AODA Alliance
ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE
NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
While Claiming to Put Student Achievement First, Tories Voted Against the Needs of Vulnerable Students with Disabilities Over and Over As They Rammed the Controversial Bill 101 Through a Standing Committee
May 27, 2026 Toronto: Earlier this month, the Ford Government used its majority in the Ontario Legislature to pass its controversial Bill 101 earlier this month. Although this legislation as been in the headlines for weeks, here is an important story that the media has yet to cover.
When the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy voted clause-by-clause on the bill on April 30, 2026, the Tories used their majority to systematically defeat every opposition amendment, including several that would help students with disabilities:
- The Tories voted against requiring the Auditor General to provide a report on how much Bill 101 will cost the taxpayers. This legislation creates a great deal of new red tape and bureaucracy.
- The Tories voted against preventing the Education Minister from penalizing students for absenteeism until he takes “reasonable steps to facilitate student attendance, including steps with respect to special education, mental health, transportation, class sizes and alternative high schools,…”
- The Tories voted against requiring the Education Minister to collect and publish statistics on student absenteeism rates, broken down on various grounds including disability.
- The Tories voted against requiring that before the Education Minister can make or amend any guidelines, orders, directions or regulations under Bill 101, they must consult and consider the feedback of the public, parents, teachers and other educators and their associations and special education advisory committees.
- The Tories voted against requiring that the Education Minister does an impact assessment to ensure there are no anti-Black impacts or negative impacts for students with disabilities resulting from the Minister’s new guidelines, orders, directions or regulations.
- The Tories voted against requiring that the Education Minister should consider the needs of students with disabilities and should ensure that any new guideline, order, direction or regulation,
““‘(i) enables students with disabilities to have equal benefit of education at a school board, and
“‘(ii) does not create or continue any disability barriers that would adversely impact students with disabilities…”
- The Tories voted against requiring the Education Minister to provide a public statement on how they reached their conclusion on the forgoing.
- The Tories voted against the Education Minister ensuring that construction of new school buildings or renovations/additions be accessible to people with disabilities, when he makes decisions under Bill 101 regarding school construction or renovation.
- The Tories voted against the Education Minister being required to list the remaining powers of school board trustees. Bill 101 reduces the powers of school board trustees, and leaves it unclear to the public and school boards what remaining powers the trustees still have.
- The Tories voted against requiring the Education Minister to make public their criteria that a school board must meet in order to have them remove provincial supervision from that board.
“During a full day of clause-by-clause debate in the Standing Committee on Social Policy on April 30, 2026, Tory MPPs gave absolutely no reasons for opposing any of these amendments that would have helped vulnerable students with disabilities,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “In cruel contrast, Tory MPPs systematically passed a series of Government amendments that do nothing to help students with disabilities, but which grant the Education Minister even more power to micromanage Ontario’s 5,000 schools.”
As the April 29, 2026 AODA Alliance news release explained, the opposition Liberal and New Democratic Parties proposed a series of amendments to Bill 101. Among these were several commendable proposals that were based on AODA Alliance recommendations.
The Ford Government says that this legislation is supposed to “put student achievement first.” In fact, it does nothing to advance student achievement. The AODA Alliance’s May 23, 2026 brief to the Standing Committee on Social Policy showed that Bill 101 hurts vulnerable students with disabilities in Ontario schools. It recommended amendments to help reduce that harm.
On April 27, 2026, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky gave a 15 minute presentation to the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy, outlining how this bill harms students with disabilities. Watch this presentation on YouTube or read the text of it in the May 15, 2026 AODA Alliance Update.
During the April 27, 2026 Standing Committee hearings on the bill, witness after witness said Ontario must do more for students with disabilities/special education needs. Even Education Minister Calandra conceded:
“The level of special education across the province is different from school board to school board. I’m frankly unhappy with that. I’m unhappy with the disconnect between the three ministries that are responsible. I certainly think we can do a better job. I will be spending a significant amount of time over the next number of months seeing how we can better perform when it comes to special education.”
The Ford Government only allowed one day for clause-by-clause debate on Bill 101. Key excerpts concerning students with disabilities are set out below. Read the entire text of that debate online.
Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky at aodafeedback@gmail.com
Twitter: @aodaalliance
Excerpts from Clause-by-Clause Debate on Bill 101 in the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on Social Policy on April 30, 2026
Originally posted at https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/committees/social-policy/parliament-44/transcripts/committee-transcript-2026-apr-30?utm_source=openai
First Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: Thank you very much, Chair.
This is not a good bill. The stakeholders that came to speak to us on Monday, who represented only a small subsection of all the people who wanted to make comments on the bill, were very clear that this does not address the real challenges in our education system; that there are serious concerns about the centralization of power in the hands of the minister, including the sweeping liability protections that he is giving himself, which the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said are almost unprecedented.
We heard that none of the teachers or education worker unions were consulted, neither were the trustee associations or the principals. These are the people who are on the front lines of our education system every single day, who know the challenges that our kids are facing and what supports are actually needed to support them. They were very clear that it is not the changes that are being put forward in this bill, which doesn’t even contain the words “classrooms,” “class sizes,” “mental health” or “special education.”
Second Excerpt:
Mr. John Fraser: I’ll just keep my remarks brief. Our schools are not safe places to learn or to work, and that’s because class sizes are too big. They have grown. Special education has been starved. Boards have had to find $800 million that the government doesn’t give them. There’s a mental health crisis in our schools that the minister actually acknowledged when he was here earlier this week.
There’s not one thing in this bill that will make one child’s class smaller. There is not one thing in this bill that will make sure that a child who has exceptional needs will get the help that she needs. There is nothing in this bill that’s going to address the mental health crisis that exists in our schools.
The question is, if we’re not doing that, why are we doing this? It’s not right. The bill should be withdrawn.
Third Excerpt:
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: … What we hear with all the experts that came—these are folks who represent hundreds of thousands of education workers. My experience in schools since COVID is that the kids are not okay, the teachers are burned out and the ed workers are spread too thin. Our kids need those caring adults. We call it co-regulation. They learn how to regulate their emotions through the caring adults in their environment. When they don’t have access to those caring adults in their environment, they don’t learn how to regulate. We’re seeing unprecedented amounts of Internet addiction, mental health crises and kids’ special education needs not being met, and that’s because there are too few caring adults, who are struggling. This is a canary in the coal mine.
