Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Monday 5 February 1996

Ministry of Education and Training

Hon John Snobelen, Minister

Mr Richard Dicerni, deputy minister

Ms Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister, open learning and training

Mr Peter Wright, team leader, strategic funding team

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Brown, Jim (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)

Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC)

*Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

*Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

*Rollins, E.J. Douglas (Quinte PC)

*Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)

Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND) for Mr Bisson

Preston, Peter (Brant-Haldimand PC) for Mr Jim Brown

Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre L) for Mr Michael A. Brown

Gilchrist, Steve (Scarborough East / -Est) for Mr Wettlaufer

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Castrilli, Annamarie (Downsview L)

Clerk pro tem / Greffièr par intérim: Decker, Todd

Staff / Personnel: Poelking, Steve, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0911 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): May we begin, please. We're resuming the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training. The minister has made his opening statement, and the only clarification and agreement I want is that we could rotate our questions to, if you want, a 30-minute rotation. If that's in agreement with each party, we'll start with the official opposition. Have I got agreement on that, a 30-minute rotation?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Do we rotate and then go back to the individual after that?

The Chair: Yes. We're on vote 1, as a matter of fact. May I start with the official opposition?

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Good morning. Welcome back, everybody. Minister, I'd you to know that I have with me this morning my colleague Mr Castrilli, who is jumping from committee to committee and is very busy and would like to also pose some questions to you.

But I'd like to begin this morning's questioning with a reference. I received a fax copy of an article from the Ottawa Citizen in my office this morning, which is titled "Tory Fights with Teachers Could Close Schools." I will not read the full text of the article except to say that, as we had discussed on a previous occasion, there is a serious morale problem in our school system and among the teachers there is considerable worry, frustration, a feeling that somehow or other they will take the brunt of the pending cuts that have been announced and will fairly soon hit the system.

Over the last couple of weeks, a phantom document has circulated and been reviewed by probably everybody in the system; I am told it was prepared by officials in your department, and you were quoted as saying that everything that was identified in the document indeed was on the table. If this is the case, you can surely understand the unease and the worry. I wonder if you might have a comment on what your perception is of the morale of the people in education today in Ontario.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question. I am told that about 25% of my time from September until now has been spent in schools, so I've had an opportunity to speak directly with classroom teachers on a number of occasions. They have raised with me many of the issues that I'm sure you'd be familiar with, and perhaps some others. I do agree, certainly, that it's very important to make sure that the classroom teachers in the province both have the opportunity to do their jobs and do them well, and have some understanding of the future of their profession.

I can say I'm encouraged by the professionalism of the people I've talked to in the classroom. I am discouraged occasionally when the considerations that this government is giving to a variety of suggestions that have come in from boards, from directors and others in the education system are misconstrued or misrepresented. That is unfortunate, because that does cast doubt in the minds of those in the system. I hope that all concerned will be responsible in their communications in this regard; we certainly have been attempting to be, from the ministry point of view and from a personal point of view. I believe that if we are responsible in those communications, that helps to ease the doubt and uncertainty in the system and will continue to do so.

Mr Patten: The Premier said, "We" -- meaning the government -- "would not touch any compulsory educational elements." That leads me to believe that if you're using a term of that nature, there are things that are not compulsory, and in the shifting sands of what's considered to be the classroom or not the classroom there are two vulnerabilities: one already has been mentioned, and that is junior kindergarten, and it appears it's not part of the core funding any longer; another area is adult education. I'd like to hear your views on adult education, its importance and whether you consider that to be a fundamental part of the educational system, in light of helping people to be prepared for the job market.

Hon Mr Snobelen: If I can help to clarify, I believe the Premier's comments were in a discussion about the charging of fees over and above the fees the taxpayer pays for the school system that would be applied to individuals, and I believe the Premier's comments were talking about the long history of students paying for extracurricular activities, if that helps to clear that up.

As far as the funding of people over 21 in education is concerned, obviously the province has a variety of training and other programs available to people, to adults, including educational programs, and should have. However, there is a distinction, I believe, in the educating of adolescents and adults. I believe we must make that distinction and continue to make that distinction in the various programs that are offered by the province.

Mr Patten: But at the moment there's $144 million identified as possible savings if adult education were not part of the system. Let me repeat: Are you saying therefore that adult education is not considered as part of the regular system from a funding point of view?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe that would be inaccurate. We fund over-21s differently than we fund adolescents, in recognition of the fact that adolescent education is substantially different than adult education. So we have a different funding formula for that.

Mr Patten: Will you be looking at removing the funding from this area for the 1996-97 period?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The announcements in that regard are already made, and I will ask the deputy to comment on those.

Mr Richard Dicerni: There will be no additional measures, apart from the ones that were announced in the November 29 statement. What was meant in the November 29 statement was that the funding for adult ed would be based on the level of funding that we provide for adult education as compared to, as the minister was saying, the per-pupil grant of adolescents. There's a different funding level for adults, and we would apply that across the board.

Mr Wildman: So you're trying to force them into the college system.

Mr Patten: My understanding is that -- it's a good question, though -- you'll be announcing 1997-98 as well, will you not, the funding year for 1996-97 will be coming out in a week or two, in terms of cutbacks you expect, or is the $400 million that you've announced the only amount we're talking about for this period?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The only announcement that's been made is the $400 million that was announced on November 29 by the Minister of Finance in his economic statement.

0920

Mr Patten: I recall you saying at a previous point that you would provide some planning time for the system by giving them notice of the next school year, and that, to my understanding, was to be announced fairly soon. Is that not correct?

Hon Mr Snobelen: What we said, and what was said in the Minister of Finance's statement on the 29th, was that we would allow for a period of consultation with educators, people involved in the education system, throughout the month of December, that we would have a look at the recommendations that were submitted by those in the education system over the course of January and early February and that we would announce specific measures to help school boards and educators meet the reduced funding for the 1996 year in mid- to late February. We intend to stay on that course.

Mr Patten: All right. At this point, I'd like to ask my colleague Annamarie Castrilli if she will ask a few questions. She has pressures with another committee.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Mr Chair, I'm not quite sure how much time I have left in this.

The Chair: You have 20 minutes.

Ms Castrilli: Thank you very much. It's the first time, Minister, that I've had an opportunity to speak to you about colleges and universities. There's been very little action on the part of the government with respect to colleges and universities in the past term of the Legislature.

Let me start by stating what I think is the obvious. Your party has engaged in a campaign over the last year or two to clarify its position. You're very fond of saying that the party has discussed the issues with the public and you have a mandate based on what the public has voted on. Let me refer you to your New Directions: A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario and wonder how you feel about some of the statements that were clearly made there and for which you obviously have a mandate:

"Our colleges and universities have been weakened by a decade of underfunding.

"In too many cases, classes are overcrowded, equipment is obsolete, library facilities are inadequate and buildings are deteriorating. Ontario currently ranks ninth out of 10 provinces in operating grants per university student....

"The need for increased funding for Ontario post-secondary institutions is obvious."

Given that premise, which I assume you stand on, I wonder how you can rationalize the $400 million in cuts in a sector which you have indicated is so grossly underfunded.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps I can clear up a few things for you. The blueprint that you speak of is a 1992 document, and I believe the $400 million that was reduced in the grants is a very specific commitment made by this government in the Common Sense Revolution document, which was released about a year before the last provincial election. If you check the document, I'm sure you'll find the reference to $400 million in it.

One of the reasons why we announced that we will be releasing very soon a discussion paper for the colleges and universities sector is because we believe there needs to be a public discussion on the responsibilities of the government, of the institutions, of individuals in funding of the universities, rationalization of programs, the cooperation between colleges and universities. There is a variety of issues facing the post-secondary sector, not all of which have to do with funding, that need to be discussed and need to be discussed publicly. That is why we're going down the course and have committed to a discussion paper.

Ms Castrilli: Before we get on to the discussion paper, I'm rather curious. I've read the Common Sense Revolution. I don't see anywhere in it where you are backing off from the comments that you made in A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Excuse me. Just for clarification, you don't find a reference to $400 million?

Ms Castrilli: Oh, I do.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Oh, thank you.

Ms Castrilli: The $400 million is there, but there is no backing away from the issue that the sector is underfunded; there's no backing away from the statements that classes are overcrowded. In fact, you say you want a guarantee that the classrooms in themselves will be not touched in any way. Every university administrator that I've talked to is not convinced that $400 million is going to result in any kind of quality remaining at the same level in Ontario's colleges and universities.

There's an inconsistency, Minister. That's really what I'm saying. You're not backing off from what you've said in that blueprint. You do mention the $400 million. But you do not indicate that any of the things that are written in this comprehensive paper on colleges and universities are things that you're prepared to back away from. So how do you rationalize the two? How do you maintain the standards, how do you keep up classroom quality, how do you deal with underfunding, which you say is critical, and at the same time take away $400 million? How do you do that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Well, I have difficulty in rationalizing your statements. You open up with a statement that we made very specific commitments to the people of Ontario. We certainly have. We released the Common Sense Revolution a full year before the election, a very detailed plan for this province, and in that there is a commitment to the people of Ontario, among a number of other commitments, to the withdrawal of that $400 million. So I don't understand how you can have any doubt about that. It's very clear.

Now, we have said, and said I think very clearly and very publicly, that we believe the public needs to be involved in the debate and that the post-secondary institutions need to be involved in the debate over the share of individuals and the province and the institutions in the funding of education in the future, in the cooperation between colleges and universities in the future, and we are proceeding with a discussion paper to have just that conversation. So I believe we've been very consistent with our approach and I have difficulty rationalizing your earlier comment with what's in the Common Sense Revolution. Candidly, I --

Ms Castrilli: Let me cite from the Common Sense Revolution, Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Please do.

Ms Castrilli: Perhaps that will explain why I believe there are some inconsistencies. You do say, under your education sector, that the changes you make will not affect classrooms. You say that quite clearly. You are prepared to take $400 million out of the sector.

But look. It says very clearly, "Our proposals for education reform are outlined in detail in our policy document, `New Directions II: A Blueprint for Learning.'" Nowhere does it say you are overruling what's in here. What you are in fact doing is confirming in the Common Sense Revolution everything that you say in here. The only difference is the $400 million, and the question remains, how do you rationalize the two?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I have difficulty rationalizing your comments. You say we've made very specific promises to the people of Ontario, very clear commitments. We have. One of those was the $400 million. We've done that. I believe that we've been upfront and frank with the people of Ontario and that we're living up to our commitments. If that causes you some confusion, I don't know where from, because you have now read from the Common Sense Revolution, where we make that promise to the people of Ontario. We made it a year before the election. We were very clear, and we're fulfilling on it.

Ms Castrilli: I guess it's clear to everyone except you, Minister, that there is a real inconsistency here. Your Common Sense Revolution is based on your blueprint, which you published three years before the Common Sense Revolution -- you sanction it in this document, but nevertheless your actions contradict that.

But let me pass on to the question of consultation.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Excuse me. Just for clarification, our actions are consistent with what you have just read from the Common Sense Revolution, a document that we circulated to over two million people in Ontario a year before the last election, so I believe the expectations of the people of the province are very clear and our commitments have been lived up to and we are now pursuing a discussion with the post-secondary sector to address very serious needs of the future of that sector.

Ms Castrilli: Well, I beg to differ. I don't think it's at all clear. I think there's an obvious inconsistency and not one that, frankly, sir, you've really satisfied this morning.

Hon Mr Snobelen: So as to make sure that you are satisfied with that, can we go over again the part about the $400 million that is in the Common Sense Revolution that we have acted on? I just want to make that --

Ms Castrilli: Well, how do you plan on doing that? I don't really want to belabour this point too long.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I just want to make that very clear to you. Once again, from your own comments, this is a commitment we made to the people of Ontario and it's a commitment we've lived up to. If that causes you some confusion, I'm more than willing to talk to you about that until it's clear for you.

0930

Ms Castrilli: The confusion isn't caused except by the inconsistency in the two documents, and I'd be happy to talk to you further at length about this.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Please, we're in committee now. You might want to have that conversation now.

Ms Castrilli: The reality is that you are saying you're worried about classroom funding, and I'll say this for the last time. You are worried about the fact that the sector has been underfunded for, as you probably well know, at least the last 20 years. You are worried that we need to have students who are trained to the highest possible standard. You are saying that you've set out your policies in this blueprint, which is endorsed in the Common Sense Revolution, and you don't see an inconsistency with the statements that you've just made here today?

Hon Mr Snobelen: No. None whatsoever.

Ms Castrilli: All right. I understand your position.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think we've kept our commitments to the people of Ontario very clearly. If there's some confusion, perhaps it's your confusion with a government that keeps its promises.

Ms Castrilli: I don't think that's my confusion at all. But let's press on to the consultation issue. You've indicated that you are embarking on some consultation with the post-secondary educational sector. In fact, what you are doing is releasing a white paper which presumably will be the basis of consultation. You'll understand that there is some concern in the sector because there was precious little consultation with the sector on the issues that were eventually addressed by the economic statement. The sector was, at least in all of my contacts with colleges and universities, worried about jobs, worried about classrooms, worried about funding. There were certainly discussions, but no consultation of any kind with that sector.

I wonder, given that and the level of concern that was exhibited in the sector during that time, don't you think you have things backwards, Minister? Here you are proposing a white paper. You still haven't had any real discussion about what should go in it and you're proposing to issue a white paper and then embark on a consultation. Do you think that's appropriate, and do you wonder whether the sector is really going to take you seriously that you want to consult?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I find the level of your information is extraordinary. We have had long consultations with the colleges and universities, both before the Minister of Finance's statement on November 29 and from then till now. We are consulting with them on a regular basis with the direction, the thrust and the form of our discussion paper. We've been working with that sector, collaborating with that sector very closely, and we have before the 29th. For you to suggest here that's not a fulsome conversation is, I think, misrepresenting completely the last six months of discussions with universities and with colleges. These are very, very serious issues and we have most certainly -- I have personally, and I know the deputy has on many occasions -- met with the sectors.

Ms Castrilli: I agree with you that these are very, very serious issues. There is probably nothing more important than the health and wellbeing of the colleges and universities sector. It is what will propel us out of the economic mess that we're in, and we need to give proper focus to that sector.

Certainly the groups that have been speaking to me, the various staff associations and the various student groups, have been pretty much unanimous in saying: "Yeah, they talked to us, but it wasn't really a question of consulting. They met with us. They would certainly arrive on campus, but there was no meaningful process of consultation." They certainly had no idea what was going to be in the economic statement because their views weren't really solicited to any great extent.

But the question really is, given that you've already made some decisions about cuts and priorities, what is the point of a white paper and what is the point of a discussion process, and will a discussion process be meaningful? That's really the question.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I'm going to attempt perhaps the impossible, which is to bring logic to your comments. Talking with people and consulting, your definition of those might be interesting. One of the reasons why we are pursuing a discussion paper is a formal process of consultation. We believe that's important and I believe that's important, and that is why we are pursuing that avenue.

As for what was in the economic statement, once again if I can remind you perhaps, if you could recall our earlier conversation, what was in the economic statement was what was in the Common Sense Revolution, which was put out a year before the election. So I'm sure it startled no one. To represent that in any other fashion would, I think, be irresponsible.

Ms Castrilli: Well, irresponsible or not, that is the perception of a great --

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Excuse me, Mr Chairman. We're 24 minutes into a 20-minute rotation, according to the clock on the wall.

The Chair: It's 30 minutes by rotation, and the Liberals did have another five minutes to go.

Mr Gilchrist: I beg your pardon. We were told 20 minutes.

The Chair: I told you 30 when I started. Ms Castrilli.

Ms Castrilli: I think the logic of your comments may be escaping in that particular sector. Let me ask one other question.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Well, perhaps I could put them in some other fashion in which you would find them logical. We made an announcement on November 29 which was consistent with what was written in the Common Sense Revolution, a document we put out a year before the previous election and circulated over two million copies of to the people of Ontario. That's what was announced in the minister's statement.

Before the announcement and after the announcement, we have been in consultation with student groups, with universities, with colleges, with their collective bodies. We have had a variety of discussions with those people. The deputy minister and I have met with them personally. We have listened to what they have to say; I believe they have listened to what we have to say. We are now working with those sectors on the development of a discussion paper to have a formal process of consultation with that sector. I believe that's a very clear record of being responsible, of announcing our plans well in advance and of consulting, and I'm proud of that record.

Ms Castrilli: I'm delighted that you're proud of your record. The reality is, though, that the sector does not feel as though they are having any meaningful say in this process. I think they certainly will confirm that many of the associations have not been involved in any meaningful way.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It would perhaps help us if you could name one of the associations that has not been consulted with or discussed by the deputy minister or myself.

Ms Castrilli: I indicated before that there are many student and staff associations that do not feel they have been involved in the process. I think the hope is, with the white paper that you will release and the consultations that should take place afterwards, that we do not repeat this pattern, that they will in fact be part of the process and will be heard and that it's not just a foregone conclusion what will be in your white paper. So I'm looking forward to that particular document.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I trust that the discussion paper process will continue a pattern of consultation with the people involved in the sector, and that includes students, colleges, universities, faculty associations and others. I trust that the discussion paper will continue that record.

Ms Castrilli: I hope it will establish a record. I guess that's where we may differ on this.

Let me ask one question stemming from the economic statement and specifically dealing with tuition. That's also in your Common Sense Revolution and in your blueprint. Your blueprint states that tuition fees should rise over a four-year period to 25% of university operating costs. It's obvious, in studies that have been done, that tuition fees already represent more than 25% of the operating costs in this province. I wonder, sir, how you can justify an increase in tuition fees from 10% to 20% in the very first year.

Hon Mr Snobelen: You are, I'm sure, aware of the fact that tuition fees have risen over the course of the previous government and over the course of the government prior to that, that there has been a pattern of escalating tuition fees across the province, and I'm led to believe that our tuition fees in the province now are somewhere in the middle of tuition fees charged in other Canadian provinces. That is the situation today.

0940

We obviously consulted with universities and with colleges, many of which would like to see steeper rises in tuition fees than we have announced. We consulted with those parties and came up with what we believe is a very fair and equitable package. We also have looked at the amount or percentage paid by students, paid by the province, absorbed by the institutions, and have suggested that we need to have a very fulsome conversation about this, which is why it is a critical part of the discussion paper.

Ms Castrilli: I'm not sure that answers the question. You're on record as stating as a party that tuition fees should rise to 25%. We're beyond that already, prior to the increase that you are legislating now.

Hon Mr Snobelen: We are right now in a process of establishing costs, and I can ask the deputy to speak to that in a moment. We also are in an environment that has changed considerably since 1992, including a number of increases in tuition to students across the province from that point to this point. So there have been a variety of changes from 1992 till now. We are in fact attempting to establish some of the costs of programs. As I'm sure you're aware, they are not always consistent between institutions and certainly not between programs.

The Chair: We have about 10 seconds left, and the minister had asked the deputy to make a comment. If you want to --

Ms Castrilli: I'd be happy to return to this later and give the deputy minister a full opportunity to respond.

The Chair: Okay. Now we turn to the third party, which has 30 minutes.

Mr Wildman: First, I'd like to say to the minister and to the deputy and the staff of the ministry, as well as to my colleagues on committee, that I appreciate the fact that my colleague Tony Martin led off the debate for our caucus when I was absent from the country, or just returned, actually. I do appreciate the accommodation the committee has given to me. I would like to follow up on some things that were raised by my colleague in the exchange between him and the minister.

I must say that in reading the estimates debate in Hansard from December I found it an interesting exchange, but I found it difficult to identify the minister's or the government's vision of education and training in the 21st century. I'd like to pursue that a little, keeping in mind that this year's estimates debate is a bit of a theatre of the absurd, since the estimates document was prepared by the previous government, our government, and events have transpired since that document was prepared that have considerably changed the picture and changed the numbers, and of course we've almost finished the fiscal year that they were prepared for in the first place.

We've had the announcement in July from Mr Eves, his economic statement, which led to considerable cuts, and then even greater cuts announced for the following year at the end of November. I won't spend a lot of time on the figures but, rather, on what the government has announced, to determine how that relates to the vision of education that we are developing and to try to determine how the cuts relate to that vision.

I've heard some discussion with my colleagues from the Liberal Party this morning in their questioning of the minister in which the minister makes a lot, I think, of the fact that what has been announced is consistent with the Harris counterrevolution document.

I'm reminded that one wise man, much wiser than I, once commented that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." It sometimes is necessary to change one's position, I've learned over the years, when circumstances dictate change. But I suppose it is one virtue to be consistent and to be able to say that despite the fact that things changed I was consistent and you can judge me on consistency.

There's an old American folk song about the war with Spain that actually was made famous by Pete Seeger. It's about a lieutenant marching a platoon into a swamp, and the chorus -- I can't remember the exact words -- is something about the water is getting up higher, first it's at the knees, then the waist, then it's at the neck, and the members of the platoon are pleading with the lieutenant that perhaps they should turn back, or at least change direction if not turn back, but the big fool said to keep on. I certainly would understand that that big fool could argue that he was being consistent, but the unfortunate problem is that the platoon finally drowns, thanks to his consistency.

I'm also a little bit concerned about what has been said about cuts as it relates to consultation. There's consultation and consultation. There's the consultation that was carried out by Don Corleone when he wanted to make a deal in The Godfather. He had consultations. They weren't very equal consultations, but I suspect that if you cut first and then you review and consult afterwards, it's similar to Don Corleone's approach rather than what I would consider to be adequate consultation.

It seems rather odd to me that we would cut first on adult education and then carry out a review subsequently. Or, for that matter, that we would be consistent with the counterrevolution document and make junior kindergarten optional and cut the grant to the normal formula as opposed to what had been there previously for junior kindergarten, and then have some sort of review of junior kindergarten afterwards. It seems a little bit analogous to a physician ordering surgery and cutting out part of the abdomen and then having a consultation about the appendix afterwards. It doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. One might find that the operation wasn't completely necessary or wise, but unfortunately the cut has already taken place.

It's true that one could argue that the government is being consistent with its promises in these matters, but perhaps that consistency is ill conceived in view of the circumstances. It might not be, but it might be useful perhaps to have the consultation to determine that first. To argue that since the counterrevolution document was out for a year or a year and a half prior to the election and, therefore, the consultation took place, I think, is a little bit silly. In a general sense that is consultation with the general public on the overall goals and aims of the government once it's elected, but it certainly isn't consultation about implementation and about implications and impacts, because it seems to me that what we're talking about is that we're moving from what we all aimed at, which was a student-centred education in this province, to a taxpayer-centred education. Certainly the taxpayer, the needs of the taxpayer and the concerns of the taxpayer are very important in education in Ontario, but one wonders whether education should be centred almost solely on the taxpayer. Sometimes, decisions might be made in the short term that in the long term will even hurt the taxpayer.

0950

Having said all of that, and before I go specifically to some of the figures, I would like to get some idea of the minister's personal vision of education, what he sees education policy achieving and being aimed at over the next decade or so, as we go into the next century -- not just on dollars and cents, but what it means for young people, what it means for adults, what it means for business, what it means for labour, what it means for our society as a whole.

In trying to prepare for this, I looked into your background, Minister. We contacted the Premier's office and received your biography from the Premier's office. I hope I'm not being unfair on this, but the Premier, as I recall, at the time of the press conferences after the appointment of the cabinet -- not just in reference to your appointment but I think in reference to a couple of other appointments -- turned the poet on his head and said, I think it was, to paraphrase, "Too much knowledge may be a dangerous thing," and justified appointing people on that basis.

In trying to determine what your information base might be, I looked at the biography that we received on January 5 from the Premier's office and saw that you are a fellow of the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia. Perhaps you could explain to me what that exactly entails and how your experience at the Carter Center might affect your vision on educational issues as they relate to Ontario and, for that matter, North America and in the context of your experience in that regard.

Hon Mr Snobelen: First, let me apologize. If it says "a fellow," it should not, it's been corrected. We publicly apologized for that early on. I'm surprised there's still a document floating around with that statement on it. It should say "associate of."

I'm very proud to have worked directly with President Carter in Zambia monitoring an election and to have had contact with him on a variety of other issues, one of which was the Keeping the Promise campaign in 1991. But I am not and I do not believe there is a designation called "fellow" with the Carter Center. I apologize that this has not been corrected. I will make sure it is. Again, we have publicly said that on several occasions, so I apologize for that. I am very proud, though, of my not trivial connections and experiences with the Carter Center and with President Carter.

Mr Wildman: I didn't really expect or ask for an apology, but this is a document that we received on January 5 from the Premier's office.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, my understanding was that had been corrected. Obviously, it has not, so I will make sure that it is.

Mr Wildman: If you're not a fellow of the Carter institute and you've had some experience with former President Carter, perhaps you could pursue that in terms of your relationship with the Carter Center and how that affects your view of your role now as minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: First, it's President Carter, not former President Carter, just to correct that. Again, I have had the opportunity to --

Mr Wildman: Former in terms of time; president in terms of title.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sorry, there is no designation "former President." There's active and inactive.

Mr Wildman: I wasn't putting a capital on the "F."

Hon Mr Snobelen: We seem to be very interested in the exact meaning of certain terms, and I'll try to stay that specific with you.

Again, my experiences with the president relate around the Keeping the Promise campaign in 1991, monitoring the first multiparty elections in Zambia, where I spent a little over a week with the president, and subsequently a meeting in Washington probably about two years ago, and other than that, by correspondence with the Carter Center over the past two years. That's the limit of my involvement with both the president and the centre. Again, I believe we've been pretty clear about that relationship.

Mr Wildman: I understand that you've said you were an associate of the centre subsequent to the confusion over the term "fellow." What is an associate and how does one become an associate?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I would assume one would be associated with the centre. I was certainly associated with the centre in monitoring an election with President Carter at his request, in our involvement with the Keeping the Promise campaign, for which the president was the honorary global chairman and for which I had some responsibilities here, and being involved with the Carter Center from a communications point of view.

Mr Wildman: That clarifies that, because I had understood that the term "associate" in the formal sense was an academic position, according to Carrie Harmon of the Carter Center, and that most of the people who are associates are in fact academics from universities.

Also, the CV that we have here, besides relating to your various activities in business and in the community, refers to the Hunger Project which, I understand prior to your being involved with it, had some controversial relationships with the Metropolitan Toronto separate school board, and I believe at one point in the 1980s the Hunger Project was quite controversially involved in the Erhard Seminar Training. I'm just wondering if you have had any relationship with est or any connection with that at all.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The subject has been brought up regarding the association of Warner Erhard and the Hunger Project before I became chairman of the project. My understanding is that Erhard or various forms of that business were not involved in the Hunger Project. I took over as chairman from Carl Masters, who is the person who invited me to sit on the chair when that organization was going through considerable changes in Canada. I was pleased to serve on that body with Eugene Whelan and with our distinguished Chair here today. I'm very proud of the record of commitment from those people and I was pleased to be part of that body. People like Eugene Whelan and our distinguished Chairman here today have, I believe, spotless records in their commitment to people around the planet, and I was very pleased to participate with them.

Mr Wildman: I acknowledge the role of the Chair in that project as well. I won't pursue this other than to say that in looking at the CV that was available from the Premier's office, in terms of the Carter situation and the association and the Hunger Project, I thought that should be clarified.

Perhaps we can deal a little more in terms of vision for education in the future and how this relates to the money that has been cut from the budget. You mentioned in your leadoff comments in the estimates, Minister, that we in Ontario were spending $1.3 billion a year extra compared to other provinces in 1994-95. That figure was used by the Minister of Finance in his November statement and it has been repeated by you and by others in the government -- repeatedly -- since, and yet I've got serious concerns about that figure. I think if we're going to talk about the figures, we should at least be able to agree on the basis on which they're calculated.

