Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

CONTENTS

Tuesday 14 July 1992

Ministry of Education

Hon Tony Silipo, minister

Ray Chénier, assistant deputy minister, French-language education division

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)

*Bisson, Giles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)

Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)

*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

*Beer, Charles (York North/-Nord L) for Mr Sorbara

*Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mrs Marland

*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Frankford

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L)

*In attendance / présents

Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco

The committee met at 1540 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): I'd like to call to order the standing committee on estimates. We reconvene to continue the estimates of the Ministry of Education. We have six hours and 10 minutes remaining. I see a quorum. Therefore, I think at this point we will move to Mr Beer, although I believe the deputy and the minister have some of their responses ready, so perhaps they have been circulated. Minister.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Chair. We have provided, I believe, answers to the questions that were asked. We committed to come back with some information on paper and I think we've circulated copies to members.

The first deals with the number of people employed by the ministry; the second provides a breakdown of employees with corresponding salary allocations in the central ministry office, regional offices and through the agencies, boards and commissions. The third was information dealing with a list of boards which seem to be in a deficit position for 1992. I don't know whether you wish me to go through any more details than that on these.

The Chair: Minister, by your tabling them at the beginning of the process, members and their staff will have an opportunity to look at them and raise subsequent questions for clarification. Thank you for a quick response.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that information you've provided. I wonder if we could talk a bit about the question of destreaming and the specific approach you're taking. I'd like, if I could, to make reference to policy program memorandum number 115 which you sent out in June of this year. I would also like, in asking some questions, to use a letter I have from a teacher in Newmarket. I was sent a copy of it which I'm going to pass over to you, if I can have it back. That way it will help you in seeing where some of the questions come from.

Let me say at the outset that the proposal on destreaming, of course, came from the select committee several years ago of which a number of us were members. In putting forward that proposal, a couple of the things that were underlined as being very important were that there be appropriate resources for the classroom teachers and appropriate in-service training. I'm not going to read the letter, but I'd like to just read a few of the questions so that we have them on the record. In fairness to the letter-writer, let me just read first of all the opening paragraph, which I think gives the context. This was addressed to me.

"I am writing to convey to you my serious concerns with the government's plan to restructure education in Ontario. I do understand the commitment of the NDP to excellent and equitable outcomes in education, but I have difficulty with the speed and manner in which the Transition Years initiative is being implemented."

In the first paragraph the writer deals with the question of how effective destreaming is and what analysis has been done of the pilot projects. What information do we have based on Ontario experience?

I think the Chair will recall that, during the select committee discussions, one of the problems that arose was how little Canadian data there were with respect to this particular issue. My understanding was that 62 pilot projects were geared to provide us with information. I would be interested in knowing what you're planning to do with the pilot projects.

The third paragraph really deals with curriculum materials, the methods of evaluation, how teachers will go about individualizing the curriculum, and as you can see, there is a series of questions that are raised.

A couple of examples are made about programs with which the writer of the letter was involved at the grade 10 level where they had both general level and advanced level students and some problems that the teacher underlines where it was his feeling that the advanced level students didn't put out the effort they ought to have and the general level students felt, as he puts it, that they were being discriminated against because they felt he was requiring more work from them in order, in his words, to build positive reinforcement.

But I think at the base of this letter is a concern around the resources that will be available, and what kind of in-service programs. How are teachers going to be prepared to handle this? As I understand it, what you have called for is that this will be implemented starting in the fall of 1993 and that boards have three years to fully implement the program. I think it would just be useful if you could outline how you're approaching that whole issue, with particular focus on some of the questions my correspondent has raised.

Hon Mr Silipo: This of course is one of the important program areas which we are moving forward on. First of all, let me say that I think, as Mr Beer would know and as he has indicated, this is an initiative that was indeed begun by the previous government and one in which we were delighted to continue the efforts and in fact to move the issue forward.

Our sense is that there has been enough information gathered from the pilot projects and from the experiences that already exist throughout the province to tell us that we can move forward in the way in which we have done and yet move forward in the way that recognizes the overarching problems that exist with respect to curriculum and with respect to teacher in-service.

I think the approach that we've put together recognizes those are real needs and suggests a way in which we can, I think, proceed but also proceed in a reasonable fashion. So the three-year implementation period is really key to our recognition and follows our recognition that indeed this is not a change in teaching methodology that can come overnight and that a reasonable amount of time is needed beyond the time that there has already been.

I don't need to remind Mr Beer, of all people, that this is an issue that has been discussed now for some years, so it isn't new. Despite the sense out there that this is something we made a decision on quickly, I have to note for the record the years of discussion that there have been on this issue, both formally within the ministry, between the ministry and school boards and teachers' federations and certainly even before that, before the ministry, through the previous government, decided this was an issue we would take on.

What I can say is that I feel very comfortable understanding both the need for us to move on the destreaming, which in effect is moving on changing the way in which students are taught in grade 9, and wanting to move towards a more common curriculum, wanting in effect to push the time for decisions that young people need to make about the kind of future educational careers they want to pursue one year ahead, pushing that decision to a point, at least at the end of grade 9, when they will have had one more year of maturity and be therefore in a position, we feel, to be more prepared for the kinds of choices they need to make but, as I say, recognizing very much that a substantial amount of work needs to happen beyond what already has happened to prepare our teachers to teach in that area and in that way.

In that sense, beyond the three-year time line, what we've essentially said is that September 1993 is the beginning of the three-year period in which we will expect this change. But prior to that we understand, and certainly even during that period and beyond that period, there needs to be a lot of work done with teachers on in-service training.

1550

We have done a couple of specific things in that regard. The first is that we have talked very much with the teachers' federations about that. We have indicated to them and to school boards that we will be issuing this September a curriculum document that will cover the grade 7 through grade 9 years, and therefore provide the basis for teachers to be able to use and have that a year ahead of 1993, to have it for the full 1992-93 school year to use as part of the in-service programs that will be in place.

We've announced funds recently, I believe, in the neighbourhood of $2.7 million that school boards can apply for specifically for in-service programs around this issue. In addition to that, we are now discussing with the Ontario Teachers' Federation an additional in-service program that they have come up with at our invitation, which is a way of sharing good teaching methodologies throughout the province. We think it's a very innovative and useful process not just on this issue, but indeed could be the model for good in-service programs for other issues.

We've indicated our support and our acceptance in principle of that proposal. We'll be continuing discussions over the summer with Ontario teachers' federations aimed at final approval of that. We expect, as a result of that, we will be needing to spend probably an additional $1 million or so -- I think the proposal is for about $1.3 million in additional funds to be spent. That's another indication not only of our recognition that the in-service aspect of this is really crucial, but also that the teachers themselves need to be involved very much in the development of the in-service programs through their federations and, I would say, locally in the schools as those are being developed. Again, that's something that we believe we not only can do but in fact need to do.

I guess supporting all of that is the information we are gathering and have gathered through the pilot projects. While obviously the pilots continue, there is, we believe, enough in the way of the research that's there and the indications that are there to tell us some of the things that work and some of the things that don't work. We are also anticipating sharing this information very much with teachers through the in-service programs and the other initiatives.

One of the things we know from the pilot programs is that there is no one model that is necessarily the ideal model. There are in fact a mixture of teaching methodologies that can be used. That's also, I think, part of what we are in the process of wanting to try to get across to people, that while we are talking about changing the way in which grade 9 students are currently taught by and large in the present system, there are a number of possible options in terms of the teaching methodologies. Again, we're quite happy to use the kind of expertise that the teachers themselves have in order to develop those kinds of models throughout the province.

Mr Beer: The pilot projects that are under way: I just want to be sure I'm correct. There are 62. Is that right, give or take?

Hon Mr Silipo: Somewhere around that number.

Mr Beer: Would it be your intention to provide some sort of document that would summarize all of them, not necessarily individually but at least in terms of the sort of specific approaches that they've taken? Would that be something that would be available at some point either this fall or during the course of the year?

Hon Mr Silipo: I believe so. I think in fact that information exists now to some extent. I know I've seen some of it in various pieces. I'd ask Mr Chénier or anybody else from our officials to add in more detail to what I can offer at this point. It's certainly something I would envisage that would be useful to do in terms of pulling that information together.

Mr Beer: The reason I asked that is that I think at one meeting we were at, on a panel I met with a number of teachers from different boards who were involved in developing pilot projects. There were two teachers, one grade 8 and one grade 9, who had been working together on a project in Northumberland. My sense was that one of the difficulties we're facing here, as always with the change in program, is the unknown. What does this mean? What's it going to look like?

I said to those teachers, "If you had to name one or two absolutely critical concerns you would have that you felt were most important, what would they be?" They said, "For this, especially in the early years, we need to have resources in the classroom and we need good in-service programs, because for a lot of us this is new." The concern I believe you received from the high school in Northumberland that was involved there was that it had decided not to carry out the pilot project because it didn't believe the resources would be there.

I know you stated elsewhere, I believe in answer to questions in the House, that in your view the appropriate resources in fact are there. It's just that in many cases this is not what we're getting from teachers out in the different schools. The concerns are that just in general terms, with the 1% transfer, there are fewer resources available to boards. When you're bringing in a new program like this, the fear is that it will fail because it won't have those appropriate supports. What kinds of things, in a more specific way, are you looking at this fall?

With regard to a school board going forward with the program, what would we see that was different in the classroom? Apart from the fact that there would not be basic, general and advanced levels, what approaches are being taken this fall? Is it just that those different pilot projects will all have their different approaches? Is there some kind of specific formula, if you like? When teachers in other schools are saying: "We don't know what this animal looks like. Is it an elephant or a mouse or a donkey," what can we direct them to look at that comes out of Ontario experience?

