Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Tuesday 18 November 1997

Ministry of Education and Training

Hon David Johnson

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Peter Wright, director, education finance branch

Ms Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister

Mr Sante Mauti, acting deputy minister

Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel

Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1600 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Acting Chair (Mr John C. Cleary): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Failure of sound system.

The Acting Chair: -- half-hour for estimates in the Ministry of Education and Training. We're pleased to have the minister with us today. I would also like to introduce the table officers: Rosemarie Singh; Alison Drummond, research; Carolyn Brown, Hansard; and Rocco Rampino, broadcasting and recording. It's my understanding that we start with half an hour with the minister to make his presentation and then we rotate from there on, starting with the official opposition.

It's all yours, Minister.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm not sure if this will take half an hour or not, but I do have a few pages, so it might take a little bit of time to go through in terms of an introduction. I thought it would be worthwhile to talk a little bit about the education system in general and some of the situations we face.

Mr Chair, members of the estimates committee, I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Ministry of Education and Training and our plans to create in Ontario a first-class education and training system not just for the present generation of students, but also of course we're most interested in generations to come. We are creating, I believe, a system that will be a lasting benefit to our children and our grandchildren. That's why we are committed to improving student achievement at all levels of our education and training system in the most cost-effective way.

Time and again, parents and students have told this government and its predecessors that they are concerned about the quality of education and training and how their tax dollars are spent. In that vein, I guess in particular in my former capacity as mayor and councillor, I've certainly attended many tax meetings, tax forums, where particularly elderly people and business people, but people in all walks of life have expressed concern about the cost-effectiveness of the system.

Time and again, parents and students have told this government and its predecessors that they are concerned about that quality and how the tax dollars are spent.

In education, one important measure of quality is our students' performance. Up until now, we haven't done a very good job of measuring it, and frankly, that has eroded public trust in our education system. That's why one of our very first moves as a government was to put in place the Education Quality and Accountability Office, which is an external agency designed to test our young people throughout their school lives. Now, for the first time, we have some common measures of how well we're educating our young people, and because of that, parents can now see clearly how their children are progressing.

We also recognized very early that the key component in the educational system is teachers. In order to recognize the professional nature of teaching, we set up the Ontario College of Teachers to enhance the level of expertise they will bring into the classroom.

As Minister of Education and Training, it is my duty to ask some tough questions, such as: Why is our student performance not the best in Canada? Why are our costs higher than those in other provinces? Why do our students spend less time in the classroom than students elsewhere in Canada? Why do our secondary school teachers spend more time out of the classroom than their colleagues in other provinces?

Previous governments dealt with these questions by setting up studies and commissions. There have been 24 separate reviews, 10 commissions and committees, two fact-finding reports, two panels and innumerable meetings to discuss education reform. I think that number has taken place over a considerable period of time. That may date back to 1950, actually. A few of us were in existence at that point; not all of us maybe, but a few of us. Even over this decade, I think there were something like eight different reviews and studies in the education system, and those would be of course quite timely.

It was very clear to us that these issues had been studied to death. Clearly it was time for action, time to make the publicly funded school system more accountable and time to build a system that would provide the answers parents and students need.

We identified the need and then we developed a comprehensive, multifaceted plan to give Ontarians a high-quality education and training system that will give students the knowledge, the skills and the expertise they need to succeed in our global economy today.

In January, the government announced its intention to move Ontario students to the head of the class. We have been meeting that commitment by introducing clear, challenging and consistent province-wide curriculum, regular province-wide testing, and a standard report card.

Our new curriculum is rigorous and demanding. It has year-by-year standards that will raise the standard of education for all students in Ontario. It replaces the previous government's Common Curriculum, with its vague language and multi-year outcomes.

The first components of the new, rigorous curriculum -- math and language -- are already in schools this fall. But that is just the beginning. Curriculum for the remaining subjects, including science and technology -- which will be expected shortly -- history, geography and physical education, will be phased in over the course of the year.

By taking the lead in curriculum, we are responding to parents' concerns that Ontario's students are not keeping pace with their counterparts in other countries and other provinces. We have started our comprehensive testing program, and this fall we received a full report on the results of the first grade 3 test. These results give us a baseline on which to gauge students' progress as they learn the new curriculum.

To give parents a clearer understanding of how their children are doing, we've introduced a new, standard report card to replace the hundreds of different report cards that were being used across the province, which I must say I'm sure many of us have heard of from various parents. Parents in general were not fully satisfied with those different report cards. Parents will receive the report card at least three times a year, and the first report card will be issued before the end of December. This report card matches the grade-by-grade expectations in the new curriculum.

From now on, parents will be able to turn to the curriculum to discuss with teachers their children's strengths and weaknesses based on the curriculum standards, and they'll be able to question teachers about what additional instruction is needed to ensure standards are being met.

In addition, we're introducing a new, four-year high school program similar to that in the other nine provinces and 50 states. The program will be streamed, including grade 9. It will be more challenging. It will encourage our children to reach higher and to develop the skills they need to succeed. This new four-year high school program will start with students who enter grade 9 in September 1999.

In support of our plan for education reform, we have taken forward two pieces of legislation. Earlier this year, as some of us here I'm sure will recall, the Legislature passed the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, which allowed us to establish a new school board structure and conduct elections for a reduced number of school board positions. Those elections took place over a week ago, on November 10, at which time Ontarians elected trustees for their new district boards which will come into effect on January 1, 1998. When the new district boards come into effect, trustees will be able to concentrate on their core objective, being guardians of education in their communities. School boards will be able to renew their focus on the students in the school and devote their efforts to student achievement, reporting and curriculum implementation.

With the introduction of the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, we've taken the next step in the fulfilment of our plan. The bill is intended to fill in the outlines of the new school system set out in the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997. If it is passed, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, would help ensure a smooth transition by improving the quality of our education system, improving the governance of schools, increasing the involvement of parents, and simplifying the financing of the education system. The bill would allow the government to set standards that will promote quality.

1610

The Education Improvement Commission recommended reducing the number of professional activity days during the school year and also reducing the number of exam days in secondary schools. That's why our amendment to Bill 160 reduces professional activity days during the school year from nine to four and examination days from up to 15 to 10 at the secondary level. This would increase the number of days that high school students spend in the classroom from 170 up to 180. I might say that the national average in that regard is 181, in case I don't say it later on, and also that the remaining 10 days of exam time at the secondary level would exceed the national average by two days, with exam days across Canada being an average of eight days in other systems.

At the elementary level, professional activity days during the school year would be reduced from nine to four, which would increase the number of days elementary students spend in the classroom from 185 to 190, which again brings us up to about the national average at the elementary level.

Bill 160 proposes caps to average class sizes, another initiative designed to improve the quality of our students'' education. The average elementary classes would be capped at 25 and the average secondary classes at 22 for each board. In recent years there have been several instances of unions and local school boards bargaining to increase class sizes. We want this practice to stop.

Another thing the bill would do is promote improved student access to professionals with special expertise who can work with and complement the role of teachers. The support from specialists -- for example, in computer technology, arts and career guidance, to name a few -- would be used to complement the instruction provided by teachers and would enrich our children's education and broaden their horizons.

In its recent report, The Road Ahead, the Education Improvement Commission noted that the amount of time students spend on learning is an important factor in determining their achievement levels and their ability to compete with graduates of education systems in other jurisdictions. The EIC found that while Ontario elementary teachers spend the same average number of hours in the classroom as teachers in other provinces, our high school teachers spend considerably less than the national average time in the classroom with their students.

I believe high school teachers should spend more time with their students in the classroom, and we have introduced an amendment that writes directly into legislation the minimum amount of time classroom teachers must spend in the classroom. At the secondary level, teachers would spend about an extra half-hour each day in the classroom teaching students. This would bring them close to the national average, perhaps just a bit below the national average. It's 1,250 minutes per week that would be spent in the classroom. Elementary teachers already teach approximately the same number of hours as the national average, and in the elementary system that's 1,300 minutes per week.

The amendment to the bill would also allow for flexibility at the local level so that principals can distribute instructional time according to the different workloads and experience of teachers.