1000

According to your comments, we're spending about 10% more per pupil than the average of the other provinces, and that's where the $1.3 billion a year comes from in extra spending, and this is used to justify cuts in grants. Yet, when we consider these figures very carefully, we find that the data apparently included federal and private schools in Ontario. They weren't just provincially and locally funded public and Roman Catholic separate schools. The data also included kindergarten expenditure, which I think they should, but didn't include kindergarten enrolment, which obviously would skew the figures. Since there are about 100,000 pupils in kindergarten in the province, not including that enrolment would certainly inflate the cost per pupil.

So when you do change the calculation based on the information I've just provided, and have been provided by others, we find that Ontario's per-pupil expenditure is not 10% above the average of the other provinces. In fact, using StatsCan figures, we're about sixth in Canada. We're behind Quebec, BC and Manitoba in per-pupil expenditures. Ontario's average expenditure is $6,961, and that is 2.4% above the Canadian average of $6,796. It's above, but not much, and we are behind neighbouring provinces and British Columbia. This, of course, is also interesting to note, that two years ago Ontario's average was $7,429, so it has come down substantially. When you take Ontario out of the figures, if you want to do it that way, the Canadian average expenditure outside of Ontario is $6,684, and that means that Ontario is 4.15% above the average calculated that way.

So perhaps you could clarify this: Why would you use data that included federal and private schools, and why wouldn't you include the kindergarten enrolment if you're going to include kindergarten expenditure?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I appreciate your question. I know there has been some confusion in this area, some of it predicated on people who want to compare our costs with the costs of the territories, which is obviously not very useful. I will ask the deputy to respond to that specifically in just a moment.

First, though, I know you've said that you want to talk about the vision pieces before going to the numbers. It's important that we do that, and I believe that's quite correct, because obviously costs are only one part of the equation when we are considering value, and it's very important. As a matter of fact, we've said publicly and often that it's our goal in the education system to have it improve and to have it actually be a higher-quality, more accountable and more affordable system for the province.

It's driven because we believe that with the economic circumstances that we face in Ontario, for us to have the opportunity and the possibilities for the young people who are in school to have useful careers in a vigorous province, we need to address issues of expenditure today.

A little earlier, if you can allow me to finish my brief observations on your statements, you quite I think rightly pointed to the need for flexibility in planning. As plans change and as times change, we must be flexible and we must have an ear to the ground and we must be making sure that we understand the systems. But that doesn't mean a flexibility in our commitment. It doesn't mean a flexibility in values and principles. Those who are willing to shift their commitments and values and principles with the wind of opinion have a very difficult time in creating a future for a province as big and diverse as Ontario.

I took some humour from your big fool story. It's an interesting story. I wonder if the big fool would have marched Ontario into deeper debt, higher deficits and more taxes -- an interesting story.

Mr Wildman: I suppose you could argue they might drown in debt, but I also wonder if they might have the right weapons or the right equipment in order to be able to get out of the debt. Perhaps you should do something to ensure that they do before you march them in.

Hon Mr Snobelen: To march on track over the course this province has been going in the last 10 years, into higher taxes, a larger deficit, more government spending. To put in debt this province and the future of this province, to put in debt the young people of this province, in my view, that is a big fool --

Mr Wildman: So you cut programs and hurt kids today on the basis that you're helping them in the future. It doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, but I would like an answer as to why you included these figures. Was it inadvertent or was it intentional?

Hon Mr Snobelen: What doesn't make a lot of sense, sir, is putting future generations in debt, overspending, spending beyond the province's means in an attempt to --

Mr Wildman: Were you attempting to justify your cuts on the basis of unclear and unfair figures? Was it intentional or not?

The Chair: Order. Could we give the minister a chance to respond to the questions you've asked?

Mr Wildman: He said he wanted to have the deputy respond and then he's giving me a little lecture --

The Chair: He was about to. I think he listened attentively to your comments. Would you let the minister continue?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Just a couple of more brief comments, and I will let the deputy comment on the numbers after.

As you said, it's important to have the vision very clear before we talk about the numbers. The haste and the urgency that you mentioned a little while ago are of course created on another number, and that number is the $1 million an hour or so that we spend now more than we bring in and the likely consequences of that overspending on future generations.

We believe that the taxpayer is a part of the consideration in the education system, of course, but the taxpayer wants value. So do parents, and the students depend on having a valuable education, a high-value education in this province. We are working towards that, I believe.

Again, all of our efforts are directed at improving the education system, at improving it from the point of view of quality, accountability and affordability. I'll ask the deputy to speak to the numbers.

Mr Dicerni: As the member pointed out, to establish explicit interprovincial comparisons from one province to another, and including especially the territories, is not necessarily a very easy and direct type of equation. The figures that have been used reflect the ministry's best effort to establish some comparisons. We have sought input from a variety of places, including Statistics Canada, including other provinces. We have gone to other provinces to ask them to compare what their overall budgets are as well as for the number of kids they have in their system.

A few numbers come to mind. For example, in Alberta their overall budget is about $2.8 billion for about 500,000 kids, which would work out to somewhere around $5,500 or $5,600. In the province's case, the overall expenditure on education in this province, if you include expenditures such as teacher pensions, such as capital, such as operating, works out to about $14 billion.

Mr Wildman: Excuse me. Could you explain why the private schools and federal schools were included and why the enrolment of junior kindergarten was not?

Mr Dicerni: I was going to add two other points and address that one also.

In terms of our numbers in the province it's about $14 billion, and we have about two million students, which would work out to about $7,000 per student.

1010

The specific points you mentioned about private schools and so forth spoke to the first point that I was mentioning. To do the actual comparison and find legitimate common ground we sought the advice of people at Statistics Canada so that we would have apples to apples to apples. If the member wishes, we could provide much more detailed, explicit information in written form regarding the provincial comparisons. I do emphasize "provincial comparisons" because, as the minister was mentioning, I believe the territories may have been included in the numbers that you're referring to when you were locating Ontario perhaps in fifth place.

Mr Wildman: Let's talk about Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia. The figures that were provided by StatsCan show Ontario's expenditure per pupil is $6,961; the figure used by Mr Eves was $7,556. Quebec from StatsCan is $7,329; the figure used by Mr Eves for Quebec was $7,557, one dollar more than Ontario. The Manitoba figure from StatsCan is $7,117; the figure used by Mr Eves was $7,181. British Columbia, the figure used by Mr Eves was $6,955; the StatsCan figure is $7,036. Why the differences?

Mr Dicerni: I would mention two things: One is that timing is always quite important in these things because provincial governments are constantly addressing the issue of expenditures and how to reduce expenditures. Nova Scotia recently had some initiatives. As you know, in Alberta, they rolled back wages by 5%. It depends explicitly at which point in time you take that snapshot. Also, it's a question of what you are comparing, and what I'm saying is that we have used, to the best of our ability, apples to apples to apples, from one jurisdiction to another.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Wildman --

Mr Wildman: I recognize my time is over, and we'll get to the royal commission to try and deal with more issues related to the vision of education. I will take the deputy minister up on his offer to provide more detailed, written information as to how they came up with these figures. Frankly, I'm not interested in Yukon and the Northwest Territories; what I'm interested in is specifically Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia.

The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, you have 30 minutes on your party's side, so you can share it accordingly.

Mr Gilchrist: Minister, not to slight you in any way, but I have no interest in your CV; I'm more interested in the vision of how education will unfold in this province and your approach to some significant issues that face the students.

I guess one of the things that drove me to run in this past election is the perception that government has not kept pace with the rest of the world in many ways; one of the most significant perhaps is the way it has embraced, or failed to embrace, modern technology. You are on record as saying that you would like to see a dramatic increase in access to computers, for example, within the schools. I wonder if you can give me, as a foundation point here right now, an idea of, from your perspective, how much of this whole cost of education right now is going into high-tech type initiatives, and how that percentage or absolute dollars should evolve over the next couple of years.

Hon Mr Snobelen: First, it's very interesting that when you look at different schools across the province, the amount of information technology that's available for students varies between schools sometimes in the same school board, and certainly between different parts of the province.

From personal experience from looking in our facilities where there is a lot of information technology available, it's very clear that the level of engagement that adolescents have with that technology, their ability to learn, is greatly enhanced. It is a beginning. We are at the beginning stages I think in education, globally, at using those information systems.

They represent a very small, very tiny part of our budgeting. There are special initiatives that are going on now and have gone on in the past that represent what seem like large numbers, $20 million, but are actually very small, as the deputy pointed out, in a $14-billion system.

In order to take advantage of the information technology that is currently available and will be soon available, we need to do two things, it seems to me. One is to make sure that our current structures are as affordable as possible, and the second is to work with the private sector and others in providing the investment that's needed in the hardwiring and the training and the software development, and in the hardware, to make sure that every child in Ontario has access to information technology. It's a long-term process and it's an enormous amount of money. Some people estimate that it will require a $4-billion investment, which obviously needs a complete rethink of how we work with the private sector and others.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm encouraged that's the direction you're taking, but I'm discouraged when I hear comments, and I know this is something you've inherited, that there are tremendous inequities between schools even within the same school board. I guess that leads me into another topic to some extent, but I just want to pick up the point in terms of your approach to whether it's computers per se or other innovative, high-technology initiatives.

When can we expect in this province the kind of dedication to a common curriculum and a common opportunity for students, whether they're in Moosonee or London, to the kind of education that will leave them prepared for the jobs of the 21st century?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The common curriculum initiatives that have been part of the province for some time now require, I believe, a lot of work in order to make sure that the outcomes are clear to parents and students.

We recently announced a complete change to a four-year program of secondary school in Ontario to allow us to revise the curriculum, and it will allow us to look for the benchmarks that I think parents and students really want. They want a more accountable system. They want a system where they can clearly tell how their child is doing, how their school rates. This is something that's critically important.

The province, I believe, needs to have a lead role in curriculum development, particularly in core subjects, and I was very pleased when Pauline Laing joined us recently to bring some expertise in that field to the ministry and to work on developing those standards.

Mr Gilchrist: There's no doubt that throughout the election we campaigned on a platform that included the statistic that half the cost of education, half the dollars spent are outside the classroom. I must admit I was staggered to find out the number of people employed in the curriculum departments of individual school boards here in Metro Toronto. I think it's nothing short of scandalous that we have a perception in this province that somehow Scarborough's education should be different from Etobicoke's. When we can't even come up with a common curriculum here in Metro Toronto, I think that says an awful lot about the lack of direction that has existed in the education system and the amount of fat and the waste that has developed outside the classroom.

I wonder if you would comment on one other cost that has particularly burdened Scarborough. It was the last school board to hold out against the forced implementation of heritage language programs, tremendously unpopular within the Scarborough school board and, as you're well aware, a situation where literally one person can demand access to tutoring in any number of languages. This has created millions of dollars worth of expense just within the Scarborough school board alone. At a time when we're looking for dollars that can be spent over all of the students, whether it's computers or just fewer portables, I wonder if you have taken any steps down the road to either eliminating heritage language or at least allowing it to be optional or voluntary within the school boards.

Hon Mr Snobelen: There have been some suggestions made to us about heritage language. I can tell you that we've made no decisions on how that program might be changed or modernized across the province. We have to look in all of these things at the two sides of the equation. One of those is the cost and the other is the value, and we understand and recognize the importance of heritage languages in the competitiveness of Ontario in the future, making sure that we can service a global economy.

One of the extraordinary things about Ontario and the future of Ontario is that we do have so many nationalities represented here, particularly in the GTA. That, I think, is an extraordinary advantage for Ontario versus other jurisdictions in the world and in fact in Canada in the future as we head to more globalization of trade. So we want to protect the value of heritage languages and we're willing to examine ways that it might be more responsible or more affordable.

Mr Gilchrist: No one can disagree with the opportunity that that diversity brings to the province. I think it's more a question of where you draw the line and whether one student should have access to a tutor, particularly in a context of going to user-pay in many more other circumstances. So I would encourage you to continue your exploration of that.

Mr Chairman, recognizing that we have a limited amount of time, I'd like to turn it over to my colleague Mr Sheehan.

1020

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I was somewhat amused by the third party's reference to Don Corleone particularly since they were the people who made us the offer we couldn't refuse with their irresponsible spending which put us in a box and effectively denied us any options but the options that we're pursuing.

I have a couple of questions and they're more by way of information. With the changing needs of technology in business and commerce and the professions, have you any plans to survey the business community and the professional community to determine what in fact their needs are so that the curriculum can prepare the students at least for entrance into the work that's going to be available when they graduate?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Some of that is ongoing. I want to point out that one of the most useful places for that, it seems to me, is in the partnerships that are emerging on a board-by-board level and sometimes a school-by-school level with the business communities in that local area. I've talked to business leaders who have been involved in those partnership processes, and to educators, and it seemed to be very revealing to both parties. I think the business people came away with a different understanding of the challenges in the education system and a different understanding of what's possible in that system, and I believe the same is true for the educators I've talked to.

While we need to consult with the business and professional associations in the development of curriculum, it's really critically important, it seems to me, to have those partnerships right at the school level because that seems to be the place where it makes the most difference.

Mr Sheehan: I believe, like Mr Gilchrist, that we should have a common curriculum. Since the common curriculum will be centred at the ministry, I think that the ministry should be monitoring those consultant processes -- a particular reference to one of our policy committees where the head of training for Ontario Hydro said that in his 25 years, no one ever asked him what they needed. I'm really concerned that we're importing tradesmen and technologists, and that tells me that what's happening right now is not training our students so that they can make the jump. So you are going to pursue that, I hope.

My second set of questions concerns the French process. I don't know if you have these numbers now, but I would like to have them for the number of French school boards in Ontario. I would like to know if they're all in compliance with the population count. I don't know if it's accurate, but it seems to me it was 5,000 population in an area led to some French school boards. I'd like to know the number of trustees on those boards, I'd like to know the number of students served, I'd like to know what the pupil-teacher ratio is, I'd like to know what the total budget is and I'd like to know the cost per student. In our area we have a school that was created for 67 students and I'm really upset about the proper allocation of funding.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll defer the particulars of the question to the deputy because he has that information right at the top of his mind. He's an extraordinary person who is able to recall all of that instantly.

The Chair: You're allowed to pass if you've got a deputy.

Mr Sheehan: I'm impressed with that man.

Hon Mr Snobelen: But you'll notice that I will give him some time to remember it.

Of course our constitutional issues involving francophone education in Ontario are fairly clear, and I believe our responsibilities are fairly clear. When we compare costs, one of the important things to consider is that the cost of providing basic materials, textbooks and other materials in French is considerably higher than it is in English because of the market size etc. So there are differences in the cost base of French-language service and English-language service in this province.

I'll let the deputy minister answer directly your cost questions, but we are working cooperatively with other provinces in Canada and we hope to be able to provide the service that we must provide and should provide under the Constitution at a more affordable price because we can work together, I think, with other provinces that have similar issues. That's one of the efforts that's going on now. There are isolated boards where we have extremely high costs of delivery that are a function of geography as much as they are of the language.

Mr Sheehan: In the particular instance I'm citing there is a French school in Welland that's empty or half-empty and they created a portable high school in the Lincoln county board area, but they located it in the Welland board territory. I would specifically reference that. I don't want an answer right now. But I'd also like you to add to your list of questions, are we exceeding the constitutional requirements or are we under the constitutional requirements and, if we are exceeding them, by how much and what is the dollar cost?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't know the answer to that particular question specifically. My understanding is we're complying with the Constitution as that emerges and that it's an emerging conversation. We do have a body that's about to report, the Sweeney commission, which has been looking at how boards should serve the needs of Ontario and, more particularly, what the roles of the trustees are. I'm looking forward to that report to have a look at how that restructuring might help the quality and the affordability and the accountability of the system.

Mr Wildman: He's recommending more French boards.

Hon Mr Snobelen: That's correct. That's what his interim report said.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Minister, I'd like to ask you about specific courses that are offered. For example, Mohawk College is in my riding, and there's another school that I just visited last week called St Charles Education Centre. At St Charles Education Centre they offer ESL classes and they also offer them at Mohawk College, and they're very close to each other. My understanding is that the courses offered at St Charles Education Centre with respect to ESL are offered in a much more cost-effective way than they are at Mohawk College.

I've got a number of questions about that. First of all, Mohawk College was established in the 1970s, I believe, under the Bill Davis government. Since then, has there been a change in the mandate of that college? Have they updated their mandate, revised it? Has anything been done with respect to the services they deliver? I'm wondering, for example, why they would offer ESL at a very costly expenditure when someone else offers it at a much less costly rate.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The colleges were established in the 1960s. I think there are a variety of people probably in this room who have some memory of that and some understanding of how they've evolved.

One of the reasons why in our discussion paper we want to have a look at rationalization of programs is to answer the question you've just asked, that is, what institution can best provide a particular program, best from the point of view of quality and affordability? There are a variety of issues that have been brought to the fore by colleges and by universities over the past year, such as whether we need to offer five nursing programs in the GTA etc. These are valid questions, I believe.

Originally colleges were designed to work primarily on a geographic basis and part of the concern that college presidents have spoken to me about is how they are going to be able to continue to specialize in delivering very, very, very high quality programs in their areas of interest, in the areas of interest both locally and globally. They are emerging, and I believe this discussion paper will help that both in the rationalization of services and the flow of students to and from universities.

1030

Mrs Ross: So the rationalization is taking place among the universities and colleges. But this particular school I am speaking of is under the board of education.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes.

Mrs Ross: Is there going to be something done with respect to looking at that overlap of courses being offered?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes. Our intention is to look at the rationalization of services holistically inside of the education community.

Mrs Ross: The other issue I'd like to talk about is the OSAP loans. We're looking at income-contingent loans. I know it's a problem and it has to be worked out with the federal government. I just wondered if anything's happening on that front and when you might expect to see something occur.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, we're very interested, and I talked to Minister Axworthy when he had the portfolio. We have been cooperating with our federal counterparts on developing an income-contingent loans package, which we believe certainly would provide more equity and more access for students. That process is ongoing.

I do not right at this moment have a time when we might be able to suggest that there'd be an income-contingent loans package available. There are obviously some things to work out in developing both a time line and the package. But we are committed to that, the federal government is committed to that, and I'm sure the new minister will be as well.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Minister, I've got some funny concerns about when you go out to these schools and you're listening to these students and you're consulting with the teachers. According to my colleagues, that isn't happening. Are you wearing earmuffs and muzzled, or is there some dialogue back and forth with those people? I know when you were in Ottawa there was some dialogue back and forth and they were very receptive of some of your answers and things, the way you were looking at them.

I know it's impossible to consult with every board there is in the whole province before you make a decision and I know there are some things you have come up with that I feel are going to be an answer to some of our situations with the testing. I think that's one of the things that if we do that grade 3, 9 and 11 or 6, 9 and 11, whatever you do in there.

When you consult with these people, are the taxpayers and the people I know who are at those schools when you're there telling you that that education these students are getting today is what they really need for tomorrow?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think it would be very difficult to characterize or generalize the comments because it runs the full spectrum of opinion in terms of parents and teachers and the students I talk to. There is a wide variety of opinions that get expressed.

I think generally people believe that the education community is working hard within the constraints to deliver a quality of education. I think people, if I can generalize, express to me concern that we make sure that the education system grow and change and develop consistent with the way the world is growing and changing and developing to make sure the young people in Ontario have an advantage in the global economy that we're moving to in Ontario.

The concern is both for some immediate issues, and they're expressed to me quite regularly, and for the future, to make sure we engage in the kind of changes we need to have in order to make sure we're preparing the young people in Ontario at the forefront of the education systems around the world. There are concerns from students, obviously, about that world, that uncertainty, and I guess is the natural right of each generation to be concerned, but I don't see panic in the eyes of the people I talk to. I think they know we can get there.

Mr Rollins: One of the other concerns I feel that we as a government should be taking a lead in is that supply teaching is always questionable, how much you use, and there is quite a lot of dollars spent on supply teaching. Personally, I feel we shouldn't be using retired teachers. I think it should be basically a mandate that anybody who's on a pension, particularly from a school board, we not let them back in the schools to be used, because I think there's a whole group of teachers out there who are already trained and who have not got the opportunity to have a door open for them to go and teach. Those people should be used, even though it is only on a one- or a two- or a three-day-a-month window of opportunity. It gives that board and that staff the privilege of looking at those people.

I feel it is very disrespectful for the pension system that we have -- and most of the teachers and most of the people who retire choose to retire because they want to retire, not choose to retire to come back to work. I wonder, is there any encouragement from you, as the minister, to the boards to use these types of people?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We've had a variety of suggestions that would have the effect of both protecting people who have not got a long tenure in the profession of teaching and those who are now trying to enter the profession. It's a very serious problem, particularly for young people who have the accreditation but no opportunity.

I'm told by some estimates that the uptake from teachers' college is as low as 20%, which is a very, very low number of people. We've had a variety of suggestions and recommendations that would help to make sure that those who have been in the system for a relatively short period of time and those who are trying to enter the system have an opportunity to get in. One of those suggestions is to limit the role of people who are currently on a pension. We are considering those recommendations in the fullness of all the recommendations to see what we can do provincially to make sure the system has as much renewal and rejuvenation as possible.

Mr Rollins: I think that's encouraging, because we do need to keep our younger and brighter lights in the system and keep them working in there.

One of the other concerns I have is in the colleges. Many of the colleges have developed over the past as far as instructors are concerned: "(a) I'm a businessman, (b) I can teach business." They haven't taken into consideration the ability of that person to be a teacher. Yes, he's had the experience of being out in business and maybe doing an excellent job, but I think there should be some encouragement from the ministry level down to make sure that some of those instructors are trained instructors. I think they need to have more of that expertise. Is there anything in that?

I know we're laying a lot of them off because of the restraints and I think we've got to face the music, that we are basically broke, whether they want to admit it or not. Any time that a business spends more than it brings in, basically you're broke. They just don't want to admit that, or a lot of people don't, particularly in the opposition.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I guess there's broke and there's broke, but what we certainly do have is a high level of debt that the people of Ontario carry on their backs that has been generated for them by governments.

The colleges were designed to serve emerging needs. They were designed to be very flexible and to meet the changing needs of the province and of the students. Over the course of the last 30 or so years the profile of who uses colleges has changed considerably and the profile of who serves in colleges has also changed. The design was originally, and I would think we should do everything we can to enhance that design, an ability to be flexible, an ability to bring in the skills that are needed in today's economy as that evolves and changes.

To that extent there are a variety of people, as you mentioned, who come in from other sectors who are experts in various areas, who are used to give that knowledge to the students. Their ability to teach, I'm told, is monitored by the colleges and in fact they keep a critical eye on that. I have talked to colleges about that issue and they assure me that they have kept an eye not only on the ability of the person in their expert area but also on their ability to communicate with the students.

It's also an issue for universities, that universities across not just Ontario, not just Canada, but universities in the developed world have been looking at the dilemma between having people who are very expert in their field and who may not be able to communicate that for education purposes.

Mr Rollins: One of the other things I think we need to follow fairly closely too is that if putting computers at everybody's desk is such a costly thing, maybe put them in colleges where they can be used 16 or 18 hours a day rather than the regular five or six or seven hours a day through the school system. I know it puts the position of transportation back and forth, but I think when we invest those dollars, we'd better invest them where we can use them and make those computers hum as loud as we can and as long as we can.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, the use of information technology varies from college to college and program to program, but it's very interesting. Of course there are a variety of experiments in post-secondary in Ontario, and I should note that other jurisdictions around the world are using virtual classrooms and the Internet and other services to provide information and methods of learning to people when they don't have bricks and mortar to go to. So it's an emerging field. What's possible is emerging, I think, and there is a fair amount of use of information technology in the colleges. Of course, there are some programs where that's just not applicable, but there are some where it is.

There are also some very interesting inquiries into possibly using private sector involvement, and perhaps using computing and other possibilities after school hours are over. There are, I believe, a variety of steps in that direction going on now.

1040

Mr Rollins: It's nice to know we're looking out the windshield instead of looking in the rear-view mirror.

Mr Sheehan: The concern raised by my friend is that in the universities and colleges there seems to be a little bit, or maybe a substantial amount of turf-guarding in that with my degree from, say, Niagara College, I can't take some of the course credits I have and transfer them up to a so-called higher level of education, or similarly, go from university down to the college level. Are you using your influence to try to make this process a little more seamless so it becomes more useful for the student?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I referred a little while ago to the change in demographics of those who use our post-secondary institutions and I think the change has been fairly dramatic over the last decade. There are, for instance, a high number of people who have university degrees who are enrolled in our colleges. It's a very interesting phenomenon.

Part of our discussion paper is to take a look at that and see how we can use prior learning assessment and other tools to have the transition from universities to colleges or from colleges to universities be more seamless. There are a variety of projects under way in the province that do just that, that acknowledge the technical skills and the real technical expertise of colleges and the theory or the sometimes more esoteric ability of universities. The merging of those two disciplines, those two abilities is very interesting, and will do a lot to enhance both kinds of institutions and provide a better service to people who are undergrads and graduate students.

Ms Castrilli: Given the exchange here this morning, I'd like to ask the minister a question or two before we ask the deputy minister to comment on my last question.

Minister, you have an extraordinary portfolio. You are charged with education, with training, with colleges and universities. It is an area which has traditionally, in Ontario, been one of paramount importance. I'm curious, after having listened to the questions and your responses, what your vision really is for the area I'm the critic for, colleges and universities. I'm curious whether you see that sector as anything more than just a budgetary expense to be dealt with. I'm curious what you do and say around the cabinet table to speak up for that sector. I'm curious as to your priorities, your view of that area. I wonder if you might just share that with us.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's a very focused question. I'm glad you asked it in that fashion. My discussions around the cabinet table of course I won't reveal. My view of the post-secondary sector, and it's a sector that is now at the point of enormous change around the world, is that really, because of the high reliance on knowledge and information and the change in the way information is distributed and the growth of knowledge, particularly in many disciplines, that system is emerging and the universities are facing changes they haven't faced over the last 200 years, if not from medieval times.

It's an extraordinary, extraordinary, extraordinary area. I think the possibility for growth at universities and colleges, the possibility of changing accreditation methods is now -- there are now changes possible that weren't possible a decade ago because of the way knowledge has changed and because of the changing information distribution systems.

I think our universities will emerge from these changes stronger and better able to serve a clientele. I think they will be going through a variety of restructuring processes that help them in continuous learning, because it's very clear that the people of the next generation will have a relationship with an institution of higher learning for a lifetime as knowledge changes and grows. There are very serious issues facing those institutions, among them intellectual property, the methodology of accreditation, the way they relate with undergrad and graduate students. I think those challenges need to be taken head-on and I'm glad to be involved in that process.

The college side faces similar issues. I believe the purpose of them when they were designed was a very useful, very visionary picture of colleges. They are now emerging as areas that specialize perhaps more than they did 30 years ago, that offer a high degree of training, specialty training that they're known for. They are attracting now a more worldwide audience for their services and that likely will continue. So our colleges and universities are emerging, as do others in that whole global field.

Ms Castrilli: I thank you for your response, but nowhere in your response have I heard the words "accessibility," "excellence" or "economic competitiveness." I wonder, do those form part of the spirit of defence that I would hope you would make at the cabinet table when the cuts are being wielded in such an unseemly fashion?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't find anything unseemly about doing what we said to the people of Ontario we'd do. We talked about that a little earlier; I won't go over that ground again with you unless you'd like to. I can tell you that obviously, with our discussion paper that we will be putting out very shortly, accessibility is one of the key issues for people in Ontario, particularly our young people. The accessibility of colleges and universities to people who are re-entering is also important and something we need to discuss, I believe, and the quality of our education programs is at the forefront of all of those discussions, certainly all the discussions I've had with colleges and universities.

