Legislative Assembly of Ontario

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO

ORGANIZATION FOR QUALITY EDUCATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARDS' ASSOCIATION

CONTENTS

Monday 24 June 1996

Children's services

Family Service Association of Metropolitan Toronto

Joan Mesley, past president

Rosemarie Popham, director of social action; coordinator, Campaign 2000

Organization for Quality Education

John Bachmann, president

Ontario Public School Boards' Association

Lynn Peterson, president

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Président: Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)

*Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC)

Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)

*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)

*Johns, Helen (Huron PC)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Kennedy, Gerard (York South / -Sud L)

Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)

*Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC)

Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

*Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)

*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)

*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)

*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)

Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Fox, Gary (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings PC) for Mr Jordan

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Wildman

Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L) for Mr Gerretsen

Clerk / Greffière: Lynn Mellor

Staff / Personnel: Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

The Chair (Mr Richard Patten): I'm going to reconvene the standing committee on social development on standing order 125. We apologize for the delay, but we had a vote in the House and we must provide all the members with an opportunity to vote.

FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO

The Chair: Welcome to the hearings this afternoon. You have a full half-hour at your disposal and you can choose to divide that between your speaking presentation and questions from the members. Whatever proportion that is, we will divide up the time equally between the three parties.

Ms Joan Mesley: Thank you very much for this opportunity to be here. I'm Joan Mesley, past president of the board of Family Service Association. I also just might mention that I'm a single mom and was lucky enough to have some subsidized day care too, so I've experienced things from all sides.

I just want to tell you a little bit about Family Service Association. I hope you all have some idea about us, but I'll just fill in a little bit of the blanks.

We were founded in 1914, and last year we served over 15,000 individuals and families in the Metro area alone, those going through stress, transition or trauma. We have a very broad degree of programs. I'm not going to list them all, but they cover all areas, from individual counselling to group counselling to partnerships with community agencies, and we actually provide service in 22 languages.

We are committed to advocating for public policy framed in social justice, which strengthens individuals, families and communities. That's why we're here today. This is certainly a part of that, and it exemplifies our mission, which is strengthened families and individuals in just and supportive communities.

It naturally follows that we expect parents to take maximum responsibility for their children, but at the same time, every industrialized country has recognized that even in the best labour market conditions, government support for children is both appropriate and essential.

It is our belief that provincial government policy should recognize the economic and social responsibility of being a parent; promote early intervention in order to further the establishment of positive life circumstances and outcomes for children; recognize that it is the responsibility of government to support families in their essential roles; guarantee safety, adequate physical and emotional care and access to social and educational opportunity; and ensure that children have the first call on the province's resources, which is in compliance of course with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

One of our major concerns is that it appears that many of the decisions being taken are being made in the absence of clearly stated objectives and principles. If you do have them, they're not clear to us. We believe this is a critical omission and urge the committee to articulate these principles and objectives and to move us towards the development of criteria to guide future funding decisions in relation to children.

Questions that need to be addressed to draw up these criteria include:

What are the respective roles of parents and government in support of children?

What is the capacity of the voluntary sector to fund and provide services?

What are the costs of services versus the cost of not providing those services?

What are the benefits of providing services?

We recognize we have a role in that and are addressing that as well.

Young families today are at a particularly serious risk of permanent marginalization. This is not new. As you know, before your government was even elected, there was Project 2000 and it was seen as a most critical area for us to address. It is in these families that young children are most frequently being raised, with the young families.

FSA's brief speaks specifically to income security for families with children and the broad range of community services needed by families with children. We make two main points.

First, cuts by the Ontario government in children's services, supports to parents and income security will have potentially far-reaching and long-term impacts that cannot yet be measured. If there is a sincere interest in understanding the impacts, the government should work closely with existing coalitions that are attempting, with extremely limited resources, to monitor these impacts. Any evidence that children are suffering as a result must be reviewed very seriously and should result in consideration being given to restoring these services to previous funding levels.

In the short term, we urge the committee to place a moratorium on any further spending cuts that may impact on children. In the long term, we urge the committee to do two things: develop an impact assessment tool to apply to all government initiatives that determine the potential effect on our children, and explore the idea of establishing an Ontario child investment fund which is an earmarked fund to protect children from further cuts and to build an investment strategy for children in Ontario and for all our futures.

The second main point: The impacts of poverty are well-documented. The long-term costs to children are greater health problems, school dropout and unemployment. The long-term cost to Ontario will be greater disparity between rich and poor, which according to the World Bank results in less economic vitality. Those of you who read the Globe and Mail on the weekend probably saw an analysis of what's happening in California today, where we see that great extreme and the sudden cries that they must change it and reverse it, it's all gone much too far. I think we have a lot to learn.

1620

The Ontario government should make no further cuts in social assistance to families with children and should work with the other provinces and the federal government to begin to build a national strategy to reduce and prevent child poverty. This should include an integrated child benefit and strict enforcement of child support by the provinces.

I'm going to ask Rosemarie Popham to carry on from there.

Ms Rosemarie Popham: My name's Rosemarie Popham and I'm the director of social action at Family Service Association and the coordinator of a coalition of 50 organizations called Campaign 2000.

I'd like to speak briefly to the two components of our brief: first, to income security and, second, to community services. In regard to income security, I'd like to highlight two components. One is the private responsibility of parents, and the second is the responsibility of governments towards families raising children.

In relation to the private responsibilities of parents, we were very heartened by the federal government announcement in its budget that it was going to work with the provinces to enhance enforcement of child support for children. Family Service Association operates a program called Families in Transition through which we serve over 1,000 families each year who are going through separation and divorce and we're well aware that in Ontario fewer than 30% of child support orders are honoured.

Therefore we're very concerned to hear on the street, although this has not been confirmed, that the intention of the current government is to privatize the family support plan of Ontario and to reduce the efforts to enforce child support. We think this is antithetical to the direction we believe the government is committed to, which is to require parents to take the optimum responsibility. If indeed that is the direction of government, we caution that this is not in the best interests of children.

Secondly, in regard to the public responsibility for children, as Joan mentioned, in every industrialized country government takes responsibility for supporting families in their care for children.

Joan mentioned that the effects and impacts of poverty on children are well documented. Having reviewed the previous submissions, you have had people speak very knowledgeably and articulately to those, and we include them once again in our own brief.

Family Service Association did an analysis of the cuts on social assistance to children using a framework that we've developed over the years called the Checklist for Testing Government Policy and which we apply to all policies at all levels of government, not just the social assistance cuts. The results of our analysis are contained in appendix A. You will see that according to our checklist, the social assistance cuts failed to measure up to the expectations that we would have of good government policy and received a quite substantial failing grade of 2 out of 21 on the criteria we've developed.

The division bells began to ring.

The Chair: It's just a quorum call. We can continue on.

Ms Popham: I'm okay. Are you all okay?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms Popham: You look flummoxed.

The Chair: I'm okay and you're okay.

Ms Popham: In addition to our concern about the cuts which we have documented, we are further concerned about the release of a UNICEF report last week which provides yet further information about Canada's failure to address child poverty. The results of the UNICEF report are based on 1993 data, which is prior to the cuts by the current provincial government. It found that Canada ranks 17 out of 18 in the industrialized countries in addressing child poverty, that our income disparity between those who have and those who have not in terms of children and their wealth is greater than 16 other industrialized countries, and that our government expenditures are failing to address the issue of child poverty.

The example they gave is that both France and Canada would have the same rate of child poverty were it not for government expenditures, but with government expenditures, children in France move from number 25 to a position of about number 6 or 7, so government expenditures reduce child poverty by about 75%. In Canada, government expenditures reduced child poverty by one third and we are still second from the end. We don't have to guess who the bottom of the heap is: It's the US.

The reality is that every industrialized country is grappling with this and is doing better than Canada. That was evidenced prior to the social assistance cuts, so I'm very concerned about what they will mean.