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm not sure if Mr Beer is talking more about the nature of the classrooms and the programs as opposed to the issue of resources.

Mr Beer: Or both.

Hon Mr Silipo: Or both perhaps. On the question of programs, again, I say that for those boards and in those schools that opt to proceed for this coming September beyond the pilot programs, and there may be some that will do that in some limited fashion, we would expect to see a variety of programs. But I would not expect to see tremendous change happening in the first instance. It would depend on where school boards were starting from.

I can think, for example, of a situation, of the schools in the Metropolitan Toronto area, where the type of programs offered are streamed -- and I use that in the best of senses at this point -- to the point of actually having distinct buildings that house students for various kinds of programs. I don't think it's realistic to expect that in one year we're going to see a tremendous change in that kind of thing happening.

What I think we can see is that over time that will both naturally and as a result of the changes, of us saying that they will not be -- for example, that what students will do in grade 9 as of September 1993 will be considered to be of the same value whether they do it in what would have been a vocational school or program or a collegiate school or program in terms of how it's used with respect to where students can go in grade 10.

1600

In think in that context we can see that there will be structurally some changes also -- referring back to the policy memorandum -- in terms of the question of credits and that issue not applying obviously as of September of 1993 with respect to grade 9 courses.

I think beyond that, again, in terms of the actual models of instruction that will be used and the actual teaching methodologies that will be used in the classroom there will be a variety. Probably the best way for us to answer that question in any kind of substantive way would be to use some of the experiences that exist now in the pilot projects, and indeed as one looks across the province even beyond the pilot projects at what some school boards have been doing on their own historically, a number of the Catholic boards in particular, where for a variety of reasons there has been less streaming in terms of the different kinds of groupings of students at the grade 9 level in some areas of the province. That would be the kind of broad answers I would provide on that.

On the question of resources, beyond the comments I've made so far, I think that when I've indicated it's my sense we don't necessarily need a lot of new money in order for this to work, again I have to say that because what we're talking about here essentially is both a change in the program and a change in the way in which teachers teach students in grade 9, the resource issue really is one that has to be tied back to how to best prepare our teachers and how to best continue to support our teachers for that kind of approach.

I think we could all agree that if we were able to reduce class size in grade 9 or indeed in any grade, that would help the situation, whether it's in a destreamed grade 9 or in any other situation. But I don't know that it's necessary for us to drastically reduce class size for a destreamed or a more common curriculum or a more common teaching approach to working in a grade 9 classroom.

Equally, there are through the pilot projects a variety of models, some of which are very expensive in terms of some of the machinery and other things that have been put into those schools and classrooms -- again all things that are very worthwhile, but again things that I don't believe are essential to the issue of teaching methodology and approaches teachers would use.

Again, as we look at some of the calculations people have made around what kinds of moneys you need in order for destreaming to really work, I think we need to look at what models people have chosen to pick out of the variety that exist and then try to translate that across the whole grade 9 enrolment throughout the province and say, "Aha, you know you need billions of dollars for this thing to work, or millions of dollars for this thing to work." I think we need to put that in that context as well, that essentially if what we are looking for is a change in program and a change in the way in which our teachers teach our young people in grade 9, then I think that's where the issue of resources comes in.

I've clearly indicated that I share with teachers one of the concerns they have raised around this question of resources, which is the kinds of gains they have made in the relatively lower pupil-teacher ratio in vocational programs versus general level programs and advanced level programs. To the extent I can influence this, I will not hesitate to do so to ensure that those kinds of gains, which are by and large found in collective agreements, are not wiped out as a result of the elimination of the levels in grade 9. That's something I hope can be reasonably worked out, and we'll be pursuing that issue both with the federations and with the school boards to see what assistance we can provide in that, because I think it would be useful to make sure that we can maintain those gains that have been made in terms of lowering class size.

The Chair: Mr Martin had a supplementary, I believe, and then Mrs Cunningham had -- I'm not sure if it was a supplementary, but go ahead.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I was going to actually follow up on Mr Beer's train of thought a bit. Under your leadership, Minister, you were able to find a way of introducing a more fully integrated notion of programming for special ed students in our schools. I think the terminology was "Integration is the norm," which allowed for a fair amount of flexibility from board to board in the way integrated programs would be delivered to students. I'm sensing from discussions I've had and from listening to you today that certainly there would be some flexibility in the way destreaming would happen in various communities, recognizing the resources of that community and the ability of boards to be creative in the way they deliver these programs.

Maybe you might, for my own information and the information of the committee, perhaps share with us a bit more on the degree of flexibility that you're going to allow to various regions and school boards and how that might interface with or be similar to what's happening now in the integration of special ed students in school boards.

Hon Mr Silipo: I guess what I would say is, again, I think as we try to focus a little bit on the overall program concerns that we have, that we know are out there and that people have been expressing and in fact have been discussing over the last number of years as a result of the restructuring initiatives, we need to first of all recognize that the question of the common grade 9 is one piece of that and the integration of students with special needs, or a greater sense of integration, is another piece of that.

I think what we need to be doing as we look at all of those issues in a more cohesive way is establish from the provincial end some clear expectations and some clear directions, some clear standards if you wish, about what it is that we expect and what it is that we should be able to do in our schools. Having done that, having set in a broad sense some of the rules, we need to recognize that the applicability of those rules or the way in which those objectives are being met can, I think, have some variation from one part of the province to another. Indeed, even within the same area of the province, in the same school board, there may be, again, different teaching methodologies.

So the question is not to get so specific about how those things are going to be achieved and how those good curriculum objectives are going to be delivered. I think we want to continue to leave a great degree of flexibility both in the local school board and indeed in the local teachers' hands, but I think we need to be clear about what we want to achieve.

When we talk about grade 9, what I think we are saying is we want to try to address, first of all, the issue of the point in time at which young people are expected to make decisions about their future. The end of grade 8, we believe, is far too early for that to happen. Therefore we have to extend at least that one year the kinds of common experiences that young people should have before forcing them into a choice about what they do, because we know that once they make those decisions, while they have the option in the present system of changing courses and changing streams, they rarely do. There are statistics to prove that they rarely do.

Second, I would say that the other concern is about dealing with some of the inequities that exist as a result of the present system of streaming, which still results too much in students from families of lower socioeconomic level and poor families and recent immigrants and visible minorities, particularly black students, being streamed into the vocational programs. That's an issue that I think we need to continue to be conscious of.

In terms of the link between that and our approaches with respect to the integration of students with special needs, I think we're saying that part of our thrust is to try to the extent it is possible to provide for the needs of our young people in as integrated a setting as possible. But having said that, we recognize that there has to be a fair amount of flexibility left locally for exactly how those objectives are going to be met.

In saying that, I also want to make sure that people aren't understanding that to mean we are going to wash our hands of any responsibilities to make sure that these things are happening. I think therein lies the challenge for us, which is how to find that appropriate balance between not only wanting to be clear about our expectations but also having some way of ensuring that those expectations are carried out yet allowing a fair degree of flexibility locally about how that implementation will occur.

1610

The Chair: Mrs Cunningham, on destreaming, or did you want to pursue another area?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I wanted to follow on the destreaming and perhaps make a couple of comments and ask a couple of questions and respond a little bit to what the minister said. In response I think to Mr Beer's question, I don't think you said that you didn't think additional resources were necessary, but you didn't emphasize the real need for additional resources. You look more to the preparation of teachers and the changing curriculum. Am I correct on that?

Hon Mr Silipo: Yes.

Mrs Cunningham: I would hope you're correct. Any of the resources one would need -- at least in my opinion, from my experiences, and I'm speaking mainly now not just as a school board trustee but as a mother of a young man who was streamed, for very obvious reasons, into a regular high school with an individual support person. He went through the committee that allowed him to have that service. Others did as well, and for him in grade 9 and his friends, his new friends, he made significant gains, because I think he needed to be considered an equal to everybody else. That's where I do agree with you. In that instance it worked. In a sense, if we want to be honest, he was streamed because he needed the resource, but he was in the same school as his friends and that was a good thing.

There was a time after about three years of that that it was really to his advantage to move into a vocational setting, because he had to come to grips with the fact that he wasn't going to go on to university and he probably wouldn't even be able to get a job unless he was trained in a school setting, which I still think was so important. We have to keep the school setting. In spite of my great concern about having apprenticeship programs, I really believe they have to start in the school system. So for him that worked and he went on to his vocational training.

It was interesting that the resource person who was with him, a teacher who became a teacher to do this job, said to all of us -- and you can imagine how sensitive this was, myself being on the school board, trying to stay out of the day-to-day operations of the school, which I think I did very well, because it was to everybody's advantage that I do. But in looking back, and it wasn't that long ago, I can tell you that the single most important difference in the vocational school was the way the teachers taught and their interaction with the students. Her great concern was that it didn't happen in the same sense in the high school, that there wasn't that giving of extra time, there wasn't that sense of accountability in that the accountability for those teachers was that the students did meet certain benchmarks.

The word you used three times was "expectations," and I think our expectations of our students -- and I know teachers would argue with me -- are simply too low. I think they can do so much more.

The accountability in the vocational setting -- and this is why I'm so concerned about the way we do any destreaming, because I think many students are ready in grade 9 to go into those vocational schools. Many of them are ready in grade 7. They've already figured out what they want to do with their lives and they're anxious to get out of any academic environment in the sense that you and I think of it. They don't ever want to see another reading book, and they certainly don't want to write words, and many of them with a different kind of disability never want to see numbers. But my goodness, they want to get in there and work with those people. Whether it's the cleaning profession or whether it's working with agriculture or horticulture or whether it's working in a business environment, they love it and they stay in school. The accountability for the two vocational schools I'm familiar with is the pride for the teachers and the administrative staff in those schools, which, by the way, is the fact that those kids when they graduate have jobs. What more could you wish for?

