FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES
ETOBICOKE FEDERATION OF RATEPAYERS' AND RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATIONS
ONTARIO SEPARATE SCHOOL TRUSTEES' ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO PUBLIC SUPERVISORY OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
EAST YORK BOARD OF EDUCATION; EAST YORK HOME AND SCHOOL COUNCIL
YORK REGION ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS
TAXPAYERS COALITION (PEEL) ONTARIO
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO DIVISION
BOARD OF TRADE OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
URBAN ALLIANCE ON RACE RELATIONS
FEDERATION OF WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS OF ONTARIO
TAXPAYERS COALITION BURLINGTON INC
R.H. MCGREGOR SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL
SCARBOROUGH BOARD OF EDUCATION
CONTENTS
Tuesday 18 February 1997
Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, Bill 104, Mr Snobelen /
Loi de 1997 réduisant le nombre de conseils scolaires, projet de loi 104, M. Snobelen
Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations
Mr Bob Gullins
Orde Street Parents' Council
Ms Karen Goldenthal
Mr Justin Goldenthal-Walters
Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association
Mr Patrick Daly
Ontario Public Supervisory Officials' Association
Mr Grant Yeo
Mr Rae Stoness
Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation
Mr Jeff Holmes
East York Board of Education; East York Home and School Council
Gail Nyberg
Mr Andrew Lamb
Laura Dark
Mr Rod Thompson
York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board
Ms Tina Rotondi Molinari
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association
Ms Marilies Rettig
Mr Claire Ross
Mr Marshall Jarvis
Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations
Mrs Norma McGuire
Ms Genie Roth
Taxpayers Coalition (Peel) Ontario
Mr Don Crawford
Mr Blaine Mitton
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario Division
Mr Sid Ryan
Ms Charlotte Monardo
Etobicoke Board of Education
Mrs Kathy Haas
Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto
Mr John Alliston
Mr Bruce McKelvey
Urban Alliance on Race Relations
Mr Antoni Shelton
Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario
Ms Margaret Gee
Ms Kathleen Loftus
Taxpayers Coalition Burlington Inc
Mr Frank Gue
Ontario Teachers' Federation
Mr Bill Martin
North York Board of Education
Ms Gerri Gershon
Mr Spiros Papathanasakis
R. H. McGregor School Advisory Council
Pamela Grant
Scarborough Board of Education
Gaye Dale
Carol McDonald
Ms Linda Glover
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente: Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
*Mrs ElinorCaplan (Oriole L)
*Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
*Ms AnnamarieCastrilli (Downsview L)
*Mr DwightDuncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
*Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
*Mrs HelenJohns (Huron PC)
*Mr W. LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Ms FrancesLankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
*Mrs LynMcLeod (Fort William L)
Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC)
Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC)
*Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr ToniSkarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC) for Mrs Munro
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes
Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Ms SusanPekilis, senior policy analyst, Ministry of Education and Training
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel: Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0902 in room 151.
FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES
Consideration of Bill 104, An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 104, Loi de 1997 visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte, l'efficacité et la qualité du système scolaire ontarien en permettant la réduction du nombre des conseils scolaires, en créant la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, chargée d'encadrer la transition vers le nouveau système, en prévoyant certaines questions liées aux élections de 1997 et en apportant d'autres améliorations à la Loi sur l'éducation et à la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales.
ETOBICOKE FEDERATION OF RATEPAYERS' AND RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Good morning. I think we're about ready to start. I want to welcome the Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations, Bob Gullins, president. Thank you very much for being with us this morning on such short notice and making your presentation. Just so you know, you'll have 15 minutes to make your presentation and any time that's left over will be open to the committee members to address some questions to you.
Mr Bob Gullins: Sure, that will be fine. I'll pre-empt my comments by just stating the time has been short. I apologize that I'm honestly not completely ready, but I think we have the gist of the federation's perspective in our presentation and I think that will be circulated to you shortly.
The Chair: No apologies necessary, under the circumstances.
Mr Gullins: We'll get under way. On a brief overview, it's pretty well unanimous among our organization that the quality of education is the first and foremost consideration. We in no way want to leave the impression that money concerns take precedence over the quality and accessibility by Ontario citizens to education. We believe it is education and opportunities which have contributed to the prosperity of Ontario and will continue to do so in the future.
In general, EFRRA members have a serious problem with the haste of the Ontario government in dealing with these very important matters. Artificial deadlines for implementation and an apparent lack of proper planning lead us to believe the change is merely a mask for the real changes yet to be introduced.
In part, we believe Bill 103 and Bill 104 were introduced concurrently because they support one another in a single objective. Though media coverage quotes government officials as stating they are in fact separate issues and just part of the reform package, we do not accept this and believe both bills must be dealt with in a supporting context. EFRRA is admittedly split on Bill 103, but is in unanimous agreement that the two bills support one another.
Government statements of late have led the public to believe the proposed changes are in preparation for the coming century. Our observations, the absence of vital statistical data and evasive answers on the ministry's part as to the results of the proposed changes make us fearful that this Gulf war could turn into the Charge of the Light Brigade.
In conclusion, our past credit and support of the present administration for having a game plan is being quickly eroded as forced deadlines and an apparent lack of proper business planning is now being perceived as executing a hidden agenda to privatize education and, worse still, to introduce an American style of education into Canada.
Our comments: Our first perception of Bill 104 was that changes were necessary because (a) education standards have been eroded over the past few years and (b) there is tremendous waste throughout the system, attributed to duplication of services and the non-competitive nature of the school system. Available statistics seem to support our views, so convincing arguments could be put forward to scrap the systems and begin over again. We have since come to appreciate the consequences of such an action and have softened our original position.
Education is not the right of an élite group of residents. We believe it must be kept accessible to all who wish to further their education, and not just those with the financial resources. Ontario has in the past been able to support this concept and must continue this practice at all costs. This includes many of the special needs programs related directly to education.
There is general agreement among EFRRA member organizations on a number of issues. They include:
(a) Curriculum should be uniform throughout the province and include, with emphasis on, the 3Rs.
(b) Education must be accessible to all residents, including post-secondary education.
(c) The number of school boards can be reduced from the present level.
(d) There must be more coordination between the separate and public school board systems to cut costs and services.
(e) There must be a way of reducing pyramid-building in the board bureaucracies while maintaining meaningful public input into the system.
(f) Careful consideration must be given to addressing trustees' salaries and benefits, keeping in mind that we will get what we pay for. Cheaper is not always better.
(g) Slash-and-burn policies make the accountants happy, but their perspectives do not allow for innovation or imagination.
In addition, members believe the government proposals to substitute welfare, road maintenance, GO service etc on the property tax system for school funding is fundamentally wrong.
That is the gist of the debate or the discussions we've had at EFRRA over the past couple of years. Of course, we have gone through the previous disentanglement and other government initiatives. It's a very large topic. We don't pretend to be the experts by any stretch of the imagination, but from a taxpayer's perspective, we can certainly judge by what's happening with our children and within the school system. We're very close to that, so in that context we submit our ideas for your consideration.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gullins. You leave us with a generous time for questions, 10 minutes, which is terrific. We start this morning with the third party.
The Chair: Mr Wildman, are you ready to ask some questions? You have about three minutes.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I pass. I just arrived.
The Chair: Then over to the government caucus.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I'll start. Thank you very much, Mr Gullins, for your presentation. In the last 10 years -- some of these stats you may know -- enrolment in our schools in Ontario is up 16%, inflation is up roughly 40%, spending by school boards is up 82% and taxes have gone up 120%. You stated yourself that our education standards are being eroded and that there's tremendous waste in the system. Accepting all of those things, do you not think the time is now to get on about some change? Why are you so concerned about our moving ahead with some change? Do the history and the stats not tell us we need to do it if we're going to preserve the system?
0910
Mr Gullins: The context of those comments you made were really in response to what was perceived by us because of media reports. Of course, in large part you have the influence of media. But we have found lately that what we're being told is really not what is happening.
As far as the education system is concerned, and enrolment in post-secondary education, it's never been greater than it is today. The statistics that we were given were that 10, 15, 20 years ago the enrolment in secondary was about 10% of the population. Today it's around 25% for both colleges and universities. With those numbers there are bound to be cases come to the surface that would make it appear as though the system is falling apart. You have a larger number of people entering the system; you're bound to have more problems, but certainly we wouldn't see that as a reason to change the system. We have to work along with it to provide or at least give an opportunity for people to better themselves and gain education.
Mr Carroll: So school board spending up at double the rate of inflation, by your own admission our standards being eroded and tremendous waste in the system, yet you don't believe it's time now to go forward with some fundamental, basic change to the system?
Mr Gullins: We're not saying we're opposed to changes within the system, but again, I think there are many reasons why the school boards are experiencing higher costs. Certainly outside Metro you have transportation costs. When I drive in the country I see hundreds of school buses sitting in lots and they're all used to transport children to school. It's a tremendous expense. I don't think we had that all that many years ago.
There is the computer age. Technology has increased at considerable cost to the school systems. There are any number of things, and of course wages and salaries have all contributed to that.
Mr Carroll: That's all in the inflation of 40%.
Mr Gullins: That's included, certainly. When you say "double," I think you're referring to Metro Toronto, are you not?
Mr Carroll: I'm talking about province-wide. School board spending is up 82% during a time when inflation is up 40%.
Mr Gullins: Again, I'd want to hear what the reasons were and investigate that before I made any conclusions. The only thing we would agree with is, yes, it should be addressed and, yes, we do want to see changes, but the proposals that have been put forward to date, with artificial deadlines, seem to be putting too much pressure on the public to make conclusions. Based on that, we're going to make mistakes. If I made a definitive answer right now, I'd be making a mistake because I honestly don't know what the counterarguments are, and that's what we're looking for. We haven't seen that come out.
The Chair: For the official opposition, Mr Duncan.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): If I understand what you're saying correctly, you are arguing that your federation recognizes the need for change in the system. You'd like to see more efficiencies, better use of the money, but you're concerned about this particular bill because you see it as a Trojan Horse to come in and cut more money out of education at a time when your federation of ratepayers wants to spend money; they just want to be sure the money is spent appropriately and that the results we see are good.
Mr Gullins: We all want to see our taxes come down, but I think the onus is on the government or those proposing the changes to demonstrate very clearly, number one, that it is going to be a tax saving and, number two, where it is going to end up. We want some security that the system is going to work when it's finished and that it isn't strictly a dollars-and-cents matter, which in many regards it appears to be.
Mr Duncan: Would it be fair to say that in response to the arguments around the issues of increased costs -- and in our view, in the view of the official opposition, really taken out of context -- would it be your view and the view of your federation that there are cost increases over the last 20 years that might be related to things like improved program services for disabled kids, junior kindergarten and other services that benefit education and benefit the overall economy?
Mr Gullins: There's no question about it. Even the fact that we have two school boards that have now been expanded to secondary school. When I graduated back in the 1960s that wasn't the case.
Mr Duncan: So schools aren't the same today as they were in the 1960s?
Mr Gullins: Oh no, definitely not.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I appreciate your brief and I appreciate the focus on the concern for education and accessible education. I also appreciate the fact that from a ratepayer's perspective you want to see taxes preferably go down, but certainly not go up, and I wonder whether your association has addressed the companion piece to this, which is taking education off the property tax but in turn offloading significant new social costs on to the property tax and leaving business having to pick up its share of that offload at the same time that business still has to pay its education tax.
Mr Gullins: We have a problem with removing it. We haven't concluded how you would address getting the funding to support the education, but what we see, taking the education and downloading the other services, no, definitely there's something wrong.
Mr Wildman: I apologize for being late. I missed the presentation but I had the opportunity to read it while you were answering questions. I'd like to ask you a question specifically related to the last part of your written brief. From what you've been saying, my impression is your view is that you're not opposed to change, you just want to make sure it's justified and it's the right change.
Mr Gullins: Absolutely.
Mr Wildman: Okay. So when you say, "(g) Slash-and-burn policies may make the accountants happy but their perspectives do not allow for innovation and imagination," could you expand on that and explain what you meant by artificial deadlines in answer to my colleague's question?
Mr Gullins: Artificial deadlines would be comments we've heard in the media. I haven't had personal conversations with those involved who have made the statements but my impression is that we're preparing to come into the new millennium. Dates are artificial; they're strictly numbers, nothing else. To give this perception that there's something magnificent in the offing and we have to prepare ourselves for it -- we're saying that this should be an ongoing process. Going into the next century is irrelevant. Getting the best for your dollar should always be a consideration and to put a deadline on it -- no, we don't think that's --
Mr Wildman: You understand that the government has decided that this must be in place by January 1, 1998, when, if it had wanted to, it could have waited until the next municipal election, for instance, and had it done right.
Mr Gullins: Yes. That's what we were insisting really should have happened. We can't see why the artificial deadline. Even if the changes are implemented -- in the government's defence, we can see the argument -- things aren't going to die or change tomorrow. Conversely, if this process were stretched out so that it was explained better to the public, then that would be a better approach than to rush into it. As we say, this war, this Gulf war, could turn into the charge of the light brigade. It could turn out to be a disaster, and the scary part is that the government is not coming back with assurances that this will not happen.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gullins, for appearing before us this morning and for your very thoughtful comments on behalf of your association.
Mr Duncan: We'd like to put specifically to the ministry a request to provide the opposition with the statistics that Mr Carroll has used, plus an analysis of those statistics, specifically the comparison of tax increases and school board expenditure increases versus enrolment increases and how those numbers were arrived at. It would be useful if we could have those before the next set of hearings.
0920
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): Is someone from the ministry here? Do you have those?
Ms Susan Pekilis: I can get those. I think they were in the press release.
Mr Duncan: Could we get the breakdown and the analysis of how those numbers were arrived at?
The Chair: Excuse me. If the person from the ministry is going to address us, you should come to the mike so that we can all hear what you have to say and it's on the record. Would you introduce yourself, please.
Ms Pekilis: I'm Susan Pekilis from the Ministry of Education and Training. Your question was?
Mr Duncan: I requested the government's analysis. Mr Carroll indicated that there's been an enrolment increase of 16%, a tax increase of 120%. We would like the ministry's analysis, how they came up with those numbers, what went into those numbers, so that we can have access to the same information and make that information available to the public for scrutiny.
The Chair: Are you prepared to respond to that now?
Ms Pekilis: No.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I would like to know when we will be dealing -- and I'm not saying we have to deal with it now -- with the report of the subcommittee. Subsequent to that, I would also like to know what we've done about requests to the ministry to bring forward the information to make a presentation on the proposals for the new formula for determining the per pupil grants, which we asked for yesterday.
The Chair: With respect to your first point, you have a subcommittee report in front of you. It's for information, a memo, because the subcommittee was given authority to deal with scheduling. However, if you wish to revisit --
Mr Wildman: No, but there is in the subcommittee report a motion that was passed by the subcommittee requesting an extension of the hearings because we have over 1,000 people who have indicated they want to present and we don't have nearly the time under the time allocation motion that was passed by the government. The subcommittee has passed a motion and I would hope the full committee would support the motion to extend the hearings and to request the government House leader to amend the time allocation motion to give more people an opportunity to make presentations to this committee on Bill 104.
The Chair: I misunderstood you. The subcommittee report is for information. We do have the text of a motion which will be put to the committee -- and we can put it to the committee now -- to deal with that.
Mr Wildman: Whenever you like. I just was wondering when it would be, that's all.
Mr Skarica: Why don't we do it? I would suggest --
The Chair: We can do it now or we can do it at the recess at noon.
Mrs McLeod: There's another issue that we raised at the subcommittee.
The Chair: Could we deal with this issue first?
Mrs McLeod: I was just going to say that there is another issue. My preference would be to ask the committee not to take away from hearing time in order to discuss the procedural issues.
Mr Wildman: I agree with that.
The Chair: Is there consensus with respect to that?
Mrs McLeod: Perhaps the subcommittee could meet at noon to determine what is coming back to the committee.
The Chair: If that's agreeable to the subcommittee and to the general committee, we'll move on then.
Mr Wildman: We'll deal with that at recess.
The Chair: Terrific.
ORDE STREET PARENTS' COUNCIL
The Chair: Our next presenter is from Orde Street Parents' Council; Ms Karen Goldenthal, president. Welcome. Thank you very much for joining us. Your child is quite free to come up if he wishes. We've had children up before and they're always welcome. After all, it's about their future.
Ms Karen Goldenthal: That's right. Dear members of the standing committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Karen Goldenthal. I am coming to speak to you today as president, Orde Street Parents' Council. This is my lovely son, Justin Goldenthal-Walters. Justin is a very bright young man, as are all our children the future of tomorrow.
The Orde Street Parents' Council has been and continues to be a dynamic force advocating for a transformative, innovative and historically significant education system for the 21st century. Indeed, the Orde Street Public School community has received much attention, recognition and accolades in terms of the history and hard work done by countless parents, a dedicated professional staff and administration, professional support staff and a supportive network inclusive of many community activists, and full-time elected trustees with jurisdiction over the small community that we are.
The Orde Street Parents' Council represents a school community comprising 450 children and their parents, a school population comprising 40 different countries and, linguistically speaking, from a background of over 38 different languages. Our location as an inner-city school close to the government, hospitals and other research arenas means that we need to respond to the international and diverse community this represents. In the light of, and because of, this diverse community, the Orde Street Parents' Council continues this long history today by responding to the standing committee on social development and the hearings into Bill 104.
The province of Ontario has a long history of recognizing the goal of excellence in our education system. Indeed, from Mr William Davis through Mr David Peterson and Mr Bob Rae there has been a series of formative steps forward, providing a strong foundational framework towards this goal of excellence.
From the 1960s on a strong move forward advocating excellence has given an impetus towards our publicly funded school system. A focus was constructed emphasizing this, as it encouraged students to stay longer in the school system and seek higher levels of education. The Royal Commission on Learning in 1995 mandated a strong motivational force forward. Moreover, the royal commission advocated early childhood education as a prima facie concern and further linked such head-start moves juxtaposed with the removal of grade 13.
Yet this government's legislation and accompanying educational reforms appear to posit the opposite direction: removing the strength of early childhood education, removing grade 13 and compressing, reducing and eliminating much skills development. The Orde Street Parents' Council is shocked at the dismissal of so much evidence to the contrary. For every $1 spent in early childhood education, at least $7 will be saved later. Even as we absorb the ignorance of this data, we are at least as shocked by the myriad of exit doors, the reduction of class hours, the reduction and elimination suggested for English literacy hours and other such shortsighted goals.
Bill 104 merely extends this ignorance vis-à-vis removing local control over local schools. The Toronto Board of Education has maintained the highest academic standards as it responds in concrete partnership, with the highest accountability, with the parents and responding with the best educational programs and professional teachers.
The Orde Street Parents' Council believes strongly in the development of our children with an overall sense of wellness, with professional guidance counsellors who support this effort and with opportunity, equity and respect for a higher, broad-based flexible education and a well-rounded sense of teamwork, diversity and problem-solving skills. It appears this government suggests the counterproposal of students at early ages boxed in, grouped and streamed into exit doors, with no flexibility, no teamwork, no problem-solving and low levels of literacy and language art skills development. We believe this province should not waste the many dollars of investment paid into the goal of higher education, but rather give respect to the work already performed.
Indeed, the future depends on this and on not dismissing the efforts and the rewards already evident. The Orde Street Parents' Council fully expects all government bodies to have as their starting point respect for all its citizens and respect for all the work the generations have put forth for us today. Let's build on the greatness of our education system. Our children's lives are the testament to this project. We only hope that this government can be so humble and astute as to cherish the same goal.
The Orde Street Parents' Council has been and continues to be an integral force in educational issues and curriculum development. Child development, pedagogical construction, child psychological and social equity concerns have guided the parents' priorities. It is in this light that we have several concerns to bring to this government's attention at the hearings today.
Any change in the overall program of development, professional teachers and support systems, administrative levels and the jurisdiction over trustees and how they are represented, any change in curriculum, course content and number of subject areas, as well as school institutional changes, must be built within the dynamics and parameters of the children's psychological sense of wellness, human development and ethical adult achievement.
Recognition of literacy, high levels of knowledge and broad-based fields of enterprise and the abilities of team efforts, flexibility and problem-solving skills must be paramount. The dynamics of change demand this goal of higher, yet broad-based, education with strong partnerships between parents, teachers, full-time elected trustees and professionally designed administrative systems and professional support systems.
0930
I want to discuss now some of the programming we've had which has made Orde Street such a wonderful school. To reflect the needs of our diverse community we have successfully implemented English as a language, international languages, French immersion, the black cultural program, reading clinics, music, physical education and professionally taught library services.
There is also a wide range of professional support systems in terms of psychological and sociological supports. Any types of learning disabilities are taught by professional teachers. We also have fully developed, professionally taught junior and senior kindergartens with connected day care services, which are very important to early childhood education.
Orde Street Public School has a language-based focus and this has contributed to our academic excellence. Moreover, we believe that language development is the basis of our children's education and preparing them successfully for their adult achievement for the 21st century information age.
With dependence on the province's grants to maintain such necessary programs, which seems to be at the foot of Bill 104, we insist on sufficient grant structure to ensure this professional basis.
Parental involvement: To encourage and maintain parental involvement it has been understood as important to work in partnership with the full-time elected trustees over our little community and the administrative support of the Toronto Board of Education. The only way to encourage and maintain parental involvement in our school system is by having a concrete infrastructure. Thus, the Orde Street Parents' Council insists on this integrative partnership: the Toronto Board of Education and the parents working together collectively with the goal of our children's education in mind.
Without the Toronto Board of Education as a concrete reality and not a superficial cliché, we could not have the very strong parental participation we now have. Further, we are able to have strong local control and accountability in concrete form vis-à-vis the full-time elected trustees and support infrastructure. This will not happen with Bill 104 in place.
Parents are concerned with the lack of support, involvement and maintenance of our participation and input with the proposed lack of full-time elected trustees. If the government believes in parental involvement, local democracy and accountability, it will not destroy a system that is so successful now.
Let's build our future together, respecting our commonality and diversity. We need to move away from this divisive philosophical position of the government.
What do we need? We need to build strong communities with democratically elected full-time trustees to respond to the diversity of each community's needs. This debate about downward equalization to the floor is nonsense, not common sense. Toronto is the best city in the world. Let's not try to work towards a Third World level.
We have a long history of academic excellence. We need to build together, not apart. Each community must work with partnerships between democratically elected full-time trustees, concrete infrastructures of support and committed parental involvement. The way to the future is in consensus, not divisive debate. Please, leave our excellent schools, our concrete support systems and our excellent local program needs in place.
In conclusion, we need to work together to problem-solve. Let's stay away from larger classrooms and divisive debate about how Toronto's excellence should be cut. We have an excellent public school system. Our children will be watching what you are doing, and Justin is a witness here today.
As the United Nations convention on children's rights makes clear, the world's resources should go first to the children. This statement does not mean after the tax cut to the wealthy; it does not mean a two-tier education system; it does not mean that the government should please every business or its own caviare interests first.
The Orde Street Parents' Council demands that the UN charter be respected: The children come first. We demand that our excellent Toronto Board of Education and public school system be maintained. We demand that our professionally taught, needs-based programs be kept.
The Orde Street Public School's logo, which I'm wearing here today, represents a multicultural, multiracial, multilingual population. The Orde Street Parents' Council is a strong partnership, with a constitution that reflects our parental philosophy and goals.
Before I close, my son is going to read something after me, but I just want to say in closing that we invite you to come to Orde Street Parents' Council, come over to Orde Street Public School, 18 Orde Street, any time -- you are welcome visitors -- to witness for yourselves a wonderful population of children, parents, administration, professional teachers and the best support base anywhere: the Toronto Board of Education with its full-time elected trustees over our little community. Thank you for your time.
My son wants to read out something.
Mr Justin Goldenthal-Walters: Like Taking Money From Children: In a classroom of more than 20 and sometimes up to 30-plus children, there is only one thing that can hold their excellent learning abilities to make them go higher in life: cutbacks to education, which will take away classroom books, classroom paper, notebooks, math skills, special education provided for people with learning disabilities, French immersion for people like me who are speaking four different languages, pencils, and the teachers most importantly. PS: Keep grade 13 and learn.
Applause.
The Chair: I must insist there will be no clapping or any other demonstration. Thank you very much, Justin.
Mr Wildman: I can clap.
The Chair: Mr Wildman, I'd seek your assistance in this.
Mr Wildman: I can clap.
The Chair: I know you can, but I'd seek your assistance nevertheless.
Mr Skarica: Ma'am, you say that you want to keep your excellent trustees, and I'm not meaning to be critical of them as individuals, but where I come from, our trustees are paid $14,000. I think yours are paid $49,000. My board has no debt of any kind for liability for teachers' pensions. When they retire, they get a retirement gratuity. In Toronto, the unfunded liability is $100 million. How do you account for that? They're full-time and mine are part-time at $14,000.
Ms Goldenthal: I want to tell you a story, and it may not be what you want to hear, I'm afraid. The reason I found out about Orde Street school as a new mother in the area, when I moved to where I live now, is that I spoke to my full-time trustees with their $49,000 salary and whatever the difference is between liabilities etc. I told them what I wanted for my son.
I said I wanted him to be in a multilingual community; I wanted him to learn languages. I felt that language development was the beginning of a communication skills development which would help him in his adult life. I told them that Justin comes from a half-black background and I wanted that respected. I told them that I wanted a high academic program, focusing on sciences and math and good reading skills. I told them that I wanted him to have a school that really cherished children and had good, meaningful parental involvement and good structures in place, and I'll tell you what the answer was: Orde Street Public School.
I'm telling you Justin's in grade 4, excelling tremendously, and I can only say it's thanks to my trustees. I tell everybody that story because it happens to be true. If I hadn't talked to my trustees, I might have had a different experience, but I was very fortunate to have trustees who cared and gave me the exact answer I needed.
As my colleague Edith, who works with me at the school, tells me, it's the parental involvement, the partnership. It's the partnership that grows from having full-time trustees who care, who spend their whole time caring and building the structures. Parental involvement will not happen unless you have good infrastructure.
I can tell you that I work in volunteer activities in many other areas. You know what volunteering is; it comes and it goes, it goes up and it goes down. Parents are struggling, as all of us are in his society. What we need are good full-time trustees who spend their time looking at the programs, checking the schools, making sure the curriculum is well developed and participating fully with the parents. They build the structures that make parental involvement a reality.
0940
Mrs McLeod: It was just suggested to me by my colleague that we might use our time to ask for some clarification or make some clarification on the record about the attempts by the government to paint trustees as being highly irresponsible. I think that does require some clarification, particularly as Mr Skarica talks about unfunded liabilities for retirement gratuities. It should be made quite clear that in any actuarial accounting of unfunded liabilities, the figure that you're using, I would suspect in any given board -- and I think you're using a Metro-wide figure when you use that figure in Toronto -- is based on the scenario if everybody who was eligible to retire went at one time.
Mr Wildman: That's exactly right, if everybody retired at once.
Ms Goldenthal: I think it is this denigrating attitude towards trustees which is really despicable because it's like the whole denigration of education in general. Education is an excellent system here in Ontario because we work towards that goal together, because we've been working in partnership, because parents have been able to access information and have input into policymaking. At Orde Street we have complete decision-making, along with the school body and the trustees, around the policies and the curriculum of the school. I think that's just great.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much for your presentation. I share your concern that any change that's premised upon having to discredit the people involved in the system in order to defend the change is questionable.
Ms Goldenthal: I agree. I think our school system is the best in the world and we need to really celebrate it.
Mr Wildman: I want to thank you for your presentation and thank you, Justin, for your presentation. I have one question. Obviously, you've discussed a very strong partnership among full-time trustees, administration, teachers, parents and students, which really involves everybody in the school. You made one comment, that you hoped that this Bill 104 was not an attempt to cut Toronto's excellence. Do you think that excellence you've described could be maintained if you had part-time trustees responsible for 14,000 students rather than the 4,000 or 5,000 they are now responsible for?
Ms Goldenthal: I have no doubt it could not.
Mr Wildman: Why?
Ms Goldenthal: Because it takes a full-time partnership each and every day, just as we are parents each and every day. We are full-time parents 24 hours a day and we need that full-time infrastructure, we need that full-time partnership each and every day. We have to have custodians looking after our school system, looking after our children, looking at what's going on each and every day. The fact that the trustees come and visit the schools and come into the classrooms, do you think that will happen with a population that great?
Mr Wildman: The problem we have is that many other parts of the province do indeed have part-time trustees who don't have the full time to spend to go to visit the schools and be involved in the schools in that way. I guess the suggestion that is being made is if they aren't full-time and involved the way they are here in other parts of the province, why should they be here?
Ms Goldenthal: I feel sad and it really hurts my heart to think of anywhere in Ontario that they don't have what we have, because I think everybody should have that kind of full-time commitment. I can't speak for the parents in those communities -- they need to speak for their own interests and what they want for their children -- but I wouldn't want any less for my son, and I can't see how anybody living in Ontario today could want any less.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Goldenthal, and especially thanks to you, Justin. I hope you continue to do well in school.
ONTARIO SEPARATE SCHOOL TRUSTEES' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presenter, speaking of trustees, is the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, Mr Patrick Daly. Welcome.
Mr Patrick Daly: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Regis O'Connor is the first vice-president of our association and a trustee for the Sault Ste Marie Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Patrick Slack is the executive director of our association. Monsignor Dennis Murphy is the director of Catholic education for our association. Earle McCabe is the deputy executive director of our association.
Founded in 1930, the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, OSSTA, represents 53 Catholic school boards. Collectively, these school boards educate over 600,000 students from junior kindergarten to grade 12/OAC.
The mission of all Catholic school boards and their schools is to create a faith community that integrates religious instruction, religious practice, value formation and faith development into every area of the curriculum. In Ontario, Catholic school boards provide this education according to the constitutionally determined rights of Roman Catholic parents. We appreciate the opportunity to present this brief to the standing committee on social development.
Our association has been accurately reported as having mixed feelings about the Fewer School Boards Act. According to Catholic philosophy, parents are the primary educators of their children. They entrust the education of their children to trustees who share their vision of faith and life. To substantially reduce the number of boards and trustees, therefore, is to negatively impact this relationship.
