Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Tuesday 20 October 1998

Ministry of Education and Training

Hon David Johnson, minister

Veronica Lacey, deputy minister

Mr David Trick, assistant deputy minister, post-secondary education division

Mr Richard Gauthier, acting assistant deputy minister, French-language education

and educational institutions

Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister, training

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 Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Viktor Kaczkowski

Staff / Personnel

Mr Larry Johnston, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1545 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): We'll call the meeting to order, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your patience, but the minister was, unfortunately, delayed and then had to attend a very quick meeting.

We have all-party agreement that this will be the last day of estimates for the Ministry of Education and Training, so we will continue to circulate among the three parties, and we will vote on the estimates at the end of the session this evening. Are there any questions with that?

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair: OK, we will start with the government, which has 20 minutes.

It's my understanding that on the first day of estimates there was all-party agreement that this would be the last day of estimates. Now, can someone --

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): There was all-party agreement that if the government chose to waive the 15 to 20 minutes that the minister was late arriving, we would deduct that from the total time. I think we're again 20 minutes late beginning today, and we have never agreed to waive that period of time.

The Vice-Chair: Because we don't want to waste a whole lot of time, will the government waive their 20 minutes?

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Yes.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): You're not going to waive our 20 minutes?

Mrs McLeod: Then we'll be back tomorrow.

Hon David Johnson: Or we have to waive the time that the opposition was late.

The Vice-Chair: No, Minister.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: We're either going to come to some conclusion or we're not going to end estimates today.

Hon David Johnson: That's fine. I'm here tomorrow.

The Vice-Chair: All right, then we will continue, and this will not be the last day of estimates. We'll start with 20 minutes with the government.

Mr Young: Minister, with regard to the funding formula as it applies to math, language and science textbooks, can you describe the detail of the initiative? I've had some discussion with some parents. In some cases, the boards actually might have more money than they need to provide new textbooks. Where did the money go, how was it applied to textbooks and, if they have excess money, what are they allowed to do with it and what might they do with it?

Hon David Johnson: We're talking about the elementary initiative, I assume, Mr Young. The monies and the purchases are organized by the provincial government, so that each board has an allotment based on its enrolment.

Ms Veronica Lacey: That's correct.

Hon David Johnson: The purchasing program has essentially been divided into three phases. The first phase involved textbooks, largely language, some mathematics, and a few science books. That involved some 3.2 million books. The original prices were in terms of the list price, and then any discount was applied after the quantities across the province were known, because you can appreciate that at the outset we wouldn't know how many of a certain language book would be purchased or how many of another language book or how many of a mathematics book. Only after bringing all the data together from all the boards across Ontario was it known exactly what quantities of any particular book would be purchased. Given that quantity, only then would it be known precisely what the discount would be.

Given the huge volumes, in most cases I'm pretty certain it would be the maximum discount that was applied and consequently the maximum savings. A board like the Toronto board may be able to reach that kind of savings or get close to that kind of savings, because the Toronto board has a huge number of students, but many of the smaller boards could not hope to achieve the kind of discount that the province did by purchasing it all together.

Once the discount was applied, and it was about a $13-million discount, then the monies essentially were deducted from each board's allotment. The ingoing list price was about $68 million in total, but the final purchase price after the discount was about $55 million, and each board's allotment of that, given the books they had purchased, was assigned to them. The future phases will involve computer software, science equipment, kindergarten materials and more books. The boards will each have an amount of money left, which is the difference between their discounted price on the phase one purchase and their total allotment based on their enrolment.

The second phase is actually beginning, and the first part of the second phase will actually be six books that were successfully appealed from the first phase. They will be on the market, and boards will have a look at them and, if they so choose -- their choice -- they will be able to purchase those books out of the remainder of their allotment. Beyond that will come, as I said, the computer software and the science equipment.

Once all that is said and done, our expectation is that there will still be monies left over because of the discounts and we'll be making a further phase in terms of more books being available. We're hoping more books will come on stream later on this year, about the end of the year, that boards will have a wider choice in variety of books, particularly perhaps more science books. What's left of their allotment they'll be able to assign towards more books at that point in time.

I hope that's helpful.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): When the government ran on their platform before the 1995 election, as we know, the two previous governments had accumulated an $11.2-billion deficit. The PC Party at the time, which is now the government, indicated in their election platform that they would make a number of initiatives to balance the books in their first mandate, to get rid of that deficit. As you know, there had to be a sharing of that reduction of deficit. In the document itself it was very clear and very plain that in post-secondary education $400 million would be reduced and be part of the sharing of getting rid of that $11.2-billion deficit.

There has been some concern that the $400 million is gone, it's not replaced. But the government has said it would increase the quality, would find savings, and also there would be some reinvestments. Can you tell us if there has been reinvestment and where it has occurred in post-secondary education?

Hon David Johnson: I'll be happy to speak about that for a few minutes. When we're looking at post-secondary education, I think most people are talking essentially about the monies going to universities and colleges and also monies going to student support.

The government did reduce the operating grants to post-secondary institutions. The year 1996-97 was the first year that we saw some of that reduction. But, at the same time, monies going to student support have increased and monies going to other particular targeted programs have increased. Tax credits are also part of the equation. The government has introduced tax credits, which are a form of expenditure, to assist students.

The total expenditures, tax expenditures and normal expenditures, this school year are estimated to be over $3.2 billion. That's interesting because in 1995-96, the year we took office, it was actually a little bit lower. So the total amount of expenditures, tax expenditures and regular expenditures, has increased in the neighbourhood of $40 million since we took office in 1995-96. Comparing to 1994-95, the year previous to that, it's actually up over a couple of hundred million dollars. I'm talking all-in; I'm talking supports for universities, supports for colleges, supports to students. This year the student support monies, for example, will amount to about $535 million in direct assistance to students.

The federal government provides assistance mostly in the form of loans, which have to be paid back. A larger proportion of the provincial government support is in the form of direct financial assistance, which is not paid back.

In addition to that, there have been some other targeted programs that have been introduced. The access to opportunities grant was announced earlier this year and will begin this year. There will be an expenditure on that program. The Ontario graduate scholarship for science and technology, again a new initiative this particular year, will involve expenditures. The R&D challenge fund, of course, many of the universities are involved with that program.

The Learning Opportunities Task Force is one that we all would be proud of. Mr Smith, the other parliamentary assistant, was at Fanshawe College -- I noticed a clipping, but I don't know if I have the clipping here -- taking part in a program involving monies flowing to Fanshawe through the Learning Opportunities Task Force to assist students with disabilities. The Ontario student opportunity trust fund involves a huge amount of money, more so in 1996-97 and 1997-98; no money this particular year. But over the course of the previous two years it has built up to a total of roughly $600 million, and those monies will flow out to assist students who need financial aid, half the money coming from the province and half coming from donations through the various colleges and universities.

The strategic skills investment fund involves four programs, three at colleges, to promote skills in specific areas; the automotive industry is one and the film industry is another. We are looking at a further $20 million in the next school year for other programs that are now being reviewed and will be approved for that particular year.

There are a number of particular, focused programs to assist students, to address areas where there are skills shortages and to fortify the post-secondary system in general. When it's all added up, the amount of spending for student support and for institutions is higher this year than almost in any previous year. In 1996-97, with the tremendous investment we made in the opportunity trust fund, it was a little bit higher. But other than that particular year, we have this year one of the highest investments in our system in total that the province has experienced.

1600

I will just mention one more, another program that is not actually included in here. Another initiative to help students is the set-aside. We did give institutions some flexibility to set tuition fees, but we required that if they increased tuition fees, they would be required to set aside 30% of any such increase to assist students who needed help. It's estimated that in this year that amount of money has grown to almost $90 million. That set-aside involves about $90 million that has been set aside for the purpose of assisting students who need the financial help. That's not included in the numbers I gave to you previously, but I think it's an important initiative.

Mr Froese: If my math is correct -- and I was quickly jotting some figures down; I've probably missed some of the programs you talked about -- it appears from what you were saying that the money that has been spent or is committed to be spent is probably well in excess of $700 million. I believe it's more than that; I was on the low side. Clearly, taking $400 million out and putting $700 million back is quite an achievement, and I applaud you for that.

The other question I'd like to have your comments on is with respect to students. I've met a number of post-secondary education students -- college, university, private vocational school students -- in my constituency and across the province. I was really surprised to hear what the number one concern was; it's quality. Tuition fees and their concern about tuition fees was right up there as well, but the number one single issue was the quality of the education they were getting at their university, college or private vocational school. The concern from the students to whom I've talked is, "If I take this course, take this program and I get this degree, get this diploma, will that program, that course, that quality of education I'm getting in the post-secondary system, get me that good-paying job I hope to get?" I would like the minister to make some comments on what the government is doing to ensure that quality is number one in our post-secondary education system.