That's why I'm happy to hear the minister say he's moving carefully in this regard. If I had his job right now, I'd have them all file plans as to how it's working. I think he actually said he's done this, and I'd like him to respond to it. How are they making it work in the school systems now? Surely they're not sitting back waiting for the ministry to come out with anything but broad guidelines to expectations.

The preparation of teachers should be for all teachers. That's why I said what I did last week. They've got to be committed to the children first. Class size reduction: You can only go so far, so the teacher then becomes even more important if the class is a little bit larger. The other thing I can remember being told as a school board trustee over and over again in professional development activities is that time at the task is one of the most important equations for achievement, for success: time at the task. "Practice makes perfect," as we used to hear when we were growing up. I stand up often and tell the minister that he's got to delay this implementation because I'm not sure what he wants. If I saw it sooner, I guess I could be more supportive. In that regard, I'd like you to speak to what you really mean by preparation. Does that mean you're going to do something about it immediately? Where is the accountability with the teachers now, from the minister's point of view? How are we going to demand that they be accountable? Are we going to demand performance appraisals every year or are we just going to ask what the kids are doing at the end of their school year? So those are two questions.

Hon Mr Silipo: Mrs Cunningham has categorized them as two questions, but in her usual way she has in fact captured a whole number of questions in one or two. I talked a little bit about this at the beginning of the meeting, Mrs Cunningham, but while we have now set some expectations and some direction with respect to the destreaming of grade 9, we recognize that at the heart of it lies the question of how teachers are prepared to teach in this new destreamed grade 9 and how they are supported in doing that. It's within those expectations that we also recognize we have a task to do at the ministry and that school boards obviously have a task in continuing to provide that.

I outlined before that we expect to begin in September 1993 and obviously allow a three-year phase-in period, but that beginning this September we would issue a curriculum document that would cover grades 7 through 9 school years and a common curriculum document; also beginning this September that we would expect to start seeing in schools -- and we've provided some additional funds for that to happen -- a variety of in-service programs that school boards are eligible to apply for which would allow that. In addition, we are working with the Ontario Teachers' Federation specifically around some additional proposals it has put together at our request to deal with some of these issues and a way of sharing some of these good teaching practices throughout the province.

I think all of those are mechanisms for getting at this question of meshing the question of our expectations with the kind of support our teachers need to do the job. When you talk about the issue of the caring attitude teachers in vocational programs show towards the students in those programs, I know exactly what you're talking about. I've seen it and I've seen, quite frankly, the difference that exists, which troubles me; the fact that there is a difference in that approach all too often, in a general way. Maybe it is unfair to generalize too much in this respect, but I would say this: It seems to me that we need to ensure that the kind of caring attitude that's there and that I think people have generally seen in the vocational programs is not only continued but is there in all of our schools and is there regardless of the kind of program our young people are in. It's as significant to a child who's working at the advanced level as it is to somebody who's working at the vocational level.

1620

I also would agree very much with the sense that we have accepted over the years a certain level of expectation of our young people that is lower than what they are able to do. I speak from personal experience but also from the things I've seen in the school system and the things I know exist in terms of the work and the research that's been done in this area showing that we can have higher expectations of our young people and that when that happens, when that's there on the part of the teacher, on the part of the school, it's one of the factors that go into students doing better.

The other issue is this question of accountability that you've raised, and I was saying before that this remains one of the tricky issues for us. We have historically as a ministry not done very much, or perhaps not enough, in the way of having some clear accountability mechanisms. Sure, we can go in and review a school board's functioning and plans and programs, but there isn't in the present structure a real process of direct accountability between what happens in a school and the Ministry of Education.

One of the things I think we need to grapple with is how to find that kind of better balance, not by usurping the role that school boards play in that process, but by looking at establishing in a clearer way some of the expectations we have and some of the standards we could probably easily agree we should have throughout the province. It's going to be a bit of a tricky area to try to move us along a little in that area. But I'm convinced, the more I think about it and the more I look into this issue, that it's something that not only the public expects of us but is quite frankly something we owe to our young people to be able to do in a logical fashion throughout the province, yet do in a way that recognizes that there is clearly a role that school boards and teachers have in continuing to have a great amount of flexibility around how they meet those objectives.

Mrs Cunningham: Would you go so far as to say that there ought to be an annual performance appraisal of teachers?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think it's fair to say that exists. I'm not sure I can say how broadly that exists, but I know there are a number of boards that in fact have that kind of process. I've always been a great believer in performance appraisals of people at all levels, in whatever work they are doing, because I think it's one of the ways people stay on top of what they are supposed to be doing. It can be done without it being a punitive thing. It can be done very much as a positive thing that reinforces the good things people are doing and points to some areas where they can be improving. I think that approach of encouraging and perhaps looking at providing for those things to happen on an annual basis or a regular basis would be quite useful to look at.

Mrs Cunningham: Performance appraisal was discussed some 10 years ago by all of us who were on school boards. We all went to the professional development sessions and many of us who didn't work in the education sector used it in other sectors we worked in and in our own private businesses. As long as it's there to improve the quality of work, which is what it's supposed to be about -- I would think it would be. But there isn't compliance. Teachers very seldom agree to it. We haven't seen the leadership even from the profession. I'm just wondering how one promotes excellence in education or encourages or honours teachers who are excellent teachers. There doesn't seem to be a reward in the system, and I'm just wondering if you've got any opinions on that.

Hon Mr Silipo: The Chair, if I can, has indicated on the side that he thought that was what the step grid was for.

The Chair: It started out being that way, as I recall.

Hon Mr Silipo: And I guess theoretically that's what it is, to recognize growing experience.

Mrs Cunningham: Far be it from me to interrupt, but on that point, I don't know about your school boards, but I don't remember in 16 years ever withholding an increment, and if that's what it was for -- the Chairman of this committee is absolutely correct. When I first started to negotiate, I went back to see what that was all about. If you did your job well, you moved along the grid. In our board -- I know I'm correct -- in the 16 years I was there we never withheld an increment, even when we had reason. We might suspend somebody --

The Chair: Even when a teacher was under review?

Mrs Cunningham: Exactly. We might suspend somebody. We were the first board to suspend a teacher without pay. We were not liked for about three years. But to withhold an increment because somebody thought that even in a performance appraisal somebody wasn't meeting the expectations of the principal who was doing it, we never withheld it.

But, Mr Minister, I'm asking you how you're going to reward excellence, because that's what it's all about. Do you have any ideas or new information? I'm keeping it very clear.

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm sorry, Mrs Cunningham. I'm going to have to ask you to repeat the question.

Mrs Cunningham: I think we should all be party to the jokes up there.

Hon Mr Silipo: No, this wasn't a joke. Actually the notation that was made to me was quite serious. It was that the increment system we have in place now is one that recognizes experience. We can, of course, debate whether experience always equates growing --

Mrs Cunningham: Okay.

The Chair: Since I've raised the subject, we're painfully aware that's all it means today. I think the genesis of this item, which I think Jim Singleton first introduced on behalf of the Ontario Teachers' Federation some 20-odd years ago, was argued on the basis of increased experience equates increased competence and that therefore should be compensable and acknowledged, one and the same. Anyway, we won't dwell on that, nor clarify it any further than that since it was just a sidebar.

Mrs Cunningham: I like these clarifications. I have to be reminded. I thought things might have changed in four years.

Hon Mr Silipo: They haven't changed in longer than that, so why would they have changed so much in four years, Mrs Cunningham?

Mrs Cunningham: I asked the minister if he had any ideas, other than through remuneration right now, which is taken for granted in our society. We should be rewarding excellence. I'm just wondering if the minister has thought about it or if it's something that he put on his list of priorities?

Hon Mr Silipo: I'd have to be honest in saying that it's not something I have done a lot of thinking about. I think it's an issue I wouldn't say is not important; I would say in fact it's very important. But again, it's one in which we recognize that a great deal of that responsibility lies at the local school board level.

Having said that, I don't want to sound too defensive about that process, because I do know that in fact there are a number of things outside of the salary issue that can be done using the kinds of positive experiences that teachers have. Using good teachers as models is one way.

We were talking earlier about the best way to put together in-service programs, those being ones that were designed with the involvement directly of teachers because they obviously know the kinds of needs they have. The best process in that also includes using teachers themselves as the teachers of other teachers in that process, in terms of sharing some good teaching methodologies and processes that they are using. I think all of those things, all those ways of recognizing the good things that teachers are doing, can be done.

Your question suggested that perhaps there is more we can do in that area. I don't think I would hesitate in agreeing with you on that.

The Chair: Mr Martin has a short interjection.

Mr Martin: I participated this past winter in an announcement by the minister and the Premier around grants for students in the sciences, grants that were going to recognize excellence not only for students but for schools and for teachers, which is another way of encouraging that extra effort that sometimes schools and teachers put into a particular area or subject. It's a rather creative way, not new, mind you, but I think it's a good way of doing that.

1630

Mrs Cunningham: Was that something the ministry led? Was this something new?

Hon Mr Silipo: Yes, the science scholarships. Yes, it was something that was put together, I think between the Premier's office and the Ministry of Education, as a way to recognize science and providing for --

Mrs Cunningham: Was this announced in the House?

Hon Mr Silipo: No, it wasn't announced in the House because the House wasn't sitting at the time. It was during the break that it was announced.

Mrs Cunningham: You missed a rare opportunity, Mr Minister, for me to stand up and give all these accolades.

Hon Mr Silipo: I'll be happy to send you the information, Mrs Cunningham.

Mrs Cunningham: You know how I feel about these things.