Ms Castrilli: With regard to those discussions, I wonder why we are going into a formal process of consultation after a white paper which has yet to be released and why your government didn't enter into that kind of consultation process earlier on. It seems from the outset, and you're free to dispel this, that there was a priority -- to chop without regard to the fundamental role that colleges and universities play in a society -- and that having set the priorities, which were cuts, then you have the white paper and the discussion. I wonder what there's left to discuss at that point.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Are you suggesting there is nothing for this government to discuss about accessibility, about the future of colleges and universities, about the quality of programs, about the training for those who are graduating from our high schools into those institutions and for adults who are returning to those institutions to serve a demographic profile --

Ms Castrilli: I'm asking you what your priorities are, because they're not clear so far.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Excuse me. Are you suggesting there is no point now in consulting with universities and colleges? Is that the suggestion you're making with your question? Because I would reject that suggestion. I think that we are right now at the point of making some very important public policy decisions and that colleges and universities welcome the opportunity to do so in a consultive process and welcome the discussion paper and welcome a very focused conversation on those issues, and we are providing that.

1050

Ms Castrilli: I believe that consultation is essential and far be it from me to suggest that shouldn't take place. It was you who said there was wide consultation. My question simply is, if the consultation was so wide, why wasn't it formalized in the first instance? Why did we go from chopping, closing the door, and then setting out a white paper, which again sets out your priorities, and then you consult at the end of the process? That's really the question.

Hon Mr Snobelen: We spent some time prior to the election, obviously, in discussing issues with colleges and universities. We have made very clear our intentions in terms of funding the sector in the Common Sense Revolution. We announced or reified that commitment in the minister's statement on November 29. We talked to colleges and universities prior to the economic statement; we have talked to them since the economic statement. We have talked to student groups. We have talked to both of those sectors, to faculty and others. I have personally visited a number of those institutions and talked to people involved, had a look at what's going on, so our consultation has been continuous.

I think it's important to have a continuous consultation process with those institutions. They represent a very important part of the education system in Ontario. We are now in consultation to design a discussion paper to more formally have those consultative processes. I believe the informal and the formal are both necessary and we'll continue to pursue both.

Ms Castrilli: I think we are fully in agreement, Minister, that full consultation is required, particularly with this area, but I guess there's consultation and there's consultation.

Let me turn to one issue you spoke briefly about, and that's the issue of accessibility for students. You indicated it certainly was one factor you were looking at and I applaud you for that. I wonder, though -- you answered a question with respect to income-contingent loans -- what you mean by accessibility, and I guess the confusion arises from this: Your blueprint three years ago indicated that tuition should rise a modest amount until it reached 25%. We are now past that, as I've indicated before. We have no assurances that similar large increases won't in fact occur on a yearly basis. We're now looking at 10% to 20% this year.

There's been very little added to OSAP. In the economic statement you did indicate that some percentage of the increase would go to student loans, but there's been no evidence what you would do with income-contingent loans. I guess I wonder what you mean by accessibility when you are in fact making the cost so prohibitive for a large number of students. How soon can we expect an income-contingent loan? What are you planning, if anything, to do with OSAP aside from that modest increase? How will you address the very real needs of students in the coming year, and what can students expect next year, the year after that? Are we looking at 10% to 20% increases on a yearly basis?

Hon Mr Snobelen: If I understand, you're asking me if we are going to continue on the path of the previous Liberal and NDP governments in increasing tuitions on an annual basis, which has certainly been the case over the last two governments. Is that the question?

Ms Castrilli: I beg to differ. I don't think you can point to 10% to 20% increases under a Liberal government.

Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding is that tuitions rose significantly under both those previous governments.

Ms Castrilli: Well, 20% is hefty. I don't think you'll find those figures anywhere in the Liberal government.

Hon Mr Snobelen: No one would dispute the fact that the cost of tuition has increased over the course of the last five or six years, and it will continue to increase next year with our announcements. No one would doubt that or question that. The reason we want to have a public consultation or a public discussion with students and the post-secondary sector to sort out the fair share of individuals in their education process and the role of the taxpayer and the role of the institution is because there needs to be some certainty in that area, and I think that discussion paper will lead to that.

We also understand that tuition doesn't represent all the costs the students have in acquiring an education; that is in some cases not even a significant part of the equation for some students and the students have reminded me of that on a regular basis. So we need to have a look overall at what the circumstances are.

The question of accessibility is whether all people who have the ability and the desire to participate in post-secondary education will have that opportunity, regardless of their economic circumstances, and I think that is the reason we want to engage that conversation with individuals, with students and with the institutions.

Ms Castrilli: Are you saying that accessibility is something that is important to this government?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes.

Ms Castrilli: If that's the case, why wouldn't you deal with the issue of accessibility before you put on these very large tuition increases? Why do you do it afterwards? Why are you delaying the whole process? Why aren't we talking about OSAP and income-contingent loan repayment plans in advance? Why aren't you consulting with the students on this?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, we had extensive conversations with student groups before the minister's statement on the 29th, which reified a commitment we made to the people of Ontario over a year before the election in the Common Sense Revolution. Our intentions have been very clear and clearly made to people. We have had a consultative process with students, with colleges and with the universities before the minister's statement and intend to have further consultations now on a more formal basis. We have very definitely been in touch with this sector, and we are very definitely concerned with the future, for future generations, in post-secondary education.

Ms Castrilli: Even if I take you at your word, Minister -- and, believe me, I really want to -- the record is otherwise. You have raised tuition by almost 20% at most universities, although you're giving the institutions the facility to raise the additional 10% and you've really only increased it by 10%. I want to be fair. You have not mandated the entire 20%; you've mandated 10% and left it to the institution.

But you've not dealt with the central issue for students, which is, how do they pay for it? If they are able, of course, because we are only talking about students who should be in universities, who are capable of being at university, how do they pay for it? You've admitted, in fact, that there are additional costs for students that have to do with books. The average science course at the University of Toronto requires some $1,000 or more in books. You're dealing with increased transportation costs, increased lodging costs for students, an unemployment rate which for students is the highest of all groups. How do you manage that 20% increase?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me say that I'm glad you will take us at our word on the fact that we have consulted widely with both the students and --

Ms Castrilli: I said I'd like to; I didn't say I would.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm not sure how I would comfort you in that regard.

Ms Castrilli: I think we disagree on what "consultation" means.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think talking about substantive issues with people who have a concern is consultation, and we have done that.

We are concerned about accessibility. It remains a concern for this government and it should be a concern because we believe it's important that people who have both the ability and the interest have an opportunity to access post-secondary education. Obviously, the changing demographics also change who we're responsible to; we have to be responsible for changing circumstances as those demographics change. It is a conversation that I believe needs a very full conversation on this issue with the institutions and with students.

Along with the tuition increases for next year, we've also asked institutions to provide enhanced student assistance, and they are doing so. We also have had a considerable investment by the taxpayers of Ontario in OSAP, and we'll continue to provide that level of support.

We believe income-contingent is part of the future and needs to be explored; we are exploring it very quickly, as rapidly as is possible, with our federal counterparts. And we believe we need to explore the ways of supporting adults as they return to those institutions.

Ms Castrilli: Given that you've raised the level of tuition so massively, and we've talked about other costs to students, and you've not really done anything on the assistance side, the concern is that "accessibility" remains a rhetorical term and not much else. I hear from you that you want to deal with it in the future. I applaud that you will do that, but I think it would have been better to deal with it at the same time or in advance, prior to slapping such a hefty increase on students.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to reiterate that we have very specifically instructed universities and colleges to apply a portion of the tuition fee increase back to student aid and that this province will make a substantial investment in student aid through OSAP next year. To not acknowledge those two items would be to do a disservice to this conversation.

1100

Ms Castrilli: I regret that I can't agree with you on that score. Obviously, I have a very different view.

Mr Chair, I apologize that I must excuse myself. I would like the response from the deputy minister. Perhaps at some other point he could answer my question in writing and that might facilitate. Thank you very much.

The Chair: You're welcome, and I'm sure the deputy will accommodate all those responses.

Ms Castrilli: I will leave it to my able colleague.

The Chair: Mr Patten, your party has 12 more minutes.

Mr Patten: I have a number of questions related to adult education, but beforehand, I would like to address something. I will tell you that every single time this is brought up, I will address it again and again.

Minister, I think you know that I'm not a particularly partisan individual. We have a parliamentary form of democracy here, so if you want to participate it's probably better to join a party rather than run as an independent. But every time I hear the mantra from members about the last 10 years of expense and the growth in the debt and one thing or another -- I'll let the NDP speak for themselves. This is the tactic of politics, I suppose: You wash in the two opposition parties together and say, "They both ran up high costs and debts." I want to address this issue for the Liberal Party because it is germane to the discussion we're having.

When I hear that the cuts in education relate to the debt, in my opinion it's nonsense. It's dishonest not to say to the taxpayers of this province that you need to find $5 billion extra because you'll be giving a tax rebate to the people of Ontario. That's why the depth of cuts in education is there today, and you know that. Every time you just say it's the debt, it is not correct. It's not factually correct, it's not mathematically correct, it's not financially correct, it's not educationally correct, it's not socially correct, it's not politically correct, and if that is said again, I will respond in the same way.

Divide it up; let the NDP speak for themselves.

I will use figures from your own material. I have copies for everybody because myths have a way of taking hold; when we hear things, we tend to believe them and repeat them. This is from Ernie Eves's Ontario's Fiscal Outlook, and I have copies for everyone.

There's a graph, and isn't it interesting? This graph is titled "Ontario Total Spending as a Per Cent of GDP." These are not my figures; they were put out by Finance. What does it show? From 1965 to 1985, when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power, there was an increase from about 6% to 15% or 16%, a doubling, almost a tripling, of cost. From 1985 to 1990, you'll see what the graph does. It's pretty flat. That's when the Liberal Party was the government.

I'll give you a copy, Mr Chair, and I would ask the clerk if he might distribute that to any members who might have an interest or anybody else who's here today who has an interest. I will table that.

Next from Ontario's Fiscal Outlook, look at this one; isn't it interesting? It talks about "Ontario's Deficit" -- put out by Ernie Eves. What does it say? What's that little point back here where there's no more black? What year was that? It was 1989. In the last 20 or 30 years there has only been one time when there was a contribution -- I see John laughing back there -- to the accumulated debt of this province. It was in 1989, and there was a contribution of something in the neighbourhood of about $400 million. This is germane, by the way, because this is the way in which you have to deal with mythology. There was a contribution of $400 million to the accumulated debt.

When the Liberal Party received the mandate to govern, what did they receive? About $2.5 billion from the Progressive Conservative Party, and it's right here on the chart. I'll let the NDP speak for themselves in terms of what happened after that. But every time you say "the last 10 years," look at your own statistics, because I'll bring it up again. Your record shows that you were poorer than we were on that score.

It also shows -- the figures are there -- that when you talk about cutting, you're dealing with only half the ball game, half the picture. You're gutting and you're cutting education. And in health, you've said you're doing what you said you would do. You said you wouldn't touch one cent of health care; $1.3 billion is a hell of a lot of money. You said in the Common Sense Revolution $400 million from education. Is that where it's going to stop? We shall see. The projections are now $1 billion to $1.3 billion from education. That's not what you said you would do when you talked about education.

Our position was that you did not need to go that far. We put out a budget to show that you could balance the budget and you could encourage education to take a look at its infrastructure and its administration to find resources. To do what with the resources? To apply it to the mission. To do what? To make sure we had a better quality of education, not to gut the whole system, not to affect the classrooms, not to lose teachers, not to lose the opportunity for our kids.

Mr Chairman, I'm sorry I'm so emotional about this, but it bugs me to see the perpetuation of this myth, which it truly is. Look at it with guts and courage on the basis of fact, your own figures, and you may find it's a different story.

Mr Rollins: Yes, how you were going to do it in four years.

Mr Patten: These are your figures, buddy.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Mr Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to respond for a moment. I'm glad the member, as I am, is disinclined to have long, partisan conversations and to fill our conversations with rhetoric.

I would like to respond. I, like many members of my generation, am not particularly interested in a long discourse on how this province got nearly $100 billion in debt, but I am very interested in discourse on how we might get it out of debt. I am very interested in how we might lower our taxation so that the people of Ontario are not paying an unfair burden of taxes from their hard-earned dollars. I believe the prosperity of this province and the future we're creating for the young people currently enrolled in our schools depend on our ability to have Ontario not be one of the highest jurisdictions in North America on debt and to make sure it's not one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions in North America. High debt and high taxes do not equal more prosperity or possibility or opportunity for the young people of Ontario. On that I think all of us would agree. We have our shoulders to the wheel as a government, I think as a Parliament, to make sure we take on those very real problems.

Mr Patten: Minister, you said the people of Ontario are concerned. I'm sure the ministry has this and you've probably seen it, but for the record I'd like to share results from an Environics poll taken recently, between December 27 and January 3, and I would think if we did it today the figures probably would be higher, but what were the findings of the poll?

The question was asked as part of a survey to Canadians by interviewers at Environics' central location out of Toronto, but it covered Ontarians. Almost all Ontarians, 88%, said they're concerned about the future quality of education in the system, and rightly so. In other words, they placed education as a high priority. But 66% say they are very concerned; 55% of Ontarians think cuts in the area of education are going too far; only 8% said they do not go far enough; 58% say they are concerned about the impact of the government's decision to change the way kindergarten is funded; 88% of Ontario residents say they are willing to forgo promised individual tax savings in order to provide special support for students at risk.

1110

Seventy-three per cent would be willing to forgo a personal tax saving to provide adult education classes for those who wish to complete high school. Sixty-five per cent said they would be willing to forgo the tax saving if that meant reducing class sizes was at stake. A majority, 57%, said they'd be willing to forgo their tax saving to provide junior kindergarten classes. In all three categories, approximately one third are willing.

I place that on the record, Mr Minister -- and I believe those figures are small-c conservative -- because when we actually get into the exercise of school boards having to face the prospect of cutting, that'll be interesting to track over time.

Our relationship to other provinces was brought up by Mr Wildman, and we received some further clarification from the deputy. I want to know what the rationale or the motivation is in trying to tie Ontario to an average in these provinces anyway, when I've heard you, Minister, talk about wanting to see Ontario demonstrate to the world its capacity to have the very best educational system we would want to have, and particularly, as the deputy has said, when we start trying to compare apples to apples, which I know is very difficult. I'm empathetic with that challenge, but if you're going to use those as measurements of credibility, then our job is to challenge their validity and credibility.

I would say to you that no other province faces the variety of immigration factors that we face in Ontario, the diversity, the attempt to respond to special needs, and of course the full funding aspect that you mentioned was a factor for separate school boards, but also the diverse population that we have and our responsibility to our youngsters who have special needs and of course adult education.

I would ask that if our commitment is there and we took out some of those factors and compared apples to apples then the ratio might be considerably less. I wonder if you might respond to that.

The Chair: Just a comment: The minister and deputy have a minute to respond to those excellent questions you have. Whether or not you wait around in the circle for him to respond completely is up to you.

Hon Mr Snobelen: No other province in Canada, other than Quebec, faces the debt that we face as a province. I think that's important too. Remember that we are facing a different economic circumstance than other provinces as well. We also face -- I would hardly say "enjoy" -- a unique level of taxation in this province. We have to have those realities in front of us when we talk about any of our government services, especially a service as important as education.

The deputy has said earlier today, as I've said, that it's difficult to benchmark education in terms of both its cost and its quality. But as difficult as those efforts are, I believe we should do so to the extent that we can. Some of the measurements versus other systems are useful. Some may be less useful, but at least it's one of the things that we should consider when we look at the overall cost and value of education in Ontario. I think it's important that we continue to benchmark how we do based on the success of our students as well as our cost.

One of the things that was somewhat astounding to me when I first went to the ministry was how difficult it is to correlate cost to quality in education. There are systems that seem to be able to leave their students with as much opportunity, with as good a chance for success in their lives for considerably fewer dollars than does the system in Ontario, and I think that's at least worthy of consideration. It is their future we're spending.

The Chair: The New Democratic Party, you have 30 minutes too.

Mr Wildman: I want to comment just briefly. I don't think it's particularly productive for us to get into arguments over the last 10 years. I think it's been shown quite easily that the government's mantra about the lost 10 years ignores the fact that in 1994 we had the highest level of investment in this province we've ever had in history, but that fell off somewhat in 1995. To say there were 10 lost years is to ignore the facts, but I don't think it's particularly useful to get into a big argument about that. We could point out that after 1993, year-over-year spending, in total dollars, was cut back for the first time since 1945 in this province by any government, whether it be New Democrat, Liberal or Conservative.

I think what's more important for us to look at is what we're headed for, where we're going, how we deal with the current fiscal situation and how we respond to the needs of students, society, business and labour, going into the 21st century as an education system. We've had a lot of numbers thrown around here. It's been suggested that we have to deal with the debt and the deficit. One of the ministers -- I think it was Mr Johnson -- was quoted this morning in the press, saying that the public voted in June 1995 for radical surgery. Well, that may be the case, but in my view a surgeon uses a scalpel, not a butcher's cleaver, and that's what we're seeing here for the future of education.

The number $400 million has been bandied about as a result of Mr Eves's statement in November: $400 million in cuts to education at the elementary and secondary levels. We know that if boards are to find $400 million, because of the configuration of the school year, what we're really talking about is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $800 million to $1 billion in cuts. Frankly, I agree with my colleague from Ottawa when he points out that the magnitude of these cuts is directly tied to Mr Eves's and the government's commitment for a tax cut. There have been cuts over the last number of years, but there would have been cuts that would have less effect if they were not designed to make it possible to have a 30% cut in the income tax rate in this province. All of us have to recognize that. That's what I meant about a taxpayer-driven, a taxpayer-centred education system.

I was talking earlier about the need to discuss a vision for our education system, but let's look at what the current economic situation is. I'm using articles here from the Toronto Star, so they must be correct. This is in the February 2 edition, the business section, which I read devoutly every day.

"Plenty of Reasons for Market's Roar" is the headline. As the stock market "punched through the 5000 mark yesterday" -- that is, last Thursday -- "average Canadians could be forgiven for wondering what all the fuss is about.

"Why is the market roaring, when most people haven't seen" the changes in the economy?

"The answer is that while we live in the present, stock markets live in the future, usually about a year ahead. What they see is a set of extremely promising conditions."

Then let's look at the current conditions. This is another edition of the Toronto Star business section, January 31. It's all on the same page. It says:

"Barrick Expands." "Barrick Gold chairman Peter Munk has dug up 10th straight year of record profits." "In 1994, Barrick earned $250.5 million on revenue of $954.5 million." "And GM Tops 'em All -- $1.39 Billion Sets Record Profit." Scotiabank: "Banker Defends Record Earnings -- Last year Scotiabank made $876 million, the biggest profit in the bank's 164 years."

1120

February 1, "Brascan" -- these are 1995 figures -- "1995 Profit of $312 Million Best in 96-Year History."

The question is: If these companies are doing so well and the market is looking forward to tremendous expansion, why do we need this tax cut at a time when we are all concerned about dealing with the deficit? Why do we need to make decisions that affect the future of our kids in this province in order to make it possible for companies like this to make even bigger profits? The profits are there. They're doing very well, thank you very much. Why are we --

Mr Peter Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Where does the money go? It goes to you and me and every other --

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Bullshit. It goes into the bank accounts of the stockholders of those companies.

Mr Wildman: Well, let me deal --

The Chair: Let's have the discussion through the Chair.

Mr Wildman: You can get into this trickle-down theory and, as Tommy Douglas used to say, you know what it's like to get trickled on.

I'd like to talk about what we're doing in education, what the vision is, where we're going, and get some idea from the minister.

There's another article from the Toronto Star. This is January 28, talking about the future of the Ontario Royal Commission on Learning recommendations. One of the commissioners, Gerald Caplan, said:

"In general terms, I've become quite depressed about it. It seems largely to have disappeared into the vapour. Virtually every one of the groups that cheered us on after [the report's] release has found other initiatives, other priorities to pursue."

I submit to you that one of those priorities is the tax cut.

"And the few things of substance and importance being pursued have a very good chance of being undermined," says Mr Caplan.

In his view, what's happening is the government is cherry-picking certain things out of the report that are cost savings, which were recommended by the commissioners partly because they were cost savings, although that wasn't their main mandate, but is not doing the other things that frankly would cost more but would be good for education in this province, good for students, good for their futures, good for society, and frankly, even good for these companies that are making such profits.

For instance, the commissioners suggested the government should condense the high school program to four years and apply the savings -- $350 million estimated -- to expanded kindergarten programs. So we've seen the commitment to the condensation of the school years at the secondary level over a period of time. We've seen the minister comment that this will save $350 million, approximately $140 million of that to the provincial treasury and $210 million to local taxpayers, but we haven't seen any commitment to apply that to early childhood education. And what have we seen in terms of junior kindergarten? The minister will say, "Well, of course, that's consistent with what we promised in the Harris counterrevolution document." The Conservatives said, "We're going to make junior kindergarten optional," and they've done it. They've also cut the funding for junior kindergarten. I think the minister also argues that the $350 million, if it were applied to early childhood education, wouldn't cover the overall cost. Well, that's true. But he also cancelled the pilot projects that were being proposed that would have cost about $1.8 million.

What is the vision of the future? We know the studies in junior kindergarten. We know the studies about early childhood education. We know the experience in Michigan. We know the experience in France. We know that for every dollar spent in early childhood education, we save $7 later on in terms of costs: social costs, education costs, incarceration costs. We know that students who have a good beginning in early childhood education do better in school, they graduate from secondary education, they go on to post-secondary education in greater numbers, they get better places in the workforce, they are more productive. We also know statistically that the studies indicate there are fewer cases of unwanted pregnancy in adolescence, there are fewer encounters with the law, fewer cases of incarceration.

I think the minister understands those studies, and so what's he doing now? He's reviewing it, after he's made the decision and cut the funding.

I'd like to know why we are making these kinds of cuts in the face of the evidence of the importance of junior kindergarten, why we're going ahead with a commitment made by the Conservatives when we know it will cost us more as a society in future because of this decision.

I've had a lot of correspondence, as I know the minister has had, on this very area. I've got a letter here from the Hearst District Roman Catholic Separate School Board:

"Mr Minister:

"When the economic statement was released last November 29, we learned from it that the financing for kindergarten will be maintained, according to finances."

This is a translation, I might point out, so it may not be the best translation.

"This decision promotes the quality of education for young Ontarians.

"We are convinced that in order to thwart the assimilation and illiteracy of young Franco-Ontarians, the kindergarten program is an essential service. The impossibility of offering these programs by school boards or interested parties would have negative impact on the Franco-Ontarian community. The Roman Catholic school board of Hearst and many other school boards in the province will have to think of closing kindergarten classes if funding is not put in place.

"We understand the economic situation requires you to make reductions to the funding, but faced with the negative impact, the closure of the kindergarten program may be what we face in the Franco-Ontarian community."

They're talking here about junior kindergarten. I'd just like to know from the minister, in terms of his own commitments and his vision, what are we doing about the royal commission report -- all sides of it, not just the savings side -- and why are we proceeding as we are with junior kindergarten at a time when the commission recommended otherwise and when all of the evidence seems to indicate that we should be expanding junior kindergarten programs and early childhood education, not making it optional and cutting back on funding?

Hon Mr Snobelen: A few quick comments. First, I'm encouraged by the statement you made early on that you believe there are cuts that can be made to education, and I would be very interested in the very specific areas you think we can cut in education. I think that would be useful for this government, and helpful, and I look forward to --

Mr Wildman: I just mentioned one: the commitment to cut back at the secondary level to four years from five. I pointed out that the commission recommended that money be applied to early childhood education.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I was very encouraged by your earlier statements about agreeing that there are places where there can be cuts in education. Again, any information you have on what you would suggest in that area I would find very helpful, and I would encourage you to put those forward.

Mr Wildman: I just gave you one. Respond to it.

Hon Mr Snobelen: As far as the taxes are concerned, I suppose there are still a few people in the province who believe that high levels of taxation, high relative to other jurisdictions that surround Ontario, equal higher opportunity and more possibility for the province. I personally believe that high taxes are a disincentive for investment in growth and jobs in the province, and that we need to reduce our tax level in order to encourage the growth of jobs.

1130

There are also those who believe that governments do a better job of spending, are wiser in the course of spending dollars than are people. I think people make good choices. I think if we leave dollars in people's hands, they'll do the right things with those dollars. I actually trust people to do that. So I think the tax measures that this government has suggested and made clear in the Common Sense Revolution are necessary if we are to do more than simply balance the budget of this province, but are to do that in a climate of job growth and increased economic opportunity for people in Ontario.

There may be people who are doing quite well right now who would forgo a tax decrease. Perhaps that's true of those who are employed in high-income positions. But for those who are struggling, that tax reduction will be the first real increase in income many of those people have had for some time. I think it's important for those people and I think it's something that we need not lose track of, that this decrease in taxation is done to stimulate the creation of real jobs in the province.

By the way, I'm encouraged by the member's knowledge of the stock market. It certainly outstrips my knowledge of the stock market and I was rather impressed with his knowledge of what's going on with stocks in the province.

As far as the royal commission is concerned, as you know, the government has made the move to reify both some of the moves of the former minister and the former government and to bring to fruition what we think are some of the very useful suggestions of the royal commission. As I've said before, I was very thankful that there was a royal commission available to me. When I began these responsibilities, it was very instructive and very useful. I have had a chance to talk to both co-chairs of the commission and I have read the report and again found it very useful and found the observations of the co-chairs, while sometimes slightly dissimilar, very useful.

I believe, and I have said this on several occasions and I believe I'm quoted in the article that you read from -- by the way, I've never thought that I would be encouraging you to read on in the article, but it certainly is a very interesting article and perhaps the fullness of its text would be useful to the people here and perhaps they'd read that at some other time. I believe I was quoted in that article as saying, and I'll restate it now, that I believe the royal commission was limited because it was not mandated to look at cost issues. As I've said earlier, a cost is a piece of value in education; it's not the only component, but it's certainly a necessary component.

The royal commission did suggest that we discontinue OAC, or grade 13, to go to a four-year program. It said that it could see no value in the five-year program. It felt that the preponderance of evidence was that a good system could exist in four years post grade 8. It did suggest reinvesting the savings from that program in early childhood education or JK. As you are aware, the total costs of the ECE programs are being anticipated by the province. The last year would have been $1 billion on maturity. I believe that would be irresponsible in our current economic circumstances, and I believe there are a number of people around Ontario who do think that way.

Also, it's interesting to note that the reinvestment opportunity for the savings from a four-year program doesn't exist until 2001 at the earliest. It seems to me to be inappropriate to delay a review of junior kindergarten and programs to support young people in Ontario until that time.

I'm somewhat surprised that your observations around the discussions that centre on JK, junior kindergarten, would lead you to the conclusion that all people in Ontario are in agreement on this subject. In fact, I have had many conversations with people who are both educators and taxpayers and parents on the subject of junior kindergarten, and I can tell you there was a wide range of opinion on the value of JK, on how JK should be delivered, on the role of the investment from the taxpayers into the education of young people.

I think it's also missing sometimes, when you discuss this, that Ontario, with its kindergarten program and the optionality of a junior kindergarten program, far exceeds most jurisdictions in the education of young people. Around the world we are among the leaders in this area and continue to be among the leaders in this area.

So I think we stand on a proud record. I believe that we need to do a very thorough review, as we said in the Common Sense Revolution, and nothing that I have seen in the past six months would dissuade me from that opinion.