Hon David Johnson: You're absolutely right. This is a key for many of the young people whom I talk to. There is an investment that they make, and they realize that the investment they make, the investment their parents make, is a part of the total cost. It's not the total cost; the taxpayers do pick up a portion of the total cost, and in our society we feel that's appropriate. Nevertheless, the students and the parents do make a big investment. In recognizing that, they want to make sure it pays off. They want to make sure the quality is there and the students have access to an education, based on the assumption that they have the ability and talent to do it. They want to have access to an education of high quality, one that prepares them for their future.

This government has, again, required that in instances where post-secondary institutions do increase tuition fees that, with the increases, there be a quality improvement -- I'm going to ask David Trick to come up here and help me a little bit on this -- that there be an improvement in the quality of the programs or in the equipment and that there be a quality improvement program plan that the institutions would create to demonstrate exactly how this has been executed. I might say that these plans are just about all in. I think all the colleges and most of the universities have submitted their plans at this point. Indeed, some of them are on the Internet. Of course, the plans need to be available to the students. The students and the government have to see the plans, but it's even more important that the students see these quality plans, to show how their individual programs are being improved or how their classroom or their equipment is being improved. Those plans are available in one fashion or another to the students at this point. There may be one or two institutions at this point which have not submitted the plans, but by far the vast majority have submitted their plans.

Mr David Trick: My name is David Trick. I'm the assistant deputy minister for post-secondary education. In terms of numbers, we now have plans from 16 out of 18 universities and from 24 out of 25 colleges. I understand that two more of those will be available by the end of this week. There's one university where the board doesn't meet again until early November and that will be the last one.

The Vice-Chair: We'll now turn it over to the Liberal Party.

Mrs McLeod: We want to focus on post-secondary education and apprenticeship and training this afternoon, as had been agreed. Before I move into that area, though, I just want to be sure that the information that was to be tabled from the last meeting will be tabled before the conclusion of estimates. It's basically the enrolment numbers that we're still looking for, if you could be sure that happens.

With that, we would like to focus on the other areas. There are still lots of unanswered questions on elementary and secondary, but we want to make sure that this time we give some attention to post-secondary and apprenticeship and training.

Let me start by just asking for a quick explanation. On October 13 you said in the House that the government was spending $3.3 billion on education. In your estimates book you actually show $3.07 billion. Are you able to tell me where the additional $300 million is coming from?

Hon David Johnson: I don't have the estimates book here in front of me, but the funding I'm referring to deals with the monies flowing to the institutions and also with the monies flowing to assist students. It also deals with special targeted programs which have been introduced --

Mrs McLeod: I assume that's all in the estimates book, that it's all part of the $3 billion.

Hon David Johnson: I have no idea what's in the estimates book. I'm telling you the real money that is flowing to post-secondary.

Mrs McLeod: I assumed your estimates book was telling me the real money, Minister. It says it's $3.07 billion.

Hon David Johnson: I assume that's true, but I can tell you that it's a little over $3.2 billion. It also includes tax expenditures, which I'm sure would be in there somewhere, which are real expenditures of the people of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I trusted you; I wasn't challenging your estimates -- at least I didn't think I had reason to. I accepted the fact that it said $3.07 billion and I just wanted to know where you got the $3.3 billion that you used in the House.

Hon David Johnson: I think I've explained that, but I'll do it once more. The $3.2 billion --

Mrs McLeod: No, I'm sorry, Minister, you told me what would be in the estimates book. It's there and the total is 3.07. I'm just wondering why the balance of what you referred to in the House is not in the estimates book.

Hon David Johnson: It's probably the tax expenditures.

Mrs McLeod: What estimates would we find those in?

Hon David Johnson: I assume the Ministry of Finance.

Mr Trick: The source for the tax expenditures is the Ministry of Finance. Because they aren't a cheque that we issue, they don't appear in the estimates book.

Mrs McLeod: I see; all right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

It's student support that I want to spend some time on. I'm finding a little bit of confusion here too. First of all, could I ask you how many applications there have been to OSAP for this year. Do you have a figure on that at this point?

Mr Trick: Yes, I do. The OSAP year begins on August 1. For the 12 months ending July 31 of this year the number of OSAP -- did you ask for applicants or recipients?

Mrs McLeod: Applicants for September of this year. I'm looking for what this year's figures would be based on.

Mr Trick: For the current year, two months into the year we have 171,937. Many of the institutions, particularly private vocational schools, have continual intake through the year, so there will be a lot more to come between now and July 31 of next year.

Mrs McLeod: So that is a decrease in the number of applications for OSAP from even last year.

Mr Trick: No, it isn't, because it only accounts for the first two months of this 12-month year.

Mrs McLeod: You have been seeing, though, some decrease in the number of OSAP applicants to university from 1996-97 to 1997-98.

Mr Trick: There was some decrease, yes.

1610

Mrs McLeod: But there would be an increase in the number of students applying for university admission, and potentially for the number of admissions, I believe.

Mr Trick: I'm sorry?

Mrs McLeod: There would be an increase in the number of applicants to universities and I believe an increase in admissions, or would there be a decline in admissions?

Mr Trick: Admissions this year are up a fraction of a percentage point.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not sure whether this is a question to you, Mr Trick, or back to the minister, but I'm curious to know why we would be seeing a decrease in applications for student assistance when we have an increased number of applicants to university and a slight increase in admissions, and why we would be seeing over 1996-97 to 1997-98 a significant decrease, close to $60 million -- about $57 million -- in total value of loans to students, and then you're predicting this year again a further decrease of about $35 million in the total value of loans. I'd like some explanation of that. We have more students applying, wanting to go to universities, but we have fewer applicants and we have a decreasing value of loans.

Hon David Johnson: In terms of this particular year, I'm not sure we're far enough into the year to have statistics that will be of great help to you. Mr Trick will pipe up at his will. The first-year enrolment at colleges and universities, to my understanding, is up a wee bit, but it's not up very much; it is up marginally. I'm not sure that the final numbers are in. When the final numbers come in, we may find it's flat, we may find it's up a little more, we may find it's in the ballpark.

Mrs McLeod: Can you explain the decreased amount of loan funding that you're providing to students, then?

Hon David Johnson: Has there been a decrease in loan funding? It may have to do with defaults.

Mr Trick: There are a couple of pertinent things here. First of all, the figures you're looking at there are loan amounts, as opposed to expenditure amounts.

Mrs McLeod: I realize that. I have further questions on the expenditure amounts.

Mr Trick: With respect to changes from the preceding year, you recall that in February we announced a number of measures to focus the program more closely on the people who are in the greatest need, so there were changes in terms of designating institutions which had very high default rates; changes in terms of credit screening of applicants who had poor credit histories; a change in the criteria by which students are declared to be independent of their parents so more students are being expected to have a parental contribution; a change to the parental contributions from the preceding year. There were a number of measures that would tighten up the program in terms of focusing more on the students who actually need the money. That causes year-over-year changes.

Hon David Johnson: Bear in mind we're not just talking about universities and colleges, but vocational schools as well. There may have been some programs at vocational schools which would have been above the default limit. I doubt there were any at the universities and probably none at the colleges.

Mrs McLeod: As I understand it then, your default, the dollars you're actually spending on default, is included in your figure of $650 million for the total value of loans. Is that what you're telling me?

Mr Trick: The default expenditure only appears in the expenditure amount; it's not a loan per se.

Mrs McLeod: That's why I'm trying to get at what would have led to the significant decrease from 1996-97 to 1997-98 of $57 million in the value of loans that were made to students. We know the part-time students were dropped off; that was one of the factors. But that was only about $13 billion in reduced costs. So somehow somebody is not getting the support they were getting the year before, and you're expecting it to drop off again.

I think what you've answered, Mr Trick, is that there are a number of students who can't get funding any longer because you've raised the bar. We knew you had raised the bar in terms of what parents were expected to contribute, what the students were allowed to earn, but there is still a host, I would think, of unmet need. You've described the number of applicants. It is down and that worries me because I think one of the reasons the applications for OSAP are down is that we are starting to see a sticker shock effect. There are fewer lower-income students, whose families can't provide the support, who are even attempting to go. That worries me, that the number of applications for OSAP is down, even when the number of people wanting to get into school is going up.

I still don't understand why there could be so much unmet need at a time when your value of your loans is going down. Why are you reducing the amount of funding that is actually going into it? You're going to tell me, I know, that if we go to the actual cash flow in a given year, I'm going to see that you expect it to go from $504 million to $535 million this year. I see that figure. I'm curious what you include in this. I think the minister made some reference to that $535 million in his opening address as being 30% over the 1995-96 figure.

I'm also looking at loan forgiveness, which basically means the number of students who are experiencing so much debt that you have to forgive what's over the $7,000. The loan forgiveness has gone up by almost $277 million since then. The interest relief, again for indebted students, is up by $357 million. Your loan default is up by $108 million and you're expecting a significant increase in loan default again.

