FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
RED LAKE DISTRICT
PUBLIC SCHOOLS PARENT COUNCIL
RED LAKE DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL PARENT COUNCIL
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LAKEHEAD AREA OFFICE
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, THUNDER BAY DISTRICT
LINDA RYDHOLM
PAUL KENNEDY
RENNY MAKI
FORT FRANCES-RAINY
RIVER BOARD OF EDUCATION
DRYDEN BOARD OF EDUCATION
KENORA BOARD OF EDUCATION
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
LAKEHEAD BOARD OF EDUCATION SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LAKEHEAD, GERALDTON AND NORTH OF SUPERIOR ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARDS
LAKEHEAD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL COUNCIL PROJECT TEAM
SCHOOL COUNCIL CHAIRS, LAKEHEAD DISTRICT ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
FORT FRANCES-RAINY RIVER DISTRICT ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, THUNDER BAY AND KENORA DIVISIONS
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 268
TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ATIKOKAN WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION LAKEHEAD WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
RED LAKE JOINT ANTIRACIST AND ETHNOCULTURAL EQUITY COMMITTEE NATIVE EDUCATION CIRCLE
KENORA BOARD OF EDUCATION PARENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
CONTENTS
Tuesday 18 March 1997
Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, Bill 104, Mr Snobelen /
Loi de 1997 réduisant le nombre de conseils scolaires, projet de loi 104, M. Snobelen
Northwestern Ontario Small Business Association
Mr Mark Lawrence
Red Lake District Public Schools Parent Council; Red Lake District High School Parent Council
Mrs Tess Martone
Mrs Ruth Londry
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Lakehead area office
Mr Jules Tupker
Mr Howard Matthews
Lakehead Board of Education
Ms Suzan Labine
Ms Cathy Woodbeck
Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Thunder Bay District
Mr Jim Green
Dr Linda Rydholm; Mr Paul Kennedy; Mr Renny Maki
Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education; Dryden Board of Education;
Kenora Board of Education
Ms Marion Helash
Mr David Penney
Mrs Wilma Sletmoen
Office and Professional Employees International Union
Ms Kathy McMonagle
Ms Natalie Galesloot
Red Lake Board of Education; Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac and Area
Board of Education; Hearst Board of Education
Ms Gloria Williamson
Ms Sharon Arsenault
Ms Lise Haman
Ms Ruby Brunet
Lakehead Board of Education special education advisory committee
Mrs Leah Salini
Mr Michael Ballantyne
Mothers for Education
Ms Beverley Rizzi
Ms Susan Gliddon
Ms Kazia Picard
Fort Frances-Rainy River Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation;
Fort Frances-Rainy River Women Teachers' Association;
Fort Frances-Rainy River Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation
Mr Rudolf Zeitlhofer
Mrs Sharon Preston
Mr Ray Maynard
Mr Andrew Horsfield
Lakehead, Geraldton and North of Superior Roman Catholic separate school boards
Mrs Joleene Kemp
Mrs Carole Weir
Mr Kevin Debnam
Mr Howard Whent
Lakehead Board of Education school council project team
Ms Connie Hartviksen
Ms Lyn Walter
Mr Warren Hughes
Ignace School
Ms Beverly Hall
Ms Allyson Lyght
Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board school council chairs
Mrs Joan Powell
Mr Porter Bailey
Ms Susanne Marquardt
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association,
Kenora unit and Thunder Bay elementary and secondary units
Ms Eleanor Pentick
Ms Rosemary Robertson
Mr Don Cattani
Mr Craig Nuttall
Mr George Saarinen
Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac and Area Board of Education; Lakehead Board of Education;
Lake Superior Board of Education; Nipigon-Red Rock Board of Education
Mrs Betty Chambers
Mr Joe Virdiramo
Atikokan Board of Education
Mr Wayne McAndrew
Fort Frances-Rainy River District Roman Catholic Separate School Board
Mr Paul Jackson
Mr Orielle De Gagné
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Thunder Bay and Kenora divisions
Ms Arlene Gervis
Mr Dave Rhind
Mr Doug Heikkinen
Thunder Bay and District Labour Council; Service Employees International Union, Local 268
Ms Evelina Pan
Mr Glen Oram
Lake Superior Women Teachers' Association; Atikokan Women Teachers' Association;
Lakehead Women Teachers' Association
Ms Patti Bailey
Ms Pam Money
Ms Sharlene Smith
Mr Peter Zandstra
Red Lake Joint Antiracist and Ethnocultural Equity Committee; Native Education Centre
Ms Andrea Winik
Mr Louis Simard
Kenora Board of Education parent advisory council
Mrs Cindy Christensen
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente: Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs MarionBoyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms AnnamarieCastrilli (Downsview L)
Mr DwightDuncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mrs HelenJohns (Huron PC)
Mr W. LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mrs LynMcLeod (Fort William L)
Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC)
Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC)
Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr TedArnott (Wellington PC)
Mr MarcelBeaubien (Lambton PC)
Ms FrancesLankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr JohnO'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr ToniSkarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr HowardHampton (Rainy River ND)
Mr FrankMiclash (Kenora L)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel: Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1133 in the Valhalla Inn, Thunder Bay.
FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES
Consideration of Bill 104, An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 104, Loi 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, thank you all very much for being here this morning as we start our hearings in Thunder Bay. As some of you may know, this is the sixth day of our hearings. We've had four in Toronto, one yesterday and we are now here. I'd like to start fairly quickly. Ms McLeod.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): [Failure of sound system] that the precedent we've established in the committee is that the official representative of an organization would have 15 minutes to speak, whereas individuals who are not representing an organization would have 10 minutes to speak. I think it's important we continue to observe this, because as you know once again there are a great many people who would like to make submissions who are not going to have that opportunity.
I'm particularly concerned here in northwestern Ontario because, as you know, there wasn't even an opportunity for every board that will be affected by the amalgamation to be officially represented individually.
Interruption.
The Chair: Can we do something about the sound?
Mrs McLeod: I don't know whether it's my cold or theirs; maybe if I speak directly into the microphone.
If the Chair will indulge me, I was raising the concern we have that the precedent of the committee is that when there is an official representative of an organization, such as a school board, that presentation would be 15 minutes long, and that where an individual is speaking as an individual and not as the representative of a group or association, the presentation would be 10 minutes. It's an important precedent for us to adhere to here because there are so many groups, as well as individuals, who are not going to get time to make submissions.
I've been particularly concerned in northwestern Ontario because just to have each of the boards that will be affected by amalgamation have an opportunity to make any representation at all, we've had to group some of the boards from the northwest and west of Thunder Bay, as well as east of Thunder Bay. There has been inadvertently, and it is inadvertent, an error in developing the schedule today so that individuals who are trustees but are not representing the board have been given 15 minutes, which is not according to precedent.
I think we have an agreement -- there are three individuals involved -- that to follow precedent they would have 10 minutes. That would free up 15 minutes of time and that could be divided between the two groups of boards. We still can't give a full 15 minutes to each of those separate boards, but at least it would extend their time to about 25 minutes for groups of three boards.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): Yes, I think there's unanimous consent.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yes, I agree we should be giving the groups of boards as much time as we can and the individuals should be limited to 10 minutes. It's unfortunate we have to limit people because of the time constraints related to the Conservative government's time allocation motion, but since we have to live under those constraints, we should continue the same approach we've used in all the communities we've visited.
The Chair: I gather from Mr Skarica there's unanimous consent. We'll advise the individuals involved of the changes and of the entities involved and we'll proceed according to the agreement we have and which has been followed. In every case where we've had hearings, individuals have been given 10 minutes and organizations have been given 15.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Chair, can I ask a procedural point related to the point we've just discussed? Do I understand that the chair of the Lakehead board will be presenting the Lakehead board's position?
Interjection: Yes.
Mr Hampton: But there are three others from the Lakehead board, Renny Maki, Paul Kennedy and Linda Rydholm, who will be presenting. What I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding here is that some boards of education have actually been excluded. For example, the Atikokan Board of Education tried to appear before this committee and they were told there was no time for the Atikokan Board of Education, yet I see three people here from the Thunder Bay board in addition to the board chair who is speaking for the board.
I don't understand the procedure which will actually exclude board representatives like the Atikokan board and require other boards to agglomerate their presentation when some individuals from particular boards, it would seem, are given special status.
The Chair: If I could clarify, Mr Hampton, the lists were compiled from lists that were presented by the three caucuses and it's no more complicated than that. I could let members of the subcommittee who presented those lists speak for themselves.
Mrs McLeod: I will, Madam Chair, and I'm sorry to need to delay the start because we have limited enough time here in Thunder Bay, as we had limited enough time in the hearings in Ottawa yesterday. I know we want to get on with it.
There is a great deal of concern here about the numbers of boards as well as groups of individuals who should be able to make a presentation and are not able to. It needs to be very clearly understood, and I think quite frankly the government needs to address the fact that there is more than one representative of the Lakehead board presenting today. My belief is that the official representative, the chair, should have been invited to present and that we should have been able to accommodate all the area boards. The other individuals will be here making representation as individuals, but I think it is regrettable that means the boards have not been given full opportunity to present.
Mr Wildman: The procedure for the subcommittee was that we would look at the large number of organizations and groups, as well as individuals, that had applied to make presentations, far too many for the time allocated by the government, and that we would try to get as representative a group of presenters as possible.
Ms McLeod, I think very generously in terms of her proposals, attempted to get as many boards represented from northwestern Ontario as possible, and to do that suggested we bring boards together. It seems a little bit odd that certain boards, such as Kenora and Dryden and Fort Frances-Rainy River, would essentially end up with something like four minutes each, and we have Red Lake; Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac; and Hearst, again with about four minutes each, and then we have one board, a very important board but one board, that has not only the chair making a presentation on behalf of the board, but then individual trustees also making presentations, and another board, the Atikokan board, which isn't able to get on at all.
As you said, Chair, the subcommittee attempted to accommodate as many as possible, but I don't quite understand how we ended up with a situation where one board has many trustees making presentations, or at least three trustees making presentations, two beyond the official presentation of the board, and one other board that is affected by this amalgamation proposal not even able to get on the list.
1140
The Chair: To respond to that I can only repeat that we are constrained by the government's time allocation motion. We can't hear all of the 1,400 individuals and groups that have applied to appear before the committee. This list was compiled from lists produced by the members of the subcommittee. It obviously is not a perfect list but --
Mr Wildman: I would suggest that perhaps one of the trustees from the Lakehead would be willing to give up her or his time for the Atikokan board.
