ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
ONTARIO COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
CONTENTS
Thursday 29 September 1994
Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology / Conseil ontarien
des affaires collégiales
Ontario Community College Student Parliamentary Association
Cynthia Hilliard, president
Paul Hamilton, central region chair
Tracy Fleming, member
Garth Jackson
Administrative Staff Consultative Committee
Cathy Zuraw, vice-chair
Annette Frost, member
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Dean Barner, chair, OPSEU CAAT, academic
Jay Jackson, chair, OPSEU CAAT, support
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mrs Witmer
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr McLean
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Ferguson
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L) for Mr Curling
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Ms Carter
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in room 151.
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. We are in the process of the agency review of that government agency known as the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.
ONTARIO COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our first deputation this morning is the Ontario Community College Student Parliamentary Association. The acronym is OCCSPA. We welcome this morning to the committee Ms Cynthia Hilliard, the president; Tracy Fleming, a member of the Ontario Community College Student Parliamentary Association and president of the Georgian College student association; and also Mr Paul Hamilton, who is a member of the Ontario Community College Student Parliamentary Association and president of the Seneca College student association. I guess, Ms Hilliard, we don't know if you're president of a community college association as well. This is the information that we have and if you'd like to add to it, that is fine.
You have one half-hour for your presentation and I know the committee would appreciate it if you could leave time for some questions from all three caucuses.
Ms Cynthia Hilliard: First thing, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee this morning. Today I have with me members of our association who will present our history, our opinions of the Council of Regents and give some background to the work we do.
With me is Paul Anthony Hamilton. Paul is the president of the arts students communication council at the school of communication arts campus, Seneca College. Paul is the central region chair for OCCSPA and represents the association on two provincial committees, harassment and discrimination, and the student life committee. Paul is in his second year of study in the broadcast journalism program.
Tracy Fleming is in his second term as president of the student association of Barrie campus of Georgian College. Tracy has been a member of OCCSPA for two years and represents the association at the coordinating committee on student services. Tracy is a third-year business administration student specializing in marketing.
I am Cynthia Hilliard, the president of OCCSPA. I have been a member of OCCSPA for two years, my last year being the eastern regional chair. I sit on the provincial committee, the school-college linkage project, and I am a part-time student at Sir Sandford Fleming College. I am the delegate for Sir Sandford Fleming's student association; I am not a president there, just that.
Any review of the Council of Regents should include the perspective of all stakeholders and as representatives of the largest group -- students -- we feel it is important to be here and have our voices heard.
I have been watching these proceedings on television and have heard talks continuously brought back to the student and our point of view. Initially, we were not invited to the table here. However, we are appreciative of the half-hour we've been given and we will attempt to address matters of concern facing college students in relation to the Council of Regents.
OCCSPA-APECCO is the Ontario Community College Student Parliamentary Association, l'Association parlementaire des étudiants des collèges communautaires de l'Ontario, a bilingual lobbying and networking group for students of Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology. Our association represents over 130,000 students in Ontario. True, there are 800,000 part-time students not currently represented by any other student group; however, our group is looking into this issue.
Originally, we were formed in 1975. Student leaders felt there was a need for the college students' unique perspective and distinct voice to be heard by the Ministry of Education as well as other provincial policymakers and decision-makers. OCCSPA is a very unique organization in the way that we have maintained a focus on educational issues.
The purpose of OCCSPA is to represent college students on matters of common concern to the Council of Regents, the Ministry of Education and Training, college administrators and any other external agency as deemed necessary and appropriate by our membership. The association also gathers pertinent information regarding issues, problems and/or solutions concerning college students.
OCCSPA-APECCO aids in the development and implementation of joint initiatives and fosters interaction of all students.
The association has a strong commitment to information sharing and meets regularly with other provincial associations such as the student board of governors, the student life group, the Ontario Undergraduate Students Alliance and the Canadian Federation of Students, as well as OCCSPA-APECCO's counterparts in Alberta and British Columbia.
The college students of Ontario are very pleased that the Ontario government has now set up two more French-language colleges. It is long overdue and has been an advocacy issue of our association for some time.
Now I'll turn it over to Paul Hamilton, who will present a brief history of OCCSPA-APECCO.
Mr Paul Hamilton: Throughout our 20-year history, OCCSPA-APECCO has endeavoured to present an informed student opinion.
After the teachers' strike in 1989, student leaders recognized the need for a strong student voice and the viability of a provincial college student association. With that in mind, student leaders took a serious look at OCCSPA-APECCO and began the process of change that has led us here today.
Student leaders examined the trend of student politics and discovered that despite protests, serious educational decisions were being made without student input. Student leaders began to explore other options besides placard and protest style lobbying and tried to move to what we term as "new age lobbying." This meant a change in style and attitude, rather than expecting our ideas and needs to be developed on their own. Student leaders know that they have to present viable solutions to the critical issues facing education and student leaders have received a seat at the decision table.
We recognize the need for student representation on many of the provincial committees and processes that affect students. OCCSPA-APECCO is sought after by the Ministry of Education and Training, ACAATO and other student groups for representatives to participate on committees. Our association has student representation on, and voiced student concerns on, all provincial committees that have an educational focus or will have direct impact on college students.
OCCSPA-APECCO is the only organization that has college student representation on the Ministry of Education and Training committees.
Briefly, these committees are: the Council of Regents, College Standards and Accreditation Council, the school-college linkage committee, prior learning assessment, funding review, harassment and discrimination committee, and the college restructuring steering committee and its working groups: technologically mediated instruction, student retention and a staff secondment to the compressed/flexible working group.
OCCSPA recently requested student representation on the coordinating committee on student services. This seat is the only student seat of all 42 ACAATO committees. Tuesday, the Council of Presidents recommended that initiatives such as CSAC and PLA be decentralized or operationalized by this group.
As students, we believe this cannot be justified considering the purpose of the ACAATO group is to advocate on behalf of college governors, presidents and administrators. This would be like putting the students in charge where we would be looking out for our own interests.
The Council of Regents' neutral role is vital in ensuring that the work in the direction of the progressive work being done for the CAAT system is well-rounded, with inclusion of the broader public. Additionally, the students view CSAC as a distinct body.
Besides student representation on provincial committees, the association lobbies the government on issues of common concern, namely tuition, loan programs and ancillary fees.
Tracy Fleming will discuss OCCSPA-APECCO's relationship with the Council of Regents over the past 20 years. Tracy?
1010
Mr Tracy Fleming: Thank you, Paul. OCCSPA-APECCO began to gain credibility with the Council of Regents in 1991-92 with a steady increase in member colleges. That year there were 11 member colleges. In 1992-93, there were 19 member colleges. The executive for that year was mandated to develop a stronger internal structure and obtain a permanent home office.
Many felt that the lack of OCCSPA's effectiveness was the yearly shuffle of the office upon the election of the coordinator of internal affairs. The president made securing home office and funds to staff it his goal for the year. By the end of his term, office space was donated by the Council of Regents, while reserves paid for the part-time staff.
It was during this year that the restructuring initiative began. OCCSPA made a request that the committee second stakeholders from all groups, including students. The request was granted and a college graduate was seconded in May. OCCSPA received permission to use the student secondment office as home office and staff worked part-time from there.
This strategic alliance has been a benefit to both OCCSPA and the Council of Regents. OCCSPA has been able to grow and maintain membership without dramatic fee increases. We have maintained open lines of communication between the Ministry of Education and Training and the Ontario Council of Regents through regularly scheduled meetings. Both the council and OCCSPA have increased opportunities for impromptu information sharing and problem solving due to location.
In September 1993 OCCSPA representatives met with the Council of Regents to produce a submission on college fees in a collaboration that we believe was the first of its kind. This was the only submission on fees received by the minister prior to the March 23 tuition and ancillary fee announcement. We feel the results were worth the effort.
Two of our major requests have been acted on by the minister. Last year, as outlined in the submission, the membership effectively lobbied for a freeze on compulsory non-tuition-related ancillary fees and participated in developing a long-term protocol guideline for future student involvement in the setting of ancillary fees. Secondly, the minister acknowledged a request to develop an income-contingent repayment plan with the involvement of the federal government and student leaders. On September 22 and 23, ministry officials and federal representatives, college administrators and student leaders met in Toronto at the ICRP conference to discuss and develop a plan.
OCCSPA-APECCO recognizes the changing role of the Council of Regents, and we have accepted to work with the council in creating college standards, addressing prior learning assessment and continuing joint initiatives.
Now Cynthia will discuss governance and what our association sees as the future.
Ms Hilliard: The Council of Regents sent out a discussion paper in December 1993 to review the governance of colleges. Our association had many things to say about the current structure and made recommendations for change. We await the final document and hope that our recommendations will become part of the final report.
At a general meeting, members met to discuss the issue and formulate a response. Some suggestions made by OCCSPA-APECCO were:
The election procedure needs to be standardized when electing the student board of governor. It was discovered that colleges use a number of different methods to include a student. Student elections need to be overseen by the student council and the board of governors, whether the election is in conjunction with the student association or part of the board process.
Another suggestion is the number of student board of governors be increased to two. Additionally, the council should consider increasing the number of official observer status, voice but not vote, to allow for the diverse student population and to encourage more students to participate in subcommittees -- the benefit is a committee of specialists -- and student board of governors need to be accountable to their constituents, and mechanisms should be devised to assist the student to do so.
In conclusion, every year a new membership provides the distinct personality for that particular year. This process ensures flexibility and opportunity for participation within the association. The annual goals and objectives are set by the membership at our summer conference.
OCCSPA-APECCO grows each year as it fulfils its commitment to the strategic plan. Our future plans include a permanent office outside the Council of Regents' office, hiring a full-time staff to assist in the completion of our goals, increasing systematic research and continuing commitment to voicing student concerns.
Finally, OCCSPA-APECCO has no other stake in this review or any other provincial issue than the quality of education.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Hilliard. We're starting the rotation today, rightly or wrongly, with the government members and Ms Harrington, and it's five minutes per caucus. The rightly or wrongly isn't the government members; it's the order that I get the caucuses in.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I thank all three of you for coming this morning. It's been a very interesting presentation. I understand you're coming to my city of Niagara Falls in November for a conference. I'm sure you'll have a good time.
I think the most important question is do students, through your organization, have sufficient voice and say in the process? I think you've addressed that, certainly to some degree. Probably you're going to tell me you need more and you need assurance that your voice will be heard. Maybe you could comment on that.
I think the other thing I would like to address as well is the important question of the role of the Council of Regents. One of the things that has been brought before us over the last three days is the College Standards and Accreditation Council and whose responsibility that should be. You did, I believe, mention it in your submission. I don't believe it's part of your written submission here. I would like you to clarify what your opinion is as to whether that very important work should be done by the Council of Regents. I think you did touch on it, but it's not here in the printed matter, is it? So could you address those two issues?
Ms Hilliard: Okay. The first thing you wanted to know is whether or not we felt we had sufficient representation in all the committees that we participate?
Ms Harrington: Yes, whether or not your voice is being heard adequately.
Ms Hilliard: It's being heard, but I think there's room for more. I think there are times when there's more that we have to say that kind of gets lost, where if we had more representation on the various committees, our voice would be stronger.
As far as the role of CSAC -- CSAC is a distinct body, as we said, and that's the way we recognize it, that it's separate from the Council of Regents and that it is very important. However, it's my understanding we're looking at the Council of Regents and not CSAC today, so that's where I will leave that comment.
Ms Harrington: The Council of Regents is responsible for the work of CSAC, so there is a direct relationship there. Are you satisfied with that?
Ms Hilliard: Are we satisfied with that?
Ms Harrington: Because what we have heard is that the board of governors of the colleges want it to go to ACAATO, the responsibility for the accreditation system.
Ms Hilliard: We have a fear of that as we mentioned, as Paul mentioned. With that happening it's not going to -- as it stands now, the Council of Regents takes from the broader public. It takes everybody in and takes all the stakeholders and gets everyone involved, so it's a more rounded process. Our fear is that won't happen because they are not -- who are they accountable to? They're not accountable -- like, with the Council of Regents, they're accountable to the government plus they themselves are made up of the various stakeholders, so therefore they're accountable to all the different stakeholders, and we feel that's very, very important.
Ms Harrington: Okay. So you've made your position very clear.
Ms Hilliard: Yes.
Ms Harrington: I think my colleague has a question as well.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Yes. I guess the question I wanted to ask was regarding the comments that have been made that there are concerns about the College of Regents' budget being increased. We heard on Monday from the College of Regents that the only reason their budget has increased is to do two special projects: the prior learning assessment and the standards and accreditation council. Does it concern you that this has been given to the College of Regents to be responsible for?