Hon David Johnson: What page are you on?

Mrs McLeod: I'm on your student support items. I can give you line by line, if you like.

Hon David Johnson: Or if you just give us the page.

Mrs McLeod: Starting on page 75. We'll work our way through, if you like. I guess you're not going to be able to do the additions and subtractions quickly enough. I'm basically asking, what's in the figure? Based on loan forgiveness, interest relief and student defaults, you should be spending a whole lot more than you're showing here.

Mr Trick: I think one of the reasons the numbers don't appear to match is because the set of accounts that was used for estimates is the cash accounts. The numbers the minister is citing are on an accrual basis, which are the numbers we use in the provincial budget. Therefore, if you add up different sets of numbers, they won't come to a comparable total.

In terms of the numbers the minister cited on an accrual basis, we are going to spend $535 million this year on OSAP. On a cash basis, the figure that is in the estimates book on page 71 is $701 million. Some of the differences you're citing are differences between cash estimates and accrual accounting.

Mrs McLeod: So the figure that is most relevant in terms of the money that actually flows to students is the total value of the loans for 1998-99, the $660 million? Is that actually the best figure in terms of representing what support the government is prepared to provide to students in the coming year?

Mr Trick: I think actually the number the minister used, which is $535 million, is on an accrual basis, the cost to the taxpayer this year of the loans and grants that are issued this year.

Mrs McLeod: That's nicely handled, Mr Trick, but I'm talking about the money that goes to students and the fact that the value of loans to students is going from $705.6 million to $660 million.

Mr Trick: I guess the reason I would qualify that is that it doesn't take into account how much of that loan is ultimately forgiven and converted into the form of a grant. In that sense, it doesn't really give a full measure of the support the government's providing to students.

Mrs McLeod: But it is the measure of how much financial support is available to students who are applying to OSAP this September, in terms of how much money the government is prepared to make available to them through loans. The issue in terms of the taxpayers in your expenditures, I quite agree, is the $535 million. As I say, I'm surprised. We'd have to go over line by line, in terms of accrual versus cash flow, to determine why that figure isn't even higher, when your loan forgiveness, interest relief and default rates are as high as they are. But that's not my question.

My question is in terms of dollars in the hands of students who need support this fall. There will only be $660 million versus the $705 million that was there last year. I don't understand how that can happen when we have more students, when we know that the costs are higher, that the debt loads are higher. Your loan forgiveness numbers, your default numbers, all say the debts are higher, the costs are greater. There's got to be unmet need out there. Why is there less money in the hands of students?

Hon David Johnson: I don't know what the point here is exactly. Clearly, through the years there's more direct financial support getting into the hands of the students. The amount this year is the $535 million, which is direct financial support. If the member is enamoured with the loan, which has to be paid back, that's the approach the federal government takes. I think students prefer to have money in their hands, which is the approach the provincial government takes in terms of the monies that are available that get into the hands of the students.

1620

If one looks back to 1989-90, which is a year I'm sure the member would be very familiar with, indeed I think she was the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Am I right? At that time I wasn't here.

Mrs McLeod: No, actually, but that's all right.

Hon David Johnson: Was I close?

Mrs McLeod: Close.

Hon David Johnson: The amount of direct monies getting into the hands of the students was under $200 million, whereas this year it's over $535 million. She may wish to ponder that point. That's a fairly significant point.

In terms of students wishing support, the only changes that have taken place that I can recall over the last year which would affect student support, the only eligibility criteria, would involve, for example, at institutions where they had a tremendously high default rate, programs, beginning this fall -- and I think this would affect the vocational schools more than the colleges and universities, but if the default rate I think was above -- what? About 38%?

Mr Trick: It's 38.5%.

Mrs McLeod: I understand that.

Hon David Johnson: -- then the students would not be eligible for OSAP in those programs, or else the institution would have to guarantee --

Mrs McLeod: I understand that you --

Hon David Johnson: If you're angling that we have somehow clamped down on giving loans or monies to eligible students, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth in that.

Mrs McLeod: Oh, but you have.

Hon David Johnson: Let me set your mind clear so that you can sleep tonight, because that is not the case. But in terms of institutions with a high default rate, yes, we have said, "You have to bring your programs in line," or in terms of students with a bad credit record, on behalf of the taxpayers we've said, "Yes, we have to deal with that situation." Other than that, the students will be getting the loans and getting the money, getting the money in increasing amounts than they have over the years.

Mrs McLeod: I give up. I surrender. Your default rate is actually up this year. You have higher default costs, so higher default costs cannot explain a reduction in the amount of money that's flowing to students. There's no question you have raised the bar. There's no question there is unmet need, that you have decided that rather than meet the unmet need by increasing the support for students, you have decided to have reduced funding in the hands of students --

Hon David Johnson: I'm unaware of any student who has been denied. Was any student who qualifies denied an OSAP payment? I'm told no. Not one student.

Mrs McLeod: If we want to get into a discussion and comparison, I would be happy to go back and compare costs to students, debt loads to students, and loan and grant combined support that was available to students 10 years ago in comparison to current costs, current tuition levels, current debt levels and the fact that you have not adjusted the level of support that's available to individual students to reflect any of those costs. When you say that no student has been denied, that doesn't mean to say that students are getting the support they need to meet the increased costs, which your government has imposed on them. That's the issue I'm trying to raise.

Another question, since I have surrendered trying to get information on that: I'd like to know whether you have a figure on the fact that you've decided to cancel the six-month interest-free period after graduation, whether you have any figure, Mr Trick, on how much that has actually saved the government, in terms of not having interest relief.

Mr Trick: Let me see if we have that figure.

Mrs McLeod: In the meantime, I'll ask another question. I had the page reference and it slipped out. Can you explain the $43 million dollars in a transfer from the Ministry of Community and Social Services?

Hon David Johnson: What page are you on?

Mrs McLeod: Sorry, I had the page reference. I'll find it again for you. I'm just flipping by the one where it says that the Canada student loan value has increased every year while the Ontario value of student loans has decreased. But I'll move past that page.

It's on page 71.

That is an interesting chart, though, Mr Chairman, just for your reference. It's almost in direct proportion.

Mr Trick: If I could take those two under advisement, we'll provide you answers to those later on.

Mrs McLeod: I'd appreciate that. I'd also appreciate knowing whether in any way the reduction in actual Ontario monies that is flowed to students -- back to my $660-million question -- in any way reflects the fact that as the Canada study grant was put in place, that money has been deducted from the Ontario student loan support, whether there's any equivalency between the amount of money that has flowed through the Canada study grant program and the reductions in Ontario student loan funding to students, because I think that's part of the answer that I was looking for.

Do we have more moments, Mr Chairman?

The Vice-Chair: You have one minute left.

Mrs McLeod: I have one minute and several questions. I'm anxious to know why the $29 million that was supposed to be given to start to correct the problem with discounted BIUs has not flowed, but I'm going to hold that question and ask where I will find a line under capital funding that addresses the concern that the council of universities has presented to you that shows they need $165 million simply for maintenance over the next 10 years. Where will I see the maintenance funding that's been given to the universities in response to that need?

Hon David Johnson: This would be the amount of capital funding.

Mr Trick: Right.

Hon David Johnson: I think it was a three-year agreement that the council of universities --

Mrs McLeod: On maintenance, Minister?

Hon David Johnson: If you're talking about the capital program.

Mrs McLeod: No, just maintenance. I'm looking for the maintenance budget.

Mr Trick: In the capital budget there's a portion specifically for facilities renewal, which is $22.5 million, and that is the last year of a three-year budget. There could be further commitments after this year, but we don't have a budget for future years.

The figure from the Council of Ontario Universities is an estimate they have put together and it's obviously something we're discussing with them now.

The Vice-Chair: We'll move to the third party; Mr Lessard.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Minister, you were talking about the investment in student support being $535 million for 1998-99. I was wondering what percentage of that $535 million is repayable.

Hon David Johnson: None of that is repayable.

Mr Lessard: So none of that includes any loans at all.

Hon David Johnson: No loans; that's right. Actually, of the $535 million, about $122 million is default on loans. Once it's considered a default in the $535 million I assume there's no further attempt to collect on it.

Mr Trick: There is a possibility that of the $122 million that we put for loan defaults some small portion would subsequently be repaid, but it would not be a particularly large amount.

Hon David Johnson: It would be minute. I thought I'd better mention that, because I guess it's conceivable that -- probably we're talking nickels and dimes, but at some point in time somebody who defaulted might actually be in a position to pay and that might actually happen. But I'm sure that 99% of the $535 million, if not 100%, would involve no payment back.

Mr Lessard: OK.

