ORDERS OF THE DAY
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT
(LEARNING TO AGE 18), 2006 /
LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT
LA LOI SUR L'EDUCATION
(APPRENTISSAGE JUSQU'À L'ÂGE
DE 18 ANS)
Resuming the debate adjourned on November 29, 2006, on the motion for third reading of Bill 52, An Act to amend the Education Act respecting pupil learning to the age of 18 and equivalent learning / Projet de loi 52, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation concernant l'apprentissage des élèves jusqu'à l'âge de 18 ans et l'apprentissage équivalent.
New Democrats have opposed this bill from the very beginning.
Bill 52 requires students to stay until age 18. If they haven't finished their grade 12 degree, they won't be able to leave, they're going to have to stay until age 18. We say that government -- particularly the Liberal government -- does things that are politically expedient but often are not pedagogically effective, and this is one such bill.
While it is a laudable goal to say students should stay until age 18 -- and who wouldn't want any student to stay until age 18, or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 26, or even later than that? Which parent wouldn't want their children to stay as long as they could in high school, of course, and then beyond, in college and university? Who wouldn't? There might be some, but my suspicion is that parents want their kids to stay in school. So the government presents it as if somehow the opposition that opposes this is giving up on students while, oh, no, they are not giving up on these students. They've got this creative law, Bill 52, that will address the problems that we have had in terms of dropouts, with students at risk in particular, for a long time.
I want to do a little review of the bill because those of you who are watching often don't get a complete sense of what we're talking about. This bill originally said, "We're going to force students to stay until age 18," unless of course they got their grade 12 degree by age 16, and, "We're going to penalize them in a variety of ways if they don't do what the bill proposes." They were going to force students to lose their licence if they left school without having their degree. They were not going to be able to get their licence unless they did their degree. That was the first fear and threat that they imposed and presented in the original bill.
They then said to parents, "If you knowingly keep your child out of school, we're going to fine you 1,000 bucks." That jumped from the $200 that the Tories had to $1,000, as proposed by the original bill of the Liberal Party. It was intended to get tough, even on parents, and it was going to fine students, up from the $200 to $1,000, because they felt that they needed to be tough on students as well. Then they were going to get tough with employers. If employers knowingly hired someone who should have been in school, they were going to get a fine, up from 200 bucks under the Tories to 1,000 under the Liberals.
We thought, "This sounds pretty dumb." Why would you punish students, especially students who are having a difficult time in school, with a possible fine of 1,000 bucks? Why would you, of all people, fine parents? I suspect most parents want their kids to go to school. You then put a proposal to suggest that they would be fined 1,000 bucks if they somehow knowingly kept their kids away from school. And why would you punish employers? The idea was, of course, that this government was so serious about keeping kids in school that they were willing to accept any measure that would keep them in the school system. We said then that it was dumb; we say it now. People said in the hearings that it was a dumb idea. To be fair, the government listened to that.
I propose to you that the government never really intended for that to be the object of the government's interest. In my view, it was a decoy. It was a distraction. It was a red herring. The government really didn't care about the issue of the fine, and the government really didn't care about the issue of the driver's licence. What they really cared about was the third part of this bill, which is the equivalent learning program.
I know that the parliamentary assistant had some concerns about this bill, to be sure. But I am not sure that he and others were quite aware of what the former minister, Monsieur Kennedy, had in mind when he introduced it. The real objective of this bill has to do with equivalent learning programs, of which I will speak much more as I get on with my discourse here on this particular issue. The point of it all is that they want to introduce these equivalent learning programs as a way of making sure that they reduce the dropout rate for students at risk in particular. The bill is about how to keep kids in school. The political motivation is how they can show that the dropout rate under the Liberals has diminished as a result of this great bill. That is really the point, and how to get to it is the equivalent learning program.
People like me attack the whole issue of students being penalized by not being able to get their licence, because so many argued, "Imagine, students who, for so many different reasons, have to drop out of school and would need to drive a car would be penalized doubly by not being able to drive a car, particularly if they are in rural or northern areas." People spoke to that. People spoke to the idea of fining parents and fining students and fining employers as being a silly idea. So the government had to listen.
But I suggest that it wasn't listening that was the issue here; the real question was the equivalent learning programs. The equivalent learning programs are programs that are offered outside of the educational system, what we and teachers are saying has to do with contracting out programs to people outside of the educational systems who are not teachers and are not intended to be teachers -- and I will show later on that the government really doesn't want them to be teachers.
What's the real issue that the government hasn't talked about? Why is it that students drop out? Surely there must be a reason. The government never assessed that particular problem. The government never spoke to why it is that students drop out. The government never once mentioned anything to do with that perhaps there are serious educational difficulties students have that the educational system never dealt with, that if you allow them to happen for a long time, become much more difficult to deal with. That's a real issue. Not once did the minister or the parliamentary assistant or any of the committee Liberal members talk about the educational difficulty that a student might be having as one of the fundamental reasons why some students, after age 16, drop out. Not once did the minister or the Liberal members of that committee talk about, perhaps, psychological problems that students might have, mental illness problems that students might have. Not once did they talk about substance abuse that might have originated in the home or the mom or dad or both and that they might have picked up as being part of that environment. Nobody talked about alcohol or sexual abuse as being things that could traumatize students to the extent that, if it's not dealt with by the age of 16, students simply want to leave the system.
Not once did the government speak about those real problems, and unless we deal with educational problems, which can be severe in many cases, unless we deal with psychological or mental illness problems and unless we deal with economic issues that some students have, particularly as it relates to poverty, we're not really dealing with the problem.
You won't be able to hold many students back at age 17 unless you've dealt with these problems. I made this point over and over again in committee, urging the government to deal with the issue of the lack of youth workers that we've had in the Ontario system, youth workers who deal with troubled students. Because of their ability to relate and to communicate to these students, they were able to hold them back. Because there was a youth worker working with either their psychological issues, mental illness issues or other economic problems they might have had, they were able to hold those students back.
Not once did I hear the government say, "We're going to deal with that." The Conservative government fired many of those youth workers, and you Liberals were going to bring them back. If you brought them back, it would indicate to me, to parents and to others that you're genuinely interested in dealing with kids at risk.
Not once did the Liberal membership of that committee talk about the technology programs that we have in our system and what to do about the fact that under the Conservative government these programs were decimated. You Liberals were interested, are interested, in bringing some of these technological, auto mechanics and aircraft programs back into our system.
We used to have a healthy system that provided alternative programs -- decimated by the Tories and attacked by M. Kennedy when he was in opposition. Yet neither he nor the current minister or this government has ever said, "We're not only going to expand those programs but update the equipment of those programs so that students have current, up-to-date equipment to be able to learn whatever trade they're getting into." I never heard one man or woman in that committee talk about these things -- not once.
We have lost industrial arts programs in the elementary schools. We used to have a lot of good programs in the elementary schools, getting students ready for programs other than academic ones so that they would have an early start at understanding that life isn't simply academic learning, but that other tactile trades lead not only to self-fulfillment but to jobs that are well-paying once they retire themselves out of the high school system, out of a college system or even out of a university system.
So I say to the government that if you want to reduce the dropout rate, bring back some of those counsellors. Bring back some of the social workers, some of the psychologists we used to have that dealt in schools, in situ, with these students. Bring them back. Bring back the youth workers. Bring back these technological programs, these trade schools that used to thrive many, many years ago.
And so the government says, "We love all of the different programs we offer. We think we have a great system." If you believe that, why is it that you are offering alternative programs, so-called "equivalent learning programs" outside of the educational system? If you are proud of your co-op programs and if you are proud of the pre-apprenticeship programs that you claim are so great, why not expand those programs? Nothing prevents you from doing that.
So you have to ask yourselves, and teachers and parents have to ask themselves:,why are they doing it? They are doing it, my friends, because they want to contract out work to non-teachers. That's what this is about. It's contracting out work to non-teachers.
