Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Wednesday 25 September 1996

Ministry of Education and Training

Hon John Snobelen

Mr Peter Wright

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

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

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

*Mr TobyBarrrett (Norfolk PC)

Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Mr JimBrown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

*Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

*Mr TonyClement (Brampton South / -Sud PC)

Mr JosephCordiano (Lawrence L)

*Mr AlvinCurling (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

*Mr MorleyKells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

*Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)

Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)

*Mr WayneWettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

*In attendance /présents

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND) for Mr Bisson

Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre L) for Mr Cordiano

Mr HowardHampton (Rainy River ND) for Mr Martin

Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington Ind) for Mrs Ross

Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC) for Mr Sheehan

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Todd Decker

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

The committee met at 1534 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): We resume the estimates for the Ministry of Education and Training. We have in total three hours and 50 minutes of the time left. Welcome back to you all to this wonderful, exciting place of Parliament and committees. When we were here last, I think the government had the last interaction. We will now go to the Liberals for their time.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Minister, you may recall that in your boardroom at 9 am on June 12 we met to review some of the incidents that were facing the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry catholic school board. You also had in attendance your capital and operating grants director, Drew Nameth, and your special assistant, Sara Sterling, and my executive assistant. We went over some of the issues that were facing the residents of eastern Ontario in the education system. We had tried many times to get a meeting that you agreed to in place, and we could not get by your scheduling people, and that didn't happen. So I'm going to read you a letter:

"We understand that you will be visiting the city of Cornwall on October 7, 1996 as a guest of the Cornwall Chamber of Commerce and we would like to take opportunity of this event to invite you to meet with the chairpersons and directors of education of both the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry County Board of Education and the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry County RCSS Board.

"The purpose of this meeting would be to discuss matters of mutually shared interest and of particular interest to the education community of the three counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. We feel that such a meeting would be of benefit to all parties...."

Minister, will you take the time to meet with these school board members?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): As you're probably aware, when I go around the province, and I think I've been in most of the regions of the province over the course of the last year, I generally take the time to meet with school boards and other interested people in education. I've also made it a priority to spend as much time as I possibly can in schools, in classrooms talking to students, talking to teachers, principals. That's normally a part of my day.

I'm sure you'll appreciate the fact that my schedule is subject to some interruption. If I'm in that area on October 7, and I don't know that I will or will not be, and if there's any way possible, I would love to meet with the boards.

Mr Cleary: Okay. I'm willing to hand you the letter. The date's stamped, and myself there, asking you to meet with them. We've been kind of getting the runaround since June 12. I'll give you a copy of that letter.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Excuse me. "Runaround"?

Mr Cleary: You promised to meet but we never got --

Hon Mr Snobelen: To date.

Mr Cleary: June 12.

Hon Mr Snobelen: To date you have not got it. That's correct. We will meet with the board at some point when we can do that, and if we can do it on October 7, I'd be more than delighted to do that. Is that clear? Is the response clear?

Mr Cleary: That's clear.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Good. Thank you.

Mr Cleary: We'll have to go by your schedule.

The Chair: Any further questions, Mr Cleary?

Mr Cleary: That's it.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a good number of questions here.

I had the pleasure of attending a breakfast this morning hosted by the Urban Development Institute, and the keynote speaker was the Honourable David Crombie, actually a person for whom I have a great deal of time and a great deal of respect. He described the work of Who Does What, and with his vast experience in local politics, of course, when he used to teach, he provided a sort of historical backdrop for the breakfast. I left before the whole meeting was completed, but it seemed to me that the greatest interest of all was in education taxes and the subcommittee on education. I wonder, Minister, if you would elaborate on -- number one, there were comments made that this is such a short period of time for a group of people with some related experiences, but a couple of questions around it.

It's listed in the invitation -- this is their invitation, Minister, not yours -- as education taxes, but I got the impression that their mandate or terms of reference were broader than that, that indeed they could comment on functions and relationships and the possible changes of responsibilities between perhaps local government boards, not only on the tax side. Could you expand somewhat on that? In terms of that specific subpanel, what are you looking for and what would you expect to emerge from this subgroup?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Certainly we've asked the subcommittee to look at two very distinct things, one of those being how education funds are raised from the taxpayers in Ontario, and so they'll look at the suggestions that have been made by other committees and other panels over the course of the last few years and take into consideration how we might best fund the system. So we'll be looking forward to their recommendations.

1540

Obviously, some of the things they'll be looking at that have been recommended by other studies are pooling of industrial-commercial revenues on a regional basis, on a province-wide basis, or perhaps removing education taxes from the property taxes completely, which was a recommendation of the committee a couple of years ago.

We have also asked them to have a look at the functions of education. We have asked them to have a look at who should provide transportation, who should build schools, who should maintain schools, who should do curriculum. We've asked them to give us recommendations on some very specific functions of the providing of education services in the province because we believe, and I personally believe, that it's necessary to have some opinions about who should deliver those functions before we have any need for dialogue about governance.

Mr Patten: There was some question about why Metro Toronto wasn't requested or invited to have some representation on that subpanel when they represent about $2.3 billion, which is without question the largest single source of property taxpayers. I suppose that representation has probably been made directly to you, by letter or otherwise, knowing some of the people on that board.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I must confess that I have had letters from people in northern Ontario who would like to have a stronger representation from the north. I have had letters from people in the aboriginal community in Ontario who would like to have stronger representation of the aboriginal community. Francophones in Ontario have asked me if they could have some representation from the francophone community. The people in western Ontario would like to have a strong presence and representation on that subcommittee, and so would the people, oddly enough, in eastern Ontario, northern Ontario and southern Ontario.

What we've done is put together, I believe, a very good group of people on that subcommittee who are knowledgeable from different points of view about our education system, who are certainly committed to our education system. I think we have a very good panel, one that will give very careful consideration to these issues and that will bring back a report that will be useful to this government and to the province.

Mr Patten: Minister, you say, and I accept your statement, that you visit schools and you talk with different people, but based on what you say, it seems to me I hear different things than what you hear, which perhaps in many cases is understandable. The minister comes into the school. Some people are intimidated. Some people are overly kind or understate or underplay what they have, whereas with me, of course, there isn't that kind of worry.

I'd like to replay for you what I believe is the emerging context in the school community today and some of the cynicism that is beginning to emerge, and relate that to what appears to be your strategy for change. I talk to some groups who are saying, "We are prepared to cooperate with the ministry, with the minister, on looking at what is that vision of the future, but we don't know where the minister is going."

There are so many things that are thrown out at the same time -- some of those I will address if need be, but I'm sure this is the strategy -- that it has immobilized and it has destabilized, in my opinion, the capacity of boards to even think through future directions, to the point where they believe it is a conscious strategy on your part and that this is a manner in which you can bring about change with the appearance of offering and asking for cooperation, and when it's offered it's not taken. This is what I'm being told by a number of the school boards, "We want to be part of the solution, and yet when we make the offer, it's not acceptable, and then the next day a new announcement comes through on another aspect that relates to the basis of governance, that relates to another crack at secondary reform" -- by the way, that one is not a good example because people did expect that one -- "then a new funding model, then the tax base etc."

The feeling certainly by a lot of teachers is that the minister does not have respect for teachers. "He must think we do not do a good job." I tell you this, that there is incredible demoralization among the teachers and there is a destabilization in the system. I do not share your belief that the system is broken, which is not to say that it cannot be ameliorated or that in some cases there shouldn't be significant change, because I believe that there should be.

Hon Mr Snobelen: If it's not broken, why would you change it?

Mr Patten: Because in any organization, as you well know as a trainer, you can always improve, you can increase your capacity. You make some changes to adapt to new realities, new needs, new clients or whatever it may be, changing needs, changing conditions. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What's your reaction to all this, Minister?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank you for bringing it up, because my reaction is that in many of these assertions, and I guess you couldn't qualify them as assertions, but in these statements that you have made over the last few minutes, you are frankly either poorly informed or just plain wrong.

First of all, I will appreciate the fact that you can hear a great number of different stories as you tour the schools of Ontario, and it may be a function of what people say or a function of what you listen for, I'm not sure which, but clearly you and I have gotten very different messages.

