MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Wednesday 24 November 1999

Ministry of Education and Training
Hon Janet Ecker, Minister of Education
Hon Dianne Cunningham, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities
Ms Suzanne Herbert, deputy minister, Ministry of Education
Mr Norbert Hartmann, assistant deputy minister, elementary
and secondary business and finance division, Ministry of Education
Mr Ross Peebles, assistant deputy minister, corporate management and services
division, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High sPark L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James ND)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke L)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh L)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Îles L)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)

Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes

Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, researcher, Legislative Research Service
Ms Gerry Connelly, director, curriculum and assessment policy branch, Ministry of Education
Ms Nancy Naylor, director, education finance, Ministry of Education

The committee met at 1544 in room 151.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Acting Chair (Mr John Gerretsen): Will the committee come to order please? The hearings will continue. Just for the information of the committee members and the audience that's here, we have eight hours and 49 minutes remaining in the estimates for the ministries of education and training. I believe the New Democratic Party, Mr Marchese, has the 30-minute reply at this time.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I wasn't feeling well, by the way, but I didn't want to miss this opportunity. I'm still convinced I have enough lucidity to be able to engage you for a little while and in case my lucidity fails, my colleague is here to help out.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm always lucid.

Mr Marchese: Minister, I have four areas of concern that I want to go over with you. I'll put them out so that the civil servants can plan ahead, in case they need you.

I want to deal with local levy. I'm going to be asking questions about how much money you've saved dealing with waste in bureaucracy because you mentioned that yesterday. I want to deal with the report of the Education Improvement Commission. I've underlined a few things to help me with my clarity, you see. Fourth, just to chat with you about what is non-classroom kind of stuff and what you think about that.

First, the local levy. You must be familiar with the fact that before you folks centralized education financing, a lot of boards of education had a local levy that they applied and they raised a lot of money to provide local programs. Are you familiar with that? You are. Are you familiar with how much money we used to raise out of the local levy, province-wide?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I'm sure we can have the officials walk you through the details if you'd like. I know your questions are leading somewhere. So I'm going to wait very patiently.

Mr Marchese: I'm coming. It was a $2-billion program, a $2.1-billion program, actually. Of course, that local levy wasn't funded by the ministry and/or supervised. In fact, they raised the money and they spent it on local programs. In Toronto they raised about $500 million, more or less, give or take a couple of bucks, which they used for local stuff. Do you know what happened to that money or those programs?

Hon Mrs Ecker: What? In terms of what the board raised from the local levy?

Mr Marchese: No, the $500 million, more or less, that we used to raise here in Toronto went for local programming. You guys didn't supervise it or raise it, it was done locally. You've now centralized those dollars. I don't know what happened to those dollars. How do you calculate it in terms of what you provide as a ministry and what you don't? Is it out of the education funding? Is it part of it? Has that money disappeared? Do you know what happened to it?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We can certainly have officials walk you through how the money is allocated, but education money raised in the province of Ontario is spent on education.

Mr Marchese: I realize that. That's not what I was asking you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Would you like the deputy or one of the other assistants to walk you through?

Mr Marchese: Maybe the deputy, but don't walk me through for too long because I haven't got too much time. You understand this. If you have a quick sense of what I'm talking about, some quick answer, but I don't want to be walked through for half an hour because I have a lot of questions.

Ms Suzanne Herbert: If I understand the question correctly, if I might-

Mr Marchese: I could repeat it.

The Acting Chair: Sorry, could you introduce yourself please, for the Hansard record.

Ms Herbert: Suzanne Herbert, Deputy Minister of Education.

You're asking about how we took the total amount of funding that was available both through the taxation system and through provincial funding and how we converted that into the new funding formula?

Mr Marchese: Maybe. Those dollars that used to be raised locally by the Toronto system are not centralized somehow. That local levy disappeared because they don't have the power any more to raise money. What happened to those dollars? Yes, that probably covers the way you-

Ms Herbert: How we took those dollars and converted them into per-pupil funding?

Mr Marchese: Not too long though, please, otherwise I'll have to cut you off.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We know you'd like a full description.

Mr Norbert Hartmann: Norbert Hartmann, deputy minister, business and finance. In the case of Toronto, as I understand the question, in 1997, when it was raising its own funds, it was raising a little more than $2 billion, $2.17 billion.

Under the new funding model, the allocations for 1999-2000 are at $2.2 billion.

Mr Marchese: They used to raise $2.1 billion.

Mr Hartmann: The total amount of money spent in the city of Toronto was $2.17 billion.

Mr Marchese: That's the total budget?

Mr Hartmann: That's correct.

Mr Marchese: I'm not talking about that. I don't think I'm talking about that.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): Yes, you are, because they raised it all locally in Toronto.

Mr Marchese: Explain to me, or perhaps I can ask you, were there programs that the Toronto board provided that the ministry did not fund? How many dollars are we talking about?

1550

Mr Hartmann: If I understand the question correctly, all of the monies that the Toronto board spent in 1997 were raised from local taxation.

Mr Marchese: I understand that. We're not meeting very clearly, quite obviously.

There were many programs that the province does not recognize. There was about $2 billion not recognized by the province spent provincially-

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, Mr Marchese. It wasn't a question with the Toronto board of what was recognized or not recognized. The Toronto board raised all of its money itself; we didn't fund, so there wasn't a question of whether we recognized or didn't recognize their particular programs, again if I'm understanding you correctly.

Mr Marchese: It seems that all of you are not familiar with what I'm talking about, and I don't have time to deal with that now, because I thought you might quickly understand what I'm talking about. But I'll make the point again. You can check it. I have to find my source so I can send it to you, because I'm talking about $2 billion worth of programming not recognized by the province, and this is money raised locally. What you're talking to me about is all of the dollars raised by boards, and they spent $2.1 billion and we got $2.2 billion and you're spending more than before. I get the picture, but I'm not talking about that. I'll have to deal with that in some other way because I don't want to spend all my time dealing with that. We'll move on. It's partly what I know as a former trustee of the board, and not everybody's familiar with this. I thought the civil servants might be, but I'll have to bring that clarification to you and to them when I get that in. It'll be in writing.

Secondly, how much money did we save in waste? You talked about that yesterday. You said we saved a lot of money dealing with waste and bureaucracy. How much?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The deputy will be making some comments along those lines.

Ms Herbert: Our figures from the board show us at this point that the shift from administration and from the way the funding formula is calculated resulted in savings of about $180 million, a 30% saving on the admin budget.

Mr Marchese: Is this the way you define waste, Deputy, or is this the way you define waste, Minister?

Ms Herbert: I answered your question around the administrative line. I think the government's been clear that it was going to maintain its classroom spending, so I went to administration.

Mr Marchese: I understood that. Thank you, Deputy. I'll stick with the minister.

You were talking, Minister, about waste, that we saved money on waste. The deputy answered and said that this is how the board has dealt with it: They shifted from administration somehow, whatever that means, and they saved 180 million bucks. I'm trying to get at what you consider to be waste. What is the definition of waste so that I can understand it?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Our priority is very clearly that monies for classrooms, textbooks, teachers and students are where we put the priority. If there are any savings that we can have in non-classroom areas, we certainly have and will continue, and boards are continuing, to look for that. I think that commitment has been very clear and that commitment remains.

Mr Marchese: Waste is anything other than teachers and students, basically.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, I didn't say waste. I just said that our priority in terms of dollars is in classroom, and wherever we can find a way to save a dollar that might well be saved because a board has been able to offer a particular program or do something on an administrative basis, do it in a different way and therefore do it for less money. Boards are certainly looking at all of those things that produce savings and so is the ministry.

Mr Marchese: I understand. That's pretty well what you said before. I'm just trying to be clear. I want to understand you, because yesterday in response to the Liberal critic you talked about savings we've made by dealing with waste and bureaucracy. For the benefit of those watching, they want to know what you mean by waste. I'm still not clear, in spite of the fact that you repeated this twice, what is considered waste. You might want to try again or you could just leave it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: For example, a school board that owns a golf course might be considered by many taxpayers to be an expenditure that might well be waste. But I think what's important here is that the priorities are going to be in classroom. Where we can find savings we want to continue to do that in non-classroom. That is our commitment. I'm sure your view or a trustee's view about duplication, waste within administration, might well vary. That's why we think trustees and board officials-trustees are elected by the community to make those decisions in terms of how they can best allocate the dollars.

Mr Marchese: I understand.

We saved money in bureaucracy as well, presumably cutting in bureaucracy. Who are these bureaucrats? How much money did we save?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'll check with the deputy, but we went from reducing the number of school boards, for example, and fewer numbers of school board officials, fewer numbers of trustees. Also, in some communities trustees were receiving a higher pay or salary or honorarium and that has been reduced. Those are reductions we said we would do and we did. So there are some examples. I know the Education Improvement Commission has been flagging, highlighting if you will, what they call best practices. There are boards that have had transportation programs that they've developed with their coterminous boards.

Mr Marchese: It's in here.

Hon Mrs Ecker: They've had savings there. There are boards that have joint purchasing and they've had savings when they do things of that kind.

Mr Marchese: That's part of the bureaucracy, right?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are many steps that boards have taken to save dollars where they can, and the ministry has tried to congratulate them for that, as I do as well.

Mr Marchese: I'll get to that, because they've been doing that and they've been doing it for years. We were doing it when I was there. I just get worried when we use words like "waste." The public needs to understand what that is. When we use words like "bureaucracy" and/or "bureaucrats," it's important for the public to understand what you mean. That's what I was trying to get at, so that you could define it for me in a way that I can understand it, and for the general public. That's basically what I wanted to ask in relation to this, and how much money did we save from all of this. When we speak generally, it's nice to have a sense, after you defined what that waste in bureaucracy is, of how much money we saved. How much, more or less, Deputy?

Ms Herbert: In the administration area, which the minister referred to and described around the costs of the large number of school boards that were in the province, trustees, all of those areas, we saved $180 million.

Mr Marchese: It's $180 million. That's impressive. I'm sure it must include other things because it can't be just cutting down trustees and reducing the boards. But I want to get to the education commission in terms of what they say about that because I've got some problems with that.

Minister, do you think trustees getting a remuneration of $5,000 is good enough?

Hon Mrs Ecker: For most of the trustees I have met-and I certainly haven't met all of them yet-it's not a question of what they get paid. They're there because they care very much about education issues. Many have either been through the system themselves or have children in the system, and the payment hasn't seemed to be a motivating factor. I can only speak for the trustees I've met, but it definitely hasn't been their motivating factor.

Mr Marchese: I suggest to you that trustees who are there on a very part-time basis know nothing about the educational systems they are connected to. I will say that very directly to you because I was there. I was a full-time trustee. I quit teaching to do that full time. That was the period of my ideological naïveté, I often say, because I wouldn't do it again. I was earning $7,000 at the time. What drove me to such madness to think that I could commit myself to such a civil obligation for a mere $7,000 ? I tell you, Minister, very few people want to do the job for that kind of money. They found wackos like me who didn't mind doing it at the time, but you don't find that many. If somebody's working full-time and then goes to a board meeting every now and then, they might manage to go to one of the personnel meetings or the school programs meeting every now and then, they can't know very much about education and what goes on in the classroom, is what I'm telling you. But you don't believe that's the case.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'm a little shocked that the NDP would condemn school trustees in this province as people who know nothing and are wackos, and are only interested in being there because no one else will be. I find that characterization objectionable, to say the least.

1600

Mr Marchese: You're good, Minister. You have the New Democrats saying that the trustees who are there are wackos and I'm condemning them.

Hon Mrs Ecker: You were part of that party the last time I checked.

Mr Marchese: I told you that I was the wacko who would do it for $7,000. I didn't say the other trustees are wackos for doing it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: And I was polite and avoided agreeing with you.

Mr Marchese: Well please do, because then you don't involve the others. I was admitting to you that I was one-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Chair, he's asked the minister to say he's a wacko. I'm prepared to agree with him.

Mr Marchese: Perfect.