The minister quotes Horace Mann when he says, "Education is the great equalizer of the conditions of man" -- and he meant that for both sexes, I'm sure. She says that Bill 52 helps us to get there. How? How does Bill 52 allow us to get there, to be the great equalizer, when all you are doing is offering some programs, which I'll of speak in a moment, that are presumably equivalent in nature, i.e., possibly as good as what we offer in the educational system? I tell you this: Education can be the great equalizer, but Bill 52 doesn't do it. So to quote some famous individual and make it appear that, through such a quote, you are actually equalizing opportunities for all students by providing alternative programs -- you're not doing it. It's just a whole lot of blah, blah, blah. That's what I am trying to do in the hour that I've got, to expose the problems as articulated by the minister.
The minister says that 30,000 students, 16- and 17-year-olds, leave high school and put themselves in a deep hole. But the minister, as I said earlier, doesn't address the reasons why they're leaving. Then the minister adds, "We're not going to give up on them." Well, neither are we. That's why we're proposing that you actually provide the services to help these students to deal with the problems they've got. If the issues are poverty, then you've got to deal with that. That's why we attacked the Liberal government when they claimed and said that they were going to get rid of the clawback of the national child benefit program; they didn't, leaving more and more parents and their children in poverty. Deal with that, because if you can deal with that, and students come to school with a little more attention given to what they're eating because they might have a couple of more bucks to buy some good, healthy things to eat, they might come to school a little bit more ready and prepared to learn. Deal with the poverty issues.
But you don't do that. You don't deal with the educational issues in a way that says to me that students who've got special needs are going to be dealt with. My colleague from Nickel Belt has been for years haranguing and attacking this government, in as aggressive a way as possible, saying that kids who have autism need help. The government claimed in opposition that they were going to do that; they get into power and they don't. So families are left to their own devices, and they do not have the money to put them in a private system that could cost anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000. So it means that students with special needs are not getting the attention they need. I tell you this: Bill 52 will not deal with the issue of autism and the issue of at-risk kids unless you provide the services to help.
You're not dealing with the issue of mental illness unless you provide services. One in five students has a mental illness, and we have decried and attacked the government on a regular basis saying that they need resources, that we need resources. Unless you deal with those issues, those kids are at risk, and your believing that providing an alternative equivalent program at age 17 is going to deal with this -- it does not, and you all know it, or at least you ought to know it. I think that if you're thinking beings, you will conclude, as I have, that that measure of an equivalent learning program -- a contracted-out program to some community service out there that will provide an equivalent program -- just won't do it. You all know it, I'm convinced of it; if you don't, it's worse. If you don't know it, I think that we lack intellectual integrity in this place.
What does the minister offer to do? She said that she took a serious look at the high school system. That's what she said. So when she said that last week, I wondered how she had looked at the system seriously, because nowhere in her comments and nowhere in this bill do I get a sense that she has studied fully the high school system.
She continues. She said she sought out top educators across the country -- indeed, the world -- and Bill 52, she argued further, comes out of academia and the front lines. Really? Which front lines are we talking about? Liberal front-bench lines? The back lines of the Liberal backbenches? Which front lines are we talking about? I'm telling you, there aren't that many teachers I know and there aren't that many academics I know -- perhaps the minister knows some academics and front-line teachers who have proposed Bill 52. But I can guarantee you, listeners and citizens, teachers are not advocating for this. They're not.
So I don't know who this minister consulted, but they're not front-line teachers, and I do not believe they are academics. I do not believe for a moment she has done a world study of this issue to conclude that Bill 52 is going to solve the problems of students at risk. So it's laughable to me when she makes this claim. It undermines her; it really does. It undermines the minister to say, "I've looked at the system thoroughly. I have scurried the world and consulted magicians, possibly, certainly academics and other front-line folks to come up with Bill 52."
Do you understand what I'm saying? They shouldn't say those things. They should be modest in their proposal. They should say, "Yeah, we think Bill 52 might do it. We're certainly trying. Yeah, it could; you never know. If we hold a couple of students back, maybe some of them will be able to take advantage of it. It might work for some of them." If you said that, then I would say, "Yeah, okay, maybe it's possible." But when you exaggerate so badly, it only speaks to the fact that this is politically expedient and not pedagogically effective.
This bill is about saying to parents who have troubled kids, "Don't worry, we'll hold them back." Well, good luck. I hope you have a lot of good reins to hold them back. After I have explained about the educational difficulties and mental illness problems or psychological problems they might have had or any kind of abuse -- substance or sexual -- you don't get rid of that with an alternative program. Sorry, you're not going to do it.
Teachers know what kinds of programs work, she said. I don't know. What are they? They're not stated. Not once in committee and not once in this House did the minister ever make reference to any particular program that works, that I'm aware of, except to say that they work. Make it so, Minister, because I just don't see it. I don't see it from a front-line perspective. I don't see it from the New Brunswick perspective, where they actually did it and it has been proven to have had no effect -- not even marginal; no effect. So as she scurried the world, including this country, to find some other province that has done this -- New Brunswick has done it, and there is no positive effect, not even marginal, on those students. Good work, Minister, you and your team.
Then she scurried the world some more. I guess there are eight or nine states where they've done this and they hold students back till age 18, and some studies show that the result has been improved by 1.2%. We create a whole system, a whole bureaucracy to improve but by a little margin, 1.2%. Why would you do that? What academics have you consulted, for God's sake? Who are the experts -- name them in this House -- who would lead you fine Liberals to conclude you're on to something? New Brunswick and eight or nine states have done it; no improvement in Canada, marginal improvement in the US. You create a bureaucracy for that? I don't know. You understand, I lose faith in some of you.
The minister goes on -- she does. I think she actually spoke for 20 or 25 minutes. She said that "students do not benefit from a one-size-fits-all education...." Remarkable. I thought, yes, that's a good point. She said that "we know that every student does not learn like every other student." Okay. Good. I think she's right.
Why, then, is she still using the one-size-fits-all funding formula? The funding formula is a one-size-fits-all formula. How could the minister say, "Well, this bill allows students to learn in different places, different environments, because one size doesn't fit all," yet continue to use a Conservative funding formula that fits and slots everybody in the same way without taking into account differences in students and boards? And why is it that she has invented another formula for special ed which is called block funding?
The government has come up with a clever way of spending less money on special education. The intensive support amount, which cost the government a great deal of money to provide the special education help -- actually brought in by the Conservative government -- was an $890-million program. The Liberals have got a clever way of cutting that cost. They have eliminated the ISA, the intensive support amount, and they're now going to give block funding to schools, meaning that every school will get money not according to their different needs, but according to the number of students who are in that school, meaning that if you've got 100 kids with special education needs in one school, they're not going to get any extra money, because the Liberal government has come up with a unique formula for special ed, and it's called block funding.
If this government, this minister, says the one-size-fits-all doesn't work and says Bill 52 deals with it, how come she's still perpetuating an unequal funding formula and has now introduced a special education funding formula through block funding that makes it even more impossible for students to get the help they need and to have education be the great equalizer that the minister speaks about? If kids don't get the special help, education cannot be the great equalizer as la ministre claims.
We've got a transportation problem where, across this big province of ours, there are different needs. The one-size-fits-all formula doesn't work. Why doesn't the minister change that? Why does she use that phrase, "one-size-fits-all," loosely and forget that she is conflicted by so many other policies where that particular formula doesn't apply?
Maintenance programs: We don't distinguish between old schools and new schools. Why doesn't she fix that? The reason I say this is because she really doesn't believe this point about the one-size-fits-all; they use it, and they hope that the citizens watching will believe it. That's why I have to point out the contradictions, so that those of you who are watching and listening can see that what they say versus what they do is inconsistent.
She continues, "This bill would allow students to mould their educational journey to their own interests and natural skills." Well, what is wrong with the alternative programs that we provide now? Why not extend the programs that we offer now to more students, and why not deal with the problems that I raised earlier on to be able to give those students those better opportunities?
