Transcription du comité 1997-mars-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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 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.

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our hearings here in Ottawa on St Patrick's Day. We're delighted to have you all here. I'd like to proceed very promptly. As you know, time is very limited in this fair city, as elsewhere.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Just prior to the beginning of the hearings, this is our first hearing on the road outside of Toronto, and I want to put on record my continuing concern, as the whip for the Liberal caucus on the committee, about the limited time we have in Ottawa and in every other city we're going to be visiting.

You will know, Madam Chair, that once again we face a situation where only a small number of those who wanted to make presentations to the committee can be heard. In my view, only a very small number of those who will be directly affected by the implementation of Bill 104 are going to be given a chance to make a presentation. Their opportunity to make a presentation will be very brief. I cannot go without putting on the record my continued distress that with a bill of this magnitude we are so limited in allowing people an opportunity to be heard.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On behalf of our caucus, I again express my desire and concern that the Conservative majority on the committee chose to vote against the motion I put to extend the hearings so that more of the presenters who had wished to make presentations would be able to participate. I hope that if there is as much interest as I expect there is here in Ottawa, the Conservative members will themselves move a motion asking the House leaders to extend the hearings.

Having said that, I also ask if we could be provided with maps of the proposed new boundaries for the district boards in eastern Ontario for the purposes of our hearings today, so that if there are questions around the specific boundaries that are proposed if Bill 104 passes, we will be able to refer to them and know what presenters are speaking about specifically. So I hope each of us can be provided with the proposed maps in eastern Ontario.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, we have copies here from the parliamentary assistant. We'll be photocopying them and distributing them.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): We already provided you with copies of those, Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: I know. It's just that we don't have them here.

NEPEAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Chair: I ask the Nepean Chamber of Commerce to come forward, please. Mr Wilson, welcome to our committee. I would ask you to introduce your copresenter. You have 15 minutes to make your presentation, and if time permits the committee will ask you some questions.

Mr Bob Wilson: With me is Roger Fraser, who is chair of our government affairs committee within the chamber. My name is Bob Wilson and I'm chair of the Nepean chamber. Ours is going to be sort of a generalized approach to the concepts in the bill, with some specific suggestions.

The Nepean Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of business in the city of Nepean, thanks you for this opportunity. Prior to the presentation, though, I want the committee to be aware of the personal background and prospectus I bring to these hearings and this presentation. Some considered my background a liability to this presentation, some as biased and some as a conflict of interest, and many as what needs to be said.

As a small business owner, former negotiator and also president of a major teachers' union in Ontario, a trainer of teacher negotiators throughout this province and a teacher for 27 years, I bring extensive hands-on experience on both sides of the issues, stated or implied, in Bill 104. I also bring a background from the federal public sector as an economic analyst prior to all that.

We're not here as the Nepean Chamber of Commerce to bash teachers. That's been an easy and much too popular activity of late and we will not be part of that process. We have many superb teachers in Ontario. It's been my privilege to know a great many of those excellent individuals, and they are up to the challenge of the new realities, given the chance. We are here to offer suggestions in regard to changing the educational governance system in Ontario, and to other issues which are inherent in the provisions of Bill 104.

The Nepean Chamber of Commerce supports the concepts of Bill 104. In terms of its intent to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system, the bill goes a long way to accomplishing its purpose. Our specific concerns and suggestions in regard to the provisions of the bill will be addressed later in this presentation.

The Nepean Chamber of Commerce believes it's well beyond the time to overhaul, drastically, the education system in Ontario, not only in terms of the number of school boards and their contingent administration costs but also in terms of the total costs of education, curriculum, student achievement, the provisions for teacher collective bargaining and the methods by which the taxpayers of Ontario foot the bill. The structure of educational governance must change in this province. There is no choice, in our view.

As someone who has left the teaching profession and started a business, and as chair of the Nepean Chamber of Commerce, I understand and reflect the feelings of the Nepean business community towards the current status of educational governance in this province.

To the naysayers in regard to the bill's provisions, stated and implied, we believe it's time those persons or groups take a realistic look at the actual productivity and output of our current education system, especially in relation to what our schools currently provide our students in terms of their international competitors, and what we must create and deliver to our future entrepreneurs, those individuals who, educated and provided with realistic, measurable, internationally recognized skill sets that reflect the requirements of the new global economy, will determine the economic viability of Canada in the new millennium, and all of that within a context of what we can continue to afford.

That personal reality check must be administered with a hard-nosed, genuine grasp of the realities of what our students face in the new global economy, a check that's free of self-indulgence and wish lists, but with a concern that all students, regardless of ability, must be included in the new governance structure. Bottom line: A new standard of excellence must be instituted and required from our system's education programs and graduates, all within the confines of the new global economic and competitive realities. That's the hard-nosed business plan that must be developed and instituted for Ontario's education system.

Business has a strong voice in the outcomes, contrary to what unions and other activist groups would like you to believe. Without business there are no jobs; without jobs there are no communities, no people, children, schools and no taxes. The economic engine would have no wheels. That's just a fact. Think of what it would be like if business didn't exist. All of you appearing here as government representatives wouldn't be present, and that's a fact.

In Nepean, business taxes provide approximately 37% of the overall realty tax funding to the Carleton Board of Education, a not insignificant amount. Business is, and must continue to be, a major funding and conceptual contributor to education, not only in terms of the taxes on business itself but in terms of employees who pay personal property taxes on homes owned, and to the content of a standardized curriculum for students. Students, and current job seekers in this province, still suffer from the application or misapplication of educational concepts imposed in the Hall-Dennis report.

Business is also the prime user of the product of education, the skill sets, or lack thereof, of the graduates. It has an inherent right, as any investor, to determine the return on its investment and the right to determine the cost of the infrastructure that creates the return.

The chamber realizes that student achievement is not a specific provision in Bill 104, but realistically -- and parenthetically, hopefully -- that will be an outcome of the restructuring. Graduates of our school system in Ontario are not given much beyond a passing grade in national and international comparisons of their achievement levels. The perception, and the reality, of those evaluations must be changed on both the national and international scenes, and that won't happen until there is a real, measurable and accountable restructuring of the education system in the province.

1040

When 2,000 high-tech jobs go begging in this region because of a lack of qualified individuals, something is wrong somewhere, and that's a fact. The problem has to be fixed. Academia must be able to re-engineer and react to global economic labour force realities as fast as business must, to ensure the survival of its students and itself.

Perhaps it's time to shake up the total spectrum of education in Ontario and examine the possibility of a high-tech, degree-granting university in this area, created, controlled and funded by private industry with curriculum and standards determined and taught by teachers from the local high-tech sector. Can you imagine the impetus that would be generated to improve the standards in the public elementary and high school sectors? What a marvellous opportunity. Dare we grasp it?

A recent survey of our Nepean chamber's membership indicated that 83% of the businesses surveyed approved reducing the number of school boards to less than half of the current numbers, and 81.5% approved a provincial reduction in the number of school board trustees to one third of the current levels; 70% of the respondents agreed with removing education costs from the property tax bill.

Recent reports in the print media suggest, however, that the original intent of removing the cost of education from property tax may be changed. If there is any truth to those reports, it's too bad. The province must regain and retain control of local boards of education.

Neither business nor its property taxpayer adjuncts have had a genuine say in the costs and the outcomes of education. When individual companies, all contributors to the education company bill, are faced with a fait accompli budget presented to a municipal government simply for payment, there is no real representation. Boards of education would like us to think differently.

For too long -- to borrow a phrase -- we've had taxation without representation. Of course boards of education will argue that they are our elected representatives, and that is true in the sense that we cast our votes, but not in the sense that boards of education truly are accountable to our views. Can you imagine a business continuing to exist with some of the budget decisions that have been made by some boards of education? Trustees can't be removed in the same manner as company directors; perhaps they should be.

The current structure of educational governance in Ontario provides boards of education with the opportunity to impose this taxation without representation. Do we need another tea party? Perhaps it's time to have education budgets approved by the municipal governments involved in setting the taxation levels.

General concepts: In terms of the overall restructuring and reduction of the number of school boards, Bill 104 is bang on in the Nepean chamber's concept, and I refer again to the results of our member survey.

The introductory paragraph on the cover page of the bill accomplishes in general terms the concepts of the bill.

We do believe, however, that it should include a very specific provision for the establishment of charter schools. Regardless of the permissive aspect for the creation of these schools under present legislation, they need to have legislative legitimacy. They reflect parent wishes and, as such, they can serve to establish competitive standards and curricula for other public schools.

In terms of article 8 in the bill, we agree with the establishment of the Education Improvement Commission. In the amalgamation process, there must be control of expenditures, transfer-circumventing of financial obligations of the current boards of education. But we do have some specific suggestions.

We believe there should be a system established that ensures the deliberations, actions and regulations of the Education Improvement Commission are transparent and accountable to the public. With its almost carte blanche terms of reference, it's important that the public know what's going on at all times, especially with a non-elected group of individuals.

Develop specific guidelines for the commission to achieve the transition to the new system of education governance in Ontario.

Develop specific, detailed guidelines and expectations for all the activities of the commission and its committees.

Create a provision that does not automatically repeal sections 334 to 343 of Bill 104 as of December 31, 2000, but allows for the continuance of an education standards commission or similar provincial level body to control, in the broadest sense, education in Ontario.

Part of the basis for these suggestions arises from the situation in this area. One of the English-language boards to be amalgamated seems to be getting on with the job. The other board, however, seems unable to generate, to this point that I'm aware, even a quorum of trustees to approve its 1997 budget. That is a process covered under the terms of reference of the Education Improvement Commission, yet there have been no public reports as to what the Education Improvement Commission is doing or is prepared to do to remedy that.

When a majority of the public supports the government's proposed changes to educational governance, don't allow a cloud cover to be created over ongoing deliberations, or lack thereof, between the commission and a board of education. Perception, as you well know, is everything.

There are two other issues that are arising, inherent in the application of Bill 104, that need to be addressed by the Education Improvement Commission:

In very general terms, the two English-language public boards of education to be amalgamated in this area are very different, partly due to demographics, partly due to administration philosophies which may be the result of one board having the ability to fund its programs without provincial grants.

We believe that special attention must be given not only to the physical amalgamation challenges, but to the amalgamation of the differing philosophies. The senior administrative staff amalgamation will present some unique problems, as well as the amalgamation of the teaching, administrative and school support staffs. A process must be established that communicates the issues and outcomes to the public.

The other major issue is of course the generation of the new teacher, CUPE and other union contracts. Having experienced an amalgamation of teacher unions, the lowest common denominator is never the norm. If education costs are to be contained, the situation must be dealt with. The Nepean Chamber of Commerce believes a number of options must be considered to resolve potential and threatened labour unrest, and the government must take a stand.

In the case of the teacher union contracts, we don't believe that simply letting the unions negotiate a melded contract is the answer. There are two options in our opinion:

One is alter the terms of Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, to amend curent provisions in regard to the right to strike and the right to negotiate all working conditions; or consider legislation that would create Ontario as a right-to-work province.

There is much evidence from studies done by the Fraser Institute to indicate that the latter suggestion substantially increases productivity in all the countries and states studied. The provision would also allow the issue of new CUPE contracts to be resolved. Unions can continue to exist; employees just don't have to join and have dues deducted in terms of the Rand formula.

Employees who may be reluctant to speak out about union and contract issues, or do not wish to participate in union sanctions because of possible repercussions, would be free to do so. The situation where a non-union employee benefits from a union negotiated contract can be resolved; it's not an enormous or insurmountable problem.

The Nepean chamber also realizes that if the government chooses either suggestion, it will create at least union animosity, but we strongly believe, and are prepared to support, one of the choices as essential to the long-range health of the education system in Ontario.

The chamber further recognizes that this latter issue has a broader labour context than as applies to the education system. It is one we are prepared to discuss further with government representatives in a different forum.

These issues are inherent in the application of Bill 104 and they must be publicly recognized and addressed.

Thank you for your time and attention to this presentation. I'm prepared to answer questions here if you have any.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wilson and Mr Fraser. You've successfully used up all your time and thank you for your comments.

CARLETON BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: The Carleton Board of Education, Ms MacGregor. Thank you very much for being here. I would ask you to present your co-presenter for the record.

Ms Ann MacGregor: I'd like to introduce Kyle Murray who is our director of education and is here to respond to questions, assuming we have an opportunity to have some.

I come this morning with a sense of urgency and frustration: urgency because with less than 10 months left in our mandate, a new amalgamated board must be planned for establishment on January 1, 1998; frustration because we do not have all the tools to accomplish this Herculean task.

We recognize that defining the jurisdictions of boards of education is a provincial prerogative. We have stated that we are ready and willing to work towards the establishment of a new Ottawa-Carleton district school board, as long as it does not jeopardize our 45,000 students' interests. But the Carleton Board of Education has problems with Bill 104, both with what it includes and with what it does not include; that is, vital information is necessary before we can move forward.

1050

Therefore, a number of questions have to be answered first.

(1) When will we receive the essential pieces of the puzzle needed to effect a smooth transition?

We believe it is impossible to assess the effects of this bill until all of the pieces of the puzzle are in place. Despite the government's promise in January that the funding formula for the new boards and the response to the Paroian report regarding collective bargaining would be made before now, there has been silence on these important matters.

The only piece of the puzzle we have so far is Bill 104. The bill does not provide us with the means or the knowledge to plan for the transition to a new district school board. This bill neither protects our students' interests nor provides for the necessary transition funding for startup costs for such a merger. We believe it violates our trust vis-à-vis our students.

Provincial fact-finder Brian Bourns estimated in 1993 that the one-time cost of amalgamating the Carleton and Ottawa boards of education would be between $3.5 million and $6 million, assuming -- and these are major assumptions -- that provincial funding to the new amalgamated board was not lower than the existing funding, that legislation was implemented to ensure labour costs would not be increased, and that a five-year window was given to the amalgamated board to introduce any shifts in program approach required.

There is no indication so far that the province will provide the transition funding, the stability in labour costs, or the needed time for transition. We urge you to ensure that Bill 104 is amended to include such provisions for the sake of students everywhere in this province.

(2) How can we carry out our mandate as duly elected trustees if the powers proposed in Bill 104 are delegated to a non-elected Education Improvement Commission?

We urge you to reconsider legislation that would allow the government to delegate unfettered powers to the EIC. These powers would impinge on the responsibilities trustees were elected to fulfil.

We would remind you that we have done nothing wrong. We are insulted by the implication that we might fail to continue to act responsibly in the best interests of all our stakeholders -- students, staff, parents, and ratepayers -- during the transition period. We urge that this bill be amended to include provisions to ensure that the non-elected, appointed members of the EIC act in a way that is fair and equitable to all existing school boards in their local communities.

(3) How can we prepare for transition without knowledge of our resources?

The provisions of this bill do not provide for an orderly, democratic transition to a new district school board. It does not specify the constraints we will be under when changes are made to the funding of education in this province. Government by rumour and insinuation is a threat to democracy.

We are especially fearful of the minister's statement, reported in the Ottawa Sun on Friday, March 7, that if the Ottawa Board of Education does not remit to the province $31 million in local taxes, in accordance with provincial legislation passed last year that would "permit" the OBE to do so, Mr Snobelen will consider holding back funds from the new district school board when the province takes over education costs.

We are shocked by the minister's threat. Such a move would be patently unfair and injurious to our students. We have already fulfilled our obligations to make budget reductions to meet reduced funding levels. It is imperative that action be taken to resolve the $31-million issue and that it not become a financial burden for a new district school board in January 1998. Although it is not our position to support whether the province should require payment or should opt to forgive repayment by the Ottawa board, this issue must be settled between the two parties one way or another by 1997 if amalgamation is to occur in 1998. We are absolutely adamant that the $31-million burden not impact on our Carleton students and constituents, either now or in future.

Another area of concern is capital for new facilities. The Carleton Board of Education has confirmed its intent to proceed with the construction of much-needed new school facilities. While we welcome the approval to proceed, it is unclear how we or other school boards will be able to commit to projects which require funding beyond the provincial allocation. We need to know whether the per pupil grant for 1998 and beyond will include, for school boards in recent and continued enrolment growth, a component for capital expenditures which will compensate for the announced removal under the education reforms of the board's right to tax locally. We need the government's assurance that the province will absorb, through added grants, the share of new capital construction costs that has been formerly funded locally.

(4) How will local accountability be maintained if this legislation is passed?

The spectre of total provincial control over education is alarming. Bill 104 appears to be the preamble to changes in the way education is funded. The minister has stated that the province will control all education finance and that school boards will no longer raise residential property taxes to pay for a share of education costs.

We believe that Bill 104 must be amended to give district school boards the right to levy taxes locally. It is vital to be financially accountable to our constituents and to be politically responsive to local circumstances. A very large board of 80,000 students will inevitably be more remote from its stakeholders than our two existing boards. If Bill 104 is passed without an amendment stipulating the right to levy taxes locally, the amalgamated district school board will be distributing funds funnelled through its hands, but over which it has no fiscal control. This is remoteness carried to an extreme, which will surely not serve our communities well.

As for provincial accountability, trustees will represent huge areas and numbers of constituents compared to those which they now work so hard to represent and to understand. We challenge you, honourable members of this standing committee, to recommend to the government an amendment to Bill 104 which will provide for an element of local control and of local responsibility for the education of our students.

(5) We ask you to recommend amendments to Bill 104 that reduce uncertainty and allow existing boards to work effectively through the transition phase.

The uncertainties created by the proposed reforms contained in this bill and the government's other, as yet unrevealed, educational reform measures are paralysing school boards. We look to this committee to ensure that Bill 104 is amended to provide the means to effect reforms in Ontario fairly and efficiently so that we can get on with the business of education. If this bill is not amended substantially and accompanied by additional detailed information and provisions, instability and chaos will ensue. Sweeping reforms cannot simply be legislated.

Above all, we would ask you to recommend adequate time for meaningful consultation with those who have to implement the plan at the local level. We ask you to give us a sensible plan, reasonable time lines, the necessary resources to do our job, and the chance to provide input to the provincial government. Further, we recommend a one-year delay in passing the Fewer School Boards Act.

We ask you for specific amendments to clauses in Bill 104. To save time this morning, I am submitting a more detailed summary of our rationale in our written submissions and will simply list for you the following requests for amendments.

(6) We ask you for a clarifying amendment regarding the number of trustees that will be permitted under the legislation and for a provision allowing local input in this matter.

(7) We submit that the subclauses of section 326(6), which provide for the establishment of electoral zones, require amendment to allow parts of one municipality to be added to another for school board purposes.

(8) We urge you to consult with both local school councils and school boards before passing into law subsection 335(2), which stipulates that the Education Improvement Commission is to strengthen the advisory role of school councils and increase parental involvement in education governance. We have no evidence that the majority of parents wish to govern education.

We are at an important crossroads in the history of education in Ontario. There will be no turning back if the education system that emerges from the government's proposed reform fails to improve substantially on the present one. No less than the future of the students of this province is at stake. I trust you share our feelings of urgency and frustration and will review carefully my submission on behalf of the Carleton Board of Education. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms MacGregor. We have one minute left per caucus.

1100

Mr Skarica: You gave an excellent presentation. Thank you very much. If I could take you to page 3, you indicate that you've already fulfilled your obligation to make budget reductions, and I understand that you're already spending 30% less than the adjoining board. How were you able to do that? How were you able to cope with the reductions and how were you able to cope with the fact that you spend 30% less?

Ms MacGregor: Very painfully and with great difficulty. I think it's been indicated that, for instance, there are programs that we no longer offer that other boards do. We no longer have junior kindergarten and we offer full-day alternate day kindergarten rather than half-day every day, which cuts down on the busing. We have made major cuts to transportation in our area, and our area is a mixed one: We have both rural and densely populated areas. We have also cooperated with the Carleton Separate School Board in the area of transportation to make economies in that area. So there are many places where we attempted and succeeded in economies, and some of them impacted on program; that's the long and the short of it.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your presentation and, as well, your recognition that the funding cuts you've had to make have been painful. I guess that's what I would like to ask you to address, is the impact of these changes on students. I think you correctly associate the changes in school board restructuring with the changes in funding that are coming.

You've also made the point -- you just touch on it -- of resulting extra costs of the school board amalgamation. That's certainly a concern that was raised even by the government's consultants, Ernst and Young, when they said that the amalgamation of boards could actually lead to an increased cost. You've expressed your concern that the government guarantee the funding for that and I think you're right not to be reassured. Every indication is the government wants to cut costs, not to see them increase. I guess what I'd ask you is, do you see any way in which this amalgamation is going to free up dollars for students in a classroom?

Ms MacGregor: It certainly in the short term is going to be costly. In the long term, there is a possibility that it may free up some small amount of money by reducing the number of staff in the administrative area, but we already are down to the bare bones in administrative staff and that's another one of the difficulties. We are in a period where, if this goes through, we are going to be putting more and more responsibility on the few who are left and asking them to do it in a tremendously short period of time.

Maybe a long time down the road there might be some administrative savings, but they are very small in comparison to the kind of confusion and difficulties that it's going to cause in the short term, and in comparison to what we see as being transition costs. Would you like to add to that?

Mr Kyle Murray: No, I think you've covered it all.

Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. Following from what you've just said, the minister himself has identified a $150-million saving across the province out of a total expenditure of about $13.5 billion, so it's a little over 1% saving through amalgamations. You're indicating that it may in fact cost more in the short term. Of the $150 million, $9 million comes from cuts in resource materials to classrooms, by the way.

I want to focus my question on your suggestion of a one-year delay. You know that other jurisdictions have cut the number of boards. British Columbia, for instance, did substantially cut the number of boards. They had fewer in the beginning but they took three years to do it. You've indicated you have eight months to do it and you don't have any indication of transition funding. Why do you think a one-year delay would make it easier for the transition?

Ms MacGregor: I would cite, for example, the sorts of difficulties that are likely to emerge in attempting to rationalize the number of collective agreements we deal with. We went through that somewhat at arm's length when the French boards were set up, and I was noticing just in this morning's Citizen there are comments to that effect, how long it took to work through that.

There will also have to be adjustments in program. Some of those are not that easily or quickly done, nor should they be, because unfortunately when you hurry things, that's when mistakes are made and you can end up paying the cost in possibly having to go to court over things or whatever. It would be very helpful if things proceed at the rate they do; we will look to the EIC to provide us with some guidelines and some help in this area, not being able to blackball what boards do, but if they could at least give us some guidance, hopefully drawn from the experience in other jurisdictions, that might be helpful.

Our staff are looking at how it's been done municipally, but once again, generally speaking this sort of major amalgamation has not been accomplished in the kind of time period that is being set out here.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms MacGregor and Mr Murray, for being here this morning and making your presentation.

ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS

La Présidente : J'appelle maintenant l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens provinciale. Monsieur Régimbal et Monsieur Matte, vous avez 15 minutes pour votre présentation. S'il nous reste du temps, le comité vous posera des questions.

M. Roger Régimbal : Merci, Madame la Présidente. M. Matte ne pouvait pas m'accompagner. alors c'est M. André Pinard qui est avec moi ce matin.

L'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens remercie le comité de l'Assemblée législative de lui donner l'occasion de présenter quelques réflexions pendant ces consultations sur le projet de loi 104. L'AEFO représente les quelque 7 000 enseignantes et enseignants des écoles de langue française de l'Ontario.

Premièrement, l'AEFO appuie le projet de loi 104 en ce qui a trait à la création des conseils scolaires de langue française publics et catholiques. L'Association et la communauté franco-ontarienne réclament la gestion scolaire depuis plus de 25 ans. L'Association est confiante que la mise en oeuvre des conseils scolaires de langue française contribuera à l'amélioration de l'éducation offerte par la province aux jeunes Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens.

L'AEFO entend donc participer pleinement à la mise en oeuvre des conseils scolaires de langue française en collaboration avec le ministère et les organismes en éducation. Nous avons mis en place des équipes de transition au sein de chacun des nouveaux conseils scolaires de district et nous sommes à développer des mesures qui faciliteront la mise en place de ces conseils scolaires de district.

Lors de notre assemblée annuelle la semaine dernière les délégués ont approuvé ces comités de transition et ils sont déjà à l'oeuvre.

Cependant, le projet de loi est silencieux sur plusieurs points. Ceci nous préoccupe beaucoup. Le projet de loi 104 doit être interprété en tenant compte de la perspective anglophone et de la perspective francophone. Pour les anglophones c'est une fusion, «a merger», de conseils. Prenons par exemple : Essex-Windsor seront fusionnés. Les employés transféreront deux conseils. Pour les francophones c'est une création. Dans le même exemple que je viens de prendre, les employés quitteront le conseil d'origine et parviendront de six conseils différents dont 11 conventions collectives à réconcilier.

Au niveau des protections, l'AEFO déplore le fait que le projet de loi ne prévoit aucune garantie contractuelle pour le personnel enseignant. Pourtant, de telles garanties faisaient partie intégrante de la Loi 30 sur le parachèvement des conseils scolaires catholiques ainsi que de la Loi 109 sur la création du Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Notre mémoire contient une série de principes sur lesquels devraient se baser ces protections. Je vous en fait grâce en ce moment.

1110

Nos enseignantes et enseignants des écoles de langue française, contrairement à leurs collègues des écoles de langue anglaise, se verront quitter leur employeur actuel pour joindre la nouvelle entité. Il est donc nécessaire de bien ordonner la désignation du transfert du personnel.

Pour cette raison-là nous recommandons que le projet de loi 104 soit amendé pour inclure les dispositions de l'article 135 de la Loi sur l'éducation réglementant la désignation et le transfert du personnel.

Le personnel enseignant des écoles de langue française veut tout mettre en oeuvre pour réussir la mise en place des nouveaux conseils de district. Il est très important pour nous que cette mise en place soit une réussite.

L'AEFO a toujours maintenu que la création des conseils scolaires de langue française allait de pair avec un financement adéquat. L'AEFO reconnaît que le ministre de l'Éducation et de la Formation a promis que cette réforme conduirait à un financement équitable et juste.

L'abolition de la taxe résidentielle à des fins scolaires et un financement total en provenance du ministère de l'Éducation et de la Formation se veut, selon nous, une mesure qui donne un pouvoir qui pourrait être exagéré au gouvernement. Le gouvernement pourrait à l'avenir réduire unilatéralement et sans recours son appui face à l'éducation.

Au niveau de la composition de la commission d'amélioration, l'AEFO demande que le projet de loi stipule que la commission soit composée d'au moins deux francophones si le nombre de membres de la commission est établi à cinq, et de trois s'il est établi à sept. Ce changement est dans le but de faciliter le travail de la commission.

En effet, nous ne croyons pas que les plus grandes difficultés proviendront de l'amalgamation des conseils, mais plutôt que les véritables difficultés proviendront de la création des conseils scolaires de langue française car il faudra identifier les avoirs des conseils existants et décider ce qui sera prélevé au profit de ces nouveaux conseils. Nous sommes persuadés que la majorité du temps, la commission sera pris à régler des problèmes de division des avoirs.

Une option serait de créer un sous-comité francophone. Ce sous-comité francophone pourrait avoir un droit de regard sur les questions des conseils de lange française.

Au niveau du mandat, l'article 335(c), qui définit les responsabilités de la commission envers les conseils scolaires de langue française, est trop imprécis et incomplet.

La commission doit avoir le pouvoir de constituer des comités locaux d'amélioration de l'éducation.

L'article 335(f) doit être radié. L'AEFO s'oppose à l'impartition, «outsourcing» et «contracting out», des services aux écoles pour deux raisons : la première est nécessairement au niveau syndical ; la deuxième tient au mandat linguistique et culturel des écoles. L'impartition des services rendra plus difficile l'obtention des services en langue française, ce qui pourrait influencer négativement la qualité de l'éducation offerte aux jeunes francophones et nuire à la mission même des écoles de langue française.

L'AEFO estime que les articles 335(g) et (h), tout en appuyant le bien-fondé et les avantages de la participation des parents à la vie de l'école, vont bien au-delà de l'objectif du présent projet de loi.

Les comités de l'amélioration de l'éducation au niveau local : L'AEFO croit que l'article 338(2) doit être modifié pour préciser que le personnel enseignant doit nécessairement faire partie des comités locaux d'amélioration de l'éducation.

Au niveau du pouvoir décisionnel de la commission, l'AEFO s'oppose à ce que les décisions de la commission soient définitives, comme le stipule l'article 344(2). L'AEFO souhaite que le projet de loi 104 prévoie un mécanisme d'arbitrage comme celui qui avait été établi dans le cadre de la Loi 30 sur le parachèvement et que l'on retrouve à l'article 137 de la Loi sur l'éducation.

En effet, il est tout à fait logique que l'on puisse faire appel à des décisions de la commission sur des questions importantes. On doit se souvenir que les francophones seront très minoritaires au sein des comités locaux d'amélioration de l'éducation et qu'ils seront aussi minoritaires au sein de la commission.

Nos droits de Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens : Nous serons finalement reconnus lors de la création des conseils de langue française. Il est donc important que rien ne vienne retarder le processus. Les conseils de langue française doivent voir le jour le 1^er janvier 1998.

Je termine en véhiculant le message sous-jacent à la décision de la cour de l'Ontario de juin 1996 au sujet de l'école secondaire Sainte-Famille de Dufferin-Peel : Les droits de la communauté francophone sont protégés par l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et personne ne peut les mettre en attente temporairement.

La Présidente : Nous avons presque quatre minutes, four minutes for questions. On commence avec M. Grandmaître.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Moi aussi je me réjouis que le gouvernement a finalement encaissé notre demande depuis toujours de créer sept conseils de langue française additionnels.

Par contre, vous mentionnez dans votre présentation que vous êtes concerné par un financement adéquat. Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec vous qu'un financement adéquat est primordial. Depuis l'annonce du gouvernement, quelle assurance avez-vous reçue du gouvernement -- comment ces 11 conseils seront crées -- et est-ce que le gouvernement vous a mentionné le financement de ces conseils, la subvention par élève, combien sera cette subvention ? Est-ce que vous avez eu des rencontres avec le gouvernement ? Ces conseils doivent être en place dès le 1^er janvier 1998. Quel travail a été fait depuis l'annonce du gouvernement ?

M. Régimbal : On n'a eu à ce moment-ci au niveau du financement aucune indication autre ce que qu'on entend un peu partout. Il n'y a aucun chiffre qui a été établi quant au processus. On n'a pas eu d'indications claires, nettes et précises sur la façon de laquelle ça va être fait. Cependant, on est prêts à tenter le coup. On est prêt à s'assurer que ça fonctionne. C'est la première fois qu'on a à la portée de la main nos conseils de langue française, et à partir de ceci il faut quand même tenter la chasse aux coureurs. Bien que, au niveau du financement, on n'a rien vu de concret, je crois que pour les francophones ça ne peut pas être pire que ce qu'on a aujourd'hui.

M. Rosario Marchese (Fort York) : Merci, Monsieur Régimbal, pour votre présentation. J'appuie fortement les principes que vous avez mentionnés à la page 2. Je suis aussi d'accord avec la préoccupation que vous avez mentionnée à la page 4. En effet, rien ne permettrait à la population locale de financer des programmes qu'elle aurait choisis. C'est une grande préoccupation pour vous et pour nous à Toronto parce qu'on a initié beaucoup de programmes. Maintenant, avec ce projet de loi, ça va partir. J'ai une question. Est-ce que vous pensez qu'il y a quelque chose de bien dans ce projet de loi qui va aider les deux joueurs les plus importants : les étudiants et les professeurs ?

M. Régimbal : Oui, je crois, le fait d'être capable de travailler en français, d'être capable d'arriver. Puis lorsqu'un conseil scolaire établit ses listes de priorité, il n'est pas obligé de passer la sienne à travers du filtre anglophone ; il n'est pas obligé de le faire de la même façon que les anglophones. De même que ça donne la chance à la communauté franco-ontarienne de se prendre en main au niveau de l'éducation, c'est pour cette raison-là qu'on a mis sur pied toute la question des états généraux de langue française qu'on a déjà, et on va déterminer les besoins des Franco-Ontariennes et des Franco-Ontariens en matière d'éducation.

Le grand gagnant sera l'étudiant dans la salle de classe, parce que à ce moment-là on va être capable de répondre à ses besoins.

1120

Mr Skarica: As some of the French-language public district school boards are quite large geographically, do you know what plans you have, if any, to deal with the large geographic units?

M. Régimbal : Au niveau de la géographie de l'étendue, il va falloir apprendre à faire les choses différemment. Il va falloir que dans les lois du gouvernement, il y ait des changements et pas avoir que les conseillers scolaires soient obligés d'être en prise -- déjà on regarde toute la question de la nouvelle technologie, les cours à distance, tout ce genre d'approche-là pour être capable de le faire. De même au niveau géographique, il faut probablement regarder des familles d'écoles, comme on l'a fait au niveau de l'association, regarder ça pour être capable d'intégrer ce genre de région pour être capable de faire un tout.

Des distances aujourd'hui, avec les nouvelles technologies, ça ne change pas grand-chose. La seule chose où il faut faire attention, c'est lorsqu'on fait le transfert de personnel, toutes ces questions de transfert font la différence.

La Présidente : Merci bien, Monsieur Régimbal et Monsieur Matte, d'être venus ici ce matin et d'avoir fait votre présentation.

ONTARIO PARENT COUNCIL

The Chair: I ask the Ontario Parent Council to come forward: Bill Robson, Shari Ritter and Ken Slemko. Good morning. We're pleased to have you here this morning.

Mr Bill Robson: Good morning. Thank you for taking the time to bring the Ontario Parent Council in front of the committee to speak. We're delighted to be here.

I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce myself, Bill Robson. I'm the chair of the Ontario Parent Council. We have two members of the council's executive committee with us, Shari Ritter and Ken Slemko, to provide moral support and elbow me if I go astray here.

My remarks today are a synopsis of a written brief that is in front of you. In the interest of getting you to lunch at some point and leaving some time for questions, I'll try to be brief in my opening remarks.

The parent council, as you will know, is an advisory body to the Minister of Education and Training. There's a full blurb on it in the handout. I will merely observe here that it and many of its members predate this government.

The Ontario Parent Council believes that Bill 104 has the potential to bring about an improved system of education for Ontario students. The council supports the intent of the bill regarding fewer school boards and fewer trustees, it supports the strengthening of financial accountability of boards, it certainly supports the freeing up of resources for the classroom and it supports the establishment of the Education Improvement Commission.

Where we feel that Bill 104 would benefit from strengthening is in the area of local and parent participation in decision-making. To that end the OPC would make the following recommendations for changes to the bill.

First we would like to see school councils have legislated authority, as the parent council in the previous incarnation recommended. We would also recommend that the mandate of the Education Improvement Commission be more specific as it pertains to making recommendations on strengthening the role of school councils and increased parent involvement in education governance. We think the Education Improvement Commission should be mandated to create an education improvement committee or committees that would recommend changes that would lead to a stronger role for school councils and parent involvement in education governance.

We would like parent membership to be mandated on the EIC and on the committees it may establish, with sufficient francophone and Catholic membership to ensure fair representation of their issues. We also would recommend that the eligibility criteria for trustees be extended to exclude dependants of school board employees.

In the interest of leaving time for questions and answers, let me take a moment on the four of these recommendations that are related to school councils. First of all, as concerns legislative authority, Bill 104 clearly will change the face of education and governance in Ontario as we know it. Fewer trustees and larger jurisdictions can free up resources, but it does risk widening the gap between school communities and their governing bodies. In our view, the best way to fill this gap is with those who are closest to the action: the students, parents, educators and community members who live, work and go to school each day in their own school communities.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, during the course of these hearings there are going to be some views expressed that don't meet with one or more people's approval. However, in the interest of fairness, we must allow every individual to express their views. You all will get your opportunity to voice your views.

Mr Robson: In the opinion of the parent council, effective school councils are the logical way of making sure that education decisions are made in the most effective way and have the best possible impact on students. The OPC therefore urges that the establishment of school councils in Ontario schools be explicitly stated in Bill 104. We suggest in our brief that the bill be renamed in a way that would reflect that, but in the interest of time I won't read through that.

With regard to the mandate of the EIC, the parent council is concerned that the present wording of Bill 104 regarding the EIC's mandate in relation to school councils and parent involvement is vague. The feasibility of increasing the role of school councils and parent involvement is not in doubt. What needs investigation is the means of achieving it.

The OPC therefore recommends the following amendments to the bill:

Section 335(3)(g) concerning the mandate of the EIC should require the EIC to provide recommendations on how school councils should play a larger role in decisions relating to their schools, including the authorities of school councils; the ability of councils to delegate authority to principals; the role of councils in the selection, evaluation and renewal of term of principals; and the legislation and regulations needed to define the role and support the operation of school councils in Ontario.

Additionally, we would recommend that section 335(3)(h) be strengthened to state that the EIC will consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on where parental involvement in education governance will be most beneficial and how it should be achieved.

With regard to the education improvement committees, we would recommend that following section 339, a new section be added that would establish a committee or committees to address the expanded authorities and responsibilities of school councils and the role of parents in education governance.

With regard to education improvement committees and parent representation, the OPC would recommend that the words "of parents" be added to section 338(2) so that it would read:

"In developing the process, the commission shall have regard to the importance of achieving representation on the committees of the interests that, in the opinion of the commission, are likely to be affected by the transition to the new system of education governance, including but not limited to the interests of parents, of persons represented by existing boards, minority language sections of existing boards and French-language advisory committees."

The OPC recommends that Bill 104 ensure parent representation on the EIC and the committees it establishes. In order to ensure fair representation of francophone and Catholic issues throughout the restructuring process, the OPC also recommends that the EIC and the committees it establishes include representatives of francophone and Catholic parents.

In conclusion, I would state the obvious to begin, that the education system of Ontario is undergoing profound change. To ensure that this change results in a more responsive system, parents must be assured a greater role in the decisions affecting students and schools in their community.

With the changes we are proposing, Bill 104 can move Ontario towards this outcome. There must be a clear focus on the classroom and on providing schools with the resources and flexibility they need to meet high provincial standards while responding to local conditions. Parents and school councils must play a key role in Ontario's new education system.

Thank you very much. I hope I've left some time for questions.

1130

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Robson. You did indeed; you left us about five minutes. We begin with the third party.

Mr Wildman: I noticed at the beginning of your presentation that you say you support the bill as presented, that you think it strengthens financial accountability and frees up resources for the classroom. Are you aware that the minister has indicated he wants to take a billion dollars out of the education system and there will be further cuts starting in 1998?

Mr Robson: What I would observe is that the parent council, looking around the province and reflecting the experience of its members, feels that a number of the province's boards have not proved to be very effective custodians of the funds that should be going into the classroom.

Mr Wildman: Does that mean yes?

Mr Robson: I said we support the intent of the bill with regard to freeing up resources for the classroom.

Mr Wildman: No. I asked you if you were aware of something. Are you aware of the minister's commitment?

Mr Robson: I'm not aware that he has specified that he is going to be taking an amount of the magnitude you suggested straight out of the system. What we're supporting in our brief is a way that we think will ensure that more of the resources that go into education in Ontario will end up in the classroom.

Mr Wildman: But there may be fewer resources going into education.

Mr Robson: You could take some resources out of the system and still end up with more in the classroom. It's what happens in the classroom that's our key concern.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: Excuse me, Chair. I just asked that question to be able to pose a following question, and the presenter, for some reason, has decided to be argumentative.

The Chair: With respect, Mr Wildman --

Mr Wildman: The fact is the minister has said this bill will save $150 million out of a total --

The Chair: Mr Wildman, we're going to have to move on to Mr Pettit.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you very much for your presentation. On page 1 you indicate that you endorse school councils having legislated authority. We did hear some immediate opposition here to that proposal and I believe we've heard it before. I don't want you to speak for the opposition, but would you speculate for us about why there would be opposition to school councils having legislated authority, from your point of view?

Mr Robson: What's a bit surprising to us on the council is that some people who previously supported school councils appear to have changed their minds on that issue. We feel that school councils are a very effective way of encouraging parent involvement and strengthening local decision-making. Supporters of the status quo might logically see increased representation at the school level as a challenge to other centres of authority that currently exist, and certainly that's possibly true. We tend to favour school councils because we see them as a more effective way of directing resources around the school and encouraging parent participation. Clearly, school councils can, in some people's minds, take on perhaps a larger-than-life look, but we feel that when you look at the way school councils can operate in encouraging the school community to come together, they look like a very valuable part of an education system.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Thank you for the presentation. First of all, let me welcome everyone to Ottawa Centre today for these hearings.

I have two quick questions for you, and the first is along the lines of Mr Wildman's question. Your brief says you support the freeing up of resources for the classroom, yet the minister is talking about removing another billion dollars from the total system, totally out of education. So I'll ask you that question. Second, do you believe that school councils should be replacing school boards?

Mr Robson: In regard to the first question, I would repeat what I said earlier about the focus on resources in the classroom. There is no one more concerned about making sure that resources get applied in the classroom than the parents at a school and the teachers at that school also. That is the sort of voice that gets empowered in this with school councils because they're the ones who are seeing what's happening on the ground. Again, that's one of the major reasons we are supportive of school councils.

Would school councils replace school boards? No, they would not, but what we would like is to see school councils take on some functions that don't naturally lend themselves very well to direction from the centre and the school board. A lot of the issues that affect the quality of instruction at a school, the quality of the school environment, are things that could be done at the school level. They would complement school boards, not replace them.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Robson, to you and your co-presenters for taking the time to be with us today.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, may I ask a question for the record? I believe it was indicated that around this table there has been resistance to either legislated authority for school councils or to school councils themselves. I have been present at all the hearings and I believe all members of all parties are strongly supportive and have expressed only strong support for school councils. In fact, we know that the school councils that have presented to the committee are the ones that have expressed concerns about this bill and the implications for councils. If there's anything counter to that in the record, I would appreciate being informed of that.