I probably see that this bill will pass and it will go forward, but I hope if you walk away today thinking that next time an education bill comes forward and we want to solve a problem—we’re going to talk to the people who work in that sector. We’re going to talk to the folks who do this job every day in a meaningful way, in a good process and we’re going to do it with the evidence and data that jurisdictions across the world are doing to solve these problems.
Our kids really need our help right now and our kids are our future. If we don’t invest in their well-being, if they don’t get to learn how to read, they don’t get their special education needs met, we’re going to have a generation of kids who have been failed and abandoned by us.
Fourth Excerpt:
Mr. Chris Glover: …This government’s record on education is abysmal. They have increased class sizes. They have cut $6.5 billion—an inflationary cut of $6.5 billion from our schools. They negotiated pay for teachers and expenses for special education and then underfunded by $900 million. …
Fifth Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I just want to make sure that we also mention on the record the serious equity and accessibility concerns, along with the constitutional concerns about this bill. There were multiple stakeholders. The AODA Alliance and Ontario Autism Coalition were able to come to speak but we know that there were other organizations representing persons with disabilities and Parents of Black Children and the Black Trustees’ Caucus of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, who all raised concerns that this bill does not even mention accessibility or equity and that the measures that are in this bill have the possibility of making even greater challenges, putting even greater barriers in front of students with disabilities and Black and racialized students within our system.
Sixth Excerpt:
Mr. John Fraser: … How did our schools get into this state—how did they become not safe places to learn or to work? How did class sizes get bigger? How did special education get starved? How are we not addressing the mental health crisis in our schools? Why? Because the government is not focused on the right things. …
Seventh Excerpt:
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I just want to highlight what I’ve been learning about the root causes of why we’re in this state.
I hear again and again—they’re called fail-to-fills. If a teacher is sick, a lot of boards don’t fill in that sick person’s post. That class ends up getting taught by a principal or a special ed teacher or rolled into something else. It means that most kids are missing out on their special education supports. I also learned from the EAs and ECEs and CYWs that when they call in sick, they don’t replace them either. So boards, because of these short funds, the gaps in funding, are actually trying to balance budgets—and sometimes it’s not a choice; there are no people to fill in those posts. They end up balancing the budget by not filling in those posts. That means those kids are not, maybe, at school, because the EA who supports them isn’t there that day. It means kids aren’t getting their special education help, so they don’t get their literacy support.
I talked to a special education teacher the other day who said she got to teach her reading recovery program twice in the month because she was fighting fires. We know that, when I talk to principals, they are also fighting fires instead of doing the work that they need to do. So it’s kind of like we’ve spread ourselves so thin by not funding our sick days and making sure that we have staff to fill those in that the place is just trying to survive, and it’s at a breaking point.
… The problem is gaps in funding and a lack of recognition for how the system works and how it can work well. I think the solution includes meaningful collaboration with experts in making evidence-based decisions and meeting the moment of this mental health crisis. Whether it’s gambling addictions, pornography addictions, social anxiety, depression, it’s hitting kids at a younger and younger age and in a more serious way. We do not have the supports in the community to address the needs of kids with special education needs, autism, developmental disabilities, mental health issues.
Eighth Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 2 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
“0.1. Subsection 8(1) of the act is amended by adding the following paragraph:
“‘reports
“‘1.1 request a report,
“‘i. from the Auditor General with respect to any costs to the province of Ontario that would result from the passage of schedule 2 to the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026, and
“‘ii. from the Ombudsman with respect to any actions the minister takes or intends to take under an authority under this act that resulted from the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026;’”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Pasma again.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I’m moving this amendment because there were some significant concerns raised about the costs of all of the new layers of bureaucracy that the minister is adding to the Education Act, including all of the various reports and requests for permission that are going to need to be sent in to the minister, along with the new layers of bureaucracy at school boards. This adds the costing from the Auditor General so the public actually has a sense of how much we’re going to be paying for all of the minister’s new bureaucracy It allows the Ombudsman to weigh in on the equity and accessibility concerns about the many new measures that are being introduced in this act, all the powers that are being centralized by the minister and the new CEOs.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Glover.
Mr. Chris Glover: I just want to echo what my colleague MPP Pasma says about this amendment. This government, with this bill, instead of cutting red tape, as they always talk about doing, is actually increasing the red tape. They’re demanding that the school boards provide a whole bunch of documentation to the minister so that the minister can control everything that happens in every school like a puppeteer.
And all those additional positions, all of that additional documentation that’s going to be required, all the people that are going to be required to pay for it—that’s all going to come out of the existing education budget, which has been slashed over the last number of years under this government and under the previous government as well.
Our schools are grossly underfunded in this province. The class sizes have increased. Every school board in the province pays more for special education services than they receive, and yet students with special needs are still stuck at home because there aren’t enough staff in the schools to actually provide them with the service that they need in order to attend. So this government is violating their right to actually attend school, and yet the government is downloading the cost of more red tape so they can control more without providing better service to the students.
When the minister says that he’s going to focus on getting funding into the classroom, this is the exact opposite of that. This government is creating more red tape so the minister can demand more documents and have more control over our schools and take more money out of the classroom so the service in our classrooms will be even worse for students.
This is an NDP motion to actually fund all the red tape that the government is creating. I hope the Conservative government will recognize that they’re creating a whole lot of red tape and that they should fund it from the central provincial budget rather than taking the money out of the classrooms.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. The motion is lost.
Ninth Excerpt:
[The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell)]: We’ll now go to the NDP amendment amending subsection 2(1) of schedule 2. Is there further debate on this, or comments? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that subsection 2(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out paragraph 3.3 of subsection 8(1) of the Education Act and substituting the following:
“policies, guidelines: assessment of student achievement
“3.3 after taking reasonable steps to facilitate student attendance, including steps with respect to special education, mental health, transportation, class sizes and alternative high schools, establish policies and guidelines for the assessment of student achievement with respect to pupils attending schools under the jurisdiction of a board and require boards to comply with the policies and guidelines;”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Is there any debate on this section? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: This section of the bill allows the Minister of Education to determine how students will be assessed, and he has already made it clear that he intends to include attendance in part of a student’s grade. We’ve heard concerns from students—both student organizations and individual students contacting the committee—along with teachers and education workers, that this has a negative impact on our students who are already on the margins and struggling because it doesn’t address any of the reasons why students are not actually in class, which has to do with the fact that they’re not getting academic support in large classes, that special education supports and programs are being cut, that there is not enough mental health support in our schools. Only one in 10 has regularly scheduled access to a mental health professional.
