Resuming the debated adjourned on May 31, 2006, on the motion for second reading of Bill 52, An Act to amend the Education Act respecting pupil learning to the age of 18 and equivalent learning and to make complementary amendments to the Highway Traffic Act / 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 et apportant des modifications complémentaires au Code de la route.
First of all,on this idea of keeping students in school until the age of 18, no one would argue that the world is changing, that every country that wants to succeed in the world economy will have to have a better-educated, more literate and better-trained workforce. Frankly, beyond training people for the economy, the fact simply is that if you have a better-educated society, you have a society that can engage in political discourse at a higher level, a society that has the potential to be more humane, a society that is able to better direct itself. I don't have confidence, though, that the bill before us -- with the requirement of changing the school leaving age to 18, with the requirement that those who don't stay in school until they are 18 will not be able to get a driver's licence -- will address those questions in the way they need to be addressed.
I think the first question the government should have asked, and that I'm going to put forward here, is, what keeps young people learning and what undermines their ability to learn? What leads students to stay? Frankly, if you have students who have a solid base at home, who have had the support from their parents, who have had the family stability to actually allow themselves to focus on school without being distracted by huge difficulties at home, those students have a better chance at succeeding. If, on the other hand, you have students who come from homes that are disruptive, constantly in a state of crisis, in a situation where the parents have difficulty holding things together, then those students are going to have tremendous difficulty applying themselves to lessons, thinking about the longer term and staying in school in a productive way. In this bill we are not, in any way, shape or form, addressing those issues. So those students who come from homes that are stressed, unstable and problematic are going to face huge problems if they leave, and, frankly, if they stay in school they will face substantial problems.
The reality is that although across the spectrum of earning you have people with low incomes who are able to pull together a household and make it secure, make it stable, low-income households tend to have a much more difficult time avoiding those stresses and tensions that come with the inherent problems of not having a stable home, of not having a stable income, of not having an income that's adequate to the problems and the demands at hand. On the other hand, if you come from a household that's well off, then it's far more likely that your situation will allow you to have that stability.
What we have is a situation where students from poor families who are far more likely to face those home difficulties, and thus far more likely to face difficulties at school, will once again be hit for not staying in school and performing the way they are expected to perform. In practical terms then, this bill won't deal with the underlying problems that make it difficult for people to study and won't deal with the underlying problems that make it possible for them to stay in school and apply themselves.
It's my opinion that the bill before us will not in fact deal with the problems that we are trying to deal with. Simply telling students, simply telling young people, that they can't get their driver's licence unless they stay in school, in my opinion, is not going to be effective. What will the fallout be from the implementation of this bill?
First of all, in rural areas I would expect that we will see far greater burdens thrown on those young people because, as we all know, if you're living on the outskirts of Timmins or Sudbury as opposed to, say, suburban Toronto, your ability to access public transit is zero. We don't have public transit worthy of the name, in fact just simply existing, in most rural areas of Ontario. So poor rural students will be hit much more heavily here than urban students. That is going to be a significant problem. How will they deal with this? How will they deal with the fact that they find it difficult to get around? I would expect that many of them will simply drive their cars without a licence. They leave school at 16, they find a job somewhere, they have to drive to get there and they are going to drive.
Similarly, in urban situations you'll have a reality that there will be students who can drop out because they know they have access to transit. In many instances they can walk to places they need to get to because the city is far more compact, or they too will drive illegally. In fact, this bill opens the door to many young people, already in difficult circumstances, quitting because the prerequisites to allow them to learn, to participate in the educational system -- because they're locked out of that, because they are locked out of their driver's licence -- simply breaking the law. So a difficulty they already had puts them at risk of having a much greater difficulty, a substantially greater difficulty.
I don't think that those who drafted this legislation would want that to happen. Frankly, I think this government should reconsider what it has put before this House and say, "Yes, this is a significant problem. This is an unintended outcome. We don't think we should proceed. We think we have to substantially amend this bill so that we don't put young people at far greater risk of being in violation of the law." That is one of the more significant problems with this bill.
But there are questions as well about the actual implementation of these punitive measures, because you can't just state something. Well, maybe you can, but then you have a bill that just sits on the shelf, gathering dust, and is of no consequence. If you do that, you bring the law into disrepute but you're going to have difficulty getting people to actually enforce this law. Think about it. School principals or their designates are supposed to determine whether or not someone is still learning until age 18.
What's the reality there? Are these principals going to be the ones who will be maintaining all of these records? Are teachers going out and checking on this alternative education element that is made real here in this legislation? Let's say that a young person says to their principal, "Well, yes, I'm not in your school, but I'm working with community group X. I'm there 30 hours a week and I'm learning." Who is going to go out and do the quality control on this? Who is going to say, "Yes, they're actually learning; yes, they're doing enough to qualify themselves to get a driver's licence"?
Teachers, when you talk to them, already work to their limits. Principals already have tons on their plates. If you look at attendance counsellors, many school boards have eliminated attendance counsellors. So a question to be asked to those who drafted the legislation and to the government that wants this legislation to go through is how exactly are we going to make the resources come into existence so we can determine whether or not students are doing what they say they're doing when they're not in a school, but taking advantage of the other section of the bill that says they can have an alternative learning experience?
If this bill was clear about entirely in whose hands these responsibilities were laid, that would be one thing, but in fact the bill waffles between giving an option to the Ministry of Transportation to determine, or the principals or the schools. Perhaps this can all be combined into some new mechanism of enforcement. But I don't see why on earth the Ministry of Transportation should be trying to determine whether or not a 17-year-old is in school or whether or not a 17-year-old is participating in an alternative educational experience -- whatever that is -- that will allow them to qualify for a driver's licence. I think there are practical matters here in terms of enforcing this bill that have not been considered by the drafters and by the government bringing this forward.
The interesting element in this bill, aside from the problems I've outlined, is that the bill punishes those who don't yet have a driver's licence. When I was 16, I was enrolled in a CAA course in Hamilton to get my driver's licence, and by the time I was 16½ , I had my driver's licence. Whether that was a wise thing or not, I won't comment further, but nonetheless, I had one. Many students can do that. Many young people can do that and then immediately resign from school. They've done what they had to do. They got that driver's licence, they stayed in long enough to ensure there were no impediments and then they got on with life. This bill does not set up enforcement against those who already have their driver's licence. So if they're really slow at getting it, they're in trouble. If they plan, strategize, then this bill to keep them in school, this enforcement or this penalty, is of no consequence.
If school boards, principals, the Ministry of Transportation decide, "Yes, we have to enforce this," then you start applying resources to a solution that in fact doesn't deal with the base problems. You have a diversion of resources -- which could be used to give students more support in school -- to the enforcement of a penalty that I'm sure doesn't make sense to most students and to most parents. We need to focus on the positive aspects of keeping people in school. We need to focus on making sure they have the support so that they will want to stay in school, instead of diverting our resources to these kinds of penalties -- not a wise use of resources, not a wise way to deal with a profound social problem.