The bill would help us make the system more accountable to parents. It would make it mandatory for school boards to establish councils in every school. This has already been done in most schools; I think about 95% of the schools. The new bill would make it a legal requirement. School councils would give parents and others in the community interested in education issues a voice in how schools operate both inside and outside the classroom. It is intended that these councils would build on the success of traditional parent-teacher groups and advise principals in many areas, including student discipline, student safety and local priorities.

The bill would also give the province, not school boards, responsibility for setting all education property tax rates. It would introduce a province-wide education tax rate beginning in 1998.

Last year, the people of Ontario spent more than $14 billion on elementary and secondary education. School boards have increased residential property taxes by an average of 7% a year over the past 10 years, which would have doubled the taxes in those 10 years. If these trends continued, residential property taxpayers would be paying $6.2 billion for education by the year 2000. As a result of our bill, residential tax revenues for school purposes would be cut from $5 billion to $2.5 billion and the rates would be frozen.

With these changes, owners of taxable residential property with the same assessed value would pay the same education property tax, before subclass reductions, no matter where the property is. A uniform rate structure for residential properties is fair and is consistent with the government's plan to ensure that students across the province have equal access to high-quality education.

The right of boards and teachers to bargain for a collective agreement is continued in Bill 160. The provisions of the Labour Relations Act will apply, except where there are special provisions for the education sector. Negotiations for a first collective agreement would begin on January 1. Existing terms would continue during the new negotiations. This is a fair approach. It is a reasonable approach.

I want to emphasize that we are committed to improving the quality of education as well as the accountability and cost-effectiveness of the system. To make it work for our students will require the efforts of teachers, school boards, the government and everybody involved in the education system working together. We will work together through the transition to a new, better, more accountable education system for our children. I believe that collectively we have the courage, the strength and the collective wisdom to make a better place for our children. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): Thank you very much, Minister. We will now move to the official opposition, who will have 30 minutes to respond and ask questions.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I think we'll spend the bulk of our time asking questions of the minister. I'd like to focus a little bit on the finances for a moment. As we look ahead to 1998, starting in a few weeks, what per cent of the provincial revenue to fund education will be property taxes versus provincial revenues?

Hon David Johnson: What per cent will be --

Mr Phillips: Raised off the property tax to fund education.

Hon David Johnson: Peter Wright of the education finance branch may have those --

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, Minister. Peter, when you come to the mike, could you identify yourself for Hansard?

Mr Peter Wright: My name is Peter Wright. I'm the director of the education finance branch. Which year were you interested in?

Mr Phillips: In 1998 and future years, just what percentage.

Mr Wright: Basically 50%.

Mr Phillips: Is that 50% from property tax?

Mr Wright: Fifty per cent from property tax -- that's both residential and commercial -- and the balance from operating grants.

Mr Phillips: That's quite a surprise, I think, to a lot of the taxpayers. They had thought it was coming off property tax, but half of it will be funded off property tax in the future. Is that a fair conclusion?

Mr Wright: Yes.

Mr Phillips: The public are used to, I think -- I should be asking the minister this -- some input into the setting of tax rates. If it were a municipality, you know from your experience, if you're setting the property tax rate, you would have the East York council filled with the ratepayers inputting. The provincial government now is going to set this half of the revenue for education. Will that be a public exercise? Will it come before the Legislature and will all of us, the government caucus and the rest of us, have a chance to see what you're planning and a chance to have a vote on it in the Legislature?

1620

Hon David Johnson: You've commented on two portions there. Maybe I could respond. The way the system is today, the school boards would set their requirements, and those requirements are passed along to the municipality. Having served on a municipal council for over 20 years, I'm well aware of the situation. Although the school boards' requirements can be debated today by the municipal councils, municipal councils have no authority to change them or to do anything about it. Indeed, I have over the past number of years been involved in tax meetings in East York. I'm sure Scarborough, where you come from, has had similar sorts of tax meetings --

Mr Phillips: Could we get to what's planned and will there be --

Hon David Johnson: I'm just responding to your whole question.

Mr Phillips: -- a public debate on the mill rate that the province --

Hon David Johnson: I'm comparing the two systems. In the present system, people coming to those meetings have found they have had no influence over the system because the school board has set it, passed it along to the municipality, and senior citizens, business people have expressed huge concern. If it's the municipality that collects it today but the school boards essentially set it, the result has been that over the past 10 years, as you see in my notes, the average increase per year has been about 7%. This has been a great concern to people.

The system, the way it's going to be implemented, will be implemented through regulation in the first instance, so the government will determine the rate. It's anticipated that in future years this will be done through legislation and would be done through a public process.

Mr Phillips: Just to summarize, then, because I don't think, at least not the taxpayers in my area, have been aware of it: I gather from the comment that half of the $14 billion will be raised off property taxes. That's $7 billion of property taxes. The mill rate will be set by regulation. There will be no debate; it will be done by minister's regulation. The way the law is written, if that is put into law, that's not just for 1998; it's for 1999, 2000, and there will be an election and there will be in the future different governments. The way you now plan to deal with education, if I can be very clear, is that half of it will be funded off property taxes, and that will be set not through the Legislature, not through any debate but strictly by the stroke of a pen, and no one will know about it until Saturday, when the Gazette comes out. That's when we'll find out. That's when the public will find out about the $7 billion. I hope I have interpreted you properly on that.

Hon David Johnson: I'm sure you've put your own colouring to it. I think the reality is that when you look at the system over the past number of years, the people of Ontario have not been satisfied with the increases in the education system. I've certainly experienced that in East York. I can only tell you that I've attended meetings at East York Collegiate, for example, jam-packed with people expressing concern about increases in the education system; an average increase of 7% a year over the last 10 years, an almost 100% increase in the cost of education through that period of time. People are far from certain that we are getting the kind of value those increases would entail.

The system that's being put in place, number one, would take off the residential taxpayer half the burden of the property taxes, about $2.5 billion coming off the residential taxpayer. This is something that taxpayers have been asking for, for years: to get the cost of education --

Mr Phillips: If I might just comment --

Hon David Johnson: Well, sure, but do I get to finish?

The Vice-Chair: Yes, you get to finish.

Hon David Johnson: Okay. The residential taxpayers have been asking for that. Senior citizens have been asking for that year after year. That's what happens. The Premier stated that those residential rates will be set for 1998 and they will be frozen, that at the outset the taxing powers will be set in regulation. But the government will, in the future, move towards legislation and there will be that kind of debate. There is no doubt in my mind that this will result in greater satisfaction to the taxpayers, that rates will not skyrocket as they have, unfortunately, in some instances in former years.

Mr Phillips: We are being asked to pass to a piece of legislation, a bill. I remember Mike Harris. He was apoplectic about Bob Rae. He said: "I don't want to give him any opportunity to set taxes. I believe in local autonomy. I have more faith in the local community." Now you are asking us to pass a bill with a gun to our heads, next week, that will give this government and future governments -- it says nothing about changing it down the road. It says "by regulation," and I gather from the officials, $7 billion --

Mr Wright: In the earlier conversation what I thought you had asked about was the operating expenses. That's about half and half. Pension money is entirely government and it's on top, so in terms of tax, you're looking at about $6 billion.

Mr Phillips: About $6 billion -- $7 billion is important; $6 billion is very important too. But with the stroke of a pen the government, the minister, will set $6 billion of -- I truly find it incredible that the party that said, "We must have a referendum on taxes; not just a debate, a referendum on taxes," before you could set the taxes, wants us to agree to a bill, and it's not just a bill for Mike Harris. It's a bill for the future of the province. Tell us again why the government is demanding the right to set this by regulation.

Hon David Johnson: I'd be happy to tell you once again at least two things: One is that over the course of the years the people of Ontario, certainly the people with whom I've dealt, have expressed great dissatisfaction with the funding of the education system the way it is today and the way it has been through former years. Between 1985 and 1995, just to take another 10-year period, the increase in the property tax system was about 120%. During those years seniors, businesses, ordinary citizens, in some cases people struggling to hang on to their homes, pay their property taxes, people with young families trying to stretch their dollars to pay their taxes have expressed considerable concern that the system with the bulk of the burden on the property taxes was not working. It caused them severe problems. This government has heard that message, which has come like a tidal wave for years, and looked at taking the education taxes completely from the residential, completely --

Mr Phillips: Why wouldn't we have a debate on what you want to set? Why wouldn't that be something you would want to bring to the Legislature?