Minister, I want to tell you that trustees who are there part-time simply don't have the time to understand the educational system. I think you have done an incredible disservice to the public, because being part-time means that the trustees-the few people who are directly connected to parents, who tried to involve them in the educational system-don't have the time to do that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, in many communities trustees have always been part-time; they have not been full-time jobs. I would also like to state that there are many organizations across this province with significant and serious responsibilities in communities, everything from children's aid societies to hospital boards, that have people on those boards who receive no remuneration.

Mr Marchese: Right.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I really don't think we would like trustees elected by their communities to guide the decisions of the education system to be there simply for the money. As I said, I can only speak for the trustees I've met, but that certainly has not been their motivating factor.

Mr Marchese: I understand, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: They are there to provide overall policy advice to the board officials, based on their experience and their ability to speak on behalf of their community-

Mr Marchese: OK, I got your point, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -but the additional support those trustees have, though-

Mr Marchese: Minister, I got-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Just one minute, because I think it's an important point.

Mr Marchese: No, I got your point.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The additional point for those trustees is that we now have school councils-every school has a council of parents-which are also helping provide parental and public input to the school system.

Mr Marchese: Yes, that's great, Minister. I appreciate-

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's a big support for trustees.

Mr Marchese: Yes, Minister, that's great. These parent councils are now there to play the role of trustees and that should take-

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's not what I said.

Mr Marchese: So the point is that-

Hon Mrs Ecker: I said they were a support for trustees.

Mr Marchese: Minister, I want to tell you-

Hon Mrs Ecker: They are a support for trustees, Rosario.

Mr Marchese: I'm going to tell you, because otherwise you're going to take all my time.

The Acting Chair: One at a time.

Mr Marchese: Parent councils don't want to do the work of trustees.

Hon Mrs Ecker: And no one's asking them to.

Mr Marchese: They don't want to do the work of the trustees, and they don't have the time to do it. In my view, education is as political as what you are doing. And in the same way that you don't mind being paid $100,000 as a minister to guide the bureaucracy you govern, trustees shouldn't have to do their job voluntarily. If you think they should, I suggest that you might bring forth a recommendation that says, "We'll do it for $10,000, because we're here for the public service."

Moving on, Minister-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Are you saying, Rosario-

Mr Marchese: No, I just made a statement.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -that all those part-time trustees who have been contributing to the system for decades-

Mr Marchese: No, I'm not saying that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -were not doing a good job-

Mr Marchese: No, Minister, listen-

Hon Mrs Ecker: -that they didn't know anything and somehow or other they did a disservice to the system?

Mr Marchese: No, listen. Unless I ask you a question-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Because I do not agree with that.

Mr Marchese: No, I realize that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Those trustees have contributed a great deal to the system.

Mr Marchese: Minister, thank you.

Trustees who are part-time simply don't have enough time to understand the educational system. That's an inadequacy, and I'm telling you they are not able to do the job well as a result of it. My view is that you folks don't give a damn because you don't want them to know very much about the educational system, and you prefer to have people who are there voluntarily, hopefully people with money who want to give their public service, and forget about the problems the educational system might be having and forget about the fact that trustees are no longer there to fight ministers who are making the cuts you're making.

Can you define for me what non-classroom education is, that you don't fund any more?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, Rosario, there's one thing you raised which I don't agree with. One of the goals of our education reform is to have more information out there about where dollars are going in the system, what they're supposed to be achieving in the system-

Mr Marchese: I asked you what's non-classroom education.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -so that trustees, parents, taxpayers will have more information-

Mr Marchese: Minister, you said you only fund-

Hon Mrs Ecker: -so they'll understand the education system.

Mr Marchese: -the teacher and the student in terms of classroom education. What's non-classroom education?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We fund textbooks, computers-

Mr Marchese: What don't you fund?

Hon Mrs Ecker: -guidance counsellors, library supports. We fund a great many things.

Mr Marchese: What don't you fund?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We also fund construction of new schools. We fund-

Mr Marchese: I understand that. What don't you fund?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We fund the education system. We fund transportation.

Mr Marchese: OK, all right. Minister, listen to me.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Well, you asked what we don't fund and I'm telling you we fund what is required to-

Mr Marchese: Minister, you're not listening very well. People are watching and you're not listening.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We fund what is required-

Mr Marchese: That's the beauty of having television here, because you're not answering the question. That's the beauty of being here. In question period you get up, make your statement and nobody's to say whom to follow up. I asked you a question, and you ranted about something else.

Are social workers funded?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes.

Mr Marchese: Are they part of the classroom funding formula?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We pay boards for social workers, so yes, we fund social workers.

Mr Marchese: They're not part of what's considered classroom funding. They're not. Are principals part of that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Certainly principals are part of funding for schools.

Mr Marchese: They're part of what you fund? Is that the classroom?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We can walk through the formula in terms of how certain things are classified. It may be helpful for you to sort of walk through those points.

Mr Marchese: No, I'll tell you: Educational assistants are not part of classroom funding, principals are not part of classroom funding, secretaries are not part of the funding, psychologists are not part of that funding-you're not listening, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, you're incorrect and that's why I thought it might be helpful if the-

Mr Marchese: Minister, I am telling you-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Teaching assistants are part of classroom-

Mr Marchese: They are not part of the classroom funding.

Hon Mrs Ecker: They are.

Mr Marchese: Social workers are not, principals are not.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Teaching assistants are. We can walk you through, but teachers-

Mr Marchese: Deputy Minister, can you tell me who's not part of the-

Hon Mrs Ecker: -supply teachers, assistants, computers, learning materials, professionals and paraprofessionals, library, guidance, staff development. The list is very long about what we consider classroom-

Mr Marchese: Non-classroom funding here: Principals and vice-principals, department heads, school secretaries, teacher consultants-we already talked about trustees-board administration, school operations-janitors and the like-transportation, directors and supervisory officers. Is that OK with you?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, I believe you have the list and the information has been helpful to you.

Mr Marchese: You were about to tell me what's included. This is not an exclusive list, by the way. Social workers are not part of that list, and psychologists are not part of that list.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Professionals and paraprofessionals are on the list, because they are to be funded and they are funded. I consider social workers to be professionals. I don't know if you do, but I certainly do.

Mr Marchese: In terms of these other non-classroom areas I mentioned, you obviously defend that, right?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have taken a great deal of time to develop a way to fund education with consultation to make sure that what we consider the most priority areas get the most dollars.

Mr Marchese: I understand, and secretaries are not part of classroom funding and so you defend that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Secretaries are part of what gets funded in the education system, as they should be. Secretaries can be a great a support within a school and they do get funded. But they are not considered classroom funding.

Mr Marchese: It is unbelievable how we can have a discussion and/or a debate and I say they're not and then you say they're funded. You are unbelievable in terms of your ability to morass the whole thing. It never fails to amaze me.

How much time do we have?

The Acting Chair: You have four minutes left.

Mr Marchese: I'll pass it on to my colleague, who has some questions.

Mr Bisson: I hope I to get a chance for some questions and answers a bit later, but I want to lay out a couple of issues because I want to come back to them.

The first is that you would know that up in the Moosonee-Moose Factory area, provincial schools along James Bay-we're not talking federally funded schools-there is a teacherage program that used to pay 100% of the rental costs of the apartment the teachers were staying in when they were teaching in those schools. One of the great difficulties they are having on James Bay-it's a traditional problem they have had for years-is it's very hard to attract teachers into that area, and they need to have some kind of incentive to do it. One of the ways to do that was a teacherage program that paid 100% of rental accommodation for teachers as an incentive to attract them into the community.

What has happened since 1996 is that the school boards have been directed by your ministry, by your predecessor, to basically go to a market value system when it comes to rental accommodation for teachers. So each year we have been decreasing the percentage of subsidy paid by the school boards and the Ministry of Education towards the rental accommodation of the teachers.

1610

We now find-and I know this because as I travel through my riding I go into communities like Attawapiskat, Moose Factory, and other communities-that they are having a more difficult time trying to keep the teachers they've got because they say, "Listen, if I can make the same amount of money teaching in my hometown, London or Timmins or wherever it might be, why would I go to Moosonee, Moose Factory or Attawapiskat or wherever it is if there is not some sort of incentive, a little bit more pay?" Normally that's why we go into more isolated communities.

The school board is at its wits' end with this. You would know because you would have received a letter from the superintendent of education, John McMartin, on this particular issue on October 12, who has yet to receive an answer. I'm going to come back on this a little bit later and I would want to have a discussion with you about how we can try to reinstate, in some form, some type of program to assist those school boards to be able to help with rental accommodation for teachers.

The other issue is, and I think you need to recognize it because it's always very easy to make policies here in the hallowed halls of Queen's Park-this is not a shot in the bow just to your government, it's to every government that's ever been here-we as politicians give our bureaucrats a direction, they go out and do it, and half the time they're not out there looking at what is going on in the field. I just want to tell you that outside of Queen's Park, about 1,000 kilometres north, on James Bay, there are not a lot of apartments availability for new teachers going into those communities.

This is exacerbating that very situation. What happens is that because those units are no longer held by the school board, and teachers happen to go out just in the market and deal with their own accommodation, when new teachers come into the community, the school has nothing to offer. There is nowhere for them to stay. You would know that in communities like Kashechewan and Attawapiskat you have families with 18 and 20 people living in the same house. It's fairly hard to find any kind of accommodation. We're going to get into that a little bit later. I've got about two minutes.

I want to get into another issue, because this is something that has been raised by a number of local boards in my area: the issue of the funding formula. I'm not going to get into a very long speech. I just want to make this point: You would know that your government gave stable funding, and you had phased-in adjustment funding that you gave schools last year. I call that, "Get me past the election budget," so that schools don't have to close across Ontario. That's what that particular budget was.

Schools are now worried, because they're getting signals from within your ministry that the stable funding they got last year to keep them up to at least the funding formula, equal to what they had before under the old system, that the stable funding and the phased-in adjustment funding is going to go the way of the dodo bird. That's what they're hearing from within your ministry. They're saying to themselves, "How are we going to deal with this?" For example, in the school boards in my area, if you had gone ahead and done what you were going to do about going entirely over to the funding formula that you devised, our school boards would have ended up having less money than they would have had under the old system, by more than 4%. You put in a policy that if it was below 4%, you would give this funding.

I want to come back to that issue a little bit later and ask some very specific questions about what you are going to do to the school boards across Ontario that rely on the stable funding guarantee you gave them last year, and also the phase-in adjustment funding you gave them, that allowed them to keep at least some money to be able to keep some form of education going in our communities. I'll tell you, if what happens is what we fear is going to happen and we're going to lose these two pots of money, it means we're going to have to lay off more teachers across the province and it's going to mean more closures of schools. It's not only here in Toronto that we're having problems. Come to Opasatika, if you know where that is, and go to Ramore, Timmins and other communities. It's happening all over the province. The problem is, the smaller the community, the more there is a problem.

The Acting Chair: That just about does it, Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: Did I have a bit more time?

The Acting Chair: No. You used up the last three seconds there.

We've now come to the part where the ministers have 30 minutes to reply, and that's 30 minutes together, taken collectively between the two ministers who are here. Who would like to start off?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'll start off, if I may. First of all, with regard to Mr Bisson's comments about the difficulties that northern boards have, he's quite right that northern boards have significant challenges in trying to attract good teachers, good staff. That is a challenge. We recognize that that is an issue. Staff have been meeting with the board to see what we can do, what improvements we might make.

I am not aware that we have correspondence that hasn't been answered yet, but I'll have staff follow up, and if there is further information that we can provide you during the course of these discussions, we certainly will. I appreciate your raising it. I know that in one of the first briefings I had about some of our northern boards the staff put up the map, and the geography they have to cover is quite daunting. I have been in many of those communities myself and I certainly appreciate that.

The other thing that is important to note is that some of the improvements on accommodation, for example, to give boards more flexibility in making decisions about the school spaces they need, are permanent changes to help give boards more flexibility. We can certainly walk through more details on that if you'd like.