I'd like to suggest what Ontario can do. Joan made reference to that. At the first ministers' conference on Friday the federal government and the premiers agreed that they would work to implement an integrated child tax benefit. This could be our first chance to really develop a hedge in the erosion of child poverty that we're seeing. Since 1989, child poverty has increased 35% in Canada. Unless we come up with a plan, it's just going to keep eroding. The labour market can't address this. The fact that there now is something on the table that Mr Harris, along with the other premiers, agreed to I think is a signal that we may be able to address this really urgent poverty issue. I see an opportunity for the committee to begin to send forth some really supportive signals around that.

The second issue we want to speak to is in terms of community services. As Joan said, Family Service provides a whole range of services to children. Other deputants before you have spoken eloquently to child welfare, to child care and to children's mental health services. We'd also like to draw your attention to the whole range of services that isn't specific to your agenda but is essential for parents who are not identified as part of your review. I'd like to mention a couple of them to help you understand what it's like for people in the community and people we see.

Before doing that, I want to say that in terms of child care, Family Service is on record as having supported an adequate, equitable, accessible child care system. In the current environment we urge that Ontario maintain its commitment to well-regulated child care, that including the current system of regulated family day care, we maintain the previous decade's commitment to making child care a welfare service, not a commercial service, and that Ontario maintain existing standards and mechanisms for enforcement.

In terms of other services, I know that this committee is concerned about impacts on children. Several organizations are really trying to monitor that. One that has done an excellent report you might want to access if you have not already is produced by Metro community services, the social planning council of Toronto. Released in May 1996, it couldn't incorporate the actual cuts because many of the agencies, when surveyed at the end of the year, had not yet received their budgets.

Their findings, just in terms of youth, were that when you examine the programs that are either likely to be cancelled or which are under review as a result of the provincial government cuts, 50% of all programs for youth, 55% of all programs for preschool children -- that doesn't include child care -- 51% of all programs for women, 50% of all programs for low-income families and individuals, 49% of all programs for ethnocultural groups and 43% of all programs for refugees and immigrants are either known to be cut or at risk of being cut. That's like the whole infrastructure of services in Metro.

Two programs I'd like specifically to speak to that we deliver are purchase of service for counselling for low-income families and programs related to wife assault. There's a great deal more detail in the brief which I hope you will refer to, because I'd like to leave some time for questions.

In terms of the purchase of service for counselling for families, this is a program that for many years was provided and funded by the Ontario government to provide counselling to families going through crisis. The program was defunded in October 1995 and those moneys are no longer available. Essentially, this means that these families are no longer eligible for this service from family counselling agencies, of which there are over 40 across Ontario. Either those families have to pay from their very limited resources or the agencies have to subsidize these programs from their very limited resources. The long and the short of it is that many families which are low-income are no longer receiving these services, so even in asking what the impacts are on these families, it's more difficult to tell because we aren't seeing them as much as we used to.

In terms of programs related to wife assault, there's extensive evidence about the implications of wife assault on children. A Toronto survey has documented that a child was present to witness the assault of his or her parent in over 68% of cases. A lot of kids are impacted by wife assault. The Ontario government has cut significant funding to counselling programs for women who are victims of wife assault, for men who voluntarily come to programs and for children who experience violence in their homes.

As a result, many children no longer receive the support either that they got secondarily because their parents were working through this until the parent is actually charged. What's happening now is that the parent is still coming into the system, the father is still coming into the system, but a much more expensive system than one that's available voluntarily.

1630

Finally, in terms of a recommendation about what to do, we have a suggested solution that we'd like to put before the committee. Every political party of whatever stripe has made a commitment verbally to children. There is mounting evidence, I think, before the committee and in everyday life that an increasing number of children are vulnerable. We would like to propose a solution that we believe would protect children from future funding cuts regardless of which government is in power. It's not a fleshed-out idea but something we would like you to think about.

It would take those expenditures for children in critical services that are now available to them as well as some services their parents access that benefit them and put them in a protected fund, a designated, earmarked fund that would not be subject to deficit reduction as other imperatives impinge on the moneys available. Perhaps the first deposit in the fund could be through existing resources for child care and child welfare and counselling for parents in wife assault programs, whatever, but something to guarantee that we're making an investment in children and not allowing their programs to continue to erode.

Ms Mesley: I have just a few comments in summary. Some reductions in funding in the past 12 months have resulted in the immediate elimination of some services to low-income families such as counselling aid and programs related to wife assault. These areas of service have been ignored in the review, yet you can recognize that they have serious impacts on children. In relation to child care, child welfare and children's mental health services, we are very concerned about the limitations on these services.

It is imperative to attempt to develop a realistic overview of the impacts and their consequences. Historically, the impacts of poverty have been extensively documented as negative and long-term. Reductions in social assistance will certainly exacerbate this.

We have involved service users in informing us about the impact of the cuts on their lives, and their stories are very disturbing. In addition, our presentation has been informed by statistical data around the impacts of increased poverty. As we prepared for this presentation, it occurred to us that there appears to be no government attempt to effectively monitor the impacts on children, nor is there a tool to help make informed decisions in the future. We believe that each of these should be developed immediately. I've said it before and I'm saying it again: Can we assume that this committee meeting is the first step in that direction? I hope so. We would certainly be interested in working with you if that were possible.

The Chair: Thank you for that wonderfully optimistic presentation. We have a little under nine minutes, two and three quarters of a minute per caucus. We will start with the government side.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Good afternoon. My question is for Ms Popham. At the beginning of your presentation you talked about developing an impact assessment tool to apply to all government initiatives. Would that apply to the debt and deficit as well, the effect that would have on children?

Ms Popham: Yes.

Mr Newman: What effect would previous governments' deficits and accumulated debts have on children's futures?

Ms Popham: You mean if we don't address them?

Mr Newman: Yes.

Ms Popham: If we address the debt and deficit without paying attention to what we're taking from current generations, the effect that will have on current generations I believe is quite negative.

Mr Newman: You spoke about the proposed child investment fund. Would you fund this through new and higher taxation on retail sales and property?

Ms Popham: I don't know. The question you've just asked is a really good one, "Would you include the debt and deficit, and what would be the impact?" I think the reality is, the debt and deficit was created by past generations, and they have benefited from strong social programs, at great cost to what's currently going on.

Mr Newman: Sure, to our children.

Ms Popham: Yes. But to make children now pay for the fact that we didn't collect enough revenues in the past or whatever your particular take on this, or you overspent, whatever -- there are different positions on this, but the bottom line is that now we've got this situation -- that doesn't seem to me to make sense. Your question whether you would need to raise more money -- underneath I assume you're asking, "Would you need more money to really invest in children?" The answer is yes, I believe you would. Obviously there's not significant money, therefore you would have to look at where those revenues would come from, so that would have to be part of the exercise.

Mr Newman: Is spending the answer to the problem that you see?

Ms Popham: When I look at France and I see what they've been able to do --

Mr Newman: Sure, but this is Canada, in all fairness, and this is Ontario. I'd like to get your thoughts on the budget where we've increased day care spending to $600 million, the highest level this province has ever seen. I'd like to know what your thoughts are on that.

Ms Popham: I think that's great; that's going in the right direction.

Mr Newman: And the child nutrition programs?

Ms Popham: Obviously I think they're great, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. When you put more money into those programs, you are going to have very strong outcomes: You're going to have children who benefit; you're going to have a stronger economy. I don't think we're debating that. If you're giving me examples of where there's more money, I'm going to go, "Yes, that'll work."

The Chair: I move to the official opposition.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good afternoon and welcome. Your presentation was really quite extraordinary. It was very detailed, and you've managed to touch on so many aspects that I wish we had more time to talk about. There are some things I wasn't aware of myself in terms of some services you provide that will no longer be available or because you have to start charging.