The government has broken funding for student transportation, and so in far too many places in the province, there’s not reliable student transportation or students are travelling far too long, or because of the state of northern roads and the government’s failure to address them, the buses can’t actually get to school because of accidents on the road.
We are also seeing around the province many boards cutting alternative programs, including alternative high schools, which really help students who are on the edge of dropping out to remain in school with increased support so that they actually are able to get the credits they need to graduate from high school and move on to post-secondary education or into the labour force with a high school diploma.
I don’t think it’s fair for the minister to punish students when it’s the ministry that is failing these students, and that’s not even getting into the more than 20,000 students who are not attending school in Ontario at all because they have disabilities and there aren’t supports to keep them safe or support their learning in school, or the tens of thousands of students who aren’t allowed to attend for a full day or a full week because—the number one reason is that there aren’t supports to keep them safe or that principals are calling for parents to come and pick the child up because they’re not able to support the student for the rest of the day.
Until we address all of these reasons why students are not at school full-time, the minister should not be including attendance in grades. So this amendment states that the minister has to address all of these reasons why children are not at school before he is allowed to make attendance a mandatory part of a child’s grade.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Glover.
Mr. Chris Glover: I’m obviously speaking in favour of this motion.
The minister, in this bill, is saying that he wants to be able to deduct marks from students whose attendance is too low.
My question to the Conservative members here today—there are special-needs students who are not allowed to attend school because they do not have the staff supports in the school so that they can actually attend the school safely. So how many marks will this minister be deducting from their report card because they’re missing school because the government is not providing the funding for staff so that they can actually attend? It’s for any of the Conservative members.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Fraser.
Mr. John Fraser: Just further to MPP Glover’s comments: When the minister was here, we did ask him what the top three reasons for absenteeism are in schools, and he couldn’t provide a clear answer or any answer—it was very anecdotal, very regional. If you don’t fundamentally understand the cause of a problem, how can you propose a solution? I just wanted to add that in.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Clancy.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: On one hand, I am grateful that the government is acknowledging the problem of chronic absenteeism in our school system. It’s something I’ve been raising for two years, since I got here.
I was an attendance counsellor for 11 years. Our social workers in schools are our attendance counsellors. Our caseloads are enormous. Before, we had to help kids who were kind of struggling; now a lot of our attention goes to kids who are struggling to come at all, with very few days each month.
When you look at the stats, since smart phones were introduced in 2012, suicidality and social anxiety and depression have gone on the extreme—and we’re not even really fully analyzing violence in schools. Violence in schools is because of trouble with regulation. When you look at what social anxiety really means, it means that kids struggle to look at people in the face, they struggle to talk on the phone; they’d rather message or text. We see kids who are not getting a good night’s sleep.
I think the way in which we’re addressing the issue is where things fall apart. Experts say the main reason that kids miss school is because they’ve had a traumatic incident—they’re part of a Black, Indigenous, racialized community; they’re living on low incomes and they have to help their family members; or they don’t have a lunch. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat with a family and tried to explore why their kid is not at school and they say, “I don’t have food to send with my child.” I think by the time somebody gets to high school, those habits can become very entrenched. We should be putting a lot of time and energy into grade 9, to make sure those kids have really good habits when they transition from elementary school to high school. And we should be putting in a lot of resources in kindergarten, to make sure kids have a really good start. Because I’m letting you know that the groups that I’ve identified, not to mention kids with developmental disabilities and special ed needs—we see those patterns emerging, of them feeling stupid, not feeling motivated to go to school and not thriving, and having other behavioural things that come from that, and that starts at a very young age. So this is trying to use a Band-Aid for a gunshot wound.
It also could further diminish people’s motivation. A lot of kids need to find hope. If you think about a semester system, for example, kids have marks—it’s the first time that they’ve been graded and they could fail. They’ve gone through all of elementary school with staff trying to buoy them up and help them continue on with their studies. Now they end up in high school, and if they’ve missed a number of days in September and October, they’ve already lost hope, and that’s when their report card comes out. So by the time the report card comes out, they’ve lost all their hope, and then if we add a participation mark on that to boot, we’re behind the eight ball.
That’s what alternative schools really do. They find a flexible, non-semester type model so that kids can learn at their own pace and they can get more individualized support. The marks just aren’t supported by evidence.
In fact, if we took the time to look at the Attendance Works data—they’re the experts. They’re an American organization but they have decades and decades of data. The thing that they say is, don’t punish people for attendance. Whether it’s suspensions and truancy, whether it’s courts or whether it’s lost marks, those three things only add insult to injury for folks who are already struggling to get by day to day. We have to invest in the root causes.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Lost.
Tenth Excerpt:
[The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell)]: We will now go to independent amendment 6. Do you want to go ahead? I recognize MPP Clancy.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I move that section 2 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
“(1.1) Subsection 8(1) of the act is amended by adding the following paragraph:
“‘policies, guidelines: student absenteeism
“‘3.3.1 establish policies and guidelines to address frequent absences by pupils and, for the purpose, the minister shall,
“‘i. require communication strategies and team-based supports for pupils and families of pupils experiencing attendance challenges,
“‘ii. require a board to annually collect and publish data on the number and types of absences by pupils attending schools under the jurisdiction of the board, and
“‘iii. require a board to annually publish the data collected under subparagraph ii broken down by race, ethnicity and students with disabilities;’”.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Can you read the first part of the motion, please?
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: The “I move” part?
I move that section 2 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Clancy.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: If we want to address absenteeism, and I think we all do, this is where it’s almost like health care—a team-based approach with folks who have expertise and early intervention is essential. If we do that, it will cost us less and it will help kids to thrive.
The data is essential. I have been anecdotally seeing a difference in the amount of students missing more and more days. I think we have heard about it from people we have had conversations with. We really need to ensure that that data is up to date on a regular basis. For example, most parents don’t even know that their kid has been missing a lot of school until the first report card and, by then, maybe two months have passed. We’ve really missed a lot of time.