The minister says, on the last page, of my two minutes, "The member for Trinity-Spadina, on the other hand, needs to go out and talk to some of the people in our schools. He needs to talk to the folks at Central Tech, which I think is in his riding. He needs to talk to the folks who know that we've had an uptake in co-op programs because students can now count two co-op credits as mandatory credits. He needs to talk to the people in the schools who understand that the programs we're putting in place are indeed the substance of this student success initiative. He needs to talk to the teachers who are very happy that we're putting student success teachers" -- and she goes on and on.
What she's saying is, she's proud of the alternative programs that she's offering in the system. Why, if you feel strongly about the great things you are doing, would you then require to provide other programs outside of the educational system by contracting out those programs to other providers, and non-teachers at that? Why would you do that?
The minister says that I should go out and walk through Central Tech. By the way, I've walked through this place most of my life, so I'm quite familiar with the programs they have there. I even did my practice teaching at Central Tech. So when the minister says that I should go there, I tell her that she should take a little walk from here to Central Tech and do a little tour of the great programs Central Tech used to offer, and still offers, and that we should increase those kinds of programs that they're offering. So on the one hand she says, "Marchese has to go and see what we're offering," and on the other hand she says, "Ah, but we need other programs outside of the education system." I don't get it. And I wonder if my good friend Jim Bradley gets it.
But more pertinent to this particular debate -- because you were a former teacher as well, and you're on the front lines of this bench, by the way. The minister was talking about the front lines earlier on, and I suspect that you, as a front-line minister and as a front-line teacher, have no knowledge of what she speaks. And if you do, you don't support her. She claims you, on the front lines, understand that we need these programs outside of the educational system. I don't believe that.
I hope that you good citizens are getting a fairly good sense of what we are talking about. OECTA, the Catholic teacher organization, and OSSTF, the public teacher federation across Ontario, have serious misgivings. The parliamentary assistant quotes from various papers that they have shown that they support the government. I am telling you that the majority of teachers have misgivings and many of the OSSTF members have misgivings, including the OECTA members.
I will read from the OECTA flyer that, yes, supports the government in so many ways. But at the end of this flyer, they say the following:
"OECTA believes that all secondary school credits must be assessed by certified teachers....
"OECTA will vigorously oppose any use of unqualified instructors in place of certified teachers and rejects any erosion of the secondary diploma."
Actually, those are the only two lines that I agree with out of this OECTA flyer.
Furthermore, because of the objections made by OECTA and OSSTF in particular, including individual teachers who came to Toronto and other hearings that we had, the government became very nervous. The then parliamentary assistant, now minister, must have realized that something had to be done to appease the teachers, to placate them somehow. So she, in the usual Liberal manner, had a meeting with them, not to console and not to placate, but to tell them that she really had some serious amendments that were going to deal with their issues. Let me tell you what they were.
First of all, the fines are gone. As I say, they were never really intended to be serious.
The issue of licensing or getting their licence is now gone except for the serious offenders and serious, serious truancy, but that issue is gone. And that, I put to you, was a red herring from the beginning, so it wasn't a big deal. I know the parliamentary assistant might disagree with me on this, but I believe that it was never intended to be serious.
What remains out of this bill is the offering of equivalent learning programs. That's all that remains. It's that small.
What the minister did to appease, placate, pretend to be listening to the federations -- this is what she did. She said that principals are now required to sign off. Once a program has been approved, the principal signs off. In my mind, as I see it, it gives the impression of legitimacy by having a principal approve it, but all it is is a stamp of approval. That's all it is. It makes it appear that principals are really actively involved in the program. Nothing of the sort. All that person is going to do, man or a woman, is a stamp of approval and it's done.
Second, the minister will now have to approve every program that's offered, every equivalent learning program that's offered, for one year. After the one year is up, member from Nickel Belt, the minister doesn't have to approve the individual programs anymore. Do you have a sense of why one year, member from Nickel Belt? Take a little guess.
The minister says, "Ontario publicly funded education will remain in public hands for the public good. Principals and teachers will remain the backbone...." I want to exfoliate that little remark, or that onion, as I often say.
These programs are being offered outside of the educational system. It's not public; it's not in public hands. It's outside of the public system, outside of the principals, except they sign off, but that's hardly a big public deal. Just to sign off doesn't make it public, for God's sake. These programs are taken out, farmed out, contracted out, so it's not in public hands. The minister likes to say it to make it appear to the OSSTF organization and the Catholic organization, OECTA, that it's still in public hands, but it isn't, you understand. It isn't. That's the brilliancy of the Liberal government: making it appear that they're doing some positive, but in reality that toolbox is empty.
Let me tell you, as I often like to say -- it's funny to say it that way. I asked Ms. Goldberg in committee, "Can I ask you, is this the section where we would know whether the programs offered would be by certified teachers, or is there another section that will deal with it later?"
Ms. Goldberg replied, "I believe that it would be in the policies, standards and guidelines that will be issued under this section."
I replied, "So what we will get, and it's not clear here today but it's clear in your mind, under paragraph i of section 3.0.1, is, `require that boards develop and offer equivalent learning opportunities to their pupils in accordance with the policies, guidelines or standards.' This is what you point to, to say that the equivalent learning programs will be provided by certified teachers."
Ms. Goldberg replied, "If that's done, it will be through those policies. I can't tell you right now what those policies -- "
I said, "I understand: `If that's done'; that's the question I'm asking you, because teachers are worried about that and so am I. You're saying, `If that is done, it's not clear that it will be so.' You're saying, `If that is done by the minister.'"
Nowhere in this bill does it require that the equivalent learning programs be taught by teachers -- nowhere. And because it is not written, it is not the intention of this government and this minister to make it so, that those programs being taught outside of the educational system be taught by teachers. I put to you, teachers and citizens, that these programs will be taught by non-teachers. Why? It's about saving money. It's all about saving money. They will not be qualified teachers. We are not certain what kinds of programs there are going to be. We are not certain of the quality, except the minister is going to sign off. Big deal, because after next year, she no longer has to sign off.
They, not being teachers, do not do a security check, as other teachers do. They've got to do a criminal check, a security check, right? These people don't have to do that. We are throwing these programs out there and we are going to hope for the best. Is this the sort of equivalent learning we can expect from the McGuinty government, sending students to learn burgerology perhaps at McDonald's or handing out credits for completing barista training at Starbucks? What can we expect of these equivalent learning programs?
Oh, to be sure, the Liberals have big ideas, because they consulted academics, experts. They scoured the world to find Bill 52. To be sure, they know what they're talking about. And to be sure, they have a fairly good sense of what programs we're talking about. We, of course, don't share that light, because they haven't shared it with us, but at some point they will. To be sure, these programs will be of high quality, so that students will be able to stay in the school system, so that the government can then say, "Lo and behold, the student dropout rate has gone down." That's what this is about: to create an image of having reduced the dropout rate. That's what all of this is about, this little part of this bill that they kept, to show that the level of dropouts has gone down. I tell you, it's not going to work. I believe 101% that it's not going to work and I believe the Liberals -- if they're following what I'm saying -- will believe the same, assuming they're paying attention. Because it won't do it.
There are many other issues that I want to talk about. There is a letter that has been sent from Hamilton-Wentworth. This is interesting because I think it speaks to many of the problems that teachers are feeling and fearing. It's the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, so when I use the acronym, you'll know.
Second, the HWDSB's board of trustees has significant concerns about equivalent learning, quality and accountability: "We realize that there are currently two credits for accreditation towards a secondary school diploma that can be earned outside the school system."
They continue: "Extending credits to other bodies outside the secondary school system causes the board of trustees some alarm. Without known criteria for recognition of what might be considered equivalent standing, the credits might not meet those requirements presently met by the secondary school or by the Royal Conservatory of Music. The purpose of the curriculum in place with the education system is to provide employees with identifiable benchmarks for learning and transparency in education.... Without these parameters, it is our opinion the proposed notion of equivalent learning will lead to educational opportunities that lack structure and rigour. Unfortunately, this aspect of the proposed legislation has the appearance that the government is comfortable outsourcing education.... How many certifications requiring even less hours of training would be bundled for credit value? What kinds of equivalent learning are going to be recognized?