I'm reading from a press release in December 1997 with respect to spending. It was from the Ministry of Finance, not from the Ministry of Education and Training, but it did refer to the fact that colleges and universities would be able to increase their tuition fees. We know that universities and colleges did increase their tuition fees, and that was the subject of subsequent announcements. Also, there was an announcement with respect to the deregulation of fees for some professional programs as well. That press release indicated that if colleges and universities choose to increase their fees, they'd be required to set aside a portion of their operating grants equal to 30% of any new revenues from those increases to provide assistance to students in need.

Given that colleges and universities have increased tuition fees to varying levels, can you tell me whether they have instituted programs to provide assistance to students in need?

1630

Hon David Johnson: Yes, they have. The estimates this year, 1998-99, is that there is $86.5 million set aside, to be precise. That's the number I have. That's the total fund, I would guess. I don't know how much money is actually flowing this year, but the fund -- am I correct in that?

Mr Trick: They're obliged to spend that money this year. If there is a little bit left over at the end of the year, they're obliged to carry that over to next year.

Hon David Johnson: So that's the amount that will be spent this year?

Mr Trick: Yes.

Hon David Johnson: Actually, then, roughly $86 million or $87 million would be spent this year in assisting students who need financial support as a result of that very program, the 30% set-aside.

Mr Lessard: Is there any mechanism in place for the ministry to monitor how universities are implementing those assistance measures to students in need? How is it that you'll be able to tell that students in need are the people who actually benefit from the revenues from increased tuition fees?

Hon David Johnson: I'm going to ask Mr Trick on that one.

Mr Trick: We require every university and college to report at the end of the year on how they have spent their 30% set-aside. For the year just ending, they spent $34 million and assisted approximately 43,000 students. That is the summary of last year's reports, and we'll require them again next summer to report on the current academic year.

Mr Lessard: And you follow those up or provide some sort of auditing of them?

Mr Trick: Those are subject to audit, yes.

Mr Lessard: Have you done any audits?

Mr Trick: They're audited as part of the university or college's regular audit cycle.

Mr Lessard: Many of the complaints I've been getting from students are not only with respect to the increased tuition fees but also with respect to some of the user fees that have been imposed as well. Primarily, it has to do with the $10 fee for the paper applications by students and also the $2 fees to call the 1-900 number to ask questions about their student assistance applications. Can you tell me how much revenue is being derived as a result of those application fees?

Hon David Johnson: I'll say at the outset that the $10 application fee is applied if the application is manual, if it's done on paper, but if the application is electronically through the Internet, there's no charge. Apparently, about 40% of the applications at this point, and rising, I assume, are submitted electronically, so 40% would pay nothing. The $2 fee -- that's an update, and again through the Internet there's a free-of-charge method of doing that.

Mr Trick: It's a 1-900 telephone.

Hon David Johnson: Sorry, a 1-900 -- and that's free of charge?

Mr Trick: Two dollars.

Mr Lessard: For the 900 number, it's my understanding there's a $2 charge.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, 1-900 is a $2 charge. I stand corrected on that. There's a $2 charge for having the update on the status.

In terms of the revenues in 1997-98 -- I don't know that we have anything more recent; correct me if we do -- there's about $330,000 in monies as a result. Do those monies stay with the institution, Mr Trick?

Mr Lessard: That is my next question. What happens to those revenues?

Mr Trick: Maybe just a few numbers as to where the money goes. The total cost of administering OSAP this year will be $8.158 million. Of that amount, we will recover $4.1 million from the federal government because we administer their program for them. We're estimating the revenue from the 900 service to be $340,000, and from the $10 application fee we estimate the revenue will be $650,000. The balance, which is $3.068 million, is provided by the taxpayers to support the cost of administering OSAP.

Mr Lessard: But the revenue from those fees goes into general revenue, right?

Mr Trick: It offsets the money we get from the consolidated revenue fund to pay for the cost of OSAP.

Mr Lessard: The concern I have, and this may be more of a comment than a concern, is that it's all well and good to provide the free application opportunity for people who can take advantage of that on the Internet, but 60% of the people don't make their applications over the Internet because they probably can't afford that access. Either they don't own a computer or they don't have anybody who does have a computer, which is part of the reason they've had to make application for OSAP in the first place, because they don't have those financial resources to make an application via computer.

The other concern I have is with respect to the $2 fee for the 1-900 number, because the information I've been receiving is that it's difficult or impossible to get through on that number. I wonder whether you can give me some idea as to any monitoring you've done on that 900 number, the success of people being able to get through and the satisfaction they have in using the system. As I said, the information I've been getting is that they don't they like paying the $2 fee, but they're not happy with the service they're getting even for the $2.

Hon David Johnson: Maybe I should correct. I'm not sure if I'm getting two different messages here, but I am told that a student can check on the status of their account through the Internet for free, so I guess I was right the first time. The student can check through the Internet for free, so they don't have to pay either the $2 or the $10. I'm also informed that every public library in Ontario has the Internet, and of course the institutions do. Sometimes students in certain areas or near the institutions -- they come in, presumably, and use the Internet there, or through a public library.

I think we all understand that you don't actually have to own a computer or be tapped into the Internet in your living room to have access to it. The students who are at the universities would have access to the universities' systems, once they're there, to get in and find out their status. My expectation is that this number is growing and we'll find through the years that the vast majority will come in for free through the Internet.

Mr Lessard: My question was about the $2 fee as well, and the 1-900 number service.

Hon David Johnson: Hopefully, the calls through the 1-900 will diminish as more and more people understand the ability to come in through the Internet, but I think there were about 250,000 calls last year made through it and handled. The exact concern is?

Mr Lessard: The effectiveness of it. What I'm being told is that people aren't happy with the service. They have to pay $2, they have a difficult time getting through on the number and it's difficult to use the system.

Hon David Johnson: They don't have to pay the $2; they can come in for free through the Internet.

Mr Lessard: I know. You've made that clear. Are you aware that there are places, remote areas in Ontario, where people don't have access to phone lines so they can connect up to the Internet, or they may not be close to a library, or a university or college for that matter?

Hon David Johnson: Generally, the $2 is for status of their OSAP application. While they're at the institution itself, they would have access. Once they go out into the workforce and have graduated etc, there may well be locations; I assume that's true. But it's still my expectation that over the years more and more people will understand the Internet system and that it's free and that this is a good service. To the degree that people use that, those who may not have that access in the kinds of situations you're describing -- if the service is inadequate now, we'll certainly look into it. I don't know if we have complaints that would suggest we should look into it, but we'd be happy to do that. Over the years, with the diminishing numbers, I assume it won't be any problem to deal with the calls coming in.

1640

Mr Lessard: Referring to another press release from February of this year about the accessibility of post-secondary education, it talks about your invitation to banks to submit proposals giving students different repayment options for their student loans. I'm wondering what the response was to that request for proposals and what the status of that initiative is.

Hon David Johnson: The response was totally disappointing. We put out an RFP with two parts to it, one putting forward a proposal that was somewhat akin to the one the federal government had -- the federal government made an arrangement a few years ago which expires in the year 2000 sometime, if I recall -- asking the banks to participate on the same basis as they are with the federal government on an income-contingent loan program. Realizing that the banks' experience there has not been to their satisfaction, we said, "If you don't like that one, then write in your own proposal," so A or B. The response from the banks was zero. That was very disappointing.

We remain seized of this problem because we feel there needs to be a program. We continue to work with the banks and hopefully with the federal government. The federal government has not shown any willingness, though, to change its program. Bear in mind that about 70% of the money that students have borrowed, that they have to repay -- and this is a pretty important statistic -- is from the federal government, and the other 30% is provincial money. We are hoping to work with the federal government on this program; however, they have an arrangement with the banks going into the year 2000 and they're not about to change that. That has made it difficult for us, but I'm still committed to bringing in a program. That's very high on the priority list of the ministry.

Mr Lessard: Will you be able to do it without the assistance of the banks?

Hon David Johnson: Not without the assistance of the banks, no, but I'm hopeful that we can change the mind of the banks. Up to this point I can't claim a great deal of success, but I'm hoping that the future will be brighter.

Mr Lessard: You've indicated the relationship with the federal government. That leads me to what steps, if any, have taken place since the question I asked last week about the federal bankruptcy protection being extended from two years to 10 years with respect to student loans. In your response you indicated that it may be worthwhile looking into supporting the NDP bill to revoke that. I wonder whether you've written to the federal Minister of Finance with respect to changing that bankruptcy protection back from 10 years to two years.

Hon David Johnson: No, I haven't written to anybody. I guess my answer was a little more generic, in that I think putting the finger on the federal government is a source of general problems. Indeed, some of the students have done the same thing. I see there were some students petitioning the federal government, not too happy with Mr Martin. "Martin Fails Grade over Student Debts," is the headline from the newspaper dated October 7, just a week or so ago. I think my answer was more generic.

I don't know if you have anything to add, Mr Trick, on the bankruptcy. We'll take it under advisement.

Mr Lessard: Will you be writing to the federal government?

Hon David Johnson: I'll give notice to Mr Trick that I'll be asking him to do a briefing for me on this matter.