Not only do we need data early on and early intervention for kids in the beginning of a semester—those who are parents in the room will know that they want to know what’s going on with their kids and try to get help as soon as possible. We need that team-based approach, but the data will help us identify what are the root causes. Are there low-income kids who don’t have lunches? Could we institute a food program? Will that help attendance? Are we seeing a disproportionate number of kids with special education needs who are missing school? Is that because of staffing issues? Is it because we didn’t do an assessment early on? Do we have enough supports in kindergarten?
Most times, a kid shows up in kindergarten maybe with complex disabilities and the school really doesn’t have a lot of information. We’re starting off the kid’s first year in kindergarten, right off the bat setting this kid up to fail because we don’t have a lot of those screening tools early on to make sure that we have supports in place when that kid starts kindergarten.
The data is essential and that’s what Attendance Works really talks about. If you are interested in learning about how to seriously address attendance issues, they have amazing resources. Jurisdictions, states and provinces across the world are addressing absenteeism in a really meaningful way and finding great results and that’s because they base their solutions on team-based care and good data.
I hope you will support this amendment.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Lost.
Eleventh Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 2 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
“(6) Section 8 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
“‘Duties of minister
“‘(3.1) Before making or amending any guidelines, orders, directions or regulations under an authority under this act that resulted from the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026, the minister shall,
“‘(a) consult with, and consider the feedback of, the public, parents, teachers and other educators and their associations, special education advisory committees and such other persons as the minister considers appropriate;
“‘(b) ensure that an impact assessment is done to ensure there are not anti-Black impacts or negative impacts for students with disabilities resulting from the guideline, order, direction or regulation;
“‘(c) ensure that the guideline, order, direction or regulation complies with the recommendations set out in the Dreams Delayed action plan, dated March 27, 2025;
“‘(d) at least 90 days before making or amending the guideline, order, direction or regulation, post a draft of such document on a website of the government of Ontario that is accessible to the public;
“‘(e) consider any feedback received as a result of a posting under clause (d);
“‘(f) consider the needs of students with disabilities and ensure that the guideline, order, direction or regulation,
“‘(i) enables students with disabilities to have equal benefit of education at a school board, and
“‘(ii) does not create or continue any disability barriers that would adversely impact students with disabilities; and
“‘(g) provide a public statement with respect to how the minister reached their conclusion under clause (f).’”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: We’ve heard from many of the stakeholders and education partners who are vital to the functioning of our schools every day—the teachers and education workers, the principals, the trustees, parents’ associations and students—that they were not consulted on the contents of this bill. There was no attempt to take into account their needs, to reflect their priorities or even to ensure that what is in this legislation does not cause any harm.
There were particular concerns raised from disability organizations, including the AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition and ARCH Disability Law Centre, that the bill will make things worse for students with disabilities because it doesn’t even mention them or take their particular needs into account.
We heard from parents of Black children in the Black Trustees’ Caucus that this has the potential to cause greater harm to Black students and racialized and Indigenous students because it does not even mention them or take their needs into account. The standardization and harmonization of many measures mean, in fact, that there will be a reduction in the extent to which education reflects their reality and their needs.
The Minister of Education has taken no steps to implement the Dreams Delayed action plan more than a year after it came out, and the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner confirmed that there is systemic anti-Black racism in our system.
What this amendment does is require that, before he can use any of his extensive new powers in this legislation, the Minister of Education must:
—consult with parents, with the public, with students, with teachers, education workers and other stakeholders and special education advisory committees, who really know the details of what special education is like on the ground in their particular school board;
—ensure that impact assessments are done to make sure that nothing the minister is implementing under the new powers granted to him by this act is harming students with disabilities or harming equity-seeking students;
—that the minister actually makes public any rules he is considering before it happens so that the public has an opportunity to weigh in; and
—that when the minister implements any policy, guideline, order or direction, he has to ensure that it is not creating barriers, and he has to provide a public statement about how he reached his conclusion that it is not creating any barriers so that, once again, there is accountability for the decisions that the minister is making and there is transparency so people understand why he is making these decisions. That transparency, again, is an important part of accountability so that people know what conclusions the minister is reaching and why.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Collard.
Mme Lucille Collard: I think this is a very reasonable amendment, actually. I think this is the way every bill, every legislation, should be structured. Before the ministers propose some ideas to fix some problems, they need to understand the problem. I think the only way to do that is by consulting with the stakeholders, and clearly this has not been done in the elaboration of this bill because that’s not the text we would have before us today.
Having an impact assessment—of course. We can’t fix after the damage is done. We need to know in advance what the changes are going to do in terms of effect in our schools on our children, not after the damage is done.
Again, it might be easier to support government legislation if they actually could be more transparent and provide a public statement as to how they came to the conclusion that the proposed legislation is needed.
I will support these amendments.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): I recognize MPP Clancy.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I think this amendment tries to bring democracy back into the way we teach kids. I think the attitude in this bill undermines how important educational materials are to kids.
We are forming little people, little minds; big people, big minds. If we try to dictate that, I think those are the actions that we see of governments that are moving too far to the right and moving toward centralization of power and authoritarianism. Those are the characteristics of what happens in schools when there is major screening of what kids learn in schools. I think in order to make good legislation about educational materials in general, it’s essential that we talk to people who actually work in this field and create educational material, the people who use those materials and the families that are in our system.
I have things that I would like to see in terms of curriculum changes. For example, in Estonia, they have good curriculum on misinformation and disinformation. We want to build students that are critical thinkers, and that’s what teachers do. They help kids ask questions and think through issues.
I worry that by using a sledgehammer approach to controlling what kids learn in schools, we miss out on all of the messiness of democracy that I think ends up with more deep roots. A process like this is really what all of the stakeholder groups are asking for. That’s what I heard from ETFO, OECTA, CUPE and all of the groups, that they want to be part of the process. They are experts in the field.
I actually heard from the parent councils. They weren’t allowed to speak, and they thought it was hurtful to them that they have dedicated a lot of their advocacy and the work that they do outside of schools as volunteers because they care about their kids’ education, and the leaders of the parent councils weren’t able to raise their concerns at our committee.
I support this amendment, but I hope this government takes the amendment as a good template on what good process looks like. I look at the IPV consultations. They were so robust. We had lots of experts. I would love to see where that goes because it was well researched, and that’s what we should be doing when it comes to education because it is as important as healthy relationships for adults. The curriculum our kids learn is essential to having a thriving society, so I will be supporting the amendment.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I also just want to add that to our schools work best when there are partnerships between students, parents, teachers, education workers, equity and human rights advocates, trustees who are locally elected and locally accountable and the government. What we’re seeing here is a sweeping-aside of all of those other education partners, and only the Minister of Education is going to get to have any say.