The Chair: How much time would you like during estimates to do that?

Mrs Cunningham: Exactly. No, I'm not going to use this time.

Hon Mr Silipo: Make sure Mrs Cunningham gets that right away.

Mrs Cunningham: Absolutely. I'll have to write a letter.

Hon Mr Silipo: It was a way of taking on the experiences astronaut Bondar had gone through.

Mrs Cunningham: A graduate of the University of Western Ontario.

Hon Mr Silipo: Yes.

Mrs Cunningham: I just thought I'd throw that in for your information. Did we plan this or did we not?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Western university -- where's that?

Mrs Cunningham: You ought to know. You spent a lot of money there, Mr Callahan. His kids -- more than one.

The Chair: His government raised the tuition fees. Mr Callahan has been most patient waiting to ask a question, Mrs Cunningham.

Mrs Cunningham: I've been appreciative.

The Chair: Is it on destreaming, or any subject at all?

Mr Callahan: It is, actually. Do you mind, Dianne?

Mrs Cunningham: No.

Mr Callahan: To begin with, I never thought I'd find myself at estimates, because I always thought it was about as exciting as watching paint dry, but in the few minutes I've been in here it's been very exciting.

Minister, what I would like to say to you is that I sacrificed my soul and I guess time with my family in 1977 and 1981 to run against a very good friend of mine, Bill Davis, who was then the Premier of the province. People asked me if I took his riding, if I beat him. I said, "No, I scared him out of politics."

The reason I ran was because he was the Minister of Education at the time of the Hall-Dennis report. I don't know whether I was prophetic or whether I was just sensitive to perhaps my former Yankee background as to what was going to happen. I used to tell people in those days, had they ever seen that movie in the 1950s, Blackboard Jungle? They all laughed at me. They said, "That'll never happen in Ontario because Ontario is perfect."

I have to tell you that when I came here almost 35 years ago, the educational system in this province was par excellence. It was the finest I had ever seen. It was certainly far in excess of what you would see in the United States, where they were holding teachers to the wall with knives.

Then the Hall-Dennis report came along, with this very extraordinary vision of the future where kids would have this open-concept philosophy and those kids who were bright would have this ability to be able to achieve in that open-concept situation. But I think one of the things we missed totally was the factor that, thank God, we do have bright kids and we should give them every opportunity to achieve, but we left behind the flotsam and jetsam of the world, the mediocre, the kids who had learning disabilities, who I saw for 25 years in the courts.

If I had a nickel for every pre-sentence report speaking to the matter of sentence for kids -- and every pre-sentence report said the kid had a learning disability that went undiagnosed, was pushed through this élitist system we had created where you couldn't be kept back because that was a no-no. The Dr Spockisms of the world would say, "You'll destroy this child if you keep him back, so just force him on," and these kids would get to about grade 9 or 10, maybe 11 if they were lucky, and they'd finally discover that within this fine sunset, magnificent system we had created, there wasn't a place for them.

I'm pretty old, I'm long in the tooth and I can't remember any of the kids I went to school with ever winding up not going on to become whatever they wanted to be, a mechanic, a lawyer and so on.

I guess the concern I have is around -- it does deal with destreaming, because I support it. I support it even beyond that because I think a lot of kids -- and I can speak. I have four boys myself. We used to go over to the high schools with them and we'd look at this giant fold-out paper that had 105 pages in it and you could take every course from soup to nuts. If you were not there with your sons or your daughters to try to tell them what courses they had to take to be able to achieve beyond that to wherever they wanted to go, they just sort of picked the easiest courses and the next thing you knew was, surprise, at grade 12 they were suddenly cut off totally at the pass and couldn't go any place.

So I support that; in fact I support it beyond grade 9.

But you are bringing in a bill, which is Bill 37, and I must say that I hope you're familiar with what you're doing there. I asked you a question, or I spoke on it in the House the other night, and you looked amazed that I would make the comment that you were cutting out funding for the hard to serve.

I don't know whether anybody realizes this, and I guess I've tried to make a point of it in every speech I've made in the House: We can get very sympathetic towards the disabled who are visible disabled -- the wheelchairs, the people who are deaf, blind, whatever. We can provide all sorts of money for them. The one area where we have made very little planning at all, where we are going to regret it because we are going to destroy -- we've probably already destroyed one generation of kids -- by not providing for these kids who have that disability that you can't see, and it's there. It's a fact of life. It exists.

Let me lay that against the background that I always thought the New Democratic Party stood for, looking after the kids who are poor and disadvantaged. I spoke to the Minister of Health the other day in the House, and I find Frances a very delightful person. She is a very capable minister. I said: "Why will OHIP pay for a constituent of mine's son or daughter, who has a learning disability or a suspected learning disability, to go to a psychiatrist? Why will they pay $97 an hour for a psychiatrist who" -- with all due respect to the profession and I have to be very careful because Jimmy Henderson may read this. Some of them are drug experts. They deal just in drugs. Others deal in a more perhaps civilized --

The Chair: I think the appropriate word is `addiction' for Hansard here and that would be a more appropriate phrase to describe the training and research abilities of psychiatrists in this area.

Mr Callahan: If you send a kid to a psychiatrist, if you can't afford a psychologist -- who to me in the main are much more capable people in detecting a learning disability -- if we're not paying for them, and that fee can go from $900 to $1,500, but we are paying for psychiatrists and we are prepared to unleash these psychiatrists on these kids for the OHIP dollar and have them perhaps be in the vein of either psychoanalysis or treatment through prescribed drugs -- in fact what we've got is kids who are poor.

You eliminate the hard to serve, number one. These kids are streamed into the school and they are left there because there's no mechanism to get them out. The rich parents or the the mediocre parents will just say: "The hell with the system. I'm taking my kid out and putting him into a private school or in a school where there is a class ratio of eight or 10 kids in a class." What you've done is you have left the kids who can't afford that because they don't have access to this universal health care system we supposedly have, which I suggest to you is not universal; it is not universal because it is not covering the most significant commodity we have, our kids.

Those people are left there and what do they do? They wind up in the criminal justice system. They wind up as the kids who commit all sorts of crimes and perhaps go into a lifetime of crime. I think we all get into politics for a very specific reason. I have told you my reason. We always hope that somewhere there will be a glimmer of hope that out of our political lifetime here, down at this wacko place, will result in us doing some good for society and having a meaning to the tax dollars it has spent.

I have always found that --

The Chair: Mr Callahan, if you will forgive me for interrupting you and I apologize for this.

Mr Callahan: Have I not got much time?

The Chair: No.

Mr Callahan: Should I do it very quickly or what?

The Chair: No, I recognized you in the course of the estimates in the hope that you were framing a question. You made reference to the speeches you made in the House --

Mr Callahan: Right.

The Chair: -- and I am worrying, as the Chair, if perhaps you are repeating them. Perhaps you could guide the committee, because your critic has some additional responsibilities and I was in the process of recognizing your caucus and he is being far too polite and therefore it's the Chair's responsibility to approach you with this question.

1640

Mr Callahan: Charlie told me I could use all the time I wanted to, I think.

The Chair: Then I will shut up, and please continue.

Mr Callahan: I'm getting to the point, Minister, that in politics we tend to -- all parties; this is not an indictment of your party, it's all parties -- do what is politically sexy. That's the reason for polls, eh? Polls tell you what the public is excited about -- 70% are in favour of Sunday shopping so you go with it -- instead of what's important. We don't plan. We don't plan ahead of time.

I'd venture to say that if there was ever a study done in terms of how much money you could save -- let's put it on a totally monetary basis, the Bay Street basis, which I don't often talk about because I don't like Bay Street, of just dollars and cents, how many dollars would you save? How many dollars would the Ministry of Correctional Services save? How many dollars would the Ministry of Community and Social Services save? How many dollars would all of these other good ministries save in terms of those people if you could save them before they get there?

That's the planning. That to me is the vision of government. The vision of government is not the next election; the vision of government is, what can you do while you're in that portfolio to help those people?

So I would urge you and your colleague in the Ministry of Health, it's going to cost big bucks to put kids for psychological assessments under OHIP. A lot of them are assessed through the schools. A lot of them are assessed through other avenues of need, general welfare and so on. But there are a lot of kids out there who are not assessed and who wind up in the court system, who are the so-called criminals. But we've made them that way. We've created the scenario for them.

I would hope you will look at the elimination of the hard-to-serve. In the region of Peel it's my understanding that only three students have gotten over that monumental barrier, and it is a monumental barrier, of being able to prove that they're hard to serve so that they get their tuition paid for at some other institution. And I can say this: I don't like paying taxes any more than anybody else does, but I would venture to say that in the Canadian scenario of how Canadians are -- we are a very understanding people -- I think if you did a poll among Canadians, maybe not Americans but Canadians, you would find they'd be prepared to pay that extra tax dollar for those kids to keep them out of the justice system.

So I urge you, when you look at 37 -- you've already obviously had a pitch from parents and people with the association of learning disabled on this issue -- don't take it away. It's kind of like section 33 of the Constitution Act. Every leader in this Parliament would want to get rid of 33. That's the notwithstanding clause. I'd go out and fight with a gun to preserve 33, because if you don't preserve 33, it is similar to this preserving the hard-to-serve section. You in fact will find that down the line there will be policy decision you don't want to leave up to the learned justices of the Supreme Court and you won't be able to deal with it, because if you eliminate 33 you've literally given away your rights to legislate to the Supreme Court justices. Similarly, I would urge you, and I will leave after this and give my colleague the critic some time --

The Chair: You will stay around and get the answer, I hope?

Mr Callahan: Oh, I will. I certainly will.