Hon David Johnson: -- off the property taxes. This was part of the Who Does What process -- as you can recall back in the spring, part of the whole Who Does What process -- which leads me into my second point.

Then we listened to municipalities in terms of the transfer of funding and the transfer of I guess authorities, but primarily funding between the province, the regional municipalities, the local municipalities, and they came forward, actually. The municipalities came forward with a formula that would involve some half of the funding on the property tax but being dealt with in terms of the province setting the rate.

This is the model that came forward with the assistance of the municipalities and that is being put into play through Bill 160, which will be voted on some time over the next month or so, I guess. I think it will result in much better taxpayer satisfaction, that there is a control in terms of the spending in the education system --

Mr Phillips: Why wouldn't you allow the Legislature to at least have a vote on it?

Hon David Johnson: As we go through a transition period from the old system to the new system, there will be a need to deal with this in regulation. But as we come out of the transition period, then I have every confidence that the government will move to setting that power in the legislation --

Mr Phillips: Put it in the bill, then.

Hon David Johnson: -- in which there will be a chance to debate.

Mr Phillips: Why wouldn't you put that in the bill, then, if the intent is to have a vote?

Hon David Johnson: I'm telling you that's the intention of the government.

Mr Phillips: With all due respect, if that's the intention, put it in the bill. If the intention is that all of us would have a vote on it, don't give yourself, the minister, the power to set $6 billion worth of taxes. It's obscene. I can't believe you, of all people, would be saying the public doesn't have a right to be part of that decision.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Chair, I hope the member from Scarborough isn't, through these comments, expressing his view that the system we have in place today is satisfactory to the taxpayers --

Mr Phillips: Of course I'm not. I'm saying what you're proposing isn't satisfactory.

1630

Hon David Johnson: Mr Chair, I have explained to the best of my ability what's needed. The present system needed to be addressed. It had been brought to our attention. I'm sure that when the member was in government from 1985 to 1990, the taxpayers of the province -- because I was at the municipal government at that same time -- sure as heck were bringing this problem to my attention. As a matter of fact, in the early 1980s --

Mr Phillips: I listened to Mike Harris rail against Bob Rae and that if Bob Rae brought this bill in --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Phillips, just at second, please.

Hon David Johnson: In the early 1980s when inflation was at its height, there were some school board increases of well up into the double digits. I'm sure that the member from Scarborough would have heard the deep concern during those years in particular. It had to be dealt with.

There is a transition period that we're going through. This does have to be managed so that the system works smoothly and this is the way the government has tackled the issue. I think it will work well. I think it will ensure greater cost-effectiveness within the system, the taxpayers will be happier with the system and we'll still have an even higher-quality education system.

Mr Phillips: Can I ask a quick question on the principals and the vice-principals? This is quite fundamental. What I heard the government say a few weeks ago was, "We think it's important for education that the principals be part of the federation, part of the teacher group." That was all about the quality of education. For the proper quality of education in the schools, principals and vice-principals should be part of the federation. They are the principal teachers.

Then we get into a labour dispute and the principals choose to make a statement along with the rest of the teachers. The government says, "We are going to take you out of the federation because of the labour dispute." I will say that most schools never experienced a strike. I think the average school in the province never had a strike. So what you're doing, Minister, in the anger about the teachers' strike you are undermining the day-to-day quality of education. Mr Snobelen said, "For quality of education, principals should be part of the federation so they are part of the teaching group." You have this dispute, you get mad at them and you take them out of the federation.

Most schools will never experience a labour dispute. Why would we want to sacrifice the quality of education day in, day out just because it may make it easier for you to deal with a labour dispute that may or may not happen and probably in the average school will never happen?

Hon David Johnson: This matter has been debated for a number of years. I've talked to members, at least from my caucus, who claim this kind of debate has gone back at least into the 1970s. The Bill 100 hearings recently debated this very matter and there was a recommendation out of those hearings that the principals and vice-principals be excluded from the teachers' bargaining units. So it's not something that has just popped up overnight.

The former minister sat down with the teachers' unions. This was earlier in the year. They put four demands to him. One was, for example, that they retain their right to strike, I think that was one of them, and we certainly have gone along with that. Another was that they retain their bargaining units, and we've gone along with that. A third one was that the principals and vice-principals would remain within the teachers' unions.

The minister at that point -- a more accurate reflection of his state of mind rather than as has been characterized here -- was willing to go along with that situation as well as concede the other three points of the four demands that were made, in the interests of having harmony, I suppose. He was not convinced that was the absolute best way to go in view of other proposals, other recommendations out of the Bill 100 hearings, for example, but at any rate he was prepared to live with it because he was given assurances that the principals and vice-principals would continue to fulfil their mandate during strike situations whereby they would be in the schools; they would be there for the safety and protection of the students.

Unfortunately, during the recent unlawful strike, the situation was not --

Mr Phillips: Unlawful or illegal.

Hon David Johnson: -- as had been assured to the minister. In fact, as we all know in this room, the vast majority of principals and vice-principals were not there in the schools to give safe harbour to the students. As a result it was only fair to look at the situation again. The conclusion is that it simply left the principals and vice-principals in an untenable conflict situation.

Mr Phillips: That happens once every 20 years for two weeks. Why undermine the quality of education for the other 20 years? For the sake of a two-week dispute, why would we want to do that?

Hon David Johnson: In actual fact, rather than undermine the quality of education, I think this has potential for improving the quality of education in that the principals clearly have a management role inside the schools, a management role vis-à-vis their staff, the teachers. Having the dual responsibility and the conflict of being union members on the one hand, perhaps having to discipline members from their own bargaining unit, which must be a very difficult thing to do, this would clarify that situation so that they simply have a management role.

If you look at fire services or police services, the senior officers are not in the union. The situation of having a management person in a union position is something that occurs very infrequently and creates a conflict situation. So I think it could actually improve the lines of reporting --

Mr Phillips: For discipline and things like that?

Hon David Johnson: -- the management role and improve the running of our school system.

The Vice-Chair: We will now move to Mr Caplan, and then I'd ask Mr Cleary if he could assume the chair so that I'll have an opportunity to ask a few questions as well.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'll be quite brief.

The Vice-Chair: We have another 10 minutes.

Mr Caplan: The minister has thrown out many numbers, talking about tax increases and things like that. I'm certainly aware that in East York, where the minister is from, the mill rate increase last year was zero.

Hon David Johnson: I'm glad to hear it.

Mr Caplan: The year before that, I believe it was 1%, the year before that it was 3% and the year before that it was zero. So I'm a bit surprised to hear all these numbers flying around and not have a record of what actually happened over the last number of years. But that's aside from my question.

I have a question to the minister regarding the career and employment preparation program which is the responsibility of his ministry. It was newly implemented in April and it was to assist people, 90% of whom are youth, to acquire the skills they need to get a job. I'm quite interested to find out from the minister how many positions the ministry targeted for placement by the various employment centres in Ontario.

Hon David Johnson: I'm going to ask the acting deputy to respond to that question.

Ms Joan Andrew: The detailed allocation for each delivery agent was part of their contract. The numbers for achievement are contracted on an annual basis, so we don't have the results because it started in April and it's until next March.

1640

Mr Caplan: I didn't ask for the results. What was the target that was set for the employment agencies on an annual basis from April until the end of March?

Mr Sante Mauti: I'm Sante Mauti, the acting assistant deputy minister, training division. The question was the target that was set for agencies in terms of client service?

Mr Caplan: Yes. I believe the number was targeted by the Ministry of Education and Training.

Mr Mauti: The target for this year, 1997-98, for the transition year, was 50,000 in total. In maturity, at full year, it's to grow to 94,000.