"The expansion of opportunities outside of the existing system could have devastating impacts on some optional courses in schools -- music, dance, technology -- which would lessen the accessibility of a range of courses available to all students. There is the potential that school boards might lose funding as eight of 30 credits could be provided outside the school system" -- eight out of 30. "And there is the possibility that the concept of certified instructors, entrenched in the College of Teachers, could be undermined by parallel institutions with unqualified instructors setting up outside the school system to obtain equivalent credits for students.... In our opinion the best advantage for our students would be to build on these initiatives and have the means to do so with our most at-risk students."
I want to mention something else they said: "The Ministry of Education has been providing school boards, through the student success funding, the means to provide a wide range of flexible courses to meet a variety of student needs without sacrificing qualified teacher instruction or common Ontario evaluation standards. HWDSB has been experiencing tremendous success with this approach, as well as with its long-standing SALEP centre that reintegrates 80% of students back into the mainstream." Meaning that you are offering some programs that appear to be working, in the opinion of this board, and you should do more of that. What you're about to propose through Bill 52 undermines what you are currently doing.
They conclude, by saying, "Minister, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board applauds your efforts and desire to provide all secondary school students with good outcomes in preparation for a successful future." They even praise you. "We would appreciate, however, if the minister will reconsider those aspects of Bill 52 that deal with equivalent learning. HWDSB would prefer that the minister achieve these outcomes through the intent of language of the act by `building on the creativity and strength of Ontario's educational system.'"
By the way, much of this was in the preamble, which I said on the first day of the debate was the best thing in this bill -- your preamble. What this board is saying is, deal with the strengths of the system you've got and make it better. Do not provide an equivalent learning program that is at the moment vague, uncertain, that will create the possibility of providing a whole lot of programs that will take students away from the high school system and put them into another equivalent, parallel program in the private system that simply doesn't guarantee the quality that we are looking for.
I'm urging those teachers who are watching today to put pressure on this government. I do not believe for a moment that what the federations got out of this minister does anything good for you, teachers, or for the system. I don't believe it for a moment. So I urge you to meet with your MPPs, present these problems to them and tell them that you disagree profoundly with the direction in which they are going and that there are consequences for them, should they consider this. This will affect the education of those students, based on the what we suspect is not higher learning, and by doing so, you will point out to the government that you have serious concerns.
We don't know about the quality of these programs. We have no clue. There's nothing written that would allow us to feel good about these programs. If, indeed, the government will allow eight credits to be taught outside of the educational system, it undermines public education, and that should be of serious concern to all the teachers. There's still time. We've got a couple more days here of debate, and there's time for you to be able to influence this government.
Governments only respond to pressure. That is the nature of the beast. If you do not apply pressure on governments, they simply carry on doing whatever they believe is correct. In this particular case, I believe they're wrong, and unless you tell them so, they think you, the front lines, are in agreement with them. Based on my discussions with most teachers I talked to on this bill, you do not agree with this government, and unless you tell them on a face-to-face basis, nothing will happen.
We've had some good debates on this bill, but the majority of people who came in front of the committee opposed it. The only ones who supported Bill 52 were the ones who are waiting to provide programs and make some money out of this deal. Those were the only service providers who were happy. This is not to denigrate them; that's not the issue. Many of these people provide programs -- and I am certain there is a need for them -- and it's not my intention to belittle what they do, except to say that they were the only ones happy with Bill 52. The majority of other deputants, including students, and yes, mostly teachers and federations, French-speaking from the French-speaking board, and the public and the Catholic, all expressed concern, in particular about the equivalent learning programs. They all spoke to that. That's why the government has desperately tried in their amendments to make the federations feel good.
I am of the view that more and more teachers, as they know about this, will become, if not enraged, pretty angry about what they've seen with this government over this bill. We urge them to fight back. What we need is to communicate with many of you, by the way, so those of you who are watching and are teachers, just send us your e-mails so we can communicate with you. We need to tell you what we said about Bill 52. We've got it all there for you to read, so if you just send us your e-mail, we'll be able to communicate in a better way. You won't be able to get that information from the government. No, siree. They've already consulted the world, they've consulted the experts, they've already consulted academia and they've already consulted the front lines. They've already done their job. We need to do ours. Unless we work together to present a common front against this particular bill, we're going to lose and we're going to lose it strong.
We have a little bill now. It isn't much of a bill. It used to be much longer. All we have now is that the government is interested in offering equivalent learning programs by non-teachers who will not be required to do a security or criminal check.
And when the Liberals were in opposition, when the Tories introduced it, we thought it was a good idea. Why isn't it a good idea to make sure those programs that are taught will be taught by teachers who will go through a criminal check as a way of protecting our children? Why is that not good enough for this government anymore? It was good when the Tories were in power; why isn't it good today? Surely we are putting kids at risk. Young people are vulnerable. We are putting them at risk by putting them in these contracted-out programs. Surely if I believe it, many of the folks listening to the program will believe it too.
These programs are not going to be taught by teachers, correct?
Through you, Speaker, the principal doesn't provide the program; the principal just signs off.
These programs are going to be offered by non-teachers, and because they are offered by non-teachers it is a parallel system outside of the public system. It's a private system, and they will not have to go through a criminal check. That's not exaggerated.
I want, through you, Speaker, the parliamentary assistant or mon ami monsieur Colle, the Minister of Citizenship, to stand up and tell me that I am wrong and that it is indeed a requirement that those non-teachers of those programs that are going to be farmed out will be criminally inspected or checked out -- please.
So I urge the Liberal members, if they are firm in their convictions, as they appear to be, without knowing, that they read the bill. Read the bill. Consult with the parliamentary assistant. Consult with the minister. See what they know, if they know. Then come back and do a 20-minute response, two-minute, whatever you like. Do something. Do some kind of a response so that the good citizens can hear the truth coming from both of you, or all of you or however many of you.
That is what this Liberal bill is doing; that's what our government is doing. Other provinces have much better records of keeping their kids in school, and we have to get up to those standards. That's why we set the target of 85% of students staying in school by 2010-11. That would be up from 71% today.
This is extremely important. We're not putting the kids at risk. They're at risk now when they leave school. What we're doing is giving them an opportunity.
One of the programs I have worked on with Algonquin College and a couple of high schools in my area -- we haven't got a resolution. They're all wired together and Algonquin now can deliver programs in our high schools throughout the area. Somebody from high school not liking the academic stream but able to better fit into something on the technical side will be able to register at Algonquin if this goes forward, take their courses in their home school and write the exams at Algonquin. That would be really good. We'd be keeping kids in school. This is the right way to go in Ontario.
The question of the statistics on how many students actually leave the school system is subject to a great deal of interpretation. There isn't even a really good record of students when they leave school. Sometimes they drift, sometimes they come back, sometimes they're able to acquire equivalency through the GED program. So I think that when we look at this particular piece of legislation -- the government talks about providing non-teachers for particular programs and things like that. But really, the benefits of school should become obvious at a much earlier age, and that's where the effort should be made.
The government should have been dealing with the serious question of why thousands and thousands of kids want to drop out of our school system. Why? And when we get to the bottom of that, what are the supports that we need in schools to engage them again and keep them there?
I think that these kids need help with addictions, need help with mental health illness, need help dealing with sexual assault that might have happened at home, and there are no psychologists in the schools to help them deal with that, there are no social workers in the schools to help them deal with that, there are no mental health workers in the schools to help deal with that -- nada.
Anyone from the government who thinks that we will just farm out that problem to equivalent learning groups, to agencies, to organizations in the community that have none of that expertise, none of that support, that are not trained to provide that support to these students -- suddenly we're going to farm all these kids out to these agencies and they're going to be okay. What is wrong with you people? What are you thinking of?
The only way we're going to engage kids again is by dealing with the root problems of why they're leaving school in the first place. This government should be investing to have psychologists in the schools again, investing to have mental health workers in the schools again, investing to have addiction workers in the schools again, investing to have the trades and the industrial arts and those programs in the schools again. But until the government makes those investments in the public school system, we're not going to be helping these kids, and equivalent learning programs aren't going to be doing anything to change the root problems.