1020
Ms Hilliard: Does it concern us that CSAC and PLA are under the Council of Regents?
Mr Sutherland: Yes.
Ms Hilliard: Not in a bad way. We think it's a good thing. I don't think I'm qualified to comment on the increase in the budget; however, it's important. Those two issues are very important to us as students and the money needs to be there in order for them to be able to do the pilot projects.
Mr Sutherland: Again, picking up on the comments in terms of response to your question to Ms Harrington is the fact that you believe the College of Regents, though, is the most likely body to do that because it represents all the stakeholders in the system rather than just one or two of the stakeholders?
Ms Hilliard: They're the only body.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Just a quick question, because one of the things that we picked up on was that about a third of the student body now are people who have come back out of the workforce, adults.
Ms Hilliard: It's larger than that.
Mr Waters: I was wondering how well they're represented in your body. If they're not well represented, is there something you're doing in order to get those people active? Because traditionally, they probably --
Ms Hilliard: We represent the full-time students of colleges of applied arts and technology. I don't know if you know the stats, but sitting on the school-college linkage, the way it goes, of the students who enter college 40% are from high school and 60% are not. Therefore, a majority of our constituents are not children or kids. Yes, we represent them. A great deal of our members who participate very actively are mature students.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Welcome to our committee. First of all, let me begin by congratulating OCCSPA for its good work and particularly the leadership role it took regarding income-contingent repayment plan and especially the ancillary fees, because your work there in fact has resulted, I think, in significant benefit, not only to college students but to university students. Congratulations are due there.
I guess the other comment I wanted to make is that it's really unfortunate we only have a half-hour, because I only get to raise issues during the course of five minutes, which really is inadequate when I think we're dealing with a very important stakeholder in the college system.
I wanted to touch on the college restructuring steering committee. I'm not sure if this is being considered right now, but one of the things I asked the presidents about is this idea of some of the programs that we offer at our colleges. Particularly the technical ones involve some very expensive equipment, and if we're going to continue to strive for excellence in the kinds of programs we offer, can we afford to offer an excellent program of a particular variety at each of the colleges?
In other words, I think we offer radio broadcasting or technology broadcasting, something like this, at 11 schools, 11 colleges. Somebody said, "Listen, maybe what we should be doing is talking about offering it at five regional centres." You'd do your first two years at your local college and your final year at one of the centres. From a student perspective, I know that's going to mean some disruption -- you've got to get up and move out of town -- but are there any other issues that I'm not understanding? How do students feel about that?
Ms Hilliard: Mainly, we think it needs to be looked into more. I think Tracy wanted to comment on this.
Mr Fleming: I'm just going to mention that I think it's a very important point that you're raising, but recognize that the community colleges were meant to be just that: community-based colleges. That's why there are such a number of them; there are 25 now. I was reading over the mandate, and the words "equity" and "access" are used extensively throughout the mandate of the community colleges. It's important that we maintain that in terms of not having one or two colleges that specialize. Maybe this isn't the view of the entire association, but there's a concern that you could be creating almost a third level of education. Maybe 20 years down the road you're going to have to create another system to do just what this system was intended to do, to create the equity and the access.
Mr McGuinty: Right. I understand and I hear where you're coming from. My only concern is, how do we maintain the community focus for some of our more expensive programs, given fiscal constraints?
I want to move on to something else, if I may: the prior learning assessment. We're talking about developing fees. I'm wondering what your view is on that. I don't have all the information on this, but does that mean that if I'm 27, I'm a single mom, I've got two kids, I've got some life experience, some work history, and I show up and I say, "Listen, I want to know how much advance standing I have," my college is going to say, "That will cost you $300"? Is this what we're anticipating here?
Ms Hilliard: At this point in time, that's speculation. The thing is, with the money that they need to implement the programs to see where it's going, I think it's important that we look at that. I don't think we're qualified to respond to that right now. It's all talk. It's a concern that we have, yes, but we're involved. We're on the committee. We're involved in the process.
Mr McGuinty: OCCSPA hasn't developed a formal position on this yet, I guess?
Ms Hilliard: No.
Mr Fleming: If you were to mention something regarding the PLA process, though, I would strongly urge -- I heard a hint of this the other day and I haven't confirmed it, but if you're at a college and you take the challenge exams, which are a fairly lengthy process, and if there is a fee involved, I certainly couldn't speculate on the amount, but I would certainly hope that process could be standardized so that I can be tested in my home region and take that test to any college in Ontario. I would hate to have to go through that same testing procedure at every single college and I would really hate to have to pay for it at every single college I applied to.
Mr McGuinty: I want to ask you if you could describe briefly for us what the retention problem is.
Ms Hilliard: Pardon me?
Mr McGuinty: Why do we have problems retaining students?
Ms Hilliard: It's very difficult to do it briefly; there are so many different factors.
Mr McGuinty: The number one issue, the number one problem.
Mr Fleming: A couple of months ago, I spent a weekend at Kempenfelt Conference Centre in Barrie. We spent probably about 14 or 15 hours a day on a retention conference that was sponsored by the Council of Regents, organized through the Council of Regents. The retention issue is a huge one. The biggest problem with retention is the ability for us to track students and the ability for us to statistically understand where they are. We're very good at making surveys and taking them; we're not very good at keeping the information, correlating it and understanding it down the road. For instance, right now what's happening is that a student can drop out of second-year business and enrol in a tourism program. That person is now counted as one dropout and one enrolment. They're not coordinated. You can see how the numbers are all over the map.
I guess the basic issue is that it comes down to student success, what does it mean to be successful in college? On my council, I had a lady who was doing an excellent job. She was in a program; she was doing an excellent job on the council. She happened to get a job offer in the field that she was looking for, a very good job offer. She took the job, she left the college. She dropped out of her program, but she was considered to be very successful and she's still very successful today. It comes down to, how can we maintain and keep the records and how do we interpret them and how do you define success?
Ms Hilliard: If I could go back on that, if I may, just for one brief, quick second, in our response to the restructuring we've recommended that there be one student ID number from the time you first enter school. It would help for the tracking purpose and then, in reality, we'd know how many people are dropping out, because we don't have realistic figures. As Tracy mentioned, there are too many things that are happening.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Welcome, Paul, Cynthia and Tracy. Good to see you again. There's never enough time, but I just wanted to say it's refreshing to have consumers here to talk to this particular agency.
Really, I was one of the people who asked to have this agency on the agenda of this particular committee, because there seemed to be some confusion around the roles. It's not new -- there's been confusion around the roles of the Council of Regents for a number of years -- but in particular we've had, in my opinion anyway, some unfortunate communication problems, perhaps. The day-to-day stuff has made us believe that there's been unnecessary tension between the colleges, the boards, the presidents and the Council of Regents.
1030
From my point of view, where I represent the public, I pretty well follow the regulations with regard to the legislation around the role of the Council of Regents, the responsibilities. I also look at budgets. We do have a council here that does have a couple of major programs within its jurisdiction that are very expensive: CSAC and PLA. I don't think there's anybody who wouldn't agree that these things have to happen. Some of the college presidents said that they have happened before. Prior learning assessment is something that colleges have done. I think that basically is the controversy.
The president said that CSAC and PLA should probably be -- to quote from their document "Consideration should be given to incorporating the College Standards and Accreditation Council and the prior learning assessment secretariat within the existing college structures." Some have mentioned ACAATO, but that's the operations portion of their brief.
The numbers are these: The base budget in 1991-92 for the Council of Regents was $671,100, and it fluctuated, but in 1994-95 it's $634,700. They also have a human resources component which I don't think even Richard Johnston wants. I mean, why should he have a bigger budget around things that he doesn't feel are his? But the CSAC has gone from $98,700 to $1,249,000, and the prior learning assessment over four years has gone from $139,700 to $446,600. At a time when everybody's looking at the social contract and the colleges are getting less money and there are more students, that's the main beef in why we're here.
You said you weren't qualified to speak on this, but I'm wondering if you do know anything more than what's already been discussed with you today with regard to CSAC or PLA, and do you think these programs could be incorporated within each college?
Ms Hilliard: My comments to that: From what I understand, with CSAC and PLA being under the Council of Regents money is being saved because it's doubling up on some things. Is that not correct?
Mrs Cunningham: That's what Richard Johnston said, yes.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): That's right.
Mr Sutherland: That's correct.
Mrs Cunningham: Excuse me, that is what Mr Johnston stated. What we're saying now, what the colleges are saying --
Mr Martin: Are you calling him a liar?
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham has the floor.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Martin, that's ridiculous.
Mr Martin: That's what you said.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Martin. Mrs Cunningham has the floor; you will have your turn.
Mrs Cunningham: Madam Chairman, I would never refer to Mr Johnston as a liar or anything else. I want you to know that.
Mr Martin: What are you saying then?
Mrs Cunningham: I don't feel I have to answer your question on the students' time, for one thing. I will discuss it with you later.
What we're looking for here are efficiencies in two programs that should have been taking place not only four years ago but prior. We're trying to get the walls down between the colleges and universities so you can go anywhere. We're looking for efficiencies.
I would personally not agree that we're saving money by having it under the Council of Regents. In saying that, I'm not calling Mr Johnston a liar. What he is talking about is his own administrative salary. He's running both programs. They may have had to hire somebody else to run both those programs separately at a certain salary, and if that's a cost saving, I would certainly agree with them. I'm talking about all of the people who are hired to get it done. You know what I'm saying, Cynthia.
Ms Hilliard: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: How do you get these things done without it becoming another big bureaucracy as opposed to something that should be happening within the colleges all the time?
Ms Hilliard: I have several comments to make on what you've said. First of all, I don't think that we should be sacrificing these programs, the quality of them getting through. As far as PLA goes, you said that it's been implemented before, but nothing's been standardized. It's different from college to college. It's got to happen, it's got to be standardized, it's got to be done by a group outside the colleges. It cannot be done within the colleges because then it won't be standard. You'll have different levels for different colleges. The same thing goes for CSAC. We need system-wide standards, and with it piggybacking with the Council of Regents we are saving money instead of creating another bureaucracy, the fact being that the only body that can do it is doing it well.
The Chair: Thank you. The time has expired. We appreciate very much your appearance before the committee this morning.
GARTH JACKSON
The Chair: Our next deputation is Mr Garth Jackson. Mr Jackson is the chief executive officer of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and is also the former president of Canadore College. We're happy that you're here before the committee this morning.
Mr Garth Jackson: I welcome the invitation of the standing committee to appear before you this morning and offer some observations which I hope might be useful in the review you are undertaking of the Ontario Council of Regents. The views I bring to you are those formulated in my previous role as college president and in my current appointment as chief executive officer at the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.
My direct association with Ontario's college system commenced with my appointment as campus principal at Fanshawe College in London, Ontario, in 1970. During the intervening years I have been privileged to hold appointments at Georgian College in Orillia and Barrie, George Brown College Toronto and, most recently, Canadore College in North Bay. During this involvement, I have formed opinions of both the college system and the role of the Ontario Council of Regents in building what I consider to be a remarkable instrument of social and economic policy for the good of Ontarians.
As I have reflected on the role of council during these years, the overwhelming constant has been the capacity of council to bring focus to the development of the system, to keep the system accountable and to advocate on behalf of the system with government.
In his speech to the Legislature announcing the creation of the college system, the then Minister of Education, Bill Davis, stated the mission to be that of assuring that every Ontarian might have the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential regardless of formal qualifications.
The role of council in assuring that each college was created to meet this mandate cannot be overstated. More than one new board of governors held a view that these new institutions should mirror universities and be created in such a way that colleges should grant degrees within a five-year period. The consistent element in guaranteeing that a system took shape providing a type of education not available in Ontario was the focus brought by council. It was council which corrected the course when necessary through the appointment of governors and through a demanding schedule of visits to each college where the governors and administration were challenged to justify course and program decisions against the mission stated by Mr Davis.
After two decades of service, the government of Mr Peterson required a complete review of the college system to assess its effectiveness as part of the province's learning infrastructure. Leadership for this project was provided by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, Lyn McLeod, who delegated the task to council. The outcome of this review, Vision 2000, involved literally thousands of Ontarians and was, I believe, one of the most exhaustive ever undertaken.
I can assure you, however, that not every board and every administrator in the system supported this review. But the issue -- accountability -- was right and the approach was right, as evidenced by the outcome. The impression with which I am left is that of the focus brought to the task by council.
