific job. I thought our current government staked a claim to be business-oriented. How can a business-oriented government remove the central tenet of any business-the contract between supplier and recipient, service provider and beneficiary, or employer and employee?

1550

I guess the most disturbing thing about the bill is that it appears to position the Minister of Education as somehow above the law. Under section 230.4, if the minister has concerns regarding non-compliance, he or she is enabled to exclusive jurisdiction of a board of education; in effect, to take control and micromanage the administration and affairs of that board. The bill goes on to say, in section 230.7, that the minister's jurisdiction would not be open to question or review in any proceeding or by any court. To an ordinary citizen the question arises, "How can a politician be above the law?"

It seems to me that politicians are elected to serve their constituents, not to be enabled to arbitrarily countermand the direction of board trustees who were, in turn, elected to serve those same constituents at a local level. This does not seem like democracy. It has the appearance of centralizing authority and actually shifting the present government's policy of offering more autonomy to locally elected officials who better understand local problems and solutions. It's a paradox that I and others like me can't understand.

There's little point in my trying to further analyze Bill 74. You've heard it all before me and know its permutations better than I.

Mr Guzzo: We haven't heard your last two points. You're the first to raise them. Keep going.

Mr Van Norman: OK. I'm nervous enough.

Mr Guzzo: You're not in over your head, sir, let me tell you. You're right on. Keep going.

Mr Van Norman: I said at the beginning of my presentation that the implications of the bill disturbed me. It seems to set precedents that for the ordinary person are very distressing in their potential for abuse.

I'd like to leave you with a few more general perceptions than the specifics I've tried to present, because I think most average citizens don't know the ins and outs of this legislation, and I think it's more important to speak about how some of us feel.

The biggest question that arises is "Why?" Why does the government feel the necessity to create this kind of repressive legislation that removes some basic rights from some of its constituents and is, to say the least, frightening in its implications? A few years ago Mr Snobelen indicated publicly that the government had to create a crisis in education. The perception among a lot of ordinary people is that there have been too many crises in the past little while, and where have they got us? It seems the health care system isn't working very well right now and serious environmental questions have appeared in the past couple of weeks. Is another crisis necessary, and if it comes about, what will the repercussions be for our children's education?

I'd like to ask you to try for a minute to see through the eyes of some ordinary citizens. What we perceive right now is Progressive Conservatives becoming repressive legislators, common sense turning to nonsense and a blueprint changing to prescription. I don't think this is the style of government people voted for in the last election.

I hope you don't perceive this as a rant. There has been a little too much ranting lately and too much bullying and threatening. Unfortunately this bill seems to be its culmination. I'd like to ask you, couldn't this bill be withdrawn in the spirit of fairness and couldn't we just get back to some common sense? Thank you for letting me speak today.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Van Norman.

MARGARET MCCORNOCK

The Chair: The next speaker is Margaret McCornock.

Ms Margaret McCornock: My name is Margaret McCornock, and I am a secondary math teacher, just finishing my 29th year. I teach in Kemptville, just south of the city.

During my 29 years I have coached teams, I have worked with numerous clubs, I've been on the board's public relations committee at a time when I felt that maybe things weren't going so well between our board, our community and our teachers. I thought maybe I should try to do something about that. I have coordinated commencements. I have also been fortunate enough to take part in three international teacher exchange programs, having just returned this January from a year in Australia.

I can't believe what has happened to education in those 29 years, and particularly in the time of the Mike Harris government. I know that it's 4 o'clock in the afternoon and you've been listening to this all day and there's probably very little I can say to add to what has already been said, but here goes anyway.

The title of the bill says that it's intended to increase education quality, improve accountability of school boards and enhance students' school experience. In my opinion, it does none of the above. There's nothing about accountability; it's all about compliance-do it my way or hit the highway, in some cases. There is nothing that I can see that improves education quality. Having an extra class of approximately 25 students next year is not going to allow me in any way to improve the program I deliver to the students.

I have found it increasingly difficult as the years go by, and I don't believe this is just because of increasing age, to keep up with the constant changes that are demanded of us. The curriculum changes from year to year. With the adjustment of the five-year program down to four, we are having to restructure every single course in the high school curriculum, and that's not easily done. It takes time to prepare for those courses and to deliver them properly. With all the extra demands of more students and the possibility of compulsory extracurricular or co-instruction, or whatever you want to call them, activities, that's going to be harder and harder to do.

The bill is, in my estimation, punitive and mean-spirited. There is no justification for what is in there.

The parts of the bill that have received the most media play, of course, have to do with co-instructional, extracurricular activities. Other than the odd time when there are labour disputes or the situation in Durham now, that system is working just fine the way it is. If it isn't broken, why fix it? We have virtually everyone on our staff doing extracurricular coaching and club work and so on. It's becoming harder and harder to do. There just aren't enough hours in the day.

Just two weeks ago our band returned from a four-day trip to New York City, part of that four days being over the weekend. The band instructor was absolutely physically exhausted by the time it was over, because not only did she have to get the band ready and supervise the kids while she was there, she had to do the fundraising to make sure that the thing actually happened.

Teachers are tired, they're angry, they're demoralized. I can't believe that in this country we have been subjected to the media campaign that we've had to endure the last few years. There's no way that any group of workers should have to take that. We've been singled out as being somehow special. We don't quite fit under the Labour Relations Act, according to this bill. Our contracts can be changed. It doesn't matter what's written down there and signed and supposedly legally binding on both parties. They can be changed if the board so desires.

There are lots of issues I could deal with, but mainly I just wanted to focus on the personal, what this is doing to teachers. There's one fellow on our staff, he has taught for probably five or six years, a wonderful young man, an excellent teacher, an extremely talented coach. Last Thursday night he and his wife, another teacher, put together our awards banquet. At that banquet he was selected by the students of the school as the recipient of the teacher appreciation award. The next morning he gets called into the principal's office: "Congratulations, Randy. You've done an excellent job. It's wonderful that you got the award. By the way, you have no job next year." That's because of the change in the workload required of the teachers.