There is a variety of ways that we can assist young people, that we can make an investment in young people that will pay off in the long term for the province. In fact, that's obviously only one of several criteria on why we might do so. You have already mentioned studies in Michigan that involve a Head Start program, which is considerably different from the junior kindergarten program that the province currently enjoys. It is a very, very different program. It's targeted at high-risk young people. It is, again, a Head Start, not a school program, and it's distinct from the junior kindergarten that's been offered in Ontario. Because of that distinction, I think it's necessary to review the options that are available, to have a look at what is a responsible investment and how best to have that program. That's why I think a thorough review is very necessary.

Mr Wildman: I still haven't heard from the minister what his opinion is about early childhood education or junior kindergarten. He says there's a diversity of opinion within the province; I'd like to hear what he thinks.

Before he responds, I think the document that was referred to earlier, around which there's been some press and comment, the confidential document dated January 9, 1996, that came from the ministry, basically talks about $1 billion in cuts rather than the $400 million; that is, that the $400 million, on an annualized basis, requires a $1-billion cut. I suppose that some of the things proposed in the document as ways to reach the $1 billion -- user fees and cuts in preparation time and so on, which we'll be talking about later -- are things that the minister has been referring to. But just specifically as it relates to JK, I suppose if we are financing a tax cut -- and I guess that's what we'll be doing; we'll have to borrow money to pay for the tax cut -- it'll mean that those who benefit from the tax cut will be able to pay perhaps the user fees that are proposed in this document of over $2,000 a year for junior kindergarten if they happen to be among those who value junior kindergarten.

I think that to suggest, first, that there are no plans for junior kindergarten user fees and then the next day for the minister to say, "Well, everything is on the table," is to be confusing, to say the least. I'd like to hear what the minister's view is and I'd like to hear what he means by this review. What type of review is it? Who's doing it, who's conducting it, who will be consulted, when will it be completed? Why didn't you do the review before you moved to make changes in the current junior kindergarten program? Why not review in advance, rather than after the fact?

I'd like to hear what the minister's position is with regard to junior kindergarten specifically. Does he think it's a value-for-money concept, something that we should be doing, either targeted or in a general sense? And can he tell us about this review?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think it's very important, and particularly important perhaps for a minister of the crown, to keep an open mind when we're involved in a consultative process, and I am doing that as it relates to JK and some of the alternatives to JK and the possibilities of early childhood education across the province. I can tell you that at this point in time I don't know the answers because I don't think we've looked at all the questions and all the possibilities. That's the purpose of our review.

We have already engaged in an internal process of review that includes the review of the studies that are currently available and the history of JK in the province and in other jurisdictions. We are now engaged in a triministry approach to the province's role in the development of young people in the province. That involves the Community and Social Services area, the Health area and of course the Ministry of Education and Training, and that process is ongoing now.

At the end of those consultations, I believe we'll have a look to see what material is available, what data are available and what course of review would be most useful in this.

1140

Mr Wildman: Has the review started?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I've just described now the process we are undergoing at the moment, which is a review. We will then see what further process might be necessary in order to make sure that we have a look at all of the options that might be available to the province.

Mr Wildman: It seems to me you've got the cart before the horse in terms of the way you're approaching this. To do the review ahead of making decisions would make sense to me.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Now, with all due respect, sir -- and, Mr Chairman, if I can interrupt -- I'm probably more qualified to say where the horse is and where the cart is, perhaps not in all matters of government but certainly on where horses go in relation to carts.

Mr Wildman: I've been talked about in terms of which end of the horse I might know about too, but that's another --

Hon Mr Snobelen: I wouldn't make that suggestion. I would never make that suggestion.

The Chair: I just want to warn you, there's just three minutes left.

Mr Wildman: Okay, thank you. I'd like to get some specifics, though, with regard to the user fees. The minister is quoted as saying that everything is on the table in terms of savings and so on for boards. First, is the $1-billion annualized figure accurate as far as the ministry understands? If it is, are we looking at the possibility of user fees in the neighbourhood of $2,000 or more for junior kindergarten and also other types of user fees, as suggested in this paper, for classroom supplies, notebooks, paper, pencils, pens, paints, art supplies, textbooks and those kinds of things? Are we looking at that in Ontario in terms of our public education system?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The paper you make reference to is, I assume, the document dated January 9?

Mr Wildman: Yes.

Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding of that document is that it is a listing of all or nearly all the suggestions that have been made to the ministry by the boards of education across the province, by their provincial bodies, by the directors of education and by others who are involved in education in Ontario as to how we might make reductions in the cost of education. That is a process that the minister announced on November 29 when he made the economic statement. He said we would consult with those persons involved in education in the province, and we have done that.

This is a compilation of the suggestions that have come in. I have said that it in no way represents policy of this government, that we will consider all of those suggestions. I am disinclined to reject or accept any of those publicly until we've had a chance to digest the entire amount of suggestions that have come in. As you know, there is a great volume of suggestions there. I suggest to you that it would add up to I don't know how many billion dollars if all of those suggestions were costed and put forward.

I've also said we are interested in this exercise in reducing the out-of-classroom cost of education. That's the purpose of our review. That's the purpose of our consulting with our partners in education. We are looking with them at how to reduce the out-of-classroom cost of education. User fees do not achieve that objective. They do not in fact lower costs; they just spread costs around differently. I know that you, and all of us in this Parliament, are aware of, the fact that there is but one taxpayer. So I am not convinced that user fees would meet our objectives.

That said, I am not going to reject out of hand any suggestion that's been made by one of our education partners. I think they require full consideration, and so I will not on a line-by-line basis accept or reject anything that's been submitted to us.

Mr Wildman: But you must be very close to making a final decision. The so-called tools that were asked for by the boards of education in the province to meet their cut targets are going to be announced very soon, this week or next, I would think, aren't they?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Well, it's necessary for us to make sure that we give the maximum amount of time we can to school boards that are responsible for really delivering education across the province. Consistent with that timing, we believe it's necessary to give them information ahead of when the normal grant information might have been available. That certainly would be towards the end of this month.

The Chair: That comment, Minister, brings to an end the NDP's half-hour. On the clock, we have about 11 more minutes. I suggest that we adjourn and come back at 1:30. That's okay with everyone, I presume?

The committee recessed from 1145 to 1335.

The Chair: We resume our estimates on the Ministry of Education and Training. When we left off, it was to be the government party to pursue its 30 minutes.

Mr Preston: I have a little question. I'm new at this and I would like to clarify some things, to ask the minister some questions.

The first question, and I'd like a direct answer: Was the document that was being discussed this morning a confidential document? I've never seen some of these numbers.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The document I believe you're referring to is the one marked January 9 that was brought forward this morning. It was released to the press, I believe, by the representative from the third party here today. It's a compilation of suggestions that were made to the ministry by directors of education, by boards of education across the province in response to the minister's statement on November 29.

It was and has been our intention to go out with our partners in education and seek their advice and their suggestions as to what this government might do to help them make the system of education more affordable. At the end of that process in December, staff at MET compiled some record of what had been suggested and then went about the process of consulting again with our partners in education, so that document was that compilation of suggestions, it's my understanding, and we have of course been in contact and consultation with people in the education community looking for what help we can be to them in making the system more affordable.

I believe the document was marked "Confidential," but it's not a government document; it's a document that comes from the Ministry of Education and Training and it relates to suggestions that were made by other of our partners.

Mr Preston: It's like a compilation of a brainstorming session where anything at all is thrown on the table?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Exactly.

Mr Preston: So that means that where all this information is coming from is totally useless and it's being used as fact by the newspaper and other people.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's being interpreted to have been quantified or qualified in some way, shape or form. It has not been.

Mr Wildman: To be fair, the minister has said everything's on the table.

Hon Mr Snobelen: And so that --

Mr Preston: Don't start being fair.

Hon Mr Snobelen: To represent this as government policy misinforms the public.

Mr Preston: All right. I understand. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr Wildman: Just to help out, I found when I was in government that the quickest way to get something on the front page was to mark it "Confidential."

Mr Preston: That's the way their operation still works.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm going to make a brief rebuttal. Each of the other two parties took the preponderance of their last go-round to talk about issues that really don't bear on what's before us here today, but if we stray off estimates and into the minefield of revisionist history, I'd remind them that the taxpayers had the opportunity on June 8 to be the ultimate judge of who was right and who was wrong in the last 10 years. I'm prepared to stand on their decision and not slight their deductive and perceptual abilities.

Minister, I'd like to come back to a comment made by Ms Castrilli before she left today. She focused on consultation. I appreciate that the interesting situation we have before us today is that we were debating the estimates produced by the previous government, and it's a formality perhaps, but I know you're already undertaking the preparation for the budget of this year's estimates process.

I don't mean to sound naïve, but you have a limited time to personally be out there meeting anyone, and perhaps if Ms Castrilli winds up being the Liberal leader, she will see more demands on her time and come to better appreciate the realities of being a minister, as Mr Wildman, I'm sure, can attest, or the leader of a party. It's somewhat irresponsible to suggest that you should be everywhere at all times meeting all people.

1340

I want to seek some clarification from you as to whether over and above your personal involvement in the consultation, you have had the opportunity to discuss matters with the other 81 members of your caucus, who in turn have gone out -- I know I can speak for myself with numerous meetings with the officials and various professors at the University of Toronto, Scarborough campus -- and brought back their suggestions to you, and I'd be surprised if I was the only one to have done that, for consultation with backbenchers for the 1996-97 estimates process, something I am led to understand is unique in the history of this province, that we were involving someone other than the ministers themselves in doing the serious hashing out of the specifics of the budget documents that will be brought forward later this spring, and that you have consulted with the grass-roots members not just of our party, but grass-roots people across this province, via the PC policy advisory council.

Before you answer that, I think it's worthy of noting that your subcommittee, the education policy advisory council, as well as all of the others are the groups that will be meeting in Hamilton on the 23rd and 24th of this month. I find it immensely ironic that the toadies and those who don't recognize the legitimacy of the June 8 election and instead want through bully tactics and thuggery to impede the democratic process in this province -- the irony is that the very demonstration they hope to hold is standing in the way of the dialogue between ministers of the crown and rank-and-file individuals across this province. I find that immensely ironic.

At the same time, we've just over the last few weeks gone through a litany, a continuous cry from the other side for more debate, more consultation with individuals, our neighbours, both backbenchers and, through us, Ontarians in general, and the one time that we have an opportunity to have that event, they want to stop that dialogue.

I just want you to give us an indication of whether the consultation process has included all of those aspects and whether it will continue to do that over the term of your office.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you for the question. Let me just state that there was some earlier conversation about the document that's dated January 9, and I've suggested that this document was marked "Confidential." However, it's by no means a cabinet-level document. There has been some banter back and forth about this issue.

I think it behooves all of us in the service of the public to inform the public, but not to misinform the public. I think misinforming is a function of old-time politics that has no place today with the very serious issues that are facing this province. I know there have been representations so far, earlier this morning, about trying not to get into rhetoric etc. It's useful for us to not only not do that, to not take the partisan line all the time, but also to not deliberately misinform the public as to the nature of a document and not to make documents public in a way that would misinform the public.

I do think this government has a record of consulting with caucus. I know my caucus colleagues have been very useful in informing me of what's going on in their constituencies and the concerns their constituents have regarding education. They have brought forward many very useful suggestions and they've represented the concerns of people in their ridings to me directly. I think that's a very useful process and I'm proud that our government makes those opportunities available to caucus members, because it helps the ministers and I believe it helps the people of Ontario.

We have two very clear ways of doing that, or three really, one being working with caucus as a body, and secondly, working with caucus committees that are assigned to the particular ministries. The caucus committee that works with our ministry has been very helpful in discussing the issues in front of the province today.

Also, as you've mentioned, we have the advisory committees outside, external to the government. I first encountered these advisory committees when this party was in opposition. I had an opportunity to co-chair our environmental policy council when Mr Wildman was the minister there, and I might add that the deputy was involved in environment, so I got an opportunity to read the eloquent writings of both of these gentlemen while I was co-chair of that committee.

The committee process was, for this party in opposition and this government, very important; it continues to be very important. It's a chance for people at the grass-roots level, as you described it, in the trenches to bring forward their ideas, to discuss policy in a very meaningful way and to have a chance to contribute. I think it's an extraordinary opportunity for the grass-roots, for people who are daily making a difference in the province. In education, in our schools, that translates to the classroom teachers. We have representation from classroom teachers who are talking to us about some of the problems, some of the issues they face. That's extraordinarily useful and I'm very happy that exists.

My own personal involvement, as you mentioned, is limited by the number of hours in a day. That said, I'm proud to have spent about 25% of my time from September till now in schools. I can't see all the schools, obviously, but I can get a chance to have a look at what's going on in schools, how they compare to each other, what the significant factors are in the quality of education, and a chance to see at first hand what happens in the exchange between young people and teachers.

That has been very useful for me. I've taken every opportunity. I've publicly thanked on many occasions the boards that have allowed me into their schools, allowed me to do it with very little fanfare, allowed me to do it for my own edification. I thank them again today. In particular, those who are close in my constituency, the Dufferin-Peel and Peel boards, have allowed me to, if you will, go in the back door of schools, to go in invited but without a lot of fanfare and actually talk to principals and teachers about the problems they face daily. That's been very helpful to me and again I want to thank them for that opportunity.

Mr Gilchrist: It's refreshing that we're not trying to do things from the ivory tower down here, and hands-on involvement, as in your and all of our past business practice, is the only way to get a grip on the reality of your business, in this case the ministry.

I'd like to touch on the subject of school board restructuring. I noticed in the paper yesterday the call from a local Scarborough group for Scarborough council to disband the Scarborough school board for some perceived slights that this lady and her group hold the trustees accountable for. As a result of the legislation passed last week, clearly we have the opportunity now to facilitate changes that might have previously been stonewalled by two or three individuals or by vested interests.

Have you given any thought to what we will save as a result of school board restructuring and the potential amalgamation of some boards? There's no doubt, as you look across this province, that the spending per capita waves a red flag, I think to any reasonable person, that there are tremendous inequities in the abilities of certain school boards to manage their resources efficiently. It's been widely quoted that the city of Toronto school board, despite the fact it has the same number of students as the Scarborough school board, spends $100 million more every year. It doesn't necessarily follow that the Scarborough school board is perfect, but it certainly tells me that it's a darned sight better than the people who are supposedly handling the educational affairs and balancing their fiscal responsibilities accordingly here in the city of Toronto.

I think it's clear to the taxpayers, it was clear to them before June 8, that there is a need for the government to get involved in, if not mandating, at least giving much stronger guidance to school boards on how to manage their dollars. I'm wondering, as a result of any guidelines or just the evolution that you may have seen already taking place, what sort of dollars we can expect to see as a saving.

1350

Hon Mr Snobelen: The Chair has informed me that everything that happens in Scarborough is in fact perfect and I would never argue with the Chair on this subject. That is correct, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: So far.

Hon Mr Snobelen: That's a qualified "correct."

The Sweeney commission is due to report in the final fashion very soon. The interim report of the Sweeney commission caused a lot of conversation in this province. There was an extraordinary number of communications sent to the commission as a result of that interim paper. There are a number of people in Ontario who want to focus the tax dollars, recognizing that they are a limited resource, into the classroom. The estimates of how much are spent outside of the classroom run from 40% to 50% of spending and it is by any estimate a large amount of money. We want to be able to have the lowest cost of administration so that the tax dollars involved go into the classroom and make a difference with the young people.

It seems to me that there are three places we have to look: We have to look at funding, the funding model for education; we have to look at the governance structure, at the middle level; then we have to look at local governance, the world of local people and their local school. Where we want to end up is with an affordable system, a system with a high degree of accountability and a high quality system. To do that we require some of the things we talked about this morning: strong central sourcing of information, material and curriculum, especially about the core subjects, because it's most economical to develop and to deliver those issues from the core, from the centre.

Then we want the schools to be able to operate with an enhanced amount of flexibility, responsive to the local community and with a high degree of autonomy. Creating a structure that allows for those two things and does it in an affordable way should be the object of this government. We should consider the report of the Sweeney commission in that light. We should consider the Working Group on Education Finance Reform in that light, and how we attain these goals. But again I believe we have to follow that formula where we look at funding models, then governance models, and then the local governance models to get the system right.

There's an extraordinary amount of money involved in the administration of education. By anyone's estimation, half is a lot, and half of $14 billion is $7 billion and that's an extraordinary amount of money. As I've said in the past, all the cards need to be on the table. We have to have a look at how we can do this in the most affordable fashion. Benchmarking other provinces is one useful tool, but it's also useful to take a blank sheet of paper and have a look at how we might do this better in the future.

Mr Gilchrist: My last question this go-round is on the topic of training. We've certainly seen a lot of debate over the last few months as we move to bring in workfare and edufare in this province. As someone who in my previous lifetime in business had the opportunity to employ a considerable number of co-op students over the years, I think I can report back fairly good success in terms of motivating them to become more involved. In one case, one particular program, almost all of them, over the course of about 12 years, went on to choose the profession they were being trained for as their full-time vocation after they graduated.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on how we can mesh the training side of your ministry with the requirement to ensure that the people who have been left behind in this last decade, the one in eight Ontarians who had fallen through the cracks and was in need of government assistance, can assure themselves that they have the skills necessary for the jobs of today and the future.

We will no longer see sweatshops making T-shirts in downtown Toronto, nor should we. We are going to see computer companies. We are going to see a vast array of high-tech initiatives in this province in the years to come, and clearly we have a responsibility to ensure that the training matches the jobs out there right now. I wonder if you could share some thoughts, considering that will be a considerable, I would think, portion of the expenditures of your ministry over the next few years, on how we arrive at that balance.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Some of the people who have studied the current climate in the developed world, in the western world, have suggested that the rate of change we are now encountering is the most significant rate of change ever experienced by humans, that this change to a knowledge age is larger than the Industrial Revolution. It dwarfs everything we have experienced in the past. So it seems to me, and I concur with your remarks, that we need to adjust our training programs ongoingly to meet that world.

There's something I don't think many people think about when they think about this, and that is that it's our responsibility in the developed parts of the world to take on higher value added activities, higher value added jobs and careers so that the emerging nations have an opportunity to develop and to grow. They depend on us making these steps, and we often don't see that connection with the rest of humanity. This is important.

When it comes to training, it seems to me we have to be able to do a couple of things. One, we need to be able to focus our training dollars on the really core skills that people need. There is emerging a sense that people have to have a personal responsibility for their ongoing training, that all of us need to continually improve, to continually take on our own education, and this will be a trend that I think will grow over the next decade. That's why I'm so concerned about making sure we have entry into university and college programs for mature people, not just for those who are leaving high school. I think it's critically important.

We also need to identify where the public interest and the personal interest in that ongoing training divide. Adults obviously have a different level of responsibility than adolescents in our society, and will continue to have that and should have that, and so it's up to us to define the role of the taxpayer in re-education, in retraining, and the role of the individual. There are some instruments that might prove useful and those include the ability to protect funds intended for a person's own education, not just their children's, from the income tax system because I believe that in this changing world we're going to need those sorts of instruments.

We need to focus our training on two areas. One is the very core skills that individuals need to begin a process of training: the 1990s version of literacy, and those other core things that provide people with an entry into the high-tech fields.

I was in the trucking business for many years, not noted for being a particularly high-tech place, and yet over the last 10 years the drivers involved in that business have gone from basically steering for a living, if they'll forgive me for that characterization, to being really a high value added component of the corporation. They do a lot of the data entry now from the cab of a truck. There are two and sometimes three on-board computers in the cabs of trucks. So their education, their training, needs to be at a much higher level than it was in the past. Illiteracy is not okay in that business any more and we've had to provide an enormous amount of training for those individuals.

We've done that. I think that's part of the private sector's responsibility as well. There's a division of responsibilities between the private sector, the individual and the taxpayer through the government, and we need to make clear those roles and those responsibilities as these training needs increase in the future.

1400

Mr Rollins: Minister, one of the things you have alluded to a little bit in just answering my colleague's question is that we've got to look at a different way we collect our taxes for the education system, what's looked at. I think as a member of Parliament that probably many of us, and I know I do, have a lot of people ask: "We think it should be adjusted, we think it has to be changed, because here we are 75 years old and my wife and I are starting to come to the end of our lives and we're still being penalized for school tax at a very heavy amount. I know there's a little benefit there, but is there no fairer way of doing it?"

In the revamping of our whole education structure I'm sure you've put some thought towards those lines. Could you express some of those thoughts to us and share them with us?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe, and I'm sure you share this belief, that the public education system is a critical commitment made on behalf of the people of Ontario, that the people of Ontario value education, value the system of education and expect to participate in funding it.

The question is, how can we fund it more fairly and how can we make sure that all of the young people across the province have about the same opportunity? We know that they'll make different uses of that opportunity based on individual traits, but they need to have, it seems to me, that same equality of opportunity. So what's the fair methodology of doing that, that allows for that equality of opportunity, in which everyone participates in funding the education system but it's done in a way that seems to be fair?

The Working Group on Education Finance Reform is addressing those very core, basic issues on funding and I'm looking forward to the report that should be made very soon. Dr Golden's committee was looking at the GTA, encompassing something less than half of the population of Ontario. That report suggested that we go to pooling revenues from commercial properties across a region. There are others who suggested that we pool across the province, that this would provide more equity in education, more equitable distribution of the funds.

We'll have a look at the full range of possibilities, but we'll look at them when they're reported to us by the working group, from that template of, "How do we have it be more fair? How do we have it be more equitable?" because I think that is important.

Mr Rollins: I believe there are a lot of people with a lot of interest along those lines, because there is a lot of variation. We live in eastern Ontario, with probably a small base amount of commercial development as far as taxes are concerned. You could drive through a city block here north of Toronto and it would encompass probably 300 or 400 square miles in our area to come up with those kinds of things. So I think those are the things that need to be looked at.

The Chair: I have two more minutes or so, if you have any questions, or we could go to the official opposition.

Mr Patten: Just before I get into a few questions, you just made a comment, Minister, and I wonder if you would elaborate on it. You said that it is incumbent upon us -- I think you said this -- to develop value added jobs and that Third World countries were depending upon us to do so. Is that correct? Why is that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: If you look at the economies of developing nations -- and I've had an opportunity to visit some of those countries, particularly in Africa -- you'll see that there's a request not for charity but for access to markets and for access to capital.

One of the things they depend on the developed world to do is to get, if you will, beyond some of the very base-level lower value added occupations into higher value added occupations so that they can backfill those jobs. There's some of that going on now, but it needs to go on to a much bigger extent if we are to allow those emerging nations to develop at a fairly quick pace. That has a lot to do with lowering infant mortality rates around the world and I think it's something that we should take our role in very responsibly.

Most of these are agrarian societies and our subsidies in agriculture and other areas have an effect on their ability to market their products and to be able to afford the very basic conditions of survival. So it's important I think for us to keep in mind what our job is globally as well as provincially and nationally.

Mr Patten: Okay. I still don't see the relationship between trying to increase the level of job training here in Ontario and the development of the Third World. I will grant you that from what I hear, Third World countries are saying: "You can take your charity and" you know what. "We would prefer to have access to markets for our products and we'd prefer to develop our own societies without the ominous hand and influence of North American and European countries on how our society should be structured along the American model." I will grant you that, but I'm sorry, I still don't see the relationship between job training in Ontario and that other issue. But we can talk about that another time.

I'd like to go back to a few questions I had this morning that had to do with the future of adult education and continuing education and what might happen in that particular domain, but I would like to ask you if you would elaborate for me on the statement you made this morning, which was the differences between adolescent and adult education. You had said that there were some decided differences related to the two, and I ask you this question in the context of an adult who would return to school full-time to complete the secondary school diploma and what you think might be the different requirements.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I will, by the way, allow the deputy to make some comments regarding the funding models, and I'll just say this in a very general sense. We do have different expectations of adults and adolescents in Ontario, different levels of responsibility. We have obviously custody responsibilities for adolescents that we don't have with adults; that's very clear. We expect adults to have a different level of responsibility for their own education and training than we do adolescents; I think that's very clear. Adults tend to learn at different rates and tend to have different objectives in the learning path.

I come from a family that perhaps is more typical than we think. My father quit school, I think, in grade 8, and then went on to graduate studies. Clearly, his education needs as an adult were different than his education needs as an adolescent. I expect that when I have the opportunity to return to the education system personally, my needs will be different than they were when I last was in the education system as an adolescent. I think it's pretty clear that there are different sets of needs, different sets of expectations and different sets of responsibilities.

I'll leave it to the deputy to fill in the information on adult ed.

Mr Dicerni: Prior to November 29, the ministry provided financial support to boards through two modalities, two ways. One was at a funding level dealing with continuing education, and the other one was in terms of the same as the per pupil grant. What was announced as government policy on November 29 was that all adult education would be funded at the continuing education level of funding, thereby providing boards with some flexibility as to how they wish to provide this service to --

Mr Patten: Therefore providing boards with less resources in order to try to maintain the same program?

Mr Dicerni: We prefer to present this as offering to boards flexibility in terms of how they arrange their resources.

Mr Wildman: Just another word for nothing left to lose.

Mr Patten: Mr Dicerni, the net result will be, would you not agree, that this means less resources in transfers for boards that want to operate the same level of programming?

Mr Dicerni: The funding level, I believe, for a secondary school student on a full-time equivalent is about $5,000. For adult ed, I believe it's around $2,200 or $2,300. So if you are seeking to make the point that the $5,100 is bigger than the $2,200, I will agree with you.

Mr Patten: That's another way to say it. Okay, I'll accept that.

Can I ask this minister, you said that adults have a different responsibility -- and I'm trying to put it in this context -- and I believe you're saying that we have to do everything we can to get people off welfare, that we have to try to provide -- as a matter of fact, we are obliging people to get off welfare, and to make the point, there is a cut in welfare levels. I'd like you to respond in this context.

1410

It's quite complex and I'm not one who says that you should be knowledgeable throughout the system on every single aspect, because I don't know if it's possible, because it's quite complex. But in conceptual terms, you want to encourage people to upgrade their training, increase their employability, continue their education outside of the training mode, perhaps college or completing secondary school.

As I understand it, the adult education aspect is really for those adults who have recognized that they are limited in terms of either pursuing some training that would require them or at least give them half a chance at employment -- there's a term for it in education; I think it's prior learning, or whatever it is -- in order to qualify with some degree of leniency at community college for some program or other. So the reduction of adult education in this context would mean that people would have to either pay or would have to go on a course-by-course arrangement, that they could not go as a full-time person if the school board was not able to continue to fund the program?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The opportunity in adult education -- the response will vary board to board. We have acknowledged that adults have a different cost base in education than do adolescents for a variety of reasons; among those, class sizes and other factors that make the education of adults a different cost base than is the education system for adolescents.

I believe that the emphasis on prior learning assessment is important. There is an experiment ongoing in providing equivalent to a secondary school diploma for those who can ascertain that they have that level of ability. I'm sure someone here can fill in more of the details of that, but that project is ongoing now. I think that's useful for people. To bring it to a personal or a family matter, it would not have been useful in my view for my father to return to grade 9 instead of law school. It seems to me law school was probably the appropriate place for him to return to and probably had a better effect both on the province and for him personally. There are lots of people in some circumstance like that, who require the equivalent of the accreditation to get on with more training, and I think we should do everything we can to facilitate that.

Mr Patten: I'm talking of those over 21 years of age. Presumably most of these people are on welfare because they're going to school full-time, or perhaps in a few instances that's not the case. The average stay is about nine months and the employability following this is quite promising.

I'm sure you have the statistics, and I'm trying to find them, but I was encouraged by some statistics that I saw -- I think it was from the Metro school system -- that talked about the results. There are two that I recall, anyway. They may be here; I'll continue to look. One was that upon completion -- and in some cases you're aware that there are acknowledgements of one's life experience or other learning modes that are credit equivalents, which I think is very good. But on average a person might be there nine months, at least in the Metro school system, and 47% of their graduates are employed when they do a survey after four months. Who knows -- I have not had the chance to ask -- whether that employment is another government-subsidized program or not? That's a question I'll leave for my staff to take note of and I'll pursue that, or maybe you know what the answer is to that.