We’re taking away any professional expertise and first-hand experience from people who are on the ground every single day in our schools. The government is not listening to parents and students who know what their needs are, who know where the system is failing them. They’re not listening to disability advocates and parent advocates about the real, systemic challenges that their kids are facing, the barriers that that’s creating and the harm that it is causing. They are trying to also take away accountability for these decisions from our communities.
This amendment is an attempt to restore that partnership, to say that the minister’s powers have to be enacted in partnership with all of these people who have a stake in our schools; who know what’s going on in our schools; who have a right to a meaningful, equitable and high-quality education in the province of Ontario; and who know what is lacking in order to make that real.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote. Please raise your hands, all those in favour. Please raise your hands, for all those opposed. Lost.
Twelfth Excerpt:
[The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell)]: Shall schedule 2, section 2, as amended, carry? Is there any debate on this section? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: Chair, we’ve heard many concerns from students, parents, education workers, teachers, trustees, community members, parent involvement councils, disability advocates, equity advocates about the serious concerns of the centralization of power in the hands of the minister, the lack of accountability, the lack of consultation, the extreme overreach of the powers that the minister is giving himself.
Education works best when it’s a partnership that respects professional expertise, respects the needs of every child and respects local democracy, local accountability and includes parent voices. What we have here is a section that makes the Minister of Education the emperor of education in addition to the fact that, in other sections of this bill, he’s trying to shield himself from any consequences for the actions that he’s taking. So the NDP cannot support this section of the bill.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Any further debate? I recognize MPP Collard.
Mme Lucille Collard: I can’t either support this section. All the amendments that I’ve proposed on this bill were to try to formalize the engagement of the minister not to attack the francophone rights. Clearly there is no interest on the part of the government to support that, so there is clearly an indication that the minister has every intention to do whatever he likes, whether it does affect francophone rights to govern themselves or their education system.
I won’t be supporting this section.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Any further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Carried.
Thirteenth Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 3 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
“(3) Section 11 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
“‘Same
“‘(6.1) Before the minister provides an approval or confirmation in respect of clause (6)(a.1) that may impact a facility of the school board, the minister shall ensure that the approval or confirmation will not negatively impact the accessibility of the facility to students, staff and other members of the community.’”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Go ahead.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: We know that, despite the adoption of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the timeline that was in place for the province to be fully compliant with that act, our schools are not fully accessible at present. The minister and the government have not exercised their responsibility under the act to ensure full accessibility, despite the fact that, in addition to the rights under the AODA, every child has the right to an equitable education in Ontario, which means that they have to have equitable access to the school building and its facilities.
This requires that, if the minister is going to exercise any power under this legislation with regard to school facilities, he must ensure that, before providing that approval or confirmation, nothing would negatively impact the accessibility of the facility.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed. Lost.
Fourteenth Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 6 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
“(1.1) Clause 58.1(2)(k) of the act is amended by adding the following subclause:
“‘(i.1) the determination of the roles and responsibilities of the members of district school boards,’”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: This is an amendment to try to address the fact that the Minister of Education is removing so many powers from school board trustees with this act when school board trustees are the democratically elected representatives of local communities and parents. They are the local voice of communities and parents. This creates a scene of great confusion for parents and communities as to what responsibilities and roles and powers our elected representatives actually have and what we are able to hold them accountable for. This would ensure that the minister is clearly spelling out, “Here are the powers and responsibilities.”
Another thing that we’ve seen repeatedly from this government over the past eight years is a lot of finger-pointing, a lot of dodging of accountability by claiming that the outcomes that they are responsible for with their funding cuts are actually the responsibilities of the teachers in your child’s classroom or the school board trustees who are not spending the money that the government is giving them appropriately.
This is a tool that also helps to provide greater clarity for accountability to parents so that the Minister of Education can’t simply pass the buck for anything he doesn’t want to take accountability for, because it will be clearly spelled out to parents, “Here are the powers, responsibilities and roles that your elected school board trustees actually have.”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Fraser.
Mr. John Fraser: People should understand the roles and responsibilities of the people they elect. It’s that simple. It’s a good amendment. I’m going to support it.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Members ready to vote? All in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Lost.
Fifteenth Excerpt:
Mr. John Fraser: I move that section 7.1 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:
“7.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:
“‘Publication of policy list
“‘169.1.1(1) The minister shall publish a list to a government of Ontario website that describes the policies that a board may make decisions on without oversight from the ministry.
“‘Timing
“‘(2) The first version of the list described in subsection (1) must be published within one month after the day the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 receives royal assent.
“‘No limitation on powers of board
“‘(3) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection (1) limits the powers of a board.’”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Debate?
Mr. John Fraser: This is something the AODA brought forward to us. The message is—and we talked about it a couple of times before—people are being shut out. People don’t know what’s happening in their schools. They don’t know what their trustees can do. They don’t know what the policies are.
I just heard recently that the Toronto District School Board that’s under supervision, which the minister has said is going to be the case for all school boards—because it’s really supervision. He said that. He said the bill is going to create supervision for every school board. In that board, they’re not going to let families know class sizes, how big their class is—every family.
That’s the point. You’re not just pulling it away from trustees; you’re pulling decision-making and information and accountability away from families. The minister can’t even really describe what trustees are going to do and what they’re doing there. He wants to essentially say to not just trustees but families in Toronto, “You only get one person for essentially what’s two of our ridings.”
We have to be open and transparent with people. These are their schools. There are too many kids—5,000 schools. They belong to the community. They belong to the families that they serve.
Withholding information? People are busy. People are just trying to pay their rent, buy groceries, get their kids to soccer and get done what they need to get done. They don’t need a government that’s getting in between them and their kids’ school, and that’s what’s happening. This amendment is really trying to point that out.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: When you have a democratically elected trustee, part of their job is to help you navigate concerns that you might have within the education system or answer your questions. But another part of their job is to take the bigger picture of the questions and concerns that they’re hearing, whether it’s from individual parents reaching out or whether it’s through consultation with their constituents to identify the systemic issues, take them to the board table, develop policies and programs and adapt budgets to address those concerns. That’s what people expect from our democratically elected trustees. What the government is doing with this bill is taking away a lot of the power of trustees to do that, because they’re giving an unelected, unaccountable CEO the power to override what trustees are even allowed to debate at the table.