Mr Lessard: With respect to your relationship with the federal government and how that relates to the apprenticeship reform that's being undertaken, there were discussions with respect to establishing a federal-provincial labour force market agreement. We got into this discussion during the debate on Bill 55. I wonder if you can give me the status of those discussions and any difficulties you might be having.

Hon David Johnson: Those discussions carry on. As a matter of fact, I think there's another one later this week. We've found that the federal government has been in no hurry to make an agreement with the province of Ontario. They have begun labour market agreements with all the other provinces. Their representation in the federal House is largely from Ontario, and the scuttlebutt is that many of their members find it to their satisfaction to have duties around the labour market area that make them visible within their community. So there has been very mixed support in the federal Liberal caucus in terms of reaching agreement with the province of Ontario.

Consequently, Ontario has been put last on the list, but nevertheless we've continued to force the issue. Meetings are taking place. Last night I met at a ceremony with a couple of the human resource people, and they expressed their optimism that it would actually happen. I said, "Which decade?" and they said, "Probably earlier than you might think."

It is important, though, because we would like to present an integrated training package in Ontario. Currently you have two systems -- the federal system and the provincial system -- overlapping and duplicating and people bouncing back and forth. We would like to have the same opportunities as the other provinces and have one common program that meets the needs of the people of the province.

The Vice-Chair: We move now to the government side.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): On page 1 of the ministry's estimates book, the last bullet point is, "An Ontario education will offer our students a passport to hope, opportunity, jobs, and growth, now and into the 21st century." During your opening remarks to the committee, you cited examples of the shortage of skilled workers in high technology and manufacturing firms across this province. That's certainly a common theme I hear from a lot of the small business people and manufacturing firms in my riding of Hamilton Mountain.

I'd like you to tell the committee, if you would, what steps are being taken to resolve the shortage of skilled workers who these firms obviously are going to need, and what are we doing to give the young people the tools they're going to need to succeed not only now but in the future as we head into the next millennium?

Hon David Johnson: This is really key. It involves initiatives at a number of levels. I'll deal with the post-secondary. One program I've mentioned a couple of times through the estimates process is the access to opportunities program, which identifies high-tech skills required at the colleges and at the universities, programs such as electrical engineering, computer science, computer programming at the college level, for example. These skills are in great demand within our society.

The Canadian Advanced Technology Association, CATA, has estimated that over the next few years there will be a shortage of some 40,000 skilled workers in that area. To make matters worse, recruiters from abroad, most notably the United States, from Silicon Valley, set up camps on our campuses -- the University of Waterloo is a case in point -- and are recruiting large numbers of young people graduating. There's a huge demand not only in Canada but on a much broader basis.

We have set a program in place which all the colleges have entered and I think now all or most of the universities have entered. The amount of money involved over a three-year period is $150 million. Some of it is additional money to support students with operating money. Some of it is start-up money, because you can appreciate, if we are increasing enrolment in these programs by up to 17,000 students, which is the target -- and I think we'll hit pretty close to that -- then space is needed, equipment is needed, that sort of thing.

1650

We've challenged the institutions that we would provide monies for start-up but we'd ask them to match the monies with private sector donations, and they're busily doing that right now and there's a high level of excitement. I think you'll see in the vicinity of 17,000 students in new positions at our colleges and universities there over the next few years. That will go a long way to meet a huge void.

In addition to that, there are other programs such as the excellence in graduate studies in science and technology scholarship, which is $75 million over 10 years; research excellence awards, $75 million over 10 years. There are strategic skills initiatives, which I think I mentioned earlier. Conestoga has a program in metal machining, Humber College in telecommunications, Georgian College in auto parts design. These are specific skills where there is a shortage. The strategic skills initiatives of $10 million that's flowed out for projects, three of them at these colleges, are allocated bearing in mind a need for specific skills.

The apprenticeship program is another area that has certainly come to our attention where there's a great need for investment and focus. In the auto parts industry, the estimate is that some 40% of the workforce will be retiring over the next five or six years, because the skilled workers are at that age where they'll be retiring and there isn't the flow of skilled workers coming in to fill them.

We've been working very closely to upgrade the apprenticeship program with the various industries, allowing flexibility for the industries to take a greater role in marketing and setting standards. Our objective there is to double the number of new entries from 11,000 new people coming in now to 22,000 new entries into the apprenticeship program to help fill some of the void there.

Those are a couple of examples. I think they've been long overdue, particularly in apprenticeship. I know we discussed this a little bit previously. The apprenticeship program has been one that we in Canada in general and in Ontario in particular have been lacking over the years. There are wonderful opportunities in the tool and die industry.

I was at the Royal York Hotel for the announcement of our apprenticeship program. Cooks are in great demand. I donned the hat and the apron and participated in the program.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Did you say "crooks" or "cooks"?

Hon David Johnson: Cooks. The people going through that kind of program are in great demand.

There are many different aspects: machinists; and there are some new industries in cabling, skills that 20 years ago weren't even on the radar screen; and in agriculture too, some programs and skills only developed within the last five or six years. There are just so many wonderful opportunities and we haven't focused on it. I hope with the bill that's going through the House right now and the other funding initiatives we have, we will increase the number of skilled workers immensely in Ontario over the next three years or so.

Mr Pettit: I trust you're not considering a career change, although I have no doubt you would be as excellent a cook as you are a Minister of Education.

There's no doubt that these changes are long overdue. From my point of view, coming from a manufacturing concern before I got involved down here, I think they're very positive initiatives and they'll be well received certainly by the business people within my community.

I'd like to go back to the teachers' pension plan agreement. We may have gone over this earlier, but I'd just like you to elaborate again for us because I'm still getting the odd call at the constituency office regarding the teachers' pension plan agreement. Please tell us how not only the teachers but, even more so, the taxpayers are going to benefit from the new agreement.

Hon David Johnson: The teachers benefit because for several years teachers have been looking for the opportunity for an enhanced early retirement. They did have a retirement mechanism that allowed that, when the sum of their age and their experience added up to 90, they were eligible for an early retirement. In this day and age that is not one of the more generous plans, and they had been looking for an improvement to that so that teachers who have spent many years in the profession and given valuable service over many years would have the opportunity at an 85 factor. That was the figure that was often quoted, but that didn't happen.

There were changes to the pension plan over the years. The change to bring the plan into its present form was instituted -- I guess we have to give credit to Mr Peterson and the Liberal government in the late 1980s. They got the ball rolling but actually didn't implement it. It was the NDP government implementing changes in about 1992. However, at that point they were put in the position that they had to recognize the possibility of an unfunded liability; I think the reckoning was for about $8 billion.

Ms Lacey: It was $8.4 billion.

Hon David Johnson: I'm told it was about an $8.4-billion unfunded liability. That's the amount they set, rightly or wrongly, and they began the payments for an unfunded liability at that level, which amounted to about $400 million or $500 million on an annual basis. Subsequently, it has been determined by actuaries, and with the experience gain over the years, that in reality there probably will be no unfunded liability in the very near future and there may not be any today.

The agreement we were able to reach with the Ontario Teachers' Federation was that an actuary would have a look at the plan early next year, in January, to be precise, and if it's deemed at that point that the experience gain outweighs the unfunded liability in the sense that there is no unfunded liability, then the extra payments would cease and desist at some point in time. I'm not exactly sure when the last payment would be made, but as soon as the unfunded liability has disappeared.

The other part of the deal was that the teachers would have access to the 85 factor for roughly a four-year window. We are seeing that many teachers are taking advantage of that. It's hard to know precisely how many, but the number of retirements is up considerably over the previous year. Not all the people in the teachers' pension plan, though, are teachers. Some of them would be superintendents, principals, maybe some of the directors; even some staff in the Ministry of Education may be included in that plan.

All in all, I think it's a deal that will ultimately save taxpayers $400 million or $500 million a year and will be of benefit to the teachers, allowing them an earlier retirement and allowing young people graduating to come into the teaching profession.

1700

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Minister, I'd like to ask you a question about secondary school reform, particularly curriculum development. Shortly after our government took office, I was meeting with a group of secondary school teachers and this subject came up. One point they made to me, and I delivered back to the minister at the time, was that they were concerned about the timetable for secondary school reform.

It was also important to them that if the secondary school curriculum was to be revised and the system streamlined, it was important that the primary school system be enhanced in advance so that the students coming out of elementary school into the secondary school system would have the necessary and appropriate training and preparation to deal with a more rigorous high school program that did not include grade 13.

I know the timetable for implementing reform in the secondary schools was relaxed -- I think another year was added to the timeline for implementing secondary school reform -- but I'm interested in knowing just what the current status is.

My question, I suppose, has a number of parts. It boils down essentially to this: I'm interested in your comments on what the program is for secondary school reform, what the timetable is for implementing it, what the timetable is for eliminating grade 13 and, specifically, what curriculum reform is planned for the secondary school system in the province.