Mr Skarica: I wonder if I could --
Interruption.
The Chair: Let's set out the rules and procedures right from the beginning. There are going to be some times during the course of the day when you will feel that you either agree or disagree with what's being said, and you will want to voice your approval or disapproval. That makes our process longer and it makes it even more difficult for people to present. We have very limited time. I would ask you please, in the interest of fairness, to allow us to proceed without intervention.
Mr Skarica: I have a suggestion, but we need unanimous consent. I have canvassed with my colleagues and I'm proposing that we add 15 minutes to the end of the day for the Atikokan board. That way we'll hear from all the boards in the area.
Mr Hampton: That doesn't quite deal with the issue, Madam Chair. I don't understand why the Fort Frances-Rainy River board, the Dryden board, the Kenora board, the Red Lake board, the Beardmore, Geraldton and Longlac board and the Hearst Board of Education in effect get about three minutes each to make their views known, and yet for some reason the Thunder Bay board is not only going to have the chair, but is going to have a Mr Paul Kennedy, a Ms Linda Rydholm and a Mr Renny Maki, who are all going to have 10 minutes each. This seems a bit absurd. I'd put it to the government that Maki, Rydholm and Kennedy ought, like the other boards, to be required to combine their time.
The Chair: In the interest of expediting this, I think I hear a motion from Mr Wildman and Mr Hampton that we ask for unanimous consent to ask those three individuals to retire in favour of other boards. Is that what you're doing, Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: No, I suggested one do that, but I think Mr Hampton has proposed a compromise which is that all three of those presenters from the Lakehead board combine their time as the other boards have had to do to free up some other time.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent for that motion?
Mr Skarica: Then we give the Atikokan board -- how are we going to use that time?
Mr Hampton: I think at the very least that should be added to the times of the other boards.
Mr Skarica: I don't have any problem with that, but I also think we should add 10 minutes in any event for the Atikokan board so we have heard from all the boards in the area. Is everyone agreed to that?
The Chair: Mrs McLeod, do you want to add anything for your caucus?
Mrs McLeod: I would like to see that all the area boards have been treated fairly in terms of our time allocations when we do this, because I think we just passed a motion that would have taken the 15 minutes we freed up by reducing those presentations to 10 minutes. If we can free up more time, let's be sure it's allocated fairly between all those boards absolutely, as well as adding the Atikokan board. Madam Chair, I just --
The Chair: I think we're going to need some very specific direction here as to what it is you want us to do, because the clerk will have to deal with it immediately this morning.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that, and I want to point out that this is not some kind of oppositional tactic. Yesterday, in Ottawa, we were relatively successful, even with limited time, in hearing from each of the boards. I think members were impressed with the presentation they heard repeatedly from Lanark, Leeds-Grenville, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and Prescott-Russell, four boards that are to be combined into one, and that it was important for members to hear the concerns of those boards. That's equally true as they come into northwestern Ontario. Each of these boards is about to lose its identity in the amalgamation, and it is very important for them to be able to make the case to this committee as to why they believe this is not the direction to go.
The Chair: I sense that everybody agrees with respect to that. I'm looking for specifics as to what we want the clerk to do.
Mr Hampton: As I look at it, if we combine the three independent trustees from the Thunder Bay board into one presentation, that will free up 20 minutes, and if we add 15 minutes on the end for the Atikokan board, it would work out this way: The boards from Red Lake, Beardmore, Hearst, which are presenting at 2 o'clock, will have additional time; the boards from Fort Frances-Rainy River, Dryden and Kenora, which are appearing at 1:15, will have additional time; and the Atikokan board will have additional time at the end or whenever they can fit in.
The Chair: Is it your proposal those boards be given 20 minutes each? Is that what you're suggesting?
Mrs McLeod: We already had 25 added with the change.
The Chair: So it would be a half-hour?
Mr Hampton: A half-hour each.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent with respect to that?
Mrs McLeod: How much time will the Atikokan board receive?
The Chair: I think we'll only have 15 minutes for the Atikokan board if that's all we're adding at the end.
Mrs McLeod: Atikokan presenting as a group.
The Chair: They would be presenting as a standalone group.
Mr Skarica: Maybe we should get going.
The Chair: Is that agreeable? Anyone opposed? Terrific. The clerk will ensure everyone is notified of that. With that in mind, we'll try and have a revised schedule as we go along.
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Could I call upon the Northwestern Ontario Small Business Association, Mark Lawrence. Welcome, Mr Lawrence. We're delighted to have you with us this morning. If you have followed the discussions, you know you will have 15 minutes in which to make your presentation. If there is any time left over, the committee would be very pleased to ask questions.
Mr Mark Lawrence: The Northwestern Ontario Small Business Association represents approximately 125 small businesses in the area and the outlying districts of Thunder Bay, Schreiber and Terrace Bay.
At the outset, our association is in favour of this legislation, as we feel this is the initial step in the downsizing of the large, cumbersome bureaucracy that has become today's education delivery system. We feel that as taxpayers and business owners we do not see an efficient use of our tax dollars, and our youth do not have an adequate level of basic skills under the present system.
While total enrolment has only increased approximately 16% over the last 10 years, school board spending has increased by approximately 82%, spending increases that came directly from increased taxes. Business not only supports the system through realty taxes; business also pays an additional amount through business tax levies. These tax costs burden the business regardless of whether or not the business is profitable. In many instances our members have to borrow money and pay interest on these borrowings just to pay their taxes and support the system.
The realty and business tax burden on small business is onerous and is causing business failures at an alarming rate. As an association we feel that business tax should be abolished and the required tax revenue be levied equally against assessments of residential and business real estate only. Businesses can no longer afford the additional level of taxation by way of business taxes.
With specific regard to Bill 104, our association is in favour of the positive steps we see this legislation achieving through reduced costs and thereby reduced taxes.
In particular, we applaud the following:
The reduction in the number of boards and their reduced spending power.
The limits on the number of trustees.
The capping of honorariums.
The minimum qualifications, and disqualifications, for eligibility in elections.
The inclusion of conflict of interest and nepotism guidelines.
The elimination of the board's direct authority to levy taxes.
The requirement for accountability with regard to finances and costs.
The greater emphasis on empowering school councils.
The proposed new student funding model promoting equality throughout Ontario.
The implementation of the Education Improvement Commission.
In conclusion, our association has tried to bring the concerns of the small business sector to you, our concerns for our survival. We can no longer raise our prices to cover increased taxes, what with increased competition from every corner of the continent and now from every corner of the world. We cannot allow our publicly funded bodies to control their existence without true accountability to the taxpayer and without limits to their power and authority.
We thank you for this opportunity to address this committee and allowing us to voice our opinions. We trust that our input will be of mutual benefit.
1150
Mr Hampton: Mr Lawrence, thank you. Let me say, you recite the figures and the numbers in the Progressive Conservative Party briefing note very well. We've heard them from all the members of the Conservative caucus and you've obviously got a copy yourself.
You talk about the savings. The estimate is that Ontario, according to the government's own figures, spends $13.5 billion on education annually. The government's own briefing note says that by amalgamating all these boards -- and some of them are going to be absolutely huge boards that require driving distances of four or five hours to get to a board meeting -- this will save $150 million across the province. They say that is a 1% saving.
My question to you is this: Does it make sense to you that we're going to abolish much of the local control over education, that we're going to create boards of education where people have very little community of interest? I'm not sure how someone in Terrace Bay or Schreiber and their schools will relate to schools in downtown Thunder Bay. I'm not sure how someone in Red Lake will necessarily relate to a school in Atikokan, which is literally five hours' drive away. Does it make sense to you that we're going to sacrifice all those things, sacrifice the local control, sacrifice any community of interest, for an apparent saving of 1%?
Mr Lawrence: I haven't seen the numbers and I don't know what the management model is, but I'm sure there's a management model that can address your concerns. I see personally that most of the local control will be within the school and not through a board in the future.
Mr Skarica: Thank you very much for your presentation and for taking time out of your day to address us today. We heard yesterday in Ottawa from the Nepean Chamber of Commerce, and they had this to say about jobs in their area. When they have 2,000 high-tech jobs there that "go begging in this region because of a lack of qualified individuals, something is wrong," he told us. "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." Is that at all a problem here, that there are jobs but a lack of qualified people to obtain them?
Mr Lawrence: I think to some extent that's true, although business would like to be responsible for the training aspect of that. We need the basic skills coming out of school and we don't think that's coming out in this day and age.
Mr Skarica: What changes would you like to see to address that problem of basic skills? Could you give us any suggestions?
Mr Lawrence: I think by the basic idea of having parents involved at the school level and having more control and more autonomy by the principal and vice-principal right in the school as a small microcosm of the entire process by having the people who are in the school empowered to run the school and make the decisions right at the local level.
Mrs McLeod: I would assure Mr Skarica that the greater concern that we have in northwestern Ontario is not the one we heard in Ottawa, which is the lack of people to fill the jobs. The lack of jobs is the greatest concern we have here, which is why I'd like to address a couple of particularly northwest concerns to you, Mr Lawrence, if there's time.
One is on the assumption you have that taxes are going to go down as a result of this. I have a particular concern that here in the northwest the business taxes are actually going to go up. I don't think there's much question that the business taxes will go up. You'll be aware that business still has to pay education taxes. The education tax is only being taken off residential properties, not off commercial properties. On top of that, business has to pick up its share of those new costs being put on to the municipal property tax base. There's absolutely no question that at the end of the day, while there might potentially be some saving for residential taxpayers -- that's not sure yet -- there will be an increase in taxes for the business taxpayer. As a northwesterner, that concerns me because I think the margin of survival for northwestern Ontario businesses is very slight. Would that not be a concern for you as a businessperson here, to see taxes actually go up?
Mr Lawrence: Yes, that's our concern. We don't agree that education funding should come off of residential taxes. We think it should be spread across the entire base of property, both commercial and residential.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that, because it really is a concern for me.
The other concern you've touched on is the whole question of the dollars that would be saved. The government's own figures suggest that the actual saving from the amalgamation of trustees, just the trustee portion alone, is about $23 million on a $14-billion budget. I don't see that as a lot of money being saved by amalgamation of boards and the fewer trustees. What I am concerned about is the one you touched on, and that's the funding formula that is supposed to provide equity across the province.
In the north we tend to worry that funding formulas won't really recognize northern concerns. I think you would probably agree that education and equality of education in northern Ontario communities is absolutely critical for our survival and we need to truly have some local ability to make sure we are getting what our students need in our classrooms. Would it concern you that we're going to lose that when the government, Queen's Park, takes over all the funding and makes all the decisions for us?