On the other hand, however, implicit in the government's restructuring plans is the assurance of fair and equitable funding for all children. We await the legislation for education finance reform which will redress the inequities occasioned by rich and poor boards, inequities which have been substantiated in commission after commission and in report after report for the past 20 years.
Before dealing directly with the proposed legislation, we wish to situate it within the restructuring of education of which this bill is only a part. The legislative enactments of Bill 104 will improve Ontario's education system only if they are accompanied by legislation which assures equitable and improved educational opportunity for all children in the province, ensures respect and justice for all those who provide education and guarantees the constitutionally protected rights of our Catholic education system.
Bill 104 in its substance and in its details, therefore, will result in better education only on condition that:
(1) The government at the same time implement its promised new fair funding model which will achieve equal educational opportunity for all children. The government has realized that nothing short of a new fair funding model will ensure a quality of educational opportunity for all the children of Ontario, and they have our total support in this direction. It is in recognition of this promise of equity of educational funding that Catholic boards have understood the benefit to children of holding in abeyance and not exercising the constitutional right to tax. In forgoing the exercise of this right, however, we have insisted that the designation of taxes must continue through the process of enumeration.
(2) Any employees of schools boards who are affected by the reduction of the number of school boards be dealt with according to clearly defined principles of social justice. Every effort must be made on all of our parts to use attrition, redeployment or retirement programs to meet the needs of these employees.
(3) The teachers employed in Catholic schools be represented by a Catholic teachers' federation. The partnership in Catholic education exercised together by Catholic teachers and trustees is based on a distinctive educational mission with particular goals and objectives. OSSTA sees this as part of the constitutional entitlement given to Roman Catholic separate school boards. The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association has been that teachers' federation for over 50 years.
(4) The new funding allocation formula allow local autonomy through flexibility for discretionary spending by Catholic boards in order that they maintain, foster and develop that specific and distinctive education offered by Catholic schools. This will permit the development of distinctive curricular materials and professional development programs. Given our educational foundation of cooperation between family, school and church, it will also allow Catholic school boards to develop those kinds of intermediary structures which will shorten the obvious geographic and psychological distances between parents, parishes, schools and trustees, which will result from fewer school boards.
0950
I would like to highlight the recommendations that we think are important that we present related to Bill 104.
First, relating to constitutional rights, our association is pleased to note the government's continued commitment to constitutional rights that is reflected in the proposed revision to section 1(4) of the Education Act.
Although not intended, the proposed wording of section 1(4) in Bill 104 might imply an intention to back away from existing rights and privileges. We therefore strongly recommend that the words underlined at the bottom of page 4 be inserted at the appropriate spot in section 1(4) by amendment. I'll just read the section that we are recommending be added: "including rights and privileges as they were enjoyed by the separate school boards or their supporters under predecessors of this act as they existed immediately prior to January 13, 1997."
Relating to school board amalgamations, there are certain principles which should be observed in setting the boundaries of new district public and separate school boards, and we go on at length on pages 5 and 6 to outline those principles.
Just to outline them briefly, the first is that the amalgamation of school boards recognize existing community affinities. Among such affinities, geography and distance must obviously be taken into account as well as economic affinities and affinities determined by culture, history, faith and religious denominations.
The second principle is that the size of school boards should permit effective administration and cost efficiencies in the delivery of educational services. We are therefore concerned that some of the district school boards proposed, particularly in the north, are simply too large geographically. We therefore recommend that the government consider carefully the submission of local communities on the appropriate units of administration and make changes where necessary.
Bill 104 sets the legislative framework for the establishment of French-language separate and public district school boards throughout Ontario. The Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association unequivocally supports this initiative and has long advocated French-language boards as an appropriate way to reconcile minority-language education rights.
The vast majority of francophone students are educated in Roman Catholic separate school boards and will shortly make their way to the newly created French-language Roman Catholic boards.
Our association is committed to ensuring that the process of disengagement will be as efficient and amicable as possible, and we pledge to work with our sister associations in the francophone community to develop a process designed to secure this result.
An important issue that we wanted to speak to was the number of trustees on the newly created district boards. We are pleased that the government recognizes the importance of school boards and trustees in the legislation. It must not, however, forget that there are critical issues to consider when determining the number of trustees on each district board.
The bill, as you know, proposes as few as five trustees. It is our strong view that this is inadequate. The district school board, as a corporate body, must have adequate numbers to ensure that decisions on policy are made with a full appreciation of the many diverse needs of a school board community.
As well, the board must be representative of the community it serves. Geography, distance, urban density and rural sparsity are important factors that must be considered when determining the numbers of trustees. A model that operates on a pure representation-by-population basis will not permit trustees and boards to effectively service their community.
We therefore respectfully recommend that the minimum number of trustees be increased to seven and that the formula for determining the number of trustees on a district board include factors such as geography, urban density and rural sparsity.
The final issue we wanted to speak to was the creation of the Education Improvement Commission. We recognize the establishment of the commission and its need to regulate and monitor the transition to the new governance model and to study some very difficult issues which will arise.
We expect the interests of French and English Roman Catholic boards to be respected and therefore recommend that the four publicly funded educational communities described in the act be given equal representation on the commission and further that such representation be extended to other bodies dealing with governance which are created by the commission.
Finally, related to the powers of the commission, you'll note that no criteria have been set out in the act regarding the exercise of the authority of the commission. We recommend in that regard that cabinet be given power to make regulations imposing fair and non-discriminatory criteria on the exercise of the commission's approving and amending jurisdiction over school board budgets.
We further recommend that section 344(2) be given further explanation. It states that "decisions of the commission are final and shall not be reviewed or be questioned by a court." It must be clear that any application to the courts is still available in circumstances where the decision of the commission is clearly unreasonable or unfair. We assume there is no intention to give the commission authority to interfere directly or indirectly in denominational or linguistic issues as part of the budget approval process. If the commission takes such action, it will be opposed.
In conclusion, we began this brief by saying there is much in the government's overall education program that OSSTA supports. Our support is based upon the premise that a respect for the constitutional rights of Catholic schools will be maintained, that equity of funding will be achieved and that social justice principles will be applied to those dislocated or displaced by this legislation.
The bill raises many issues on which OSSTA will make particular recommendations to the Education Improvement Commission. We thought it prudent to express our major concerns to you at this time and we thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present our views to you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Daly. You have regrettably used up all of your 15 minutes. We want to thank you and your co-presenters for being here this morning and for making some worthwhile comments.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SUPERVISORY OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presenters are the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials' Association, Mr Grant Yeo. Welcome, Mr Yeo. It's good to see you again. I believe you know the rules. I might ask you to present your co-presenter.
Mr Grant Yeo: We thank you for allowing us to speak to you today. On my right is Rae Stoness, the executive director of OPSOA. I'm Grant Yeo. My name is spelled incorrectly. When you have a name with three letters, you're very sensitive as to how they're put in order. I'm president of OPSOA and the director of the Durham Board of Education.
As a way of introduction to our organization, I'll make some comments and then get into the position paper that you have in front of you. The Ontario Public Supervisory Officials' Association represents public supervisory officers, those being superintendents, academic and business, directors of education and education officers across the province. That group numbers approximately 600. It's the largest of the three supervisory officer organizations in the province and we have strong ties with the other two.
Since 1991, there has been a reduction in those numbers of approximately 20%, going from just around 1,000 supervisory officers to less than 800. That has occurred through attrition management as school boards have responded to increasingly difficult financial constraints.
School boards have relied on SOs to provide senior executive leadership in management of the system and we have basically two responsibilities. The Education Act and regulations place the accountability for the implementation of the Ministry of Education and Training's legislative, regulatory and policy framework in the hands of qualified supervisory officers. The implementation of local school board policy is also a legislated responsibility for the supervisory official. In the private sector, the SO would be the president or vice-president of the company, and in many of our communities, as it was in Lambton when I was there as director, the school board is the largest employer.
1000
We are, by and large, educators -- I say "by and large" because our group does include business officials -- who have managed many changes throughout our careers. A personal example: I've had the opportunity to teach at three levels -- university, secondary and elementary -- in two provinces and now in three school boards in Ontario. Supervisory officers have been recognized within boards and throughout the province as the educational leaders. It's within that framework that we present the following position paper that you have. I'm going to review some of it and then ask my colleague to continue.
In front of you is a document entitled Goals for an Effective Transition: The OPSOA Position. The members of the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials' Association, OPSOA, will provide the necessary leadership in the school boards of the province to implement an effective transition to the newly designated district school boards established for January 1998.
The government of Ontario contends that it intends that the implementation of the act and other curriculum, governance and funding initiatives will achieve certain results. The minister has made it clear to us that this is one piece of legislation, and we look forward to the funding allocation to do that analysis. OPSOA believes that the school boards of this province are committed to continue the implementation of improvements to achieve similar outcomes.
These expectations have long been valued in the educational community and staff in school systems have been committed to their achievement. These include effective learning opportunities for students, recognition of accountability and affordability requirements, active community involvement and interaction, effective governance models, maximum use of available resources, additional value through new ways of using assets and increased value through combining organizational capabilities, skills and knowledge.
OPSOA believes its members are in a position to ensure during these transition processes that the best interests of the students in this province are well served. The complexities of amalgamating school systems whose cultures and practices each are unique in a way that emphasizes student interests as a primary objective is a task best led by the supervisory officials in this province. Coordinating the interests of parents, trustees, government and the broader community is an essential component of the transition processes. Involving an interest from the corporate and business communities, both locally and provincially, must be included in these processes. OPSOA believes that its members have the requisite leadership skills to implement a successful, effective and cost-efficient transition. To ensure the continued achievements of these goals requires the leadership of the supervisory officials.
At this point, I'd like to introduce again my colleague, Rae Stoness.
Mr Rae Stoness: I'd like to dwell a bit on the Education Improvement Commission and some concern we have with regard to the unfettered powers it would seem to have in the proposed legislation. If this is to be maintained when the act is actually passed, then we suggest there are certain principles that must guide the restructuring and the transition with respect to processes and decisions. Those guiding principles may need to be placed in either legislation or regulation as the mandate for the Education Improvement Commission.
On the overside of the paper that Grant has just presented to you, we present those principles for your consideration and suggest that these are integral to any success that may lead to an effective transition over the next few months and couple of years:
Leaders must strive to protect program integrity for students in the classrooms.
People must be viewed as the strength of the organization.
Local, rather than provincial, processes and decisions must be encouraged.
We believe informed, clear and concise communications must be part of the process.
There are recommendations and decisions, all of which must be carefully assessed against the legal parameters not only of this bill but of all of the Education Act, its regulations and other applicable government legislation.
Where legislative changes are implemented, they must be applied impartially to roles and responsibilities of those who are charged with the requirement to administer and to operate the school systems of this province.
We believe that supervisory officers must provide local transition committees with the assistance to effectively assist their mandate.
As all functions of school systems are merged into new school districts, decisions for new practices must reflect a careful analysis of all the costs and all the benefits that will accrue.
Decisions must be implemented in an expeditious manner.
Best and exemplary practices must be recognized and implemented.
Flexibility and uniqueness of programs must be valued.
We believe those to be crucial to the transition process and its effectiveness or success over the next months.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Stoness. We have just under two minutes per caucus and we begin with the official opposition, Ms McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: I note the concerns that you have. I don't think you're looking forward to the funding formula. I'm not sure any of us are going to welcome it when it arrives, given levels of funding that we might expect.
I also want to focus on your concerns with the transitional period and the powers of the EIC, and in particular one issue. We've just received a copy of a memorandum that I believe all boards would have received from Mariette Carrier-Fraser. It sets out the terms and conditions under which the new school announcements can proceed.
Of course, you'll remember the Minister of Education had a flurry of good-news announcements that were welcomed by school boards in taking the freeze off capital constructions and approving a number of new capital projects. It appears from this memo that boards are expected to fund their share of the capital costs out of their 1997 budgets, which as I understand it would not have been expected, and in any event the budget has to be approved by the EIC, which is not yet in place. Second, the legislation makes it clear, and this memo reinforces it, that you cannot enter into a contract worth more than $50,000, at least without the approval of the EIC.
I guess I'm wondering -- take that one example of the powers that are given to this commission -- whether that is creating absolute chaos in proceeding with capital construction plans and whether it makes a sheer mockery out of the minister's announcements of taking the freeze off capital construction.
Mr Yeo: It is creating some confusion and some difficulty. As late as Friday in a directors' meeting we asked for clarification to determine what that actually meant, because it appears to be saying one thing in one paragraph and another in another.
Mrs McLeod: I'm glad I'm not the only one who read it that way.
Mr Yeo: We are seeking clarity. It differs across the province in terms of the capital allocations and the local share that needs to be put into place so that goes forward.
Certainly, the timing of the EIC and the approval of the budget is a major issue right now as boards are working through their budget process. That too is something we need to get on with. But that memo caused us to ask a great number of questions.
Mrs McLeod: Are there answers? When do you expect the answers to be forthcoming, or will there be no answers until the EIC is in place?
Mr Yeo: We've gone back to the author of the memo to try and get clarification there, but it may well be when the EIC is in place.
The Chair: Mr Wildman for the third party.
Mr Wildman: Just before I ask my question, I would like to indicate that I would hope we could invite Ms Carrier-Fraser to the committee to explain the memo to the committee.
The Chair: All right. So noted.
1010
Mr Wildman: I also read it to understand that whatever moneys you can't fund in 1997 you'll fund out of the new boards' operating funds in 1998, which is certainly not a capital expenditure approval.
I'd just like to ask you, as supervisory officers, about the timing and the length of time being given to work out all of these new arrangements for new amalgamated boards. In British Columbia, for instance, when there was an amalgamation of far fewer boards, they took about three years to achieve the completion of the project, which entails merging of collective agreements, some of which are very different -- different levels of pay, different benefits -- merging seniority lists, which can be quite complex, dealing with early retirements, those kinds of things. Do you think it is practicable to do this on this scale in a few months between now and January 1, 1998?
Mr Yeo: The situation is a difficult one and it varies across the province. In my situation, I don't have an amalgamated setting, so I'd listen to my colleagues who've been encouraged by the ministry and the trustees to begin to work in planning sessions, to work out the information that would need to be put together to make decisions relative to amalgamation.
However, their frustration as supervisory officers entrusted with this task of planning is, who do they involve, who is the local EIC and are they to go ahead and to make some initial statements and try and work out some of the problems in a very short time when they don't know who the EIC committee will be? So there is a level of frustration currently existing in trying to wrestle with some of the cultures and the different programs and services at a level of providing information that can be compared when the total group, the local committee, is not yet known. It is a difficulty, it is a timing issue, and it is one of the issues we have mentioned in this transition about informed, clear and concise communication. That piece of the puzzle needs to be in place because there is a great deal of work going on right now to try and come to grips with the short time line.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you for your presentation this morning. I think, certainly from your comments and based on what I've seen in my own area in London, Middlesex, Elgin and Oxford, supervisory officers have played a very strong leadership role in commencing with the transition process, recognizing some of the concerns you've expressed about detail.
Yesterday, an elected official from the board of education in the city of York concluded that amalgamation would have serious effects on student achievement. Yet when I look at British Columbia, where there is, as Mr Wildman indicated, a 24% reduction in school boards --
Mr Wildman: Three years.
Mr Smith: -- New Brunswick, 100%; Nova Scotia, 68%; PEI, 40%; Newfoundland, 63%; and Quebec with a proposal for a 56% reduction in school boards -- do you come to the same conclusion that student achievement will be compromised, given the activities that have occurred in other provincial jurisdictions across this country?
Mr Yeo: As supervisory officers, we belong to a Canadian association of school officials and we've had that discussion with our colleagues in a number of provinces. The answer is we're going to have to wait to see, because the issue is not only one of quality but what's affordable, and at this point we aren't sure what the cost will be for education. So there are two issues there. For Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and some of the others we have talked to lately, it's a question at this point that can't be answered and it will only be the test of time that tells that. The big portion of it is how it is funded and how those dollars go. As you may be aware, in British Columbia, for certain categories there is a level you can't spend below, and for others there's a level you can't spend above, and there are quotas in between.
Mr Smith: In the absence of those details, are you concerned that those jurisdictions have acted prematurely?
Mr Yeo: I'm more concerned with Ontario and the timeliness of how we act. The history of those provinces is such that they may have come to a reformed conclusion based on some other data. With us, it's an issue certainly of accountability and affordability and, as a group of people, we obviously will work towards that. To ask me to predict at this time if the quality is going to be better is beyond my capacity as a director or a supervisory officer.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Yeo and Mr Stoness, for appearing before us this morning and making your presentation and answering questions.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Chair: The next presenter is the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Mr Holmes. Welcome.
Mr Jeff Holmes: I would like to introduce the secretary of OPSTF, David Lennox, and the first vice-president of OPSTF, Phyllis Benedict.
The Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation represents 32,000 teachers, occasional teachers and educational support personnel who work in the public elementary schools of Ontario.
Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, raises serious concerns about the democratic function of school boards and it presents a number of issues which affect our membership deeply.
What teachers, education workers, boards and most particularly the children in the schools of Ontario desperately need is some small sense of stability, and that is clearly missing in the undertaking that's before us.
OPSTF does not have a position against the amalgamation of school boards, but we do question seriously the government's rationale for proposing such a drastic reduction in the number of boards from 129 to 66. The government has stated that part of the aim is to save and the stated amount is a mere $150 million. I say "mere" because as a proportion of the educational budget it's virtually insignificant. The federation questions whether the upheaval created by such a significant change in the number of boards is worth the relatively minimal financial return.
Our organization also questions the viability of some of the boards which have been proposed which cover either large geographic areas or which have extremely large student populations. It's difficult to imagine how boards will be able to meet in the circumstances that will be before them and it is difficult to wonder how the public will have any opportunity to monitor what their elected officials are undertaking.
The central question perhaps is whether the final outcome of board restructuring and education finance reform will have any net benefit to the quality of education.
Bill 104 must also be viewed in the context of the restructuring of provincial and municipal funding. The government has announced its intention to assume most of the responsibility for the funding of education by eliminating the role of residential property tax in paying for public and secondary education. Boards will no longer have the authority to raise revenue in their own jurisdictions and will therefore no longer have the ability to respond to the needs brought forward to them by their jurisdictions.
OPSTF has long advocated for the return of stronger government funding, but we do not support the virtual total provincial control that's being proposed in this bill.
A good example is junior kindergarten, where the government has suggested that junior kindergarten is now optional. It has cut financial support by about 50%; it has eliminated all capital funding for the program. Without the ability to raise funds locally, no board of education can now successfully undertake junior kindergarten.
This government has talked long and loudly about accountability, yet at a stroke they are stripping away the right of Ontarians to hold their school boards accountable for the actions that affect their schools.
1020
OPSTF also does not support the cap on the trustee allowance at $5,000. The federation does not believe that most trustee salaries across the province are out of line and it is our view that trustee remuneration is left better in the hands of the municipal electors.
Such low compensation will work against having a broad cross-section of individuals from communities to run for the positions of trustees and the resulting boards of education will not in any way reflect their communities. This is particularly true, perhaps, in northern Ontario, for who will either be able to afford or want the position of a school trustee?
With respect to specific provisions of Bill 104, OPSTF has concerns related to a number of issues: the unnecessary infringement on the democratic rights of school board employees; the lack of a general framework for the transfer of those same employees; the extent to which issues related to the operation of school boards are left to regulatory powers of cabinet; and the unfettered powers of the proposed Education Improvement Commission.
In what may be the single most undemocratic feature of this act, Bill 104 stipulates that neither a school board employee nor that employee's spouse may run as a trustee in any school board. I wonder if, by the same token, anyone who has a spouse employed in the public service in the broader public sector in Ontario should be disqualified from the opportunity of running to be an MPP, because there's a direct analogy.
There are no successor provisions in the legislation which provide for collective agreements and the transfer thereof. It is our position that Bill 104 should be amended to guarantee job protection for existing school board employees. Nor does Bill 104 specifically address issues related to the transfer of school board employees from existing boards to the proposed district boards. which in the majority of cases consist of at least two other boards. This will obviously create situations where employees with different salaries and benefits will be thrust together with no clear indication of the status of their collective agreements.
It is the position of OPSTF that Bill 104 should be amended to clearly recognize the legal status of teacher collective agreements during the transition period, until new collective agreements are negotiated between district school boards and their employees.
The size of a number of the proposed boards is a second concern. Employees who face involuntary transfer find themselves discomfited indeed. OPSTF believes there should be a legislative protection regarding the maximum distance for involuntary transfer of school board employees. Further, it is the position of the federation that in cases where a board wishes to transfer an employee to a work location beyond the boundaries of an existing board, such transfer should be subject to mutual consent.
I will give you a direct and personal example. My home board of education is Red Lake. I am released by the Red Lake board into this political position I hold. By the time I'm finished this position, so will the Red Lake board be finished. It will now be the Red Lake, Kenora, Fort Frances, Dryden and Atikokan board of education.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The board of northwestern Ontario.
Mr Holmes: That's correct. I have a home in Red Lake. I have made a life in Red Lake. It's my intention to return to Red Lake, but I have no clear indication that when this legislation is concluded I will have a job in Red Lake. Because of my seniority, I fully expect to have a job with the new board of education, but that job may be in Atikokan, it may be in Fort Frances, it may be in Kenora or it may be somewhere other in an area that is now somewhat near the size of France. I do not believe that is a comfortable situation for any employee.
I also draw your attention to the precedents Ontario has used before when a legislative framework has been drawn up in such cases. I simply remind you of what happened in the Kirkland Lake and Timiskaming Roman Catholic separate boards in 1992 and in the annexation that took place in Middlesex by the London board in 1994.
Now to the Education Improvement Commission. The Education Improvement Commission will have an incredibly broad range of authority to identify issues, to make recommendations to the minister, and to exert financial control over existing school boards under the new directions and the new district school boards that are in place. The powers of the commission over the financial operation of school boards will effectively suspend their democratic authority. This government has placed democratically elected boards in de facto receivership. It has abrogated the rights both of trustees and of the citizens who elected them.
The federation is also alarmed that the legislation prescribes the commission's mandate to include conducting research and making recommendations regarding outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards. This action supports the blinkered ideologue view that in all cases the rule of the marketplace is superior to all else. What place has this attack on the working people of Ontario in a document entitled the Fewer School Boards Act? The titles of both the act and the Education Improvement Commission are positively Orwellian in the crass manipulation they use of the public.
I want to touch briefly on one human aspect of this before I leave for questions, and that is the schools themselves. What little children desperately need is some sense of security and continuity. What this proposal is bringing forward is the spectre of contracting out. It means that some of the most important people in the lives of the children -- the caretakers, the secretaries, the bus drivers -- may become simply transients with whom they have no relationship and no ability to identify, and that is a shame. It disrupts the lives of the children in a way that is totally unnecessary.
In conclusion, Bill 104 is disturbing for the broad range of powers assigned to the cabinet and to the Education Improvement Commission. There are no assurances there will be open and full consultation on any issues related to establishment of district school boards, and the legislation removes a good deal of the accountability from the traditional function of our democratic rights.
I would draw your attention to two pages in our brief. There is a page of recommendations; there are 11 of them there and I have touched on most of them as I spoke. Finally, there is an appendix A which is the principles set out by the Ontario Teachers' Federation, of which we are a part, that have to do with the orderly transition of collective agreements.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Holmes. I'm afraid you've successfully used all your time and there won't be any time for questions and I regret that. Thank you all for coming and making your presentation to the committee.
EAST YORK BOARD OF EDUCATION; EAST YORK HOME AND SCHOOL COUNCIL
The Chair: Our next presenter is from the East York Board of Education, Gail Nyberg.
Gail Nyberg: Madam Chair, there's an extra presenter with us today, Laura Dark. I'd just like to take a brief moment to explain why Laura is with us. Laura is the president of East York Home and School Council, and heard from the committee on Friday that there would be no time for this group that represents a great number of parents in East York to present, so we would like to share some part of our time.
The official record does not show Andrew Lamb's position. Andrew Lamb is a student trustee in East York and sits on the board with myself and the other members.
The Chair: Thank you very much and welcome. You have 15 minutes to use as you wish, and if you wish to share it with Ms Dark that would be fine.
Gail Nyberg: I'm hoping the committee has been passed our brief because the picture of the child on the front is I think what this legislation is not all about. If it was all about this child or the children like that in Ontario, I don't think we'd be sitting here. This legislation and the proposed funding changes are not about this child. It's about taking money out of the public school system, out of the separate system and creating what we call in East York the lowest common denominator education. This is not about pumping more money and higher quality education.
It's also about pitting one area of the province against the other: separate against public, public against French separate, and we're not about that in East York.
1030
We have a study -- and it's a lovely little study -- done by the government that shows that $147 million. I wouldn't be sitting here as a chair of a board if the minister would stand up in the House and say, "We're going to do all of this amalgamation, and we're going to save $147 million, and other than that $147 million, I commit to leave every other cent in education to be spent for the children of Ontario." That commitment has not been made.
What we have here is the $1-billion myth. The parents of East York and the parents of this province were successful in putting great political pressure on this government not to take that $1 billion out. They have to get rid of those boards to take that $1 billion out.
Is there status quo? Status quo is not a go; I know that, and so do the people at this table. But we also know that radical change made this fast is not for the good. With the board they're going to create in Metropolitan Toronto with 310,000 students, we will look like Detroit very, very quickly.
I will wrap up on behalf of our board, but I want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to talk. I'm imploring, at this point: If this government is serious about making good reform, then it will take the time it needs to do it and not six months.
Mr Andrew Lamb: My name is Andrew Lamb. I'm the student trustee. East York students are concerned for the future of the student voice in East York. Right now we're one in 16,000, and with the new legislation we'll be one in 300,000 students. We feel we will be swallowed up and our voice will be lost.
Students in East York feel that many programs we have now are part of the classroom: extracurricular activities, student services, dramatic programs, sports teams; from these four alone I have learned as much, if not more, about myself and about what I want to do and where I want to go in life. Any student in East York, when asked, will tell you the same thing about the programs they've been part of. Students in East York are concerned these will no longer be available for them. These students, and especially myself, feel this would be a huge loss for our future.
The biggest concern of all students across the board in East York is the possibility of a rise in class size. In the past with cuts, we have seen class sizes rise to 35 students, where we are this year. If there are to be more cuts, what will happen to the 34 faces I see when I look around my English writers' craft class? Will this increase further to 40 or 45?
I'd just like to read briefly from the handout you have in front of you. While Bill 104 does not specifically address the funding model for education in the province of Ontario, students are concerned about the future that this legislation will direct.
Secondly, will the same opportunities, in terms of programming and co-curricular support, still be available to students across the proposed Toronto District Public School Board or will financial imperatives erode future opportunities for students?
Simply stated, will the students of East York be guaranteed that class sizes will not increase; that the programs and extracurricular activities that we feel are an incredibly important part of our education will not disappear? Most importantly, will the students of East York be guaranteed that their individual voice, which is heard now through me and through the board, which listens, will not be lost or swallowed up in the 300,000-plus students of the new mega-board? In East York, the students do not want to lose their voice or the student positions that now facilitate this inside the school, with the student councils in each of the schools, and outside of our schools.
In conclusion, East York students don't want to move backwards into the future; we instead want to continue to move forwards.
Laura Dark: My name is Laura Dark, and I am president of the East York Home and School Council. Our council represents 16 of the 25 schools in the borough of East York. We have been an active volunteer organization of parents in the community for over 36 years and are one of the largest organizations of our kind in the province. We have over 1,000 members who are activity involved in the daily lives of their local schools, working with classrooms, fund-raising and a myriad of other activities to enhance the quality of education in East York schools.
Our associations and the home and school council have an extraordinary relationship with the East York Board of Education. We mutually support each other in our goal of achieving the best for each student. Our meetings are always attended by a superintendent and a trustee, and often the chair and the director upon request. We feel this relationship will be impossible under a mega-board. Will the chair of this new board be available to us regularly? Will a trustee representing us be available? We doubt it.
Additionally, the institutional structure of our organization will be lost in an electoral plan which sees our community taken apart and subdivided into small parts of three huge constituencies. We lose our community identity, our contact with the school board made of our neighbours and direct community members, and our institutional framework. From our perspective, it would seem that the process of amalgamation of the municipalities and the school boards is the end of our 36-year-old parent volunteer organization. This is a loss for the students and a loss for the community of East York.
Are we to assume that this standing committee's decision to exclude hundreds of parents is reflective of the government's position on parents volunteering in the education system in Ontario, that is, that you are uninterested in our opinions of our children's education? Let me assure you it is both unfair to students and politically unwise to adopt such a position.
We want both you and the Education Improvement Commission to recognize the following:
Methods must be found to ensure that no existing local volunteer organization be lost in the superbureaucracy of a mega-school board.
This government and the EIC must involve parent groups in the decisions that are going to be made about education in Metro.
The EIC's bottom line should be directed at making the education system a better place for our children to learn. We do not support the EIC in the expedient destruction of our institutions solely in the name of administrative efficiency or cost cutting to facilitate income tax rebates.
It takes many people to make a classroom secure and a positive educational environment. Teacher-librarians, physical education teachers, design and technology instructors, ESL instructors, junior kindergarten, music instructors, computer classes, social support, adult education and caretakers are part of our classrooms, not administrative support services.
The EIC must recognize the special needs of Metro schools and provide a method to involve parents in all proposals for funding and curriculum changes in Metro schools.
In conclusion, the East York Home and School Council does not feel that the amalgamation of the Metro school boards into one board will have a positive impact on the relationship between parent groups and the education system. In particular, the loss to our East York community and the destruction of an active, effective parental involvement process makes no sense at all.
The amalgamation plan and the electoral plan are clearly conceived with no thought to the issues at stake at our local community level, and we urge you to correct this weakness by involving groups like the East York Home and School Council in the process of revisions to Bill 104. Thank you.
Mr Rod Thompson: We felt it important to bring you the perspective from our students, from our board and from our community, and I would like to express to the committee the concerns that our staff have within the Board of Education for the Borough of East York. They are concerns around the uncertainty of the future that the Fewer School Boards Act presents for them. You've heard some of those concerns in a generalized sense from other presentations we heard this morning.