My department head, again, a very talented teacher, was quoted this week as saying: "They have taken every bit of joy out of teaching. There's so much other stuff going on that I have to deal with that it's not fun anymore and I'm not sure how long I will do this."

1600

A lot of our younger teachers are looking seriously at jobs in other areas-not other areas as in other school boards, other provinces, but other occupations totally. Many of us, myself included, are seriously looking at international teaching again. The past three experiences I've had have been an exchange. I'm not sure that I'd want to exchange with another teacher and have them come here and try to cope with the Ontario education system as it's going to be if this bill is passed.

There are so many issues. Certainly, the issues with the contracts are of a big concern to me, the issues with the trustees and their supposed accountability. My dad was a trustee on a school board for 26 years, following in his dad's footsteps. If he was healthier, he'd be here to tell you exactly what he thought of this Bill 74. To have a publicly elected official who is supposed to represent their constituents be basically muzzled by a bill like this if they wished to speak against the Harris government party line is just unconscionable.

I'm going to close with just a couple of quotes from a newsletter that all of our teachers received. They are quotes from teachers at Almonte high school who are, for one reason or another, leaving this year. One is from a career math teacher who has decided to take early retirement. He states: "The political climate is unbearable. I have been through enough government imposed regulations and I've seen the damage that occurs."

A five-year computer teacher: "Last year I taught four classes out of four. The quality of my teaching declined. My students didn't learn as much as I'd hoped. The demands on my time were absolutely impossible. This year, more and more administrative work is asked of us. Low staff morale only adds to my stress and my time at home is affected. I also need to update my skills, and by going back into industry, I will gain more knowledge than I can now. The government has made us scapegoats and I think it will continue for a long time."

The principal, who is also taking early retirement: "I cannot accept that this is happening in public education in Ontario. Everything we do has been undermined. Students are not put first. Teachers are given absolutely no credit for what they do. Morale has been destroyed. Harris's lack of social conscience places us in 19th century Britain. Facts, facts, facts. Learn them and get a job. There is no longer support for individuality, creativity or special programs. The Harris government is robbing the human spirit from our profession and I fear that it will only get worse with the passage of this bill."

Like many others in this room, I could probably go on for two hours about this. However, I know I have my allotted time. I have here a petition signed by roughly 250-I think slightly more than 250-citizens of eastern Ontario that I would like to present, requesting that there be, at the very least, more public hearings into this bill and, better still, a withdrawal of the bill. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr Steve Gilchrist): Thank you. That chews up the 10 minutes, but we thank you very much for coming forward and bringing us your comments.

NEIL BENJAMIN
LORI TAYLOR

The Acting Chair: For our next presentation, we have two people coming up, Lori Taylor and Neil Benjamin, if they could join us at the witness table. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee. We have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Neil Benjamin: Thank you, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon. I'm Neil Benjamin. I speak for all my colleagues and my peers at St Lawrence high school in Cornwall.

I wish to educate the members of the Harris government on the life of an average teacher, Neil Benjamin. Outside of school, I serve on the board of directors at my church, I am a member of the Kinsmen Club, a Mason, a member of a group that promotes local history in the curriculum, a charitable giver and a volunteer, a brother, a son. I love to teach. I love to know that I may have touched a student and helped them through the struggle of life by imparting knowledge and the direction of knowledge. I do not accomplish the aforementioned solely from the classroom. In my short yet active career in the teaching profession, I have been a tutor to many students before 8 am, at lunch, during breaks, after school and on weekends. I have travelled through the sounds of education by conducting and helping the school concert band, jazz band and music rehearsals. I have brought history to life through Canada Quiz and remembrance ceremonies. I have coached 11 hormonal boys through a fun, yet not so accomplished, volleyball season. I have supervised 300 and more hormonal teenagers at school dances and proms. And I have sat proudly through graduation to see the fruits of education and society's labour come forth as graduates. I have served and shared with my peers at many professional development meetings and many school functions, all things I love to do, and nobody tells me I must do them.

I will not willingly participate in co-instructional activities next year, not because I do not wish to but because the Harris government has made something I love to do mandated. I never sought a "thank you" or a "job well done." These labours have been performed without remittance. However, Harris has seen it necessary to draw attention to co-instructional time, and the "thank you" and the "job well done" implied in doing these activities will be mandated. I tell you, they cannot.

The actions of this government have taken respect out of education and made teachers feel worthless and expendable. On the other hand, this government tries to restore respect through legislation with a strict code of conduct and behaviour. You can't do that either. Once respect is gone, it is gone.

I have been teaching for two years. I'm tired, tired not from teaching but from dealing with the ignorance and insolence slung down at the teachers by the Harris government. We as teachers have made a new curriculum work, unsupported and without professional development and resources. Try teaching the new grade 9 geography course without a text, not because there weren't enough texts but because they were not ready when the course began. In my current geography text, Lake Ontario runs into Lake Erie. This text was stamped "Approved by the ministry"-Lake Ontario runs into Lake Erie.

Enough said about a hastily constructed curriculum and support materials. We have made electronic report cards function from the dysfunctional. We have had schools function with less support staff. How have we been thanked as teachers? We are thanked by the Harris government for making a crisis-their crisis-work by a piece of legislation I wouldn't line a birdcage with.

There are six things in this legislation that I find morally and socially objectionable.

(1) Mandatory co-instructional activities: a labour of love now a forced labour. I will be at the beck and call of my administration 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Marriage does not demand this much dedication.

(2) Increased staff workload: 21 students on average-average-per class per teacher. Is this the baker's dozen for classroom size? Teaching more does not give me contact time between a student and me. It gives less contact time of a teacher with more students.

(3) The removal of what few benefits of contractual negotiation teachers have is something that really bothers me. I have more to talk about than just that, so I'll move on.

(4) The punitive measures of exacting fines and disbandment. My elected trustees, if they vote with their conscience and their constituents and not with Janet Ecker or Mike Harris, will be penalized, fined and barred from running the for office of trustee. I am a voter, I am a citizen of a free democratic country and I am a taxpayer too. I do not pay taxes to the Harris government to be insulted. My taxpayer dollars are not at work.