Mr Lawrence: Not as we see the new proposals, the new models coming down, where the parents provide the local input and the staff at the school provide the other side of it.
Mrs McLeod: But they won't have any funding control. So you would see every parent council being able to lobby Queen's Park independently for the dollars they need?
Mr Lawrence: That's my personal opinion, that the school councils will assume more authority that way and be granted more authority.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lawrence, for taking the time to be with us today and to share your views with us.
1200
RED LAKE DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOLS PARENT COUNCIL
RED LAKE DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL PARENT COUNCIL
The Chair: I call upon the parent councils of Red Lake district, Tess Martone of the Golden Learning Centre and Ruth Londry of the parent council. Welcome.
Mrs Tess Martone: My name is Tess Martone. I'm really nervous. I've never done this before.
The Chair: You don't have to be nervous.
Mrs Martone: I have two children. I have a six-year-old son and a nine-year-old daughter in the public school system. They're the reason I'm here today, because I'm really concerned about the changes this bill will bring to education. I also represent the parent councils of the public schools in the Red Lake district. We are three schools in three communities and we have about 750 students.
The purpose of this presentation is to ensure the continued delivery of quality education to our children, which we already have. We've achieved this through the innovative way we manage our operating procedures. I'd like to address these in five points, the first being classroom size.
The Red Lake board reduced its administrative staff from 11 to five and reorganized our operating procedures to a site-based management approach at all our schools. Our principals now have the ability to make the decisions necessary for the smooth operation of our schools without having to deal with needless bureaucracy, but at the same time they're held fully accountable for their actions to the board and the school parent councils. Further details are available in our written submission.
Our full-time principals and secretaries ensure that teachers can concentrate on delivering the highest quality of education possible by minimizing or preventing interference in the daily operation of the classroom. Our vice-principals are used for full-time instructional purposes, thus reducing classroom size. Almost all our site-based model approaches directly affected our classroom sizes. We are committed to keeping them down. If class sizes go up, the teacher workload goes up and less time is available for planning and implementing extracurricular activities, which brings me to my second point.
If there are further staff cuts, extracurricular activities would no longer be able to be maintained. Our public schools provide lunchroom supervisors. These supervisors free up the teachers to run the extracurricular activities. As far as programs are concerned, the Golden Learning Centre has an exemplary science program compared to the other boards in the region. This has been accomplished through the cooperative efforts of businesses in our area, a point I'll come back to in a moment because it's very important.
Regarding special education needs, as a parent I'm very concerned because Bill 104 does not mention special education services. The Red Lake board has made a commitment to supplying student assistance for all our high-needs students. Currently our public school offers the reading recovery program. This program targets children who are six years old and ensures that they're able to read. It's very successful and it alleviates the need for special identification for special needs at a later date. This is a shared resource with other boards that is cost-saving.
We also feel that with smaller classroom sizes, gifted children are more readily challenged and those with special needs can be identified and assisted much more quickly.
Special education needs are very important to the parent councils. We feel they are very valuable and we treasure any services that are implemented to facilitate the needs of these children.
Golden Learning Centre also works cooperatively with the Harmony Centre and hires developmentally disabled persons to work in our school, which leads me to my fourth point: cooperative industrial partnerships.
Through the partnerships of local industries and township councils in cooperation with the Red Lake board, several cost-saving projects have been implemented. One industry donated $20,000 to help our board implement an alternative energy project that saves the Golden Learning Centre alone $45,000 per year. These are the kinds of ventures that we as a parent council support.
We've also benefited by receiving a subsidized swim program in which our children receive a safe, quality program. The area we live in is surrounded by over 3,000 lakes, so obviously this is a very valuable and treasured program that prevents catastrophe from befalling us. Since this program began there has not been a single local student drowning incident in our area.
Also, through further cooperative ventures, the Red Lake and Madsen public schools share their resources with Family Futures, which is again cost-saving.
The Golden Learning Centre has an exemplary science room due to a $50,000 industrial contribution.
The Red Lake Board of Education is also able to bring to the Red Lake district, through the cooperative efforts of business, a one-of-a-kind program in North America on the order of $60,000. This student leadership program taught to grade 3 students on up to the OAC level and it is a wonderful program. I've looked at it myself.
As far as the arts are concerned, in larger centres only day trips are required to expose children to the arts, music and Canadian heritage. Our children, to participate in any of these areas, must travel out of town at a very minimum of two and one half hours one way, and they very often have to stay overnight. The cost is great. These facts mean our children rarely get to participate in the arts.
However, currently at the Golden Learning Centre we're in the process of a theatrical production entitled Pinocchio and the Fairy Modmother. This production is under the leadership of our full-time principal and secretaries, who have worked in cooperation with local businesses, the township, regional airlines, numerous parent volunteers and with an internationally celebrated playwright to put on this production in our school virtually cost-free.
The Red Lake area has also worked cooperatively with other school boards to ensure the safe, efficient and money-saving transportation of our children.
We suggest that when the funding model is developed our anomalies be given serious consideration, such as cost per pupil for transportation, which Ruth will elaborate on in a moment, and cost per teacher development. Currently, we have no consultants to assist our teachers with professional development. These are anomalies that require special consideration in the funding model.
Quoting our Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves, in the 1995 fiscal and economic statement, page 18 reads, "Our schools should be providing students with greater equality of opportunity through funding that is shared fairly across the province." In the fair funding model, we are confident that this committee will take seriously the anomalies that affect the north.
Due to time constraints, these are just a few of the cooperative ventures. The remaining can be viewed in our written submission.
I have said all of this to help you understand the uniqueness of the Red Lake district. The trust and caring that has built up in our area has taken years to accomplish. As a parent council, we are very concerned that we will lose this trust and these cooperative ventures. These issues are people-driven, which have built up over time through the efforts of very fine school trustees, which leads me to my fifth concern: trustee representation.
We feel it is essential that our children are represented fairly. In order to ensure fairness and equity, we request that a committee be formed to facilitate the process, because the bottom line is our children. We want them to continue to reach their full potential.
If I can refer you to this map here, the proposed district school board 5 is as large an area as the entire southern Ontario region. This unique, isolated and large geographical area causes us to be concerned that the trust and cooperation that has developed through the years will disintegrate without a personal touch.
We feel that the innovative way of handling operating procedures in our area can be used as a model for the new board structure. We appeal to you that whatever changes you make, you keep these unique issues to northwestern Ontario in consideration. There's a proverb that says, "For lack of guidance, a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure."
This committee has shown wisdom in having these hearings, and I'd like to thank you for your time.
Mrs Ruth Londry: My name is Ruth Londry and I am a parent of two teenage boys who attend the Red Lake District High School, a district school of approximately 400 students. I am speaking on behalf of the high school parent council.
Bill 104 is An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system. The map in front of me shows the size of the proposed district 5 superimposed over southern Ontario. The main concern of Red Lake area parent councils is the size of the proposed district 5 and how it will impact on our students.
In order for a board to be effective, it must have good communications between the schools, the parents and students. Travel time to attend meetings in the proposed district 5 will vary from three to six hours one way. This is equivalent to driving from Toronto to Sudbury, and on much poorer roads, I might add, and at a cost of 72.8 cents a litre for regular gas. The distances will automatically eliminate people from taking positions on the board because their jobs and/or family obligations will not allow them the time to do the travelling required.
The use of modern technology is not a viable option. Northwestern Ontario does not have cell phones. Getting on the Internet is a major frustration as there are no fibre-optic lines to handle the demand at this time in Red Lake. Talking on a speakerphone is not the same as meeting face to face. The fact that this committee is travelling to some parts of Ontario is an admission of this fact. If some members of the board are meeting at the same table while others are on the phone, you do not have equity.
Due to the number of students, we might -- and I stress "might" -- have one trustee representing our area. If we don't have any representation, we have no voice in any of the decision-making processes. This will have a major impact on our students. No representation means no equity. We will lose accessibility to our board members, and in turn, that will make accountability much harder.
1210
I have the personal experience of working in a small government office which is part of a larger organization. Our office in Red Lake has no say in any changes simply because we are outvoted by the larger offices of Kenora, Dryden and Rainy River. Many of the changes in the last year have actually been detrimental to the Red Lake office and its clients because our situation is different than that of the larger towns. I am very concerned that this will be the situation in a school board of this size. The losers this time, though, are our children, our students.
Maintaining the programs that our students now enjoy is the number one priority of the Red Lake parent council. Take sports programs like Norwossa. It costs $100-plus per Red Lake student, compared to $50 per student in Dryden, to attend sports functions, just because of the distance we are from the Trans-Canada Highway.
The value of sports and music programs is well documented. Our athletes have competed and come out victorious many times over much larger high schools. Our band regularly shows that small can be good. These programs are important for the health, esteem and identity of our school.
Will a large board recognize our unique problem of extra costs for travel? Will our students be assured of equity of programs, like the minister has promised? Providing standardized grants per child within the board will not reflect the travel circumstances that students from the Red Lake area face.
Standardization of grants will not improve the effectiveness, or the quality, of the Red Lake district student programs. We are concerned about co-op programs. In a small community it is a must to have good working relationships with local businesses. We are already at a disadvantage over larger centres because the number of co-op opportunities is limited. Will, or can, a large board understand the problems we face in this area?
We are concerned about professional development, that it will suffer when attendance by teachers is restricted by the cost of time and travel. Will a large board be able to recognize the issues that are unique to our particular school? The present board, recognizing this problem, has been proactive in recruiting other agencies in the community to share the costs associated with bringing in speakers. A workshop on fetal alcohol syndrome is just one example. Fetal alcohol syndrome, although not unique, is a major problem in our area. Will our board, the size of Belgium, still be able to work effectively with local community organizations? If our Red Lake teachers cannot maintain an acceptable level of professional development, then who are the biggest losers? Our children.
The bill does not mention special education services, SEAC committees or board-mandated responsibilities under the Education Act or the Human Rights Code. The Red Lake school board has shown over the years a strong commitment to identified students. This has involved ensuring that testing is done and followed through, and that is not an easy task in Red Lake.
In order to ensure fairness, we are asking for an education improvement committee under Bill 104, subsection 338(3), to help the transition into the new system. We want to be sure that communication is possible and that regional disparity is recognized. We feel this cannot happen in a board this size and we want the size of the proposed District 5 reduced.