In my 25 years as an employee in this board, it has become evident to me that one of the advantages that we have truly enjoyed in the East York board is the ability to communicate with our employees. That is not just an ability that simply refers to sending memoranda or paperwork or dealing with communications electronically, nor am I simply referring to the ability of our principals, our managers, our supervisory officials to interpret and transmit policy and expectations. I'm talking about open, honest and regular communication that has led in the East York school system to feelings by employees that they are valued in that organization.
It is an organization that has an articulated mission, a common purpose and a commitment to its employees that makes them really want to go the extra mile for the children in their care.
In East York caretakers are not just cleaners. They are guardians of our property, our assets. They take pride in providing welcoming opportunities for our children.
In East York our secretaries don't just prepare copy and answer phones. They take pride in knowing their communities, they take pride in providing emotional support for our children and they take pride in giving parents the comfort of knowing that a key communicator will be in touch with them when that's needed.
In East York our teachers know that children matter. They are committed to student achievement, they strive for excellence and because they're part of an organization which is of a size that can be communicative and responsive, they work as a part of a team to effect a common goal: better outcomes for the children of our community.
1040
Bill 104 proposes to change the dynamic balance that exists between the community's hopes and dreams for its children and the school system's ability to delivery on those hopes and dreams. It leaves a proud community perplexed in the wake of uncertainty about the ability to meet financial goals. It leaves a committed group of dedicated employees frustrated about the future.
We would urge the committee to look very carefully at the implementation of Bill 104. It's our strong recommendation that the transition of existing board structures into the proposed district school board structures be given adequate time so that programs can be harmonized in a manner which will not have a negative impact on students.
It's our strong recommendation that as local education improvement committees are established there be significant representation from existing boards so that the insights and the understandings of local issues can be applied in a sensitive manner during the transition period.
In this way the interests of children, of programs and of our staff can be protected. It is our strong recommendation that the implementation of Bill 104 not sacrifice future long-term opportunities for the children of this province for short-term financial goals.
Gail Nyberg: I would just sum up a little bit by saying, I think all of the presenters have told you how we feel. In East York we care about all kids in Ontario, not just the ones in Metropolitan Toronto. We understand that in Metropolitan Toronto and East York there are some different needs. In no way do we sit here and say that we should have a special deal in Metropolitan Toronto. What we say is that each child in this province has to have an equity of opportunity, and equity doesn't always mean the same amount of money, just like it costs a lot of money to buy a house in Toronto and it doesn't necessarily cost the same amount in Red Lake, and I think you have to look at the same process.
I have nieces and nephews who go to schools across this province. I'm a taxpayer in central Algoma. I have nieces and nephews in London. I have them in Timmins. I have them across the province. I want the same opportunity, but I think when you're looking at a funding model, which this legislation doesn't talk about, that says the same amount of money, you're heading for disaster, so I implore you as a committee to make recommendations that make this bill work in a fair manner for all children for an equity of opportunity.
The Chair: You've used up your 15 minutes. I regret we can't put any questions to you.
Mrs McLeod: I have a question to place on the record for ministry response. I respect the fact that there were a number of important and legitimate questions raised in the brief, like the guarantee of class sizes and the guarantee of protection of extracurricular activities. I think those questions need to be answered. I know what answer you would get if we placed them on the record. I won't put those on the record for direct ministry response from that commission to the committee, but I do feel the question legitimately related to the bill is, what student representation has been provided for in conceiving of the trustee numbers on the new boards?
Mr Skarica: Again, I don't have the answer to that question. I take it under advisement.
The Chair: Thank you all for coming and for sharing your thoughts with us.
YORK REGION ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
The Chair: Our next presenter from the York region separate school board is Ms Tina Rotondi Molinari. Thank you very much for being here, Ms Molinari. It's nice to see you again. We'll begin by asking you to present your co-presenter.
Ms Tina Rotondi Molinari: With me today is John Sabo, associate director of corporate services, to assist in answering any questions that the committee might have.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and to provide you with our views on the changes that will affect education in Ontario.
In my presentation I will be addressing three areas, including the background and history of the York region separate school board, our views on the changes being proposed for education in Ontario and what we believe we can offer this government to ensure a successful transition.
The York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board educates 44,000 students in 73 schools, employs 3,300 staff and covers 664 square miles of geographic area bounded by Metro on the south, Simcoe on the north, Durham on the east and Dufferin-Peel on the west.
While the majority language section of our board will not be affected by the reduction of the number of school boards, the French-language section will be removed and amalgamated with a much larger French-language separate district school board.
We estimate that the number of trustees on our board will be reduced from 18 to approximately nine, and trustee honorarium will be reduced from $12,553 per year to $5,000.
Our board is unique in a number of ways, and our experiences may prove invaluable to the province as it moves forward with its changes to education.
In the mid- to late 1980s we were considered the fastest-growing board in North America. Extensive growth in York region resulted in the need for us to build a large number of schools in a relatively short period of time. Since 1985 our board has completed 49 school construction projects, generating 2.8 million square feet and 31,000 new pupil spaces.
The capital expenditure and debenture debts incurred during this high growth period are still being felt today. We are now carrying an outstanding debenture debt of approximately $98 million requiring repayment of $16.5 million annually.
In 1989, due to ongoing financial difficulties caused by high growth and low assessment, we asked for a provincial review of our operations, and as a direct result, in 1990 we were the first school board to undergo a provincial audit. This provincial audit experience proved to be very interesting and beneficial to both parties.
In 1993 another request was made by the board to have our operations reviewed and resulted in the appointment of a provincial review team led by Mr John Sweeney.
At the end of 1993 we faced an accumulated deficit of $32 million. To retire our debt we developed, and the province approved, a five-year deficit elimination plan for our board. We are proud to say that we have since turned the ship around and we are well ahead of our original plan to eliminate the deficit by 1998, with now only $11 million left as of 1996 year-end projections.
Our debt combined with ongoing provincial grant reductions served to increase the discrepancy between what our board can spend on its students and the amount spent by our public school counterparts. Over the past few years we cut a number of programs and services, including over 25% of central office staff.
In 1994-95 an external monitor was assigned to observe our board's operations. In 1994 we established a budget-audit monitoring committee which continues to operate under a mode of monthly reporting and controlling of expenditures. This monthly reporting and external monitoring approach is very similar to what is being recommended in Bill 104 and, as such, our experience in this regard may prove invaluable to the government.
We strongly support the principles in the Ministry of Education and Training's paper titled Meeting Students' Needs, specifically education quality, equity for students and taxpayers, affordability, accountability and responsiveness to local needs. The emphasis to put children first and focus on the classroom is both commendable and appropriate, and in this light we offer our comments and considerations about Bill 104.
I cannot comment on Bill 104 in isolation; it must be taken within the context of other legislative changes that will affect education in Ontario.
Bill 104 clearly demonstrates the government's continued commitment to constitutional protection for Roman Catholic separate school boards and for French-language governance, and for this we thank you.
We also applaud this government for moving ahead in its commitment to repair the current inequitable and unfair funding model. We all know that exhaustive studies have been done that confirm the need for change. Where past provincial governments have long recognized the need, they have been frozen in the consultative process. This government has clearly demonstrated its will to move ahead, and we are hopeful now that you will not be dissuaded by those who are seeking to further delay this process.
1050
We commend this government on its plan to develop a new, fair funding model to ensure a high quality of education that meets all students' individual needs regardless of where they live. As a board which has had to do more with less and experienced severe restraints while still maintaining an excellent education system, we have gained the expertise that could assist in developing a fair funding model and we would be pleased to assist in any way we can in the development of this model.
According to the ministry's own report, A Report on School Board Spending, January 1997, we already spend more in our classrooms and less on administration and supervision than the provincial average. As a government you have challenged school boards to look for innovative ways to make up for budget shortfalls, and we have done just that. Our board is unique as a leader in sharing services with our coterminous board.
Our success in reducing bureaucratic duplication and saving money is unmatched. Our joint student transportation services has already saved York region taxpayers over $7.5 million in the first two years of operation. In 1994 we established a joint board consortium, with a mandate to identify and recommend the implementation of all non-instructional initiatives where collaboration can lead to cost saving or improved efficiencies.
While other boards in the province have hired external consultants, the success in York region can be directly attributed to the hard work and dedication of the boards' own staff and trustees. I will leave behind copies of our Leaders in Sharing brochure and a copy of our video, which highlights our joint initiatives for your review.
Our board has explored many alternative revenue-generating ideas, including a pilot project for school bus advertising, and working with private industry to get paper products work books and consumable supplies at no charge. We are on record as supporting the removal of education funding from local taxation and we believe this to be the only way to ensure equal resources per pupil throughout Ontario. We are hopeful that the new model for funding effectively works to the betterment and advancement of the children in our schools by providing them with the same educational dollars available to schools across Ontario.
At York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board we have always promoted and supported parental involvement, and we commend this government on its commitment to giving parents a greater voice in education through the advisory school councils. We caution, however, that not all school councils are ready to take on additional responsibilities and may be discouraged from participating if there is no clear direction, guidelines or support. This area needs to be approached slowly and cautiously, allowing parents to ease into and become comfortable with the increased role.
The Education Improvement Commission will undoubtedly play a key role in the transition to the new system of education governance in Ontario. Therefore, to ensure the success of the transition, the commission must be represented by all the key stakeholders, including representatives from the separate school boards. While we note that this commission will be approving boards' monthly budgets, there are no criteria as yet set out for the approval of these budgets.
As mentioned previously, our board has an effective monthly budget audit monitoring process, and we offer our assistance to the EIC in developing the criteria for approval. We would like to assist the commission in developing workable, realistic rules and be available to the commission, when formed, to give them the benefit of our experience.
Our board has some serious concerns about the extent of outsourcing non-instructional services that may be recommended by the commission. All school-based staff, although not all work directly with students, have contact with students throughout the school day. Any outsourcing must take into consideration the needs of children and how cuts will affect the education process in the classroom. We would be prepared to work with and make recommendations to the commission on ways of effecting cost savings.
Through our joint board consortium we have implemented many efficiencies in areas of non-instructional services, including our amalgamated courier service, attendance counselling, joint tendering, snowplowing, recycling and waste disposal, and portable relocations. We would be pleased to share our ideas and successes with the commission.
We also ask that a principled approach based on social justice be applied to school board employees who may be terminated as a result of this outsourcing initiative. This approach should include the development of a comprehensive human resources policy that recognizes employee contributions to our school systems.
We support the move of trustees getting out of the taxation business and concentrating on being guardians of education in their communities. We also support the concept of boards focusing on students and devoting efforts to ensuring successful student achievement, but we are unsure of what the government views the role of trustees to be in this regard and we welcome further clarification in the future.
We are concerned about reduction in the number of trustees, which will give taxpayers less access to their representatives and will jeopardize one of the ministry's own belief statements which calls for responsiveness to local needs.
We agree that the trustee role should not be hands-on, day-to-day management; therefore the honorarium should better reflect this reduced role and responsibility. However, where some boards now offer full-time salaries, it must be pointed out that most boards have been reasonable in setting the honoraria. The suggested cap of $5,000 may limit the interest and ability of some who may truly wish to put in the time to become an informed advocate for their community. The significant reduction in honoraria will in all probability limit the number of individuals competing for trustee positions in the next election, leaving them to some individuals who may not take the responsibility seriously.
Given the government's plans to provide clear prescriptive guidelines for school board operating expenditures, the anticipated changes to collective bargaining and the limited role for trustees, it is unclear why the government foresees the necessity to eliminate trustees who may be school board employees or spouses of school board employees.
In closing, please allow me to reiterate: Exhaustive studies have already been done that have confirmed the need for change. We congratulate this government for moving ahead in its commitment to repair the current inequitable and unfair funding model. Where past provincial governments have long recognized the need for change, they have been frozen in the consultative process. This government has clearly demonstrated its will to move ahead, and we are hopeful that you will not be dissuaded by those who are seeking to further delay the process.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you today.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Rotondi Molinari, and Mr Sabo. You've used up the entire 15 minutes, I regret to say, and we will not have time for questions, but we thank you for sharing your thoughts and those of your board with us.
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presenter is from the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, OECTA, provincial office, Ms Rettig. Nice to meet you again.
Ms Marilies Rettig: Thank you.
The Chair: As you settle I'll just review some of the rules with you. You have 15 minutes. We'd appreciate it if you could present your co-presenter and then you may begin your presentation, and hopefully we'll have some time for questions at the end.
Ms Rettig: I would like to preface my presentation by introducing the two people who are sitting here with me. To my right is Marshall Jarvis, first vice-president of our association, and to my left is Claire Ross, general secretary of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. I would also like to preface my presentation by saying it's certainly a pleasure to be here. I think it's very important that you allow us the opportunity to come and speak to you as members of the educational community and express to you some of the very significant concerns we have with Bill 104.
At the same time as expressing my appreciation for this opportunity, I have to communicate the dismay with which we are presenting, recognizing that we have only 15 minutes to make a presentation on a piece of legislation that does much more than redraw geographical boundaries and does much more than just eliminate a number of trustees from different regions in this province; for indeed this legislation will significantly change social democracy in the province of Ontario as we know it.
1100
Our brief is before you and it contains certainly many of the very significant concerns that we have with respect to Bill 104. I wish to briefly highlight three or four of these for you and then I'll be more than willing to entertain questions, together with Marshall and Claire.
First of all, I'd like to express concern that Bill 104, that's the restructuring of school board structures, is only one piece of a very significant puzzle of educational reform in this province. We have considerable concern as a teachers' organization that educational reform is done in such a piecemeal fashion. Certainly we feel very strongly that reform cannot be well founded, cannot ensure appropriate consultation at the local level and cannot ensure that appropriate impact studies are conducted on the various pieces of reform that will ensure that these reforms are indeed ones that will enhance and improve the education system in Ontario.
One of the first significant problems we highlight in the context of our report to you is concerns relative to the Education Improvement Commission. Precisely, we have significant concerns and grave difficulties with the scope of powers that are currently granted to the EIC. Powers that usurp the authority that is currently given to and entertained by those who were democratically elected and should have maintained that mandate until January 1998 will now be overtaken by a commission that is not democratically elected, that is not reflective of local jurisdictions, but one that is appointed by the government here in Toronto and that will reside almost exclusively in Toronto and make very significant decisions about communities into which they have very little insight.
Second, we raise for you the very grave concerns we have with respect to the impact and infringement upon the constitutional rights that are afforded to the separate school community of Ontario through section 93 of the Constitution. Indeed we have such grave concerns with respect to the infringement upon constitutional rights that for the first time in our history an open letter was issued to each member of our provincial association to ensure that the 35,000 teachers and members of OECTA in various regions of this province are acutely aware of the threats to the constitutional rights that are currently afforded to the separate school system and indeed of both the short-term and the long-term implications of those kinds of infringements on the rights of separate school boards.
Certainly first and foremost is the right to secure local taxes, the right to access property tax by school boards, and second, the kinds of authorities and decisions that are now lost to locally elected school boards, separate school representatives of the local community, and now are taken on by a commission that usurps that authority.
Very briefly, I reflect upon the situation as it has existed and transpired over the past 30 years in New Brunswick. It was 30 years ago that local boards lost their right to tax, the geography was increased, the number of trustees was decreased and the power and authorities invested in local school boards was also decreased. It took 30 years in New Brunswick for that government to end up eliminating school boards altogether, and the concern we have as separate school teacher representatives is that this will be the same demise that will face all school boards in Ontario and certainly most pointedly the separate school boards in Ontario.
We have within the context of our brief outlined very significant concerns we have with the proposed amalgamation, practical difficulties that arise with respect to amalgamation. I will only highlight one or two and then we will be available for questions that you may have of us.
First and foremost, concerns with respect to staffing: I must express grave concerns of OECTA relative to the use of outsourcing and the replacement of secretarial staff, custodial staff and other support staff in school boards. We see it as an issue of fundamental social justice that employees, regardless of what capacity they work in in school boards, are not told on one day of the week that they no longer have contracts under which they work and are employed, rather that their services will be outsourced. It has happened in other sectors, and regardless of whether it has happened in the health sector or indeed it will happen in the education sector, we see it as tragic and certainly something that goes against elements of social justice that should be the very nature and substance of the democratic process of this province.
The other concerns we want to express on behalf of our membership across this province are the concerns with respect to teachers and their ongoing work within the context of contracts at the local school level. Certainly it is a position of this association, and we have put it forward as a recommendation, that the EIC should not involve itself in any form or fashion with respect to collective agreements and changes within those collective agreements.
Finally, I want to highlight a few very significant, practical difficulties we see with respect to this legislation and, in doing so, I have to reflect upon the north. I spent the past three weeks travelling throughout the north and I've spoken with teachers and I've spoken with parents and other community members who are very acutely aware of the negative impacts of a school board that now runs more than 800 kilometres. One only has to go to the north and travel extensively through the north, let alone live in the north, to realize what those implications are for trustee meetings and how they can viably have different meetings, particularly during the winter months.
You look at the communication problems and certainly a pat answer is, "We have technologies and you can use those technologies." Well, not every family in the north has access to a computer. It is true that computer usage, and computers that are owned by families, has risen over 40%, but that has been in the case of upper-income and middle-income families and certainly is not the case with lower-income families.
I would put forward that there are many families in the north, or indeed in other parts of this province, that would not have access to computer technology and therefore would be unable to have any kind of credible input or communication, if indeed technology is now the basis of communication between trustees and representatives of school boards and parents. Moreover, the infrastructure for technology is not there in the north, be it cell phones, be it e-mail, be it computer systems. So one must be very realistic with respect to those realities of the north.
Finally, and I say this critically, I'm a teacher in the east and my new board will be Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and Prescott-Russell, and I recognize full well that this kind of structure of a school board will not allow for community involvement and input into the schools. The trustee who is elected from Cornwall will not know what happens in Perth and what the schools in Perth will need. They may know a little better than an appointed commission sitting in the Mowat Block in Toronto, but they certainly will not have the kind of expertise and insight into what the schools in Perth will need or the schools in Smiths Falls. If that's true in that jurisdiction in eastern Ontario, it will most certainly be true in jurisdictions in northern Ontario that far surpass that kind of geographical distance.
I will conclude my remarks at this point. Our brief is before you and I urge that each and every one of you who is a member of this committee take time and read this thoroughly and reflect very carefully on the concerns we bring forward. We bring them forward as educational practitioners, as teachers who are before students in the classrooms each and every day, and we do so recognizing the importance not only of the social democratic system that we have, the fact that locally elected trustees are accountable to students, to parents and communities by which they are elected, but also recognizing that the best decision-makers are ones who are locally elected, who know the community and ones who will know those parents and those children within their schools and recognize what the needs are, not only of the children within one specific school and jurisdiction but those within that school board.
I wish to conclude my remarks at this point in time and I certainly would be more than willing to entertain questions, together with Marshall and Claire.
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Thank you for coming today. I appreciate your comments. I just have one question, and I'll try and give the floor to my colleague here.
We heard from the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association today and now we're hearing from the Ontario separate school teachers' association, and it would appear to me that some of the things should be common in your approaches since you're both dealing with separate schools.
The trustees suggested today that they were pleased with the government's continued commitment to constitutional rights that's reflected in Bill 104 and you're suggesting that you have a letter, which I guess you haven't passed to us yet, because I don't see it in my package, that we're not standing up for your constitutional rights. Can you explain the difference between the trustees' approach and yours?
1110
Ms Rettig: I would suggest that it's not a matter of any one group's approach. It's a matter of what exists in section 93 of the Constitution and the fact that the auspices contained and directions contained in Bill 104 are an infringement of those rights that are contained therein.
First and foremost, I would speak to the fact that property designation rights for separate school supporters will be suspended. The right of access to local property taxes is outlined within section 93 and is a right that's afforded through the Constitution. It doesn't matter whose interpretation you have as a group, the fact is that the Constitution exists, that is a right contained within the Constitution and that certainly has been suspended for a fixed period of time.
Moreover, in my opening remarks I alluded to the significant concerns we have with the kind of decisions that will be made by the Education Improvement Commission, and that's a group that is appointed by the provincial government. Section 93 states quite clearly that separate school boards are to be governed by those who are elected by members of and accountable to the separate school community jurisdiction in which they are elected.
Those are two examples and certainly I'll be more than willing to provide you with a copy of the open letter. I didn't bring it because it was not part of the brief, but I certainly will make it available to you.
Mrs Johns: I understand that, but the bill does say, "This act does not adversely affect any right or privilege guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution Act." So it does state that the intent is that as much as we're going to fund in a different way a per pupil basis which in some cases, especially in my riding, is a very good thing for both boards, I think it does say that we are respecting the rights of the separate school, and I would take issue with you in that regard.
Ms Rettig: Just supplementary, it may be well for the government to acknowledge that, but who upholds the Constitution? I suggest it would be a Supreme Court decision and you would go to the Supreme Court of this country to assess if the Constitution indeed has been infringed upon or not.
By virtue of the fact that you are attempting to remove rights of access to local property taxes and usurping significant authorities and decision-making powers of locally elected separate school trustees, we put forward that we feel that the constitutional guarantee has been infringed upon.
Mrs McLeod: Fifteen minutes is not long enough and there are so many areas that need to be explored, including all of the implications of the role of the trustee being rendered virtually meaningless because they'll have no fiscal flexibility. Somebody referred to it yesterday as "centralized decision-making and decentralized blame."
But let me focus particularly on the constitutional rights question because it does seem to stand out. Let me ask you, first of all, whether you think that having lost the right to tax through the funding piece that's to be the companion to Bill 104, that can ever be reversed.
Ms Rettig: It would be very difficult to see how that kind of reversal would take place, be it in one year or be it in five years. It's quite clear that the area of local property taxes that was once attributed to the educational envelope has now been used, indeed overused, in the area of social services that will now have to be subsidized and provided by local municipalities. It would be difficult to assess at any time when any group goes back and suggests, whether it's one year or five years down the road, that, "Yes, we made a mistake five years ago and we want to ensure that we again have access to property taxes." That access will not be there because the money simply won't be there.
Mrs McLeod: I'm going to ask you for a constitutional opinion. I respect that neither of us are constitutional lawyers, but do you have a sense that it's possible that the constitutional right of Catholic ratepayers to governance could still be protected through parent councils, even though there is not taxation, but in fact a right to governance could be protected even without elected representation?
Ms Rettig: No. Again I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I'll ask others to join in assisting me in my response, but I would put forward that certainly that would not be consistent with guarantees within the Constitution. The right to tax will not be there and certainly the fact that one has to be elected democratically, be a member of the separate school community and elected by the separate school community, to make decisions for and be accountable to that separate school community.
Mr Claire Ross: The fundamental issue here is the right of trustees, which is vested in the Constitution Act. It is not vested in terms of parent councils. What we have in the context of the bill is the exposure of the minority Roman Catholic system to the control of the majority relative to the financial decision-making powers that emanate out of Queen's Park. This was never, ever the sense of the 1867 agreement. In other words, governance was vested within the elected representatives of the separate school system, and it seems to me that this is offended significantly with respect to the legislation which has been tabled.
Mr Bisson: Mr Ross, I think you hit the nail on the head. That's the issue. Section 93 clearly spells out that governance means not just having a separate school board system. It means being able to make the policy decisions, and in order to make those policy decisions, you've got to be able to control the revenue so that you have the money to make those decisions.
I guess the question Mrs Johns asked you was: "Don't worry. We're saying in the legislation that your constitutional rights are not being violated. Does that give you any kind of assurance?" I'd ask you that question and come back after.
Mr Marshall Jarvis: I think that the move by the government basically disfranchises Catholic ratepayers from directing their school system, and no one, no institution or body, has the right to give those up for any period of time.
I think there's a fundamental question here: Is this government prepared to undo the entire fiscal package that they have announced from mega-week by returning the property tax base to the Catholic system after five years? I don't see it happening and I'm sure we will remain silent on that point. But I think there will be a significant infringement and I do not believe the Catholic system will survive this type of attack over an extended period of time.
Mr Bisson: That's the point of what it comes down to. The real danger here is that you take what you have now, which is governance of your own system under the Catholic separate school board system and you say, "We're going to give it to the province, which is controlled by the majority." Therefore, it's going to be the Ministry of Education that's going to make the decisions on behalf of francophone education and separate school education. The question that flows from that is, what do you tell this government? If you feel as strongly as you do, as I do, that this is the wrong direction, if we're truly talking about governance, what do you tell them that they must do in order to protect your rights?
Mr Ross: I think the answer to that question is simple. We had an education finance reform group that worked on this for some 18 months and never once did we suggest this kind of model, any of the people who were at the table, for the very reasons that you allude to. The underlying fact that should be recognized by everyone around this table is that the government could have acted otherwise. It didn't have to move in this kind of a dramatic direction.
When I listen to the fact that there is a statement in the bill that says, "We're going to respect your constitutional rights," my question to you is, then why haven't you done it in the reality of the legislative proposals that are before us? Whether they respect the property designation rights, the right of the separate school trustees to manage their own system, the right not to invasively intrude into the system by means of financial decisions out of Queen's Park, these are fundamental and basic questions. I agree with you. They go to the very heart of the future existence of our system, and unless they are satisfactorily answered, there is no question -- I don't think you have to be much a prophet to understand -- what is going to happen and thus it is that the concern is so significantly stated at this table.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Rettig, Mr Ross and Mr Jarvis. I appreciate that yours was just a summary of a comprehensive brief. I assure you that the brief in its entirety will form part of the record.
Mr Duncan: I'd like to put on record a question to the Ministry of Education: To provide us with the constitutional legal opinion they have that this bill protects Catholic schools. The evidence we've heard is quite compelling that it does not, that what the government, by what it's doing now, is in effect undermining the ability of Catholic schools to function into the future and to undermine the ability of the Catholic school system to make fundamental choices that are guaranteed in section 93 of the Canada Constitution Act. I would appreciate a copy of the opinion that the Ministry of Education has defending the position that's been advocated by Mrs Johns.
1120
Mrs McLeod: In addition to that question, could we also be made aware of any guarantees which would have been offered outside the legislation, which would ensure the protection of constitutional rights?
Mr Skarica: If there is an opinion, I can forward it to you. Is the ministry here?
The Chair: And Mrs McLeod's?
Mr Skarica: The two go together.
Mr Carroll: To jump in on the same issue, it is interesting to note the opening line on page 4 of the brief from the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Associations: "OSSTA is pleased to note the government's continued commitment to constitutional rights that is reflected in the proposed revision to section 1(4) of the Education Act."
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carroll. We'll wait for clarification from the government on that.
Mr Bisson: Madam Chair, I'll be prepared to bring documents from Catholic school boards up in northern Ontario that have quite an opposite view and think that you're taking away the right to governance of Catholic education in this province.
The Chair: I look forward to having that on the record. Thank you very much for appearing before us today.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: Our next presenter is the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. Is Ms McGuire here? Welcome.
Mrs Norma McGuire: Thank you. My name is Norma McGuire. I'm on the board of directors of the federation and I'm a past president of the federation. I live in Etobicoke. My colleague and I are here presenting on behalf of our president, Ann Smith, from Pembroke and our first vice-president, Pat Johansen, who lives in Thunder Bay. Both are fully employed and it's a little difficult for them to come to Toronto for a presentation.
Ms Genie Roth: Good morning. My name is Genie Roth. I'm an executive member of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. I am also president of associations and councils in the boards of Peel, Halton, Etobicoke, East York, Scarborough, Toronto, North York, the city of York and the York region.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations appreciates the opportunity to respond to Bill 104. The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations is a parent, volunteer, non-profit organization and as such has a long and outstanding history of responding to issues that concern the welfare of children and youth.
During the past 81 years, the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations has responded to many proposals, including funding for Catholic education and the Hall-Dennis report. Within the past few years the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations has responded to the Royal Commission on Learning, the Fair Tax Commission, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the graduated licensing system, as well as Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to regulate its Sale and Use by Others.
As you can tell, our concerns and interests are diverse. The policies and positions of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations are based on resolutions adopted by our association members at the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations annual meeting. Our comments are based on these policies and positions.
It is rather difficult to respond to the proposed Fewer School Boards Act. Our criterion for our response is, is it the best for each student? In review, we discover that we have more questions than we have answers. Bill 104 does not address the planned changes to the funding process which the government has announced; nor does the bill specify how the transition is to be accomplished. How do we, as parents and as an organization, begin to discuss or argue against the concept of equity in education?
Since 1964 it has been the policy of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations to promote equal educational opportunities for all students in Ontario and across Canada. We cannot argue against the concept but we would like to express our concerns that without the whole picture it is difficult to support the changes. We believe that educational finance reform and educational programming must occur simultaneously with the reform of educational governance.
As an organization, we have observed many changes to education that have prompted associations to propose resolutions at our annual general meeting that have been adopted and forwarded to the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education. How do we support the proposed changes with only half of the picture?
Although the Fewer School Boards Act does not deal with the issue, it is the policy of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations to promote one publicly funded school system in Ontario. We understand the government's hesitation to implement one publicly funded system; however, we believe that one system could address the uniqueness of religion, language, culture etc. The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations also believes that it is the ultimate in efficiency.
Based on this policy, in 1992 we petitioned the Minister of Education and Training and the ministry to strongly encourage school boards to amalgamate mutual services, starting with coterminous boards. Although a great deal of progress has been made, there is a reluctance among coterminous boards to cooperate. Will the format of the new proposed district school boards eliminate this or will this cause further divisiveness?
Mrs McGuire: We question the size of the proposed new district school boards: 33 public district school boards for 1.5 million students; 33 separate district school boards for 0.5 million students. Some 70% of the ratepayers in Ontario support the public school system. Does this appear to be equal? It is obvious to us that there is unequal sizing. As an organization, the home and school federation supports that locally elected school boards remain a necessary part of the education structure.
We believe that change can be beneficial and more efficient. We are not convinced that the proposed changes are the most responsible way of doing it. It appears unfeasible that with some of the new district school boards the geographic size of France and sparsely populated, the proposed maximum 12 trustees will be adequate representation for those communities. Three proposed district school boards -- Toronto, Peel and Middlesex, London, Oxford, Elgin -- will serve the same population as 57 school boards in the province of Alberta.