However, I do need to point out to those who are watching what he didn't say. He referenced the OECTA newsletter, but he left out the part where OECTA says:
"Members of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association ... applaud the plan to match individual students' strengths, interests and career goals....
"We agree that all secondary school students deserve an equal opportunity to graduate and that the government is prudent in taking steps to remove barriers that impede success for those at risk....
"The strategy has a better chance of succeeding because the government is working with all stakeholders to make the legislation relevant to students and parents...."
There are other comments as well from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation which I could reference, but I think the other thing that I need to footnote here -- because I was anxious, as one who sat on the committee and listened to the debate and participated and had some concerns; and I can assure the member that there was no fraud in that which we dealt with -- is that I waited and waited for the honourable member, on behalf of his party, to make a single amendment to Bill 52. Do you know, members of the Legislative Assembly, that the party opposite made not one single amendment? Notwithstanding all of the concerns that he's articulated, not one single amendment was made by the third party with respect to this legislation. And that's a shame, because I think the minister from Trinity-Spadina has a lot of good ideas that --
The member from Ottawa-Orléans says we're putting kids at risk by not providing Bill 52. That's not the way to do it. You're not helping those kids. The way to help the kids at risk -- these are the kids who bring social problems, poverty problems. They bring psychological problems, learning, educational problems, mental health issues. They've got substance abuse issues, sexual abuse issues. You've got to deal with that. If you don't deal with that, all this about, "We want to help the kids because we really care," is all blah, blah. You don't really mean it. Deal with that, and if you do, then you're going to get to solve the problem. And then if you bring the youth workers, it will help. Youth workers know how to work with them. If you bring better technological programs into the system, you are helping the system. Improve what you've got. Don't create a bad parallel system that's private. That's not going to do the trick.
I wanted to start out by saying that this is another promise that the government made over three years ago and that the government is keeping. Oftentimes, people like to say around here that promises have not been kept. Well, in the education area alone, I can count over 20 promises that we made, 20 commitments we made when we ran for office, that we've kept. We've made education a top priority during our tenure and have spent $8.3 billion in five years in investment in Ontario's publicly funded schools.
Class sizes: We have shrunk the sizes of the classes and put in an additional $126 million for smaller class sizes.
Peace and stability: Schools began the year in an era of peace and stability. All sorts of negotiations have taken place with the teachers, and we have, for the first time ever, contracts that run from September 2004 to August 2008.
Specialist teachers: We've funded approximately 600 additional specialist teachers. That's been put in place recently, and that's in addition to the almost 2,400 teachers funded to reduce class sizes in the primary grades.
Summer training: More than 10,000 elementary teachers took summer training and began the school year with expanded specialized training in reading, writing and math.
Student success: We've continued to invest in student success programs to improve the graduation rate and create new opportunities for all students, with some 1,900 new high school teachers over three years; 1,300 new teachers were in place in the school year; at least 800 teachers dedicated to the student success program.
We've continued to revise applied grades. The revised applied grades 9 and 10 mathematics curriculum, released in September 2005, is providing advanced opportunities for students in obtaining the number of credits needed for graduation.
Learning to 18, which is in front of us today, is a promise that we made. In December 2005, we introduced learning-to-18 legislation that, if passed, will make it mandatory for students to stay in a learning environment up to graduation or to the age of 18. The legislation that is in front of us here today is complemented by programs that provide students with more support and allow them to customize their education. Students will be able to enrol in specialist high-skill majors, earn dual credits through apprenticeship training and post-secondary courses, and take advantage of expanded co-operative education choices.
We have repair projects. Ontario public schools receive funding for badly needed repair projects, including fixing leaky roofs, replacing old boilers and installing new windows. More than 2,100 projects that started last summer have been completed or are underway, representing an investment of more than $500 million.
Libraries: All Ontario students in publicly funded schools are benefiting from new textbooks and first-time dedicated funding for school libraries. This government has provided a total of $44 million for textbooks and other learning resources to support students in the 2005-06 school year.
Per pupil funding: Recognizing their needs, the McGuinty government has increased per pupil funding by $627 for Ontario's French-language schools. Since coming to office, the government has increased funding to the French-language system by almost $140 million.
Safe schools: another promise kept. The government appointed a special safe schools action team to implement new measures to protect students. These measures include province-wide school safety audits, funding for new security devices, bullying prevention programs in all schools, bullying prevention training for principals and reviewing the Safe Schools Act.
We've also taken further steps on bullying. As part of a comprehensive bullying prevention strategy, the government has invested $23 million over three years to reduce the incidence and fundamentally change attitudes about bullying. This includes an ongoing $1-million partnership with Kids Help Phone, a new provincial registry of effective bullying prevention programs and the new mandatory bullying prevention program in every school in Ontario.
Healthier schools: another promise kept. To assist in the development of healthier lifestyle habits in our young people, the government has directed school boards and principals to provide elementary students from grades 1 to 8 with at least 20 minutes of sustained moderate to vigorous daily physical health activity each day during instruction time.
Sabrina's Law: We've enacted Sabrina's Law requiring every school board to establish and maintain an anaphylactic policy. This was done basically through my good friend Brantford MPP Dave Levac, requiring every school board to have training for school staff to deal with life-threatening allergies on a regular basis and have emergency procedures in place for anaphylactic pupils -- also another promise kept as part of this package.
Community use of schools: The government is providing $20 million to school boards to help them open up schools to non-profit community groups to use after hours and year round all across Ontario. All of us in all of our ridings have probably heard from various groups that want to use schools. We're trying to reverse what had occurred earlier prior to our being in power when school use was expensive and required payment by those who wanted to use it.
Another promise kept was literacy. Teams of experts continue to work directly with struggling schools and school boards to improve student achievement in literacy where achievement has consistently been lower than the provincial average. In 2005, more than 100 schools were provided with additional supports through the turnaround teams program. The turnaround teams are helping to raise student literacy achievement in Ontario schools.
Another promise kept: parent involvement. A new provincial parent involvement policy has been developed, making it easier for parents to participate in their children's education.
Another promise kept: graduation rates. In 2003-04, 32% of high school students were not graduating and only 54% of elementary students were meeting the standards in reading, writing and math, but progress has been made. In 2004-05, 62% of elementary students are meeting the standards and 71% of high school students are graduating. These rates continue to rise.
Professional development: In October of last year, the government announced its intention to introduce a second step in teachers' professional development by requiring that every new teacher receive the new teacher induction program in the first year of teaching. The $15-million program will be available to Ontario's approximately 10,000 new teachers each year. The program is based on the recommendations of the teacher development working table, which is a subcommittee of the education partnership table.
Finally, another promise kept: rural student success. The government has introduced a rural student success program that will improve the viability of the rural high schools, increase graduation rates and encourage more rural students to pursue post-secondary education. The new rural student success program includes a $10-million lighthouse program and a new rural experience emphasis in the curriculum and $3.5-million e-learning pilot project to increase the diversity of courses available at rural schools by providing a provincial platform to enable students to take the same course from a variety of different locations.
So you can see that there are several promises, several commitments that we made on the education front which we are fulfilling and which we will continue to fulfill in the rest of our term, in our mandate, here at Queen's Park.
Speaking specifically and directly to Bill 52, this bill here simply says that instead of dropping out at the age of 16, a student has to stay in school or get equivalent learning until age 18. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this process.
Kids will always drop out. You can go back 20 years, 40 years, 100 years, 500 years, and young people will decide, for one reason or another, that they don't want to go to school anymore. Later on in life, they may learn to regret that.
What the government is saying here today is that we want teenagers to stay in school until age 18, to spend those additional two years either in getting specialized training, if they're going to go into some technical program, or to continue their education and get the required courses, the required training that they need. I see nothing wrong with this.