I'm thinking particularly of the purchase of service for counselling program. You make a very good point that if people are not going to be accessing that program because of the service charge you now have and perhaps will be accessing the system through OHIP, ultimately we're talking about larger costs. I think that's a really good point you're making, that by not looking at the programs on more of a long-term basis or on a larger basis, what appear to be cuts in the short term ultimately cost a lot more in the long term. I'm impressed by your presentation in terms of doing that.

Also, you remind us that when you have a government that makes a cut of 22% to people on social assistance, 50,000 of those people affected are children. I hope you're right as well that what we are trying to do through this particular committee studying cuts in children's services will be a step towards making some changes.

Anything specific? You have many elements that are so positive. Is there anything you want to leave us with? I've probably yakked on and left only about a minute for you to respond to anything.

The Chair: That's right, Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: Is there one overall point you'd want to make to us, even in the child benefit you were talking about, if you had to find one thing that should happen that would make a difference from now for the long term? Again, even to be fair to the government, there are only so many things that can happen at once. If there's one overall message you'd want to leave, because there are lots here, what would that be?

Ms Popham: Let me just have an (a) and (b) part. The first is to work with the federal government. It's not something the province can do on its own; however, Ontario could take leadership. We have in the past. I think it is very important that we work on the integrated benefit.

Second, we have to find a mechanism to protect children in Ontario in terms of service cuts. These are vitally important. I would suggest you look at options like some earmarked fund or whatever, but look at how we can do that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gravelle. Your time is up. We move to Mr Martin with the NDP caucus.

1640

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I apologize that I wasn't here for the beginning of your presentation. We were upstairs celebrating the arrival of our new party leader today and I wanted to be there for that.

Just briefly going through it and listening to the end of your presentation, it sounds like you've put together a very informative package, challenging and also constructive in what is presented. Your last comment about this being the beginning of something: I just don't know. I despair in fact that it's the beginning of anything. We're on this roller coaster that's going downhill. We've heard the impact to families and children documented in this place for the last few weeks as people have come forward. There just doesn't seem to be anything the government can present us with that talks to us about the impacts and how doing what we're doing now by way of taking money out plays out down the road in terms of what we will spend to fix what we've broken.

Ms Popham: There are some excellent mechanisms and work that has been done in that area. The children's defense fund has done some excellent work in the States, if you're interested. They have costed out --

Mr Martin: So that information is out there.

Ms Popham: Yes. It's American, but it gives some insights. They have actually done the work; it's quite rigorous. You can access that.

Mr Martin: We had a woman in here a week or two ago from the Indian friendship centre in Sault Ste Marie, which is my home community, where they have lost their community and family development worker and they've lost funding for their Little Beavers program. She was desperate that they might now take away the funding they have for their nutrition program. Mind you, we're assured the nutrition program will stay. That's a place they're putting money in, and like you, I'm thankful for that.

The final question I have for you, in light of what you've said and the need for us to be supporting kids and families, is, does it make any sense to take out of the pockets of the poor 21.6% of the money they use to feed kids at home, and then on the other hand put a portion of it back in terms of nutrition programs in schools and in other institutions so that kids can get fed who aren't being fed at home? Is that logical to you?

Ms Popham: I have two responses, and maybe Joan would like to respond in wrapping up.

It isn't logical from a social justice point of view; moreover, it isn't logical from an economic point of view. All of the research indicates, and the World Bank is certainly a credible reference, that the larger the gap you have between the haves and the have-nots, the less potential you have for economic vitality. A decision that takes money away from the poorest and at the same time, through the tax benefits, gives money back to those who have most is increasing that gap, and therefore decreasing our long-term potential for economic vitality.

In terms of the specifics about putting money into nutrition programs as opposed to giving parents more money so they can purchase the food programs for themselves, I would think that nutrition programs that are targeted to poor children don't have a great chance of long-term viability anyway. The nutrition programs that have worked in all those countries that have good school programs for nutrition are universal programs, and that's different than the direction we're going in. Programs targeted to poor kids don't often work in the long term; they lose political credibility.

The Chair: Thank you kindly. We're over our time, actually. I want to thank you very much for coming. It was a very fine presentation, very thoughtful, and the committee will certainly deliberate on your recommendations and thoughts.

ORGANIZATION FOR QUALITY EDUCATION

The Chair: I would like to call forward Mr Bachmann, who is president of the Organization for Quality Education. Mr Bachmann, you know the instructions. You have a half an hour and we'll divide up the time remaining for the three parties to ask questions of your presentations. Welcome today.

Mr John Bachmann: My name is John Bachmann. Thank you for giving our group, the Organization for Quality Education, pronounced OQE for short, a chance to speak to you today.

A little bit about OQE. We're an Ontario-based group of parents, teachers, principals, trustees, business people and post-secondary academics who are concerned about the state of kindergarten to grade 12, publicly funded schooling in Canada. While a great majority of our members are in Ontario -- we have approximately 1,100 members -- we also have members in every region of Canada and are working in concert with similarly minded groups outside the province, such as Teachers for Excellence in British Columbia as one example.

We are here today to address the possible effects of spending cuts on children in Ontario. My presentation will focus primarily on junior kindergarten, but must also touch on a few larger but inextricably linked issues.

Firstly, we need to ask a few questions. Is there a need for junior kindergarten? OQE feels there is a need for some form of early assistance, at least for disadvantaged children. The effectiveness, and especially the cost-effectiveness of preschool intervention for other children is questionable. That's even backed up with the Perry preschool experiment where the improvement in learning achievements is much more pronounced for the disadvantaged than it is for the more affluent students in that experiment. Whether this intervention should be junior kindergarten, as it has been delivered to date, is another issue.

Another question: Are children being hurt by the fact that school boards are dropping JK programs to cut costs? OQE's answer to that is yes and no. Yes, but we feel that disadvantaged Ontario children have been hurt for some time by a school system that has been unresponsive to their needs, and no, the cuts are not the decisive issue; they have simply served to highlight long-ignored problems and, OQE hopes, to act as a wake-up call.

If there is a need for, and a definite cost-benefit attached to, early childhood assistance on a targeted basis, how can this be met in a time of limited resources?

At this point we need to put our premises on the table. No doubt a number of you will disagree with these, but I have to let you know where we're coming from.

OQE does not believe that there are billions of untaxed dollars waiting to be harvested through changes to tax legislation in Ontario. We feel that, for the most part, individual citizens are now being taxed to their limits and possibly somewhat beyond, if the election results and Mr Harris's latest approval ratings are any indication. We also believe that, by and large, Ontario corporations are being taxed at the limits of what a competitive global economy will allow. Consequently, we feel as a society that we have to learn within our means and that means we must stop garnisheeing our grandchildren's wages as we have being doing for the past two decades.

If raising taxes is not an option, we have to start finding new ways to deliver desperately needed services like preschool programs for the disadvantaged. Yes, there are children in need, but those needs will not be met by partisan politicking. They will not be met if those within our education system refuse to relinquish positions of privilege and power.

We will take a giant step towards meeting the needs of Ontario's disadvantaged children when we admit that these needs must be met primarily through the family and through the community, not through government agencies or schools. As the management guru and social critic Peter Drucker argues, for the 21st century we need to set up a social sector to complement the traditional private and public sectors.

Whether it's JK or high school, we have to find new ways of getting the community back into our schools. That's going to be quite a challenge because for decades those in the ministry, board administrations and principals' offices have been patting concerned parents and alarmed employers and post-secondary educators on the head and telling us to keep baking cookies and leave teaching to the experts. The disdain for parents and other outside stakeholders that most public schools have has to be experienced first hand to be believed. I personally have experienced it and many other OQE members have experienced it.

It's also going to be quite a challenge because generally parents, most often both working, sometimes non-English speaking, are not clamouring to get into our schools. Not surprisingly, the greater the need for parents to get involved because of problems with their kids at school, the less likely it is to happen. But for the sake of our children and our society, we have to find new ways to get this involvement.