Mr Caplan: The target was 50,000 and --

Mr Mauti: For 1997-98, as a transition year, because we also had carryover from existing programs and this is the implementation or transition year.

Mr Caplan: I believe it's reported quarterly. How many people have been placed into employment positions as reported to the ministry to date?

Mr Mauti: At the end of September, in terms of the actual on-the-job training and in the employment preparation, 42% of that total, so that would be roughly 21,000 at the end of September. Then there's approximately another 20,000 who are in the information and referral service, which is kind of a resource centre, self-directed job search assistance, which is not included in that 50,000 target but is the first point of entry in the program.

Mr Caplan: So 21,000 at the end of September?

Mr Mauti: Yes.

Mr Phillips: The committee meeting next door on Bill 160 is hearing a different story on the taxation issue than the minister gave us. They've requested that the minister perhaps go to the meeting next door and clarify the intentions of the government on the taxation issue. My colleague who was there has just arrived.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): If I may, Mr Minister, you'll be aware that we have now some 15 minutes left under the time allocation motion of the government to complete the clause-by-clause hearings on Bill 160.

One of the most unprecedented pieces of that legislation, as I'm sure has been discussed already at estimates, is the fact that you are giving yourself power to set $6 billion worth of property taxes through regulation. I'm informed that you've just told this committee that it is your intention only to use that non-statutory power to tax during a transition period. That is not what your legislation says next door. The parliamentary assistant has just attempted to say that perhaps it's only going to be used during the transition period and you would come back and perhaps change the law at that point. But as you know, Bill 160, which we're considering next door, is full of references to the transitional period and limits the regulatory powers to that transition period.

If it's your intent to only use those taxation powers during a transition period, would you please, in the last few minutes that are left to our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 160, come to that committee, and we will accept a friendly amendment that at least puts those limitations on the bill before it passes.

Hon David Johnson: We have tabled the amendments we are going to table.

Mrs McLeod: Then what you said today in committee was not true.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: Well, Mr --

The Acting Chair: One at a time, please.

Hon David Johnson: If you have a statement to make, go ahead and make a statement. I think I've clarified the position of the government.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we are trying to deal with your bill --

Hon David Johnson: If you want to make a political statement, you go ahead and make a political statement.

Mrs McLeod: It's not a political statement; it's a question of responsible legislation.

I don't happen to believe that doing any taxation through regulation is responsible, but it is totally and absolutely irresponsible for us to be considering your legislation and your amendments -- and it is going to take more time than we have just to deal with government amendments -- when you're in a room next door telling us that the intent of the government is something that is in complete contradiction to what the legislation says. You're making a farce out of either this process or the process next door. If you think that's a political statement, I think it's a statement about responsible government.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'm not here to make a statement. I'd like to hear him clarify his position.

The Acting Chair: We're going to give the minister a chance.

Hon David Johnson: I've made my statement, Mr Chair. The matter is clarified. If the opposition doesn't like that, there's not much I can do about it.

Mrs McLeod: Would you at least repeat what you said at this committee --

Hon David Johnson: Look, it's down in Hansard. The other members were here.

Mr Wildman: How are we going to vote if you won't tell us?

Hon David Johnson: I think the member knows how he's going to vote at any rate.

The Acting Chair: There are four minutes left.

Interruption.

The Acting Chair: Please come to order there.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a question to the minister. I'd like to go back to the dilemma you're going to be placing principals and vice-principals in. Might I say I've spent 22 years as either a vice-principal or a principal and I haven't run into any of the problems you suggested principals and vice-principals may have. Let's put Rick Bartolucci, principal, in the school. Will Rick Bartolucci be the principal or will he be the manager of the school?

Hon David Johnson: The principals will be principals. If you're talking about a principal, the principal will obviously be the principal, but principals do have managerial responsibilities within their schools.

Mr Bartolucci: There is reference in the Education Act, and Veronica will attest to this, that the principal is the principal teacher. Will you reaffirm that the principal of the school will be the principal teacher in the school?

Hon David Johnson: Your terminology may be --

Mr Bartolucci: The terminology is very important, Minister.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, the principal will be a member of the College of Teachers and will be eligible to teach.

Mr Bartolucci: So he --

Hon David Johnson: He or she.

Mr Bartolucci: Yes -- is still going to be defined as the principal teacher in the school.

Hon David Johnson: Is that a term you're --

Mr Bartolucci: Well, Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The principal will be a member of the College of Teachers, will be a teacher and will be eligible --

Interjection: Will be the principal teacher in the school.

Mr Bartolucci: But he or she will not have any of the rights that other teachers in that school or in that board enjoy with regard to security. Are you saying that?

Hon David Johnson: Principals will have their employment rights protected until September of next year. During that period of time the Ministry of Education will be involved in discussions with them, I'm sure they'll be involved in discussions with their board, to work out their employment rights and contract over the subsequent period of time.

The exception, obviously, is that they wouldn't have seniority rights, because from January to September -- seniority rights pertain to a union; they will not be a member of a union, so seniority rights would be irrelevant in a case like that. They will maintain their length of service, though. Their length of service would be a key factor. They will not be a member of a union, they will not pay union dues, but other than that, their employment rights will be protected until September, and during that period of time the ministry and the local board I'm sure will be very active in discussions with principals and vice-principals to work out the most appropriate situation for them.

Mr Bartolucci: Minister, you're not going to --

The Acting Chair: That's it. Your time is up.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On behalf of the New Democratic Party I'm glad to be here today in this most bizarre set of estimates. Not more than 10 or 15 minutes ago I heard the Minister of Education say that they will only use the powers they've given themselves in Bill 160, in the transition year, to set property taxes in Ontario. I would like for you to clarify: Were you mistaken, do you not understand your legislation or are you trying to mislead the members of this committee?

Hon David Johnson: What I have clearly stated is that in the bill it sets it through regulation; there's no question about that. It's the intention of the government that at the outset this is required, to have these tax-setting powers in the regulation.

Mr Bisson: At the outset.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, at the outset.

Mr Bisson: What are you going to do after the transition?

Hon David Johnson: There is a transition period of time, and it is the intention of the government after the transition time to move towards legislation.

Mr Bisson: Do you understand what's in Bill 160? I'm being specific around the taxing powers of the government. The bill, as I understand it -- I don't pretend to be the expert -- says that the government gives itself, by way of regulation, the ability to set the mill rate when it comes to the education portion of taxes.

Hon David Johnson: That's right.

Mr Bisson: You're coming here as minister and saying to us that you're only going to do it in the transition year. You're not talking about what you're going to do during those years afterwards. We've got members on the other side, in committee, who are getting completely different answers from your parliamentary assistant as to what powers you're giving yourselves and how you intend to use those powers. So we would need to know within the next six minutes what your position is and what you're going to be doing.

Hon David Johnson: I don't think you're getting conflicting information. I think you're trying to portray that you're getting conflicting information, but the information is consistent. That information is exactly that the taxing powers will be in regulation in the bill. That's where they are. It's the intention of the government after a transition period to move towards legislation.

1650

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): You're suggesting, then, not by a regulatory process but by legislation which would amend the Education Act, among other things?

Hon David Johnson: Yes, there would have to be legislation at some point to deal with it.

Mr Kormos: You speak very specifically of a transition period. When you speak of a transition period, you're relying upon what time frame?

Hon David Johnson: I'm not certain at this point.

Mr Bisson: Jeez. Come on.

Hon David Johnson: You know what's in the bill. That's how you will vote, according to your wishes. What's in the bill is that the tax powers will be set by regulation.

Mr Kormos: I understand that. Of course the bill doesn't speak of abandoning those powers.

Hon David Johnson: No, it doesn't.

Mr Kormos: But you speak of the need for yet new legislation if that goal of relieving the government of setting mill rates is going to be achieved.

Hon David Johnson: That's right.

Mr Kormos: I still want a little better handle on what you mean by the transition period. When can people expect to see that legislation put forward: in a year's time, two years' time, three years' time? Surely there has to be some planning in that regard.

Hon David Johnson: I'm not prepared to speculate on that at this point in time.