OFHSA recommends that the alignment of district school boards be more conducive to adequate representation.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations would also ask for your reconsideration of the honorarium for trustees. Ontario is unique in that it has a variety of populated areas, from dense to sparse. Each area requires the best qualified persons to represent our children. We question whether the best volunteers will stand for election by placing an unrealistic ceiling on the trustee honorarium. We want trustees who are dedicated to the education of our students and capable of fulfilling their duties.
We recommend reconsideration of the honorarium for trustees.
We have a great deal of concern that the proposed changes will alter programming. Each of the school boards currently has programs that are unique to their area. Will these be maintained or will they be lost? The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations has numerous policies advocating for programming for students. They're in your package.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations recommends that the Ministry of Education and Training propose now those programs that will be core programs. We want to know now. The public needs to know what funding will be available for those programs. The stability of our students' education demands it. The quality of our students' programs must not suffer.
The background information on the release of Bill 104 states that parents will have more say. The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, throughout its 81-year history, has advocated for parental involvement; that is what home and school is all about. In our opinion, every school should have a home and school; however, realistically we realize that probably would not happen.
We are concerned about legislating parental involvement. Our experience shows that parents become involved if they so choose. However, a rigid format such as proposed in memorandum 122, which is what we're going by now, does not allow much flexibility or workability. It could become difficult to maintain the representation as proposed. Home and school does not involve itself with the administration of a school; however, as parents we want to know what is going on and we want to be involved.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations recommends that school councils be advisory in nature only. We also recommend that the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations be involved in the proposed legislation regarding school councils.
1130
Bill 104 proposes an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition of school boards to district school boards. The overwhelming powers of this body are absolutely astounding. The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations has always been a partner in education. We were there before the teachers' federations. OFHSA will continue to be a partner. We will continue to advocate the best for each student.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations recommends that a member appointed by the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations be part of the Education Improvement Commission.
We thank you for your time.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Thank you very much for an excellent brief. As a person who was an active member of a home and school association, I appreciate everything you've had to say.
Since there's only a minute, I'd like to focus on number one, and that is the alignment of district school boards. We've had a lot of focus on the Metropolitan Toronto board, but I'm aware that the map is going to mean real access problems when you get outside of the large urban areas. For example, I had a call from someone in the Muskoka area who said, "We're going to be lumped in with Lindsay." I know in areas like Huron-Bruce, hours away for travel time --
Mrs Johns: It's not Huron-Bruce; it's Huron-Perth.
Mrs Caplan: Huron-Perth. How can people have access if the distances that they have to travel to meet someone are so vast? Do you want to speak to that? Is that what you were referring to in number one?
Mrs McGuire: Yes, and be adequately represented. I think some of the small communities that have long had a board will now have one person. As you say, that one person will travel so far and people within the community will be so far from where that board is situated, how are they going to get access? Are you going to make a long distance phone call every time you want to talk to a trustee? Are you going to make a long trip?
Mrs Caplan: Have you done an analysis on how many of these boards actually would create the long distance situation or the number of miles of travel that would be from point to point? Has your association done any of that? I haven't seen any of that analysis.
Ms Roth: I can only speak really from the experience of our home and school members in, say, the northern Ontario regions, outside of the greater Toronto area, the Golden Horseshoe, whatever you want to call it. They have great difficulty as parents communicating with each other and among themselves and with their school boards because of the distances involved, and they're very concerned over the greater school boards that are going to be created. I can't give you specifics, but I know that there is a concern among those who have distance involved.
Mr Bisson: I want to thank you for your presentation. I guess I come to it this way: I come from Timmins. Our new board in the French separate system will run from a place called Calstock, which is north of Hearst, all the way down to south of North Bay. We're going to be limited to 12 trustees. Within that Highway 11 corridor, there are more than 12 municipalities. So the very simple question I have is, is that where you end up, in a situation where there's probably, on that particular board, somewhere in the neighbourhood of -- I haven't counted it out -- 20 to 25 municipalities that will be limited to 12 trustees, of which Timmins is about 40% of the population? Now, I'm the parent. I've got a problem. I live in, let's say, Sturgeon Falls or Smooth Rock Falls and I want to deal with a busing issue. How am I going to deal with that?
Ms Roth: Good question. I don't know. We don't have the answers either.
Mrs McGuire: You'll have a large long distance telephone bill.
Mr Bisson: In many communities there are party lines. If you can pick up the phone to call out - the point is, how are people going to get access to their trustees and to influence decisions of the board if (a) you can't get hold of the trustees because they're going to be so few and (b) they're not going to have any power?
Ms Roth: I would agree totally, yes.
Mr Bisson: The last question: In the last provincial election, the government said that it stood for smaller government and was not going to cut one cent out of education. They are creating huge bureaucracies with these new boards. Do you think that's contrary to their promise of smaller government and government closer to the people of Ontario? Are they fulfilling that promise or are they breaking it?
Mrs McGuire: That would be a personal opinion, and we are here to represent the federation's position. Yes, I can give you my personal position; I'll go outside the door and do it.
Mr Bisson: I take it it will be embarrassing to the government. Thank you.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you very much for coming in. The very nature of your group is that as parents you are very involved in the schools and their operation, or giving advice and so on and so forth. I understand from your report that you believe that school councils should only be in an advisory role. If you can take the quantum leap, as it were, and think of the bill being passed and there being school councils, how do you see your involvement? I know you would want to be involved in how that's established, but how do you see your role and what advice could you give if the bill is passed vis-à-vis the school councils?
Ms Roth: I'm speaking for myself, okay? I'm not speaking for the federation, really, because I can't speak on behalf of how everyone feels. Personally, I feel that with an organization such as ours there is accountability. We are accountable to our members. With school councils, at this point it would seem that they are accountable to no one other than themselves, and we foresee special interests creeping in. How accountable will they be to the student population across Ontario?
I see pockets of little groups rising up in the schools and controlling. How beneficial is that for everyone across Ontario? How will there be equal opportunity or how will the equality of education be the same across Ontario if we have school councils that are not accountable? I feel that there's some form of accountability that has to be created. I don't know how that's to be created. Our organization will be very happy to suggest or offer ideas, but it's the accountability thing, who's accountable for what. That's my personal opinion, in any case.
The Chair: Thanks to both of you for coming in and presenting on behalf of your association. We appreciate it.
TAXPAYERS COALITION (PEEL) ONTARIO
The Chair: Our next group is the Taxpayers Coalition of Peel, Mr Mitton. Welcome.
Mr Don Crawford: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My name is Don Crawford. I'm chairman of the Taxpayers Coalition of Caledon and vice-chairman of the Taxpayers Coalition of Peel. Today our presentation is going to be made by the president of the Taxpayers Coalition of Peel, Mr Blaine Mitton.
Mr Blaine Mitton: Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, it's wonderful to see changes taking place in a province which has a great opportunity to be first-class but is loaded with debt from previous governments that were gutless to take bold action. Those people with vested interests have had control for far too long with nil respect for those who have paid the bills or for those who have had to compete in an international market.
The trustees and educational bureaucrats must go if the system is to be fixed. Over $6 billion of education cost is spent outside the classroom. This is a fraud on taxpayers. That's out of a total of $14 billion totally spent on education. Pretty near half is spent outside the classroom.
Interruption.
Mr Mitton: Interestingly enough --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Mitton. I should explain the rules to you. In fairness to everyone, Mr Mitton has the opportunity to speak for 15 minutes. You will all be given your opportunity as time permits, but he must be given the opportunity to speak without any interference.
1140
Mr Mitton: Thank you. It was interesting that yesterday's Star, which I think sank to a new low, indicated, "Snobelen Heckled at Reform Meeting." A 10-year-old was used as an illustration to talk about class sizes. So we've dropped to using consultants who are 10 years old is what they're really saying.
In my region of Peel there are two giant board of education monuments with no one who teaches. This is where our money's going. It's not going to the teachers and to education. It's going outside the classroom and we need to get it back in the classroom.
Curriculum should be set by the province, the same for all. Testing should be standardized by the province.
Taxation must be taken away from school boards and done by the province. This eliminates one taxing bureaucracy.
Delegate the staffing responsibility to the principals, along with school management. This is why we have principals. They did it well in the past and most of have been through some of those.
Get the cost to educate one student down to $5,000 per year.
Allow students the right to fail. Give them this right early and they will improve dramatically and not be casualties of the workplace.
There's no place for mediocrity in our education system. From my experience it sure is there now.
I heard education bureaucrats talking of a two-week testing process to be fair to students. A friend I have in the placement business gives a 30-minute test to qualify an applicant for a possible job placement which could be a lifetime opportunity. The education bureaucrats had better get real. Cut the time and cut the costs.
Our unemployment rate is still 9.7%, while Ohio's is 2.6%. Keep the cost reductions and tax reductions coming for the taxpayers. We are not out of the woods yet. We cannot even compare US costs to our costs as we cannot afford the equivalent due to our high unemployment rates.
We will have $120-billion provincial debt before the deficit is under control. There is no room for complacency or wavering.
Canadians have seen their share of the domestic market eroded by more then one third, over 30%, since 1980, and that's from the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada.
To understand this better, just visit Canadian Tire, Wal-Mart, Zellers etc and look at the labels to see where the majority of our products are made. Obviously we are not competing. In the real world, the consumer wants the best value for their hard-earned after-tax dollar and therefore buys product at the lowest cost. More and more this is not from the Canadian manufacturer. Maybe we can get some real job and wealth creation started if we get our costs in line and taxes lowered. This is a very serious situation.
We support cutting school boards from 129 to 66 and trustees from 1,900 to 700. In fact, we said ABCs, "Abolish boards completely," and bring it under a committee of municipal government. However, this is a good start.
Cap the trustees' salaries at $5,000 per annum. This will eliminate people from the position who want to create a part-time job interfering with the true educators. We will find those who are interested for the right reasons.
The next real problem is the educational bureaucrats. These must be eliminated as in many cases they are the real culprits, with the trustees becoming their puppets.
Eliminate people with vested interests from school boards, such as teachers and spouses. Sometimes these make up nearly half of the boards.
Proceed with removing education taxes from property taxes, while completing the reassessment process. This is important when one looks at the number of bankruptcies and tax arrears, while reassessment will still improve taxation fairness.
Municipalities can more readily take responsibility for welfare and subsidized housing. Maybe they will not be in such a rush to add on to development charges, which stunts development and reduces jobs. The rubber will get closer to the road.
Ensure current boards cannot sell, transfer or commit to sale of assets over $50,000, particularly during this interim period of time.
Cap 1997-98 budgets to no more then last year's budgets. There must be absolutely no golf course commitments in Peel or elsewhere. For those who have had the audacity to promote golf courses in these difficult times, it only indicates their arrogance and disregard for getting our provincial deficit under control.
The drive should be to find out how much it should cost to educate one student per year and drive to that target quickly, with allowances for language and extreme transportation options.
The education system has to be put together in a manner which improves quality and raises expectations.
The final draft of the new curriculum for elementary schools was perused by two of our parents and found to be sadly lacking. We believe this education minister truly wants to increase expectations and quality. However, on reviewing the new curriculum, it was felt the bureaucracy was coming in with a program similar to the current one and thus setting the education ministry up for criticism from both parents and teachers.
This is a sad state of affairs as it sets the ministry up for failure, but typical of bureaucrats, they have low expectations when change is required as they do not want to rock the unionized workforce into a more challenging lifestyle.
Interruption.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please.
Mr Mitton: The emphasis on the student by Minister Snobelen is impressive. When one establishes what it really costs to educate a student from just the classroom perspective and institutes that across this province, together with curriculum standards and testing, amazing results can take place.
Competition can start within our school systems. Teachers will search for better ways rather than falling to the bottom of the provincial grade-ranking ladder. Too bad for the union leaders who have had it their way for years.
Stay the course. It's time for a change and realignment. If there's no change, there will not be an improvement and less opportunity will be afforded our youth, and that's very important. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have two minutes per caucus.
Mr Wildman: I noted from your presentation your support for removing education funding from the residential property tax, which has general widespread support among all parties. In the current proposal, of course, this is part of a larger package which includes the other part of the ledger, and that is the downloading of significant other services to municipalities, to the property tax, not just hard services which are related to property values, things like roads, fire services and policing even, but also soft services such as long-term care for the elderly and disabled, public health, those kinds of services.
Do you support that part of the package, since it is all part of one package: the downloading of those kinds of soft services, health care services in particular, to the property tax?
Mr Mitton: I most certainly do support that. Welfare is particularly one of the big-ticket items on that and quite frankly --
Mr Wildman: I didn't mention that one.
Mr Mitton: Particularly within our area, what we're finding is that when the welfare issue is addressed and people are told they can get a job and they come to a placement area to get it, 50% of the people don't show up for a half-day training session on the methods to get a job, 25% show up belligerently and the other 25% really want a job. Quite frankly --
Mr Wildman: Do you think that's true of the elderly on long-term care as well?
Mr Mitton: No, no. My point is that when the rubber hits the road and the management of all of these services gets closer in those specific areas, a lot can be done to change and to help and to benefit. So I think it's more --
Mr Wildman: So you think the long-term care will benefit from it?
Mr Mitton: I think so.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Mitton. According to a set of statistics published by the union representing the secondary school teachers, OSSTF, we spend US$950 per student more in Ontario to educate a child than they do in Alberta and our results, as we all know from international studies and studies that are done, indicate that we perform substantially below Alberta's student standards.
We had a lady come forward to us yesterday and recommend that we raise the per student funding in Ontario to $8,000 --
Mr Wildman: I thought that was Mr Moll.
Mr Carroll: -- which would involve about a 25% increase in the funding for education in the province. Could you tell me what effect you think that kind of move would have on the quality of education in our province?
Mr Mitton: I think quite frankly it would probably decrease the quality of education. Quality of education and costs are not synonymous. They've got nothing to do with one another. It has to do with expectations and a whole lot of things that have to go on in the classroom. We can't even compare ourselves with the US because we can't afford even what some other countries do. We've got a $120-billion debt and we have to deal with that.
Mr Wildman: What's the deficit in the United States?
Mr Mitton: I heard people talking about constitutional changes and legislation and so on, and I'm amazed. I mean, people could go broke and companies could go broke and you'd still be talking about the Constitution. I have no understanding of this. I'm sorry. But to answer your question directly, costs and quality are not synonymous. They've got nothing to do with one another.
Mr Skarica: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I find it somewhat disturbing that when there's a witness who advances the government's position or is in favour of it, they get interrupted by the crowd and by some of the politicians. I just don't think that's appropriate. We don't interrupt people who have opposite views, if I could just point that out.
1150
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Skarica. We're doing our best to maintain order. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a democratic society. People are entitled to their own opinion.
Mr Duncan for the official opposition, please.
Mr Duncan: I just wanted to go through your presentation for a couple of moments and then ask you about it. You indicated in your first bullet point that no one teaches in your region. In fact, there are quite a number of teachers. You said that the curriculum should be set by the province. The province does set the curriculum across the province. You're indicating that testing should be standardized by the province. It is standardized by the province.
"Taxation must be taken away from school boards and done by the province." We support the province funding education. What we don't support is what you're supporting: a massive property tax increase for the people in Peel region, which is going to happen. Every expert, including your own regional government, is saying it's going to happen.
You're saying that we should get the cost of education down below where it is just about anywhere else except undeveloped countries. We disagree. We think that's just utter nonsense and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for representing ratepayers with that type of position. We think we should be spending more per pupil and demanding better results and there should be nothing wrong and no disagreement with spending more per pupil.
I'd like to know, I guess in a general sense, how you're going to explain to the ratepayers of Peel when their property taxes go up, the quality of their education goes down, their students can't compete. You say that our schools are mediocre. I disagree. We can always do better. The fact is, we've got students performing very well by international standards everywhere. I just attended a ceremony the other night where students in my community were receiving scholarships to the best universities in the world. I think this kind of approach -- raise property taxes, raise taxes, reduce services -- undermines what in our view ought to be a system that awards success with better funding and better equipment. It also fails to recognize that our schools are in the 1990s, not in the 1940s.
Why wouldn't you advocate spending more to demand better results instead of attacking the people who are trying to make our school system work?
Mr Mitton: Maybe I'll let Mr Crawford answer this one and get another perspective to let you know it's not all mine, but I've travelled internationally for a good number of years and I disagree with you vehemently.
Mr Duncan: You've got your facts wrong here. Why should we take anything you say --
Mr Mitton: I'll refer Mr Crawford to your question.
The Chair: Let him answer, please.
Mr Crawford: You've asked a lot of questions of the presentation that Mr Mitton made. The only one I can speak to with any authority is in my investigation into what's going to happen to the property taxes in Peel. We do not agree with you, sir, that the property taxes in Peel are going to go up after this is going to happen.
Mr Duncan: Well, you're all wrong here.
Mr Crawford: No, we didn't say that here.
Mr Duncan: These facts are wrong. You've simply --
Mr Crawford: No, I'm talking about --
The Chair: Mr Duncan, please let the witness answer. Please let them answer.
Mr Crawford: You said that the property taxes in Peel are going to go up.
Mr Duncan: Way up.
Mr Crawford: The indications we have, because we monitor that very closely, our organization does, are that they are not going to go up.
Mr Duncan: You're wrong.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): You're wrong. The sky is falling, Henny Penny.
Mr Duncan: These facts are all wrong. Why should we take your word on that?
The Chair: With respect, Mr Duncan, we must give time to the witness to respond and not interfere.
Mr Crawford: Madam Chair, the only thing I wanted to respond to was about the taxes going up in Peel.
The other thing is the figures from Alberta, by the way. Our figure from Calgary was that it was $5,000 per student to educate a student in Calgary. That board is almost the same size as the Peel board that spends close to $7,000 per student. So our figures are a little bit different that we received from the school board in Calgary than you have, but we'd like to just throw that out for the record.
The Chair: Thank you both very much for appearing today and for putting your views on the record.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO DIVISION
The Chair: Our next presenter is from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Mr Ryan. Thank you very much for being here. Welcome. I'd ask you to present your co-presenters, and you have 15 minutes.
Mr Sid Ryan: Thank you. To my right is Charlotte Monardo. Charlotte is the chairperson of our jurisdictional committee dealing with education workers. On my left is the coordinator for education workers in CUPE. I'm Sid Ryan, the president of CUPE Ontario.
I'd like to begin by saying that CUPE represents almost 35,000 education workers in the system. There are roughly 47,000, all told, support staff workers in Ontario, and I'd like to begin by saying that each and every one of these workers, those represented by CUPE and those who are not represented by CUPE, are worried sick today by the powers that have been vested in this Education Improvement Commission, which we believe is going to lead to the total privatization of the jobs of these workers.
There's a pattern developing here with this government. They seem to go out and want to demonize and stigmatize workers or people who disagree with this government. We've seen it with the people on social assistance. They were scapegoated and the public was led to believe that all of these social assistance recipients were sitting at home drinking beer. School teachers have been scapegoated by this government; school trustees, most recently; OPSEU workers; Metro councillors; mayors. Anybody who disagrees with this government has been scapegoated, and now we're beginning to see an agenda where support staff workers are about to get scapegoated.
You heard the previous presenter, who I note, by the way, is from Peel region, a cheerleader for John Snobelen, no doubt. He made his disparaging remarks about the wasting of taxpayers' dollars being spent on people who are working outside of the classroom, leading us to believe that all of those workers in the system who are doing a fine job today, an excellent job of delivering a quality education system, are somehow less than worthy, that somehow these people are ripping off the taxpayers, that somehow these people are not giving us a quality product. That's the kind of scapegoating that I guess we're going to see in the near future.
In July 1995, John Snobelen publicly stated his intention to "invent a crisis" in Ontario's education system, a crisis that would justify the kind of radical reforms his government wanted to make and, no doubt, those reforms that the Peel taxpayers association have just alluded to a few moments ago. Not surprisingly, our schools have come under a constant barrage of criticism ever since. The charges, each one disputable: education spending is out of control; too much money is being spent outside the classroom; our students are graduating without a good education; teachers are overpaid and have too much control over education. I just found out a few moments ago that the union leaders have all the power and control in this province as well.
Bill 104 is nothing more than the predictable outcome of this propaganda campaign. If Bill 104 is passed, the government will begin to exert a new control over Ontario's education system, starting with the establishment of the undemocratic Education Improvement Commission. Bill 104 is the government's first big step down the road of privatizing Ontario's schools. First, non-instructional services will be outsourced. Next, no doubt, will come the handing over of the construction and maintenance of our schools to the private sector, then charter schools, and finally privatization of curriculum and even teaching, as exists south of the border.
CUPE does not believe that our public education system is broken; at least it's not broken yet. It will be broken if this government gets its way. In fact, we wonder if that just might be the agenda: Break the system and then use the public dissatisfaction that is created to build public support for a private system.
This presentation will focus on the issues in Bill 104 that most directly touch the lives of the 35,000 CUPE members who work in Ontario's education system. This is not to say that CUPE is not deeply concerned about the process being put in place for mergers and amalgamations, the government's intention to control and reform curriculum, or the government's attack on the province's teachers. As time does not permit us to give a presentation on all of these issues we would like to address, we urge the government to take into account the concerns of the teacher unions and groups like the Ontario Education Alliance.
We believe Bill 104 is an attack on jobs in every community across the province. The Education Improvement Commission will be mandated to recommend to the government how to, not whether or not to, outsource all non-instructional services in the system. It would appear that the privatization of tens of thousands of decent jobs is based on the government's constant contention that too much money is being spent "outside" the classroom on services like caretaking, maintenance and school administrative services. Minister Snobelen said yesterday that the government is wasting money on administration. I think it's interesting to note that the taxpayers cheerleading coalition that just left a few moments ago also made exactly the same statement, that money is being wasted on administration outside of the classroom.
It sounds like this government would like to return to the time of the one-room schoolhouse, when students walked all those miles through minus-forty-degree weather to get to school, the teacher swept the classroom and lit the wood stove in the winter, nice neighbours would shovel the snow, repair the roof, and do any painting that was necessary. Students would never be bothered by intrusive school psychologists, speech therapists, guidance counsellors or special education assistants. And of course there were no phones, no photocopiers, no fax machines, so there was no need for expensive school secretaries. In fact, in those good old days, the system was really run cheaply.
1200
Are the many services available in today's system worth the extra costs? Of course they are. We have a world-class education system, as was attested to when the Durham Board of Education and Sinclair Secondary School were awarded the prestigious Bertelsmann Prize for excellence in education just last fall. These are not the only world-class boards or schools in this province. Our system is world-class because it is public and it has developed good processes of governance and accountability.
If the government is not suggesting that we can do without these important services in our schools, then what they must be saying is that employees who do these jobs should earn lesser wages and have lower working conditions. In our opinion, this is an unacceptable jobs strategy by anybody's standards. The average CUPE school board worker supports a family on less than $24,000 per year. CUPE members believe our education system and their jobs are worth defending.
Before I pass off to Charlotte to finish off our presentation, there are a couple of questions I would like the committee to answer. First, we know that Bill 104 gives unprecedented powers to the EIC. What we would like to know is: Does this EIC have the ability to contract out the work and the jobs of CUPE members in this province and all support staff workers? Does this committee have the power to override collective agreements? Does this committee have the power to eliminate successor rights for support staff workers in this province? They are three important questions that we'd like this committee to at least take a shot at answering.
I'm going to pass over to Charlotte.
Ms Charlotte Monardo: What about the quality of non-instructional services? Does it matter if private companies clean the school, maintain and repair the plumbing and the furnace, handle student reports, and staff school and board offices? In CUPE's experience, it very much does.
Ontario's students deserve the best possible environment in which to learn. In fact, studies have shown that students do better in clean and comfortable learning environments. They also deserve reliable, well-trained, well-treated staff in their schools. CUPE's experience with privatization in the education, health care and municipal sectors shows that service invariably suffers. Buildings are not as clean. Lower-paid and insecure staff have a higher turnover. Sometimes contractors go out of business, leaving the public to pick up the tab. Ironically, it can often cost more, not less, to contract out public services. Time and again we have seen that privatization is done only for ideological reasons, not because it provides better service and not because it costs less.
When the Harris government attacks jobs, it attacks communities too. Yes, there will be private sector jobs in schools if private companies take over non-instructional services. But the need to make a profit will dictate that there will be fewer jobs provided, they will pay less, and they will not provide the benefits and fair working conditions that inspire loyalty and consistency in staff.
Taking money out of the pockets of workers takes money out of the local economies around the province. Consumer confidence is already low. If Bill 104 is passed, landlords will find usually reliable tenants suddenly not able to pay their rent, banks will have former school board employees defaulting on mortgages, and local retailers will see business fall. Such an economic strategy is simply unacceptable, especially in a province where the real unemployment rate stands at 14.2%.
Privatization will not only take money out of Ontario's local economies. Currently, large American-based companies are best positioned to profit from the sudden and massive privatization of non-instructional services in Ontario's schools. Contracts with these companies will siphon taxpayers' money out of the local economy, the region and even the country.
CUPE is very concerned about the establishment of the Education Improvement Commission. It seems that the government is unwilling to take full responsibility for the changes it is about to unleash on our schools. Instead, an unelected and unaccountable body will take over what should be the responsibility of elected politicians at both the provincial and local levels.
The North American Free Trade Agreement and the current negotiations on the Agreement on Internal Trade also present serious considerations that must be taken into account. Provisions in NAFTA make it virtually impossible for services that have been privatized to be taken back into the public service, whether or not privatization works out. Once the Agreement on Internal Trade is expanded to include the local government sectors, there is reason to believe that these provisions will also apply to school boards. If total privatization of non-instructional services were not to work out, therefore, boards could only take this work back in-house if the companies involved were financially compensated for all lost business, now and in the future. Obviously, the cost of taking the work back into the public sector would be prohibitive.
In closing, I would like to take you on a journey and have you go back to the days when you were in public school. If I asked you who your grade 1 teacher was, chances are you don't remember. But if I ask you who the custodian in your school was, chances are you do remember. Remember the school secretary and the things that the school secretary did over and beyond the typing of letters? Yes, we are a very important part of the school, and we ask that those jobs stay there. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have just over a minute per caucus.
Mr Carroll: A quick question for Mr Ryan. You made a quote that our system is world-class, and obviously you and I would agree that our system exists to educate our children. I'm sure you would agree with that. How then can you rationalize in this world-class system designed to educate our children, where we spend more money than most other jurisdictions, that our children do not perform as well as even national or international standards when it comes to testing? How can you explain that in our world-class system?
Mr Ryan: First off, we've just had the ultimate test where our students in Durham region were put up against the best in the world, in terms of a system that was measured against other systems across the entire industrialized world, and the Sinclair Secondary School and the Durham Board of Education came out as the number one board in the entire world. So I just cannot agree, Mr Carroll, that somehow the students that we are producing coming out of our school system are any lesser than the students that are being put through educational systems in any of the countries you'd like to refer to -- the United States, for instance; you keep using the United States as an example. You talk about, how can we afford the education system here in this province, given our debt load? Well, what about the debt load you've got down in the United States?
Mr Carroll: I didn't talk about the United States.
Mr Ryan: Well, you talked a little while back about it, or your friend did at least, in Ohio. God forbid that we ever see our education system in this province go down to the levels that you're proposing in Ohio or even Alberta, where you've got charter schools. We've got the Yamaha school of excellence, where students only get accepted on the basis of their excellence in their musical ability, and that's the primary focus of the school system. That's where you're taking us, Mr Carroll, with your charter schools and your privatization.
Mr Carroll: You don't accept the test results.
Mr Ryan: The average person in this province does not want to go where the Tories want to take us, I can assure you.
The Chair: Mrs McLeod for the official opposition.
Mrs McLeod: I was just responding once again to Mr Carroll's interpretation of the test results.
To talk to Mr Ryan specifically about a major focus of concern in the brief, one of the statements that was made by the Ernst and Young consultants to the ministry when they were asked to look at the savings in amalgamation was that costs could in fact go up under amalgamation as you began to harmonize services and salaries. Clearly the government does not intend to see costs go up under this model, and in fact we all suspect they may want to take considerably more money out of education.
So it seems to me that they have a dilemma: They have to find dollars somewhere, and fairly large dollars somewhere. We obviously think the use of the $6-billion figure is a way of suggesting that the out-of-classroom expenditures are expendable, whether it's janitorial, custodial services or busing of kids. We know that's not true, but things like that are going to be an area of focus, as you have suggested. You've said that means, in terms of outsourcing, either less service or it means salaries of less than an average of $24,000. But there's another possibility that was suggested yesterday, and that's that the government may shift the costs of a chunk of what is provided out of the classroom right on to the municipal property tax base. Do you have any sense that that might be what's contemplated?
Mr Ryan: We tend to believe from the leaked documents that were put together by a group of consultants for Al Leach and the recommendation was that there were roughly $500 million that could be saved both in the educational system and in the municipal system by eliminating successor rights and coming in with contract overrides -- those overrides basically would mean that any collective agreements provision that provided any degree of job security would be a barrier to the private sector coming in and they should be eliminated.
We think it's more likely that they will focus on eliminating successor rights. As we all know, when it happened to OPSEU, they lost 13,000 members overnight and 8,000 members just about two weeks ago when these mega-week announcements came in. So they've lost 21,000 members in OPSEU just strictly by eliminating successor rights.
1210
We think that's where they're going to go, more so than dumping more of the education bill back on to the taxpayers. It's possible, depending on how much of a fight the CUPE members can put up and the parents and teachers' associations, the more we become aware of just what this will mean in the system. In other words, when you get rid of these workers out of the system, then you say, "Okay, what type of a system do we have left?"
Let's go down to the United States once again to where the Tories want to take us. Get on a bus, go down to New York City, take a look at the inner-city schools in New York. I've been down there; I've seen them. We've seen the graffiti on the walls. We've seen the violence in the schools. We've seen school children and certainly teenagers carrying weapons, and that's basically because you've got a privatized system. Primarily these workers are not in the system --
Interjection.