In this light, getting families and the community involved in schools sounds positively utopian. But OQE feels such a paradigm shift -- please pardon the use of the buzz phrase, but I think it's really appropriate here -- is attainable but does admit that we're talking about a changing course that, while it must start today, will likely take a generation to complete. In the meantime, to children suffering as we sit in this room, this is all just so much philosophical gobbledegook.

1650

What specifically can we do today in the Ontario school system to deflect three- and four-year-olds from a path headed for the welfare merry-go-round and how can we do it with ever fewer resources?

First, we have to get rid of the top-down, ministry-to-principal bureaucracy that is an impediment to substantive change. A highly politicized and ideological bureaucracy in school board offices and at the ministry, trying to react in a world which is currently doubling its information base every 18 months -- that's every six months in the computer industry -- won't work. Let communities define their own schools on non-sectarian and non-racial bases by enabling charter schools within the public system. Experience in many jurisdictions, from the slums of Los Angeles to middle-class New Zealand neighbourhoods, has shown that charter schools draw in community resources and bring new approaches to old problems.

Second, let these charter schools experiment not only with program focus and instructional methods, but with organizational structure as well. We can't afford to have teachers costing more than $70,000 a year, salary plus benefits, handling classes of nine-year-olds. The prospect of having them care for four-year-olds is nonsensical.

As in other professions such as law and medicine, we have to find ways to leverage the efforts of increasingly beleaguered teaching professionals. Perhaps teaching masters could oversee groups of classroom instructors, the latter drawn from our large pool of overeducated and underemployed generation Xers. Unconstrained by bureaucratic shackles, a community may decide to offer JK and kindergarten, not in the school but in local community centres, using volunteer and part-time paid parental involvement. The money saved could be used to fund more intensive and earlier remediation for troubled children in grade school.

These are just a few of the ideas that have worked in other jurisdictions. They can work in Ontario.

Third, we must bring enhanced accountability to our schools. Education is not a simple process. We will never get complete agreement on what constitutes an appropriate education for everyone, but we can agree on some tangible learning results: literacy, numeracy and an understanding of the historical, societal and scientific context within which we live, all identified through clearly defined learning objectives. Once these objectives are defined and curriculum prepared -- which by the way can be done in a matter of months, because we don't have to reinvent the wheel. These materials are readily available in numerous other jurisdictions.

That's exactly what the American Federation of Teachers just went through, that exercise of collecting material from around the world, putting it in a package and getting it out into American schools. I'm not saying we should emulate everything that's going on in American schools, but that's probably one pretty good idea.

Once these objectives are defined, we must test to see how each student is doing. We must publish the results of these tests on at least a by-school basis to allow us to learn what works and what doesn't and to target remediation at students early in their school careers. Contrary to the view of those educators who criticize standardized testing as unfair to disadvantaged students, these students are the greatest beneficiaries of increased accountability.

Fourth, we must subject all levels and parts of the system to a sunset analysis. OQE's suspicion is that most elected boards of trustees and much of the Ministry of Education and Training would have trouble justifying their continuance upon a thorough review. This would allow the redirecting of substantial resources to problem areas. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying there are incompetent, incapable people at the ministry and at the board. There are very capable and talented people there, but those talents can be better directed in other parts of the system where they will provide much better effect.

Ladies and gentlemen, Ontario preschool children are suffering as we speak. As a province, we literally can't afford to cling to outdated, power-group-based paradigms that say: "We're all right, Jack. Just send more money." We need substantive changes such as charter school legislation that will unlock the resources that are already within our communities, but presently shut out of our schools. The children of Ontario need your leadership and action on these issues.

The Chair: We begin our questions with the official opposition.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): If you had one particular recommendation, one that would alleviate the problem, what would it be, in your view?

Mr Bachmann: One recommendation?

Mr Sergio: Yes, that you would make to the government.

Mr Bachmann: I think it would be to pass legislation enabling charter schools, because that's planting a seed that I think will blossom in thousands of ways that we can't predict yet.

Mr Sergio: So privatizing schools?

Mr Bachmann: We don't consider that -- no, this would be within the public system.

Mr Sergio: Within the existing system?

Mr Bachmann: Within the public system. You allow communities to charter their own schools within the public system.

Mr Sergio: No control, no supervision?

Mr Bachmann: The control is that you hold them accountable for the results. You will test them to make sure that the kids are learning what they have to learn.

Mr Sergio: What mechanism would you put in place to see that that is working properly, effectively, to the satisfaction of parents and government?

Mr Bachmann: By testing that the instructional outcomes have been achieved and reporting those instructional outcomes publicly.

Mr Sergio: So you want to have a pre-testing mechanism in place, let's say?

Mr Bachmann: Yes. Well, you'd have to have one for each grade level, subject area and so on, yes.

Mr Sergio: You wouldn't consider that a sort of "Let's go private and pay your own way"?

Mr Bachmann: I don't see how we're making anybody pay. The parents would send their children to either the local neighbourhood school or if they chose to send them to one of the charter schools, they could do that. That would be their choice.

Mr Sergio: You're saying that this can be done through the present school system, if you will.

Mr Bachmann: It has been done in many other jurisdictions through the present school system.

Mr Sergio: But you're saying, then, do it through the same system but not with taxpayers' dollars.

Mr Bachmann: Oh, you'd use taxpayers' dollars. What you do is you bypass the ministry, you bypass the boards and you allow the community, parents and so on to define the school as they see fit. They staff it, set up the program whichever way they would like, but at the end, though, the children have to learn specific things that the province mandates as necessary.

Mr Sergio: But you're just saying, "Don't get the government involved; don't let the ministry get involved." How are you going to do that if you don't get the ministry, the government involved?

Mr Bachmann: I'm not saying don't get the ministry involved at all. I'm saying that you have a much more limited role to play in a charter school scenario, but they still have a very valuable role to play.

Mr Gravelle: I'm certainly curious about it. I'm curious as to how they work. You mentioned jurisdictions where they do have them and where they have worked. I apologize, I'm not familiar with them, so I'm curious as to what jurisdictions. You mentioned New Zealand and I think the States. Tell me about some of the charter schools in some of those places and how they work. It strikes me as being a difficult thing to monitor, because if I've got it right, there's no school board, there are no trustees; it's parent-run in every sense, which --

Mr Bachmann: It's a council of parents and teachers.

Mr Gravelle: Yes, which superficially sounds like an interesting idea, but I haven't given it obviously enough of an in-depth sort of look at it. Tell me the schools that work or that you would say work?

Mr Bachmann: Certainly New Zealand, back in either 1988 or 1989, basically chartered its whole system. It is working in New Zealand. The teachers are still getting used to the new order, but I have spoken personally with people who are on school councils in that scenario and they do say it works and they're very happy with the education they're getting.

Mr Gravelle: Is there a statistical confirmation of that? One hates to always pull out statistics, and I'm just as critical as others when they're used in a number of ways, but has there been some study of the system, in other words? If it was 1989, one would be curious to see if there are some results that show this system actually works better or works the same.

Mr Bachmann: Okay. I know of one, for example, in the slums of Los Angeles, a wonderful woman named Yvonne Chan set up a charter school and I would be very glad to get you the achievement test results before and after chartering for that school. There are a number of instances like that, but that's the one that comes to mind because they've actually made a videotape of her situation. Maybe we can share that with you as well. These are slum kids, and they were achieving, by the end of the changeover to the charter process, at middle-class levels.

Mr Gravelle: I'm sure the committee would be pleased to get that information.

Mr Bachmann: I would be very glad to forward that to you.

1700

Mr Gravelle: Is your dream or plan that this would be something that could literally work throughout the entire public school system? Is that what your aim is?

Mr Bachmann: Yes, but we don't feel that we know what's right for everybody. We see this as being kind of an incubator and we see charter schools as playing a role in pockets of the system. By acting as experimental sites for new ideas and so on, that they would then spread through the rest of the system.

In Canada, probably 80% of parents will still choose to send their kids to the local neighbourhood school, which is great, but wouldn't it be great if that local neighbourhood school had the benefit of all of these ideas that were being tried in these experimental sites?