What I find extraordinary is that this is being brought forward without any great public outcry for this as a solution. People who go to classrooms can see very quickly -- and I'm talking about teachers for the most part -- where their problems arise. They aren't calling out for this. The teachers in this province are not calling out for this. I imagine it's an approach, a solution, that looks good in a leaflet but does not look good in practice.
Having addressed what I think is a fruitless approach, a worthless approach to keeping people in school, I want to talk about the section of the bill that talks about equivalent learning. In the act, people are allowed to engage in alternative learning opportunities, equivalent learning. The regulations that will be promulgated by the government after this act is adopted, accepted, in place, will define acceptable learning locations and will be further refined by board policies and guidelines. So from our hands it travels quite a distance until you get the actual definition.
We've seen some interesting examples already of government sliding standards when it comes to apprenticeship funding. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities issues an apprenticeship training tax credit, nominally for employers who train employees. Last year -- it was a good year for this sort of stuff -- we learned that Dell computers had received credit for staff in their Ottawa call centres. I know we all want to embrace the idea of people apprenticing in call centres. That's the future, that's where our young pages will go. They too will go on to call centres in future years.
To quote the Ottawa Citizen, "The province has generously included IT call centre workers in the apprenticeship plan, subsidizing their wages by allowing Dell to collect a tax credit of $5,000 per employee for three years. The actual training period for the call centre workers is two to three weeks, Dell says."
That's very pricey tuition for two or three weeks. That's awfully pricey tuition for two or three weeks. When our critic asked about this, our critic was told that they were being trained in the skilled trade of helpdesk analyst. Well, I don't think that's where we should be putting public money. I don't think that we should be approaching or developing a situation where McDonald's or Burger King can be coming to school boards and saying, "We want to train people in burgerology. We want them to get an equivalent-to-high-school certificate. We want a subsidy to train them to deliver fast food." I don't think that what's before us is going to deal with the problems that we have with young people who need to acquire skills, and I don't think it's going to help develop our economy and develop our society the way they have to be developed.
The last point I want to make is around the whole question of unmotivated students. Last December, the Toronto Star wrote about the whole question of unmotivated students and how this bill will affect them. They noted the kinds of problems that teachers will have dealing with large numbers of unmotivated students. I'm not talking about those who are staying there because they can't get their driver's licence; I'm talking about those who stay because that's the law, they don't want to have continued problems with their parents. They're going to stick around.
I've taught classes before. I was a part-time teacher at George Brown College. I have to say that most of those students were motivated because most were paying out of their own pocket. But I've also talked to my brother and brother-in-law, who are teachers, who have dealt with students in classes where large numbers of students were unmotivated. Frankly, it's entirely disruptive. If you don't deal with the fundamentals, if you don't deal with the social problems, if you don't deal with what are sometimes psychological problems, if you don't deal with the monetary problems that are at the root of many of the problems we have in school, then what you have is a teacher trying to deal with a classroom that is very difficult to manage, a teacher whose thinking and attention is focused on trying to keep in line a number of people who don't want to be there, who are disruptive, people whose approach is that of any person who is confined to a room they don't want to be in for an extended period of time they don't want to suffer through. This bill, if all of the other problems were dealt with, might be a useful bill, but as it is written, this bill will simply create problems, expand problems and in fact eventually cause this government to say, "You know what? We need another bill. We haven't dealt with the issues here. We're going to come back with something that will actually address the issues before us."
The other things that we're offering, like the high-skills major, like the dual credits, like the alternative equivalent learning situations, are the kinds of things the student success teachers will help the students find.
The driver's licence provisions in this legislation are not the core of the issue. That's simply a tool. What we're talking about is a culture shift. We're talking about a situation in this province where we know that it is in the best interests of every student to be in a learning environment -- of every young person in this province 18 and under, and even 18 and over. I can't imagine a child in the province, even if they are working, who we wouldn't rather have also in a learning environment, and those learning environments need to be defined. The Student Success Commission that's been set up by the ministry will do that quality control and make sure that the equivalent learning situations are valuable. The legislation is just a part of that program.
The member for Toronto-Danforth pointed out many of the practical problems with this bill. I think we would all agree that, in an ideal world, we would want to see students stay in school as long as possible, not just to get a high school diploma but to go on to college or an apprenticeship or post-secondary university. However, for many students that is just not practical. I was listening to some students on a CBC program when this was first introduced, students who had dropped out of high school but then had real-world experience, went back and finished off their high school diploma, and had gone on and done well. The students were asked whether this would assist them and their response was no, they just weren't ready to learn. They needed some real-world experience for their particular circumstance, and every circumstance is different. So as the member for Toronto-Danforth pointed out, there are some real problems with this.
In fact, this could be punitive, particularly for students in rural and northern Ontario, who absolutely need a driver's licence if they aren't in school and they're trying to get a job to get the sort of experience that might be necessary for them to realize how important it is to stay in school, that maybe having a job at 17 isn't what they really want to do and that going back to school and furthering their education will give them more opportunities in life.
This bill, although perhaps well meaning, is just not practical and may do more harm than good, as was the case with Bill 78, the "give control to the college of teachers and the teachers' unions" bill.
Also, I heard him talking about how the McGuinty government has no strategy to absorb all the students, and the schools don't have the mechanism. As a matter of fact, we listened a lot to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities about planning for the future, to put in a mechanism to absorb all the students who for some reason are not able to continue going to school by creating some kind of program, whether in community centres or union facilities or a college or a high school, if that's possible. So all these issues have been raised and debated for a long time in our government between the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and and the Ministry of Education. Also, to create a strategy to enable the students in Ontario to learn some kind of profession and give them the ability, when they go out in life, to find a job, to help our economy and to help themselves to raise enough money to live comfortably in this time.
I think the member from Toronto-Danforth didn't read the bill very well. I didn't hear from him what his alternative was. As a matter of fact, when we talk about something bad, we have to offer another alternative, but I didn't hear anything from him to give us some kind of idea or plan as to how we can fix the bill.
I'm very proud of our government to have such a bill to help our students to live for the future.
There are parts of the bill that may not be too bad at times, but I can tell you, that part would stop me from ever supporting the bill -- the fact that they discriminate against young people, people who may not be able to learn as fast but who can pass a driver's test. They can get a job using their skills to drive at some point. To take that away I think is nothing more than a form of discrimination. I'm very disappointed that any government would include that in a piece of legislation. That would hurt young people from getting a job. The job may not be the highest-paying job in the world, but it is a job, if they have the skills to possess a driver's licence.
Again, I thank him for his comments. I congratulate him on them. As far as the section on the driver's licensing, it's just pathetic and I'm disappointed that the government would even dream of humiliating young people that way.
I want to speak first to the comments from the member for Don Valley West. It's useful for me to hear that you see this in the context of a larger program. I have to say to you that when I talk to the trustees in the city of Toronto, who are wrestling with a very large shortfall in their budgets, who are telling me that schools and parent-child centres are going to be closed -- and I had a meeting with a large number of parents just last Friday on my constituency day saying that their parent-child centre was closing -- it doesn't say to me that there are going to be more resources. It says to me that things are tighter. If we're going to talk about a larger program which will address these fundamental issues, then you have to have money on the table which will do it. So I look forward to hearing about the budget allocations that in fact will make it real to have extra support, real support, not just punitive measures.