Hon David Johnson: The secondary school reform will proceed next year, beginning in the year 1999-2000. The elementary curriculum has been put in place this fall. It's not all going to be implemented in its entirety. I think we've made that clear. The math and language, though, did begin over a year ago, so one would expect that the students coming into secondary school would have the benefit of math and language over a period of roughly two years and all the other aspects of the elementary curriculum over a period of roughly a year, albeit not fully implemented, perhaps in particular social studies, which appeared on the scene very recently.

The secondary curriculum is being written as we speak. Some 15 teams are writing the curriculum. They've had a couple of reviews with various stakeholders and interested parties. That process carries on. The grade 9 aspect will be implemented in 1999-2000.

I'm going to ask the deputy to make a few comments on that as well, because I know she has maybe a few more details than I have.

Ms Lacey: I'll start, and I don't know whether staff would like to continue.

As the minister has said, about 15 teams are looking at course outlines for all the credits that will be involved in secondary school reform. We are well on the way in terms of the implementation of grade 9 for September 1999. The government did delay the implementation of secondary school reform so there would be sufficient time for the elementary school reform to take place and for the training of teachers to be launched.

We have just released the course outlines, which means that in all our schools all the principals have in their hands by now exactly what the course outlines will be so that students will be able to determine from the guidelines and the course selection studies what it is they will be studying in September. Those course outlines will really direct the curriculum development that will take place at the Ministry of Education and Training.

The teams that have been established are teams of experts from the field. We are working, and have continued to work, not only with the associations but with the federation. There is extensive involvement of parents and community. Each one of the teams not only has subject experts but they also have experts in the area of anti-discriminatory education and native education.

We will be launching in the very early new year the new secondary school report card. Again, we've already had extensive consultation with the field in terms of what would be the content of that report card.

We have a plan for the implementation of grade 9. We have shared that plan for implementation with the council of directors of education, as well as with all three principals' associations.

It has been, and will continue to be, an extremely iterative process whereby the involvement of the federations, which has taken place all through the secondary school reform over the last two years, will continue. Essentially, we will maintain the criteria for an effective secondary school education program, and that is ensuring that those youngsters who go on to college and university do experience success in the transition. But there will be a very special focus in this secondary school reform on those youngsters who go on to the labour market. We have a concern that those kids haven't been successful up to this point. So we are putting special attention not only to the applied courses those kids will be taking but also to the school-to-work transition programs. The ministry has invested very considerable amounts of money for those youngsters.

We are in the process of developing the provincial literacy test. We have already contracted with the EQAO to ensure that we have a grade 10 literacy test that meets the standards they have set for us.

We're well on our way to implementing a very effective program for all the kids, but particularly with focus for the grade 9 kids for September 1999.

The Vice-Chair: We'll move to the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: A couple of very quick things before I turn it over to my colleague. Just on the secondary school curriculum, Deputy, how many credits would you expect would be ready for September 1999?

Hon David Johnson: How many credits?

Mrs McLeod: The deputy might answer. It was a flow-through from what she was just saying. How many credit courses are being written in preparation for September 1999? Still around 260?

Ms Lacey: We're doing all the basic courses that will be necessary for grades 9 and 10. All the credits they will need will be in place for them.

Mrs McLeod: So you don't know how many.

Ms Lacey: I don't know. Richard, you may know this. Certainly all the basic credits in terms of the eight credits they need, plus --

Mr Richard Gauthier: Richard Gauthier, acting assistant deputy minister of French-language education. All the credits will be ready as such; it is over 200. We will have the over 200 credits ready by that time.

Mrs McLeod: That's 9 to 12?

Mr Gauthier: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: So 200 credits, 9 to 12?

Mr Gauthier: Yes, 200-some-odd credits.

Mrs McLeod: Coming back to post-secondary, one of the concerns the institutions have is the effect of the double cohort and the funding for that. As I indicated on the first day, I'm still having trouble figuring out where the double cohort comes from. I'd like to know precisely what is in the secondary school curriculum reform that will enforce the four-year leaving of students since the credit hours are the same and the number of credit requirements is unchanged. History has shown that students choose not to do it in four years. What changes will actually bring about a double cohort this time?

Hon David Johnson: I don't think it's expected that all of these students will graduate at the end of the four years. Some students will take longer.

Mrs McLeod: What would cause any students to do it faster than they did historically when Bette Stephenson did the same thing that you're about to do again?

Ms Lacey: I would say that one of the motivations that will be there and that was really brought about at the request of post-secondary institutions is the fact that there will be disclosure of students' marks in subjects. In our discussions with the Council of Presidents and community college presidents, they requested that we ensure, in order to give a full picture of a student's academic achievement, that those records be passed on. I don't know that that will have a huge impact in terms of the number of youngsters graduating, but it certainly will give the post-secondary institutions a clearer picture, as it will the teachers and the students, in terms of career planning.

As well, I would say that the fact that our youngsters will be required to have an educational plan starting in grade 9 next year will mean there will be a much more intensive interaction between counsellors and young people so that they, together with parents, make wiser choices from time to time and we don't have as many kids dropping out half-way through a course.

1710

Ms McLeod: I appreciate that. The bottom line is it's still the same program --

Hon David Johnson: Again, bear in mind that the four-year program at the secondary level is the norm. Ontario is the only province that has the five-year now.

Ms McLeod: I agree. It was put in place by Bette Stephenson, it continues, and any claims that you've taken a year off secondary school education are simply unfounded.

Hon David Johnson: As I understand it, even in the United States, for example --

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a number of areas that I'd like to cover. The first one is in regard to the fact that this past summer and through September we had a settlement of the community college collective bargaining. The minister referenced Fanshawe College. I was there yesterday. It's interesting to learn that the cost of that settlement will be about $3 million on their $90-million operating budget. Will the ministry be funding the cost of that settlement?

Hon David Johnson: The ministry funds the colleges. The Council of Regents, of course, does the negotiating, and the Council of Regents is in touch with the various colleges to understand what is affordable and what isn't. The ministry has provided clear funding to the colleges. The colleges take that funding, understand their needs, react with the College of Regents. The College of Regents has reached the agreement and I'm sure that the --

Mr Caplan: May I contact Dr Rundle at Fanshawe College and tell him that $3 million to cover the cost of that settlement will be forthcoming from this government, from yourself, from the Ministry of Education and Training? It's a simple question. Yes or no?

Hon David Johnson: You're free in a democratic society to contact anybody you wish. The colleges understand that they've been given the funding for the year 1998-99 and they understand that they, in discussions with the Council of Regents, have reached a contract agreement with the union.

Mr Caplan: I'll take that as a no. I'll move on.

Minister, last week, on Thursday, I was actually a bit shocked. For the first time you began to accept personal responsibility for the huge increases in tuition and for the crushing debt levels. You said that you were going to be personally involved in these quality improvement plans at the post-secondary level. My question to you is: Given that earlier today you said 16 out of 18 universities and 24 out of 25 community colleges have submitted them, how many have you signed off on? How many have you sent back because you deem them to be inadequate?

Hon David Johnson: The procedure does not involve the minister signing off or sending back. I am interested in it because this is the first year and this is the first government. No other government has required quality improvement programs.

Mr Caplan: So you're not --

Hon David Johnson: If I'm allowed to speak without being interrupted -- I guess that's the member's method. I am interested in it because this is the first time and I have discussed this with the staff, and the staff have committed to getting further review to me as a result of the discussions over the past couple of days.

I have also been assured that these plans are available to the students. It's fine for the Minister of Education to see the plans and to understand the quality improvements but it's even more important that the students on the campuses have access. That's why I've been assured that some of these plans are on the Internet and other --

Mr Caplan: If these plans --

The Vice-Chair: Hurry up, Minister, please.

Hon David Johnson: I'm sorry, I think I'm allowed to answer the question and I think if the member would --

Mr Caplan: Well, answer the question.

Hon David Johnson: It's rather unusual for a Chair to take that sort of approach, I might say.

Mr Caplan: Not at all. Answer the question.

Hon David Johnson: The answer is that the students need to see this. They'll be seeing it through the Internet and other techniques and I'll be interested as well in seeing plans to understand how the students get access.

Mr Caplan: I take it, Minister, that when you directed that these be submitted to your ministry and were taking a personal interest and involvement in this that you were going to be doing something with these plans. If it's just to be filed in some cabinet and stored away, I don't understand what the point is. If you are not judging the adequacy of these plans, whether they meet certain criteria -- and I believe in your memo your assistant deputy minister has listed some of the example criteria which might be in there or not -- what is the point of submitting it to you? Where is the accountability, is the real question.

Hon David Johnson: The accountability is right back with the students.

Mr Caplan: OK, good. So the students --

Hon David Johnson: Now, you see, I have to have a chance to speak.

The Vice-Chair: In all fairness, give him an opportunity to speak.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, exactly, thank you.