Some 36% go on to college, which I think is fantastic. I think that is an admirable level and probably comparable to, if not better in some cases than, the regular high school system, which I understand is only about 30%. So then there's another section, presumably, that goes on to other kinds of advanced training.

The economics related to that, it seems to me, are really positive. I'm not sure whether those figures are reflected across the province or not. Maybe your staff would know this. But what's your reaction to that? Do you find those results encouraging? Do you think they can be improved upon?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I will agree with you that it's very difficult to have personal knowledge of every aspect of the education and training post-secondary systems across the province. It's a very complex field. That said, I've had a chance now to participate with a graduating class of adult learners. I've had a chance to review at least the criteria for some priority assessment programs. We're dealing with a wide range of humans who come from a wide range of needs, some from social assistance, some who are recent immigrants to Canada who have had a fair amount of training or education in their home country and need to make those skills and that knowledge useful here in Canada. There is a variety of different people.

One of the things I'm encouraged by, though, is the kind of motivation that adults have when they re-enter a training program or a school program. Most of the individuals I've talked to have been very serious about making their economic and other conditions better, and they've been able to make a very senior effort at doing that. Some of the co-op programs that are involved have outstanding rates of success; some less so, but there are some that are having great success. I think we should encourage those and have them continue.

Mr Patten: The mode of training -- you acknowledge and I acknowledge, and I think most would, that outside of the economics of it, there is a fairly effective program that is taking place. Let's assume, yes, it can always be ameliorated but that there's something of substance. Making the assumption that because of the pressure on school boards it will perhaps continue in some instances and others not, I'm not sure how the mandates will flow along with the lack of money or requirements for cutbacks or the nature of the tools that you have in your toolkit. So I'm not sure how this might work.

Continuing education is on a course-by-course basis, and if there is a significant decline and "the educational process" accelerated, where people are taking initiative and they want to move on to the next phase, get off welfare and begin to be more productive, what are your expectations? Do you expect that the continuing education model itself would pick up, replacing the requirement to address this particular population?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think the continuing ed is an important component. Your examples are useful. I've seen that personally. We have a variety of young people who used to come into my former company who'd work for us on our maintenance side, who wanted to be mechanics. To get into the apprentice program, they needed to upgrade their math or their language skills. They needed access to a program that allowed them to do that and only that. These individuals, for whatever reason, were less interested in family life skills and geography than they were in the math or language skills they needed to get upgraded in order to get into an apprentice program.

We have adults who have I think very clear ideas of what they need, who have a time component that's different than adolescents. They would like to get the information they need, get the training they need, get the knowledge they need as quickly as they can, so systems that recognize the value of their time and the focus of their interests are useful. Although I have met adults who are in regular school programs that were designed for adolescents who enjoyed that process, on balance I don't think it's the most effective way of delivering that knowledge and training.

1420

Mr Patten: By the way, I am advised that the 41% that went to the workforce did not go to government-subsidized jobs.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, that's my understanding.

Mr Patten: That's a big positive.

In some of my discussions, Minister, I hear some worries that maybe 60% of school boards would drop -- some say it may be a little less, some that are quite threatened say even more than that, but I would think about half of the school boards would not be in a position, especially outside of the Metro area, in terms of being able to maintain the adult education program as it's offered at the moment. As you know, some of these programs are not offered in existing schools, they're offered in rented facilities, and they have all of those costs to pay, over and against the system, and the school board has to pay for that. If that were the case, what would be your reaction?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I have talked to several boards informally about their response to adult education and I have not yet had that expressed to me. I will give you that I haven't talked to a number of boards outside of the GTA. I will be. My understanding is that the adult programs are going to have to look at some changes in delivery. Many of the people I've talked to in the system feel that that'll be an improvement, that it'll value the time of the participants and perhaps do a better job of focusing what the people who participate need to get on with what's next for them. I think we have a system, now we have the funding available, that will allow for an adult education system that'll be useful both to the participants and to the people who are delivering.

There have been comments made by boards to the effect that there are savings that could have been made or can be made in the funding of adult education and that perhaps it will bring forth some useful changes. That's been what I've heard from the boards.

Mr Patten: If you would agree with me for a moment that there may be some threat to the uptake of some of these programs and you're looking for resources, while I don't agree with the context that you have to live in and work in, because it would be pretty tough to justify if I were in it, I respect the difficulty of having to find resources to do the job as you're having to do it in conjunction with your colleagues.

But there is one area I would like to ask about, and that is, I know there are training funds that are operative in the workplace. A company agrees and there's some negotiation and there are consultants who go and work out arrangements. I'm aware of some of them. I'm also aware that some of these companies are profitable. I'm also aware that the very nature of their business demands -- and I was reminded by someone recently from the business community who said any company that isn't a learning organization has a limited future.

I know you know that, but when we look at training dollars that go into, especially, certain fields, that ethic of retraining, for example, in the high-tech field is a given -- the amalgams, the ability to think creatively, to be able to anticipate the next generation down the line within a year or two, and sometimes within time frames of a month. My question is, where is our accountability and responsibility? We have a company that is literally making millions of dollars of profits, subsidized by the government. Is it not worthy of some consideration to take some of that resource and say, "They're doing very well, thank you very much." I'm happy to see any company in Ontario do very well. However, it seems to me that part of their business is to continue to upgrade.

If you're talking about a subject totally new, or people who have already been laid off, perhaps that's another issue, but I'm suggesting to you that there may be resources that can be applied to this model, ameliorated or not, to this particular group of people who ultimately are a cost to themselves and everyone else and are showing the initiative, taking the initiative that they want to move on to the next stage. Is that not a very potential resource to apply to making sure that we keep this particular group of people who do not want to be a burden on anyone else, who are showing the initiative, that they get the support they need?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Your points are well taken. I share with you some sense of the corporation's or business's individual responsibilities to provide training. I do think that most organizations that are going to be part of Ontario's future are going to invest significantly in the training and development of the people who work at those organizations. One of the dilemmas that is emerging in that regard is the number of very small companies that have limited resources to make available, but even for those organizations it's become critical, even the two- or three-person organization, to invest a significant amount of their profits back into people.

You mentioned the high-tech side. I think that's true. It's always been traditional that high-tech organizations invest a lot of money in the training of their people. I don't see where we will be able to anticipate the training needs of organizations better than the organizations themselves can. That's at one level. By the way, though, I think some of the lower-tech organizations have been models of training people in the past, providing training for folks. If you think of some of the great service organizations, they too invest a significant amount of money in training their people ongoingly. There are some real winners in that category and those corporations tend to do very well.

We have a corporate responsibility that is outside of the government's responsibility, in my view. We have a second responsibility that's emerging now, and that is that I think a lot of people are taking personal responsibility for their own ongoing education and training, even though they are in currently secure jobs, even though they are in secure professions. They know and understand, people increasingly know and understand that they have to be prepared to move, to change careers, to have more marketable skills on an ongoing basis.

I think we can do a great number of things to encourage folks to make those investments in themselves, including perhaps encouraging our federal counterparts to allow them to save some form of their income, protect that income from income tax and allow them to reinvest in their own education. I think that's going to be critical in the future. No government will be able to afford to participate publicly in all of the retraining and all of the education that will go on in lifelong learning. We do need to prepare our institutions for that, but we need to have instruments where people can make their own preparations.

Thirdly, I think that government, the taxpayer, will always have a responsibility for making sure that the very core skills are available to people across the province. I believe things are beginning to separate into those three responsibilities. The high-tech side is really a corporate responsibility, individuals have a responsibility for their own upgrading and government needs to make sure the core skills, the very basic skills are available to everyone.

Mr Patten: I'd like to share some time with my colleague.

The Chair: You have about two and a half minutes, Mr Cordiano.

Mr Cordiano: I was going to ask you a very philosophical question.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It just has to be a brief philosophical question.

Mr Cordiano: I wanted to ask you a number of things, but perhaps in the next round we'll get to those. Let me just say that I was interested in your comments around the Royal Commission on Learning's breadth of recommendations, what you felt about the implementation of those and the balance that needs to be met with respect to what can be implemented in the immediate future and the more long-term in nature, questions around early childhood education, what you intend to do, to clarify that a little further in terms of your real intent around what conceivably may end up being JK, senior kindergarten kind of programming across the province. You've made various remarks around that and there is that report that was referred to, and everyone's curious as to the real direction the government is headed in.

1430

We don't have enough time for you to give me an answer, but I want to ask those kinds of questions. Furthermore, I wanted to ask what you thought your role as minister ought to be in the future, what priorities you're setting for the ministry, as you see it, and what you think you should be doing from here on in terms of dealing with the fiscal realities that have been imposed on you, whether you think that is something that can be accommodated, what priorities you're setting as a result of that and how you intend to cope. The thing that's easiest to do is to cut and at the same time not set course for the priorities that you will follow, maintaining various standards and maintaining the integrity of what the ministry is all about and what the minister's role should be.

You're not going to be able to answer that now.

The Chair: If you want to give the minister the chance to think about that, within another hour he'll have all those answers.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Do you think a mere hour will do it, in terms of contemplating time, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Take what you will. I will now ask Mr Wildman to proceed with his 30 minutes.

Mr Wildman: I want to follow up on a couple of things raised by my friend Mr Patten and my friend Mr Preston. Probably tomorrow we'll be dealing more, at least from my standpoint, on post-secondary, but I do want to follow up on something that has been raised here as it relates to adult education. I've listened carefully to what you've said in response to Mr Patten's questions and I'm a little puzzled. It seems to me in terms of your government's program, and frankly in terms of what most people in the province would want, we should be doing everything we can to assist people to become more productive, to ensure that they can provide for themselves and their families and that they have the skills that make it possible for them to do that.

I'm trying to put your cuts to adult education at the secondary level into that context and I am puzzled. I'm not talking about people who are just taking continuing education courses because they want to upgrade themselves and perhaps make their skills more marketable in the workplace, or are taking just interest courses.

I'm talking about people who perhaps were dropouts in adolescence and who subsequently have perhaps even had children and have matured -- mainly a lot of them on welfare, on social assistance, as Mr Patten indicated -- and have come to the conclusion, have decided that they must get some skills if they're going to be able to enter into a particular job or be able to take training that might get them into a job they're interested in, or who have to get their high school equivalency so they can go to college to get the training they require and the skills they require to get a job. It really does seem to me to be counterproductive to be cutting funding for those kinds of programs that will enable those people to do that.

I really would like to get some idea from you as to how this fits into your overall aim, which is to assist people to gain the skills they require, and frankly the credentials they require, to get into programs that might make it possible for them to provide for themselves rather than continuing to receive assistance for themselves and their families over the long term.

Hon Mr Snobelen: There are three areas I can address, because they really are three areas. One, as the deputy minister said so eloquently a moment or two ago, this amounts to a reduction, certainly, in the grant allowable for adult education.

Mr Wildman: It was basic arithmetic. It wasn't that eloquent.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It was basic arithmetic done eloquently, I thought.

That reduction in funding is intended to recognize that we have a different cost in providing education services to adults and adolescents. I think that's obvious to most observers.

The other two areas are, one, prior learning assessment. I think prior learning assessment is important. It's something that was looked at in Vision 2000 in terms of the colleges acknowledging prior learning of people at entry. That's important so that people have an opportunity to get on with post-secondary education and some training in our community colleges, perhaps without having to return to high school to get the accreditation, if that's not necessary.

Then there is the third piece, which is the high school equivalency. There is a pilot project under way in Ontario. It has had, I think, a great deal of success. I personally believe it's time Ontario had a look at joining the other provinces and all of the states that allow people to get a high school equivalency certificate, to get on with their lives without having to go through the process of attending a high school for the full duration. They should have a chance to complete tests to show their competency and get the accreditation. That's my personal belief.

Mr Wildman: Okay, I understand that, I appreciate that comment, but what about the person who doesn't pass that test? What about the individual who perhaps dropped out of school at the end of grade 10 and says, "Okay, I want to" -- whatever it is -- "take a hairdressing course at community college," or, "I want to become an auto mechanic" or a millwright, and they have the opportunity for this equivalency test and they don't make the equivalency? They have to do the upgrading for grades 11 and 12 and that might take a year. Are you suggesting that they should somehow, because they're adults, pay a portion of that cost themselves? I don't understand what you're saying. What happens to these people?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I have of course a great deal of personal empathy for people who are in the circumstance of having not completed high school --

Mr Wildman: I didn't mean it that way.

Hon Mr Snobelen: That's fine, it's okay. I actually take no exception to that, although I should point out that no one in my family has so far, none of the males, at any rate, shown an interest in returning for hairdressing. That perhaps is because we're all follicly challenged, I don't know.

The Chair: Go right ahead, Mr Minister, you're doing well.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

What we have suggested in the cut in the granting formula is that it is different providing education services to adults than it is to adolescents, that there's a different cost base in terms of class size and other components that has long been recognized in this province and other provinces, that it is different to provide education services to adults than it is to adolescents and that we reflect that difference in our grant formula.

1440

Mr Wildman: If that's the case, you've looked at that obviously before making this decision, and can you tell me what impacts you found, that you anticipate, from the studies you did, in terms of these programs? How many boards of education do you anticipate will continue adult education programs with the lesser amount of funds from the province and how many do you anticipate will discontinue these programs?

Hon Mr Snobelen: As I said a little earlier, my own conversations with boards, and I will acknowledge they're limited at this point, have not indicated yet that any of the boards I've talked to will withdraw from this. I don't know whether the deputy minister or perhaps the assistant deputy minister who's responsible for this area would have more to add to that than I've made already.

This is one of the most competent ADMs in the whole world, Joan Andrew.

Ms Joan Andrew: The method of funding for adult education, the continuing ed rate doesn't preclude people from studying full-time. I think what we're trying to look at in adult ed --

Mr Wildman: I wasn't suggesting it did.

Ms Andrew: Okay, sorry.

Mr Wildman: What I'm suggesting is that boards might not be as interested in providing education to adults if they don't get the same kind of funding they got in the past. Is there any indication of that or am I wrong?

Ms Andrew: We have no adequate indication as boards go forward to consider the options. We have no statistical evidence yet one way or the other from boards as to what --

Mr Wildman: Before the decision was brought forward, did you do any impact studies? Did you gather any information from boards?

Ms Andrew: On the impact of --

Mr Wildman: What their reaction might be in terms of how this might impact adult students.

Ms Andrew: We're in the middle of conducting a survey of adult education as it impacts both school boards and colleges at the moment and looking at new ways of delivering adult education across the province. Whether it will be under the programs that presently exist or other ways of delivering adult education tied to other ways of credentialling students is not yet decided.

Mr Wildman: At the federal level, in the past the federal programs have provided for students, who were receiving unemployment insurance or were eligible for unemployment insurance who needed upgrading to get high school equivalency, for the federal government to purchase spaces at the community college level. The federal government has indicated it intends to discontinue that approach and will now provide the funds in some way or other to the students directly and that it'll be up to the student to determine how the student obtains the funding. Those students could continue to go to the college system, I guess, and use the money they receive, whatever that might be, from the federal government.

What about students who are not eligible for that kind of program from the federal government and who are on social assistance? Are you saying you anticipate they'll continue to be able to go to secondary school?

Ms Andrew: We have programs that are presently funded through the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board called Ontario basic skills that are actually delivered through the community college system; that is, the adult upgrading that the provincial government offers to those people who are its own training clients.

Mr Wildman: In that case, are you suggesting then that the programs provided by the boards of education were unnecessary and that people should be going to OTAB?

Ms Andrew: No, I'm not saying they were unnecessary; I'm just saying that in the past there have been a variety of different sources for the providing of basic adult education and we're in the process of trying to rationalize those sources and provide a somewhat more equitable funding base to those sources right now across school boards and colleges for those programs we maintain responsibility for.

Mr Wildman: Would I be unfair in suggesting that the purpose of this whole approach and review might be to try and encourage adult students to attend the college system rather than the secondary system?

Ms Andrew: I wouldn't characterize it that way. We are looking for the most efficient way for adults to get the education and credentials they need to regain the labour force. I think school boards can probably offer that as economically as colleges, but right now they've been funded in slightly different ways and we're trying to have a more rationalized system across the province.

Mr Wildman: Of course, the colleges also entail tuition fees which the secondary level doesn't because it's funded by the taxpayers without tuition.

I'm just wondering, though, since OTAB is one of the alternatives, perhaps the minister could indicate whether or not he anticipates OTAB, or something similar to OTAB, will be continued, in terms of training and upgrading in the province.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Certainly there is a review of OTAB now to make sure that the training system in Ontario has a governance structure that works, that seeks to provide the training that's needed by people in the most cost-effective and timely manner possible. We're reviewing the structure and the mandate of OTAB and we have not yet made any decisions about the future of that program.

Mr Wildman: When do you anticipate making decisions?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe the review will be complete some time this spring. We're looking in the April-May time frame, is my understanding.

Mr Wildman: So whatever decisions then could be in place for next fall?

Hon Mr Snobelen: That could be one of the consequences if in fact there are changes.

Mr Wildman: I'd like to return now to what my friend Mr Preston was referring to, this document that I think he said had no basis in fact. I'd just like to get some clarification on that. I noticed, Mr Chair, that the minister, in response to Mr Preston's questions, had a little homily on how people should be very careful not to mislead the public, so I certainly don't want to mislead. I just want to get some clarification. I don't know to whom the minister was referring. I suppose it is whoever that public-spirited person was within his ministry who released the document to us.

Mr Preston: A great way of putting it.

Mr Wildman: I hope the minister wasn't suggesting that member of his ministry staff should not have provided this information to the public, but I'm sure that's not what he meant.

In this document it deals with a number of things which I thought had some basis in fact in terms of what the minister was considering. For instance, it mentions a number of things that the minister has spoken publicly about. One of those things is preparation time and the cuts in preparation time that the minister has indicated might be one of the ways that school boards might be able to achieve some savings, so I'd like to pursue that a little bit.

This has become and will continue to be a very contentious issue, since the minister has been quoted publicly as saying, "...teachers should spend less time in the staff room preparing lessons." This is a quote from the Toronto Sun, January 15. I don't know whether that was a criticism of preparing lessons in the staff room or whether it was a criticism of preparing lessons. But surely teachers should prepare, I would hope, for their classes, and the question of whether they should do it in the staff room or elsewhere, I guess, is an interesting one.

Preparation time is a contentious matter and it is mentioned in this document and it has certainly been referred to publicly by the minister. I know the minister has been receiving a lot of mail since he made the comments on CBC radio in December to the effect that he didn't think teachers were overworked and that he was concerned about the amount of time set aside for preparation within the school day.

1450

I'll just refer to a couple of these letters. This is from a teacher, Mr VanderDoelen, who wrote to the minister saying he was flabbergasted when he heard your intent with respect to the preparation period.

"Without prep time, I cannot do my job properly. Please know that I'm not threatening you when I say I will stop the above," and the above are his extracurricular activities at the school: the science olympics team, school trip, the girls' flag football and a number of other matters this teacher is involved in, in extracurricular activities. He says, "Please know that I'm not threatening you when I say I will stop doing the above activities if I don't have my prep time, but I could not physically do all the things I have described and still prepare quality lessons, do my marking etc.

"I have argued that I put in a full day's work and then some. I am not presently complaining. If you remove my preparation time, I will still put in a full day's work, but I can assure you that the quality of school life for both students and teachers will be diminished beyond description."

I have another. This is from Margaret Beswitherick from east Parry Sound.

"If you take away my preparation time, you devaluate many of my teaching skills so that when I enter my classroom, I must leave those skills outside my door. For in a room of 26 eight- and nine-year-olds whose abilities range from grades 1 to 7, I must concentrate on implementing strategies that will not have had the thought of individualization afforded by my prep time. Please look at immediate feedback, materials, assembly, parent interviews, meetings, performance reviews and extracurricular activities" which she describes above that she's involved in.

"The loss of prep time obviously adds to my workload. Mr Snobelen, I am tired. My colleagues are tired. We are overworked and we will not be able to handle the stress of more work wrought by your erosion of our prep time. You do me, my students, their parents and the community a great injustice to even consider taking away prep time. Prep time allows for individualization. Its loss throws the education system back 30 years when rote, drill and memorization were the mainstays of the school system. This would be a far cry from the technological advances being shouted by business and government to educators as necessary components in today's curriculum. Teachers are our most valuable asset. Do not devalue us by taking away our preparation time."

I have another letter here from Ms Teresa Miller from the Central Algoma Board of Education. She just points out in her letter that teachers give unselfishly of their time in noonhours, recesses, before and after school, and prep time to the students. This will be not possible if the prep time is removed.

There's another one from Ms Barbara Wohleber of Britt.

"At the present time, because of the cuts already made, I spend most of my preparation time doing special education and operating the school's library. We no longer have personnel to do these things. Further cuts will mean that the students will not receive that special education or will have a library in total disorganization."

Another -- and I'll finish with this -- from Dave Nicol from Parry Sound: It's interesting the way he starts. He says:

"Your government's agenda is not one I disagree with in general. My concern is that your rapid cuts are based on dollars, not sense, and will unquestionably impact negatively on the classroom level. To propose otherwise is political naïveté or to be simply out of touch with the reality of the situation that schools increasingly find themselves in. The business model with which you are clearly comfortable and have made many references to fits educational administration until you apply it to the classroom. It simply does not work when you equate educationally, emotionally, socially developing children with impersonal commodities being produced on an assembly line.

"Imagine having 30 children over to your one-room house for a birthday party for about three hours. Most parents, business leaders and politicians would have anxiety attacks at the thought. Change that to six hours, then multiply that by five days a week for an entire school year. Now you're closer to the daily reality of a teacher. And in case I neglected to mention it, teaching isn't a party; children are here to learn. Now imagine that same scenario without adequate preparation time. I thought nightmares only occurred when you closed your eyes."

These teachers are very concerned about what is being proposed with regard to prep time, which is mentioned in this document that apparently my friend Mr Preston says has no basis in fact. So if they have no --

Mr Preston: Mr Chair, I at no time said it had no basis in fact. I said that it was like a brainstorming session where everything is thrown on the table. A brainstorming session, for your edification, is where everything is thrown on the table and some of them are good and some of them are bad.

The Chair: Mr Preston, could we have Mr Wildman continue.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate the help from my friend. I get by with a little help from my friend.

I just wonder, though, if this is one of the good things that he's referring to which will save, according to this document and according to the comments made by the minister, $400 million. Because it in essence means laying off teachers, and that's what it's all about. It's about laying off teachers.

The Chair: Is there any way you can share the document with the Chair?

Mr Wildman: The document, Mr Chair, is one that is in the public domain. I'd be happy to share it with you. I'm sure the minister could share it with you. At any rate --

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: I'll table it if you like in a moment. But anyway, I'm talking here about preparation time. We all prepared for these estimates, I hope. I tried to and I took some time. I did some of it in my time at home on the weekend; I did some of it at night, last night and the night before, and I did some of it during the day last week in my office. I guess that's prep time, and I wonder what it would have been like if we had come to the estimates unprepared, and here we're not having to deal with 30 young children who all have different needs and different abilities to which we have to respond.

You're talking about lowering the amount of prep time. I'm just wondering how you respond to these teachers who I think have written very sincere letters about why they think prep time, if it is cut, will not only hurt them but will hurt their students, and will hurt the education experience and the community.

Hon Mr Snobelen: First to the matter of the document, as it's been described. I thank you for providing the Chairman with a copy of that because it would be unfortunate if the Chair was --

Mr Wildman: Well, I could send it to him in a brown envelope, the way I got it.

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- the only person not to have shared in this particular document.

The Chair: I try to be impartial.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, and well-informed.

Whenever we have a public discourse with partners in the system, the possibility of having documents marked as confidential shared increases. However, we've been willing to take the risk of that in order to have full and frank consultations with our partners in the education community and will continue to do so. What is personally discouraging is when the documents are represented as government policy instead of a more accurate view of what the documents are and what they contain. That seems to me to be public mischief rather than public information, and --

Mr Wildman: Just as a point of privilege, Mr Chair, I'd just point out I don't know to whom the minister is referring. In any of my comments regarding this document I said I didn't know what it was, that it looked like a government document, but I wasn't certain.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm glad. That sounds like a very responsible way of dealing with it. In the future, if --

The Chair: If you want to table that, then we can get some confirmation from the ministry whether it's an official document. Maybe that would be the way to go.

1500

Mr Wildman: The minister has already stated publicly, Mr Chair, that it is a document that was circulated within the ministry.

Hon Mr Snobelen: In the future, if such a document were to end up on your desk and you wanted to call over and get some confirmation of exactly what it is and what the origins are, I'd be more than happy to personally comply with that. That might help us to better inform the public.

As to the area of preparation time, there have been suggestions by boards and others that this is an area where we can be of some service and help, and help to make the system more affordable by making sure that classroom teachers have their time used as effectively as possible, in particular with being in contact with young people, in being in the classroom. We're willing to, as I've said in the past, consider that. We think it's worthy of consideration, particularly in light of the differences in the amount of in-classroom time classroom teachers spend in Ontario versus other jurisdictions. We're considering that request. We're considering it in light of the experience in other jurisdictions. We're looking now into other matters, such as what does use the time of teachers that is not productive. Perhaps we can lighten some of the load from teachers.

One of the reasons we've been looking forward to and hoping and encouraging a conversation with the Ontario Teachers' Federation and other teacher federations is so that we can bring up these matters with people who are responsible for representing classroom teachers. I've gone to the extent of discussing this with as many individuals as I can, many individual classroom teachers, but I think it would be very useful to have the Ontario Teachers' Federation and its member federations involved in a conversation. Unfortunately, they have declined the opportunity to do so over the past couple of months, but I hope they'll reconsider that position. I would make myself available to a meeting with them at any time to discuss these very critical issues.

As to the member's level of preparation, it is of course exemplary as always and I know that perhaps you have spent some time at home and some time in your office preparing for this, but I'm sure you, like I, find this public service to be a great joy and in fact we don't begrudge the time we spend in preparing for our duties and for carrying out our duties because of the great joy it gives us, because of the commitment we have to the future of the province of Ontario and the people in Ontario. So for you and for me, I am sure that preparation time seems less like work and less like a burden than it does as a joy. That's certainly the experience I've had with my limited experience in government.

Mr Wildman: I would hope the minister's not being flippant in response to this. These are sincere letters from --

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sure they are, and I'm being very sincere.

Mr Wildman: -- mostly young teachers who spend a lot of time and a lot of effort on behalf of themselves and their students and their schools.

The Chair: I'm sure of that. I want to thank you very much. I would ask the government party to make its contribution. I'll make a suggestion here now, though. I'll just ask that we could take a break after you've made your 30-minute exercise, after your presentation here. Go ahead.

Mrs Ross: Minister, earlier, in answer to somebody's question, you said that we spent $7 billion in adminstration costs. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The number that has been suggested by others runs between 40% and 50%. We spend approximately $14 billion, so at the highest end of that estimate it would be around $7 billion outside of the classroom. That's not just administrative; those are expenses that happen outside of the classroom. I'm looking forward to both the Sweeney commission's report and the report from the working group on ed finance reform, because they have been looking very specifically at the costs and they'll have a better breakdown of what those costs are outside of the classroom.

Mrs Ross: Can you tell me if that cost has come down over the last couple of years, or has it gone up? Do you have any statistics that will tell us that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: In this regard it might be useful to have one of the representatives from the ministry give you some detailed information on that. I see there's a scramble now for the person who might be best to answer that question, so if we can defer this question for just a moment and ask a subsequent one, we'll bring you back to that.