But I would hope you will talk to your colleague in the Ministry of Health. I would hope you will talk to your colleague in the Ministry of Correctional Services, your colleague in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and perhaps a very worthwhile report -- and I don't care who you commission to do it; it can be a friend or foe; you can pay all the dollars you want for it and I'll never criticize you in the House for it -- to find out, are we being wise in terms of our dollars?

Finally, Minister -- and this is finally, believe it or not, because in my profession you're paid for by the word -- what I would say is, taking it off the Bay Street line of dollars and cents: Think of the young people you have saved through providing that measure, that gap, that assistance to them so that they are not going to wind up standing before a provincial court judge or a county court judge or -- I guess we haven't got any more Supreme Court judges -- General Division judge, and somebody having to say, as I have had to say -- and I have to tell you, every time I did it I felt very emotional about it. I saw a kid who at one time was that beautiful bundle that was delivered from the hospital that turned into the person who was now being sent to the penitentiary for two, three, five, 10, life. So I urge you -- I guess I have to form this into a question. I'm asking you --

The Chair: You don't have to do that.

Mr Callahan: I don't have to? All right, I'll just leave it at that.

The Chair: In fairness to Mr Beer, I would like to give him the next 15 minutes.

Mr Callahan: I thank my colleague for giving me the time to get that off my chest. I think it forms the genesis of a select committee. Anybody can chair it; I'd love to be on it, though.

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me say that I appreciate Mr Callahan's comments. I need to say that if we were concerned with respect to the issues he's raised around Bill 37 and specifically the issue of the removal of the hard-to-serve provision, if we were concerned with doing what was politically sexy as opposed to what is more sensible, we probably would end up leaving the provision in the legislation, because, although I agree by and large with the thrust of Mr Callahan's comments, the hard-to-serve issue is not one that affects most of the young people he was talking about. It affects very few young people.

It has been used, perhaps misused, in recent history. It was originally put in as part of the special education provisions to allow some accommodation to be found for students outside of school board settings in the very extreme cases where the range of services that could be provided by school boards could not adequately meet the needs of students with severe learning disabilities or other kinds of particular problems. Obviously when that happens -- and it happens at provincial expense as opposed to school board expense; that's one of the side issues -- our sense is that in some cases, even in the limited times when it's actually been used, there is a mixture of decisions that are made in terms of the process people have to go through to have individuals designated hard to serve and instances where the committees set up to do that have determined that this young person is not hard to serve and the school board then determines that the person is hard to serve. Sometimes that means the ministry is the one that will pick up the tab, as opposed to the school board. I think we have a concern around that issue.

We quite frankly have gone back and forth, in terms of the options available to us, about how to deal with that, and in the end we came up with the notion of proceeding to remove the section from the Education Act because we're quite confident that the question of service to the young person and providing the program can be adequately met from within the provisions that would remain.

I know the concerns that are there, and I think before this legislation proceeds -- and we obviously don't expect it to get to second reading until the fall -- it's an issue on which I want to spend some more time, and we will have some further discussions both within the ministry and certainly with some of the groups that are interested in that issue. So I'm sure we'll be talking more about it both in the ministry and I suspect eventually in the House as well when we deal with this.

I think the broader issue that Mr Callahan raises about the question of young people with a variety of learning needs or learning disabilities that have gone unheeded was quite frankly part of the process that Bill 82, the special education legislation, was aimed at trying to meet. While I would agree there are still some gaps that are there, I think we could say we're doing a better job today than we were doing a number of years ago.

1650

If I can go back even further to some of the beginning comments Mr Callahan made around the aftermath of the Hall-Dennis report and the move towards a more open concept, I've always been struck by how this notion of a more open concept or how this notion of a teaching methodology that allows more flexibility or allows greater opportunity for young people to look at a variety of options and experiences has over the years become almost equated with a relaxing of standards and expectations, because I see them as two very different things. My view is that you not only can but need to have, as I've been talking about today and on other days, some very clear standards and expectations, and you can still do that and allow a great degree of flexibility in terms of the variety of teaching methodologies that are used.

We make a mistake, and we have within the system allowed the discussion around the teaching methodology -- that is, how teachers should be teaching -- to get too mixed up with the question of whether we have standards or not and whether we should have standards or not. I think that part of our challenge is to try to separate those two things out and say, "Not only should we not be afraid of having some clear standards and expectations, but we quite frankly need to restate those in a way that people understand -- the public understands, parents understand and teachers understand."

Having said that, we need to take from the best kind of teaching practices that have developed over the last number of years since the Hall-Dennis report and use those that are appropriate and good and not be afraid to continue to encourage a mixture of teaching methodologies, because one of the things that we do know is that not all young people learn in the same way and what works for one group of students doesn't work in quite the same way for another group of students. I know it's easy to say that, and obviously the challenge that continues for us is how to bridge those kinds of approaches, but I think in that way we need to try to move forward in that and try to distinguish the question of standards and expectations from the question of teaching methodologies.

Mr Callahan: Thank you. I may return to estimates again, because it's been exciting. The only reason John Sweeney would vote for Bill 82 is because of the hard-to-serve provisions.

Mr Beer: I thank my colleague from Brampton South. I'm going to comment a bit on what we've just been dealing with, because I do want and won't be able today to raise some questions around teacher education which in a way flows from all of this, but unfortunately I'm going to have to leave the committee in a few minutes.

I would like just two things, Minister. One is, after Dr Spock, Lloyd Dennis probably has had more of the ills of the world laid at his door than I think any other single human being. I recall, when his report came out, being very young and green behind the ears and being on a plane coming from Sudbury back to Toronto and I ended up sitting beside him. I didn't know who he was but fell into conversation, as one does on an airplane.

I was interested in the comments you just made, Minister, where I think he has been in some ways perhaps the most surprised person to learn that, in terms of the kind of approach he was taking, that was also supposed to mean lax standards and less emphasis on standards. I think those of us who know him and have followed him around ever since then know that he certainly had a very clear idea of standards. I say that, not that the report was perfect or was necessarily implemented in a perfect way, but I don't think we can blame all of our current ills on Lloyd Dennis or indeed on Emmett Hall.

The other point I'd like to make, though, which deals with Bob Callahan's essential point about the hard-to-serve, is that there is out there right now, I think, among many of the parents, certainly ones we talk with, a tremendous unease about what is being proposed in terms of Bill 37, that the removal of that section -- I'm not saying this is your intent at all -- will put them at risk. I think, Minister, that between now and the fall when this bill would presumably come up for second reading, to the extent that you and your people are able to sit down and work with the association and meet those concerns -- as I understand it, their fear is that there simply are going to be a number of students who will not be able then to get the programs they feel are important -- I think what we have to do is to ensure that in terms of most of the young people who fall within that heading of learning disabled -- as Bob Callahan points out, the sort of invisible disabled, if you like -- are they going to have the kinds of programs and are they going to be able to be assessed in an appropriate way?

I was struck in talking with my wife, who's an elementary teacher, in terms of the growing number of young people who've had to be assessed in her particular school over the last couple of years, and how we are dealing with many more problems, a lot of which are learning disabled. While they don't all lead to kids being in the court system, there are too many who end up that way and when you trace it back, it's been for those problems, that we didn't diagnose problems early enough.

At this stage, I simply want to leave with you that there is as well a real concern out there, which I think we all want to ensure is not realized, just a feeling that because of the hard economic times, what's going to happen is that those young folks in effect will be sacrificed. I think we have a responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen.

With that, I'll conclude my remarks for today. I know tomorrow I'll have an opportunity to continue with concerns and I'm sure Mrs Cunningham, Mr Martin and our colleagues will be able to raise some.

The Chair: If I might, on your behalf, Mr Beer, Mr Callahan also raised the concept of at-risk children and I can't help but mention that both you and I were participating in an all-party effort to have some of our activity this summer devoted to public review of at-risk children in our province, to deal with the general questions Mr Callahan raised and the specific concerns we have about the interface between children's aid, the school system and our health services and Community and Social Services.

It would appear the House leaders do not share our level of anxiety about the need for more coordination. However, perhaps the minister might offer a comment about the fact that we may not be able to sit this summer to discuss that, even briefly, and whether he and his ministry might be planning some alternative, because I think at-risk children in this province are a non-partisan issue, one for which, without getting into the funding cuts, everybody's anxious to better coordinate the services that are out there in these tough economic times, because children certainly are getting the 0.5% increases, adjusted, and not the 1% and 2% some other groups are getting.

Perhaps the minister, on Mr Beer's and Mr Callahan's and now on my behalf, may want to also respond to the point that was raised about that.

Mr Martin: For the minister's benefit, I might just let him know I was also in agreement with that exercise and the Minister of Community and Social Services saw it as something that would be valuable. The problem was timing and the reality of this place at this point in time and trying to do everything we want to do as well as give people the time to have some holidays.

Hon Mr Silipo: I would agree that it's an area that's really worthy of some thought and some discussion. I can tell you that I think to some extent we are also trying to address that issue through the interministerial committee we have that's working between Comsoc, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health, and involving others, but primarily those three.

What we are trying to look at is some better coordination of a variety of services. One of the things we are trying to do there is to move both in a kind of long-term planning process about how we can better coordinate the delivery of services, but in the short term to start to look by way of example at some things we can do so that it's not just developing a vision of how things should happen, but also taking some current examples and trying to see how, even over the next short period of time, we can be making some changes.

1700

One of those areas, interestingly enough, was looking at the question of children with special needs and what we could be doing in that area. I'm not sure to what extent it fits the at-risk children but I think there's at least an overlap. Although there may not be the ability for those issues to be examined through a legislative committee as you had suggested, certainly we have an interest within the ministries in looking at this area.