In answer to some of the points that had been made before, I'd like to get on the record so that we're clear that we've taken a grant structure, if you will, a way to fund education, that was incredibly complex. Perhaps some of the officials who worked with it on a daily basis understood it, but very few people were able to. There were something like 34 different calculations, categories or whatever. What we've done is to make it much more transparent so that trustees, parents and taxpayers can see where the money is going and for what reason; also to make it much more equitable, so that just because a child is living in a community, for example, a northern community, where they don't have a rich assessment base, they're not disadvantaged or underprivileged, so that every board has access to equitable funding and we can have good education in whatever community that child lives.

There is the foundation grant that goes to schools. We also have very many special-purpose grants: for special education, which is designed around the number of students that boards have with special education needs; a language grant; specific grants for geographic challenges that some boards may have for school authorities; we have a learning opportunities grant, and that is money that goes to boards, for example, the Toronto board or other boards that have significant challenges in education because of the populations they serve; grants for adult and continuing education; a summer school grant; a teacher compensation grant; an early-learning grant for those school boards that may not provide junior kindergarten, so they have an alternative, an early learning grant they can use; transportation; and also for administration and governance. Under the pupil accommodation grant, we have monies for school operations, school renewal, new pupil places.

There are many things that are considered to be part of what we need to fund in order to have a good education system. But we also have said very clearly that there are certain priorities within the funding, as there always are, the same way that those of us in our household budgets or people who run small businesses set priorities for where their monies go. The priority we have set is very much for teachers and students and the supports they need in the classroom. We think that's an appropriate priority. It certainly meets what taxpayers have said they want, and we've actually increased those monies.

I don't know, Minister Cunningham, if there are any points you want to make in the time we have available.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: No.

The Acting Chair: Is there anything further you want to say, Mrs Ecker?

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the other points I want to make here is on the issue of special education funding, which was raised yesterday. I know that there is a great deal of common ground between the members here in this room and in the Legislature about sharing the desire to help support special education in the province, to help support students with special needs, and those supports can make quite a difference as to whether or not that young person will achieve success in education. That's why we have increased the monies for special education. The amount now is $1.2 billion, which is more than what any other Ontario government has been able to spend on this important support.

I think it's also important to recognize how we arrived at that figure. We started by saying to the school boards, "What do you spend on special education?" because we felt it was important to reflect the expenditures that were already out there. That was sort of the base, and then we increased from there, up to $1.2 billion.

1620

We also understood that there needed to be increases, so this funding has increased. It was increased $127 million last year and another $32.5 million this year. It's interesting to point out as well that while some of the money that goes to boards for special education is very much tied to the particular needs of high-needs students-for example, if we have students with higher needs there are higher monies available for that-we also recognize that boards require money, that there's more flexibility around how they use it. So the $32 million that went in this year for boards, additional money for special education, is money they can use very flexibly.

Some of the issues that we're looking at in terms of how do we take the increased dollars and the improvements in policy and make it work even better: On the one hand we have individuals who are saying that there need to be more restrictions on how the boards spend those dollars; on the other hand there are those who are saying that we need to have even more rules, more rigid walls, if you will, around that money. Those are really important points that we are trying to resolve with boards and with parents.

The Acting Chair: OK. We then we go to the Liberal caucus for 20 minutes and we'll start our rotation.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Minister, I would like to direct your attention to the special-needs program that we touched on yesterday. I particularly wanted to get your commitment on the record in terms of what you're going to do, in the face of agreement by the boards across this province, that there are serious flaws in your funding model. This is not a question, they say, of a Band-Aid, it's a question of serious flaws. On October 14 the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials Association for the public boards said that this is a disaster, that you have to fix it.

Minister, you've tried to say at different that there's additional money, you've tried to put to us that somehow you are taking care of the problem, and you know full well that for a long time these officials have said to you very clearly that money has been taken away by your ministry from what was spent before, that you are responsible for the hardship that's going on in their schools. I want to know whether you are committed to responding and changing the special education this year so that kids are not disadvantaged because of your funding formula. Are you committed to do that this year?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'd have some disagreement with the premise of your question. We have increased money for special education this year, we have already done that. What we're saying to the boards now is that we have increased dollars, we have made policy changes-even the Education Improvement Commission has said that the policies around our funding are the correct ones-that we quite recognize that changes and improvements need to be made.

Mr Kennedy: Why can't I get an answer to my question? Are you going to improve it this year or not? They have said the model is seriously flawed. They didn't agree with the EIC, they didn't agree with you, and they're saying it's a priority because it affects all their students. Your whole funding formula is about cannibalizing some programs and putting it into other programs. That's what you do over and over again: You cannibalize one board and put it in another board, you cannibalize one program and put it in another program and now you're forcing them to do that. This is what they say. They say that additional funds are required. They say that they are drawing much-needed funds from other parts of the budget.

These are the supervisory officers, the directors of education, the superintendents from all around the province. They've put this to you, they've offered to co-operate, they've had meetings with you and your officials and nothing has changed. So for the parents of the kids who are out there in multiple communities-in almost every community there are kids who had services last year who don't have them this year-they want to know the answer to a simple and direct question: Will you act on it this year?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, we will act on this when we have a consensus about the steps that need to be changed. On the one hand we've had feedback from parents and boards that have said they don't want to have money restricted to special ed, that there need to be fewer restrictions around that money being spent on special ed and there needs to be more money for higher-needs students. On the other hand, we've also heard that there needs to much more flexibility in how that money is allocated to boards.

We have also heard that, on the one hand, they want a very rigorous assessment process about the needs of students so that needs get identified and they get the services they need. On the other hand, we hear that a rigorous assessment process is a barrier, creates administrative red tape and difficulties that both boards and parents are having trouble dealing with. So we have been getting conflicting feedback. We quite recognize that there may well need to be different changes and we are looking at ways to do that. If there was a consensus on the changes yesterday, it would have been done yesterday.

The Acting Chair: I wonder if I could just interrupt this. Apparently I made a mistake earlier. Since the two ministers did not use 30 minutes, there are still 12 minutes left. They have the right to cede that time to the government members if they so wish. You've only taken five minutes of your time. I don't want to interrupt you in mid-course, but is there a wish by the ministers to basically cede this time to the government members?

Mr Marchese: As a point, to help the direction, I think you should permit Mr Kennedy to continue. Then we can have the Conservative members take up the gracious 12 minutes that the minister has ceded to them. I think his should continue his questions and then-

The Acting Chair: Before we go to you?

Mr Marchese: That's right.

The Acting Chair: Is that agreeable? Thank you. Mr Kennedy, please continue.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, around this province, you have school boards that have told you what is wrong. You have all the school boards, all the supervisory officials, agreeing that there is a course of action. They have presented that course of action to you. They have identified five key concerns, and the main one is completely counter to what you're saying right now. They say there are serious flaws, that this has to be taken back to the drawing board. In the meantime they have identified for you the problems and the resolution of those problems. They say this is urgent. They say it is affecting all the students.

You probably are aware-it's been raised in the House-that when a special-needs student doesn't get an educational assistant, then the teacher has to spend a disproportionate amount of time with that student. It has a ripple effect that goes right through the system.

I want to know, why can't you respond now? You don't need a consensus on everything. They're prepared to work with you. They're expressing their public disappointment that you won't acknowledge the problems. I'm asking you today-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy-

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I'll finish the question and I'll be happy to hear from you. I'm asking you today, do you agree with the supervisory officials of this province that the framework for special-ed funding is seriously flawed and that more money is required if children are to receive a proper education in the special-needs area? Do you agree with them?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I don't wish to sound flippant on a very important issue but where were you when I spoke to the elementary teachers' federation?

Mr Kennedy: In the room, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Where were you when I spoke to the Ontario Teachers' Federation? Where were you when I met and spoke to school boards? I was with the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario just this last weekend, where we have clearly-

Mr Kennedy: And every one of them told you about this problem-every one of them. I was there.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Let me answer here-where we have clearly acknowledged that there are issues that need to be dealt with in how we support the needs of special-education students. We've been very clear on that. The reason we've been having the meetings with supervisory officials, having the discussions with boards, meeting with the parents, is to say, "How do we take the more money that is in the system, how do we take the improved policy in the way it's funded and meet the needs of students in a better way?"

Let me put one other issue before you, Mr Kennedy. Your party and your leader are very fond of standing up and saying that we make changes without knowing what the impacts are or what they do, or we didn't consult or whatever. You're very fond of saying that. In this case we recognize how important this is, that we want to make sure that any changes that are made here are the right ones.

What we are hearing very clearly from the community is that there is not a consensus about what changes need to be made. For example, I have boards saying: "More flexibility. Don't tell us how to spend the money. We need more flexibility." I have many parents who say they don't trust the boards to have more flexibility. "Minister, you tell them exactly where every single dollar has to go." Right there we have an important issue which we are working with the parents and the boards to try and resolve, because I think it's important to resolve it.

1630

Mr Kennedy: You were told earlier this year that there were 23 kids in Hamilton who weren't going to school, and you said in the House, in this Legislature, that it was the board's fault. When you were told about kids from Grand Erie, you said it was the board's fault.

Minister, I have here a document that comes from the supervisory officers. In it are itemized the amounts of money that are missing from each of the boards, readily available from your figures, the amount of money that is provided for special education and the minimum amount of money they feel they need to spend. You're aware of this because these are your figures. It's $106 million that you're not giving to those kids, that you're forcing boards to cannibalize on. You should know full well that in addition to this $106 million that's being cannibalized from other programs, there are kids out there who are missing out right now.

You've given us a lot of process, a lot of excuses, but this isn't September 1, this is the end of November. You've had a lot of time to deal with this. I ask you again, are you planning to do something about this, this year? Do you acknowledge that there are serious flaws, not just small problems but serious flaws? Will you put more money into this, this year, as your superintendents all across the province have told you to do? I would really appreciate a direct answer. Do you accept what they're saying? Do you agree it's a serious problem? Are you prepared to respond at least to their terms, because I don't know how you get anywhere if you don't at least say to them: "We have your facts. We agree that there is a serious problem here." Do you agree today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I have acknowledged that there are issues that need to be dealt with in how we fund special education. We have said that very clearly. I have said that publicly. That is why I and my staff have spent the time we have spent to say, "How do we resolve this issue?" We have also been told that having money that's protected is very important. I've already said that some parents don't trust the boards in terms of their figures or how they use the money. Other boards have had very good programs in terms of what some parents have said.

The other thing that I should acknowledge and say again today, as I said yesterday, is that boards have choices about where they want to place monies they have. Boards have asked for flexibility and they do have it. For example, I know boards that have had savings in their administration. They have found ways to make do with less money. Those are very good stats, and they have chosen to top up special education. They are allowed to do that.

Mr Kennedy: That is not what the superintendents of this province, respectfully, Minister, told you. They told you it's a serious issue, becoming a crisis, because they're taking from other monies that they need. They have to reduce support to other kids in the class to pay for these funds.

Minister, the Bachyski family wants to know why their child, who used to have a full-time education assistant, has had it cut in half, so does the Gillies family, so does the McGillivary family, so does the LaSalle family, so does the Youmans family. There are people all across this province who are looking to you because all the tracks come back to you. All of the boards have got together. They have formed a consensus. You, Minister, won't go to the table with them. You're making excuses today.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, that is not accurate. You are not being accurate here. We are at the table with the boards. If we didn't think there were issues that needed to be addressed, we wouldn't be there, but we do know there are issues that need to be addressed and that's why we are at the table with the boards.

Mr Kennedy: My question, which you have not answered since the beginning: Will you address those problems this year? Will there be more money specifically for special needs this actual school year?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I am not prepared to promise solutions that may not be the correct solutions. Again, there is not a consensus about what needs to be done. I have other groups who are telling me that it's not a question of more money, that we don't need more money, that what we need is a different way of giving it to the boards. For parents this is extremely frustrating. I understand that. I've worked very closely with many of the families in communities in my riding. But when school boards, as some have done, not all, get on their political high horse and say: "Let's lobby for more money and let's do it on the backs of special-education children, I have some difficulty with that."