Mr Martin: You make some pretty dramatic recommendations re changes to the system of education that we've built up in Ontario over a fair number of years, some by trial and error, but mostly, I think, based on a lot of work done by a lot of concerned, interested, well-educated, well-intentioned individuals. I would argue anywhere that the system of education that we have in Canada and in Ontario today is the best anywhere.

Mr Bachmann: The international test results don't bear that out, sir.

Mr Martin: Well, they do. They do when you consider that in Canada we educate everybody. In some of the other jurisdictions that sometimes do better in particular areas, it's very discriminatory in terms of who gets to go to school and who doesn't and who gets to move forward and who doesn't.

Some of the information I have on the actual success of what's happening in places like New Zealand and New Jersey and some other jurisdictions where charter schools are becoming the norm is in fact not supportive of the finding that you're presenting here today. It's quite the opposite and I will, if the researcher or the Chair would like, bring some information to this committee that will show that in fact is the case.

In some of the communities in these jurisdictions, what you're finding is anybody who can afford education with this new system is moving out to the suburbs and the inner cores of our communities are being left to their own resources to find ways to educate the children who live there, and it in fact isn't happening. What's happening in places like New Zealand and New Jersey is the leading industry is in the law and security area, because people are literally killing each other over the scarce resources that are now available.

Who is the OQE exactly? Could you explain to me the organization and how it's set up, who the executives are, whom you're accountable to, what meetings you have, how information flows, all that kind of thing?

Mr Bachmann: We have a board of directors and we have an executive that meets every month. We meet in Toronto. We have members from, as I said before, all across Canada. It was started by a school trustee, a professor at OISE and some concerned parents who were getting nowhere trying to get some basic questions answered in their local schools.

Our raison d'être is to provide information on what is happening. With all due respect, you may think we have a great system in Ontario, but it can be better. It can be very much better in things as fundamental as reading, where a phonics approach to reading has been fought by the ministry for decades here in Ontario in the face of all research to the contrary.

What we tried to do was to say we think that we can do better in Ontario and we have studied research in different jurisdictions and tried to promote that. We certainly spread it among our own members. We have four or five newsletters a year and I would be glad to send you a copy of that. I think you'll see that we are very reasoned and very meticulous in our research and we're trying to promote change on a reasoned basis -- and on a cooperative basis as well. We're not trying to be confrontational, but we are encountering a lot of confrontation.

Mr Martin: What research have you done? It would have been interesting and helpful actually had you come here today with a bit more than a page of information, with documented research to back some of --

Mr Bachmann: Thank you for pointing that out. I was going to have a preamble before my statement that I know what it's like on these committees. You come and you're absolutely snowed under by paper, and I was going to mention that there are many studies. Joe Friedman in Alberta is the leading proponent of charter schools. He has amassed a wealth of data on the charter experience around the world. Harold Stevenson, a professor, has been looking at international comparative studies. All of this information is available.

We go through about that much research in a year at our meetings and I could have brought it, but there's not too much point. I would much rather find out what it is that you're interested in. I've already highlighted a couple of things, a video on the charter school experience. The fact that you have some negative reports on what's happening with charter schools, I will try to counter that with positive reports that I have. But I assure you there is a lot of data behind the contentions that are made there.

Mr Martin: I just say that it would be helpful to our researcher if in fact we had that information so that we could include it.

The Chair: We'll be happy to receive it, yes.

Mr Bachmann: Okay.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a couple of questions here that relate to specifics that you have raised in the paper that you've presented us with. In the summary there, your first point about the "preschool children are suffering educationally" and then in the middle column of the part below, "Is there a need for junior kindergarten?" you suggest there is a need for some form of early assistance.

I just wondered if you'd comment on the fact that there has been a fund, currently at $10 million to go to $20 million, to deal with children who have speech and hearing problems and if you're aware of that as an initiative of this government?

Mr Bachmann: I wasn't aware of that as we were focusing on the junior kindergarten issue specifically, but that's certainly a very laudable development.

Mrs Munro: The second one I should ask you about is the children at risk program, which is looking at children at risk between the ages of zero and six, and again a $10-million investment in that group. I just wondered if you were aware of that kind of investment that we were making.

Mr Bachmann: No. Again I'm aware that there are initiatives that are being undertaken, but you have to admit that $10 million doesn't go a long way with hundreds of thousands of children. So that's why our group is looking at what it is that we can do on a more global level, but certainly that's a very positive development.

Mrs Munro: I would just point out that this is of course identified children at risk and, as you yourself have pointed out in your own presentation, you don't necessarily have to deal with all children. That is the intent of this fund as well, to deal with children at risk.

I wondered also if you could comment on whether you believe that children are overorganized. We hear a great deal about the need to shepherd children into situations of organization at a very early age. I wondered if your research shows any kinds of results in terms of putting children in those kinds of organized situations at an early age.

Mr Bachmann: Not specifically on that topic, but if you take a look at the Perry preschool experiment and a few others like it, the socialization process has a positive effect on the disadvantaged children. I guess part of that is the organizational aspect of it.

Mrs Munro: But you identified, quite correctly of course, that that project was designed specifically for disadvantaged children. I just wondered whether or not you had any evidence that would suggest other children -- do we give our children time to dream? Do we give our children time to be creative? That's the question I'm asking you.

Mr Bachmann: Probably not as much as we should, but at the same time, once they get into grade school, we maybe give them too much. I think at the kindergarten and junior kindergarten levels we tend to overorganize that. Certainly by the time the kids are at grades 2, 3 and 4, we find far too much dreaming going on and far too little focus on learning the basic skills that they're going to need to cope later on.

Mr Newman: In your summary, in the last point, you speak about eliminating elected school board trustees and other ministry programs as a way of saving resources that could be redirected. What about reducing the number of school boards, what we'd like to see there with the Sweeney report?

Mr Bachmann: First of all, we addressed the issue of the elected boards of trustees. We see properly constituted school councils as being the logical replacements for the elected boards of trustees. Now, if on top of that it makes sense to look at the administrative shells we have in place that those trustees purportedly control -- if anything, I think we should be decentralizing a little more; I don't think we need quite as much in the way of large boards.

Already there have been moves made to get curriculum development out of the school boards, because you've got a tremendous amount of duplication going on, and then you've got duplication going on in the ministry because they're trying to reinvent curricula available on the Internet, through all sorts of other places right now. We've got people sitting within a few blocks of this place grinding out millions of dollars worth of work that's already been done somewhere else. Yes, there are probably some opportunities for cutting administrative costs in the system in that way.

The Chair: Mr Bachmann, thank you kindly for your stimulating and provocative presentation. We would certainly welcome any studies you have at your fingertips that address the issue the committee faces; we'd be delighted to receive those.

Mr Bachmann: I'll make sure you get them.

1710

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARDS' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: I call the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, president Lynn Peterson, Camille Quenneville, senior policy analyst, and other guests. Welcome. We regret the delay this afternoon, but we had a vote in the House, and all members have to have the opportunity to vote.

The procedure I believe you're familiar with, because you have been before us on a number of occasions. You have half an hour; whatever time remains from your presentation, we will divide equally between the three parties. I look forward to your presentation. Please proceed.

Mrs Lynn Peterson: Thank you for allowing us to be here today. The other person with me today is Mike Benson. He's the executive director of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association.

We'd like to talk to you about what we believe should be a priority in this province, and that's the young people of this province. The primary functions of the public school system are teaching and developing within young people the knowledge, skills and attitudes that lead to a successful transition to adulthood. However, there is no longer any doubt of the correlation between family characteristics and school success or between the occurrence of social, emotional and behavioural problems and academic achievements.

Needy children, poorly housed children, malnourished children, children with ineffective parenting, children of single parents, mentally, physically and sexually abused children are more likely to perform poorly in school than other children and are at higher risk of dropping out. This pattern can become cyclical.