The member from London-Fanshawe talked about alternatives. I think that's the right question. In fact, I say to the member, if this government persists in not honouring its commitments to end the clawback of the federal child benefit; if it doesn't in fact spend on child care the way it said it would in the last election; if it doesn't deal with the whole question of keeping Ontario Works and ODSP incomes rising, rather than simply stagnating given inflation -- if you don't deal with those social problems, all of this stuff is just for show. Deal with the social problems, and then the other problems can be dealt with.
Today is a very appropriate day to speak about an education bill, because today, for the third time in this government's mandate, we've announced that we're boosting our investment in this province's publicly funded schools. It's also an opportunity to reflect a little bit about what a difference a couple of years makes. I hear constantly from people in my constituency in London about a new spirit in our schools. I hear from educators, I hear from students, I hear from parents that there's a new spirit of optimism, of co-operation in our schools now, that there's a new and productive relationship between our teaching professionals and our government. I wholeheartedly think that Bill 52 reflects that new spirit of co-operation. It also reflects our commitment to our children -- that's our focus, our children -- and we are especially concerned about children who are at risk.
This government values the work of our teachers, our principals, our administrators and our students. We recognize the value of our public school system and the potential it has to completely change a child's life. We're putting our money where our mouth is, both literally and figuratively: $50 million more for special-needs students; $23 million for professional development programs; $20 million from our 2006 budget was devoted to improving literacy and math levels, French programs, professional development for staff, parent engagement, and safe and healthy schools. I know from my work in community and social services how very, very important that strong education -- the literacy, the commitment to becoming a productive member of society -- is. It starts in our schools; we have to make the investments there. Overall, each student in this province is receiving almost $1,600 more per year than they did under the previous government. That's a record we can all be very, very proud of.
The spin-off benefits of investing in our kids are enormous, and the long-term payoffs of ensuring that we work extra hard had to accommodate at-risk youth are innumerable. We're especially concerned, and this bill reflects that, about students who are having a hard time getting through the system as it currently exists. That's why we've invested in special-needs programs and apprenticeships at unprecedented levels.
Bill 52 is a continuation of these values. Simply put, we are going to do everything in our power to ensure that all Ontario students have a high school diploma or its equivalent. I'm sure the impacts of this bill will be just as powerful as the massive investments we are making in education from this year's budget.
We're ensuring that our students stay on track, that our students stay in traditional schools or continue learning in other settings. We believe in these kids. We know what they can do, what they're capable of, if we give them the opportunities and the support to achieve their full potential. That's what this is about. We believe in our students. We know they can succeed. We have to give them what they need to succeed.
This is an ambitious bill. Make no mistake about it. Some people will argue that it is too ambitious. But in a time when we have proven our commitment to education -- we've proven that we can deliver smaller class sizes; we've proven we can deliver higher test scores -- our commitment is firm on this as well. We are capable of implementing this bill. It will make a huge difference to students whom previous governments had given up on.
I share our Premier's and our new education minister's commitment to all the students. As I say, if they can't complete their high school diploma in the classroom the way most students can do, if that's not working for them, it allows them to continue to learn until they're 18 or until they graduate. It offers very creative programs, creative partnerships. It's a very, very good bill for our students. These programs are an excellent outlet for teens who are artistically inclined or who have skills outside the academic centre to realize their full potential. It allows them to build their self-confidence. We know that self-confidence is one of the greatest of great tools we can give a child, fostering their sense of pride in what they do. Eventually, this bill will guide them to a career path that will be fulfilling, rewarding and productive.
This bill is part of our overall plan for student success. We promised it in our campaign in 2003 and we are delivering it now. It is part of a comprehensive, $1.3-billion plan. It's not everything contained in this bill, as has been said earlier. This bill has a very specific goal. It's all about helping students to achieve their potential. It is ambitious but it is essential to our future prosperity. It is a vital part of our student strategy.
There was a lot of planning and rebuilding necessary before we could move forward on this one. Our schools had fallen into a sorry state after many years of damage done to them. The morale was low. Buildings were broken and leaking. Students were stuck in portables. The art, music and technology departments had virtually disappeared because the previous government considered them to be frills.
Well, they're not frills. Many of these are the departments that keep students at school when they are at risk of leaving. When they are having difficulty with the core curriculum, teens can shine in other areas of the whole school environment. These departments have the power to make a student a celebrated member of the school community as a band member or as a teammate with a technology, auto shop or electronics team.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that 30% of the students under the previous government were not graduating -- almost one third. It's still amazes me. We're committed to winning those students back. We're committed to increasing the number of students who complete successfully. Those students deserved a better school system and we are focused on giving them that better school system.
Some have characterized this as a punitive bill, that we're punishing students, locking them away in schools. There is nothing further from the truth. This bill in fact liberates students with options to learn on the job, to earn credits for co-op experiences, to test out different types of jobs, different work routines and different skill sets. Everyone wins: Students continue learning; employers benefit from the assistance of young, capable, knowledgeable and eager staff.
Our school system adapts to the different interests and capabilities of its students. And the province will undoubtedly become richer. We will renew our skilled labour pool, which is definitely in high demand. We will have focused and capable high school graduates and fewer dropouts.
The Minister of Education summed it up well when she said, "The bill is called `Learning to Age 18'; it's not called `Classroom to 18' for a very good reason."
Before I finish, I just want to talk a little bit about a program in my hometown of London, Ontario, that I have seen with my own eyes. I'm glad that some of my colleagues from London are here today, because we're all big fans of this program. This is a program where kids who have dropped out of school, who are no longer enrolled in school, come and earn credit by credit in a very comfortable environment. In fact, I know that they're actually learning in the market in London. The market has generously donated space so these students can come and work on their own, earning credits, one at a time, with the goal of working towards graduation. These are students whom others have given up on. We believe in them, we applaud them, we see their potential, and we're willing and anxious to invest whatever we can to ensure that they become productive members of society.
I am very, very proud of this bill. It speaks to creativity, it speaks to optimism, it speaks to courage and it speaks to the potential of our students.
I heard members talking about why the driver's licence is very important for many young students. It is a very good tool. We have to tell the people of Ontario that to obtain a driver's licence is a privilege; and to gain that privilege, you have to do something in your lifetime. What's it about? Education. It is a very important element: to tie the driver's licence with a good education.
As the member said, it is important to encourage students. Also, the member explained how the bill is not going to be abstract. It is going to be tied to a lot of initiatives; it is going to look after the rural areas; it is going to look after the north; look after the students who want to continue their education; look after the community centre that will provide education for those students; look after the college, assisting the college to open up for those young people who want to continue alternative education, so they're able to go and learn something, not necessarily academic stuff.
I think it is a very good bill, and I want to commend the member from London North Centre for her eloquent explanation of this bill.