We have said very clearly to the boards that we wish to work with them to resolve these issues, and we are indeed doing that. On the information you talk about, the month-old report has been out in the public domain, the figures are in the public domain, have been, and that's one of the improvements we've made to how we fund education. We want to make sure that the right solutions are there to help those parents and those students.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, you haven't done anything this year at all.

Hon Mrs Ecker: You think $32 million is nothing?

Mr Kennedy: The increase in the SEPPA funding that you provided in the summertime-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Maybe the Liberals think $32 million is nothing, but $32 million is important support for those parents.

Mr Kennedy:-was $15 per student. There is $107 million less available because of your funding formula now. That's your responsibility, Minister, and every single dollar of that is being seen and is affecting the viability of children in the classroom. Further, you know that's not the end of the story. So you put your $32 million against $106 million. The boards are having to cannibalize from other programs.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's on top of another $127 million, on top of the other monies that we're putting in.

Mr Kennedy: And another $100 million.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's a lot of money.

Mr Kennedy: You had the temerity today to say you've had these figures for a month. You've known for one month that the supervisory officials believe they're short $106 million. They have told you, in an unprecedented public fashion, that this has to be dealt with, and you come to this committee today and have not one single solution. You provide no figures to show any variance with these figures that you say have been in the public domain for one month.

Hon Mrs Ecker: They've been in the public-

Mr Kennedy: Do you accept these figures? Do you accept that the boards are having to spend $107 million?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I know you're trying to write your news release for the news camera that's out there. I understand what you're trying to do here. You're trying to get a news release out of it.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I want your answer, and if you want to play games, that's fine. There's no news camera here. Just answer the question.

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the Minister of Education, I don't have the luxury for quick-hit political headlines that you do. I have the responsibility to solve problems and that's indeed what we're doing. I've met with the supervisory officials. I've met with parents. We are continuing to do that.

This press release is their version and their claim. I do not dispute or argue or confirm. That is their particular claim.

Mr Kennedy: We are here on behalf of the Legislature to look at the facts. If you have facts, you should bring them to this committee.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'm not going to sit here and get into some argument about whether it's $1 million or $10 million or what the figure is. What we are very clear about, and perhaps you haven't been listening, is that regardless of how much money it is, we need to do a better job with those dollars or other dollars or new policies. We know we need to do a better job and that's what we're working on doing.

Mr Kennedy: They're shutting down resources now for special needs kids. In the Sarnia board, they used all the mitigation funds they had, which could have been used, in balance, for a lot of different programs changes they had to contend with. They used all of it for special needs. So they only lost $1.4 million this year that they could have. They spent $2.5 million of money for various purposes, all of it on special needs. They are trying to figure out how they are going to sustain services. They've taken away $1.4 million. There's another $2.5 million to go. What you have told the boards, in the letter here from the Sarnia-Lambton board, is that you will not respond until next April.

All I asked at the outset was something fairly reasonable. Are you going to make in-year changes? Is there some hope for these families, for these boards? They're getting very frustrated. There are programs on the chopping block right now, resources they're taking away because they're scavenging them, they're cannibalizing them out of other programs. That is not an unreasonable question and I'm here on their behalf to ask that question. I believe you've had enough time to at least examine it, to know whether or not there is going to be action this year, and as the supervisory officials recommend and I think I heard you say earlier, it needs to be substantive action. Will it happen in this school year?

Hon Mrs Ecker: When we have the solutions to the issues that we are having to address we will put those solutions in place. As I said, if the solutions were there yesterday, it would have been done yesterday. If they are there today, they will be done today. If they're there tomorrow, they will be done tomorrow. I appreciate the frustration, I appreciate the desire that we all have here to solve this, but at the same time there are some challenges we have in order to solve that.

1640

Mr Kennedy: Why is there a challenge, Minister, to simply be able to address the substance of the funding? Some $107 million on a $1.2-billion program is a substantial amount of money, it is not around the edges, and the needs have been identified to be larger.

Your government has chosen deliberately to freeze the ISA funding for the most severely handicapped. That's a choice your government made. You chose not to respond when the supervisory officials said: "Here's what's really out there. Here's what the boards are actually spending." That's your choice not to respond. I'm asking you to take responsibility for those actions. I don't doubt your good faith in finding answers, but it is strange if you cannot at least see that there are consequences out there. There are hundreds of families who are being denied education right now.

One little guy, Timothy, came here two weeks ago. He doesn't have somebody to read him Braille in class so he can keep up with the class. I don't think the board is being hardhearted, I don't think the school is being hardhearted. There was another young fellow, Josh, who wasn't in school because of his particular disability. He needs a full-time EA. I'm hoping that we're not going to let kids caught between bureaucracies or ideologies or whatever, that these kids will see some expedient response from you, and that's the only undertaking I've asked you to provide today. It is very frustrating-you're right-to constantly hear from these families and say that the minister has not given any indication that she will indeed act this year.

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's not fair for you to say that because that's not an accurate reflection of what I'm saying.

Mr Kennedy: Then please clarify.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I am saying that when we have the solutions available to us, we will do that. There is no artificial timeline here. There is no calendar here that for whatever reason we have put X on a spot-

Mr Kennedy: Yes, there is a calendar; it's called the school year, and these kids are losing it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Let me finish here. If the solution were there yesterday, it would have been done yesterday, but it isn't. I appreciate that you say the supervisory officers from the boards are saying, "Just give us $106 million more and all our problems are solved."

Mr Kennedy: That's not what they're saying and you know that. That is part of what they said, and you know that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: You said they wanted $106 million or $107 million more.

Mr Kennedy: You took it away from them, Minister, is the point.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, we didn't. With all due respect, I've never met a school board official who didn't ask the Ministry of Education for more money.

Mr Kennedy: But that's just denying the whole issue.

The Acting Chair: The 20 minutes are up. We will now go to the government side for 18 minutes. It's my understanding that the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities would not be required this afternoon after the opening statements so she asked if she could leave and I gave her permission to leave.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you, Minister, for your indulgence.

I just want to refer back somewhat to some of the comments made by Mr Marchese as a reference point and perhaps Mr Kennedy as well. I do have a point in most of my rambling. I took some sort of cognizance, if that's a word, with the comments from Mr Marchese, and if I could just trace out for you a bit of history.

As you would probably know, Minister, as you've met my wife, Peggy is a teacher. But we're both educators. With five children, parents are the primary educators. I feel that parents for too long have been isolated from the process totally, and to some extent, in varying degrees of desire, that's the position I'm coming from. So I'm somewhat exasperated by those comments, that only people who make $32,000 are qualified to have an opinion, or have a PhD, which is absolutely incorrect.

It's a noble profession and many members in my family are teachers. In fact, my sister has been recognized. She just retired-I think she's 56-with a full pension. She was a special educator in speech and language, recognized as Teacher of the Year and in that respect I have excellent relationships with her, and other members of the family are teachers.

I was a trustee. I was also on the provincial parent-teacher association long before I was ever elected, all for free. Because I have five children, I'm engaged. So you can understand, Mr Marchese, how I would take some exception with the remuneration effect. My father was a trustee and did it for nothing. In fact, they hired the principals. Many of the people in the one-room school I went to became doctors and teachers and other professionals. So being sophisticated and unaccountable isn't acceptable to me. That's what it had become. Clearly, it was most important to have the wonderful board office and the kids in the portables. I saw it at first hand, and you did too, I'm sure, a very exasperating situation.

That's sort of some kind of mental map whence I come, somewhat different from yours, but similar: elected twice as a trustee, provincial director, all the stuff. I saw the stuff, the coffee, the donuts, the trips, the conventions, and my wife with no chalk in the classroom. I was there. I was outraged. But, respectfully, Mr Cooke was as well. When he was Minister of Education-at that time I was a regional counsellor because my wife went back to teaching, and of course I felt that as a conflict. So I ran for a municipal position at that time, because about 80% of their budgets was wages and benefits and how can you deal with a huge budget that isn't somewhat a conflict?

But respectfully, the previous government started most of the reforms even before that. You might argue that Bill Davis started the reforms. Mr Kennedy is new to the debate and he picks up the glib lines very quickly. I can see that. It's nice, it's good media. We got a bit of coverage today. But it goes back beyond that. It goes back to John Sweeney's report on governance. The issue of governance: Let's just look at that one aspect of governance. If you took it that it was $14 billion in spending on schools, and let's say 10% was governance, administration, that's $1.4 billion.

Let's say you eliminated half the boards. Half of that is $700 million. I think the $180 million the minister mentioned is just the beginning. Boards that merged in my riding took 16 and 18-I'll name them if you wish-went from structures of organizing 16 and 15 supervisory officers and directors. They merged. One of the directors got an early buyout; the rest they gave a couple of early retirement packages to, the people making 100 plus; and they took the budget that was assigned to those two boards for administration and gave themselves a 15% raise. And you tell me the trustees are in control? Get a life. It's out of control on that side.

I still repeat the same emotional response. There aren't enough resources in the classroom whenever a director is driving a chauffeur-driven car and the kids are in a portable. So the system itself is upside down. The teachers have somehow lost the context of-I believe many of them are just excellent. I spoke yesterday on one of the teachers who was recognized, from my riding, for excellence in teaching.

Going back to David Cooke and his quest to reform education, to the Sweeney commission, the Royal Commission on Learning, those commissions were begun for the reason of recognizing that the system was in paralysis. You would agree, I'm sure, that that's why David Cooke, with all his particular politics, recognized that the system was sucking up more money, more in equity, with less and less accountability, and he said, "Gee, let's have a look at this thing." At the same time the royal commission was saying that there was something wrong with education funding.

I guess I could go on about EQAO, all that stuff, the testing. It was all started by Dave Cooke, all of it. I could give you his press releases because I've been watching since 1980, and it still isn't fixed. Do you know why? Because the kids don't have the stuff in the classroom and there's too much-I could go on. The boards I meet with: Everything is more money. Now, I don't mind the money; I want the accountability and I think that's what the minister is trying to do here. But it's testing; it's report cards; they can't get the software working; it's "We need another $100 million" for whatever.

I want to get down to one of the most important things, which I support and I know our government supports: the principle of equity. In my area the average spending was in the $5,000 per student range and there were other areas of the province where the students were getting $7,000 to $9,000 per student. That's not public education. That's not equity. This opportunity to change the equation while addressing inner-city school needs and social issues, across the province, is what they're working on, a very complex funding formula, equation.

To get off my little soap box for a minute, I appreciate the opportunity to expound here a little bit, because it is important. It's important to everyone at this table.

The Acting Chair: I take it the media has to be-

Mr O'Toole: No, that's not it. I could care less. I'm my own show.

But I'm quite genuine about it when I'm talking about it, Mr Gerretsen. To turn this into some little political gamesmanship, like Earl Manners and Marshall Jarvis, ruined it for those professional, excellent teachers who I think must be just cringing in embarrassment. They had no choice but to support their so-called leadership who were taking them down the road with Buzz Hargrove. What's with the kids here? I don't get it. They still haven't got it.

I would meet with them. They don't get it. Are the Liberals to be exonerated from the debate? No. Actually, when Sean Conway was the Minister of Education, I was the vice-chair of the board, I believe, at the time-new school opening. It was really ironic because we were in a very rapid growth area when Sean Conway-new school announcements were politics, pork barrel politics. He who yelled the loudest, and where they thought they could swing a riding, got the school.

Our funding formula recognizes growth. I've had so many new schools in my riding; you can't build them quick enough. Now that's what the public education system is about.

1650

Without the little tirade and drama, I'll have a sip of water and then I'll ask s question. It's written down here, so I should get to it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We wouldn't want to interfere with your rant, John. I wouldn't want to interfere with it.

Mr O'Toole: No, no. I listened to them turning it into some kind of media hit line.

Hon Mrs Ecker: You were doing well. Keep going.

Mr O'Toole: It's so insincere. It's incredible, actually.