Obviously, to the extent that it's useful and feasible, I don't think any of that process is something that needs to be done in secret. I for one would be quite interested in sharing with members of the opposition parties some of the things we're looking at, and even outside the committee process, to be able to get whatever feedback and advice people would want to provide.

Mrs Cunningham: I think it would be most useful. Under the previous minister your ministry set up some pilot projects just to look at children's mental health challenges, which is all part of education as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you could get a report for us tomorrow on how those pilots are going. It seems to me they were hooked into McMaster University around the Hamilton area -- I'm not sure if I'm correct -- and there was a lot of money involved. We're talking about a few million dollars. I'd like an update on that and I know others would as well.

With regard to the committee looking at it, I think it would probably be extremely useful in the sense that the public and parents are really interested in taking a look at what they're really concerned about. I know some of my colleagues today from all parties have mentioned the need to identify these students. I can tell you that my experience as a school board trustee was that they were well identified. The problem is, how do we serve them? I was sick of having parents have their kids tested only to have no program for them.

I think the one ingredient we haven't talked about today when we're talking about how well teachers are trained, their commitment to their work and the size of classes and the appropriate programming is, first of all, the role of the parent. Has the minister thought about establishing provincial expectations here of school advisory committees, either along with the home and school association or as part of it or something? We had to make that mandatory in London because some principals, as they moved from school to school, found ways of abolishing parent committees that were working. That's my first question. By the way, Mr Minister, it moved with the principal just as the strap did.

My second point on that issue would be, has the minister thought at all about -- because I'm tired of public input on this; it would be good, though, to have the committee take a look at this work. But I think the end result of the committee is some integration of the ministries. Some people have talked about a Ministry of the Child. I sure wouldn't want to see that come down without public input because I think you'd get a lot of good information if you ever raised it.

It's not the first time we've had public input, by the way. I think it was Laurier La Pierre who did that round of public consultations and that was his recommendation. I'd sure be interested to see how that would fly 10 years later, since it was a recommendation some 10 years ago.

The bottom line for me is that we haven't talked about the role of the parents. I think they are part of the child's education. I think many of them need some very strong encouragement, and not later in life from the court system.

The other ingredient we haven't talked about, when you talk about programs for students, is the role of the community in providing places for experience and training. I'm telling you, believe me -- there are many people who wouldn't like what I'm about to say -- that there are many, many students who would be very fortunate, no matter what kind of teaching process they're part of, to be able to learn to read a newspaper, many of them.

You can talk about anything you want to talk about when it comes to these kids. I'm the parent of one of them. He still goes to school to learn to read and he's 23. You can't blame a teacher for not teaching some of these students. They've tried their best. But, boy, was he ever happy when he had an opportunity to be praised in the workplace for a change. Somebody had finally told him he could do something well. If he had had that opportunity when he went to secondary school -- that was a kid with a lot of support. Not all the students we represent have that kind of support. It took a lot of support and unfortunately a lot of young people don't have it; a lot of parents don't have the strength, the confidence or the experience.

I'm just asking if you can speak to whether you think these parent committees or school advisory committees ought to be something that should be coming from the Ministry of Education, from the minister's office, because school boards have certainly had that opportunity. I'm asking you whether you've thought about establishing a Ministry of the Child, or are you going to go for these public hearings where you can get this kind of advice, or both?

What about the role of the workplace as part of the curriculum? Never mind teaching styles. There are a lot of good people out there who are good teachers who don't have degrees but who could work with existing teachers, so the teacher would be what I would call a job coach, going around keeping track of the 15 or 20 students he or she has to make certain that the people whom Mr Callahan saw are still in school, doing well, with a hope, not three years down the road but six or seven years down the road, of getting their certificate and keeping this job we've trained them for. There are those three questions, Mr Minister.

Mr Callahan: Before you answer that, I'd just like to add something, if I could ask the Chairman for that.

The Chair: Mr Callahan, it had better be brief.

Mr Callahan: It's just on the question of the job coach. Kids with learning disabilities have to have -- I'm going around in my community and talking to groups to try to get employers to give them a little more information about the job, because if they haven't got it, they lose it. I think that's very important too.

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me say first of all, with respect to the request for information around the pilots, that we'll try to put it together. I'm not sure we will be able to put it together for tomorrow, but if not, we will as soon as we can.

On the questions Mrs Cunningham raised, I don't have to be convinced. I think she knows well the significance of the role that parents and the schools have and that school advisory councils or school community councils have, whatever their format or name might be.

This question of how far we from the ministry should go around whether we should be mandating that they exist, or whether we should stop at, obviously, recognizing their role and encouraging them to continue to exist and encouraging school boards to encourage their creation is an interesting one. As we start to look at some of the issues that we sort of put loosely under the question of governments in terms of the responsibilities of school boards and the ministry, and what should happen, it's really an area that we are looking at.

I can't give a definite answer at this point about whether we're going to be moving in the area of mandating that these exist. I can say, however, that we quite clearly recognize the importance of knowing the role that parents individually have to play, but also the role they can play through the school community councils. That's something we want to look at, how we can be enhancing that role.

The other issue is in terms of the role of the ministry and the possible integration of ministries and what we might want to do there. I think I still have on my bookshelf the report that Laurier La Pierre put together. I remember finding it very interesting reading in terms of looking at a perspective of providing services from the needs of the child as opposed to from whatever the structures are that would make sense for the system.

1710

This is an area in which we are quite frankly beginning to have some discussions. I know there have been some in the past, and they may not be as far along as some would like, but we are at least looking at the question of how we can be better integrating services between, as I mentioned before, the three key ministries of Education, Comsoc and Health. I think that will lead to some natural questions around the provision of services and how best to do that as well. It's obviously an issue on which we will continue to do some work.

The third point, around the role of the community in providing places for experience and training, is one on which I heartily concur that we need to do even more work than has been done. I think the more we can link the kinds of experiences our young people can have in the classroom with those they can have in their own community, in the various workplaces that exist in their community, through a variety of programs, whether it's formal apprenticeship programs or less formal interaction than that, can only be useful and add to the broadening of experiences our young people have. It will also help us to break some of these barriers we see in the present structure of the school system that suggest that things like apprenticeship programs or this linking of the experience of the workplace with experience in the classroom are ones that somehow need to be limited to students in either vocational or technical and commercial programs.

I think there's a whole area beyond that that we can explore and should continue to explore. Quite frankly we've only really begun to tap the surface, even with all the good things that exist out there. It's clearly an area which I would be very interested in continuing to do some work on, and would certainly welcome continued interest of members in that area.

Mrs Cunningham: If I could follow up on that, as that was going to be my next topic, I really did want to spend some time on children's mental health. I think it's evolved from the destreaming discussion we've been able to have today. I've learned a couple of things, I think, that you're seriously looking at teacher training and that you're seriously looking at the appropriate programs. I don't have the same fear I did maybe a year ago that you would ask boards that have good vocational programs in place for even some grade 9 students and certainly grades 10, 11 and 12, because if that's the only place they can get cooperative work programs that meet their skill levels and get them a job -- that's not something you would be disposing of in any way. Maybe you had better say it out loud.

Hon Mr Silipo: No.

Mrs Cunningham: I shouldn't even give you the opportunity, but I like to hear it.

Can I ask a question of the minister, Mr Chair? I'd like to ask him what his idea is, because we've had opportunities to discuss before and he's said he would think about it. We all know that we have the OACs. The expectation when the OACs came in was that the secondary school would be a four-year program. I could be wrong, but I'd ask his view on that question. I may be sounding as if I'm not being consistent here, but I think that for the students who in fact have always intended to go on to university or community college, many of them are now spending five years, even though we expected that it'd be four years, in order to get to that university or community college. I'd like to ask him what he thinks about that or if he has any ideas about the four- or five-year program for students who ought to be able to finish in four.

There's no hidden agenda. I'm just curious, because you obviously have more information than I do. I just don't get out to the schools the way I would like to or the way I was able to in the past.

Hon Mr Silipo: I know the problem, Mrs Cunningham. I don't get out to the schools as often as I would like either. I was smiling to myself as you were making those comments, because I remember some of the discussions from my perspective as a school trustee around the time of the introduction of the OAC, and our sense that in effect what we ended up with was a hybrid that was neither four years nor five years but could be either or could be four and a half. I suppose one way to look at it is to say that's the best of all worlds, because then it leaves the choice up to the individual student.

On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that while there's been some settling down of that, I think we see, from what I know on this -- I hope I'm correct in saying this -- a variety of things happening in terms of what students do. But I don't have any sense that we have any statistics that tell us how many students are finishing their high school career in four years as opposed to five or four and a half. It would be interesting to see if any information like that existed.

This is a question we are probably going to have to grapple with as we look again at bringing together the program discussions and see whether it makes sense to leave the system as it is now or whether we should be talking about clarifying things in a way that makes it clear that it's four years as opposed to five.

I still recall, however, some of the hesitation I had, again as a former school trustee, to the notion of moving to four years because of some of the limitations it imposes on students in terms of what they can do in that time. But I also see the rationale -- especially for students who are moving on to college education -- that there can be more of a sense in terms of the four-year program, although again that's possible within the present system.

I'm not giving you a very clear answer because I don't have a very clear answer in my mind at this point about what should happen on that. I know it's an area that's on the list for us to be discussing. I know it's one that's being discussed, but I don't have much of a sense at this point, to be quite honest with you, about which direction we should be moving in.

The Acting Chair (Mr Ron Eddy): Mr Martin wanted to comment on that.

Mr Martin: It's an interesting subject, certainly one I can relate to personally, because it took me seven years to get through high school, for a myriad of reasons. I thank the system for being so patient with me so that I eventually got out and got on to some post-secondary education. But if you had tried to force me through in four, I wouldn't have made it, to be honest with you. The pressure would have been too much.