Mrs Ross: Sure. Then I'll jump to something else. I'd like to go to Mr Wildman's discussion on prep time. I talk about this from personal experience. I have a daughter in secondary education. She's in a program called the self-pacing program, which began, I think, about eight or nine years ago and it was a pilot project at that time. It is now firmly ensconced in the education system in my area; I don't know if it is across the province. I guess my question with respect to prep time is, a lot of people -- business, professional people, doctors, lawyers, politicians -- spend a great deal of time in prep time --

Mr Wildman: Both in their offices and at home?

Mrs Ross: -- and a lot of people work from 9 to 5. It's been my experience when I go to visit a teacher, first of all, that I have great difficulty getting any appointment beyond 4 o'clock in the afternoon. They used to hold their parent-teacher evenings from 6 to 8, which allowed parents who were working the opportunity to come and discuss issues with the teacher. They then moved that from 4 to 6, and that's once a year they do that, I might add. So I have a real problem understanding: If school closes at 10 minutes to 3, can teachers not use from 3 to 5 for prep time?

Mr Wildman: That's if they're not out on the football field.

Mrs Ross: Very few of them are.

Hon Mr Snobelen: This subject takes in the whole of what a professional classroom teacher does. Certainly I am not one to discredit the need for and the importance of extracurricular activities. I think that they're critical. Studies that have been done in other provinces, where, by the way, the amount of preparation time built into the schedule is considerably reduced from the time in Ontario, indicate that teachers work on average about 47 hours a week. That's the latest information. I have no way of disputing that. I do know that there are teachers in our system who work an extraordinary number of hours and there are some who work less, which I guess is typical of any profession. Many teachers whom I've talked to have expressed the fact that they work longer than perhaps they need to because of their level of commitment to young people and because of the joy they get from that work.

I think that's probably true of every profession, perhaps more true of teaching than some other professions, in that it is a very direct, personal profession. I think there is a great deal of reward based on that participation.

I do not think it is unreasonable. I know that Mr Manners of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation was quoted the other day as suggesting that considerable savings were made to the taxpayers because teachers didn't charge overtime, which is to equate teachers I think with people who are paid hourly. I don't think that teachers would enjoy that comparison. I think they regard themselves as a profession. I think they understand that while their year is limited to about 38 weeks, those 38 weeks are very focused, very high-energy, require a large amount of input, and no one is suggesting otherwise. The question is, how can we focus the time teachers spend in a way that makes the most benefit to students? That's the purpose of this entire review.

I take exception to those who would suggest that this is a subject that should never be discussed and that to do so is to somehow be disrespectful to teachers. That's far from the truth. I think that all of us in this room and most people across the province have a high regard for the standards and professionalism of teachers and know that we need to enhance that.

1510

Mrs Ross: Personally, I think we have some great teachers out there. My kids have had the benefit of being taught by several of them.

One issue I also wanted to touch on was the testing issue. I'm wondering, in light of the fact we're trying to cut administrative costs, are we going to create a bureaucracy to look after this standardized testing, and where is the money going to come from?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Bill 30, which is in front of the House at the moment, will establish an independent testing agency, the Education Quality and Accountability Office. This is an issue that was undertaken by the previous government as a response to the royal commission and that we have, I think, improved slightly but are bringing forward. It's an important investment, as I see it. It'll cost us a considerable amount of money. We not only need to do testing and have that be public as a method of holding the system to account, if you will, both individually and as an overall system, and to be able to measure the progress of the system, of the education system, as a whole as we use different forms of curriculum and delivery methods -- it's important that we do that.

I believe it's an important investment. I think it's going to cost. Obviously, it's going to cost to do the testing correctly in a way that gives us real results that we really can use, that really tell us a little bit more about how students are doing than a more simple test might. I believe it's an investment that's worthwhile. I think any system that does not test itself regularly is doomed to continue to repeat mistakes, to repeat failures, and that we can't afford to do that with our education system. I'm looking forward to it being a very clear message to parents across the province and a very clear way to hold education to account to the taxpayers and parents.

Mrs Ross: I just want to also comment on the consultation factor involved here. I, like my other colleagues, meet with teachers all across our areas from time to time. I met with a teacher who stated that, when we talked about standardized testing, she was opposed to it, and the reason she was opposed to it -- and I still can't understand it -- was the fact that are we there to fail children, or are we there to tell them that they can try harder? I thought that was kind of a funny comment because, in my opinion, if you don't have standardized testing you'll never know where your child is. I think children have to be accountable for their learning in some way, and if they don't fail how will they know -- there's always another chance. I guess that's what I'm saying. There's always another chance. If you fail this time, don't worry; you get another chance. That's not really the way life is, is it?

Hon Mr Snobelen: There are lots of chances in life. Let me say a couple of things. One, assessment is a complicated field, and it's a field that's growing. I think our knowledge about how to successfully assess people grows. There's a lot of disagreement on the fringes, as in any emerging science, but I'm confident that the model that's being suggested is a good method of assessment that will accurately reflect how people are doing and how our system is doing.

There are some who believe that failure is the opposite of success. I am not one of those people. I think failure and success are siblings; that the opposite of failure and success is mediocrity, and not to measure both the individuals, the participants, the students in our system accurately and not to measure our system accurately is to breed mediocrity, not to breed success. So I refute those who would say that to measure is harmful. I think that not to measure is harmful. That's something I think our government has made very clear in our commitment to holding to account our system.

Mr Preston: I would hope that when the decisions are made regarding preparation time, that particularly section 27 teachers are taken into consideration. Section 27 is a classroom where children attend because they cannot and/or will not and/or should not attend public school. Any given day at 3 o'clock that teacher will find out who he or she is teaching the next day, which could be anywhere from grade 4 to grade 11. It's not like the grade 2 teacher or grade 3 teacher who is teaching the same thing on the same day as she has been for 10 years. The amount of preparation for the next day for the section 27 classroom teacher is immense, and regardless of the classroom time or the staff room time that they use up, must spend an awful lot of time at home preparing. I would hope that this will be addressed when and if the preparation time is either pared or whatever's done to it.

Hon Mr Snobelen: One of the reasons I think it's very useful for us to have a chance to talk to the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the member federations is because the minimum standard provincially for education for a child is five hours, 300 minutes a day. Many systems exceed that by a slight amount. That's a minimum standard. When we're talking about the amount of time teachers spend in classroom, in front of young people, young adults, we should also be looking at minimum standards, not at a one-size-fits-all solution. I believe the more flexibility we can leave with boards and with individual schools, the more we can address those very individual needs you've pointed out.

Let me flesh out some more. There obviously is a different level of marking from some courses to other courses. There is obviously a different level of time to prepare lessons from one type of course to another. The standard model that's often discussed is that physical education versus English literature may have different marking requirements.

It's useful, I think, to have a conversation with the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the other federations that represent classroom teachers so we can bring to the table a more sophisticated discussion about the relevance of preparation time in different courses, different course loads, what minimum standards should be in the province, how it relates with other provinces, and where the teaching profession is going. I think those conversations are important to the system, and I've encouraged the federations to meet with us publicly on many occasions. I reiterate that now. I think it's important that we have those conversations and that we use some sophistication and some skill in developing those standards for Ontario.

Mr Rollins: With the Futures program and the kickstart program we have particularly for young people who find themselves outside the school system for one reason or another, the return, even though those people went through the Futures program and we've spent some good dollars on them, isn't extremely high as a percentage of people turned back out. But for every dollar we spend on it, we only keep about 20% of those people, but those people become taxpayers instead of tax takers. Even though those numbers would lead an outsider to look at it and say, "That system is terrible because we're not retaining enough of those," I hope when you make the decision on it that you look very closely at that. If we don't educate those children who fail to go to school -- now, I know we didn't have any problem keeping you out of jail, but a lot of people have --

Hon Mr Snobelen: I hope that's not a question.

Mr Rollins: No, no. But a lot of people have fallen into that trap, and that's maybe our last opportunity to make them a part of society and make them capable of contributing to society rather than causing society an expense in keeping them. I think that needs to be looked at more than as just a dollar-and-cents value. As a backbencher I encourage you to look at that very closely, because I firmly do believe as I've been fairly closely connected with that; we've had people from that program work with our place.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The Futures program and other programs like Futures can make a real difference, but I think we also need to look back one step from there and have a look at how we can encourage people to stay in school before they reach that high-risk area. There is a variety of contributing factors; individuals are individuals. But we can look in our system and see how we can make it more relevant.

One of those areas might be enhancing our skills training and making sure our curriculum is relevant and seen to be relevant to young people to encourage them to stay in. The other is by making sure we don't have people progress at a rate that is inconsistent with their skill level. A lot of young people have expressed to me frustrations at being in grade 9 and really not being able to cope; they feel like they've been pushed through the system. Perhaps if they had spent a little longer in grade 3 or 4 or 5, they've told me they felt they might be more ready for success in the high school grades. In fact, those young people were at high risk of dropping out, of not being successful by their own measure in high school.

1520

We need to look throughout the system and make sure it's relevant; make sure we have the skills training that young people want and need; I think emphasize co-op education -- really have a system that is seen to be relevant to the young people who are using it. I believe if we do that, we'll have less need for Futures programs for at-risk people and we'll really do justice to the young people throughout the system.

I would like to say, though, that classroom teachers have told me on many occasions that they believe that ultimately part of the responsibility in education rests with the student --

Mr Rollins: Oh, it has to.

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- and we need to make sure that we communicate that in our school system as well; that we communicate with young people, particularly with young adults, that they are responsible for some part of this, that their conduct and behaviours and attitudes must be consistent with learning. Classroom teachers have again and again told me that's a critical piece of the learning process.

Mr Rollins: I hope you take that into consideration. One other thing too: Children who go to college and university all of a sudden are receiving 18 and 17 hours a week of lecture time, and it's that kind of thing that's perceived by the secondary school teacher, that the person teaching university, with the child only being in class for that length of time -- "Here I am, getting them ready the year before, yet I can't have prep time but I put a lot more hours into them." There may not be a big dollar difference in paycheque -- I'm not going to argue about the dollars in a paycheque -- but it's that perception of the teacher saying, "Hey, the person up the road doesn't have to put in those kinds of hours, so why should I?" It kind of has a tendency to back down.

Is sending a child to university -- I have one in college and one in university, and it scares me to think that they get 17 and 18 and 20 hours a week in front of an instructor, and maybe in front of an instructor on a massive group of screens and 1,100 or 1,200 other people in the room with them. Wait a minute. Where do we go? I think that feeling gets back to the teachers in our lower grades.

Hon Mr Snobelen: There would be some discussion between those who instruct at the community college level that would be different from that observation. They might suggest that those who are on the other pasture have the grass greener. I expect some of that is pretty natural and pretty normal in any profession and probably in any industry.

The whole experience of undergraduate education is undergoing some enormous changes, some of which we talked about this morning, in all institutes, not just in Ontario but in universities around the world. In fact, there are many different delivery systems now being utilized for undergraduates.

One thing is very clear. We expect something different in terms of personal responsibility for young people and mature people in our undergrad programs than we do from adolescents and young adults in high school. That jump in expectation has been difficult for people to make over at least the whole course of my lifetime, if not several generations before me, and that continues to be the case. Universities have expressed an interest in making sure that we do what we can at the high school level to make sure young people are ready for that jump, because it's a significant jump in responsibility.

That's one of the reasons universities and colleges are represented on the transition group working on the four-year program we'll be introducing in September 1997.

The original question, which we were not able to answer, which had to do with some of the costings -- if I may, I notice there is an expert in the room who might be able to come forward and give us some of those. Peter, if you would.

Mr Wildman: I know what an expert is: someone who knows more and more about less and less.

Hon Mr Snobelen: In that case, Peter is not an expert.

Mr Peter Wright: My apologies. When the question was first asked I was out of the room. Could I have it repeated so I understand entirely what I am answering?

Mrs Ross: I asked a question about administration costs. I was wondering if we have any statistics on how those costs have gone over the last number of years: risen or declined?

Mr Wright: It depends on the time period you're looking at. During the 1980s, generally speaking, those costs went up as a proportion of the total expenditure in elementary-secondary. The difficulty is that there is not what I would call a standardized agreement in terms of what you define as administration, so one of the things we have been doing in the education finance reform exercise is to try and get some definition, and I gather John Sweeney in his work has been doing the same thing.

The recent experience, since the early 1990s and through some of the reductions -- the numbers we're now holding suggest that the administrative costs are coming down, and coming down more quickly, particularly with the staffing levels. The heavy staffing in the board offices, where there were teachers in board offices -- the numbers of administrators have been dropping in the early 1990s.

Mrs Ross: Would you have numbers on enrolment in secondary schools? Have they gone up or come down in the last five years? I'm trying to compare them with respect to administration.

Mr Wright: I don't have them with me at this moment, but, generally speaking, enrolment has been growing very slowly, around 1% or 2% per year.

Mrs Ross: Would you say the cost of administration has risen quite dramatically in comparison to the rise in enrolment?

Mr Wright: If you go into the 1980s, that was certainly the case.

Mr Wildman: Is that through the 1990s as well?

Mr Wright: In the 1990s, I don't have a comparison with enrolment. I would have to go back and look, but I would suspect it's at least stabilized, if not declined.

Mr Wildman: Costs are declining?

Mr Wright: Of administration.

Mr Wildman: Administration has declined in the 1990s?

Mr Wright: As I say, all I have right now are some staffing numbers. We don't have, as I said, a standard definition of what administration is, so that's the difficulty right now.

Mrs Ross: That's fine for now.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Wright.

The Chair: Is that it, Mrs Ross? We can take a break now until -- I'll be generous -- 4 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1528 to 1558.

The Chair: When we broke off for the recess, I think the Conservative Party had just wrapped up their half an hour. Now I think the Liberals would like to ask their questions and put their point of view forward.

Mr Cordiano: I have a few questions I started to allude to earlier. Minister, I think it's appropriate, for me anyway -- I'm not sure if my colleague Mr Patten has delved into these areas; perhaps he has. I started off my earlier remarks by asking just what your priorities might be. What's your grand vision for the ministry in the sense of the role that you would play as a minister and how do you see that unfolding, given that so far what I've seen from you, quite frankly, as a minister is the kind of approach that fits in well with the overall government's objectives of cutting and getting the deficit under control? Certainly, yes, that would be helpful. Certainly, no one here today would suggest that getting our deficit under control is not a priority.

On the other hand, if you did get a measure of control with respect to the deficit, then let's put that off to the side for a moment. How much more efficiency would you want to see out of your ministry and, simply dealing with dollars and cents, how much more tolerance do you have for restructuring, reorganizing, call it what you will -- mostly it's downsizing -- the ministry in order to effect the kinds of changes that I've heard you refer to? In the coming days, months and years, we will get a better idea exactly what is meant by some of the directions you're moving in.

But it's not just a question of semantics. I think you start with a basic approach that ultimately would lead to the desired change in thinking and approach with respect to those who are involved in the area of education. There's no question, there has to be a new thinking around how we deliver programs more effectively and efficiently, but at the end of the day, you've taken some $700 million out of education, the two panels, primary-secondary and the post-secondary panel.

Interjection: And not finished yet either.

Mr Cordiano: And not finished. I'm trying to gather a sense of what your priorities are. Once we have this reduction in costs and expenditures, what would you deem to be a priority if you are on the road to deficit reduction? You're going down that path; that's being accomplished. What would you say to me today, as your answer to the questions: What are the priorities in terms of reorganizing the ministry, ensuring that we reach this objective? What are your objectives in terms of education? What do you intend to do with your portfolio?

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's a rather large piece to get my hands around, so let me again reiterate that I believe -- in my opening statement in this process I spent about half an hour on what I believe are the key issues facing the ministry. I'll go over a few of those again now. Boiled down, I believe, as it relates to our secondary schools and primary schools, it amounts to making dramatic improvements in the affordability of our system, in the accountability of our system and in the quality of our system of education. Those three areas relate to each other and I believe that we need to make some very dramatic improvements in those three areas.

You've pointed to efficiency and effectiveness. I'd like to spend a moment on how those relate with the ministry itself. I am on record as saying that the ministry is a service organization. It is there to provide a service on behalf of the people of Ontario. So the question, in the right size, for that ministry is a contest in delivering those services in a way that's both efficient and effective. If efficiency's the matter of doing things right, then effectiveness is the matter of doing the right things. I think it's a case that's been well made in the past that to be efficient you must first be effective. You must have a sense of what the ministry is there to do.

I believe it's important that we have a look at the services that are provided by the ministry and make sure we understand what those service are that we provide on behalf of the taxpayers in Ontario. We have much focusing that can be done inside of the ministry and, I believe, some efficiencies that can be reached inside the ministry. I join with the people who work there, the very dedicated public servants who work there in trying to do both of those things on behalf of the taxpayers, to be more effective and, of course, be more efficient.

As for affordability, accountability and quality in the system, affordability is something that has received a lot of attention, both in this process, as is its nature, and in the press. We are now making some moves at having the system be more affordable, benchmarking it against other standards in other jurisdictions and looking for methodologies of delivering education to the young people and the young adults of Ontario at the best possible value for taxpayers.

In my view, this is a continuous improvement process that we will not be finished with some day. We should continue to monitor, to measure and to look for more affordable methods of delivering the service ongoingly. I think education is a place where continuous improvement is important.

It's also important in the area of accountability. If we look at the measures we've taken in having a more accountable system, I think the EQAO is a move in that direction. I believe it will have the system be more accountable, accountable to taxpayers, accountable to parents and accountable to students. I believe that a standardized report card, an issue that we're working on now, will also have our system be more accountable to parents and to students. This, again, is an area where continuous improvement should be applied, it seems to me, that will never be done, in having our education system be more accountable. That's an area that we need to work with on community councils. It's another accountability measure.

As far as quality is concerned, these things all relate, obviously. I believe that the College of Teachers will do much to enhance not just the accountability of the system but also the quality of it, particularly in the professional development of teachers, which obviously needs to be addressed ongoingly, again for their continuous improvement. So we'll see many quality initiatives that I believe will improve the system of education in the province.

Mr Cordiano: Let's think forward. If in several years' time you've brought about these changes, you've reformed the system in fashioning it to your liking and then we have a situation where the dropout rate stays the same, would you consider yourself a failure at that point as a minister? Would you consider yourself a failure if we would measure your accomplishments by what the system is producing? Then at that point you would say to me, "Well, we have standardized tests and we'll use those as a benchmark to determine whether in fact the system is improving, in terms of what we've accomplished, what the outputs are, what students have learned," but if that dropout rate stays the same, would you consider yourself a failure?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think ultimately everyone connected with education is concerned with one thing, and that is making sure that we leave young people in our school system with the core skills, knowledge, disciplines and habits that are necessary for them to have an opportunity for success when they exit school, whenever they exit school, and enter into the career or field of their choice. I think presenting young people with the opportunity for a life of success is what the school system is there to do.

Mr Cordiano: I understand that, Minister, but I'm trying to figure out how I am going to hold you accountable and responsible for the system as a whole, because you see, all the way through the system what you've described to me you would agree applies to any organization -- accountability, affordability, making sure that we have the kind of quality that everyone desires. Those are all ideal objectives that I would continue to support. I would applaud you for making an effort to achieve those things in your ministry.

But I would ask you to tell me how it would be different if you were minister of any other ministry. You would want accountability, you would affordability, you would want quality to be of the highest value for any service that you were delivering in any ministry of the government. I'm sitting here trying to figure out how I hold you responsible and accountable for your actions. How do I know if you're going to be a success at the end of the day? How do the teachers out there hold you accountable? How do the parents out there hold you accountable?

1610

The only measurement by which we can hold you accountable so far is by how much money has been cut from the budget and therefore you're achieving those objectives, which are understandable. I'm not disputing that you need to gain efficiencies, but efficiencies at what price? If the tradeoff is your exacting a toll on the education system and you're not getting anything back -- I want value for money out of what you're doing. I want to make sure that what you're doing will give us a bigger bang for our buck.

How are you going to prove that to me in two years' time or a year's time, whenever the next cabinet shuffle is or before the next cabinet shuffle, so I can hold you accountable? I'll come back to this committee and ask you those questions.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I alluded to earlier and will continue to point to two things: One, I believe that the education system -- I want to make sure I underline this -- will never be done in terms of improving, I hope, because surely this is an area where continuous improvement is important.

I do recognize the difference between cost and value. I believe that the people of Ontario want to maintain or enhance the quality of the system and have it be more affordable. I've said before both here and elsewhere that we need to enhance the measures of success in the system of education in Ontario. I think the EQAO is a good step in that direction but I believe that we need to provide better goalsticks, better yardsticks, if you will, for the quality and the performance of the education system across the province. I believe that when we have those measures in place it will be much easier not just to hold the Minister of Education to account, and surely we should do that, but also to hold everyone in the system accountable.

Mr Cordiano: Let me ask you very specifically about affordability. By that, you mean that it would be more affordable to whom? To the taxpayers? To the government? To school boards? Try and define that for me because I'm not certain what you mean by that.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Well, affordable --

Mr Cordiano: You see, what you've done so far, if I may just finish, is you've cut $700 million out of the budget.

Hon Mr Snobelen: That's $800 million.

Mr Cordiano: Sorry, $800 million. What's $100 million? You can't find -- $100 million I understand today is missing from somewhere. Your government's still looking for $100 million.

Mr Gilchrist: Gilles Pouliot said he gave it back to Bob.

Mr Cordiano: So $800 million, not $700 million. The question is, how do you define affordability? Because if you're suggesting to me that cutting the amount of absolute dollars that are in the system makes it more affordable, for whom, I would ask.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The value in education has to be a measurement of both its cost and its quality, and I believe it's important to have qualitative measures across the board, some of which need dramatic improvement, in my view. That's the accountability side. Affordable is obviously to both those who pay for the system currently and those who are using our school system now who will be asked to pay for both the education of future generations and in some cases their own education as the debt piles up at the rate of a million bucks an hour.

Mr Cordiano: I'm a property taxpayer. Are you suggesting, Minister, that you're going to lower my property taxes so it's more affordable for me to pay those costs that are being incurred by school boards across -- I'm trying to understand. What is it you mean by affordable?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We've said time and again, and I believe that you'd probably find agreement in this room at a very minimum on this, that there is but one taxpayer. We pay taxes in a variety of forms, as you know -- property taxes, consumption taxes, income taxes -- but there's one taxpayer in the province.

Mr Cordiano: What about tuition fees? You're allowing universities to increase tuition fees, so the question of affordability there becomes one of perspective. I'm an adult. It's certainly not going to be more affordable for me to pay for my child's education. It'll be more expensive in the future. If you impose additional user fees, the question of affordability is again questioned by the people of the province who are utilizing, to use your language, that service.

I guess the real point I'm making is that when you use terms like "affordable," it depends on which side of that equation you're talking. It'll be more affordable perhaps for the Ministry of Education, in whatever way you're describing that, which I still have to figure out. But when you've cut $800 million from your budget, the system is short $800 million and I have yet to see how you've made the system more efficient, because it's easy to cut dollars, but how do we measure the efficiencies you would gain by those cuts? Have you defined for us an accountability framework for those efficiencies? How do I know that in effect the system will be more efficient?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me stay with the schools section at the moment. We can talk about the colleges and universities as a separate conversation, but I'm more than willing to have it with you.

In the schools sector the Minister of Finance announced in the statement of November 29 that we'd be reducing the grants by $400 million, which represents about 9% of the overall system cost, about 3% of the provincial contribution. He announced at the same time that we would spend the month of December consulting, asking the people in education in Ontario to give us some advice on what the province could do to help them reduce the out-of-classroom costs in the education system. We've received that, some of which is contained in what has been referred to as "the document," which I note the Chairman now has a copy of.

The Chair: It didn't come in a brown envelope either.

Hon Mr Snobelen: We can get you the brown envelope. If you promise to recycle it, we'll get you one.

This is a listing of some of the suggestions that have been made to us by boards of education and others as to what the province could do to help them reduce the cost of out-of-classroom expenses in the system. We'll be responding to that in the very near future so we can work with our partners in education in lowering costs. People have alluded to user fees in the system, and I have said publicly, both before this committee and prior to, that this is an effort in reducing the cost of out-of-classroom education and that user fees are not consistent with the exercise.

Mr Cordiano: With all due respect, I think everyone would agree with the costs that can be eliminated or the expenditures which can be reduced, which are out-of-classroom expenditures, and therefore I think those are the easy cuts to make. At the end of the day, when we talk about what's more affordable -- I guess I go back to that; you're referring to the affordability question as it somehow relates to the budgetary deficit that the Ontario government faces -- with respect to the school boards and those transfer recipients, if they lower their costs, presumably it would put less pressure on them to raise the mill rates or to raise what they have at their disposal, impose user fees, whatever method you might use in the future to raise revenues.

1620

At the end of the day I come back to the question of accountability for the actions taken and how we measure results. How do we measure results in the context of a system which is seeing less dollars flow into it, which is up to a point acceptable and can be achieved, but what if we get a situation where you have fewer teachers in the system, in the primary and secondary panel, and classroom sizes start to increase?

I ask you this question: Will I hold you accountable for that? Will I come back in two years and say: "Minister, we told you there would be problems down the road. You're underfunding the system and you're reducing the number of teachers and suddenly classroom sizes have gone up"? Because at some point you cross that line where there's no reduction that's possible; you've reached the critical mass and beyond that point you cannot go. This is what I'm trying to ascertain from you: At what point would you then be held accountable?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think the quality issue in the field of education is certainly no easier than any other field, and perhaps more difficult, because the success of individuals and the opportunity that individuals have may be difficult to quantify. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make attempts at quantifying what we can in the system. That's why I believe the EQAO, which is a recommendation of the royal commission and which is an initiative started by the previous government, is important, so that we have some better measures for the success both of our education system and the people in our education system, which ultimately is the success we're building to.

I believe when we make reductions in cost we have to do so by using the measures that we have available to pursue reductions that will not affect the quality of education logically. That's why we've consulted widely with our partners in education. That's why we've invited all the people who are concerned and involved to come in with their recommendations on how that might be achieved. Because I believe there is a vast array of knowledge in how to reduce waste in the system within the system, and it's necessary to talk to educators to do that.

Mr Cordiano: Fine. I agree with that. But if the number of children in each classroom goes up, am I going to hold you accountable for that? Can I then say down the road, "You did not concern yourself with that quality question"? I think everyone recognizes that if the classroom sizes do go up, then we're not getting the same level of quality from the system. Would you agree with that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe that the ultimate measure of quality in the education system is the success of the students. Ultimately that measure will be made more accurately and better by an outside agency of the ministry like the EQAO, which will now be, as soon as that bill passes and we can construct the EQAO, an agency that's designed to hold government and the minister and everyone involved in education to account for the results of students in the overall system. I think that's an important step in that direction. As I said, continuous improvements are necessary in any system and we'll continue to improve the measures, but it's an important first step in measuring.

I was quite taken by the lack of measures in this field. It's very interesting for me, as an outsider, if you will, to walk into the system and discover that the pupil-teacher ratio has absolutely nothing to do with class size. I found that to be astounding when I first entered the ministry. I believe it's very interesting that we have a PTR in the province of something like 15 to 1 and that our class sizes are on average 25 or better. It's interesting to me that those ratios don't seem to be a measure of either effectiveness or quality of education.

Mr Cordiano: If that's the ratio you would use, obviously that's --

Mr Wildman: To be fair, Mr Cordiano's talking about class size.

Mr Cordiano: I'm talking about class size, yes.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm just noting the fact that the PTR measurement has no correlation or seems to have no correlation to class size, which I found to be somewhat astonishing when I entered the ministry.