If their span of insight is limited to the circle around Toronto, certainly they're exasperated that they're now accountable. Instead of having what Mr Marchese said, this $2-billion slush fund-I think the numbers are somewhat out of skew. Their total spending was around $2 billion and it was a negative grant board. Everybody knew that. They wouldn't pay it back in social contract. They wouldn't pay it back with any of the guidelines the ministry tried to set, so that we would have an equitable, accountable system. Why? Because they had the CN Tower paying taxes with no students. They had so much industrial-commercial tax base, with little communities with 10% industrial-commercial tax base, that they couldn't support the standard. But guess who is running the big institutions? The Toronto people. You have all the directors from these high, fancy consulting groups, making their $80,000 with their alligator briefcases, telling you what you have to do and how to do it. They were saying: "Gee, you guys are out in the hokey-pokey here. You're only making $40,000? God, you're in the boonies."

They became provincial organizations and, arguably-well, the unions did negotiate provincially, they really did. They just ratcheted-it's called whipsaw negotiations. You settle in Toronto. This is the grid for a category 7 teacher. I could go on.

I'm confident that our minister and our government, with the work of the EIC-I believe David Cooke is genuinely committed to improving education. I believe our minister has been patient, and we connected with and appreciated the professional educators that I know are still out there. I believe that working in the climate you have set-I've heard it from teachers, and they do have hope. Without hope, education is dead.

Could you assure me that accountability is going to continue, while respecting the participants, importantly the students and the teachers. If there happens to be a little jettison of another 10% of supervisory officers, salude. I don't want them showing up in the Ministry of Education payroll, though, as special ed consultants, and they haven't been in the classroom for 20 years. I didn't say I was qualified to do the assessment on the IPRCs, did I? I don't think anyone who hasn't been in the classroom for 20 years is either.

I know that superintendents and directors end up with nice, cushy jobs at the ministry. I've met them. When I went there I said, "God, I've met half these people." They were directors of education when I was a trustee. And I thought: "Gee, what are they doing here? They're retired."

I looked at the package. By the way, the Liberals were dealing with retirement at that time. They set up that whole pension deal. That's another scam.

Mr Kennedy: Bill Davis set that up.

Mr O'Toole: No, actually. Do you know who finished it?

Mr Kennedy: Bill Davis in 1979.

Mr O'Toole: Peterson finished it. Read your history.

Mr Kennedy: But he didn't make any provisions for it.

Mr O'Toole: Peterson finished it. All Liberal things. They finished a lot of things.

It's my time on the floor. You'll have your time to respond to me, and I hope you do.

I looked at the pension thing. Let's take a simple equation of a supervisor at $100,000 year with a 70-factor pension. That's $70,000 a year indexed for life, and they're about 55-not a bad deal. None of my constituents make $70,000 a year, and we're screaming about students in stinky portables. They've missed the ball game, Gerard, and now they have you hoodwinked too. Earl Manners is probably making about $120,000 or $150,000. Do they want a Lear jet? They have a beautiful office with fountains. That's education money. Every cent of it is education money, and our kids are in mouldy portables. Are you telling me the system has been working? Get a life.

Minister, can you tell me-I'm going to let you access the floor. Actually, can I be convinced and settled down here that there will be accountability in the system? It will never be perfect. I wish we could all have a perfect world, but there isn't a perfect world.

The Acting Chair: He left her a few minutes anyway.

Mr O'Toole: Assure me that there is accountability in the system.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I must say, for those of you who don't know, Mr O'Toole and I and our caucus colleagues represent Durham region together, and I'm very familiar with his passion and his commitment to public education in this province. I certainly appreciate the concerns and the messages he's put on the table. There is accountability in the system but we know there needs to be more.

One of the reasons that our colleagues in the Liberal Party can stand and talk about different budget figures is because we have made sure that that information is available publicly so that taxpayers, parents, trustees all know how much money is going where. One of the things we're going to be introducing next year is financial report cards on boards, to be even clearer about where the money is going. One of the recommendations from the Education Improvement Commission which they had put forward was that there may well need to be further accountability mechanisms for boards, and we're looking at those recommendations as well.

There's accountability for every sector in this system, as there should be. That's why the Premier introduced the Charter of Education Rights and Responsibilities, because what we want to do is be very clear about what the responsibilities are for parents, for teachers, for the government in achieving our common goal, and that is the best education system we can have.

Both Mr O'Toole and I, coming from a high-growth region, would appreciate the changes in the way we are now funding school boards. We have been, in that region and in other regions across the province, suffering mightily from the way previous governments had funded boards for school construction. We are now catching up at a great rate, and the boards are to be congratulated for the pace at which they are trying to do that with the monies we've made available for them.

For example, just this year alone, we're going to have 61 projects that are opening that are going to accommodate another 22,000 students. Next year it's another 70 projects, with another 33,000 students. So there have been incredible improvements in helping schools to build in those communities that require-Durham being a perfect example where young families move to start a family, to start a life in a good community. They need the schools there, and the way we fund is helping to meet that.

The other thing is, we're the first government that has actually recognized and is actually achieving that kind of accountability. On special education, we're the first government that actually said we would enshrine this money, that it's there, that it's locked in, that boards can't take it and do other things with it. If there's one message I've heard from the parent groups I've met with on special ed, and my special education advisory committee, it's that many of them, rightly or wrongly, don't trust the boards to use that money the way they're supposed to be using that money. Many of them will tell you stories about experiences they've had with boards where they don't believe that money was used as it should have been used. We're the first government that's actually acknowledged and is doing something about the way that money goes out there so that parents can indeed know where it's going and that we are all accountable for what is happening.

I appreciate your point on board officials and board staff, but because I have met and continue to meet with supervisory officers, I must say I think there is a role for good supervisory officers. We can argue about how many we need, but I must at least put that on the record as well, although I appreciate what you're saying.

The Acting Chair: That's the 18 minutes.

Mr Marchese: Just a few comments before I ask a question or two. I'm glad you mentioned that you respect at least the role superintendents are playing. I think you said that. I wanted to say that I respect the role of superintendents. I was in a system where I saw directly the work they did and it's an important job that they perform.

1700

There are fewer of them now than ever before. Your point about debating how many there should be is an interesting question. There are fewer now than ever. They don't have the time any more to do what they used to do at the Toronto board, and now the new district board. Because there are fewer than ever, they are less accountable to the public. We don't have the accountability that you're talking about. You can talk about whatever accountability you want and however you want to phrase it, but the accountability is being lost. The fewer administrators you've got, such as superintendents, the less accountability you've got. The fact that trustees now cover four districts whereas before we used to cover only one means the trustees now are less accountable to the public, to the parents, to us, because there's much more to do than ever before. We used to have in a family of schools anywhere from 10 to 12 schools to a trustee. Now that they have four areas, discounting the ones that have been closed, of course, they have about 30 to 40 schools to cover. It's a big area.

Luckily in my area the trustee, Christina Fereira, is full-time. She's earning a $5,000 honorarium and she's covering four areas. Some parents have complained to me that she doesn't return calls. Imagine, she's got four areas to deal with whereas before I had one. She's even full-time. She's always at board meetings, mercifully-I don't know how she does it but she does-and people complain that she's not returning their calls. They're less accountable because they have more to do. They're not able to return calls to parents because they don't have the time, and she's full-time. I don't know how many others are full-time.

Parents are saying, "We want more accountability of the system, but we can't get a meeting with the director because the poor director is so busy trying to hack millions of dollars" to meet your needs. But she's got no time, evidently, from what I can tell, to meet with the parents. Trustees don't have the time to meet with the parents too much because they have too many schools to worry about. Superintendents don't have time to worry about what needs to be done with parents, or to communicate with them, because they just have no time. There are so many schools in the new district they have to worry about.

I'm fascinated by the brilliance of your ability to communicate to the public that you're cutting from this mythical fat that's out there. Mr O'Toole mentioned this fat and you mentioned this fat. I don't know where you get this fat from, but obviously there is a lot of it that you want to cut. Then you define brilliantly this classroom funding versus non-classroom funding which I think is brilliant. You guys did a marvellous job of that. You say: "Ah, no. We're committed in our Blueprint book. We say we're going to protect classroom funding," and it's brilliant because now you define it, right? So whenever you want to say: "Ah, classroom funding is going up." "What's non-classroom?" "Oh, you can debate that if you want but that's where the fat is; that's where the bureaucracy is. We're cutting millions." And Mr O'Toole says, "Oh, there's much more," and he says that with pride; the minister says that with pride. We're cutting the system to the bone and nobody is accountable any more. The minister says: "Oh, no, we're really accountable. We've got a report card that's really clear so that parents know that now." That's great. I'm not sure what other great accountability mechanisms you have in place, but I despair.

But again I've got to tell you that you guys are good. The public doesn't know, really. It has a difficult time finding a way to deal with the issues I'm raising.

I talked about the local levy and the loss of those programs, and no one in the ministry seemed to understand what I was saying. Metro Toronto used to raise funds for all the school boards. Then money was allotted to the respective boards and each board, like Toronto, like North York, had access to a local levy. They were able to raise more money from property taxes, which I know you guys don't want to do; I understand that. But they used to raise that to deal with the problems that are identified in the education financing commission. Those were local programs-I was trying to tell the deputy and the minister and the other fellow who was here; I don't know his name-funded by that local levy which the ministry and your government didn't recognize. That was what I was trying to get at and I want to bring that to their attention, because we weren't meeting with minds about that. But those programs will disappear because you didn't fund them and they weren't recognized. Thus, those programs for all intents and purposes don't exist. They're gone.

The beauty about defining classroom and non-classroom is that you can hack away at the non-classroom stuff and continue to say, "Classroom funding is going up and the non-classroom is that waste part, this mythical fat that continues to grow and grow as we cut more and more. And then we cut that and we take a few bucks and we say: `Ah, classroom funding has gone up. We've got the numbers to prove it.'" The deputy minister probably says, "Ah, we've got the numbers to prove it." You guys are good, I've got to tell you.

The minister has made reference to the Education Improvement Commission quite proudly, saying, "They say in here that the funding formula is really right on," and you accept that. You pointed that out several times. You believe them in that regard, right?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I certainly take their recommendations very seriously, as I do recommendations from the other groups and organizations that advise us.

Mr Marchese: Sure. Then they say here that the Toronto board has people who come from over 170 countries, who speak more than 70 languages. In the past five years, 50,000 board students have come to Canada from non-English-speaking countries. Of all refugee families settling in Ontario, 78% are in Toronto. They say that Toronto is doing incredibly well in spite of the problems they are dealing with. The child poverty rate in Toronto is seven times higher than in neighbouring municipalities. It's quite a heterogeneous school community.

They are saying the learning opportunity fund is inadequate to deal with this, and they say, "The most significant conclusion of this report, however"-which you didn't refer to-"is that the terms and conditions of determining the amount of this funding are inadequate to meet the substantial and exceptional challenges." They refer to the Toronto board as needing more money out of that fund. They also say other boards could benefit if you did that as well. Do you have a comment on that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: A couple of points to what you said: First of all, I find it rather insulting to other boards around this province when the implication from you is that somehow or other if a board is spending less, they must be educating their children less well. I fundamentally reject that characterization because there are many boards across this province, over the years and today as we speak, that have had fewer resources than, say, a board like Toronto, and have been able to do as good, if not better, at educating their children. I reject that somehow or other, just because somebody is spending a lot of money, that means their children are getting better educated. The facts simply do not bear that out. I think that is one thing that needs to be pointed out.

Mr Marchese: But to my question, because I haven't got much time-

Hon Mrs Ecker: The second point is that we had boards out there that had in their board offices, for example, the best high-tech equipment, all new furniture, tinkling fountains in the foyer-

Mr Marchese: But that's not the question I asked you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -and school children didn't have textbooks.

Mr Marchese: Please stay on the question, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That is one of the other reasons why we are changing vis-à-vis-and we have been working on that.

Mr Marchese: Speak to the question because I don't have enough time.