As to the suggestions that have come forward to us by people in the education community, I'm pleased to tell you that we have followed up on each and every recommendation made to this government last year by school boards. We either have enacted their suggestions to assist them in making the system more affordable -- we did that last year legislatively. We gave the school boards, among other things, permission to have a more accurate count date for student populations. We gave them permission to have a better way of administering education in school. We gave them, for instance, some better opportunities to cooperate between boards on transportation and other issues. We answered their requests for assistance with legislative help, and where we were not able to help them legislatively in a short time frame, we have initiated pilot projects to examine some of their other recommendations.

Candidly and frankly, some of the suggestions made by school boards apply to areas that are not in the provincial jurisdiction, and when that happens we have asked the school boards where they have jurisdiction to address the situation. Some of those situations that were brought to our attention were in fact the school board's responsibilities.

I believe that where we've had the offer of assistance in having a more affordable, accountable and higher-quality system by our partners, we have treated those recommendations with more than seriousness; we've taken action on them.

As to the suggestion that this government hasn't been up front about what it intends for education in Ontario, I'm rather disappointed with the comment. Over the last year, we have made it very clear that we need improvements, improvements in the area of affordability -- I think that's been pointed out on many occasions by many third parties -- and in accountability. If you have any difficulties with seeing the need for improvement in accountability, I'd suggest you talk to parent groups across the province because they will tell you that they believe our system needs to be more accountable.

1550

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Speaker -- Mr Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Please.

The Chair: The Speaker's on my mind, actually. Mr Hampton, we are in a rotation of 15 minutes and it's time now for the NDP.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I guess I should thank the minister for appearing. I understand he has declined to appear in some of the other forums that he's been invited to.

Let me, by way of preliminary comments, sketch out where I think the problems are. To more and more people across the province, it would appear that the minister now has the crisis that he said he wanted to create in his infamous video, "Cuts, Lies and Videotapes."

Interjections.

The Chair: Mr Hampton has the floor, please.

Mr Hampton: It is clear that this government's education policy is hurting kids, and that is the only policy that is being brought forward. It contrasts greatly with what was said in the Common Sense Revolution, where I believe the comment was, "No cuts to the classroom." The cuts so far have been over $430 million from school board budgets. On an annualized basis this represents almost a $1-billion cut to public education. Nobody voted on June 8, 1995, to have $1 billion taken out of the school system. Now you have announced another cut to education budgets of somewhere between $600 million to $900 million. In real terms, that is a total of almost $2 billion in cuts to education.

This includes freezing the capital budgets for school construction. More students will be required to do their learning in school portables. You've made junior kindergarten optional for school boards, which is another way of saying if people want junior kindergarten then the school board will have to pay for it and they'll have to cut somewhere else. You've changed the funding formula to make it difficult for school boards to fund junior kindergarten. As a result of the changes, 25 school boards have already cancelled their junior kindergarten programs for kids. If that isn't affecting children in the classroom, then I'd be interested in knowing what your definition is.

You've announced funding changes that mean that adult education programs will be eliminated by many school boards, and yet as we read and look around, what we're being told more and more by people who are looking at the 21st century economy is that adult education is more important than ever, and equipping adults for education and continuing education is more important than ever.

Similarly, I could say with respect to early childhood education, or junior kindergarten, all of the statistics indicate that $1 spent on early childhood education saves us $7 down the road in terms of either having to put more money into special education, or more money into other services for children and youth because they end up getting lost in the system or falling out of the system.

It would seem to me that you have truly started a war: the review of collective bargaining; you've indicated that you want to eliminate school boards; the secondary school reform; the Who Does What commission looking at education financing. Your attitude is to throw everything at the education system, throw it into overload, and then create the crisis, knowing very well that with so many initiatives on the go it will be hard for the education sector to mobilize. It will be hard for people who really care about education to take on all those issues.

I've got a very simple message for you: You will not succeed in destroying our public education system. People across this province will fight you. More and more, people who have spent their lifetime dedicated to education are moving into an opposition mode to you and your policies. People will fight you because it is the kids who will be hurt by your reckless, mean-spirited, anti-education agenda. To put it bluntly, $1.8 billion in cuts to education cannot but affect classroom education, cannot but impact on children.

We saw the crisis you precipitated with your toolkit. Now you are bringing in another massive cut because you realize that your previous budgetary measures don't add up. To pay for your tax cut you will have to cut and cut and cut from places like education. As you cut from education, you may say it is teachers, you may say it is boards, you may say it is administrators who will be affected, but the reality is that education is about children, education is about kids, and kids are the people who are being impacted by your cuts, and kids will pay the price.

You say the system is just not working, but I find it incredible that you would say that, especially in contrast to your Premier's comments. The exposition we saw earlier this summer was truly unbelievable: the Premier touring around Europe telling everyone Ontario has a wonderful education system, and it's had a wonderful education system, and that's why we have a productive workforce, that's why we are at the leading edge of some of the high-technology industries, and meanwhile, you're telling everyone here that the system is badly broken. It doesn't add up; it doesn't add up at all.

In a speech to the Canada-UK Chamber of Commerce, the Premier said, "With the North American Free Trade Agreement more and more companies are choosing Ontario, Canada to access the United States and Mexico. Why? Because of our labour productivity, our business competitiveness, our education system, our quality of life and our lower costs."

The Premier isn't telling foreign investors that our education system is broken. He is not taking your line at all. Instead, he says that our education system is a good reason for people to come to this province and invest.

You have cut the budgets of community colleges by almost $130 million, resulting in campus closures, course cancellations and the layoff of important teachers. You have increased college tuition by 15%, which means that colleges are becoming more and more inaccessible to people who need those education resources. You have cut almost $300 million from the university budgets that the Premier was over in Europe bragging about. You have put higher education out of the reach of many by increasing university tuition by as much as 20%. You set up a panel with the view of privatizing Ontario's universities. This will mean only one thing: one education system for the wealthy, and another for the rest of us.

I would say that when we look at what you have done and what you are talking about doing in the field of education, it is very clear you have a financial cuts agenda; you have absolutely no educational agenda that makes sense at all. Frankly, I think that's what the Premier has been saying when he's been outside the country.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I just have a minute's response, just a quick response.

Thank you for your remarks. I think that certainly your class was demonstrated in your reference to the remarks I apologized for last year. Your imagination certainly has been demonstrated in the use of the number of $1.6 billion. I don't know where you generated that number, sir, but I can only imagine it was in your imagination. Frankly, I've never come out with a number like that -- now or ever -- and the more you repeat a number like that, after it's been corrected --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Listen to the pot calling the kettle black.

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- in the House, I'm surprised that you'd do that, sir.

I'm not surprised at the empty rhetoric, though. I've heard it before. If you look at what was said in provinces across Canada when they attempted to have a more affordable system, to improve their system of public education, you will find, time and time again, the same sort of empty, illogical rhetoric that you have just used over the course of the last 10 minutes or so.

1600

Let me tell you what we're committed to, and if you think it's wrong, then we disagree.

We think we should have a look at the administrative structures of our schools. We think we should look and see if we can't find a better, more cost-efficient way of administering education. We want to see if we can find a way to have parents be closer to the hub and the wheel of education, to have their views reflected in the administration of education across the province.

We think a funding system which allows for as much as a 30% difference in the amount of funding available to a student based only, solely, on the assessment available in an area is just plain wrong. We think that provides second-class students in Ontario and we don't think that's right. Perhaps you do.

We think moving to an improved secondary school environment and a more relevant curriculum, moving in line with the other provinces in Canada finally, is a good thing for education.

I do agree with you about one thing, and that is that education is about kids. I believe you also said kids will pay the price. That's exactly the point. Kids do pay the price if we don't address the underlying problems we have in terms of affordability, accountability and even quality in our system. Kids pay the price. Kids also pay the price if we hand on to them the kind of debt that your government built over the last five years, if we hand on to them a diminished job opportunity, a slightly dirtier, slightly poorer province with higher debt. I think we hand that on to our kids and I think they pay the price.

Our government's actions have been responsible for making sure that we create not only a great education system for our young people but also job opportunities and taking responsibility for the economic condition of the province now instead of passing it on to the next generation. I think that's responsibility, I think that takes courage and real leadership and I frankly am proud of the things we've done in education and in other sectors over the course of the last 15 months.