Vision 2000 was released by Minister McLeod in the summer of 1990. Of course, all of you know better than I that a new Legislature was formed that fall and action on the review of the system was then in the hands of the current government.
1040
The three issues requiring priority action identified by Vision 2000 were a more accessible system; a system with much broader quality standards; and a system which had the capacity to assess and credit prior learning.
Indeed, the latter of these connects directly to the mission announced by Mr Davis: the achievement of potential without regard to formal qualifications. Regrettably, the college system had not met this essential mandate requirement in its first two decades.
Again, the responsible minister, Richard Allen, turned to the Council of Regents to bring focus to these priorities: the first to be met through a review of the composition of the boards and the creation of French-language colleges outside eastern Ontario; the second through the creation of a standards and accreditation council; and the third through creating prior learning assessment capacity within the system.
Once again, I believe that every board and administration has not embraced the action necessary to achieve this course correction, but it is being accomplished as a result of the focus brought by council.
A further area requiring balance and innovation is that of collective bargaining in the college system. Regrettably, colleges have not had a stellar record in labour-management relations during their history. Without counting the number of strikes, it is important to note the view of government that all was not well, as evidenced by three major studies it commissioned touching on the issue: the Skolnik report which was completed in 1984-84, the Pitman report in 1986 and the Jeffrey Gandz report in 1988.
It is not my intention to address the causes of this blemish on the record of colleges. It is important, however, to comment and make observations on the role of the Ontario Council of Regents in respect to negotiations surrounding the most recent issue, the social contract.
All members of the committee will appreciate what a difficult process this was for those of us within the broader public sector. Without placing value on the initiative, I'm confident that the impact of the social contract will be pervasive on labour-management relations for years to come. What is important in the context of your review of the council is to look at the outcomes.
In round one, ending in August 1993, council and the bargaining agents representing faculty and support staff were unable to achieve agreement, resulting in the vast majority of employees falling under the fail-safe provisions of the Social Contract Act. Administrative staff members were provided, however, with a seat at the table and for the first time had the opportunity to be represented in decisions affecting each of them and their futures.
In round two, ending in March 1994, agreement was achieved with unionized support staff, although academic staff remain under the fail-safe provisions until April 1996.
One might assume that this outcome -- administrative staff recognized, support staff partially covered, academic staff fail-safe -- would exacerbate unacceptable labour-management relations. On the contrary, it would be my view that the balance brought by council to these negotiations has in fact resulted in greater understanding among the parties and a relationship healing more rapidly rather than wounded more fatally. Although it is evident from the outcome, I hasten to reinforce the fact that the better relationship is not the result of any giveaway by council. The conclusion to which I am led, therefore, is that the role of council in creating a better labour-management environment is absolutely essential.
For those of you elected to provide good government, to identify and address emerging social, economic and cultural needs, I suspect one of the most difficult challenges is to achieve balance between our human need for stability and the public need for innovation which, by definition, is destabilizing.
Much of my life in Ontario has been devoted to the development and implementation of programs for those people who choose to attend college. At this point, I am firm in my conviction that the original design of the system is right and solid. Each government -- Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic -- has used the Ontario Council of Regents to be the agent of accountability, and this is a fundamental component of the need to embrace innovation.
In the coming months, the challenges before you and the college system are enormous: federal social security reform; Minister Axworthy's calling for the reduction of $2 billion in transfer payments supporting post-secondary education; the end of the social contract; the continuing challenges in the economy for quality and productivity; and the need to create more opportunity for those who have been marginalized within our society.
The call to invention, innovation and creativity in all our systems and institutions is daunting. If you believe in the college system and its capacity to be reinvented, then I believe that the major vehicle of focus for change and accountability continues to be the Council of Regents, entirely consistent with the role it has played and the service it has provided these last two and one half decades.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide to you some of my thoughts.
Mr McGuinty: It's good to see you again. I was really interested to hear your comments about the state of labour-management relations at our colleges, and I look forward to the OPSEU presentation later this morning to get its perspective as well. But my impression has been that we're heading for a showdown upon the expiry of the social contract, and further, that many of the employees are unhappy. From their perspective, their rights to the historical collective bargaining process have been unduly abridged. I was very interested in hearing you say that things are looking up, because that's not the impression I've obtained.
Mr Jackson: In respect to labour-management relationships, I do believe that they are healing but I'm pleased to hear that OPSEU will be represented here and you can hear from them. It might be entirely different from my observations.
I believe there is a much better relationship between labour and management at this point than has been true in the past. That takes nothing away from the fact that April 1996 and onward is going to be extremely difficult.
The fact that contracts were in place and were agreed to, obviously, and fell under the Social Contract Act, and that the majority of the employees of the college system, the academic staff, continue to be under fail-safe, is not ideal. I do believe there will be a price to pay for that at the end of April 1996.
Mr McGuinty: I want to touch on two other things, if I can, first of all with respect to OTAB. When OTAB has been referred to here during the course of the committees, the question has been, why don't we have representation? I don't want to cry over spilled milk. That ain't going to happen.
I guess I want to ask you: In your capacity as the head of OTAB, what assurance can you give our college people that, notwithstanding the fact that they don't have formal representation, they somehow will be represented? I mean, what do they carry? I'm told it was 70% of the training in the province.
Mr Jackson: I don't want to get into a debate as to whether or not it's 70%. I'll accept your figure on that. I think there is a misunderstanding as to what the role of the board of directors of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is. In my very brief experience, it does not appear to me that the board of directors is going to be involved in making decisions as to which deliverer gets what piece of a dollar spent to serve a client's need but rather the directors are much more involved, within policy-setting, on how we meet those needs.
I would assume that the right deliverer will be used to meet the need that is identified for a client, and that will very frequently be a college and will continue frequently to be colleges, but it will also be other deliverers.
The system is broad. It's comprehensive. We have great diversity and richness in the delivery agents in the province of Ontario and I think we'll continue to use all of them in order to serve a client's need.
The fact that colleges are not represented by a college person on the board of directors, it would be my view that's a misunderstanding of what the directors are about. There have been three directors so far representing educators and trainers: One has been a college person, one has been a university person and one has been a secondary school person. I think, from the group of five, each of those people has represented all of the education and training deliverers well in the policy discussions at the board.
1050
Mr McGuinty: If I may, I'd like to pursue that but I want to move on to something else. I want to draw on your extensive experience in the college system. You made reference in your written statement here to Bill Davis's vision of the community college system in the province. Given the fiscal constraints now -- and you were here earlier when I talked to the students about the need to rationalize, and we may have to begin to offer some programs, or at least maybe the final year in some programs, on a reasonable basis rather than at each community college -- do you see that as something that is mutually exclusive, beyond or contrary to Davis's vision or do you see it as merely an evolution of community colleges in order to achieve excellence in education?
Mr Jackson: I think there's no doubt that there must be some programs that are specialized within the entire delivery system in Ontario. I don't dispute that. I do agree fully with the response that you received from the students this morning, that the vision was to have community-based institutions that provided opportunity for people in those communities.
I think about all the people, as I'm sure you do, who cannot move out of those communities to take advantage of opportunity, the single mothers who have commitments to children and cannot do that. Many people cannot leave a community where they feel a level of comfort, and I'm thinking particularly of newcomers to Canada, to go to some other location.
Many people who carry out full responsibilities are 40, 50, 60 years of age and don't find it possible to move. In fact, one of the great challenges for us at OTAB is going to be, how do we address these continuing needs in the apprenticeship system in such a way that people don't have to make the kinds of moves they've had to make in the past?
I don't believe that the solution here is in the creation, though, of a completely rationalized system. I don't believe that's in the best interests of Ontario. I think there are many ways to address the problem you're raising, a very significant problem, and a fundamental way is a much better connection between programs and business and industry within their communities. A lot of the equipment we need does already exist within the community, in existing business and industry. Better connections on that basis, I think, better partnerships, can go a long piece to resolving that problem.
Mrs Cunningham: Good morning. Thank you for being here. I really enjoyed your paper and you've had lots of experience. After the last outbursts I don't think -- I have a great respect for the Council of Regents and there has been some criticism as to where those two projects were placed.
Actually, the deputy said yesterday maybe they should have placed them with the ministry themselves. He wasn't that concerned about it; I don't think anybody was, but it was one of those perceptions and I think it caused a few problems. I'm not sure about the finances, who does things. If you're going to do it well you're going to do it well.
But I am interested in your viewpoint because you've been part of the college system for a long time. Surely, we haven't been graduating all these years with no standards. I guess what we were looking at here were standards across the province for most of the courses. Is that what you see with regard to CSAC?
Mr Jackson: That's exactly correct, Mrs Cunningham. The concern or the problem identified in the Vision 2000 review was that indeed it was not an absence of standards in college programs. It was no system level of standards in the college system, and it was employers and business and industry who primarily raised that very serious concern.
The creation of a systems and accreditation council was the recommendation to try to bring that kind of system-based standard that everyone would be able to understand and accept. I do believe that needs to be done outside existing college structures. I believed that when I was in the college system and I continue to believe that.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, if you're going to get something system-wide, it just makes sense to have it outside. But once you've developed these standards, is this kind of program going to have to go on for ever?
Mr Jackson: I do not know the answer to that. I would think that there is a period of very intensive work to establish standards across all program areas. Once that is done, I expect there is a continuing requirement for some standards and accreditation modification, because jobs and careers will change. But I wouldn't see it as nearly as heavy a workload as in the first five years, let's say.
Mrs Cunningham: All right. The other point that Vision 2000 identified as being a problem was the inadequate links with secondary schools and universities. I think in your job with OTAB all of this is a challenge for you, because if you're responsible for training, then we're really looking at all of our institutions. I'm not sure what you've got to tell us in this regard but I'd like your opinion, because the secondary schools are feeling that they're left out. They really want to be part of the training and they haven't been allowed to be to the extent -- you mentioned the word "apprenticeship" and you know how I feel about that, so if you'd like to give some views I'd appreciate it.
Mr Jackson: Yes, I know that you feel very strongly about apprenticeship, Mrs Cunningham, and since going to OTAB I feel very strongly about apprenticeship too. The dilemma that we have, I guess, is that if you look at the delivery system in Ontario, those in it are essentially not going to be happy with any adaptation that means other players have to be recognized when the dollars are not going to be increasing; in fact, may be shrinking. So that's a dilemma for everybody.
One of the things that I think is absolutely essential and, I must say, something that I am very pleased about as I get to know more about OTAB is the fact that the major deliverers, the five major groups of deliverers, now must discuss these issues together and must do some of their own rationalizing as to who best can do what within the delivery system in Ontario.
I think that you particularly, with your long service to school boards and so on, will recognize that we do not have a history in Ontario of school boards and colleges and universities and private trainers and community-based trainers talking to one another. In fact, if we have even been in forums where we have been supposedly talking to one another, I think we've been talking past one another. Now it is time for those deliverers to come together and begin to look at how they can rationalize their service in supportive communities in Ontario. I understand the colleges' concern that they are not represented by a seat on OTAB. I believe they must accept that they are represented. They have much work to do within the reference group that represents all five parties.
Mrs Cunningham: Do you feel that the second part of Vision 2000, one of the major concerns -- it concerns everybody to think that we don't have a system of standards system-wide, but the inadequate links so that these things can't happen and that they're taking too much time. You know what it was like to get a program up with your local school board at any one of those colleges.
Mr Jackson: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: It took so much time and effort and all the ministries were saying, "That's not our responsibility." Are you going to have something to say about this in OTAB? That's the last thing we need right now. It's wasting people's money to argue about whose jurisdiction it is.
Mr Jackson: I believe that fully. That is a waste of money and time. The issue we must address at OTAB and throughout the training and adjustment system is, what is the need a client has, who needs training or adjustment services and who can best fulfil that need? That's the issue. Sometimes that will be a college and sometimes it will be the Boys' and Girls' Clubs in Metro Toronto, sometimes it will be a university and oftentimes it will be a continuing education arm of a school board. But it must be who can best meet the need of that client for training and adjustment services, not who is getting what piece of a pie.
1100
Mr Waters: I've just got one. Other people really want to ask questions, so I'm going to have to be very blunt, I guess. I'm going to pick up on something that Mr Bradley missed this time around. I see him grinning but he knows where I'm going and I would like your comments.
Mr Bradley has had some concern, shall we say, over a period of time on this committee about why there isn't more representation at OTAB by colleges and universities. I know, from my experience of sitting in the caucus when this was coming through, I wanted to minimize the numbers on OTAB of colleges and universities because I didn't see that they were, in all my work history, doing the things that we needed in Canada. I agree very much with apprenticeships and with coops and so on. They're coming in kicking and screaming in the last few years. They have accepted it, but it's taken too long. I would wonder about your comments on that.