Mr Caplan: OK, I'll give him an opportunity.

Hon David Johnson: The key here is that the students have to have the opportunity to see the quality that's being built in, because the students and their parents, along with the taxpayers to some degree, are paying the freight. The students are most concerned about the quality improvement.

So I think the tone is belittling the opportunity for the students and the universities and the colleges to interact. I have a great faith in the students. I have a great faith in our post-secondary institutions. You may not share that faith with me, but I have a great faith that if these plans are visible and the students can see them, then the students will interact with the institutions and guarantee that the plans are to their satisfaction. Of course, the post-secondary institutions do have an independence from the government but they are accountable to their students. That's where the accountability is.

Mr Caplan: So it will be the students then who are responsible to say whether these plans meet a standard of adequacy. If the students judge that these plans do not -- because the minister has said that the institutions are accountable to the students -- the penalties are reductions in grants. Hence, obviously, tuitions will go up or quality and programming will decrease. Is that the response of the Minister of Education, that if students are dissatisfied, those are the two options left to them, to either pay more money or see their programs decline?

Hon David Johnson: I think the member is expressing very little faith in the power and the ability of the students. The students are a very strong organization on our campuses and have a great deal of influence with the board of governors, and I have confidence that the students, seeing these quality improvement plans, as we've required that they be accessible to the students, will have a good deal of satisfactory input into the board of governors.

Mr Caplan: I can assure you, Minister, that I've been contacted by a number of students who've attempted to access these plans and have been unable to do that. If that continues to be the case, I'm sure the minister may take some more interest.

I have a number of other questions. One is in the area of apprenticeship. Minister, I must admit I was a bit shocked that we are going to have public hearings on Bill 55. The bill deals mainly with regulations. What is the status of those regulations being drafted and will you give a personal undertaking and commit today that those regulations will be at the committee for its study and comment?

Hon David Johnson: Regulations are part of any public hearing process. The public hearing process will be valuable and we would insist on the public hearing process. I don't know why you'd be shocked. I guess that's the nature of party politics, to express shock over something like this, but this government has a record, bar none, in terms of having public hearings involving the public and having input.

Mr Froese: The best.

Hon David Johnson: The best, absolutely.

This public hearing process will be the same as other public hearing processes. We will be looking for input from all the stakeholders and people interested in the apprenticeship program and they will help us in developing not only the act but the associated regulations.

Mr Caplan: If I could be clear: The draft regulations will be submitted to the committee, yes or no?

Hon David Johnson: No, this is, again, like any other process. The involvement and the input into the public hearing will assist us in drafting the regulations at a later date.

Mr Caplan: OK, so that's a definite no.

Mr Chair, I want to refer back to the minister's opening statement where he makes an interesting claim: "Ontario's youth have gained almost 46,000 net new jobs."

I have a fact here from the labour market and research division of the Ministry of Education --

Mr Froese: Are you shocked about that?

Mr Caplan: I am a bit shocked, because their own information indicates that the employment over the period of time is an increase of 29,000 jobs. I wonder if the minister could please explain the discrepancy between his opening statement and the information that the labour market information research branch of his own ministry provides.

1720

Ms Joan Andrew: I'm Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister responsible for training. If you'd like to share the information you've got there I'll go and track down that discrepancy and explain it. Or just give me the title. I could probably --

Mr Caplan: OK, it's Update on Labour Force Survey Statistics for September 1998 data. The fax date was October 9 that it was received. So I do have that for you, but I must admit I found that quite distressing.

Hon Mr Johnson: There have been a number of young people hired in Ontario in the last while, so I guess one thing one has to recall is that the numbers do change on a month-to-month basis.

Mr Caplan: That's a heck of a change.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, well, I can understand that you're not prepared to accept that. That's of no concern to me.

The recent experience over the last few months has been very positive in terms of employment of younger people, but I guess we don't have our fingers right on those numbers at this point in time.

Mr Caplan: Then I'll ask, Chair, through the minister, will those figures be provided directly to me?

Mr Young: You'll ask the Chair?

Mr Caplan: Well, through the Chair. Thank you for your help.

Hon David Johnson: The numbers will be provided. Absolutely, there's no problem.

Mr Caplan: I wanted to move on. As well, in the minister's opening comment, you referred to the Ontario summer jobs 1998 initiative. You did comment that you have helped 61,000 young people to find work. In all kinds of documents, in the Ministry of Education business plan, a different number exists. I believe that number is 34,000, and you expected to exceed that by 10%, so you could add another 3,000. In your own announcement earlier in the summer with the Premier, you were talking about 47,000. I was wondering if you'd please break out the 61,000 -- where, which programs I would be able to attribute that 61,000 figure to. There are five programs that you have: summer job service, student venture, summer experience Ontario, Ontario government, the Ontario-Quebec summer program. So if you would please attribute the 61,000 to the different accounts.

Hon David Johnson: The actual target was 48,500 at the beginning of the summer, and the total reached was almost 61,000. The bulk of them would be through the subsidy program for organizations employing students during the summer, but I don't know -- who do we have here? Joan, do you have the exact breakout?

Ms Andrew: Of the 48,500 this summer who were directly placed in jobs, about 35,225 were in either subsidized jobs or self-employment, and another 13,000 received job counselling, job assistance in activities through our JobConnect network for placement with employers, referral counselling, job search techniques and placement with employers in unsubsidized jobs. Those were the targets. By the end of July the actual achievement was 47,000 in subsidized jobs, exceeding the target by about 12,000. So the target was 35,000 and the achievement was about 47,000. We exceeded the target by about 12,000 in the subsidized jobs side. In the counselling, placement, referral to employers side, the target was achieved.

Mr Caplan: I'm referring to the 61,000 that was quoted. Could you just take me through --

Ms Andrew: Well, 47,208 is in subsidized jobs and 13,600-something is in placement to employers.

Mr Caplan: OK, and that was through the JobConnect, through the normal --

Ms Andrew: Ontario summer jobs is delivered by our JobConnect delivery network.

Mr Caplan: Right. So you added in the JobConnect folks over that summer period?

Ms Andrew: No, the agencies that deliver the JobConnect program year-round also deliver the summer job service component of the Ontario summer jobs; they do two functions in the summer. But the JobConnect, the non-student youth are not counted in that data.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Caplan. We move to the third party.

Hon David Johnson: That was really good news, wasn't it, the 61,000? The best ever.

Mr Caplan: I'm delighted.

Hon David Johnson: I'm glad you're with us on that one.

Mr Caplan: I'm very happy.

Mr Young: He was shocked, now he's delighted.

Mr Caplan: I look forward to debating further with you, Minister.

Hon David Johnson: Can I encourage you to ask me a question in the House on that tomorrow?

Mr Caplan: I have lots of questions.

Mr Lessard: It's good to see that he's gone from shock to joy.

I just wanted to follow up on my previous line of questioning about the labour market development agreement and the negotiations with the federal government. We know that there's going to be a withdrawal of federal funding on June 30, 1999, and I wanted to ask what is going to happen to your apprenticeship reform in the event that you're not able to come to an agreement with the feds.

Hon David Johnson: This is a key issue. Yes, the feds are diminishing their monies for apprenticeship too. At one point there was about $40 million -- $42 million to be precise -- in apprenticeships, and by the end of next year there will be zero federal money involved. So this is another reason why we're needing to get these two parts of the program together, coordinate it so we can properly support both the apprenticeship program and the training program. The question is, what's going to happen if the federal government is reluctant or unwilling to come to the table and reach an agreement with us.

I can tell you that we're putting a lot of energy right now into reaching that agreement. It is becoming more of a problem. Some of the training is over a long period of time and some of the trainers are unwilling or unable to get involved in programs that extend beyond the federal deadline.

Ms Andrew: The federal government won't approve subsidies for training that will go beyond June 30.

Hon David Johnson: Some of those training programs have already started in September. Some of them take place starting in September and going beyond June of next year. So there is a problem that's already begun, albeit with a very small number of programs and it's going to be an increasing problem as the months go by. I'm not too sure I can give you the total and maybe satisfactory answer at this point, other than we're putting a lot of energy into reaching this agreement with the federal government. We have a meeting, I guess it's actually tomorrow. I said this week earlier but it's actually tomorrow. Your point is probably a good one that we'll have to develop a backup strategy. Certainly there's some thought given to that, but I couldn't outline --

Mr Lessard: Will you commit to continue the funding at least for the people who are in those training programs that extend beyond June 30, 1999?

Hon David Johnson: I can't see any course of action other than the provincial government would have to ensure that there's an adequate flow of monies to support the training that's required in the province of Ontario. Precisely what amount of money that is, I don't know, but if we're left in the lurch by the federal government we'll have to ensure that the people of Ontario get the kind of programs they deserve.