The Chair: Thank you both very much for appearing here today. There was certainly no need for you to be concerned about being nervous. Your presentation was forthright, straightforward, and I liked the visual element.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LAKEHEAD AREA OFFICE
The Chair: I call upon CUPE, northwestern Ontario, Jules Tupker. Welcome, Mr Tupker. As you take your places, could you please introduce your co-presenter.
Mr Jules Tupker: My name is Jules Tupker. My co-presenter is Howard Matthews. He is the other national representative in the CUPE office in the Lakehead area office. We will be doing a joint presentation.
Mr Howard Matthews: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be presenting the first half of our presentation, and then I'll turn it over to Brother Tupker, as we say in the union movement, for our recommendations.
Thank you for the opportunity of making this presentation on behalf of CUPE's members in northwestern Ontario. Our primary focus in this document is the job security of our members and the protection of the fundamental democratic right to freely negotiate our collective agreements.
I'm going to point to a couple of parts on this page and the next. Our primary concern with this piece of legislation is in clause 335(3)(f) of the act, where it's stated, among the specific powers accorded to this commission, it is required to "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards."
This commission has wide-ranging powers, and two of the instructions as specifically given are again -- I want to emphasize these words -- "promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services." That's in the middle of page 1.
This provision gives a clear indication that the government intends to contract out, to the greatest extent possible, the work performed by non-employees of school boards.
If you turn to page 2 -- this issue has come up over and over with this government -- at the bottom of the page we cite a document that was leaked to CUPE in December 1996 entitled Removing Barriers to Restructuring and Alternative Service Delivery: Labour Relations, preliminary discussion. This was actually a Ministry of Municipal Affairs document. Listed as "barriers" in the text of the document are: "(1) contracting-clauses in collective agreements" -- this would be freely negotiated contracting-out clauses -- "and (4) successor rights."
In addition to that -- I notice there's a member of the Who Does What panel slated to speak later; she's been combined with some others now, but one of the recommendations was, at the top of page 3, that "school boards not deliver these services," and that is building and maintenance of schools, transportation and other administrative services, "directly but should outsource these functions to municipalities or local service providers, or create local cooperative service agencies...subject to provincially established criteria."
So there are three strong positions taken from government directly or commissions of government.
With these protections we're not talking about privileges. The right to negotiate protections against contracting out and protections regarding successor rights are recognized as fundamental human rights. The protections regarding successor rights were put in place to prevent unscrupulous employers from subverting the negotiating rights of employees, which would be meaningless without them. Successor rights are part and parcel of union recognition rights, which are fundamental human rights recognized by the United Nations.
Furthermore, these rights are not the product of some left-wing government. They were put in place in every province in the country and by the federal government, by mainly Conservative and Liberal governments. These rights deal with fundamental human rights, not ideology.
Regarding contracting out, the right to negotiate is really nothing more than the right to negotiate a contract with an employer that the employer is bound by for its term. A simple example in the private sector would be Busy Bee Cleaners negotiating a contract with someone for three years; they're darn well bound by that contract for the three years. This government wants to legislate our collective agreements, which are the same thing in a bargaining context, out of existence. If you did that to the private sector, you'd be tossed out of office before your term was over.
Furthermore, the right to negotiate no contracting out is the right to negotiate job security, a right that is universally recognized. There is no guarantee that unions will succeed in negotiating no contracting-out clauses. However, the right to do so is fundamental. These rights do not need to be explained to anyone except the most right-wing ideologue. Unfortunately, that is apparently what we are dealing with. The proponents of contracting out view workers as commodities to be bought and sold as cheaply as possible.
The Lakehead Board of Education is the largest board in the northwestern Ontario area and is primarily staffed and operated by board employees, more than 200 of whom are our members, and we have long-standing connections to this community. We don't just work for the community. We are a part of the community. Our members do their jobs because they are committed to them and to the Lakehead Board of Education. We are not commodities.
1220
Our members' jobs and their time with the board are not just pit stops on the way to somewhere else or a few lines on our résumés in search for something better elsewhere. It is our career, and our members intend to stay in these jobs and in this community throughout their working lives.
The Lakehead Board of Education has one of the most effective and efficient operations in the province. This didn't just happen in the last two or three years. Our members deserve their fair share of credit for this. We have ownership in our community and we have earned equity in our jobs. We have done a good job for the board and we ought not to be subjected to threats of losing our jobs every time the political winds change.
The unwritten bargain with the employer has always been that the best job security is to do a good job. We have lived up to our end of this deal. This long-standing agreement is now being threatened by untested and unproved idealogy and not by poor performance.
The board is a large employer. Over the course of time there are certain to be problems in specific areas. The answer is not the shortsighted approach of contracting out or privatizing an otherwise excellent operation piece by piece.
The union has proved, over the course of many years and many problems, that we can and do work with the administration to deal with problems. We do not oppose change for the sake of fighting. A good example is the recent enormous cutbacks in funding from the province. We worked together with the board to rationalize our operations in the face of those cutbacks. There is no inherent conflict between good wages and working conditions and an effective and efficient operation -- ask Avenor or Bombardier, Thunder Bay's largest employers. In fact, the two go hand in hand.
We care about providing effective and efficient public services and we always will care. Our jobs depend upon it.
The board and CUPE have negotiated the following language in our collective agreement regarding contracting out. I won't read it all, but in this article our members' work won't be contracted out.
To go on, this article was freely negotiated by the parties. Also, both parties have recognized the value of board employees performing our members' work. As anyone who has ever been involved in collective bargaining knows, in order to achieve protections like this, the union gave up things in other areas. It is an affront to every principle of democracy for the government to even contemplate legislating these agreements out of existence.
The only benefit to contracting out our members' jobs is the savings that would be realized by replacing unionized workers, who have a collective agreement, with non-union, unemployed workers willing to work for less. My heart goes out to every single worker who is unemployed, so this is not in any way an attack on those poor people. This is union-busting and anti-worker. What it ultimately accomplishes is to lower the standard of living for all workers.
If our members' jobs are legislated away, many of whom have worked for the school board for decades, it will be condemning many of them to a life of abject poverty. They don't make a big income to begin with. We do not propose to make any threats in this document. However, this government needs to take notice that if the choice for our members is abject poverty or fighting for their jobs, then there is no choice. You would see school occupations for many years to come. The contractors would have to clean around our members.
In conclusion, we have focused our main concern regarding the direction of this bill and this government. In regard to our area, we suggest that there also needs to be a hard look taken at the configuration of the enormous geographical area. Both politically and economically this proposal gives rise to many concerns. Even though CUPE would stand to gain members from the merger, so this is a union talking that would probably gain members because we have the majority, we think that the proposal to restrict the merger to the Geraldton, Nipigon-Red Rock and Lake Superior boards and leaving the Lakehead board as is deserves serious consideration.
Mr Tupker: The focus of Brother Matthews's presentation was on job security and the protection of our union's right to negotiate a collective agreement. My portion of the presentation will focus on the effect clause 335(3)(f) of Bill 104 will have on the day-to-day operation of our schools.
CUPE has grave concerns about the process being proposed for the merger and amalgamation of school boards, the government's intention to control curriculum and the government's attack on teachers. However, time restraints allow me to comment only on the areas that directly affect our members.
CUPE represents approximately 36,000 employees in schools and school boards across the province. These employees are custodians, educational assistants, maintenance workers, clerical staff, bus drivers, computer and technical staff, aquatic instructors and foodservice workers, among many more. They are our neighbours and your friends and they are hardworking people who help to make our schools and school system among of the best in the world. The services these people provide go way beyond typing letters, mopping floors and repairing boilers. The people this piece of legislation wants to eliminate are well-trained, long-term employees who know and care about their schools, students and staff.
One example of that occurred earlier this year at one of the schools in Fort Francis, where an eight-year-old student did not return from recess. The teacher inquired of the custodian if he had seen this student. The custodian said no, but that he would certainly check. The custodian left the school, got into his own vehicle, drove around the neighbourhood searching for the student, could not find the student, went back to the school and reported. He notified the police, and then the custodian realized that there was a native hockey tournament going on at the arena, drove to the arena and found the student before the police found the student. This is what caring custodial staff and caring workers in this school board system do for you.
CUPE members, and indeed all employees working for the school boards throughout northwestern Ontario, are dedicated employees who, besides doing their regular duties, provide guidance and support to the students in their schools. Many help out at extra-curricular events. Our members have an interest in maintaining a clean, safe, efficient and friendly environment for students and staff.
The students and staff know they can trust an employee who has been at the school day after day, year after year. I am quite certain that most of the people in this room can remember the name of their school custodian. I know I can, right back to my grade 1 years.
Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, proposes to eliminate these employees and replace them with privatized contract workers who have no vested interest in our schools. Contractors, to keep their costs down and their profits up, will use casual clerical staff to come in for an hour or two to do peak-period duties and then move them to another school, leaving the first school with no staff to deal with day-to-day duties like answering phones, phoning parents and helping students. Contractors will use mobile cleaning crews who drive from school to school in buses. These crews will carry out a quick, no-frills cleaning of the school and then move on to the next school. Special cleaning and repairs that happen throughout the day will be left until the next day or the next, whenever the crew decides to come back.
The employees working for the contractors will have no opportunity to establish a working or social relationship with the students and staff at the schools they service. Regular, long-term employees who provide the support services for school boards are an integral part of the social fabric that exists in our schools. Eliminate these employees and you destroy that fabric. The people who will suffer the most from this bill will be the students, our children. Don't let that happen.
We request that you read and carry out the following recommendations, and these might look familiar. They were presented to you in CUPE's presentation in Toronto. The recommendations are as follows:
Reaffirm the need for the public delivery of education, acknowledging that a public system is more efficient and more equitable.
Defeat Bill 104 and engage in true consultation with stakeholders, the stakeholders you will be hearing from today.
If meaningful consultation with stakeholders still results in school board amalgamations, establish a process that protects jobs. Put fair workfare 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.
Finally, invest more, not less, in our public education system.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Tupker and Mr Matthews, for being with us and presenting the views of CUPE, northwestern Ontario. You've used up all of your time. There won't be any time for questions. Thank you for coming.
Mr Tupker: Thank you very much.
1230
LAKEHEAD BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: I call upon the Lakehead Board of Education, Suzan Labine, Cathy Woodbeck, Jim McCuaig and Bob Allison, please. Thank you very much for being here. We're delighted to have you here with us.
Ms Suzan Labine: Good afternoon. My name is Suzan Labine and I am chair of the Lakehead Board of Education. I am joined today by Cathy Woodbeck, vice-chair; Jim McCuaig, director of education; and Bob Allison, superintendent of business. Thank you for this opportunity to voice our very strong concerns about this legislation.