Mr Jackson: I have to come back to the point that it would be my view that there's a huge misunderstanding -- and part of this is OTAB's responsibility to clarify it, mine in particular now that I'm associated with OTAB -- about how involved colleges are in programming within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. I would hazard a guess that there are at least 60 committee connections between the college system and OTAB programs. I'd be happy to provide a list of these if that would be useful at any time. There is an enormous amount of interplay and exchange between OTAB and the college system.
It would seem to me that it's at the working level where the representation is important. At the policy level, where a board is dealing with clients and client needs and how best to serve those, not who the deliverer will be, I am having difficulty seeing why it's so important for the college system to feel it must be represented there. Indeed, it must be represented there, but it can be represented by an education-trainer person on the board, and there are two of those: one university person at the moment and one secondary school person, who has just resigned and will shortly be replaced.
Mr Waters: Just quickly, I would like the list. I have two colleagues as well.
Ms Harrington: Thank you very much for a very thoughtful presentation and also for bringing a new aspect to our discussion, and that is the labour relations at the colleges. I really appreciate your statement here where you say the conclusion is that "the role of council in creating a better labour-management environment is absolutely essential," and also your statement that the role of the council is so clear in your mind in very many ways.
In conclusion, you mentioned here and you emphasized several times the word "innovation" and the word "focus," focus for change. Obviously, in our society any change is difficult for people, because we are human beings. But this has to be done and it has to be done in a consultative way and in a strong leadership way as well. Part of change is communication, a very essential part of making a change happen.
My question to you is: We've heard that there have been some, maybe, difficulties in communication between the Council of Presidents, say, or the Council of Governors and the Council of Regents. From your background as president of a college, is there any problem in communication between the Council of Presidents and the Council of Regents?
Mr Jackson: There are always communication problems, especially when you cannot bring complete clarity to everyone's role. That is just the way it's going to be. It's going to continue to be that way, I believe. Part of the communication problem is a natural tension between what I think is best and what you think is best.
The Council of Regents, it seems to me, plays an accountability role in respect of the people of Ontario. It looks at a system. When I was a college president, I guarantee you I tended to look at a community. I wanted Canadore College to serve North Bay the best it could and I wasn't too concerned about the service that was being delivered or the standards in Toronto or Sudbury or Ottawa. That's the council's role and there will always be tension around that.
It enforces, though, the importance of everyone attending to the communications issue, because to get the tension in control and have us all live and still feel that we have comfortable lives and useful ones, we want to be able to feel that we can work together, although not always agree.
Ms Harrington: Do you think it could be improved or should be improved?
Mr Jackson: It can always be improved and I think all the parties have to work harder at improving communication around these very important issues for the people of Ontario.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Thank you, Mr Jackson. It's nice to see you again. I've seen you before at George Brown College and at Canadore College. You were also involved in Red Deer College in Alberta as well, so also out of the province.
I want to talk about the accountability issue and the role of the council. Given that there is the social contract right now, and now the social reform that's happening at the federal level, there's talk of reduction of transfer payments.
You were talking about the problems with management and labour, tensions between them and the challenges faced there. Can you tell me what would be the potential impact after the federal government would actually announce a reduction in transfer payments for education and how that would affect the accountability issue for the Council of Regents?
Mr Jackson: I hesitate to even think about the impact on people needing the services of colleges and the possible reduction of transfer payments in the numbers being mentioned by Mr Axworthy.
I noted and was very proud today of the three students who presented themselves before you representing OCCSPA. I also noted their ages. These were not people who were 19 years of age, probably living at home with mom and dad. These were a young woman and two young men who I think were probably closer to 30, who probably have all kinds of responsibilities and have seen the need to continue to upgrade their skills. I think it's going to be very, very difficult to see fee increases for them or to see that those fee increases are somehow rather offset by some kind of enormous debt that they will have to incur.
The role of the Council of Regents, I think, in trying to minimize and mitigate that at a provincial and federal level is very significant. There must be one spokesbody for those students, the college system itself, the employees of the college system and the administrators of the college system in trying to make this important case for the good of those people who need to use colleges to upgrade their skills. I think the Council of Regents will play a very significant role in that.
The Chair: Thank you for that answer. That is all the time. Thank you for your appearance before the committee this morning.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
The Chair: Our next deputation this morning is the Administrative Staff Consultative Committee, ASCC. We welcome the vice-chair, Cathy Zuraw, and also a member, Annette Frost. Ms Frost is manager of the library services of Fanshawe College.
Mrs Cathy Zuraw: I'll start with a few brief comments on the administrative staff employee group. I'll summarize the steps leading up to the formation of the Administrative Staff Consultative Committee, hereafter ASCC, because of course it's easier. This is an extremely important part of understanding our relationship with COR. I'll describe our current interaction with the Council of Regents and our position on some of the issues, and we'll conclude with a few thoughts of what our future relationship might be.
The administrative staff form one of the three employee groups in the college system. At this point in time they number approximately 2,000. While the support staff and academic staff have been organized and recognized as bargaining units for most of the history of the colleges, the administrative staff have been far less successful in achieving recognition and a representative voice. There has been a long-standing sense of disfranchisement.
1110
There are local administrative staff associations at several colleges which are integral parts of the local college decision-making consultative process. In other colleges, there is no such formal structure in place. In 1973, the Provincial Administrative Staff Association (PASA) was formed. Those colleges with local associations paid dues to PASA as institutional members; those administrative staff in colleges without local associations submitted dues directly to PASA as associate members.
PASA's mandate was similar to what is reflected in the current terms of reference for the ASCC and in the draft constitution for a proposed self-sustaining professional association for college administrative staff. These are:
(1) To coordinate efforts to achieve the best possible terms and conditions of employment for college administrative staff throughout the province of Ontario.
(2) To coordinate and disseminate information of interest to college administrative staff.
(3) To develop expertise and professional excellence within college administrative staff.
(4) To provide a means and an infrastructure to present a common front on issues that concern all college administrative staff.
(5) To secure through legislation, laws, and regulations provisions beneficial to the working, economic and social conditions of administrative staff.
PASA pursued this mandate based on the following three assumptions:
(1) That the Council of Regents wishes to have a permanent mechanism for input from and consultation between the employer and administrative employees on matters affecting terms and conditions of employment, including salary and benefits.
(2) That there is a need for a system of effective and meaningful interaction between the Council of Regents and administrative staff speaking as employees.
(3) Finally, that significant aspects of terms and conditions of employment, including salary and benefits, will continue to be established provincially.
However, PASA was not officially recognized as the voice of administrative staff since only 35% of those eligible were actually members and some colleges had no members at all. This was not seen as representative.
PASA realized this presented an obstacle and proposed a consultative mechanism which would address the problem. This proposal was sent to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and to the two previous chairs of COR. In October 1991, the president of PASA, Annette Frost, was invited to speak to the staff affairs committee of the Council of Regents. Among the recommendations she brought forward was a need for some formal consultative mechanism to be put in place.
In August 1992, at the initiative of the Council of Regents, each college sent its administrative staff representative to attend the inaugural meeting of the ASCC. To facilitate the initial development of the committee, the chair of the human resources committee of the Council of Regents served as the interim chair. Early in 1993, the role of chair was assumed by an ASCC representative.
It's important for you to realize just how new the ASCC is. It began its official business by recommending salary and benefit changes in November 1992, recommendations that never reached the approval stage with the advent of the social contract.
The "consultative" part of the committee's name was deliberately chosen for the time and emphasized its advisory role to council and, as appropriate, through the council to the ministry. At the social contract table, it was apparent that administrative staff as an employee group could not be represented by the Council of Presidents or the Council of Regents, clearly the employers. For the purposes of the social contract, the ASCC was recognized at the ministry level as the bargaining agent for college administrative staff and did in fact reach a local agreement.
The ASCC had almost no time to evolve before being moved into intensive negotiations. There was and still is a direct link to the Council of Regents. The ASCC receives support from the Human Resources Secretariat in terms of information needs, establishing membership on committees and task forces, working on the obligations outlined in the social contract agreement and in subsidizing the cost of our meetings. In its original concept, it was not expected that the full ASCC membership would need to meet more than twice a year. The social contract has changed that.
Our agenda is primarily dictated by the agreements reached in the local agreement. The most significant of these is the undertaking to create a self-sustaining provincial professional association of college administrative staff. Should 50% plus one of the eligible members vote in favour of such an association, the Council of Regents is committed to voluntary recognition of this association as the official voice of college administrative staff.
A draft constitution, including the proposed the mandate, is being distributed this week to all administrative staff. The proposed vote will take place in late October. Because of the partisan nature of this activity, I feel we should mention that PASA is assuming the costs for the ASCC newsletter, the legal fees associated with the constitution and the voting process.
I have mentioned PASA. I should explain: PASA activities were suspended in September 1992 as an expression of support for the ASCC and its evolving agenda.
In simple terms, a vote in favour would enable the formation of a professional association which would not be reporting to nor be subsidized by the Council of Regents but which would be recognized by them as the official representative voice of college administrative staff.
In addition to the creation of a professional association of college administrative staff, the ASCC continues to have on its agenda issues and concerns that have been raised consistently by administrative staff for the past 20 years, the first being consistency in salary administration across the province; second, due process and performance evaluation and severance; third, job security; fourth, workload.
These are the ways in which the Council of Regents now involves the Administrative Staff Consultative Committee:
-- In input on issues and participation-representation on committees and task forces as OPSEU, the Council of Presidents, the Council of Governors and other parties would have been consulted; the administrative staff have not been consulted in the past.
-- In sign-offs of agreements, often involving project funding, at the local college level.
-- In encouraging attendance at the human resources committee and the Council of Regents meetings to report on activities and concerns and to be briefed on the major issues.
-- In disseminating information of importance to administrative staff at the local college level.
As a result of this heavy agenda, the 23 representatives on the ASCC find themselves challenged with more opportunities to participate than their timetable can accommodate.
The social contract has put us out of sync with our natural evolution, has thrust us into total involvement at a time when we do not have the network and the organizational structure in place to deal with these opportunities and responsibilities as effectively as we may wish to.
At the local college level, the individual ASCC representatives have an increasing role in college affairs which neither they nor their local college community fully understand as yet.
For reasons already mentioned in this statement, ASCC does not feel it is yet in the position to have an informed opinion on many of the issues that are being discussed at this table. Despite having submitted a brief position paper on governance in April 1993, we've not had the time to develop the level of understanding necessary to deal with the very complex issues raised.
I'll depart from my script here. While I would not say individual administrative staff are not informed, I am saying that to collect the opinions of the staff and put them in a position paper is not something that we have been able to do.
Governance has not been an ongoing agenda item at our ASCC meetings, although we are aware of the media coverage, nor has it been directed to ASCC representatives from the grass-roots level to bring forward.
In our current relationship with the Council of Regents, new and limited as it might be, the council has been cooperative, interested, communicative, encouraging and helpful. The sense of disfranchisement and of not being listened to can hopefully be considered something of the past, as we are now a recognized partner in the conduct of business at Ontario community colleges.
By the end of October we'll know the results of the vote. Whether the future holds a revamped ASCC or a fully fledged administrative staff association, college administrative staff hope to position themselves in such a way as to be involved fully and to offer informed and considered opinions on any issues the system may raise and to raise for the system issues and concerns that need resolution. This will be best accomplished by maintaining with the Council of Regents the positive and productive relationship that now exists.
1120
Mrs Cunningham: Welcome to the committee. Did you drive in from London today?
Mrs Annette Frost: No, yesterday.
Mrs Cunningham: I think the labour-management environment has always been for almost any public institution, or probably maybe a private business, something that people have to continue to work at. One of the main responsibilities, of course, of the Council of Regents is in that regard since the beginning of time. We've been warned because of social contract by many of the participants in these hearings that we will have some challenges down the road.
The previous presenter said it well when he said, "The conclusion to which I'm led, therefore, is that the role of the council in creating a better labour-management environment is absolutely essential." We know that we're going to have some more challenges, and we have had over the years, in collective bargaining. Now we've got the challenges of the social contract. But you've got another one, because you're trying to get yourselves organized.
I'm glad to hear that the council has been helpful. What do you think the outcome will be of your vote? Have people had enough time to --
Mrs Zuraw: We really can't say at this point.
Mrs Cunningham: No. But you've got enough people getting your point out and talking to others in the colleges?