As I previously stated when I was able to have an opportunity to speak for a couple of minutes, there are many problems with this bill. It's just not practical for many young people who, for a variety of reasons, aren't really ready to learn and ready to finish high school. No matter how much we may want them to stay in school, they just have things happening in their lives which don't permit them to stay in school. Taking away their driver's licence, taking away, if they're in rural Ontario, their ability to have transportation, to have a job, to be able to get some real life experience, to get ready to hopefully go back at a later date to finish their high school education, is punitive, and I think it's not necessarily going to help.
In the next few weeks, I will have the pleasure in Parry Sound-Muskoka of attending many of the graduation ceremonies around the riding, and I will attend as many as I possibly can. The ones I enjoy more than any are those of students who have gone into the workforce and then come back at a later date, usually under much more trying situations. Whether it be because of learning disabilities or life situations, they have had to have jobs and then go to school and achieve their high school diploma. I tell you, it's very gratifying to participate in those graduation ceremonies.
This bill is just not practical. It's not going to do any good in terms of the goal of having young people learn and more young people staying in high school and getting their high school diploma.
Early in World War II, the United States government did testing of young men who were coming in to join the army. They found that malnutrition -- perhaps not even classic malnutrition but poor nutrition -- meant that many of them did not meet the standards they needed for someone who would be capable of joining that army. In fact, it was out of that that the United States developed its school lunch programs, which Ronald Reagan took a buzz saw to in the 1980s. The reality is that if people are not well fed from childhood, if they are not looked after from childhood, their ability to perform fully in society is grossly undermined.
This government promised to deal with much of that poverty by ending the clawback of the national child tax benefit, now the national child benefit, and by increasing payments for Ontario Works and ODSP in line with inflation. Those things have not happened. When I talk to people in legal clinics in my riding, when I talk to people from OCASI, when I look at the stats coming from food banks, I know that more people are using food banks. I know that kids are not getting the food they need. And their households are not stable. They are not getting the supports they need to ensure that young people can actually learn the way they need to learn. You can have as many bills as you want, but we all know that if people don't have a stable family life, education will not take place the way it has to take place.
We're not actually content just to rebuild education to its previous state before the Conservative government took a hacksaw to it. We're actually recognizing that we have to build on the good parts of that system and improve and move forward. So we're doing some things that have never been done before. We're not only building back the technical shops into high schools, but we're offering new programs that will link students to college education while they're still in secondary school.
We're providing opportunities for equivalent learning that are going to be monitored by what's called the Student Success Commission, boards and teachers' federations and the ministry, talking together about what we can count as equivalent learning, so that when we write policy at the ministry, it will actually work on the ground. That's a process piece that doesn't show up in the legislation, but what it means is that when those equivalent learning opportunities are put in front of the students, we know they will work. We know they will have the buy-in of the teachers, the ministry and the boards so that students can be successful.
We're keeping tabs on graduation rates. When I was a school trustee, it wasn't easy to even know what the graduation rates were in our own board, let alone across the whole province. So we're starting to monitor that and then we'll be able to measure how much better we're doing in terms of our graduation rates.
Finally, about the comment the member made about winning students back, our adult education initiatives are part of learning to 18. We know we have to keep students in school, but we also have to bring them back if they do leave.
Although I thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his comments, I'm disappointed that he calls this not practical. He says it won't do any good. I guess that just demonstrates the thought that these kids don't have the potential to achieve. It's so not where we're coming from and it's so where the previous government came from. I'm disappointed.
It's important to note that there are some circumstances where it's not the right thing for somebody to stay in school or to stay learning until they're 18. This bill allows for exemptions under special circumstances. So some of the arguments you've made really are addressed in this legislation. This bill challenges our educators to capture the imagination of their students to keep them engaged, to keep them learning. They have to do that under this legislation.
The member from Toronto-Danforth raises an important point: the link between nutrition and the ability to learn. It's one that I'm familiar with. I agree that that link does exist. But I also think it's important to recognize that under this government a single parent with two children has actually seen a 16% increase in their benefits since we were elected.
Member from London-Fanshawe, I thank you so much. Your commitment to issues like this is exceptional and it's a pleasure having you in my next-door riding.
To the member from Don Valley West, you've shown commitment on issues around education and you understand the societal implications of having a good, strong education system.
What I mean by that is that the foundation of public education is the parents, who are also the taxpayers who pay for that education. Even though there are some who would say that public education is free, it is not. It is a very expensive, very worthwhile investment on the part of government into education, into a program that is there to ensure that our young people have the knowledge and the skill to cope when they graduate and enter into the real world in competition with students and workers from other jurisdictions. It is not free. It is, as I said before, an important investment on the part of government. However, it is an education system that has, historically, served the public, that is accountable to the public and that is responsive to the public. Hence, a public education system. We have seen, since the election of this government, successive pieces of legislation and successive attempts made to undermine the public aspect of this, the accountability aspect of this to the very people who should be able to count on this public education system to provide for their children the quality of education that they want for them.
I want to review, and will do so over the next number of minutes that I have, how that has come to be. It's interesting that successive -- when I say "successive," The previous Minister of Education, who is now running for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party, and his successor, the current Minister of Education, have in fact been using the education system and education policy as a political tool. What is most interesting is that they continue to protest that. If you recall Bill 78, even within the context of that debate and in statements made by the Minister of Education repeatedly about that bill when it concerned specifically the restructuring of the Ontario College of Teachers, the statement was made by this government and by the minister and other members of the Liberal government here that the reason for the restructuring is that they wanted to depoliticize the realm of education. And yet that is precisely what this government has done, more so than any other government ever in this province. They have used public education policy as a means of repaying very specific political obligations. We heard again today, even in the course -- the parliamentary assistant admitted that.
We have before us yet one more piece of legislation that I believe undermines public education. It doesn't strengthen it; it undermines the very principles of public education. So you can conclude from my introductory remarks that we do not support this bill. It may come as a surprise to you, but it won't come as a surprise to parents who are observing this debate and to stakeholders who observe this debate, because they know that our education policy is based on some very clear principles and values. There is in this policy, in this bill, very little that supports public education. In fact, this is more of a political document that imposes on Ontario students and their parents a punitive policy. It does a number of things. I'm going to, at the outset, itemize those and then I'll speak to them individually.
This bill will, we submit, be counterproductive to students. It will not help them. It will create hardship for many families. It ignores the reality of life in many parts of this province. It creates yet another layer of bureaucracy, very expensive bureaucracy, in the education system. It covers up the real cause for students' underachievement. Finally, this bill does nothing to address the real issues of creating a positive learning environment for those students for whom the existing system is not working.
It's an interesting document that we have before us, but as I indicated, I believe that it's a cover-up more than anything else. It is, as was said by the parliamentary assistant, a commitment. Actually, it is a follow-through on an election commitment that was made in an election document.
There are many parents who are observing this debate, and they're asking, "If you're going to follow through on this promise, why are you not following through on the promise you made to autistic children and their families that the government, that Mr. McGuinty, when he became Premier, would extend funding for autistic children and give them the same fair and equal opportunity to learn and to develop life skills as any other student in the province?" Why be so selective? Why come forward with this legislation that is, without question, very, very conflicting in terms of the support, very controversial? Even the teachers' federations oppose this bill. They have been urging the government not to proceed, to rethink what they're doing here. I know of very few education stakeholders who support this legislation.