(5) Destroying the positive relationships between student, teacher and administrator through punitive and legal measures. Unlike a political party, teachers, administrators and trustees are permitted to be of unlike minds, and we will not allow the Harris government to create the role of party whip out of our administrators or our elected officials.

(6) Creating the final crisis, which former Minister of Education Snobelen sought, however never achieved. My greatest fear is that Mr Harris wishes to institute, using the excuse of a crisis, a businesslike school system such as the voucher system or charter schools. They don't work.

1610

I thank the Harris government for one thing. For the first time in this government's mandate, they've actually provided support and resource materials before the teachers have taught the new grade 10 civics curriculum. Bill 74, media releases, this deposition hearing and the Ontario Legislature's Hansard are resource materials enough to demonstrate and educate grade 10s next year on the role and responsibilities of a good citizen to fight against injustice, ignorance and intolerance by any means possible.

I thank you for your time, and I sign off as Neil Benjamin, BA, B.Ed, and master of common sense.

I'd like to introduce a colleague and friend at St Lawrence high school, Ms Lori Taylor.

Ms Lori Taylor: Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. My name is Lori Taylor, and I am extremely proud to be a communications technology teacher at St Lawrence high school in Cornwall, Ontario. Today I would like to share with you a very personal story about how Bill 74, even though it hasn't passed yet, has already impacted and will continue to impact teachers' lives.

Each year in my senior communications technology course, I teach a unit on careers. This is one of my favourite units to teach, because students begin to see how the path of employment is easily recognizable and can be related to school teaching. But, believe it or not, this very same career unit has recently become one of the toughest units for me to teach on a personal level.

I know you're probably wondering what could possibly be tough about teaching a unit on careers. Sure, there is a need to constantly revamp the lessons to keep up with the ever-changing world of high-tech. But, heck, this doesn't differ dramatically from any other lesson that has to be taught in technology or any other area of teaching. What I do find challenging about teaching a technology career unit is the questions my students ask of me: "Miss, what are you doing in tech? You can make the big bucks. What are you doing as a teacher?" "Miss, look at all the job opportunities in the paper. Why aren't you working for Corel? Why aren't you working for Microsoft? What are you doing being a teacher?"

I can easily say that what I do with my life is my own business, but you just have to read the recent newspapers to know that what teachers do is everybody's business. I'd like to say that I always tell my students that the reason I am a teacher is because I truly love my job and that making money is not the be-all and end-all to me. Job satisfaction is extremely important to me, but I have a hard time justifying that to students who grew up in the hedonistic 1980s.

I'd like to illustrate something that happened to me lately that I've told my students and that has maybe given them a better understanding about how passionately I feel about teaching. On April 15, 2000, while driving home from this very city, I thought I could make my car fly. Brake failure, road conditions, a sick metaphor for my own life spinning out of control in education-I don't know. I managed to roll my car three times, smash my roof into my seat and still walk out of the car alive. I'm a lucky person; I don't need to be told that. The rationalizing, technological part of me would also like to believe there is still a reason I'm on this planet. I don't mean to sound hokey here, but I've learned many things from this experience, one being that you can never have too much insurance. I've also learned that maybe the reason I didn't check out on that day is that I'm meant to be a teacher. I know I want to be a teacher.

I didn't survive a car wreck to sell my soul out to some corporation, but I can honestly tell you that Bill 74 has me questioning my profound renewed commitment to education. I can't illustrate to you any more profoundly, and I wish I had a different example, how much education and the teaching profession mean to me. But I cannot work in a profession where my civil liberties are at stake. I cannot work in conditions where I am subject to the whim of an administrator any time she or he needs me, day or night. I do not work with widgets, and thank God I don't. I work with adolescent human beings, and they do have hormones and they do change on a daily basis. I work alongside them, I enjoy learning with them, but they are exhausting. Widgets perform the same, day in and day out; human beings, as I said, do not. I work with close to 100 different students while teaching three periods a day, and each of these students is unique. They have their own strengths, abilities and areas they struggle with.

In communications technology, I teach them without any textbooks or special resources to accommodate their various needs. I'm exhausted at the end of the day, and I don't have a young family to go home and look after. I will not survive an increased workload, nor should I have to.

Since the start of this semester, I have volunteered over 250 hours at my school on top of teaching. This by no means includes the extra hours I have put into implementing the new grade 9 report card system, TAP, SIS or the grade 9 curriculum. I only know this because I had to calculate the hours for a course I was taking to upgrade my skills at Queen's. I tell you this not because I need anyone's sympathy but only because I want to scream to the world that I do not need to be legislated to spend time with kids. I put extra hours into my school, my community and ultimately into working with students because I want to. But you know what? I'm not unique. I'm a teacher, and that's what teachers have been doing forever. I suppose you can legislate me to do my job and to perform co-instructional activities. But can you legislate my commitment? I think not.

As I sit back and write this, I'm immensely saddened. I need only look out the window and see the media circus in front of my own school-yes, I'm from St Lawrence high school-to see what a spectacle education has become and how the rhetoric of the few is impacting the lives of the many. Life is far too short for me to work for an employer with its own version of the "notwithstanding" clause.

If Bill 74 passes, I highly doubt I'll be returning to my classroom. Life is not meant to be fair, but it will hurt me immensely to give up the kids I thoroughly enjoy working with and the colleagues whose support, wisdom and camaraderie I've come to depend upon on a daily basis. This just causes me to wonder when the next bill is going to be passed that tells my corporate employer that I have to perform so many co-corporate hours on top of my business activities in order to collect my salary.

The Acting Chair: Thank you both. You're bang on your time. Thank you very much, though, for making the trip and making your presentation before us here today.

DALE JOHNSTON

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter will be Dale Johnston. Welcome to the committee. We have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Ms Dale Johnston: My name is Dale Johnston, and I am an elementary teacher with the Waterloo Region District School Board. I have travelled from Kitchener today to speak as a teacher and as a citizen of Ontario. What I'm going to say comes from my heart and was written by me, not my union bosses, as this government likes to refer to the officials I have democratically elected to represent me. You need to hear from more teachers. These hearings must be extended.