Mr Ryan: You may not agree with that but, for instance, there's a lot of child abductions attempted recently in the Metro area. You ask any of our maintenance workers, any of our caretakers, any of our secretarial workers and they will tell you, sir, how many people, how many strangers, they eliminate from our schools on a daily basis. That type of service you do not get with the private sector, who happen to come in at night-time to clean the schools, are paid $8 per hour, and once they get a job at $8.50 per hour, they exit the system and leave.
So on a weekly basis you're going to be seeing new faces in that school system. These people will not be screened the way our workers are, they'll not receive the training that our workers receive on a daily basis, and consequently the safety of children in this province will be far less than it is today under the publicly funded system that we have where these workers have been doing an excellent job for the past 55 years in this province under a publicly funded education system.
Mr Wildman: You've raised a lot of issues. I'm particularly concerned about what you've said, I think accurately, about NAFTA and the effects of that agreement on a privatized system. You can't put it back after.
But I'd like to follow up on the issue you just raised, Mr Ryan, and that is safety. Currently we have a system where we have well-qualified people in schools who are doing jobs, who understand the school; they're part of the school community and they are a very important cog in terms of the safety of kids. If we have a more sort of revolving-door type of thing of minimum-wage workers working for contractors doing those kinds of jobs, there really is an issue of health and safety of kids, not just in terms of how well the school is maintained and cleaned but in terms of potential serious problems related to abuse. Have you addressed that in any way with the boards and/or the ministry?
Mr Ryan: First off, we would love to have a meeting with the ministry. We've probably made about a dozen phone calls. My office has called personally across to John Snobelen's office, to Al Leach's office. We have not been consulted. We have not been able to get in the door to sit down with any of these ministry staff to talk about these concerns. We know that the school boards around the province, the separate school board in Durham just the other night, are beginning to take votes in support of the support staff where they're saying, "We don't want to see you eliminated out of the system."
I'll just give you one little story. I was on a picket line outside Janet Ecker's office, as a matter of fact, just two nights ago with Local 218, the Durham school board workers. We were outside on the sidewalk a couple of hundred of feet down demonstrating against this particular bill, and a car was coming through the picket line and this woman rolled down her window and said, "I've got to come back and join you," because she had two of her sons in the back of the car and they said: "Oh, mommy, there's Mr McEwan, our caretaker. We've got to come out and see what's going on here." So she went in to do her business, came back out and joined us on the picket line, because the child felt very comfortable and related to that caretaker and felt very safe. She told us the story of how when her child started school, the caretaker took the child from the class, because the child was crying, down to his office and had lunch there with the child, and the next day the kid felt very comfortable going to school and formed a really nice relationship with that caretaker.
You don't get that type of service, you don't get that kind of bonding between support staff workers if the system is privatized. If it's a revolving-door type of syndrome, it doesn't happen. You don't have the time to develop the relationships for children to feel safe, and as Charlotte says, it is directly related. A child's ability to learn is directly related to the learning environment, that safe environment that we find in our school system, which is completely different in Canada than it is down in the United States, where, again, the Tories want to take us.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ryan, and thank you to your co-presenters for being here today and for stating the views of your organization. We appreciate it.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, Mr Ryan asked a very specific question during his presentation and I would like that to stand as a question to the ministry for a direct response.
Mr Skarica: I think I could answer it right now, actually. If you look at the legislation, it says, "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on how to promote and facilitate outsourcing of non-instructional services" by district school boards. So the answer is clearly no from reading that section.
Mr Ryan: Sorry. The answer was which?
Mr Skarica: There's no power, therefore, for the commission to do any of those things you suggested. All they can do is "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister."
Mrs McLeod: The answer's also no, there's no protection.
Mr Wildman: In other words, they can recommend that it be done; they just can't do it themselves.
Mr Ryan: If I could have just a second, except that under section 344 of the act, it says that none of the decisions of the EIC can be challenged in a court of law.
Mr Froese: Is this presentation over, Madam Chair?
The Chair: We don't want to get into a detailed discussion of this. The question was to put it to the ministry, and perhaps, Mr Skarica, you could forward that for a formal response.
Mr Skarica: All right.
Mrs McLeod: The other point following from the presentation was that I wonder whether the committee could consider a recommendation that when we're in the Windsor area, we look at whether there would be adequate time to visit some of the Detroit inner-city schools.
Interjection: That could be arranged.
The Chair: Perhaps the subcommittee could consider that and come back to the committee with that report. Thanks very much.
Thank you again very much for being here.
Interjections.
The Chair: Excuse me. Mrs Johns, Mr Duncan, excuse me. Ladies and gentlemen, if we don't have order, we'll have to recess and we'll take valuable time away from the last presenter.
The Chair: Could I ask the Etobicoke Board of Education to come forward. While they're getting settled, Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: Just to clarify this for the sake of the members of the committee and the public, if the committee wanted to move a motion now opposing charter schools and vote in favour of it, that would prove that we're not in favour of an American system. I'd be quite happy to vote along with Ms Johns against charter schools and to express an opinion to the government that this committee is on record as opposing charter schools. That would prove we're not in favour of an American system. Do you want to move that motion?
Mrs Johns: I would like to move to the presenters.
ETOBICOKE BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: If there's no motion on the floor, we'll pass on to Ms Haas, the chair of the Etobicoke Board of Education. Thank you for your patience. I know you've been waiting a while to make your presentation.
Ms Kathy Haas: As you can see, there will be an adjustment because it's now after noon, so it's no longer "Good morning" on the presentation. It's similar to how life goes day to day in a school, or maybe even hour to hour.
I'm Kathy Haas, chair of the Etobicoke Board of Education. I'm also a parent of four children presently enrolled in the system, one in elementary, two in middle and one in high school. I also was raised and educated in and graduated from the Etobicoke Board of Education.
I'd like to thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak to Bill 104. Bill 104 clearly states the provincial government's direction to reduce the number of school boards, reduce the number of trustees and assume the responsibility of financing education in Ontario.
I'm not going to suggest the status quo; that won't do. Reforms are absolutely necessary. However, the reforms must meet two very critical criteria. First, it is imperative that all reforms improve the learning opportunities for students; second, the reforms must not overturn local control while sidestepping democracy. Today I will be presenting a compromise solution that I believe will meet the provincial government's agenda while ensuring excellence of opportunity and continued local democracy.
The Etobicoke Board of Education has an excellent reputation within the community. This was recently confirmed in an independent communications audit report dated December 1996. In part it stated, "The vast majority of respondents believe that the Etobicoke Board of Education has a high profile in the community and that the board's image is positive."
There is a common belief in Etobicoke, however, that the Metropolitan Toronto school board is dysfunctional. Although it has served its purpose historically, its weaknesses are becoming more obvious as it strives to equitably distribute funds for approximately 300,000 students in six large, transient and culturally diverse communities.
The Etobicoke Board of Education has always demonstrated its fiscal responsibility by ensuring cost-effectiveness in all areas of its operation. For 12 straight years we have returned surpluses to our ratepayers. For 12 years we have demonstrated excellence in education without spending our formula allocation provided by the Metro board.
1220
Not only have we maintained a top-quality academic and technical reputation, but we have also introduced many unique and innovative programs that address the enormous changes in diversity that have occurred in our city. We have tackled our at-risk cultural and language challenges in such a cost-effective way that our per pupil costs have been decreasing every year for the past five years.
I am here today because I'm concerned that our success at fiscal responsibility, while maintaining excellence, will be lost within the Bill 104 model. Bill 104 would legislate the amalgamation of seven local boards into one. The Etobicoke board on its own would fit into the government's plan. With almost 40,000 students and still growing, it would be one of the largest boards in Ontario. I am strongly recommending that Etobicoke be maintained as a single board.
A board of 300,000 students, representing 2.3 million people, will be unmanageable. In fact, it would be responsible for more students than most of the other provinces in Canada. Each trustee would oversee approximately 34,000 students. In other Canadian jurisdictions the average trustee would oversee 8,500 students.
The Sweeney report suggested representation of nine trustees for the Etobicoke board; the province is suggesting three. A compromise solution would be to adopt the federal riding boundaries, as suggested, and then split these boundaries in two. This would reduce the existing 12 trustee positions to six. It would provide accountability to local residents while maintaining programs that address the special needs of our diverse learners.
This proposal would allow for local democracy, a form of governance the province is accused of eliminating. It gives parents a real voice, while still empowering school councils. This fits with the government's agenda of reorganization through clearly defined roles and reduction of duplication.
In order to address the issue of education financing, I'm proposing a moderate local residential tax base levy of 10% to support our unique needs. This, combined with the ministry's proposed funding model, would still allow the province to determine the cost per pupil, while providing the necessary funding for special needs. Also, by permitting a moderate residential levy to accommodate local differences in priorities, there would be no need to proceed with the proposed constitutional legal challenges.
Coterminous board models appear to be driving the mega-board model. Under the proposed Etobicoke model, working with our coterminous boards, the municipalities would not be impeded. For example, the Humberwood Downs facility, located in north Etobicoke, is the largest multi-use facility in Ontario. It opened in January 1996 and is home to an elementary public school, an elementary Catholic school, a public library and a community parks and recreation facility.
Etobicoke could serve as a provincial model. The addition of three trustees at remuneration of only $5,000 per year is hardly an onerous price to maintain cost-effective local democracy.
Allow me to provide examples that support my contention of Etobicoke remaining as a standalone board with six trustees and a moderate local levy.
Islington Junior-Middle School is located in central Etobicoke. It is a school whose community is proud of its high standards and international characteristics. In 1988 the school had an enrolment of 510 students; 300 students resided locally in single-dwelling homes within a middle- to high-income community. The Middle School gifted program was centrally located at the school in order to provide ease of access for the gifted students. The gifted program did not put a strain on the local school and community.
In October 1991 staff presented a report on the crowded conditions at Islington Junior-Middle School, due to, in large part, the change in demographics within the local community. A large number of rental buildings in the immediate area were being vacated by seniors who had moved to service facilities or unfortunately had passed away. After community consultations with all stakeholders, the board decided to build an addition to the school. The gifted program could remain since there was no other site that could adequately accommodate it at the time.
Recognizing that the capital program could not totally fund this project, we needed access to money in the Metro capital incentive fund that had accrued through our, the Etobicoke board's, lease and rental agreements. Subsequent to this report, in September 1992, which is only two years later, Islington Junior-Middle School, with its rated capacity of 571 learners, had 706 learners enrolled. There were six portables onsite and the site could no longer fulfil the needs.
The enrolment pattern and projections clearly indicated a requirement for long-term classroom space over and above the original estimation. The board proceeded for another addition. I'll move quickly through this.
Ultimately, in 1996, the gifted program has been relocated. We reopened a mothballed school and Islington Junior-Middle School is now home to 724 local students who are living in the buildings surrounding the school.
This is a dramatic turnover. Along with that, since September 1996 to January 31, 1997, there have been 239 admits and demits to the school -- this didn't include the junior or senior kindergarten component -- the majority of whom did not speak English. Surmounting the language barrier and dealing with immigration papers and related issues adds considerable time and stress to any school office.
Teachers must plan in order to meet the social and academic needs of each of their learners while dealing with constantly changing classroom dynamics. Classroom groupings and seating arrangements require constant change.
It was calculated at Islington that 603 of the 704 students live in the 14 apartment buildings that surround the school. All but two are rental buildings. Where are their backyards? How does this affect programming and the day-to-day interaction with the students?
At the same time, it was discovered that out of the 704 students, only 227 spoke English as a first language. Of these 227 children, only 199 of these children were born in Canada; 32 children still have cultural adjustments and some speak English dialects. There are 45 different languages spoken by children at Islington. Some 36% of the students in grades 1 to 8 have only been in Canada one to two years and 22% have been in Canada three to five years. There is a high demand for both direct and monitored in-class ESL and ESD support, speech and language, attendance and counselling, guidance support and itinerant behaviour resource teams. These services, combined with a dedicated staff, volunteer parents, seniors and co-op student volunteers make this school unique within Etobicoke, and it requires constant local attention.
All communities are deserving of their unique recognition and needs. Most people remember a feature article in the Globe and Mail, November 28, 1992, titled "A Home Called Dixon." Just a review of the community and the school: Kingsview Village Junior School is located just north of Dixon Road on the west side of Kipling in central Etobicoke. In May 1990 it was home to 385 students. It had a multicultural population and many of the students were born here, but they had East Indian and Pakistani ethnicity and were primarily English-speaking. Throughout the 1990 school year the population grew by approximately 70 students. The new students were just the beginning of the Somali influx and many of the students came from well-educated, wealthy families escaping as refugees.
During the school year, September 1990 to 1991, after the already 70 students, the population grew again from 420 to 525, mostly new Somali admits. The school was required to reorganize four times within that year and two portables had to be added to the site. From September 1991 until June 1995, the school population grew to 732 students. An addition of 11 new classrooms were built. Six of the 12 portables were left on site for continued expansion, community parks and recreation programs, and a Somali network and adult ESL classes. Kingsview became a community school. As of today, there are 785 students. There have been 212 admits and demits since September, not including kindergarten.
Due to the enormous population explosion, we were unable to predict the numbers of newcomers and times of arrival. The newcomers were predominantly non-English-speaking refugee claimants from Somalia, without the support systems of conventional refugees or immigrants. Most of the Somalis are living in private condominium development, with no services and inadequate facilities and space. The families are living together in very crowded conditions, which is problematic for them and their non-Somali neighbours. With the rising tension in the condominiums, the school was a safe haven for the community.
The Somalis were coming from war-torn Somalia refugee camps to Etobicoke where life bore no resemblance to their former life experiences: different language, weather, food, housing, schooling, customs and religious practices. They had no experience living in a multicultural community and no community services were available. As refugee claimants, there are no health services provided except for emergency services, immunization and TB testing. Many of the children were in school with serious unmet medical needs.
There continues to be community concern regarding tuberculosis and other contagious diseases. Students and their families are suffering from post-war traumatic stress. They remain unattended because of the lack of service and cultural bias against mental health assistance. The programs developed by the Etobicoke board have creatively accommodated these diverse needs.
Students are living in fractured families; parent or parents are dead, imprisoned or fighting in Somalia. Many siblings or other child relatives are in the home, often more than eight. Over time, as families are brought together, further adjustments and problems occur that lead to marital separation or divorce. Students often are extremely aggressive because of having survived a war-torn state and having a lack of language to express their feelings.
These learners have extensive academic needs. Typically, they have had interrupted or no previous schooling. English has been their third or fourth language because of refugee flight. There are illiterate parents who provide no ongoing support at home. The principal and staff at Kingsview Village School, as well as the Etobicoke Board of Education and the community, have responded in an exemplary way through special education programs and community service outreach programs to meet the academic and social needs of this very unique community.
1230
These are examples of only two of Etobicoke's 69 schools in a city of 300,000 residents and 40,000 students, a situation that would not be found in Bracebridge, Sudbury or North Bay. I'm not saying that Bracebridge, Sudbury or North Bay are less important; I'm saying these situations wouldn't be found there. I'm not familiar with the specifics on their situations, but they need recognition as well.
Without local governance, it would have been impossible for these young learners to receive the services they needed. Without an education, we would simply be passing on the problems to society, and it costs a lot more per person to incarcerate than it does to educate.
In summary, I'm requesting that this committee maintain the Etobicoke Board of Education as a viable operating board, reduce the number of trustees from 12 to 6; possibly reduce the existing boards from 7 to 4 or whatever you feel is necessary for Metro; provide a local levy of at least 10% in order to accommodate special local needs; and reduce the role of the non-elected Education Improvement Commission to advisory and auditing. It is inconceivable in a democracy that a non-elected body control the workings of an elected body. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Haas. Unfortunately, time does not permit any questions, but we thank you for your thoughtful presentation and it will certainly form part of the record.
We have information for the committee. During one of the presentations this morning, I believe the Ontario Public Supervisory Officers' Association, the name was mentioned of a representative of the ministry by the name of Carrier-Fraser. She is Mme Mariette Carrier-Fraser, who is the associate deputy minister, elementary and secondary operations and French-language education division.
We also have two motions that are to be put to the committee from the subcommittee.
Mr Wildman: I move that this committee recommend to the government House leader that the order with respect to Bill 104 be amended so that further public hearings can be arranged; further, that this committee recommend that the three House leaders meet as soon as possible to discuss this issue.
The reason for this is obvious. We have over a thousand presenters already who have indicated that they wish to make presentations on Bill 104. We can only accommodate a small number of those. Many people have expressed dismay at the fact that they will not be able to make presentations and wish to make presentations on this bill that is of such great importance to the future of their children and to their communities.
I think all members of the committee desire to have as much input as possible from the public and would agree with this proposal, that we recommend to the government House leader that the order be amended to allow for further public hearings than are now allowed for.
The Chair: Debate? No debate?
Mr Skarica: I will simply state that we are going to hear from hundreds of people and that we are having four days of committee hearings here and we're going to be travelling the province, going to six centres, I believe. The government feels that's adequate input, as we will be hearing from hundreds of people, hundreds of presentations.
Mrs McLeod: I want to re-emphasize the fact that the people who are going to be affected by this legislation do not feel there's been adequate time. It's one of the reasons about a thousand people who had asked to make representation are not going to be heard. I also want to reflect on the fact that a great number of our presenters have asked, why does this have to be done in such a hurry when it brings about such sweeping changes?
The Chair: Any further debate? Then we're ready for the vote.
Mr Wildman: Can we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: All right.
Ayes
Duncan, McLeod, Wildman.
Nays
Carroll, Froese, Johns, Preston, Skarica, Smith.
The Chair: We have another motion from the subcommittee.
Mrs McLeod: I move that this committee recommend to the government House leader that the order with respect to Bill 104 be amended so that the committee can sit on March 3 or March 4 at its regular meeting time to ask technical questions of the staff of the Ministry of Education and Training pertaining to Bill 104, The Fewer School Boards Act.
I present this motion because, after only a day and a half of our hearings, you'll recognize that there have been a number of questions, and I've tried to be careful to make sure those are legitimate questions where there should be information relevant to the bill that can be provided by the ministry. Obviously, there have been a lot of other questions that are the focus of debate, philosophical difference, but a lot of concerns are being raised about the number of questions that at this time don't appear to have answers. I think that constitutes a very serious condemnation of the bill, and before this bill goes forward from committee it should be possible for the Ministry of Education to come and address those questions.
Mr Wildman: I second the motion. Just to use one example, it's been mentioned a number of times that the ministry is working on a new formula for funding education to come up with a per pupil grant which will significantly change the way boards have funded their education programs for their students. Apparently, there will be a consultation on that, but only after this bill is finally passed into law, if it proceeds according to the schedule the government now desires. Many boards and teachers' groups, as well as parents, have indicated that their views on Bill 104 are directly related to what decisions might be made with regard to funding. It's important that we be able to know what the funding formula is likely to be before we actually report this legislation back to the House, because it may lead to amendments that are important for making this bill workable for the benefit of our students.
Mr Skarica: I wonder if we could just defer this vote until later today, and then I can check with the ministry and the minister to see what his position is.
The Chair: Is that agreeable? All right, we will defer the vote. We are recessed until 3:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1237 to 1529.
BOARD OF TRADE OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
The Chair: We'd like to start properly to give everyone an opportunity to speak and not have to wait too long. Our first presenter is from the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, Mr Alliston.
Mr John Alliston: I'm John Alliston, chair of the education committee at the Toronto board of trade. I'd like to introduce my three colleagues this afternoon. Bruce McKelvey is vice-president of the board, honorary treasurer and will be leading the presentation. Merilyn McKelvey and John Bech-Hansen are staff assistants with the board.
The Chair: Welcome all.
Mr Bruce McKelvey: As a preamble, first I'd provide a little bit of background on the board of trade's involvement in matters surrounding education at both the policy and the program level.
As you may know, the board represents approximately 10,000 members in the Metro Toronto business community and it is the largest board of trade or chamber of commerce in Canada.
We have a number of standing committees and task forces that address matters of policy and program support. I'd like to bring to your attention that we have an education policy committee that has been active for a considerable number of years. It's made up of 25 volunteers who are representative of different industries, different backgrounds and so on and so forth, supported by the board's policy staff.
In addition to policy positions, the board is also very active in terms of program support for education in the Toronto area. We have established programs such as Principal for A Day. We've been involved in the grade 9 Take Our Kids to Work Day program. We have been very involved with providing Speakers' Bureau support and things of that nature. So we divide our activities between the policy area and the program area in support of education.
I would like to preface my remarks by saying that the primary interest of the board of trade is in improving the quality of education, and we believe that very strongly as individual members and as an institution.
We do not believe, however, that maintaining high quality simply represents more input into the current system. Indeed, in a capsule comment, I can say that the board of trade very strongly backs the current government in its proposals it's putting forward right now, and I'd like to provide you a little bit more detail on the specific areas where we would like to comment.
The board supports the proposal to create one Metro-wide public school board. The board also strongly supports the reduction in the number of trustees in Metro from the current 104. The board supports the move by the province to assume greater control of education costs. The board supports the goal to fund each student's education according to his or her needs.
We believe that with the province assuming responsibility for the distribution of education funding, it will then be possible to institute a uniform financial reporting system for all school boards. We believe this is a needed process.
The board recommends the establishment of a uniform, province-wide rate of tax on commercial and industrial property for the support of the education system. The board believes residential property tax should remain a local tax in support of the schools and the community, but with a province-wide uniform tax rate established by the provincial government.
The board strongly opposes the elimination of the residential property tax for education if it means that municipalities will have to carry a heavier burden of funding responsibility for social and health services.
The board believes the province can obtain an equal measure of control over education spending by establishing province-wide uniform rates of taxation on residential, commercial and industrial property as it can by eliminating the residential property tax for education.
The board calls for clarification on the future roles of the trustees, school councils and the Ministry of Education and Training. The responsibility for teacher federation and other major employee groups, salary and benefit negotiations should be confirmed before the trustees' salaries are established.
Finally, the board is in favour of increased outsourcing in the operations of the school boards and would like this matter immediately referred to the Education Improvement Committee for implementation.
Those are the summary comments I have to make and I think it might be useful for you to know that all of those comments are ones that have been developed by our policy committee over the past, I guess, probably two or three years. It wasn't difficult for us to put together a list of observations and supporting views when this issue came before us.
Now, on behalf of the board, myself or my colleagues here, we'd be pleased to take any questions you have to put to us.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your brief. I appreciate the work the board of trade does in recognizing the importance of education and the relationship of education and economic issues.
You've already noted and have publicly spoken out, expressing your concern that the tradeoff for taking education off the residential property tax is at this point the offload on to municipalities of a number of other social services, and you've mentioned that in your brief so I won't get you to elaborate on that unless you would like to.
I'm wondering whether or not there is a real recognition on the part of business that they continue to pay the education tax and that the province is going to be levying a direct tax on business properties for education.
I think that's the first time in Ontario's history that there will be direct taxation on property by the provincial level of government. Business therefore is going to, first of all, continue to pay an education tax, have to pay its share of the offload of social services on to the municipal base and there's an unknown quantity to it because it is the province that's levying that tax.
Mr McKelvey: I'll ask John Bech-Hansen, our board economist to respond.
Mr John Bech-Hansen: The issue for us: We've always accepted there's always going to be commercial-industrial taxes for education; maybe you can get rid of the residential tax. The trouble with getting rid of the commercial-industrial tax is that the yield of that tax is about equivalent to the total yield of the Ontario corporate income tax, so if the province tried to take it away and levy it as, say, part of the corporate income tax, that corporate income tax in Ontario would have to double to raise that amount of money. We just take it as a given that you can't get rid of it and it's there.
With respect to the downloading of the social services, we're concerned about the impact that will have in Metro Toronto, as you know, and in other places, but one has to bear in mind that under the new assessment system there's going to be variable mill rates between different classes of property.
It's going to be possible to offset the impact of downloading, or I should say the elimination of the residential education tax. While there is still a commercial education tax, variable mill rates can be used to mitigate the impact between different classes of property.
Mrs McLeod: It's a bit tenuous because I don't think any of us really know how the mill rates are going to be applied, but I've asked the ministry directly whether or not they're going to have uniform mill rates across the province or whether, as a ministry, they will be setting the mill rate community by community. They've said they haven't actually made that decision yet, that there's going to be a panel --
Mr Bech-Hansen: That's right, yes. We would like to see a decision made on that quite soon, but we haven't seen one yet.
Mrs McLeod: I agree with you that none of us would have thought you could take the education tax off commercial properties. I would have said you can't take the education tax off residential properties 100% because it was going to have a significant impact on personal income tax or on some other area.
I don't think anybody anticipated long-term care, social housing etc being put on to the property tax to make up for that, but there's surely no question, even with the business occupancy tax coming off, that goes on to the ministry property tax if municipalities are to make that up since it was municipal revenue. Businesses paid a disproportionate cost of this as opposed to the residential property taxpayer. Is that a fair statement?
Mr McKelvey: I think, though, if we go back to first principles, the board does not have a problem with the province being very much more involved with the economics and the funding of education. We have no problem with that at all. Yes, we have got a stated concern relative to the downloading of welfare and other social services. That's a different issue.
Mrs McLeod: Right. I think it's a question of balance and who does what in terms of what's affordable.
Mr McKelvey: We understand the balance, but we have clearly two views on those respective matters.
Mr Bech-Hansen: If I could just supplement the points very quickly, we accept the idea that the provincial government should have control of education finances; we simply make the point that they could have all the control they needed just by controlling the rates of property tax on all classes of property. They could have gotten just as much control as through what they've done.
1540
Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. I want to follow up the questions of my colleague. I recognize that what you've said is that there are two separate issues, but they are part of a package, as Mr Leach has indicated clearly; that is, taking education off the property tax and putting public health, long-term care, social services on to it as part of the package. The question is, do you support the package?
Mr McKelvey: We're here to talk about our view on policy reform relative to education, and we believe the views we've stated are very clearly in support of what the government is doing in the area of education. We believe it is a separate issue in terms of --
Mr Wildman: It isn't. Mr Leach has said it isn't; it's part of the same thing. Whenever there are questions about the downloading of public health, long-term care, social housing, welfare on to the municipal property tax, Mr Leach and other ministers justify it because education has been taken off. It is part of the same package, and my question is, do you support the package? Bill 104 goes along with Bill 103 and all the other municipal restructuring announced during mega-week. They are a package; the question is, do you support it?
Mr McKelvey: Our view relative to the downloading around welfare and some of the other social costs is well known. Let it be equally as well known that the board of trade has been commenting for a number of years about its dissatisfaction with the current system and policies around education. We have been extraordinarily dissatisfied, and we believe the steps being identified here by the government are positive ones in general terms and we support them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: Frankly, Chair, the answer is not clear. Number 8 says, "The board strongly opposes the elimination -- "
The Chair: I agree, but in fairness to everyone, we have to give --
Mr Wildman: There's a big "if" on number 8.
The Chair: Mr Skarica, for the government caucus.
Mr Skarica: I'd like to address point 11 in your news release, in reference to outsourcing in the operations of school boards. Union people have come here and indicated that they object to it on two bases: first, that it is an attack on working people, and second, they feel some concern about the safety of children in the school, that a caretaker who's been there for a long time, who's unionized, gets to know the kids and assists them in safety concerns, that if somebody comes in the school they know this person doesn't belong there and escort them out, that kind of thing. Do you have concerns along those two objections?
Ms Merilyn McKelvey: May I speak to the second one? In terms of safety of children, it's an ongoing issue and it's not just caretakers. The elementary and the secondary schools throughout Metro are actively initiating different proposals to have safety more prevalent in the schools, and they have different procedures they're instituting this year. In particular, they are asking people to register; they're to have badges etc. Caretakers, I'm sure, and other staff are able to help supervise that process. But in terms of children's safety it's bigger than just who the caretakers are in the school.
Mr Smith: For the first day and a half, we've heard a great deal about concern centred on the loss of local accountability and the ability for people to remain active in their education communities. Recognizing your observations 2 and 3, do your 10,000 members share those concerns about accountability within the school system?
Mr McKelvey: We've spoken and have many ways of soliciting feedback from our membership. As I mentioned, we have a very active volunteer committee. There are 25 different members, and in addition to being business people, those members are also parents and have families of their own and come from all different parts of the Metropolitan Toronto community. I don't believe there is a concern about losing a community identity. In fact, we believe there will be improved quality and improved service in the classroom and in other areas when these proposals are adopted.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us today and giving us the views of your organization.
URBAN ALLIANCE ON RACE RELATIONS
The Chair: The next presenter is the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, Antoni Shelton. Thank you very much for being here.
Mr Antoni Shelton: Thank you very much, and good afternoon. I'd like to start by stating quite clearly that it is my position and the position of Urban Alliance that education is a very, very important concern for us in the constituencies we work with. Unfortunately, however, many more people who look like me are not in the room today, were not in the room yesterday and we feel won't be in the room tomorrow, because quite frankly we believe the environment has become one that is perceived as quite insensitive and hostile to their needs, and not indifference.
Urban Alliance has been working for over 25 years in the field of education as a major area to help with the delivery of education to new immigrants and minorities in the province of Ontario. From the very get-go, Urban Alliance has been working with a number of boards, mainly in the GTA, but I would like to bring to your attention that there are Urban Alliances in Ottawa, Sudbury, Windsor and London.
We were formed in 1975 by a group of concerned Toronto citizens, a multiracial, multicultural group. At the time, the group was formed because there were hate crimes happening in the Toronto subway stations, where people were actually being pushed off subway platforms because of their race and religion. Our goal, however, is to promote a stable and healthy multiracial environment in the community.
The alliance is a non-profit organization consisting mainly of volunteers. We work with over 300 volunteers currently and we have another membership, paid-up membership, of over 300 individuals. We come from all sectors of society, culturally and racially. We see it as part of our central advocacy mandate to speak to Bill 104, an amendment to the Education Act.
We've had a lot of positive experiences with school boards in the GTA. We continue to provide, during this month of February, workshops for Black History Month, role models, motivational speakers and mentors in schools. We've provided policy advice and input around school curriculum and equity policy development.
This is all well and fine, but at the same time, where it's needed, we've not held back on our analysis and critique of the current system. As many know, we've been very vocal around the lack of equity resource people and policies in many school boards. We believe that in many school boards the issues of equity and access are implemented in a patchwork way and that there's inadequate training and planning for the long-term implementation of equity policy.