Mrs Zuraw: That has certainly been part of the ever-growing role of the ASCC representative. We have tried through newsletters and other things to get the message out. I don't think we're different from other employee groups inasmuch as we are incredibly busy in the colleges right now and sometimes things like this are put aside, important as they are, to get to the business of the college.
Mrs Cunningham: Why did you wait so long? It's been a long history of the colleges.
Mrs Frost: I would imagine it's a matter of opportunity. I think the social contract created a climate where it became self-evident that administrative staff was not represented at the table and needed a voice. This point has been tried to be made since 1973 and earlier, but it was the social contract, the realities of the negotiations, that made that point painfully obvious and led to the recognition that something has to give here. Ironically, after more than 20 years, the administrative staff, who had always been seen as the same as management, being part of management, was clearly left in the field as an employee group that needed representation. So the willingness to accept the ASCC for the time being in its interim role as the negotiating partner came about and was sanctioned by the minister.
What will happen after the social contract of course is anybody's guess. Particularly, we have to wait for the vote in October. If the administrative staff of the colleges are not totally in favour of creating an association, then of course we will have to look for other alternatives. That will be a very clear message.
On the other hand, if the vote is affirmative and the association gets going, then again it remains to be seen, once we get out of the social contract, what role the association is allowed to play in continued communication and consultation with the council. I would believe the support and willingness of the presidents to buy into this communication vehicle would play a significant part in the future success.
Mrs Cunningham: The administrative staff probably had tremendous challenges in the last couple of years, and especially this year -- I know a little bit about Fanshawe -- with more students being admitted to the colleges but having less money.
Mrs Frost: Correct. I think Fanshawe is in the same position as any other college. You have to support more accessibility but with shrinking support dollars, with shrinking staff numbers etc. Particularly in the absence of any union contract, it is easier to not replace an administrative position or to eliminate positions than if you're dealing with a unionized group.
I think the reduction in administrative staff in the past four to five years in the system has been significant, and all this additional work had to be picked up by the remaining people. So workload has become a horrendous challenge.
Mrs Cunningham: What about for the teaching staff? Are the classes a lot bigger?
Mrs Frost: I am positive that the teaching staff have also witnessed an increase in workloads because of increased class sizes. Yes, there has been that trend, indeed.
Mr Martin: It's really good that you're here, being a fledgling employee organization, and that, however limited, you have your say. Certainly we as a government are committed to the exercise of employees getting together and speaking collectively on things that impact on them and speaking to employer groups and the government around what will make you more comfortable in your job so that you can deliver services to the people who come to you in a more thoughtful, effective and helpful manner. I think it all goes hand in hand.
Just for myself and perhaps for some others out there, since you are new to the table and came forward, as you said, more aggressively since the social contract process than before: Who are you in the college system? Who would you be when I walk through the door at the college system, and how would I know?
Mrs Frost: I think we would be anybody who is paid by the Hay system, and in terms of hierarchical structure we may be anyone from an administrative assistant, excluding secretary, to a vice-president.
Mr Martin: So you would in many instances be the people who keep the place going in between sessions, classes and meetings, sort of the glue that keeps it together -- really, I think, an important group -- and have an important function to play and contribution to make to the whole system.
I would think in the exercise that you're going through now you would then probably fully understand how important it is that there be a group such as the Council of Regents at a provincial level setting standards, if not for the level of education that goes out -- although that's what they're doing now through the CSAC operation -- setting standards re the question of how much people get paid so that it's not different from one community to another, and that kind of thing.
I would perhaps from that perspective ask you to comment further on what you think is the role of the Council of Regents into the future, whether in fact it should exist, and, given that it has helped you so far in the way that it has, your feeling about it as we move towards the next millennium.
Mrs Frost: The colleges enjoy a great deal of autonomy, but when it comes to the salary administration and the benefits of employees, and that includes the administrative staff, a great deal is negotiated and determined at the provincial level. The Council of Regents is very heavily involved, partly in gathering the information, providing opportunity for input, so that they will then be in a position to make their recommendations to the minister for implementation.
When it comes to administrative staff, because of this role the council has had in the past and which we feel will be a role they will continue to have, they are a very significant partner in communication and consultation to effect changes and improvements to those elements that are contractual to our working environment. It is the only avenue to achieve changes to the terms and conditions of employment. This is clearly out of the hand of the local college. All of this is determined centrally, and for us to improve our working environment at each local college, we need a very strong central direction and partner in achieving these changes. I don't know if I make myself clear.
1130
Mr Martin: Your preference then would be to negotiate provincially as opposed to college by college.
Mrs Frost: At the moment that seems to be what is happening. If in the future the system changes -- and there has been for many years talk about an employers' association, so the Council of Regents could easily, if the politics so indicate, be replaced with another body. Then it would mean that the administrative staff would have to have a good working relationship with that body, be that again a provincial, major body or a local college affair. So whatever the structure is that will either be maintained or be put in place in the future would be the structure that we would have to work with, and hopefully successfully so. But at the moment, that's the council.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): One of the paragraphs in your submission says, "The social contract has put us out of sync in our natural evolution and has thrust us into total involvement at a time when we do not have the network and the organizational structure in place to deal with these opportunities and responsibilities as effectively as we may wish to."
One of the concerns expressed by individuals in the employ of the public sector, in various aspects of the public sector, has been that despite efforts to apply the social contract as fairly as possible -- and the government has indicated that was its desire -- in fact there have been circumstances where it either has not been applied as fairly as possible or there is a perception that it has not been.
In your circumstances, is there a feeling among the people you represent that in fact you have been treated differently or less fairly than others under the provisions of the social contract?
Mrs Frost: I would suggest, Mr Bradley, we were the group that negotiated a local agreement, and the OPSEU support staff was able to negotiate a local agreement a year later. Whatever was negotiated there that was not covered in our contract, we had an agreement that our contract would give us exactly the same as anybody else would negotiate thereafter. So in that regard the contracts have been upgraded and they're equal, and we feel that they have been respected so far. There have been no problems experienced, and any of the commitments that the council made in the contract have been lived up to and all the appropriate committees and working groups that were promised are in fact in place and working very well. So during the social contract time that we're experiencing now, I don't think there is any sense of grievance or let-down.
Mr Bradley: You have indicated that there's a heavy agenda now, that there's a greater amount of work being placed among those whom you represent, and yet you haven't had an increased staff to do so. In fact, you may have had some decreases, depending on the categories and the circumstances. Does that continue to be a problem?
Mrs Frost: I think the observation with regard to decreased staff and increased workload was more in terms of being an administrative staff member at the college. In terms of having inherited tremendous challenges as an ASCC member, I think that is another matter altogether. There are colleges that have local administrative staff associations, and to be an ASCC representative at a college that has an ASA is a very different proposal than to be working in a college where there is no structure at all. So some of our ASCC committee members are facing horrendous challenges in fulfilling the obligations that arise because of the social contract and because of the function that we've inherited, being the negotiating partner for the administrative staff. It's that challenge on the 23 people that I think is the more significant in the context in which we are speaking here.
Mr Bradley: You use such moderate language when you use the word "challenge." It's often a moderate word used to describe something that may be more difficult, so it's interesting to hear your --
Mrs Frost: Well, we try not to panic.
Mr Sutherland: You're a moderate person, Jim. You would appreciate that.
Mr Bradley: Absolutely. I am a totally moderate individual in every possible way.
Is there an anticipation among people you represent that despite what the Treasurer's had to say -- or is he now called the Minister of Finance? Mr Laughren has said there will be considerably more money back in the system to meet the challenges of working conditions and to meet the individual financial challenges that people have. In other words, more wages and better working conditions may be flowing after the social contract expires. Despite what the Treasurer has said, is there an anticipation that you see more money coming into the system and that you expect higher salary or wages and better working conditions?
Mrs Zuraw: Among administrative staff at this point I would say no.
Mr Bradley: There's not that anticipation?
Mrs Zuraw: No.
Mrs Frost: Well, whatever comes, I think that we would expect equity.
Mr McGuinty: Is that a moderate word?
Mr Bradley: I will be interested to hear what the next group says when I ask the same question.
The Chair: Thank you for coming before the committee this morning.
Mr Martin: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Might I put just a couple of things on the record while we're waiting for the next group to come up? There was some information shared this morning by Ms Cunningham on the budget of the CSAC group that wasn't quite the complete picture, and I felt it would be important, given that we're trying to understand the full operation of the Council of Regents and for the benefit of research as well, that the full picture be laid out there. It would take me just a minute to do that.
The Chair: You could do that at 12:30. I don't wish to keep the deputation waiting.
Mrs Cunningham: I would suggest that what I was reading from was page 8, if I can just put it on the record.
Mr Martin: If she's going to do that, could I --
The Chair: Excuse me. We will deal with it at 12:30. I wish to proceed with the deputation at this point. Thank you.
1140
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
The Chair: I'd like to welcome to the committee Mr Dean Barner, who is the chair of the OPSEU CAAT, academic, and Mr Jay Jackson, who is the chair, OPSEU CAAT, support. Welcome. You do have one hour, and I know that --
Interjections.
The Chair: Excuse me. I think we're showing some discourtesy, Mr Martin and Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Madam Chair, I --
The Chair: No. We've agreed to deal with this matter at 12:30. I respectfully ask both members to show some courtesy to the deputation so we may proceed.
Mr Dean Barner: Thank you. I'm used to this, by the way. My classroom's much like this.
Mrs Cunningham: Do you teach second grade or the first grade?
Mr Barner: Just to introduce ourselves -- Jay Jackson of course, who is the chair of support, and he'll be reintroducing. I think Tony had asked us to put our backgrounds to our faces, as well. I'm a faculty member for 24 years in the college system. I'm in my third college, at Canadore, and you heard from my past boss about an hour ago, Garth Jackson. Jay is simply going to outline how we're going to proceed.
Mr Jay Jackson: I'm a support staff worker at Sheridan College in Oakville. Support staff workers across this province do secretarial work, technical work and all those things that, as I think I heard earlier, make the college run. The former deputation were workers who were in supervisory roles and there are some 7,000 other workers who take the direction of those supervisors.
What we want to do today is -- I believe you have a prepared text and Dean is going to walk you through that. Following that, I have six other points that I will allude to and then we would be delighted to take any questions and respond to them.
Mr Barner: We are here today representing respectively 6,800 support staff and 9,200 faculty at Ontario's 25 community colleges. We are here because our members not only have a significant stake in how colleges are being governed, but also because we believe we have a key role to play in determining appropriate forms of governance and in determining where the college system is headed in the next century.
This role not only is mandated by the immediate concerns and security needs of our members, but also is necessitated by a common, sincere desire to see the Ontario college system work to its fullest potential. Incidentally, we believe we share this desire with every administrator and governor in the college system, and likely with every speaker who has spoken to you thus far.
We thank the committee for inviting us to present the views of our members and we are especially grateful for your quick response in revising your schedule of presentations to accommodate not only our student leaders whom you heard this morning, but also more time for our own presentation. We will appreciate any questions you may have following.
Firstly, let us begin by saying that we have been critical of the Council of Regents in the past. Undoubtedly, you've been hearing many presentations which began by saying how much they appreciate the Council of Regents and then proceeded to say how much is wrong about COR and how they have exceeded their mandate etc.
We'd like to offer the opposite perspective. We believe that they are just now starting to do a good job which one might cynically suggest is the primary reason for this committee review.
In the past, we have commented on and criticized much of COR's behaviour or lack of behaviour over the last 27 years of CAAT's existence. At times, especially during our three strikes, COR had seemed a needless barrier between our members and those who controlled the colleges. In its early years, COR seemed to epitomize the worse example of a three-piece-suited white men's club which was sadly out of touch with Ontario society, let alone what was occurring and what was needed in Ontario's colleges.
We in OPSEU were vocal in our displeasure of COR's role, and we were alone in our efforts to lobby the former governments to take a serious look at revamping and reconsidering COR.
We take some credit in recognizing that there has been a concerted redirection of COR over the past several years. Reconstituting its makeup is just one such example. We are pleased to say that COR is just now beginning to ably perform its role as a cohesive leader of the college system, as a lobbyist and proponent of the CAATs, both internally in the government and externally in Ontario society.
Finally, COR is now performing its role as the appropriate governing body whose primary mandate is to ensure the health and continued excellence of the CAAT system. One only need look at its recent leadership in PLA, prior learning assessment; CSAC, college standards and accreditation; restructuring, advanced training, schools-colleges articulation etc to see that COR's role has been and will continue to be the key to the success of these initiatives. We hesitate to think of these initiatives under the guidance of either the ministry or ACAATO, the essentially self-serving old boys' club of the college presidents.