Mr Wright: I think one thing that should be clear in this is that it is not the Minister of Education who is setting the tax rate; it's the Minister of Finance, in the bill, who sets the tax rate. It would really be up to the Minister of Finance to answer these questions in detail about the tax rates.

Mr Kormos: Quite right. I'm glad you referred to him, and I bet you are too, Mr Johnson, given that he has taken the ball out of your court. We'll put it back in your court. Clearly you're the sponsor of this program. Why wouldn't the legislation contain a sunset time frame after which the government could relinquish its mill-setting power? Why are the public forced to rely upon intended legislation?

Hon David Johnson: Well, in the case of the EIC, for example, it is sunsetted; it's sunsetted at five years. In this case, I don't believe there is a sunset.

Mr Wright: No, there is no sunset. One of the issues that finance does have to deal with is the transition and the phase-in in terms of moving from where we are now to the uniform rate in the case of residential; no decision has yet been made on commercial-industrial. There needs to be some capacity for that transition period.

Mr Bisson: I find it most astonishing. We've got the Minister of Education who comes in here today and who we know is saying in the legislation, "We're giving ourselves, the cabinet of Ontario, the power to set the mill rate in perpetuity when it comes to property tax assessment in regard to education." Then we've got his assistant deputy minister coming in here saying, "Well, it's really the Minister of Finance's responsibility to determine that mill rate." Who takes responsibility for education? I always thought it was the Minister of Education who in the end made these decisions. Not that I want you to make them, but if you're not prepared to come to this committee and tell us what your intentions are for the longer run when it comes to this issue, how can we have any confidence in what you're proposing?

Hon David Johnson: Clearly, I take responsibility for education issues, the Minister of Finance for taxing issues. It would be inappropriate of me to speculate on what the Minister of Finance may consider to be an appropriate period of time with regard to taxing.

Mr Bisson: Why didn't you stipulate that in the legislation, in Bill 160, when you did it? Why not say to them either, "We are going to sunset that particular power," that you've given yourself by way of regulation or that at a specific date it would revert back to whatever? The way you guys are doing this is almost incompetent. It's as if you're shooting from the hip as you drive along in your change to the system of education and making up your mind on policy decisions based on whatever crisis happens to follow.

Hon David Johnson: I think the people of Ontario who have been concerned with the high taxation level, with property taxes which have gone up for education purposes by almost 100% over the past 10 years, by well over 100% between 1985 and 1995, will say that it's about time somebody came to grips with this system; it's about time somebody took at least part of the burden of education tax off the property taxpayers.

That's exactly what we're doing. We're doing it in a way that (a) allows us to hopefully give the property taxpayers a break and (b) allows for a transition from an old system to a new system. This is the way it has been approached in the bill, which freezes the property tax; at least through a transition period there's a freeze on the tax. I think at the end of the day the taxpayers of Ontario will say: "Right on. This relief is long overdue." I can tell you that from the experience of having dealt with taxpayers for well over two decades now.

Mr Bisson: Minister, you walked into this situation by trying to force this confrontation you've had with teachers, thinking politically you were going to have the public on your side. It was really clear at the end of that two weeks that 50% of the people of Ontario polled did not have confidence in what this government is doing in education. That's why they were supporting the teachers. Then you come in here and you say all of a sudden that the public has some confidence in you or are willing to have you set what property taxes are going to be in the future and that their taxes are going to go down. I don't think it washes.

What this is all about, and what we in the New Democratic Party have charged from the beginning, is that this is an attempt on the part of this government, somewhat successful, to get your hands on a bunch of money out of the education system. I'm amazed that the minister and the former minister and the Premier of this province stand up time after time denying what this is all about. Quite often lately we've been finding, quite frankly, that what you've been saying and what you've been preaching are two different things.

The House doesn't allow me to use the word "liar," so I won't. But if I take a look at, for example, just one little issue, when all of this started under Bill 160, Minister Snobelen and the Premier at the time were saying: "This is all about improving the system of education and bringing in quality. It has nothing to do with taking money out." We get leaked to us Veronica Lacey's performance contract, and her performance contract says what? It says specifically that for the year 1998-99, you want to take an additional $667 million out of the system of education. Up to that point, the government and you, as minister at the time, were saying, "This was never our intention." It wasn't until we revealed this contract that finally the government was forced to admit that, yes, you're taking money out of the system of education.

I'm getting to the question. The point is that up to that point you had denied it. It seems that almost every time it's the same story: You start out in your allegations about what your intentions are to do with this bill, and piece after piece is falling out of your reform in the system of education and we're finding out that this is all about taking money. Why don't you admit it? Why don't you just come clean and tell the people of Ontario that this is about making changes in the system of education, yes, but it is also about taking money out of the system big time. Is it not? Are you not taking money out of the system?

Hon David Johnson: Okay? Finished?

Mr Bisson: Yes. Are you taking money out?

Hon David Johnson: I just wanted to make sure you had time for your question.

Mr Bisson: Don't worry.

Hon David Johnson: Some of the opposition members seem to have trouble with the concept that we can achieve more than one objective in a bill --

Mr Bisson: No, not at all.

Hon David Johnson: -- in particular, the objectives of quality on the one hand and efficiency on the other hand. There is actually a third objective in terms of accountability in the system as well: Through the school councils, there would be greater accountability.

But let's just look at the objectives of improving the education system, reforming the education system, and achieving greater efficiencies. This government has never denied -- as a matter of fact, this government is proud to put forward both of those objectives. On behalf of students within the system, we're saying that our students deserve the same amount of instructional days as students in other jurisdictions.

Mr Bisson: Is it the intention of this government -- Chair, I asked a specific question.

Hon David Johnson: In the other provinces across Canada, for example, secondary students have 181 instructional days.

Mr Bisson: Are you or are you not going to take money out of the education system?

Hon David Johnson: This bill, through the amendment, will increase our instructional days up to 180 in the secondary system.

Mr Bisson: Are you or are you not going to take money out of the system?

Hon David Johnson: That will be a quality aspect of this bill. As a result of this bill, our students will have more time, 10 more days, adding quality. Our elementary students will have five more days, quality days.

Mr Bisson: I asked you a simple question.

Hon David Johnson: The class sizes --

Mr Bisson: Will you, as the Minister of Education, be taking additional money out of our system of education over the next year or two? Yes or no?

Hon David Johnson: The average class size at the secondary level will be set at 22. The average class size at the elementary level will be set at 25.

Interruption.

Mr Bisson: Chair, what are you going to do?

The Acting Chair: Order. If we continue to get interruptions, we may have to clear the room. I don't like to do this, but we've got to let the minister and the member argue this out.

Mr Bisson: I would like an answer. I asked a question about money.

Hon David Johnson: As a result of setting the average class size --

Mr Bisson: We will get to quality issues after. Let's talk about money.

Hon David Johnson: That is a quality issue. You're interested in quality issues, I know, as well as money. I'm talking to you about quality; I'll get to money.

Mr Bisson: Are you going to get to money within the next fifteen minutes?

The Acting Chair: Let the minister answer.

Hon David Johnson: As a result of this --

Mr Bisson: Is it your intention to blather on or to make a point?

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: You guys are rude. Don't talk to me about rude.

The Acting Chair: Let the minister answer, and then you can ask him a question.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Chair, he asked a question about quality and about efficiency. I'm prepared to answer both, but it's hard if he interrupts.

As a result of setting those average class sizes, we will not see the increases in the class sizes that we've seen at the elementary level for the past six years or so. That is not adding quality, by seeing those class sizes. We will ensure that quality. We will ensure that there are qualified individuals in the classroom complementing our teachers. That adds quality. The mandatory school councils, through the parents, will add quality. This will all improve the quality in the system. That's on the quality side, so there is clearly established a quality aspect to the bill.

1700

On the efficiency side now, this government has never denied that we need to look at every ministry, that we need to find savings in every ministry. Is there anybody in the province of Ontario who thinks that in the over $14 billion spent in the elementary and secondary system today, every nickel is spent to best advantage, that there aren't some ways --

Mr Bisson: Nobody's saying that.