Mr Robson: Thank you. The support for school councils is encouraging to hear.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Chairman: Following through on that, I'd like to make a request of our research officer, that he provide for committee members a synopsis of the presentations that have been made to us by existing school councils with regard to their views about legislated authority and/or increased control of functions currently carried out by trustees, by school councils. My impression is similar to those of Ms McLeod's, that the opposition that has been expressed has come from school council representatives, not from members of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. That's not a point of order, but --

Mr Wildman: It's a request.

The Chair: The researcher has that request. We will attempt to provide that information.

Just before I call the next group, I want to remind members of the committee that what has been circulated is a response to Ms McLeod's question on February 25 on witness statements on trustees. I trust everyone has that in front of them. If there are any questions, we can deal with them at some other time.

COMMUNITY LIVING -- STORMONT COUNTY

The Chair: I ask Community Living -- Stormont County, Mary MacDonald, to come forward. Thank you very much for being here this morning. You have 15 minutes for your presentation.

Ms Mary MacDonald: On behalf of the Stormont Community Living education committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to be heard. I'd like to discuss Bill 104 and its implications to special education. Under Bill 104, the English-language sections of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry public and separate school boards would see themselves amalgamated with Prescott and Russell, Lanark, Leeds and Grenville. Our concerns over this proposed mega-board are as follows:

(1) Special education advisory committees have been an important forum for associations to communicate their parents' views on education to local school boards. The representatives understand the needs and desires of the students and their families within their communities. This new board will encompass a territory of approximately 11,759 square kilometres. The travel time from the Quebec border to Gananoque is approximately two and a half hours and, at the very least, three hours from the Quebec border to Perth. As the members of SEACs are usually volunteers, it will prove very expensive in both time and money for representatives to travel such long distances to meetings; therefore, effective local representation on special education advisory committees will likely be jeopardized.

1140

(2) With the coming amalgamation of four school boards will come the need to combine four special education policies into one. Where will inclusive education fit? The Ministry of Education has stated and continues to state that integration is the norm in Ontario. Well, I'm here to say that true integration, or inclusion, as we prefer to call it, is not only not the norm but that access to inclusion is very unequal in Ontario, not only from board to board but also from school to school within the same board.

Students and parents are still at the mercy of the goodwill of the community school principal and its teachers. There appears to be a fear of the unknown, due to a lack of training, and a general resistance to change by school personnel. The time has come for the government to give clear directions to school boards in favour of inclusive education.

What I mean by "inclusion," and I'm assuming the ministry means the same when it uses the term "integration," is that the students spend the majority of their day in a regular classroom with age-appropriate peers in their local community school.

My own school board in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry talks of integration, but each year it's a fight for inclusion. Only students whose parents are willing and able to carry on the fight are being included. Those in segregated classrooms and programs are lucky if they are allowed to mingle with the school population during lunch and recess. We still have a segregated school that is located outside of the city. There is no inclusion beyond elementary school for the students with a developmental challenge.

Inclusion is a very positive experience for all students. We have provided you with examples of this in our brief, plus some students' and adults' views on inclusion and their discouragement and disappointment over being segregated. Inclusion raises achievement levels for all students, revitalizes teachers and invigorates schools. There can be no funding value placed on the personal benefits to all students who are exposed to inclusion. Numerous studies have shown that inclusive education is often less expensive than its segregated alternative.

The Hamilton-Wentworth school board has reported that inclusion saves money. A study done in 1993 by the Ministry of Education in Ontario concluded that inclusive education is no more expensive than segregated education. The real savings will be seen when persons with disabilities are no longer seen as unemployable, as different or as second-class citizens who are dependent on society to provide for them.

The Ministry of Education needs to ensure that inclusion happens and that these negative views become a thing of the past. If the Ministry of Education fully stands behind its statement that integration is the norm in Ontario, we need to make some changes to the Education Act to ensure this is enforced by local boards and that parents no longer have to fight for something that should already exist.

We have made several recommendations that we hope the ministry will take into consideration:

(1) It is recommended that the government, in its amalgamation process, create school boards that will be geographically manageable.

(2) It is recommended that the government modify the Education Act to ensure that inclusive education will in fact be the norm in Ontario.

(3) It is recommended that school boards provide adequate supports to differently abled students in the regular classroom in order to ensure equitable opportunity for success.

(4) It is recommended that the amendments to draft regulation 305, as considered in the spring of 1995, be legislated to support inclusive education.

(5) It is recommended that a new component be added in the training of new teachers, teaching how to adapt curriculum and how to make inclusion a success, and also that some practice teaching sessions be done in an inclusive school.

(6) It is recommended that special education advisory committees be maintained in a way that allows for genuine parental input at the grass-roots levels.

(7) It is recommended that the Ministry of Education and Training hold local school boards accountable to use special education advisory committees in the manner outlined in legislation so that they truly are advisory committees on special education.

I'm now going to turn it over to Rick, who is going to present some more views.

Mr Rick Tutt: I want to focus my remarks from the perspective of students with intellectual disabilities, and also on Bill 104, particularly the Education Improvement Commission as I understand it from the proposed legislation.

I think the Education Improvement Commission has an opportunity during its tenure to make some major inroads in education in this province and also to leave a legacy with the government and the ministry. Bill 104 talks about effectiveness, quality and accountability in education. From my perspective, having worked with both Community Living Stormont and previously with the Ontario Association for Community Living and having a fairly good perspective on education across the province, accountability is something that has not existed within the Ministry of Education or probably within boards of education in this province when it comes to education of students with intellectual disabilities.

The ministry has a policy on inclusion which has never been enforced. It has never been enforced by the ministry and very few school boards in this province use inclusive education as the norm. Parents are having more and more trouble having their children attend a normal, typical neighbourhood school, both because of the fact that the ministry is not enforcing its own policies and because local boards of education are not.

The commission can look at commonalities and differences among boards, and they range from the Hamilton-Wentworth separate school board, which practises true inclusion where all students are welcomed, where all students are educated in regular schools alongside their neighbours with appropriate supports -- it varies from that to a situation in Ottawa-Carleton where the four boards of education operate two archaic segregated schools that provide less than appropriate education for students with intellectual disabilities. Probably one of the most difficult places to receive a quality inclusive education in Ontario is in the location you're sitting in today, ladies and gentlemen. One of the reasons is the fact that the Ministry of Education and Training is not holding boards accountable for ministry policy.

The commission can also look at myriad studies that show the effectiveness of inclusion and the less than effectiveness -- I would go as far as to say the damage that segregated education causes students, not only students with disabilities but also those without disabilities, who are themselves segregated when we have segregated education.

The commission can also look at cost-effectiveness. A lot of studies are coming out of not only the United States, where research seems to be a growth industry, but also out of Ontario, where the Ministry of Education and Training's own studies a few years ago have indicated that inclusive education is no more expensive, and where boards of education are now proving that inclusive education is more cost-effective.

The commission should also, I would hope, look at the issue of legislative change, change to the Education Act to ensure that the policy of the Ministry of Education and Training is interpreted into legislation so that all children will receive a quality education.

The Common Sense Revolution is supposed to make some common sense to students in this province, and I think this is an opportunity to really make some common sense for students with intellectual disabilities. Ontario is far behind some other provinces in this country and it's time to catch up. I think it's high time that we either remove the label "special education" from the school system or make all education special education. I'd rather see regular education for all children, with appropriate specialized supports for whatever child needs it.

I have concerns with the direction the ministry is taking around reducing finances to education. I'm extremely concerned, around students with intellectual disabilities, that special ed supports tend to be the first things to be cut, the last things in place and the first things to be cut. I don't want to get beyond the realm of education, but if we continue to cut education, what we're doing is presenting a legacy to ourselves, to our children and to those who are going to come beyond us to pay a hell of a lot more money in years to come than we're spending now on education and other social services. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have a minute per caucus.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This is a very serious area you have raised this morning, and we thank you very much for being here to raise it. I know the concern is very real for those of us who have been on school boards; 20 years ago we first integrated a classroom in Peel when I was a trustee.

You say that the policy or the direction of the ministry has never been enforced by the ministry, and I hear what you're saying about what's happening locally here in the Ottawa area, but in other parts of the province where it is working, happily for those students and for their families, do you see that it is happening because of the autonomy of the local board and that those elected trustees are taking responsibility for ensuring that integration and inclusion is happening?

Mr Tutt: That's a loaded question. Yes, I think quality education, and I'm talking now about inclusive education, happens generally in this province when boards of education or local schools actually take the initiative to do it. I don't see it happening in this province because of ministry initiative. I'm saying yes to the comment that was contained in your question.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the comment Mary made about the sheer distance and how much more difficult it's going to be for parents concerned about special needs kids to be heard, to have their presence felt, and also the concern about funding.

The ministry has had a consultant verify their assumptions about the ways in which they can save some money through school board amalgamation. The total they look to achieve is $150 million. In order to achieve that -- these are the ministry's own figures -- $1.3 million comes directly out of educational support, the very people that I think you would agree are essential if there is going to be support for integration in the classroom. I worry, given that, which is the first indication we've had of where educational support fits for this ministry in bringing about school board amalgamation as the ministry takes over funding, that we're going to give a flat figure to boards and if the boards can't meet the needs for inclusion, the ministry is going to basically say, "That's the board's problem." Where does that leave you as advocates for support for special needs kids?

1150

Mr Tutt: I guess my concern is where money is being spent within the boards. We've got studies and experience in other boards of education that if there is a limited amount of money, let's spend the money in the most effective way possible. I think the most effective way possible is by educating all children together with appropriate supports. When we have segregated education, it costs a lot of money. When we have segregated schools, we're putting an awful lot of resources around special education for a very few number of children. More and more parents want their children to go to regular schools, and specialized education, whether it's in segregated schools or in self-contained classes, tends to draw more and more money from the supports that could be applied to children and could be there for children in regular education.

There have been some comments made that for every segregated school, if that money was taken and disbursed across the regular education system, many children could be in regular education with full-time teaching assistants. I'm not suggesting full-time teaching assistants is the route to go for all children; it may be for some children.

Mr Wildman: I take very seriously your comments with regard to the term "special education," so I understand what you're saying, and I also understand it in terms of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and Lanark and Prescott-Russell. There have been suggestions that there might be two boards rather than one. I don't think that would resolve the problem that you're putting forward.

Let me ask you this specifically with regard to educational assistants. The minister defines those people as outside the classroom, as part of his division between what is classroom expenditure and what is outside. If the minister is intending to take a significant amount out of education starting again in 1998, up to $1 billion, what do you see for the ability of boards, or the willingness of boards, to provide educational assistants who could spur more inclusion of the students you're talking about?

Ms MacDonald: Our local board doesn't want to provide them now. That's why we have segregation.

Mr Wildman: So you don't see that you're going to get any.

Ms MacDonald: It's not going to get any better, no.

The Chair: On that note, thank you very much, Ms MacDonald and Mr Tutt, for being here this morning.

ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS, UNITÉ PRESCOTT-RUSSELL ÉLÉMENTAIRE CATHOLIQUE

The Chair: We now call on the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens de Prescott-Russell, Richard Lanthier. Bonjour. C'est un plaisir de vous avoir avec nous ce matin. Vous avez 15 minutes pour votre présentation, et s'il y a du temps, le comité vous posera des questions.

M. Richard Lanthier : Merci bien. Bonjour à tous et à toutes. Moi, je fais la présentation à titre de l'AEFO locale. C'est un plaisir aujourd'hui de parler au Comité permanent des affaires sociales. Vous avez probablement déjà notre mémoire. Je vais probablement répéter ou faire allusion à certains propos provinciaux, mais aujourd'hui, les gens que je représente, ce sont les 425 enseignants de l'élémentaire catholique dans ma région, puis environ 280 suppléants qui sont majoritairement francophones dans Prescott-Russell.

Nous desservons environ 7 700 enfants à l'élémentaire et le projet de loi 104, pour nous, nous semble réjouissant car nous autres, on vivait déjà notre gestion scolaire catholique française. Nous étions déjà presque seuls à avoir la gestion, et enfin on reconnaît ceci, ce qui est très bien, et nous espérons qu'en nous joignant à S-D-G, Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry, à ce groupe-là, donc, environ 250 collègues de plus et 150 suppléants et suppléantes, nous ferons équipe ensemble, une équipe intéressante.

Un peu comme ma contrepartie provinciale, l'AEFO Prescott-Russell élémentaire catholique appuie le projet de loi 104. C'est une bonne loi pour autant qu'elle va accroître l'obligation de nos patrons, les conseillers scolaires et les autorités scolaires, la haute direction, à rendre compte, évidemment, aux parents, ce qu'ils faisaient déjà, et aux enseignants, aux contribuables, et surtout à mener le monde de l'éducation de chez nous à une plus grande efficacité et surtout à offrir aux enfants une plus grande qualité d'éducation.

Nous nous attendons à une amélioration nette dans nos classes, principalement. Les résultats doivent être pour l'élève, donc, il doit y avoir une amélioration de nos conditions de classe, de nos conditions de travail. Cette loi-là doit prévoir la participation aussi des enseignants et des enseignantes des deux conseils avec les élus, les cadres supérieurs et les groupes qui formeront les équipes de transition. Alors, il faut créer une nouvelle entité, peu vorace en administration, mais efficace ou vorace en nouvelles leçons, en classes intéressantes pour les jeunes.

Je prends le deuxième volet de mon mémoire, qui est la protection des enseignants.

Le projet de loi 104, à mon avis, doit garantir le contrat présent du personnel enseignant. Comme vous le savez déjà, la situation économique et le moral des profs est plutôt en difficulté dû à cette situation, et comme pour le projet de loi 30, nous avons besoin de garanties. Chez nous, il y a 240 des 425 enseignants qui sont des jeunes, qui viennent de subir les journées Bob Rae, lourdement, qui sont en manque d'augmentations statutaires, ou du moins qui l'étaient. Il y a 25 membres qui sont en liste de rappel et puis 14 membres qui sont en invalidité. Donc, il y a beaucoup d'incertitude. La loi 104, avec une nouvelle structure, espérons, va réussir à atténuer ça.

On doit sûrement modifier 104 pour respecter les principes suivants :

(1) Garantir les postes, les droits de rappel et les familles d'école. Un peu tout à l'heure, on a parlé de distances. Prescott-Russell, S-D-G, il y a quand même des distances des domiciles. Alors, dans le raisonnable, on devra s'assurer qu'on garantie qu'on est gardé par famille d'école et qu'il y a un certain jeu, évidemment, mais raisonnable.

(2) Qu'il y a une protection dans le projet de loi contre les mutations obligatoires que je viens de décrire, qu'on reconnaisse la convention collective ou les conventions collectives et les acquis, du moins jusqu'à la signature d'une nouvelle convention collective. Donc, il y a encore des contrats verts, des contrats blancs, et une entente contractuelle de conventions collectives en place avec des acquis qui sont en place qui se poursuivent d'ici jusqu'à ce qu'on en fasse une autre.

(3) Que l'on reconnaisse et que l'on garde l'ancienneté, les congés de maladie, et puis que l'on étudie la gratification de retraite.

(5) Que l'on respecte, évidemment, la grille salariale et l'expérience des enseignants.

(6) Qu'il n'y ait aucune perte salariale. Je veux rappeler au comité, qui ne sont pas sans savoir, que depuis environ 1990-91, il n'y a définitivement pas eu d'augmentations ; il n'y a qu'un maintien des acquis des enseignants.

Chez nous, j'ai parlé tout à l'heure des suppléants et suppléantes. Nous aimerions bien que ces gens-là demeurent affiliés à l'AEFO locale et qu'ils demeurent sous

la Loi sur les relations de travail de l'Ontario.

Alors, ce que je recommande, c'est que ces principes soient inclus dans la loi 104.

Pour ce qui est du financement, l'AEFO cherche un financement équitable, un financement probablement de rattrapage nécessaire dans la région où je suis surtout, qui est un groupe minoritaire plutôt pauvre quand nous savons qu'il y a des endroits dans la province où un élève représente environ 10 000 $ et que pour nous, ça représente environ la moitié de ça. Alors, je pense que la question de rattrapage est importante.

Il faut vous rappeler que les manuels scolaires, le matériel didactique, les logiciels en français, ça coûte beaucoup plus cher. Dans une restructuration des 11 conseils scolaires, on devra en tenir compte.

Au niveau de fonds de transition, comme j'aborde dans mon mémoire, mettre ensemble environ 1000 enseignants, environ 400 suppléants et suppléantes, prend probablement une forme de fonds additionnels ou du moins un réaménagement des fonds qui seront économisés dans une refonte des deux groupes et, probablement, des fonds peut-être rajoutés ou peut-être économisés de démarrage, un peu comme c'est fait dans Ottawa-Carleton.

Je passe de cette étape à la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation. Nous recommandons que, s'il y en a sept membres, au moins trois soient francophones, et il serait souhaitable même qu'un d'entre eux soit de Prescott-Russell, puisque dans Prescott-Russell, il y a toute une expertise ; il y a l'expertise que j'ai nommée avant. Nous avons vécu depuis 1989 le seul conseil francophone catholique, et je crois qu'ils pourraient l'apporter sûrement.

1200

Pour ce qui est de l'article 335(f), nous recommandons définitivement, et à l'arrière du mémoire vous verrez deux pages qui sont une lettre à cet effet qui a été publiée dans les journaux, que l'impartition soit radiée de la loi -- c'est «outsourcing», «contracting out» etc -- pour trois raisons principalement.

Une est évidente ; une est syndicale ou associative, ce que je représente, la perte des droits de certains travailleurs.

La deuxième raison : le mandat linguistique qui est confié aux conseils déjà francophones, le mandat culturel, le mandat de francophonie est important. Les concierges, les secrétaires et le personnel de soutien, c'est important dans un nouveau système francophone.

La troisième raison, c'est que, dans nos écoles, en ne gardant pas de permanence face à ce personnel-là, on va détruire la famille scolaire élargie. La famille scolaire élargie en français sera très importante. On doit être capable de s'adresser à la secrétaire ou au concierge et il faut que ça fasse une unité familiale.

Je passe à une autre recommandation, les articles 335(g) et (h), qu'ils soient radiés. Nous sommes pour la question des conseils d'école et l'implication des parents. Preuve de ça : l'AEFO provinciale et locale fait de la formation au niveau des directions d'école et même des enseignants au niveau de ce qu'est un conseil d'école et a voulu, évidemment, promouvoir l'implication des parents et des conseils d'école. Cependant, on pense que la Commission, avec 104, va être par définition trop occupée avec le projet que je vais appeler d'amalgamation, de formation de conseils scolaires, et aussi, ça lui donnerait trop de pouvoir sans beaucoup de consultation, que de travailler dans cette voie.

Nous croyons encore fermement que le pouvoir législatif en région y appartient au conseil scolaire et probablement aux nouveaux conseils qui seront formés.

Je passe à une septième recommandation sur les comités d'amélioration de l'éducation, article 338(2) : que les enseignants, à notre avis, fassent obligatoirement partie de ces comités, puisque, à notre avis, ils sont déjà, en grande partie, l'éducation. Leur vie se passe avec les enfants. Ils se doivent d'être impliqués. Je veux dire que dans Prescott-Russell et S-D-G, il y a déjà des comités de transition au niveau des enseignants et il y a des comités de transition au niveau des conseils scolaires. Nous sommes au point de se parler et d'échanger de l'expertise de voir comment on peut travailler ensemble.

Enfin, une telle commission, à nos yeux, est très importante, importante à un tel point qu'elle justifie l'arbitrage. Je ne veux pas entrer longuement dans Montfort, mais je crois que, pour les commissions de ce genre-là, et surtout pour travailler à la création de nouveaux conseils scolaires, les gens doivent avoir un moyen pas nécessairement de contester -- le mot serait mal choisi, mais un arbitrage des litiges possibles ou des problématiques possibles.

Enfin, en conclusion, le projet de loi 104 modifié un peu selon ce que je viens de décrire est prometteur d'avenir si ça prône une réorganisation intelligente et bien financée. Un conseil francophone catholique qui représentera ses employés, les enseignants et les enseignantes et les autres employés, et qui verra à rendre le meilleur service éducatif possible à l'enfant francophone est ce que mes 425 membres souhaitent de 104.

Je vous remercie de m'avoir écouté.

La Présidente : Merci, Monsieur Lanthier. Nous avons seulement deux minutes. Alors, je demanderais que les questions soient très brèves. Monsieur Lalonde.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Je vous remercie, Richard, de vous avoir déplacé pour vous rendre ici ce matin. Je crois que vous est une des personnes choisies pour pouvoir nous faire une présentation.

Mais ce qui me fait rester sur le point d'incertitude, c'est de voir que vous dites en principe que vous êtes d'accord avec le projet de loi 104, mais aussi vous avez plusieurs points d'interrogation sur le contenu du projet de loi 104. Nous ne sommes pas clairs sur le financement, et aussi le fait que l'éducation spéciale -- je crois que c'est un point très, très important lorsque nous regardons la grandeur des conseils scolaires que nous allons voir surtout sur le côté francophone. On sait que les francophones n'ont pas eu l'éducation au même niveau que les anglophones il y a un certain nombre d'années.

Aujourd'hui, nous avons beaucoup de rattrapage, et vous l'avez mentionné dans votre exposé tout à l'heure. Est-ce que vous croyez que l'éducation spéciale va être suivie de très près étant donné qu'on va avoir la grandeur de conseils scolaires que nous allons connaître ?

M. Lanthier : Moi, je vais répondre que depuis les derniers 12 ans je suis un enseignant de classes dites «spécialisées» avant d'être président de l'association. C'est une de mes plus grandes inquiétudes que je n'ai pas mentionnées ici. J'ai parlé de fonds de rattrapage. Je n'ai peut-être pas insisté suffisamment sur la nature de créer un conseil francophone, typiquement francophone. Quand je parle de fonds de transition, de fonds de rattrapage, je parle de réaménagement, moi. Je ne suis pas un administrateur. Je suis un enseignant de salle de classe.

Alors, je me dis que tout ça devrait être vu, et j'adore votre question dans le sens que, dans 104, moi, je veux définitivement qu'on aborde quelque part les droits de tous les enfants que j'ai enseignés depuis les derniers 12 ans, handicapés multiples, etc.

La Présidente : Merci. Très brièvement, Monsieur Marchese.

M. Marchese : Merci, Monsieur Lanthier. Je sais que vous espérez recevoir un financement supplémentaire du gouvernement, et je comprends. Mais je sais aussi qu'ils vont, le ministre ou le gouvernement, diminuer l'appui qui va aux écoles ou bien aux conseils scolaires.

Pour moi, c'est une préoccupation, parce que je pense que ça va détruire le système pour nous tous, et pour vous aussi. Pensez-vous sérieusement que le gouvernement va, avec ces coupures, donner l'aide que vous attendez ?

M. Lanthier : Autant que vous, je n'y crois que peu, mais je veux au moins donner une perspective positive dans le sens de regrouper les francophones, et j'ai espoir que justement des gens comme vous vont changer le projet de façon à ce qu'il devient positif.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Thank you very much, Richard, for attending today. Just a quick question on base funding. I'm talking about the base funding for the educational grant. Do you believe it should be somewhat equal, the base funding, per student across the province? I'm talking about the base educational grant.

M. Lanthier: Il est probable que oui, mais il sera difficile d'enlever, tant pour les francophones que pour certains groupes, des fonds supplémentaires ou des ajouts qui avaient déjà été donnés, dû au fait que j'ai déjà mentionné, si je reviens aux francophones, à la difficulté culturelle du manuel francophone, du logiciel francophone, et des choses comme ça, et de l'enfance en difficulté chez les francophones, parce qu'il faut se rappeler aussi que chez les francophones, ils semblent y avoir deux pôles importants : je ne dirais pas nécessairement beaucoup plus, mais un peu plus d'enfants en difficulté, puis un peu plus d'enfants très brillants.

La Présidente : Monsieur Lanthier, je vous remercie d'être venu ici ce matin et d'avoir présenté la position de votre association.

1210

ASSOCIATION FRANÇAISE DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES DE L'ONTARIO

La Présidente : Maintenant, l'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario, Jocelyne Ladouceur. Bienvenue, madame. Si je peux, je vous demande de présenter les membres de votre groupe.

M^me Jocelyne Ladouceur : Merci. J'accompagne aujourd'hui les deux vice-présidents de notre association, M. Daniel Morin, vice-président du secteur public, et M. Roch Lalonde, qui représente la vice-présidence du secteur catholique. Alors, ce sont eux qui vont faire la présentation.

M. Daniel Morin : Bonjour. L'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario, l'AFCSO, vous remercie de l'occasion qui lui est offerte de vous faire part de ses réactions au projet de loi 104. Nous ne sommes pas ici aujourd'hui pour nous opposer à ce projet de loi. Pour les membres de l'AFCSO ainsi que pour la communauté franco-ontarienne tout entière, ce projet de loi renferme un élément que nous revendiquons depuis des décennies : la création de conseils scolaires de langue française sur tout le territoire de la province. En outre, nos droits constitutionnels tels qu'exprimés dans l'article 93 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 et l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés sont protégés et reconnus. L'AFCSO se réjouit donc du dépôt de ce projet de loi. Nous vous encourageons de travailler ferme afin d'en assurer l'adoption rapide.

Si l'AFCSO entretient certaines préoccupations face au projet de loi 104, celles-ci se situent davantage sur le plan des échéanciers en ce qui a trait à la réglementation qui viendra le compléter.

Vous savez que les élections scolaires et municipales se tiendront en novembre. Il reste déjà peu de temps pour assurer une transition facile de l'ancien système au nouveau modèle proposé. Tout retard risque de mettre en péril la transition. Nous sommes conscients que certains groupes considèrent une intervention juridique pour retarder la mise en oeuvre du projet de loi. Nous déplorons cette démarche. A notre avis, il faut tout faire pour garantir que les nouveaux conseils puissent partir d'un bon pied.

Le travail qui reste à accomplir est considérable. Les règles du jeu ne sont pas encore établies. La Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, à qui on a conféré des pouvoirs exécutoires impressionnants, n'a pas encore agi. Tant que leurs directives ne seront pas émises, les mains des conseils actuels sont liées. Le vacuum ainsi créé suscite de l'appréhension au sein de la population et entraîne de ce fait de la réticence. Agissons maintenant pour éviter que les choses ne se gâtent.

Il n'est pas clair encore quelle représentation sera accordée aux francophones au sein de la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation. Vu l'importance du mandat qui est conféré à cette commission, l'AFCSO estime qu'il faut absolument y assurer une forte présence francophone, tant parmi les commissaires eux-mêmes qu'au sein du personnel administratif. Les francophones doivent pouvoir s'y faire comprendre et dans leur langue.

Il faut se rendre à l'évidence : le travail que les francophones auront à accomplir afin d'assurer la mise en oeuvre des 11 conseils scolaires de district est beaucoup plus complexe que celui de leurs homologues anglophones. Nous serons placés dans une situation où il nous faudra aller chercher des anciens conseils une part équitable des avoirs, une part qui répond à nos besoins clairement exprimés, et ceci sans disposer de ressources humaines et financières comparables à celles auxquelles ont accès nos homologues anglophones.

Nous insistons sur l'importance d'accorder aux francophones leur juste part des avoirs des anciens conseils : au fil des ans, ils ont été accumulés par les conseils d'origine et les francophones y ont contribué aussi bien que les anglophones. Nous nous attendons à recevoir une part équitable de ces avoirs, une part qui nous permettra de répondre aux besoins de tous les élèves francophones, même dans les endroits où à l'heure actuelle il n'y a pas d'écoles de langue française. Une chose est certaine : le nouveau système de conseils de langue française de district doit produire une amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation dispensée à nos élèves. Il doit assurer que les lacunes qui entraînent actuellement un rendement médiocre dans les tests standardisés soient comblées.

L'AFCSO tient à ce que la transition des anciens conseils aux nouveaux conseils de district se fasse sans accrocs ou difficultés. Elle veut surtout éviter, dans la mesure du possible, les problèmes et les amertumes qui se sont manifestés lors du parachèvement des écoles secondaires catholiques. Nous nous engageons donc à travailler de concert avec nos homologues anglophones des conseils publics et catholiques afin d'arriver à un partage des ressources qui soit juste et équitable.

Nous avons déjà mentionné que les règles du jeu restent imprécises. Voici certains points que la commission devra régler pour assurer une bonne transition :

Le transfert des édifices ;

La répartition des biens ;

Les directives et un processus sommaire pour régler les conflits ;

L'imputabilité des coûts ;

La structure décisionnelle intérimaire ;

Le cadre législatif et réglementaire ;

Les zones électorales au sein des conseils de district ;

Le nombre de conseillères et de conseillers scolaires ;

L'étendue des territoires des conseils scolaires de district de langue française milite en faveur de nombres plus élevés que ceux qui sont prévus ;

La répartition des conseillères et des conseillers scolaires.

Même si tout ceci doit se faire d'ici peu afin d'assurer une transition facile et satisfaisante, il ne faut pas pour autant retarder l'adoption du projet de loi. Il faut plutôt déployer tous les efforts pour régler ces points dès que possible.

Pour l'AFCSO, le projet de loi 104 marque une autre étape dans notre marche vers la reconnaissance pleine et entière de nos droits constitutionnels. L'étape finale viendra avec le financement équitable qui nous a été promis par le gouvernement, mais que nous attendons toujours. Nous ne saurions exagérer l'importance que nous attachons à ce dernier pas dans notre long périple.

L'argent, c'est le nerf de la guerre. Pour la minorité linguistique officielle, c'est-à-dire les francophones en Ontario, un financement équitable comporte trois volets : une somme par élève qui permet d'offrir la même qualité de services éducatifs que celle qui est offerte aux élèves anglophones -- cette somme pourrait même être plus élevée à cause de facteurs propres à la communauté de langue minoritaire, notamment l'éparpillement de la population et le coût supérieur du matériel pédagogique ; une somme par élève pour permettre de rattraper le terrain perdu ; et à titre de réparation, une somme par élève pour compenser les années d'abandon vécues par la communauté franco-ontarienne, abandon qui a mené directement à l'assimilation, à un taux d'analphabétisme plus élevé et à un taux de scolarisation inférieur. C'est ainsi que la Cour suprême du Canada interprète l'article 23 de la Charte, et notre communauté ne saurait se satisfaire de moins.

Nous osons croire que le projet de loi 104, assorti de ce financement équitable, marquera l'aboutissement de notre long trajet vers la justice pour les élèves francophones dans toutes nos écoles, quelle que soit la région de la province où ils habitent, quel que soit le secteur, public ou catholique, qu'ils fréquentent, quel que soit leur statut socioéconomique. Voilà pourquoi il est si important qu'il soit adopté dans les plus brefs délais. Nous vous exhortons donc de tout mettre en oeuvre pour assurer sa mise en oeuvre. Merci.

Nous avons joint aussi les buts de l'association ainsi que la composition au mémoire.

1220

M. Marchese : Merci pour la présentation de vos points. Je comprends votre appui de la création des conseils scolaires de langue française sur tous les territoires de la province. Ça, c'est évident. Je comprends aussi la préoccupation. Il est déjà peu de temps pour rassurer une transition facile de l'ancien système au nouveau modèle proposé. C'est notre préoccupation aussi.

J'arrive à ma question parce qu'on n'a pas de temps. Pour la minorité linguistique officielle, c'est-à-dire les francophones en Ontario, un financement équitable comporte des volets, que vous avez dit là. Le problème est que ce gouvernement veut retirer ou diminuer l'appui aux systèmes scolaires. Moi, je dis que ça va dépasser un milliard. Je pense qu'ils vont retirer deux milliards de dollars du système scolaire. Est-ce que ça va vous aider, ou comment est-ce que ça va vous aider avec la préoccupation que vous avez avec un financement équitable ?

M. Morin : C'est évident que lorsque vous dites, tel que vous placez la situation, on ne peut jamais dire qu'on va nous enlever un ou deux ou trois milliards et par le fait même ajouter que oui, ça va nous aider, c'est très difficile à dire, ce serait vraiment le contraire. Mais par contre, vous l'avez dit aussi bien qu'on le dit dans notre mémoire : la gestion scolaire ayant l'importance qu'elle a, on se montre d'accord avec le projet de loi 104.

Mr Skarica: There are some groups here such as the Ontario Education Alliance that say that Bill 104 is an assault on Ontario schools. Do you agree with that, and if you don't, why don't you agree with that?

M. Roch Lalonde : Which page are you referring to?

La Présidente : C'est un autre groupe qui a dit ça.

M. Roch Lalonde : Moi, ma réponse, et je n'ai pas entendu les citations, donc, je ne saurais pas répondre.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde : Merci encore de vous être rendus ici ce matin. Je suis tout surpris de voir qu'on se sent très d'accord avec le projet de loi 104, lorsqu'on s'aperçoit qu'il y a beaucoup de questions de votre part. On sait que nous, les francophones, sommes souvent prêts à agir ou à accepter un peu trop vite, et puis après avoir accepté, nous nous apercevons que les ententes n'étaient pas claires. Et puis aujourd'hui ça le démontre avec le projet de loi 104, qui a beaucoup de points d'interrogation.

Je n'ai qu'à regarder le Collège d'Alfred, qui n'a pas été réglé pour les francophones. Je regarde une lettre que j'ai reçue le jour passé du ministre des Transports Palladini nous disant que la privatisation et le transfert aux municipalités n'auront aucune garantie sur l'effet de signalisation bilingue sur nos routes. Aujourd'hui on nous dit qu'avec ce projet de loi-là, ça va nous le garantir, mais on laisse beaucoup de points d'interrogation linguistiques pour les minorités concernant les argents, les sommes qui ont été transférées aux conseils scolaires francophones en Ontario. Croyez-vous bien actuellement que le projet de loi 104 va nous garantir le financement par élève et aussi l'attrapage que nous regardons depuis nombre d'années, que les Franco-Ontariens n'ont pas reçus, la part équivalente de nos anglophones de la province ? Croyez-vous qu'avec ce projet de loi-là, nous pouvons atteindre notre but ?

M. Morin : Tel qu'on lit le projet de loi ce matin, il n'est pas passé, donc ces garanties n'existent pas. Tant que ce ne sera pas passé, fait et puis là on va pouvoir dire effectivement qu'elles sont là et qu'elles existent, on ne peut pas répondre à votre question aujourd'hui. Il n'y a rien qui existe.

La Présidente : Merci, Madame Ladouceur, Monsieur Marin et Monsieur Lalonde d'avoir été avec nous ce matin.

HASTINGS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: The Hastings County Board of Education, Ernie Parsons. Welcome to our committee. Mr Parsons, I would ask you to introduce your co-presenter. You have 15 minutes within which to make your presentation, and if time permits, we'll ask you some questions.

Mr Ernie Parsons: As you indicated, I'm Ernie Parsons. I'm chair of the Hastings County Board of Education. That and a remarkable resemblance to Robert Redford are really my only claims to fame. With me is Phil Ainsworth, who's our director of education. Given the current public attitude towards trustees, I find it wise not to travel alone in public.

Thank you for having us. It was difficult finding what we would say that you have not probably already heard, either today or in other locations. We're not going to talk about amalgamation. In the case of our board, the reality is that we're well along with the amalgamation with Prince Edward county. Please don't interpret it, though, that in any way I want that to indicate that I am in favour of all of the amalgamations in Ontario. But in the case of ours, we will make it work.

I would like to talk about outsourcing. There is a sense certainly within education, and I think within the public, that there are problems within the education system, and often they are attributed to the teachers and to the unionized and to the non-unionized employees. In our case, our unionized employees are represented by CUPE, plus we have out-of-classroom non-unionized employees, and quite frankly they have been superb to work with. They have been cooperative. They have consistently over the years gone above and beyond the call of duty, and the reality is that their pay is far below the provincial average, so our employees have done well.

Our request under Bill 104 is to leave us alone where we have something that is working well, where we have dedicated, committed employees. Please recognize that. They are living in cold, raw fear now of their ability to provide for their own families because of the possibilities of what could happen.

I know that the proposed legislation indicates that it is not mandatory but is to be encouraged. We ask that it be fair, and not that boards can continue to have their own employees but that we be funded at $7 an hour for them. If we're going to have the ability to retain them, please recognize their worth and fund it at that level. I have a sense, hearing other presentations, that there's a variation across the province, but in our case we very much appreciate our employees.

The issue of the number of trustees concerns our board. We have some sense, almost, that this legislation was drafted in anger. When we compare the treatment towards the trustees and contrast that with the treatment towards the municipal councillors, we see a marked difference.

In the merged boards, the numbers currently are for us three francophone, one native and 31 English trustees. Now that may seem like a huge number, but if that were compared with the number of municipal councillors within the same jurisdiction, it would pale. We recognize that there may need to be a reduction, but it is important that the public continues to have access to people who can make decisions for them.

In my community, I have parents, I have non-parents, I have students literally coming in my driveway and wanting to talk to me. Many of the issues that are extremely humongous to them are issues that can be resolved locally. They need to have continued access to people who can help them with their concerns. As the number of trustees is reduced -- and I guess as an engineer, where one has to have logic for each number, we do not understand the magic number 12. Why was 12 picked? Why not 14? Why not eight?

In the area that we represent, the second-longest county in the province, the number of trustees is critical. The rural voters, the voters in North Hastings, will effectively be disfranchised if they require an hour's drive to talk to a trustee, so we ask for some flexibility in those numbers.

Our last concern to share with you is the honorariums. That's a very delicate subject because it's perceived as the trustees once again feeding at the public trough. In our counties, trustees in one county earn approximately $4,000 per annum -- not getting terribly rich at that. In the other county, it's about $8,000 per annum. We're asking you to put that into context that we have trustees driving an hour and a half each way to attend meetings.

The $5,000 is another item that we feel was drafted with some anger or some revenge by someone. The honorariums are intended to compensate people for the costs incurred in serving in public office. On my board we have some individuals who, because of their background, are able to serve without a particular concern financially. But we have on our board, and I believe we're typical of rural Ontario, trustees who are gas bar attendants, who do not get paid, who forfeit their shift to attend a meeting. We have trustees who work in the bush cutting timber. These are not people who are wealthy. These are people who require some compensation for the hours and, even with the current compensation, probably lose some money on it.

Being a trustee, much more than a member of a township council, involves daytime activities. If we are going to represent the schools and represent the students, we need to be in the schools when the students are there, so it requires substantial daytime commitments on the part of trustees.

1230

We're not looking to get rich. I don't think the majority of trustees in Ontario have received compensation that is out of line, but we would ask for some flexibility because it is important that we be able to continue to attract the independent business person, the farmer, the single parent. It is vital that we continue to draw a broad cross-section, and $5,000 per annum, after a trustee pays taxes on that and pays for election expenses, which are not tax deductible, simply does not make it possible for much of Ontario to contribute to education. Indeed, probably the worst category that is being discriminated against are the young parents who are struggling to pay mortgages, to support their children. They will not be able to afford the costs involved in being a trustee and that is a group, above all, that should not be excluded.

Mrs Marland: Knowing as you do, I'm sure, that the Metro Toronto school board trustees get, I don't know, $48,000 or $58,000, whatever it is --

Mr Parsons: Yes, thousands.

Mrs Marland: Well, they get a huge amount. Because I think the points you make actually are very valuable to us to hear, and the examples that you have just given us, I'm wondering what you think would be a reasonable honorarium, knowing that your members so far have been getting $4,000?

Mr Parsons: Trusteeship should not be a full-time job. We agree with the proposal on that. Our trustees currently in Prince Edward make about $4,000 and in Hastings make about $8,000. We have not only increased our honorarium over the past few years, but decreased it this year. I don't think $10,000 or less is out of line, representing our area. I can't speak for all of Ontario and the travel time and the costs involved, and I don't know what's involved in northern Ontario, but in our area we believe the $8,000 is fair.

Mrs Marland: So you're talking about being sure that trustees who serve are not out of pocket.

Mr Parsons: I believe that should be the purpose of it, to ensure that there is no financial loss to the trustees, not that there not be an income but that there not be a loss.

Mrs McLeod: I must begin my questioning by telling you that I'm really concerned that what we have with this bill is the beginning of the end of local decision-making in education and potentially the loss of school boards altogether. You've touched on a number of reasons why I think that will come to be, one being it's going to be harder for trustees to serve, harder to perhaps get people to run for boards. Given the larger geographic areas, trustees will also be less accessible and therefore I think will be seen to be serving less of a purpose in their local areas.

But the other one that I think you didn't touch on was that as the minister accompanies this with the move to control all educational funding, the trustee will essentially become a whipping post, a scapegoat for the ministry's funding decisions, with very little ability to be accountable at the local level. I guess I see that leading eventually to the dissolution of school boards, whether that is the current intention of the government or not. I just wonder if you'd comment on how you see trustees being able to even carry out their role under this scenario.

Mr Parsons: I've learned years ago there's no use complaining to someone who doesn't have the power to bring about the change and this removes people from access to someone who can make change. I have phone calls at 11 o'clock on a Sunday night with concerns, and at the present time I can resolve them -- not Sunday night generally.

But I fear that what this bill is in some sense is not an attack on education, because I think there are some things in there that have the potential for improvement; if anything, it's an attack on democracy. It is a loss of the local person's access to an elected official; not an overpaid elected official, an official who is their neighbour, who lives in their community and can provide a service for them.