I think the maxim, as it is in some of the things that are beginning to come forth in the restructuring, is one of flexibility, and should be one of focusing on the students and their particular needs and trying to design a system that would support each student in achieving that which he is capable of in the time it takes. I would just add that piece to that whole spectrum of going four or five or maybe even more.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Following up on that but with a little different approach, I'm just wondering if the ministry or any of the boards are looking at more of an independent model approach to education for those students who need it. Let me explain what I'm getting at. I went through the school system and at one point -- I think it was in grade 6, somewhere around there -- they tried something called reading labs. I see the deputy minister probably remembers. Like many students, some of us are motivated differently: Some learn better in a group environment, some learn better in an independent environment, because we want to excel at those things we find interesting at that point in time.

As an educator working in the secondary school system, I know that with some students it's not that they can't cut it; it's that they're just not motivated or interested in my particular teaching methods or basically in the environment they find themselves in within a particular classroom.

I'm just wondering if anybody has ever put their head around that to see if there's anything we can do to offer various models to students; if I'm a student, let's say in mathematics, English or whatever, who wants to move ahead of others because I'm somewhat more advanced in my quest for knowledge on that particular subject. Has any of that been looked at?

1720

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm going to comment briefly and then ask Mr Chénier to add to my comments. There's no doubt that the present system allows for that to happen. The question is, to what extent is that encouraged? To what extent is that something people are not just told about but led to or encouraged to where that seems to be appropriate? A variety of programs exist which I think support that kind of approach that Mr Chénier can talk a little bit about.

Mr Ray Chénier: The co-op program is used in many schools, or almost all high schools in the province, which can be career-oriented or used to bring students back into school so they have a part-time timetable and go into the workplace.

A program was developed in the west -- I believe it was in a school in Calgary -- that was imitated in Ontario, in Cochrane. It is really an independent learning centre in the sense that the students work at their own pace. They have units of work to complete and then they go to the teacher and receive a certain amount of tutoring if they have problems. They have individual marking and then they can proceed to the next unit. So it is something that is thought about. I believe we will probably see more of that in the future.

Mr Bisson: The deputy minister would know M. Camirand, an educator in our area in Timmins, who actually runs one of the programmes coopératifs for the Timmins Board of Education. One of the observations I make, knowing some of the kids who have gone through it, is that it's an excellent program in that it deals with those kids already out of school and we're trying to get them back in. Unfortunately, like everything sometimes, some kids actually drop out so they can get into the program. Those situations do happen. I don't say that to be critical. The only reason I raise it is that in my experience going through the school system, by and large the school system was fairly good to me. The majority of kids who go through it do fairly well. It's not a bad system, but the model doesn't fit everybody equally. I can go back to my time in school and point at particular years where I was just ready to take off and go on my own in particular subjects. At one point I was extremely interested in mathematics and became very frustrated with math around grade 8 or grade 9 because the class was going too slow for my needs. Consequently, I didn't learn anything. I ended up learning algebra much later in life when I went back to college.

I wasn't aware of what they did in Cochrane, but the idea is that we should be looking at that, allowing kids who are ready to take that extra step and when they say, "That's enough," they can come back into the regular way, or what we're accustomed to.

Mr Chénier: In the way that that teacher runs the program, because he was working for me before I came here --

Mr Bisson: I used to work for him too.

Mr Chénier: -- the co-op program is used in two phases. One is to bring the dropouts back to school; the other is to prevent pupils from becoming dropouts. So there's a lot of cooperation between that teacher, the counsellors and the teachers in the school. The moment they spot a child who may be thinking of dropping out, they will refer him or her to that person and his team and then interview the child and see if they can develop an individual program so he or she will not drop out but stay in school.

Mr Bisson: It works extremely well. I just make that comment in passing. In the discussions I've had with kids who have gone through it and who are in it at the time, it works extremely well because it meets the need they have at that time as their interests are varied and they change over time.

Mrs Cunningham: It's very interesting that so many of us have individual examples of success. I think all of us can relate it to an individual teacher. You smile again. It really tells a story, doesn't it? I can remember -- I'm going to ask you a question about this -- talking about the apprenticeship programs with members of the different teacher groups. Individuals -- not the groups themselves, because I'm not sure they've got a position except to say it's a good idea -- were very sensitive and defensive, because they thought it might challenge their role as teachers as opposed to being either the teacher-coordinator or the individual teacher or the job coach, who doesn't really have to be a teacher in my view. I have some personal experience in that regard. A lot of them could be retired teachers, because, boy, they're great and it's a meaningful thing to do.

They were very concerned when I suggested that perhaps these are the kinds of programs that have to go all year. If you're talking about the real world and somebody wants you to work in his restaurant, as I told my son, then you go all year. If you're going to work in the farming community, in agriculture, you go all year. Therefore, that means some major changes to the programs. It's not just summer school, it's not an adult day school that wants to go all summer, it's a program that meets the needs of the student.

Obviously, Minister, if we're going to get into these kinds of curriculum discussions, I really think it's time, and I think it would be valuable and important for your government to have public discussion around these curriculum matters. Perhaps we should be looking at core curriculum. We should be looking at apprenticeship programs and training programs. You certainly have to have a plan. I think if it went out for public discussion as opposed to being introduced at the ministerial level, which has been the practice for the last 20 years, you'd get input from parents and a sense of ownership on behalf of parents. It's a key, and I really think the best part is that there would be some public information shared, not only with the parents of the students but the taxpayers who don't have students in school and whom we're asking to pay for education.

I don't know what the new magic's going to be, but you and I both know there's only so much money. There's no magic. No matter what you do, they're not going to like you if people have to pay more taxes, but the one thing they will like is that we're meeting the needs of today's kids as we take them into the 21st century. I just have to tell you that a public discussion is long overdue and I'm wondering if you could speak to us about some major public discussion on programming, especially with the public's greatest concern right now, skills training.

Mr Bisson: Before the minister answers that, just to clarify, I talked about the previous program being with the Timmins Board of Education. Let me explain. It used to be the Timmins Board of Education when I was there. It's now the Timmins Roman Catholic School Board.

Hon Mr Silipo: They changed the school to a different board.

I have to say that part of me is really puzzled, not by the issue Mrs Cunningham has presented but by the fact that this need is still there. It's not a need that I disagree with, but when I look at what has been going on for the last three or four years at least, through the restructuring initiatives this ministry has been involved in both under this government and the previous government, there has been an enormous amount of discussion around program, yet there is still the sense that there hasn't really been a public discussion. I know that feeling.

Mrs Cunningham: I know, but I get it too. You and I could talk about restructuring. We're close to it, we're interested, we ask questions, we read documents, we go in and take a look at practical examples of what's happening. I have to tell you, in the last three secondary schools I visited, in talking to the principals and asking how many parents have been in there to take a look at the difference in the way the drafting is presented, which is so different, I was so amazed.

Even in the three or four years I haven't been around as much in the schools as in the past, they just tell me parents are so busy. We've got two parents working, we've got single parents and we've got parents who do not have time to get into the school system. Instead of getting more parental involvement, we're getting less, except in some socioeconomic neighbourhoods where, let's admit, we have two-parent families and mom takes time to be home for certain years of her children's education. Things haven't changed.

1730

Many students will tell their guidance counsellors or their psychologists or their psychiatrists that they're lonely, that they have no one to talk to, that they in fact talk to television sets and they don't have the support they want. This is not easy for young people to talk about, and then if you talk to a parent about these new programs, they just don't know about them. Maybe they'll have time to read about it if we really go around and have a public discussion.

You and I -- perhaps not yourself, Minister; but yes, yourself -- you went around and talked about the Constitution, chaired the committee. I've been around. Now, on the Constitution the public right now is saying, and again I risk being a generalist: "We don't want to hear about it any more. We don't even care what they decided." That's terrible, because you and I understand the implications of what's happening. Not to give my position away, but the public could care less. They don't want to talk about it. They don't want to talk about Sunday shopping. I don't think this government wants to talk about Sunday shopping.

I'm having a bit of fun here because nobody reads the Hansards anyway, but the point is they want to talk about their kids and they want to talk about opportunities for getting work, and if all we did was to have those two rounds of public discussions, talk about something they care about for a change, they'd love it and they'd be out there. I'll tell you, every school in the province of Ontario would be willing to hold a public meeting about: "What do you want for your children? These are your choices."

Give them choices so that they can say yes to everything. They want to be able to say yes. People are sick of saying no to everything. I think if you showed your grades 7 to 9 plan and said: "This is what we're planning to do. What do you think about it?" and if you showed the apprenticeship program -- but you've got to have some meat in it. You can't say, "What do you think about it?" I think you've got to tell them what you want to do. They don't know.

I smiled when you smiled, because I thought, "He's not going to believe this question," but people simply don't know what's going on in the schools, and that's in spite of school boards really making an effort.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think I have to say first of all that the short answer is that I agree with the thrust of what you said. As I was saying before, while recognizing all the discussion that has been going on over the last three or four years, I think we also recognize the fact that it has involved largely the politicians and the officials and the experts, which is good, because obviously they need to be involved. But with some notable exceptions, there hasn't been perhaps the degree of discussion among parents and others that one might have wanted.

I suppose it's maybe never possible to get that discussion in that kind of fundamental way throughout the province, but the parallel with the constitutional discussions is an interesting one, because there was clearly the time, prior to the immediate present, when people really did want to talk about that. We at least managed to find some mechanisms that allowed people to talk about that and allowed people's views to come out, for a sense at least of people feeling that there was a way for them to provide their contribution.