Those who do not complete high school are at a greater risk for unsuccessful transition to adulthood than those who do complete high school. School dropouts are more likely to remain or become poor and more likely to experience chronic unemployment. In addition, the rate of incarceration among dropouts is significantly higher than among those who continue their education. Mr Robert Thompson, president of the Ontario Contract Custody Observation and Detention Association of Thunder Bay, has stated: "Canada has the highest rate of youth incarceration in the industrialized world. Young offenders must be seen as children at risk; 90% of these children in custody have been victims of abuse by a trusted figure."

Across Ontario, school boards are becoming increasingly concerned about vulnerable children and are assessing the scope of the problem and seeking new policy and program directions to meet the needs of children and adolescents with social, emotional and behavioral problems. Recent cutbacks to the education system will exacerbate this problem.

School cannot and should not ignore the needs of vulnerable children. By default, schools have assumed an ever-expanding responsibility to respond to the needs of all children. Needy children cannot be ignored. However, the capacity of the school system to provide the services that would be helpful to children at risk for social, emotional and behavioural problems is sorely limited. We have neither the formal mandate nor the resources. The dilemma is that if the needs of vulnerable children are not met, they are less likely to learn. If they do not learn well, the consequences for the individual and society can be severe.

We acknowledge that it is not only the education system that is competing for its share of insufficient resources. However, in an all-too-familiar story, as other sectors find their budgets curtailed or face the need to reallocate resources, it is often preventive or early intervention services that are cut. Schools end up providing services because everyone has eliminated them from their budget.

The recent report of the Working Group on Education Finance Reform stated that 360 million tax dollars -- that's local property tax dollars -- are being spent funding health and social supports for schools. At the same time, we are faced with a public response that appears to say that education costs are rising too rapidly.

While it has been suggested that drastic cuts to school board budgets can be absorbed by cutting a bloated administration, the education finance working group report that came out last week stated that administration costs make up only 5% of the school boards' budgets. The most recent data of the Education Relations Commission state clearly that there have already been significant cuts in administration. Compared to 1993, in 1995 enrolment has increased by 2.19%; supervisory officers have been cut by 12.25% and consultants by 23.13%. These figures do not include the net result of the social contract or any further cuts that are pending. Most school boards have conducted massive restructuring of their central board offices, and while trustees have always tried to focus school board resources on the classroom, it is obvious from these figures that serious cutbacks will continue to affect the classroom.

As of now, the effects in the classroom are becoming more and more apparent. We have recently surveyed our member boards to see what the provincial government reductions in the area of social and health supports to the classroom have been. They include the fact that staff levels have been reduced, with no increase despite growth in student population. In Halton, the board will be reducing its psychologist and psychometrist staff by 25%. The Leeds and Grenville board has reduced its staff by one psychologist, resulting in less service.

There have been either reduced or cancelled services where boards are depending on social service agencies to make up the difference. In Huron, the board of education has made an innovative agreement with the local children's aid society to share services of social workers. The Nipissing board will not be replacing their social worker. Many boards don't have social workers to begin with, specifically the small rural and northern boards; they have never existed in those schools, and if they're cancelled in other parts of the community, they have an even greater problem.

The cancellation of junior kindergarten has found its way into more than 20 boards of education across the province. That's about 25% of public boards in this province.

There has been elimination of teaching assistants and support services, and that means less one-on-one intervention. In Niagara South, the board has reduced its staff by seven education assistants, and the Nipissing board has cut back four education assistants. There will be less support for students and teachers. There are fewer teaching assistants, which has removed many one-to-one care situations that previously existed. In Leeds and Grenville they are having serious difficulties meeting the needs of their exceptional students. I would think you would find that in many boards across the province.

There are waiting lists for some services, and some services just don't exist in some places. There has been a revision of program delivery to accommodate these changes. The North York Board of Education has reduced the size and the site locations for summer school. In Lincoln, they have reduced the number of speech-language therapists and audiologists, leading to an increased waiting time for assessment.

There is less money for supplies, activities, equipment and building renovations for special-needs students. In Oxford, they have had to eliminate all building modifications that are required for their exceptional students.

There is reduced expertise and reduced quality of service and program. In Middlesex, they have reduced all of their ESL/FSL teaching positions, which has resulted in a reduced level of expertise.

There is less integration and there are more students with severe emotional and behavioural problems in regular classrooms. In Oxford, that board has reduced its teaching assistants by six as part of an overall staff reduction, resulting in less support available to meet the needs of exceptional students.

There has been increased class size for specialized programs. In Waterloo they'll have to increase their class size for these programs due to the loss of one teacher in itinerant special education and 0.5 in developmental education.

1720

Many boards across this province are looking at new and different ways of attempting to provide special education to their students. They've modified programs and they're going to attempt to put in new types of services. In all cases, it has reduced service. We're going to try and see what we can do in places like Lakehead to provide a different way of providing those services.

In terms of children's mental health, OPSBA believes that the more recent studies documenting the size and scope of mental health problems among Ontario's children and their relationship to poor school performance make the redesign of the delivery of children's services an urgent priority.

Dr Freda Martin of the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centres, who appeared before this committee a couple of years ago, stated:

"The broader context for children's mental health must always be recognized: Poverty and inadequate living conditions, abuse, and inadequate parenting and stimulation in the family do not necessarily directly cause mental health problems, but these are all part of the perpetuation of cycles of abuse and disadvantage."

Section 27 is a regulation under the Education Act that governs the province's transfer payments to boards and provides for the operation by local school boards of schools in hospitals, women's shelters, homes for unwed mothers and similar agencies and institutions. The local board is then reimbursed for the cost of these programs by the province because many of the students are involuntary non-residents of the board providing the service.

As this funding is cut, boards lose the ability to serve these students in these facilities. These students, many of whom suffer from mental health disorders, lose the safety net that education provides. Recently, the Simcoe County Board of Education lost six treatment programs and 48 student placements due to cutbacks in section 27 program funding. I've tried to find out what happened to these young people. I don't know, and I certainly hope someone here could tell me.

The call for more attention to the area of children's mental health is not new. OPSBA concurs with many experts in the field who recognize the dilemma that children's mental health services are not a priority for any ministry, and they haven't been.

I worked in a psychiatric hospital 20 years ago. Children's mental health was not a priority for anyone then, and when I went back to that same hospital in 1988, I did not see that anything had changed. The children of this province are not being served in terms of mental health.

Because of this, it has often been overlooked. There are as many as 7,000 children currently on waiting lists, and while that figure fluctuates slightly year to year, it is extraordinary and it is shameful. If it were a physical health epidemic, the province would be forced to act immediately. We renew our call on this government to coordinate the work of the ministries of health, community and social services, and education and training to address this most serious issue, and it is a serious issue.

We recommend that the government coordinate the work of the ministries of health, community and social services, and education and training, and address the serious issue of children's mental health.

In terms of junior kindergarten, the importance of the early years in children's subsequent education achievement and overall development is well documented. OPSBA recognizes that high-quality early childhood education can be beneficial to young children, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Royal Commission on Learning states:

"Excellent early childhood education enhances their understanding of the value and centrality of formal learning; it expands teachers' expectations of children's capacities and parents' expectations of teachers' one-on-one involvement with their children. Recent research shows that children, both those who are privileged and those who are disadvantaged, benefit from high-quality early schooling of this kind."

Bill 34 has made junior kindergarten a permissive program. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association urges this government to proceed as quickly as possible with its review of alternative staffing. As early education programs have been proven essential preparation for students entering primary education, school boards must be able to explore alternative methods of delivering and staffing in order to maintain this valuable program. Many school boards have reluctantly had to cancel junior kindergarten because of the changes in funding. This is especially difficult in northern Ontario, where very few, if any, other early childhood education programs exist.

Once again, we ask this government to proceed as quickly as possible with its previously announced review of alternative staffing and to complete its review of junior kindergarten and make public its findings. In addition, OPSBA requests that the government work with its education partners and school boards to determine the best method of providing this service.