Mr Wildman: I want to thank you for your forthright presentation and I want to agree with you that this is indeed an assault on democracy. It means significantly less local autonomy obviously and significantly less access to elected officials locally, and thus less local accountability and less representation in terms of the various communities in the wider area. It's centralizing decision-making and essentially decentralizing complaints. You'll become a complaint bureau. My question is, why would anybody want to run for trustee under these circumstances?

Mr Parsons: I've thought about that, because as a board chair, the lowest-paid municipal councillor in my community makes far more money than I. But I thought it over and thought, I'm not in it for money. I can't find a trustee in it for money. There are good people. The majority of people in Ontario are good people who want to see their children well educated.

Mr Wildman: I didn't mean in terms of money. I meant in terms of the decision-making, not having the power to make decisions and make changes.

Mr Parsons: I know, and that's discouraging. But the pendulum swings and there are trustees who hope that if they run, there will be changes that recognize -- any government that makes changes, some of them are good, but we need to recognize there is a potential for some things that are wrong. We'd like to be around and be in existence so that we can continue to lobby for and work for the changes that should happen.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We are all hopeful that good things will come. Thank you for being with us today.

Mr Parsons: We have copies made of this.

The Chair: If you have copies, we'd appreciate --

Mr Parsons: Yes, it pretty well wiped out our budget for the year.

The Chair: Thank you. If you could just give them to the clerk, we'll make sure that they are distributed. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

TEACHERS' FEDERATION OF CARLETON

The Chair: May I ask the Teachers' Federation of Carleton to come forward: Doug Carter, Larry Capstick, Janet Fader, Donna Marie Kennedy and Rhena Charland. Do we have enough chairs for everyone? All right, we do now. Welcome to our committee.

Mr Doug Carter: Thank you for the opportunity to share our views concerning Bill 104. We are five of the local presidents of the teachers' federations of the Ottawa-Carleton region and we frequently work together. All of us asked for time to appear before the committee this morning. Only my group was successful in being granted time and we agreed that we would share the time with each other.

I'm Doug Carter, president of the Teachers' Federation of Carleton. The TFC is comprised of more than 3,000 statutory members and occasional teacher members. With me today are Larry Capstick, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, district 43, and he will be speaking to you in a moment; Janet Fader, president of the OSSTF, district 26, Ottawa; Donna Marie Kennedy, on my far right, who's president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Carleton; and next to me on my right, Rhena Charland, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Ottawa.

We've been told by the minister on occasion that he wasn't terribly interested in listening to us because he saw that we were a special interest group. You're right; we are. Teachers' federations try to fulfil two roles, very much so the role where we safeguard and defend the welfare of our members as we establish it through collective bargaining. We've done that for years. But just as important, we have as a prime objective to also promote and defend the quality of education.

Historically, it's been the teachers of Ontario, through their federations, who have spoken out and lobbied for increased pre-service qualifications for teachers, better qualified teachers. It is the same teacher federations that have lobbied for improved learning conditions for children. Every one of us in the room today is a product of an education system and surely we will all agree that the aim of all of us is to further improve the system, because we know our way of life tomorrow depends on the education the children receive today.

Teacher federations are neither for nor against amalgamation of school boards. We said that to Brian Bourns, we've said that to many studies. But we do have concerns about Bill 104.

1240

The amalgamation of the boards in the Ottawa-Carleton region has been studied and reported on many times, the most recent being the Bourns study of a few years ago. The findings of all their studies have been consistent: There is no substantial cost saving to be made by amalgamation, nor is there any stated improvement to the quality of education which would be received by the students as a result of combining the boards.

We, as presidents in front of you, represent more than 7,000 teachers in this area. We recognize the prerogative of the government of the day to set the agenda. If the government discerns that it is prudent and expedient to reduce the number of school boards, we can accept that decision. We do want to be clear, however, about what is happening because nothing in Bill 104, in our view, is aimed at improving the quality of education received by children. Bill 104 has to do with centralizing power and establishing financial control over education. Nothing will culminate in a higher level of student achievement; nothing will enhance that special student-teacher relationship that is so vital to learning.

Nearly 30 years ago, the previous Progressive Conservative government introduced legislation to bring about dramatic reform in the system of education when it consolidated the school boards of the day. That legislation contained the clearly defined rules for amalgamation of school boards. The rights and benefits of employees were safeguarded by ensuring successor rights until new collective agreements could be worked out. The 1969 amalgamation of school boards maintained traditions going back to the very beginnings of public education in this province.

A very special tradition -- local responsibility for education -- was maintained through locally elected school boards with the right to raise revenue through property taxes. Local trustees and their decisions remained accountable to the local ratepayer while the provincial level of government retained final responsibility and provided overall direction and financial support to ensure there was a provincial consistency. Bill 104 ignores that tradition. It grabs all the power to the provincial level of government.

We would recommend that Bill 104 be amended to guarantee job protection for all existing employees. It must include successor rights and make provision for a transition period which would clearly outline the time lines and conditions under which a new collective agreement will be negotiated. During this transitional period, employees should continue to work under the terms and conditions of their existing agreements.

Collective agreements have come to define much more than just salaries and benefits. They include provisions for things such as sick leave and other forms of compassionate leave. They contain provisions for staffing levels and transfer provisions. In a very real way, collective agreements have come to define the way schools operate. As recently as 1992 and 1994, in the instances of the Kirkland Lake and Timiskaming separate boards or the Middlesex and London public boards, there were specific regulations issued to provide for protection of employees in terms of collective agreements when those boards were joined.

This committee has heard from our provincial federations and received the Ontario Teachers' Federation's Principles for School Board Amalgamation. Instead of repeating them to you, I've attached them in appendix A and we will refer to them a bit later.

Mr Larry Capstick: I'd like to speak briefly for a moment about an aspect of Bill 104, which is the Education Improvement Commission. This group is comprised of a handful of unelected government employees and they will have an unbelievably broad range of authority. In fact, the authority of the EIC will supersede that of the elected Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

For the panel that's seated before you, each one of us has had to undergo rather rigorous scrutiny, both through our academic background leading up to our admission to the faculties of education, having completed undergraduate and graduate degrees, then having to complete a bachelor's degree in education, and most of us with a master's degree in education; all this before we can stand in front of a child in an Ontario classroom.

The EIC, with none of these requirements, will be making decisions which have even more significant impact upon those very same students. We find this to be a very, very serious contradiction. The commission can recommend to the minister on any matter and the cabinet may enact by regulation any of the EIC's recommendations. There would be no debate by our MPPs, no appeal or redress of any kind to any of the commission's decisions. The commission not only would be able to make recommendations to the minister but will exert financial control over existing school boards. This control effectively suspends the boards' democratic authority and responsibilities.

Under Bill 104 it will be more difficult to identify local needs and to ensure adequate funding for programs to meet those needs. Certainly in the Ottawa-Carleton region that has been brought home on more than one occasion, where you are dealing with a fundamentally rural board, the Carleton board, and a fundamentally urban board, the Ottawa board, two boards with some very different needs.

Given the definition of the classroom and non-classroom expenditures advocated by the ministry, we are not reassured that ministry educrats will recognize any of those local needs or even their very existence. According to the ministry-commissioned study by Ernst and Young, classroom expenses are those required for teachers, teacher aides and student supplies. Among the non-classroom expenditures defined by the report are items such as principals, guidance counsellors, librarians, psychologists, speech pathologists, secretarial, custodial services and items such as heat and light. Under this definition, the ideal school could theoretically be a very dark, cold place, one that has an unsupported teacher and, in keeping with the minister's wishes, each child could have an inoperable computer because there would not be any electricity.

Mr Wildman: The bill has certainly generated more heat than light.

Mr Capstick: Certainly my colleague Donna Marie Kennedy, from the Catholic federation, has a school in the west end of the city with over 30 portables and can't even run a video machine because there are no curtains on the windows at the moment, let alone worrying about whether we're going to have plug-ins for computers.

The teacher would be unsupervised and parents would not communicate with the school easily because there would not be any principal or even a telephone. In contrast, we believe the whole school is the classroom and every individual in it plays a key role in the education of the child.

If the government cannot accept that premise, then how can we have faith that there will be recognition and provision of financial resources to meet the increased needs of inner city-schools or the distinct transportation needs of students attending rural schools, or the increased support necessary to continue the integration of special-needs students into regular classrooms? Certainly you've heard a good deal of that this morning.

I would also comment on my colleague, Rhena Charland, from OECTA, Ottawa. Since we sit on the faculty of education committees at the University of Ottawa, we've actually suggested from time to time that a primary prerequisite for a new teacher now is how to cook hot dogs, since so much of their time is spent arranging hot dog days in order to buy supplies.

Another major concern of ours is the seeming determination to move towards the outsourcing or privatization of non-instructional services. Parents and students can tell you how important it is to have custodial staff who are full-time, permanent members of the school community. As their work takes them throughout the school and outside the building, it is often they who are the first to identify and challenge trespassers and intruders. It is our belief that to replace existing employees with low-wage, casual employees is penny wise and pound foolish.

Certainly in my board, my secondary panel, on February 12 we took a snapshot within our schools and I had the various groups that were mentioned earlier actually identify those things they did on that day, things such as teacher aides who toiletted and catheterized more than 214 students. If those people aren't there, who's going to toilet and catheterize those 214 students? Custodial maintenance who challenged nine non-known members of the community as trespassers at various school sites on that day; school psychologists and other workers who dealt with agencies such as the children's aid on a variety of issues. It was a litany of items on one day of no particular significance, it just happened to be February 12, and it provided a most enlightening snapshot view of what is actually going on in any school on a given day, and these members are all part of our school community.

We've attempted to highlight our concerns about Bill 104. It's a disturbing proposal because of its broad range of powers assigned to the Education Improvement Commission and the cabinet. There are no assurances that there will be open and full consultation on issues related to establishing district school boards, and the legislation removes some accountability measures which traditionally function to protect our democratic rights. We and the members we represent have grave concerns about the impact which educational finance reform and school board restructuring will have on Ontario's tradition of local government and accountability and on the quality of education, an equitable education for all.

The government has failed to provide sufficient rationale to justify the scale of its proposed changes to education finance and education governance. We remain to be convinced that our students will benefit from any of these proposed changes.

1250

Mr Carter: In fact, we urge that Bill 104 be withdrawn and completely reworked, but realizing that's not likely, we suggest that the following amendments are imperative if it's to have any hope of gaining its objectives:

School boards must maintain some taxing authority so that they remain viable governing entities with the ability to respond to local education needs.

Employees of existing school boards must be assured of job protection in any new district school board.

The legal status of existing collective agreements be recognized during the transition period until new collective agreements are negotiated.

District school boards should be obliged to accept the liability for salaries and benefits of employees transferring to the new legal entity, the district school board.

The attached OTF Principles for School Board Amalgamation should be incorporated into the act.

The mandate for the EIC should not include any reference to outsourcing of non-instructional services.

Recommendations of the EIC should be subject to debate in the Legislature prior to any implementation.

School Board employees should be considered as full partners in any local advisory committees that are set up by the EIC that are going to discuss the transition to the new district school boards.

The Chair: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. You've used up all of your time. We thank you for the positions you've put before us today.

Mr Carter: I guess we're not going to find out if anything is going to change one comma even in the bill.

Mr Patten: Come to the clause-by-clause.

The Chair: There will be clause-by-clause reading of the bill later on, next month.

Mr Patten: See if they're listening.

Mrs McLeod: It's important, though, that the government has chosen to allow only one day for the clause-by-clause amendment process and only the latter part of an afternoon for third reading debate on this bill.

Mr Wildman: And only one hour for committee of the whole.

The Chair: For your information, the day for clause-by-clause is March 26. Thank you very much for appearing here today.

OTTAWA-CARLETON BOARD OF TRADE

The Chair: The Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, Willy Bagnell. Welcome, Mr Bagnell. We're pleased to have you with us this afternoon.

Mr Willy Bagnell: Good afternoon. By this time you'd probably like to go to lunch, but stick with me for a second.

The Chair: No, you take your full allotted time.

Mr Bagnell: For those of you who aren't from God's country here in the national capital region, welcome. We apologize for our weather, but we understand, in the spirit of equity, that Toronto got its fair share too.

I hope you're enjoying this St Patrick's Day. This is a special day for us, on the eve of the commencement of the board of trade's 140th annual general meeting and the start of our 140th anniversary.

We're pleased to share our views on amalgamation of school boards in the province of Ontario. Bill 104 deals with many aspects of education in our province and sets the tone for governance of our school boards in Ontario.

For over 20 years now, the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade has called for school board amalgamation in our region. Prior to Bill 104, Ottawa-Carleton carried the burden of six school boards. The legislation calls for two school boards exclusive to our region, one public and one separate. We are pleased with this amalgamation and we know it will direct more funds towards educating all our children.

For many years we watched the education system locally devolve into six separate and distinct organizations which created inefficiencies and inconsistencies in educating our children. The board of trade questions whether this was in the best interests of our children, particularly in preparing them for a complex society as adults. Business in our region has complained for many years that students graduating from our local high schools are not as competent in the basics as they were 20 years ago. We believe that Bill 104 is part of a larger solution to this problem.

The board of trade has been very vocal on this issue with all governments over the past two decades. We do not believe in multilayered systems which can be argued are designed to enhance the powers of education trustees. This amalgamation is just one step towards better education for all in Ottawa-Carleton.

The reduction of compensation for school board trustees and the reduction of their numbers is also a positive step. Our belief is that school board trustees' positions are part-time positions that should be filled by a broad range of citizens who represent the diversity of a community. The role of a trustee is policy development and approval, budget monitoring and governance; it is not management, it is not operations and it is not transportation. These items are best left to specialists who are trained and skilled in these areas.

Before Bill 104, we witnessed school boards' move away from governance and policy to involvement in day-to-day management issues. We believe this is due in large part to the fact that the trustees are mostly now full-time individuals who view this position as a job; a job they won by being elected, not necessarily by having any background, training, skills or credentials in education.

We also believe that by reducing the compensation for trustees to a much lower level, you encourage a broader range of people to consider making a community contribution by pursuing election to their local school board. This position is consistent with our views on local government elected officials, who we believe should be part-time and compensated at a much lower level than they are today. The philosophy is quite simple: The money we pay in taxes for education should go to educating our children, not to large salaries or stipends for trustees.

Finally, there is no magic in the number of trustees. Conventional wisdom dictates that boards of directors or boards of trustees or governors of more than 15 to 18 become ineffective because they are too large. We applaud the government for taking this fact into account and reducing the number of trustees.

In conclusion, the points we have just made support with great fervour the spirit and goals of Bill 104: better education for our children in Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bagnell. We have three minutes per caucus.

Mr Patten: Good afternoon, Willy. It's always good to see you. Willy, there is one assertion you made here, on page 2, "We are pleased with this amalgamation and we know it will direct more funds towards educating all our children." What do you base that on?

Mr Bagnell: If you remember the report produced by Len Potechin and Des Cunningham a number of years ago, it isolated a number of situations where the six boards were not combining administrative efficiencies in terms of transportation, information technology, human resource sourcing and payroll and the list goes on and on. They had isolated some 20 areas. The estimates are, for what is a multibillion-dollar expenditure in Ottawa-Carleton, that the savings there could be directed back into education.

Mr Patten: I would have a great deal of sympathy with that statement, and I would assume there are some savings to be made in the various administrations. If the savings were to be put back to support a teacher or a classroom in terms of educational quality, then I would be very sympathetic and I think a lot of people too. The worry is that the savings that are identified will be taken out of education totally because the minister says he's still looking for another billion dollars.

Some people are saying that this is really the framework and a series of doors that will allow centralized control for the province, to now not give back as much money to education as it has in the past, and therefore the net loss to education is quite astounding, somewhere in the neighbourhood of perhaps $1.5 billion to maybe even $2 billion. If that happened, would you be pleased with that?

Mr Bagnell: First of all, I don't think there's any definitive anecdotal, analytical or any other type of evidence to say that. One of the things I've been pretty good at, Richard, and I think all your colleagues know, is getting myself in trouble for commenting on speculation. I will say that in my conversations with the honourable minister he has displayed no evidence of trying to cut the amount of money that goes to children in the classroom.

I also don't believe for a second that what we're doing here is a step towards worsening the quality of our education. I think what we're doing is cleaning up a mess that's been around for two decades.

Mr Patten: Your assumption is still that the money stays in education. I think you'll find that that's not the case.

Secondly, what's the view of your members in finding that the pressure on business tax for education is probably going to be increasing as they have to pick up some of the downloading to municipalities as the property tax educational amounts have been removed?

Mr Bagnell: I can tell you that the pressure on the business community regarding property tax, and the subsequent removal of education from that, has been greeted by the business community with much glee. At the same time, we are also working with our provincial officials and local government officials to determine an accurate number. We have a report from the regional chair that says the downloading or exchange of services is going to cost the taxpayers here $150 million. Two weeks later a report came out from the local CAOs of 10 cities that said it's going to be $60 million. I tend to have a bit of a problem with a $90-million variance. I'm a country boy, and $90 million is a lot of money to me.

1300

The board has undertaken to do an independent financial analysis upon receipt of the figures relevant to Ottawa-Carleton from the Treasurer's office. We have retained a number of our members on a volunteer basis, lawyers and accountants who specialize in this, and we will be producing a report that gives what the actual amount is, the cost to taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton. We'll be soliciting people from both sides of the House to comment on it.

Mr Wildman: Obviously the minister's definition of what is in classroom and what is out of is crucial to determining whether or not kids' achievement is going to benefit from it. I'd like to deal specifically with the figures, and I'll use the minister's figures, so we're not speculating. The minister says the total expenditure on education in Ontario is approximately $13.5 billion annually. He says that Bill 104 will save $150 million in terms of lowering the number of trustees from about 1,900 to about 700 or 800. That's a little over a 1% savings. Those are his figures. The $150 million is a lot of money, but it's only 1%, or a little more than that, of the total bill. He has removed $5.4 billion from the residential property tax, but the commercial and industrial still will be going to education.

I would suggest to you, and I'd like your comment, that what Bill 104 is really about is taking control of education and educational expenditures away from locally elected boards and concentrating it in the minister's own hands so that he can get a substantial amount of money out of Ottawa and Toronto, which may or may not benefit other boards in other parts of the province. The way to do that is not to return the full $5.4 billion in terms of grants but to cut that amount substantially when the new granting formula is determined. Would you be in support of that kind of redistribution of funds out of Ottawa to other parts of the province if that is what is determined?

Mr Bagnell: I can't answer that question because, as I stated to your colleagues in the past, you're speculating. I can only answer that what has been published and what has been read into the record in the Legislature is not what you were stating in terms of the intent. I believe that is the intention of the education agenda that was clearly enunciated during the last election and has been moving forward: to clean it up and make it better for the kids and make it a system that everybody pays into, because presently that's not the case. The intention of the government on this matter has been pretty clearly stated.

As we have seen for the longest period of time now, those of us in the community that employs well in excess of 90% of the people in the province of Ontario, which is the private sector, believe that the education system needs to improve, because the quality of children in the public system today coming out as graduates is not what it was.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you for coming. As you know, no matter which government was in power, they'd be reducing school boards. Mrs McLeod talked about it in the red book; the former government under Dave Cooke, the minister, started doing that, they looked at it. No matter which government was in power, they wanted to reduce school boards. As a matter of fact, across the country every province has reduced school boards. The cry from the public has come, "We want the school boards reduced, but we want more parental involvement." We're looking at that, strengthening the parent councils. Certainly in my community that has been the cry: "We want to be more involved. We want to have more accountability. We want to assist in those decision-making processes."

Two questions: Do you see that as a good idea? Could you give us some suggestions as to how we could strengthen the parent councils' role and how much they should be involved? Could you give us any suggestions on that?

Mr Bagnell: I think the role of the parent councils is critical to the restructuring of how education is governed in our province. So much of what we have in each individual marketplace and the quality of education therein is determined by the employment needs and the general understanding of what's happening in society in that marketplace. As I think everyone sitting around the table today understands, Ottawa-Carleton's future is not based in producing automobiles, it is not based in manufacturing of hard steel products; it's based in producing little microchips that drive your telephone system, it's based in producing pieces of software at Corel or Cognos that are selling all over the world. It's also based in bringing 5.5 million or more visitors to this region every year in the tourism and hospitality industries.

I think parents in this community who are employed by those understand that. I think there's got to be some consideration given to that side of it and understanding that parents should have a say in their kids' education, because ultimately, at the end of the day, the parents are the ones who are responsible until the child grows up and becomes a full-fledged member of society as an adult, which is very challenging today. For most of us who grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, when computers were something that IBM had in a huge garage somewhere and there was one TV station and it was glued on CBC on Saturday night for the hockey game, society is a different place today and we need to recognize that.

For the most part, the business community has said from day one, for the last 20 years, that recognition has not been keeping pace with what's evolving in business and society. I would hope the parent councils will take that into consideration and be given some specific say over what happens in their schools, because their schools are community assets.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bagnell, for coming here today and for taking the time to present your views and answer the committee's questions.

CARLETON ASSEMBLY OF SCHOOL COUNCILS

The Chair: I call upon the Carleton Assembly of School Councils; Carol Nixon. Welcome. We're pleased to have you here.

Ms Carol Nixon: I plan to take full advantage.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today. My name is Carol Nixon and I represent the Carleton Assembly of School Councils. For over 20 years, the board-wide Carleton assembly has served the former parent-school associations and now the 83 school councils of the Carleton Board of Education. I am also the mother of four children, three of whom attend Castor Valley Elementary School in the Carleton board. The youngest is in her second year of private nursery school due to the elimination of junior kindergarten in this area.

Bill 104 is one strategic piece in an extensive plan -- and I use the word optimistically -- for the reform of education in Ontario. Many aspects of the plan are familiar from the Royal Commission on Learning, and yet, despite the apparent congruence between the recommendations of the royal commission and this government's education reforms, Gerald Caplan, co-chair of the Royal Commission on Learning, spoke with great concern about the government's plan for reform earlier in Ottawa this month. He said that the government needs to be convinced to slow down and back up. He said that amalgamation is unnecessary and diverts attention from helping kids. He said that the Education Improvement Commission has no accountability to the people of Ontario. Gerald Caplan thinks the government's education reform package is all about saving money.

As parents and as ratepayers, we understand and support the need for efficiency. But we also believe that every child in Ontario deserves to receive a world-class education, and that is the standard to which we intend to hold our government. Here in Carleton kids come first, and everything I will say today is rooted in this fundamental value.

In considering Bill 104 I am first struck by the short title, the Fewer School Boards Act. The stated purpose of the act is indeed to permit the transition to a new system of governance under which there will be fewer school boards. Why? Will fewer school boards cost less money or be more effective? There is a generally held view that the optimum size for school boards is 50,000 students. Much smaller or larger than this and economies of scale are not achieved. Based on their research, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education has warned that school boards with more than 40,000 students are in danger of losing their connection to the community. But generally there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support the conclusion that 40,000, 50,000 or any other magic number represents the optimum-sized school board.

The Royal Commission on Learning states in its report, "There is no formula, nor do there seem to be any objective criteria, that would allow us to conclude that there are too many school boards in Ontario." Why would the government of Ontario set about reducing the number of school boards without empirical evidence that fewer school boards will in fact be cheaper or more effective?

1310

We suggest that Bill 104 be titled the Optimum School Boards Act and that the government conduct research to determine what is the best-sized school board, given the range of circumstances, both in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Only then will the government be ready to decide which, if any, school boards should be amalgamated.

In the Carleton Board of Education, the costs of administration amount to only 3.3% of the total budget. Over 90% of the budget is spent in schools, with over 72% of the total going to teachers' salaries. The presumed savings from amalgamation will derive from the 3.3% administration figure and will be small compared to the cost of harmonizing salaries and benefits. There is an additional one-time cost of amalgamating school boards which, in the case of Ottawa-Carleton, was estimated in 1993 by government fact-finder Brian Bourns at between $3.5 million and $6 million. This figure excluded instruction-related computer costs and assumed that provincial funding levels would be maintained, changes to legislation would be made to control labour costs, and boards would be given five years to shift programs. None of these conditions is now in place.

Moreover, the upheaval of amalgamating our two large school systems with a combined population of 80,000 students, each with its own unique history and culture, will be enormous and is sure to be felt for years to come. I have seen it for myself, even at this very preliminary stage of the process. Decisions affecting education are being deferred. People throughout the system are worrying about losing their jobs and about changes to a system they value because it meets the particular needs of their students. Staff are busy meeting with their counterparts, studying each other's systems, and identifying issues for amalgamation. The very superintendents of educational services in both Ottawa and Carleton are the main architects of the amalgamation process.

The greatest cost of the disruption to our education system will be to the consumers, our children. The school councils of Carleton require compelling evidence that the wholesale amalgamation of school boards is justified, both in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.

There may be greater savings to be had in the alternative of cooperative ventures between school boards. Parents have been greatly frustrated by the modest progress of school boards in these initiatives and we would welcome the provincial government's intervention in mandating things like cooperative busing and purchasing consortiums. We are cautiously interested in the idea of outsourcing non-instructional services such as transportation, bearing in mind that kids come first. It is important that the quality of services be maintained and that the safety of our children not be compromised by strangers at work in the schools. In a word, we urge the government to make outcomes-based decisions. The expected outcome is a world-class education, efficiently delivered, to every child in Ontario.

Bill 104 also establishes the Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system of education governance. The commission is given extensive powers under Bill 104 to oversee the transition process, coordinate election processes, approve or amend the 1997 budgets of school boards and make recommendations to the minister in a number of areas such as outsourcing.

We object to the fact that the decisions made by the Education Improvement Commission are exempt from review. We object to the fact that the decisions of our elected representatives are subject to the approval of an appointed commission under Bill 104. Finally, we object to the inappropriate name of the Education Improvement Commission and suggest instead that it be called the Transition to Amalgamation Commission.

Bill 104 provides for regulations that determine the number of trustees, the procedures for their nomination and election and the reasons for disqualification from election. The Carleton assembly supports the disqualification from election of people employed by school boards and the spouses of people employed by school boards. While the act does not state that the number of trustees will be reduced, we can assume that this will be the case from the specified range of five to 22 for each district board, and the minister has certainly made clear his intention to reduce the number of trustees, as well as their salaries.

In Carleton trustees are paid the relatively modest amount of $17,000 each year for a demanding and difficult job as advocates for quality, cost-efficient education. We think that our trustees are a bargain. They are readily accessible to their constituents, night or day, across a board spanning 2,700 square kilometres, and they care passionately about the education of our children. Returning to our outcomes-based model of decision-making, will reduced political representation save significant amounts of money or improve education? We think not.

You have by now spent many days listening to the people of Ontario speak about Bill 104. 1 remember observing the Paroian hearings on Bill 100 in Ottawa this fall and Mr Paroian's dismay at how few new ideas he had heard. I have a new idea for you today, one not of my own design but of a fellow parent from the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Anne Plante-Perkins. She proposes a new model for the election of trustees, one meant to address the problem of the general electorate's poor knowledge of candidates and the problem of recruiting suitable candidates, which we expect will occur if the number and salary of trustees are reduced.

My friend Anne proposes that the current method of electing trustees be abolished altogether and replaced with a convention format. She further proposes that geographical groupings of school councils be invited to nominate one candidate for trustee from among the group of school councils or their community at large. The nominated candidates would then be grouped by representative areas or sectors. Each school council would send voting delegates to the convention, based on their school population. Delegates would vote for trustee candidates in all sectors of the district school board, thereby encouraging delegates to become familiar with all the candidates and candidates to gain an overview of the needs of the entire board.

At the end of the one-day convention, the district school board would have its elected trustees, the cost of the convention would be considerably less than that of cobbling trustee elections on to the municipal election process, and candidates would have come from the grass-roots level of the education system: the school councils. The voters in this scenario would be informed and committed. So there you have it, a brand-new idea, and I suggest one worth considering.

We are greatly interested in Bill 104 as it pertains to the role of school councils and the increased involvement of parents in governance. I am a champion of the role of school councils. In Carleton school councils have seized the day. We are advising on the selection of principals, providing feedback to the government on the proposed reforms, advising on school and board budgets, helping to craft effective codes of student behaviour, providing advice to our board on its policies and procedures, participating on staff working groups and board committees, and supporting schools through our fund-raising and volunteer help.

In their first year, two thirds of our school councils believe their composition reflects that of the community and report that their council is functioning at the highest level, while another one third say that their council is operating smoothly. We are proud of the accomplishments of our school councils, and we are proud of our board's support of parents as an integral part of our schools' management teams.

We believe that our umbrella organization, with its 20-year history of parent advocacy, is key to the success of school councils in Carleton. The Carleton assembly acts as the central conduit for information and advice between the Carleton board and its school councils. We meet the needs of our members by providing information and training, facilitating the exchange of ideas, coordinating the advice of individual school councils on broad issues and promoting the direct participation of parents in board decision-making. We take pride in our autonomy and ability to criticize when necessary, while still maintaining a strong working relationship with our board.

I know this committee is very interested in ways to increase the effectiveness of school councils. We strongly recommend that parent umbrella organizations like those that exist in all six school boards in Ottawa-Carleton, and in North York, be encouraged to exist in all school boards across Ontario. This is another gem of an idea to take back with you to Toronto.

But make no mistake about it: School councils are no substitute for school boards, or trustees, or parents working with kids in schools and at home. We are volunteers, with different abilities, different life circumstances and various amounts of time to offer. For these reasons our contributions and willingness to participate are bound to be uneven across boards and across the province. The government must be discouraged from building a system of education that is dependent on the success of school councils. We are a great enhancement to education and should be encouraged and supported to achieve our full potential. However, the education system must be built on a strong base of professional educators, adequate resources and political accountability.

1320

Madam Chair and committee members, the government must go back to the drawing-board on Bill 104. The government must decide, on the basis of empirical evidence, whether Ontario's school boards will in fact benefit from amalgamation, both in terms of their cost-effectiveness and ability to serve children. The government must respect the people's need for local political accountability in education. The government must respect the principles of democracy. The government must better understand both the potential and the limitations of school councils. And the government must continually focus on one all-important outcome: a world-class education, efficiently delivered, to every child in Ontario.

On behalf of the school councils of Carleton, thank you for hearing me today.

The Acting Chair (Mr Richard Patten): Thank you very much, Ms Nixon, for your presentation. Unfortunately, you've used up all your time and there is none left for questions. Thank you very much for coming this afternoon.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 18

The Acting Chair: I call Mr Manning, of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. Welcome.

Mr Brian Manning: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Manning, and I'm president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, district 18, Peterborough.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on this very important matter of Bill 104. I was notified that I'd been granted standing by a telephone call from the Legislature on the afternoon of the last day of classes prior to the March break. Today is the first school day following the March break. The timing has made it impossible to coordinate a joint presentation with other interested parties from Peterborough, but I assure you there is a great deal of interest in Bill 104 in my community.

Peterborough county has about 120,000 residents. It's served by two boards: the separate board, which serves the counties of Peterborough, Victoria, and Northumberland and Clarington; and the Peterborough County Board of Education, which is the public entity. The government proposes to amalgamate the latter with the Northumberland and Clarington Board of Education.

Typically, politicians elected from Peterborough to the provincial or federal government are members of the governing party. Peterborough MPP Gary Stewart and Hastings-Peterborough MPP Harry Danford are members of the government caucus. In that respect, Peterborough is a barometer of opinion across Ontario and the nation.

I represent an organization of 500 public secondary school teachers. We are extremely concerned with the direction being proposed by the government in this bill. That concern, as our MPPs can attest, has manifested itself in an unprecedented number of letters, faxes and phone calls to constituency offices, as well as public demonstrations, petitions and letters to the editor.

We are not alone. School council members, parents, students and taxpayers are asking questions and expressing frustration that their questions are not being answered in any meaningful way. Local newspapers have run a number of articles and editorials addressing education restructuring recently and local radio and television are also reporting it. There appears to be an increasing awareness that something significant and not necessarily good is happening to our school system.

In these few minutes, I cannot deal thoroughly with all that worries us about Bill 104. I can echo some of the comments that were made earlier today. Particularly, I think the Hastings County Board of Education representatives could speak very well on issues that apply to the Peterborough County Board of Education. I will emphasize a few points.

Savings through amalgamation: The Minister of Education has declared that $150 million can be saved by amalgamation. He bases this statement on the study by Ernst and Young, who say of the data on which they based their study, "We did not verify the accuracy or completeness of this data and render no opinion on it." Are we proceeding with a massive restructuring of the education system based on data whose completeness and accuracy have not been verified?

The same study states that per pupil expenditures vary across the province from $4,723 to $9,148, while the provincial median is $6,359 per pupil. The Peterborough County Board of Education spent only $5,981 per pupil in 1996, significantly less than the provincial median. What is the likelihood that significant savings can be found in amalgamating this board with its southern neighbour?

If there really is money to be saved through amalgamation, how much is it? Precisely where and through what process will these savings be found? What will be done with the resulting savings? Will this provide for an enhancement of educational opportunities for the students or merely a reduction of expenditure by the government?

If the government uses amalgamation as a pretext for reducing expenditures, will the cut be $150 million or will it be closer to the $1 billion that the minister has repeatedly mused about?

Regarding the Education Improvement Commission, the proposed EIC is an appointed panel with unprecedented powers for a peacetime body. Its mandate exceeds that of the elected government, enduring through one provincial and two municipal elections. It's accountable only to the Minister of Education and Training, not to the Legislature. It's above the law and beyond the reach of the courts. Furthermore, it's empowered to appoint committees to act locally in its name. Critical decisions about the restructuring of one of the largest and most important institutions in Ontario, our education system, will be made by those who are appointed by a body of others who are also appointed, all of whom are above the law and not accountable to the electorate.

Representatives of this government have frequently and loudly proclaimed that there must be more accountability. Now we have the proposed EIC, which is anything but accountable.

I refer to the "proposed EIC," perhaps in error. Since the nominal co-chairs of the commission, Mr Cooke and Ms Vanstone, are already receiving salaries of $88,000 annually and the government has interviewed candidates for a chief executive officer of the commission at $123,000 per year, perhaps it is more than just a proposal. I wonder how much the operations of the EIC will end up costing the taxpayers, to whom they are not accountable.

Apparently, the government is going ahead with the EIC even before Bill 104 is passed into law. That being the case, what is the purpose of these hearings? This seems like a lot of trouble and expense to incur simply so the government can claim to have sought public input on a bill they intend to pass regardless of what is said here.

On redefining the classroom, no single issue has received as much attention or raised as much furore among teachers and parents in Peterborough as the ministry's definition of what is inside the classroom and what is not. The direction given by the ministry to Ernst and Young was to count library, guidance, preparation time, custodial, maintenance, in-school administration and board administration expenditures as outside-the-classroom expenditures.

Nothing has inspired more doubt about the ministry's understanding of the school system than the suggestion that heat, light and custodial services are not direct classroom spending. Teacher librarians teach; they don't simply dust bookshelves. To suggest that the service they provide is outside the classroom ignores the fact that whole classes migrate to the library to be taught by these experts in how to conduct research and compile reports.

Administration is responsible for the academic and financial recordkeeping that is essential if the system is to continue to be accountable to the parents, the taxpayers and the ministry. Yet all of these areas have been identified by the Ministry of Education as somehow being representative of waste in the school system.

Bill 104 mandates the EIC to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services. In making this proposal, has the government considered the possible effects of contracting out school services? Parents and educational workers are concerned that there could be a loss of control over who is employed to work in the schools and the endangerment of young children that could be the result. With outsourcing, will our schools be as clean and safe, as supportive of students, as accountable and efficient as they now are?

Regarding collective agreements, recently Alberta went through an amalgamation of school boards. I understand that in the legislation and regulations covering the transition it was stipulated that existing collective agreements would continue in force until agreements could be struck between the new entities. The same can be said of the Ontario school board amalgamation in the late 1960s. Also, protocols were established in the regulations for reaching those agreements.

In contrast, Bill 104 offers no guarantees to educational employees. Much is left to the EIC to decide and implement. This has resulted in a high level of uncertainty among employees.

How does the government expect that the thousands of issues involved in the merger of collective agreements will be resolved? Why has no protocol been established for this process, as was done in other school board amalgamations? Has this issue been explored in detail by the government or was Bill 104 tabled without first thinking about the implications for collective bargaining?

In order for the public to have faith in the competence of the government, there has to be more of a definitive response to these questions than simply leaving it to the EIC to work out.

Mr Snobelen, at the opening of the Bill 104 hearings in Toronto, said, "We are now ready to move forward in Ontario." The implication is that the government has some clear vision of where we are going. We ask that the specifics of this vision be shared with Ontarians before going ahead with a massive restructuring.

Bill 104 purports to be about governance but appears to have been designed primarily to allow the government to cut spending and replace the current system with publicly funded private schools. What will the new school system look like? Will it consist of private institutions providing education for profit, to complement the prison for profit and health care for profit models being put forward by other ministries? Will it continue to provide the universal access, accountability, comprehensive curriculum and high standards of the current system? Will educators from around the world continue to come to Ontario to examine and admire our education system as they do now?

It is incumbent upon the government to demonstrate that the proposed restructuring will in fact provide a better system, a better-educated populace, a more competitive Ontario; in short, improvements, not merely changes. We recommend that Bill 104 be withdrawn until such time as the government has clearly delineated for the public where it wants to take the education system and how it proposes to get there. Ontarians want governments to employ good sense, not just common sense.

1330

Mr Wildman: It's been suggested by one of the other presenters that we've spent many days listening to presentations and that we may have heard a number of these points before. I would point out we haven't spent many days -- the government limited the number of days to four days in Toronto and six days outside -- but we have heard a number of comments that have had matters in common: questions around the powers of the EIC, for instance, which you raise.

I'd like to ask a more general question. It's been suggested there's nothing in this Bill 104 that improves the quality of education for students, and yet we have the Premier of the province on television advertising, saying that the government wants to put students at the head of the class. You've said you need to have some vision, which I think is important, obviously, but do you see anything in this bill that will in fact improve the quality of education for students and put them at the head of the class?

Mr Manning: I don't see any evidence to back up an assertion that anything in the bill will improve quality of education for students or educational opportunities for the population generally. I've heard assertions that it's going to prove an improvement in that area, but there's no evidence to back those assertions up.

Mr Wildman: Your concern about the definition of classroom expenditures and the exclusion of principals, vice-principals, teacher-librarians, guidance, as well as custodial, clerical and so on: How would you define education that assists a student in achieving his or her potential? Obviously there must be some division between what is directly related to the student's achievement in education and what is not. How would you define it?

Mr Manning: The classroom is not the four walls the student sits in while he's lectured to by a teacher. The classroom is the educational institution, its environment, its community, the province, Canada, the world. The classroom is more than just what's in those four walls and you have to be able to access it. In order to access it, you have to have resources and you have to have personnel.

The whole idea of defining a narrow definition of what the classroom is seems to me just a way of setting up an area which is not a classroom and can therefore be cut. It's simply to set up an opportunity for savings. That's the way it reads.

Mr Skarica: Sir, you referred to the Ernst and Young report and you quoted from the report. I'll quote from it, "We did not verify the accuracy or completeness of this data and render no opinion on it." But I wonder if I could read the two sentences prior to that statement: "The ministry's estimate of savings is based on the budgeted costs for 1996 as submitted by the school boards. In completing our review, we relied on the cost data provided to the ministry by the boards and summarized in a report on school board spending 1995-96."

Surely you're not suggesting we can't rely on the cost figures given to us by the school boards themselves.

Mr Manning: Indeed I am. Sir, it isn't that the school boards intentionally misled the ministry with the data that were provided, but the parameters they were given for the data they were to provide were not explicit enough, and as a result different boards interpreted those data in different ways and submitted figures that had different meanings. The minister has chosen to use the data submitted, and Ernst and Young directed to use the data submitted, as if they were reliable and accurate. Hence their statement that they render no opinion on it; they haven't verified it.

Mr Skarica: The savings according to Ernst and Young would be in the neighbourhood of $150 million. By my calculations, you could hire 5,000 teachers with that money. Surely 5,000 new teachers would help to lower the teacher-student ratio and improve education in the province.

Mr Manning: I can't disagree with you there. I'd welcome the hiring of 5,000 new teachers; thank you.

Mrs McLeod: I also feel the need to put on record some of what the Ernst and Young report said. There are two reports. The particular one that you were citing also makes the statement that they do not believe, even with the data they've got, that they can identify or that the ministry knows what makes the costs in some boards higher than the costs in other boards, and that the ministry needs to essentially go back to the drawing board and understand the special needs that may exist that are beyond a board's control. I think if we're going to cite reports we need to be sure we're citing the total context of those reports.

I also want to take a minute of my time to thank you for making the effort to come today. The limitations that have been placed on the time we have for these hearings mean that we cannot in any way hear from the teachers, the trustees and the parents of the students from each of the boards that is going to be affected by this particular bill, and I think that is truly indefensible for changes of this magnitude.

It may seem odd to people that somebody from Peterborough would be here in Ottawa today making a presentation, but it was either here or Barrie for you. There was no convenient place for people from Peterborough to be heard.

Mr Manning: This was the only option.

Mrs McLeod: I just want to thank you for making that effort.

If there's time for one quick question, you mentioned outsourcing, one of many issues of concern. There is a new proposal that is apparently being considered at the municipal table, not the education table, which would suggest that to help fix some of the mess of the offloading, they would have the municipalities pick up the cost of school custodial care, secretarial services, capital construction and busing. If there's time, I'd like you to comment on what that might do to the school community.