Mr Wildman: Two areas: I understand that the minister was musing last week about a number of things: $600 million more in cuts in grants, and he's got various groups out studying things like province-wide collective bargaining. He's mused about perhaps eliminating school boards completely, a significant change in the secondary and post-secondary education systems.

If we're looking at major changes at the secondary school level and at the post-secondary level, does the minister really thing it's going to be helpful to continually criticize the very people who are going to have to implement those changes for them to work, teachers and boards at the secondary level, either because they're overpaid or underworked or don't have the courage to make the changes the minister believes are necessary? Wouldn't it be better to try and bring people along, to include them and involve them in the change rather than being critical of them and then expecting them, despite the low morale they might be suffering, to implement changes? Surely this is a recipe for disaster.

The Chair: Minister, you have about 15 minutes to think about that question. It's the Conservative's time.

Hon Mr Snobelen: If I make just one point before we move on, would that be acceptable, Mr Chair?

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I'll give him time.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Just this one point, because I hate to have this sort of thing go on public record and not be addressed: Perhaps if the member for Algoma can correct me on this, I'd be more than happy to be corrected on it, but to my knowledge I have never criticized teachers in the province of Ontario.

Mr Wildman: You said they were overpaid.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I've never said that.

Mr Wildman: Or they should take a pay cut; if they're not overpaid, they should still take a pay cut.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I have not said that, sir. It would be useful I think in this discussion to not put words in my month, and I'll try not to do that with you, sir. I have not criticized teachers. I have said that I believe teachers on the whole are dedicated professionals. I believe that our government has recognized that in putting the College of Teachers together. It's a body that recognizes the professional stature of teachers in the province of Ontario. I've said that I believe most teachers, if not all teachers, get into the profession because they want to make a contribution to young people. I've said that repeatedly, time and time again, across this province because I believe that.

Mr Rollins: I too this morning had the privilege of going to the breakfast and hearing Mr Crombie discuss Who Does What and his theory of looking into the problems. He told us at that meeting this morning that under the Assessment Act they were trying to answer back to us as a government under four different groups: the county and rural; northern Ontario, the unorganized; the GTA; and the non-GTA. In that report coming back, pertaining to education he did not mention that education was in that form, but assessment was. Could you enlighten us a little more on that, whether that is something to do with the funding of the education system along that line too?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll ask Peter to perhaps give us some better advice on this. My understanding is that the subcommittee looking at assessment is doing just that, looking at four different classes and problems in the province. I am not sure whether that's going to apply on the funding formula. I believe it doesn't.

Mr Peter Wright: Peter Wright, director of education, finance branch. We're not deeply involved with the other panels that are operating there, but to our understanding the assessment panel is looking at actual value assessment and the implementation issues around it in the various areas of the province. Mr Crombie may have been talking about some of the issues they are looking at as they go ahead and look to implement AVA.

In terms of the education side of things, what they have been asked to do, as the minister indicated, is to look at the means by which revenue is generated for education across the province and whether commercial-industrial taxes should be treated the way they are now and whether residential taxes should be treated the way they are now. At least at this point, and the committee has only had one meeting so far, they have not differentiated the parts of the province in their discussions.

Mr Rollins: It was quite an interesting discussion this morning that Mr Crombie and his expertise brought to the table, because I think everybody realizes the expertise he has had, which was generated with his knowledge of being as much involved in municipal government and federal government. He was probably not as much involved in provincial government previously, but in the other two levels his experience has brought some knowledge to that. He also stated that there were some subcommittees being formed, and education was one of them. That subcommittee will report back to you, hopefully by what time frame?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Originally, we had hoped that we'd be able to get that subcommittee report back to us at the end of this week. I believe that date has been put off at the request of the subcommittee. They'll be reporting some time in the next couple of weeks; I'm not sure of the date right now.

1610

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I wish to further address financing of our province's schools, perhaps following on Mr Rollins's question. I was speaking with the director of education of the Haldimand-Norfolk Roman Catholic Separate School Board, a small board, and the director brought an issue to my attention I'd like you to address in the broader scope of the province. The director of education advises me that the very small school boards in Ontario, such as the Haldimand-Norfolk separate board, are disadvantaged to invest in their students because of the nature of municipal tax assessments. I'm told that many small rural boards fall into an assessment-poor category.

Any time an assessment-poor board like this one receives a reduction in grants, they don't have the opportunity to make it up through assessment, they really don't have the leeway or, I'm told, the latitude to make reductions without affecting programs and classes. It's of more relevance for them in accommodating these kinds of changes than perhaps larger, assessment-rich boards. I wonder if you could use this as an example or perhaps as a bit of a case study to help me get my mind around the equity of financing with respect to school boards across Ontario or really with respect to schools and students across Ontario. What should we be doing for a more equitable means of financing education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The heart of the question in funding is, not only how do we provide an affordable system that's of a high value to taxpayers, but how do we make sure that every young person in the province has the same opportunity to have a high-quality education? I don't believe our current GLGs, general legislative grants, allow for that in all circumstances. We attempted last year to mitigate the effect on small boards, and if you look at the history of general legislative grants you'll find a history that has many instances where previous governments of all political stripes have had to resort to a variety of instruments to try to bring some fairness to the funding system. Fundamentally, that points to me that the GLG system does not work to provide that equality of opportunity for students. I believe that the key component here is having a sophisticated allocation method that recognizes the different problems and different costs on a geographic basis across the province for individual students.

We know, for instance, that there are higher English-as-a-second-language costs in Metropolitan Toronto. We know there are higher transportation costs in rural Ontario. We've recently asked school boards to give us some help in further developing the recommendation of the Working Group on Education Finance Reform, to give us some help in identifying and quantifying the variables in per-student costs of delivering education. I believe that when we have an accurate, useful allocation model -- and I believe we're going to have one very quickly -- we'll be able to get rid of some of the inequities that have been historically in our education funding system. My belief is that the key to this is a very sophisticated, very accurate allocation method that ties funding to real costs of delivering education per student.

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington): Touching on something that is of concern in my area in eastern Ontario, the costs associated with different types of education -- for example, French secondary school education cost per pupil as opposed to the English cost per pupil -- it's been indicated to me that in 1984 costs it's almost double the cost per pupil for French secondary schools as opposed to the English system. Can you comment on that? You've touched on the fact that there are different costs associated with transportation and so on from urban to rural areas and so on, but that seems quite an exorbitant difference. I'd like you to comment on that.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe, in round numbers, that over and above the normal allocation for educational service the cost of francophone education in the province was about $52 million last year, if memory serves me correctly, and about $50 million the year prior. It does cost us a little more on a per-pupil basis to deliver French-language education in the province. There are some reasons for this that are very practical. One of those is that French-language text books, for instance, cost more than their English equivalents. I would suspect that's a volume issue. In recognizing our legal obligations in the province to provide French-language services, we are going to have a higher per-student cost delivering those services.

That said, I believe the francophone education system in Ontario, much like all the other components, needs to be examined to see where we can find efficiencies. I don't think that because we have a higher cost base it exempts that system from looking for efficiencies, looking for better ways of delivery. But we do recognize that at this moment in time we do have a higher cost of delivery inherently in that system.

I can tell you that I'm encouraged by what's happening in terms of technology. I believe technologies being introduced in the classroom will, over the mid to long term, bring those costs between the francophone and anglophone systems closer in line. I think we are seeing the traditional disparities between the two systems in terms of cost come closer together, and my guess is that over time those technologies will help them to be virtually the same cost base. But that's a fairly long way off, and we have to make sure we have allowances for the legitimate difference in cost because of the difference in cost of materials.

Mr Vankoughnet: Minister, I appreciate your comment. Just for the record, about a year ago, on June 16, it was reported that the difference was $18,366 as opposed to $7,179. To me and to many of my constituents, it seems quite an exorbitant difference. I do hope, as you say, that this will come somewhat together in the not-too-distant future.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to emphasize the fact that I don't exempt any part of the system from looking for better delivery methods, from looking for more affordable systems of delivery. Certainly there may be those opportunities inside the francophone system, as there are in the anglophone system.