So parents of autistic children, who are wrestling daily with the challenge of affording their children an equal opportunity for an education, are asking the question of this Premier, of the Minister of Education, why? Why take legislative time, why invest additional funds in a bill, in an initiative that, quite frankly, in the order of priority, when you consider that there are young children in this province who are struggling just to have the opportunity to learn language and speech, to communicate in the very basic fundamentals of how to carry on their lives -- this government is turning its back on them. Having made the promise, they're parading now with great fanfare the fact that they're willing to follow through with this bill.
There would be those of us who would say the government should be brought to account for that, and I believe they will be. I believe, as people across the province get to know what this government truly is doing with education policy, they will come to understand that it's much less about serving the students and the parents of this province and ensuring that public education carries out the mandate of education and it's much more, in the mind of this government, to placate certain stakeholders, to placate certain interest groups, because it's in their political interest.
I'd like to move on and read into the record for honourable members some opinions from parents, from the public, from individuals who have taken the time to write to the Minister of Education but who have been ignored. This, again, is a hallmark of this government; it certainly has been a hallmark of the Minister of Education. Time will tell whether the current Minister of Education will carry on with that reputation of ignoring parents, ignoring stakeholders, refusing to even acknowledge that they have phoned, that they have called, that they have sent an e-mail, that they have written letters. As the education critic for the official opposition, often those letters are then redirected to me with an appeal, advising me that they are being ignored by the Minister of Education and asking if I would assist at least in reminding him that people have an issue and encouraging him, urging him to respond.
I want to read into the record an e-mail that I received from Mr. Gerald Dickson. Mr. Dickson is from Kingston. He wrote the following in response to the government's announcement of this bill. It was actually initially addressed to his MPP, Mr. Gerretsen. It was copied to Gerard Kennedy and myself as well as Mr. Marchese, the education critic for the third party.
"I am writing you concerning impending legislation that I understand will prevent people under the age of 18 who have dropped out of school from obtaining a driver's licence. This is bad legislation for the following reasons. I urge you to oppose it."
This is directed to Mr. Gerretsen, who is Mr. Dickson's member of this House. He's urging his MPP to oppose it. We'll see whether Mr. Gerretsen takes his constituent's advice.
"I appreciate that it has been adopted by several US states. It is bad there, too.
"For the record, I am a 57-year-old professional engineer. Neither I nor any of my family members will be affected personally by this legislation. I certainly agree that it is laudable to encourage young people to remain in school to at least the age of 18.
"However there is no reason why someone who has dropped out of school may not acquire the skills and behaviour to pass a driver's test and keep a driver's licence. Yes, a driver's licence is a privilege, but it is not a privilege that a government should ... deny any its citizens as a means of social engineering, and that is what this legislation would do. Acquisition of a driver's licence should depend only on being able to acquire and demonstrate the skills and behaviour needed to operate a motor vehicle safely -- nothing more. Legislation such as this increasingly restricts personal freedoms for purposes that are not necessarily in the interests of those it affects.
"I would expect a government that is successful in implementing such legislation to move on from this to other social engineering legislation, increasingly restrictive and even sinister. I hesitate to suggest examples."
I wanted to read this into the record because it's representative of literally hundreds of e-mails with a very similar appeal, and that is that the government should find other ways of dealing with this issue of motivating young people to stay in school.
In fact, when I first saw this bill, I had a concern about the very title of the bill, which reads, "An Act to amend the Education Act respecting pupil learning to the age of 18 and equivalent learning and to make complementary amendments to the Highway Traffic Act." Here was my concern: We have before us a bill that is legislating learning. It's interesting that this government -- this minister -- does not understand that learning is not something you can legislate. Learning is what is done by the student. Others teach. It is the role of government to provide a learning environment. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that the resources are there to teach, that the resources are made available so that a child or a student can, in fact, apply themselves to learn. But for this government to come forward with the arrogance of suggesting that they can legislate that someone will learn is beyond reason.
Any of the pages that we have here, they're motivated young people. One of the reasons they're here, as we all know, is that they're at the top of their class. The competition is high to get here, so we congratulate them for being here. But they'll be the first ones to tell you that no law is going to legislate that they will learn; learning is something that they have to do of themselves. If they don't have the motivation to do that, we can do all of the teaching we want, we can provide all of the resources we want, but if the trigger isn't there within these young people to actually do the learning, it won't take place.
So if, in fact, the government were straightforward, what they would have done is appropriately named this bill. It would have read something like, "An Act to amend the Education Act to force young people to stay in school and sit in their seats, whether they're learning or not, until they are age 18." But they didn't, you see, because it sounds a lot better when you say that they will learn to age 18. Everybody says, "We can't argue with that; of course people should learn to age 18." I would say, if it's that, people should be learning beyond age 18 -- far beyond. None of us should ever stop learning. But it is the attitude of this government, you see, that they can force people to do things -- will legislate them to do it. It doesn't matter about people's freedoms, doesn't matter about people's rights.
There's an interesting common theme that weaves its way through many of the bills that we've debated in this place. It's that issue of government knowing best. It's the fact that the minister knows better than anyone else what's good for you, so the minister is prepared to set himself or herself up as the official parent of the province of Ontario. I submit that if the minister were to focus on his or her responsibility as the Minister of Education for all of education in the province -- which is, in fact, the mandate -- and focus on those things that will motivate young people to stay in school, that will help young people to learn, to do what has to be done, to ensure that the education takes place -- that should be the priority of the Minister of Education, rather than wasting her time and wasting our time in this House debating a bill that is undermining young people and actually, in the final analysis, will be counterproductive.
I want to refer to another letter that I received. It's an e-mail that was sent to me by Mr. Martin McKillop from Sudbury. He writes as follows:
"I have a degree in public administration, and I have worked at Queen's Park, so I know a little bit about public policy-making, sound or otherwise.
"I have three kids, grades 7, 9 and 11, and no worries about them moving through high school successfully. I rarely express my opinions to the powers that be. I do, however, feel compelled to tell you that, in my opinion, the proposal to deny a driver's licence to teens that drop out is not only the most ridiculous proposal to come down the pike in a long time, it is also likely discriminatory under the age provisions of the charter.
"I also completely fail to see how it will do anything to solve the dropout crisis, unless you think blackmail works. Since when do drivers' licences and success in high school correlate? Since when does a government have a right to resort to blackmail? And make no mistake: That is exactly what is perceived to be and, in my opinion, actually is in this bill. It is blackmail.
"Tell your ADMs and cabinet members to get serious about a serious problem and stop thinking that our youth can be blackmailed into staying in school. You can get them" -- your staff, that is -- "started by telling them that it is all about curriculum, teacher apathy, parental indifference, scarce resources, outdated objectives, political dogmatism and public skepticism, and that it is absolutely ridiculous to think otherwise." This was sent to Gerard Kennedy.