Mr Manning: I recently had an opportunity to hear the Peterborough county clerk and the clerk of the city of Peterborough comment on the net result of the mega-week announcements for taxpayers. The good news, they said, was the removal of the education tax. The bad news was some $36 million of additional downloading in Peterborough county and the city of Peterborough. Now, if in addition we're going to put on the municipal taxpayer the costs of these services --

The Acting Chair: Mr Manning, thank you very much. Your time is up. We appreciate you coming all this way today to make your presentation.

OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION, SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Acting Chair: I'd like to call forward Patty Ann Hill and Linda Hunter, the special education advisory committee. Welcome, Ms Hill.

Patty Ann Hill: First of all, I want to explain we have a package that we have given every one of you and it backs up the information in my 10-minute speech, which is a summary of the information in my 25-minute speech.

The Acting Chair: You have 15 minutes, by the way.

Patty Ann Hill: I know. That's why we've got the 10-minute version. I am presently the co-chair of the Ottawa board's special education advisory committee and I have been the chair for six years. Let me say how pleased I am to be speaking to all of you. This is a really special issue that is close to my heart, having had two children with special needs.

I wanted to advise you that the special education advisory committee is provincially mandated. We have to be there. My comments are representative of discussions held on Bill 104 at our March 6, 1997, SEAC meeting, and as I said there is an attachment listing our full range of programs and services.

I'm going to start with a wonderful quote: "Special education ensures that all children receive an education regardless of any exceptionalities or circumstances." I'd like to tell you that this is from the provincial government Web site on Internet, but it doesn't ensure anything.

There's no standardization in the way we service our special needs clients. Each board is different, whether it is because of political will or money or philosophy. Parents run from one board to the other, desperately trying to get their children properly educated. The role of special education is to develop a child to his or her potential so they may become a productive member of society.

Before I go too far, I'll give you our recommendations and then I'll complete the rest of the conversation.

We came to the recommendation that we wanted to ask you to reconsider the amalgamation of the Ottawa-Carleton school boards specifically because of the negative impact on special needs for the children of the Ottawa board, and if an amalgamation, the complete two boards.

If you decide to pursue this objective, then these items have to be in place: a survey to identify needs throughout the province, the location of those needs and the availability of community services; and an agreed-upon provincial-wide model that meets the needs of the special students and their families, which includes not just special training for the classroom teacher, but all the supports necessary for each student to achieve his or her potential; we would like to have the inclusion of preventive programs.

Funding: We need to recognize different needs, a varying scale of funding based on student needs and including support resources. Our SEAC is willing to assist you in the development of the funding model rather than be limited to commenting on a Queen's Park funding proposal.

1340

The ministry should develop a province-wide model for integration. Along with a range of services that most of us provide, there seems to be no policy regarding integration. We want to identify and specify the number of special needs children and the specific size of class, with supports if necessary, and specific teacher training to ensure that all the students in the classroom receive a proper education.

The Ottawa Board of Education special education advisory committee feels very strongly that as a school system belonging to the Ottawa-Carleton area, we need to be there for all the children of this community. Not every child comes through the doors ready and able to learn. Some children have learning disabilities such as language difficulties, neurological damage, perceptual handicaps or physical handicaps, or their education has been interrupted because of family violence, death or suicide of friends, and poverty. Some of them are abused, emotionally, physically and sometimes sexually.

Our area is quite different from the Carleton board area. One of every seven children in the Ottawa-Carleton area lives in poverty. That equates to 24,000 children. Nearly 15,000 of these children live within the boundaries of the Ottawa Board of Education, as we have 90% of the social housing in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and the highest concentration is preschoolers and kindergarten children.

You can well understand our desire to commit to junior kindergarten. If you put the same amount of money into preventive services that you are going to put into each of the superjails, I guarantee, and research will support me, that you will have less crime, less violence, less suicides and you will have a more productive, healthy, stable population that will be the envy of every province in Canada as well as elsewhere.

On the other hand, if the support for these services is not adequate, the students not receiving their supports as needed will be ready for the brand-new superjail, I would say in about three years, and then you're going to be paying $40,000 to $60,000 an inmate.

There is no point in providing inadequate funding and just warehousing these children. We cannot accept a lowering of standards to meet a certain funding model of which we know nothing. The children of this province are the future of this nation, and we need to make sure they are properly educated and cared for within this province.

All the people on this panel were given the best available education at the time. There seems to be a selfishness and an élitism pervading every level in this country. It's quite intriguing that the taxpayer out there will pay a small fortune for a private school, but scream at the slightest increase in education taxes. Senior citizens complain about education taxes, forgetting that the parents of today are contributing towards their pensions, and furthermore, that their children had a good education -- elementary, secondary and post-secondary -- at the taxpayers' expense.

I hear many young people with high salaries and high expectations complaining about the high taxes, as they live in their lovely homes and enjoy a standard of living that I could just dream about. They forget that it was my taxes, and my parents' taxes and my grandparents' taxes that subsidized their education, and it will be my grandchildren's taxes that will pay for their heart transplants.

A public board of education is required to serve all students, regardless of ability, disability, race, religion and ethnocultural background. We cannot educate a child who has been emotionally abused, or can't talk, or can't hear or is developmentally delayed, without the proper support: social workers, psychologists, educational aides, occupational therapists and speech pathologists, and yes, even the expert to take care of the equipment are all part of the solution.

We have come to the determination that services, medical, educational and social are best handled within the educational model. As you know, as funds become less available for outside community services, the impact on the classroom is becoming critical. For instance, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario shut down its mental services unit in November 1996 in order to see the children on the waiting list, some of whom have been waiting since 1995. This impacts on all boards of education.

Many of our parents moved into Ottawa from neighbouring boards. They moved from other cities and even other countries in order to access the services that are in the Ottawa Board of Education, specifically our special education and support services.

If a special education child is in a normal classroom without supports, he or she can be disruptive or violent or, on the other hand, just too quiet. If they are disruptive or violent, they are depriving the normal, average student of precious classroom teaching time, which is outright discrimination to the pupil needing the supports, but it is also discriminatory to the average student in the classroom.

At this time we have a full complement of learning-disabled, immigrant, emotionally disturbed, autistic, severely handicapped, and we even have juvenile offenders throughout our schools. We have many more children with special needs, as we are an inner-city school board. Will the funding assure that every child throughout the vast region of this new board receives the services that are now operative in the Ottawa board? For instance, an autistic child requires an expenditure of $40,000 per pupil. A child in the McHugh units can cost up to $20,000. This is a real cost to boards and hence to taxpayers. We have to have reality-based funding for special needs. We cannot water down special education and support services in order to meet some of the needs of some of the children within the Ottawa and Carleton board area.

Our SEAC wants to stress the need for one ministry, or at least more integrated services between ministries, that handles all health, educational and social issues with regard to children. For instance, should the education system be paying for a firm to come in to check for pediculosis, otherwise known as head lice? Isn't this a health issue? The government itself has initiated the involvement of the health department with the inoculation of secondary students against hepatitis B. The testing for hearing and vision problems prior to school entry used to be done by the health department. Now they are no longer involved and we do not even have nurses.

In the past, and even now, school boards dumped exceptional children on other school boards, because the originating school board did not have either the facilities or the will to have a wide range of services. No allowance was made for the emotional effect on student and parents. There should be equity in this province based on student need.

We are going at this process backwards. First you need to define the student needs; second, you need to develop the programs to meet the needs; and finally, fund it properly.

Finally, our members are greatly concerned about the proposed structure in Bill 104 which puts the centre of power and the real decision-making process in Toronto. There is no accountability and no local representation. At least now we have direct access to decision-makers. At this point in time access to SEAC, to central admin staff, as well as to trustees by parents is relatively easy within the existing boundaries of our board. Expansion of these boundaries as is planned with the coming amalgamation will inhibit this access, especially for those who depend on public transit and for those who live in the inner city.

We finish with a portion of a letter written by our integration action member Jane Naugler: "As a member for IAG, anything in Bill 104 which would narrow any parent's access to the representatives of the ministry and school boards will be of concern to us...certainly fewer trustees, centralized funding will have an affect on parents advocating for their children in difficult situations."

We want local access to decision-makers and input to educational issues that will affect our children. This is why we, as an association and as a SEAC, are concerned about Bill 104. Thank you.

Applause.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please. In the interests of time I would ask you to refrain from clapping.

1350

Mrs McLeod: I think you articulated one of my great concerns and that is that if we're actually going to have funding that is fair for students, it needs to be equity-based on students' needs and an understanding of students' needs. I was saying at the end of the last presentation that one very clear statement that was made in the ministry's own consultation study was that there is not yet that understanding of why there are factors beyond boards' control that drive costs up, like the numbers of special needs students.

What happens if what we get is a simplified grant system, which the ministry wants to move towards, where we would maybe have a flat rate for special education needs and an assumption that every board is going to have 5% to 10% of students with special ed needs? What happens then to special education?

Patty Ann Hill: That would work fine for the small board that doesn't have the population the inner-city boards do. What would happen is the special ed services would be quite thin, because when you have one child at the $40,000 level, that child could take a big percentage of the funding. So far we have been able to manage simply because we had our own property tax base etc, but with that type of funding you're not going to get the length and the breadth of services that you're going to need. That's our concern.

Mr Wildman: Thank you for an excellent presentation. I couldn't agree more with your view that you define student needs first, then develop programs appropriate and then determine how you're going to fund it adequately.

Having said that, the minister has repeatedly indicated in the House and elsewhere that special education has not been hurt by the cuts that were made, the $400 million in grant-dependent boards in 1995 and 1996, and will not hurt in the future, and yet you're suggesting that you should not be amalgamating boards or it's going to hurt the Ottawa board particularly as an inner-city board with significant needs. What's your reaction to the view, first, that special education has not been adversely affected by cuts to grant-dependent boards and, second, the effect that you anticipate in a board that up to now has not been dependent on grants, the Ottawa board?

Patty Ann Hill: The Ottawa board many times gets a bad rap. We're so rich, apparently. We have been able and we had the political will to fund and make sacrifices to have these children seen. There are always ways we can make things better. We're getting more and more of these children into the board. Our concern is that without the proper funding model we're not going to be able to serve them to the best of our ability.

Further, many of us think that since we're going to reform the education of this province, this is a wonderful opportunity to really look at this problem from the point of view of just what kinds of children we have and how many children we have in these circumstances and just really redo the whole funding model. You know, we have a wonderful opportunity here.

Mrs Marland: When you talk about redoing the whole funding model, would you be thinking about redoing the policy model as well?

Patty Ann Hill: Excuse me, the what model?

Mrs Marland: Policy in terms of children with special needs. Where I'm leading with this preamble is to the fact that no government has yet addressed the needs of children with special needs once they turn 21.

Patty Ann Hill: That's right.

Mrs Marland: I know that having asked the two previous governments to try to address the over-21-year-olds --

Mr Wildman: Your government cut adult education before ours did.

Mrs Marland: Our government has just announced $15 million for adult children over 21 with special needs, so I would remind Mr Wildman of that.

But do you feel that in looking at the overall challenge of dealing with children with special needs, be they under or over 21, there needs to be some policy changes and some different ways, and could you give us some suggestions about ways that might be addressed?

Patty Ann Hill: One of the things I see is that we as a society have to come to the conclusion that education just isn't reading, writing and arithmetic any more. It used to be, and it was simple. But it isn't simple, really. You've laid down the law and you've said to us, "You have to educate everybody." We get children into the system who aren't capable of moving a finger and you expect us to do all this out of education dollars. It's crazy.

What you should be doing is looking at a community. First of all, I think it all should be in the school system. All right? If you're going to have occupational therapists and all the rest of it, if you're going to have these children in the school, okay then, let's look at funding through health or through the ministry of social services. Let's look at funding everything that a child would need, but do it within the educational system.

I'll give you for instance. We have the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario -- I've given it to you in the paper -- and they have said to us, "We've had to stop inputting all the children with emotional needs assessment because we have 600 to 700 on the waiting list and they're waiting since 1995."

Now this is horrendous. Part of it is that they're restructuring, but the other part is they can't keep up. Those children are sitting in the classroom and they're causing problems within the classroom because they can't get the help outside the classroom because they are not taking patients. Why haven't we got a system in place that as soon as a child comes into a school board, or wherever, that child has got all the help it needs right there and then? It shouldn't have to run to this hospital, run to that hospital. It should all be done within one central area.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Hill. We do appreciate the time you've taken to be with us and to share the views of your organization.

Patty Ann Hill: Thanks. I hope you all read your packets.

STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD

The Chair: Could I call upon the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Public School Board. Welcome.

Ms Maria Thompson: I'm Maria Thompson and this is James W. Dilamarter. Mr Dilamarter is the director of education of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Public School Board and I am the chairman of the board.

I thank you for this opportunity to appear before the standing committee on social development and to present the views not only of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Public School Board but of its entire educational community of the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

We are the first of four particular groups that are presenting today. During this afternoon, we will be followed by the Leeds-Grenville, Prescott-Russell and Lanark county boards of education, our proposed partners. Each of us represents our own community, but all of us are united in our efforts to ask you to please take another look at eastern Ontario in the name of decency, justice and equity.

Allow me to allay some of the fears of the current government and to put to rest, indeed squelch, a preconception and misconception which have been afforded primacy status within the government. I am the chairman of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Public School Board. However, it cannot be said, should not be said and cannot be conceived that I am here to represent the interests of the trustees. I am not. Likewise, I am accompanied by my colleague James W. Dilamarter, director of education. It may not and it cannot be said that he is here to represent the interests of school board administrators. He is not.

Nor should any of you assume that we appear before you to represent in any way what might be construed as self-interest or vested interests. Simply and succinctly, I put to each one of you the fact that we are here only to represent the interests of students in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and, by extension, the interests of students in this province.

1400

Yes, we are elected trustees and therefore represent the interests of those placed in our trust, the students. Ironic, isn't it, that where our students as a collectivity and as individuals have faith in us and trust in us to do well by them, this government, through proposed legislation such as Bill 104, has brushed aside and negated such trust?

I'm editing, so if you're following me in your papers, you'll have to jump because I don't want to sing this song.

I understand full well that the purpose of the standing committee on social development is to review Bill 104, the legislation which has been referred or tabled to it. I am further aware that it is your expectation that I will in my presentation address specifically various matters associated with this proposed legislation, and this I will be doing. However, I reserve the right in the second part of my presentation to go beyond the actual written legislation which you have before you and to touch upon broader and more far-reaching implications of the legislation which will come about upon its adoption by the Legislative Assembly.

First the legislation: The Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Public School Board, in consultation with its educational community, has reviewed in detail the provisions of the Fewer School Boards Act, Bill 104. Pursuant to its deliberations, the board adopted an official position which I now place before you:

"Moved by S. Airey, seconded by W. LaSalle:

"That the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Public School Board:

"(i) go on public record as not supporting the principles of school board amalgamation as espoused in Bill 104, The Fewer School Boards Act;

"(ii) indicate its strong opposition to the local proposal for amalgamation of four school boards encompassing eight counties;

"(iii) in the alternative, propose an amalgamation of Prescott-Russell with Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry;

"(iv) in light of its proposal, lend its endorsement and support to the respective positions and proposals of the Lanark County, Leeds and Grenville County and Prescott and Russell County boards of education; and

"(v) that the chairman duly communicate this board's position to all parties."

It has been pointed out to this committee on numerous occasions that the primary concern with Bill 104 lies with its outright negation of the local democratic process. The province seems intent upon eliminating local educational governments and their taxing authority and moving control of the educational system in Ontario to the province itself. We endorse very strongly the concept that our locally elected school boards in Ontario have historically worked with the governments of Ontario and have provided accountable, effective and efficient public education systems. We believe that amalgamation, within reason, can occur in this province and can benefit the educational process and can benefit our students. However, the ends do not justify the use of any means.

Simply, there are flaws in Bill 104 that must be recognized and must be corrected, after which we can proceed cooperatively with the government of this province to effect a smooth transition.

Unfortunately, Bill 104 ignores the democratic rights of all our citizens by stripping locally elected school boards of their powers and by transferring to unelected individuals who sit on the Education Improvement Commission absolute power for decision-making. One must hark back to the words that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why should a distant commission, two and three times removed from the local scene, have the power to exercise approval and change of local budgets approved by locally elected boards?

The imprimatur of the Education Improvement Commission becomes even more draconian with the granting by Bill 104 to the commission the power to make decisions which are final and not subject to review by or appeal to any court in the land.

In speaking of unacceptable measures, I must draw your attention also to the unacceptable provision for retroactivity in this legislation. You may wish to look to the federal government in this area. That government's well-meaning intentions to eliminate the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code were successful, but despite the looming menace of the likes of Clifford Olson could not be implemented retroactively. Simply put, any government, rightly or wrongly, may decide upon changing the rules of play, but I caution that it is hardly fair, reasonable or just to change the rules of play for matches, contests and games already played and completed.

As for the future, I remain an optimist. I am confident that this standing committee on social development will take to heart and mind the many comments being made to it and that the committee, through its commitment to do what is right and just, will bring back for the reconsideration of the Legislature a Bill 104 which is true and steadfast to the democratic principles which we espouse and live by and that the bill in its final form will not only be acceptable, but will be beneficial to all involved in the educational process.

The Ministry of Education and Training, the government of this province and the chairs already appointed of the Education Improvement Commission have provided to us a glimpse into the future of what exactly will occur with the passage of Bill 104. I would be remiss were I to ignore these omens and not speak frankly and forthrightly of the deleterious effects the proposals have for our students.

With the creation of district school boards, the government is proposing that Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry be amalgamated with the counties of Prescott and Russell, Leeds and Grenville and Lanark. This amalgamation of eight counties will produce a jurisdiction twice the size of the province of Prince Edward Island, possessing a larger population than that province and possessing to its credit three fewer school boards.

I have alluded throughout my presentation to local representation. The amalgamation of eight counties into one jurisdiction is a further negation of both the rights and expectations of our entire population. A geographical framework encompassing over 11,700 square kilometres with vastly differentiated and distributed populations cannot be seen by any reasonable person in this room as an acceptable step forward.

If we are told to make it work, then so be it. However, at what price a workable model? Let there be no mistaking the fact that this particular amalgamation will lead to the creation of a school board structure with the need for regional offices and with the need for a workforce available to work throughout an unreasonably sized jurisdiction. Where, one asks, is the cost saving? Where, one asks, is the government's commitment to local representation when it may choose, by regulation, to cap the elected officials at a maximum of eight?

Based on the current demographics, this represents one trustee responsible for a ward or jurisdiction encompassing 28,000 to 30,000 ratepayers and a minimum geographical area of over 1,300 square kilometres.

One of the proposed purposes of Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, is to introduce and to maintain equity in the delivery of educational services and programs in this province. If equity is desired, then this committee on social development, and ultimately the Education Improvement Commission, must address first and foremost the inequities that have already been proposed. Eight counties in eastern Ontario are being amalgamated and lumped together to produce a school board with a student population of approximately 40,000 students. On the other hand, proposals for other district boards in southern Ontario provide some semblance of equity. Huron-Perth is combined to comprise 20,800 students and a territory of 5,600 square kilometres. Bruce-Grey is combined to produce 25,000 students in a territory comprising 8,500 square kilometres.

The partners to the proposed amalgamation in eastern Ontario are unanimous in their dissent and propose, with a sense of fairness, equity, and above all, natural justice, that the government not proceed as planned, that the government listen to the needs, the wants and the aspirations of its local communities and target the Prescott and Russell school board to merge with its counterpart in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and to further target the amalgamation of the Lanark and the Leeds and Grenville school boards. On our part, we would retain jurisdictional responsibilities for 15,000 students in a more reasonable area of 5,300 square kilometres, while the contiguous board composed of Lanark and Leeds and Grenville would have a total enrolment of 23,000 students in an area of 6,500 square kilometres.

Ultimately I must present to this committee and to all those within earshot the sincere, convincing petition of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry public school board wherein we ask you to represent the divergent and differing needs of our communities. In the simplest terms imagine, if you will, the school boards in the eastern Ontario horseshoe complex as parent figures who speak for and on behalf of our children and who tackle day in and day out the struggles which are indigenous to our communities.

1410

The city of Cornwall within our jurisdiction has been described as a 19th-century town struggling to get into the 21st century. It has been since its founding a mill town: proud, unabashedly bilingual and tough. It can no longer be described as a mill town because beginning a few years ago the mills began to close. Cornwall now has a population of which 40% is on government assistance, including 19% on welfare.

With all the attendant social, economic and personal problems that this development in Cornwall's history has created, this school board and its coterminous separate board have gone beyond the relatively simple responsibility of operating schools. They have sought and received special funding from all three levels of government to provide services for children at risk. They have created programs for adults to bring Cornwall's level of education to one which will attract new businesses. They have formed a partnership with 12 other agencies to provide immediate help for children and parents through a single-point access program.

Nor is Cornwall alone in its struggles. Throughout Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry pockets of rural poverty demand that our education system look beyond the basics to offer strong multilevel support to our community. It is as if the education system we have in SD&G plays the part of a kindly giant, an unlooked-for role but nonetheless utterly necessary, holding out a strong hand for those elements of our community to grasp while they search for a firmer hold on their future.

Prescott and Russell and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry serve like communities and pursue in common many of the same matters. We stand united as jurisdictions which have successfully addressed the cultural needs of our communities. We have targeted, delivered and implemented programs designed to respond to the particular cultural and socioeconomic mix of our clients. We have systems and services which have bolstered programs and delivered special services as mandated by the government and as required and needed by our population.

In leaving, we need the assurance of this committee and the assurance of our government that nothing is cast in stone -- not the number of school boards, not the proposed amalgamation. We need your assurance that the presentations of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Public School Board, united unanimously with its proposed partners of Prescott, Russell, Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, will be heard loud and clear and will be treated with a sense of decency, natural justice, equity and due process.

I leave off where I began: Our children should expect no less.

The Chair: Ms Thompson, thank you very much for your presentation. I want to thank you and your colleague for being here today. You've used up all your time. Thank you for sharing your views with us.

JOHN CRUMP

The Chair: I ask John Crump to come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Crump.

Mr John Crump: I've brought my assistants.

The Chair: Terrific. We love to see children at these hearings. Have a seat. I hope you'll introduce your co-presenters. They're a wonderful addition. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Crump: My co-presenters are here because the act we're discussing only refers to children once. This is Rosalind, who's in senior kindergarten, and this is Sophie, who's waiting to go to junior kindergarten in the Ottawa board. My name is John Crump. I wanted to mention at the beginning that as a parent in Ottawa I do not support the position of the Ontario Parent Council, nor do many other parents I know.

If this committee is truly interested in the future of the children of this province, then it will recommend that this bill be withdrawn and replaced with legislation that is designed to reform and improve education, not destroy it in order to fund a tax cut.

I have been doing a lot of thinking recently about the kind of society that my daughters are going to live in in the year 2012. In that year, Sophie will have finished high school and she'll be looking back. I'm wondering what she'll think about the time she spent in Ontario's schools. Will the public education system have assisted us in nurturing in them a strong sense of their own self-worth and a love of learning, or will years of noisy, rundown classrooms of 40 kids have ground down their desire to achieve academically? Will they have been warehoused in a two-tier system in which public education has devolved into the poor cousin of an élite system of private and charter schools? Will their classrooms have been places that encouraged debate and critical thinking, or will endless rote learning have taught them only how to memorize and regurgitate and prepared them only for a life of wage drudgery and consumerism? Will they have been educated as citizens or, as somebody said this morning, as "future workers for the globalized economy"?

In the short term, what assurance can the government give to the citizens of Ontario that the non-elected, appointed members of the Education Improvement Commission will know and care enough to represent the interests of local parents and taxpayers? Will the EIC respect local educational priorities and needs? Will the EIC provide an orderly transition to this new regime? Will the EIC understand the unique situation of Ottawa students and the importance of programs and services, some of which you've heard about today? These are the things that the Minister of Education has already termed to be non-classroom items.

Can the members of the EIC tell parents just what curriculum changes are planned and how those changes will benefit our children? Can the government tell us? Is Queen's Park prepared to field, respond to and resolve the concerns of thousands of parents and taxpayers across this vast province once they've removed our access to local democratic representatives in school boards?

I wanted to know what studies this government has done on the long-term effects of the changes outlined in Bill 104. I'm talking about the effects in the classroom, not on my wallet. The minister's office directed me to the bureaucracy. The officials I spoke to informed me that there are no studies. That's something I find incredible, I guess would be a word to describe it. This government is bringing in the most sweeping changes in a generation and they haven't looked at the possible effects of its decisions. Maybe they've forgotten, or maybe this is just a cash cow for the tax cut.

Bill 104 raises a number of legal questions as well, including the broad discretion and powers of delegation given to the Education Improvement Commission and the control it exercises over elected trustees. The EIC's decisions are final and cannot be appealed to a court. The EIC is retroactive. Commencing January 13, 1997, the commission gained control over school boards' actions despite the fact that the legislation is still being discussed in this room. According to one local legal analysis, "Lurking behind these concerns is the broader question of constitutionality."

These issues go to the heart of the purpose of Bill 104. Parents want answers, and this committee has a responsibility to ensure that these answers come before the legislation goes any further. But I don't have much faith that this is going to happen. As committee members know, and as parents across the province are becoming increasingly aware, this bill is not about education, it's not really about amalgamating school boards either and it's certainly not about my children. This bill is about power and money.

We have to see Bill 104 in the context of other legislation and actions of this government: municipal amalgamation, cuts to health care and hospital closings, shifting down the costs of welfare and other social services on to the property tax base, privatizing water and sewer, eliminating environmental controls in the name of efficiency, and the list goes on and on.

These are ideological choices and Bill 104 is an ideological act. Seen in this context, this bill is part of a wider anti-democratic tendency in the current government. The Minister of Education revealed much about the government's ideological position when he stated that it's important to "invent a crisis." By painting the education system as broken, bloated, inefficient, unaccountable and a failure, the government is manufacturing a crisis in order to divert further billions of dollars into its pet ideological project: the tax cut.

Seen in another context, and I find this more insidious, Bill 104 is an experiment, and the guinea pigs in this case are my children. But the participants in any experiment, whether medical, psychological or, I would argue, educational, have to consent. My children are too young to give their consent, so it's up to me, and I do not consent to this.

If for no other reason than this, I would oppose the government's slash-and-burn approach to education because it is undemocratic, simplistic, poorly planned and uninterested in the long-term education of my children. While most parents would agree that intelligent reforms are needed in the system, they recognize that this act is neither intelligent nor interested in real reform. Therefore the government should:

(1) Withdraw Bill 104.

(2) Guarantee a stable funding base and make a commitment that the tax cut will not be funded by money that is properly directed to the educational future of children in the province.

(3) Preserve quality education.

(4) Respect the democratic process by initiating a broad non-partisan consultation process to determine the priorities of parents, teachers, students and other stakeholders.

Finally, as the Royal Commission on Learning wrote, you can't construct a school as if it were a business that manufactures widgets any more than you can manage a school that way, and people aren't widgets.

To that I would add that my daughters aren't guinea pigs and they are not just a new generation of workers in a globalized economy. Their future is worth far more than any tax cut, and if the government doesn't realize this now and if our local Tory MPPs don't realize it, they will by the time this debate is over.

1420

To emphasize this point, I would like to table petitions that parents in Ottawa have collected. These are just a few of the petitions we've collected and we've delivered some already to our local MPPs. These petitions call on the government to properly fund public education and they call for a halt to further cuts to education to fund the tax cut.

Across this province parents are mobilizing, and you're going to hear more from them this week. These are average citizens who have no previous experience in politics but who understand the implications of Bill 104 and other related changes being shoved at us. If this bill passes we will not go away, we will not be silenced and we will remember, come next election day, who among you supported quality education and who supported the government's attempts to take away our rights as citizens, taxpayers and parents. Thank you very much.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please, there will be no outbursts in this room.

Thank you very much, Mr Crump. You've used up your 10 minutes. We thank you for coming, for bringing your children and for the petitions which I assume you will leave with the clerk.

Mr Crump: I'll give them to Mr Patten.

CONSEIL DES ÉCOLES CATHOLIQUES DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE DE LA RÉGION D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

La Présidente : Maintenant je veux appeler le Conseil des écoles catholiques de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton, Dominic Giroux. C'est un plaisir de vous voir der nouveau. Est-ce que vous pouvez présenter les membres de votre groupe ?

M. Dominic Giroux : Je voudrais d'abord vous remercier d'avoir accueilli favorablement la demande de notre conseil de vous faire une présentation. Je suis accompagné de notre directeur de l'éducation et secrétaire-trésorier par intérim, M. Pierre Filiatrault, ainsi que de M^me Madeleine Chevalier, vice-présidente du Regroupement des associations de parents des écoles catholiques, RAPEC, qui fera une brève intervention à la fin de ma présentation.

Le CECLF pourvoit à l'éducation de plus de 14 600 élèves francophones catholiques répartis dans 44 écoles élémentaires et secondaires desservant un territoire couvrant les 11 municipalités de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton. Nous avons vécu trois différents modèles de gestion scolaire depuis 1988 :

Jusqu'au 31 décembre 1988, nos écoles étaient sous la juridiction des quatre conseils scolaires anglophones existants de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton, communément appelés les conseils d'origine ; par la suite, le Conseil scolaire de langue française de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton, comprenant une section publique, une section catholique et un conseil plénier pour la mise en commun de certains services, a vu le jour le 1^er janvier 1989, en vertu de la Loi 109 ; et enfin, le Conseil des écoles catholiques de langue française de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton, sous sa forme actuelle, existe depuis le 1^er juillet 1994, suivant l'adoption de la Loi 143.

En 1996, notre conseil a connu la plus forte décroissance de subventions de tous les conseils de la province, soit une réduction de 7,3 %. En tant que conseil scolaire catholique et de langue française, nous sommes doublement pénalisés au niveau du financement par rapport à la moyenne provinciale. Malgré cette situation, toujours en 1996 :

Nous faisions partie des 22 % des conseils scolaires de la province qui n'ont pas augmenté les taxes scolaires ;

Nous avons effectué notre dernier paiement de la dette de 8,3 $ millions, accumulée entre 1989 et 1992 en raison du sous-financement ;

Nous avons préservé le programme de la maternelle, indispensable pour contrer l'assimilation des jeunes francophones en Ontario ;

Nous avons augmenté le nombre d'enseignantes et d'enseignants en salle de classe ;

Nous avons investi des sommes additionnelles pour l'informatique dans les écoles ;

Et nous avons réalisé un surplus budgétaire, destiné notamment à contrer l'effet annualisé en 1997 des réductions de subventions et qui devrait nous permettre d'investir davantage pour l'amélioration de l'enseignement et l'apprentissage des élèves.

Pour ce faire, nous avons réduit certaines dépenses administratives et de fonctionnement, notamment en transport scolaire, et nous avons repensé la prestation des services, soit par des ententes ou la sous-traitance, entre autres au niveau du développement pédagogique, des achats, de l'imprimerie, de l'entretien et de la conciergerie.

Suite à l'annonce du 13 janvier dernier du ministre de l'Éducation et de la Formation, l'honorable John Snobelen, le CECLF avait déclaré qu'il accueillait avec satisfaction les principaux éléments de la réforme en éducation en Ontario. Pour nous, il s'agissait finalement d'une reconnaissance pleine et entière de nos droits constitutionnels en matière de gestion scolaire, qui se faisait d'ailleurs attendre depuis trop longtemps.

Nous n'avons pas changé d'opinion. Pour les membres du conseil, les élèves doivent bénéficier d'une éducation de qualité dans leur langue et leur religion. Les structures de gestion doivent en conséquence soutenir le maintien de l'intégrité linguistique et culturelle de l'école, et de façon générale, supporter la communauté franco-ontarienne de même que favoriser son épanouissement. Les parents et la communauté dans son ensemble doivent être représentés à tous les niveaux de la structure de gestion, en partant du palier local, l'école, jusqu'au niveau du palier régional, le conseil scolaire, et provincial, le ministère de l'Éducation et de la Formation.

Nous sommes impatients de voir comment s'articuleront les changements, et quels sont les moyens que le ministère mettra en place afin que le projet de réforme serve de catalyseur et permette à l'Ontario de se repositionner sur le plan de l'éducation, et qu'elle reprenne sa place de chef de file au Canada.

Le CECLF appuie, sans l'ombre d'un doute, la création de conseils scolaires de districts catholiques et publics de langue française, partout en province.

A compter du 1^er janvier 1998, les francophones catholiques d'Ottawa-Carleton vivront un quatrième modèle de gestion scolaire en 10 ans, soit le nouveau conseil scolaire de district, dont le territoire inclura également les régions de Renfrew, Lanark, Leeds-Grenville, Frontenac, Lennox, Addington et Prince Edward-Hastings. Le nouveau conseil aura la responsabilité d'environ 16 000 élèves.

Nous aurions certainement préféré que le gouvernement suive les recommandations du rapport provisoire du Groupe d'étude sur la réduction du nombre de conseils scolaires en Ontario, présidé par John Sweeney, qui prévoyait la création de 15 conseils scolaires de langue française plutôt que 11, le maintien des deux conseils scolaires catholiques de langue française existants, celui d'Ottawa-Carleton et celui de Prescott-Russell, et la création d'un troisième conseil scolaire catholique de langue française pour le reste de la région de l'est ontarien.

Néanmoins, nous nous sommes déjà retroussé les manches et avons entamé des discussions avec nos futurs partenaires. Nous tirerons réciproquement des avantages de cette fusion. Nous travaillerons ensemble à la poursuite d'objectifs communs, et ce, pour le grand bien des jeunes et de la communauté franco-ontarienne que nous desservons.

Dans un mémoire soumis en septembre 1991 au Groupe consultatif sur la gestion de langue française, le groupe Cousineau, l'Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association écrivait :

«Le système actuel de financement de l'éducation, le système d'évaluation en particulier, est archaïque et inéquitable. L'exercice mental qu'exige l'adaptation de ce système aux impératifs de la création de conseils scolaires de langue française témoigne amplement de la nécessité d'une réforme fondamentale.

«Le CECLF se réjouit des intentions du gouvernement actuel de faire disparaître les iniquités inhérentes au financement de l'éducation. Vous trouverez en annexe de notre présentation écrite les promesses faites à notre conseil par les deux gouvernements précédents, qui n'ont pas livré la marchandise à cet égard. Le ministre a annoncé le 13 janvier qu'un nouveau modèle équitable de partage du financement sera élaboré afin que tous les élèves profitent d'une éducation de qualité où qu'ils vivent en Ontario. Ce modèle serait fondé en partie sur les commentaires reçus au document de consultation publié en septembre et intitulé Pour répondre aux besoins des élèves. Le nouveau modèle de financement permettrait d'assumer les coûts de l'éducation des élèves, et notamment ceux qui se trouvent dans des circonstances particulières.

«Or, notre conseil a endossé à la fois les éléments identifiés comme les problèmes actuels ainsi que les principes inhérents au financement de l'éducation en Ontario, tel qu'énoncés dans ce document du ministère. Dans cette optique, nous sommes convaincus que, nonobstant le modèle de financement sur lequel la province arrêtera son choix, l'équité inhérente à la prestation de l'éducation ne se réalisera qu'au sein d'un système d'éducation qui prévoira un accès équitable aux ressources, basé sur le nombre d'élèves, et ajusté pour les circonstances particulières des différentes communautés.»

Dans notre réponse au document de consultation du ministère, nous avons identifié les circonstances particulières en quatre catégories générales :

D'abord et de loin la plus importante, l'éducation en langue française ;

La faible concentration d'effectifs ;

La concentration de néo-Canadiens ; et

Les besoins en matière d'enfance en difficulté.

Il nous apparaît essentiel de rappeler au gouvernement que les francophones de l'Ontario doivent bénéficier d'un financement équivalent à la majorité anglophone, et dans des circonstances particulières, ce financement pourra et devra même être supérieur à celui accordé à la majorité anglophone.

Dans la même veine, les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens ont un droit qui leur est reconnu par les tribunaux pour ce qui touche à un financement dit de rattrapage, afin de remédier à l'érosion progressive de la minorité francophone.

Les conseillères et conseillers scolaires du CECLF qui ont siégé de 1991 à 1994 à la section catholique du Conseil scolaire de langue française de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton, ont vécu la mise en tutelle de la section publique, et par défaut du conseil plénier. Certains droits de gestion des francophones catholiques étaient alors soumis au bon vouloir d'un superviseur nommé par la Commission des affaires municipales, CAMO, et ce en raison notamment d'une mauvaise gestion qui n'était pourtant pas la leur. Vous comprendrez alors que ces conseillères et conseillers scolaires expriment un sentiment de déjà vu, face à la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation.

1430

La composition de la commission préoccupe également mes collègues. Le CECLF recommande au ministre d'assurer une représentation francophone, afin de reconnaître la participation de la communauté franco-ontarienne à l'essor de l'Ontario, et par ce fait, de lier étroitement les francophones dans leur prise en charge de l'éducation. La fusion des quatre conseils scolaires, 59 sections et huit comités consultatifs de langue française, en 11 conseils scolaires de districts francophones, représente un défi de taille. Le projet de loi 104 évoque déjà ce besoin de représentation francophone pour les comités locaux d'amélioration de l'éducation ; il suffirait donc de l'ajouter au niveau de la commission en tant que tel.

Nous souhaitons que la commission soit mise en place dans les meilleurs délais, et ce afin qu'elle puisse émettre des directives claires qui élimineraient les obstacles aux investissements ou aux créations de postes dans des domaines pédagogiques, et ce pour les conseils scolaires comme le CECLF, qui ont atteint l'équilibre budgétaire sans augmenter les taxes scolaires, et ce malgré un sous-financement. À titre d'exemple, notre conseil a identifié des besoins pressants visant la création de postes d'informaticiennes et d'informaticiens en salle de classe afin de mieux supporter le personnel enseignant. Cette décision tarde à être mise en oeuvre car elle doit faire l'objet d'une approbation de la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation.

En conclusion, notre conseil est favorable à plusieurs éléments contenus dans la présente réforme mise de l'avant par le gouvernement ; elle vise l'atteinte d'objectifs communs, soit l'excellence, l'équité et la rentabilité.

L'obtention de la gestion scolaire par et pour les francophones constitue un gain historique. Afin que cette gestion soit réussie, nous encourageons le ministre à concrétiser ses intentions de doter l'Ontario d'un modèle de financement de l'éducation qui sera équitable et adéquat. À cette fin, l'éducation en langue française constitue une «circonstance particulière» des plus importantes.

Le gouvernement indique que les changements s'effectueront dans le respect des droits constitutionnels, ainsi que dans la tradition qui confère au palier local un contrôle et un pouvoir décisionnel en matière d'éducation. Il peut en ce sens être assuré de notre coopération. Une entrée en fonction imminente de la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation devrait toutefois faciliter les choses.

L'absence de certains éléments de la mise en oeuvre nous amènera cependant à demeurer vigilants au cours de cette importante période de transition. C'est une responsabilité qui nous incombe.

Je vous remercie de votre attention, et si vous permettez, je vais passer la parole à M^me Chevalier.

M^me Madeleine Chevalier : Je suis ici à titre de représentante du regroupement des associations de parents des écoles catholiques, RAPEC, du Conseil des écoles catholiques de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton. Je suis mère de trois enfants, dont deux à l'élémentaire et une à l'intermédiaire. Je suis vice-présidente du RAPEC.

Le RAPEC regroupe les représentants de parents des écoles élémentaires et secondaires de notre conseil. Je suis ici aujourd'hui pour vous faire part de notre appui à la restructuration en éducation.

Les parents du RAPEC appuient la création des conseils scolaires francophones catholiques et publics à travers la province. Nous sommes heureux de constater que le gouvernement reconnaisse finalement le droit de gestion scolaire aux francophones. Par contre, un financement équitable et adéquat est une condition essentielle à la qualité d'éducation pour tous les élèves de la province.

Avec la grandeur des territoires des nouveaux conseils scolaires de district, les conseils d'école devront nécessairement assumer un rôle élargi. Nous sommes heureux de constater que dans le projet de loi, le mandat de la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation inclue l'étude du rôle éventuel des conseils d'école et de la participation accrue des parents dans l'éducation de leurs enfants.

Malgré le potentiel d'une certaine décentralisation que nous souhaitons comme parents, le gouvernement doit toutefois assurer l'intégrité du système d'éducation provincial tout en visant une équité entre les écoles d'un même conseil.

En terminant, tel que recommandé dans le rapport Sweeney, il est impératif que les négociations des nouvelles conventions collectives, suite aux fusions des conseils scolaires, n'aient pas pour effet d'augmenter la masse salariale totale de ces conseils. Le gouvernement devra assurer que les économies réalisées par cette restructuration seront bel et bien réinvesties intégralement en salle de classe afin que tous les enfants de l'Ontario puissent bénéficier d'une haute qualité d'éducation. Merci.

La Présidente : Malheureusement il n'y a pas de temps de poser des questions, mais je veux de la part du comité vous remercier d'être venus cet après-midi.

OTTAWA ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD CARLETON ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD

The Chair: The Ottawa Roman Catholic board of education and the Carleton Roman Catholic board of education, Jim Kennelly and June Flynn-Turner. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for being here. You have 15 minutes to make your presentation jointly. We appreciate that you've come together to make this presentation.

Mr Jim Kennelly: Thank you, Madam Chair. You'll also be getting two briefs from us today, one from each board. You can have that for your airplane or airport reading.