I am appalled by the very fact that Bill 74 was ever written. This bill is undemocratic, it is unnecessary and it serves only to inflict more damage on our education system.

To legislate co-instructional duties for teachers in this bill is totally unnecessary. Thousands of teachers in Ontario volunteer their time and expertise to provide these activities for our students every day. The co-instructional aspects of Bill 74 are a direct result of one region's voluntary actions due to a labour-management dispute which this government initiated. Mrs Ecker, as education minister, and Mr Harris, as a former teacher, should know that when you want to encourage positive behaviour or a job well done, you openly praise that behaviour in order for it to catch on.

For example, when I see a student working diligently on a challenging problem in my class, I say to the student for the whole class to hear: "Wow, Karen, excellent work. You're really persevering on that task. Way to go." Suddenly, all 29 of my other students are re-energized and follow Karen's example. Major corporations do the same: Employee of the Month awards are handed out, monetary and material bonuses are given for jobs well done that may or may not be beyond job description and exceptional work by employees is recognized in company newsletters. Imagine what would have happened in our schools, not just in Mrs Ecker's riding but across Ontario, if the money spent on promoting this bill through expensive radio ads was used to praise teachers for the fabulous voluntary extracurricular activities they are currently providing.

It is now after 4 pm, when most schools have ended for the day. But I assure you that as I speak, thousands of teachers in Ontario are still hard at work. Many are conducting band practices, coaching sports teams, directing musicals, driving students to track and field meets, are on overnight trips hours from their homes, organizing fundraising for textbooks and library materials, maintaining computer labs, arranging guest speakers-this list goes on and on. These activities are voluntarily provided by teachers, despite the fact that we are implementing a new curriculum-for which little professional development was given by this government-planning lessons for reading, writing, oral and visual communication, five strands of math, social studies, science and technology, visual arts, music, dance and drama, physical education and French. They are also assessing and evaluating students on all these subjects and writing extensive report cards for each student. They are putting up bulletin boards, writing newsletters to parents, meeting with school councils and phoning and meeting with parents to discuss concerns.

Why then, with such a busy schedule, which begins for me at 7:30 in the morning and ends, on average, at 10 or 11 at night, do teachers volunteer their time for extracurricular activities? Because teachers are giving people. We often give more to our students than we give to our own families and to ourselves. We want to pass on the passion we have for our own interests and hobbies. We want to pass on the love we have for music or the enthusiasm we have for sports.

Take a moment and think back to your own wonderful experiences in education. For most of you, the first thought in your mind is of a teacher who was passionate about something and passed it on to you. Passion cannot be legislated. What will be the first memory of today's Ontario students in the future? If Bill 74 is not withdrawn, I can guarantee you that it will not be of that excited gymnastics coach or computer club teacher. Bill 74 is a slam in the stomachs of Ontario teachers. It has certainly knocked the wind out of me. It is demeaning and totally unnecessary.

My Conservative MPP, Mr Wayne Wettlaufer, agrees that there are no problems with extracurriculars in the Waterloo region or in any riding except Mrs Ecker's. Then why Bill 74? Here is my reasoning: This government wants to change the rights of Ontario's citizens for good. They want servitude.

1620

Bill 74 states:

"The framework shall address assignment of duties,

"(a) on school days and on days during the school year that are not school days;

"(b) during any part of any day during the school year;

"(c) on school premises and elsewhere."

This means that teachers can be commanded to work seven days a week, 24 hours a day, hours away from their homes and families. As Ontario citizens, teachers have the right to fair and reasonable working conditions, not slave labour. Bill 74 strips teachers of the right to spend time with their families, to pursue personal activities and maintain healthy lifestyles. No Ontario citizen, no human, should be stripped of these rights. Without the withdrawal of Bill 74, all Ontario workers must be prepared for the government to legislate servitude.

Teachers are not guaranteed daily and weekly limits on hours of work as set in Ontario's Employment Standards Act. This bill ensures that teachers no longer have control over their working conditions, which are currently fairly negotiated in our collective agreements. This legislation controls teachers' working conditions and prevents us from negotiating them in our collective agreements.

This government wants centralized power. This bill is not simply an attack on teachers; it is an attack on all Ontario workers. If the government can wield its power to override teachers' collective agreements for the second time, who will they conquer next?

Bill 74 takes the power from the citizens who have elected trustees and from the trustees themselves. Bill 74 dictates that trustees must follow direct orders from Queen's Park regardless of their constituents' needs. Punishments for disobeying the minister's and Premier's orders are outlined in Bill 74: a fine of 100% of their salary, dismissal and prevention from holding public office for five years. If this bill passes, the grade 5 "Aspects of Government" unit in the social studies curriculum will need to be rewritten. Ontario students will need to learn that they live in a dictatorship, not a democracy.

As an Ontario citizen, and hopefully a parent one day, I don't want to have angry, exhausted and beaten-down teachers in front of our children. I want vibrant, enthusiastic, intelligent and caring teachers, who want to give all of their energy to their students. I want them to have the energy and desire to run fabulous extracurricular activities voluntarily. This will not happen if Bill 74 passes third reading.

Canadians are already suffering a brain drain to the United States and many other countries. The teaching profession is not unaffected. We need the smartest, most energetic, most dedicated people to teach our children. Legislating the labour conditions currently in Bill 74 will guarantee that young people will not choose teaching as a profession. Many young teachers are actually leaving Ontario for the United States, Japan and Britain, and many are leaving the profession altogether.

Providing a quality education is the most important legacy we can give our children and the best reassurance for a prosperous future. Bill 74 has nothing to do with improving Ontario's education system and enhancing students' school experience, as it claims. Education cannot be improved by centralizing power, stripping away at collective agreements and legislating co-instructional duties for teachers. It is not too late to save Ontario's education system. The first step is the withdrawal of Bill 74.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Johnston. Thank you for making the trip all the way down to Ottawa. Your timing was perfect.