We are here today to present the solid majority view of our fellow trustees. We hope you take this opportunity to listen carefully.
Bill 104's preamble states that this is An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system. We unequivocally believe that Bill 104 will not achieve these ends but in reality will destabilize and dismantle rather than reform Ontario's public education system.
Particularly, the amalgamation of district school board number 6 will not achieve accountability, effectiveness or improved quality. The drastic reduction of publicly elected representation, reluctant school councils and an added layer of bureaucracy -- the Education Improvement Commission and its local committees -- will not enhance accountability. We have great concerns about the public's ability to access this new board. Without reasonable public access, where is the accountability?
The complexity of implementing amalgamation redirects administrative and governance energies away from students to a political focus. A board covering 60,000 square kilometres that lacks the infrastructure to effectively communicate is not more effective. A large board that is not responsive to local needs is not more effective.
Ms Cathy Woodbeck: As indicated on the map of Ontario, the government is proposing a board covering an area of 60,000 square kilometres. For comparison, we have outlined on our map equivalent-sized boards in southern Ontario. The same-sized board in southern Ontario would stretch from Toronto east to Montreal and extend north to encompass Huntsville and Pembroke. The same-sized board would cover all of southwestern Ontario from Toronto to Windsor, including the Bruce Peninsula.
Imagine, if you will, a five- to six-hour weekend drive to the cottage from Toronto, to an area located 160 kilometres north of North Bay. That is what trustees and administration will be facing weekly in providing leadership to this proposed board. Imagine the diversity of communities one would face if boards in southern Ontario were that size. Well, we face the same type of diversity in proposed district 6 board. This proposed board, the size of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island combined, will contain 10 first nations communities, one city representing 73% of the electorate, three towns representing 6% of the electorate, 15 organized townships representing 16% of the electorate and 121 unorganized townships representing 5% of the electorate, where boards of education currently act as a municipality for election, tax collection and recreation agency purposes. How do you propose to give the above communities a voice in the proposed board, yet allow for representation by population, with a minimum number of trustees?
Imagine trying to hold regularly scheduled public board or committee meetings that encompass five- to six-hour drives on single-lane highways, highways that have been closed 19 times this winter. The easy answer given is telephone or videoconferencing. Try holding a public meeting to close a school by teleconference. The technology is reality but the infrastructure is not available in the north. Hospitals, colleges, universities and school boards need the infrastructure now, not in the promised two to three years. This technology is expensive to install and to operate. A telephone conference for four locations in the proposed district school board 6 costs $250 per hour. In order to provide reasonable Internet access to our existing rural schools, we are required to set up satellite dishes at each of our 11 schools, at a cost of between $7,000 and $10,000 each.
Education and Training Minister John Snobelen has said, "There will be no second-class students in Ontario." Absolutely a noble goal, but one that comes with a price. To fulfil this promise, one of two things will occur in district school board 6: Costs will rise or students will see a dramatic decrease in services and programs. The Minister of Education and Training has not defined what a first-class education system will be or what that will cost. We would assume that equity of access is an essential component of any public education system and that a child in Manitouwadge should expect the same level of service as a child in Thunder Bay. Is the government prepared to fund an equitable system?
Currently, each school board makes its decisions on service levels and supports those decisions by realigning priorities within a board, reallocating resources and taxing where required. Trustees are held accountable to the public every three years. The proposed funding model and this amalgamation diminish the ability of trustees to make decisions that serve the needs of the community.
How do school councils get equal opportunities to make presentations and influence a board's strategic direction, operational plans and annual budgets in a board of this size? Currently, our school councils and public provide significant ideas in these areas. How does a board grant weight to a small community school 400 kilometres from its population centre?
Ms Labine: Bill 104 is incomplete and does not provide boards with a funding model, methods of dealing with the harmonizing of collective agreements, capital or contingency issues. This is not effective legislation. It presents more problems than solutions.
In Bill 104's preamble, the word "effectiveness" is used. The Lakehead Board of Education's focus has been efficiency and improving school effectiveness and accountability. Since 1993, our operating budget has been reduced by $18 million, to $108 million. The provincial government has withdrawn 31% in grant support from our children's education. The Lakehead Board of Education has recouped only 6% through local taxes. The remainder has been found through collective agreements, downsizing and increased efficiencies. Due to the current government's restructuring, the Lakehead Board of Education may have to suspend decisions that would have reduced costs by a further $600,000 to $700,000 in 1998. Our ability to manage decisions is compromised.
We find it unacceptable that the Education Improvement Commission, an unelected, unaccountable body, supersedes the authority of a duly elected board. This legislation is an affront to all citizens who cast a ballot in the 1994 municipal election. As with many of this government's directions, a complete disdain for democracy is once again evident. The demographics of Mr Harris's Ontario are very different from Mr Klein's Alberta. Thousands of people are outraged by this government's hasteful and myopic agenda. This legislation has absolutely nothing to do with children and classroom learning. It has everything to do with an ambitious agenda to find dollars and to download costs to the municipal taxpayers. The people of Ontario are not stupid. The propaganda will work only so long.
Perhaps the most distressing part of this agenda is the total lack of implementation plans for these massive changes. The big concepts are there, but the how-to details are nowhere to be seen. Bill 104 has taken the focus away from our students. The Conservative government is removing the people who could implement academic accountability. We view the commission and local committees as an added layer of bureaucracy. The legislation's bold language placing the Education Improvement Commission above courts of law and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is most offensive. As a Canadian and the daughter of a Second World War veteran, I am alarmed, ashamed and embarrassed by this legislation's disregard for the basic tenets of democracy.
In addition, Bill 104 does not recognize the cost, complexity and time frame dictated by this legislation. Boards cannot absorb these costs without impacting our students. Bill 104 will not improve student learning. I'd like you to listen to this: A reformed school board structure which included board amalgamations where they made sense, reduced numbers of trustees, a recognition of efficient boards, sanctions against wasteful boards and shared services wherever possible would have done the job. We believe the amalgamation of district school board number 6 will be less accountable, less effective, and will impede our ability to provide a high-quality education to our students. The Sweeney and Crombie reports both recognized the uniqueness of northwestern Ontario. We ask you to do the same.
1240
The four boards of proposed district school board number 6 have already submitted a proposal to create two public boards for the area. A shared services agency and a children's services agreement will deliver cost efficiencies and preserve local accountability and decision-making for these two boards.
Bill 104 creates distraction, uncertainty and challenges in Ontario that will take years to resolve. The strategic direction for the Lakehead Board of Education has and will continue to be improving student learning through school improvement teams and school councils. Our focus has been on improving public accountability, improving practices for special needs students, improving teaching and assessment practices, accelerating the integration of information technology in the classroom and improving facilities for learning. The amalgamation of boards will impede the momentum for continuous improvement established by this board and focus our attention for the next one to two years away from the classroom.
Our concerns must be heard. Bill 104 must be amended to reflect what is best for Ontario's students. Do not push forward with legislation that is unaccountable, ineffective and does nothing to improve the quality of learning.
Thank you again for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Labine, to you and your group for being here to present the views of the Lakehead Board of Education. You've used up all of your time. Thank you for coming.
Mr Wildman: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. Similar to the suggestion that was made in Ottawa yesterday by various boards there with regard to the proposed board in eastern Ontario that would combine Lanark; Leeds-Grenville; Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; and Prescott and Russell into one board, in contravention of the Sweeney recommendation that there be two boards in that area, I'm asking if this proposal here by the Lakehead board will be responded to by the ministry. That is, if they intend to proceed with amalgamations, will they at least pay attention to the Sweeney and Crombie reports and set up two boards rather than the one board in this very, very large and sparsely populated area outside Thunder Bay?
Mr Skarica: As indicated yesterday, the concerns we hear during the committee hearings will be taken back and the actual board boundaries aren't written in stone at this time.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, if I may, I was going to request some information to be tabled for the committee. I think it would be helpful. I have the information in front of me. We've just begun to hear from a large number of boards over a large geographic area and I thought it might be helpful for the committee to have the maps from the Sweeney task force on school board reduction in front of them. I have them here.
Just for the record, though, the Sweeney recommendation was actually for three. It's five boards overall in northwestern Ontario, as opposed to two, so that would actually be one more than the Lakehead board just presented. I'm not suggesting this is an ideal model, but it is an alternative and it would present for the committee members some sense of the geography and the groupings of the boards. It might be helpful to have that as the day goes on.
Mr Wildman: That map is different from the one Mr Snobelen provided when he made his announcement.
Mrs McLeod: I would think so.
The Chair: If you could give that to the clerk, we'll arrange for distribution during the course of the day.
Mrs McLeod: I've also provided the separate board map, because in the case of separate boards the Sweeney report recommended four rather than the recommendation.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, THUNDER BAY DISTRICT
The Chair: I call on the next group to come forward, the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Thunder Bay district, Jim Green. Thank you for your patience. We're looking forward to hearing the views of your organization. You have 15 minutes.
Mr Jim Green: It's a pleasure to be here. I must mention that the government MPPs look very dapper this afternoon.
Mr Wildman: What have you got against us?
Mr Green: As a teacher, I always feel that no matter how unacceptable the behaviour of a student is, you ought to say something nice when you start.
The Chair: Just for the record, Mr Green, the rest of us take exception.
Mr Green: The introduction of Bill 104, ostensibly as another improvement to education and expenditure reduction, is a rather questionable measure. The government's own consultants have said maybe $150 million, probably less, will be saved. The Thunder Bay district of OPSTF does not have a position against the amalgamation of school boards, but we question the logic and the basis for the government's proposed drastic reduction. We believe this legislation will drastically affect a trustee's ability to do anything with or for the education of their constituents.
Just on a small aside, this government has established a testing process for students on the basis that if you test students long enough, they'll learn something. If these people were farmers, they'd weigh their pigs to fatten them.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): You should be a comedian.
Mr Green: That's one of the roles of a teacher, to keep the children interested.
The Chair: Excuse me, gentlemen. Mr Green is entitled to make his presentation without interruption.
Mr Green: The northwestern Ontario school boards: The viability of such vast school boards is really not there. It's difficult to imagine how boards under these circumstances will be able to hold meetings within reasonable distances for trustees and for other citizens who wish to participate and monitor school boards.
Looking at the proposed Lakehead board, or whatever we're calling it, area 6, no matter where you hold the meetings, some trustees and citizens are looking at approximately five hours' travel. It's not reasonable to expect a trustee to do that, but it's totally unreasonable to expect a citizen to give up two days of their employment to travel one day, attend a meeting, pay for overnight accommodations and then travel back home for another day. This vast size is going to significantly hinder citizens from exercising their democratic right to participate in local school board decisions. It's a bad decision.