In fact, it is our contention that the primary reasons for COR's being placed under the microscope by your committee is a tribute to its finally fulfilling its appropriate role. By COR's ability to distinguish itself, it's made waves which have caused the sort of reactions you might expect from those with vested interests and different visions of the college system about which you've likely been hearing in the past several days.
As you are undoubtedly aware now, the Council of Regents has significantly reduced its powers during the past 27 years.
Although from time to time the minister may assign COR a particular project such as college restructuring or a major endeavour such as CSAC and PLA, in fact all that really remains to COR's power is the approval of new college board members and the overseeing of collective bargaining in which its role really has been that of a facilitator between the parties.
Not only has COR made significant progress in the former, the approval of college board nominees, which we'll comment upon in more detail later, but COR has certainly put its own house in order as to its own makeup to reflect genuine, appropriate interest groups with laudable equity group balance.
As we both now attend Council of Regents' meetings as ex-officio invitees, which COR had only recently begun, by the way, we are convinced that COR members now exhibit a keen commitment and concern in making the colleges work, in making the colleges more responsive to their communities and in making leadership decisions that will facilitate colleges in becoming state-of-the-art education and training institutions in the 21st century.
COR has put its act together in such a way that all 25 college boards would do well to emulate.
In its relatively minor role of approving college board members, COR has ironically and inappropriately incurred far more criticism than is warranted. We'll say it again: It is our opinion that COR has only in the past few years started to fulfil this role effectively, and COR has achieved this by no longer rubber-stamping college presidential nominees but by actively encouraging college boards to seek the best, most representative board members in their communities.
The mere fact that COR has incurred so much resistance from some presidents and local boards, and intensely in at least one college which has represented its views to you already, should be a surprise to no one. In fact, such resentment over COR's fulfilling this role is a clear sign that this job must be done centrally and that there remains obviously much to do to ensure appropriate equity and constituency makeup of boards.
To speak plainly, COR has laudably begun to break the old-boys fiefdom of college presidents who historically have been appointing their friends to be their bosses.
It really comes down to a question of leadership, and we're happy to admit that the past two chairs of COR have been instrumental in proving that COR has been worthy of its role as a leader of the college system. We would like to think that this role may have been shared by the ministry, but clearly the past several years have demonstrated that the ministry is simply too large and diverse, as well as steeped in the bureaucracy which only inhibits and frustrates the real changes that are needed in the college system.
Let's be clear that we don't use the term "system" lightly. We in OPSEU firmly believe that we have a college system in Ontario and not a system of colleges that the Council of Presidents and its mouthpiece ACAATO like to purport. This is one of the several points which distinguishes COR as a leader and why the presidents or ACAATO will never likely satisfactorily fulfil that role.
The college system has evolved. We have grown after 27 years into a system with similar dreams and goals, with similar programs and student and employer needs, with similar aims of standards and accreditation which allow students easy accessibility anywhere in the province and guarantee employers consistent excellence in our graduates. We hope there is no turning back of this direction. We hope the days of colleges competing against each other to the detriment of everyone are over for good. We as labour partners have always worked together well provincially, and we hope that in some small way we have contributed to this change. Tough financial times have forced us to work together and we can only win with such cooperation.
Yet some presidents seem quite affronted by this direction. They see their power bases eroded by such initiatives as CSAC and PLA, which is understandable of course, but several seem to have radically different goals for their colleges. They not only question the colleges' mandate to provide education and training, but they also have dreams of evolving their colleges into quasi-universities, and more particular so-called autonomous status unfettered by ministry or COR-type demands, perhaps even unfettered by student or employer or taxpayer demands.
This is wrongheadedness and similar to the unresponsive self-centredness currently being displayed by Ontario's universities. These institutions, universities, are quickly becoming the dinosaurs of education and training. The college system is already beginning to outshine our universities, and this is partly due to our ability, our eagerness to evolve and change and grow into a system with one primary purpose in mind: the betterment of Ontario's citizenry alongside enhanced economic development.
No doubt earlier presentations have adequately listed the many accomplishments of the Council of Regents, but let us make some additional comments on these successes from our point of view. First, Vision 2000, CSAC, PLA etc have been successful we believe because of one primary principle: they were codriven projects in an atmosphere of collaboration and cooperation from all stakeholder groups. This culture was introduced and fostered by COR.
1150
Look at the endless number of earlier college initiatives and royal commissions which still gather dust in some deputy's back room. They all failed because there was no partnership among the interested groups, no buy-in, no consultation. All were products of a management style that viewed the colleges as businesses and treated its employees with 19th century labour-management practices.
One only has to look at the sad history of our college initiatives which were driven only by backroom academic dilettantes far removed from the people who have been making the colleges work.
These labour relations have not been unique to the colleges. Look outside of our college system for a minute to understand why the restructuring of universities and school systems has failed so miserably. There simply was no constituency buy-in to foster the initiatives, and this was largely because university and school faculties were frozen out of the process.
Let's be clear: Any leader can make people work, perhaps not fruitively or happily, but they'll work, and when the colleges had lots of money, really any management style would do. But only a true leader will facilitate an employment atmosphere that will encourage people to work to their fullest potential. COR, under its past two chairs, has started to admirably assume this latter style of leadership.
Five years ago, our two OPSEU divisions, over 15,000 college staff, had no representation on provincial committees other than those dictated by our two collective agreements. Today, we have over 200 different faculty and support staff driving such committees, each elected or appointed by our executives. This is empowerment in the greatest sense of the word.
These people are representing their faculties and staff to make the colleges grow, to share opinions and listen to and learn from their colleagues, to make our system competitive, to make colleges viable in the next century. We believe this wouldn't have happened without a single-minded, concerted vision as displayed by COR in recent years. We pray this leadership style will continue. There is simply too much at stake to backtrack now. The province just can no longer afford the old management style that has been so prevalent in the colleges.
Lest we be accused of pushing the centrist theme too much, we certainly respect and wish to maintain a strong college environment which will reflect and effectively deal with local needs. It is not a question of either/or, but both, a central system balanced by each college's right to address its own local environment. Our central union and union locals are based on this very same balance.
In conclusion, let us say that the colleges have gone through considerable change for a variety of reasons in the last several years. Much of the change has been good: increased access; better mobility for students; closer relationships to those groups on each side of us in the spectrum of education, the universities on one side and secondary schools on the other. But much of it has been bad: unchallenged growth at the expense of quality, crisis funding driving academic policy, the implosion of the Ministry of Education.
In spite of these pressures, in spite of both desired and forced change and restructuring, in spite of the unbelievable pressures our employees are under, we believe we'll still come out winners. But we can't do it without real leadership. We can't do it alone, nor do we have much trust that the presidents or ACAATO or our reorganized ministry can rise to the task.
We have a proven leader in COR that we've come to respect and work well with, because they have come to respect us and have realized they can't do it alone. We've known this fact all along, especially after decades of being frozen out of any real decision-making in the colleges.
The Council of Regents has been a catalyst of change which has brought our labour relations into the 20th century. With your encouragement, perhaps we'll see it lead the colleges into the 21st.
Mr Jackson: I'd like to now talk about six points further to our prepared text.
First, I'd like to talk about ACAATO. OPSEU's view of ACAATO is more or less an employer volunteer organization they've created for themselves. Typically the people who belong to ACAATO are several hundreds of administrators who deal with the concerns of administrative issues. It's our view as OPSEU that ACAATO does not have any official standing within the system, has no authority nor, in our view, does it have any credibility. In the past, as labour leaders, our historical relationship with them is somewhat modest. In fact it has been none. It's only now that we are trying to reach out to them and they are reaching to us to see if we can create some association with them. That is in its very formative stage, and quite frankly we don't hold out much hope for any long-lasting relationship with ACAATO as we have developed with Council of Regents.
It does cost money to operate ACAATO. In fact, the dollars come directly right off the grants that go to the community colleges. Those dollars could have been used more effectively in the classrooms to deliver education to our learners in the province. As I have mentioned, hundreds of administrators are going to dozens and dozens of ACAATO committees and really dealing with issues of administration. That is a cost and an expense both at the central level and at the local level.
In contrast, the Council of Regents is a centrally funded organization directly from the treasury. There's no burden to the colleges in that kind of context and we really feel that's the best way to keep it.
The next issue I'd like to talk about is CSAC and PLA. You've probably realized that those are two initiatives that came from Vision 2000. Vision 2000 is quite close to me, personally. Apart from being a labour leader and a 20-year employee in the college, I am a learner in the college. I graduated from a college in 1975 and became an employee of the system. I was a part of Vision 2000, along with about 30 other people who are on the steering committee.
That steering committee was in a partnership. There were all leaders: union, management, university presidents, business leaders, senators, and CSAC and PLA really were birthed there by consensus. It was felt that to achieve the goals of those two significant committees to cause change in the system, the only place to effect that change would have been to create a central authority to ensure that happened. Ms McLeod, the Minister of Education, or Colleges, I guess, at that point in time, agreed with us, and that in fact is what happened.
I guess as a learner in the system and just coming right down to issues, particularly with CSAC, that has always been one of the problems in the college system, that even within its own institution, one department or one division did not know what another division was doing, and when that got magnified to 23 community colleges it became worse. You've heard, I believe, from the students who have also echoed that important desire to have standards breathed into the system to make community college education valuable.
The third point I would like to talk about is leadership. I believe Walter Pitman has spoken to the committee, and in his openness has actually indicated he was wrong a few years ago in his view that there should be local controls.
What is needed in the system, and we as OPSEU agree, is a strong leadership in the centre. COR has the vision and it has demonstrated it for the record to achieve that goal.
Our fourth point is governance. The Council of Regents has taken a leadership role on the question of governance and that was directed by government to achieve. What the issue is here is to make governance more democratic, more equitable and responsive to community needs in a provincial environment. This has been OSPEU's agenda for many years and we strongly encourage the support of further governance renewal. We see the committee of presidents and the Council of Governors opposed to changing their governance structure as it upsets the status quo they have enjoyed for so many years.
1200
My fifth point is dealing with collective bargaining. I understand one of the briefs, I believe it came from the Council of Presidents, was dealing with matters of collective bargaining. I guess as a union we do have some concerns with collective bargaining.
My first point is, government has turned its mind to the issue of change of collective bargaining in the colleges. In fact, it was the Liberal government that turned its mind to it a few years ago and commissioned Jeffrey Gandz to create a report on collective bargaining. That report was received by the Liberal government and started the process for bargaining renewal. Currently, there's a bill in this Legislature, and I believe it's somewhere around second reading, that deals with collective bargaining matters. It's Bill 23. We would encourage the government to review that bill and all members of the Legislature to forward that bill through the House.
To deal with those issues of local bargaining, we believe there is no need to alter the methodology and arrangement that we have in dealing with a collective agreement in a centralized fashion. Both our collective agreements provide for appropriate opportunities to provide for local application and unique characteristics that may appear from time to time in the 25 colleges.
Last, the issue of head office. There is really only one head office and that really must be the Council of Regents. They are the agency of government that is going to ensure government's mandate is properly being carried out, and that is really the responsibility of government, to ensure that the excellence of post-secondary education in the Ontario college system will be there for the citizens of this province.
Mr Martin: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. I just wanted to start by sharing with you my understanding of what's gone on in the province in the last few years and how the college has attempted valiantly to respond. It's a picture that I don't think everybody needs painted, but every now and again it's important to paint it. We've had probably the most difficult few years that the province, that this country, actually, I guess recessionwise that the world has experienced in a long, long time, a restructuring of unprecedented dimensions.
I wanted to say that in my relationship with my local college in Sault Ste Marie, being as it was actually coming apart at the seams sometimes because of the numbers of people who were unemployed, looking for opportunity to be retrained to do something with their time that was productive and constructive to prepare them for the future, and given that we as a government were in a situation where revenues were going down for the first time in the province's history, you and we together, and particularly I would say you folks in the classroom, did some I think miraculous things to try and help people. It needs to be said that we appreciate that.
There was some talk here over the past week that perhaps our college system wasn't up to par or up to snuff or as good as other places or whatever. I suggest to you that it was and that we as a government now, with the Council of Regents and with the participation of yourselves and the student groups that spoke this morning and certainly others, are trying to come to terms with that.
The Vision 2000 document that you personally participated in I think was an excellent example of a previous government being proactive, recognizing the challenges that confronted us, and I think we picked up the torch and carried it forward. Out of that, we had a couple of things that were indicated or recognized as being of prime importance: the CSAC standards committee setting common standards across the province and the prior learning assessment tool. We felt so strongly about them that we decided we also needed to spend some significant money on them.