GORDON HOUGH

The Acting Chair: That takes us to Mr Gordon Hough, our next presenter. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. We have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Gordon Hough: Good afternoon. You've heard a variety of excellent presentations this afternoon, and I can only promise to add to the variety; I'm not sure about the excellence. My name is Gord Hough. I'm a teacher at Vanier public school in Brockville. I've been a classroom teacher for 27 years. I'm currently teaching 25 seven- and eight-year-olds in a grade 2 classroom. I can empathize with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly when we have the same problems in keeping order.

Mr McGuinty: But your group is better behaved.

Mr Hough: Well, I don't have the problems with truancy that he does.

I'd like to change the "I" to "we" here, as a last-minute replacement. Several of the members of our staff applied to come here, and one of them won the lottery, but she decided she couldn't do it at the last minute, and I understand now why she did that. It's just a little bit intimidating.

I would like to say that I represent the staff of 20 teachers that we have at Vanier school, and I would like to point out the atmosphere in which Bill 74 came down to us. Our school is marking its 25th anniversary. It's an open-concept school, which is different from a lot of the schools in our board in that all of the classrooms are arranged around a central library and computer centre. Pre-Bill 104, which amalgamated four boards into one, and Bill 160, we were a leader in our board in providing innovative programs incorporating the teacher-librarian and the computer teacher in a lot of the activities that all the children did. We were known in our board at that time-Leeds and Grenville-for doing a lot of interesting and different things with the children.

Since the passage of Bill 104, as I mentioned, our school has become just another site, one of the 100 spread from Pakenham to Cornwall and from Gananoque to Hawkesbury. We have a rather large area to cover. I make that point because I think we're dealing with that loss of community and we're working hard to communicate and get best practices known in our new board of Upper Canada. So I think we are dealing with that.

We're having difficulty dealing with the loss of staff, however, at our school. Over the past two years, we have lost a total of two teaching positions, which does not sound like a great deal, but in a staff of 20 it has a big impact.

By applying the government formula, our classes fit into the prescribed 25-to-one rather nicely. They range from 27 in intermediate to 22 in the primary grades. We have staff for French. We have been cut in special ed, and that's unfortunate because we are trying to implement an early literacy plan, trying to get all children by the time they reach grade 3 to be reading at their grade level. We're trying to implement that with fewer staff.

We don't have the staff now to provide library and computer support. It's just not there. The flexibility isn't there in the funding formula to do that. We could, of course, increase class sizes. We could go above the 25-to-one in the classes and then that would provide the flexibility, but again, we would have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Someone has to sacrifice to provide the service. We can't provide the level of service that we used to and that we were known to and that was expected from our school. But I think we can handle that. I think we can work through that and we can find ways to solve that.

1630

We have an active school committee and council. Unfortunately, they spend most of their time discussing and being involved in fundraising. Educational issues do not get much of the agenda. We have many parent volunteers whom we're becoming more reliant on. Parent volunteers are wonderful, but we're coming to rely on them more and more. The fact that they're volunteers means you can't always count on them being there and it gets tough sometimes.

We are implementing the new curriculum, despite the fact that we only have four PA days. That means that interviews, planning, training, all of that happens after school and over the summer. But it is happening. We're able to handle that.

We are administering the grade 3 and the grade 6 tests. I think Vanier school is doing very well in that regard, in terms of the levels being up. The only ones who seem to be suffering are some of the children who can't seem to handle the pressure that this testing environment creates for them.

We're finally getting comfortable with the new standardized computerized report cards, despite the fact that they have been changed a few times. We're finally coming to grips with how to deal with a teacher who manages to lose all of their report cards in a single keystroke. We are learning to handle that.

We are providing as many extracurricular activities as we can. We recently sent out a school report card to parents, and it indicated that parents were satisfied with the level of extracurricular activities.

To sum up and to get to the point-I had an example. I said we're busier than the Minister of the Environment during question period. I don't know if that's appropriate with Mr McGuinty here. We are busy, and we feel much under attack. To our staff, Bill 74 is perceived as unnecessary, unwarranted and overkill. It seems that it's aimed at solving problems in Windsor and Essex and Durham.

In teaching grade 2, I like to make pictures with words, and I enjoy reading. I remember reading coverage of the hearings in Barrie. One gentleman said it's akin to killing a fly with a shotgun. I do remember that. That's the perception of Bill 74. I had an example that was much more graphic. I thought it was akin to removing a wart with a chainsaw-very effective but a lot of collateral damage.

If I applied the principles of Bill 74 to my classroom, when one of my children didn't complete his work on time, I would have to keep the whole class after school. Parents-the trustees in this case-would justifiably be upset about that, but they couldn't appeal or object because they would be subject to a $5,000 fine and loss of their parenting rights for the next five years. That may be an overly simplistic example, but I thought it was worth a try.

As a staff, we feel strongly that this bill is fundamentally wrong and an unnecessary intrusion at this time. The teachers on our staff, when we discuss this, are unanimous in saying that all we want to do is be allowed to do our job. I think most of them are happy doing that. It is becoming more difficult, but we want to be able to just do our job.

We welcomed the EIC recommendation that there be a period of stability, a time that we could implement the many changes in education that have come upon us in the last few years. I urge you, with whatever power you may have, to please find a way to back off on this bill, find another way to resolve the issues. Before battle lines are drawn or the lines are drawn in the sand, find some way that we can all get out of this with some dignity. I would really rather spend my summer preparing for my class in September than preparing for a lot of the alternatives that I've heard discussed by my colleagues. Thank you very much for allowing me to do this.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Hough, and you're bang on your 10 minutes. We appreciate your driving up to give us your views here this afternoon.

LISA CHOLOWSKI
SALLY DEWEY

The Acting Chair: Our next presentation is Ms Sally Dewey.

Ms Sally Dewey: And Lisa Cholowski.

The Acting Chair: You're both welcome to the committee. Come on up. We have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Ms Lisa Cholowski: I'll be speaking first. Honourable members and Chair, I would like to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak against Bill 74. My name is Lisa Cholowski. I am a classroom teacher at North Dundas District High School. I'm a former graduate of the school and became a teacher because of outstanding teachers I had. I am a graduate decorator, I'm a dance supervisor, I'm a hall supervisor, I'm a carnival day supervisor and I am a staff adviser for the student newspaper, the Devil's Advocate. I too am passionate about teaching.