It's certainly our pleasure to be here today. We're here representing 170,000-plus ratepayers between the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Even with this representation, we had some difficulty securing a spot today, but it is certainly our pleasure to be here and be able to present to you.

Mrs June Flynn-Turner: There are over two million children in this province; over 600,000 of them are Catholics. There have only been 10 days of hearings scheduled. Here in Ottawa-Carleton, there are 36,000 Catholic students. We're very disappointed that not one single Catholic parent group has been given the opportunity to speak here today. They are concerned about the education of their children as well.

Mr Kennelly: As you know, this city is very familiar with the topic of amalgamation when it comes to school boards. In reading the drafting of Bill 104, I believe there are four assumptions that the government has focused on, whether it really meant to or not: the obvious, that there should be fewer school boards; that there should be changes in governance and financing and that amalgamation is required to make those changes; school boards should focus on amalgamation, not reforms, is what we read in this legislation; and we read that bigger is better.

In recent years, we've had the benefit of an independent report from Mr Brian Bourns, and you're going to hear from him this afternoon, so I'll allow him to make those comments, because I'm sure he's heard us support his comments many times. It said that amalgamation will not save money in Ottawa-Carleton but it will cost more in taxes. Although Ottawa has had a few more years to talk about amalgamation, in the reading of Bill 104 we're surprised that the government has not provided us with a plan to implement Bill 104; it has simply been where we want to go but no plan to get there. That is why we support what others have told you today. We believe there needs to be a year's delay in the implementation in order to implement Bill 104.

Mrs Flynn-Turner: For the sake of our students, both our boards are committed, in whatever time we have available to do it, to putting into place the best system in Ottawa-Carleton for our students. However, without answers to a lot of the questions, the task is almost impossible. What will the funding formula be? Will it be equitable? Will it be adequate for the needs of all of the students in this province, from the neediest student to the most gifted? When will we be given the new curriculum? Will there be adequate resources to implement it? Will there be adequate time lines to implement it? How can we harmonize programs if we don't even know what programs are going to be required? What are the rules going to be that govern collective bargaining? How can we harmonize contracts if we don't even know if we're going to be responsible for doing that or if it's going to be done regionally or provincially? As a Catholic school system, we're very concerned that our employees be treated with justice.

Mr Kennelly: In that this legislation was taking education off the property tax and moving education to income tax, we believe that Toronto will be controlling the schools and will be controlling the decision on education. In fact, we believe that the local members of Parliament will now become the school board trustees, and the government is really fooling the public to call school board representatives "trustees." You are giving the impression that trustees will be the decision-makers. Trustees may be the lobbyists, but they will certainly not be the decision-makers, at least locally.

Contrary to what you might expect, trustees agree that there need to be fewer trustees. We have said that in Ottawa-Carleton for quite some time. We do point out, though, that there is a perceptual reduction in administrative costs by getting rid of a large number of trustees. In the Ottawa Catholic board, the percentage cost of trustees is 0.33 of 1% of an $80-million budget. Those are hardly the administrative costs that you want to save.

For 140 years, there has been local representation and partnership in education here in this city. When it comes to Catholic education, there has been a partnership with the church, with the family, with the school board and the school board trustees. That's the threat that is our biggest concern.

We believe there needs to be someone to ensure equity in local education, because in the city core -- and I am only speaking for the city core at this point -- we have 60% of the Ottawa-Carleton poor; we have parents who do not speak English; we have parents who are not able to set up school councils and have financially stable school councils like some, say, perhaps in a professional, two-income family that lives in the suburbs.

We would assume that a new board will make the best decisions for all. But in your legislation and what we have heard from the ministry, we need you to focus on the term "density," speaking as a city board. We believe there needs to be someone who is looking out for the inner-city poor, to make sure there is fairness across the system.

1440

When we look at the legislation, we see the possibility of three trustees out of nine being from the city core, although the city core is the board that is taking the tax assessment to the new board. We believe there needs to be some local ability to tax, perhaps within the business tax. Up until now there has been a percentage of the local tax on capital expected from the local community. Maybe that is where the local community needs the ability to tax, and that is through the business tax. When you look at capital in particular, you need to look for growth in the suburbs and be able to build but you need to take care of old buildings in the centre core. Your local community needs some kind of ability to tax to do that.

Mrs Flynn-Turner: One of our concerns with representation is that we represent three municipalities and five rural townships. Four of those rural townships currently have two trustees on our board. That represents 13% of the board. Will there be any rural representation on this new board that's going to have maybe eight trustees representing all of Ottawa-Carleton? We would like to know why these questions aren't answered as part of this legislation. It's very difficult to comment on the legislation when we don't even know what the representation is going to be.

Mr Kennelly: We want you to focus in on startup costs, and you can ask Mr Bourns those questions. The startup costs for the Ottawa-Carleton police force were $23 million. We ask you to look at Dartmouth and Halifax. It was predicted to be $10 million and has gone to $25 million. We are now hearing from municipalities that they are going to charge school boards to run municipal elections for the school boards. Who is going to pick up that kind of cost? Is it the local school board or is it the income tax legislation?

Mrs Flynn-Turner: As the legislation currently stands, the Education Improvement Commission is above the law. Will they have the ability to usurp the constitutional rights of Catholics to govern their own system? Will there be an appeal process to protect the interests of Catholic students?

Mr Kennelly: On the constitutional issue, we believe that if you control the money, in most cases you control the decisions. If our worst fears come to be reality in this funding formula and the decision-making is all in Toronto and Catholics are not governing Catholic schools, I assure you that the Ottawa Catholic school board and the Carleton Catholic school board and many others will work with our partners, like the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association and many others, to challenge on constitutional grounds the ability of the government to do that. You know the constitutional legislation that says that Catholics must be able to manage and govern Catholic schools.

The funding formula is key to finding out if the government really wants to respect denominational rights, but of course we haven't seen that funding formula yet. That will be the big decision for us.

Mrs Flynn-Turner: The Royal Commission on Learning, which had all-party support, gave us a blueprint to begin building a better education system for all of the children in this province. We have grave concerns that Bill 104 will not make education better, just different, and that our children will be the losers. A whole generation of children is at risk here. We ask you to please make their needs your first priority.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about a minute per caucus.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much and thank you for combining your presentations, although I know it's little enough time to be able to express the concerns you have.

I wanted to ask you about the role of school trustees, as you see it, under the scenario of the new amalgamated boards, with less access, less representation of individual communities, as you have suggested. We've been told by the ministry people that they are going to look at a low-density factor for representation, which might address the rural question but doesn't address the high-density issue which you've raised. But the larger question is, if I can put it to you, how do you see the role of trustees? You've begun to touch on that. Does it lead ultimately to the ineffectiveness of school boards, both because of lack of access and lack of funding control?

Mr Kennelly: From a city point of view, the articulate can usually speak up for themselves. In the inner core, we have quite a bit of difficulty getting parents involved in parent councils and such because we'll have school communities not very far from here that may have representation from 19 different language or cultural groups in one school of 300 students. That makes it very difficult for the local inner-city type of schools to have representation. Our parents have always said they want local people whom they can contact to present their concerns.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. My question is related to, if I could paraphrase your view towards the end of your presentation, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Would it have been more appropriate to have the funding formula presented to the public for consultation prior to the restructuring legislation? Second, how do you respond to the view that has been expressed by Patrick Daly that Catholic boards are holding in abeyance their right to tax and the constitutional issue and they'll wait to see?

Mrs Flynn-Turner: Obviously for us the funding formula is going to be the important thing. I don't know that it should have come out before, but it certainly all should have come together. All of this legislation should have come out as a package so that we had an opportunity to study the whole thing, not just one piece. This piece will be passed as legislation, and it will be more difficult for us if we don't like the funding formula that comes out. What Mr Daly has been saying is that the Catholic school system will give the government the benefit of the doubt at this point and we will wait and see. But if the funding formula removes our rights to govern our own school system, then we will not accept that. We won't sell our soul.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Kennelly, for coming to the presentation this afternoon and for a very balanced report. I just wanted to understand -- looking at appendix A in both boards' reports -- with your coterminous board, who spends most in the English panel per student, the public or the separate system, and is there a difference in outcome?

Mr Kennelly: Is that rhetorical?

Mr O'Toole: No. I'm trying to figure it out here.

Mr Kennelly: The public system in Ottawa spends more.

Mr O'Toole: The second part to that is, in your view, does the French section in those same areas spend more or less per student?

Mr Kennelly: To be honest with you, I'm not as familiar with what the French board would spend.

Mr O'Toole: Do you think we should be testing the students in Ontario as they are, starting today?

Mr Kennelly: I have no difficulty with the testing. I'm a little concerned at the cost that's going into all this testing. I would rather see the curriculum for a year tested rather than having someone prepped for 10 days and then Purolate people in and the government pay for supply teachers and the government provide teachers with lunch while they're being trained to do the testing. I think there is a much cheaper way to do the testing, but I am very much in favour of the testing.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kennelly and Mrs Flynn-Turner, for being here and for giving us the views of your organizations.

LEEDS AND GRENVILLE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: I call upon the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education, Mrs Joan Hodge. Welcome. As you settle, I'll ask you to introduce your co-presenters and remind you that you have 15 minutes to make your presentation. If time permits, we'll ask you some questions.

Mrs Joan Hodge: I am the chair of the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education. I'd like to introduce you to our director, David Reid, and Joe McKeown, our coordinator of legal services and negotiations. Thank you for allowing us to present our views on behalf of the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education and our submission regarding Bill 104.

"It (Bill 104) is the first part of our legislative strategy to implement major changes to the education system in Ontario." With this statement, included in correspondence to the education community on January 24, 1997, the Honourable John Snobelen embarked on his government's campaign to overhaul the governance of public elementary and secondary education in the province of Ontario.

A strategy is commonly defined as a long-term plan or policy. No one in this board argues with the legitimate interest of our provincial government in developing strategies in any area of its jurisdiction, including public education. However, it is vital, in our view, that the long-term plan and all strategies being pursued in its furtherance be made known simultaneously so that thoughtful and temperate examination and assessment might be encouraged.

Since we have neither insight nor vision into the overall plan, we are left with the necessity of addressing each component of the grand design as it presents itself. We are uncomfortable with this approach but none the less hopeful that our observations will go some way in influencing and determining what everyone says they want: an improved education for every student in this grand province consistent with his or her needs and abilities. In attaining that lofty goal, does Bill 104 assist?

1450

Before embarking on an examination of the substance of the act and its foreseeable consequences in its present form, it will be useful to declare our biases. We do not wish you to record that we -- trustees, administrators, teachers, custodians, secretaries, psychologists, psychometrists, social workers, teacher assistants -- are anything other than a special interest group. Our special interests are our students, our children, our grandchildren. To the extent that Bill 104 promotes and advances their interests, so will it ours.

As a matter of record, we feel obliged to dissociate ourselves, our predecessors in office and our staff from certain misstatements included in the minister's speech introducing Bill 104. While no doubt some of us are interested in golf, we have no interest in a golf course. Relief from Ontario winter is not part of our trusteeship. Water does not fall artificially from or in any of our facilities. Our five-figure honorarium is interrupted by a decimal point.

Our presentation with respect to the substance of Bill 104 will address a number of concerns which we have separated into the following topics: democratic process and responsible government; representational rights and the role of trustees; programs and students; funding and taxation; physical geography; legislative agenda; transitional issues.

Democratic process and responsible government: We have had the benefit of reviewing the submissions to this committee advanced on behalf of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. We adopt their comments and recommendations as our own. There are additional concerns not specifically addressed in that submission which we believe ought to be brought to your attention.

Lord Durham is generally credited with the introduction of responsible government into the territory which we now call Ontario. The hallmark of responsible government is not government by plurality nor even majority as recorded at a specific point of temporal reference, such as election day; rather it is, or has been, a delicate balancing of the interests of diverse constituents in the pursuit of the common good. In Durham's day and the more than 150 years since, the cornerstone of political building has been local government. It is truly the only form of government to which the term "grass roots" can be properly applied. Bill 104 will divert and dilute both responsibility and accountability for decision-making based on needs that only the local community is equipped and motivated to understand.

Each step to centralization of the governance of education is a lessening of the influence of those most closely connected to the welfare and wellbeing of the student. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that the bigger-is-better philosophy in terms of units of governance of education is valid.

Representational rights and the role of trustees: Perhaps the most offensive aspects of Bill 104 are those which, while expanding the territorial jurisdiction of the new district school boards, reduce the representation of local electors to participate fully in the policy directions of the new entity.

As the current minister recently noted, confirming what everyone else has known for more than 150 years, a significant role of a trustee is guardianship of the education of elementary and secondary-school-age children. It is worthy of emphasis that in developing the institutional process through which educational governance was to be provided, the representatives of the people were identified as trustees, as distinct from politicians. The distinction is not insignificant. The concept of trusteeship as it relates to education expressly recognizes the special relationship between the holders of the trust and its object: the educational wellbeing of our children during the term of their legal minority. The concept imposes a responsibility and an accountability unlike in kind or importance to those commonly associated with politicians. Decisions respecting better roads or improved sewer capacity are not matters of trust.

Bill 104, in our submission, will significantly erode the principles of trusteeship. It will lead to the politicization of education as a public service. It will restrict access not only in terms of the number of trustees but also in the characteristics of those who seek trusteeship. Personal financial ability, job commitments and family obligations will impede many dedicated, hardworking and interested incumbents and prospective candidates from now seeking the office. The prospect of political party affiliation and the potential use of trusteeship as a political career stepping stone is both foreseeable and disheartening under the regime envisioned by Bill 104.

Programs and students: Apart from the Orwellian designation of the Education Improvement Commission as the body to be established to oversee and direct the transition from the current governance model to the proposed district board system, the absence of anything in the proposed act having anything to do with education or its improvement is remarkable. It is not a stretch in our view to observe that the fragmentation and isolation inherent in the expanded jurisdiction dictated by the district board system will sound the death knell to local program initiatives. The singleminded pursuit of a dubious accounting objective will never be mistaken for educational improvement.

The virtual elimination of junior kindergarten, the gutting of adult education programs and the attempted fast-tracking of secondary school reform are all present indicators of the government's view of what constitutes a quality education in Ontario. The prospect of a provincially created and centrally funded resource allocation model and the lingering threat of a future reduction in support to public education in the order of an additional $1 billion provide no comfort that student needs will be served either as well or at all. Bill 104 will of course significantly reduce one thing: effective resistance by a fully informed local public to an agenda directed to satisfy Bay Street rather than Main Street.

Funding and taxation: While it may be politically astute to separate governance from funding, as Bill 104 would do, it is ultimately a dishonest exercise to undertake. It is worthwhile and instructive to note that the companion piece to the minister's speaking notes on the introduction of Bill 104 was not a political treatise on the merits of locally elected trusteeship as a form of democratic government. It was, rather, a hastily commissioned analysis of financial data provided by the ministry, restricted by its definition and designed solely to discredit trusteeship generally and its fiscal responsibility in particular. Even so, Ernst and Young, the authors of the document, were quick to disclaim, perhaps blushingly, its validity in the following terms: "We did not verify the accuracy or completeness of the data and render no opinion on it."

Nevertheless, Ernst and Young conclude that there are few factors which can predict different spending patterns among boards, that any new funding model should be reflective of a better understanding by the ministry of the variants at play and that best practices by expenditure category should be identified and promoted. It notes, as well, that boards which have more financial resources spend more per pupil than boards which have fewer financial resources. The mind boggles at the depth of these critical insights.

Were it indeed the intent of the minister to determine best practices, exemplify fiscal efficiency, encourage accountability to parents, students and taxpayers, while maintaining an excellent and still-improving system of public education, he could most certainly have done so. A careful and thoughtful analysis of what is happening in fact in boards such as Leeds and Grenville and several of its counterparts across the province would surely have been more effective in achieving these purposes.

It may be, as has been suggested, that the reliance on residential property taxation as one of the primary mechanisms for funding public education is either outdated or inherently inappropriate. The one thing that it has unquestionably achieved is an intense local interest in how and to what purposes locally collected revenues have been applied in the education of our children. It has compelled a diverse range of locally elected representatives to critically examine what the community wants, what the students need, what compromises have to be made and to what end available resources will be allocated.

How can anyone believe or conceive that a local influence will survive in a district school board setting which by design expands the local community to a regional base; diminishes representation and, by extension, accountability to the local community; eliminates all fiscal responsibility for educational decision-making affecting our children; and concentrates all power and authority in a provincial bureaucracy?

Pardon us for concluding that Bill 104 is not about governance; it's not about equity; it's not about economies of scale; it's not about education; and it's not about improvement.

What is it about? It's about scapegoating trusteeship. It's about eliminating measured criticism of government initiatives. It's about diverting responsibility of this government and its predecessors from their obscene reductions in financial support to students in this province. It is, at the end of the day, an excuse to camouflage the withdrawal of another $1 billion from the educational resources available to the benefit of the children of this province.

Physical geography: Today's quiz, boys and girls, concerns geography and arithmetic. What is twice as large as Prince Edward Island, has 200,000 more residents, has 15,000 more students and has three fewer school boards? The answer: The proposed Lanark, Leeds-Grenville, Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, Prescott-Russell district school board.

Attached to our submission is a copy of correspondence directed to the minister from the Lanark County Board of Education. We add our endorsement to the concerns and recommendations noted in that letter.

In our view, bigger is not better, it is simply bigger. We believe, perhaps smugly, that boards of our approximate size in terms of enrolment are the most efficient. All of the statistical information which has been used by the ministry in justifying its direction will support this observation. Amalgamation as an end in itself is totally meaningless.

Legislative agenda and transitional issues: As we indicated in our opening caution, responding intelligently on Bill 104 as a distinct piece of legislation without knowledge of the balance of the legislative agenda for public education is a risky endeavour. It would be some comfort to believe that a fully integrated package exists and that the sum of all the parts will equal its whole. We are sceptical that this will be the outcome. We were once promised a toolkit to assist us in grappling with the expenditure reductions in education. That turned out to be a fool's kit. The same minister is still in place.

Within the body of Bill 104 is the creation of the so-called Education Improvement Commission, an appointed bureaucracy with supra-parliamentary powers and authorities. When it is fully legally constituted and empowered to act, it will be in effect the Ministry of Education. No force, whether of reason or otherwise, will be permitted to stand in its way. It will be, in terms of school boards, its very own government for the next four years. Is there no one on this committee, and particularly from the government side, who finds this prospect scary?

Did anyone in this province vote this disturbing power and authority without responsibility to David Cooke or Ann Vanstone or whoever else might be willing to be co-opted? Is the Legislature of this province so bereft of commitment to principle that it is prepared to substitute political anointment for local democracy?

What is the budget established for this additional, unnecessary and intrusive bureaucracy? What else is on the horizon? How will Bill 104 interact with other legislative changes which must surely be coming, Bill 100, the Labour Relations Act, pay equity, general legislative grants? What are the transitional costs, and where will the funds come from? What is the impact in human terms on employee morale, job security, training and development, dislocation and unemployment?

If there is a whole picture, present it for public viewing. If it is still a work in progress, delay any further action on Bill 104 until full and meaningful public input has been provided. You owe that consideration not to us but to those we proudly represent.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Hodge. I regret you've gone beyond the allotted time. Your presentation was most interesting, and I allowed you to carry on. Thank you and Mr Reid and Mr McKeown for being here this afternoon.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are recessed until 3:30.

The committee recessed from 1505 to 1532.

WALTER ROBINSON

The Chair: I'll ask Mr Walter Robinson to come forward. Thank you very much, Mr Robinson, for being with us this afternoon.

Mr Walter Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the committee this afternoon. My name is Walter Robinson. I'm a past president of the Ottawa-Carleton Junior Board of Trade here in the region, representing over 150 members and associates. My involvement in education stems back to 1993 when we authored a report on school board reorganization in Ottawa-Carleton, as well as being a candidate in the 1991 and 1994 municipal elections. I may add that I was an unsuccessful candidate, and given the changes we're undergoing in our education system today, I think that's not a bad thing.

My present position is as manager of business development for a large international company which specializes in alternative service delivery to government and other organizations.

I'm here to applaud the general intent and thrust of Bill 104, known as the Fewer School Boards Act, or as some people have referred to it, the fewer school board act. I'd like to applaud the government's initiatives in terms of the conflict-of-interest provisions it has put into the bill in terms of teachers and spouses of people employed in the educational system holding trustee positions in contiguous or the same boards.

As well, I'd like to applaud the move towards site-based management through greater parent councils. I think they're very important in that parents have a great role to play in the administration of our local schools and school boards.

I'd also like to offer just a few concerns. First, on the cap on trustees' salaries at $5,000, I know full well the effort that many trustees put into sitting in school board discussions, and I see Mrs McLeod there and others who have served as school board trustees in the past. The $5,000 honorarium is very much a pittance for the effort and time and hours that all trustees put in, regardless of their political persuasion or the views they bring to the table. I think they all share a passion for public education. I'd ask you to look at that provision and see if there's a more equitable figure that could be given for the new defined role of school board trustee that you're looking to put forward.

As well, I would question the legislation requiring school councils. I have no problems with school councils, but if you're going to legislate something, legislation requires enforcement. How do you enforce a school council? In the Ottawa-Carleton region here where I ran in the downtown core, there are some schools with great new Canadian communities or parents who send their disabled children to these schools, and getting back into the core for parent council meetings is sometimes a challenge or they're not culturally predisposed to having a say in school board management and they defer to authority. I'd question how you're going to legislate school councils. If you can't have a school parent council, what are the penalties for that?

Finally, I could see the bill going further in the form of pooling. There's a big argument against pooling the commercial-industrial assessment around the province in terms of Toronto's commercial-industrial assessment coming to Ottawa to fund schooling or the Ottawa-Carleton commercial-industrial assessment going to fund schooling in another part of the province. To me, education is a public good. It is like health care. If I'm a business owner, I don't really mind whether my taxes go here to support education locally or go to support education in Sudbury. All students should have access to that education. I think it's the same principle as health care: Where you pay your dollars doesn't matter; it's for use by the general public.

Those, in a nutshell, are my comments on Bill 104. I'd entertain any questions you may have.

Mr Pettit: Thank you, Mr Robinson, for your presentation. You've indicated some of the things you like about Bill 104, but maybe you could tell us what, if anything, you see is wrong with the system as is?

Mr Robinson: In terms of the general educational system, one place where the government could move in concert with school boards is in the concept of land banking. Your government's and the Liberal position papers were on moving away from land banking for school boards. The minister has outlined his wish to have a great deal of information technology infrastructure in the schools, and disposing of a lot of the surplus real estate assets that some of your urban boards have which are in very little- growth positions would go a long way to funding some of those infrastructure costs for education to make our students more technologically literate. That's one area.

Mr Pettit: Anything else?

Mr Robinson: Just a greater move to site-based management in the school system, especially if you've taken property taxes off the local tax bill and put it into general income levies in that sense.

We have to question the role of the school board trustee. The school board trustee was there to fight for local tax interests: the 30% of the people who have kids in the system and the 70% who pay rates who do not have children in the system. They were there to fight for all those interests. When you've taken that off the local tax bill, you have to redefine the role of the school board trustee, which I think you're doing in the legislation, or you've made a commitment to do.

Mr Pettit: I think you make a good point on the legislation of school councils, as to how you enforce that. That is probably something we will have to look at. It's been my experience at a lot of parent council meetings that I've attended -- in fact, most were by acclamation on the parents' councils, and second, there weren't a lot of other parents there besides the actual council. I think you raise a good point as to how you force a school council upon a school if there's no parental interest.

Mr Robinson: Legislation without enforcement just keeps a bureaucrat in a position; it doesn't serve a public purpose.

Mr Patten: Mr Robinson, good to see you. I appreciate your comments. I know you have sensitivity towards some of the trustees. I would be interested in your comments related to the role of the so-called Education Improvement Commission that will essentially render the trustees somewhat impotent throughout this amalgamation period -- this commission will be in place until the year 2000; that's still another three or three and a half years or whatever -- and whether you feel that model, which essentially does not honour democratic local participation, is a good thing.

Mr Robinson: I can't call you Mr Patten. I have to call you Richard; you're my MPP. In a sense, I don't think they're going to render the trustees impotent; I think they're going to redefine the role of the trustees. Remember, the democratic role, Richard, for the trustees is that they were there to represent a local taxation interest first and foremost. That taxation interest has been put on the provincial income tax, if you care to say so, so people will be calling you now in terms of where those dollars are going, or any other members around the table.

Where the Education Improvement Commission can look to redefine the role of the trustees would be in Bette Stephenson's green paper, I believe in 1979, called the Role of the School Board Trustee --

Mr Patten: I'm too young for that.

Mr Robinson: So am I.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not.

Mr Robinson: That was basically tabled and I think there's still a lot of good information in there which could help redefine the role of the trustees, who still have roles to play.

Mr Patten: There still will be a business tax related to education so the trustees would still have some role related to that, while it's not the individual property taxpayer any more.

Mr Robinson: They're still paying, in this region, about 51% of the freight for local taxation, especially here in the downtown core. Where you're here now pays about 70% of the education bill in this region, so the downtown trustees, if they have a more proportionate role to play, is definitely in representing those business interests. But as I indicated before, I am personally not against -- education is a public good to be accessed by all citizens of the province.

1540

Mr Grandmaître: I want to go back to land banking. That's very interesting. What are your thoughts on development charges?

Mr Robinson: Development charges in general -- I know we're kind of jumping out of the realm of the legislation we're supposed to be discussing -- are a prepaid property tax to fund development in outlying cores. As you know, they are a very contentious issue in this region. I have no thoughts on them, and I don't think they're relevant to what we're discussing.

Mr Grandmaître: The government at the present time will prohibit school boards from charging lot levies. Do you have any thoughts on this? Do you think school boards should continue to have development charges?

Mr Robinson: I have no thoughts. I haven't given enough thought to the issue.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Robinson. We appreciate your coming here and giving us your views.

BRIAN BOURNS

The Chair: Will Mr Brian Bourns please come forward? Welcome to the committee.

Mr Brian Bourns: Thank you very much. I am here more than anything because I was appointed by Mr Cooke in 1993 to have a look at the school board structure in Ottawa-Carleton specifically and look at a couple of things, whether there should be any amalgamations or changes in the structure and, in the alternative, whether there might be closer cooperation between school boards to reduce costs and get some of the savings that were hoped for through amalgamations.

The findings I had, remembering this was now four years ago -- first of all, dealing with the French board, the French board in Ottawa-Carleton had a peculiar structure in that there was an attempt to create one board out of a combined Catholic and public sector program. We had Catholic and public sectors, much as you have French-language sections in some of the existing boards, each of which was supposed to respond to a plenary or an overview council that provided some joint services to the two boards.

The findings I had at the time were that there was no way to effectively give the plenary the authority to carry on its activities without infringing upon the constitutional autonomy of the two groups it was serving. Since the two groups couldn't agree on what they wanted out of the plenary, the result was in essence that rather than saving duplication, we had triplication, with the two panels setting up their own structures to duplicate what was in the plenary group. I recommended to, and the government did eventually abolish, the plenary and established the two school boards which you're now contemplating expanding the geography of as separate entities. I believe that has worked well in the sense that it has eliminated the friction and even allowed for more cooperation which can happen on a voluntary basis than was happening on a forced basis.

In looking at the English boards, I found at the time that there was some potential to save money by amalgamating the two public boards and the two Catholic boards. The savings I forecast strictly from amalgamation were about $5.3 million for the public boards and $1.8 million for the Catholic boards, not huge numbers in the context of roughly a $1-billion budget for education in Ottawa-Carleton, but certainly some numbers.

I also found there were additional potential savings of about $15.4 million for the public boards and $1.5 million for the Catholic boards if they not only amalgamated, but changed the way they did business and adopted best practices in a number of areas that we specifically reviewed.

Put those together and you've got a somewhat more substantial number in terms of savings that might be achieved by carrying out an amalgamation. It's probably important to realize, though, that those numbers may have decreased in the meantime, as the amount of superfluous or duplicative administration at each of the boards has decreased as their spending levels have gone down in the last three or four years.

Other issues came up in my study of amalgamation that I thought were important and warranted consideration. There are radically different levels of service between the boards that would be amalgamated. In the most extreme example we had, on the public board side, if your child was having some difficulty reading they would get an appointment with a specialist within two weeks and if they were found to need some remedial help they'd get it within a month; if you were in the Carleton Catholic board it would probably be a year and a half before you'd get an appointment to be evaluated and you'd likely not receive any remedial help. That was not as a result, obviously, of differences in the intention of the trustees or in the value they placed on dealing with these problems, but really as a result of the differences in resources available to the boards.

There are also different approaches to carrying out the same programs. Again, looking at the Catholic board, we had one school board that has all of its schools in a 50-50 English-French program; that's what you get if you go to elementary school. The other board essentially provided a quarter of the time French and later on provided immersion options. Those are quite different approaches to dealing with the same basic need and they would have to be resolved in bringing the boards together.

Similarly, there were quite substantial differences in culture between the boards that really reflected the differences in resources available but also the history of the boards and the leadership they would have.

There were also what I called the fairness issues, and I think these are key things that need to be considered here. Within the Ottawa boards you could generally have $1,500 or $2,000 a year more spent to educate your child than you could if you were in the Carleton boards. It's hard to discern a specific rationale for that kind of difference. On the other hand, if you were in the Ottawa board you would wind up paying lower taxes for education purposes than you would if you were in the Carleton board, essentially because the Ottawa boards had fewer children per household and more commercial assessment per household than did the Carleton boards. Those issues would tend to be or could be resolved to some extent through an amalgamation.

The other issue that came up was the question of trustee roles, and here I will depart a little from dealing with what I found back then to making a comment on the approach that's taken now, and it may perhaps be coloured by my own history as a local politician. Having thought that role had some value and provided some service to my community, I find it fascinating that we're going to ask an extremely small group of people to manage essentially a $1-billion industry in Ottawa-Carleton and do it for $5,000 a year while paying full attention to all the parent, student and community needs they're there to serve. One has to ask whether it's worth having trustees if that's the level of respect and purpose we're going to give to their efforts.

I found in 1993 that there were two major barriers to being able to implement amalgamations in Ottawa-Carleton. The first was the education financing regime, which at the time would have created a tremendous shift in resources between boards and would also have wound up actually reducing the province's contribution to education in Ottawa-Carleton, not something residents here would be overly thrilled to see. These may well be on the way to being resolved. What I said was that amalgamation shouldn't be looked at until education finance reform has been dealt with effectively. We haven't yet seen the new funding regime, but at least the current position appears to be that it won't be property-tax-based. One would expect that to largely eliminate the difference in availability of financing to various boards, making the system fairer and at the same time eliminating the barrier to amalgamation.

There's something else that might be of interest to you, and it's perhaps slightly beyond your scope, but as the new financing system comes into being -- at the time I did a review of, what is it that drives education spending? Is it just that big boards spend more money? Is it that little boards spend more money? Is it that boards with special needs spend more money? Is it that boards with higher assessment bases and greater access to revenues that spend more money?

1550

Interestingly enough, I found that at the elementary level a thing called the compensatory education grant had the strongest correlation to spending. The compensatory education grant is given based on the extent of poverty, assisted housing and other social measures within a board's area enrolment.

The second area of importance was assessment wealth. The fact that boards had more money wasn't the only reason they spent more money, but certainly if they had more money, they did spend more money. Similarly, at the secondary level, assessment wealth was the biggest driver of spending, French as a first language was the secondary one, and the compensatory education grant was the third one.

The reason I raise that is that as we look at going to a new system that's per capita based in some kind of sense, it appears there's a temptation to treat all capitas the same. While the old system provided benefits from living in a wealthy area which the new system should properly eliminate, somehow or other, and I don't know how or why, the old system also allowed for higher spending in areas with measures of higher social need. I certainly hope the new system will maintain that, hopefully on purpose rather than perhaps by accident as it may have in the past.

The Chair: Mr Bourns, could I ask you to summarize please?

Mr Bourns: Wrapup: The last major barrier I saw was labour issues, the cost of dealing with creating a collective agreement out of two sets of collective agreements. The tendency, and it was certainly borne out in the creation of the French boards in Ottawa-Carleton, is to wind up with a new agreement that provides the best of both contracts -- the best benefits, the best pay, which may come from opposite contracts and result in higher costs overall.

At the time I looked at it, the cost of doing that would be about $12 million for the public boards and $3 million for the Catholic boards; in other words, more than enough to wipe out any savings available from eliminating duplication in the amalgamation process. If you don't find an effective way to lead to negotiating or otherwise arriving at labour agreements that cost the same as the current system, you will wind up losing all the benefits you may get out of amalgamation. I think that is an issue I haven't seen addressed in the legislation as it stands at the moment and very much does need to be addressed in the legislation at the end.

One very last comment: I sense at the moment a little confusion over roles and responsibilities. There's some level of acceptance that the various boards are going to have to get together and create a new one. There's a lot of waiting, I think, going on. Are people waiting for the Education Improvement Commission to lay down some rules and directions? Do the boards have the scope to go ahead and do things on their own?

It's already time that they should be well into the process to have a new government in place January 1. The sooner they can get clear direction to either go ahead and do it or get the rules of the game laid down the more likely you are to have successful amalgamations.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bourns. It would have been terrific to have much more time with you, but we are restricted to try to accommodate as many people as possible. Thank you for being with us this afternoon.

NINA STIPICH

The Chair: May I ask Nina Stipich to come to the table. Welcome, Ms Stipich. We are looking forward to your comments.

Ms Nina Stipich: Thank you. My name is Nina Stipich and I have two children in elementary school in Ottawa. I am here as a parent who is very alarmed by the consequences of massive government cuts to public education and the implications of Bill 104 for democratic control over public education in Ontario.

I have talked to many parents in my workplace, in my community and in my children's school yard and I think this committee should note that the alarm I feel is already widespread and will escalate dramatically as parents of two million children face, as early as next year, class sizes of 35 to 40, no junior kindergarten, no busing, no library technicians, no remedial reading programs, no mental health workers, no social workers. The list goes on and on. This committee is fully aware of the details and impacts of the massive cuts to Ontario's public education system resulting from last year's cut of $400 million.

Mr Patten: Which board are your children in?

Ms Stipich: OBE. Parents know how these cuts have already affected the classroom, despite the government's election promise, and now the government has introduced Bill 104 which will give Queen's Park complete control over education policy and funding. Both governance and funding are being taken away from local communities.

Parents know that they have not been consulted and that this legislation is fundamentally undemocratic, because the process of consultation and public debate has not been allowed to take place and because the impacts of Bill 104 will result in rapid erosion of the public school system in Ontario.

Parents know that the catastrophic changes in education being made by this government are happening too fast and with little planning. Parents also know that Mr Harris is so determined to fund his promised tax cut for high-income earners that he is ready to cut a further $1 billion from the public education system in Ontario. I would like the members of this committee to ask Mr Harris, on my behalf and on behalf of all parents in Ontario, how much he values our children and their futures. If he takes a further $1 billion of public money from education to finance tax cuts and destroys local control over education, the parents have their answer.

I keep asking myself how we got to this extreme point. Our public education system is being gutted overnight in this province and the voices of parents, teachers, school administrators, students and community leaders are being ignored. I was in Ontario in the months leading up to the election and I can state categorically that this government was not given a mandate to gut the existing public education system in this province through massive cuts and sweeping legislation which is profoundly undemocratic in its impacts.

In fact, in the campaign statements, Ontario voters were promised more voice in government and public policy issues. To quote Mr Harris, "Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their province rather than as spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does."

As a parent -- there are thousands and thousands of parents like me across Ontario who think along these lines -- I think Mr Harris and his government should honour their publicly stated commitment to principles of accountability and public participation in the decision-making process and withdraw Bill 104 because the public has not been consulted on issues in this legislation and the changes being proposed will make this government far less accountable in the area of education than any previous government in this province.

Bill 104 proposes to create an Education Improvement Commission consisting of provincial appointees who will be given the power to make decisions about all aspects of Ontario's education system. A handful of non-elected officials will be given complete power to make all decisions that will shape education in this province for years to come.

The commission will control all changes to the education system with a mandate to decide unilaterally on education programming, curriculum as a whole, which schools will stay open and how much of our public school system will be privatized. The commission will function as a regulatory body, which means it can totally disregard consultations with the public and stakeholders in doing its business.

The legislation also states that anyone convicted of obstructing the commission will be fined and not allowed to be elected or act as a member of a school board. What does this mean? When parents, students, teachers or educators voice opposition to policies and actions taken by the commission, are we going to be obstructing the commission?

1600

Finally, to make it absolutely clear to the people of Ontario that this commission will function completely outside democratic controls, we are told that all decisions of the commission will be final and not subject to review by court.

The context in which this powerful commission will operate will also be dramatically altered by Bill 104. The amalgamation of present school boards into vast geographical entities and the elimination of two thirds of elected trustees will virtually eliminate accountability and the voice of local communities in decision-making on education needs and funding priorities.

So what can Ontario parents conclude from this government's attack on the public education system in our province? We can conclude that Mr Harris and his government do not share the vision of the majority of parents in Ontario that a viable public education system with its fundamental principles of accessibility, equality and opportunity is an essential and integral part of democratic government and civil society.

For the parents and children of Ontario the public education system is more than just a government program that can be restructured and downsized to support tax cuts or spending in other areas. A viable and well-funded public education system is the great equalizer in our society. It gives all children -- all children -- access to high-quality education, and in this way gives opportunities to children of different backgrounds and means which they otherwise would not have.

I want to ask members of the committee for social development to take the message to Queen's Park that this government's assault on public education in this province is unacceptable and that the government has exceeded the mandate given to it by the electorate in legislating Bill 104.

Parents will not stand by and let this government destroy the public education system because the human and social costs would be astronomical. We can live without the tax cut for high-income earners in Ontario, but we can't live without a vibrant, quality, public education system. Thank you.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please, there will be no applause, no outbursts in the crowd.

Mr Wildman: I can applaud.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, I would appreciate your assistance. Ms Stipich, thank you very much and we appreciate the time you've taken and the very thoughtful comments you've put before us.

LISA LYNCH

The Chair: May I ask Lisa Lynch to come forward. Ms Lynch, thank you very much for being with us.

Ms Lisa Lynch: Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Lynch. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I am a Carleton public board ratepayer, a parent of two teenagers, a member of Confederation High School council and of my community education committee.

My position is to essentially support the objectives of Bill 104. I hope the broad changes in the education delivery model and the financing methods will bring a new discipline to the process of providing educational services.

The ratepayers of Ottawa-Carleton are acutely aware of the differences in the costs of our children's education, depending on where we live and which system we support. Because of the number of school boards in our area, cost comparisons are often made by the media and concerned parent groups.

We believe that the differences in the quality of education do not correspond to the budgets of the local school boards. In fact, we take pride in the evidence of fiscal responsibility shown by the Carleton public board.

However, there are many improvements that can still be made and Bill 104 will drive these changes. I support the reduction in school boards, together with reduced responsibilities for the remaining boards, and a stronger role for the school councils.

There is a need for more training for school council members and for a clear direction from the Education Improvement Commission. My own experience has been generally positive, but I find some parents do not understand the new roles and potential responsibilities of the school councils. I expect this will change over time, with the encouragement of the Education Improvement Commission. I feel there are limitations to what a school council can be expected to accomplish, given the volunteer nature of the groups.

Parents and many teachers have expressed concern over the sweeping changes and particularly the shift in power from the local area to the province. Centralizing such things as labour negotiations will, I hope, provide a level playing field which may reduce the perceived excessiveness of past contract awards and prevent the disruption of our children's education, as was my son's experience in the past few years.

Concern has also been expressed over the reduction in numbers of trustees. With the transfer of responsibilities to the province and the commission, and with input from school councils, it's likely that trustees will benefit from a reduced workload. There is a definite concern with the potential decrease in accessibility and accountability of the remaining trustees after amalgamation.

The benefits and drawbacks of a centralized or standardized curriculum have been discussed at length in our community. There seems to be consensus that our children will be better served by a consistent, high-quality approach to learning and learning materials.

As we move towards more technology in the classroom and study labs, schools will continue to create, share and gravitate towards standardized products. For example, the availability of CD-ROM-based reference materials at home and in the school will encourage students and teachers to take advantage of this technology.

The opponents of this approach cite the lack of creativity, individuality and personal expression in the preparation of teaching materials. This may be so, but the opposite is all too true. As a parent, there is a concern with lack of consistency, quality materials and teaching aids. From class to class and year to year, our students are exposed to the best and worst of teaching materials.

Some schools and school boards have not been able to afford appropriate teaching materials or the latest in textbooks, or even enough textbooks to go around. Centralizing the curriculum, providing professional support materials and controlling budgets should reduce these problems.

There are two local issues that I think Bill 104 could have impact on: first, the much-discussed money the province would like the Ottawa board to pay that after amalgamation could also become a Carleton board ratepayer debt; and near and dear to my heart, capital funding for provincially approved school projects should be accounted for separately so as not to adversely affect the in-classroom funding and penalize students in growing boards.

It's part of our culture to resist giving up any freedom. Certainly, Bill 104 removes some of what we perceive to be freedom. The key question is, do we get back more than we give up? If the bill will create more opportunities, better instruction for our children at the same or lower cost to the average ratepayer, I support it.

If you as a government and we as parents can reach our goals of more and better jobs, higher quality of life and more productive members of society, then stay on track. I hope the bill will help all of us meet these objectives.

Mrs McLeod: I was struck by something the previous presenter, Mr Bourns, told us about one of the differences between the Ottawa board and the Carleton board in terms of access to special education support. I think he acknowledged his work had been done a few years ago, but at that time a student would get special ed support in Ottawa in about a month and a half and in Carleton it might take a year and a half.