Hon David Johnson: Then we're on the same wavelength. We're saying we must find that, and yes, we are going to be looking for those savings within the system.

If you're going to say to me that there's some ironclad number that we must achieve, such as $670 million or $700 million or this or that, I'm going to tell you that that's not so. But I do have to look in the system and achieve what I can achieve for the taxpayers of the province. At one point it was felt that $670 million may be achievable, and that's what's reflected in the draft performance contract of the deputy minister. But the changes and what will actually be invested in our system will be determined through the budget process, through the estimates process that will take place next spring for the year 1998-99 and the following spring for the year 1999-2000. I'm here to tell you that we will ensure that the moneys are there to improve the quality in the education system.

Mr Bisson: I asked you a question, and by the time you got to the end of your response, you somewhat got to the answer. The question was, is it your intention over the next two years to withdraw yet more money out of the education system? I take it your answer in all of that was yes.

Hon David Johnson: My answer is that we'll be looking for the best value for the taxpayer --

Mr Bisson: Is there less money or more money?

Hon David Johnson: -- and if we can achieve that in a high-quality system and less money, then you want to believe --

Mr Bisson: Okay: less money. Now, the subsequent part of the question --

Hon David Johnson: -- that this government will only spend what it has to spend. On the other hand, if it requires more money to ensure that quality, we'll spend more money.

Mr Bisson: Okay, we know you want to take more money out of the education system. How do we know that? We take a look at your budget document, the 1997 budget document. I remember; I was in the Legislature. If you take a look at what you're planning in the system of education, if you look at the actual money spent in 1995-96 over 1997-98, there is a reduction from $8.3 billion to $7.7 billion. That's in your own budget documents. That's what you planned for.

If we take a look at the Veronica Lacey performance contract, there's clear mention in that contract that you're taking out at least, if we believe this draft -- is this draft 1, 2, 3 or 4? I don't know, but we know it's $667 million, so we know you're taking money out.

My question simply is this: Do you believe as Minister of Education that you can take well over $1 billion out of your system of public education and make it better?

Hon David Johnson: I know that today as we speak, in this year of 1997, more moneys are being spent in the school system. If you look at --

Mr Bisson: No. Try answering my question.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Chair --

Mr Bisson: It's one thing in the House not to get an answer, but I asked you a direct question.

The Acting Chair: One at a time, please.

Mr Bisson: The question is, do you believe --

Hon David Johnson: This year in the secondary and elementary school systems --

Mr Bisson: We'll get to the numbers, and you'll get to talk about the numbers all you want. The question I asked you --

The Acting Chair: Let the minister answer.

Hon David Johnson: This year in the elementary and secondary school systems, there are more moneys being spent than in any other year in the history of the province of Ontario. There's more money being spent this year in elementary and secondary in the school system than in 1995. Now, that's from all sources, including property taxes, including provincial revenues, including revenues from other sources. I'm not going to get caught into any particular figure.

Mr Bisson: I'm not asking you to get caught in a figure. I'm asking you a very simple question.

Hon David Johnson: We will determine what has to be spent on a year-by-year basis. That's how the budget is done for the Ministry of -- pick another ministry -- Finance, Natural Resources, you name it. Each one of those ministries will determine what has to be spent on an annual basis. That's exactly what I'm going to do in education.

Mr Bisson: Let me ask you the question really slowly, whether you as the Minister of Education believe you can take over $1 billion out of our system of public education and make it better. Do you believe that, that you can make it better by taking out over $1 billion from a $14-billion system?

Hon David Johnson: I'm not going to respond to a question like that, other than to say that I believe the people of Ontario would say that when you're spending over $14 billion in a system, with the kind of quality we are able to achieve because of the system the way it is today, there is room for both quality improvement -- no question about it, which initiatives the government has taken -- and there is also room for looking at efficiencies. How much those efficiencies will amount to, I don't know, but we're prepared to look at it on behalf of the taxpayers and see if there can't be efficiencies within the system.

If at the end of the day we find out that every last nickel is being spent to maximum benefit, that there's absolutely no waste, absolutely no duplication in the budgets and what is being spent in education, then we won't be taking any money out.

Mr Bisson: I take it the answer is that you believe you can do it, because otherwise I guess you wouldn't be the minister.

Chair, how much time do I have left?

The Acting Chair: You've got 11 minutes.

Mr Bisson: I guess what bothers a lot of people in this process you've embarked on -- members of the opposition, parents, students, teachers and others -- is the whole attitude or the whole tone you're bringing to this debate.

The first one, the biggest fallacy, is that you're somehow saying that educators in this province are not able or not willing to embrace change. I find that highly insulting as a parent and I find that highly insulting as a member of this Legislature.

We know that teachers over the past number of years have been changing with the system of education, and in many situations driving that change. You seem to think that somehow the system of education was devised a number of years ago and that there was never any change through the whole thing, that it was stagnant. It was like the status quo for the last 50 years and nothing happened in the system of education, and all of a sudden Mike Harris and Dave Johnson and John Snobelen have come up with a vision of how to make our system better. That doesn't recognize the fact that our system of education has evolved with time, has changed with time. Why? Because time and the change in our society dictates that the system of education has to move along with it.

For you to make the kinds of comments that you have been making as a government, not only you specifically but many members of your government, including your Premier, that teachers and others within school boards aren't prepared to undertake the kind of change and somehow you've got courage and lots of chutzpah and you can go out and do all this stuff that nobody else wants to do flies in the face of reality. And you wonder why people get upset with you.

I just have to put that on the record. I've dealt with many teachers: as a parent because my two daughters have gone through the system of public education; as a legislator; and also, for a short time, as a teacher at the secondary level on the trades side. I've always been struck by the fact that teachers and school board trustees and those people who work in the system have been on the leading edge of making change happen. For you to make those comments flies in the face of that, and you wonder why people get upset.

1710

I also get extremely upset when I listen to the Premier of the province, and I just heard the Minister of Education earlier, make comments about how local municipalities and local school boards can't be trusted to make decisions about how to set the mill rate when it comes to property taxes. I remember that Mike Harris said -- I've seen the quotes, as you have -- when he was the head of one of the trustee associations in this province: "I will not trust the provincial government to make these kinds of decisions. I think those kinds of decisions are best left to local trustees." As Gerry Phillips said earlier, I remember sitting in the Bob Rae government when Mike Harris made the same kind of comments, that he didn't trust the bad old provincial government; he trusted local municipalities and local school trustees. Everything you've done has been completely the opposite, and you wonder why people get upset.

I just want to say for the record that I don't know who you guys have been listening to or talking to, but you're not talking to the people out there, because the people are not with you, they're against you, when it comes to these particular issues.

I want to ask another question on a different issue around education before my time runs out, and that's on the question of apprenticeships. I was quite fortunate. I went through a system of apprenticeship to become an electrician, I would argue a very good system, at the community college level. Now I hear, through the machinations of this government, through discussion papers you have out there, through the Veronica Lacey contract and through questions that were raised in the House today by our education critic that you plan on making some pretty fundamental changes in apprenticeship training that have nothing to do with increasing the quality.

You're actually proposing -- I listened to you today in the House -- that you will charge apprentices for their time in school while they go to community college to pick up the theoretical side of their training. How does that make the system better? Tell me how you're going to be able to increase the quality of apprenticeship training by doing the kinds of things you're planning on doing, including charging apprentices for the time they are going to spend in school.

Hon David Johnson: First of all, I didn't say that in the House. I think that was one of your members who may have put that in a question. But I do feel duty-bound to respond to the first part, the preamble. I'm going to ask the acting deputy to respond on the apprenticeship program.

I believe that teachers are more than willing to change and are more than supportive of many of the changes. Obviously there's a difference of opinion on some aspects, but in terms of the report card, I think I've heard one of your own members -- I don't know; it was one opposition member from one party or another -- stand up in the House and say that the teachers are supportive of the report card, and I believe that's true.

Mr Bisson: Why are you attacking them?

Hon David Johnson: I believe that teachers are in support of the more rigorous curriculum. I believe the teachers are supportive of the testing. I indicated in the House that although the opposition may want to portray something differently, this government has nothing but respect for the teachers, for the job they've done, but the system --

Mr Bisson: That's why you've got all those ads on television. Okay.