In the time remaining, let me turn more specifically to the amalgamation of school boards. Bill 104 proposes to eliminate school boards and replace them with district public school boards. In Metro Toronto, this would mean the replacement of the current six school boards with one new Metro Toronto district public school board. The number of trustees would be reduced from 74 full-time to 22 part-time. We believe this would result in the loss of effective local democratic government, with a provincial government takeover, and the loss of programs and activities that promote equity and special needs in schools.
The ethnic and racial demographics involved in centralizing power have largely been neglected by both the Harris agenda and the opponents to this agenda. What we have in the Harris agenda isn't only the lack of local democracy and instead, as some say, communism, but we believe that in the lack of local democracy we have an increasing perception that this is a type of a cultural apartheid: largely privileged white managers controlling all aspects of daily life of what's an increasingly multicultural and multiracial soon-to-be majority in the GTA.
1550
Immigrant and racial minority parents are increasingly having individuals who are sensitive to their needs and come from their own communities win seats as trustees. This is one of the areas in which we are seeing access. In simple terms, the trustee's position is one of the immediate and direct areas for our diverse communities to become involved and to hear and see their culture represented by a public body. Large, powerful bodies and governments, unfortunately like yours, ladies and gentlemen, are increasingly not reflecting our reality.
Bill 104 means that local concerns will be subordinated to the majority, increasingly the 905 belt. And $5,000 in pay for trustees is to really render the position menial. Like so many other areas of public policy in the province, we're turning the clock back. The problem with this of course is that the face, the languages and the smells of Metro have changed forever, a fact that is being sidelined because there is fear, we believe. At a fundamental level, from human to human, there is this fear that minorities in the caucus, minorities in the cabinet, in your constituency, will begin to understand that economic and technological efficiency by itself is simply not enough.
Those who control the levels of power in this province are largely wealthy white males, and through the repeal of employment equity, amalgamation and downloading, there is a real and concrete plan for this group to take back what they want and give away what they don't want.
Taking education off residential property taxes means you're taking flexibility out of the education system. You're effectively wrenching creativity and flexibility out of the hands of parents and communities. What will happen, for example, to the debate around alternative schools? You must be aware that quite recently there's been a push in many communities to have focus schools, whether it's a black focus school or whatever the community might be. What happens to this type of system in the new proposed Bill 104 environment and what do we get in return? The control over welfare?
Our difficulty, and you have to help us with this, is that we've been unable to educate ourselves in our constituency, because we haven't seen projections around the impacts that might happen as a result of Bill 104. Why no adequate consultation, the kind of consultation that says you don't have all the answers and want to give time and opportunity to volunteers largely, who can only come after 6 pm, to have some input? We need to do an adequate job so that submissions can be comprehensive.
Minorities in and outside of Queen's Park have to wake up and smell the coffee themselves, and we take our own responsibility. We believe that there is some power-grabbing going on here by those who are privileged, mainly white males; that this is happening too fast and there's too much involved to say otherwise. Before the demographics change, this is happening, we believe, in terms of timing, with a sense of a plan. This kind of fear, we believe, is what fed the apartheid agenda, and we believe fear, at its rudimentary level, is feeding the Harris agenda.
An Education Improvement Commission, with five to seven commissioners appointed by the provincial government, will have a mandate until the year 2000, not elected by taxpayers. Furthermore, their decisions are beyond the review of our courts. Why? Replacing locally elected trustees with provincially appointed commissioners who are beyond the review of the justice system is to further undermine the rights of parents who do not hold a Conservative Party card. Thank you.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. Just before I put the question to you, the deputant, I ask the parliamentary assistant to answer this question: Why does the bill have a provision which makes decisions of the Education Improvement Commission not appealable to a court?
Mr Skarica: That's modelled after some similar legislation in the health care industry and so on, the health care legislation.
Mr Duncan: Your own Bill 26.
Mr Skarica: It's modelled after that.
Mr Wildman: It begs the question, why is that legislation designed that way?
Mr Skarica: I think the commonsense answer is that then you'd be involved in court battles virtually forever and that type of thing, so it's to streamline the process.
Mr Wildman: We can only hope that they are infallible so they won't make any mistakes.
Mr Skarica: We've got one of your members, so we're pretty confident there.
Mr Wildman: I was under the impression, and my friend here can advise me, that only one individual is believed to be infallible and that's only when he speaks ex cathedra.
Could you explain why you think that changing the remuneration for trustees and amalgamating the boards so we have fewer trustees is going to make it more difficult for multicultural communities to be represented and reflected on boards of trustees that govern education in Metropolitan Toronto?
Mr Shelton: Quite clearly it's a question also of economics, that in many of these communities these positions are not patronage positions per se. These are positions that people very much dedicate their lives and commitments to. They have obligations and it's seen as a career; it's seen as part of what they can put back into the community and be adequately compensated for their, I think in many cases, expertise. It's a question again of economics. They cannot afford to do otherwise. On this menial, part-time basis it's going to be inaccessible on that level.
In terms of the amalgamation, you know the GTA a little bit yourself. I'm sure you've been to Greektown, to Little Italy, to the West Indian part of Bathurst and Bloor, and you can see that this is the way we're organized. Whether it's right or wrong in 20-20 hindsight, this is the way --
Mr Wildman: The neighbourhood.
Mr Shelton: The neighbourhood, the local community. In that sense, this is what we thought was the strength of the GTA in a sense: these local neighbourhoods.
Mr Preston: A number of people today have commented on the $5,000. I would like to know, in the communities that pay their trustees $4,000 or $5,000 really as an honorarium, the trustees are coming in there because that is something they want to do. Are you intimating that these people are incompetent because they're not being paid $50,000?
Mr Shelton: No, Mr Preston, I would not be so bold as to even suggest that. I think what I am suggesting --
Mr Preston: Well you used the term "menial." Would you explain that one to me then?
Mr Shelton: I'm here as Urban Alliance in the GTA and I'm here talking about the fact that there are some standards we have fought for long and hard in the GTA. Fair compensation for the amount of work and the commitment and the long hours, the committee meetings that people have to put in -- if it's a luxury, that those can volunteer to give their labour without adequate remuneration, then that is a very fortunate position for them to be in, but to render those positions inaccessible because others are not as fortunate I think is more the way I would like to present it.
1600
Mrs McLeod: The government will say, and does, around the committee table that they want to believe that what's happening here with this bill and the companion piece of taking over educational funding is an equalization of funding. My concern is that it's the first step towards a major loss of equality of opportunity in education because it's a question of whether or not the funding is going to be adequate to meet the needs.
We've heard some very compelling testimony in the last day and a half from people involved in Toronto schools about the needs in the Toronto area schools. I look at the government's track record in terms of funding cuts in junior kindergarten and adult education outside of Toronto where they have had funding in the past, I see the loss of special education and I worry about what's going to happen to the kinds of needs of people in Toronto schools that we've been hearing over the last day and a half. I wonder if you would like to comment on what you think this might do to equality of opportunity.
Mr Shelton: I think this is a very good point, because the "fair" goes two ways. There's "fair" on our side too. There's "fair" in what happens when you take those programs away that we fought long and hard for, special programs from, for example, so-called inner cities. I work on the front line and I'm proud of it. I've worked on the front line for a long time, but it's tough. It's not the pretty stuff sometimes that we would like to see. We know sometimes how tenuous it is; it's really tenuous. Without that resource person, without that program as a diversion from what the kid is involved in or not involved in, there would be some real exasperation.
It has not happened, but when we look into the near future and the medium future, we're fearful because the impact of this kind of thing we believe is going to be very serious. This is when I asked for some kind of an analysis, both economic and on a social front, and we don't see it and we're even more concerned.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Shelton, for presenting your unique views and for representing the Urban Alliance on Race Relations.
FEDERATION OF WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Our next presenters are from the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario. Ms Gee, welcome. We're delighted to have you here. As you take your, places I'll ask you to present your co-presenter. You have 15 minutes for your presentation, not a long time but I'm sure you'll make the most of it. Any time that's left over, the committee would be delighted to ask you questions.
Ms Margaret Gee: I hope there will be time for questions. When you said there are just 15 minutes, it reminded me of how many people want to present and are not going to be able to. I deeply regret that because I think consultation should have been essential around Bill 104. I can't believe that people are being turned away -- parents, other groups. I'm starting from the position that the lack of consultation is of great concern to my federation, which represents 41,000 women elementary teachers in Ontario. I realize you just got the brief, so I'll go through it a little bit with you.
When we look at Bill 104, it seems to me that it is saying, "Bigger is better and we'll save money." There are many ironies in this. When David Cooke, the previous Minister of Education, took some initial work on amalgamation, he found it did not save money in the case of Ottawa-Carleton and in the case of Middlesex-London. I'd also refer you to the eastern provinces and the experience of Halifax and Dartmouth, where those two cities were forced into combining. It cost the people who live there money from the amalgamation. The fact that we're supposedly saving money is an illusion. It's been proved already that this is not the case.
I come from North York. That's my board of education. I will be returning, if this bill goes through, to a system that will have 300,000 students and over 11,000 elementary teachers. I personally will have lost my identity.
I'm just one person but I think about what that means to the students in the system. You're combining boards that are very different. People who live in Toronto have many programs that would not be available, for instance, in other parts of Metropolitan Toronto because everyone knows that Toronto is the centre for newcomers.
The English-as-a-second language programs that are so essential for new Canadians to mainstream are not delivered to the same extent in other parts of Metropolitan Toronto, for obvious reasons. Toronto has been a centre where new Canadians have gone to. It's the same kinds of thing with special education programs, and if you can find me a speech teacher anywhere in Metropolitan Toronto I'll be delighted, because those kinds of services are being cut back and Bill 104 will only increase that.
In other words, children are going to lose out because of Bill 104. I'm horrified, as an individual teacher, at what is happening to our system of education. But then I represent teachers, and at this point in time they are full of fear for their future, and that shouldn't be.
For teachers to do their best work they should have some security, and we're looking at what will happen in terms of collective bargaining, in terms of funding, because Bill 104 has many gaps in it. You cannot talk about changing a system so radically and leave out these big questions, like what's going to happen to teachers' agreements. I'll ask my colleague to focus on that.
Ms Kathleen Loftus: I'm Kathleen Loftus and I'm on staff at the federation of women teachers. One of the issues I would like to focus on as well, and I will get to the collective bargaining issue, is the context of all this so-called education reform and the fact that the limited consultation there is on this proposed bill is done in isolation from all the other things this government is planning to do that will directly affect education. I think that is one of the major areas of concern.
If there is a vision for education in Ontario, and one could only hope that there is because our children's futures are at stake, that entire vision would be put forward and the entire community in Ontario would work towards something that would indeed improve education, and that should always be our goal.
When it's done in a piecemeal manner, as it is being done, and things are being plucked out, as this bill is, the amalgamation of the school boards is being plucked out and discussed quite in isolation from the funding and the funding structure, which the government has told us is going to change and may indeed continue to decrease; when collective bargaining is also being talked about by the government and various commissions, and that too will change dramatically in the spring, perhaps, and that's being discussed at a different time; it clearly says that perhaps there is no vision and there's no picture at the end of all this and things are just moving in a haphazard way. Those of us who are very concerned about education and the children in Ontario are not being given all the information to be able to suggest what kinds of things we would like to see changed or the way we would like to see those things changed. I think that's a very fundamental problem with the way this is happening.
One area I would like to focus on in particular is guaranteeing rights for teachers and employees in general, but we represent women elementary teachers and that's what I'll focus on.
1610
In previous legislation that has dealt with amalgamation of school boards, the legislation has outlined that collective agreements will remain in place until a new collective agreement is negotiated. There have been guarantees of transfer of employment and transfer of specific benefits and rights for those individual teachers who are currently employed by boards. We see that none of that is outlined, but what we do see is a commission, an EIC that says it will have overriding powers on anything in order to recommend things to the cabinet.
We see this as being a particular difficulty and putting the whole system at risk, because if you have people not knowing what's happening to them from day to day, you cannot expect the system to continue to move forward and to improve, and one would hope that would be what all of us would want, that the system would improve. Also, taking away the powers of local trustees and local school boards to make certain decisions certainly takes one step away from those children having a direct input through their parents and through their own communities.
In our brief, we outline many other areas that are of concern to us. One of the things we would like to say is that we are not opposed to change and teachers are not opposed to change, and we are not categorically opposed to amalgamation. But the local school boards need to make those decisions. The local communities need to have input into those decisions. It cannot be a top-down-driven imposition.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you. You talked at the very beginning of your brief about the fact that amalgamations and bigger jurisdictions can prove to be more costly as well as less accessible and more unwieldy. That was a concern expressed in the Ernst and Young report, the same report the minister uses to talk about the $150 million in savings.
They also say there are factors that could increase costs of education through the process of amalgamation. They specifically talk about harmonization of services and harmonization of salaries. I think it's pretty obvious that the government does not want to see costs increase on this. As you've said, our suspicion is that they want to see costs decrease as a result of this and have taken over educational funding. How do you think they're going to harmonize services and salaries without costs going up?
Ms Gee: I don't think they can. They have already got the research on hand that proves that it's more expensive. It's like that little grade 5 student said yesterday, "All that's going to happen is we're going to have bigger classes, less resources." It came from the mouth of a child, and it was true. What he's saying is true. We're not going to save money. We're going to have much worse learning conditions and working conditions for teachers.
Mrs McLeod: So lower services?
Ms Gee: Yes, and fewer services, in my opinion. I've read the report you've quoted and it's right there already. Why are we playing around with this? The government has that research. They know.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I know this is probably difficult for you to believe but in the House today the Premier denigrated the contribution of that grade 5 student, and basically said that we couldn't depend on children, as if they might not know anything about classrooms.
Ms Gee: Well, he's not sitting in the classroom.
Mr Wildman: I think the evidence of that student was very credible.
I want to ask you, though, specifically about what you raised right at the beginning, that is the tremendous interest we've had expressed to this committee from members of the public, particularly parents but also students, teachers, trustees and members of the general public who may not be directly related to the education system. In making presentations to this committee, we've had over 1,050 already and this is only the second day of hearings. We'll be lucky if we can accommodate about 200.
How would you react if I told that you just prior to the lunch break I moved a motion in this committee to have the committee request the government to change the agenda, to change the motion and to extend these hearings so more people could be heard but that the majority on this committee voted it down? What would that indicate to you about the position taken by the government in this regard?
Ms Gee: It's clear that consultation is not the name of the game. It reminds me of Bill 26, where an MPP had to do something dramatic to even get hearings. Alvin Curling had to stay in the House all night. We're at that kind of level, it would seem. If the people want to talk to you -- and you can only lead with the consent of the led -- you should extend the hearings, you really should, because you will regret, down the road, that you didn't.
People have a right to consult on something as important as education and should not be denied the opportunity, particularly parents. They are, as Mr Snobelen says, the clients of the system. We're not listening to our clients, it would seem.
Mr Froese: Thank you for coming. In my riding -- and I know a lot of the members on the government side -- we are listening and we've done a lot of consultation. I've spoken to a lot of teachers' associations. A week or so ago I was even invited to a dinner by the Lincoln county chapter of the women teachers' association and we have had some good discussion. It's unfortunate that in a place like here at Queen's Park you get the political rhetoric. I don't appreciate it. I just like to talk about the issues.
Ms Gee: I do too.
Mr Froese: I've had a lot of consultation with the boards of education and teachers. My sister's a teacher. I still have teachers who are friends. I still call them friends, they're still my friends. What they tell me, all they want to do is teach. That's what their job is, that's what they want to do, they want to teach.
Ms Gee: They want to teach, though, with reasonable working and learning conditions.
Mr Froese: That's correct, you're absolutely right.
Ms Gee: So I hope they're telling you about what's going on.
Mr Froese: I've asked this question of groups and associations like yourself. When it comes to Bill 104, the question really is, how does reducing the number of trustees affect your job and your teaching? It's administration, it's a board function. How does reducing the number of school boards and the trustees affect your ability with the child in the classroom?
Barring all the rhetoric that it's going to change the way -- we won't have resources and all that -- that's not what Bill 104 is about. It's about reducing the number of trustees and the number of boards, which is a totally administrative level and it's got nothing to do with -- and I'm trying to find the answer how it's going to affect your student-teacher relationship. Could you tell me how?
Ms Gee: Bill 104 is about taking money out of the system away from the classrooms --
Mr Froese: Bill 104 is? How?
Ms Gee: Because in reducing you are reducing the services, and if you think all a trustee does is manage, I think you don't know any trustees. You certainly don't know the trustees I know. They do a much more valuable job than that.
The Chair: We're running out of time. Thank you very much, Ms Gee and Ms Loftus, for appearing before us and sharing your views with us.
1620
TAXPAYERS COALITION BURLINGTON INC
The Chair: Our next presenters are from the Taxpayers Coalition Burlington Inc.
Ms Gee: I hope you extend your hearings.
Mr Preston: If we don't run into these people in every single town we go to, every single one, then we probably could accommodate a lot of people. I wouldn't want to hear --
The Chair: Mr Preston, if you don't mind, let's not take away from the next presenter.
I will ask you to introduce yourselves for the committee.
Mr Frank Gue: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Frank Gue, education chair, Taxpayers Coalition Burlington, and with me is Mr Richard Kelso, who is also on the education subcommittee.
Founded in 1991, Taxpayers' Coalition Burlington wants quality services at low cost and works to elect like-minded politicians. In education, quality comes first. We are not mindless penny pinchers or teacher bashers. We recognize and applaud the intent of Bill 104, and we have some concerns and suggestions. Some of these lie in the big grey area between policy and procedure, and we'd like to ask you to recognize that they are bottom-up thoughts intended to help shape policy. Several of them, we can assure you, will determine whether the good intent of the bill has the desired results.
We have nine concerns and at the end of each we have a question which is addressed to the government, and we will address this group as if they were the government and give that question. Our nine concerns are (1) conflict of interest, with four subitems; (2) productivity; (3) the basis on which school systems are paid; (4) the pupil-teacher ratio, a relic I think of the late Palaeozoic; (5) hazards in school councils and education improvement committees; (6) contingency plans of the boards; (7) financial statements, the smoke and mirrors; (8) school boards don't really generate any significant costs at all; and (9) misuse of taxpayers' resources by unions and others.
In detail then, under conflict of interest:
Item (a), teachers or spouses may not run for a board unless they take leave of absence. A special interest group, we must point out, with a large cash flow could load a board by paying salaries for a leave or by paying the pension penalty for early retirement. You need a clause such as: Insiders of any kind shall not run for a board within X years of leaving a board position. Question: How will you avoid this built-in conflict-of- interest potential?
Item (b): There is a community representation shortcoming in the bill. The 70% of taxpayers with no children in the system simply must find representation on the commission and/or its committees. I must correct a misapprehension: The client of the system is not children, not parents; the client of the system is society. Seniors, employers, young people with preschoolers must have seats. What will you do to ensure that this 70% of the population is specifically targeted for representation on this important commission and its committees?
Item (c): Why is the bill limiting conflict of interest to spouses? "Family members" should be the wording. Is the commission to review the scope of this conflict-of-interest clause?
Item (d): The act as drafted, section 333(5), says that insiders and relatives may run for a board if they take leave of absence during the election campaign, subject to section 30 of the Municipal Elections Act "with necessary modifications." The draft seems to contradict the minister's stated intent to bar spouses of insiders from office, until one reads the Municipal Elections Act; and even then one is left wondering what the necessary modifications are. This is convoluted and may lead to misinterpretation and possibly, in the event, unworkable law. We ask simplification and clarification self-contained inside Bill 104 so that it doesn't appear to contradict itself and the minister.
Concern number 2: The bill must address productivity, that is, more graduates per teacher-year. A 0.1 change in the PTR, pupil-teacher ratio, is worth $1 million to a typical board, such as Halton where we are. Please overcome the incorrect mindset that "80% of costs is salaries and benefits and so we can't do anything about it." Please, please, get rid of that. Without a productivity component, the entire thrust of the act will be lost. Will you require boards, or whoever will be taking over this work, to look at the big dollars, the wages, instead of picking away at the small dollars like supplies, depriving teachers of the resources they need in the classroom? Education for some years in some jurisdictions has been suffering the death of a thousand cuts.
Concern number 3: School systems are paid for inputs, so much per head, so much per year of experience, so much per university degree. Ladies and gentlemen, as long as we are willing to pay for inputs, man, we will get lots of inputs. We have to start paying for outputs instead, for example, so much per credit course passed.
This would reverse the present incentive, which is to keep children in the system as long as possible for headcount. Surely our objective should be to educate them appropriately and move them promptly into the workforce. By the year 2020, we are told, the number of productive workers per pensioner will be down to two. The school system can help that significantly by graduating students faster.
Mr Wildman: Isn't it a question of birth rate?
Mr Gue: No.
Concern number 4: Administrative functions, for example, librarian, are inside the PTR, which is thus depressed. This inhibits cost reduction, creates oversize classes. PTR, if it survives, must be revised to mean actual classroom conditions, thus exposing the administrative costs you are trying to reduce, which now hide behind the PTR. What will the government do to blast away this stultifying, anachronistic, counterproductive, universal obstruction called the PTR which is enshrined in all the labour contracts?
Concern number 5: There is evidence that school councils will be captured by educators. The client of the system, I repeat, is not students, not parents but society, but will the school councils be captured by educators? Education activists and the 70% of Halton residents with no children in the system are sometimes made unwelcome. We feel the same could well happen to the subcommittees under the Education Improvement Commission. Is the government aware of this problem, and what is it doing to overcome it?
Concern number 6: Are boards required to have a contingency plan for reduced funding -- boards or whoever is going to look after those kinds of allocations of the available money? Some boards are ignoring it. Will the improvement commission direct that contingency plans be prepared, and provide consultative resources, since boards can't do it alone.
Concern number 7: Financial statements are unusable and infrequent. Overheads and cross-subsidies are hidden. Subsidiarity and accountability are impossible to determine. Cost reduction made without clear understanding of these things will have serious unintended consequences. Administrations must produce monthly action-oriented, management-friendly accounting reports with full cost accounting for individual programs. We see considerable talk in the draft bill about this, yet none the less we have to ask: What managerial accounting standards will this government demand of administrations? Generally accepted accounting principles, we hope.
Concern number 8: Costs are not generated by boards of trustees but by administrations, some of which have wrested cost control away from their boards. Consolidation supposedly will reduce cost. I hope that's right. But unless other things are done, some of which we deal with in this paper, this won't happen. Trustees themselves, as I'm sure we all know, cost a tiny fraction of 1% of any budget. Some, perhaps most, boards have demonstrated, though, their unwillingness or inability to control the rest of their system cost. How will the government ensure that reduction of boards and their powers does not merely provide administrations with an even less controlled fiscal environment, with the result that costs go up instead of down?
Concern number 9: OSSTF has set about to use classrooms, equipment, supplies, leased lines and services bought with taxpayers' money and, most unforgivable of all, the pupils themselves for crassly political purposes. This is a gross misappropriation of public resources. Will Bill 104 forbid special interest groups to abuse such privileges and to misuse our students to further their own agendas?
To summarize, then, ladies and gentlemen, we have asked you to note that the conflict-of-interest clauses need strengthening and clarifying; the intent of the bill can be served only if the issue of productivity is addressed; the fundamental basis on which school systems are paid had better change; the PTR is a relic that must be discarded before we can move onward; there are threats inherent in school councils and improvement committees; boards must have contingency plans; we need better financial statements, even better than the act calls for - they're just necessary; boards don't really generate any significant costs at all, their administrations do; and misuse of taxpayers' resources by unions and others must be prevented.
We say again, the basic thrust of Bill 104 is a good one. After years, decades, of studies on studies on studies on studies of education, let's get going. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We'll answer any questions we can.
1630
Mr Skarica: Thank you, Mr Gue. Referring to concern number 5, you did speak with me earlier and indicated that some people are being made to feel unwelcome on the school councils. Could you elaborate on that the best you can within that minute?
Mr Gue: There is anecdotal evidence of this, and where there's anecdotal evidence I think you apply the principle of where there's smoke, there's fire. The anecdotal evidence is that more than one person who is, shall we say, an education activist or a homeschooler or an outspoken parent or any of the above has been very clearly excluded, not only, in the particular case I'm citing, on a strategic planning council, but on a PTA, a parent-teacher association; simply excluded, not only from a seat but from access to any information and from any privilege of bringing her material to that committee.
Mrs McLeod: I'm not surprised that Mr Skarica raised concern number 5 because, as you say in your notes, he asked you particularly to emphasize that point, and had there been enough time he would probably have asked about concern number 9, which he also had a particular concern about and wanted you to mention.
Mr Gue: I hope I didn't doublecross the Honourable Toni.
Mrs McLeod: I just hadn't realized that we were supposed to prepare those whom we had asked to present to the committee, but I have a question for you because there's --
Interjection.
Mrs McLeod: Hey, this is my minute. I am genuinely interested in asking you a question, though, on some of the innovative ideas you have put forward, including starting to pay teachers on the basis of outputs rather than inputs. You suggest, for example, paying them on a per credit course passed, and I'm wondering if you were to follow that model, how you would reimburse a teacher of a special needs child.
Mr Gue: I don't think I suggested that a teacher be paid on the basis of output. The point you bring up is a very good one. I've had a good deal of contact with special needs and so I know what you're saying. What I am suggesting here, what we would like to see done is that boards, administrations, are funded on an overall basis of graduates per year, and if a board is loaded with ESL or with special ed, special provisions have to be made. It's a long, long subject and you're dead right to bring it up.
Mr Wildman: I want to thank you for a thought-provoking presentation. I must say there are a couple of things I agree with, particularly that PTR is outmoded and we shouldn't use it. We should use actual class size in contracts. And you're quite right in terms of the cost of trustees. Mr Snobelen himself says it will only save $150 million, which is a sizeable amount but only 1.1% of the total cost of education.
My question is on insiders, your use of the term "insiders." It's pretty obvious that you mean teachers --
Mr Gue: Oh, not only teachers.
Mr Wildman: That's what I want to get to. Teachers are insiders in your view, but my question is, who else might be considered insiders? You say relatives of teachers. How far would this go? Grandchildren? Also, does it include students? Would students be considered insiders? Administrators on boards? Could you define these others, besides teachers and their extended families, whom you view as insiders who would not be allowed to run?
Mr Gue: To answer that I can do no better than to refer you to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which defines people such as spouses, offspring, family members. We have read that act in detail for a reason you may be aware of and we think the definitions there are quite useful. To answer a specific question of yours specifically, no, students would not be considered insiders, but if you want a broad generalization, I could suggest that adults working for the system are probably insiders, be they teachers, be they secretaries, be they whatever.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gue and Mr Kelso, for taking the time to come out here. I'm sure our parliamentary assistant, Toni Skarica, also appreciated the honourable mention.
Our next presenter is from the North York Board of Education, Ms Gerri Gershon.
Mrs Caplan: While they're coming forward, if I could put a question on the record that the last presenters might want to answer in a letter to the committee since they won't have time. They did mention their concern about the teachers' actions as far as giving information using tax dollars. My question to them is whether they are at all concerned about the highly unprecedented and partisan advertising of the government that the Premier is doing, whether that's a concern about use of tax dollars.
Mr Gue: Do you wish me to answer now or in writing, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Since the issue has been raised, do you have a very brief answer?
Mr Gue: I think so. Perhaps I can answer by saying to you that I personally, among many other people, have encouraged the present government to publicize what they are doing. I believe that is a legitimate use of taxpayers' money. I certainly would not consider for a moment, if someone offered it to me, using school facilities to further the agenda of the taxpayers coalition.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gue.
ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I misspoke myself. The next presenter is the Ontario Teachers' Federation. I wonder if they might come forward. I ask you to identify yourselves, then please proceed.
Mr Bill Martin: I'd like to introduce Susan Langley, who is the secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, and Ruth Baumann, who is an executive assistant. I'm Bill Martin, the president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation.
The Chair: Welcome.
Mr Martin: The Ontario Teachers' Federation is pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the standing committee on social development to present its views and concerns about Bill 104. The federation represents 126,000 teachers -- the elementary and secondary school teachers in all of the publicly funded public, separate and French-language schools of the province. The federation itself is a statutory body, established by the government of Ontario in 1944 to "promote and advance the cause of education, to promote and advance the interests of teachers, and to secure conditions that make possible the best professional service."
The federation applauds the creation of the French-language school boards for the province but wishes to express its considerable concern with a number of other aspects of the legislation before the committee. The committee is aware, for example, that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction at the board level about the realignment of the English-language school boards.
Before addressing the specifics of Bill 104, let me briefly address the context in which these changes are occurring from the standpoint of students, teachers and schools. Overall funding for elementary and secondary education in Ontario has been constrained since 1991 and has been steadily reduced since 1993. The number of teachers in our schools has fallen by 4% since 1993, although enrolment has risen by 3% during the same period. Provincial funding for education, as a proportion of total expenditures, has decreased steadily for more than 20 years. It should come as no surprise that in the face of last year's $800-million annualized cut in provincial spending, a number of school boards were forced to raise local taxes in order to maintain programs such as junior kindergarten and adult education.
1640
There is tremendous anxiety and uncertainty in our classrooms about the future of our schools. What happens as Bill 104 and related issues unfold will have a profound effect on the lives of children and adults who learn and those who teach in our schools. The bundle of announcements from the week of January 13, 1997, will affect school programs, finance, staffing, administration and basic operations. Funding for education, the sources of that funding and the powers and accountability of the local decision-makers are all yet to be determined.
What has been determined is the government's intention to continue with its 30% income tax cut. One has to ask if there is a direct link between this intention and the province assuming full responsibility for education funding. We also have to ask this question in light of the minister's public statements about cutting an additional $1 billion from elementary and secondary education.
The present situation is like having 200 pieces of a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle and discovering that the 200 are all blue, presumably the sky, and that the cover with the picture is not there.