The question I would ask you is, how do you see the equalization then taking place? It would obviously cost a lot more money for the government when it takes over funding to equalize the services at the level the Ottawa board was providing. What do you see as being fair in terms of equity for children in that?

Ms Lynch: I believe in special education for all students who require it. I'm under the understanding that some of the funding that is being talked about will be earmarked, that if there are students who need specialized education, they will get it, so that should help equalize it across all of the province.

Mr Wildman: I notice at one point you said that concerns had been raised because in some boards some schools didn't have enough textbooks and others had far more resources, and you expressed the hope that this legislation would bring an end to that kind of disparity. How do you see that happening?

The minister has said amalgamation of boards and elimination of about half of the trustees would save $150 million out of the total of $13.5 billion spent annually on education. Do you think that amount of saving -- while $150 million is a lot of money, it's not much more than 1% -- is really going to redirect into classrooms so there won't be situations where there aren't enough textbooks?

Ms Lynch: I can certainly hope so.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Ms Lynch, for your comments today. I gather you are, as you've said, a parent involved in parent council activities. Do you have any suggestions perhaps for the committee of what role the parent council within each school could take or should take?

Ms Lynch: I would like to say that they are certainly willing to take an increased role. At this stage it's very much at the beginning of a learning curve and you're going to have to realize that we have to learn and grow with whatever responsibilities do come down. We are not at this stage capable of taking a lot of responsibility. We have to learn and understand the full working of the schools, and at this stage we're just beginning to understand them.

The Chair: Ms Lynch, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming here this afternoon and expressing your views.

1610

JOINT COUNCIL OF OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEES

The Chair: The Joint Council of Ottawa Board of Education Elementary and Secondary School Advisory Committees, Mr Chambers. Welcome. We're happy to have you here before us.

Mr Albert Chambers: I guess that's the big challenge that any presenter has, to decide whether to give you the full bore or to leave you time for questions.

Mr Patten: Leave us time for questions.

Mr Chambers: I think I'll try and leave you some time for questions. I'll take Mr Patten's suggestion.

The Chair: The committee would appreciate that.

Mr Chambers: That's good.

Interjection: Not his, though.

Mr Chambers: I'd more than welcome the questions from the government side.

Joint council represents all 67 school councils in the OBE and, through our subcommittees and through the executive committee, joint council has given serious consideration to Bill 104. Today, we have one major recommendation and several other important ones.

Our primary recommendation to this committee is that when it reports Bill 104 to the House, it recommend, pursuant to standing order 107 of the Legislature, that Bill 104 be not reported. We fully understand that this is an unusual request, but we believe there are ample reasons to justify it and this afternoon we will present 12.

The first reason is, and you've heard this many times already -- I've been here since just before noon -- that Bill 104 represents only a small portion of the government's overall plan for radical changes, but the other components of this plan have not yet been disclosed or subjected to public scrutiny. As parents, we think we have the right to see the whole plan before we're asked to agree to support any one part of it. We know that you, as our elected representatives, haven't seen it all. We think you have the right to see the whole plan: funding, details on school construction, renovation etc, collective bargaining. You've heard these comments already this morning. That's the first reason why we think the bill should not be reported.

The second reason is that in its long title the bill promises "to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system," but none of its provisions will make a single, significant contribution to improving the education of Ontario's students. In our view, the bill is a Trojan Horse; as a gift, it is a dangerous fake. Its promises of savings, fewer politicians, accountability, effectiveness and quality are at best slick packaging and at worst purposefully deceptive.

The third reason is -- and just before you broke, you heard an eloquent presentation on this from the trustees who were speaking to you -- that Bill 104 will destroy rather than enhance local accountability. The new school boards will have virtually no power. So how will parents in this region or any region hold the minister and his nameless, blameless officials accountable?

Right now, if you want to contact a ministry office in this region, you have to leave a detailed voice mail and pray they'll call you back. Do you, as MPPs on either side of the Legislature, genuinely believe that you can deliver accountability within the context of the parliamentary system with respect to local school issues? Certainly not as well as local stakeholders dealing with locally elected trustees.

As flawed as local school boards may be -- and I'll have you know that sometimes the OBE is a very flawed institution -- they are at the very least here to be held accountable. Their power to directly influence both the financing and the development of local public school systems should be retained.

Our fourth reason is that by giving the province full control over education funding and by permitting the minister to adopt a grant-follows-the-student approach, this will undermine public education, lead to the funding of private education and create a two-tiered system of education in Ontario.

It's only one short step from "the grant follows the student to his or her school" to the charter school approach, which will severely undermine public education and the development of full service systems. Then from charter schools it's only one more short step to the voucher system and government funding of private schools. This will lead us into the two-tiered system.

Our fifth reason is that the case for amalgamation has not been established by this minister or by his predecessors. They've simply assumed that fewer school boards made sense, common or fiscal, but they have not proven their case.

Mr Bourns was just here before you. His study, which I gather he's slightly revised, concluded that the benefits would be "relatively modest" -- I don't think he changed that comment today -- and that there was the potential to achieve these benefits by the consortium approach. But he also said that amalgamation would require "significant effort and energy from the local education community, distracting from other priorities and requirements."

Now we'll all remember that the Crombie commission, the Who Does What panel, indicated that this region was making very good progress in implementing the consortium approach. They complimented the school boards in this area on it. Yet the province is proceeding with amalgamation anyway.

Our sixth reason is that Bill 104 sets an unrealistic time frame for amalgamation. Mr Bourns again recommended if amalgamation were to proceed -- and when he did his report he had rejected it -- that the board should have a five-year period to introduce any shifts in program, have access to the same total level of funding as they had prior to the amalgamation and be under no immediate obligation to provide transportation to programs in the other board's jurisdiction. But the minister wants it done here in 12 months. Why? Is this another crisis purposefully created?

I get to our seventh reason, which in the context of today's discussion is perhaps our most important. The campaign of misinformation on school costs and potential future funding levels engaged in by this minister and his officials is creating uncertainty, fear and unnecessary program slashing and paving the way for massive funding cuts.

On the surface, what Bill 104 proposes to do couldn't be simpler: We're going to elect new school boards and they'll start working on January 1, 1998. But under the surface the reality is quite different. Existing boards are acting on the impression that they must bring their funding in line with the minister's magic median effective January 1, 1998. They are doing this without the benefit of thoughtful community input or foreknowledge of the funding model. Why?

Why has the government created this atmosphere? We can only surmise it's because the government doesn't want to tell us that it already proposes to take more than an additional $600 million out of education in 1998. Our analysis of the Report on School Board Spending, 1995 to 1996, and the way the minister has presented that report leads us to the following conclusions.

The ministry published data on 117 boards. They indicated that the figure they produced, the $6,359, was the median. Yet if you follow their analysis through, as we have done, it's not the midpoint in the board expenditures. There are 71 boards that spend more than that. There are only 46 in their analysis that spend less than that. The real median isn't $6,359; it's $6,547. It's already deceptive.

But is the median the appropriate measure? The minister talks about it as the average. It's not the average. The mean is the average. The mean, if you'd used those figures, is $6,682. That's $323 per student more than the median figure that the minister has been using these last several months. Multiplied out by the students we have in Ontario, that's $622.8 million, nearly two thirds of Mr Snobelen's $1-billion objective. You don't quietly write that amount out of the funding discussion without a reason. You do it to save money. You do it so people won't notice.

1620

Joint council wants to emphasize that the provincial grants are insufficient for many school boards. We know Ontario is not providing quality education that its children deserve. However, we unequivocally reject the minister's proposed solution: paying only the median. The median isn't good enough.

If the minister really wants to bring accountability, effectiveness and quality to Ontario school schools, then we're recommending that he do three things:

First, the minister should announce immediately that the provincial government will provide stable funding for the 1997-98 school year. That would take us through this budget cycle to the end of June 1998. That would provide stability to budget now.

Next, the minister should also announce immediately that the ministry will implement school-year-based funding for school boards commencing with the 1998-99 school year. School-year-based funding would create a rational budgeting process for both boards and the ministry.

Finally in this area, we recommend that the minister should complete his consultations on the new funding model -- we support discussion of a new funding model -- and have its results and the 1998-99 funding levels for each school board out by October 1 of this year, before the elections take place.

Our eighth reason for opposing Bill 104 is that school boards potentially will lose control over school facilities. The minister has talked about three possibilities: passing it off to municipalities, some other third party or the private sector. If the private sector is to have control, then over the long run schools, as tenants, will have to generate a profit for the new owners. That's a new cost, more money out of the classroom.

If the schools are farmed out to municipalities -- remember, we have 11 in Ottawa-Carleton -- the future may be just as bleak. The capital costs of education might stay on both the residential and commercial tax bases. It might also mean that school construction will be competing with bridges and roads for scarce funds and the municipalities themselves will have to decide between the competing needs of the separate, public and French-language boards.

For boards like ours with old and aging schools serving inner-city neighbourhoods -- and I can walk to this meeting here; I know what the schools are like in this neighbourhood, this part of town -- the loss of local control will be devastating. We're already years behind in renovations, and neither amalgamation nor divesting controls will make it any better.

Our ninth reason, and you've heard a lot about this from trustees: The powers of the Education Improvement Commission are undemocratic, unprecedented and unnecessary. If there's a need for a body to facilitate amalgamations, if that goes ahead, then it would not need the power to approve budgets and contracts. It should be a facilitator.

Nor should its membership just be restricted to trustees and administrators. I must say that's the only recommendation in the list from the Ontario Parent Council that you heard this morning that I could possibly support of theirs. Their other unanimous support for Bill 104 does not represent the views that you've heard today from the organizations that represent school councils and parents. Therefore, any body or commission established to facilitate school board amalgamation should have limited powers and any local committees should have broad stakeholder participation and representation, including parents.

Our 10th reason is that Bill 104 does not clarify the government's intent with respect to programs that this and other local communities consider important. The OBE for many years has run an effective adult high school and basic adult education courses and for more than 50 years we've offered junior kindergarten. These are missing from the plan. They're important. Our community supports them. I'm sure the board, in its presentation, will be tabling the recent survey results that support them.

Our 11th reason: The minister has proposed to radically change both the delivery and the curriculum of secondary school and elementary school. We believe that he's launched more changes than the Ontario education system can absorb in the next few years, if you put Bill 104 aside.

Mr Skarica was kind enough to come at our invitation last fall to add this region to his consultations on high school reform. He listened to us. That was very important, but what he was listening to was his minister's proposals being ravaged. This community is not prepared to have half-baked ideas foisted upon us. Our kids must not be guinea pigs for another ministry experiment.

We insist that school reforms for elementary and secondary schools be properly prepared, piloted, evaluated and funded. This is where we, as parents, believe that the total attention of the minister and his officials, school boards, administrators, teachers, their federations and parents should be focused. Improving the quality, effectiveness and accountability of Ontario's education system should start with the curriculum and in the classroom. Education is about excellence, not mediocrity and median costs.

We're still waiting for the revised set of secondary reforms, which we understand may not now appear until June. We've seen nothing but a press release about the elementary reforms that are supposed to begin this September. With only three months left, we believe that the window of opportunity for elementary reform in 1997-98 has gone. As for secondary reform, joint council believes that the implementation timetable must be delayed for at least another year. We've communicated that to the minister and we're still awaiting a reply.

Our 12th reason, and one that you should also be concerned about, is that Bill 104 does not set out any standards or other measures by which the Ontario electorate can judge its success in delivering a more accountable, more effective and higher-quality education system.

How will we know when the minister has delivered? Will it be when our dropout rate goes down, when every grade 3 is reading at or above the grade 3 level, when the new grade 11 literacy tests show improved results? There must be measurable standards for a piece of legislation that promises so much. We would accept nothing less from this minister. You must accept nothing less.

We've provided you with 12 sound reasons for your taking decisive action on Bill 104. Our education system cannot afford to be diverted from its real priority.

Our sixth recommendation, which appears only at the end of the report, is that after Bill 104 is withdrawn or after you've reported that it be not reported, if the minister and the government intend to proceed with any major changes to Ontario's education system and its structures, they should lay out in advance all their plans and proposals and initiate a positive consultation process with all the stakeholders in the Ontario education system, particularly parents.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Chambers. You've exceeded your time. Your presentation was very interesting.

Applause.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we have very limited time at our disposal. I appreciate that you like some of the things that are being said and you dislike some of the things that are being said. I would urge you in the interest of trying to hear everyone not to comment or delay the proceedings. We will not be able to get to everyone and I don't want to abridge the time that they have available to them.

Mr Wildman: Is it okay to applaud verbally?

The Chair: I really would appreciate some cooperation from the third party in this.

Mr Wildman: We were just applauding.

The Chair: You can feel free to express your opinion to them after they have made their presentation.

1630

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, OTTAWA DISTRICT WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA

The Chair: Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Ottawa district, Mr Myers. Welcome.

Mr Larry Myers: I'm Larry Myers, Ottawa district president for the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation.

Mr Myers: My colleague is Padmini Dawson, with the Women Teachers' Association of Ottawa.

Thank you for the opportunity to allow me, on behalf of the 1,400 elementary statutory and occasional teachers of the Ottawa district of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, to address this committee hearing submissions on Bill 104.

My hopes are that holding hearings is a genuine attempt on behalf of the government to seek input and listen to concerns from education stakeholders. My fears, however, are that this is merely a token gesture to assuage public fears that the government is not listening and frankly couldn't care less about opinions or even hard evidence that goes against its direction. Many concerned citizens and groups have been denied access to this committee because of the very limited amount of time allowed for hearings.

The haste with which this bill is being pushed and the retroactive provisions in it display an arrogance and contempt for the system. January 13 is identified as the effective date for terms of a bill that hasn't been passed into law yet. There is a lack of structure and uncertainty about the rules for school boards to create budgets. Combining those factors with worries about terms of amalgamation and collective agreements is resulting in havoc and is creating angst in the system. There would seem to be an attempt to create a crisis to break the system so it can be fixed. I see little evidence of rational planning.

Past studies on amalgamation indicated there were costs involved and that reducing the number of school boards would not save money in itself. Where is the proof that Bill 104 would satisfy the government's stated rationale of reducing expenditures? John Sweeney was invited here to a forum at the local public's expense in the last school year and was not able to clearly justify the need for amalgamation. The issue of savings through reduced administrative costs was raised. Mr Sweeney was not, however, ever able to clearly define administrative costs, but those costs seemed to include bills for principals, vice-principals and other essentials such as heat and light.

The thrust of Bill 104 seems to be to provide a cover for the removal of $1 billion from the system. The results of funding cuts are already being seen. Cuts to special education services and the elimination of teacher-librarians in Ottawa have reduced the quality of education for our students. Uncertainty about rules the Education Improvement Commission would impose on school boards preparing budgets and the fact that an EIC ruling could not be appealed is demoralizing and is creating chaos.

Our board, the OBE, in a quandary, is proposing to lay off hundreds of teachers and other employees and severely slash programs. The board has the responsibility to draw up a budget, but it has its hands tied by this legislation as to how to effectively do it. The school board's budget provides the basis to determine staffing targets that affect programs for the school year starting in September. It's not clear if planning should be done for September to August or only until December. Transfer and staffing procedures that take weeks and should begin this month are on hold, creating uncertainty.

Teacher and board energies that should be going to providing quality programs for children are being sapped by uncertainty and dealing with seemingly constant criticism and rapid change. With Bill 104 looming, much work is now going into preparing for amalgamation.

Because of the haste with which this legislation is being pushed and the lack of framework, the problem is exacerbated. The status of collective agreements should be clearly recognized, and if this bill passes, new district boards should be directed to accept the liabilities of salaries and benefits. This should be made clear.

The size of the proposed Ottawa-Carleton school board raises concerns. With 80,000 students and a drive to centralize control in Toronto, one wonders about the ability of the system to effectively provide for the local needs of our students.

While not opposed to the general concept of amalgamation, OPSTF Ottawa wonders why the haste, when so little detail has been provided. Why is there a rush to centralize control over education when the government seems pressed to keep up with promises already made on issues such as guidelines for school councils, curriculum and reports? Why demoralize the very people who will be needed to effect change?

Provisions of Bill 104 prescribing the EIC's mandate to conduct research in outsourcing non-instructional services raises alarm. An obvious target for what's euphemistically referred to as differentiated staffing is in the custodial and maintenance area. Concerns about health and safety are naturally raised.

In conclusion, I reiterate worries about the speed with which this far-ranging bill is proceeding and the limited consultation provided for. I point out the lack of framework and suggest that guidelines enshrining provisions of current collective agreements and obligating new district boards to honour such terms in negotiations need to be stated. Replacing board employees by outsourcing or contracting out at reduced wages is near-sighted and should be abandoned as a tactic.

I raise concerns about the lack of democratic process, the vaguely defined but far-ranging powers of the EIC and the fact that its decisions could not be appealed. Proponents of democracy should worry that the commission would be responsible only to cabinet, and I suggest an appeal process be included.

I point out the chaos created by the uncertainty and the diversion of energies away from providing a sound education for our charges and into trying to sort out this process. This legislation should allow for boards to conduct their business and create budgets for the full school year 1997-98.

Finally, I draw attention to a major concern that as funding is reduced the students of Ottawa and the rest of Ontario will suffer as programs are cut, services are slashed and the quality of education is drastically lowered.

Ms Padmini Dawson: I am here on behalf of teachers, but especially on behalf of the students, who cannot be here to represent themselves, who depend on us for their safety, security and learning.

Bill 104 is an act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of the Ontario school system. It will accomplish this by reducing the number of school boards, by reducing the number of trustees and by establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system.

This newly formed commission holds ultimate power. Neither the Regulations Act nor the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies to this as yet untested and therefore unknown entity. No appeals are possible. Its decisions are final and this novice commission is only responsible to the Minister of Education and Training. In a time of increasing cries for accountability, the lack of accountability here seems paradoxical.

The ministry, with its financial reform, will be allocating a per student allowance to each district board, which for the Ottawa board will be approximately $2,000 less than before. However, this reduction does not meet the need of OBE students. Because study after study has shown that the Ottawa board has most of the subsidized housing in the Ottawa-Carleton area, this means a greater number of our children come from disadvantaged backgrounds. We know these youths have greater needs than those from affluent neighbourhoods, yet these needs are not being addressed. Larger classes, loss of special programs, the withdrawal of support services and the eventual cessation of focus on future funding not the answer.

In addition, local governments are struggling with the new responsibilities and increased workload with programs like welfare services, public health, child care, elder care, ambulance services and public libraries. All these affect families and therefore children.

Elementary students are our younger children, more dependent physically, intellectually and emotionally. The younger the student, the higher the standard of care that is required with respect to supervision, safety and general wellbeing. Elementary students are dependent on having their needs met each day by the teachers and other professionals. Increasing numbers of new Canadians, with unique social and academic needs, are entering our school system. As well, increasing numbers of children with learning challenges, emotional distress and physiological impairments are entering our classes.

In the midst of this, class sizes are growing, available moneys are shrinking and access to local community support systems is also decreasing. Larger classes are not the answer. If the needs of the elementary students are lost in the shuffle of Bill 104 while a non-accountable commission makes sweeping changes, the overall quality of education in this province will suffer and our youngest generation will be the lifelong losers.

1640

We certainly support the idea of being frugal with tax dollars, but we don't want to be pennywise and pound foolish either. How much attention do you suppose a child can get with 35 others, many of whom have distinct identifiable and immediate academic, social, emotional or physical needs?

We welcome the idea of parent councils. These people are concerned individuals, but often have little or no training related to education policy, school budgets, classroom management, student discipline, curriculum development and student achievement.

If a school functions smoothly with no serious problems requiring knowledgeable decision-making, then everybody is happy. But what if a school doesn't run smoothly? Who will be held responsible? Will it be the volunteers on the school council? What training, advice, resources, support and intervention can floundering school councils expect from the ministry? What will be the subsequent effect on the quality of education for every student in a school that has an ineffective school council?

We have schools where 75% of the population is new Canadians. We have communities where the parents are struggling to make ends meet. Often these same people are struggling with the new culture, new language, new issues. Are they concerned, caring parents? Yes. But do they have the skills, the background knowledge or the time to serve on school councils? Perhaps not.

The Chair: Ms Dawson, could I ask you to wrap up, please.

Ms Dawson: Studies have shown over and over that the education of elementary students does not increase in larger classes or with less support services, yet this is being ignored in favour of political changes. We have not been shown the guidelines that establish the framework of Bill 104, or that show these measures will benefit our children. We have, instead, a very powerful, unproven commission being formed as we speak.

To me, Bill 104 is a step towards creating a new society, a society of haves and have-nots. Less public funding, loss of local control and no democratic accountability for ministry level decisions project a bleak picture for the future.

The Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I appreciate both of you coming and sharing the views of your organizations.

CYNTHIA BLED

The Chair: May I ask Cynthia Bled to come forward. Welcome. Thank you very much for being here.

Mrs Cynthia Bled: What I have here is a summary of a 28-page submission on Bill 104. Essentially, I support the changes to the financing and governance of education, changes I have been advocating since joining the Ottawa board in 1988.

The many transformations and bandwagon policies that have been introduced have not benefited the majority of students. I have battled to prevent diversion of public funds to establish and maintain race-based programs and activities at the Ottawa Board -- this on the eve of the 21st century. My current battle against the priority accorded to capital construction over the classroom is on a slippery slope. Public apathy and the promulgation of misinformation are obstacles.

In 1993, in a personal report I wrote to constituents, "We need fewer trustees with wider electoral boundaries."

In 1988, there were so many programs and courses at the Ottawa board that we could not produce a precise list. Again I informed constituents that we need to remove "the taxing powers of [school] boards" in order to have some focus.

Using my own school board as reference, I see no change to date that would cause me to renege on the statements I made to my constituents. In spite, therefore, of strong resistance and organized protest to Bill 104, I support in principle the initiatives of the bill.

Highlighting points of my submission on the role of education, which I think is more appropriately the role of a school, I see the school as an agency that provides the base for lifelong learning, for the bonding that defines a society, that perpetuates its goals and that prepares its members for the wider national and global society.

Our youth are faced with structural unemployment at a time when we are importing skilled workers. Too many of our youth flounder. We lack a collective purpose and Bill 104 addresses this.

Of the taxing powers of trustees, Bill 104 would reduce disparities in resources available to students in the same community and across the province. The right to tax is a function of the responsibilities and therefore must be looked at in relation to the redefinition of the role of trustees under Bill 104.

On the status quo, I would say that education is the function that has historically proven to be most resistant to change in any society. It is not an accident that our Constitution has been repatriated and amended while education has essentially remained the same.

As far as the Education Improvement Commission is concerned, our school boards vary in their expectations and their reactions to the commission. There are boards right now which are entering into deepening debts which will be handed over to the district boards. The approach to be taken by the commission will be crucial. Clarification is needed on how existing and new debts will be addressed in the new structure.

Students and governance: Students -- I have spoken to them -- when not politicized are indifferent to who does what. Students' concern is to receive top-quality education.

There are loose ends under the bill. For example, January to June 1998, there is a hiatus there. We need guidelines and they're not there.

On differentiated staffing, we need guidelines. They're not there. Decisions at some boards are in limbo and parents are caught in the confusion.

School councils: In my Personal Report to Constituents in winter 1996, I pointed out that depending on the composition of their school council, some children could emerge as losers. I can see a need in the future for an independent student-parent ombudsman emerging under that structure.

There's a possibility of a two-tier system developing, where schools in affluent communities will be able to supplement their funding, whereas those in poorer neighbourhoods will be left to do with what they have.

I consider it important that principals remain the controlling figure in a school.

Open boundaries are important in decision-making. Students should be allowed access to schools of their choice in the new structure. Open boundaries are also recommended in order to have more rational use of facilities in the district board. We need guidelines as to who makes what decision.

School credits are also important. After the elimination of grade 13, will there be a cap on the number of credits?

Curriculum reform is nearing the status of an industry. This is a bad sign for efficiency. Many parents are at a loss as to why we have not just adopted the Alberta curriculum and modified it for local conditions, to minimize our administrative costs and at the same time accelerate change. As we take time to invent an Ontario-based curriculum, students are subject to constant cha

nge and their basic education needs go unaddressed.

1650

Enabling legislation is important. It needs to be thought about. The cost of amalgamation is uppermost in people's minds. We need to know: How will wages and benefits be determined? Will there be enabling legislation for new negotiations? What programs will be mandated? If there is differentiated staffing, will implementation be local, or how will these arrangements be addressed?

It is important under the new structure that employees be involved in the planning process. I am saying here that job-sharing and flexible hours should be accommodated, even if this implies enabling legislation.

On school boards' spending patterns, in summer 1993 I wrote to my constituents and noted that the priority accorded to discretionary construction at the Ottawa board risked compromising the education of students as funds were diverted from the classroom into construction. Bill 104, with a wider constituency base and centralized funding, will address this issue.

We are in the situation of misinformation hysteria. Many Ottawa residents do incorrectly believe that the current provincial government has taken funds from the Ottawa board. Further, they are made to believe that the Ottawa board has been fiscally responsible in reducing its budgets. It's inaccurate.

Unfortunately, the misinformation is fed by media such as the Ottawa Citizen, which published an article saying that the Ottawa board has reduced its budget by $60 million. Although the newspaper has been provided with corrected information, it has not informed the public that there was an error. In this type of climate, it is impossible for the public to make informed judgments. Hence, we can see the concerns around us.

In conclusion, do I see any need for Bill 104? Yes, I do. Do I agree with the provisions of the bill? I agree with the overall thrust of the bill. It's the implementation that is going to make the difference. Do I have concerns about the bill? Yes, I do. I am concerned with implementation, I emphasize. I shudder at the absolute power which has been accorded to Education Improvement Commission, yet I see a need, I see the reason why. I'm also concerned with the strengthened powers of school councils and the possibility for accelerated bandwagon policies.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Bled. You have managed to go right to the line, which is quite a knack. Thank you for being with us this afternoon. We appreciate it.

OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: I call upon the Ottawa Board of Education; Mr Best. Welcome. As you take your seat I'll remind you that you have 15 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Ted Best: Thank you, Ms Castrilli. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce our director of education, Ms Carola Lane. I'm very pleased to be here today representing all of the students, parents, staff and community who make up the heart and soul of the Ottawa Board of Education. We have many concerns about the effect on students of the education reforms proposed by Bill 104.

Let me take a few moments to tell you about the community that the Ottawa Board of Education serves. We have between 33,000 and 34,000 students in Ottawa, Rockcliffe Park and Vanier. Ours is basically an inner-city clientele that includes many children and families with special needs. The vast majority of social housing units and rental units in the region are within our boundaries. We serve over 90 different language groups. We serve the majority of the region's single-parent families and immigrant population. Just in the ward which I represent, using the 1994 statistics from the city of Ottawa, 24.5% of our families come from subsidized housing, and close to one third of our elementary students are from poor families.

Bill 104 states it will "improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system." If the reductions in school boards were motivated by the betterment of education and students in the classroom, I'm sure we could readily agree with that legislation. We fear that the opposite will be true. We think Bill 104 will render public education less effective in our community.

Bill 104 aims to improve the accountability of the education system. However, we fear that a loss of local accountability and control of education will actually occur. On January 13 of this year, more than 150 years of tradition disappeared in one day. School boards lost real power, yet they may still be held accountable. Most important, I feel our ability to provide quality education to students has been drastically diminished.

The power of school boards to make decisions has been curtailed. The Education Improvement Commission will control many operational and financial aspects of locally elected boards of education. This EIC will have the right to approve and unilaterally amend a board's budget. Quite frankly, we trustees of the Ottawa Board of Education find this offensive.

Decisions used to be made locally by democratically elected trustees. Ultimately, if citizens weren't happy with our performance, they could voice their displeasure at the ballot box. We have no such recourse with the EIC. This commission is a new level of bureaucracy, in our opinion. It's accountable only to the Minister of Education. It is more distant and less accessible to the local citizen.

Our student population we think is unique in Ottawa-Carleton, and not typical in Ontario. We have worked with our community to provide an education system which is responsive to local needs, accountable, democratic and which we feel keeps students' interests in the forefront. As a result, we've heard the statements that people call us the Cadillac board of education. Let me be clear about this. We have not squandered our resources on waterfalls, marble floors or bought an interest in any local golf courses, I can assure you. Rather, we have used our resources to fashion an education system which meets local needs, including the following:

Our focus on future schools;

Our breakfast programs;

Our continued support of junior education and adult education, despite ministry changes;

Our special education courses;

The additional support we provide for our students in myriad ways: our mental health workers and Learning for Living program, our early French immersion, our psychologists, social workers and youth workers, to name but a few examples.

Our recent public survey shows that the Ottawa parent and non-parent taxpayers strongly believe in lifelong learning. They know good public education costs money. A majority of survey respondents support the continuation of junior kindergarten, although it's no longer mandated by this government. They know what the experts know: that when viewed from a long-term perspective, junior kindergarten and other early intervention programs actually save taxpayers money. Studies have shown that $1 invested in early intervention saves anywhere from $4 to $7 of costs in later years, and that's a known fact.

The survey also showed very strong support for our adult high school, adult literacy and English-as-a-second-language programs. It is programs such as these which have helped Ontario to achieve the highest rate of high school graduation in Canada.

1700

Effective representation is another concern of ours. There will be some 75,000-plus students in this new amalgamated system. If there are 12 trustees, and I'm assuming we would get the maximum number of trustees in the amalgamated board, each one would represent some 6,200 students, from a diverse mix of inner-city, suburban and rural communities. I'm not sure how a trustee can meet this challenge.

The new district board in Ottawa-Carleton will serve a geographic area four times the size of Metro Toronto's, and I think Mr Marchese can relate to that. We urge that the greatest number of trustees possible be allowed for the new district board so that all our communities in Ottawa-Carleton will have someone who can reflect their concerns effectively.

Another concern related to trustees is the new restrictions on who can be a trustee. The new rules forbid not only board employees but also their spouses from being trustees. This seems to us rather discriminatory in that it prevents a whole segment of the population from playing a role in the administration of public education, merely on the basis of how their spouse earns a living.

Similarly, it's important that we give the primary group concerned -- our students -- a voice in decision-making. Massive changes are coming, and our students must have a say. Our board has asked the minister to endorse the addition of a student trustee to each district school board.

Another key concern, related to effectiveness and quality, is that boards no longer have the ability to raise funds to meet local educational needs. The minister has said he made this change due to the irresponsibility of boards in raising property taxes. Well, I have news for you. This has not been the case with the Ottawa Board of Education.

For the last five years the average tax increase at the OBE has been 1%. Our mill rate is now lower than in 1992. In fact, we haven't had an increase in taxes for the past two years and we are also this year committed to a 0% tax increase. Yet we have managed to pay as we go for the renovation and reconstruction of aging school buildings. The OBE's debt load of a little over $6 million is among the lowest for school boards in this province. I'd say this is a very fine record of fiscal prudence.

Now, instead of educational programming being locally decided, Queen's Park will decide how many dollars will be allocated for local education. I fear that the government, by its very nature, can't be as responsive as we to local needs, or as efficient. We will see a loss, not a gain, of effectiveness and quality.

The OBE believes that Ontario's public school system must have the programs and services necessary so that all students have the opportunity to learn. We believe the province's new funding mechanism will not be responsive to local needs. How can it be, when the province has stated that funding will be equalized among regions based on a uniform cost per pupil? The province's new approach is a cookie-cutter approach, in my opinion. No matter how hungry they are, every child gets just one cookie, and any leftover dough stays at Queen's Park.

We urge the minister to release the grant proposal consultation paper as soon as possible. Actually, it's something that should have been done before now to allow for analysis of the impact on the students and to provide for real input from our public. It's our position that the funding model must be used to secure our programs and not to extract money from the public school system.

A top priority has to be minimizing the impact of the province's education reforms on our students. As we move to a new, larger amalgamated school board, staff, trustees and the community within the OBE and the Carleton Board of Education will be working together to keep the best interests of students at the forefront.

However, the province has provided no support or direction to assist us in this process. The OBE and the CBE are two very distinct boards, each with its own values and cultures. We want to be able to manage the transition in a way that is fair for our students, our parents, our staff and our community. School boards, like municipalities, should be given time to phase in the changes they face and time to adjust to the new realities. We think it's essential that a mechanism and adequate funding be provided to assist in this merger, one which allows us to keep our programs that assist our students to succeed so that these students will continue to achieve this success in the years to come.

In short, we believe Bill 104 puts public education in jeopardy, and I'm sure you've heard that before. We also believe school boards have the responsibility to influence reforms in the best interests of students. That is why we've joined in the Ontario Public School Boards' Association's legal challenge of Bill 104. We feel that too much is at stake to sit silently on the sidelines.

We believe Bill 104 is seriously flawed and should be withdrawn. It has the potential to result in an education system that is less accountable, less effective, and provides less quality. If Bill 104 is to be passed, we urge the following amendments so that this legislation can do something to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system. I leave the following with you as recommendations:

Rein in the powers of the Education Improvement Commission. Do not allow it to overturn budgets passed by democratically elected school boards. Maintain the autonomy of local education governance.

Second, provide for strong local involvement in local education improvement committees, and ongoing communication and consultation between these committees and the community.

Mandate student representation on all district boards.

Establish a phase-in period of two or three years for reforms and transitional funding in Ottawa-Carleton. This will allow us to minimize disruption to students.

In addition, the following are also recommended so that the end result of all these changes will be improved education for students:

Give real recognition of the special needs of inner-city students, new immigrants, special education students and adults in the new funding model.

Allow local school boards to levy taxes in order to meet local needs.

Allow boards to implement new means of delivery which will enable valued programs such as junior kindergarten to continue.

And please, release the details of the labour legislation and the funding model as soon as possible so that we can better plan for the up-and-coming period of transition.

The OBE is clearly not opposed to change. Our cooperative efforts with other school boards have reduced costs in a number of non-classroom areas. We have also demonstrated our willingness to work with the government to implement change. We are more than willing to do things differently if the end result, the ultimate impact, is improved education for all students in this region.

We know that a strong public school system is essential in creating and preserving a democratic, productive and humanitarian society. We hope your message to the government will be that you agree with us.

I am now going to table at this committee for consideration the summary of proceedings from our alternative hearings held last week. These represent the thoughtful contributions of many members of the community who could not be here today.

Now, with the few minutes I have left, either our director of education or I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

The Chair: Mr Best, in fact you have no minutes left, but we do thank you for coming here and putting forth the position of the Ottawa Board of Education together with your colleague. Thank you so very much.

1710

KIRSTEN KOZOLANKA

The Chair: I ask Kirsten Kozolanka to come forward. Good afternoon, and welcome. We're pleased to have you with us.

Ms Kirsten Kozolanka: Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Kirsten Kozolanka. I'm speaking to you today as a parent of two children at the Ottawa Board of Education but also as a former student at the Ottawa board, from kindergarten right through to grade 13. I should mention that the signature of Bill Davis is on my high school diploma as the Minister of Education at that time.

On January 13, I read with great interest the announcement by the Minister of Education and Training on the restructuring of the Ontario education system. The ministry's media release began as follows:

"Residential property taxpayers will no longer be required to bear the burden of funding education under a new reform package that will enhance student performance while cutting bureaucratic duplication and waste."

That in a nutshell encapsulates this government's attitude towards public education.

There could be many potential reasons for undertaking a comprehensive reform of a system of education, but the one the minister and his government have chosen to highlight is this: Their supporters don't want to pay taxes. I give them credit for honesty of intention. They admit they are tearing up the system, not through any pedagogical need, but simply because education costs money and they don't want to pay it. This no doubt explains why they have already removed $1 billion in funding from the education system.

Yet at the same time their expectation is that Ontario's students will miraculously begin to perform better, although it is never actually explained what that means or how it can be achieved. These plucky students will manage this while deprived of library resources, special education support, transportation to and from school, speech pathologists, reading recovery programs and myriad other entitlements deemed by the Minister of Education to be outside the classroom and therefore not part of a streamlined system.

The duplication and waste the minister speaks of are fanciful, but they are popular tools to use to gain public support for cutbacks to education. Using disturbingly incomplete numbers, the minister can and has deliberately manipulated public opinion and manufactured a crisis in education.

Late in the ministry media release, the government drops the other shoe. New legislation is to be passed that will require every school to have an advisory school council. This, says the minister, is to give parents a greater direct voice in education.

So here's the critical path: Less money goes to education. Programs get cut. Staff lose jobs. Volunteers take over. And, miraculously, students do better.

What's wrong with this picture? For one thing, it's distressingly familiar. The Mike Harris government didn't come up with it on its own. In selected jurisdictions in industrialized nations over the last 10 to 15 years, governments have downsized and downloaded responsibility for education. Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher, New Zealand and Australia, some jurisdictions in the United States and Ralph Klein's Alberta have all undergone the same process.

These governments have based their actions on claims of inadequate, broken systems that require massive restructuring. Not coincidentally, this restructuring without exception comes with a substantial loss of education funding. It inevitably results in systems so devolved that individual schools headed by volunteer community boards do the job previously held by school boards and governments. It's consistent with a management theory of education called site-based management.

The first step to a system of site-based management is mandating compulsory local entities such as advisory school councils. Now, parental participation is a valuable resource, but one that must be used responsibly. Using parents to take the responsibility for education without the corresponding control, such as proposed here, is not responsible. If the experience of other jurisdictions holds true, the spectre of increased parent involvement is being used here to encourage acceptance of an otherwise very troubling restructuring package.

The last step to site-based management is the creation of charter schools, which are in effect private schools that operate with public money. Again other jurisdictions have led the way, so to speak, by moving quickly from the school council phase of devolution to charter schools. When this government goes ahead this spring with its plan to establish a per pupil funding scheme, it has said it will also be exploring allowing parents to take their per pupil money and apply it to the school of their choice. The portability of per pupil funding is a vital enabling tool in the implementation of charter schools.

That, without exaggeration or hyperbole, is where the Mike Harris restructuring is headed. It's all in there in the media release of January 13, and it will mean the end of public education as we know and value it.

Site-based management is a difficult concept to unravel. On the one hand it appeals to those fiscal conservatives and back-to-basics educators who see it as a way of controlling costs at a time of reduced education dollars. Yet it also appeals to those progressive educators and community members who value grass-roots participation and decision-making. And all of us can get caught up in the promise of educational choice.

But if site-based management is good for education, why then is it never applied in good economic times when there isn't a backlash against public services and applied instead only in times of fiscal restraint? Rather than an educational response to redress a set of pedagogical or other circumstances, governments use the legitimate desires of parents for grass-roots involvement to impose a new education ideology in the guise of reform.

In fact, site-based management proliferates when an education system experiences a crisis of confidence. If you repeat the ideological mantra that the system is broken long enough, people stop trusting their own experience and begin to lose faith in the system. With Bill 104, our Minister of Education has created just such a crisis.

If this government is allowed to continue down this path and if the public ignores the lessons of other jurisdictions, this is what my research tells me we are in for:

Increased, not less bureaucracy, as schools are faced with new, more bureaucratically intense processes and new government agencies spring up to administer the new system;

Inflated cost of schooling, as schools incur more costs to make their programs more attractive to potential students;

Less equality of opportunity, as grants are allotted to "better" schools and parents put their per pupil money into these same schools, thereby increasing inequities; corporatization of schools, as school councils look for funding beyond governments;

Chronic underfunding of education, as the public comes to accept that government will not fund education adequately;

Untrained decision-makers, as volunteers without adequate training take on pivotal school roles.

Less accountability, as the role of the elected trustee diminishes and local taxpayers are relied on less and less to play a role in educating children;

Vertical loading, as teachers take on additional roles;

Vulnerability to special interests, as community members seek access to school councils;

Privatizing education, as the system dissolves into a series of individual experiments;

Maintaining the new status quo, as fewer resources and more constraints on time mean authentic education reform will never take place.

Those are some of the lessons of site-based managed school systems in other jurisdictions as they have evolved or been pushed into chartering.

Overall, the path this government has chosen means the collapse of public education and its fundamental principles: accessibility, opportunity, equality.

Despite last week's editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, which promotes the findings of a conservative American think tank, schools in Mike Harris's Ontario will be élitist and exclusionary. The evidence shows they will reject some types of students, such as those with special needs or those who aren't bright enough, and serve only part of the community: those who can afford it. It happened in Britain, it happened in New Zealand. As of September 1995, Alberta opened its first charter schools. It can happen here.

The final irony is that the stated goal of all this restructuring, as we have seen in the ministry media release, is supposedly to enhance student performance. Well, it just doesn't work that way. There is no evidence to support measurable achievement gains in restructured charter-type schools, but there is a lot more time spent on testing, assessment and reporting.

The Chair: May I ask you to wrap up?

Ms Kozolanka: Certainly. I'll read a little faster.

Even proponents of chartering are hard-pressed to demonstrate through their research any consistent and widespread advantages to this system. Only in the very poorest districts of New York and Chicago, areas renowned for their poor quality of education and that do not fit the profile of Ontario schools, have there been cautious gains, but then, there was nowhere to go but up.

The conclusion must be that site-based management is more trouble than it's worth, unless turning a viable public education system into a marketplace for the rich and the powerful to graze is the ultimate goal.

Other jurisdictions have undertaken rigorous, economic-based experiments in education restructuring, such as the one proposed through Bill 104, and failed. We should feel no compulsion to repeat their mistakes. The government should withdraw Bill 104.

The Chair: We appreciate your coming forward and bringing your views to the committee. Thank you very much.