So, again, I think it comes down to transparency, because if we’re going to have accountability, we need to have transparency about who is making what decisions and who is being allowed to make what decision so that parents understand when they reached out to their trustee about concerns—for example, about special education, about there not being enough special class placements or that there are specialized classes that are being closed—that there’s not a policy or a budget change being made at the board table because the government is not allowing trustees to do that, not because their trustees don’t agree that policies to support kids with disabilities and special needs are important. If we’re going to hold our trustees accountable, we need to know what powers they actually have to act, and if we’re going to hold the provincial government accountable, then we need to know what decisions the provincial government is accountable for by not allowing our local representatives to take action.
So I think this is about transparency, which is so, so important in a democracy, where we have the right to hold our decision-makers accountable, and I’ll be supporting this amendment.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Liberal amendment 25 is lost.
Sixteenth Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 9 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
“(2.1) Section 195 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
“‘Approval by minister
“‘(2.1) The minister shall not give an approval under subsection (1.2) or (2) unless the minister has determined that the approval will not negatively impact the accessibility of any school site to students, staff and other members of the community.’”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: As I mentioned earlier today, the government is not compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, despite the fact that the deadline to be compliant has come and gone. Not all of our school facilities are accessible to students, staff or members of the community.
This is a section of the bill that is giving the minister new powers over school lands and school facilities—and so this section is requiring that the minister actually abide by law in Ontario by considering the accessibility of a site and ensuring that any school site does not reduce accessibility for students, staff and community members.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Clancy.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’m concerned because I thought we wanted to cut red tape. This is another level of approval.
Another concern is—sometimes I don’t know if the government always understands the nature of schools. They’re kind of weird, flowing things, where you have growing and shrinking populations, but you have bricks and mortar that are meant to serve the community. I live in downtown Kitchener. We have an empty school. I would love to see something done with it. We’re all working to try to see if that school can be revitalized and opened up again. We had a shrinking population, but now we have high-rises all around that school, and we need it again. If we had sold that school five years ago, before the high-rises went up, we wouldn’t be able to service the population. We have overpopulated schools all around that school that we need to revitalize. It’s a tricky business. And I know the minister is saying, “Trust me,” but I don’t think he has done his homework well enough to prove that he has earned that trust.
So I support this amendment because it’s trying to add a bit of thought and measurability into the decisions that are being made so that we can rationalize why they’re happening and ensure that it doesn’t cause any harm to individuals with disabilities etc.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Fraser.
Mr. John Fraser: It’s a good amendment, and I encourage all members of the committee to support it.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? NDP amendment 27 is lost.
Seventeenth Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that section 9 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
“(4.1) Section 195 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
“‘New construction
“‘(5.l) The minister shall ensure that any school building that is constructed after the day subsection 9(4.1) of the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 comes into force complies with,
“‘(a) any accessibility requirements set out in the Ontario building code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005;
“‘(b) any relevant recommendations set out in the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, dated January 28, 2022.’”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: This is another amendment that comes from the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, in reflection of the fact that the government is still not AODA-compliant and they have not implemented the recommendations from the final report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, which looked at how accessible and inclusive our education system is for students with disabilities. In both cases, the government is sadly lacking.
Since the minister has not of his own volition taken steps to ensure that every new school that is built in the province of Ontario is fully accessible, this amendment requires the minister to do just that.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Fraser.
Mr. John Fraser: I look at this amendment and I think, actually, if somebody who didn’t do what we do here looked at this amendment, they would say, “Don’t they do that already?” The fact is, we don’t, and it’s over a long period of time. It’s not just on one government. One would think we do this; we don’t. And I think the expectations of these days now are that we try to be compliant with the thing that we made a law, all of us together some time ago—about 20 years ago, 25 years ago.
I support this amendment.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Clancy.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I just want to thank the member for bringing it forward. As somebody who doesn’t face a physical disability—or even invisible—I am grateful that we’re trying to shed light on the gaps in our system and ways that we can just get it right the first time moving forward.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? NDP amendment 28 is lost.
Eighteenth Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that subsection 9(5) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 195 of the Education Act:
“Approval of minister
“(6.1) The minister shall not give an approval under subsection (6) unless the minister has determined that the approval will not negatively impact the accessibility of any building to students, staff and other members of the community.”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: Again, this is a section of the bill that has to do with capital projects, repairs and improvements of school buildings, and it requires that any repairs or improvements respect accessibility for people with disabilities, students, staff and community members. It’s another amendment that’s being brought forth by the AODA Alliance, because our buildings in Ontario are not currently accessible to everyone.
It’s 2026. They should be accessible. There’s no excuse for not taking action. This amendment requires the minister to ensure that any amendments or repairs are accessible.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Clancy.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I just want to personalize this a bit. I remember that there was a student that I worked with. They were a newcomer from Eritrea. He and his mom came, a single mom. They didn’t know that he had muscular dystrophy. He was at school. We noticed he was just falling all the time and he couldn’t support himself. Over the process of them getting more comfortable in Canada and accessing services, he ended up being outfitted with walkers, and that progressed to power chairs.
It was a school that wasn’t AODA, so it ends up costing the board thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to try to retrofit a building after the fact to make sure that there are proper washroom facilities, that he can get from A to B in terms of the school floors.
For that student in particular, it’s already pretty challenging to face a disability like muscular dystrophy when you’re in grade 7 and you want to be cool. But not being able to move around by yourself easily and having to have a staff person take care of you because they need to help you get from A to B and help you use washrooms individually, it just adds a lot of cost and it adds a lot of shame to somebody who really ought to have every opportunity he can to move through his childhood as best as possible given the circumstances that he faces already.
To not build a building in a way that makes sense for a kid in a power chair who is facing a shortened lifespan—to me, it doesn’t make fiscal sense and it’s not humane. So this is a small amendment we could add that I think just tweaks a few things when you’re building a school to make sure that this kid can move through this school as easily as anybody else.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Go ahead.
Mr. John Fraser: I’ll be supporting this motion.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Are the members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? NDP amendment 29 is lost.
Nineteenth Excerpt:
Mr. John Fraser: I move that subsection 9(5) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 195 of the Education Act:
“Accessibility
“A policy established under subsection (7) must provide details about how the policy ensures the accessibility of the school site, land or building and complies with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Can you reread the accessibility part, please?