Ms Andrew: Specifically as it relates to planning the apprenticeship in school purchases for next year, we're already in discussions with both the college system and the non-college training delivery agents as we call them, the industry trainers, about planning training purchases for next fiscal year, how to manage the new regime. Exactly how it gets financed isn't resolved yet but we have set up committees to work jointly with the training training deliverers.

1730

Mr Lessard: One of the things I'm concerned about is the impact that having apprentices pay tuition fees is going to have on their willingness to engage in apprenticeship training and also the future debt they may incur as a result of undertaking apprenticeship programs if they so choose and whether that is going to be a disincentive for people to actually engage in apprenticeship training programs.

The minister, in response to a question from a member of the government caucus, said there is a shortage of 40,000 skilled workers in the high-technology and computer sector and that European recruiters are on campuses here in Ontario to try to get people to relocate from Ontario to Europe. In response, you said, "I hope, with Bill 55, there will be an increase in the number of persons undertaking apprenticeship programs."

Minister, I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out how, by introducing tuition fees for apprentices and eliminating the minimum wage, you expect there to be more people who see apprenticeship training as a viable option for them. I see a lot of disincentives there for people to do that.

Hon David Johnson: Our goal, as I indicated earlier, is actually to double the number of people coming in -- it's about 11,000 a year -- to double that to 22,000. In terms of tuition, we've indicated that until we finish negotiations with the federal government we would not introduce tuition.

The withdrawal of the money from the federal government has meant that the whole area of apprenticeship funding has had to be looked at because the $42 million, as you can appreciate, is a significant chunk of the funding. When the federal government withdrew that, there needed to be a look at the whole thing.

Perhaps I could ask Joan to comment a little on some of the initiatives to encourage people to come into apprenticeship.

Ms Andrew: We have also worked with other provinces that have already introduced tuition fees for apprenticeship, because they didn't experience any reduction in entry to apprenticeship while they introduced tuition fees. There was no reduction in the systems in Alberta and Nova Scotia, in particular, which were the first two provinces. New Brunswick has now also introduced tuition fees, but they haven't had enough time to track it successfully.

We've now introduced an expanded Ontario youth apprenticeship program to start making linkages for young people in high school so they can finish both their high school diploma and start on their apprenticeship system. I think there are a couple of successful examples in Windsor, Sault Ste Marie and Whitby that have already been in place. We have expanded that over the course of this year and made the commitment that there will be no tuition for any student registered in secondary school who is also doing an apprenticeship.

We've also introduced a loans for tools fund, as of this September, where new apprentices can apply for an interest-free loan for the duration of their apprenticeship to help finance the initial cost of tools for apprenticeship.

As the minister said, we are working with industry to develop apprenticeships in some new and emerging areas like network cable installer and help desk attendant, to work with the IT industry. So there are new and expanding occupations in apprenticeship.

Mr Lessard: The people to whom I've been speaking say there are people who want to engage in apprenticeships like tool and die or machinist or a number of trades I'm familiar with, coming from the Windsor area and the manufacturing plants, but they find there are no opportunities for them. They can't get into those trades because the industries there aren't taking on people to train in those areas. The parts sector is reluctant to have apprenticeship training programs because they know that as soon as they train them, the people are going to leave and go to GM, Chrysler, Ford or the large industries, where the wages are better.

I'd like to know whether any of the apprenticeship reform is going to address that, and whether you've considered the possibility of mandatory training opportunities for people who do have skilled tradespersons to ensure that they have apprentices, or that they pay into a fund that they get a credit for if they do provide apprenticeship training opportunities for people, to ensure that employers have an obligation to provide apprenticeship training and that the problems of shortages, and the problems of people being trained at one company and then going to another company right after they get the training, are avoided.

Hon David Johnson: This is an issue that does come up. Obviously there are certain employers who swing their fair share of the weight and hire and train apprentices and make a great investment. Many of them who have talked to me indicate the amount of investment that they put into an apprentice. It costs them money, but they do this because they believe in the apprenticeship system.

I was with the Canadian Tooling and Machining Association at their luncheon about a month ago, and many of the people there are good examples of employers who believe in the apprenticeship system and are investing. But at the same time they point out many other employers, and some fairly large employers, who do not have the same attitude, and that makes it difficult.

This issue is being discussed. I don't have a specific program, such as the approaches you've mentioned, to announce here today. Our approach is that we do want to see PACs in each industry involved in giving us suggestions and leadership, encouraging all members within the industry to be involved in training apprentices, and hopefully some good initiatives will come out of that. One of the approaches through Bill 55 is to give more responsibility and get greater leadership from the PACs within the various industries.

Mr Lessard: Is that something we might see in the regulations?

Hon David Johnson: When you say "that," you mean --

Mr Lessard: These initiatives that may be pursued.

Hon David Johnson: I guess anything is possible, but I can't promise any particular initiatives. All I can say is that the ministry is particularly aware that there is a concern and, through the public hearing process, maybe there will be suggestions.

Joan, can you add to that?

Ms Andrew: The leading-edge technology and co-operative education tax credit that was introduced by the Ministry of Finance has specifically made clear in a recent bulletin that apprentices in tooling and machining, those kinds of skill shortage areas, are also eligible for that tax credit, which is an encouragement to employers, particularly in high-tech and sophisticated manufacturing areas, to hire new apprentices. That's another initiative.

Hon David Johnson: That's one that I think is applauded, albeit I suspect many of the representatives would say that if it were higher it would be of greater value. But at least it's a start.

Mr Lessard: You listed some new apprenticeship trades when you gave your answer, Ms Andrew. Do you have a list of those new certifiable trades that you can make available?

Ms Andrew: I don't have it with me, but I could provide it.

Mr Lessard: Could you provide that to me, please?

Are the regulations drafted?

Ms Andrew: We made a commitment to work with a number of industry partners on drafting regulations, and we're still in that consultation process. We met last week with industry representatives on what would be some criteria for the development of future certification standards in trades. We will continue that consultation with the industry folks we've committed to as we develop the regulations.

Mr Lessard: Are you consulting with employee groups as well?

Ms Andrew: Yes, we're consulting with PACs, which are equally made of employer and employee representatives. They have representation and it was PAC co-chairs who, in July, nominated a process for them to consult within their own industries and come back to us on criteria to determine which trades would and wouldn't be certified in the future.

Mr Lessard: How much time do I have?

The Vice-Chair: Another six minutes.

Hon David Johnson: May I say that I had the benefit of meeting with the Ontario Federation of Labour and Mr Hargrove. We had about an hour's meeting with him and various representatives. We've been attempting to meet with everybody. I am sure everybody would like more meetings and would like us to go further in their direction than we have, but we are attempting to meet with all of the various stakeholders.

Mr Lessard: When John Snobelen was the minister, he was initiating the big tuition hikes that we've heard about students experiencing. But one of the things he did, to try to sweeten some of those tuition hike announcements, was to announce a $20-million scholarship fund. We've heard from students who, once they tried to apply for those scholarships, found that they had been cancelled. The one I'm referring to specifically is one that was based on merit. The students we've heard from are students who worked very hard to be able to access those scholarships.

Why is it that you cancelled that scholarship initiative, and why didn't you tell students about it?

Hon David Johnson: In terms of consultation with post-secondary institutions and with various student groups, I guess the feeling was that the direction should be more in terms of need as opposed to those with the highest marks. There are many financial avenues open to students with high marks -- I guess that's probably the way to say it. But it was our assessment, in terms of our consultation with various stakeholders in the industry, that there was a much greater need for students who had lower financial means and maybe were denied access to a post-secondary institution if there wasn't a greater focus there. I think that over the course of the last year or so, our efforts have been directed more towards need than merit.

Mr Lessard: Thanks.

The Vice-Chair: That's it, Mr Lessard? OK. We have approximately 13 minutes for the government.. There is going to be a vote at 6 o'clock. That will probably cut it down by about five minutes. Mr Young, do you want to start this evening or wait until tomorrow?

Mr Young: I think we're happy to go ahead tomorrow --

The Vice-Chair: All right.

Mr Young: -- depending on how the committee members feel.

The Vice-Chair: Then tomorrow we'll finish estimates for the Ministry of Education and Training, and then begin estimates for the Office the Premier.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I think the minister undertook to provide a number of pieces of information. Might that be available tomorrow, if possible?

The Vice-Chair: We have one of the documents that was requested.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, we have the enrolment numbers.

Ms Lacey: We'll have the others for tomorrow.

Hon David Johnson: How much time do we have left tomorrow?

The Vice-Chair: Forty-five minutes.

Hon David Johnson: Forty-five minutes?

The Vice-Chair: Approximately. Forty-nine minutes, exactly.

Hon David Johnson: How many seconds?

The Vice-Chair: Forty-nine minutes times 60. That's your homework for this evening, Minister.

Thank you very much, committee members. We'll see you tomorrow.

Mr Froese: You must be a teacher.

The Vice-Chair: Yes, you've got it.

The committee adjourned at 1745.