The issue here, and what people are taking exception to, is the fact that this government, under the guise of this legislation, is taking the heavy-handed approach of forcing young people, notwithstanding their personal circumstances, notwithstanding the circumstances of their families, and, through this legislation, will inevitably create hardship for many families across this province.
I found it interesting that the member from London North Centre referred, in her debate on this bill, to a great example in her hometown of work that is taking place now and of a facility that is providing alternative learning for students who had dropped out of high school. Apparently, this program is working well, and what's unique about it -- although I'm not personally familiar, I take her at her word -- is that this facility is accommodating those students because they learn differently. It's a different setting. It's a more practical approach. It's an approach that actually works for students. It's not an in-school setting. It's not the setting that the students who were there became bored with, bailed out of, wrote off because it wasn't working for them.
Here is why I raise this issue: because I'm sure every member in this House is familiar with similar programs, very successful programs within our constituencies, where young people who have dropped out of school for one reason or another re-engage, are reconnected with a learning environment that's more conducive to their ability to learn, and get on with life.
The member from London North Centre refers to this very successful program at the same time as she, as a member of the government, is saying, "Notwithstanding that, we need a new piece of legislation that will actually force young people against their will to stay in school, and if they don't, there will be serious penalties." To them, they won't get their licence. To any potential employer who may hire them, there's a $1,000 fine if they're found to be giving a job to a young person because they dropped out of high school.
You see, there are programs already in place in this province -- many of them -- that serve the very purpose this bill pretends to address. Our career colleges do exactly that. I'm familiar with many programs that are being administered through the career colleges that deliver those programs. So to you, Speaker, I put this question, and through you to the Minister of Education and members of the government, who seem to need this Bill 52 as a prop simply to fulfill an election promise because they broke 223 promises. This is one that they're now going to parade in front of the public to say, "We keep our promises." Well, this is the one you shouldn't have kept, along with the one to cancel the tax credit that allowed individual families across this province to educate their children in an independent school. They are still paying their education property taxes, they are still paying through their income taxes for the public education system, but they chose, in addition to that, to pay the additional tuition so that their children would have the choice of a unique education. They, as parents, chose to do that, and this government punitively cancelled that tax credit retroactively, and did so with glee. That's one they shouldn't have kept either. So two promises kept out of 223, the rest broken, and to what end?
I was speaking about our community colleges. There are many advantages that we already have existing today, many programs that are being delivered through our community colleges. For the benefit of members of the Legislature who may not be aware -- look, it's possible that many members are not aware that these programs are being delivered, that the capacity is there for community colleges to deliver these programs. If this government should be doing anything, it is to take the punitive measures out of this bill, and rather than doing that, to collaborate and co-operate with the community colleges in this province to deliver on the motivational side of the intent of this bill and ensure that young people have options; that they know those options are there so that if, for one reason or another, the high school environment is not one where they're fitting in and isn't conducive to their learning, there are alternatives. There should be bridging and introduction programs for any students who may be at risk of dropping out. But this is the positive side, and that's the way the government should be conducting themselves on this issue.
Ontario colleges offer the following opportunities: They provide, first, an adult learning environment that's quite different from the public elementary and secondary schools, and that's very important. It may well be that the environment itself is something that isn't conducive to a young person's ability to learn. So there is that unique environment of a community college that may well trigger in a young person a new interest, a renewed interest in learning. Ontario colleges have career-based education and training that help students to set targets for specific occupations. Students develop a clear sense of how the skills and knowledge they acquire will help them to succeed in the workplace.
Contrary to what some may think, not every young person is built for the academic world. There are those who simply will not succeed within the traditional school environment. What is happening here is that the government is sending a signal to those young people that if you don't fit in there, there's something wrong with you, as opposed to taking the view that there are alternatives, and those alternatives are also part of our public education system, and we're letting you down by not allowing you to see and catch the vision of what you can be simply by taking a different path. There are many practical careers available to young people in this province about which they just need to be enlightened. They just need to be given the awareness that not making it in the traditional school setting doesn't mean they're condemned to a life of failure.
What it means, simply, is that there are other opportunities for them. That's the role that our school system should be playing: helping young people to take a glimpse of their future, helping them to understand that there is a public education system available to them that will help them become productive and give them a sense of confidence and worth within our community. I believe the community colleges do that extremely well, but what we need to do is ensure that the appropriate bridging programs are there to give them that insight.
Ontario colleges provide hands-on opportunities in those trades and technologies that can help many students to regain self-confidence. They also offer literacy and numeracy programs and other programs to help students to upgrade their skills. Above all, they have already an existing history of collaboration with local school boards to help develop those programs and to deliver them.
I listened to some of the debate. I heard what the Minister of Education and the parliamentary assistant had to say, and it seems as though, for the uninitiated, that through Bill 52 this government is somehow recreating the world and creating new opportunities that never existed before. On the one hand, that is either a lack of knowledge or understanding of what is taking place in the education sector and the programs that are available, or it is a blatant attempt to -- how can I put that? I would never suggest that there's a blatant attempt to misrepresent. I would never do that because that would be unparliamentary. So I'm sure that it must be simply an ignorance of what is there. Hopefully, through this process the government will become more aware of what is there, but we don't need to duplicate and we certainly don't need to overlay an already existing, well-functioning and highly effective system with a level of bureaucracy that is only going to drain important public dollars that should and could otherwise go into those Ontario colleges or into other programs that will make this learning experience much more meaningful for young people in our province.
I'd like to move on to another e-mail that I received, this one from Heather Chisvin. It's a very interesting perspective that Ms. Chisvin brings to this debate, and I quote:
"I have a 16-year-old daughter who is having trouble with high school. As she wants to be a hairdresser, she found a job with a local salon and started apprenticing only to find out that about five years ago, legislation was enacted that makes it impossible to become a hairdresser without a high school degree.
"If the new legislation is enacted, she won't be able to drive, or get a job. I'm not sure who all this legislation protects. Certainly not my daughter -- she now can't work or drive unless she can finish high school. So that means she either sits home or does what she needs to do to become a productive member of society, illegally.
"Is there anything I can do to help stop this legislation from being enacted?" Ms. Chisvin asked me.
My advice to her and others who are observing this debate is to put pressure on your local Liberal MPP. They're the only ones who will have the opportunity, the ability, to reach the Minister of Education. You see, the Liberal Party has a majority government and so they don't really need to listen to the public. They should. Anyone who's elected as an MPP should be listening to their constituents and taking advice and input from their constituents and from groups of constituents. The higher the volume gets within our constituency, the more we should be listening. But this government somehow must issue earplugs to all of their members, because the higher the volume goes on an issue, the more they duck, the less they listen and the more they come together and huddle and say, "No. Against all reason, we will forge ahead with this legislation." That's not how our democratic system of government is intended to work. I don't believe, in the final analysis, that it will serve this government well, but they're certainly experimenting with that strategy.