Mr. John Fraser: Oh, pardon me. The whole piece, right?
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Yes.
Mr. John Fraser: “Accessibility
“(7.1) A policy established under subsection (7) must provide details about how the policy ensures the accessibility of the school site, land or building and complies with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Debate? I recognize MPP Fraser.
Mr. John Fraser: This amendment, again, is an amendment that was brought to us by the AODA Alliance with regards to ensuring that no policies would be made that would actually impede accessibility to schools. That’s why we put it forward.
As I said earlier, I think putting forward these amendments—most Ontarians would think that it’s already happening, and it’s kind of surprising that it’s not across the board. I encourage all members to support it.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: We’ve heard a number of times this afternoon, Chair, about the importance of ensuring accessibility for all Ontarians with disabilities—students, staff and community members—and how our school buildings are not already accessible. It’s quite surprising, given the fact that they’re not accessible is actually not compliant with legislation in Ontario, that the government would keep voting against amendments that would ensure that we did become compliant with the law. But I’m hoping that this time’s the charm and government members will vote for accessibility.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All in favour, please put up your hand. All opposed? Liberal amendment 31 is lost.
Twentieth Excerpt:
Mr. John Fraser: I move that subsection 12(2) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections to section 230.3 of the Education Act:
“List of criteria
“(5.1) The notice required by subsection (5) must include a list of criteria that the board can satisfy in order to have the order revoked.
“Publication of list
“(5.2) The minister shall publish the list of criteria described in subsection (5.1) on a government of Ontario website.
“Automatic revocation if list not provided or published
“(5.3) The order is immediately revoked if,
“(a) the list of criteria described in subsection (5.1) is not included in the notice; or
“(b) the minister fails to publish the list to a government of Ontario website within one month after the day the order is made.
“Transition
“(5.4) The following rules apply with respect to any order that was made and not revoked before the day the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 received royal assent:
“1. The minister must provide a list of criteria to the board that the board must satisfy in order to have the order revoked.
“2. The minister must publish the list of criteria on a government website.
“3. The order is immediately revoked if the minister does not comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 within one month after the day the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026, received royal assent.”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): MPP Fraser, could you reread 2?
Mr. John Fraser: Oh, sorry.
“2. The minister must publish the list of criteria on a government of Ontario website.”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Thank you.
Further debate? I recognize MPP Fraser.
Mr. John Fraser: I think it should be fair, open and transparent so the people who live in a board that’s under supervision know what criteria under which they’ve been taken over but also under what criteria they can satisfy the obligations. It can’t be arbitrary.
One thing I’ve noticed with this minister is the arbitrary approach to education. One of the best examples was the EQAO results which sat on the minister’s desk because he wasn’t quite sure what to do with them, or he wanted to think about them a bit more, not realizing that those results were something that people should have had two months before—the arbitrary nature of saying what board is under supervision, the arbitrary nature of putting forward an amendment that essentially says, “Look, we’re going to change the tax implications for trustees, who don’t make very much money, but I’m good with buying a private luxury jet for the Premier.”
My point is, it should be clear—not just to the trustees, not just to the people who work at the board, but to the people whose kids go to school in the board, just like so many of us have kids that go to school or grandkids that go to school. I think it’s open and transparent, so I would respectfully ask that my colleagues support it.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Pasma.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I’m going to be supporting this amendment. We didn’t support Bill 33. We still don’t support the powers that Bill 33 gives the Minister of Education, which he has been very enthusiastically exercising. But if the government is going to proceed with this approach where the Minister of Education can take over a school board at any moment for any reason that he wants by declaring that any single thing that he wants is suddenly a matter of public interest, then I think that people of Ontario deserve some clarity on what criteria a board actually needs to meet in order to come out of supervision and what kind of timelines there might be involved in that.
Just as an example, the minister said that he was putting boards under supervision because of deficits and that the supervisors he was appointing were going to have mandates to eliminate the deficit. But in a number of boards, the supervisor is running a deficit in some cases even greater than what the elected trustees were. Meanwhile, they’re making all kinds of decisions that have nothing to do with a deficit or with finances, including cutting certain programming, eliminating classes for students who have disabilities. People should know what mandate has been given to a supervisor and whether or not a supervisor is meeting those criteria.
I also have serious concerns right now when the minister is out in public saying that he will leave these boards in supervision for a year, two years, 10 years, when we’re a few months before local school board elections. He has already made it very clear that he is prepared to appoint trustees where a trustee is not elected. I don’t know why a trustee would want to run, why a member of our community who is deeply committed to our children’s education would want to run if the minister is telling them that not only will they not be able to exercise that role in this four-year term, but maybe not even in the next four-year term, and maybe halfway through the one after that.
But what the minister could be pulling on us is a bait and switch, where he’s telling us the boards won’t come out of supervision any time soon so people don’t step forward and run. Then, the election passes and, lo and behold, the minister pulls supervision, there’s no elected trustees, and so the minister gets to appoint everyone that he wants to the board. This is a scenario where it’s very dangerous to have this much power accumulated in the hands of the minister, and so I think people deserve clarity and transparency on what criteria need to be met and how those criteria will be satisfied.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? I recognize MPP Clancy.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’m just grateful to the members beside me for putting this forward. I think we’re trying to put some parameters in place so that people have a better understanding of what’s going on—what the rules are, why things are happening—and there’s an even-steven way to measure things.
Also, we can’t just put people in jail forever and put them under supervision forever. There has to be a way out. We see lots of governments get into messy situations without a plan on how to get out, and it seems like it’s been an expensive endeavour of adding people who aren’t from the area, who don’t have a background in education to supervise a board. So I think if it’s not working, we also need to have that represented and communicated.
So, I’ll be supporting this amendment. I hope the government will consider putting in some checks and balances to make sure that boards that are under supervision can have their way back to democracy, because this supervision method of takeover is an affront to democracy.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Go ahead, MPP Glover.
Mr. Chris Glover: One of the things that I’ve seen over the last eight years is that Premier Ford is not happy being the Premier of Ontario. He wants to be the Premier of Ontario, he wants to control the mayor of every city, and he wants to control every school board and every decision that’s made in every school board. That’s what this bill is about. It’s about giving the Minister of Education—Ford’s appointee—the power to determine everything that’s happening in schools.