Hon David Johnson: We've said over and over again, and I know you're going to portray this in another light, but that's the game we play, that the system --

Mr Bisson: Why the ads? That's the game you're playing. Why do you put the ads on TV?

Hon David Johnson: The system in place today whereby our students, for example, do not have the number of instructional days that students in other jurisdictions have is not fair to our students.

Mr Bisson: It's not fair for the Minister of Education to make the kind of comments --

Hon David Johnson: It's not fair to our teachers to be able to perform in a shorter period of time. Many of the reforms that have been brought forward, many of the reforms that are coming through in Bill 160, have the support of the teachers, and I'm sure that everyone, when the dust settles, will say that these are good reforms. I think that should be said.

Mr Bisson: I can see them lining up already.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Chair, it's really hard --

The Acting Chair: Let the minister answer.

Hon David Johnson: I don't interrupt when he's asking a question, yet I can't get two words out without an interruption. It's most difficult to concentrate when he's doing that, and I would ask him in fairness to allow for the answer.

Mr Bisson: You ask me in fairness?

Hon David Johnson: I am going to ask the deputy to respond to the apprenticeship question.

Ms Andrew: Acting deputy. I'm Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister.

Apprenticeship reform: The federal government announced about two years that by next year they would cease all support for the purchase of apprenticeship training. In Ontario that means about $30 million a year that will be withdrawn for apprenticeship training. We have spent some time working in consultation with the partners in apprenticeship to look at how we could refinance the system for apprenticeship training to ensure the quality of apprenticeship training that we need. It may indeed involve having to pay tuition.

Right now, I think apprentices as employed workers are about the only people who don't contribute some tuition towards their own upgrading. Almost everyone else who goes to college at night or whatever has to pay some tuition. We're looking at how to refinance it, given the withdrawal from the federal government, because of a desire to keep some kind of quality apprenticeship system going in Ontario.

Mr Bisson: You realize the repercussion of that. In areas where there are collective agreements there is going to be some pretty hard negotiation between the unions and their employers to pick up that extra user fee you're putting on. It's an extra cost to the business sector.

What's a little bit scarier is that those places where the employer can't or the employer won't, because there may not be a union, it's going to mean in some cases that some of the very people we're trying to get into the apprenticeship programs aren't going to be able to afford to go. I can tell you as an apprentice, having gone through the system where the employer was actually I think more than fair -- they paid our wages when we went to school -- I couldn't have done that if I had gone under the system that you're wanting to create.

Apprentices aren't, for the most part, 18- or 19-year-old single people. They are married people with kids and mortgages, with payments on the house. They just can't afford to pick up and go to school for three months at a time for three terms and expect to pick up the fees. They just won't go. That's what I'm worried about.

Ms Andrew: We're also looking at other ways of doing what's called the in-school part of apprenticeship so that it doesn't all have to be block release, which is the three-month release. There could be evening options in school. There could be a variety of other options.

Mr Bisson: Some of that already happens, and we understand that. The point I want to make here is that there is a very important component in apprenticeship training, especially within the more technical trades like machinists, electricians etc, where you need to get the theoretical side of the job down or you will never be able to do the practical properly. You can't do that in the workplace. That's been sort of proven. The best place to do it is in a community college. My fear is that the change that you're contemplating -- I know why you're trying to make it. We understand the federal government has abandoned its responsibility. The effect is that the very people you're trying to help --

The Acting Chair: You've only got another 35 seconds.

Ms Andrew: We are also looking at options for providing financial assistance to help people offset the costs they may have to incur in paying tuition.

The Acting Chair: You've got a few seconds yet.

Mr Bisson: We'll give it to the Tories.

The Acting Chair: It's up to the minister if he wants to add anything to what he said; if not, it goes to the governing party. Minister? Okay, Mr Wettlaufer.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I'll use my time for comments or for questions. I have in front of me Bill 14, introduced for first reading April 23, 1992, by the present leader of the Liberal opposition, Mr McGuinty. It received second reading May 7, 1992. It's interesting. When he spoke on May 7, 1992, in the Legislature, and I read from Hansard: "My bill says that no strike or lockout can begin after October 31, again reflecting the fact that students are more sensitive to lost class time in the latter part of a year."

Interesting. He was walking with the pickets just recently in an illegal strike -- and I do say illegal, because the judge did not rule of the legality of the strike.

Mr Phillips: The minister said "unlawful."

Mr Wettlaufer: He can say what he wants and I can say what I want. Mr McGuinty went on to say that a fact-finder's recommendation would be made and that it would be passed by a vote of 40%. He said: "I didn't come up with that number out of thin air. I got that from Ohio, and I understand that is a provision that's in other American states."

I find it very interesting that the Liberal Party's leader would advocate such a position at that time.

Interjection.

Mr Wettlaufer: I know. That was then and this is now.

I also note that in a discussion I had with a retired teacher just last week, Mr Al Flitton, retired three years ago, he produced a report for the board of education which was to be passed on to the ministry --

Interjection.

Mr Wettlaufer: I believe he probably was on your football team. He did a paper on the issue of principals and vice-principals in the union. It was his position that principals and vice-principals should not be in the union, and the reason was --

Mr Bisson: Well, that changes my mind.

1720

Mr Wettlaufer: I didn't interrupt you. The reason, using his words, was, "The vast majority of principals and vice-principals no longer teach." He said, "In the days when they were principal-teachers it was acceptable, but now they would have to give a commitment that they are going to be back in the schoolroom every five years."

I find it odd that we have people who are interested in perpetuating a position -- we had schools closed because they couldn't be administered properly because principals and vice-principals were walking on the picket line in an illegal strike, after October 31 of a year, and the Liberal leader said that was definitely not to the benefit of the students.

I also heard many other things that the teachers' unions were saying. I don't criticize teachers -- I never will -- but I will criticize their unions. The reason I will do so has nothing to do with my opinion on unions. The reason I do so is because I cannot expect a teacher to read Bill 160.

Interruption.

Mr Wettlaufer: Hang on. I know that many of them didn't, because --

Interruption.

Mr Wettlaufer: No, I don't expect them to, but I do expect that a union leader, if he or she is going to make a statement about what is in Bill 160, will have read the bill.

I want to point out that the union leaders have said that Bill 160 is going to permit charter schools. That's funny; I couldn't find any mention, any reference at all to charter schools in the bill. The unions also said that Bill 160 gives the government heretofore non-existing powers to intervene in school board affairs and to hire and fire board employees and trustees. Well, you know something? That was in the Municipal Affairs Act. It has been in the Municipal Affairs Act since 1935. Nobody has ever complained about it before. That's odd.

The unions also said that Bill 160 will completely destroy public education in the province. I guess it's okay, then, that in some of the northern areas -- Mr Bartolucci should be very interested in this and so should Gilles Bisson. I was on the public hearings up north and I heard that the funding per student per year in some of those boards was as low as $3,300 or $3,800, yet there are boards in southern Ontario that are spending $9,000 or $10,000.

Interruption.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Mr Chairman, these interruptions from the back continue. They should stop.

Interruption.

The Acting Chair: Order, please.

Interruption.

The Acting Chair: Any further interjections and we'll have to clear the room.

Interruption.

The Acting Chair: We're going to recess this committee for a few minutes till we get order; a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1726 to 1731.

The Acting Chair: I call the committee back to order. Mr Wettlaufer, continue.

Mr Wettlaufer: There seems to be some misunderstanding about one particular thing I said. I said that I didn't expect teachers to have read the bill, and some of the members of the committee seemed to interpret my remark as meaning that teachers are too stupid to read the bill. I certainly didn't mean anything of the sort. We have a long document here, 264 pages, as I recall, and what I meant was that I didn't expect any teacher to read through that bill. I will reiterate what I said, however, that I do expect the teacher union leaders to have read it and to interpret it properly.