This is a proud moment: Success by Six. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association recognizes the role it must play in working with other partners on behalf of children. We are therefore delighted to announce our new partnership with the United Way of Greater Toronto in developing the Success by Six program.

This program began in Minneapolis six years ago with tremendous support from the Honeywell Corp and Dr James Renier, former president and CEO of Honeywell. The first Success by Six program was a community initiative in early childhood development that is part of a larger United Way program called Community Works. Since its inception in Minneapolis, there are approximately 100 locations across the United States and two in Canada where the Success by Six program has been adapted by local communities.

Community Works brings together innovative partnerships with business, education, government, labour and non-profit organizations. This program is a long-term preventive strategy which includes funded programs, advocacy, community partnerships, grass-roots participation and public awareness campaigns.

Therefore, we recommend that the provincial government strive to coordinate children's services more effectively and that it continue to work with its partners in ensuring the most effective system possible for the children of our province.

While we recognize the need for the province to deal with the provincial deficit, we urge careful consideration of the impact of policy decisions on our young people. Study after study indicates that preventive programs are cost-effective and an investment in a prosperous and productive society. All stakeholders must be given careful consideration of program changes to ensure that the needs of students are met. The government must ensure that the many, many barriers to effective coordination of services and program delivery are removed.

We look forward to our continued partnership and working with this government.

Mr Martin: Thank you for your presentation and for coming today and for your continued interest in public education in Ontario. I don't think there's anybody around the table who doesn't recognize the very valuable contribution of your organization, as it represents every community in Ontario in a very democratic way, in its structure and in the way it gathers information and ultimately in the way it passes that information on.

I don't disagree with any of your recommendations. I think they're appropriate, and if we were to get at them and get some of them done, we would find ways to make better use of the resources we have.

I know you've been struggling for quite a while now, even when we were in government, with diminishing resources. We took probably about $1 billion out of your funding, which you dealt with and worked with and found ways to work around. Certainly what you're getting now by way of reduction is another challenge to you.

It seems, though, that there are folks out there who think there is a simpler, more direct answer to all the problems we face. They point to our system as being less than perfect. I don't think anybody would disagree that the system needs improving -- as life changes, as the challenges change, as the world changes, there are things we could be doing differently -- but to suggest for a minute that our system is not one of the best in the world, I would argue with. I would like some comment from you on that.

I would also like some comment from you on the suggestion that maybe charter schools will be the panacea that will solve all the difficulties we face at the moment.

1730

Mrs Peterson: Thank you for that. No, I'm not going to challenge you about whether public education in Ontario is the finest. It is, but it also can improve. Everything changes. There is nothing that sits still. Imagine a world without change. I can't. The fact of the matter is, we can move forward.

I'm not sure that charter schools are the answer to anything. Community involvement in schools? Absolutely. Is it happening? Certainly, in different ways in different communities, in response to community needs.

For me to answer you as clearly as possible, I'll talk to you about my own board, the Lakehead board. My board has had a school improvements program in place for about six years now. It is a focus on the learner and is very much driven by the parents in the parent group that runs the schools. Quite frankly, policy memorandum 122 was a step back for our school improvement teams in terms of what they have the ability within the schools to do. Our school improvement program is based on high expectation and standards for our children and community involvement. There is a way to do this in every community.

Charter schools are an ideology. There are certainly some places that say it works, and I suspect in New Zealand it may work to some degree. Our latest discussion with folks from New Zealand, and this was within the last week, was that they work in about 50% of the schools. You have to remember that these are elected bodies in every school; they are paid; they have support staff. There's also the issue of some schools charging quite heavy user fees to go to those charter schools.

Public education in Ontario is a system open to every child. It's universal access. Whether or not we could have charter schools the way they were described earlier -- when I listened to them, they sounded more like the alternative schools that already exist across this province. I don't think there's a school out there that wouldn't do better with more parent involvement.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): First of all, I want to talk about the children's mental health issue. I think your point was that never have we had enough funding in children's mental health and we need to move forward. From the standpoint of this government and the Ministry of Health, which owns and operates many of the psych facilities and liaises with seven or 10 children's facilities, the funding we have cut strictly has been 2% this year, 3% next, all of that having to come out of administration and all being reinvested back into children's mental health services in Ontario.

I think we've done at least a little bit to help out the situation in children's mental health in Ontario. As much as I recognize that your problem was a funding issue from forever in government, I think there have been some changes that will help in children's mental health, as small as they may be, but I think that's important.

Being a member from Huron county, I'd like to thank you for the little spin there for the Huron County Board of Education, but Huron county has substantially different funding from many of the other boards in the province. As a result, I believe they're a forerunner in shared services and working with other groups.

As you know, in the public board we spend approximately $5,500 per student and in Toronto they spend up to $9,000 per student on education. I believe that what we have here is what you'd call an excellent example of boards liaising and partnering with social service groups, but in effect that only happens in areas where they've been forced to, like my board, which is incorrectly funded as a result of years and years of inadequacies and government's failure to put a price for education on each student that's fair and equitable. Do you want to comment on that?

Mrs Peterson: I'd like to comment on both your points. I appreciate anything this government or any government has done in terms of making the plight of children with mental health problems a little easier. The fact is that it's never been a priority for any government.

One of the things we need very much to do is to get health, education and community and social services working in a more integrated manner. I believe there are places where there's duplication of services, and that could be eliminated. There are also many places where the children are still falling through the cracks. I think the only way that can be done is carefully, in terms of assessing what programs are actually being delivered by whom and taking a look at it very carefully, filling in the gaps and removing the duplication. I think we can provide services to our children far better and I think we would, if our children were a priority. We all talk about kids coming first. There are days when I wonder if any of us truly mean it. I find it really regretful.

In terms of sharing and cooperative services, I think you will find that the majority of boards in this province have done superb work around cooperation. Most of it in the past, I agree with you, has been strictly out of the need to survive. Northern boards have cooperated forever because they've had to share resources. I use curriculum councils east and west as an issue. They only get about $500 a board for curriculum development, which is something that could or should be done provincially, but that doesn't give anybody enough money to develop anything. So what they have done for decades is pool their dollars. That's a cooperative service in terms of driving curriculum that meets local needs, reflects the local community and is cost-effective.

On your comment about boards that spend more or less, I know there's been a hue and cry about some of the larger boards spending more dollars. I also have to ask the reverse side of the question: Is it because small boards like Huron or Lakehead or Shining Tree or Caramat don't have access to the supports that the larger communities have? We don't have psychologists, psychometrists, social workers. They do not exist. The Lakehead board is a very large board for northern Ontario. It serves 52% of the land mass -- the largest board in northwestern Ontario. When the funding wasn't quite so tight, we actually had a line item, for three budgets in a row, for two psychologists and a speech pathologist, because we needed them. We never hired them because they won't come north.

So there's a flip side to all the assumptions in terms of who spends what. We have to be very careful when we look at the spending per child. First, what are the situations these boards find themselves in? I walked into the Toronto board several years ago; I believe my board has some issues, but I found a board that was writing curriculum in over 50 languages because it was necessary. That costs money.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much for coming. Before I ask you a question, I want to congratulate you, Lynn, on your election as president of the association. I think they're lucky to have you. Lynn and I are both from Thunder Bay, so it's great to see you.

Mrs Peterson: Thank you.

Mr Gravelle: When this standing order began, when we began the process back in December -- and of course it is about the impact of cuts to children's services -- this was before the $400 million in cuts that went through to school boards. We felt already that there was a high level of concern and reason to bring this issue forward. Some of the issues you're bringing forward today simply add to the level of concern.

It's important, especially because we don't have a lot of time left today even to ask many questions, to bring it down to an understanding of what it means for smaller boards and humanize it. For example, I learned today about the Fort Frances board. My understanding is that in terms of their social supports, they are literally all gone. I want to know if one of you can confirm that and explain to the committee -- and you are our last presenter too, so I think it's important -- what that means. Is it true that in terms of the Fort Frances board, their social supports, psychologists -- there are none? This is what I heard. If so, what impact does this have? I must admit, in terms of your presentation, it strikes me that the impact will be quite profound.