The Chair: Could I just make a comment that in terms of the estimates for the Ministry of Education and Training, at 6 o'clock we'll have about an hour and 21 minutes left. Could we agree that after today it ends the estimates for them? We'll go back into them on Monday if we don't get agreement.

Mr Patten: Let me think about it. We can think about that, can we not?

Interjection: It can't happen now? He didn't agree.

Mr Patten: Minister, let me deal with a couple of little items here. You made comments a couple of times recently, once in the House and I believe on radio, that the majority of grade 9 students read or write at the grade 4 level. I think it was the literacy level. I'm wondering if that was a slip or whether it was a mistake or whether that's what you intended to say, that you really think our average grade 9 student's literacy level is at the grade 4 level.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you for that. What I have said is that it has been said to me that the acceptable level of literacy, of performance in reading, for a grade 9 student, based on our tests from 1994, was grade 4. That's certainly not the average level, but that the level deemed by educators to be acceptable is in fact a grade 4 level of reading. That's apparently what various groups who have been monitoring these testing programs have said.

I have had a look, as I believe I said in the House some months ago, at the test results and I've had a look at the examples -- I hope you've availed yourself of those as well -- and the level of performance that we deem as adequate or acceptable in those tests is certainly not a high standard and certainly not a standard that I think would make very many students or parents pleased with the level of performance. Again, in no way does that represent the average performance, but that's what educators have said is acceptable.

1620

Mr Patten: Okay. I would just confirm that level 4 or 5 on a scale of 6 -- one can say that -- and we have comparisons of grade 9 students in terms of their literacy level.

There was another one I believe you mentioned yesterday. You said that the ratio of students to teachers in the classroom was 15.1 to 1. I'm led to believe that there is a difference between the teacher-pupil ratio and how many students there actually are in the classroom. Classroom size means when you walk into the classroom and the home teacher is there, you count the number of kids. The teacher-pupil ratio of course will include teachers who are not necessarily in that specific classroom; they may be specialists, they may be the librarian, they may be the counsellor. To mix up those ratios, to me, can cause confusion in the minds of people. I saw a lot of people, when you made the statement in the House, kind of blink and go, "What?" I'd like to see a classroom with 15 to 1.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think the ratios are instructive of this. Our ratio, I believe, is about 15.1 to 1. I'm not sure whether it's moved since that statistic was developed, but I believe it's about that, which is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in Canada -- I believe other provinces are closer to 17 to 1 -- yet our average classroom size is about 24 1/2 to 1. There are about 24 1/2 students in the average class. It begs the question, where are the teachers? If our teacher ratio is the lowest, yet our classroom size is about average, don't we have an issue with the deployment of professional teachers in the province? That's the reason we introduced that ratio and I think it is instructive for that purpose.

Mr Patten: My understanding would be that apparently the average is about 16 point something in terms of the pupil-teacher ratio. We're at 15.1, so it is a little under the Canadian average. Of course, we know the reason for that. I believe it was our government that also recommended reducing the size of classrooms for kindergarten through grade 1 or grade 2, even. That was something the government required the school boards to do; they complied, and we would get those.

If you take just the high school level, I believe those figures would increase, and more recently those figures would increase. The figures I'm quoting are a couple of years old. I believe they are continuing to increase.

Some recent discussions in the last couple of weeks -- my staff are doing some calling around to every school board and asking the impact of the cuts on their particular board etc. We don't have all the data yet, but the indication is that there are significant increases in the size of classes. Anyhow, let's leave that one for the moment.

Minister, have you had occasion at this stage yet to congratulate the Durham board on the recognition they've received?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. I've written them. I thought you might have, in your comments in the House -- I was actually surprised at your comments, because not only have I written the board, but my understanding is that a senior member of the ministry travelled to Germany to be there during the awards presentation and that the MPP from the area, who I believe is Jim Flaherty, was there bringing congratulations from the Premier. I believe we've acknowledged and recognized that award and recognized the board and the people of the school system there for getting that award. I was somewhat surprised when it came up in the House the other day. Given all that attention, I thought that had certainly been acknowledged.

Mr Patten: I have an article here from the Toronto Sun, Lorrie Goldstein, a good NDP supporter.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It must be right, then.

Mr Wildman: I've always been very close to Lorrie.

Mr Patten: I thought so. The Sun makes no bones about its leanings, Minister, and here is Lorrie, who can be one of the most critical and tough reporters, essentially saying to you: "Come on. Our schools aren't that bad, are they? Take a look at some of the things." I raise this, as in my opening statement, because there is a sense that you believe this whole system is just in bad shape, is broken and all these kinds of things, yet we continue to hear little signs of excellence and we see improvement. The StatsCan report on the literacy improvements recently was a positive sign. So there are some good things about the system. Here's even Lorrie Goldstein saying: "Come on, Minister. There are some good things in our system. How come everything is so bleak and why are you continuing to perpetuate this sense that it's all gloom and doom?"

Hon Mr Snobelen: First of all, I've been proud to acknowledge boards' individual programs that are world-leading in Ontario. I think we have every right to be proud of those programs, of those individuals. All the measures I've seen, and I'm sure you've seen the same numbers, place us in the middle of the pack, in terms of economically developed countries, in our student performance. We certainly are third in some surveys across Canada, fourth in other areas. We come higher than the middle, often, in a survey of education systems in Canada.

This is not an exact science. However, and I would hope you'd share this, I'm restless to be the very best, to have the very best education system for our students. While I acknowledge that we have some wonderful programs, some very excellent people, some great students, who are doing some wonderful things, I can't wait for a system where it's like that across the province.

Also, I want you to know that one of the things I found when I looked at innovative programs in different schools -- and there are a great number of them in the province and I've had a chance to look at lots of them -- is that there's always a champion behind those great programs, somebody who really believes it, and quite often there's a broken rule or two.

Quite often the people who are championing the future of education, having these innovative and great programs for students, are having to beat the system to do it. I think our education system should be supporting those folks who are innovative and who are delivering really wonderful programs to young people. They should be supported, not thwarted. That disturbs me when I see those folks thwarted, so we're doing what we can. I hope to evolve a system where they won't be thwarted, where they will be supported and where we can have some innovation and some great programs right across the province.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I understand that the Conservatives require a 20-minute break?

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I understand that what is being proposed is a break for a special caucus meeting for the government caucus. I believe that would require unanimous consent, and I am not prepared to provide unanimous consent. The reason I am not prepared to provide unanimous consent is quite simple.

In order to deal with the controversy in the House and what is going to happen tomorrow, I suggested to the government House leader that we adjourn for half an hour so all three parties could caucus and deal with the question of what we want to do tomorrow so we can get things back on track around here. The government House leader, for reasons completely mystifying to me, refused to make that agreement. Now he's turning around and asking for an adjournment of this committee so that the government caucus can caucus. Why should I agree to their caucusing when they wouldn't give us time to caucus?

The Chair: I don't want a discussion. Since we don't have unanimous consent, I don't want to proceed with this at all because only under unanimous consent by House leaders are we allowed to proceed on this. But we don't seem to have it, so --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Mr Chairman --

The Chair: Is it on this matter?

Mr Wettlaufer: -- I would like to move a 20-minute recess.

The Chair: We'll have a recess for 20 minutes. Is it a motion?

Mr Wildman: On what basis? We're going to vote on it then.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Wildman: I want 20 minutes for a vote. Maybe they'll caucus during the 20 minutes.

The Chair: Okay, we'll recess for 20 minutes.

The committee recessed from 1631 to 1659.

The Acting Chair (Mr John C. Cleary): All set there? The 20 minutes is up. The first order of business is Mr Wettlaufer has moved that the committee recess for 20 minutes.

All in favour of that motion? Those opposed? It's lost.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Just for information, I hope the members take note of the fact that we gave them what they wanted without giving them what they wanted.

The Acting Chair: Okay, now that you're speaking, it's the New Democrats' turn for 15 minutes.

Mr Wildman: I wanted to raise a couple of things with the minister with regard to his comments in response to some questions from members of the Conservative caucus. If there is an attempt to equalize funding and deal with education finance, which I readily admit has been a problem for governments of all three political parties, how does the minister respond to this editorial of September 15, 1996, from a leading periodical, the Toronto Star, which says, "Education Minister John Snobelen has given a group of appointed experts just three weeks to recommend changes to education funding. Either he's setting up a panel to fail or he has already fixed the outcome. Evidence suggests the latter"? I'd like to give the minister the opportunity to respond to that assertion by this eminent journal, the Toronto Star.