Having said that, I will continue with what I was saying before. The unions have said publicly in commercials on television that we've already cut $1 billion from the classroom and that we propose to cut another $1 billion. First of all, we don't need Bill 160 to cut anything out of any ministry. The government has that authority. Also, we haven't cut $1 billion out of the classroom. We have cut, up to this point, roughly $325 million, $330 million in the first two years, and the minister has already said that we believe there are efficiencies to be obtained yet, but he won't be tied down to a hard and fast number, and that's fine.

It's interesting, though, that in this bill we are proposing some measures to improve the education system. The NDP cut, in round figures, $600 million out of the education system when it was the government in the last two years and they did not have a plan to improve the education system. I was a businessman at the time and I met with a lot of other business people. At that time, any time we tried to hire graduates we found that the level of the graduates was going down -- I'm talking about high school graduates -- in the areas of grammatical structure, letter-writing and spelling. I got more out of the education system 30 years ago in those three areas than the students are today.

The funny thing was that this was recognized by the former NDP Minister of Education David Cooke and he wanted to do something about it. The Education Improvement Commission, which is co-chaired by David Cooke, has also reinforced the fact that there are improvements needed, and generally speaking he agrees with the improvements recommended in the bill.

Given that background and the fact that we had the illegal strike and that the principals and vice-principals did not ensure that the administration of the schools would continue -- I realize, Minister, it was a very long question -- could you comment on the need for taking the principals and vice-principals out of the union? One of the comments I've heard from principals and vice-principals who have come in to see me over the course of the last two weeks is that it is our intent to replace them with non-teaching managers, ie, managers who are not members of the Ontario College of Teachers, managers who have never had experience in the classroom. Could you comment on that, please?

The Acting Chair: Sixteen minutes.

Hon David Johnson: I've got 16 minutes to comment on it? I'm sure other people have questions too.

I'd be pleased to comment on that. In actual fact, that's something that apparently is being bandied about in various meetings, that it's the intention of the government to somehow allow for principals who are not teachers or who might have skills other than teaching skills.

If you look at the bill -- and your initial reference probably was that you wouldn't expect everybody in the province to have read through 219 pages of this bill. But if you look at the bill on page 8, it defines the principal: "'principal' means a teacher" -- a principal is a teacher -- "appointed by a board to perform in respect of a school the duties of a principal under this act and the regulations." A "teacher" is also defined in here, on page 11, as "a member of the Ontario College of Teachers." That makes it pretty clear. It's pretty hard to say, when you read that, how the government would be trying to orchestrate that principals would not be teachers, that they would be some kind of managers who have no teaching ability, because it clearly states right here "'principal' means a teacher."

I know that some people refer more to page 213 when they're dealing with this. Page 213 also defines a teacher:

"'teacher' means a person employed in a school as a teacher, but not as an occasional teacher, and

"(a) who is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers, or

"(b) whose appointment as a teacher is authorized by the Minister of Education and Training."

Some people jump on that clause and say: "There you go. There's some evil intent of the government to allow people in, some friends of the government or something, who wouldn't be teachers." The problem with that interpretation is that if I go about two inches above that, it's clearly under the heading "Provincial Schools Negotiations Act." This only pertains to the Provincial Schools Negotiations Act and is simply a transfer of the existing language that deals with provincial schools. It has no bearing on the teachers and principals in the elementary and the secondary school system.

That's how that's being misconstrued. That's one of the many myths surrounding Bill 160. I'm glad you brought that to light and clarified that a principal must be a teacher, end of story.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I think, Mr Chair, we really only have about three or four minutes, because of a vote in the House.

The Acting Chair: That's what I understand.

1740

Mr Pettit: Minister, as you undoubtedly know by now, I have some concerns about the bill, but my concerns are the concerns that have been brought to me over the course of the last two or three weeks by people within my riding. Therefore, their concerns become my concerns.

One of the really contentious issues that has been brought forward time and again is the powers of the Education Improvement Commission. We have the opportunity today for you to describe the powers the EIC has, particularly with reference to its decisions not being reviewable in court. Could you elaborate on that and also tell us if there is any precedent for this in Ontario law?

Hon David Johnson: I appreciate that. The EIC generally will be looking at the transfer of people and facilities from the old boards to the new boards. We're going through quite a period of change with the old boards and the new boards and there needs to be somebody to assist in that regard. That's what the EIC is there to achieve. The EIC is sunsetted, though, so it's there for a period of five years and then it's gone.

The transition orders they make cannot be questioned in court, but if they operate outside their mandate or if they operate in a fashion outside the law, then clearly they will be in court and they can be dealt with in court. It doesn't give them any sort of immunity in that regard. It only means that within the kind of responsibilities they have, their orders cannot be questioned.

In terms of other precedents, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has operated under exactly that same situation for a long time. I don't know if it's decades or how long it is, but it has certainly been through all three governments. When the Liberals were in government, from 1985 to 1990, the Ontario Labour Relations Board had exactly those powers and still has today; through the NDP government it had exactly those same powers.

The Environmental Assessment Board has had exactly that same power and authority through all three parties in government, and I don't remember it being raised. Mind you, I've only been here since 1993. I guess we're all relatively new over on this side. Maybe one or two of the members over there have been here a bit longer so they might comment. I don't remember that matter being raised previously with regard to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, but they have exactly those powers; or with regard to the Environmental Assessment Board, and exactly that same situation persists there; or the Education Relations Commission, and they have exactly those same authorities.

In the case of the EIC it's a balance that's needed. We know we're moving from one system to another. We have the children involved in the schools. There has to be a smooth transition for the sake of the children. That's why the powers are there, so there isn't a continual wrangle, isn't a situation where every matter that's dealt with is challenged in court even though the matter falls within the purview of the EIC. That's perhaps the same reason the other bodies have the same sort of authority. But it is sunsetted.

Mr Doyle: Could you tell me how much time we've got, please?

The Acting Chair: You've got almost 10 minutes left for the governing party.

Mr Doyle: I mean before the end of this particular sitting in here, because we have to go upstairs to vote.

The Acting Chair: Whenever the bells ring, we have to adjourn.

Mr Doyle: I don't want to ask a question and find out I get a three-second reply.

Minister, I've had questions in my riding about the issue of the Minister of Education when it comes to the financial affairs of school boards and the relationship between the two. Are the powers that exist now similar to existing powers under the Municipal Act, for example? I think there's been a great deal of misunderstanding about this.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, this is another one of the myths, and this is finding its way into some fairly prominent print, I might say, which is totally amazing that this would happen.

Page 141 is the start of section D dealing with the supervision of boards' financial affairs. What we're talking about here is a situation where a board -- give me an example now in Ottawa-Carleton.

Ms Andrew: The Ottawa-Carleton French public board, I think.

Hon David Johnson: The Ottawa-Carleton French public board has experienced severe financial problems. Some people might term it gross mismanagement. I'm not applying that term to Ottawa-Carleton, let me make it clear; I don't know. But if there is gross mismanagement or if there is a default or if there's a situation of a deficit problem -- boards can't run deficits, but if it happens, there has been the existing power -- for how many years?

Ms Andrew: Since 1935, I believe.

Mr Doyle: That's older than me.

Hon David Johnson: -- since 1935 through the Municipal Act to deal with this situation.

There's the bell for the vote.

These powers have been in the Municipal Act, so the Minister of Municipal Affairs has had the authority to step in. First of all, though, there has to be an appointment of an investigator. An investigator has to go in and study it, and then, if the investigator indicates that there needs to be supervision, at that point the Minister of Municipal Affairs could step in and take the proper authority. If the local officials refuse to respond under direction, there is a series of penalties or liabilities or the ability to declare people ineligible during an election period.

Those are the existing powers today under the Municipal Affairs Act. They're being transferred, through Bill 160, to the Ministry of Education. It's simply taking the powers there today under the Municipal Affairs Act and putting them into play through Bill 160. Nothing new has been added; indeed I would say that to some degree the powers are a little bit weaker. Yet the perception out there is that these are absolutely new powers and that these powers relate to any circumstance that a board deals with, and that's not the case.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Minister. We'll reconvene after routine proceedings tomorrow. The governing party will have six minutes left.

The committee adjourned at 1748.