I think of my previous profession, one that I still have, as a lawyer. When people used to come to me, when I had a law practice --
When I was practising, though, people would come to me and would have to sign a document and some of them couldn't sign their signature, so they had to use an X. It was sad to see that they did not have the ability to sign their signature because they did not know how to write the letters of the alphabet. These were people who were only in their 60s or 70s, and sometimes even in their 50s, who had come to Canada from foreign countries and wanted to sign a legal document but couldn't do so.
Here in this country we not only have the opportunity to go to school, but also the government directing and providing not just regular educational programs, but also equivalent learning. So if someone wants to specialize in tool and dye making or in some other kind of technical area or semi-professional area, they stay in that program and do the kind of work and the kind of learning they need to do; I see nothing wrong with this. It fits in perfectly with the other programs that I've listed earlier in making our education system the best it can possibly be.
In closing, I want to say this: In making our education system in Ontario the best that it can possibly be, it complements our health system, which is also the best it can possibly be. When you have a good education system and a good health system, I honestly think it attracts the best employment, the best employers and the best possible environment for a good economy.
We've seen Toyota wanting to locate here in Ontario, instead of going to the United States or to other provinces. We've seen other large companies deciding to open up their plants or their operations or their offices here in Ontario. That's because we have a high level of educated people and a high level of healthy people, with a health system in place that will keep them healthy and that will allow for a productive and strong workforce.
So this particular bill fits into the larger plan, which I fully support. I think the government is doing the right thing in having a strong education system and a strong health system and ultimately a strong province for all the people in Ontario.
I'm happy to support Bill 52 here today.
Fundamentally, one of the articles in the paper today outlined some of the problems with education, and not just in the auditor's report on the general neglect of children.
In all respects, I would say that all three parties, including the member from Trinity-Spadina, who spoke earlier, are passionate about education, and they see the value of it with respect to an individual achieving their full potential in life.
In fact, if you look at the title of Bill 52, you'll see that it's "Learning to Age 18." It really makes a very good sort of sound bite, if you will. But if you look at the content of the bill -- and again, I realize that it's a total of 18 pages and it was first introduced almost a year ago; in fact, December 13, 2005. It's struggling. In the public hearings many of the commenters, the stakeholders in education, were not complimentary. I shall make some of those references in my remarks when I'm speaking in just a few moments.
I think the member for Scarborough Southwest, like the rest of us, was passionate about trying to find a solution. No doubt the peace and harmony they've put in the public school system is a positive thing, and I'd be the first to agree with that. But now they're bringing in a bill that has some punitive responses instead of real solutions.
Learning to 18 means -- if you look at the preamble of the bill, you'll see that it says, "Understand the education system needs to instil in young people a lasting, positive attitude toward learning that will keep them motivated...."
Some of the actions in this bill do anything but as a positive reinforcement for the value and importance of staying in school and learning, and lifelong learning, which is really the theme today.
So it's in that regard that we have serious problems with this bill; many of the stakeholders as well. I'll be addressing some of the more substantive issues in a couple of minutes.
What the government fails to realize and fails to deal with in this bill is that kids don't drop out of school for no reason whatsoever, for fun, on a whim. I don't believe that. They drop out because there are very serious, compelling issues in their lives that need to be dealt with. Those can be issues of poverty, issues of assault at home, issues with respect to addictions, whether to drugs or alcohol, issues with respect to mental health illness. I think these are the things that drive kids to get the sense that the school and others aren't meeting their needs, and so they drop out.
I think it makes much more sense for us to have those kids in a safe learning environment, which is the schools, and actually provide them with the supports they need to deal with the root causes of why they are not engaged in the classroom. The government would have been much better making an investment in those supports, in mental health workers, in addiction counsellors, in psychologists etc. to get at the root problems, to deal with those issues, to keep those kids in school in a safe learning environment.
I chose to speak on this because this bill definitely will make a difference to the young people in my riding. We've had several pilot projects in my riding this year for young people who have dropped out of school and, believe it or not, the success of getting people back in school through those pilot programs has been great. As a result of that, I thought I'd share some of my thoughts on this particular bill.
I'm a walking example of a young man who wanted to drop out of school. As I was growing up, my first cousin was an electrician and I used to follow him around when he was doing houses in the village that I lived in, and I was really interested in becoming an electrician. At age 14, I applied to the local oil company to be an apprentice and I passed the examination, but my brother was a principal of a school at the time and he talked me out of it and kept me in high school till I finished.
Lo and behold, when I finished high school the first thing I did was enter vocational school and I went into the electrical field to become an electrician. Believe it or not, the program that I was in is no different than what the Minister of Education is proposing here, which is a joint program with industry, which is the electrical unions etc., where you go to their school but you also belong to the school system to get your secondary school diploma. That's the exact program I got into. I graduated out of it, came to Canada and here I am today, after I studied in Canada and worked for Bell Canada for many years. I would say I'm a living example of it. I believe that what the minister is doing is right because it worked for me, and I believe it will work for many in my riding. I'm looking forward to voting for this bill.
I'm pleased to rise, and I always enjoy the comments of my colleague from Scarborough Southwest, who was speaking just a few moments ago, and before that, of Mr. Marchese, the education critic for the third party.
I had the chance, if you recall, to address Bill 52 in my third reading debate comments last week. I still feel that I have the same reservations about the government's approach on education. I did note that a lot of my constituents had grave concerns about the driver's licence provision, which now, I think after a public outcry and opposition by the Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats, has been watered down. But there are a lot of questions outstanding with respect to how some of the programs operating outside the purview of the principal or the school board will be organized.
There are other adjoining issues, as I mentioned. The agreement that was forced upon school boards by then-Education Minister Kennedy has compelled a significant reduction in supervisory time. This means that the teachers are not as available as they had been before for lunchtime supervision, playground supervision, after-school supervision or on-call duties. This has meant that educational assistants who should be with special-needs children have been taken away from those duties. It imposes a new cost, as well, on the school boards, and responsibilities on the principals when they cannot find enough resources to cover those times. So I do hope that the government will listen to the advice they have heard in that respect and respond accordingly to ensure that students have the full availability of services at the schools.
From what I can read in the bill, there is liability on a parent or guardian who tries to prevent or doesn't allow a person 16 years or older to go to school. The fine is not that great; it's $200. There's also an exception to that, which is that the court may, instead of imposing the fine, require a personal bond to be placed so that the person can go to school.
The other punitive sections that I looked through speak of those who still don't want to go to school. But again, we're not putting people in jail. We're not saying, "You're 17, and you don't want to go to school. We're going to put you in jail." What we're basically saying is, "We want you to go to school and we, the government, think it's in your best interest to do so." There are a number of exceptions in this section, as well, which exempt people who cannot, or for certain reasons are unable to, go to school between the ages of 16 and 18. They are allowed to be exempt from that.
So it's a fair and balanced approach. You're never going to have a perfect system, but I think this bill just reinforces the point that education is important, and in this province we have made it a high priority. I stand here today fully supportive of Bill 52.
There are really three themes, perhaps four, that I'd like to cover in my remarks. The first has been covered by some of the previous speakers -- I think there's consistent agreement on this; the member from Trinity-Spadina and others have spoken on it. The first issue, of course, is the quality issue and the accountability issue, if you want to consider that one or two items. That is important. It's a very important part of it: the ability to achieve up to eight credits -- equivalency credits, as they call them. I will refer to that section of Bill 52 in the fullness of time.
The other part of the bill is the punitive action part, the enforcement and reprisals if non-compliance is determined. At the end of the day, I'm quite disappointed that the real role of the parent in all of this, and indeed the role of the student -- we've got to recognize the importance of young people today; 16 to 18 is certainly at a very important decision-making time in their life and there needs to be some mentoring and respect for that. But if you look at the bill -- and I apply it to my own experience -- I have to say that most of us try to validate that we have well-informed or at least strongly held views on the importance of public education, and that should be clearly on the record.