Mr Cordiano: I'm looking at it from the point of view of the parent.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes.

Mr Cordiano: Certainly a parent would say: "Class size is important. I don't want my child in a class with 30 kids." Because ultimately it's common sense that that child would not receive the same kind of attention as if he were in a class with 15 children or 20 children.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I've never claimed, nor will I likely claim in the near future, to be a pedagogue, and so I know there's some disagreement about ideal class sizes, but I do agree with you that parents are concerned with that.

They are very concerned with knowing about the achievement of their own child, how their child's doing in the system, how their child's doing versus other children of the same age, how they're doing against expectations. One of the things that they've asked government for and that I think we should be able to do is to address some of the concerns raised earlier. One of those is by having a standardized report card, one that is very legible for parents so they can understand how the young person is doing. I've heard from many parents who suggest that the report cards they're currently getting from a variety of different boards don't give them much information on how their child is doing. We need to do that.

Standardized reports, standardized curriculum and the EQAO would do a lot to have us have measurements that are useful for parents and that hold to account the Minister of Education and other people in the education system.

Mr Cordiano: Just to summarize, I can come back to the estimates committee in a year's time and you'll update me on some of these things: the dropout rate, classroom sizes. When I ask questions about those things a year from now, you'll be able to tell me, with some level of assurance, that those elements in determining accountability for you will not have been deteriorating, that those numbers will be improving in some sense or will be held to, and therefore quality will be upheld. Those are the kinds of things I want to make sure are happening in the system, that as you continue to gain greater efficiencies, you're not sacrificing quality.

Mr Wildman: I found the line of questions of Mr Cordiano quite interesting and I'd like to pursue it a little in the context of the document and also the questions I was raising earlier about prep time. I think Mr Wright said that in the 1980s administrative costs rose more quickly than enrolment, but that administrative costs in the 1990s had levelled off or declined somewhat.

In the election document of the Conservative Party, there was a commitment to lowering out-of-classroom costs substantially and there was also a commitment not to affect the quality of classroom education. I would submit that in terms of the numbers now being considered to deal with the deficit and make it possible to have a 30% tax cut, those two commitments are irreconcilable and are impossible to meet.

In the document, the first page is entitled "Context." It says: "GLG" -- that is the general legislative grant -- "for 1996 has been reduced by $400 million. Boards have only four months (September to December) of 1996" -- since boards are on a calendar year fiscal year -- "to effectively reduce expenditures." Since they're already into this fiscal year, we're talking about the next year. "To effect $400 million in savings in 1996, expenditures must be reduced by $1 billion on an annual basis. One billion dollars represents a reduction of 22.7% of the provincial operating grant."

Further on in the document, on page 16, it talks about how these savings in this magnitude might be found, and the minister has said or my colleague Mr Preston said, "This was a brainstorming session"; I'll accept that, but it was talking about how we might get to $1 billion.

It says "administration board office, $89 million; in-school supervision, $100 million; custodial, $76 million; preparation time, $400 million; user fees, not established," because we don't know whether they're going to do it and we also don't know how much revenue would occur, or savings would occur from them, for a total, not including user fees, of $645 million; $645 million added to $400 million announced in November is $1 billion. That's how you might achieve your $1 billion annual saving.

1630

If we are indeed talking about cuts of this magnitude, $1 billion, I submit it is impossible to avoid affecting classrooms. I will use the preparation time question as an example of that. I think we'd all admit there are less active or less effective individuals in any profession, perhaps even in politics; having said that, let's deal with the fact of how teachers use preparation time and what preparation time is for:

Obviously, for "preparing lessons," directly related to classroom education.

"Readying classrooms, labs, gymnasiums, shops, computers, equipment, facilities for use by students." Again directly related to classroom education.

"Correcting, grading and recording attendance.

"Performing administrative work" related to "extra-curricular activities." That's not directly related to classroom education, but it is related to the education experience.

"Helping students who are unavailable before and after school with individual study problems"; remedial work, in other words.

"Advising and counselling students and contacting parents.

"Meeting with...other teachers, administrators, consultants...guidance counsellors....

"Ordering and distributing instructional materials.

"Preparing courses and programs in the face of ever-changing curriculum demands."

Just as an aside, I would hope the suggestion that was made that some teachers who teach the same courses 10 years after another don't have to do much preparation time is not the norm, because there is such a thing as 10 years' experience and then there is also one year's experience 10 times over.

Mr Preston: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I did not say that. I said that some teachers have a more onerous task than others, not that some teachers didn't need the preparation time. I don't need him to take the figures out of a piece of paper and make those false on top of putting words in my mouth that are false. I'm sorry, sir, I did not say that.

The Chair: Proceed, Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: I certainly would not want to get into your mouth.

I talked about the preparation of courses.

Dealing with other teachers: "assisting in situations where teachers are required on an emergency basis to supervise students or to fill in for other colleagues" on an on-call basis.

All of those, except the extra-curricular activities -- and you might make the argument even including that -- certainly all of them directly relate to classroom education. If you cut back on this, you affect classroom education.

It's been suggested that in Ontario at the secondary level we have twice as much preparation time as they do in other jurisdictions in Canada, such as British Columbia. I understand in British Columbia out of an eight-period day they have one period of preparation. My understanding is that in most secondary schools in Ontario there are two periods of preparation out of an eight-period day; one of those is an on-call period.

My question really is: Are we eliminating the on-call period or the other preparation period? If we're eliminating the other preparation period, then you haven't gone to the British Columbia model; you end up with a situation where there is less preparation time here than there is in BC.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me say that the discussion about on-call time or preparation time is certainly not complete. We have had a recommendation from boards that we examine this possibility, that there is perhaps a possibility for having a more affordable and more effective system by looking at the on-call/preparation/other -- really, the use of classroom teachers, to make sure the classroom teachers are able to make the biggest contribution they can make.

It seems to be, and I have said publicly, that this is at least worthy of consideration. There are those who think that even having that conversation, even considering it is an affront, but I think that's somewhat intellectually dishonest. Surely in this sort of review we should be able to discuss all of the cost components that go into education and have a look at them.

Mr Wildman: I'm not suggesting it's an affront. I will say, though --

Hon Mr Snobelen: I didn't suggest that, just to be clear. There are others who have made that point. If I can, just for a moment, you made mention earlier of the way this fits within the government's general mandate, which is to reduce and in fact eliminate our deficit spending in the province and to reduce the taxes paid by the working people of Ontario, and certainly there is that play. I've said publicly on many occasions that in the past perhaps educators had a responsibility merely for preparing young people for the future. Now we have a responsibility, it seems to me, for preparing the future for young people, and that's a responsibility we all need to shoulder.

I also do not find it irreconcilable that we could have a lower-cost system with higher quality. Even if we use the outside edge of the numbers you've been discussing here this afternoon, we would be reducing our expenditures by something less than 10%. If you talk to people across the province, they'll tell you that in other forms of endeavours and other organizations and other kinds of work, we have been able to have substantially more financial improvements than that without hurting, and in fact enhancing, the quality of service provided in a variety of other endeavours. So I don't find it irreconcilable at all. As a matter of fact, if we measure this against the standards of the other working people of Ontario, what they're achieving today versus 10 years ago, I think you'd find this is not very ambitious at all.

Mr Wildman: Okay, having said that, since you're considering this -- and I'm engaging in a conversation about this; I'm not suggesting it's an affront to discuss it.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Just to make sure you understand, I did not accuse you nor would I accuse you of that. There are people, though, who have had that reaction to the discussion around preparation time and on-call time; they view this as an affront of some sort.

Mr Wildman: I would agree with those who would argue that you cannot do this without affecting classroom education, and if you're going to affect classroom education with your cuts, say so. Don't pretend that you aren't.

Would you agree with the numbers I gave, that came out of this context, that in fact the $400 million on an annualized basis is $1 billion?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The Minister of Finance on November 29 said we would reduce the grants for the next fiscal year by some $400 million, and so far as I know, that's the only announcement this government has made as it relates to grants for schools across the province.

Mr Wildman: But since they're already into this school year and they've got to adjust to your cut in grants in this fiscal year, which ends in December for the boards, they will have to find the $400 million in savings in four months, from September to December 1996, and take $400 million out in four months. What does that mean for the total year?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We've announced a $400-million withdrawal from the grants for the next fiscal year -- obviously speaking about the province's fiscal year; there is a different fiscal year for school boards. If school boards were to make all the reduction within a four-month period, recognizing that they don't have a 12-month cost base, it would result in a larger-than-$400million reduction in cost for their system. The exact number I don't know, but the speculation you've entered into today is consistent with the speculation others have entered into, which is somewhere in the $800-million range.

1640

Mr Wildman: Have you done any calculations in terms of the possible savings on preparation time? Is this number, on page 16, of $400 million within the realm of reality of what might be the saving accruing from the changes at the secondary and elementary panels?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Because there has a been a variety of reports, I'd ask Peter Wright to come forward again, if he would, and perhaps give us some of the numbers involved. I, like you, have been exposed to a variety of different estimates on what this might represent. What has been referred to now as "the document" contains a number, apparently, of $400 million. I have not yet read the document, but I'll take your word for that. I've also heard that prep time might represent across the system something closer to $1 billion, so I think Mr Wright's observations would be useful here.

Mr Wright: The numbers we're holding right now are numbers we have received from the school boards as a result of a costing framework established by the Working Group on Education Finance Reform. In that context, they had identified in terms of elementary education -- these I believe are 1994-95 numbers -- about $304 million in preparation time for elementary school.

Mr Wildman: That's total?

Mr Wright: Yes, that's total. You see, these are annualized numbers. For secondary school there was $296 million, in round numbers, and an additional $191 million for what you called on-call time. Those are the broad numbers we're using right now.

Mr Wildman: So in terms of cutting it in half at the secondary level and a 20% cut or whatever, in that neighbourhood, at the elementary level, does that proposal in rough calculations work out to about $400 million?

Mr Wright: A 20% cut at the elementary level would be about $60 million, and half of -- simplifying the numbers again -- would be $250 million, so it would be around $300 million, a shade over $310 million.

Mr Wildman: So you're saying $300 million perhaps.

Mr Wright: A little over $310 million, at least based on the numbers that we're holding now. There is likely some additional time for other teachers. This is strictly the classroom teacher here, and there are other teachers in the system who have prep time as well.

Mr Wildman: Since you're involved with the task group looking at administrative costs, trying to delineate what are administrative costs and what are classroom costs, how would you place prep time in that little equation? Is prep time administrative or is it classroom?

Mr Wright: At this point, our group has not come to a conclusion.

Mr Wildman: I can understand why.

Mr Wright: But there are arguments being made on both sides of that case, that it occurs outside the classroom and therefore should be called outside the classroom; and there are others who are arguing the other way around, obviously.

Mr Wildman: So if I do that extracurricular activity in the classroom, it's classroom education?

Mr Wright: I'm not going to wander down that road.

Mr Wildman: It is a little silly to do it on the basis of whether it's just inside the room as opposed to what it actually does.

Mr Wright: Well, the term is "classroom activity."

Mr Wildman: So if I have a chess club in my classroom, that's classroom education?

Mr Wright: No, these are normally referred to as during the school day, during the school time, and the chess club normally occurs outside the school day.

Mr Wildman: What if it happened when some students had a spare period? I'm not trying to be silly here. If you're saying it's outside the classroom, therefore it's not part of classroom education, the corollary is that if it's inside the classroom it is.

Mr Wright: What you're doing is going through some of the debate the Working Group on Education Finance Reform is going through.

Mr Wildman: I can imagine.

The Chair: The deputy would like to add some comments to that to maybe clarify some of your questions.

Mr Wildman: In other words, the government said it was going to protect classroom education without knowing what it is.

Mr Dicerni: That's not quite what I was about to say.

Mr Preston: I believe it was set up by your government.

Mr Wildman: We didn't make the commitment. You did.

Mr Dicerni: I was looking at some material recently put out by the local school board in my community, Peel, and it focused more on school costing versus classroom expenditures. Different jurisdictions measure explicitly what's in the classroom versus what's out of the classroom differently, and I don't believe there's any dogma explicitly associated with this.

I'm given to understand that Mr Sweeney's task force is going to look very much at establishing a typology, which may not be the definitive word on this, but they will make a stab at establishing a typology in terms of what is explicitly within the classroom, what is indirectly related to the classroom and what is focused much more on administrative support. That could be a good start to have some discussion as to what is in and what is out.

Some would argue that almost everything apart from the trustee's salary is related to the classroom. Others have made the point that the number should be only the teacher compensation with their pension. There's a certain value judgement associated with this, and the ministry will make its best attempt to come up with a number that is credible to all sides.

Mr Wildman: The point I'm making, and I appreciate the comments of the deputy and Mr Wright, is that the Conservative Party, the government, has made a commitment not to affect classroom education, when what we are learning from both members of the ministry staff is that at this point neither the ministry staff nor the boards have a definitive way of defining what is classroom education. How can you be held accountable in the way Mr Cordiano was attempting to hold you accountable? You don't know.

Can I ask another question? If you have --

Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps you'd like an answer to that first question before you go on to the next one.

Mr Wildman: Well, it was an observation.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It was put in the form of a question. Is it just an observation or would you like an answer to it?

Mr Wildman: It was an observation that you don't know what classroom education is. You're trying to work it out right now.

Hon Mr Snobelen: That I don't know or you don't know?

Mr Wildman: That the ministry doesn't know.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I see. You made another comment, or I thought it was a question, to the effect of, how would we then hold this minister to account? That is the question I dealt with a little earlier, and I'd like to reiterate some of the things I said at that time. I believe that ultimately the question of --

Mr Wildman: Excuse me, Mr Chair. Just for the sake of time, the minister doesn't need to reiterate. It's on the record and I've heard it and everyone else has heard it.

The Chair: You don't want an answer to that.

Mr Wildman: If it's the same answer and he's reiterating it, there's no need in that it's on the record.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sorry, but apparently there must be, because I know you were here when I made the answer a few moments ago and you've asked the same question again.

Mr Wildman: No. I was asking it in terms of how we determine that the government has met its commitment not to affect classroom education with these cuts. The point we have now is that at this stage at least -- hopefully, later it'll be changed -- we don't know what classroom education is. There are differences of opinion as to what should be included, and therefore at this stage we cannot hold you accountable.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I have talked about how it is we might be able to better measure the accountability of a government and --

Mr Wildman: And I heard that, but that doesn't respond to that concern.

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- of people in education, and I think it's important that we make those initiatives.

Mr Wildman: If we cut, in your terms, approximately $300 million out of the budget by savings on preparation time, how does that translate into teaching positions?

Mr Wright: First, $300 million, I believe, was the number you gave me in terms of some presumed cuts.

Mr Wildman: Right, and you were responding to that, but that came out of this ministry summary.

Mr Wright: Of what the school boards had suggested to us. I don't have numbers offhand in terms of the staff impact of those kinds of cuts. It would depend in part how a board went about doing them. You can do some simple arithmetic in terms of taking an average teacher's salary and dividing it into the amounts. My last recollection was the average teacher's salary is in the $50,000 to $60,000 range, so we can generate those numbers.

1650

Mr Wildman: Obviously -- at least I expect -- we're not eliminating class time so we can cut class sizes and put more teachers into classrooms and have smaller classes. What we're doing is we're eliminating preparation time and maintaining class sizes, so that means laying off teachers.

Mr Wright: No. What will happen, as I understand it, under this model is that the existence of preparation time means that a school board now has to hire teachers to cover the classroom while the classroom teacher is out on preparation time.

Mr Wildman: That's right. So if you have fewer preparation periods, you need fewer teachers.

Mr Wright: That's correct.

Mr Wildman: So you're laying off teachers.

Mr Wright: That is correct. Now, in terms of --

Mr Wildman: What I'm really asking is, does this translate into 10,000 jobs, 12,000 jobs -- what -- across the province?

Mr Wright: As far as I know, there has been no decision made in terms of the reductions.

Mr Cordiano: There must be another report somewhere.

Mr Wildman: You must have some calculations.

The Chair: The deputy wanted to comment. Do you want the deputy or do you want Mr Wright to proceed?

Mr Wildman: If anybody can clarify that, I'd appreciate it.

Mr Dicerni: First, just to be quite precise in terms of "us" laying off teachers --

Mr Wildman: The board laying off teachers.

Mr Dicerni: Thank you. Second --

Mr Wildman: Particularly if they're directed as this document proposes in terms of opening collective agreements on class sizes.

Mr Preston: Surely we're reviewing the fact again.

Mr Wildman: I said "if." I don't think "if" is a fact, but if you want to take it that way.

Mr Dicerni: Second, as the minister mentioned, a number of the suggestions in this document reflect input that has been made to the ministry -- and to the public, I would say; these are not confidential inputs that various trustees and school boards have put forth -- including looking at matters such as prep time in order to reduce the expenditure without directly reducing the amount of time spent in the classroom by teachers.

Mr Wildman: But it will certainly affect the classroom if it means less preparation.

Mr Dicerni: We have sought inputs from other bodies over and above school board trustees, including various teacher federations, formally and informally, and those have yet to come forth. There is a recognition by a number of people of the need to perhaps reduce expenditures. If the other individuals, institutions, groups wish to come forward with some specific suggestions, obviously one would look at those.

Finally, with regard to your specific question in terms of teachers and being laid off and so forth, a number of measures in that document would have to be analysed before one came down to a specific number, with regard to elementary-secondary, and there are some impacts with regard to some of the other measures. I think it would be quite speculative to identify a specific teacher impact based on just one measure.

Mr Wildman: Can't even get a range?

Hon Mr Snobelen: If I can be of any help here, a variety of different responses might be made to any indication that would have teachers be in the classroom, in direct contact with students, for a longer period of time every day. If that were the case -- and here we're being very speculative -- a variety of measures could be effected. Some of those would involve reductions in the number of teachers employed in the province, but some would not. It would be a function -- again in a very highly speculative way -- of what the response was to that initiative.

Mr Wildman: I accept that, but it seems to me that if you're talking, as the minister has, about teachers becoming and helping teachers to become more productive, if individual teachers are "more productive," you will need, unless you reduce class sizes, fewer teachers. Obviously, that means teacher layoffs. What we're really talking about in terms of saving through reducing prep time is that the saving is in teachers' salaries. That's the saving: It's laying off teachers. That may be something you want to do and it may be something the boards will do in response to what you will suggest to them as a tool for making their savings, so we will have fewer teachers.

To suggest that somehow this will not affect classrooms I think is not to be completely straight. I would think that we're talking here somewhere in the magnitude of between 10,000 and 15,000 teachers' jobs.

Hon Mr Snobelen: If I can respond, I know the member will find this analogy close to home in that I know he's had some experience with a number of layoffs in Hydro. I know you had some personal experience with that.

Mr Wildman: Actually, there were very few layoffs in Hydro; they were mostly early retirements.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Exactly the point. There is a request that's been made by some that we engage and have a look at a retirement package that might be useful to induce some people who are very close to retirement age to leave the system.

Mr Wildman: Quite frankly, I would welcome that.

Hon Mr Snobelen: That's one of the various tools that are available. There are other tools available. There are other ways of meeting this without massive layoffs. However, it's difficult, as the deputy said a moment ago, to speculate on these things, particularly in the absence of teachers or their federations from this process. Again, as I've said on several occasions today, I'd like to reiterate if I can that we invite and welcome participation of the teachers' federations in this deliberation, because these are very important issues.

Mr Wildman: I will come back next to the question of the student nutrition program when it comes around next time.

The Chair: On the Conservative side, is it Mr Preston, or who's going?

Mr Preston: I just have an observation, not really a question. I'll go back to the document. Apparently Mr Wildman only reads particular parts of this document, because he's quite right when he says it will be approximately 10,000 to 15,000 jobs. The document tells you about 13,000 teachers that will meet the window for early retirement, which you felt great about.

Mr Wildman: I don't think that's relevant to the context in which I was raising it. I was raising it in terms of the quality of education in the classroom. If you have fewer teachers, with less prep time, it's going to affect the quality of education in the classroom, and don't pretend it isn't going to, whether they're retired or laid off.

The Chair: Mr Wildman. Okay.

Mr Preston: Is it our turn? Thank you. The information in this document, as has been stated a number of times, is thrown out as a brainstorming session. Mr Wildman has said he hasn't turned it into fact. There's a letter inside this document I guess he didn't get to. He refers to a secret government document and said that we are going to do this, we are going to do this, we are going to do this. "This is an end to equal public education for all. The Tories are going to cut down on teacher preparation time."

Mr Wildman: And you're not going to?

Mr Preston: We have not said at this point whether we are going to or whether we are not. This document has things that have been sent to us by other groups for study. For Mr Wildman to turn them into fact and then have them published is just leading the public astray again.

Mr Wildman: Well, then you might --

The Chair: Mr Wildman, please. Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: On page 26 of this document, there is a list of --

The Chair: What document are you referring to? Oh, the estimates briefing book, okay.

Mr Sheehan: Is that a document?

The Chair: There are so many documents flying around here, officially, officially and all that. He's talking about the estimates briefing book. Okay.

Mr Sheehan: Is it a briefing book? All right. There's a whole long list of offices, committees, program units, initiative programs, grant teams, service teams, technology teams, commissions etc. There seems to be, if I'm reading it correctly, on page 27 an awful lot of money devoted to those whatevers. Have you analysed, or do you intend to analyse, these as to their objectives and as to whether or not they're achieving their objectives and whether or not the benefit we derive anywhere approximates the cost?

1700

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's not surprising to find that in the education community we would have a large number of agencies, boards and commissions reporting to the ministry and helping the ministry do its job. If you look in areas like special needs education there's obviously a need for involvement from the public.

Consistent with this government's mandate, its clear intentions and the directions that have been given by this government, we have undergone a review of our agencies, boards and commissions through the Management Board process and are actively engaged in that conversation right now. These agencies, boards and commissions need to be reviewed, in my view, on a one-by-one basis to make sure that we are receiving good input from them and make sure that that input makes a difference in the education of children in the province, and we are doing that now.

Mr Sheehan: When I look at the title on some of these they don't seem to be agencies, boards or commissions, they seem to be project teams, information service teams, operating grant teams, initiative project teams, service coordinating units. You have a lot of high-price talent in your ministry, are they not able to do this without developing all these teams?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Those are also high-value teams sometimes. I think the reference is perhaps to the normal operating functions inside of the ministry and perhaps the deputy minister would like to make comment.

Mr Dicerni: You're referring to the various teams that were --

Mr Sheehan: Paid, yes.

Mr Dicerni: To put it into context, the ministry's budget is about $9 billion. The ministry's operating budget to run is about 1.5% or 1.6% of that total. It works out to about $150 million. About $50 million of those millions is dedicated to funding, supporting the provincial schools for the deaf and the blind and so forth.

Mr Sheehan: That's not in that book I was looking at.

Mr Dicerni: I'm just breaking it down in terms of this. What it comes down to, I would say providing advice, guidance, administrating school boards is worth about $50 million of the total number.

Now in terms of the technology team, which I believe is the one you were referring to --

Mr Sheehan: There was a whole whack of them. Just a minute. On page 26 there's a whole list of them and they run into your --

Interjection.

Mr Sheehan: Yes, I understand that, but the details on what they're about run about 20 pages.

Mr Dicerni: Right.

Mr Sheehan: They seem to be listed in summary on page 26.

Mr Dicerni: The typology that you see on page 26 is unique to the Ministry of Education and Training. In most other places they would call these directorates, branches and so forth. "Teams" conveys perhaps a certain pickup and arrangement of a certain number of people to work together for a brief period of time. But what you have there is the straight delivery of programs, services that the ministry does, and staff is here to provide additional information on any specific one that you would like to --

Mr Sheehan: Let's take the school boards restructuring initiatives project team.

Mr Dicerni: That team is composed of about five or six persons. It is the one that is working closely with Mr Sweeney who has very limited overhead in terms of analysing the feedback that we're getting from the public, MPPs and so forth, doing some of the staff work for Mr Sweeney and his task force in terms of which school boards should be optimally merged with others and so forth.

Mr Sheehan: Are they all like that?

Mr Dicerni: Some have more than others. Capital and operating grants team is about 50 people. Those are the individuals who do all the GLGs, allocation formulas for all the school boards across the province. They also do the numbers for all the community colleges as well as the universities, in terms of figuring out, out of that $9 billion, who gets how much based on enrolment and those types so --

Mr Sheehan: Thank you. I'm going to ask a few more, if I may.

I'm going to read from a letter from a friend of mine who is a lawyer and who is a school trustee and negotiator. He has some observations and I would like it if you could give me some direction where you're headed.

He says, "Currently the Education Act deals with teacher's illness absences by entitling each teacher in Ontario up to 20 days per year sick leave with pay." That has migrated through to the piece where now they have retirement gratuities, I believe they call it. In the local board, in 1994 they "laid off approximately 10 educational assistants, $15,000 per annum, to save $160,000 while paying out approximately $180,000 in retirement gratuities and incentives to four retiring teachers. Several arbitrators have held the accumulated sick leave/gratuity mechanism is outdated and should be replaced with straight weekly indemnity insurance. However, the teachers' unions are adamant in resisting reforms in this area."

"The Education Act should be amended to delete the 20-day sick leave provision and replace it with standard weekly indemnity provision."

Are you contemplating such changes in the Education Act?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We've been asked by the boards to have a look at doing what's legislatively known as grandfathering the rights or the privileges of retirement gratuity which would have the effect of freezing, if you will, retirement gratuities at levels that have been earned to date by teachers.

I'm told that off balance sheet the boards across the province have a commitment, a liability, in terms of sick leave gratuity that is estimated at $1 billion. It's an extraordinary amount of money that is off balance sheet, as I say; it doesn't show up. So it does incur a cost to boards when they have people leave, obviously.

There are suggestions by many in the community that this was a package that was put together at a different time when compensation levels were different. We are considering what might be an appropriate response to that request from the boards. It's part of the considerations we're doing now.

Mr Sheehan: I can tell you the Niagara Falls board, the Niagara south board cost last year was $5.4 million in that area alone. It is no longer performing according to the original design.

Hon Mr Snobelen: In the matter of the amount of sick leave time that's allowed, it's 20 days per year that's been quoted. It's interesting to remember that we're talking about a 185-day year in most cases; many people have pointed out this is an extraordinary amount of time versus other similar organizations. It's interesting to note that nowhere near that level is actually taken by teachers on average in the system. The average uptake would probably range from five to eight days. That would be a fairly normal range from board to board; it varies. So it's interesting to note that these 20 days, although it has an obvious impact on sick leave gratuities, are not taken up by the average teacher in the system.

Mr Sheehan: Notwithstanding that, five point something days on average is probably above average in a commercial sense. It's an entitlement that they seem to speak of and it's in your legislation, so I would suggest perhaps we should be looking at changing the legislation.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, it's been one of the requests --

Mr Sheehan: Please. The next one we're talking about here is the salary grid system. It runs from 10 to 12 years. I guess the long and the short of it is there can be a substantial difference between the high and the low, but after three to four years you have teachers who are effectively being paid substantially less money to do the same work. Once again, my friend suggested this is involved in Bill 100. Are you contemplating changing and compressing that grid?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We haven't been asked to. It hasn't been a suggestion made to us by boards. The grid represents a negotiated curve in income board by board. The suggestion is well taken. If you look at the uptake, though, of young people who are trying to enter the profession, although the first level of the grid can represent half of what a mature teacher might be paid, it's interesting to note that there remains a considerable demand to get into the teaching profession, that again the uptake -- although there are different estimates on how much the uptake might be, anywhere from 20 to 25% of people who are eligible to become teachers actually land a job currently. But there's obviously a huge number of people who want to enter the profession, and they're conscious of the fact that there is a grid system in place, so that might argue for the effectiveness. Again, it's a thing that's negotiated on a board-by-board basis.