Just for the record, I think it's important that we recognize what kind of money has been and will be spent because I'm going to ask you a question about that, because it's going to be I think inferred later in the discussion that this money would be better spent in the classroom, perhaps, which would affect you directly, and I want to ask you about that.
The CSAC operation didn't exist until 1993-94. In 1991-92 and 1992-93, the money that was spent on CSAC was only for the establishment of committees and stakeholders and pulling it together. CSAC operated for only about eight months in 1993-94 and cost about $800,000 and then will actually operate for the full 12 months in 1994-95 and will cost $1.2 million. We certainly feel that's money well spent that will pay dividends down the road and allow the college to be healthier in the future.
I guess the question I have of you, re that CSAC has become such sort of a central point of discussion here over the past week is -- and in fact is probably that area where the Council of Regents at this point in time feels very much the need to move so that we can better this system and take it on and struggle with it along with a few other things -- where should CSAC operate out of? How does it operate in an arm's-length, objective way so that everybody benefits and it does carry out the mandate and role it was expected to by yourself and others?
What are your thoughts about the money that we're spending on CSAC, given that perhaps if we didn't spend it there, we might in fact have it to spend in the classroom, which is a criticism that's been made here? I'd like some comment from you on that.
Mr Barner: I certainly agree with you, first of all, that the system has risen to the occasion during these tough times. I think we're coming through better than when we started. CSAC is a good example that not only, as Jay points out, was it born from a consensus point of view, and all sides I think are certainly still behind it; we're driving it really as a bargain. This is a tiny fraction of our overall moneys coming from the province, some $800 million. We're looking at maybe around a million dollars, as you point out.
I guess I wouldn't agree with your premise that this is money that may otherwise have been spent in the classroom. This is going to be ultimately enhancing what we're doing in the classroom. Now that we have 25 colleges, it's about time that we stopped wasting money by reinventing things 25 times. CSAC is going to help us get on the road to set a course that's going to be ultimately a much more efficient system and we're only going to be winners from it.
Mr Jackson: Just to add to that, I believe the council's role in creating CSAC was more of a midwife attitude. Clearly, the vision is that CSAC has its own powers and own budgets. In those formative months where a lot of things weren't in place, it was the Council of Regents that took a leadership role, recognizing that this was an extremely important element in the college system that needed to have a successful start. I believe now the CSAC board is there and is currently seeking a leader to chair that very important committee.
Just to underscore again, it's germane within the whole purpose of what Vision 2000 saw as being, say, critical or on the knife's edge of causing all sorts of other change without a standard in programs across all 25 colleges and into colleges so people, learners, can have transportability within a college and across the college system and into other jurisdictions, into universities and to other provinces. That's prime. It leads into access issues; it leads into other learning outcome issues; it really leads into how much we spend in post-secondary education.
Are we overteaching or are we underteaching? In the past, nobody knew what kind of quality was there. So it really comes down to an issue of what is excellence and what our citizens in this province are paying for.
1210
Mr Martin: What about the question of where CSAC should be located or where the home should be? ACAATO came here earlier in the week and suggested that it should be the body holding that.
Mr Jackson: We believe that ACAATO is in itself an organization that believes in a decentralized model, that supports local autonomies. We don't believe they would take effective control over something that absolutely requires to have a central vision in its central administration. I suspect, in a cynical sort of way, if you want to ensure the demise of CSAC, leaders would give that to ACAATO and that will ensure that it will not succeed.
Ms Harrington: You've made that very clear, that question of where CSAC should be.
First of all, I want to commend you for the job that you have done. I know on Monday when we started I spoke with Richard Johnston about the situation of the enrolment increasing 35% over the last four years and the funding decreasing by 25% and we wondered how close to the line it was getting with preserving the quality of education. So I certainly commend you. You have shown the front-line workers especially -- that is, yourselves -- how to do it and obviously that same type of restructuring will have to go on in all public institutions as well as private companies in these times.
I was a little surprised by your very strong language here when you said "the old boys' fiefdom of college presidents" etc, but it's certainly interesting to hear your opinions. I note quite a long while ago I did teach briefly at Niagara College and Mohawk College.
What I wanted to ask you was regarding the appointment of internal members on the boards of community colleges. How have you found that has influenced the boards of governors?
Mr Jackson: I guess the internal constituent members have been a struggle. It was I think very largely to OPSEU's initiatives, and once again with a former government, that an openness to democratize the boards was seen as being something advantageous to the colleges.
Let me say that in many of the boards, and even today, those internal governors are treated in a fashion of second-class citizenship. They are not seen to be part of -- full status as governor. In some colleges, however, they are treated as equals and in fact can aspire to the lofty roles of chairing finance committees and board management committees and determining the direction that the college will go. That is more the vision that we have in mind. A governor is a governor is a governor.
I guess the really key question in our minds is, the board in a college is the president's employer. In too many of the colleges it would appear that the presidents still maintain an awesome control over their boards. Just to look at a college board in Sudbury, there's been a lot of stuff in the press there and what's happened with the power of presidents and the roles of boards. I believe that the committee may be aware of that.
Ms Harrington: So you're very firmly behind having internal people on the board and having them participate.
Mr Jackson: Absolutely.
Mr Waters: I've asked this several times and I guess I'd like your opinion. With the mature students coming back to college -- after all, you're the front line -- how is that going, and is the college evolving to deal with the problems those people have, that they've been out of college for a long time? They're not in the regimen of going to school but, at the same time, because of their families and all of that impacting on them, they want to get the skills and training done so that they can get back and get into the workforce. So, very quickly, could you comment on that?
Mr Barner: It's not unique to the colleges, certainly. When we talked to the university faculty associations they experienced really the same situation. It's been a great challenge, but I think we are meeting the challenge. It's a dynamic that when I started back in 1969-70 I couldn't imagine. I was older than most of my students, I guess, in those days -- I probably look ancient -- but today, the amount of baggage that students are bringing into the classroom just floors me. For me to harass somebody to get their homework in or paper in or whatever it might be, and when I hear a story that is much more complicated than anything I've ever lived through, that is a humbling experience. But we are certainly adjusting to it.
Mr McGuinty: Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. I had heard from some of the technical faculty people in my home town of Algonquin, and in fact they made a special presentation to our local MPPs in connection with gen ed. They had some very real concerns about the impact this would have on the quality of the programming as they saw it. They felt that it was going to detract from the vocational component and that they were going to turn out students who would be less prepared rather than better prepared to meet the challenges they'd have to face in the world of employment.
You would have a system-wide perspective on this. I'm wondering how you've met that new challenge. There's been no additional funding, no new class time; how have you been able to address that?
Mr Barner: I guess it's maturity, to some degree. I won't even talk about it provincially; let's talk about it personally. I was hired back in 1969-70 as a general education teacher. When the colleges were created, they were created with a fairly clear concept of two thirds vocational teaching and one third general education. What had gradually happened over the next 20 years was that it became almost 100% vocational training and education, so my sort of teaching has become quite marginalized in terms of what I originally was hired to do, which was humanities, a bit of philosophy and teaching English.
Right now, for example, I still teach just in the journalism area and am almost teaching core journalism-type subjects. So this is the kind of cycling, I think, that we're seeing coming back to the system. It's being driven, interestingly, not so much by the internal people such as myself but by the employers who are now coming back and saying: "Wait a minute. We just don't want a tunnel vision type of employee. We want more of a well-rounded person who's going to be able to fit into various roles in his or her career etc." I think we are, again, rewriting that position. I don't think we should have lost that to begin with, perhaps.
Mr Jackson: Just to add to that, that whole discussion of general education and generic education was also the focus of Vision 2000. It came from a recommendation and that's why it's here. Just to underscore Dean's comment, Vision 2000, the steering committee and the government of the day felt that it was important, in the post-secondary environment, to give learners the opportunity to have a wider education rather than this narrow-focused training skill that may be useful to an employer for a period of time but then, once the skill was lost or the technology changed, they didn't have any other place to go.
So I believe that what's being breathed into the system is something around a 20% element of general education and that's really, in my view, quite modest in the scheme of things.
Mr McGuinty: I gather you would be very much against or opposed to an employers' association which would act as the bargaining unit for college presidents?
Mr Jackson: I alluded to collective bargaining matters and I believe, when you look at the bill, it provides for an employers' organization to do collective bargaining. So I'm sort of curious to hear all this discussion and debate about an employers' organization where in fact it's envisioned in a piece of legislation that's stuck somewhere in the House. I would encourage government and opposition members to turn their minds to Bill 23 and expedite.
1220
Mr McGuinty: Your comments are well taken. I look forward to seeing government action on that.
One of the things the presidents talked about, and I want to get your feedback on this, is that maybe some issues could be dealt with locally and others centrally. I'm just throwing that out; it's very generic, but how do you respond to that?
Mr Barner: From our perspective, we believe that the system is satisfactory the way it is in place. Both of our agreements have ample room for local flexibility addressing local needs and concerns. I think that's the appropriate balance that it should and must be. I don't think that needs to be enhanced, the way it presently is. I think we're better served by the balance that's available there now.
Mr Bradley: We've had people comment on this, and different people have different opinions. I'm thinking of OTAB now, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. How do you like the position and place you've been given in the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board?
Mr Barner: The position in terms of --
Mr Bradley: The community colleges' position within that.
Mr Barner: This is, again, something that's very near to both of us, because we've been doing an awful lot of work internally and with our parent union, OPSEU, to try to position ourselves as well as we can to ensure that the colleges are well represented. We are driven, of course, in this not only as a concern of seeing the best training being done, but we have a great number of employees whom we represent whose jobs are not protected, frankly, as we make this transition into OTAB.
What we are a bit frustrated about is that we are not sensing, either internally in the government or by our management partners, of driving the same type of agenda to protect these employees' interests. Yes, we are very much concerned and we're very much trying to position ourselves in a much more comfortable situation than we presently are. I believe the biggest fear is that we may well be left to whatever is going in the local boards as they come about, and that's not a very comfortable position to be in around the province.
Mr Jackson: Just to add to that, in the ideal world one would like to think that you have your person sitting in the seat designated for the colleges and in all the strata of OTAB and the local boards. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. But more importantly, it's the people who are ultimately chosen and elected and placed in those seats. The key to us is, how open are they going to be to listening to our voices through all the various mechanisms that will be there for us to cause that dialogue? Our agenda is seeking partnerships. OTAB will unfold and really, I suspect, maybe three or four years from now we will all be able to look backward and see how successful all the discussions have been and how the colleges have fared through the whole operation.
We believe that OTAB -- it's public money and our prime focus is that public sector dollars should be spent in public institutions. The Ontario college system represents an investment of taxpayers' dollars of about $1 billion and we feel that those other taxpayers' dollars that are going to be training dollars should be flowed through our colleges in Ontario. We are strategically placed, with 25 colleges in some 900 locations, and that's the ideal situation to serve both employers and workers in this province.
Mr Bradley: My next question deals with the funding of the system. Four long-time colleagues of mine have made very compelling cases over the years for funding. Richard Johnston, who is a former critic in the field of Colleges and Universities; Robert Rae, the member for York South; the Treasurer of this province, now the Minister of Finance, Mr Laughren, who came from the community college system; and Mr David Cooke, who is the Minister of Education and Training, all made compelling cases for significant increases in funding for the community college system.
It was revealed by Mr Johnston that you've had an enrolment increase of 35% in the last few years and a funding decrease of 25%. How ever have you coped with that kind of funding, when I was led to believe by my good colleagues that even when you had 10% increases, if that would have ever come about previously, it wouldn't have been enough? How do you cope with this lack of funding?
Mr Barner: We have coped, I believe. But I think if it continues, we're going to certainly cut into the quality that we're providing. I guess the biggest problem with funding, from our members' point of view, is that it has been so unfair. We look at both sides of the spectrum of education below and above us, universities and the high schools etc, and they're getting almost double what we're getting per student, and that's probably one of the best-kept secrets from the taxpayers in the province.
Mr Bradley: Yes, I think you're right.
Mr Barner: I think that is just basically unfair. We're doing, I still think, a good job, but we could do a better job. I think there has to be more parity in that regard. I don't know if I've gotten all of the parts of your question.
Mr Bradley: Yes, it is a great concern, because I remember that happening. I worry about that, and it leads me to the next question you heard me ask previous individuals: What do you anticipate at the conclusion of the provisions of the social contract? It's 1996 it expires. Is there an anticipation that the lid will come off and that the funds will be flowing and that all contracts will be restored, or do you think you'll be like MPPs, who are in the middle of a six-year pay freeze with a pay cut in the middle of it, and you have no anticipation of ever recovering?