In 1995 the federation, in its submission to the Ontario school board restructuring task force, enunciated a set of principles drawn from the Ontario experience of amalgamations and transfers of responsibilities over the past 30 years. These principles are as follows:
(1) That current teachers' jobs be guaranteed;
(2) That teachers be entitled to a form of contract to which they would have been entitled if there had been no school board reduction/amalgamation;
(3) That there be full recognition of accrued seniority;
(4) That there be full recognition of vested benefits -- for example, sick leave credits and service and sick leave gratuities;
(5) That there be full recognition regarding category placement and experience;
(6) That previous collective agreements remain in place until a new agreement is negotiated;
(7) That there be protection against regarding maximum distance for involuntary transfer;
(8) That any saving accruing from amalgamation be directed to improved learning conditions.
If teachers and other school employees are concerned for the future of their employment in the face of amalgamation, this will affect their performance in the classroom. The legislation introduced by a former Progressive Conservative government in 1968 to manage the process of amalgamation to the present configuration of school boards clearly stated that all contracts, debts, agreements, liabilities and assets of the predecessor entities were transferred to the successors. It made clear as well that this transfer included the transfer of employment contracts and the rights of teachers.
Bill 104 offers no such assurances. Indeed, despite the language remaining in the Education Act from the 1968-69 amalgamation process, Bill 104 specifically mandates the Education Improvement Commission to "identify other key issues that should, in the opinion of the commission, be addressed, including but not limited to issues relating to the distribution of the assets and liabilities of existing boards and the transfer of staff of existing boards, and consider and make recommendations to the minister on those issues."
The generality of these provisions is in marked contrast to the specifics established in 1968-69 which have continued up to this present legislation. Clear assurances from the Minister of Education and Training regarding the security of employment of teachers and other school board employees would be a significant first step in ensuring a reasonable transition.
A further concern arises out of the provisions of section 10 of Bill 104. This section raises the concern that a regulation, transitional or otherwise, made under the Fewer School the Boards Act could be used to override the provisions of School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act and the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We have a significant concern regarding the legal validity of such provisions which appear to grant the cabinet the authority to override duly passed legislation by the enactment of a regulation.
While the federation supports the concept of local education improvement committees to oversee specific local issues, we seek greater assurance that teachers and other employees, through their representative organizations, will be included on the local committees and will play a significant role in determining the specifics of the transition of the new board in their area. That being said, and recognizing that local solutions are generally preferable to one-size-fits-all solutions, local solutions are only possible if basic principles and frameworks are first established at the provincial level with the participation of stakeholders. Such provincial principles and frameworks would guarantee a foundation of consistency beyond which local variation is possible.
The following are critical questions which comprise the other 80% of the puzzle, the missing pieces:
(1) What authority will school boards have to raise revenues to finance local decisions regarding the operation of schools?
(2) How can the government ensure that the supervisory powers of the Education Improvement Commission are not employed in a fashion that is unduly intrusive or disruptive to the ongoing operation of the schools and the education system?
(3) What means is the government prepared to undertake to ensure reasonable access for communities to their elected trustees? This is a particular concern in some of the very large geographic areas to be covered by a school board.
(4) What resources are available from the government to facilitate the reconciliation of different programs and priorities among communities which will now form amalgamated school boards? Following is a list of items identified in 1969 as pertinent to this process: the school program, administration, property, professional development, personnel, special services and finance.
(5) How will the boundaries and populations to be served be reviewed in order to make determinations which make good educational sense?
(6) How will the government guarantee that any changes to be made to the overall financing of education will be revenue-neutral in total -- the sum of provincial and local contributions?
(7) What support will be made available to new amalgamated school boards to enable them to develop effective meeting and communication mechanisms across long distances and multiple communities?
A reduction in the number of school boards, in and of itself, should not spark a crisis for the system. The crisis of the moment arises from the perceived intentions of this government towards its public institutions. It is a crisis of confidence and trust which results directly from the persistent attacks made by the representatives of the government, including the Minister of Education and Training, on the services delivered by those institutions. It is a crisis exacerbated when the government definition of "classroom" includes teachers and classroom computers but excludes principals, custodial services and utilities such as heat and electricity. The clear implication from the minister is that these are non-essential, that they are frills.
Last week a teacher in Thunder Bay, participating in a dialogue on professional issues with colleagues from around the province, asked, "Have all of the recent government moves with closure motions limited and clearly ignored pro forma public forums on fundamental social changes, forced the public and educators into a `circle the wagons' syndrome with little ventured or risked?"
In my school and my board I seem to see fewer meetings this year and most are in reaction to changes. Do you see the same drawing back, less risk-taking behaviour and less innovation? Are we all becoming like frightened deer caught in the glare of the oncoming traffic, frozen in place and surely to be hit and left as roadkill at the side of the legislative high-speed superhighway?
A reduction in the number of school boards undertaken by the government, perceived to be hostile to the very concepts of local control and shared decision-making in a framework essentially void of any basic principles other than "fewer school boards, less money and outsourcing," sounds alarm bells throughout the community. Major transitions of governance and restructuring require an environment of mutual respect, confidence and trust in order to succeed in the face of many organizational and technical barriers.
Having the education finance formulae and possible changes to collective bargaining before us now would greatly relieve the anxiety that currently exists among teachers, parents, school boards and the public in general.
The number of school boards in Ontario can only be reduced successfully with the co-operation and trust of educators and of the communities they serve. The trust must be earned through respect for the value of our work, fair dealing and common sense. We anxiously await the rest of the jigsaw puzzle.
1650
Mrs McLeod: You asked the question, "Will there be any taxation power for school boards?" The proposal appears to be that there would not be any taxation power. Is it feasible to think that collective bargaining can be carried out even past the harmonization questions? How can you carry out collective bargaining with school boards that don't have any power to pay for the consequent --
Mr Martin: I think you're absolutely correct that collective bargaining will become a critical issue. It's best to negotiate with the person who holds the purse. However, if collective bargaining leaves the local area, it's going to be a shame for education. I think local issues are determined locally through the collective bargaining process. It's worked in the past and it should continue to work in the future. It's the only way local needs can be addressed.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. Could you give us some idea of your view as to the reasons for the different approach taken by this Conservative government as opposed to the Bill Davis government in 1968 in terms of the way they went about the amalgamations dealing with the concerns of teachers and others involved in the system? Do you have any idea of why the difference?
Mr Martin: The consultation process of this government, when compared to Mr Davis's government in 1968, is obviously lacking greatly. I believe this government has made up its mind. They have set their course. They refuse to listen to the public or anybody else out there as far as their direction is concerned. They are steamrolling these hearings and they'll steamroll the legislation, and once all the dust settles, people in Ontario will finally realize they're further behind than we are currently as far as our educational system is concerned.
Mr Carroll: Mr Martin, you talked about the tremendous anxiety in our classrooms about the future of education. Is that situation being helped by OSSTF's current initiative to try to bring their union argument into the classroom?
Mr Martin: I'm not going to discuss OSSTF's issues but I can tell you, as a principal last year in an Etobicoke school with a population of 700 students, multicultural and 40 staff members, the anxiety of teachers is out there and it is extremely high. I had many young teachers coming into my office on a regular basis, saying: "Am I going to have a job tomorrow? Are my class sizes going to continue to rise? Am I going to maintain my benefits? What is going to happen with the educational system?" There is anxiety. I'm not going to comment on OSSTF's propaganda.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Martin, Ms Langley and Ms Baumann for being here. Thank you very much for coming this afternoon.
NORTH YORK BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: Our next presenter from the North York Board of Education, at long last, is Ms Gerri Gershon. Welcome, Ms Gershon. As you take your seats, I ask you to introduce your co-presenters.
Ms Gerri Gershon: Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Gerri Gershon. I'm the chair of the North York Board of Education. With me today is Judi Codd, vice-chair of the board, and our director, Marguerite Jackson. In the audience are trustees Waese and Churchill.
I want to share with you a tale of two governments, one very large and centralized, the other smaller and more local.
At the small, local government, the North York Board of Education, the board recommended moving the gifted program from one school to the next. Such a decision meant that several hundred children would have to change schools. At the school board level, issues like this raised concern with parents. Parents whose children were affected by the proposal made at least four separate presentations to the board. They sat with trustees on implementation committees for more than six months. In short, parents were consulted on all aspects of the proposed change.
This is just one example of how our board works with the local community to solve problems. Some, like the opening of schools, are very pleasant; others, like the closing of schools, are not.
As school boards, we do the best we can to respond to our communities. But doing our best means involving parents in decisions. Doing our best means having parents work alongside trustees and board officials. Our best does not mean that parents get just a few moments to make a one-time presentation. It does not mean that parents have to demonstrate on our front lawn to be heard.
At the large, centralized government here at Queen's Park, Bill 104 and the government's related education restructuring announcements are the most significant changes in education in more than 150 years. Several days are set aside for hearings and the North York board has been given 15 minutes -- just 15 minutes -- its first and last time to comment on this legislation, and this from a board which serves Canada's sixth-largest city and is a pioneer and an innovator in many aspects of educational excellence.
I'm not trying to be critical of your work. As a trustee, I've often sat on the other side of the table. But the tale of two governments does illustrate the realities of big government versus small government, of centralized government versus local government. Are we seeing the difference between the way the North York Board of Education operates now and the way it may have to operate in the future -- as one large, centralized decision-making mega-board for Metro Toronto?
School boards and parents are natural partners, not adversaries. The more that parents are involved with their children's education, in their total education, the better their children do in school. But you will change this relationship by creating a governance structure far removed from the reality of teaching and learning, far removed from the parents and the communities we serve.
I'm not here today to tell you that you should not reduce the number of school boards in Metropolitan Toronto or the number of school trustees in our city, but I am here to tell you that how you are planning to do it is wrong.
The creation of a mega public school board in Metro is a mistake and one that will forever change the way parents and the public in general relate to their school system. In short, one mega public board for Metro Toronto is amalgamation to the extreme -- amalgamation gone overboard.
Bill 104 has some good intentions. To reduce school boards' costs and place more money in the classroom is a goal shared by all educators and the public. In the past five years, Metro's public boards have been pursuing this goal. For example, we have created a Metro-wide purchasing and warehousing cooperative. This cooperative model will soon be used to deliver computer services and, in time, many other administrative and non-instructional services of school boards may be provided in the same manner.
This is the evolution of school board services in Metro Toronto; it is a future where cost savings are achieved through reducing duplication while, at the same time, ensuring local decision-making, local responsiveness and local accountability to our communities.
Unfortunately, Bill 104 places the goal of cost reductions well ahead of the importance of the boards' ability to be locally responsive. This is especially true in the proposed new Toronto district public school board. This mega-board will serve more than 300,000 students and more than 500 schools.
Bill 104 will create a school board in Metro the size never before contemplated in Canada. It will create a board three times larger than the largest board in Canada and three times larger than its coterminous Metro separate school board.
Why create a school board so large? Why sacrifice public participation in their school system to save a few extra dollars, maybe, especially when the people of Metro Toronto can benefit from both local decision-making and cost savings?
What is the rationale for a mega-board? It seems clear that the mega-board is a creature of the megacity. Somehow just because a Who Does What panel says that a school board's jurisdiction should be aligned to a municipal jurisdiction, so it will be done, no questions asked, no matter how it works, no matter if it works, no matter if the services provided by municipalities and school boards are wholly different, no matter what the consequences for public participation, access and ability to influence their local school board.
1700
I must tell you that of all those who studied and were commissioned to study school board amalgamation -- the Royal Commission on Learning, former Minister of Education Tom Wells and former cabinet minister John Sweeney -- not one ever proposed the creation of one school board to serve nearly 20% of Ontario's school-age population.
Mr Sweeney's School Board Reduction Task Force conducted the most thorough of all the recent studies on school board amalgamation. In his final report he recommended the reduction of 50% of the school boards, but his proposed boundaries for Metro Toronto did not -- I repeat "did not" -- recommend one public school board for Metro Toronto. In fact he recommended four public school board jurisdictions. Why? Because as a result of his public consultation, and based on his own intimate knowledge of school board operations, it is clear that there are consequences to creating a very large school board.
The decisions of school boards do have an impact on the operations of schools and on the educational welfare of students. Decisions pertaining to additional portables, transportation hearings, expulsion hearings, approval of expenditures for new programs, disciplinary action, cannot be bottlenecked and delayed for months on end. These decisions have a bearing on schools and particularly on students: real people, real consequences for delays.
I urge the committee to reconsider the issue of creating one mega public school board in Metro on its own merits and not simply because it is the easiest thing to do or because it simply matches the megacity.
Adequate public involvement in and access to the decision-making process of governments at all levels has a pricetag and it's worth every penny.
I urge the committee to place the needs of students and the interests of parents right alongside the cost benefits associated with amalgamating school boards. If you examine school board amalgamation in Metro Toronto from this standpoint, I believe you will reject the mega-board in favour of a reconfiguration of Metro public school board's jurisdiction into a four- or a three-board model.
Let me turn very briefly to the establishment of the Education Improvement Commission. I would like to make one general observation about the commission. For a government in a parliamentary democracy to draft legislation which allows unelected individuals to override the decision of elected representatives is a sign that we take our democratic liberties for granted. To hold unelected individuals accountable to no one, not even the courts, is oppressive and repulsive.
I say to the committee, come clean on the accountability of the commission. Make it report directly to an elected body and allow the public to have political and legal recourse to its decisions. This is the right and honourable thing to do.
I want to make only a few brief comments about the role of school trustees. Going back to the introduction of Bill 104, I think part of the legislation has been sold to the public on the backs of school board members. I think the government has enjoyed putting the boots to school trustees. What can we do? After all, the government knows that politicians at any level are unpopular, so why not feed into the public's sentiments and get rid of a few more?
When the Minister of Education announced the education restructuring package on January 13, he said of trustees: "The role of trustees will be to provide policy direction and support -- not to be the hands-on, day-to-day managers in the schools." This is of course completely misleading and, I think, a mean-spirited slight against school trustees.
Trustees are not managers of schools, just as MPPs are not the managers of government. But I know you will agree with me that the management in government, like the management in school boards, must be accountable to the public. In many cases, this is where elected officials come in. Yes, we set policies, but we are also an advocate for the public. We provide the check and balance for decisions, especially those relating to expenditures and the fair treatment of our citizens.
Hands-on when it comes to education? I'd like to think so. Knowledgeable? I hope so. Informed? Most definitely. Yes, it's true that some trustees will work harder than others and for longer hours, but the same thing holds true for MPPs. Yes, it's true that trustees will interpret their role in different ways. There is no set job description for people in public service. One tries one's best and one devotes as much time as possible.
I know that most MPPs are not in public service for the money, but there is reasonable compensation for your time. Some MPPs have other professions and some do not. Trustees should also receive reasonable compensation. I can't think of a trustee serving in a major urban centre with a large constituency whose efforts would be valued at $5,000. I really can't.
Finally, I want to close with comments on what is undoubtedly an important concern that the public has about the future of education, but it is not really covered in this legislation.
By taking education off the residential property tax base, the government has dislodged more than $1.3 billion from Metro's school systems. Will the students in Metro ever see all this money back in their classrooms? Will the Ontario government return this money in the form of grants to Metro's school systems? If our schools get all the money back, what is the purpose of this entire exercise?
The North York Board of Education is very concerned that this money will not come back to Metro's schools, and this committee should be concerned as well.
First, the minister said he was going to cut a further $1 billion from education; now apparently he won't. Which is it?
Surely the purpose of reducing the number of school boards is that dollars saved will go back into educating young people? Will this in fact happen, or is this whole exercise really about achieving the single largest tax grab from our school system?
I would like to know the answers to these questions, and I know that parents would like to know the answers. I hope before Bill 104 becomes law, every member of the Legislature would want to know as well. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Gershon. Unfortunately, you've exhausted the time and there is no opportunity for the committee members to be able to ask questions. May I say, as an MPP from North York, what a terrific board I think you are, if I may be allowed just a little bias on occasion. Thank you very much for appearing before us this afternoon.
1710
SPIROS PAPATHANASAKIS
The Chair: Our next presenter is Spiros Papathanasakis. Welcome. You're just in time. We'll let you take off your coat and you can get started.
Mr Spiros Papathanasakis: Sorry. I had a problem in one of my schools.
The Chair: I'm sure you'll tell us about it.
Mr Papathanasakis: My name is Spiros Papathanasakis and I'm a trustee with the Toronto Board of Education, ward 7. I'm the father of five school-age children. I've been involved with the Cabbagetown Youth Centre since 1973 as its executive director. I was also one of the original members of the Ontario Parent Council. As you can see, my personal and professional life is committed to children.
I'm here to talk to you today because I want you to remember the children in the community I'm going to tell you about when you are making financial decisions. I'm not going to talk to you a lot about this bill right now, but I want you to remember my community.
I grew up in ward 7. My family has lived in ward 7 for 40 years. I want to tell you a little bit about the community. Some 45% of the families are below the low-income level for the rest of Toronto. I want you to picture some of the things that happen in my community.
I hope there's not a lot of press here. I don't want to badmouth my community, but a lot of the kids I've worked with in the past see their parents fighting because they're unemployed; there's a lot of stress in their families.
The density in my ward: Some parts of my ward are probably the most dense in this country. If you can picture to the east, I have St James Town, Regent Park and the Cabbagetown area. The 1991 stat for one of my areas, St James Town, was 65,000 per square kilometre in just that little area. I don't know if some of you know that area. Our projections a few years ago were 400 at Rose Avenue school. Next year 830 kids will be in this JK-to-grade-6 school, so I believe our projections are over 100,000 people. The rest of Toronto is about 7,000.
I want you to picture in your minds in the morning -- I know this is a fact because I do a lot of volunteer work in those buildings. You have 10 people in a two-bedroom. I want you to think about the children and yourselves trying to get to the washroom in the morning. That's a crazy example, but it's a real example, people fighting to get to the washrooms. I want you to picture them trying to get through crowded elevators or not having any hot water because there are so many people who have doubled up in those apartments. I can keep going on and on about that one.
Single parents: We have over 30% single parents in many parts of my ward. You know, some of you who have two parents in your families, how tough it is to get by these days.
Crime: I don't want you really to remember me because of these stats, but I've got to tell them to you. If you read in the newspaper a couple weeks ago, I'm the guy, my ward, where a 12-year-old shot the taxicab driver for $25. I'm the guy a few weeks before that, in my ward, I was sitting with a few sergeants discussing some of the problems and they had to take off because some guy was chasing somebody with a gun. I'm the guy in my ward where those two prostitutes were shot in the head and the kids had to walk right by them in the morning to go to school.
I don't know if you remember those stories in our newspapers. That's my ward. It's not the safest environment for the kids in my ward and schools make a great difference for those kids.
Suicides: I was looking at the newspaper yesterday and it said the Liberal government was going to go ahead with this community action program for children. We have a CAPC in my area. One of the things the people wanted us to be able to talk about was, how do you relate to suicides? What happens when somebody has a suicide that lives next door to part of your family?
I was doing some research a couple of years ago. We have the highest suicide rate in the province of Ontario in my area. One day I had to run to get two kids so they wouldn't go home at lunchtime, because their dad had just jumped from one of those buildings. I was just freaked out about that.
The diversity: It's probably the most diverse ward in Ontario. I know those people not only have a problem with the language. It's funny, it's very interesting. I'm a public school trustee and I've organized five ESL classes with the separate school board in a sub-basement for these people, so I know them very well.
These people don't feel they have a voice. They don't know what their rights are. They don't have proper green space, they don't have services and they don't know that. I don't want to kill the issue. Yesterday we were in the mayor's committee talking about how it's crazy to build three more high-rise buildings there, that the city of Toronto is planning to do. They're at the OMB right now and the developers are getting the right to build three more buildings. This would not happen in any other area. It's just crazy what is happening, but these people don't have a voice and that's what happens.
These problems are a fact of life for many people in my community. When you look at a multirisk community like mine and you take poverty, the overcrowding, the density, the chronic unemployment, these factors are overwhelming. Learning is at risk here. We at the Toronto board have some very highly successful ways of supporting our children in doing their best academically. These are low costs and high returns. We want you to consider some of these things.
The ed assistants, the teacher's aides we have who help these kids in the classroom: I know that in some places these people aren't valued, but I'll tell you something, going through my schools, I know what a difference they make, and a lot of them are from the community.
Nutrition programs: I don't know; I was brought up in this community and there were five of us to one bedroom. I never had anybody feeding me. I would rather not eat sometimes than get help, but these kids really need the help. I never thought I would be telling people this about people, but they need the help. They're really struggling. I know this because I've got five kids and I know they tell me that a lot of kids don't have food at lunchtime, and my kids share their lunches. So I know it's a fact. Some people you've probably talked to tell you all kinds of fuzzy-wuzzy things, but when I tell you something, it's right on, because I'm right there and I can see it.
Parenting centres: There are 7,000 families that are being served in our parenting centres. I don't want to be written up in the Toronto Star. My wife is a parenting worker; I'm telling you up front. She's been doing it for 10 years and she has shown me the difference, what parenting does. They help teach the parents literacy before they get to school, because most of these kids need the help before they get to school, in the environment they are in.
They get them involved in our schools. A lot of the people who are involved in the parent councils have gone through the parenting centres. These parenting centres are in inner-city schools. These are three examples of low-cost, highly successful initiatives, which make all the difference for children coming from disadvantaged backgrounds.
I haven't said much about the bill because my passion is for the children. I stayed up all night looking at this bill and what it meant to me. I'm not really going to focus on this bill, which I should. I hope the EIC isn't just another layer of bureaucracy that will slow decisions down for the kids. I've only been a trustee for two years and I've got to tell you something. When things need to be done, I already think they're too slow in our system. This organization: I don't know how good it's going to be. It depends who's on it and what they're going to do. I just hope they don't slow things down.
The part about extraordinary enforcement powers: My background is Greek and the word "democracy" came from Greece, so I don't think it's right, but I've got to tell you something. I wish my colleague and I, Soo Wong, had some of these powers a year ago when we were taking the school board on. I don't think it's right, but I wish I had those powers. I don't know what that says about us, but we were praying for something like that.
1720
Interjection: Maybe you're toast.
Mr Papathanasakis: Yes, toast.
Restriction of school board powers: The part in the bill where they look at our budgets -- what is it? -- month by month, the staff won't like that because it's going to be a hassle for them. But I don't even have a problem with that. It probably makes us more accountable. Every time I make a decision, it's for the kids, and I make sure it's fiscally responsible. I treat the school board's money like I would -- how we grew up, we were very poor and we made sure that we treated it like it was our money. I don't spend it just for the sake of spending it.
A problem that has occurred right now -- and these are some of the problems I might have, but it's probably because it hasn't started. I don't know how much time it will take to go to the EIC. One example of a problem that we've had is a school called Contact. We put up purchasing for some land and we put a condition that we had to go through this body and we lost the building. That's part of the down side of that.
I invite you to ask me any questions. I ask you to remember the kids in the inner city. I didn't come here to say yes, I agree with this, or to whine, but I really wanted for you, when you're making decisions in the future, to think about my neighbourhood. Everybody's been worried that we're going to get annihilated and we're going to lose a lot of money from Metro Toronto. I trust you'll do a good job and you'll be fair with everybody in Ontario, but when you're making these decisions, that you understand there is a difference. I talk to people all over Ontario, and we have probably the neediest community in this country when you take everything into account. That's all I want you to remember. These kids need some extra help when you're doing the funding allocation.
I don't have anything else to say.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Papathanasakis. You've used your 15 minutes very well and we thank you. There won't be any time for questions, unfortunately, but we thank you and your colleague, Soo Wong, for attending here today.
Mr Preston: That was a great presentation.
R.H. MCGREGOR SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Chair: Our next presenter is from the R.H. McGregor School Advisory Council, Pamela Grant. Welcome. I would ask you to present your co-presenter. It's nice to see a little one here at these hearings.
Pamela Grant: Before I start, I'd just like to introduce the people you see here with me. My alternate chair, Nicholas Russon, is a parent at R.H. McGregor School. Sean Hayes is another parent and member of our school advisory council at McGregor. Probably why we're all here is one of the younger students at R.H. McGregor, my daughter, Gillian, who is benefiting from kindergarten at the moment.
I think what I'd like to do really sincerely, on behalf of the R.H. McGregor School community, our school advisory council would like to thank the committee members for allowing us the opportunity to be heard. We know that we're very privileged to be able to do that because the process has not allowed for too much of that.
R.H. McGregor is a junior public school -- that's junior kindergarten through to grade 5 -- with a population of 715 students, situated in the heart of the only borough in this country, East York. Our school is a microcosm of the range and diversity of essential programs and resources necessary for quality education in the classroom in an urban setting in the province of Ontario.
There are many aspects of the current system -- but I think I must stop and add that right now that has already undergone massive cuts -- that we like and we feel are essential. I'm going to use that word "essential" a lot in this presentation, because I'm not here to talk to you about things that are frills, add-ons, I'm here to talk about essential programming and programs that take place in our community that we'd like to see maintained. So we feel that these programs are essential and therefore we need to maintain them, and we need to maintain them in order to keep a strong public school system.
I'm going to spend some time just going through the things we like about the system, things that are working for us.
We like that our trustees are knowledgeable about our community and that they're accessible and accountable to us as parents. They're just a phone call away and they actively participate in our school advisory council meetings and our home and school meetings with very little notice. We also like the positive experiences we've had working with the East York Board of Education staff. For example, they provided leadership and support in the resolution of a potentially explosive local parking issue that involved bringing together parents, the school, the board, local residents and the municipality.
We like the broad range of programs that are available to all students in the system: ESL/D, French immersion, junior kindergarten, special education programming etc.
We like the fact that our caretakers are known to us and our children, and that they are on hand to clear snow and salt the walkways during a snowfall or even to quickly clear away the inevitable dangerous messes from illness that children make in the classroom and in the hallways. In addition, our caretakers look after our buildings and grounds, help us as parents and monitor evening activities in the school.
We like being able to visit our children's classroom teacher and having him or her take the time to discuss our children's progress.
But we're afraid. What we're afraid of is that with the implementation of Bill 104, there are a number of things that we'll have to be further afraid of. What I want to do is list for you some of the many fears that we have.
We fear that there will be a lack of representation and access to decision-making, whether it be through the new trustee system or at the board level.
We fear that there won't be enough money for essential programming and that we will be put in the no-win situation of having to pit one essential program against or over another. Do we drop junior kindergarten to maintain programs such as French immersion? Our school is a French immersion school. The population is basically 50-50: English and French immersion. Do we have a music program and not a phys ed program? Do we do away with the libraries so that we can have computer labs? I can go on.
We fear that we will lose the essential support of psychologists, social workers, special education consultants, learning-disabled and gifted program practitioners, and education assistants. The work of these people impacts directly on what happens in the classroom.
We fear that by taking our property taxes and putting them into the provincial pot, we will not have access to our own funds to ensure that they go towards our local education needs. Education is still a local issue, that hasn't changed, and we believe that local taxes should be directed to local education needs. Otherwise it is tantamount to taking money out of the education system, or more specifically, taking money out of the classroom.
1730
We fear that if we want to have music, we'll have to pay, and if we want to have physical education in addition to music, we'll have to pay more. This violates the basic principle of what public education is in this province and it leads to the kind of charter school system where those who have access to money get more. This is Ontario; it's not New Jersey.
We fear that we will be pitting our school's needs against neighbouring schools' needs for scarce money and resources. We fear that larger class sizes will result in insufficient time for teachers to deal with individual children, their needs and their parents' needs.
We fear a lack of capital dollars for preventive maintenance in the schools: repair and replacement of desks, chairs, lights, heat, air filters etc, facility maintenance and expansion, including the issue of portables versus new facilities.
We fear a lack of quality support services for the facilities, where known, permanent caretakers will be replaced by privately contracted workers, who because they are not on duty at all times, will not be able to respond to the myriad of day-to-day, moment-by-moment maintenance needs. This would be both a safety and a security issue for our children. The inevitable turnover of contract workers would lead to strangers roaming the hallways of our school.
We fear public access and use of school facilities in off-hours will cease and will be out of our control if at 4 pm the doors of the school close. Our school will no longer be the community school we want it to be.
We fear that the process of transition is not transparent and that the Education Improvement Commission is neither accountable nor accessible to anyone. We won't be able to bring an injunction against them and we can't sue them after the fact. It appears they've already been granted their pardon. It begs the question: Why is it necessary to grant them immunity? They're not elected and will be in charge of taxpayers' money, my money.
We fear that the integration of special education/special needs programming into the classroom at a time when support staff are being removed from the classroom is a recipe for disaster, not improvement in the quality of our children's education. It will also place an undue burden on teachers.
Those are some of the fears that we have and what my colleagues and I want to leave you with this evening are some of the questions we need to have answered, and I think other parents across the province need to have answered.
(1) What is your vision of new governance? What is the role of the school advisory councils, really? What will they do, really? What will they look like? Can school advisory councils have liability without accountability?
(2) Can we really be sure that bigger is better? There are few school boards this size in North America.
(3) Will public education be a tiered, multi-tiered system?
(4) Will our MPPs, in this case John Parker and David Johnson, answer our phone calls about the school system since the province will he controlling the money?
(5) Who now owns the buildings and property bought and paid for by the taxpayers of East York?
(6) Will our children truly become citizens of the world as a result of the changes proposed by Bill 104?
Those are some of the questions and I'd just again like to take this opportunity to thank you for having a chance to heard.
Mr Wildman: I really enjoyed your presentation and the way you did it. Could I ask you, you talked about what you like in your school and what's good for your students and your community and what you are afraid of. It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you're really afraid of is losing the access to the people who make decisions about your school, and you're afraid of losing the community aspect of your school and the involvement you've been able to develop. Is that a fair description, if you want to put it in sort of a nutshell?
Pamela Grant: Yes, and in a more pointed way, I think there's a fear that we will no longer be a relevant part of the process of decision-making around all the issues that are of importance to us and our children. It's that we've been sidelined or buffered off, and that really is a sentiment, I think.
Mr Wildman: Do you think you need to have full-time trustees dealing with the group of schools that the trustee deals with in your ward, or could you have a trustee who is getting an honorarium of $5,000 and works at this part-time and is dealing with a larger number of schools and still have the kind of access and influence that you believe you now have?
Pamela Grant: In a word, no.
Mr Wildman: Well, should you have?