Hon Mrs Ecker: When we're getting to Toronto's needs, the EIC clearly recognized two things: (1) The Toronto board has a lot more work to do in terms of finding savings; and (2) we have to work with the board to try and find a better way to help support them financially-

Mr Marchese: That's great. Thanks, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -despite the fact that they're getting more in other areas.

Mr Marchese: That's really great. OK, good, I'm glad that you were able to put that on the record. I just want to put on the record that you use the commission when it suits you, and when they say you should do something else, you babble about other things. I understand.

Hon Mrs Ecker: You can ask more than one question, Rosario.

Mr Marchese: The other thing I want to point out, by the way, is that in this report they say: "Employee groups and social and community agencies told us that they are increasingly frustrated with the lack of opportunities to provide input into the decisions affecting the transition. Because of the range and pace of change, the board has been able to engage in only minimal consultation on many issues."

I tell you, the bigness of this board is such a big problem in terms of having the public, the parents, the taxpayers able to be part of the work and the consultation that should be happening. It's not happening. They are saying they need to work on it. I note with marvel that they say, "We've got to deal more with the Internet as a way of communicating with them." I love that. With the poor people who can't afford a computer, well, we'll have to find improved ways of communicating with them. Maybe the report card should do it. That might help to make them accountable.

I raise these because they tell you what you should be doing. You make reference to them when you like it, and when you don't like it, you babble.

I asked a question in the House with respect to tracking publicly funded education. I pointed out that this is the only group I'm aware of that's doing tracking of all the various things they are noting-

1710

Mr O'Toole: Researching.

Mr Marchese: I've got to rely on something because you guys don't put out a tracking report. The minister said, in relation to my question about the fact that this group-and your members scoffed at this group when I asked it in the Legislature. When they say, "We've got a problem with English as a second language, there are tremendous cuts in programs." They talk about special education, education assistance, specialist teachers where there's a drop; 37% had a gym teacher this year, a drop of 4% from last year. Schools with music teachers also decreased by 4%. There were 8% fewer schools with guidance teachers, 10% fewer with design and technology teachers and 8% fewer in family studies. Libraries: This year 32% of the schools reported libraries that were only open part-time, a 12% increase from last year; overall, 22% of schools reported their librarians' hours were reduced or eliminated altogether. There are just lots of facts.

Volunteer hours and fundraising have gone up. Fundraising has gone up increasingly. By the way, in relation to your response to us in the House, "Is there anything wrong with the schools fundraising?" I have no problem with people fundraising, because they've always done it. This group suggests to you that they're fundraising now more than ever and they're fundraising for basic things. I find that profoundly wrong. When they're fundraising for textbooks, I think it's a problem. You can't just get away with saying, "Well, opposition member, do you have any problems with parents fundraising?" I tell you I do. When they're fundraising for basic things beyond the usual cake sales they used to have 20 years ago, we've got a profound problem in the system.

Your answer to my question when I asked it in the House was, "But, Mr Speaker, we have no way to compare this to anything." To what should I be comparing it, Minister? If you track it, I'd love to be able to make your comparisons with this report, but until you track and until you make yourself a little more accountable, we have no other way of dealing with it. Will you offer that kind of study so we can compare this to yours?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, thank you very much, and I'd like to correct what the member has said. We in no way, and I in no way, implied that we are ignoring the recommendations from the Education Improvement Commission. If we didn't want them to be out there analyzing and monitoring and making recommendations about what was working and what wasn't working, we wouldn't have put them in place. But we did put them in place. We take the recommendations very seriously and we work to follow those recommendations when and where we can.

Mr Marchese: I'm happy to hear that. As in relation to this?

Hon Mrs Ecker: That is the first point I'd like to make.

Mr Marchese: I've got a few more questions.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The second thing that I also need to put on the record here is, I appreciate that you are a Toronto MPP, but when you talk to MPPs and parents and school boards in other communities, they know and they have seen the fact that Toronto has received considerable additional monies because they have unique challenges in Toronto-ESL, the learning opportunities grant, and there are a lot of challenges that they get.

Mr Marchese: So they're getting more money. Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Plus, they're getting additional monies for restructuring-

Mr Marchese: Beautiful. I hear you. Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I've met with-

Mr Marchese: Minister, thanks. No, they're getting more money and I appreciate the answer. Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Would you like to let me finish the answer? You've put many points on-

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I want to refer my remaining time to my colleague.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I've met with the group you've referred to. I'd welcome their input, and we will continue to look at that input as we do from all the other organizations that are out there tracking.

Mr Marchese: I appreciate that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I should also point out that they talked about improvements that were in the system too. That report also talks about improvements in the system.

Mr Marchese: Thank you.

The Acting Chair: You have five minutes, Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: I've got about three questions to put in five minutes, so let's try to keep to yes and no answers as closely as we can.

I raised with you earlier what's happening in regard to what were stable funding guarantees. There are a couple of pots of money that your government last year offered up to school boards in order to keep them as close as possible to the level of funding they had under the old system. We went to this new funding formula and, as everybody knows, they basically average it out. Some school boards were winners, some school boards were losers. What ended up happening in some of the school boards like ours is, if they had gone to your new funding formula, they would have ended up having less money than they would have had under the older system.

What your government did is, they put in place-and I think rightfully so. I don't like the funding formula, but in this part you tried to at least get them up to a higher number. You offered them stable funding and then you also offered them another pot of money, which was the phased-in adjustment funding.

Minister, you know there are a number of people who are worried that you're actually going to get rid of those two pots of money. My question to you is, can you give us some sort of indication in committee today what you plan on doing this budget year and next budget year with those two pots?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all we recognized, as you say, that as we are transitioning from an old system to a new system for funding, there needed to be a great deal of money available for boards to help in that transition, and trying to have stable money-

Mr Bisson: I'm being nice here.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -was very much there. We are taking a look at the funding formula, as we do every year, to see where we go next with the dollars, what needs to be changed, if it needs to be changed and what we do next year and the year after that.

Mr Bisson: But to the rumours they're hearing within your ministry, that you're looking at getting rid of these two pots of dollars, is there any foundation to those rumours?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I appreciate there are always rumours in this sector, as we can see. That seems to be a common thing; I appreciate that. There have been no decisions about what we're going to do next year or the year after that in terms of the overall funding. We're listening to boards, we're taking a look at the input we've received about what may or may not need to done and, as soon as those decisions are made, we'll be announcing them.

Mr Bisson: I've got to say, though, Minister-and I'm not going to stay on this one because I have others to go to-that this is beyond the rumour point. You know there are school boards out there that are now starting to budget according to what the losses would be because your ministry is telling them: "Get ready. This is coming down the pipe. Those two pots of dollars are going to disappear or be phased out." So you've got school boards that are looking at what the impact of this loss of funding is going to mean.

You will remember you put that in place in order to say that no school board should lose more than 4% of what they were on before. For these school boards it would be a lot less than 4% if it wasn't for those two pots, so in communities such as mine, and I'm sure it's the same across the province, it's going to mean more school closures and more teacher layoffs, support layoffs etc.

I'm looking for some sort of assurance from the minister that there's going to be a recognition that these pots of money are very important, especially in the more remote boards, and that there's going to be attention by your ministry on trying to keep those funding dollars in place.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the point. The way we have structured the transition funding is that there are some dollars that boards got on a one-, two- or three-year basis, but we are looking at next year and the year after that in terms of how much money they will continue to get. I appreciate that you want a sort of direct confirmation, but I can't-

Mr Bisson: Do you know when the decision would be made?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Every government has this challenge with boards every year in terms of how soon we can make these decisions. We want to make them as quickly and as soon as we can.

Mr Bisson: Before the new year, January, February?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The grant regulation normally comes down in March of every year. That has been a cycle that boards are familiar with. I don't know when, but we quite appreciate the pressures that boards have in terms of making decisions, so we want to pay attention to that when we come forward with the-

The Acting Chair: Thirty seconds.

Mr Bisson: I've got 30 seconds to get an answer, yes or no, I guess. I talked about the teacher program for the James Bay coast in regard to accommodation. They've been trying to meet with your ministry to try to find some resolve for this because, if they keep on going this way, they're just going to be in a position of not being able to attract teachers into the community. Are you prepared to try to find a way to reinstate some of this funding?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I had understood that staff were working with the board on this issue. I'll check with staff and see if we have more definitive information for you during the course of the estimates.

The Acting Chair: Government members.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Minister, my question is going to be in the area of capital construction of schools. Before we go there, I was happy to hear from members from all across the province and understand some of the unique challenges they have in their ridings and in mine of London-Fanshawe. That's why this area is very important to me in my riding, because it's a growth area.

I'll tell you why I feel it's a growth area. Approximately 10 years ago, all the new developments and all the new subdivisions had stopped building, of course. The economy was run to the ground, if you will, under Liberal leadership. In doing that, there was really not a lot of need for any new schools. In fact, what I saw was that some of the older homes in the riding-these would be the grandparents. They had to sell their homes because taxes were too high. It was appalling, really, with no new growth, with schools deteriorating, with portables.

When Premier Harris was elected in 1995, that changed. Our riding completely changed. There was hope. Those empty fields turned into subdivisions. Of course, with that hope, the people I went to school with, all in the areas they grew up in, east end, south end-some great subdivisions out there, Bonaventure, Trafalgar Woods and a few others that just won't come to me right now, but at some point they will.

1720

With the tax cuts there were homes all over the place, but of course we need new schools, bricks and mortar-the White Oaks subdivision, a huge growth area in the south end of the city that I represent, and portables all over the place, again because of growth.

Also what we're finding now is that the older homes aren't being sold. Because of the tax cuts, the parents can keep their homes. So grandparents can be near their children and their grandchildren. It's great, but we still need new schools. With further tax cuts, which I'm sure Dalton McGuinty will oppose, I hope that even more fields become more subdivisions, and will need more schools.

Minister, I guess my question is, can you explain to me, because I'm sure it will be asked of me, how the capital construction of new schools works?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'd be very pleased to do that. Norbert Hartmann, our assistant deputy minister who is in charge of this area, would be quite happy to walk you through it. As I said, because of the way we are now funding, just this year alone there are 61 new projects. It's been a remarkable improvement and we want to keep moving forward with that. I'll call on our assistant deputy minister to come up and answer your question.

Mr Hartmann: The new model is a departure from the old model. Perhaps if I spend a minute recapping what the old model looked like, it might help the committee to come to an understanding of how the new model works and what its impacts are.

Under the previous model that was in place, provincial grants for capital construction were allocated on a project-by-project basis. School boards submitted capital expenditure forecasts to the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education evaluated those capital expenditure forecasts and then funded projects that it approved provincially. The monies to fund those projects were paid out in full for the project at the time. If a project was approved for $6 million, a $6-million allocation went to that school board and that happened within that fiscal year.

There was also, however, a local share for that capital construction because the provincial grants did not cover 100% of the project. They reflected what the approved cost for a project was. Boards were responsible for any local share they had, because of the local tax that they had. They were also responsible for any unapproved portions of the cost, those kinds of things that they wanted in the capital facilities that were additional to what the capital grant program had for the province. Boards paid for those local shares through their taxes, their reserves, educational developments charges or loans and debentures. That's what the scheme was prior to the new funding model.

With the new funding model, the process was changed to one that was based on the students in the system. There is an attempt in the new funding model to measure what kind of need there is in each school board in the province. Funding then is directed to those school boards that have less capacity in the system than they have space in the system.

In order to qualify under the new system, you need to have more students than you have capacity in schools in the system. Then there are a number of factors, which go into that formula, that determine how much money is allocated to a school board. But the first measurement is: Are there more students than there is school space.

We need to have a measurement in the system of how much capacity there is. So one of the first things the ministry did in putting this funding model together was develop an inventory of all the school space in the province, not only every school but every classroom and what every classroom in the system was used for, so there would be a fair and equitable treatment of each school board for similar kinds of uses in classrooms. So for each school board in the province, based on the same information base and based on the application of the same standards, there is a determination of what kind of capacity it has to accommodate students. That's the first element that goes into the system.