1710

Mr Sheehan: Could I suggest, since the bulk of the education costs wound up in the personnel end of it, that a compression of the grid would have a long-term consequence which might bring teachers' salaries back down under the stratosphere?

Mr Wildman: You don't want to bring them down but up.

Mr Sheehan: It's been compressed up for long enough.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Although the compensation for teachers is a package that you have to examine on a board-by-board basis, there are commonalities among boards in Ontario. If you look at the compensation packages that have been designed and you look at the total packages, you'll find that the teachers in Ontario are compensated at rates that are certainly generous vis-à-vis other provinces in Canada. If you look at global standards, they're harder to measure, but they are generous by those accounts.

I believe, though, that the suggestions we've had made so far by the boards and others are looking at ways of taking teachers who are very professional and who earn high rates of compensation and making sure that their time is used to the best avail, and that is with children, with young people in the classroom. That has generally been the request we've had from boards. We have not entertained a request to do what other provinces have done, and that is to roll back wages unilaterally. That hasn't been a request that has been made of us so far.

Mr Sheehan: I would like to suggest that perhaps that grid system's been around so long there's nobody in this room can remember when it went in place, except myself and I wasn't conscious of it at the time. I have to suggest that since we are looking at trying to change this and deliver more value and more resources into the classroom, we should be actively pursuing this, particularly since we control the issue, ie, the bill. Perhaps a compressed grid system, and then that does not preclude boards from recognizing merit and paying exceptional teachers above and beyond the grid if that is warranted. But just to pay everybody on the chance you might miss somebody seems a little bit of a bizarre way of running a business.

The next thing I'd like to ask you about is the Bill 100 requirement that boards lock out to enforce their positions. The letter says:

"Boards are very reluctant to do this because they get extreme pressure from parents, and if they lock out they lose provincial grants (therefore why do it?). No board in the Niagara region has ever locked out its teachers and this is true of the vast majority of boards in Ontario despite the fact that teachers' salaries doubled between 1980 and 1990" during two recessions.

"Teachers will work to rule, collect full pay, but do no extracurricular activities. This leads to parent pressure on the trustees and no pressure on the teachers because they get full pay. Since boards are not prepared to lock out, capitulation is the only alternative. Bill 100 should be modified to require boards to lock out in the event of a work-to-rule."

He goes on to say that, in his professional opinion, "this will have an immediate and dramatic effect on the board's ability to control its teacher costs...and will eliminate work-to-rules overnight in all but two or three boards that have poor relationships with their teachers." Is that a possibility or has it entered your thought processes?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We are now, of course, working on a toolkit in response to suggestions that have been made throughout the education community, and that toolkit has to do with reducing the cost of other classroom expenses in the system. There have been individuals who have suggested, not in connection with this exercise, what the writer of that letter has suggested, which is that Bill 100 needs to be reformed. I have not taken a position on that. I am interested in what people observe. I am, though, very conscious of what parents have to say whenever a job action happens in the education sector.

The author of the letter obviously refers to what might happen to teachers or bargaining units in these situations, or boards or the ministry. But most important, I think, is that the young people, students lose out in these actions, and I think what we need to do is to avoid lockouts or work-to-rules or strikes. We need to do what we can to avoid those circumstances because everyone's a loser.

I think teachers are also hurt in work-to-rule situations. I know a variety of teachers who have been through the exercise. They find it enormously frustrating. Nothing is more frustrating to someone who is involved, for instance, in physical education than to not be allowed to coach a team, not be allowed to pursue those activities which they find very rewarding and very important to young people.

I think work-to-rules or lockouts or strikes don't work for anyone, don't achieve the objectives of anyone in the system, and we'll do what we can do as a government, and I'm sure other people involved in education will do what they can, to avoid those sorts of circumstances that hurt people.

Mr Sheehan: We're going through it right now in the peninsula, because they're coming up to the finals on their basketball list and their other competitions and they're all going into their theatrical competitions and they're now working to rule, and I'm sure the teachers are frustrated. They've worked hard to get their students and their teams to high form and a really good competitive edge.

But this situation we have is a confrontational, negotiated deal, and I would suggest to you that the school boards have one hand behind their back, rather securely tied, and that, notwithstanding the emotional trauma the teachers are experiencing because of their inability to go through all this stuff, none the less they're getting paid and we are in a bad position because we haven't given the management the tools they need to deal with the situation. Can you comment on that a bit?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think ultimately you're correct. The young people are the losers in the structure, although I'm not so sure that everyone's not a loser in the final analysis. It seems to me that we have a system now that from time to time -- although there's usually some harmony in the system in terms of the number of work interruptions in the education sector. There have not been a number of them. They're fairly limited, considering the number of negotiations that happen around the province.

However, that said, when there is a lockout, when there is a work-to-rule, when there is a strike, it's enormously disruptive. One of my first acts as a minister was to meet with a parents' group that was facing those sorts of circumstances who had been through a work-to-rule, who were facing a strike possibility, and their request was simple: They wanted their children educated. They're taxpayers, and they thought we should find a system or find a way of being able to have all of the normal, sometimes very confrontational discussions between employee groups and employers and all of that normal friction that should be there -- is there in most systems -- in a manner that doesn't harm children, and I for one am willing to pursue any suggestions in that regard.

It's very critical that we do what we can to protect young people, and I want to say this one more time because I think it is important: The classroom teachers I've talked to who have been through work-to-rules, who have been through strikes, are as frustrated as the parents, in my view. The system currently allows for situations that don't seem to work for anyone.

Mr Sheehan: I'll offer you one more observation. Since we are under the financial constraints that we're experiencing now, the option that has been available to schools in the past, namely, to accede to the demands because they were unable to negotiate on equal turf, has been, "Raise the taxes, to hell with the taxpayers, and stick it." Now that we've said to them we're out of money, we have a serious problem in debt, are you thinking about giving them some weapons, either that or changing the legislation so they can't be beaten over the head continuously?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I would consider any suggestions that might help improve labour relations in this sector, but I think there is a growing awareness in this province of the fact that the taxpayer, at all levels, for all services, is done, that we have reached the tax ceiling, that people are contributing as much as they can, that people who work hard and pay their taxes and try to raise their families in this province are contributing as much in tax dollars as they possibly can. They're frustrated with the level of taxation; in fact, it needs to come down.

I believe there is an awareness of this at all government levels, provincially, locally, schools boards and others, but I believe there is also a growing awareness of that in people who do public service work, that we have to find ways to be more effective and more efficient and that we have to be conscious of the fact that the taxpayer cannot tolerate endless skyrocketing cost increases that exceed the rate of inflation by multiples. I believe that awareness of the sector will lead to a process that'll have us get the kind of more affordable, more accountable system we're all looking for without the use of job actions that hurt kids.

1720

Mr Sheehan: One last question: In the peninsula, and I don't know what's happening in other areas, there was just an enormous competition. We've talked, and Mr Patten talked earlier, about the adult education level. They run enormously expensive ads. They are marketing themselves in a very professional way, and I have to suggest that they're probably getting professional advice on how they market their expertise. The public boards in the peninsula are throwing money and technology, and I think the only thing the separate schools have to offer is cheap transportation or some blamed thing.

I have had, and this is a personal complaint issue to me, last Thursday, where a woman wanted to take adult education on the computer and was badgered to register for three courses. The only thing that kept her out of it is her husband was a little better informed than most and just kept steeling her to say no. But there was the pressure she had to take three courses, which might have something to do with getting up to that $5,500 grant level, and all she wanted to take was a computer course. Are you doing anything to discourage this kind of activity or discourage this type of unhealthy competition, because they're making fools of the taxpayer?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm normally a person who encourages competition in all aspects of life.

Mr Sheehan: I love competition but this is really boneheaded.

Hon Mr Snobelen: In almost all aspects of life. I think the changes in the grants available for adult education will have boards looking for more affordable ways to present those services and I believe will probably do much to end the circumstances you describe.

Mr Sheehan: But they are trying to subvert what you're trying to do by forcing these people to register on three courses, which I understand will elevate this person to a full-time student, when all the lady wants to do is take a computer course.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes. I believe --

Mr Sheehan: It's costing five grand.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe our funding mechanisms now will be more --

Mr Sheehan: You're addressing that kind of thing?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, I think the announcements made by the Finance minister will have a lot to do with addressing those issues.

The Chair: Perhaps you want to move on.

Mr Patten: I'll take half the time and share it with my colleague Mr Cleary.

Minister, you mentioned that if there were ways in which we could find some alternative or a variety of ways -- I can appreciate your view of the ministry receiving suggestions and gathering them and putting a variety of suggestions together. That's normal procedure and probably good management. You have said, "All those things are on the table, and it remains to be seen which ones fall off the table and which ones continue."

But here's a perspective: I will prophesy that the $400 million for this year, which will probably be more for the following year, will be over a billion dollars in the final analysis. In attempting to scrutinize, as I should, the representations made to me as to why this would not be good, and I believe there are some savings in the system to be made, at least some efficiencies, and given the priority of education, especially with -- it is probably universal that the polls will tell you, and individuals and parents, and while we have in the area in which I live in Ottawa-Carleton tremendous concerns about hospital restructuring, the highest single areas of representation I have had have been related to educational issues, junior kindergarten, probably within that whole frame.

I don't believe it's necessary to cut to the extent that you're cutting. I have a suggestion for you and I'd ask that you consider this and your colleagues consider it, and it's this. It has to do with the proportion of the tax break, and I know your Premier has said -- I guess he's my Premier, too, eh?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know he feels that way.

Mr Patten: The Premier has said that this is a fixed and firm commitment, although I gather there was some flexibility on how it might more progressively be applied. But if it is applied on the basis on which the Common Sense Revolution pamphlet described it, it would mean that $2 billion will go to the 13% of the labour market that earns over $85,000 a year. So there's $2 billion. Maybe that's too much. So you say, "What if we thought of, rather than a $5-billion price tag" -- and I think the people of Ontario would forgive the Premier if he changed this -- "we have $1 billion," which would probably affect, I don't know, 3% to 5%, maybe less, of income earners in this province and that would probably be in the salary range of $250,000 to $300,000 at least, because it doesn't take too many people to start adding up the kinds of receipts of X amount of dollars.

I figure that we would be saying that we will give a tax break to somewhere between maybe 95% to 97% of the people, but the last 3%, they could probably manage without it, and seeing that the original stated objective was that this was going to stimulate the economy, we know that it's the lower end that would spend money very quickly and that would have a stimulus.

People in those brackets, what might they use it for? A trip somewhere else, spending it in Florida or the Bahamas or foreign investment or whatever. I offer that as a possibility, whether you might consider taking that to cabinet and asking your colleagues if that were a possibility.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me say that I believe there is certainly a need to reduce costs to reduce government spending and that education is part of that, but as I said a little earlier, I believe this is a system that requires continuous improvement. I would not recommend to this government or to any government that we reduce spending in education that results in a lower quality of education. I think that would not be a useful exercise. I think it would be inconsistent with the intentions of the people of Ontario, and I'm not surprised to find the polls would indicate what I think most of us would know by knowing our neighbours, and that is that the people of Ontario are not willing to tolerate a lower quality of education for a reduced cost, and they would most certainly forgo -- they would in fact pay more taxes if it was absolutely necessary to maintain the quality of education. It is not.

By any of the measures and benchmarks that we can see, we can reduce the out-of-classroom expenditures in our system and effect reductions and take responsibility as an education community and as educators for doing our part to reduce the provincial deficit and maintain the quality of education. I think that's something educators believe they should do, that they believe they are responsible for the futures of young people who are in our charge.

That is not connected to the tax reduction in some form of promise. The tax reduction is a necessary tool for economic renewal in this province. I believe that the bulk of any tax reduction is going to go to the people who pay the bulk of taxes, and the bulk of taxes in this province are paid, not surprisingly, by the middle class, by the people who work hard, pay their taxes, raise their families. They are the people to whom the vast majority of any tax reduction will go, because they're taxpayers.

I believe that if we were to maintain the extraordinarily high levels of taxation across the tax spectrum that we have, we will continue to have tax revenue leakage from two sources: one, an expanding grey market, and surely our provincial taxes are part of that expanding grey market, and two, the exodus of capital from Ontario, and often the exodus of people with capital from Ontario.

That's unfortunate in both cases, and we need to retain the capital from an investment point of view, but also the people: the people who've made those investments, the people who are part of the growing industries. I think we need to retain them. So I believe the reduction of taxes that we have suggested in the Common Sense Revolution and that we're committed to is part of an economic strategy and part of a very sound economic strategy.

1730

Mr Patten: I guess we disagree. There is a way in which you, without the tax break, tax rebate, can take the resources that you're identifying in terms of efficiencies and roll them back into the system, on the basis on which you suggest, and that is to increase the quality of education because of the priority, an increasing priority, of maintaining the nature of our economy as we face the future.

I'll leave that for the moment. I have numerous questions, but I would like to ask you this: Have there yet been discussions with the Toronto, Metro and Ottawa school boards re their participation in the requests of sharing in finding those kinds of cuts that you're looking for?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll allow the deputy minister a comment here, but in addition to the so-called negative grant boards, the Finance minister made a commitment in his statement of November 29 which we intend to be held to account for, and that is that our reductions in spending would be equitable. Part of that has been of course an approach to all of the school boards in the province, including so-called negative grant boards.

Mr Dicerni: In terms of Toronto and Ottawa, there have been a number of discussions with the Metro school boards regarding their, I would say, participation in this expenditure reduction effort. With the Ottawa board there have not been as many, I would say, discussions, for a couple of reasons. One is that they recently went through a change of senior personnel. Their director of education advised us as we were discussing these matters with him in December that he would be leaving and it would be more fruitful to engage in discussions with his successor, who came on board in early January. I met, as a matter of fact, with her just last week to pursue discussions. I intend to do so also later this week.

Mr Patten: Good. I'm glad you began that process, because they have to plan as well.

There was a point made -- I forget. One of the members from the government side was comparing one school board with another. My friends from Toronto will probably want to frame this, in that I'm going to be saying something nice about the Toronto-Metro community in terms of education.

One reason for that is of course any inner-city board or downtown board or mainly urban board in Ontario is facing similar costs, and likewise, in making comparisons with other provinces or other nations, you're often comparing apples with oranges and not necessarily comparing the same thing.

It seems to me that there needs to be an appreciation, in some of the inner boards, that the racial, ethnic and linguistic diversity of the students adds responsibility in helping those youngsters to be able to continue with the curriculum, to grow and learn as quickly as possible, which means extra skilled staff to help with linguistic training as quickly as possible etc. Of course the commitment and the number of individuals with special needs tends to move towards the oldest boards that have had a chance to reflect these. These are the boards probably with the oldest facilities, which gives them increased retrofitting costs, replacement costs etc.

I just want to point out that while I agree that there should be some equity across the board, and once that's established then there may be and I believe that there are justifications for considerations to provide equality and to provide equal education with some unequal granting because of various differentials that are justifiable. I just wanted to make that point. Minister, you might want to respond to that.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The point is well taken. There are variables across Ontario that would have one board be slightly different in costs than others. English-as-a-second-language programs are one of those, and they affect the entire GTA probably more than they do other areas of the province, including -- I'd be remiss if I didn't point out -- Peel and Dufferin-Peel. However, there are other costs that mitigate. One of the things that the ed finance reform working group is looking at and one of the reasons why I believe their report is so important is they will quantify those different costs from different boards and be able to address this very scientifically.

I should also point out that I believe there is one taxpayer, and I believe that federally and provincially and municipally and according to boards. That said, I think that it is time, when we have communities that absorb the cost impact of immigration to this country -- immigration is good for this country; it's shared across the country, it's shared across the province, but the costs are not so evenly distributed. It's something I have talked to my local federal member about, with perhaps the federal government recognizing the very particular needs, financially, of communities here in the GTA that absorb a tremendous amount of the costs of those initial immigration patterns, and perhaps some federal help is necessary to have that be more equitable.

Mr Patten: Thank you. One last question, and then I'll pass it over to Mr Cleary. In recalling the way in which the interpretation of requested cutbacks from municipalities took place, municipalities didn't say very much at the time. They said a little bit more later on when they found out that the cut that they thought might be 9% or 18% was all of a sudden much higher because it was applied in a different manner and not an across-the-board percentage. I think you know what I mean. Certain counties or municipalities had relied more heavily on grants from the province. To try and provide some equitable percentages, the ones that provided less had to make a greater contribution.

My question to you is, in the request for finding $400 million, will that be a percentage or will it be based upon the percentage of funding? Will it take into consideration the percentage of funding that comes from the province in supporting the school board?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The reductions in grant will happen in a way -- and I should say, in a matter this complex, it's likely that there will have to be some redress available because I don't know that we'll be perfect in the approach. But our intention in the matter is to make sure that we do this equitably, and by that we mean not disturbing the current relationship of the boards and provincial funding. You'll appreciate that's not a simple task.

I think the people who have served this province from all three parties in the past have attempted to do this as equitably as possible, and I think we've ended up with a system where there's questionable equity in some cases. So it's not a function of will but really it's a difficult process.

We intend to do that, but affordability, this exercise in reducing the costs of education outside of the classroom that we are now proceeding through, is not the final exercise in this ministry regarding equity. We think that the Working Group on Education Finance Reform report will be another opportunity, as is the Golden report and hopefully the Sweeney report. We believe that there are many other measures coming, but we hope not to make the system worse by this process.

1740

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I would like to mention a few things to the minister. Maybe you remember last fall you had an interview with the university students from York University. The one young lady who interviewed you was majoring in environmental science, I believe. She happens to come from our part of eastern Ontario. Her name is Kim Fry, whom I've known for some time now. She published in Lexicon -- I think that's the name of their paper -- some remarks from your interview. I was just wondering if you'd had an opportunity to read the article resulting from the interview, because I want to quote a few things from it.

Hon Mr Snobelen: No, I haven't.

Mr Cleary: But you probably remember the interview.

Hon Mr Snobelen: To be honest with you, vaguely, but I'm sure this will tickle the memories.

Mr Cleary: Anyway, you told Kim -- and my apologies if I misquote -- that there isn't such a thing as free anything, including free education. I wouldn't even ask if that was the beginning of your idea to charge everything, both in and outside the classrooms, but in that interview, you went on to say something about post-secondary education being élitist in terms of prior learning and maybe even economic terms. Again, my apologies if I'm not quoting you exactly.

Then you went on to say that OSAP didn't seem "very user-friendly to me." So you admitted university is expensive, it's definitely not accessible to everyone and there's not a lot of public help for students. In my riding, few students may rely on their parents for the funding for post-secondary education.

May I ask what you say, as Education minister, to graduating high school students who have the capacity and desire to attend university but just can't afford it? I can go on a little bit further.

You made two other comments about university that caught my attention. You said people should remember that university is never out of sight and you said it looks as if people will be picking up their accreditation in smaller, more bite-sized, more affordable chunks in the course of a lifetime, instead of this sort of rite-of-passage method.

I hope you don't consider me to be too personal, but I'm trying to get a sense of your perception and values. Are you currently enrolled in any secondary or post-secondary courses or do you see yourself ever jumping into the classroom as a student?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me go through all of what you've said. I'll answer the last question first and try to work my way back, and you can test my memory.

No, I am not currently enrolled in a course of formal study at a university in Ontario or otherwise. Yes, I have always assumed that I would be at some point, and I am looking forward to that time.

The comments about the change in accreditation methods: There has been much speculation by people in the university community about how accreditations might be provided in the future in a way that's more user-friendly. There's been a variety of studies in this regard and a variety of conversations at universities about this, as universities struggle with how they will provide accreditations in the future, particularly in fields where the available knowledge in some fields is accelerating at a pace that outstrips the ability to teach it.

There are real questions about what accreditation models will be used, particularly in those fast-moving fields. It's an ongoing deliberation that's happening inside the university community; it's part of why universities are dynamic and ever-changing, and should be, and I think what emerges from that time will be very interesting and very useful for people.

I think we will see there are very few people who doubt that we will see the current generation involved with their university perhaps on a lifetime basis, or if not, at least on several occasions over the course of their lives. That seems to be a prediction that most people who have studied the field are making and it's one for which there is some evidence. I do believe that most of the people who attend university currently, and most of the students who I've talked to at universities, undergrads and graduate students, expect that there will be some economic success in their lives -- however important or not important that might be -- as a result of their participation in post-secondary education.

They expect to become part of the taxpaying base of Ontario and so they recognize that they will be paying for their education one way or another, be it through student loans or an income contingent loans package, or through the tax system ongoingly, as earners and taxpayers in the province.

Many students are concerned about the amount of debt that they currently have, not just from their loans, but the debt of $100 billion, of course, that in the province they will inherit, and that debt obviously grows every day and they feel helpless in the face of that mountain of debt in front of them. I believe it's important for us to acknowledge the fact that we will be preparing to hand that debt over to another generation if we don't tackle it ourselves.

Universities are, of course, élitist. They are designed to be élitist. Our job in the discussion paper with universities is to talk about how we can make sure that élitism is predicated on ability and desire and not financial circumstance. That's why I believe it is time to look at OSAP, to make improvements, and that's why I'm committed to an income contingent loans package that will be more useful for students. It's necessary for the future of the province that people have an opportunity to participate in post-secondary if they have the ability and if that's a desire of theirs.

Mr Cleary: There's one thing in our part of eastern Ontario: We've been hit pretty hard since 1989 with plant closures, and earlier you mentioned tradesmen. We've had a number of tradesmen, as I would call them, in those plants, but anyway the plant closed. They lost their jobs. They did their jobs well, and being that they were not grandfathered in their trade, like their grandfathering clause, they found themselves other jobs in other locations. The company is 100% satisfied with them but they have to write tests that they can't pass. I was wondering if you would be looking at that, being you were mentioning trades.

Hon Mr Snobelen: We are looking at the overall training programs and training deliveries including the apprenticeship programs and other trade recognitions in the province. Joan Andrew might be very useful in this conversation and perhaps she has an observation that would be useful here.

I want to point out, though, before Joan has an opportunity to describe the review process and what we're looking at, that I have had personal experience with people who have faced that sort of dilemma and I have a great deal of empathy for those people who are trapped in that cycle. I of course know a great number of tradesmen who are, I believe, excellent, add a lot of value to the province, are important to us, and yet who, for a variety of reasons that don't seem very important to me, are not allowed the accreditation they deserve. I have a great deal of empathy for that.

Mr Cleary: All parties have got to work to help them because they'll use up their savings and then they'll be a burden.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes.

Ms Andrew: I think the question referred to the academic exam that's part of the apprenticeship program, because there are both practical and academic exams. OTAB has been doing some work over the last couple of years about different ways of taking an exam so that if people aren't used to printed exams or aren't used to exams within a certain time frame they can try different options.

I think the long-term solution about this will come as a part of a bigger reform exercise of the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act because right now the act, as written, requires the exams for the people to get their papers. There's not a short-term solution to the issue of not taking academic exams for apprenticeship qualification, but there will be as we move forward to reform the apprenticeship system overall.

1750

Mr Cleary: You had mentioned all this, but these people are 50 to 55 years old, they only have 10 years left, and the managers of those companies are after me. They think that something can be done because it had been done in the early 1980s when your former Tory government brought in the grandfathering clause.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm very empathetic to that plight and I think they'll find all of us empathetic to that and willing to work to whatever we need to do to have the accreditation work for those people. I have also heard from a variety of people who believe that the apprenticeship programs we have don't fully take into account their prior learning, don't take into account perhaps the skills they have and also don't use their time as well as we might expect. In fact, they find some of the apprenticeship programs and the mandatory education parts of them to be not useful to them on the job, so that's something we need to keep in mind and have a look at. We don't want to waste people's time either.

Mr Cleary: I would hope you would continue to review that and come up with some type of solution, because I think it's very important where I live. They're good people and they can do their jobs just as well as university graduates. The company has agreed to hire them, and not many companies want to hire anybody when they're 50 or 55.

Minister, in the Bill 26 hearings I ran into a lot of problems in our area with the secondary school teachers' federation -- it's district 21 -- who had tried everything humanly possible to make their presentation. They had travelled to Ottawa, they had travelled to Kingston, they had written their letters, they had faxed, they had telephoned, and this particular incident was led by John McEwen. As minister, how do you feel about those teachers and organizations being shut out of the hearings altogether?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I will have to have this be a third-party experience since I did not participate in the deliberations on Bill 26, but my understanding is that there were representations by teachers and other professionals across the province to those committees and that their position was taken into account. As I'm sure you're aware, the position of teachers regarding Bill 26 had mostly to do with interest arbitration, which is a situation that doesn't occur on a forced basis except by order of the Legislature, in any event.

I've said this before, and I am very disturbed that we have not been able to have a more fulsome conversation between the teachers' federations and this government to address the very serious needs. I have made myself available for those meetings in the past; I will in the future. I think it's time now that we had a chance for those federations and this government to get together.

I understand the frustration of a school teacher, an in-class teacher who is paying taxes to this government and paying dues to a federation and who is not being represented properly, or at least properly in their view. I understand the frustration of those people, so I will do everything I can to encourage communication between the federations and this government.

Mr Cleary: One other thing that you had mentioned today in your remarks was about the 10 years of mismanagement -- you referred to that a number of times -- that got us into this problem that we have now. I just want to tell you that I find that very difficult to take, because my dad was a school board member for 26 years and there were lots of problems, and neither of the opposition parties happened to be in power at that time.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I stand to be corrected and to look at the transcript, but I don't know that I -- I agreed with your colleagues and my colleagues that rhetoric doesn't usually get us to anyplace we need to go. I don't normally participate in that, and if I have today, I certainly don't want to indicate that the people who have served this province under any of the three parties have done so with ill will.

Mr Cleary: No, I think you're going to accomplish a lot more if everyone works together.

The other thing I wanted to mention here: How is workfare going to affect your ministry?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We have had preliminary conversations with my colleague in Community and Social Services, because there is certainly a correlation between the training programs offered in the province and the educational opportunities offered in the province.

There is a level of cooperation that's necessary between these two ministries, obviously, in order to make the opportunities available for people on social assistance. That level of cooperation has always been important between Community and Social Services and Education, and I hope that our efforts over the next few months will enhance that relationship and not harm it. That's the indication at this stage.

There will be, obviously, what's been called trainfare, as a component of workfare. It's really an effort to make sure that the people who are on social assistance have an opportunity to get off it, because I believe, and I'm sure you agree, that the people who are in that system want to be out of it; they want to be contributors and not takers from the system, particularly those people who are single employables.

Mr Wildman: What's the train fare between here and Cornwall?

The Chair: What's the fare? We'll wrap up today. There are approximately four and a half hours left of estimates time for the ministry. That'll exceed the lunchtime. Perhaps I could get some agreement, just in general, that we could finish off estimates for this ministry by 12 o'clock, which will cut our time less than the four and a half hours, so Comsoc will start immediately at 1:30. If not, Community and Social Services will have to start a little bit later.

Mr Wildman: How many hours do we have left?

The Chair: We have about four and a half hours -- four hours and 29 minutes. From 9 o'clock till 12 tomorrow is about three hours. If we don't have agreement, that's fine; I just generally throw that out.

Mr Wildman: I would just say at the outset I don't have any particular disagreement with it, but from my standpoint I haven't dealt with colleges and universities. I was anticipating that I might do that tomorrow. If I'd known we were going to cut it back, I might have --

The Chair: Let me put it this way to you: Give it a thought and tomorrow we can talk about it. I'm not at all telling you to do that; I'm just saying that's what we have.

Mr Wildman: I understand.

The Chair: Thank you. We stand recessed until 9 o'clock tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1758.