And the minister has exercised completely arbitrary power to take over school boards from the trustees that the people of Ontario have elected. They have overridden that democratic process. For the most part, the excuse that he gives for seizing control of these school boards is that they weren’t making cuts fast enough to make up for the funding shortfalls handed to them by the provincial government.
Now, this bill even secures that power to a greater degree. This is a power grab by a government that has shown absolutely no willingness to take responsibility for the education of our children.
As far as the education system goes, this government has increased class sizes. Their superintendents, where they’ve taken control of school boards, have cut special needs classes. There’s a Model Schools Program in Toronto, the TDSB, and this government is cutting the Model Schools Program. This is a program for students in low-income schools to give them a bit of a heads-up, a bit of catch-up so that they can actually be successful. Superintendents are targeting students from low-income communities, from racialized communities, students with special needs.
Yet, the minister wants even more power to silence any opposition, to control and have everybody in the school boards operating like strings on a puppet. It’s an absolutely outrageous attack on the democratic process that has been running our school boards since 1816. For over 200 years, we have been electing school board trustees to run our school boards. The reason that we have one of the most highly educated workforces in the world is because of our public and our Catholic schools in this province, and this government is destroying them in order to privatize them.
We will absolutely be voting against this section of the bill, and we will be voting against the bill in its entirety. I really hope that the members of the government side there will listen to the people who have come and deputed at this committee, they will listen to their constituents and they’ll vote for the best interests of the students, which means voting down this bill.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Liberal amendment 38 is lost.
Twenty-first Excerpt:
Ms. Chandra Pasma: I move that subsection 18(2) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 232 of the Education Act:
“Same
“(5.3) The minister shall not give an approval under subsection (5.1) unless the minister has determined that the approval will not negatively impact the accessibility of any facility of the board to students, staff and other members of the community.”
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Please go ahead.
Ms. Chandra Pasma: This amendment would ensure that any decisions that the minister is making regarding budgeting would have to take into account accessibility. We’ve already spoken a lot about how the government is not compliant with the AODA. There are many areas of board budgets where the government is massively failing children with disabilities, including, quite simply, just the right of these kids to be at school, let alone to have a meaningful, safe and supported education.
There should not be any power granted to the Minister of Education to approve board budgets that is not accompanied by a legal requirement for the Minister of Education to actually and finally respect the rights of every child in the province, regardless of whether or not they have a disability, to receive a meaningful and equitable high-quality education in the province of Ontario.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Further debate? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand. NDP amendment 48 is lost.
Twenty-second Excerpt:
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): If requested by a member at this time, a waiting period of up to 20 minutes will be permitted. So you get a 20-minute break.
Committee members will know that, from this point forward, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved. I will take the vote on them consecutively. Are members ready to vote? Okay.
Let’s finish off with section 24.1, government amendment. Are members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? I declare it carried.
Government amendment 54, section 25 of schedule 2: Are members ready to vote? In favour? Opposed? I declare it carried.
Liberal amendment 55: Are members ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? I declare it lost.
Shall schedule 2, section 25, as amended, carry? All in favour? All opposed? It is carried.
Schedule 2, section 26, Liberal amendment 56: Ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Interjection.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): It’s lost. Shall schedule 2, section 26—
Mr. Chris Glover: Just check the record.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Oh, I think I would go back in time.
Shall schedule 2, section 26, carry? Ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 2, section 27, Liberal amendment 57: Ready to vote? All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Liberal amendment 58: The motion is out of order. As Janse and LeBlanc note on page 651 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “an amendment which would render a clause unintelligible or ungrammatical is also out of order.”
Shall schedule 2, section 27, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 2, section 28: There are no amendments. Shall schedule 2, section 28, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 2, section 29: no amendments. Shall schedule 2, section 29, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Liberal amendment 59—did I miss one?
Interjection.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): I feel like she’s a schoolteacher. She does an excellent job.
Schedule 2, section 30: no amendments. Shall schedule 2, section 30, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 2, section 31, Liberal amendment 59: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Liberal amendment 60: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Liberal amendment 61: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Liberal amendment 62: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Shall schedule 2, section 31, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 2, section 32, no amendments. Shall schedule 2, section 32, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 2, section 33, NDP amendment 63: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Government amendment 64: All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Government amendment 65: All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Shall schedule 2, section 33, as amended, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Shall schedule 2, as amended, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
There are no amendments to schedule 3. I therefore propose that we bundle sections 1 to 9. Is there any agreement on that?
Shall schedule 3, sections 1 to 9, inclusive, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Shall schedule 3 carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 4, section 1, Liberal amendment 64: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Liberal amendment 67: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Shall schedule 4, section 1, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Shall schedule 4, section 2, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Shall schedule 4 carry?
Mr. Anthony Leardi: On a point of order?
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Yes?
Mr. Anthony Leardi: Chair, can you clarify, when we voted on 66, did you say 66 or did you say 64?
Mme Lucille Collard: He said 64.
Mr. Chris Glover: He said 64.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Then I’ll reread 66. Is there unanimous consent that we go back to 66? Okay.
Liberal amendment 66: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Shall schedule 4 carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
There are no amendments to sections 1 to 5 of schedule 5. I therefore propose that we bundle sections 1 to 5. Is there agreement? Are members prepared to vote? Shall schedule 5, sections 1 to 5, inclusive, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Point of order: I don’t think we did Liberal amendment 67 on schedule 4.
Interjections.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy: We did? Okay. I’m just flaking out.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): All right.
Schedule 5, section 6, Liberal amendment 68: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
NDP amendment 69: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Shall schedule 5, section 6, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 5, section 7: There are no amendments. Shall schedule 5, section 7, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 5, section 8: There are no amendments. Shall schedule 5, section 8, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 5, section 9: no amendment. Shall schedule 5, section 9, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 5, section 10, Liberal amendment 70: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Shall schedule 5, section 10, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 5, section 11: There are no amendments. Shall schedule 5, section 11, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.
Schedule 5, section 12, Liberal amendment number 71: All in favour?
Mr. Chris Glover: NDP amendment 71.
The Chair (Mr. Brian Riddell): Oh, this one’s not my fault. If you can see, it says “Liberal.”
NDP amendment number 71: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Liberal amendment 72: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.
Liberal amendment 73: All in favour? All opposed? Lost.