Mrs Peterson: Yes, you're right about the Fort Frances board. And it goes deeper than that: They have no teacher-librarians left; their one and only French consultant is gone; their one and only vice-principal is gone; and worse, considering the topic we're covering today, their guidance counsellors are gone. I find that really difficult.

1740

We can identify the children out there who need help and yet we are taking away services. This is pre-social contract. That $400 million annualizes into $800 million. It is difficult. Lakehead board right now is going to be contracting out for those services. We're on a waiting list with the local hospitals. All of you I'm sure are aware that places like Marathon didn't even have doctors. I don't know what they're doing for services for their children.

Mental health services, social services are not something that's a priority, and it's difficult for every board as they cut back. People say, "You've got so many people outside the classroom." Those are support to these children. These children are our future.

I heard a question earlier about leaving these children with a debt. There's a balance here. My generation didn't handle things very well, but handing that problem over and making my grandchildren, who are in the system now -- four of them; three more at home -- I'm not willing to allow my grandchildren to pay for that. There has got to be a balance. We have to handle this very carefully. Getting the deficit under control is doing things right. We also have to do the right things.

Mr Gravelle: What is so alarming too is that in some ways it's very difficult to truly assess the costs. If you look at it strictly in terms of dollars, decisions had to be made, but in terms of the costs down the line, they could be very profound and we really don't know what they are, especially when there was a system in place that was more sensitive and was dealing with them and that one could probably prove was improving the world in a really positive way in terms of children.

That's what I find most upsetting about those particular losses, that you can't necessarily assess them. Certainly one of the things I try to do in my role is to get the government to recognize that a lot of the decisions it makes have an impact that we can't necessarily assess. I know they are good people over there and caring people in a lot of regards and I don't think they necessarily understand what the impacts are. That certainly concerns me a great deal.

Mrs Peterson: There's a long-standing, pretty well-taken document about how for every $1 you spend now on these children, you get $6 or $7 back. You pay it now or later. The cost to society and to these children is certainly not something that we can willingly or knowingly make them pay as adults.

Mr Gravelle: Hopefully, you can get the message across.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation this afternoon. Our time is up. I'd like to thank you for coming with your staff. I would also like to wish you well in your new responsibilities. I know our paths will cross from time to time. All the very best.

Committee members, we have 15 minutes to provide some direction to our researcher. In subcommittee we agreed that we would approach it by having each party take five minutes to share their views on what they believe should take place. Therefore, I would ask the government side if you'd like to proceed.

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): This is my first time through in terms of one of these reports for the committee, so you'll forgive my caution in terms of what we're supposed or not supposed to be doing here.

The one concern I had when I went over the report -- and there's certainly been a lot of hard work done on this by Ted, and he's had an awful lot of material to have to wade through to pick and choose some information to put in here -- is that we were going to go back to the ministries, I believe, and ask for some new, updated information, because I think there are some issues about the context and the facts about what may have happened subsequent to some of the testimony that we really need to see in here before we can make a decision about whether our party will be able to support this particular report or not. That would be the main issue here. I think that was pretty well it.

Mr Ted Glenn: The information is on its way. It's supposed to be delivered to me by this Friday. We should have it by then.

Mrs Ecker: I think there have been some interesting figures quoted in it that go back to the 1980s in terms of some of the reductions and changes, which I think are appropriate to provide a context here. Some of the information from the ministries that will be provided should be helpful.

Mr Gravelle: Certainly I'm very grateful for what our research officer, Mr Glenn, has been able to pull together in terms of a pretty fair representation of what all the presenters have put forward and what they've recommended. In terms of the report itself, I would share with Mrs Ecker the concern that we have all the facts and all the accurate information to put together a report that is fair. But I think the evidence is clear, in light of what's been presented and in light of the facts that are at hand, that there is no question that this particular standing order we've engaged in has been a very positive thing in terms of recognizing some of the difficulties, what the impacts of the cuts are on children.

I hope we would have an opportunity to have a draft report brought forward with recommendations that we could probably deal with as a subcommittee at some point down the line. It's important, from my point of view and our party's point of view, to indicate why we brought this particular standing order forward. It was done in November, after the 21.6% reduction to social assistance benefits had been announced and was in effect. I think the strongest impact that clearly had was on children. There were 500,000 children who were part of the welfare rolls and who were affected by this. Obviously, there were various other cuts that were being made to agencies that affected children -- reductions to children's aid societies, reductions to children with disabilities.

I'm personally very involved with the special services at home program, and although I recognize that in base terms one could probably argue that the funding wasn't actually reduced, in real terms it was reduced probably by 25% because of the budget being absolutely flat-lined in a rather cruel way while there are more clients.

There are all kinds of examples of agencies involved with working with children on various bases; 100 agencies have been downsized or have terminated special programs for children, and another 430 are under review in 1996. We know that food bank usage has gone up 54% in one year.

I think there is little question that the value of this particular committee's work is clear in terms of outlining what it is. The difficulty will probably be in coming to agreement as to what the recommendations of this particular committee should be. I recognize that the government members might have some difficulty in putting forward recommendations that are critical of themselves, but I also hope that they would be open to the possibility that they might be willing to look again at some of the areas where the cuts took place. That would obviously be my hope.

But in terms of how the report itself should be put forward, to me it's very clear and it makes sense that what we've been provided by Mr Glenn is really helpful. There will obviously be the material that Mrs Ecker mentioned -- and that's fair game, and it should be done soon -- and that a further draft report be put forward and then perhaps brought before the subcommittee which we could then work on and bring before the full committee at the first opportunity.

Mr Martin: I'm not unhappy with what we have before us now as a draft of the report. I believe it will also eventually include a listing of the cuts the various ministries have made that affect children's services.

Mrs Johns: Or reinvestments.

Mr Martin: Whatever you want to call it.

Mr Glenn: There will be an updated list of funding decisions. Currently, the information that was provided to us is included in that document from last December. That information will be updated.

Mrs Johns: The cuts the NDP made also.

Mr Martin: That's fine, so that we know what the cumulative impact is. I would also be very interested in having, if it's possible, any document that would give us a context within which you're doing what you're doing, like any impact studies that you've done -- you call them a business plan -- that outline how all of this will eventually help everybody down the road somewhere. It would be really helpful if that was available, if there's anything of that sort existing, any context, any impact study that the government has done.

I guess the question would be: What is the basis upon which these decisions are being made? Is it purely financial? Is there any interest at all re the impact this is having on people, on families and children? Does the government have that and would it be willing to table it as part of this report? That's all.

The Chair: Thank you. We actually have eight minutes left because the three parties have not used up all their time. Mrs Ecker, you have more time actually.

Mrs Ecker: Just one observation: When I went through the report the first time -- and this may be something that comes when you go through some of the other submissions -- my recollection is that a number of the groups quite acknowledged the need for spending reduction. They may disagree with the way they think the government is doing it, but there certainly has been an acknowledgement for spending reduction, and I think also an acknowledgement in many areas for the need to restructure and do things differently and that kind of thing. That might be a point we try to elaborate on, because that is something that is very important as well.

The Chair: Any other comments? We can save some time. Is there any other business, by the way?

Mr Gravelle: Is there any way of setting a schedule?

The Chair: We were talking about it earlier. We have to wait to get that sorted out. We'll have to do that in the subcommittee. Let me just say thank you for 99% of the civility that took place here in the committee.

Interjection: It's always civil.

The Chair: That's what I'm saying; I'm saying 99% of the time.

Mrs Ecker: We know whom he's referring to, but we won't put that name on the record.

The Chair: I thank you for your cooperation on that and I look forward to helping to work through what I hope will be unanimous agreement on a report. Thank you very much, and I hope everyone will have an interesting and exciting summertime.

The committee adjourned at 1752.