Pamela Grant: Our trustees spend a great deal of time doing the work that they do, and I think that has to be valued. I think previous speakers have talked about the relish with which the present government has really stuck the boot -- and these are not my words, this is what a previous presenter said -- to people who for the most part have committed a fair amount of time, interest and work in support of our children in the system.
That's not to say that there is no room for change and improvement, but I would hesitate to promote any new system that would take away the role of having a trustee or individuals who know the community and are familiar with the issues and can participate in the process of decision-making and represent the community.
Mr Wildman: When they get close to $50,000, you don't consider that ripping off the system?
Pamela Grant: I don't know who does that. That's not the situation in our community.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Ms Grant, for your presentation. You said East York, wasn't it?
Pamela Grant: Yes.
Mr Carroll: Obviously in East York there are also some separate schools, I presume. Are there?
Pamela Grant: That serve that area, yes. There are separate schools that serve that area.
Mr Carroll: And they would have the same demographics and so on as the public schools would have, because they are operating in the same general geographic area.
You seem like a very fair person to me, as I listened to your presentation. The children in East York and in all of Metro Toronto who fall under one separate school board, the average cost per student is $6,472 a year. For the children that fall under the six public boards in the same demographic area of Toronto, the average cost is $7,984, which is another $1,512. As a fair person, do you think that all of the students in Metropolitan Toronto should have access to the same amount of funding for their education?
Pamela Grant: As a fair person, my response to you is that I would certainly weigh much more carefully and take the time to sort those kinds of questions out before I launched a Bill 104. It's not altogether clear to me that anything in Bill 104 addresses what I expect you're trying to get at with your question. So that's my answer.
1740
Mrs McLeod: I would probably rephrase Mr Carroll's question in asking you whether or not you would think that everybody should get less in order to create some equity of funding.
Pamela Grant: I think there are two issues that you have to deal with. Again, as a fair person, I would never try to deal with essential programming and need by looking at a dollar figure. And so, as I try to work to balance, if I were in the position of decision-making, that would be what moved my decision-making and not looking at a set of numbers here and another set of numbers there. I'd be looking at quality of programming, and that would be the important thing to me.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that, because I think sometimes the questions that are being asked around the table pit the sense of fairness and equity of each of us against the actual needs of kids. I think that's what you were trying to bring out in your brief, and I think that's what many other presenters in the last two days have tried to bring out, that there are real needs of kids, and people are worried about how they're going to be responded to.
Like Mr Wildman, I appreciated the fact that you went into detail about different aspects of the way in which Bill 104 could affect kids in the classroom, including things like the outsourcing, and what it means to kids in a classroom to have that continuity of janitorial care and what it means to their safety. I had not picked up on the fact that of course one of the consequences of finding efficiencies in that area could be the loss of a community school, and I appreciate your drawing that out.
I'm also very appreciative of your talking about the special needs integration. Just as a starting point, in case the government suggests that the funding is a different issue and we're going to meet all the needs of kids, when they found their $150 million in their consultant's report, ministry figures, one of the figures they had to use in order to get to $150 million to save on amalgamation was $1.3 million in something called education support, which basically is the very people you're talking about, the support people that provide support for special needs kids to be in integrated classes. So I think your fears are legitimate, based on the objective evidence that's already come forward.
I guess just lastly, if there's time --
The Chair: There isn't time, Ms McLeod. We're out of time.
Mrs McLeod: The next time, we'll discuss charter schools.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Grant, and Gillian, thank you for coming especially. We're glad to have you here, and Mr Russon and Mr Hayes. Thanks very much for your presentation.
SCARBOROUGH BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: The next presenter is from the Scarborough Board of Education, Ms Dale. Thank you very much for joining us. I'd ask you to introduce your co-presenter. You have 15 minutes to make your presentation.
Gaye Dale: Madam Chair and members of the committee, first of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of being able to speak to you on this important issue.
As already identified -- I know you're probably at the point of no return by this time in the day, I know what meetings are like, so I just want to say I represent the Scarborough -- agreed? -- Board of Education, the largest public school board in Metropolitan Toronto and the public board with the highest incidence of students requiring ESL support in the area and, to our knowledge, the country.
As someone who has taken on the duty of trusteeship, it should be unnecessary for me to have to say that my first concern is for the welfare of the children attending our schools. I'll say it anyway. I'll try and organize my presentation under three major concerns.
First, it is essential, if we are going to have a unified board, that we carefully look at the ramifications as we go through the process. If that's the way of the future, we have to ensure that we receive the special funding needed to adequately address the unique needs of its student population.
Let me suggest to you what some of those unique needs are. One of the most diverse communities in the world and a community that works because of its public education system, our system has demonstrated the capacity to respond to the needs of our students. Our students are made up in large part of newcomers to Canada: 55% of all immigrants to Canada since 1986 have chosen to live in Ontario, and 60% to 70% of this group live in Metropolitan Toronto. Immigrant students require language skills and/or the opportunity to adapt to a new country. Refugee students require support for disrupted educations and lives.
Of Scarborough's 82,000 students, a third have been in the country less than four years. Current research conducted by Dr Cummings of OISE suggests that newcomers require five to seven years in order to function as well as they would in their own native country. Based on these figures, educators in Scarborough are supporting 27,000 immigrant students on their journey to becoming fully functioning Canadians.
One group in our diverse community are children living in poverty, children who are disadvantaged when they walk through the door of a school. We understand from the work of Dr Dan Offord that poor children, children living on assistance in subsidized housing in single-parent families, are far more likely to experience behavioural and academic difficulties. Metro Toronto has the highest concentration of subsidized housing units in all of Ontario. Within Metro, the highest concentration is in Scarborough. One in three children in Metro lives on social assistance and 25% of families are led by a lone parent. The Scarborough board has focused significant resources to support disadvantaged children and will require absolute assurance that their needs will continue to be met regardless.
The number of children requiring special education support has increased over the last decade. When one looks Metro-wide at a school population of 300,000, research would suggest that upwards of 45,000 students may require special education support during their education careers. This number easily exceeds the number of many school boards in Ontario, and we would hope that these children would not be forgotten in any reorganization.
Violent youth crime is on the rise in Metro Toronto and is a particular concern of Scarborough and our schools. The Scarborough Board of Education has taken a leadership role in assuring students a safe and secure learning environment. We do not believe that parents will settle for any less under any circumstances.
The needs of Metro Toronto are clearly reflected in Scarborough. In fact, I would suggest to you that they are somewhat magnified within my community. The Scarborough Board of Education can lay claim to a range of significant achievements with immigrant, refugee and disadvantaged students. Our concern for the future lies entirely with our students. We will not stand in the way of progress but will definitely stand in opposition to any actions which we believe diminish the opportunities of our students.
Key to our concern is that any future funding formulas for Metro should be equitable across all communities within Metro. The needs of all students must be recognized as the needs, desires and aspirations of our communities.
I hope you have recognized my plea for the unique needs of Metro and Scarborough students, as well as my desire to seek equitable funding in any new formula.
In addition, I would also like to speak to the needs of staff -- I have over 8,000 employees -- who appear to be more protected in consideration of municipal reform than in educational reform. I speak to clause 8 of the municipal bill, Bill 103, that doesn't seem to be the same in Bill 104.
I would like to leave you with three questions:
Will the unique needs of Metro students be adequately recognized within the funding allocation model?
Will moneys be allocated equally across all areas of Metro?
Will board of education staff, both unionized and non-unionized, receive the same protection that is afforded to municipal staff under Bill 103?
Thank you. I've provided you with a package that has already been distributed within Scarborough, addressing programs that we feel are important. Not included in there are special education children, who we obviously feel are really important, and I have to stress that we really consider that one of the important aspects of our programming. We will forward on to you any further information from us.
Mr Froese: Thank you for your presentation. When we look at the whole issue of amalgamation of boards, bureaucracies, school structures and so on and so forth, you've been involved a number of years in your board, I would presume?
Gaye Dale: Actually, I've been involved two years as a trustee and 15 years prior to that as a parent in the system.
1750
Mr Froese: So you're very aware of the whole education structure in our province. I find it kind of difficult to swallow, some of the questions from the opposition. This is not just a problem that we face as a government in education; it's been there for years and everybody has been looking at it. There have been a number of commissions and committees and reports coming out of our ears with respect to this.
As a matter of fact, in the last election, the Liberals -- and I have the red book right here -- said they would be doing some of the same things that we're doing now. They would establish local school councils that would help shift the decision-making out of the hands of the bureaucracies and into the hands of the parents. They would reduce the number of trustees. They would define the role of school boards. They would encourage school boards to increase efficiencies and reduce costs by sharing expenses and looking for opportunities to share services, which is outsourcing, in my opinion. The former government and Mr Cooke, who is now co-chair of the EIC, commissioned the Sweeney report, and they were going to do some of the same things.
Everybody knows something has to be done and the two previous governments were going to do the same things. I'd like to know your comments on that, and specifically also with respect to, if we strengthen the roles of the parent councils, and that's one way of doing it, and in Bill 104 we talk about doing that, can you give us some guidance and information? How do we do that to be successful?
Gaye Dale: At this point, I'm going to speak from a background that maybe not everyone can. I've been through the Scarborough board three times so far. I'm on my fourth try with my third child. I personally went through the system myself and I went through with my two older children.
My concern about parental involvement is that, in my school, representation was wonderful. We had active parents, we had parents in the classroom, but not every school within my Scarborough system is like that. As a trustee, I found that out. As a parent, I didn't realize it because I lived within my nice, safe little cocoon within my nice little school and I was protected. But now I see that the needs of children have to be looked at and I don't know if we can have equitable representation from parents. With certain schools, especially in my own personal area, there are a lot of parents who stay home, but that's not the same across Scarborough, and that's where my concern lies.
Is it all right if Trustee McDonald --
Carol McDonald: Could I just add something to that, please?
The Vice-Chair: Yes, certainly.
Carol McDonald: I think one of the biggest concerns that we have -- and we have worked very diligently on trying to establish parent councils all across Scarborough -- is that you cannot mandate volunteerism, and to get the proper people, the proper demographic representation in our schools, is very difficult. So that is one thing.
The other thing is that a lot of the people we have seen in the representation of parent councils are people who truly want to be there but also they don't want an incredible amount of added responsibility with the hiring and firing of principals. They feel that they are not adequately trained to do that sort of thing. So you have to be very careful and move -- you're moving very quickly on a lot of issues here, and I think one of the things that we have to be concerned with is implementing properly, whether it's 104 or whether it's parent councils.
Mrs McLeod: I should warn the members of the government party that as one of the co-authors and person solely responsible for the red book, while I don't carry it around as a Bible as some government members seem to do, every line of it is burned upon my brain and I'm ready to defend uncategorically and unapologetically exactly what it says.
First of all, about school councils, we have always supported increased parental involvement but would never support widespread school-based management to the point that would open up privatization and two-tiered education.
Yes, we would support amalgamation of school boards, as it very clearly says -- the parts you don't quote -- where it can be shown that school board amalgamations make sense, and in every study that has been done to date, at a local level, as has already been mentioned --
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: You're out of order. Let her finish.
Mrs McLeod: The Essex county, the London-Middlesex and the Ottawa-Carleton studies, all done by the previous government, all indicated that they were not recommending that those amalgamations proceed. At no time has anybody, to my knowledge, until this legislation was introduced, suggested the kind of amalgamations that are recommended here, and that includes the Sweeney task force on school board reduction. These are incredibly sweeping amalgamations.
Last, I will admit to trustees, because we've admitted it publicly, that we've endorsed the Royal Commission on Learning's recommendations on reducing numbers of trustees and capping salaries for trustees, but never would we see a system in which local trustees' roles were made so redundant and meaningless that eventually it will lead to the loss of local accountability entirely.
If there's time for a question, I would like to ask you what you think your role will be under this new amalgamated board.
Gaye Dale: I'm concerned that there isn't a role. What I want to do and what I want to see happen -- as a parent, I feel valued, and I want to be valued as a trustee as well as a representative of the people. Perhaps you want to add something.
Carol McDonald: I do, I guess. For three years now, I think, we've given parts of our lives that I never thought we would have given. I have three young children in the school system as well and I value the school system that we have today.
I think what you will see for $5,000 and for limited power are people who will be in with their special interests, and I don't think they will be the interests of the children.
I also suggest that, instead of board fighting, you will wind up with ward fighting, because people will go out and represent just their little pockets and communities versus the whole aspect of a Metro school board in the Metropolitan Toronto area.
Mr Wildman: I know my friend from St Catharines-Brock would not want to leave a wrong impression, so I would just point out that when he indicates that what the government is doing is what everybody wanted to do, it's not quite accurate. As I recall, Mr Sweeney, who was appointed by our government to look at amalgamation of the boards, recommended that there be four boards in Metropolitan Toronto, not one. If Mr Froese would like everyone to think that the government is simply doing what Mr Sweeney was recommending at the behest of our government, he's obviously mistaken. They aren't doing it. Nobody suggested that there would be one board, certainly not Mr Sweeney.
Mr Froese: I never said that.
The Vice-Chair: Come to order, please.
Mr Wildman: Do you think, as representatives of a board, that a reorganization of educational governance in Metro perhaps should be considered, and if so, would you support that while being concerned and perhaps opposed to one board for the whole region of Metropolitan Toronto?
Gaye Dale: I really think at this point, as a trustee, I'm concerned about what is locally in place. You'll see in your packages that Scarborough has a zero tolerance policy that's very valuable to us. As a parent, I was part of the development of that policy. I'm concerned, and I have to say it and I've expressed it to the minister and to all of our local representatives, that we are concerned about the unique deeds within the region that we live in, within Scarborough, what our parents have come to expect from us. So what we are looking for as trustees is direction. What I'd like to say as a trustee is that I think we have to be mindful that we not do it too quickly as we make decisions, major decisions, that we not do it swiftly to the --
Mr Wildman: In British Columbia they took three years rather than a few months.
The Vice-Chair: I'm afraid we are now out of time. I apologize.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, could I ask a question that I could get an answer from the government about?
The Vice-Chair: As has been the case, you can place a question now to the government.
Mr Wildman: I would like to have someone, either Mr Skarica or some representative of the ministry, explain why the government decided to go for one board for Metro rather than four, as Mr Sweeney suggested, and who made this decision and what studies indicated that it would be an effective way of having educational governance in Metro.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mrs McLeod, do you want to place another question?
Mrs McLeod: Yes, if I can have another question. My memory fades at moments, but I well remember that although the consultation on the Sweeney report was aborted and the commission was not allowed to have any public hearings in any communities to discuss the proposed amalgamation, there was a sort of phone-in consultation. I think it might be at least relevant for the committee to have the report of the phone-in consultation on the proposed amalgamations under the Sweeney report. It was carried out by this government at some cost.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. I'll ask the government to report back on that in writing at another time.
1800
LINDA GLOVER
The Vice-Chair: The next delegation is the Halton Board of Education, Linda Glover.
Ms Linda Glover: Thank you, Mr Chair and members of the standing committee. I will be brief. It's late, I know. I am pleased to be able to provide the following input to the standing committee in response to Bill 104. I want to stress that this input is personal. I have not sought formal approval from my board because of the very limited time provided to prepare this report.
I want to state at the outset that I support much of the intent of Bill 104, and I represent a board which is not directly affected by amalgamations. My recommendations are as follows:
There must be a very clear definition of roles for the new boards, for individual trustees and for the director of education to clearly delineate what are and what are not "day-to-day operations." The present roles are very unclear, and this has led to significant problems in providing effective governance and administration for school systems.
Adequate time must be provided to move to the new district board configuration and the proposed new funding model. Expecting it to be completely implemented by January 1, 1998, is totally unrealistic.
The disqualification of teachers or their spouses from running for office as elected trustees should be rethought. There is existing conflict-of-interest legislation which applies, and I have to wonder why municipal employees and their spouses are not also being prevented from running for municipal council positions.
It is essential that the new funding formula places public education on a level playing field with the Catholic school system. I fear that the public school system will become a dumping ground for hard-to-serve students. An example of the inequities is with respect to junior kindergarten. Our board, along with other large boards, had to cancel the program when the government made it optional. The government must make a decision to fund this program for all students or not fund it at all.
Last I would say, ask for our help and include us in planning for the implementation of the transition. Trustees and senior staff have a vested interest in ensuring that the legislation is implemented effectively because this will affect all students in Ontario and you have to remember that.
I will answer any questions. Thank you.
Mrs McLeod: It's rather nice at the end of the day to have a chance for some discussion about the issues. I appreciate your leaving some time for that.
I understand that Halton is not affected by the amalgamation in terms of the size of the jurisdiction, so I'm curious to know what part of the intent of Bill 104 you are supportive of.
Ms Glover: Basically I think it's needed. I've been in education for 12 years as a trustee. I've noticed changes. I feel that trustees have become very political. We get involved in a number of day-to-day activities. There isn't a clear understanding of what the role is. Everyone feels they're the boss, and you have to understand that it's the corporate body that makes the decisions, not individual trustees.
Mrs McLeod: Let me get a sense of how Bill 104 changes that. Obviously one of the things it does is to have many fewer trustees, and for some boards much larger jurisdictions. I understand that you're not commenting on that. There are a number of things you've spoken of in Bill 104 that you're concerned about in terms of the disqualification of teachers and spouses. I assume that's not one of the issues you want to have addressed, so the other outstanding piece would seem to be the taking over of educational funding, which is the sort of companion piece to Bill 104. Would you be supportive then of the government taking over educational funding?
Ms Glover: I'm supportive of the intent of Bill 104. To comment on it much further than I already have is difficult because we don't know what the funding model is. I think that's what is going to be important in this whole piece of legislation: how the funding model develops out of this.
Mrs McLeod: That's our concern, and I would think you would share that as a trustee: that we have no idea, if the government takes over the funding, how dollars are going to be provided.
Your question about the definition of the role of the trustee is one which concerns you, and you've asked for some clarity, because it seems difficult to see what the role of the trustee is going to be in terms of decision-making or even collective bargaining, for that matter, if there is no control over the dollars at all, if all the decisions about funding are essentially being made on some formula out of Queen's Park. Somebody said yesterday that there would be centralized decision-making and decentralized blame and that the role of the trustee was to take the blame. Is that how you see it?
Ms Glover: I can see that happening, that the trustee will be the complaints desk, and I think it would be the role of the trustee at that point to refer them to their MPP to solve the problems.
Mrs McLeod: I think if MPPs think family support is ringing our phones off the hook, wait until we get all the education questions.
One of the issues that has been raised around the table -- the Ernst and Young report indicates that costs under amalgamation could actually go up just in the process of amalgamation as you harmonize services and harmonize salaries -- how do you see that kind of harmonization being carried out and the powers of the EIC to do that?
Ms Glover: Because we're not being amalgamated, it's difficult to answer that. We are a standalone board. I think, though, there would have to be some very clear guidelines as to what the purpose is and certainly where it's collective bargaining and how they're going to go about all those and looking at collective agreements etc and rolling those and combining those.
The Vice-Chair: Ms McLeod, I'm afraid your time is up.
Mrs McLeod: I just want to make a point of clarification as to how you separate the harmonization and the class formulas.
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: Thank you for your patience in waiting and making the presentation. I was struck by your comment about the concern over the time frame in which this is being done. In British Columbia, where they amalgamated boards, they took about three years to implement. This government is saying everything has to be in place by January 1, 1998.
I realize that Halton is not one of the boards that's being amalgamated, as you've indicated, but do you think it would be sensible, that it would make common sense to wait for the new funding formula prior to passing a restructuring bill so that everyone will know the whole package rather than just a piece of it now and a piece later?
1810
Ms Glover: I think it would be helpful to have the whole package. I believe the government wants to do it in bits and pieces so that we can't put it all together and we can't object to it and there isn't enough time to do so. I feel that January 1, 1998, is very close at hand. Even for a board that is not changing, moving from the Halton Board of Education to the district school board, you look at all the policies, everything we have done for years and years, how are newly elected people going to be able to get a grasp on what is there, how they can convert it and move on and not affect the staff and the students they serve?
Mr Wildman: I appreciate your comment. One of the things the minister has said is behind some of the changes he's proposing is his desire to strengthen the parent councils or the community councils, school councils. In the House in answer to some questions, he said he believed that school councils should become more involved in the operation of schools -- and I think all of us would like to see parents involved in schools and in their kids' education -- but that they might in fact be able to make decisions around curriculum, materials that are being used, books and so on. Would you see that as a benefit or a problem in terms of the implementation of Bill 104?
Ms Glover: I think you're going to have difficulty getting --
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: Is that in answer to my question?
Mrs Johns: It's not curriculum --
The Vice-Chair: Order, Mrs Johns, please.
Ms Glover: You are going to have difficulty getting people involved in a volunteer position, as the Scarborough board just said. People are willing to volunteer when their kids are in the school. They're not interested in what's happening with curriculum that much locally, and they're not interested in some of the other things that are going on in the schools.
Mr Wildman: But some particular groups might be.
Ms Glover: Some particular groups might be, and we have a particular group in Halton that we're dealing with currently that may be interested in changing the curriculum. But I think when you want consistency throughout a board, throughout Ontario, that has to come from the top; it has to come from the government, not from your local school community which wants a particular thing taught in the school.
Mr Wildman: Hear, hear. So, a particular group should not be able to determine what books might be used in a particular school.
Ms Glover: That's right.
Mr Carroll: I have a quick question, Ms Glover. I don't know anything there's more confusion over than the whole idea of junior kindergarten. You say in here: "Frankly, I fear that the public school system will become a dumping ground for hard-to-serve students. An example of the inequities is with respect to junior kindergarten. Our board, along with other large boards, had to cancel the program when the government made it optional. The government must make a decision to fund this program for all students or not fund it at all."
Correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that junior kindergarten is funded for every school board in the province of Ontario exactly the same way that every other grade is funded. In the case of your board in Halton, why did that cause you to have to cancel the program?
Ms Glover: Because we hadn't implemented it fully, and we could not afford to continue to implement it, because the grants we got for those students did not cover the cost of implementing the program.
Mr Carroll: But the fact that it's funded at the same level as grade 1, grade 2, grade 3 and grade 4, is that not a fair way to fund junior kindergarten?
Ms Glover: It isn't a fair way when you don't give the grants to everyone. Our separate board has junior kindergarten. They ran a deficit for a couple of years to get junior kindergarten. We're not allowed to run a deficit; I'm sorry, but we're not allowed to.
Mr Carroll: But they get the same grants for junior kindergarten that they get for kindergarten and grade 1 and so does the Halton public board. I'm having trouble understanding what is unfair about that.
Ms Glover: They get a higher grant.
Mr Wildman: They get a higher grant.
Ms Glover: They do get a higher grant.
Mr Carroll: But they get the same grant for each grade, as does the public board. I don't understand why you say that's not fair.
Ms Glover: Because we had not implemented the program. The cost of implementing the program was significant, and those grants were being cut. We could not go to our taxpayer and ask taxpayers for the money to implement the program.
Mr Carroll: So it wasn't a per pupil grant.
Ms Glover: I think early education is important to everyone, and if the government takes over the funding, they should be funding the same for everyone.
Mr Carroll: Is the same true of kindergarten and grade 1?
Ms Glover: Yes.
Mr Carroll: So you say those primary grades should all be funded at the same level regardless of what the tax base is for the school board.
Ms Glover: I'm saying that if you're funding the Catholic boards the same, you should be funding the public boards the same and you should be funding the French-language boards the same.
Mr Skarica: Perhaps you could just help us on that same point where you say it is essential that the funding formula places public education on a level playing field with the Catholic school system. What are some of the things you would recommend that we do in the funding formula?
Ms Glover: I think you have to take into account the type of student the public board serves. The public boards get a variety of students with special needs, a number of ESL students, a number of students from different ethnic groups. We have to take everyone. We are obliged to take everyone. We cannot turn anyone away. I think that has to be recognized when you are funding school boards. You have to look at who the students are and fund accordingly.
The Chair: Ms Glover, thank you very much for appearing before us this evening. We appreciate your intervention.
Mrs McLeod: I have a question for the ministry to respond to, please, Madam Chair, because I think we have to attempt to get some information that shows the very direct linkage between Bill 104 and the funding piece of the puzzle that is to come.
The Chair: All right.
Mrs McLeod: The ministry, through the establishment of the EIC, is going to be essentially directing the harmonization of salaries and services as the new boards are put in place as of January 1, 1998, according to the legislation. Quite clearly decisions that are made and directed by the EIC that lead to harmonization of salaries and services and therefore of costs are going to become in some way the basis for the funding formula which the minister is to develop at some point in time. I would like to ask the ministry how they are going to decide which of the various harmonized models that may exist in the province in terms of staffing ratios and salaries will become the basis for the funding formula allocations.
Mr Skarica: You've tabled a number of questions in the last few days. I've spoken with the ministry and what they're offering is a briefing session. So perhaps all the questions that you've tabled so far, plus any others, if you could provide them to me or the ministry in writing, we'll set a date for a briefing session.
Mrs McLeod: I assume that will be a special meeting of the committee then; that we are going to recommend it be a public meeting?
Mr Skarica: We were going to suggest having a briefing session first. If you're dissatisfied, then we can deal with the matter at that time.
Mrs McLeod: Given the number of presenters who have come to this committee, including the last presenter, and said, "We don't know how to deal with the legislation because we don't see all the pieces of the puzzle," it would be unconscionable not to have a public briefing.
Mr Skarica: What we're proposing is to brief you as best we can. If you're dissatisfied at that time, then you can bring it back here and make a motion or whatever.
Mrs McLeod: I'll accept written answers to all the questions that I've tabled then.
Mr Wildman: On this matter, I agree with my colleague from Fort William that it should be a session before the committee, but I'll take Mr Skarica up on his offer and we'll see. But I think it really should be a public session so that not just the members of the committee can benefit but the public can also see and hear what the ministry staff are able to present.
Just on that matter, for the sanity of Toni and myself and everyone else, could we have a list of the questions that have been asked so that we know all the things that have been asked?
The Chair: That will be provided?
Mr Ted Glenn: Yes, I have that.
1820
The Chair: Terrific. We'll provide that to the committee then.
There is one final item for the committee before we adjourn. There's a deferred motion from Mrs McLeod. Mr Skarica was going to speak to it.
Mr Skarica: I basically already did. That's what I've offered.
The Chair: That's your response to the motion as well? Well, we'll have to determine whether we vote on it at this stage.
Interjection.
The Chair: Terrific. Do you want to present it, Mrs McLeod? Perhaps we can just read it.
Mrs McLeod: I move that this committee recommend to the government House leader that the order with respect to Bill 104 be amended so that the committee can sit on March 3 or March 4 at its regular meeting time to ask technical questions of the staff of the Ministry of Education and Training pertaining to Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997.
The Chair: Any further debate on this motion?
Mrs McLeod: Yes, please, Madam Chair. It really is beyond my understanding that a government that is prepared to bring in such sweeping changes, that appears to think its directions are founded on something which is defensible, is unwilling to allow even this minimal opportunity for some response in a public session where others who have raised these concerns can hear the responses to the kinds of questions that have been raised, not just by members of the opposition. The questions we have raised are reflections of the questions that have been asked by every presenter to this committee. I just do not understand why the government feels the need both for such speed and for such secrecy that it doesn't allow that kind of discussion.
Mr Preston: Is this above and beyond what you've offered to do, or what?
Mr Skarica: Yes, it is. What I'm offering is that we have a briefing with the ministry and the opposition. If they're dissatisfied, they can bring a motion at that time.
Mr Preston: I find it very strange that the opposition has 10 minutes to ask questions in the House and you didn't ask any of these questions of the minister.
Mrs McLeod: I would be delighted to have an opportunity in the House to ask --
Interjection.
The Chair: You're out of order.
Mr Preston: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, at some point the member opposite might be interested in seeing the kinds of questions that are being raised, or in even looking at trying to respond to some of the questions that have been raised by the presenters. If we cannot have some public presentation and response from the ministry -- there's been no opportunity in these committee hearings to question the minister or the ministry directly about the bill -- I will accept the written responses. I fully intend to make those public. I would be quite happy to have a briefing following the written responses.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor at the moment.
Mr Wildman: I wasn't going to intervene in this debate because of the hour, but Mr Preston provoked me.
The Chair: Say it's not so. We could be here a long time.
Mr Wildman: Members of the opposition have repeatedly raised questions in the Legislature, during question period and during other debates, about the changes in funding for education. The problem is that we haven't been able to get the answers. It's not that we haven't raised the questions. I'm not blaming Mr Skarica for this. The fact is that the way this committee's time has been allocated by the House doesn't really allow for the ministry to make a presentation during these sessions because the sessions are set up for hearing the public, as we wish to do.
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Point of order, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I'd like you to stick to the motion.
Mr Wildman: I would prefer to have an opportunity for the parliamentary assistant, the minister or a senior member of the bureaucracy to appear before the committee and make a presentation. If the committee decides in its wisdom to say no to that, then I would hope that as a second choice Mr Skarica's offer stands. The reason I say it's a second choice is because while that will give members of the committee the opportunity to ask questions and hear what the ministry has to say, it doesn't make it possible for the public -- parents, trustees, teachers and everyone else -- to hear what the ministry is proposing.
Mr Jordan: The parliamentary assistant has already offered the briefing to the leader of the official opposition. She has accepted that, and if she's not satisfied with that, she said she will take it to the next step. I would suggest that the subject is finished and we should adjourn and get on.
The Chair: The difficulty with that, Mr Jordan, is that we have a motion on the floor that we have to deal with, and the motion calls for us to ask questions of the ministry at our meetings in March. Unless there's further debate, I can put that to a vote and then we can deal with it.
Mrs McLeod: There is a further point, because I also want to respond to the fact that we had 10 minutes at the outset of the presentation. I should also clarify the record. I am the education critic for the official opposition and it's as such that I bring my concerns to this particular committee.
I also bring the concerns of somebody who's been involved in education for well over 20 years. I don't feel that 10 minutes is enough time to ask the kinds of questions about legislation which I personally believe is the beginning of the destruction of the education system I believe in and that a lot of people in this province believe in.
The Chair: Any further debate? All right, then I'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Against? The motion is defeated.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned until next Monday.
The committee adjourned at 1826.