This government has learned well from history. Canadians are a kind, gentle people. They have great respect for their governments, aside from the expected and accepted campaign fantasy promises. We expect our governments to institute policies which provide for the needs of all of our citizens. Canada is a great country that is concerned with people, not money. As we've seen, those who place money ahead of people have mostly moved to the United States. In Canada we believe it's our duty to help those who are less fortunate, while in the United States the less fortunate are viewed as just one more opportunity to make money. This government is taking us in the American direction.
Governments in other countries have used the big lie to implement undemocratic reforms. History shows that if a government tells the big lie loud enough, long enough and often enough, people will accept it as the truth. The Conservative government in Ontario is using the deficit as the basis for its big lie. The government has used this technique to convince citizens that they are simply taxpayers who desperately want the deficit reduced.
On this basis, the government has proclaimed that medical, social and educational services are broken and drastic actions are required to fix the problems. The government has said it so loud, so often, that not only do the people believe, but the government now believes its own lies. The reality is that this government is reallocating Ontario's wealth and concentrating it in the hands of corporations and the wealthy. The government is removing services from the majority of the citizens of Ontario in order to give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthiest among us.
1250
A quick study of our neighbours to the south reveals that where money rules and people are not valued, chaos prevails. When the youth of the nation cannot afford a quality education, hopelessness arises. The youth rapidly become disillusioned and hostile to the establishment. Since society obviously does not value them, they value neither themselves nor society. That crime and violence are rampant in inner-city settings is not surprising. By establishing a two-tiered educational system and thus making needed education services and opportunities available only to those with money, we are condemning ourselves to a more violent and less productive society. Although business may save tax dollars now, the lack of an educated, flexible worker will impair its future competitiveness. This fixation upon the tax dollar at the expense of people is dooming our youth to despair and our country to mediocrity.
Past actions of this government have not made education more efficient; they have merely taken badly needed finances away from the children in order to finance the tax cut. This reorganization of school boards is not intended to improve education but is again part of a scheme to transfer tax dollars to the rich. In combination with other legislation, taxing powers are being removed from school boards and the vacated taxing room given to municipalities. Financial responsibilities in excess of the new tax area are being transferred to the municipalities. This will inevitably require huge tax increases to maintain the services or, as this government seems to favour, elimination of the services so that private industry can make a buck. The net saving to the provincial coffers will again be part of the wealth transferred to those who need it least.
In addition to the restrictions placed upon citizen participation in local school boards by the vast distances decreed for northern boards, the legislation proposes further unnecessary restrictions on citizens. There is little need for school board employees to be restricted from serving on school boards other than the one for which they work. There is absolutely no reason to exclude spouses of school board employees from participating as trustees. Interestingly, the legislation does not address the case where spouses have distinctly separate lives. A citizen serving as a trustee would be forced to resign their position of trustee if their spouse, even though living far apart, should obtain employment with any school board in Ontario. The current conflict-of-interest legislation I think adequately deals with the situation.
Bill 104 fails to make adequate provision for the employees of current school boards. The ruminations of an appointed band whose decisions cannot be appealed to a court of law will decide the fate of employees and their collective agreements. This is not democratic. This is not acceptable.
There are no successor provisions for collective agreements negotiated with current boards contained within the legislation. There are no specific provisions, other than of course this unappealing commission, for transferring employees from the current school boards to the new ones. There is no obligation in this legislation for the new boards to accept the current collective agreements negotiated by the current boards and their employees. There is every opportunity for current employees to be treated in an arbitrary and capricious manner by the new boards and the commission.
Because of the vast distances in proposed northern boards, transfers can be unnecessarily punitive. Transfers of principals and vice-principals can be traumatic enough within the current boards. The potential for such trauma within the new boards is incalculable. The legislation must be amended to include clauses creating a reasonable and just process for transferring employees and their collective agreements to the new boards. Additional clauses must address the issue of transfers other than those initiated by mutual consent.
I have six recommendations:
That the vast areas of northern boards be reduced to improve the ability of citizens to participate in the democratic process.
That trustee salaries remain the responsibility of trustees, subject to local accountability.
That Bill 104 be amended by the deletion of the clauses which unduly restrict the rights of some citizens to participate as school board trustees.
That Bill 104 be amended to address human resource issues, including, but not limited to, job protection for all employees of existing boards, recognition of the legal status of current collective agreements, protection for existing employees from transfers beyond the boundaries of their current boards, and successor rights for current unions and federations.
That Bill 104 adopt the principles related to employee transfer as outlined by the Ontario Teachers' Federation. I have attached that as an appendix.
That Bill 104 be amended to remove any role for the Education Improvement Commission related to the outsourcing of non-instructional services.
Thank you for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Green. You've exhausted all of the time we had for you. I'd like to thank you for your presentation and for being here today.
I'd ask to have the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education come forward please.
Interjection.
The Chair: Oh, yes.
Mrs McLeod: So there are several boards, then?
The Chair: My apologies. Yes, of course: John McLeod; Dryden Board of Education, Murray McFayden; Kenora Board of Education, Marion Helash.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, now that there's substantially more time, they may prefer to present separately.
The Chair: I don't see them here at all, so until they arrive we can't make any decision.
Mr Wildman: This demonstrates how long it takes to travel.
The Chair: We've noticed. Ms McLeod, did you have something else to add?
Mrs McLeod: We are running ahead of time because of the fact that we've altered the schedule.
The Chair: Absolutely. I understand that.
Mrs McLeod: As a point of information, before this grouping of boards comes up, I didn't know whether it would be helpful to make sure that people have the Bill 104 maps on northern Ontario, or if we can assume that they're --
The Chair: They're being reproduced.
Mrs McLeod: Those are the Sweeney ones, but these are the ones that were given to the committee in Ottawa yesterday that were part of our package. Just to be sure people have them.
The Chair: I'm assuming everyone does. If someone does not, could you please inform the clerk. While we have a few minutes, perhaps I'll ask our researcher to introduce two documents.
Mr Ted Glenn: There have been distributed two memos in response to the questions tabled with me yesterday: the first, Mr Wildman's request for a synopsis of the school councils' presentations to the committee on their existing legislative authority, and the other one on Ms McLeod's request for information on committee members' expressed opposition to the proposed role for school councils in the hearings to date. If you have any questions about the memos, you can get in touch with me directly.
Mrs McLeod: While we're waiting, I also table for the committee a brief that has been presented in written form for the committee's consideration. Unfortunately, it wasn't possible to get this group on as presenters, but it's a presentation by five retired education officers of the northwestern regional office of the Ontario Ministry of Education. I want it on the record that they've made this submission.
The Chair: We'll arrange for distribution of the document. We're waiting for the clerk.
Mr Skarica: While we're tabling documentation, I have a presentation to the committee of parliamentary hearings on Bill 104 from Peter Zandstra.
The Chair: We'll arrange for copying and distribution of that as well.
Perhaps, while we wait for the various groups to arrive, we might move on. Is the Office and Professional Employees International Union here? No.
1300
LINDA RYDHOLM
PAUL KENNEDY
RENNY MAKI
The Chair: Could I call upon, then, Linda Rydholm, Renny Maki and Paul Kennedy. Thank you very much for being with us. I know there have been some changes in the schedule. We appreciate your being here and accommodating the committee and accommodating the other boards that would otherwise not be able to present without your concession.
Dr Linda Rydholm: Madam Chair, members of the committee, good afternoon. Coming from the Crombie panel, I had hoped to do a speech this afternoon showing you the linkages. However, I've been told on very short notice, just now, that I am not able to do that. Evidently, members of the subcommittee -- at least the majority, Lyn McLeod and Bud Wildman -- didn't want to hear that, so I will do my best and then my counterparts will get to say their little piece.
The Chair: In fairness, there was unanimous consent. It was discussed here at the hearings in the morning. There's no one individual member who is responsible for this decision.
Dr Rydholm: Anyway, we'll do the best we can.
"It takes the whole village to raise a child," or, "It takes the whole village to educate a child," says an often-quoted and sometimes slightly reworded African proverb -- the whole village to raise or educate a child. Unfortunately in Ontario's education system the villagers have not always known their role, or if knowing, the villagers have not always assumed their role, have not always been held accountable for their role for a variety of reasons.
Today I would like to share with you a number of personal experiences, frustrations and observations which over the years have come my way in the different roles that I have played in Ontario's system of education. As a student, teacher, parent, school trustee and member of the education subpanel, Crombie commission, also known as the Who Does What panel, I've seen a lot. Notice that my comments focus on learning. I will précis quickly as I go here.
As a student attending Ontario schools in the 1950s and 1960s, I was conscientious and successful. I had good parents, teachers who followed a set curriculum. My fellow students went to work full-time in their late teens. A few of us went on to college and university. The system worked adequately for the baby-boomer times.
As an elementary teacher in the 1970s, I saw a loosening of curriculum standards, testing and reporting. Some teachers and parents were concerned about the trend to open-concept schools and anecdotal report cards. More help was given to children with special learning needs. Everyone had to get through the system. A formal education became more important, in fact essential, for securing a job.
As parents, while my husband and I studied for our doctorates in the United States from 1980 to 1984, our two children started their school careers. As former teachers from Ontario, we were worried that our daughter and son would fall behind the kids back home, but fortunately we found an excellent public school where responsibilities for everyone were clearly defined. As parents, we definitely felt part of the education picture. Every six weeks an outline of the upcoming curriculum was sent home. Appropriate homework assignments, even in kindergarten, were done each week by the students and signed by the parents.
Our daughter and son unfortunately did not finish their education in the States. They came home to Thunder Bay. Instead of falling behind the students, as we had thought would happen, our children were so far ahead academically that they couldn't fit into the regular classes. They skipped grades in school. Very sadly, their early attitude towards learning and pride in academic achievement depreciated. Every once in a while an industrious teacher would inspire them, but generally through the years they learned that bright students did not have to do their work carefully to get high marks. As parents of students in the system, and as former teachers, we felt that there were low expectations from the school system.
In 1988, I was elected as a school trustee to the Lakehead Board of Education. As a trustee I've been chair of many committees and chair of the board. Again, I have felt the lack of establishing learning standards and the testing thereof. Although we had a number of reform-minded trustees on the board, it was very difficult to make any changes academically. To its credit, the Lakehead board joined with a few southern boards to form a learning consortium. The consortium has done some testing in reading, writing and mathematics, a function that the Ministry of Education should have been performing province-wide. Gradually over the next few years, though, through the EQAO, Ontario should see a sharpened focus on learning and the testing of that learning.