1720

JOSEPH GRIFFITHS

The Chair: I ask Joseph Griffiths to come forward, please. Welcome. Thank you for being here. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Joseph Griffiths: Let me start by saying that I'm 23 years old and I feel a little outgunned and outclassed by people like Mr Best, who came here to speak on behalf of the education system. I'll do my best, but I must state that I don't pretend to know all the facts and figures associated with the education system.

I had intended to come here today and give a fancy speech full of facts and figures, outlining in detail what I believe to be wrong with Ontario's education system, but the more I pondered what I had to say here, the more I realized that facts and figures cannot fully explain why we have an education crisis in this province.

I have watched with great interest the heated debate over the government's plan to change the education system. Through it all, I have heard the testimony of outraged parents, children, trustees and teachers, and I assure the members that I understand their frustration. You see, not so long ago I was a member of our broken education system. I played the role of the student, that one member of the system whose existence demands responsible decisions from those who control our lives.

I don't usually like to tell stories, but if truth be known, it seems that the only stories that don't get told are the ones by those who are hurt or are being hurt by the current education system. I can tell the members that from grade 9 to grade 11 I skipped no more than three days of school. I was for all intents and purposes a good student, with a strong interest in learning. But like so many of our students, I grew restless and bored, started skipping more classes, became a nuisance to my parents and subsequently left home at the ripe old age of 17. This is not so unusual, I guess, except that I still maintained a B-plus average.

Soon after leaving home, the school board released me as a student, offering the number of days I'd missed as a testament to why I should be ejected. By and large, I can accept the rules. What I cannot accept, nor should any of us accept, is a system that is more concerned with fancy buildings, big paycheques and their own lives, while a student who had maintained an above-average grade, despite how many days he had missed, should be let go lock, stock and barrel -- no consultation, no support and no interest.

I have grown up since then. I went back to school and now hold a BA in political science, but, honourable members, not without a fight. Beginning with school boundaries that precluded me from going to school in certain jurisdictions, through battles between gangs over lunch-hour and a whole host of other problems, I went back and got my high school education.

Let me state that I do not blame the teachers. Most, if not all, give a great deal of time, effort and energy to their jobs. By and large, most teachers do their jobs well. The problem, you see, is twofold: not enough money and too much bureaucracy.

The day I left school -- the day I was ejected -- the principal offered no advice, no guidance, no consultation. There was no discussion as to where I should go, and I stress again that I hadn't missed a single day of school from grade 9 to grade 11. Through problems at home and various other problems in my life, I left home at 17 and then went to school and ended up missing more classes. As a result of that crisis, the education system let me go.

I'm not suggesting that the school owed me anything, but what I am suggesting is that when we're paying people in the school, such as consultants and therapists and various other mediators, from vice-principals and principals, to school board trustees, it seems very odd and strange to me that I should be let go, released, without so much as a by your leave. I can tell the members that I walked down the corridor with my law professor and she was very much confused about why -- the simple fact that I had a B-plus in her class -- there was nothing she could do and nothing I could do. The school's decision was final.

From there, I tried to go back and get my high school degree and I can assure you that the fight I had to go through between various school boards in this city telling me that my parents lived here and I lived there: "You don't pay your taxes in this riding. You can't go to school here." I had to change and move houses etc. To make a long story short, I finally made it back to school, but not without having to deal with a whole layer of bureaucracy, which instead of trying to make my life easier, easier for me to get my education, I was pushed aside because nobody had the time and nobody had the interest.

In a day and age where kids need an education more than ever to survive, we must remember that the education system was not established to give adult Ontarians a job or to create large architectural masterpieces or to provide an endless social event for our children. No, the system is about education. Parents shouldn't and don't care how. It is clear that our current system is failing.

I do not pretend to know all the facts. I should say I am not paid enough to know the intricate details of board management spending. But what I do know comes from having lived it. When the education system spits out students year after year, I can say clearly that I did not receive an education worth the dollars my parents put into it. The fact is, the education system failed me and many like me. I am not here to represent those who have a vested interest in the system, those of the bureaucracy, those of teachers, those of parents. I am here to represent the students who, in my opinion, don't get heard often enough.

Mr Skarica: You gave a very compelling presentation, sir. Thank you. How would you suggest we fix what you went through, the fact that no one really dealt with your problem?

Mr Griffiths: Like I originally said, I don't necessarily disagree with the rules that ejected me from the school. Lord knows that there have to be some principles and guidelines which students have to adhere to in order to get an education. On the other hand, the problems I faced after I left the school and the fact that the school paid absolutely no attention at all to my previous record or circumstances I was enduring, despite the fact that we have guidance counsellors in our schools who are paid umpteen dollars to look after that very fact, seems very odd to me.

Furthermore, it seems to me that having two school boards in a city the size of Ottawa is a complete waste of money, specifically when it keeps students like myself, who end up in a cross-boundary kind of situation, out of school simply because nobody wants to take the time to give me an opportunity to get my education. It seems to me that having one school board as the government proposes, amalgamating school boards and reducing the bureaucracy, is one of the very first steps.

I don't know if it will work. I can say that quite clearly. I don't know whether Bill 104 will work and I don't think anybody does, but what I can tell you is currently the system isn't working. We have a bloated bureaucracy. We have people who are not interested in students, and that's what they're paid for. I suggest this is a good place to start, and if it doesn't work, we all have a vested interest in trying to keep working until we find something that does.

Mr Patten: I appreciate your presentation today and your plea to express a point of view for the students, I really do. It sounds like you're a very tenacious person who has persisted in spite of some of the obstacles that I agree should not be there. I would submit, though, that some of those could be addressed one by one. You can relate the cross-border issue you identified, the degree of acceptance, to many situations even in universities and colleges, the acceptance of standards in courses and things of that nature.

I'm curious to know what you believe 104 will do to address the concerns you have. In my opinion, it will lead to bigger bureaucracy that is more removed from the relationship with the student.

Mr Griffiths: My answer to that is quite clear. I'll address the first thing you said and then perhaps I'll address the second. Having watched the debate for many years and having watched those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, I don't think it would make a difference whether the government implemented a series of amendments or whether it introduced them one by one. Those who have a vested interest in maintaining the system as it is will dig in and fight it every step of the way. I don't think this is about the fact that the government has proposed a package, Bill 104, that changes a number of things at once. In my opinion, that's probably the best way to do it. It's the fastest, most effective, cleanest way to get the job done.

As for removing me further from the system as a student, well, I was already removed from the system. It certainly couldn't be much worse than it was. I would suggest that having one layer of bureaucracy, despite the fact that it would be large -- granted, it would be a mega-school board, no doubt about that. Ottawa-Carleton is a fairly large area with differing needs. On the other hand, quite clearly, those who are there now are not doing their jobs. I don't mean any disrespect to any of the school board trustees or educators in the room, but the fact of the matter is, they're not.

This is why Parliament has committees. You come into committees because a smaller group of individuals is more likely to get at the problem than a series of large bodies. It seems to me that having fewer school board trustees is going to be more effective because it's fewer people at the table who have to be heard and they're more likely to make a decisive, cohesive decision.

1730

Mr Wildman: I want to thank you for coming to make your presentation and to do it in such a passionate way to describe your situation and that of other students who have experienced the problems you had.

I'd like to follow up on the question raised by Mr Patten. Many have analysed Bill 104 and said it will concentrate decision-making in the bureaucracy at Queen's Park rather than in the larger school boards, which would then be less accountable to local needs. Let me preface this by saying we all have vested interests; students, teachers, parents, trustees, administrators, taxpayers all have vested interests. The most important of those interests, though, in the education system must be the students', and that's why I appreciate your presentation.

I'm just wondering whether it was a matter of bureaucracy that failed or whether what was needed was an alternative approach for you and students like you, perhaps an alternative school where you might have been able to pursue your own interests at your own level and capability -- obviously, you were very capable; you had a B+ average -- rather than having to be fit like a cog into a wheel that you didn't fit into or didn't feel at the time you fit into.

Mr Griffiths: The answer to your question is I guess again kind of twofold. First, I would say about Queen's Park that Ontarians spend a great deal of money every single year paying public officials to do specific jobs. Each year we go to the polls not once, not twice, but three times to elect three different layers of bureaucracy to make the very same decisions for us. To say that Queen's Park is less capable than the school board in my local area at making those decisions seems rather odd when it's quite clear that the people in my local area are not making the necessary decisions.

The province has transferred less money to the school boards, and instead of reducing spending they have increased taxes. These are not the responsible management decisions that need to be made by the people we put in charge. Do I trust the people at Queen's Park any more than I trust the people at the local school board down here on Metcalfe? No, I don't, but I have to trust somebody. We've tried system one and we might as well try system two. Like I said, I can't guarantee it will work.

However, the answer to your second question is yes, it's possible that a student like myself might have done a little better or maintained a steadier presence in the school system had I been offered special programs and so on, but it still doesn't change the fact -- what I find very disappointing is not that I was bored with the education system, because many students are. What I find distressing is that those very individuals whom my parents paid to ensure that I got an education were the very same people who were hampering me and preventing me from getting that education. That is the problem.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Griffiths, for coming here and sharing your story with us.

Madam Chair, on a point of order: I would like it to go on record that I have presented a letter I received from Irma Lee Dostaler, chair of St Clare School council. Every one of us received it this afternoon. I just want it to go on record that you all received it.

The Chair: I believe it has been distributed, Mr Lalonde. Thank you.

PRESCOTT-RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: I call on the Prescott-Russell County Board of Education; Donald Farrow. Welcome. I'd ask you to introduce your co-presenter.

Mr Donald Farrow: The presenter will be Mr Allan Anderson, the chairman of our board.

Mr Allan Anderson: Madam Chair, members of the committee, the Prescott-Russell County Board of Education recognizes that fewer school boards are a reality. With that in mind, the wish is to make amalgamation work for the best of the students. We hope that if we do this right, the students shouldn't even notice changes are occurring.

A funding model which treats a student in Russell the same as a student in Scarborough is a long-overdue improvement. The Prescott-Russell county board has long been at a competitive disadvantage because its coterminous board has had a lower mill rate due to the special minority language grant and the French-language equivalency grants which they receive. The equalization of grants and the removal of education from the residential tax base will put us on equal footing with our neighbours.

The English section of our board is slated to amalgamate with the present Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry English section board, the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education and the Lanark County Board of Education. Our view is that this new board covers an excessively large, irregularly shaped area and does not recognize local realities. Our board cannot see how assets and liabilities can logically be distributed over 11,759 square kilometres.

This unwieldy, large area has forced us to discuss a regional office model for the sake of communication with parents and the need to mitigate the economic impact on local communities if the board of education were to withdraw from an area. We believe it is important that a local presence remain while we wrestle with the long-term challenge of how to retain and spread the best practices of all of the partner boards. I will attempt to summarize the concerns of the Prescott-Russell County Board of Education and the relative advantages of a second look at the eastern Ontario boundaries.

First, the distance factor: Having expected boundaries similar to those recommended in the Sweeney and Crombie reports, ie, the fusion of our English-language component with that of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, we were shocked to learn that English public education in not two but four eastern Ontario boards would now be merged. As the proposed legislation now stands, English instruction in the existing four boards is to be regrouped under a single new board having approximately 11,759 square kilometres, 37,799 students, 90 elementary schools and 23 secondary schools. The logistics involved for trustees and administrators of the proposed territory to maintain an adequate level of personal presence and oversight are daunting, to say the least.

Our board is convinced that no matter how dedicated and energetic they might be, it will be impossible for the probable one, or at most two, trustees allocated to Prescott-Russell to represent our electors in any meaningful fashion. Calculations made by one of our proposed partners puts the distance from one end of the new board to the other end at approximately 250 kilometres, and that by the most direct route. A single round trip to the four administrative headquarters of the existing boards, each of which is generally central to its territory -- that is, in Perth, Brockville, Cornwall and Hawkesbury the various board offices are now appropriately located -- is approximately 450 kilometres. This is considerably further than a round trip from Huntsville up in the Muskoka district to the heart of downtown Toronto. Even more problematic for administrators responsible for the day-to-day oversight of schools, the time required for a return trip to several of the schools within the new district board would be well over two hours from any central location in the territory.

Second, a matter of equity: We now realize that the proposed new configuration planned for us is larger than any of the other proposed new district boards in southern Ontario. Indeed, some other new configurations are significantly smaller both in geographic area and in number of students. For example, Huron-Perth would comprise 20,768 students and a territory of 5,593 square kilometres. Bruce-Grey would have 24,595 students in an area of 8,553 square kilometres. In the case of the new district board of Muskoka, Haliburton and Victoria, the dimensions are similar to those proposed for us, that is, an 11,275-square-kilometre range. However, that board will be serving just slightly over half the number of students our four-board unit would, and this obviously means fewer schools, less staff and a lesser volume of administrative oversight required.

Third, a viable alternative: As originally recommended by the reports of John Sweeney and David Crombie, the Prescott-Russell board, English section, was targeted to merge with its counterpart in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. If that model, arrived at with significant input from the stakeholder communities, could now be endorsed by your ministry, it would create a far more equitable unit, comprising 15,000 students in an area of 5,305 square kilometres. The other two boards involved, in this case Lanark and Leeds and Grenville, would also be better served by such an arrangement, since their total enrolment would then be 22,700 students and an area of 6,454 square kilometres.

1740

Both the Prescott-Russell board and our neighbouring Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry board have comparable levels of per pupil expenditure. True, an average of per pupil spending between our two boards puts us somewhat above the provincial median; however, this fact also reinforces the commonality of obligations and priorities shared by our two boards. Our clientele is highly similar; for example, we both serve high levels of special education and social needs. Moreover, due to our locations on the Quebec border, there is a high demand for French-as-a-second-language programming and our graduates must be equipped to compete for employment in Ottawa-Carleton, where bilingualism is a key determinant.

It should be noted that the Prescott-Russell County Board of Education per pupil statistics on the charts and tables in A Report on School Board Spending 1995 to 1996 reflects 1996 spending for all our schools, that is, both French -- FL1 -- and English students.

Despite the complexity of our two-section, unified budget, we are confident that our per pupil rate is moderate, given our emphasis on quality FL2 instruction, our dispersed population, requiring transportation, and the high number of special needs children we serve. An amalgamation of Prescott-Russell and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry English section would permit us to maximize the shared use of specialized services we both now offer while leaving Lanark and Leeds and Grenville free to address the priorities which are specific to their particular region.

Fourth, partnerships already forged: The Prescott-Russell County Board of Education has been proactive in the area of partnerships and shared initiatives at least since the early 1990s, if not earlier. Over the years we have realized important savings and increased services available to our students by:

Harmonizing our computerized transportation policies and bus routes with those of our coterminous French Catholic board, a major success which has brought a $244 drop in per pupil costs, from $1,161.97 in 1991 to $917.50 in 1995;

Working with a local women's shelter to enhance education on family violence issues;

Sharing a joint health and safety officer with our two coterminous Roman Catholic boards;

Partnering with the children's aid society to provide school-based child protection services at those of our schools which need them the most;

Setting up a joint section 27 education/treatment program with our coterminous English Roman Catholic board;

Collaboration with our SD&G neighbours in teacher training/professional development initiatives to avoid duplication and enhance opportunities;

An agreement with Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry of many years' standing which gives our teachers access to their excellent resource centre of printed and audiovisual teaching materials.

More recently, we have entered into a promising joint computer venture with the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry board, namely, the TIPP program. Now that the moratorium on eligible capital projects has been lifted, we have arranged to share the services of SD&G's building engineer to supervise the two English school construction and expansion projects approved for our board.

As you can see, we have invested much time and energy designing partnerships with organizations in our own region which either offer services we need or else share priorities in common with our own. An amalgamation linking only Prescott-Russell and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry could allow many of these other partnerships to continue and perhaps even be expanded.

Moreover, with the ministry placing increased emphasis on outsourcing for certain services and expertise, the most cost-effective source of such services may not necessarily be a private firm. One of the client school boards themselves, being already familiar with the turf, could provide certain services to neighbouring boards, whether public, separate, English or French, for an appropriate fee for service. Here again, where travel and distance are involved, relatively close geographic neighbours will be the best candidates for these sharing arrangements.

In summary, we hope that through the information provided in these few pages we have been able to convey the openness that exists in our board towards more innovative and cost-effective ways of delivering education. This board has found much that is positive in the changes your government is contemplating, especially in the area of funding and the insistence upon equality of program opportunities for students right across the province.

Nevertheless, when implementing landmark legislation such as the Fewer School Boards Act, we urge you to ensure that these changes take place with appropriate recognition of geographic needs and realities, as well as sensitivity to cultural affinities and already existing cohesiveness within the different regions, these being key factors in the success of any marriage, be it between individuals or school boards.

A concept already familiar to you but one which bears mentioning is that there is a delicate balance between maximum size, seeking economies of scale, and optimum size, for best use of human and financial resources. We strongly believe that a marriage between Prescott-Russell and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would prove far more advantageous on all counts than the four-board model currently being contemplated.

The directors and/or chairpersons of the Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Prescott-Russell, and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry boards have met on several occasions to discuss the implications of a four-board merger. Although these talks have reinforced in us all a high regard for each other's operations, the more we analyse the mechanics of such a move, the more convinced we are that it would either create or exacerbate many more problems than it would solve, both from the financial and quality-of-service standpoints. The impact upon services also includes contact with the broader community, those sometimes forgotten taxpayers who have a keen interest in education, even though they are not directly involved with one of our schools.

In summary, the Prescott-Russell County Board of Education, English education, favours joining with its counterpart in the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry County Board of Education because of our similar educational and social needs and our past history of cooperation. We greatly respect the Lanark and the Leeds and Grenville boards, but we are convinced that joining with those boards would not in the foreseeable future produce any tangible benefits. Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Anderson, and thank you, Mr Farrow, for coming as well. There will be no time for questions, I'm afraid, but we do appreciate your views.

Mr Wildman: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. Can he clarify for the committee whether it's going to be possible for the request of the Prescott-Russell County Board of Education, English section, to be responded to by the government? In other words, is it possible to increase the total number of boards in this province proposed under Bill 104; that is, instead of the amalgamation of four boards in this area, shown as number 26 on the proposed map given out by the minister, is it possible to have two boards in that area rather than one? Is it possible or not?

Mr Skarica: Mr Jordan has asked the same question. Ultimately, it will be for the minister and the cabinet to decide. I imagine it would be possible if as a result of these hearings we heard that it wouldn't make sense to have four boards go into one as opposed to two sets of two boards.

Mr Wildman: This has significant relevance not only for this area but also for all of northern Ontario.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I had a similar question. Probably the parliamentary assistant could arrange a meeting to look at that situation. Even the other board brought that to our attention, and the Lanark and Leeds county board also brought it to our attention. I really feel there was probably lack of time for consultation in this case. When you look, those points were very clear in there. With the geographic area we are going to be serving with one district board, I think it would be worthwhile to look at it very closely.

1750

JUDY CAMERON

The Chair: Would Ms Cameron please come forward? Ms Cameron, thank you for being here. I want to assure you that this exchange will not impact on the time you have; you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Ms Judy Cameron: I'd like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'll start by introducing myself and giving you an idea of the context in which I will be speaking.

My name is Judy Cameron, as I'm sure your schedule has told you, and I have an interest in Bill 104 primarily as a parent of three children, two of whom are in the OBE school system at present and one who is at preschool but will be entering the school system in the next few years. I am also a taxpayer who relocated to Ontario and particularly to Ottawa in part because of the high quality of the school system in Ottawa. I would like to do everything I can to ensure that high-quality system is retained.

In addition to these interests, I have some skills and experience which I think could contribute to the Bill 104 process, or at least give me a good understanding of the process. I am currently working as a policy analyst at the federal Department of Finance, so I am extremely familiar with the policy development process. Every day I work on developing new policies, consulting on them, seeing how they can be implemented.

I also have an MBA in finance and I have worked in the area of financial management at the head office of the Royal Bank of Canada, so I have a good understanding of budgeting and the importance of sound financial management.

I am also currently the volunteer treasurer of a highly successful community-run recreation facility in Ottawa, so I have experience with the fiscal realities of making do with less funding, selecting priorities, cutting marginal programs etc. I think this volunteer job also gives me some insight into how likely you are to find parents to participate in your school advisory councils, especially if you envisage these councils taking on a greater role than the current councils do. Parents in today's economy are pretty stretched and already participate a lot in the school system. I think that expecting them to take on a larger and larger role may be somewhat naïve.

As a result of these roles, I am very interested in what Bill 104 is intended to accomplish, as well as the process which has been engaged in to have this bill become law. I'm going to start by making some comments about the process, as I see it, as a member of the public, and I have made an effort to become quite familiar with the process that has been engaged in.

I have major concerns about how Bill 104 has been designed and how the legislation is being moved forward. As I indicated, I have experience in the area of policy design and implementation for financial institutions at the federal level. While you probably think there are few similarities between education policy and financial institutions policy, I think this background gives me a good understanding of how fundamental changes to a policy framework can be developed in a thorough and logical manner.

Good process is essential to good policy and I think we need an open and defensible process which must include some key components. When we work on policies, we confirm our principles, goals and objectives before we start out. We consider a wide variety of options, evaluate the pros and cons of all the different alternatives. We seek public comment on proposals long before legislation is tabled and we revise and reconsider our original proposals to reflect the feedback we get from the public.

After all that has been gone through, then we table draft legislation and undergo public and committee hearings. I see no evidence that Bill 104 or any of the government's other proposals for education reform are based on a solid appreciation of what constitutes good education policy. Analyses had been conducted by the previous government, but this government chose to ignore most of the findings. Bill 104 appears to me to be a hastily contrived proposal which is consistent with a political platform rather than a set of underlying principles.

The development of Bill 104 also has not given affected parties an adequate opportunity to participate. This is essential in order to achieve a final result which is both practical and has a broad level of public support. Bill 104 has been marked by limited consultation. The time allotted for hearings is minimal and the legislation is being pushed forward at a virtually unprecedented speed. Most governments would accompany significant policy changes of this type with an appropriate transition period, but Bill 104 is supposed to be retroactive. In addition, significant aspects of the government's proposals are not even included in the legislation but will be specified through regulations.

As a case in point, the person who spoke before me was concerned about which boundaries or which school boards would be included in a new district school board. The bill gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or essentially cabinet, virtually unfettered discretion to establish these district school boards, but there is no appeal provision in the legislation whereby boards can negotiate how the district school boards will be established.

These aspects of the bill are of key concern to many constituents, but because they've been relegated to regulations there is even less opportunity for public comment. In summary, as a member of the public looking at this process, I find it entirely undemocratic.

I wold also like to comment on the substance of the bill. I started by reviewing the legislation and looking at what it was intended to accomplish. The preamble suggests that it is an act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system. These are very noble objectives, but there is no evidence in the legislation itself to suggest that any of these objectives will be accomplished or even furthered by the bill.

To start with, improving the accountability of the school system: A number of the proposals included in this bill will only serve to reduce the accountability of our existing system. The government is creating an appointed body, the Education Improvement Commission, and giving it very broad powers to oversee and approve decisions taken by elected school boards. All school board budgets must be approved by this commission and boards may not deviate from those budgets without prior approval of the commission.

While not addressed in this bill, other policy statements issued by the government indicate that boards will also be losing all control over education funding. The existing school boards, which are accountable to the electorate, will lose their decision-making authority and an unelected commission, for which no clear accountability or appointment criteria have even been prescribed, will be given many of these powers.

Next, improving the effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system: Bill 104 only puts a framework in place whereby there may be fewer school boards with less authority and a new Education Improvement Commission with a vast range of powers but no specified skill set or clear mandate that their accomplishments can be measured against. How or why this new framework or commission will actually improve the effectiveness or quality of education is not clarified.

The commission, through its power to approve school boards' budgets, will have a significant influence on how boards allocate financial resources to different programs and services. But this in no way suggests that the effectiveness and quality of our education system will be improved. Quality improvements will be influenced much more by the funding available to deliver those services than by the existence of some commission to oversee the school boards.

I would hearken back to my earlier point that there are no prerequisites for membership to the commission specified, and the commission can delegate much of its authority to a committee which may be even less qualified and less accountable than the commission is itself.

Aspects of this bill suggest that the quality and effectiveness of education are likely to deteriorate, even if funding were maintained at current levels in all communities. For example, I think district school boards in most regions will be representing a much larger populace and therefore will have many more challenges ahead of them. The members of the district school boards will be more poorly remunerated and therefore will have less incentive to be dedicated and will have less time to commit to the task at hand. So the budgets which go to the commission for approval will be less well researched or vetted than under the current system. District school boards will represent much broader interests than the current school boards so they will be less able to design a tailored package of programs which serves those interests most appropriately. Finally, the Education Improvement Commission, with its broad, sweeping powers and requirements will add to the overhead costs without any value added.

The Chair: Ms Cameron, can I ask you to sum up please?

Ms Cameron: Yes, I will sum up. I could go on at length about my concerns about this bill and the government's plans for education reform more generally, but I think if the government truly wants an effective, high-quality education system, they should follow an open, democratic process in developing and implementing any proposals for change and they should leave the decision-making power closer to home, where those who will be affected can really have a voice. Thank you for hearing my submission.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Cameron, for your presentation. We appreciate it.

1800

MITCHELL BEER

The Chair: Mitchell Beer. Thank you, Mr Beer, for being here with us. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Mitchell Beer: Thank you very much for the opportunity. I realize that everybody here this morning is one of the chosen few.

I'm speaking today as an Ottawa Board of Education ratepayer and a member of the Coalition for Public Education. I have a son at Lisgar Collegiate, and a daughter who will enter junior kindergarten in September 1998, or senior kindergarten in September 1999, or grade 1 in September 2000, depending on which of those programs the OBE will be able to offer her by the time John Snobelen is finished cutting the heart and soul out of the province's public school system.

When I called the committees branch to book this time slot, I was asked to arrive with 30 copies --

Interjections.

Mr Beer: It would be nice if the members would allow the public to speak; we only have one day. I hope that won't come off my time. Thank you.

When I called the committees branch to book this time slot, I was asked to arrive with 30 copies of my presentation. The committee clerk seemed a bit taken aback when I asked whether the copying costs would be tacked on to my tax cut. I should explain that I wasn't just being gratuitous, because if funding cuts and school board amalgamations tied up in Bill 104 lead to the elimination of junior kindergarten in the OBE, which seems all too likely, our household will pay an extra $5,000 in child care costs beginning in September 1998. I wouldn't want to leave the impression that I see junior kindergarten as glorified babysitting, because it is so very, very much more, but our household is still saving up to cover our share of the cost of Mike Harris's taxpayers' revolution.

I should emphasize, and perhaps it's appropriate given the interruptions just now, that the venom in this presentation is directed away from the opposition members of the committee, unless you plan to support Bill 104, and away from any government members who plan to oppose the bill. To those government members, I would urge you to consider the example, the very good example, of the members of your own caucus who had the courage, integrity, and yes, the common sense to vote against the government on hospital restructuring. At least a half dozen of your colleagues recognized that they faced the prospect of imminent early retirement if they failed to reflect the needs and views of their constituents. Our group is committed to keeping John Snobelen's assault on education in the public eye until either Bill 104 or the government is defeated, and we are not alone.

In the true spirit of a back-to-basics curriculum, I'm going to take what's left of my 10 minutes to do a bit of history, a bit of math and a quick dose of civics. I realize I should be careful about setting precedents here, because in John Snobelen's Ontario, 10 minutes of instruction will soon be enough to graduate from high school, or at least to drop out.

First, the history: It's a well-worn axiom that those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it, but when John Snobelen talks about looting $31 million from the local rate base, when our own trustees muse about cutting another $16 million from classroom programs, the discussion almost always takes place in a vacuum. There is rarely any acknowledgement that the Ottawa Board of Education is already hanging on by the proverbial fingernails, having cut $75 million and 1,200 full-time staff positions over the past five years.

The more cynical among us would suggest that history is about how the victors combine fact and myth, and indeed I think there are a couple of myths going around that create a false platform for local school cutbacks. The first is the notion that Ottawa is an excessively wealthy community with a school board that wastes money with no regard for fiscal realities. The second is the implication that non-mandated school programs are all optional frills, just because the drafters of the provincial grant regulations failed to include them in the formula.

On the first point, I should emphasize it would be wrong for anyone in Ottawa or Toronto or Hamilton or London to deny the level of student need that exists in many of the province's small, rural school boards, but that doesn't mean the OBE is rolling in spare cash -- far from it. Much of the OBE's vaunted commercial tax base consists of grants paid by the federal government in lieu of the taxes the board would normally collect on federal properties. The catch is that the OBE never sees the money. It is collected, banked and spent by the municipality, leaving the board to collect a corresponding amount in residential taxes and take the fall again for its supposedly free-spending ways, $75 million in cuts later.

The other point we often forget is that for all the talk about diversifying our local economy, Ottawa still falls within the federal government's definition of a single-industry town, and our single industry is downsizing, right-sizing, re-engineering and ultimately disappearing as we speak. The level of social and economic need in our community is skyrocketing by the minute and OBE students are living with the impacts, at home and at school. The Ottawa board may look like a rich jurisdiction on paper, but the statistics lie, or maybe they're just out of date. Unfortunately for us, provincial grant calculations tend to be based on the surface data, with little if any attention to the details, and it's the details where we live.

As for non-mandated programs, it never ceases to amaze me that a more or less neutral bureaucratic designation like "non-mandated programs" has become an epithet applied to any program that comes under attack by self-styled tax protesters, locally and more recently at Queen's Park. A short list of the OBE's non-mandated programs would include junior kindergarten, which is only the best early intervention tool available to us, not to mention school breakfast programs, English-as-a-second-language classes, adult programs, elementary mental health programs and so very much more. We know that a dollar spent on early education and intervention saves $4 to $7 in future social costs. But two things are true about non-mandated programs: John Snobelen is highly unlikely to fund them and the high level of intense student need in our community won't go away if we just ignore it.

The OBE began its cutbacks in 1992, with a series of layoffs and program reductions that at the time added up to the deepest school program cut in Ontario history. The following year, the board assembled a 1,600-page program and service review that captured the impact of the cuts. The written text of this presentation includes a very brief overview of that material, because there isn't time in a 10-minute presentation to even briefly sum it up.

Which brings us to the audience participation component of today's presentation, and it takes the form of a snap math quiz at 5 minutes to 6. Are you ready? Let's go.

Question 1: Name the provincial education minister who wants to seize $31 million from Ottawa ratepayers. He claims it's an equalization payment that will put more money into underfunded school boards, but he's made no commitment to keeping the money in education. Nor has he shown any interest in restoring the billions of dollars that successive governments have cut from provincial education grants.

Bonus question: Do you think he might want the money for the tax cut?

Question 2: A large, wealthy Canadian province decides to rewrite its funding model for education. They won't tell us anything about it, but at best the new model is expected to hold all per pupil spending to the current provincial average, so that the Ottawa board will have to take another $55 million out of those scurrilous non-mandated programs we talked about. How many at-risk students are likely to survive the cut and become productive, responsible citizens in a democracy? How many will stay in the public system and how many will bail out to private schools? Based on your previous answers, will the resulting school system have one tier or two?

Question 3: Two school boards are forced to amalgamate. One of them has $38 million in long-term debt, or it may be $32.8 million, depending on which of the two boards you believe. The other one -- that would be the Ottawa board -- has debentures totalling $6 million, because its trustees prefer to cut school programs rather than incur long-term debt for construction and renovation projects like everybody else. Compute the average of $38 million and $32.8 million, then average that figure with $6 million. Based on your result, how should the debt be redistributed? If it's divided equally, should the board with the lower debt load be allowed to reinstate the programs it gave up to finance its renovations?

Our civics lesson for today takes the form of a wake-up call and a warning to any MPP who plans to support Bill 104. It comes under the heading of "No Mercy, No Surrender," and it's a message you're going to keep on hearing from parents and other ratepayers across this province until John Snobelen withdraws the bill and stops beating up on public education.

As you've been hearing all day, a complete and utter contempt for democracy is one of the central aspects of Bill 104, particularly its provision for a so-called Education Improvement Commission -- that's one that must have George Orwell spinning in his grave -- that transfers much of the authority of local school boards to a small band of political appointees. Destruction of local democracy is also a common denominator that the education reforms share with hospital closures, the megacity plan and a host of other provincial initiatives.

Citizens across Ontario, and in your own ridings, are rallying to protect democratic institutions that have been built up over the past 50 years or more. This morning, the coalition was proud to join with the Ontario Education Alliance, People for Education, and Citizens for Local Democracy to announce a province-wide "Kill the Bill" campaign in response to 104. Out here at the grass roots, we're seeing the first signs of a wave of public outrage over education cuts that will sweep away the government's outrageous, undemocratic, child-hating demands. That wave is coming, and we're prepared to sustain it for the next three years if that's what it takes to turn back the effects of Bill 104 and begin rebuilding our public school system. The minister says the time for discussion is over; we say the time for conversation and activism and community outrage and community building has just begun. The choice for each of you is simple: Get out in front of the wave or wait for it to consume you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You have used all of your time. We thank you for being here.

1810

LANARK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: Could I call upon the Lanark County Board of Education, June Timmons.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Madam Chair, I have another point of order.

The Chair: All right, as Ms Timmons settles down.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I'd just like to present the copies of a brief I received prepared by Caroll Carkner, president of the Prescott-Russell Women Teachers' Association. I believe the opposition have received a copy already.

The Chair: If you deposit it with the clerk, we'll ensure that it's distributed.

Welcome, Ms Timmons, and I'd ask you to present your co-presenters. You obviously have some audio-visual effects for us which you'll tell us about.

Mrs June Timmons: Good evening. My name is June Timmons. I am chair of the Lanark County Board of Education and I would like to introduce some of the people I have with me here today. Barbara-Jane Zielinski is superintendent of schools; Jack Johnson is superintendent of schools; Glen Blanchard is a trustee and past chair; and Ed Klymko is our superintendent of business. We also have a couple of trustees in the audience.

On behalf of the Lanark County Board of Education, I want to thank you for the opportunity to share some of our thoughts and recommendations as they relate to the proposed Bill 104. In the interests of time, my oral presentation will vary somewhat from the written document which has been circulated.

Our most pressing concern about Bill 104 itself is the general vagueness of how this legislation will affect school boards. Throughout the legislation we see statements such as, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for...." We also read that the Education Improvement Commission "shall oversee the transition of the new system of education governance in Ontario." Both of these phrases are followed by a long list of issues which must be addressed but for which no specifics are provided.

For the last number of years, the Ministry of Education and Training has been promoting the issue of accountability of school boards. We must ask: Where is the accountability of the ministry or this government to the electors of this province if the aspects of this bill that truly matter to the students and parents will not be discussed in the Legislature? Where is the accountability if the details that really matter will be established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or by an appointed commission which is not politically accountable to anyone and whose decisions are "final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court?"

I'd like to turn to finance now and we do have an overhead which we will show during this part of the presentation.

We are aware that in January 1997, Ernst and Young International concluded that approximately $149 million "appears to be a reasonable estimate of savings that can be achieved if the proposed changes to school board governance are made and carefully managed." We believe that much of these savings do not apply to the Lanark County Board of Education or the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education. As you can see from the overhead, both the Lanark and the Leeds and Grenville county boards currently spend less than the provincial median on overall costs per student. Even though the overall expenditures are below the provincial median, the boards managed to spend higher than the provincial median on direct classroom expenses. It follows then that the boards also spend below the provincial median on classroom support and administration. We fail to see how the government would expect that the proposed amalgamation would result in any financial savings.

Much of the reason for this lower expenditure comes from the fact that these boards have already implemented the reductions or have never had the expenditures which form the basis for the estimates of cost savings in the Ernst and Young report. Several examples of cost savings are included in the written text of our presentation.

Now we would like to turn to the issue of transition costs. What will be the costs of creating 50 or 60 new district school boards? As mentioned in the Sweeney report, there will be significant transition costs associated with amalgamation. These costs include, but are not limited to, a new communication structure, a new payroll structure, new banking arrangements, new finance arrangements and new human resources systems. An actual example of the potential magnitude of costs is available in the recent restructuring of the Ottawa-Carleton police forces, where the costs were much higher than anything that has been mentioned by the ministry or its staff.

The Ottawa-Carleton police force was formed in January 1995 to join the former Nepean, Ottawa and Gloucester police forces. They had a total budget of approximately $99 million in 1996 and a staff of 1,238. According to the data in the Ottawa-Carleton Police Amalgamation Report dated November 25, 1996: "The amalgamation process required a one-time capital investment to create the technological infrastructure needed to support a region-wide service. The provincial government financed the majority of these costs by contributing a grant of $18 million." Can we expect similar transition funding?

Included in our written presentation is a section concerning school councils. I draw your attention specifically to a letter from the co-chair of one of the school councils which indicates that many of the school councils in our area at least believe that the proposed structure, which includes Lanark, is "unwieldy" and "would make no sense on any terms."

Now we would like to turn to the issue of equity. There is some disadvantage to being scheduled near the end of the day and I know you have heard some of these statistics earlier in the day; however, they are very important and I think they bear repeating.

A quick look at the map of Ontario will show that the new structure which includes Lanark will encompass a geographical area which takes in all of the southeastern tip of Ontario except for Ottawa-Carleton. The size of the new area will make it impossible for the anticipated one, two or three trustees to truly represent the electors of Lanark county.

The new area encompasses approximately 11,759 square kilometres. A large administrative structure will be necessary to address the needs of 37,799 students in 90 elementary and 23 secondary schools in several very distant and distinct communities. The distance from one end of the new board to the other will be approximately 250 kilometres by the most direct route. The round-trip distance to all of the current board offices in Perth, Brockville, Cornwall and Hawkesbury is approximately 450 kilometres, even if you drive across the Ottawa-Carleton district board to minimize the distance. This is 50 kilometres more than a round trip from the Huron county board office in Clinton to the centre of Toronto.

To demonstrate the size and distances, we are going to superimpose the boundaries of our proposed new board on to southwestern Ontario. To put this in another perspective, in a comparable distance you could visit the offices in the boards of Halton, Hamilton, Wentworth, Brant, Oxford, London, Middlesex, Huron, Perth, Waterloo, Wellington, Peel and Toronto. These offices will be part of nine new district boards, versus the one district board in eastern Ontario. The return travel time to several of the schools within our new district board would be well over two hours from any central location. The proposed new area is larger than any of the proposed new district boards in southern Ontario.

Other new district board configurations are much smaller in area and include fewer students than the proposed four-board configuration which includes Lanark. Huron-Perth will have 20,768 students in an area of 5,593 square kilometres and Bruce-Grey will have 24,595 students in an area of 8,553 square kilometres. The two separate boards in these jurisdictions will have about 4,500 students each.

1820

Amalgamation of Lanark and Leeds and Grenville would create a board of 22,700 students in an area of 6,454 square kilometres. Similarly, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry amalgamated with Prescott and Russell would have 15,099 students in an area of 5,305 square kilometres. Both of these organizations would result in more equitable representation for the parents and students in the four boards.

To maintain the proposed number of boards at 66, there has been some suggestion that the Lanark and Renfrew boards amalgamate. Such an amalgamation would result in similar inequities, as the size and distances would be comparable.

Now I'd like to turn to some staff concerns. The geographic areas of many of the proposed new boards in southern Ontario are such that the staff working in one board office can, if necessary, commute quite readily to a new district board office when its location is finally decided. Given the geographic magnitude of the proposed area of which Lanark will be a part, this will not likely be the case. If a new board office is established in the centre of the new district board, what is the government going to do for the staff in the current offices who may not be able to move to the new location, and why should the staff in the four current boards be faced with such a concern when their counterparts in other boards are not? The government must also consider what impact the removal of some or all of the central office payroll of $1.3 million will have on a small community such as Lanark county.

We have several questions in our written presentation. I will read two:

Why does the government believe that the students and electors in Lanark deserve less representation per student over a much greater area and longer distances than the students and electors in southern Ontario?

Is the government prepared to review its proposal to amalgamate the four public boards in eastern Ontario and treat the residents of these boards equitably with others in southern Ontario?

The Sweeney task force published the criteria it used to make its recommendations on new school board structures. These criteria included size of student population, reasonable distance, existing traffic patterns, similar interests and natural affinities, and joint ventures with social services. Based on these criteria, the task force recommended that Lanark, Leeds and Grenville become one board of education. What compelling reasons did the ministry have to vary from the Sweeney recommendations in a major way in four areas in southern Ontario? Does the ministry have criteria to support its proposal? If the answer is yes, why won't the ministry publish its criteria and supporting data for its current proposal so that it can be publicly debated?

We have a proposal. For the reasons noted above and others which we would be happy to discuss with you, it is our proposal that you concur with the recommendations of the Sweeney report and amalgamate the Lanark and Leeds and Grenville county boards of education and create a separate entity for the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and Prescott and Russell public boards. We appreciate that this recommendation would create one more public district board within the province, but it would be a small price to pay to meet the needs of parents and students in eastern Ontario. It would also treat these parents and students equitably without adding any cost to the non-classroom component of education, which is already lower than the provincial median. There is no magic to the number 66.

The Lanark County Board of Education wants to make it very clear that it has the deepest respect for the boards in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and Prescott and Russell, but it believes that in a smaller entity it can both provide a more efficient educational program and meet the needs of students most effectively.

Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Timmons, to you and your colleagues, for coming here and putting on such a vivid presentation. With the late hour, the audio-visual presentation is much appreciated. Thank you.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE COORDINATING COMMITTEE, LOCAL 2357

The Chair: Could I call upon CUPE, Ontario Educational Institute Coordinating Committee, Local 2357, Wendy Schieman. Welcome, Mrs Schieman. Thank you very much for being with us this evening.