Hon Mr Snobelen: For the most part, I don't respond to editorials, but I will respond to your comments and your question. I think it's a legitimate question. I met with the chairperson of the Who Does What committee, specifically talked about the amount of time that would be required to consider all of the reports that have been done on this subject over the course of the last number of years -- and as I'm sure you're aware, many volumes have been written about funding of education in Ontario. We were satisfied that with the amount of work that has already been done on this subject, a committee of people could reach a conclusion and a recommendation in fairly quick order. In fact, we have been responsive to the request by the subcommittee for a little more time. I believe they're meeting Thursday, Friday and Saturday and that we have agreed to a little more time so that they can give some very serious consideration to this issue.

While we certainly want to give the committee time to give careful deliberation, we also want to make sure that we move with all good speed to righting a problem in our education system, and that problem is that we have a situation where, in terms of funding, there are second-class students in the province, and I want to make sure that's not the case and that we correct that as quickly as possible.

Mr Wildman: In that regard, we have a number of inequities. As you've indicated, rural boards, northern boards, both public and separate, and separate boards in more urbanized centres of the province spend significantly less per pupil than large urban boards and are assessment-poor. There is some compensation for that, obviously, advanced to assessment-poor boards from the ministry. Is it the intent to bring those boards that spend -- for instance, separate boards claim they spend about $1,000 less per student than public boards. Is it the intention to bring that level of spending up to the expenditures that are current in the public system, on average, or to lower the expenditures in the public system so that we equalize downward rather than upward?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think you're quite right to note that there are some mitigating factors in the difference in funding available to students across the province and that there are boards that operate substantially lower than other boards in terms of their per-student cost. One interesting note from this is that there is no correlate between the amount of money spent per student on education and actual student achievement, no correlate whatsoever. That would suggest that at least at the upper end of expenditures, there is no dividend in terms of student achievement, in terms of quality, from some of the spending that's currently going on in our system. That would be I think a fair observation, based on the facts that you've laid out this afternoon.

It's our intention to do two things. One of those is to make sure that we have a fair funding system, that we have a funding system that's designed around student need and not designed around systems; not designed around funding of boards, but in fact funding of students. I think that's a critical piece that needs to be done to make sure we don't have any second-class students in our education system.

Mr Wildman: That's why I referred to expenditures per pupil, rather than per board.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes. Our second objective is to make sure that our spending in the education system has an effect on student achievement, that we invest in areas that have an effect on how our students do, how much they learn, how well they get along in our school system. To that end, our commitment is to have sufficient funds available so that students can enjoy an enhanced quality of education in the province -- all students, regardless of what system they're involved in.

Mr Wildman: Also, with regard to the Durham Board of Education, I've found your comments interesting in regard to the comments that I made in the Legislature yesterday, although you didn't attribute them to me --

Hon Mr Snobelen: I apologize for that.

Mr Wildman: No problem. I spoke just before question period to Ms Audrey MacLean, I believe her name is -- she's the chair of the Durham Board of Education -- and to the director of education for that board. They did mention that Mr Flaherty had been at the Carl Bertelsmann Foundation award ceremony and they also mentioned that they believed the Premier had sent a letter to the foundation, but she was quite adamant, and so was the director, that they have not heard anything from you as minister or from anyone in the ministry directly to the board. I guess if you've just written your letter, that would explain that, but certainly as of yesterday around noon they hadn't received anything.

Hon Mr Snobelen: We'll make sure that a copy of my correspondence has gotten to them. I'll have someone check into that today, if not tomorrow morning, and make sure they've received my letter of congratulation. I have, of course, congratulated them publicly and will do so at every opportunity, and I have written them. The Premier, of course, extended his congratulations, and did so through a member of provincial Parliament, in Germany. In fact, a representative of the ministry was in attendance as well. So I hope that's a sufficient level of recognition of an outstanding achievement. I suspect there may have been some criticism from some quarters if the minister had been in Germany to watch that award.

1710

Mr Wildman: I'd like to turn to post-secondary, if I could for a moment. I was at the York University carnival this afternoon. The students at York were having quite an exciting, diversified number of events. One was a dunking booth where someone who looked very similar to the Premier was sitting on the chair and was rather all wet, and a number of other fun-type things with clowns and so on, and they even invited me as one additional clown to participate.

I noted for them that I brought greetings on behalf of you and your colleagues and I tried to explain to them why the post-secondary system was facing so many large cuts and why there were changes in tuition, even though we don't yet have the income-contingent plan in place.

I also noted the Premier's comments when he was in Europe and I have the speech he gave to the United Kingdom Chamber of Commerce. A couple of quotes: He's talking about why foreign investors invest in Canada and Ontario particularly, and he says: "Why? Because of our labour productivity, our business competitiveness, our education system, our quality of life and our lower costs."

Then he goes on to talk about a number of post-secondary institutions in the province. He singles out the University of Waterloo, McMaster University and the University of Toronto and points out that they rank among North America's top 10 computer, electrical and mechanical engineering schools.

"The University of Waterloo," he points out, "is a favourite recruitment source for Bill Gates's Microsoft Corp."

Then, he goes on to say, "According to the 1996 World Competitiveness Report, business leaders rank Canada's education system ahead of the United States in terms of its ability to meet the needs of a competitive" society.

I note that you said earlier you haven't been critical of the elementary and secondary system and the teachers involved, but I don't hear you singing the praises of our system the way the Premier does when he's talking to foreigners. Why is it that we hear such a different description of the education system from you when you're talking to people in Ontario, whether they be business leaders or educational leaders or students, the general public in Ontario? Why can't we get this kind of description of our post-secondary system, congratulating them on their successes and how they're contributing to the economic competitiveness of Ontario, when you're talking to Ontarians?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't think you'll find a discrepancy between what I've said and what the Premier has said about Ontario's school system here or abroad or anywhere else. As a matter of fact, we recently celebrated the accomplishment of one of our school boards by having a member of the provincial Parliament in attendance in Germany when the award was presented and a senior member of the staff of the Ministry of Education, although not all the people in Ontario want to recognize our celebration of successes inside the education system. Sometimes, our actions and words are distorted by folks, and I don't know to what end. But occasionally I've seen --

Mr Wildman: I assure you I was very non-partisan in my description of your positions.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I would certainly, sir, not ever use you as an example of that.

However, every once in a while there seems to be a twist to things and sometimes it is very difficult to get positive news out about what's going on in Ontario. As I've said time and time again, I think there are certainly some excellent educators and some excellent programs both in our elementary and secondary school system and in our colleges and universities. Our colleges and universities have some world-leading programs and I'm sure, if the Premier had had time in his speech, he could have given an example of excellent-quality programs in all 18 institutions in the province and talked about some of the great things that are happening in our community colleges.

We do know, on the post-secondary side, that colleges and universities around the world are facing some enormous changes as we see the effects of the information age and the knowledge age on those institutions that are designed to both disperse and create knowledge.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Minister, I'm going to relate a little visit I had last week with an OAC English class in one of our local high schools in Chatham. I was appalled to have the teacher tell me that to have books for this OAC English class to read, she had to go to the local book exchange and spend her money to buy paperback books. In my conversation with the young people I suggested to them that maybe we didn't need to graduate more teachers and nurses, that maybe we needed to graduate more technical people because there'll be some jobs out there for those people. One young man very adamantly said, "Why should we bother taking woodworking in this school, because we don't even have any wood to use in our woodworking shop?" Then I had a grade 5-6 teacher tell me, again in Kent county, that her 27 students in grades 5 and 6 only have six English textbooks to share, so all the students cannot read at once.

Having been a teacher at one point in my previous life and having been a student a long time ago, I was appalled to hear these stories about a lack of what I would consider to be basic supplies available to our students. Could you comment on that? Is that widespread, in your opinion or in your visits, or is this an isolated case of a very efficient board in Kent county that is cutting corners maybe in some areas that aren't as wise as they should be?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't believe that's a widespread situation, but any circumstance where we've made choices to trim back on basic materials that many people need to obtain an education are bad choices. We've asked our education system to reduce its expenditures by 1.8%. If those reductions affect the classroom, it's a function of poor decision-making, poor choices being made at some point in the system.