There is an opportunity for the electorate to pass judgment on how this government is conducting itself with regard to these important public policy matters. You see, if members of provincial Parliament are not prepared to listen to appeals either from individual constituents or from groups of people who are coming forward as stakeholders in public education; if they're not prepared to listen to the proceedings that are available through standing committees; if they're not willing to respond to appeals from the official opposition or the third party to implement amendments, to at least incorporate some amendments into a piece of legislation to make it more reasonable; if they're not prepared to do that, then there is an opportunity for the electorate, for those constituents, to express their will. That will be October 4, 2007, not long down the road.
I would encourage people to become engaged in that process. It's said that if you don't become involved in the political process, you are destined to be governed by those who do. That is an encouragement to people to get involved. I believe that we should in fact be engaging many more people in this exercise of democracy. Unfortunately, they become unmotivated when they exercise their rights as individuals to appeal, whether it be to a Minister of Education or to MPPs, and then they're ignored, or telephone calls aren't returned or e-mails are ignored. Shame on any member of this House for doing that, because we work for those people; it's our job. Any call from any constituent should be the most important priority that we have on any given day. That's why I ask the Minister of Education how in good conscience the office of the Minister of Education can ignore hundreds of e-mails on an important issue such as this. How can that happen? The member opposite from the riding of Brant, the chief government whip, is perplexed as well about that, because I know that he doesn't conduct his business that way. So is it any wonder that we have public policy going astray here in the face of a great deal of public opposition?
I want to bring to your attention another issue that we're appealing. I'm going to make an appeal now to the government that they will entertain a number of amendments, but one specifically that relates to the many families in this province who are involved in home schooling. I must have received, if not 100, then at least 200 or 300 letters, e-mails and phone calls from parents who are doing home schooling. I'm going to read a couple of these letters into the record because I think it's important that their view is understood fully by this Minister of Education, because clearly she is not reading her letters. If at least other members of the Legislature and the public who are observing this debate will understand what those issues are, then I will have done my job.
I want to read this first letter from Georgie Donais of Toronto. This is addressed to Ms. Pupatello. I doubt very much if Ms. Pupatello has seen it, and if she has, I would doubt equally that she would ever respond. I'm going to read it into the record:
"I am writing to express my concerns with the `Act to amend the Education Act respecting pupil learning to the age of 18 and equivalent learning and to make complementary amendments to the Highway Traffic Act,' also known as Bill 52.
"As a parent to two home-schooled children, I am concerned about how this bill might affect my children's ability to move freely in society, and to attain an important piece of identification, since their daily learning does not include attendance at a public or private school.
"For children in general, in school or not, I am concerned when I see measures meant to punish them for non-attendance. In my opinion, if schools are not offering something that engages students and helps them want to be there, then it is the school that must change for the student, not the other way around. I have heard once too often from people involved in the education system that there are children who `just don't want to learn.' I'm needing some understanding that they might not want to learn what is currently being taught, and that it's the school's job to offer them what they do want to learn more about, and in such a way that it honours their need for respect, autonomy and their many different ways of learning.
"I therefore second the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents' position that recommends and urges that the government abandon Bill 52, abandon plans to raise the compulsory school age, abandon any plans to link school attendance and drivers' licences, and work within the bounds of existing legislation to implement its positive plans to provide more support, choice and opportunity to young people as they transition through their secondary education to the post-secondary or post-educational destination of their choice.
I think you'll agree that Ms. Donais has very succinctly pointed out the weakness of this legislation, and also the unfairness of it, to a very large and growing group of students in this province who have being home-schooled. They're asking for that consideration.
I'm under no illusion that this government won't press ahead with this legislation. It obviously has become a cornerstone of their education policy. At the very least, what I'm going to appeal for is the inclusion of an amendment that will allow for exceptions for those children who are being home-schooled. I would also expect, in light of the fact that this minister has repeatedly made it it clear that she holds in disdain independent and faith-based schools, that she would also entertain an amendment that would exclude independent and faith-based schools, over which the minister and the government continue to say they want no control. That notwithstanding, by virtue of being the government and by virtue of being the Minister of Education, the Minister of Education has responsibility even for those schools, and should have, and should take pride in the learning that takes place in those institutions in our province. So I'll be very interested to see whether the minister will in fact accept our proposal for an amendment.
I want to just give you an example of one more letter relating to the issue of home schooling. This letter comes from Bonni Altenpohl from Brockville. She says the following:
"I am writing to express my disappointment. It is my wish that Bill 52 is not passed into law as it is written. My position on this matter is similar to that of the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents. I believe you have already received detailed information from this organization regarding their position....
"My husband and I have decided to assume responsibility for our children's education. We take full advantage of our right to provide a home-based education within our family. We feel our children are in the best possible situation, given our family's circumstances. As home schoolers, we are able to schedule our day around our family's needs and habits. We are able to focus on our children's talents and interests."
She goes on to provide a number of examples of how this legislation would, in fact, result in hardship to their family, to their circumstances and the unfairness of this legislation. She goes on to say, "I do hope you consider home schooling as you pursue Bill 52." Again, this was addressed to the Minister of Education, Ms. Pupatello. I have many letters here to the exact same issue.
I want to turn my attention to the fact that this legislation not only misses the mark in terms of fairness, in terms of substance but, as I mentioned earlier, overlays another layer of bureaucracy, not only into the education ministry and education system but also now imposes on the Ministry of Transportation. As a former Minister of Transportation, I can tell you that the last thing the Ministry of Education needs is the added responsibility to police 17- and 18-year-olds who may not be in school. Nowhere have I ever seen anything from the Ministry of Education that there is a funding allotment to that ministry for the additional staff, for the additional administration, for the systems changes that have to take place and how the ministry expects that liaison to work between the board of education, where also now you're going to hire some more police -- licence police. Truant officers now will become a new career in the province. Maybe that's part of their intent, that you make this illegal and so we're going to need more truant officers. There's employment for you: Let's go out and hire another 1,000 people to police young people to see if they're dropping out or not. It's irrational, it is impractical, it is unenforceable. It is beyond the ability of the Ministry of Transportation to cope, and it's beyond the ability of boards of education to cope as well.
Every member in this place has heard, without question, from their school board trustees, from their directors of education, that they are facing serious funding issues this coming fiscal year. There will be deficits -- multi-million dollar deficits -- in every school board in this province because of the policies of this government of announcing targeted new programs and rolling out new programs. These people never stopped electioneering. The rhetoric continues, new programs by the week, but no money. Of course, the school boards can't say very much because they're intimidated by the minister. They don't dare say that this is something that they can't cope with.
I just want to point one thing out. This goes to the bizarre way that this government continues to attempt to fool the people; it's all through their rhetoric. I'm going to give you an example.
Since the new Minister of Education was appointed, there have been numerous -- I'm holding them here as a deck of cards -- press releases and announcements. But here's what's interesting, and this is what I don't think the average person in this province catches on to: the subtlety of the messaging and what they're trying to do here to the people of Ontario.
Listen to this. Here was the first one, May 29: "Student Success Commission to Focus on Greater Student Achievement." Here's what the minister said: "`Our government is on the side of Ontario families who want the best public education for their children,' said Pupatello."