Mr Jackson: I can lead on that. I guess 1996 is sort of Orwellian. I suspect nothing is going to happen on that particular day. You know, the sky is not going to fall. As far as we as a union are concerned, we have entered into agreements for support, at least, under the social contract, our local agreement that repatriates or puts back what we lost through the social contract period. That has been done and achieved, the target that was assigned to the college sector.
What happens in 1996? We are a union and we will bargain -- that is our nature -- and what increases come out of collective bargaining will be there. The colleges' responsibility as employer is to know the kinds of responses that they can meet with us at the collective bargaining table. As far as labour relations and costs of payroll and benefits and those things are concerned, it's very much up to a particular round of collective bargaining somewhere in 1996.
Mrs Cunningham: I've met Jay before.
Mr Jackson: Hi. How are you doing?
Mrs Cunningham: It's good to see you again. But I haven't met Mr Barner. Pleased to meet you. What college do you --
Mr Barner: Canadore College in North Bay, the same as Garth Jackson.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, you did say that. That's right. So you know each other?
Mr Barner: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: I wanted to ask a number of questions about Vision 2000 because we have an opportunity here for people who are right there in the field. I was certainly interested in your applause for CSAC and PLA, and I agree it's long overdue. The criticism, I think, has been where it was placed --
Interjections.
Mrs Cunningham: Sorry, is there something wrong?
Mr Sutherland: No, Dianne, there's nothing wrong. Keep going.
Mrs Cunningham: Good. I'm glad you said that on the record.
Mr Martin: It should be run by volunteers.
Mrs Cunningham: At any rate, you can imagine my involvement for a long time wanting some standards in our elementary and secondary schools too, which parents are calling out for now. Having been involved in Fanshawe College over the years, I wasn't aware of the fact that standards were such an issue until probably the last five or six years and I don't know why it just came upon me at that point. Perhaps we felt there were standards. I'm really happy to see it happen too and I think the criticism might be, rightfully or wrongfully, where it's placed, but it's been very interesting getting people's points of view at this committee, and that's what this is all about.
I was really happy to hear that you were so involved in Vision 2000. The system-wide standards I think are taken care of to a point, but where do you see us going from this point? I consider another couple of years for CSAC, but then does it level off? Because there's a tremendous funding amount involved in that particular program, in getting it up and going. How do you see it being maintained?
Mr Jackson: I see CSAC as being something that's going to take several years to fully implement. We're talking of hundreds of programs in our Ontario college system. There will be a significant consultation go on with all the colleges that are offering all the various types of programming.
Beyond that, it's any sort of bureaucracy that is created to keep a standard. There will need to be a monitoring, a review, a renewal. There will always be new programming coming along, there will always be new technologies that will be coming along, and it's germane in maintaining a standard, centrally controlled, to assist in that sort of activity.
1230
Mrs Cunningham: Is OPSEU going to make this part of your responsibility in some way, since you've commented on it today?
Mr Jackson: Yes, OPSEU, the labour partners of the Ontario college system, are there now and we will be there in the future.
Mrs Cunningham: The reason I ask that is I represent the public. It's hard to know all the right questions. I can remember some four years ago looking at the Ministry of Skills Development and meeting with people about manuals that were being updated about courses that were no longer taught. I'm not in the business of spending tax dollars on that, but I can't do it, so I think somebody within -- I mean, I should be able to do it, but I can tell you right now I won't be able to do it, because you're there day to day, so we have to depend on somebody, and I think a partnership doing it is probably better than anything.
The other one was the inadequate links with secondary schools and universities. That was another one of the observations. I know that at the colleges, and I've visited all of them now, they talk about the articulation agreements and how time-consuming they are and how there's so much administration into it and how few students have been able to benefit from these opportunities. I wondered if you had something to say about this? Because that would be the secondary school college link? Is it worth pursuing? Should we be doing more of it? What's your opinion?
Mr Barner: The way I see it, it's part of all the same quilt. I mean, we're looking at PLA, which of course is recognized in prior learning. We're looking at the schools and colleges, which is just being tied up right now in terms of articulation between the school boards and high schools and the colleges. We're looking at the other side of that, which you're mentioning, the advanced training, which is also articulation with the universities. All of that is tied in with the whole standards question. Where we're going, we hope, is to give better access and more moveability for students throughout the spectrum of education. Everybody agrees that has to happen, and all of those have a legitimate role within that situation.
If it takes time, it's going to be necessary, but I think we'll ultimately going to be winners because of it. There's too much duplication at every level of education as it currently exists. I think we're going to be able to eliminate a great deal of that and be able to have -- I hate to use the cliché -- "seamless education." We're going to be way ahead of the game once we've pulled it off.
Mrs Cunningham: Students from other countries advise us that this is true for them, and my own kids have gone from different institutions hoping to use their credits and haven't been allowed to, or have had to do another year for their degree, which is very expensive, and time-consuming for them too, and they didn't really think that they had gained that much because of it. I really wish you luck in that regard and I hope that the impetus for that comes from the colleges, because you're the ones who see these students on a day-to-day basis, and I don't think it has come from the government.
Mr Barner: I think it has in some ways, in the sense that there's been a change of philosophy from when I first started in the college system with almost the streamed approach. The students who came from the secondary schools either went into the colleges or went to universities.
We no longer are seeing that in nearly the same way. We're having a tremendous number of students who are coming from universities to get a skills set from the colleges, or going through the college system, maturing, finding out where they want to go in the world and going on to university, which I think is just as it should be. I'm not saying that we should be simply the feeder system for university as we might have in CEGEPs, but I think we're a viable alternative that should always be maintained with a close relationship so that students can transfer at ease. I believe we're headed that way right now.
Mrs Cunningham: Good.
Mr Jackson: I guess really it's a bigger question. While we are the colleges and trying to react to issues in the colleges, the issue really is CSAC, PLA and the articulation agreements. It all is education, and I will use the cliché of trying to make it "seamless."
There's a lot of money that's being spent in education in this province and I think that the issue is learners and how we, as educators and people supporting education both at elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels of the system, can ensure or make a higher percentage of our learners be successful. If it's a linkage that we can do with a high school or in a university, then that's wonderful.
I think all the partners in education are interested in this and are going to make it successful.
Mrs Cunningham: You must be concerned about the figure in the Vision 2000, which people say is not accurate, even the students today, of the 50% dropout rate. Are you going to be doing something about getting us better information with regard to how many students complete courses? I think it's extremely important to know that.
Mr Jackson: That is a questionable number, I would agree. I think that any system needs to have good information to base decisions on. I don't know myself if the data collection is fine enough to determine those people who just move from one program to another program or move from one college to another college. I suspect that may show up as being a dropout, but in fact they have just moved within the college sector.
Mrs Cunningham: They mentioned something as sensible as giving the student the same number, the same student identification number, and they keep that number as long as they're in any college.
Mr Jackson: It's an excellent idea.
Mrs Cunningham: It seems almost impossible that we haven't done something like that. But I think part of this is the public are demanding more accountability because we're having to spend our money more wisely. To have good information means that we are more accountable.
The last question that I wanted to ask was with regard to OTAB. I was very concerned about the representation and tried to change those numbers with regard to the board so that the education community, all of it, could be represented. We weren't successful in that. I was interested in your comments to my colleague Mr McGuinty with regard to OTAB. I think that the flexibility you described, given the training needs for Canada -- let's face it, that's what we're talking about here: We're educating students as Canadians here.
How do you see all this working? Because we're now going to have fewer of these local training boards. They're not going to represent the community the same way they did. If there were 48 community boards, now there are 20. Whatever it is -- four, eight, seven -- there are less of them. If you're going to be getting in the community colleges these training needs as recommended by these boards, plus your community, in any way you get them now, how are the colleges going to respond to all of this information or demand?
Mr Barner: If we start off cynically, our point of view from, I guess, an OPSEU point of view, a union point of view, is that OTAB, like it or not, has been almost a way of privatizing training in the province. Where we see it falling short is in not giving either a comfort level or a commitment to the colleges for what they have been created to provide, which is training in the province. I think that's the greatest shortcoming that needs to be addressed.
You heard Garth, of course, the CEO of it; that's certainly a concern he has. Jay and I have been working very hard for the last few years trying to work on what was that original memorandum of understanding as OTAB was coming about, to have some sense of guaranteeing the colleges 33 trainers of choice. I would still like to see that maintained at some point.
I would hate to think that the taxpayers of the province are going to lose the great infrastructure, as Jay points out, in the college system that we have. We have excellent staff and faculty, we have facilities, and to now, all of a sudden, say to all the local boards that these are up for grabs with anybody who wants to compete against this I think is just not a good way to do business and training.
Mrs Cunningham: My experience in London is that Fanshawe has taken over some of the major training; for instance, in food services. They're filling that gap. They weren't chosen first of all to do it, but in the end they were the only group that could do it.
Mr Barner: That's a good point. We firmly believe, and from the union partner point of view, that in the long term we're going to be winners in training.
Mrs Cunningham: I do too.
Mr Barner: It's in the short term that we may well lose members, and that's what we of course don't want to see happen.
Mr Jackson: The thing that we have great concern over is the private trainers out there who will want to bid in and offer the courses that are going to be high-profit for them with low investment and leave the high-investment programs and courses to the colleges, those that would need to have massive cash infusion to create a lab or to buy a lot of technology so the learners can learn properly. That is a very real concern for us because really that's a bit of wrongheaded thinking, to let the college in the particular catchment just deal with those things that are going to be very expensive to train with.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We're out of time.
Mrs Cunningham: Perhaps I could ask about the whole issue of working with the community and the private sector like you're doing now. You'll still be, I think, very competitive if you continue your links, because if they're part of a program with you, then you'll be very competitive. Do you think I'm right in that regard?
The Chair: We're out of time; I'm sorry. Thank you very much for your appearance, Mr Barner and Mr Jackson, before the committee this morning.
Mr Barner: We thank you.
The Chair: Mr Martin, you wish to raise your question?
Mr Martin: Actually, I wanted to put some information on the record. I think I've done that in my questioning to OPSEU and I feel satisfied there.
The Chair: All right.
Mr Martin: However, I do have some questions that I'd like to put on the record for research in terms of what will come out of this and any attempt down the line to put together recommendations or whatever.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Martin: Given that the focus of the week has been, to some degree, on the question of CSAC and where it should be and certainly the ongoing role of the Council of Regents and the evolution of other organizations out there that seem to be, at this point in time, looking for a role of their own re the governance of the college system in the province and the very pointed recommendation that, for example, CSAC would better fit under the auspices of ACAATO, I still don't really fully understand, to be honest with you, some of how ACAATO operates and I have a few questions that I think would be helpful, if answered, for us. I do this for my own information, so that when we do get back to this and there's some discussion about it, I can participate more fully in that.
For example, what is the mandate of the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario? What is ACAATO's budget, where do its revenues come from and how many staff does it have? Does ACAATO have sufficient existing resources to meet the staffing and other resource needs of the College Standards and Accreditation Council?
Does ACAATO have the resources to provide services in French? Is ACAATO recognized by the Ministry of Education and Training through a memorandum of understanding? How many staff are there at the Council of Regents? How many staff involved in CSAC and PLA have been seconded from the college system? What is the membership of the College Standards and Accreditation Council?
If perhaps those could be answered, it would help me in any further discussion we might have around this whole question as we try to be helpful in the evolution of the college system and the Council of Regents and all of the other organizations that are very sincerely interested in its healthy future.
The Chair: Fine.
Mr Waters: Actually, I have a request written out. Mr Martin, do you have yours on paper that we can just give to --
Mr Martin: Yes.
Mr Bradley: Where are all these coming from?
Interjection: It's in Hansard.
Mr Waters: One of the things that I would like to know is a request that legislative research provide information to the committee on the college enrolment trends, including general enrolment levels, federal seat purchases like UI and that type of thing, WCB purchases from us, Jobs Ontario Training and that, and indeed what the funding mechanisms for these various types of programs are.
The Chair: Any further direction to our researcher in preparing the initial draft report? Any further business of the committee? If not, I'd like to thank the committee for their attendance and deliberations this week.
Mr Bradley: Do we meet next week?
The Chair: Next week we meet on another matter. Next week we deal with appointments to --
Mr Bradley: Ah, my favourite.
The Chair: -- the government agencies, boards and commissions. Thank you for attendance this week. The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1244.