There is no reason for it, and in a system that spends $70 million a day, there's no excuse for it. We have some great dichotomies in our system. We have made choices in the past that I believe have not helped student achievement and have driven up costs in our system. One example of that may be a system where we have doubled the amount of money we have made available to technology partnership programs. There are some demonstrable, positive effects on student achievement in the use of some very exciting technologies that are available to educators now.

We have committed a further $20 million to the development of those partnerships that will provide those technologies to our teachers and ultimately to our students. Yet, in a system where we can celebrate that investment of $20 million, which is certainly not an insignificant amount of money, we also have a situation where we will spend almost $1 billion in taxpayers' contributions to a pension fund that has an experienced gain of $1.3 billion in the current year.

I think we have to have a look at the choices we're making in education and make sure they're predicated on having the best system we can have for our students and making the best value decisions for taxpayers. That has not been the case across the province, it certainly has not been even across the province, and the examples you've just given are I think very good examples of poor choices, of making poor decisions in how to invest taxpayer dollars in an education system that makes a difference for students.

1720

Mr Carroll: One other quick question, and it involves teacher contracts: I know we have 160-some boards in the province. I would assume, with local bargaining, that we end up with quite a variation in contracts that are signed. Obviously in Kent county teaching salaries would not be the same as they would be in Toronto, with local bargaining. Can you share with us what kind of variance there is across the province in teacher salaries and in benefits as a result of local bargaining?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Recently, as you know, we set out to review Bill 100. I think those who are conducting that review, particularly the person put in charge of it, Mr Paroian, who's from just a little bit past Chatham, from Windsor, were quite surprised when they reviewed the contracts to find that there was relatively little difference between the contracts across the province both in terms of the teacher-student contact ratios that are spelled out in those contracts in the compensation and in most benefits. There are some differences, but very few differences.

This points to the fact that in many circumstances, while boards in areas across the province, like Chatham, are negotiating on a local basis trying to address the needs in a local area, many unions have and do take a provincial attitude and a provincial posture in the negotiating. We end up with a system where we have one side of the table negotiating provincially, one side of the table negotiating locally and some of the compensation issues not on the table. This is one reason I'm pleased that we're having an independent review of the past history of Bill 100, of bargaining in the province, with some view to what might be done to help that, to assist it, to make it a better system and a more fair system because clearly there's a dichotomy in that.

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Mr Minister, it's good to have you here to be able, hopefully, to delve into some issues of how we spend money and how that pertains to priorities of the province and its citizens. I had a couple of questions. The first one involves the university system.

My colleague Mr Wildman drew a rather humorous description of a recent visit he had. It reminded me of some demonstrations to which I was witness when I was in university 15 years ago. One placard that was decorated for the benefit of the education minister at the time read, "Tighten Your Own Belt, Fat Lady," which was a reference to Dr Stephenson. I didn't think it was a particularly nice reference, but I think the person who fashioned it --

Mr Wildman: Whoever painted it sure as hell didn't want Bette to see it.

Mr Clement: That's right. The irony of ironies is, and my memory is a bit clouded, but the person who fashioned the sign either became an investment banker or he might be on the Toronto Star editorial board. I can't quite recall. It's in deep recesses.

The question I have on universities is about an increasing intellectual ferment on alternative ways of looking at the structure of the university system. There was a recent monograph I read by Dr Auld that posited that perhaps now is the time to construct in Ontario and in other jurisdictions private universities and now is the time to consider in our jurisdiction privatizing parts or all of the university system.

I'd like to know what you see as the impediments to that project and whether those impediments are so insurmountable as to make the project not on.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's a great question. In my observation of the system both here and in other jurisdictions, what people mean by a private university or a private college is quite different. If we look at the US models we often, when people think about private university, think about Harvard or one of the very old institutions in the United States. By some definitions those are not truly private institutions. They certainly are chartered differently than the institutions in Ontario, but they depend on a large amount of both state and federal funding. We see in a lot of our publicly funded, autonomous universities in Ontario a request to offer some of the programming, some of the different accreditations in a more private fashion. There generally has been a request over the years for deregulation of tuitions in some specific programs.

Also, there is some considerable competition for students in different program areas from offshore, and increasingly the Internet has made available a large number of educational products, if you will, at the post-secondary level from institutions in the United States and around the world. Very quickly the post-secondary sector is becoming a global sector, competing globally, and the questions for Ontario are: How do we help our institutions be competitive in that global marketplace? How do we help them respond to that reality? How do we support students? That's why we want to have a public discussion and that's why we wanted a discussion paper, because we believe it's going to take good, solid public policy to guide this sector for the next 10 years, and there's an enormous amount of change facing us.

I don't think that you will see emerge over the course of the next decade anywhere in the world the types of private institutions that will resemble Harvard. What you may see, though, is an increasingly competitive environment with organizations like the University of Phoenix, a publicly traded corporation that offers both graduate and undergraduate level education to people who are all adult learners and who are all employed. They have targeted a piece of the market and they deliver to that marketplace. I think you'll see very specific organizations around the world designed to meet the needs of a very specific clientele, and our Ontario universities will have to both become more specialized and compete in that environment. I don't think that what people classically think of as private institutions will be the future; I think there's a whole new breed of university and college emerging, and it's our job to make sure that Ontario institutions can be competitive in that environment.

Mr Clement: With the Chair's permission, since this is a committee on estimates we should probably talk about how we spend money and whether it goes to the intended consequences. You've talked a lot in the past and we as candidates had talked a lot in the past about the expenditures of the ministry versus the intended results and that there was a dissonance, a bifurcation of that in the sense that we tended to be at the top end if you look at the 25 OECD countries, at the top end in terms of expenditures but at the middle end in terms of results. You very correctly have said we have wonderful exceptions to that, where we have wonderful students and wonderful teachers and wonderful school boards, but if you look at the global picture, we're at the top of the heap in terms of spending and 13th or 14th out of 25 in terms of results.

The question I have is, what are some of the lessons you and your ministry are internalizing from other jurisdictions in the sense of funding and paying for quality that we can, in turn, apply to the Ontario situation to get better results?

Hon Mr Snobelen: If you look at the circumstances just in Canada you'll notice that a number of provinces have addressed over the past few years restructuring their educations systems. I think New Brunswick is one of the more recent, Newfoundland I think is a rather famous example of looking to restructure, but all the provinces have attempted to get better value for their tax money. Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Alberta, all of these different strategies have met with fierce resistance from the status quo, which has been our experience over the past 15 months, certainly. All of them were addressing what they thought were cost areas that needed to be addressed. Some of them addressed teachers' wages. That happened in several provinces. Some of them have addressed the overregulation and overadministration.

1730

Mr Patten: If I may make a comment in relation to the question that was just asked by Mr Clement, all of these comparisons, every single one of them that I've studied has a flaw. I have not yet seen anything that, when you get into the secondary analysis of the comparisons, stands up. That goes when we use comparisons across Canada, the international comparisons. For example, in some of the countries that are ahead of Canada, they are very homogeneous, they do not deal with special needs, they do not deal with universal access to their systems. When we take those kinds of considerations into it, yes, we are paying more, but we're paying more from a different value base that affords us a different kind of respect to people in our community and kids with learning difficulties or children who have developmental problems.

I always throw that in, because I think it really is important. We undermine our own self-respect, because when people look at us and they come to visit schools in Ontario, and many do, they're amazed. My God, it's not like Japan, where you're comparing a very élite population and then making comparisons to a totally open system. So I just like to throw that caution in there, and I repeat, there is not one comparison that I've seen with Ontario schools, whether it's in Canada or internationally, where when you get into it, you truly compare apples with apples all the way down the line.

I'd like to deal further with, as Tony has said, that we're here in estimates and, Minister, you were quoted to have said, "We're looking at an additional $600 million to $900 million that needs to be found in the system." If we take the $400 million and add $900 million, we're talking about $1.3 billion, about which some people who are more cynical than I would say, "Isn't that a coincidental figure, because that's what the minister is looking for to contribute to Ernie Eves's task, of course?" and that's to find extra money because of the lost revenues to balance the budget.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Just to help you, whatever the question might be, and just for the public record, for the fourth time today, I have not said that.