Mrs Wendy Schieman: This is the vice-president of CUPE Local 2357, Carman Johnston. We are with the Ottawa separate school board.

There are 47,000 unionized school support staff in Ontario. We work in all occupations in the education sector. CUPE members are education assistants, clerical workers, audio-visual technicians, ESL and adult education instructors, accounting personnel, computer programmers and technicians, purchasing officers, librarians, printers, mail clerks, receptionists, school bus drivers, counsellors, speech pathologists, maintenance workers, tradespeople and custodians, each and every one a caregiver. All of these occupations are an important part of the quality of education delivered in the classroom. Yet, contrary to the Minister of Education's declaration, school support workers tend to receive a very modest rate of pay for the important work they do. Many of our workers work and are paid 10 months a year.

The school secretary is the first person one sees on entering a school. They are the link between the school and the rest of the world. He or she works with the children, parents, school staff, board staff, health personnel, social agencies, media and outside companies. They are the school's communications centre. When a child is ill or sad or scared or lonely, the school secretary administers first aid, medication, hugs, dry pants, warm mittens, a friendly smile or a special treat. Most secretaries I've known have always known the right thing to say to the right child at the right time. When a child misses the bus, is absent, is late, it is the secretary who mans the phone and solves the problem. In between, of course, are the report cards, the typing of reports, letters, lists, purchase orders and exams. The average salary across Ontario is $14 to $16 an hour, or $20,000 to $22,000 a year.

The board workers cover a broad spectrum. They are the people who keep the schools supplied, the bills paid, the staff paid, the computers humming, the public informed and the school board on track. Their education level varies, their skills vary and their salaries vary. However, dollar for dollar, they are paid a comparable salary to their equals in the private sector. Not one of them is privy to an inflated salary for the job done. The majority of school personnel are paid below $30,000.

The education assistant is not a teacher, is not paid a teacher's salary, is in the classroom, is deemed essential to the classroom by the teacher they work with, the students they tend and the parents of those students. Without any consultation with these people, the Ministry of Education labelled the EA not classroom-essential. The EA offers specialized skills in programming and training on specialized computer programs, sign language, Braille, PIC symbols, language, speech, physics and occupational therapy. EAs may feed children, catheterize them, clean and change breathing tubes, administer medication, dress children, assist with transportation, yard supervision, classroom and physical education. Quite a bargain at an average of $22,000 a year.

The school custodian is the first person in the school in the morning and the last one out at the end of the day. They keep the school clean and safe. They change fluorescent lights and ballasts, check the water supply and fix flush valves. They fix broken desks and equipment to save the school money. They paint and/or wash furniture, clean walls, wax and wash floors, clean carpets and windows. They shovel sidewalks and playground areas to make them safe for everyone. They meet the needs of community groups. They know who is in the school at night. They know and look after the students, whether it is the lost mitten of a grade 1 student, or a lost locker key of a grade 12 student. The average salary is between $23,000 and $24,000 a year.

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 this government wanted to make. Not surprisingly, our schools have come under a constant barrage of criticism ever since, the charges ranging from education spending is out of control to 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.

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 schools to the private sector, then charter schools and, finally, privatization of curriculum and even teaching, as exists south of the border. Education will no longer be in the hands of education experts. It will cater to the private agenda of a select few. Public education will not serve the masses equally; there will be the haves and the have-nots. CUPE does not believe our public system is broken.

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 me to give a presentation on all the issues we would like to address, we urge the government to take into account the concerns of the teachers' unions and groups like the Ontario Education Alliance.

1830

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.

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-40 weather to get to school. The teacher swept the classroom and lit the wood stove in the winter, and 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. Of course, there were no phones and no photocopiers, so there was no need for school secretaries. Yes, the good old days. The system was run very cheaply.

Are the many services available in today's system worth the extra cost? Of course they are. Our children are worth it. 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 last fall. These are not the only world-class boards or schools in the 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 should do these jobs for lower wages and deteriorating working conditions. That is an unacceptable jobs strategy by anyone'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.

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 the 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 and well-treated staff in their schools. They have a right to be educated in a stable environment where staff are familiar and happy and create a welcoming atmosphere for children to learn in. CUPE staff across this province have watched our children grow up. They've dried their tears, wiped their noses and retrieved lost balls from rooftops.

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 the schools if the 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 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.

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. Will the board of trade really appreciate the cuts to education when workers' spending dollars are greatly curtailed?

CUPE is very concerned about the establishment of the Education Improvement Commission. It seems 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.

Will Bill 104 improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system as it promises? No, nor is that the government's obvious intent. Bill 104 is designed to start privatizing large portions of the education system while giving the provincial government the control it needs to continue on that path, whether through charter school legislation, sale of schools to the private sector etc.

CUPE members will not stand by while their jobs are eliminated. They will fight to maintain the high-quality services they provide and to defend the wellbeing of the communities they live in. You need to reaffirm the need for the public delivery of education, acknowledging that a public system is more efficient and equitable. Defeat Bill 104 and engage in true consultation with stakeholders. If meaningful consultation with stakeholders still results in school board amalgamation, establish a process that protects jobs. Put fair workforce adjustment programs in place and protect the public delivery of all aspects of the system. Return accountability to the hands of elected representatives -- MPPs and trustees -- not the unelected and unaccountable Education Improvement Commission and education improvement committees. Ensure that elected boards of education are stronger, not weaker, and more accountable, not less accountable. Invest more, not less, in our public education system.

Education of the people of this province is of the utmost importance to all the people of Ontario. All the people of Ontario must be given a say in the deliverance of said education. If privatization of education and its workers is allowed to continue, the people of Ontario will be the losers, morally, financially and pedagogically. Can we really afford Bill 104?

Mrs McLeod: I think you've identified a major concern with outsourcing. If you're going to save money through it, it means either less service or lower salaries or some combination of both. You've also touched on what it would do to the school community and the essential role of support staff in the school community.

One of the other alternatives that appears to be under consideration right now is that rather than looking at school boards outsourcing, they would actually turn the costs of school construction, janitorial services, secretarial services and busing over to the municipalities in return for taking back some of the social service offload. Can you tell me what you think that option would do to the school community and the services?

Mrs Schieman: I still feel it's going to be a question of privatization, where whoever privatizes it, whether it be municipal government or the school boards themselves, you're still going to have the same loss. Speaking very personally, your best employee is a happy employee. A happy employee is someone who is considered, is taken care of.

Mr Wildman: I couldn't agree more with your last statement and also the question of safety in the schools. I noted when you were doing it, I think because of the time, you did not read the last paragraph on page 4, which I think is really significant because it does point out that thanks to the federal government, both the Mulroney government and the Chrétien government, if these services are privatized, it will not be able to bring them back into the public sector at some future date because of the provisions of the free trade agreement.

Mrs Schieman: You're right. I left it out because of the time. I was afraid I'd run out of time, and it is definitely a factor.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate your presentation. I am sympathetic to the points you make. Just a couple of questions. The first one is a clarification, if I may, through the Chair. It says in the first paragraph that CUPE represents ESL, adult education, librarians -- I thought the librarians were covered by the teachers' union.

Mrs Schieman: In some schools, sir, we have librarians --

Mr O'Toole: There's a variance. Which, in your opinion, would do the best job, the members of CUPE or the members of OSSTF -- pardon me, one of the other organizations?

Mrs Schieman: Can we speak privately?

Mr O'Toole: No.

Mrs Schieman: I think that's an unfair question, sir. I definitely --

Mr O'Toole: You don't know?

Mrs Schieman: I didn't say I didn't know, I said it was an unfair question. I don't know if I'm willing in a public forum.

Mr O'Toole: That's my question. I don't know if I'm getting an answer. Is that a yes or a no?

The Acting Chair: Thanks very much for your presentation this evening.

1840

CHRIS BOWES

The Acting Chair: I call forward Chris Bowes, please. Welcome, Mr Bowes.

Mr Chris Bowes: I'm glad to have this opportunity to speak in favour of Bill 104. I'm 33 years old and a lifetime resident of the city of Ottawa. I'm a product of the wonderful education system that is being defended by many people quite eloquently, but I'd like to say that an earlier speaker, Joe Griffiths -- I think his situation vis-à-vis his experiences with the education system in this province is more indicative of reality.

When I was in high school -- this is in 1980 -- my vice-principal, because I had a part-time job, told me that I should drop out, that I should not be in school. This man is still in the system and he is still probably advising students.

The criteria for some of the defence that has been put forward of the present system are very interesting, I must say. Originally, I wasn't going to speak on this when they announced public hearings, but as I talked to more and more of my friends, people my age who have children -- and I have a nephew and a niece and I'm seeing their education. It's terrible. They can't spell. There's only so much parents can do, especially when they're very busy. My friends and people my age, many of us are accused -- I'm at the tail end of the baby boom, sort of on the dividing line; some would call us generation X -- of being cynical, of not being concerned. When I started hearing some of the reactions that have been going on around the province on this, I thought it's time I spoke up. It's time that I came out and said something, because this situation can't go on.

This bill at least addresses a lot of the concerns that have been raised in 24 various studies.

When I was entering high school, I can recall -- and if the clerk is following my outline, I'm deviating a bit, because when I heard Joseph speak, it reminded me of a lot of things. One of the ones I find amazing is, when I entered high school in about 1978-79, the Ontario system was at the bottom of any standard you want around the western industrialized world. As I started researching some of this and looking at the status of the systems -- and I'm a lifetime resident; this is a long time -- there are six boards of education in Ottawa-Carleton now. We have Ted Best, who is quoted in articles in this area. He's the chairman of the OBE, which I'm a product of. I might add, I ended up dropping out and I never bothered going back because of many of the same reasons as were outlined by earlier speaker Joseph Griffiths, and he's 23. So there's 10 years' difference in experience.

We have 1,600 empty desks. We have a school board which has underutilized schools. As far back as I can remember, you have two boards or several boards -- some of the people who are sitting around here like Mr Patten probably can recall these things from the news items -- where school boards couldn't agree on dividing up empty schools. A good example is that we keep hearing about how this is all being done to facilitate a tax cut. How can you justify defending a system that increased spending by 82% over 10 years, increased taxes by 120%, while enrolment across the province increased by 19%? My background is economics. I went to Carleton University. Thank God I managed to work my way back into the education system at a much better level, I think.

We hear a lot about ESL, so I'd like to get to ESL and adult education. I personally think if the system was working properly for many people, you would not need an adult education system at the high school level. We hear that these cuts are being made for that. The standard must be, I believe, where we rank in education terms. I went to Carleton University when I turned 26. I used to make my money in extracurricular activities, marking papers, helping people write papers who supposedly graduated grade 13 English, OAC's equivalent now, who couldn't write a sentence with verbs in it. They couldn't structure an argument. It was unbelievable. Is this the system that is being defended by those who are opposing 104?

When we look at the ranking, I'll say it was in the Common Sense Revolution where they talked about -- the graph illustrates it pretty nicely -- our ranking in the OAC when it comes to education.

Mr Wildman: A most unbiased document.

Mr Bowes: A most unbiased document, yes.

Twenty-four studies have addressed many of these issues. We've heard some of them mentioned: the Sweeney report. We've had two decades where school boards have had the opportunity to do something with the system. When I was in the school system in 1980 versus now, when you look at the standard, we are still no better off, yet we've increased spending. We throw money at a problem instead of allocating resources. To use an economics catch-phrase, being somebody of an economics background, it's allocation of resources.

I'll give you an example. A tale of two schools is what I call it. Ottawa's Roberta Bondar school came in at $12 million for 700 students, while across the street in what will now be the new boundaries of Ottawa South, across in the city of Gloucester, in the Carleton Board of Education, you had a similar school for a similar number of students, Sawmill Creek, that came in at $5.5 million. Meanwhile, the same OBE can't find $3 million to upgrade or renovate Laurentian High School. To trust the school boards to act on some of these issues of education -- and we've heard some arguments about privatization and things like that. An example is a byline out of the Ottawa Citizen, "Where Have All the Trustees Gone?" These people can't even get a quorum to decide on how they're going to allocate their resources, yet they complain that they're being cut off. It's unreal.

I talk to my friends who all have children who are just about to go into the school system. The one thing they said to me when I was coming before this committee was to say, "Please, do not allow them to keep a system that will give my children the kind of education experience I had."

The Acting Chair: Mr Bowes, you have one minute.

Mr Bowes: I had a lot to speak to, and I wish I could speak to some more of it. As I say, the bill I think is a step in the right direction. It does have some flaws, some might say, but that's what this committee is here to address. I have a lot of faith in the Legislature that it can fix the system, and it should be fixed. It's not working. I'll cut my comments now in case there's a question.

The Acting Chair: Actually, you have about 15 seconds, so maybe you want to say a last remark.

Mr Bowes: I just want to say also on the tax cut issue and the transfer of taxes -- a very important issue for people my age, young families, and this extends to lower-income -- that by doing something about the property tax burden, it will give an opportunity to people my age to own a home. I think that is something that has not been addressed by many of the people who are opposed to this bill.

The Acting Chair: You're paying the same amount of money. Anyway, thank you very much, Mr Bowes. We appreciate your presentation.

1850

HOPEWELL SCHOOL COUNCIL

The Acting Chair: Could I call Colleen Leighton to come forward, please, from the Hopewell School Council. Ms Leighton, welcome.

Ms Colleen Leighton: Thank you very much. My name is Colleen Leighton and I'm chairperson of the Hopewell public school council in the Ottawa Board of Education.

My message is simple: We all need quality education. We need it to foster an educated workforce able to meet the quickly changing demands of today's business environment. We need quality education to demonstrate to investors that we have the infrastructure in place to ensure their continued success because, as we know, our human assets are the only competitive edge we have in the global marketplace. The community needs quality education to ensure all of our young people play a productive role in our society. Children need quality education to develop their full potential to grow into healthy adults who strive to continue their learning throughout their lives. We all must do everything we can to preserve a quality education system.

Today I am speaking as a parent, just one parent representing one school council at one elementary school of over 600 children in one city in Ontario, but we are the most critical partners in education. This government, as well as the previous one, recognized our critical role by formalizing school councils in the education system. The Royal Commission on Learning found that the greatest predictor of a student's success was the interest of the parent in that child's education.

What does Bill 104 mean to me as a parent? It means amalgamating school boards has been identified as the greatest priority in improving the quality of education, taking a different direction from previous studies that spent time and money to state that amalgamating school boards does not have a measurable impact on improving the quality of education.

Does it mean we're using energy, time and money that could be used towards the real objective: ensuring a quality education system? Overall, Bill 104 seems to me like an attempt to fix something, but what is it going to fix? In many ways, the lack of clarity over what this bill will accomplish is not surprising, because the education reform agenda has become very crowded. With proposals for education funding and collective bargaining changes, along with secondary and elementary school curriculum revisions, parents are finding it difficult to know where the education system is going. Do you know?

Just what is the problem with education today? Overall, we do a good job. No one would say we're failing at educating our children. When we talk about improving the quality of education, we're in the envious position of talking about improving our position of being one of the best in the world.

Perhaps our students are not achieving what one would expect for the money we spend. I'm certain that the reasons for that are many and complex, ranging from the incentives in the system for teachers to have a vested interest in the success of their students to the supports available to those teachers to make the most productive use of their classroom time. The support required for a successful classroom experience is not that complicated and we don't need any more studies to figure it out. Any parent could tell you. The supports include an effective curriculum, support for children whose needs are unique, reasonable class sizes, an effective facility and good basic supplies.

With these supports, the teacher can concentrate on the learning of the students and they will be successful. These supports will ensure the success of all students, even those who for various reasons and through no fault of their own don't have resources available to them on the home front.

Do we have all these elements in place in Ontario schools? I don't think so. We have too many situations here in the Ottawa Board of Education where those elements are not present: situations where teachers are too distracted by the needs of a large number of students to accomplish the daily lesson; where the support for students with special needs will not be available for another 12 months so the teacher, the student and their peers are distracted by the frustration that develops in the class; where old facilities preoccupy everyone with being too cold or too hot, and teachers wonder whether they could successfully evacuate the students from a building that does not meet fire regulations; and where students come home without the books to do their homework because there aren't enough to go around.

We have heard many times in the past several months that Ottawa is a rich board. If these are the problems in a rich board, heaven help those with fewer resources.

What is the solution? Certainly not taking money out of the system. I think parents would agree that focusing funding and attention on the classroom and the resources available to that classroom are critical.

Will Bill 104 increase classroom resources? We don't know. If costs are reduced as a result of Bill 104, will those funds be put back into supports for the classroom? We don't know. Will the definition of funding for the classroom include all these elements? We don't know. Do you know?

Where does Bill 104 fit in all these education priorities? Where does the role of parents as critical partners fit? Most of all, where do the concerns for the children fit in all these proposals?

Change for the sake of change is never a good idea. Many of us work in organizations that have gone through extensive restructuring over the last few years, driven by economic realities. We know how wrenching these changes have been and the cost this has brought on an individual and an organization-wide basis that is paid for by both for years to come.

Change in education can be even more costly because the children only have one shot at it. If the change we bring disrupts even one school year for a child, they may never make it up. Let's make sure we know why we are changing education, that we know the impact that change will have and that we can ensure the change is a positive one on all those classroom supports I talked about earlier: an effective curriculum, support for children with unique needs, reasonable class sizes, an effective facility and good basic supplies.

We won't improve the quality of education by creating confusion, alienation and fear among the people we need most to make education a success: the parents, the teachers and the children. We need to ensure that any changes are focused on putting resources into the supports for a successful classroom and that we reinvest any available funding for this purpose.

Parents will do their part if they can. We can't do it alone. We can't do it all through school councils. We need the financial and infrastructure resources that support the classroom to help us. We need to know that we all share the same objective: to improve the quality of education in the province. Please don't make changes for changes' sake. Demonstrate leadership to make Ontario education the best in the world. It is the best investment in our future and in our future success that any government could make. Give it the time and energy required of the most important investment you will ever make. And be careful: This is one investment where you can't afford to take risks. The stakes are too high.

My final message: Understand what the problem is, what the best solution is and take careful steps to build that solution, and don't forget the critical role of parents in building that solution. Does Bill 104 have a role in the solution to quality education? Parents don't know. Do you know?

Mr Skarica: We heard earlier today from one of the local boards, the CECLF. They took a 7% reduction in 1996, yet were able to eliminate debt, not increase taxes, save their kindergarten program, increase the number of teachers in the classroom, put additional funds into computers for their schools and so on and so forth. The way they did that was, as they say, they reduced administrative and operating expenses and they restructured delivery of services, including some outsourcing and contracting out of maintenance and custodial services.

1900

Ms Leighton: I think the main response to that is that if we can improve the resources in the classroom, improve those elements that I suggested, there's nothing wrong with that. I think every organization always has to look at better ways of delivering its services, but I think we have to keep in mind what those elements are and make sure we understand what decisions we're making.

Mr Patten: Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate your style and your inquisitive approach. Let me address page 3, where you say: "What are the solutions? Will Bill 104 increase classroom resources? We don't know. If costs are reduced, will those funds be put back into the classroom? Will the definition of funding for the classroom include all these elements? We don't know."

I think we do know. I think we know that the money is not being put back into the system. I think the minister has been clear about it. He says he's looking. As a matter of fact, I have an article right here that says Bill 104 will allow him the vehicle to find the extra $1 billion or so that he's looking for. So the answer, I would say, unhappily, because I know the school of which you speak -- I used to have a son who went there and I know it still needs some repair -- and I know the concern around education, but the money will not be put back into education. I think the basis of the whole issue for a lot of the opposition members is they know this money is all leaving education totally. I don't know whether you would agree with that or not.

Interjections.

Mr Patten: It is so.

Ms Leighton: I would hope that perhaps the government, in reviewing the situation and what our objectives are in education and what the classroom impacts would be, isn't necessarily going to make that decision. I don't know that it's all that firm, but I think part of this process is to do the thinking that's required to make sure we are going to have the right solution here. If we can get some assurances that these are the supports that are going to be available, it can be successful, even with some modification.

Mr Wildman: Hope springs eternal at Hopewell.

The Chair: A brief question, Mr Wildman?

Mr Wildman: Actually, I have a bit of déjà vu here. I went to Hopewell school in junior kindergarten --

Interjections.

The Chair: Gentlemen, please, don't encourage him.

Mr Wildman: -- before I moved into Carleton county, so it is an old school. I'm wondering if your concern with regard to where you say you don't know and you want to know the answers -- obviously the list you have on page 4 are the basics, as well as a good, motivated staff, so the question really is, will this bill do that? Our concern is that it's going to concentrate decisions around curriculum and funding and expenditures at Queen's Park and that it won't do that. I guess that's the crucial question. Unfortunately, if the proof is in the pudding and we're right and the government is not, the children will suffer.

Ms Leighton: Yes, and I hope that in this process the voice of parents will be heard, because they are critical in this. I think these are the solutions, and hopefully we can get those solutions and it won't be quite as drastic as some of the people are predicting.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Leighton. Thank you for coming in such inclement weather.

LINDA DANSKY

The Chair: Could I ask Ms Linda Dansky to come forward. Ms Dansky, thank you for coming.

Mrs Linda Dansky: Do I hand this in?

The Chair: Yes. You can give it to the clerk. You can just be seated. You've been here for the better part of the day. You're a trooper.

Mrs Dansky: Good evening. I am the mother of four young children. I am also a member of the Coalition for Public Education. I am here because my children are at the centre of my life. As a Canadian and as a citizen of Ontario, I value an adequately funded public education system that puts the children at the centre of its design. I want a system that is accessible to all children, irrespective of their backgrounds. I need a system that is democratic as well as fair. I am pleading for a system that is responsive to the child, to the parents, as well as the local community.

Bill 104 devalues my children. It has neither my children nor the two million other children in this province at the centre of its purpose. The purpose of Bill 104 is to centralize authority at Queen's Park and to discredit local authority. Behind this purpose is an attempt to decrease democratic opposition to the government's plan to remove much-needed funds from the education system at the expense of my children, their future and our society. You will have more people like Joseph Griffiths and Chris Bowes who will fall through the cracks, not less.

Taking away the right of school boards to raise any other funding locally means the province will have complete control over education spending, which will make it easier for Queen's Park to cut even more from public education. Gone will be the crucial link between democratically elected trustees and the community they serve. Instead, full government control over spending will give omnipotent power to nameless bureaucrats at Queen's Park who have no community interest in our children and are as remote, inaccessible and unresponsive as people in large bureaucracies tend to become.

The amalgamation of boards will not eliminate inefficiency; it will only perpetuate it at higher levels of centralization. As human beings are inefficient, it is better to have these imperfections closer at hand than hidden away in some faraway, bureaucratic place. The effect of such large geographic boards is to make local authority ineffective. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education found that boards having more than 40,000 students lose contact with the local community. Local needs will not be addressed by such boards. But this seems to fit with the government's ultimate purpose: to centralize authority.

The government claims that amalgamation will save only $150 million. Other studies have estimated, as we've heard today, that it will not save in the long run, as initial startup costs will not be recovered. And what about the extra cost of managing geographically huge boards? What about the time and expense diverted from what is really important, the learning of our children? On the whole, the Royal Commission on Learning recommended that boards be encouraged to cooperate and share expenses rather than amalgamate. The Ottawa Board of Education already has consortia with other boards in the area for this purpose. David Crombie, in the Who Does What panel, specifically singled out the Ottawa area for its work on consortia.

Downloading residual power from the emasculated, or effeminated, local authority on to parent councils will be an exercise in inefficiency. Parents are already overburdened by the demands of work and home. Disadvantaged areas where parent involvement is traditionally low -- I've seen those school councils -- will be served poorly by this proposal and will be at the mercy of special interest groups or rampant apathy. The proposal will favour affluent areas with highly educated, motivated parents, who will come together to form strong councils. Is this truly the equity that this government seeks?

I support parent representation and input on educational and budget advisory and working committees at the board level, but I do not support parents taking over the role of school boards as unpaid volunteers. Centralizing authority at Queen's Park may work well in those few places where local authority is totally incompetent or has abused its power, but these are the exceptions, not the rule.

Here in Ottawa, for example, we have a good system that works and is locally funded. I had difficulty deciding whether it is or was. To impose unilaterally such a dictatorial system on our jurisdiction, which has been effective and is supported by the majority of parents and taxpayers, goes against the grain of all notions of citizenship that we have grown up with in Canada, and in particular in our province of Ontario. Here in Ontario we have been blessed with successive governments, whatever their political stripe, that have looked for consensus within the populace when they undertook legislative change. They understood that slow, incremental progress meant lasting acceptance of whatever changes were wrought. You can't put a square peg in a round hole. This heavy-handed solution does not fit us as a province and will create wounds that may never heal.

Mr Snobelen tells us that Ontario pays $500 more per pupil than the average of the other provinces and that this must be reduced. He does not consider relevant the fact that Ontario's cost of living is about 12% higher than the Canadian average. Notwithstanding that, Ontario's per pupil education funding ranks sixth behind Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Mr Snobelen also dares not mention that Ontario's expenditure ranks 46th lowest among 63 jurisdictions in North America.

The government has wrongly insisted on distinguishing between inside- and outside-the-classroom expenditure, as if there is not an integral relationship between the two, just so that it could have a false justification for removing money from the education system. This will seriously undermine the network of supports that are essential for quality education in the classroom.

The government has also said that the education cuts it has already instituted represent only 1.8% of the education budget, when that really isn't the case. The percentage is actually much higher, averaging 10% of the budget when funds collected locally for education are factored out.

For those of you in government who don't send your children to private school, think about the human deficits in your children and in all the children of Ontario that your actions are and will be creating. The seemingly innocuous proposal of dropping junior kindergarten is one example. Research shows that one of the best investments one can make is junior kindergarten. It prevents costly intervention later on in high-risk children.

The Coalition for Public Education and People for Education have collected stories from parents about the effects of budget cuts on the classroom in Ontario. Many of these stories are heartrending. We will be releasing some of these stories next week. Some examples are included in the longer version of my presentation which I have submitted.

Once Bill 104 creates a captive populace, the government will release how it will finance education. The government talks about equitable funding, which sounds like a really good idea on the surface, but the details will tell the tale. Quality education costs money. Quality education for disadvantaged children costs even more money. Given the government's track record, the government does not seem willing to pay for the quality equitable education that they seem to be espousing.

The government talks about funding everybody at the median level currently spent on education. If, as the government contends, there are serious deficits in the quality of education in this province, does it really make sense to fund at the median level? Will fewer teachers and larger classes really improve the quality of our children's education?

1910

The Chair: Mrs Dansky, can I ask you to wrap up, please.

Mrs Dansky: Yes. The government seems to think that funding of pupils the same across the province is equitable. The problem is that the government is not thinking about the cost of programs and services which may differ from area to area across the province.

The Ottawa board, a system built over years, currently does a very good job meeting the needs of local students. The board takes great pains in funding programs and services adequately for its immigrant, disadvantaged and special needs students. Our populace as a whole supports that approach. Instead of recognizing this, the government seems bent on sacrificing this essentially good system for a one-size-fits-all system that will impact negatively on our children for years to come. Frankly, it is very sad.

In the government's double-speak, the word "quality" means mediocrity. Mediocre sameness will not serve our children well with the demands of the 21st century, in the same way as in the broader scheme of things genetic diversity is essential if the species is to survive and flourish.

The bottom line is that the government is talking about removing $1 billion from the eduction system. This money will be used for the Tory tax cut for the wealthy. How the rest of the money is allocated is important but not the central point. A billion dollars taken out of the education system will, by definition, further compromise the quality of our children's education, which is already reeling from the effects of previous cuts. To lose sight of this central fact is to blind ourselves to the harm we are about to do to our children and to our society that we worked so hard to build.

Bill 104 should be scrapped. Instead, the government should consult with parents and educators about how to ensure essential school programs and services that are adequately funded across the province.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Dansky, for your presentation. Thank you for being with us this evening.

LES BUNNING

The Chair: Les Bunning? Welcome, Mr Bunning. We look forward to your presentation. You have 10 minutes in which to make it.

Mr Les Bunning: Thank you. I doubt my presentation is going to last 10 minutes. I'm not here to represent any special interest group. I'm here to support the amalgamation, in particular, of the Ottawa and the Carleton boards. I am a parent and I have four children. Two of them have been through the school system and two are presently going through the system.

Mr Wildman: You're an interest group.

Mr Bunning: Perhaps I am. In that sense, of course, any parent is an interest group.

The present system, to put it mildly, is simply a waste of money. I live on a small street, for example, that has 24 houses on it, and there are at least 10 buses that go through that street every morning. That's through the street. I'm not talking about the ones that go across the street and down the road where one of my children catches the bus. It's this sort of waste -- of course, I don't know whether amalgamating the school board is going to actually change this sort of waste, but I hope the idea that we have to cut this kind of waste will come through.

In the past, one of my children was in special education. Because we're in the Carleton board and we live in the east end, he had to travel all the way to the west end to get the special services he required. They were available downtown, much closer, but of course that was the Ottawa board, and because we lived in the Carleton board, which, as you know, rings Ottawa, he had to travel all that way.

It's obvious that amalgamating the Ottawa board and the Carleton board makes sense. I urge this committee to not take too much notice of these special interest groups that are saying don't make any changes, don't do this, don't do that. Changes are needed. They're needed so that we can reduce the cost of education so that our property taxes can be lowered. I'm requesting the committee, please resist these interest groups; please go ahead and make these changes. They're changes that are badly needed.

Mr Patten: Mr Bunning, what makes you think your property taxes will be lowered? If you've been following the proposal from the government, they are downloading and replacing that $5.4 billion that they took off of education to centralize and they are now offering to the municipalities $6.4 billion, $1 billion extra, on that same property tax. So instead of now having a say in education locally, you will have a say in sewage, you will have a say in transit and you'll have a say in perhaps welfare. Are you pleased with that? And you will be paying more on the present basis of what's being considered.

Mr Bunning: There's only one taxpayer. If there's a saving in public money, it will benefit us all. I believe the reduction in bureaucracy which will be caused by the amalgamation of these boards will be useful, whether it goes directly into my pocket as property taxes or income taxes or other taxes.

Mr Patten: It's a shell game.

Mrs McLeod: Do we have more time?

The Chair: I think we're going to pass on to the third party. Mr Bunning only has 10 minutes.

Mr Bunning: I don't have to be here the 10 minutes. I don't mind finishing early.

Mrs McLeod: No, we had more questions.

Mr Bunning: Carry on.

The Chair: We still have to have two sets of questions. Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Can you just tell me who you think some of these interest groups are?

Mr Bunning: I haven't been here all day. I have to work for a living. I've just come this evening, but from what I've heard, there have been various interest groups. One group, I think CUPE, was opposed, for example, to privatizing services. I think privatizing services should be considered. That may not be the mandate of this committee, but --

Mr Marchese: I appreciate that. I just wanted to know from you who you thought the interest groups were, because a lot of the people who come in front of this committee are parents who take a great deal of time from their individual lives, many of whom, by the way, are working as independent people at home. They come because they're worried and many of these people are parents. Do you consider them interest groups as well? Do you think so: yes or no?

1920

Mr Bunning: Are you telling me that there haven't been special interest groups appearing here?

Mr Wildman: There have been teachers and trustees here.

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: There are teachers, associations.

Mr Froese: He's badgering the witness.

Mr Bunning: That's right. I'm sure that trustees and so on would form --

Mr Marchese: So all these other people before you, and you haven't heard them, they're all interest groups except people like you who want reductions in education?

Mr Bunning: That's not what I said.

Mr Marchese: Okay. You say changes are needed because you want to reduce your property taxes, and so you see this bill -- you've read this bill, have you?

Mr Bunning: No.

The Chair: We'll pass on to the government caucus.

Mr Marchese: We're running out of time.

Mr Bunning: I haven't read the bill but I've read the reports.

Mr Froese: Thank you for coming. In my riding, a lot of the parents have -- and like we've heard today, there are differences of opinion. There are people who have spoken against the bill who have children and are concerned about it, and there are people like myself. I have four children too and I'm just as concerned as they are but we think differently, and that's okay. That's why we have the democratic system. A lot of parents in the St Catharines, Niagara-on-the-Lake area are concerned like you are about some of the bureaucratic duplication and the buildings that we have and that those dollars aren't going into the classroom. They're going into buildings and they should be going into the classroom. They're expressing a concern that that needs to be fixed, like you're saying.

Interjections.

The Chair: Ladies.

Mr Froese: Thank you. We've been patient with their presentation. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Interjections.

The Chair: Excuse me just a second. We've been through this before. People have a right to express their views in this committee. Not everyone will agree with either side, or even more than one side, but you must allow them the opportunity to express their views.

Mr Froese: I'm trying to figure out from those people who are opposed to Bill 104: How does the reduction of school trustees, the reduction of boards, affect the relationship that we're all concerned about in the classroom? I'm trying to buy the argument. How is reducing the trustees, reducing the number of boards and increasing or strengthening the parent councils with the involvement in their schools, in your opinion, going to affect and hinder that classroom relationship with the teacher and the student?

Mr Bunning: I don't think it will hinder it at all. It's going to simply save taxpayers' dollars because of the reduction in the duplication and overlap.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bunning, for being here this evening.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION

The Chair: May I call upon the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, district 21, Mr McEwen. Welcome. You are the last but by no means the least, and I assure you that the committee is most anxious to hear what you have to say. May I ask you to present your co-presenter for the record.

Mr John McEwen: Certainly. My name is John McEwen, and with me is Greg McGillis. Greg is the first vice-president. I would hasten to assure the committee that we have read the bill.

I'm really grateful for the hearing that you're giving us this evening. I know it's late and you've had a long day and folks have not necessarily been kind all of the time, but we are pleased that you offered us this opportunity, especially when we realize that other folks who wished to come could not.

We serve approximately 350 teachers who teach about 5,600 of the 12,400 students in the SD&G public board of education. We are proud of the tradition of publicly funded education in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I have to say that there was public education in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry before there was a government of Ontario. Before there were roads, before there were municipal organizations, there were people who came together and said, "We want our kids to be educated well," and that tradition is one that has stayed with us. We bring ourselves to this meeting from that perspective, a perspective of 200-odd years of publicly funded education in SD&G.

We would like to focus in on a part of the long title of the bill. The phrase that I've chosen is "An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system." We'd like to address those issues, but first we'd like to talk a bit about the new board. You've heard some of this discussion already. It's a large board. It's almost 12,000 square kilometres. It's an L-shaped region of rural municipalities and villages and small towns, and as you heard earlier, it takes quite a while to cover the miles between one area and another. This new board is twice the size of Prince Edward Island. If you took Rhode Island, Delaware and the seven smallest European countries, you'd have almost enough room to stick Luxembourg in too. It's a fairly big place.

The board will serve 275,000 people. There will be 39,000 students. If we compare that with North American averages, even the Ontario average under the new system would be 30,000 students. But if you look at some of the other jurisdictions in North America -- the United States and Canada -- the average size of a school board is much smaller. To give some emphasis to that, there are three counties in upstate New York, and those three counties have about the same size population; they have about the same size enrolment. The territory is a bit bigger. It's the same kind of area: small farms, villages, rural municipalities. They have 32 school districts and four regional service delivery areas.

We are very concerned about the ability of this mega-board to manage its affairs. We frankly feel that the SD&G board of itself is fairly large geographically and in terms of enrolment and that it should not be merged at all. But you heard our employer today. They favour a merger with Prescott-Russell, and if given the choice between this L-shaped board and a merger with Prescott-Russell, the Prescott-Russell merger makes more sense. There are other regional structures like the LTAB region 1 board that cover the same area, and so we would prefer, frankly, a merger with Prescott-Russell over the L-shaped board.

The question of accountability: Traditionally a school board has been accountable to the community it serves through an independent elected board of trustees, the board having the power to determine the budget, the nature and amount of its expenditures, subject to the provisions of the Education Act and its regulations. If the board's expenditure is improper, the community has been, I can tell you from personal experience, all too willing to criticize either the nature of the expenditure or the amount of the expenditure. In my school board, a board chair about four or five years ago got into terrible trouble for spending $30,000 to renovate a room. It was the board meeting room, but that person was hung, drawn and quartered and run out of town.

I believe our school board, and that's the only experience I can draw from, is responsive to its community and changes its mind at the request of the community in a fashion that I sometimes don't see with federal and provincial governments.

1930

Does Bill 104 enhance the accountability of the school board? We think not. With the loss of taxing power, the school boards become merely agents of the provincial government and will not be able to respond to the wishes of their constituents. The larger geographical area will increase the sense of isolation that individual citizens have with the school board and it will be harder for the trustees to know what the community wants, let alone have the community impose its will upon the trustees.

I'm also concerned that large sectors of our society will be shut out from serving on school boards. We have one trustee who is a working mother. She juggles her life so that she can go from her office to school board meetings at 4:30, and the board accommodates its arrangements so that she can do that. I don't think she will be able to be a trustee in this new consolidated board. She'll be shut out. It will be left to the affluent, the self-employed, the comfortably retired. Those are interest groups too, but they don't represent the whole community.

In terms of effectiveness, we had a little trouble with this. We went to our dictionary and we wondered if really the framers of the legislation weren't talking about efficiency instead. So we looked at the question of efficiency and we wondered, in practical terms, are there savings to be found from the amalgamation of school boards?

The short-term transitional costs -- employee buyouts, relocation costs, construction and renovation costs -- probably will wipe out any savings you might find immediately. There is, however, solid research evidence that suggests that new, larger school boards may not be as effective as the old ones. Stephen B. Lawton, who is known to the Ministry of Education -- the Ministry of Education uses him from time to time for research -- has in his book Financing Canadian Education referred to some studies conducted in British Columbia, New Jersey and Illinois that find that small school boards with an average wealth are most effective in producing high academic achievement. He also observed that there are diseconomies of scale. Yes, if you want to consolidate school boards of under 1,000, you can produce efficiencies by doing that, but you start losing the benefit of economies of scale, and by the time you get to 50,000, which is the ballpark we're playing in here, it starts to cost you more.

Based on Lawton's work, I would argue that the 32 school districts in upstate New York are probably more efficient than the mega-board we're contemplating and possibly more efficient than the existing enlarged school boards.

That impression was confirmed for me two weeks ago when I sat down with officials interested in school finance from Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. In some jurisdictions they said the buyout costs and other consolidation costs were high. In other places they said no, they were moderate. But no one could see any cost savings. It is highly unlikely that Bill 104 will contribute to the bill's imputed goal of enhancing efficiency.

Quality: What's meant by the quality of a school system? We submit that the availability of sound, varied educational opportunities for students, the ability of a large proportion of the students to proceed successfully to graduation, and the knowledge and the abilities of the system's graduates are a fair measure of that quality. These broadly are measures of outcome.

What does Bill 104 offer to enhance that quality? We don't believe there's very much. Does it free up resources that can be used in schools? Based on the Lawton research, we don't think so. We think the opposite's going to occur: Dollars will be drained from the schools.

I apologize for the "not a question." My editor was trying to make me clean up my act and his editorial reference to me did not get deleted from the final text.

Will Bill 104 enhance the community's interest or involvement in schools? Again, we fear not. We fear there will be a greater distance between the community and its school boards, and school councils can't do the job. You've heard that today from a number of sources.

Will Bill 104 enhance administrative oversight of our schools? Again, we believe not. In fact, we think there's a Hobson's choice here: You can choose to spend more money for administrators to operate this larger system, as the Lawton studies seem to suggest occurs, or you can agree to have unsupervised schools. That is problematic, we think.

In our opinion, Bill 104 and the associated school finance reforms will not deliver on the stated goals of improvement in accountability, effectiveness and quality. We recommend, for that reason, that it be withdrawn.

Before closing, and you've been quite kind to listen to us at this hour, we'd like very briefly to make a couple of observations about the transition process. I will be quick, because you've heard them before.

We are deeply troubled at the unilateral powers handed to the Education Improvement Commission. We do not find those powers, nor the insulation of the decisions of that board from judicial reference, to be compatible with a society such as ours.

Finally, we also observe that we are concerned about the absence of any specific guarantees of contractual rights for school board employees in the merger process.

In our review of Bill 104 we've come to understand that it and the associated finance reforms will not deliver the bill's stated goals. We fear that the opposite will be true, that the enactment of the legislation will have the opposite effect. We recommend it be withdrawn.

I thank you for your time tonight. If we have a moment, Mr McGillis will review our recommendations.

The Chair: We have a moment.

Mr McEwen: Mr McGillis, review our recommendations.

Mr Greg McGillis: Recommendation 1: That the amalgamation of the four enlarged school boards to form the Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Prescott and Russell, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry English-language public district school board not proceed.

Recommendation 2: That if any merger involving the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry public board of education were to take place, the board should be combined with the Prescott-Russell board.

Recommendation 3: That Bill 104 be withdrawn.

Recommendation 4: In the event that Bill 104 is not withdrawn, suspend the operation of the Education Improvement Commission and replace it with a process which respects the role of the judiciary and which operates within the rule of law.

Recommendation 5: In the event that Bill 104 is not withdrawn, there should be present in the legislation a clear definition of school board employee contractual rights during the transition to the new district boards.

The Chair: Mr McEwen and Mr McGillis, we want to thank you very much for being here tonight and presenting the views of the OSSTF. Very good of you to be here.

Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to remind you that there is a shuttle bus that is waiting to take us to the airport, and we will meet again tomorrow morning at 11:30 in Thunder Bay. We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1939.