As a result of Bill 74, I have been declared surplus. By instructing principals to schedule an extra course, the school board has been forced to reduce the number of teachers by 10%. Eighty-four teachers like myself will not be in the classroom this September.

Bill 74 proposes to increase education quality and enhance students' school experience. However, having reviewed the bill's content and compared the legislation to the current system in place, I cannot see that it will mean any real improvement to the quality of education. In fact, I see the opposite.

I currently teach three classes-a total of 65 students. Twenty-five of those students are in my grade 9 academic English class. It is a new ministry course designed to provide students with a solid foundation in reading, writing and grammar. Students learn to write essays, read both a Shakespeare play and a novel, and as well complete weekly writing assignments. I devote an average of three hours a day to planning and marking the work generated from 25 enthusiastic, eager students. Add to this the preparation and marking of two other equally demanding courses and you will see why I call it a labour of love. Many evenings I would love to relax but I know my students are counting on me. Besides class work, I regularly contact parents and help students in need. Each day is full and each day is different. I cannot attach a number value to the amount of time I devote to teaching.

Bill 74 mandates the addition of another class. I question whether this adds to the quality of education. How can less time to prepare, less time to help students and less time to mark the work the students do equate to quality? In my opinion, I would not be able to provide the students under my care with the energy if I was required to teach four classes and then coordinate extracurricular activities. And I say "if" because, as I mentioned, I am surplus.

I take the liberty of speaking on behalf of the other 84 surplus teachers when I urge you to defeat Bill74. Allow us to stay in the classroom. Allow us to continue to devote all of our energies willingly to a profession we love. Thank you.

Ms Sally Dewey: My name is Sally Dewey. I also am a classroom teacher in the Upper Canada District School Board and I'm here to say that I feel Bill 74 is against democracy as well as quality education.

I'd like to take issue with one comment that the Honourable Ms Ecker made on Monday in the Legislature, indicating that this legislation recognizes that teachers do much more than teach in the classroom. Nowhere in this bill does it seem to me there is mention of the fact that teachers already put in a staggering number of hours preparing classes, marking assignments and writing reports. Nowhere in it is there mention of the fact that teachers already volunteer their time organizing clubs and events for which the government provides absolutely no funding. Nowhere in it is there recognition of what a teacher does. There is a great deal in it, however, about how teachers are now going to be forced to do these things 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You've heard it many times today.

1640

There is a great deal in it about how board members and trustees will be punished if they even vote-and it does say "vote"-for a policy which is against the designs of the government. Not only will locally elected trustees be fined the total amount of their honoraria, not only will they be removed from their elected positions, but they will also be barred from running for any municipal office for five years, and that's just for voting for local concerns, as any good elected official would.

There is a great deal in it also about how principals and boards can choose to assign any amount of duties to a teacher regardless of their contract or their rights as employees, because-and this is from the bill-subsection 86(1) of the Labour Relations Act does not apply to prevent the board from altering terms and conditions of employment or rights, privileges or duties of the employees.

You cannot say to me that a principal or a school board won't insist on infringing on my right to my personal time. Already our school board is breaking our legally negotiated contract by assigning us an extra class come September. This is why my colleague does not have a job this fall. Already our board is assigning what is the regular number of courses to teachers who are in positions of added responsibility-our former department heads. However, this lessened load is also accompanied by lessened pay, because the maximum is now based on the 6.67 number. Now we have teachers who are leaders and mentors to staff and students in our schools being docked pay for taking on the job of implementing the curriculum. If the board is willing to break the law now, with a mere sniff of this bill coming its way, what do you think it will be willing to do when this bill has been passed?

Mike Harris does not want teachers to spend more time with students. He wants us to spend less time with more students so he can eliminate 10% of the teachers in Ontario and save money. The students will not benefit in this situation. If he really cared about our students' education, he would have applauded the timetabling of remedial sessions in boards like Thomas Valley and York Region.

I plead with you: Please, withdraw this bill. This is not about making teachers coach a team. I know that if this bill is passed, I am one of many teachers who will no longer be teaching in an Ontario school in September, not because I will be surplus, like my colleague, but because I cannot in good conscience teach in Ontario if this legislation is passed.

I would like to conclude by submitting a petition to Mr McGuinty. Would you please present this in the House? "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold more than the current one and a half days of public hearings on Bill 74."

The Acting Chair: Thank you both very much. We appreciate you coming forward.

ROB UMPHERSON
MARY LYNN PAULL

The Acting Chair: Our next presentation will be from Mary Lynn Paull.

Ms Mary Lynn Paull: And Rob Umpherson as well, Mr Chair.

The Acting Chair: Perhaps you can introduce your colleague for the purpose of Hansard.

Ms Paull: This is Rob Umpherson.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you for joining us here this afternoon. We have 10 minutes for you to divide as you see fit.

Ms Paull: Rob is going to begin.

Mr Rob Umpherson: Good afternoon. My name is Rob Umpherson and I am from Perth. I am here today to voice my opposition to Bill 74, not because it's unfair and not because it will make the extracurricular activities I already do mandatory. The extracurricular focus, to me, is just a diversion. I am here today because Bill 74 is unjust and it is wrong.

Bill 74 has been masterfully written. It is the epitome of control.

Control issue 1: The definition of co-instructional activities is hazily worded. It includes lists of everything we have been doing for years, but it's not limited to those. It is a bottomless pit.

Control item 2 you have heard numerous times: Any time of any day throughout the school year.

Item 3 gets more severe: " ... no matter relating to co-instructional activities shall be the subject of collective bargaining nor come within the jurisdiction of an arbitrator or an arbitration board."

Finally, control item 4: Both the Minister of Education and the Lieutenant Governor in Council have exclusive jurisdictions which are not "open to question or review in any proceeding or by any court." What I would like to know is, when did the courts of Ontario close to justice? Have I missed something?