While I recognize the need that's out there around continuing to talk and having a real public discussion around curriculum matters, which in the end is really around what our schools should be doing, I think I would have to say -- and I'm glad you made this point because it was what I was going to say in response -- that it can't simply be a discussion that says to people, "Tell us what you think." It has to be a discussion around our taking on our responsibilities of saying, "From the discussions we've had over the three or four years, from our best sense about what we need, here's a framework or here are some suggestions. Here are some proposed directions we believe and hope reflect the kinds of needs that are out there by parents, and students particularly, and yes, let's allow some discussion around that to make sure, in effect, that we have touched the pulse of what the real needs are there, that we have been able to put together a framework that does reflect those needs in an adequate way and provides a mechanism for getting some changes and some improvements to happen in our school system."

I can tell you that as we are looking at pulling together that kind of a framework you've heard me talk about on the question of program, one of the things we are also trying to address is in how we in fact put it out there in a way that actually encourages some discussion beyond the traditional formats of simply sending it out to all the school boards and all the federations and all of the other people who are interested and saying, "Here it is."

So that is a concern I have because again I share with you the sense that really there has to be a strong level of buy-in in our communities and I think it's there. I think it's not a question of having to think very hard about the kinds of things, the kinds of needs that are out there and the ways of trying to express those. I think in fact there is probably more of a consensus than there has ever been about what some of these needs are and about what some of our objectives should be within the school system.

Mrs Cunningham: I have two specific questions with regard to the OAC, since I mentioned it, and one that relates a little bit to some of the hard-to-serve children. They're quick questions.

We're interested in health and healthy kids, and children don't learn if they're tired, if they're not well and if they're hungry. We were looking, I thought, at an OAC for physical education, and I'd ask the question if we could be updated on where that sits.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think what I can tell you, Mrs Cunningham, is that whole issue of what OACs there will be, what the range of programs will be, is really part of the discussion around the program we are bringing together. I don't know if we have anything more definite that we can share with you at this point. I don't believe we do, but I do know it's one of a number of issues that are there for us to try to answer as we pull together some conclusions.

Mrs Cunningham: So when it comes out, you'll know what my bias is.

Hon Mr Silipo: When it comes out, yes.

Mrs Cunningham: Daily physical education, not in the terms of a formal gym period, because if anybody, this generation has taught us that you don't have to be in a formal setting to be active. It took a generation, your generation actually, to tell us what we should have done. They've done it in spite of us, I might say. But surely there's got to be some accountability around the reason that young people stop participating, especially young women, by the time they're in about grade 6 or grade 7. Maybe nowadays you'd have some good news for us on that. I'd be interested in knowing what the participation rates are and what the practices are of school boards in the provision of daily physical education programs. I just feel that you probably have some information you could get to me on that.

The other one is one I've asked in the House. I'm not certain what your real impression is, but I still am amazed to visit two or three schools, more recently in the city of Toronto, where children actually went to school hungry. I'd ask if you've given the breakfast program any thought or is that also going to be part of this programming that you're going to be announcing?

Hon Mr Silipo: On the daily physical education, we will look at whatever information we have that we can gather together and provide for you.

Mrs Cunningham: I'd appreciate that.

Hon Mr Silipo: On the question of the breakfast program, no, that isn't something that's going to wait as part of the other initiatives. We are working at that in conjunction with Community and Social Services. In fact we are looking very aggressively at that now and we hope to be able to have some decisions and therefore some things out there certainly for the next school year.

The Chair: You mean starting in September?

Hon Mr Silipo: Yes.

1740

The Chair: The reason I say that is that my absence for the last 10 minutes was working on a proposal in my community. I see that the better bridges' project funding is going to cease by the fall of this year. There's no upfront funding for the program, but we're putting together one anyway with community resources. Comsoc has cut off our coordinator at our food bank, so we're doing this all alone. I've just seen the two ministries withdraw from the breakfast program for several thousand kids in Burlington that I'm trying to pull together. I'm intrigued by your comments, Minister, and I'm most anxious for the September announcements.

Hon Mr Silipo: Perhaps we could look at the specific situation that you've alluded to, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I apologize for any interjection.

Mrs Cunningham: I just feel that --

The Chair: Mr Bisson would like a few moments.

Mrs Cunningham: I feel I've had a lot of time, Mr Chairman. Certainly others should jump in here.

Mr Bisson: If you had something to finish, it's quite all right.

Mrs Cunningham: I have a list, so I think if others have questions -- I would just move on to a different topic.

The Chair: We'll be sitting tomorrow. Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: Just very quickly, just in passing, just in comment to what Mrs Cunningham was talking about on the question of curriculum development, I have to concur that it is most important that we find a way of developing curriculum with the participation of not only parents but other people out there in our society as the -- and I hate to use this term -- end users of the products we produce through our school system. I sometimes wonder how suited it is to some of the tasks we ask our students to do when they end up in the workforce.

Just on that, just quickly, the question of life skills is always something I've thought interesting. I know that a couple of different boards have tried some fairly innovative approaches in order to try to instil within existing programs how to balance a budget, the question of nutrition and the question of hygiene. I know some of that has been done, but I've never really seen anything as far as a concerted effort across all the boards is concerned. I used to always be somewhat amazed, because I guess we were all the same when we went through school, that you would see grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 students coming through your door, and some of the discussions that were going on in regard to what they were going to buy at the end of their school year were really out of touch with reality. We used to get into these discussions in the classroom. It was like, "Oh, I just go to the bank and I sign a paper and I get the money." You try to explain that it doesn't work that way. I'm just wondering if there has ever been any thought about trying to instil in our young adults coming out of the school system, maybe in grade 11 or grade 12, trying to deal with how you balance a chequebook, how you handle your finances properly, all those kinds of things.

The last one I'm going to throw at you -- you'll probably cringe when I raise it, but I know it's been raised at least within one of the boards I've met, some of the administration people at one of the boards -- is the whole question of centralized bargaining. It's a fairly contentious issue, I realize, but without tipping your hand, how close can you get to talking about what some of the thoughts in the ministry are? I don't need to go through the debate; I think we all understand it fairly well. I know that within some of the boards they're saying: "We would rather go to a system like that than be pitted one against the other, one board against the other, when it comes to contract negotiations." It's not the ideal solution. I hope there's something else that can be done, but just around that vein, what kind of discussions, if anything, can we have about that?

Interjection: Which side is he on?

Mr Bisson: I was a government member the last time I looked. Yes, I'm still with the government.

Mrs Cunningham: I should add that you do remember -- what was the committee that looked at the audits?

The Chair: The select committee on --

Mrs Cunningham: No, the one that looked at the audits.

The Chair: Oh, the auditor's committee.

Hon Mr Silipo: Public accounts committee?

Mrs Cunningham: Public accounts. We had an all-party agreement that we should be looking at Bill 100 and whether we can improve that whole process, so you're not alone. You had at least six other colleagues on that committee who agreed.

Mr Bisson: We're a bunch of free thinkers on this side of the House.

Mrs Cunningham: Well, yes.

Hon Mr Silipo: First of all, on the question of life skills, I would have to say that I agree with Mr Bisson that it's an area that -- I'll confess that I don't have a lot of details to offer in terms of what things we do, but I think we generally recognize that there is a role for our schools to play in dealing with those issues. We can certainly provide more detailed information on that.

The question of centralized bargaining is one that continues to come up as an issue and one obviously which would be a major change from the present system. If we were ever to contemplate any changes, we would want to move, I think, with some caution and a lot of discussion with school boards and teachers' federations.

Beyond that there are, I know, a number of concerns that have been expressed around Bill 100. Certainly some of the experiences that we've had over the last little while have accentuated some of those. I would say that both issues, in terms of the nature of negotiations and how things are happening, as well as some of the processes that we go through, let alone the issue of centralized bargaining, particularly in teacher bargaining, are ones that there have been a number of concerns raised on and in which I think the time is probably ripe for us to begin to at least talk about some of these issues around the processes of Bill 100, the dictates and the seeming interminable time lines it takes for negotiations to be concluded, if nothing else.

This is one on which I've heard concerns from both teachers' federations and school boards, and the whole question of the Education Relations Commission and the role it plays in the process. I've certainly had an opportunity over the last six months or so to get to know the workings of the ERC in perhaps a closer fashion than I might have liked. But I think it's an area that while I can't say is right up there on our priority list of things to charge forward on, it certainly is one that continues to crop up from time to time as an area of concern and I think one about which we're going to continue to have to talk to people.

The other thing I would add is that obviously one of the basic issues that's intertwined in all this discussion is the notion of local autonomy of school boards and where the employer-employee relationship should be. Obviously any move towards more centralized bargaining would begin -- more than begin, I think; would change that relationship. So as I say, it's one in which we would move with great caution. Having said that, there are a number of other things, more minor but still fairly significant, that one can do to improve the process of negotiations that we have in place now, especially for teacher negotiations. I think that's one we can take a look at.

The Chair: Do you have a supplementary on that, Mrs Cunningham?

Mrs Cunningham: I do, not with regard to a review of Bill 100, which is the way I present it -- I've certainly asked the minister that question in the House -- but more on the issue that my colleague Mr Bisson raised with regard to life skills. My feeling is that schools do a wonderful job of that, whether it be at the basic education level or in the regular classrooms, or especially in the vocational schools, and I think at some risk, I might add. I think there's always criticism when we get into the responsibility of parents. What have we got, a vote on here?

The Chair: Closure motion.

Mrs Cunningham: Closure? Okay. Perhaps we could take this up another time, then. I'll save my remarks for tomorrow, I guess.

The Chair: Yes. In accordance with our rules, we are being called to the House for a vote. Therefore this committee stands adjourned, to reconvene tomorrow at 3:30 or immediately following routine proceedings. We have four hours remaining to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

The committee adjourned at 1749.