That being said, some of the comments I have from my constituents in the riding of Durham -- I digress for a moment. Just yesterday, I was very happy, because there's a page from the riding of Durham, Mackenzie Gunn, and her parents and grandparents and family friends were there, and they all appealed to me and said without any provocation that they were so impressed with the pages and the learning program and the stimulation it gave them -- there are alternative ways for people today to learn. Perhaps how someone like me learned, sitting in rows and all that -- education has to be innovative today to meet the needs of young people. The competition is basically reality television, if you want to put it that way. But I put to you that they are educated, being the parent of five children myself.
It's innovation in education that I would probably, more importantly, like to see the minister spend some time on, trying to engage those people, as she says in the preamble of the speech: "Understand the education system needs to instil in young people a lasting, positive attitude toward learning that will keep them motivated to stay in school until they graduate or turn 18," and, I would say to you, well beyond that. We live in what I'd call an age of learning and an age where it's a knowledge-based economy. Most of the commenters today -- indeed, our finance critic, Tim Hudak, often uses that response to the innovation economy. Our young people are that economy. No one should be denied the opportunity.
As I look at all of our children, I must say for the record that I spent a couple of years as a school trustee and as chair of certain committees and all of that, and have a great appreciation for the public education system. My wife, who taught for over 20 years -- let's leave it at that -- just retired from teaching this past summer and was and still is a lifelong teacher, in the fact that we had five children, one of whom is a high school teacher, did her teacher training and went to Lakehead University for her graduate degree and now is a vice-principal in a high school in London, England. She went there initially just to gain international experience in education and to further her education, but she is there today. I'd just say that all five children's success in life is attributed to the partnership in learning. It's in that vein that there is a role not just for professional educators, but for the families themselves, and indeed for the community.
I see some changes in education that are important. I'd say that the co-op experience, much like the co-op experience here with the pages, which I mentioned earlier, is real-world experience: them critically watching adults in the world of work or performance in the public sense. In my view, that experience and this innovation are completely missing under my current understanding of Bill 52. If you look at some of the sections -- I do want to stay pretty well focused on the themes I mentioned: quality, accountability and the punitive kind of actions that are implied in this bill. I would say this of the bill, as I said of the preamble, which takes about two pages of the bill: It's quite lovely language actually, if that's the appropriate word. But then you look at the rest of the bill. This thing here went out for hearings and was brought back to the House in June 2006, and it's still languishing on the order paper. Why is that? If you were to listen to some of the input that was heard during the committee, MPPs heard from representatives of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Ontario College of Teachers. The concern is that if Bill 52 is passed in its current form, it would water down the standards. There it is, by the stakeholders, the professional educators.
It goes on to say that this government is failing to consider many points, but it is the penalties for not staying in school that are of particular concern to families and indeed educators across the province. As I mentioned before, my colleague the member from Oak Ridges, Frank Klees, has said that Bill 52 is hare-brained. That may be stating it in a media-friendly word. In fact, the enforcement divisions here are a whole new regime of education bureaucrats, if you will. But I would say that education must be a lifelong process; it doesn't stop arbitrarily at any age, certainly not at 16 and certainly not at 18 as well. There must be doorways or pathways for young people that aren't perhaps traditional. I can think of a number of different experiences of young people today choosing -- they're perhaps bored of the education system. They're very bright young people who just aren't turned on and perhaps turn to other kinds of acting out. Maybe it would be better if they weren't in that particular setting, but they should be in a stimulating learning environment. That may be something they should be consulted on: "What would you like to do?" It may seem a bit progressive, but I believe that is the choice.
If I look at the work that our leader, John Tory, has done even more recently with youth at risk -- there was a report earlier on that. More recently, the report that he's just issued deals with trying to bring people into the fullness of our economy. What's the most simple theme to that? The whole educational challenge, the skills training learning that's needed and indeed deficient in this province. He makes some recommendations, working with TV Ontario and other providers, to make sure there are opportunities outside of the classroom for young people to continue to learn.
The report I'm referring to is A Time for Action. As I said before, that report by our leader, John Tory, is his reflections as a former business executive and a very widely respected community participant. He's reaching out. This report has 14 recommendations, many of which focus directly on some of the suggestions that the Minister of Education simply isn't listening to effectively.
The very first recommendation from A Time for Action is, "A new online assessment, education and testing initiative to help potential newcomers address the accreditation process...." That very assessment tool should be available to young people to determine what would inspire them to learn further, whether it's the creative arts part, whether it's the technology part -- or it's the barriers to the educational system or the predictability in the education system -- perhaps education at other times of the day. Some high schools are starting to offer night credits for full-time students. This is the innovation. He goes on to say that some of the barriers -- this is Mr. Tory's report and it's our report; I give it out to people who are wondering what are some of the innovative ideas that we have.
Number 6 is "More financial support." Students see the barrier to post-secondary or to credited learning right in the system of OSAP itself. I say that because they had the Bob Rae report, the failed Liberal leader campaign guy. It was widely supported here. It was a great report, I would say to him. They promised -- you'd recall this -- a hard cap on tuition fees. What did they do? They had the Rae report and they raised them, up to 30%. These are barriers. Children, when they're 16 and 17 and looking ahead, don't see their parents with the resources to do it. Mentally they develop barriers and it's those barriers that we should be working on.
The member from Trinity-Spadina, in his remarks, spent a fair amount of time talking about the social infrastructure for children at risk. I couldn't agree more. He speaks passionately about that, and quite knowledgeably as well about that particular topic. There's a failure here, through the hearings, over the last year of these hearings, and the stakeholders are all saying that this bill simply doesn't get it.
If I look at my own riding and what I've been hearing there -- and last week, our finance critic from Erie-Lincoln went on to talk about parent participation in this debate. In my own riding, I've had a number of e-mails, a broad number of e-mails, and I'm going to relate those to the viewers tonight because I think it's an important third-party parent perspective, non-partisan. I quite frankly will say here openly that I don't know Linda and Larry Wescott any more than that they e-mailed me. They're a home-schooled family, and this is their observation. I quote this for Hansard:
"Many home-schoolers complete their formal training before age 18. (Although they do not have a diploma that would be recognizable by the ministry.) Without being able to provide proof of attendance at a school, they will be unable to attain a driver's licence."
That has been slightly modified in the amendments that I referred to earlier, but that threat is still there to force them to comply. These are involved parents, home-schooling parents, fully engaged with the development options and potential for their children. Mr. and Mrs. Wescott also went on to say:
"We feel that laws passed in our province should protect the rights of all citizens of this province. We feel that any changes to current legislation should focus on providing support of choice to individuals as they work through their choice of secondary education and [move] on to post-secondary and post-educational destinations." Again, the point is about choice. That should be, in a free and democratic society, their right. I'm not speaking to that in any partisan way; I'm saying that has been outlawed.
If you don't think that's a pertinent comment, Mr. Speaker, in today's National Post there's quite a good article. It's in the National Post, page A16. The title is "Union Alliances Plague School Board, Trustee Says." This is directly from the article. It says, "A Toronto District School Board trustee says unions helped cause October's budget crisis and will continue to interfere with boardroom politics through their aggressive campaigns against" any "spending cuts....
"Campaigning on a promise to reject union endorsement, Mr. Goodman," who was one of the trustee candidates, "was on the receiving end of CUPE attack ads. He says he was offered union support in return for signing a pledge not to cut staff or close schools," and he refused, but he went on to win.
This is the point: the politicization of the classroom, which has many, many parents and indeed students frustrated. If you think of extracurricular activities, sports activities, being terminated because of some work-related issue, it's completely unfair to the future, the potential and the enthusiasm of those young people. That's an article worth looking at for balance.
I would say that another parent spoke to me, or actually e-mailed me: Nancy Blakely, who is from the neighbouring riding in Northumberland. She sent an e-mail that reads as follows:
"For whatever reason, it may be necessary for a grade 12 student to take a semester off.... If a student is unable to complete a semester, they should be able to work for those four or five months and at least be productive members of our society, earning money and supporting themselves while they prepare for the next semester."
Ms. Blakely also writes, "The Liberals argue that they will make exception for extraordinary circumstances. But this will take months to process, and by the time an exception is made, the youth will have lost their job. And, as the youth is almost 18 at the time that this happens, they will likely turn 18" before the government even gets the paperwork done.