Interesting. Here's the next one, May 30: "A New Transition Plan to Help Struggling Students Prepare for High School." Here's the quote from the minister -- this is the next release: "`Our government is on the side of Ontario families who want the best public education for their children,' said Pupatello."
Here's the next one, June 1: "Legislation Passes to Boost Student Performance." Here's the quote from the minister: "We are on the side of hard-working Ontario families who want the best public education for their children."
Here is June 5: "Ontario Students to Benefit from Enhanced Training for Teachers." Here's the quote from the minister. She got up that morning and said, "I'm going to say something new to the people of Ontario." Quote: "We are on the side of Ontario families who want the best public education for their children."
June 8: "McGuinty Government Invests $50 Million in Special Education Reforms." Here's the quote from the minister: "`Our government is on the side of Ontario families who want the best public education for their children,' said Pupatello."
Who are we kidding? There's a propaganda machinery in that Ministry of Education like none other. They know how to make announcements, they know how to announce new programs, but what they don't know how to do is to manage competently. What they need to do is stop making new announcements and fund the ones that they've made, fund the commitments that they've made, and ensure that the trustees and the school boards across the province who have the burden and the responsibility of carrying out programs actually have the resources and the money to fund all of those commitments. No, that's not what this government's about.
This government knows very little about competency. This government knows very little about responsibility. It knows very little about how to manage. They know how to make announcements. They know how to electioneer. But it's catching up to them, you see? The reason it's catching up to them is because you can only do this for so long and the rubber hits the road.
Where the rubber is hitting the road now is that, as they come through this stage of their government, what is going to happen is that the stakeholders are waking up and they realize they've been fooled. Parents are waking up and realizing they've been fooled. Whether it's parents of special-needs children who have been suffering because school boards have had to shuffle money from special-needs programs to other areas of very specified demands from the Minister of Education -- and by the way, we're not even talking now about the four-year contracts that are underfunded: a multi-billion dollar shortfall in funding.
Day after day, this Minister of Education continues to stand before people and make new announcements. We're going to track. I'd be willing to bet that by the end of the year we'll have another dozen of these: more commitments without the appropriate funding.
Folks, you as the government will have to be responsible to the electorate, who will hold you accountable. You're being irresponsible now. You're turning your backs on those parents to whom you made very real commitments about looking after the special needs of their children. You're turning your backs on autistic children and their parents. You are ignoring the very real needs in families across this province, and you dare to come forward with Bill 52, which does nothing to advance quality education. It does nothing in a practical way to address the real needs of those young people who are craving a motivation. They're asking their government, "Don't take my driver's licence. Give me a reason to stay in school. Give me the practical programs that I need. Help me to learn, because I learn differently." That's what it's all about.
There's concern about the fact that the withdrawal or withholding of a driver's licence from students who are not achieving in high school and are looking for other options is a form of blackmail or punishment, and it's simply inappropriate for government to undertake that kind of punitive relationship with students.
Also, the member talked about lifelong learning, which of course is a principle that we would all agree to; however, recognizing that lifelong learning is something that is not necessarily done within the formal structure of schooling as we know it.
The member also spoke a great deal about the fact that the supports and the choices the government talks about simply aren't in place and are not clear in the bill, and also the added cost in bureaucracies to both the education system and the transportation ministry in that regard.
When you look at the statistics, back in 1998, as part of the crisis, we had a high school graduation rate of some 78%. By 2004-05, that dropped to 68%. We had 51,000 students in the province of Ontario dropping out of high school without enough credits to graduate, 51,000 people who have great potential, whose potential needed to be tapped. Bill 52, Learning to Age 18, goes a long way to achieve that. Bill 52 will allow students to achieve success, be the best fit possible for each student's potential. It will instill willingness and capacity for further learning, have a core of common knowledge, skills and values.
It's been 50 years since the Education Act has been updated in Ontario to move it from age 16 to age 18. This, indeed, when you look into this legislation, which will go to committee for review, is an opportunity to reach those 51,000 people. In the world we face today, in the Ontario we face today, we can't afford to leave 51,000 people sitting on the sidelines without opportunity. This bill targets that group. It's an important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that needs to go forward to bring back positive learning for that particular group in Ontario. After eight years of chaos, I think Annie Kidder said it best in her report not too long ago: "The crisis is over in Ontario."
If we look to the origins of this, we were misinformed by the Minister of Education on the statistics --
Stats Canada: The true dropout rate over the last five years in this province is slightly under 10%, or at or near 10%. Again, that includes a couple of years of the current government's efforts. So to condemn outright the policies of the former government when, in fact, our dropout rate had lowered, misinforming the House --
Frankly, if the member from Peterborough continues to use these statistics when, in fact, they're clearly wrong, they're not adding to the true importance of debate that needs to occur on this important subject.
Some of the wonderful recapturing of the essence of what we should be doing for students is happening in my riding, is happening in ridings across the province, where we're re-engaging. We had a graduation ceremony in Brantford that represented 32 different students who, until that point where we reinvented how we provide that education -- we celebrated 32 new people. They were all guaranteed spots in college because of what they were doing, what those wonderful teachers have done, what those wonderful administrators have done and those supportive parents who came to us during that time and asked, "Is there a way we can continue to get our children to learn until they're 18 and beyond?" That's what this is.
Let's stop playing games with who said what and where; let's talk about our kids. Let's talk about those kids who have been failed as a result of our refusal -- sticking a square peg in a round hole. It's time for us to start talking about what success should be. We should be celebrating those successes. We should be talking about what new, innovative ways we are getting those kids away from the streets, away from the bad choices and away from the people who are making them make bad choices. Yes, they're responsible for some of the choices they've made, and in my discussions with them they are accepting that responsibility. They are now saying, "Do you know what? You're on our side. We're going to go to college, we're going to get a job and we're going to contribute to our society." That's what we're talking about, and we should stay focused on that.
I want to thank especially the member for Brant because he makes my point and he makes it very well, that there are already existing programs in this province that do precisely what we know needs to be done: meet the needs of our students. What we don't need is a piece of legislation that is draconian, that is punitive, which is represented in Bill 52. That is my point.
That is why I am objecting and why we as the official opposition will soundly vote against this legislation, because it does not do what the member from Brant says. What it does is it paints the wrong picture about students in this province, who need to be celebrated; I agree. They don't need to be threatened with a withholding of their driver's licence; employers don't need to be threatened with a fine of $1,000 for hiring someone into a part-time job because they happen not to be in high school. What we need to do is celebrate their differences, celebrate their unique way of learning and ensure that our education system is there to meet those needs. That's what we need to do. This bill is a desperate attempt by this government to cobble together results, to backfill an irresponsible campaign commitment by this government. That's what this is.
I believe the people in this province -- parents across this province, education stakeholders -- will see this bill for what it is: a political document. It is bad public policy. It will not do what the member from Brant says needs to be done; that is already being done. We need to support those kinds of programs, and he has my full support and the support of the official opposition for those kinds of programs.
Evening meeting reported in volume B.