The second piece that goes into the calculation is the enrolment in those schools. That is done separately for elementary and secondary schools. For each board there is a look at the needs in the elementary system and a look at the needs in the secondary system.

There is also a provision built into the grant that as enrolment changes relative to that capacity, so will the grant. So if a board's enrolment increases relative to capacity over time, that board will get more money, because we have changed to a funding model that does not pay for each grant on a one-time basis but takes the cost of that facility and spreads it over 25 years, so that one is able-and this was another one of the policy objectives within the grant for new pupil places-to leverage more money at the front end to actually build more facilities when they are needed rather than a one-time basis over a longer period of time.

Once you have the capacity and the enrolment differential for each elementary school pupil place that you require, each board gets $1,100, and for each secondary school place it gets $1,560. That's based on benchmarks that were established for what each pupil requires to have a good facility to be educated in. For each elementary student, it is based on about 100 square feet per student, and for each secondary school student it's based on about 130 square feet per student. Then the construction cost is factored in, and reflects the cost to design, build, furnish and equip those schools.

That model was built on the recommendation of a committee that was representative of both ministry and school board personnel, and that process, as I think the Minister indicated to you previously, has put $188 million into the system for this year. That money, spread over the 25-year period we are talking about, will support the construction of approximately $1.9 billion worth of new school facilities in the province. Thirty-five of the 72 school boards are in a position to benefit from that grant, and so there's a significant spread of the money across the province.

The other element I believe the committee would need to be aware of is the considerable flexibility in how the boards use those funds. The boards must use those funds on building new pupil places, but they are free to determine what projects they go to locally. There is no provincial determination of what project is supported; there's a provincial determination of how much money the school boards are eligible for. Furthermore, the school boards have considerable flexibility in the kinds of arrangements they can enter into to finance and build these facilities. They can raise debentures, in the way they previously did; they can enter into long-term leases to acquire facilities; they can take short-term leases for new facilities; they can have time-share arrangements in specialized facilities. That determination is made locally by school boards that best reflect where the accommodation is required, for how long it will be required and the format it will be required in.

1730

This approach means that boards can respond fairly quickly to enrolment pressures. The minister indicated for you earlier the amount of new construction being financed in the very short term by the moneys that are out there.

The final element in the funding formula for new construction is school sites. In order to assist school boards in the acquisition of school sites, boards that are in the position of having more enrolment than they have capacity in the system are able to raise education development charges to fund new sites. There are now 15 jurisdictions in the province that have implemented that in order to acquire the sites that are needed for school buildings.

That is a brief overview of what the funding model currently looks like, what its impact is and how it differs from the previous funding model.

The Acting Chair: Could I ask one question for clarification: Does geography within a board play any role in that?

Mr Hartmann: No. At this point, the calculation is done on a board-wide basis.

The Acting Chair: I see.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): How much time?

The Acting Chair: You have another eight minutes.

Mr Stewart: We're talking about a very emotional subject here, Minister. I guess what worries me is that emotion is taking over from education. We seem to be more intent on getting media coverage and politicking etc, than addressing the subject.

My question is regarding the grade 9 curriculum. Actually, Mr O'Toole took away my original question, which was about accountability.

I have been in business most of my life and I believe that you have to be accountable. But accountability is a two-way street. Accountability is not only from the government side. It has to be done by the teachers, by the parents, by the students, by the boards and by the trustees. Unfortunately, in this area the word "can't" seems to rise its ugly head all the time. I don't believe in the word. I wish it was taken out of the dictionary. In my mind, there is no such word as "can't."

I look at some of the comments that have been made here today, and I want to tell you a little story. About three years ago, I went to Crestwood Secondary School in Peterborough and was speaking to a grade 12 class. About halfway through my comments, a student said to me, "Mr Stewart, would you read page 303?" I said, "Indeed, I will when I'm finished." I finished two or three minutes later and flipped through this book to read page 303 and it wasn't there. I said, "How come? What's wrong? Did you take that out?" "No," he said, "It was never in there. How can we study?" I said, "Did it come out of that book on June 8, 1995?" He said, "I don't know." The teacher was sitting in the back of the room, who was an NDP candidate by the way, and I said to him, "Mr Rex, when did that come out of the book?" "Oh," he said, "that was 12 or 13 years ago." That's the problem we have. It has deteriorated so badly. It isn't broken, but it has deteriorated so badly.

When I look at accountability, nobody seems to want to give consideration to year-round schooling. I look at the colleges. I look at Sir Sandford Fleming in Peterborough, which is going year-round. They are doing an admirable job, a very economically viable operation, because they're utilizing that building and the facilities. And you don't hear any complaints from the staff. They are using it well.

I keep thinking to myself that in Ontario we have got the greatest libraries in schools, and the public can't use them, especially on weekends. We have funded them and put money into the books. We have a transportation system where, if the boards would wake up and put their systems together, we could save thousands and thousands of dollars. That's what I'm talking about, about accountability.

I have grave difficulty, as I said, when people suggest, "No, we're accountable. We're doing absolutely the best job we possibly can." Yes, they are. But in business, you look at every nook and cranny to make sure you can find those few extra savings and still preserve the quality of education.

The question I want to ask is regarding the new grade 9 curriculum. In my riding I've heard from a number of people: "We don't know anything about it. We haven't had time to be brought up to speed. We haven't had time to learn it." That brings lights flashing in my head. Are we graduating educators who are not equipped to teach? Could that be? I don't know; I'm just asking a question.

If I want to upgrade myself and if I want to stay employed-and I've been employed. I created my own job for some 40 years. If I wanted to find out about new technology and I wanted to upgrade myself and my staff, we did it during the night or we did it during noon hours or we did it whenever we possibly could, because it meant that I could do a better job and my staff would be able to do a better job as well for the people we dealt with.

My question to you is, Madam Minister, we have introduced the new grade 9 curriculum in the schools and I would like to know-because I'm not hearing that there's enough out there from some of those who don't seem to wish to be part of change, that we are not providing enough support to the teachers on the new curriculum.

Hon Mrs Ecker: A very good question, because the new curriculum, which we started in elementary school and are now phasing through high school, is a very good improvement and we're hearing very positive feedback. I'll ask Gerry Connelly from the ministry, who is responsible for curriculum development and implementation, to talk a little bit about what we've done to help support teachers to adapt to the new grade 9 curriculum, because there have indeed been a number of very important supports for those teachers.

Ms Gerry Connelly: As the minister pointed out yesterday, on March 4, when the new grades 9 and 10 curriculum was released, the government also announced $150 million over two years to support the implementation of the curriculum.

I'd just like to comment briefly on what has been done to date to support the teachers and the students. First of all, we have spent $30 million on textbooks for grade 9 students. In addition to the textbooks, we have spent $10 million to upgrade the science laboratories. We've also spent, as part of that $30 million, funding for graphing calculators to support the teaching and learning in mathematics and science.

There are about 805 secondary schools in the province and we know that school-based training is important, so we have focused training and resources for teachers in every one of those schools, including subject-specific workshops where we've worked in collaboration with the subject associations in the province. We know there are some parts of the province where teachers may require additional support in certain subjects, so there has been training in every single part of the province with respect to subject-specific workshops.

In the past, individual teachers and schools and boards would develop units of study based on provincial guidelines, and for the first time we've facilitated, funded and coordinated school boards to work together collaboratively to develop what we call course profiles. Every single grade 9 teacher in the province in every subject has a course profile which gives them teaching and learning activities to support the grade 9 curriculum. These are available in hard copy, on a CD-ROM, and on a Web site for those teachers who are electronically inclined.

We also, as the minister pointed out, have a new provincial report card for the first time in the province and we provided training for all teachers. We also are providing funding directly to school boards to support the implementation of the report card over the next year.

For students in grade 8, to help improve their literacy and numeracy skills so that they could be successful with the new grade 9 curriculum, we had a summer school program for the first time. Over 60 boards out of the 72 boards participated in the program and provided summer schools for the grade 8 students.

Also for the first time, we worked in collaboration with the Ontario Teachers' Federation and provided summer institutes for teachers in both elementary and secondary. These summer institutes were offered throughout the province. There was a very high demand for them, and they were extremely successful and well-received.

We also believe that principals play an important role in implementation and in accountability, and as we speak there are workshops going on across the province for principals to help improve their knowledge skills, skills in accountability and implementation strategies, and in working with parents and school councils. Also, we are working with school boards and teachers to provide additional training over the year and to provide additional support materials to continue to further the implementation.

1740

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. I have to stop you there. The 20 minutes is up.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I'd like to come back to special education briefly. We had a soliloquy about board officials; it wasn't very positive. I know you're aware that the board officials who raised the problems with special education were from Durham-Bev Freedman from Durham, Terry Lynch from Simcoe and Frances McKenna from York region. I have to say I resent that aspersions have to be cast in order to deal with a subject that I think is a legitimate problem.

I'd just like to remind the members opposite that this is everybody's issue. There is a 13% cut that Thames Valley has to deal with; less money for special education than they had before the funding formula. There's a 23% cut by the Durham school board. They have 23% less money than they used to have, before the funding formula came in. There's a 20% cut at Kawartha-Pine Ridge school board. That's 20% less money that they've got now. And in Waterloo region it's a 25% cut in the money they've got available, because now they depend on the minister to provide the money.

The only real question I'd like to ask, because I don't know that it's one we couldn't agree on, is, do you have a timetable now for the resolution of this issue? Can you give any indication to the parents-I have at least 42 different families and I have letters from about 16 of the boards that have been written to various members and, I think, all of them to yourself. Is there a timetable for doing something about special-needs funding in the next little while? Is there a timetable that you can relate to us today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, Mr Kennedy, you've asked this question 16 different times this afternoon. You've been out talking to-

Mr Kennedy: Then I withdraw it. If that was your answer, then I'll withdraw it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, just a second.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, the time here is precious.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Wait a minute. You've asked me a question, and I would like to put on the record information that would be helpful to people.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, if it's going to take away from this question, I'm sorry-

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, no one is casting aspersions at supervisory officers. Quite the contrary.

Mr Kennedy: I'm sorry. Minister-

Hon Mrs Ecker: We've met with them. They've said they want to work with us to help resolve this issue. We are indeed doing this. I would also like to say to Mr Kennedy that we have, in black and white, numbers of increased dollars that have gone to boards for special education-

Mr Kennedy: That's exactly what I want to address right now.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -and we quite recognize that improvements need to be made and we will work to do that.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, if you can't give me the timeline, I would appreciate your attention to the overall funding picture, because I think the reason you can't give me a timeline is simple: You don't have the money. You've given up the money. You're cutting money in education and there isn't any money to put back in.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Last time I checked, you weren't sitting in the Ministry of Finance's boardroom, Mr Kennedy, so I don't know how you can make that allegation.

Mr Kennedy: I'll tell you, I will support it. I will provide facts. I'm sorry the ministry doesn't see fit to bring facts to this discussion, but I will use the ministry's facts and I will ask the question. Hopefully, we can elucidate.

I'm looking at the record of the ministry for 1997, this report which I discussed yesterday. It indicates, for the benefit of the members opposite, for example, that "school board" and "administration and governance" are isolated in that report and they're isolated in the new formula. There may be some differences between them, but roughly-I've checked around and people have agreed that they're comparable-in 1995-96, $444 million was spent by the boards on governance and administration, which is much talked about today. I have a direct question for the deputy, which could be answered now or later. In 1999-2000, the projection is for $429 million. In other words, in the whole province there's a saving of about $15 million. I know there's an explanation to that, because the deputy said there was $180 million saved.

I want to offer this: Pupil accommodation, conversely, the amount of money to actually maintain schools and so forth, has been cut by $195 million. The other comparables we have: Adult and continuing education, not administration but the teaching of people, of whom 85% at least in my riding but I think in Durham and other places found jobs as a result, they've lost $42 million. That's where the money seems to be coming from, those programs. Then $32 million has come from transportation on a comparative basis, and then we don't simply have a comparator.