Mr Patten: So you were misquoted.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I have never been quoted as saying that.

Mr Patten: Yes, you have been quoted as saying that.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I have not read a quote that said I said that, and if someone has quoted me to that effect, I have never said what our reduction, what our savings target might be for this year. I have said it's not determined; I have said --

Mr Patten: This was at your retreat.

Hon Mr Snobelen: As far as I know, what I've been quoted as saying there is what I said: that we will determine by looking in our system and seeing where savings are available what might be the savings for this year. It has not yet been determined, and I have not read anyone quoting me as saying that. If you have, I would like you to bring it to my attention so I can correct it, but for the fourth time today, that is not accurate.

Mr Patten: That's good; I'm glad to hear that. In the event that it is --

Mr Rollins: It might be more than that.

Mr Patten: I would like to add to the list of impacts, because I believe you when you say you don't want to touch the classroom. But the information we're gathering suggests that it's happening now, so I become doubly concerned when I see a figure of $400 million, and you'll remember from last year when that $400 million was made up -- Minister, you know these figures by heart. I believe $331 million was really the freeze on capital, so we had more money in that $400 million that was on capital and not on operations. So when I hear possible increased cuts, not to be determined but some people suggest in the neighbourhood of another $600 million, and then you take the freeze off capital -- and I would like to ask you if you plan to take the freeze off capital -- but that becomes annualized, it means there's an additional $230 million from operations that the school boards will have to absorb. Could I ask you that question?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I had that; he's right. That's it on numbers, $233 million and $167 million. The assistant deputy and I both arrived at the same number.

Let me go over just for a moment -- and I say this with no disrespect -- the preamble for the question, which was where we are in our system versus other jurisdictions. It is very difficult to measure quality of student performance, in part because it would seem that there is some reluctance to measure student achievement in all systems, and certainly a reluctance to do that in our system, so the real value is how students perform, the amount that they learn in school, versus the cost of education. I think value is the real key piece here, not just cost. I think just cost is a bad measurement. So it's very difficult to determine. We can determine it in a rounded way, but it's not a precise science, and I certainly agree with that.

Our third-party observers -- OISE, other people who are familiar with the education system --

Mr Wildman: Oh, I thought you were referring to us.

Mr Patten: The other third party.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Remember when we did our blueprint in 1992? We in fact were a third party.

They've all observed that Ontario has an extraordinary level of expenditure in our system, and most of the measures that we have of student achievement would place us in the middle of the industrialized pack.

I was surprised when I assumed the responsibilities of minister to find that we had a system with no common sense of purpose, and I think that was underlined by the royal commission, no common quality measures and no common spending indicators. I believe that a system needs to have common quality measures, so we've initiated the Education Quality and Accountability Office. Late in the term of the previous government they brought this forward. We have brought in the legislation and made it a fact in the province because we believe quality measures are important. And we are moving to have common spending measures because I think that's fundamental work if you want to have a good system. That's some of the repair work that's ongoing now.

In terms of where we are with capital, I come from the riding of Mississauga North, and I went to school at Thomas L. Kennedy Secondary School more than a decade ago -- although that's, I'm sure, somewhat of a surprise to you, it has been over 10 years now -- and there were a number of portables at that school when I attended it.

We have had accommodation problems in our system for a very long time, and there are any number of people who will tell you the methodology we have of doing capital construction is not useful. We have not only put a moratorium on building this year for projects that were not in the ground, not ongoing, but we've initiated a study that will be in very soon on how we might learn from other jurisdictions how they have changed how we build schools and how we fund schools to make sure that we have schools ongoing when they're needed.

I have talked to any number of constituents who have bought in new developments on the assumption that a school will be built in the very near term close to their home and in fact have had to bus their children many miles for five or six years. If you have a student who is in grade 9 and a school is built five or six years after you move in, it doesn't do you a lot of good, hopefully.

We want to address that. We think we have to do some better things in the area of capital, and we intend to. I will have that report very shortly, will digest it, and we will come out with a better capital program.

One of the things we've asked the subcommittee on Who Does What is to have a look at who should be involved in capital construction, who should be building schools. I think it's an area where we might be able to find a better system, a better way of meeting the needs of parents, and a more affordable system for the taxpayer.

1740

One of the things that we've asked the subcommittee of Who Does What is to have a look at who should be involved in capital construction, who should be building schools. I think it's an area where we might be able to find a better system, a better way of meeting the needs of parents, and a more affordable system for the taxpayer. So we are not only committed to building schools in the province, but we're committed to doing it in a better fashion, in a better way.

Mr Patten: So is the freeze on or off?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We said when we put the freeze in that it would be for a year and that over the course of that time we would come up with a better capital program, and that's what we intend to do.

Mr Patten: So the freeze is off -- maybe. Sort of. Kind of. Perhaps.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I hope that we don't return to the status quo. I hope we have a better system of capital.

Mr Patten: Listen, I agree with you. If we can do things in a different way, that's better. My assumption from your message is, "Look, we're going to change the system, we're going to do it more effectively, but we're not going to negatively impact the classroom."

Hon Mr Snobelen: That's correct.

Mr Patten: I have no trouble with saying there are different ways of building schools and there are cheaper ways. That's fine. Great. Let's do it. Let's look at it and let's look at everything. What I'm saying to you is that -- and I believe your colleague gave you a few examples -- there are more examples. There's enough evidence there now that says the classroom is being adversely affected.

That can happen in two ways. One is, boards are not taking their findings for reductions in areas from administration and they're passing them along to the classroom. That's one possibility. The other is that they've done that and they can't see how else they can save, so they cut everywhere else. All I'm saying is the net result -- and I would invite you to some schools in my area. As a matter of fact I have one here, and I don't know if my time -- how much time do I have?

The Chair: You've got about three minutes.

Mr Patten: There's one in particular that I'd like to make reference to. I'm saying if there have been cuts thus far of only $167 million to operations and $233 million to capital -- and in your riding you would certainly know that and you must have paid a price for that from some of the people in your riding on the freeze to capital -- if we're looking at anything highly significant, another $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, $600 million from the system, at the moment there is no way I can see the classroom not being adversely affected.

If you talked about rearranging resources -- in other words, take some of the resources from administration and apply that to helping the classroom teacher with tools and updated technologies and things of that nature of high significance -- and I agree you've doubled the computer program. It's still not enough; I'm sure you would agree it's not enough. That's got to be not doubled, it's got to be 10 times that over many years because a lot of the technology and computerization that's in schools now, for most of them, is out of date. I can show you schools that have computers that are literally given away from the federal government, various departments. They've learned the skills and been able to reconvert and renovate some of these computers, and that's what their computers are. These are not the latest IBM computers or Macintosh, whatever they are.

If you're looking at further cost expenditure cuts, how do you assure -- by the way, I want you to know that I agree with a common funding model with flexibility for acknowledging differences. I agree with that. I think that's important and I think you know that we likewise propose having that sort of thing. It depends again on flexibility. But I still come back to the worry that the classroom will indeed be affected. What assurances can you give us on that?

The Chair: Do you want to give the assurance after Mr Wildman's time.

Mr Wildman: I'd like to follow through with that. I'd like to give some specific examples to the minister. As he knows, I represent a northern rural area. Jack Carroll visited Wawa last year. He knows the kind of community I'm talking about. I met last Thursday with representatives of the Michipicoten Board of Education and the Michipicoten District Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Chapleau Board of Education. On Friday I met with the Hornepayne Board of Education. Chapleau is about 3,000 people, Wawa is about 4,000 to 5,000 and Hornepayne is about 1,500 people.

I want to take a couple of minutes and describe to you something about these systems. These are the kinds of systems that have been in place in education in these communities for some time; it isn't just recent. In Wawa, the two Michipicoten boards share one administration. They have one business administrator who does the business administration for both boards. He has a staff of two or three: a secretary, someone in charge of tax collection, that kind of thing. They have -- I'm not sure of this -- one or two part-time supervisory staff. They're retired people who have worked as superintendents in other systems and who, on a part-time basis, carry on supervision of teaching staff.