In 1996, I was appointed as a member of the education subpanel on the Who Does What panel, the Crombie commission. We established five principles for change: quality of education, equity for students and taxpayers, affordability, accountability and responsiveness to local needs. The subpanel made many recommendations for the province and for school boards and school councils. One can refer to page 52 to see those recommendations.
The subpanel recommended reduction in the number of school boards, observance of French-language and Catholic rights and increased cooperation with municipalities. Very importantly, the subpanel advised the province to assume an increased share of the funding for education. Reform of education funding had been previously recommended by some 12 different studies over the course of 10 years, but reform had not been attempted, and for a good reason: Funding of our school system is very complex and is directly related to the governance. Funding and governance are intertwined and are very sensitive to reform. However, the subpanel recognized that to ensure quality, equitable and affordable public education across Ontario, the province would have to somehow assume the funding. Whether it is with a tax swap, pooling or whatever, the province must take charge of education finance in order to be fair to all students and all taxpayers.
One fact has become very clear to me from my experience as a student, teacher, parent, school trustee and a member of the Who Does What education subpanel: New education funding and governance models must enable, indeed require, the participants, or the villagers, in Ontario's education system to be responsible and accountable to themselves, to one another, to the government, and ultimately to society. It is from this background that I consider Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997. The bill deals only with part of the change, the governance. There will be new types of district school boards, fewer boards, fewer trustees. Changes will be significant.
Probably the majority of people in Ontario and the majority of people in government would prefer to see one publicly funded system of education. However, after much study and discussion on the issue, I understand why the government is establishing the four different types of district school boards: to satisfy constitutional and charter rights. Canadian democracy sometimes serves the rights of some individuals or minorities over the wishes, even the betterment, of the majority.
Specifically in my area, the proposed district 6 will encompass four boards. It will be very large. Administratively it should work, it should save costs. The classroom should not be harmed; the classroom should be enhanced. Think of these in two different ways: administratively and politically. Politically, if the trustee role is decreased to mostly policymaking, the large district will work. However, if trustees continue as pseudo-administrators, serving on contract negotiations, sports, program committees etc, then a large district will be very difficult to serve. Perhaps a compromise can be achieved: two boards politically, with a shared services agreement administratively. I agree with the changes regarding trustees.
The Education Improvement Commission will be a necessary vehicle to oversee the transition of the old system to the new. The list of powers and responsibilities may seem somewhat extreme, but necessary, in my opinion. I think back to the 1970 amalgamation in Thunder Bay, when the two cities and the surrounding municipalities did some strange things, when no one was directly in charge here and making sure things would happen properly.
Remembering that Bill 104 is only a part of the promised change in education, it is hoped that the bill will tie in nicely with the new legislation around advisory school councils, contract negotiations and the student allocation formula.
The optimist in me hopes that all the changes will fit together, that within a few years there will be a clearly defined and tested curriculum with appropriate funding, that the standards of education will be so high that there will be no need for parents to cry out for charter schools, that taxpayer groups will no longer criticize high taxes.
The optimist in me hopes that students will aim and achieve high academically; teachers will follow a clearly defined curriculum; parents will know how their children in their particular school are doing and will help with the learning process; community members will be supportive in a variety of ways; trustees and administrators will have a reduced role that is supportive to the classroom; the provincial Education Quality and Accountability Office and Ministry of Education and Training will provide central control for education funding, governance and student learning.
With the help of good legislation, may we all become good villagers who will help to educate our children: The whole village educating the child.
1310
Mr Paul Kennedy: I'm going to offer some of my thoughts. This was never a collaborative effort and we're going in different directions here, but I've got a couple of minutes because I have to leave Mr Maki some time.
I have to comment, and I don't mean to be vexatious, but the Lakehead board's chair pointed out a couple of times very directly that what she was giving you was board policy, and I have to say that what you got was never something that was developed at the board or voted on by the trustees of the board, and for the sake of good order I think you should know that.
I have no problem with the Fewer School Boards Act. I think it's consistent with previous ministries in governments before the one of the day, consistent with reports such as the Sweeney report, consistent with taxpayer and voter desire to downsize government, and consistent with some successful policies implemented in other provinces. It is not conceptually flawed. However, there is always a risk of flaws in implementation and I think that's where the attention has to be paid as we go forward with this legislation.
With regard to the district 6 board, I don't believe the issue is geography, student numbers and trustee representation. I believe the issue is competent management. We are going to add 4,000 students in 11 elementary sites and five secondary sites. I think it's a management issue. I think that the management, from what I've seen across all these boards, is entirely competent to put together a plan to do this.
I'm going to skip over a whole bunch here, some of which has been covered by Trustee Rydholm.
With regard to funding, I believe that in the quest for equity across the province, the funding and right to tax have to be taken out of the hands of local trustees. I say that with some ambivalence because I think the Lakehead board has been among the better, particularly in recent years, with regard to mining the taxes.
However, having said that, the Lakehead board in 1986 raised taxes 7.1%; 1987, 9.3%; 1988, 5.8%; 1989, 10.4%; 1990, 12.4%; 1991, 6.8%, and on it goes. We have to a certain extent abdicated our responsibility to tax in a responsible fashion, so I don't think it's any surprise this right is being taken away from boards across the province.
My main concern is with the funding model, which is the next shoe to drop. We haven't seen that model yet. I'm not comfortable entirely with this process till I do. It costs more to educate in the north. As a matter of fact, it costs more to do everything in the north and we consistently do not have that fact realized.
I think it's incumbent on everyone to make sure the funding model that evolves recognizes higher transportation costs, higher heating costs. These are not simple concepts to grasp and they have to be included as we move forward.
I will leave the rest for Trustee Maki to use the rest of the time.
Mr Renny Maki: Without any further ado, my name is Renny Maki and I represent the ward of Rural North on the Lakehead Board of Education. Most of the municipalities in my ward pay between 60% to 80% of their tax bill to education, so I can say that I represent a bunch of constituents happy with some of the reforms the government is implementing.
I wish to express my support for the overall direction of Bill 104. I don't give my unequivocal support, but I give my overall support and for the other education reforms in general. I believe that Bill 104 complements the other reforms, such as curriculum standards, the implementation of school councils and the removal of the education portion of the property tax.
I am in favour of Bill 104's reduction of the number of school boards. For one, this promises a more uniform and controlled standard of school board spending across the province. Under the current package of reforms, school boards will be required to operate within budgets based on the numbers of students without the irrational increase of taxes that has taken place over the years. The decreased number of boards will also help to ensure a more level playing field when it comes to employee salaries across the province, and this will facilitate any move the province might make towards province-wide bargaining.
In terms of governance, I am also in favour of the move to limit the number of trustees a board can have, and the salaries of trustees. Especially with the new reform package, there is clearly no need for the number of trustees we currently have, especially career trustees, and I say that without bias. I am a career trustee who doesn't have another day job and I'm sure glad for today that is the case, but I won't be running again.
Trustees have traditionally been seen as the ones to formulate and ratify policies for their school boards. In practice, however, trustees seem to do little more than rubber-stamp decisions that have already been made by the administration. The issues that really count in education, namely, what is being taught in the classroom and how it is being taught, have for many years been an enigma to parents, ratepayers and even trustees.
Nevertheless, there has been a handful of trustees over the years in our board who have gone the extra mile in challenging the education establishment, especially in the areas of finance and education quality. From this, the Lakehead board continues to reap countless benefits to this day. For instance, before the province-wide mandating of school councils, our board had already mandated the creation of school improvement teams in 1994. Our board also has the distinction in leading a consortium of five boards which has undertaken testing initiatives and which is designing province-wide tests for the Education Quality and Accountability office.
These accomplishments have been reached in spite of shrinking budgets and downsized administration throughout the past five years. Clearly, the Lakehead board has demonstrated that meaningful leadership, not more trustees and not more money, has lead to a better board.
The reason I mention this is I believe that the number of trustees provided for in Bill 104 leaves ample room for exceptional trustees. Especially now that the province is taking on the responsibility for a standard core curriculum, along with a standard report card and classroom materials, trustees can focus more on overall board policy and not worry about whether or not the three Rs are actually being taught. Plans to establish school councils in legislation give me hope that parents will have a stronger role in this area.
I am pleased that the bill does not eliminate trustees altogether. If there will ever be a change in direction which reverses the current strides to beef up standards, there will remain an avenue by which people can democratically elect trustees who will insist on education quality which exceeds provincial directives. I hope, however, that the current direction will continue.
However, I am quite concerned with the proposed changes to school board boundaries as they pertain to our board. I believe the difficulties in administering and governing such a board will be tremendous. It would be prudent, and more desirable for everyone, if boards are amalgamated with other boards that share common characteristics in population density and student population.
In addition, I'm disappointed with the timing with which these changes were announced. I believe that if our board was given more time, we could come up with agreeable alternatives to the proposed changes. The district 6A-6B proposal was the best consensus we could come up with in such a short period of time. I believe we in the north know what will work best in the north. We could possibly even come up with some agreeable alternative with the neighbouring district 5 board. I ask that you give us a chance to show you.
Based on these observations, I offer the following recommendations: (1) that Bill 104 be amended to allow for one more school board in northwestern Ontario to allow for the amalgamation of boards based on similar characteristics, reasonable size and efficiency in program delivery; (2) that the boards of the proposed district 5 and district 6 be allowed time to propose a preferred model of amalgamation based on the aforementioned point.
1320
If we cannot have more time, I at least ask that you accept the Lakehead board's 6A-6B proposal as a three-year pilot project, subject to change if outcomes are not met.
In conclusion, I would like to offer the following anecdote which I think really puts this into perspective. A year ago when our board passed a zero tax increase, I said it was the least our board could do. I said there was no reason why a board that spends $6,000 per student cannot offer a top-notch education to our younger generation, especially when a private school like the Thunder Bay Christian School spends just a little more than $3,000 a student.
The fact that each family spends $5,500 a year to send their children to this school, in addition to paying their education tax, testifies that this school offers good education even without the centralized services of a school board to rely on. Several people responded to my comments with: "That's not fair. You can't compare our system to theirs. They do things differently." All I can say is, maybe it's time we did things differently.
I believe Bill 104 takes a large step forward in doing these things more efficiently and responsibly. But what's most important to note in these changes is that there will still be classrooms, there will still be teachers and there will still be students learning, only now they will have a system whose clearer focus makes them the priority.