It is true that they're building a whole enforcement bureaucracy tracking students' progress and behaviour. It's completely inappropriate. The resources should be with the student. That's what has been called for.
Another constituent, Carla MacDonald Everill, made this statement in an e-mail to the previous Minister of Education that she shared with me: "At what point did you decide that you had the right to discipline my children and to decide what path they wish to walk in their lives?" She also made this request, which I am pleased to relay to the government with my full support, I should say, and I quote her: "I hope that you will stop this bill and allow the families of this province to raise their own children without constant, unwarranted interference from an excessively intrusive government."
There you have it. These are unsolicited and freely submitted comments from my constituents in the riding of Durham. That is together with some of the other comments made by the member from Erie-Lincoln and the member from Oak Ridges and other speakers who are concerned that this bill fails to address quality and accountability, as well as student input.
The choices that I've referred to are sort of off base -- they're just not with it -- as if Dalton knows best. That's the kind of attitude that I've found. Perhaps "arrogant" or "self-absorbed" would be another way of expressing it, that they think that he's the education minister. Well, you'd ask yourself, how is it working? They've put a lot of money into it. I agree with that. How much has actually found its way into innovative solutions? If I look for innovative solutions, there have been none.
The member from Scarborough Southwest went on to say things that I'm sure he'll live to regret. The missing piece here is the real choice thing, and looking at barriers to destinations.
I'm also going to refer to another third party, the Globe and Mail article today talking about innovative solutions: "Six Years in Manitoba Buys a Free Education." Imagine telling a 16- or 17-year-old student, "Under this plan, a graduate of a four-year science program who paid $13,258 in tuition would get $7,955 back over a period of years. That same student would also have received $3,498 in tuition tax credits and $3,379 in education tax credits during the four years of study, for a total of $14,832 in possible earned-income credits."
There is no barrier. The student aged 16 or 17 making pathway choices now doesn't see a financial barrier to their post-secondary career learning or trade learning, to go on and find and pick and choose choices.
I'm all for the parents and the students being consulted but, more importantly, being mentored if there is weakness in the family setting for whatever reason. As the member from Trinity-Spadina said, mentorship of some sort is important: making sure that they don't get lost in the shuffle without the resources and confidence that they can do it.
I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I am convinced -- we're waiting for the comments from our education critic, the member from Oak Ridges, Frank Klees, who is passionate about education --
When you think of education, the most important thing you should think of is not the fancy, glib speeches. "Learning to 18" is a nice sort of sound bite. What are the solutions, what are the results and what are the initiatives that this government has taken? There are threats and intimidation and reduction of standards. That's what the bill actually says. It's what the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Ontario College of Teachers have said. There really isn't much room to move in this bill. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to support it.
That being said, we would agree that education is the only vertical mobility opportunity for young people. We shouldn't be creating disincentives and barriers. We should be creating hope and opportunity, and that's something that's missing from the bill. There is no plan here, as in most things. They would say almost anything -- we've seen that in the last two days in response to the auditor's report. They've neglected the children in the care of children's aid services. In fact, there are things here, in public education, where spending is somewhat not accountable. Saying one thing and doing another is not something that children should be modelling after, especially when you have a Premier who said so many things prior to the election and failed to keep those commitments. What lesson is that teaching our children?
I know that our leader, John Tory, is a person who is committed to doing what he says, and we as a caucus will support that. I've made reference to his many reports but, more importantly, the most recent reports on gateways and pathways for people. That's why I think a better alternative would be to look at our party in the next government.
Here's the other question: Do the Tories oppose the equivalent learning opportunity, which offers a parallel private educational program system? I would think that the Tories would like that. That's the only thing left in the bill. It appears to me that the Tories are opposing that, which is fascinating. I love to see the Tories in opposition -- I do -- because when they're in opposition, you just don't know where they stand, right? It's humorous; it's certainly interesting. So if you're opposing this bill still, even though the only thing this government has put into this bill is the equivalent learning program, God bless. The Tories and New Democrats are on the same page.
I'm interested to hear from the member from Durham, waiting with anxiety almost to hear what the critic for education for the Conservative Party is going to say whenever he's going to speak for the full hour. So I'm looking forward to that.
Today, at the beginning of question period, the leader of the official opposition in his questioning took leave to shine a light on the wonderful work we've done in providing new powers to the Auditor General. In his questions to the Premier, in his second or third supplementary, he found the time to stop and say, "We're thankful and we're very happy with what you've done. We think it has been a great idea." I see the same pattern existing in the comments from the member from Durham.
I recall, in my first year or two here, that the member from Trinity-Spadina was a little more objective than he seems to be in the last little while. He seems to be sliding into a bit of a pattern in the last little while that was not there at the beginning of the term. I don't know what's going on. Perhaps there's an election closing in. He seems to be reaching out and pandering to certain groups that he thinks --
Like most other members of this Legislature, I have met with all of the relevant stakeholders involved in this particular legislation -- the teachers, the teachers' unions, the principals, the EAs. We've met with all of them, and I can tell you, the consistent message that's coming back from all of those relevant stakeholder groups is that they cannot be more thrilled with any government in the last recent history of the province in terms of what we have done for education in Ontario. They're thrilled to have us. Nothing's perfect.
November 16, 2006, another bulletin from OECTA: "OECTA believes that all secondary school credits must be assessed by certified teachers."
Mr. Marchese, do you think that Mr. Mauro told those teachers who came to meet with him that it's very clear that in the bill there is no guarantee that certified teachers are going to be assessing these programs? I bet you he didn't. So, for the record, here's what happened in committee.
November 2, my colleague Mr. Marchese said to legal counsel, Madam Goldberg, "Can I ask you, is this the section where we would know whether the programs offered would be by certified teachers, or is there another section that will deal with it later?" Madam Goldberg said, "I believe that it would be in the policies, standards and guidelines that will be issued under this section." So Mr. Marchese said again, "Wait a minute. I want to know. Is it going to be certified teachers or not?" and she said again, "If that's done" -- that meaning, if certified teachers are going to be asked and are going to be able to deal with these problems -- "it will be through those policies. I can't tell you right now what those policies" -- blah, blah, blah -- "are going to be."
So what is clear is, there is nothing in the bill that guarantees that secondary school credits will be assessed by certified teachers. I wonder how many of the Liberals who have been meeting with teachers from OECTA and OSSTF have been telling them that particular detail.
You have now two minutes to respond, the member for Durham.
I'm just going to thank individual speakers.
The member from Trinity-Spadina called this a dumb bill. He has the right to say what he thinks, and I think that reflects on some of the comments I made.
The member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan: I want to thank you. It's a compliment, because I did try to not interfere with the potential and the opportunity for our young people. That's the whole point of this debate tonight.
The member from Kitchener-Waterloo, who has just left, is a former Minister of Education. In fact, as a school trustee and chair of the Waterloo board of education, she was proclaimed "educator of the year" by teachers, educators, administrators and, I believe, students.
The member from Nickel Belt spoke to the comments from OECTA and others that were not supportive of the bill in the committee hearings that were held.
Do you want to know how important this is? I just attended the Durham Prosperity Initiative -- this is from Durham region -- and the booklet that was produced calls it a prosperity conference. It was actually organized and facilitated by a number of students from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, a wonderful group of innovative young people looking for real solutions to real problems of the economy: Munish Chopra, Christian Cox, Stephanie Heathcote, Brian Renaud, Matt Simpson and Michele Lee Wanhoy.
I would say one of the more important observations was with respect to this bill. It's related. It says "Major items discussed." Under "Training," it says "need for societal change in attitude" -- I'm summarizing here -- "forge stronger partnerships with the business community, skilled trades, universities and colleges; create more incentives for students to finish high school; educate students; reduce barriers for students and new Canadians; educate the public about the shortage of skilled trades; and emphasize opportunity to become available to participate in the economy."
There's more to be done and this bill doesn't go far enough. I don't think --