In a similar way, the Chapleau board shares administration with the Chapleau District Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

In Hornepayne, they don't share administration because the coterminous Catholic board is an isolate board. We won't get into what an isolate board is here; it's not something you have in southern Ontario. What they have done in the public board in Hornepayne is that they have two schools, a high school and an elementary school. They have one principal for both of those schools and they have a part-time vice-principal for both of those schools. They have one, as I think she's called, secretary of the board, or secretary-treasurer, but essentially she's a business administrator who's full-time, and one part-time, retired supervisory official. That's the administration of these boards.

These boards took these measures a number of years ago because of the need to be serious about cutting the tax expenditure in these jurisdictions. These boards are very concerned that the cuts they faced last year, in their view, did not properly take into account their frugality. They believe that they were hit harder because they were frugal in the past as compared to large urban boards that had not made these kinds of savings in the past.

It is a very serious situation because both the Hornepayne board and the Chapleau board are telling me that if they face cuts again this year of the same magnitude, even taking into account the small board assistance you gave -- as a matter of fact, Michipicoten didn't qualify for that. They don't understand why, but partly because they were so frugal in the past it didn't work out for them. They resent too that some larger boards got it and they didn't. Anyway, that's another matter. What they're saying is that if they get a similar level of cut this year in Chapleau and in Hornepayne, they're going to have to close their high schools. They're not talking about affecting classroom education; they're talking about closing schools in both communities. They don't see how they can operate.

I know Mr Nameth went and met with the Hornepayne Board of Education prior to my meeting with them. He talked to them about some things they might do in terms of distance education and so on that might help, but it's not going to solve the problem. The problem is not this year; it's next year, if they face further cuts. Many would say, "There's lots of fat in the system." I'm not talking about that; I'm talking here about three systems where there ain't no fat in terms of administration. I've described to you and been quite straight about the administration of these boards.

1750

You tell me, are these boards going to get consideration? I don't mean just these boards; I mean boards that have done similar things in other small communities across northern Ontario and perhaps other parts of rural Ontario. Are they going to get some consideration? Because they cannot sustain the kinds of cuts they had last year again in the coming year. They won't be able to operate at the secondary level. They can still continue operating at the elementary level; the classes are bigger. They've done things with junior kindergarten. They've either eliminated them or combined them with senior kindergarten, those kinds of things. They can continue to operate. They've cut special ed. They didn't have much special ed before, but they've cut what they had in terms of that kind of stuff. Are they going to get consideration?

Hon Mr Snobelen: First of all, I was just handed a copy of the estimate of the 1996 grants for the Hornepayne Board of Education, which indicates a reduction in 1996, based on the board's estimates, of 0.06%, so we were able to mitigate the reduction to that board and certainly it's not anywhere near the level of 1.8% that is the provincial average.

I do think, though, that your comments are well taken and point to two things. I haven't talked to this particular board, but I've talked to many rural boards across the province and they have told me two things, both of which I agree with. One of those is that the general legislative grant process that's currently in place is not effective in recognizing their needs. They would welcome a sophisticated model of allocation based on student needs that can be demonstrated across the province. That is why we're going down that pathway, because we think that's the responsible way of making sure that the kids serviced by the Hornepayne Board of Education get the same level of service and the same opportunity as kids anywhere else in the province of Ontario. I think that should be a bedrock and a foundation of our education policy. It has not been till now. These boards have expressed difficulties with general legislative grants for a long time, and we are listening and responding to them.

The second thing they have suggested to me is that in many cases, and I'm not sure if this is the case with this particular board, they are subject to made-in-Toronto contracts with their employees, that they have cut some areas of their administration but are unable to do that in other areas. For instance -- again, I can't speak to this board -- in many rural boards they find themselves overly burdened with administration in terms of in-school --

Mr Wildman: I should have added that all of these boards cut teachers last year; they cut the number of teachers they have.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can't speak about this particular board, but I think there are many rural boards that will tell you that the number of department heads, for instance, in a high school is greater than they would like it to be, greater than they think could be useful and effective, but they are subject to contract language that was designed in Toronto.

Mr Wildman: To be fair, I have you at a disadvantage, but the Hornepayne board does not have any department heads.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I cannot speak to that board. But that's the sort of thing the boards are telling us. We think we're addressing both of those with a sophisticated allocation model, with a better model of funding education, and also with the review of the services that's ongoing, including the Bill 100 review. I think we're taking them directly. We've heard the very real concerns of boards across the province and we're addressing those concerns. You can rest assured that we take those seriously, that we understand the channels in different parts of the province very well and that we're addressing those.

Mr Wildman: Can I just say one thing? Perhaps it'll give the minister an opportunity to clarify some comments that have been attributed to him. If they haven't been properly attributed, then fine. In these particular boards, they've cut to the bone. They have very few students. They have low assessment. They're in a tough situation. They've been serious about making cuts. They've cut numbers of teachers.

The reason the Hornepayne board is in difficulty with the high school program is that they say if they have to cut more teachers, they won't be able to provide a program. They won't be able to provide options that will keep the kids there. That means the kids will transfer out. They'll board somewhere else, attend somewhere else. Their grants go down because of that and it becomes a spiral.

In communities like this, isolated northern communities, it's not easy to attract teachers. Even in a situation today when teachers are really looking for work, it's hard. So they tend to pay them well. If one of the solutions is to cut back on teachers' salaries, it's going to make it even more difficult to attract teachers to these small communities.

I hope I can give the minister the opportunity to clarify. A little bit earlier he said that he never said it and that, if it's been attributed to him, it's not true that he said that teachers were overpaid. Has the minister talked about teachers taking a 3% cut in order to make it possible to meet some of the other needs in education?

Is it also true that the minister has been critical of boards that have contemplated tax increases to make up for cuts in grants? Because in these particular boards I'm discussing, to make up for the losses they've had in grants, they told me they would have to increase their taxes by $500 a household and they can't do it.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I have been critical of boards that have raised taxes by more than the savings target we've asked them to make. I think that's not responsible. We're hearing from the taxpayers across the province, who need some relief, and so we're asking people to be more efficient and to find efficiencies. I recognize, as I said earlier, that there are circumstances where there are boards that have very little fat to cut in some areas. We have addressed that; hopefully, we helped to mitigate that last year. That's why we're making the fundamental changes we're making now.

As far as salaries are concerned, I have said that we are not the direct employer of teachers. We've released without comment information that indicated that Ontario's teachers are well compensated versus their contemporaries across Canada and that they spend, at least in the high school panel, less time in class than do their contemporaries across Canada.

I would draw your attention to the fact that if you talk to the faculties of education, you will find now that there are very few opportunities for employment for young teachers in Ontario. It's a great concern of mine and it's a great concern of our government's. You will find that these people -- and if you read the popular press you'll see that there have been reports on this -- are taking jobs in foreign countries for as little as $14,000 a year; I think that was the number quoted in one of the major papers recently.

Perhaps the circumstances may have changed recently in terms of employment and perhaps the availability of teachers in the north has changed given the fact that students seem to be willing to travel tens of thousands of miles to receive very little compensation to make a difference with young people. I'd suspect that some of the employment conditions may have changed in this field over the last couple of years just by virtue of the fact that the numbers of teachers are not expanding.

Mr Wildman: On the specifics, I would like some discussion with some of your staff.

The Chair: Maybe you can do that on Tuesday.

Mr Wildman: No, I don't mean here in the estimates; I mean outside of this. We've got to do something for these boards or the students are going to be in real trouble in those communities.

Hon Mr Snobelen: We are certainly addressing the assessment model and the funding questions.

Mr Patten: Mr Chair, I would like, if I may, to make a correction to the record. I referred to the breakdown of the operating capital as being $233 million for capital. That should be reversed: It's $233 million for reductions to the operating and the capital was $167 million. I was in error and I apologize.

The Chair: Before we all break up here, we have about two hours left of the ministry's estimates. That will resume on Tuesday. The minister will not be here on Tuesday, but he's made available the parliamentary assistant. I would also announce that by the time we complete the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training, it will be about the end of Tuesday. Then I would ask that the Ministry of Health starts on Wednesday. If that's okay, we stand adjourned until Tuesday.

The committee adjourned at 1801.