I'd like to ask the minister, will you make an undertaking today to provide the comparators so we can tell where the money is coming from? For example, I have here a multi-year review from the ministry that stops at 1997, and it breaks down the funding and it says the source and it says the amount. Can we get this updated? Can we have 1998 and 1999, showing the sources of funds between the various tax bases, and can we have an accounting from the ministry of comparable figures from 1995-96 to 1998-99, and even into the projection? Is that available, Minister? Could this committee have that to help with our discussions?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, the deputy has some answers to some of the questions you've asked, and if there are more questions that we're not able to answer this afternoon, we'll certainly endeavour to do our best to answer them over the course of these estimates, so I'd like to turn it over to the deputy now to answer some of these questions.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, could you answer my question. Will the overall figures-you said before, and I wrote it down because I certainly agree that it should be a much more transparent system, that the figures are available. They are in fact a little bit difficult to have. I've done my best with the available figures. I would love to have the figures put in front-I think the ministry has the resources to do that. Will you undertake today, for the benefit of the committee and the accountability of your ministry, to provide the figures that show comparables between the years your government has been in power and the years before, that can show us what kind of monies are being spent? Can that come from the ministry, because I think it would be more useful to everyone if those figures came from the ministry.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First, I thought I had answered your question-

Mr Kennedy: No, I'm sorry, I didn't hear the answer.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -that the deputy is quite prepared to answer some of the questions you've put forward already, and if not, we will endeavour to put that information for you and the committee, so I'd like to turn it over to the deputy right now.

Ms Herbert: You asked, Mr Kennedy, a number of questions. What I'd like to do is-

Mr Kennedy: Just for your clarification, because my time is brief, one question for today-I've asked for the figures as I did yesterday to be provided, if they could be, in written form-you suggested at the beginning of one of the exchanges today $180 million in savings in administration, and I was referencing school board administration governance as a category and I just wondered if you could help me with variance. I've looked at your figures and I see savings of about $15 million and I'm wondering if you can explain the difference between that $15 million and the $180 million you referred to before. It would be much appreciated.

Ms Herbert: There's a small dilemma here in comparing apples and oranges in the original school board funding formula and where we are now. My figures on that particular issue, Mr Kennedy, show that in 1997 school boards were spending about $600 million in school administration, and the current spending, I think you referenced the number, is about $420 million in 1999.

Mr Kennedy: Yes, and I'll refer you to my source for that. It's page 1 of the "Overview of School Board Spending 1995 to 1996."

Ms Herbert: I'm using 1997 figures. That might be part of the problem. We can reconcile those numbers for you if you like.

Mr Kennedy: I would very much appreciate having that. Sorry, please continue.

Ms Herbert: That was my response to that particular issue, that in 1997 school boards were spending $600 million; they're presently spending $420.

Mr Kennedy: I see, so the $424 million and you have $600 million, because from this book we have two years available, 1995-96 and 1996-97, and the numbers on school administration are $444 million and then $425 million, and in 1998-99-this is now using the figures that are on your Web site that I have compiled here-the spending is $424 million. Just for the benefit of the members opposite, spending on school board administration goes up this year by $5 million and that's not set by the boards. Your ministry says how much can be spent.

I'm just looking for some accuracy in the dialogue and I know the only way we'll truly get at that-the members opposite would probably accept my figures as coming from an honourable member, but I suspect they'd rather have them from the ministry and I'll just reiterate that request.

Ms Herbert: The funding formula is based on enrolment, and recognizing that as the number of children goes up in a system, there are corollary costs throughout the organization, so I just want to be clear that when we're projecting figures, we're based on enrolment.

1750

Mr Kennedy: There is a 15,000 enrolment increase projected and I agree with that. I just wanted the figures so we could have a discussion.

Now, 25 of the boards are projected to have their money cut next year. I think that's important for the benefit-I think people have the idea that equity means people are being brought up to a standard, but a significant number of boards are being brought down, and they're being brought down significantly. Again, I'd like to propose, based on the available information that there's $400 million in the social contract which should have been renewed, and that's been discussed-but the figures I've referred to show a cut between 1995-96 and 1998-99 in operating funds available to schools of about $414 million. They also show in 1998-99 that you have phased in funding of $354 million, which will eventually disappear, for a total of $800 million less. That's being taken out.

My question to you is, where is that money going to come from? Can we be more specific as to where you anticipate that money leaving. I've seen some boards' projections, but are there general areas that you believe can be taken away? Just to reiterate what I said earlier, continuing education or adult education gives a huge contribution. Space made the largest contribution so far of the cuts. Is that where you see more of the money coming from? Where will that further approximately $354 million come from in the future? I'm wondering if there's any guidance from your perspective, because you have the macro perspective, that would allow the public to know where the rest of that money is going to come from.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, Mr Kennedy, I believe there may well be some inaccuracies in your interpretation and I'd like to call on Ross Peebles, our assistant deputy minister, to talk about some of these figures just to make sure that the committee is well informed.

Mr Ross Peebles: The figures are on page 29 of the estimates book.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Peebles, just because we want to be talking about apples and apples, we're talking about the figures on board spending for the purposes of the present discussion. Page 29 of estimates will show the government's contribution. I have a question about that and I really would like to discuss it, but I wonder if I might be able to frame that for you. And if you can help me understand the figures I just cited, which were the board spending figures, I would really appreciate that, if there's any correction or changes to be made.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's why we've asked Mr Peebles to come up here and I would hope-

Mr Kennedy: But with all respect, he was referring to the estimates.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -that he can walk through some of these numbers for you.

Mr Kennedy: Page 29, I believe, which is the government's contribution.

Mr Peebles: Mr Kennedy, there's a difference between spending and funding.

Mr Kennedy: Yes.

Mr Peebles: I think the numbers that you're looking at from 1995-96 of the report, if that's the report that you're looking at, the one that the ministry prepared, 1995-96-

Mr Kennedy: That's correct, with an outside consultant.

Mr Peebles: Yes, they're reporting other board revenue as well as the numbers that we would now be reporting as part of the $13.2 billion, so that if you were to be truly comparing similar things, the $13.25 billion that we now reflect in the estimates would be effectively $13.56 billion, if you added in those other things. If you're interested in what those other revenues sources are-

Mr Kennedy: I'd be very happy to have that kind of reconciliation in writing, because obviously it's to no one's benefit today that we can work that out. I'd be happy-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Actually, I think it is to the benefit of the committee. You've put the question here and I think those watching need to hear this answer and I'd like Mr Peebles to be able to do that.

Mr Kennedy: With respect, Minister, I'm trying to the best of my ability, and I appreciate your critique, but it is important, I think, that if the ministry has figures, they table those figures for the benefit of the committee. I don't want to see time taken up specifically. I have specific questions I'd like to be able to make in my version of the public interest, and that's what this time is for.

Mr Peebles, the question I asked was about the degree of the cuts, the funds, $354 million in stable funding guarantee which is going to disappear over a few years. Sorry, the stable funding leaves next year but $354 million was in last year, it's been reduced. I was reflecting that there was approximately $400 million in expenditures that had been reduced based on the available government figures. I was asking the minister-and she's referred it to you-where will the future cuts come from, given what I was saying before about where they've already come from? Is there some overall outline you can tell us, where that money is going to be leaving the system?

Mr Peebles: Well those would be board decisions, not ministry decision.

Mr Kennedy: OK. What I'd like to pursue next is something that I think you can help me with in terms of the way the ministry funding appears to the public. I just want to check a number of factors to see whether they distort a little bit the figures that the government is putting into the funding.

I want to refer to a page that I have, called "The Multiyear Review." It shows the provincial operating grants. The last year of provincial operating grants per se was 1997. It shows them being reduced from $4.8 billion, almost $4.9 billion, in 1992 down to $3.9 billion, almost $4 billion, as the operating grant. Is it possible for you to tell us, to provide those 1998-99 equivalencies for us? Is that available? Do you have with you today what that portion of the funding looks like? We're talking about the revenue side, distinct from property taxes and so on. Is it possible to let us know what that is?

Mr Peebles: Without seeing the numbers you have, it's difficult to know whether it would be easy or difficult, or something I could deal with now or not.

Mr Kennedy: I just wonder if those happened to be in your briefing binder. I think they would help the discussion today.

Mr Peebles: I don't recognize these immediately.

Mr Kennedy: Then I'd like to register that request.

There are things I'd like to ask you about. As we established yesterday, when there is a reduction in residential taxes by the government on one side of its ledger, that shows up as an increase in education funding, and that's just an accounting entry. But the government has also said they're going to reduce commercial-industrial taxes by some $500 million over eight years. That, I understand, will also show up, when it's done, as an increase in education funding. Is that correct?

Mr Peebles: It depends on-

Mr Kennedy: In the estimates.

Mr Peebles: -whether you're looking at the estimates, where any reduction in property taxes shows up as an increase in spending, or you're looking at total board spending, which of course would be unaffected by those changes.

Mr Kennedy: Yes, but I think what we're trying to establish is the government's own contribution through the program grant. If you are able to provide me with that, then we have the answer. In the meantime, I'm trying to understand the factors that are work.

Also, I understand that this year there has been a conversion of the capital grant into an operating grant, and that will also affect the overall amount. For example, if people were to look at the summary for board spending-coming back to that for a second-they would see that it looks like school operations are getting an increase, but in fact a good part of that increase is because capital is only $54 million this year in the estimates, and some of the capital is being converted into an operating expense. Is there some information you can provide us about that? I know you referred to it when you elucidated the capital funding formula, and how it opened the options for the boards, but that means it transfers some debt on to the board.

I'm more interested, again, in a picture of the finance. How much money that was capital expenditure is being expressed this year as operating expenditure? Can you tell me that?

Mr Peebles: Offhand, no.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Norbert Hartmann, the assistant deputy minister who is in charge of that funding formula, can come up and make some comments about Mr Kennedy's question.

Mr Kennedy: While you're doing that, because it may affect Mr Hartmann or someone else, I also want to know if you can quantify for us-and again, all this could be solved if the figures were really available; I've introduced a table that the ministry now has, if we can continue that. But when the property tax base assessment increases, that becomes a benefit to the government because they control a portion of the property tax base. Are there figures available on the impact of that? Because you only make your operating grant after that was provided. Is that available today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'd like to introduce Nancy Naylor, who is the director of education finance.

The Acting Chair: We have two minutes left, according to when we started. The bell has sounded so I have no idea whether they are on a different clock than we are. Maybe we could finish the two minutes and at least finish this round.

Ms Nancy Naylor: Mr Kennedy, I understand your question is about the level of property taxes and their contribution to the overall level of education funding.

In terms of overall explanation, the government has made a conscious decision to talk about the level of education funding in aggregate terms, in order to make it as simple and clear as possible to Ontarians and taxpayers. Within that, obviously, there is a tax grant mix that shifts over time.

One of the more significant trends in that aggregate spending is that, in the provision of tax relief for property tax that goes on the business and commercial side and the residential side, the tax grant might shift considerably. So we are seeing a reduction in the property tax contribution to the overall level of education spending and an increase in the provincial grant. However, those trends really have to be looked at independently of the overall growth in education funding.

Mr Kennedy: Absolutely, and that's what I'm asking. Can you provide us with that information either today or between now and the next sitting? Can we have that information?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, certainly, and we'd be quite happy to discuss it.

The other thing I'd like to very quickly put on the record is that I appreciate Mr Kennedy is asking very detailed questions, and perhaps he might table them with us. Over the succeeding days we can have staff here answer them for him face to face for the benefit of committee members. It might be helpful for those who might wish to read this record.

Mr Kennedy: A final comment. I appreciate that co-operation, because I think it is important for people to see the commitment of the government to education from its tax base, how much money is really available. You have evinced an openness, and I appreciate that. I think it is an important part of our discussion, and I look forward to being able to use that information next week.

The Acting Chair: That brings us to 6 o'clock. The 20 minutes have expired. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1801.