I recently sent a letter to the editor of my local newspaper and to Mr McGuinty's office. My father was not pleased with me. He told me that the unions were brainwashing me, that they were fearmongering. He assured me that even though the bill seemed harsh, the Regulations Act would ensure that the bill was enacted fairly. Though it did little to comfort me, it got me thinking.

After acquiring so much power through Bill 160, and more control if Bill 74 passes, this government still seems rushed. Then I saw it, right in this bill, a section that states, "The Regulations Act does not apply to anything done under any provision of this part, with the exception of ..." which happens to pertain to the minister's right to make regulations respecting the making and filing of complaints.

What does the bill have? This bill has a framework which will place teachers on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 10 months a year. That you've heard. It has provisions to permit residents of a community to "exercise the rights of the board." I know what I think that means but I'll leave that up to you.

It even has conditions which allow the Minister of Education to take control of the operation of the school board if, " in her opinion ... the board is acting contrary to her wishes, orders," or whatever.

Accountability: I went to my Funk and Wagnalls dictionary to double-check this. To be accountable means "to be liable to be called upon to explain, to be responsible." I have always been accountable to explain my course content, the sequence, the teaching style and evaluation methods. Unfortunately, this government seems to be using the term "accountability" to mean "satisfying whims." Shouldn't accountability be a two-way street? Shouldn't the parents and the students share, along with the teacher, in this accountability for learning?

I can't help but feel that this bill is going to promote a belief that educators have now added "social convenor" to their job description. A student of mine who participated in cross-country in the fall, track in the spring, had the lead in the school musical, participated in a community theatre production last fall-which was also directed by two teachers-is on student council and is currently playing noontime soccer had the audacity, when a fellow student asked her why our school wasn't having a fun fair when the school next door was, to say, "The teachers won't do it." How can we draw a line between professional obligations and servitude?

Our province is not perfect. I know that. However, I fail to see how this bill will bring improvements to education or to accountability. I see a bill that controls unjustly. I see a bill that has taken power away from the courts and from our elected community representatives. I don't know of any civilized country that puts the power of governing officials above that of the courts. I don't want a government that decrees that its decisions are not open to question or discussion and are not within the jurisdiction of any court. If the Minister of Education was indeed telling the truth when she said that this bill was written simply to ensure that extracurricular activities could not be withdrawn during contract negotiations, then she will withdraw Bill 74 and she will replace it with a simple amendment to the existing Education Act.

That concludes my part. Mary Lynn?

Ms Mary Lynn Paull: Hi. I'm Mary Lynn Paull. I teach grade 3 in Perth. I am also the mother of a three-year-old son. I have taught in both the day care system and the education system.

Trust, respect and a sense of professionalism are just three of the many elements being misused under Bill 74. Trustees, teachers and many others who are involved in the education system are greatly outraged by the possible effects of this bill. All who work with children or for children realize the rigorous demands of being involved in education. They willingly accept these demands and challenges because they believe children have the right to a decent education, which includes in-class and out-of-class activities. They work towards fulfilling this belief with determination and dedication and they voluntarily work towards bettering our system of education. This bill is telling these dedicated souls that this is just not enough and that the powers that be are willing to bypass at all costs to force them to do even more.

I personally can't see how much more time can be used unless this bill is also going to create more hours in the day or more days in the week. These professionals are already making high sacrifices to ensure the quality of our system. I am merely one teacher in thousands, but for me, the passing of this bill would have a traumatic effect on myself and my three-year-old son.

First of all, my time as a parent is already significantly reduced by my profession. My son suffers a great deal from the hours I must keep in order to provide my students and their parents with quality education. The enforcement of this bill would only serve to increase this.

Secondly, he also will be entering school in the fall, and if I must adhere to the strict guidelines of this bill I will not be able to do my duty as a parent in the education system. The home-school connection is essential to the success of a child's education and has been included in our education curriculum. In the beginning of each of the documents, teachers are strongly urged to get parents as part of this system. How can I do both? How can I be a parent and be part of that system, as well as teach my students and adhere to the guidelines?

Thirdly, I am, by my own choice, a single mom, so who will care for my child while I am away enriching my school's extracurricular program during evenings and weekends? These costs do not fall under regular child care subsidy regulations, not to mention my absence from my child's life.

1650

Please don't take this as a case of personal whining, because I am only trying to demonstrate how this bill will affect two people of many.

We are indeed professionals, just as the politicians who wish to pass this bill are. We also deserve to be respected and trusted, as they wished to be when they were elected. However, this bill puts forth a strong message that we are not to be trusted. It says the education community cannot enrich the lives of students without being legislated to do so. We are doing this already. In fact, we are doing this before, after and during school, and in our communities.

Lastly, this bill also attacks the collective agreements. Teachers and many others, including government officials, have worked diligently to create these documents. They are important to the health and welfare of educational professionals as well as parents and students. Everyone needs to be protected from power-hungry individuals. These agreements ensure the equality and rights of all involved. If such a bill is passed and these collective agreements are thrown to the wayside, we will enter a sweatshop mentality, where individual rights are continually and horrifically abused.

I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak.

The Chair: You've just taken the full 10 minutes. Thank you both for coming this afternoon.

PAUL BULLOCK

The Chair: The final speaker this afternoon is Mr Paul Bullock. Good afternoon, Mr Bullock.

Mr Paul Bullock: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak about Bill 74. I'm a graduate engineer and I have spent time in industry, so I bring a slightly different perspective. I do today, though, feel comfortable just talking as a classroom teacher. I don't feel comfortable talking about the politics involved with this bill, but I'd like to share with you the impact it will have on me in the classroom. I'd like to just take a minute to walk through my day.

I arrive at school at 7:45 and teach until 2:20, but I never leave the building until at least 4:30. That time is spent with students, getting things ready for the following day, repairing equipment. After supper, I spend at least two and a half hours in lesson preparations for the next day. When I add up the hours during the week, I conservatively say at least 50 hours; my wife, sitting back here, says that's too conservative, that it's usually a lot more hours than that. I haven't mentioned that we spend many hours on committees and helping students outside of school hours, such as with Skills Canada trips. In addition, every year I take a practising student teacher from Queen's University, and that involves more work. But I feel, as a professional, that someone helped me when I started teaching, so I like to help them. I think you can believe me when I say that every night I go home tired.

In addition, I've had the privilege of presenting two workshops this spring to help other teachers, because I have an innovative way of dealing with certain courses. In the summer, I teach additional basic qualifications at Queen's University to teachers, and this August I've signed up for a workshop to help me teach computer engineering. When you look at it, it's a 12-month job.

When I deal with teachers from Queen's University entering the profession, I explain to them that it's not a job, it's really a way of life-and it's a way of life that I enjoy. I think spending all those hours is just typical with teachers.

Next year, you're asking me to teach at least a half-credit extra. You're asking me to arrange weekly TAP, teacher assistance program, meetings with students. You're asking me to use the new assessment and evaluation procedures in grade 10. You're asking me to use the new report card, which I support because it's anecdotal, but it takes a lot of extra hours. I believe in it, but again, it is a lot of extra work. You also ask me to face the possibility of being assigned a co-instructional activity or an activity outside of school hours.

The net result? I have to survive in this job, and that means that I will probably mark fewer assignments. I'll have to give fewer tests and other forms of evaluation. Obviously, I'll have less time to spend preparing lessons. I expect at night to be more tired. We deal with a lot of troubled kids, and you'll have less capacity to deal with them. I don't look forward to having the privilege of being able to suspend a student for a day, but that's in the works too. I feel that I may have to decline taking on a student teacher next year. Again, we have to survive in this job.

I think everyone in this room knows who the real losers are with Bill 74: partially the teachers, but really it's the students who lose.

I would have more respect for this government if they would tell the public the truth, and that is that this legislation is meant to save money, not create a better environment for learning. We all know next year there will be fewer teachers with more students.

On a personal basis, I have a son in third-year university and a daughter starting her first. My daughter, Jennifer, talked about being a teacher all through high school. She lives with a teacher so she knows the reality, and with this new legislation that's no longer in the cards. The option has been removed. I ask you, what bright young person would want to enter a profession with such a negative working environment? I look at industry; I look at how they encourage people. I now look at education and it seems all there are, are roadblocks. This bill, in my mind, doesn't solve problems, it just creates new ones.

Bill 74 does not make common sense. I have a distinct feeling that, in your heart, everyone around this table knows this. What I ask is that you start over, involve the public, involve the students, involve the trustees, involve the administration and involve the teachers. I have not been a part of this bill. I don't think any of the people I deal with have. Please involve the players in the process of change. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bullock. There is about three minutes for questions, if you're prepared to entertain them. Is Mr Marchese gone?

Mr Gilchrist: He asked me to indicate, if it came up, that both of his daughters are celebrating their birthdays today and unfortunately he is on a flight that prompted him to leave just a few minutes ago. He apologizes for having to scoot out.

The Chair: Does a government member wish to ask a question?

Mr Beaubien: I have a question. I've sat on the hearings all day today and Wednesday morning. We keep hearing about Bill 160, Bill 104, Bill 74. During the discussion on Bill 160, 10,000 teachers were going to lose their jobs. Today I hear from some people that there's a lack of teachers, that some teachers are going to leave the profession. Yet I attended a graduation two weeks ago at Lakehead University, where my daughter just happened to graduate. The graduating class in the education field this year was two and a half times what it was the previous year. It will continue doing that this year, and there are other facilities doing this across the province.

Could you clarify the situation? I haven't seen the 10,000 teachers lose their jobs. Yes, there might be a shortage of teachers, I agree. I'm very confused with the message that I'm getting from the profession at this point in time, but especially over the past three years.

Mr Bullock: I would answer that by saying that in the last couple of years, sure the job has got a little bit harder, but I don't think we've seen the impact of this Bill 74. If morale goes down, why would you want to enter the profession? We seem to be under a siege mentality. I'm an upbeat person, I want to be positive with the students, but I look at the siege mentality and I look around at my colleagues, and they're questioning, "Why did I enter this profession?" It may be that someone stays in teaching five years, gets burned out, then leaves. I've enjoyed it-I've been teaching for over 20 years-but I wonder. I'm looking forward just to making it through with these new changes. We had teachers on our staff who had to teach four out of four for a semester. Some of my colleagues tell me they will not do six and a half. They will take less pay and do six, because it is just too hard on you physically. The stress you take is not a physical one, it's mental. You're performing with students all the time and they bring their problems to the classroom. So I think you may have a much bigger turnover, and again you've lost some expertise. I don't know if I've answered you, but I really appreciate your question.

The Chair: There's about one minute, Mr Kennedy.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you very much, Mr Bullock, for your presentation. It was very effective in letting us know what lives we're affecting. That's what this bill is supposed to be about. I wish we had more time to delve a bit. I'm happy to satisfy Mr Beaubien about the numbers: We have lost about 6,500 or 7,000 teachers. Boards have been creative. In about 70 out of 72 boards, they got creative about ways to have more teachers working, and that too is what this bill is about. Bill 74 would then bring about some of the further predictions, which is fewer teachers. It's the government insisting on the fewer teachers without looking at the real environment that it would create, the learning environment. We've heard all through today, and I appreciate in your, I think, very credible way of finishing off for us, that there is no way for us as legislators to push a button in a plush chair in Queen's Park and make that happen. Speaking for myself, we should feel appropriately helpless about what we can actually do to influence that environment. We can put the right people together, hopefully in the right conditions, and then the learning will take place. If we take a different view of that, I think we're kidding ourselves.

Mr Bullock: Absolutely. Morale you can't legislate.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you very much for your presentation. Thanks to everyone today.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bullock.

I'd like to thank all of you for your patience this afternoon and for taking the opportunity to come and address us. This meeting is adjourned until 3:30 of the clock on Monday, when committee will be giving clause-by-clause consideration to the bill. Thank you for coming this afternoon.

The committee adjourned at 1703.