The Chair: Ms Rydholm, Mr Kennedy and Mr Maki, I want to express on behalf of the committee how much we appreciate your understanding and the concession you've made. We are trying to accommodate a great many people in a very limited time.
I'd like to suggest to you, because I notice you were reading from prepared texts, that you might forward to us the full text of your presentation and we will make sure that it forms part of the official record.
Dr Rydholm: Thank you for the extra time. We notice you did let us go over the 15 minutes.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, I want to clarify the record because Ms Rydholm suggested at the beginning of the presentation that Mr Wildman and I would not have been interested in a presentation on the subcommittee report of the Crombie panel. You clarified the process by which a decision was made to change the order. But I do want to make it absolutely clear that I indeed would have appreciated a very clear presentation on the Crombie recommendations, both on amalgamation and funding and how they differ from the proposals that are before us in this bill.
The Chair: Perhaps Ms Rydholm would include that in the full text when she sends it to us.
Dr Rydholm: I'd be very happy to and I will be around later this afternoon. I've taken the afternoon off out of my clinic, so if people want to speak to me individually, I'll certainly make them welcome.
The Chair: We appreciate very much your generosity this morning.
FORT FRANCES-RAINY RIVER BOARD OF EDUCATION
DRYDEN BOARD OF EDUCATION
KENORA BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: May I call upon the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education, John McLeod; Dryden Board of Education, Murray McFayden; and the Kenora Board of Education, Marion Helash. Thank you very much for being here. We met this morning as a committee and rearranged our schedule through the generosity of some other participants and you have half an hour to make your presentation. If there is any time, the committee will ask you questions.
Ms Marion Helash: I'm Marion Helash and I'm the chair of the Kenora Board of Education. I have with me Wilma Sletmoen, who is the chair of the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education, and Dave Penney, the chair of the Dryden Board of Education.
The boards of education remain committed to the ideology that forced amalgamation is irresponsible and contradicts the principles of local autonomy and therefore the democratic rights of the community and its constituents.
Even this consultation process has not allowed us the courtesy of standing together, even though the government has forced us into amalgamation. We have, however, invited Atikokan to join us in this presentation and appreciate successful efforts that allow Atikokan a place and an increase in our time, and we thank you.
The present government has chosen to ignore these basic rights and, under Bill 104, caused a forced amalgamation of school boards. For northern boards, the amalgamation has been particularly harsh and unreasonable. To create one board, district school board 5, out of five, and I think mathematically that's less than half, across an area greater than the entire country of France, and with differing time zones, would seem ludicrous to most rational thinkers. Any reasonable and responsible effort on the part of the consultation team to address this particularly absurd proposal would certainly be viewed by most as totally appropriate. Possible recommendations on your part should address the following factors.
Mr David Penney: Recommendation 1: Reduction of bureaucrats and politicians. Northern trustees are presently underpaid and overworked. In most communities, travel is already required to get to board meetings and the remuneration is generally less than $5,000. Our trustees represent a valued and cost-effective resource to education.
Similarly, administration has already been restructured to a bare minimum to meet the needs of the presently spread-out board jurisdictions. If savings are the government's goal, the boards of education cannot see where there are further savings in the amalgamation of the five boards, particularly in administrative functions. Trustees may be reduced, but the out-of-pocket expenses will increase, therefore with no realization of savings.
Recommendation 2: Local control of education. Property taxation to support education not only demonstrates local autonomy, but also affects accountability. By removing local control, communities no longer have a direct say in their child's education. With no tax-raising power, and funding being on a provincial level, will not budget development and collective bargaining, for instance, be meaningless exercises at the board level? Some school council members expressed the worry that (a) they will be expected to fulfil a role far beyond what they intended or in which they feel competent or interested; and (b) they want the decision-making to remain local, not vested in Toronto. The government must reconsider their decision and allow boards to remain with property tax as their measure of accountability.
Recommendation 3: Significant barriers to amalgamation. As mentioned earlier, the basic geography of the proposed district school board 5 is enormous. In southern Ontario terms, our board would extend from downtown Toronto, west into Michigan, past Windsor and north to Sudbury.
I want to show you a map that demonstrates school board district 5. This is school board district 5 as it appears in northern Ontario as per the current recommendation. On the flipside of the map of Ontario, drawn to scale is school board district 5 if it were in southern Ontario, and just by comparison it extends from North Bay down approximately to Port Colborne, over on the far side of Peterborough and approximately to London. This is drawn to scale.
This map clearly reflects the enormity of the problem. Why wouldn't the government consider the same treatment for those communities that we have identified in southern Ontario? Size can't be the answer as small isolated boards with a handful of students have been left untouched in the amalgamation.
Not only is distance a problem, but travel can be very dangerous as most roads are secondary highways, sometimes treacherous in the winter, with hundreds of wood-hauling trucks to keep you company. On top of this, our climate is far more severe with minus 30 degrees Celsius the norm in winter. We know all of this because all of us in our existing boards already travel up to 150 kilometres or more to attend board meetings or other administrative meetings. In the new board, travel could increase to over six hours one way by road in good weather to get to a meeting. Air service is not available to most communities in northwestern Ontario.
Technological infrastructures are not adequate. In many communities analog telephone lines are still the mode and, believe it or not, party lines are still in operation in some areas. Cellular phones are not even available in most communities. It is obvious that technology will at best be a partial solution to the geographic impediments of the proposed district school board 5.
While geography poses an incredible impediment to a one-board approach to public education in northwestern Ontario, clearly Bill 104 failed to recognize the long-standing affiliations among our 50 first nations communities and five public school boards. There exist two major native cultures in northwestern Ontario, the Cree and the Ojibway, with various subgroups within these cultures. Treaty 9 first nations are located north of Highway 17 to Hudson Bay. Treaty 3 first nations are found mainly along the Highway 11 corridor. While both groups share many things in common, they are two fundamentally distinct cultures.
1330
Clearly a two-board structure that utilizes the two major corridors of the region will help protect the positive relationships that exist between public boards and first nations. A single-board model promotes a generic melting-pot approach to its affairs with two very different groups of first nations.
Another issue that has come to northern boards is the unorganized areas. Boards have collected taxes from these areas and in turn provided education for their children.
It is not uncommon in northern boards to have children come to school in many unique modes of transportation. Our children use snow machines in the winter and boats in the summer. Some travel 60 miles or more each way to school every day.
Recommendation 4: Trusteeship. The minister says that boards will be returned to their roles as guardians of education. We would like a precise and reliable definition of this term, since presumably it will dictate the mandate of school boards in the future. The Kenora Board of Education, for instance, has had a student trustee for years. A huge board with meetings being held all around virtually prohibits students being at the local board table. For boards, the immense challenge will be to attract individuals to run as trustees who have the time and the flexibility to meet the duties of a trustee. A half-day meeting translates into two days, with overnight accommodation usually required. Will a young parent or a single mother be able to make this commitment?
It is our understanding that trustee numbers are to be calculated using a formula that addresses representation by population and a density factor based on population per square mile. We also understand that the areas being used in this calculation are the current boundaries of the existing boards. Large portions of northwestern Ontario currently are not in an existing board but are being provided educational services by existing boards. In fact, boards in the proposed school district number 5 have in the past couple of years applied for boundary expansion to cover their existing service area. Trustee numbers must take into consideration the service area of existing boards in the northwest and not just current board boundaries.
Trustee representation will be a significant barrier, as many areas could be without representation due to the density of their population. Trustees in southern Ontario will have the capacity to meet face to face at all times. For northern trustees this will probably not be possible, unless at great expense. Your very presence here today illustrates how important a face-to-face meeting is in certain circumstances.
Recommendation 5: Transition period to amalgamation. Our greatest enemy to a smooth transition is time. January 1, 1998, is rapidly approaching and no clear direction is being given to us by the government. In addition, significant costs for the transition must be the responsibility of the government. Travel alone will be costly for northern boards, to say nothing about accommodation, staff costs, and the list goes on.
Recommendation 6: Powers of the Education Improvement Commission. We can understand the necessity of a body to coordinate the enormous amount of change taking place, and presumably the EIC will help make the whole process smoother. However, we have major problems in principle with a body that is not elected having the sweeping powers that the EIC has been granted when they are controlling our children's education and also tax dollars taken from every one of us. We would strongly recommend that this commission's power of amendment over 1997 board budgets be removed and that they not be allowed to be exempt from court challenge.
Mrs Wilma Sletmoen: Recommendation 7: Human resources. We believe adequate provisions must be in place to ensure our staff are treated fairly and job loss will not occur outside of normal attrition. We must keep our expertise within our board to ensure our students' and board's needs are being met. All staff issues should be addressed by the local education improvement committees.
Recommendation 8: Curriculum and program issues. All of the government rhetoric is around efficiency and accountability, but no research has been done to ensure that this is in the best interests of the children. All boards have local programs that best serve the needs of their children. For example, Atikokan board respects the outdoor education program as a local requirement of their parents and community. If we fail our children, we have not done our job. We are prepared to do what has to be done and we will do it well, as we have done in the past. We stand committed to respect the uniqueness of each of our boards. Safeguards must be put in place by the government to recognize problems as they occur and react immediately if they are a threat to the quality of education being offered to our students.
Recommendation 9: Funding. Future funding models must be cognizant of the needs of boards, such as proposed district school board number 5. We are greatly concerned about the recent capital allocations and the lack of direction in ensuring that the future needs of our children will not be adversely affected by underfunding by the government. Variables must first meet the needs of the students, but should also recognize differing administrative needs across the province. These needs include recognition of capital liabilities for boards with small student populations and a unique management structure to accommodate the vast geography. Consultation on funding must be prepared to be cooperative and reactive with participants.
In conclusion, we are not presenting here to rally support for the status quo. Change is inevitable and in many cases necessary. However, what is happening now is a huge, all-encompassing revolution in education in Ontario which will affect our children's future for many years to come. These changes need to be made carefully, with forethought and planning and a clear vision of what education in Ontario can and should be. At present, we are not confident that this is the case.
We strongly urge that this legislation be re-examined and amended accordingly. Therefore, the following recommendations are submitted.
(1) Due to the low-density population, a formula for representation may be prohibitive to northern boards. It is our recommendation that the proposed district school board number 5 have adequate trustee representation to address the immense geography. Flexibility should be ensured through regulation to ensure that trustee representation is greater than the minimum five, probably 12 trustees or more, and that the density factor used to determine trustee numbers takes into consideration the entire area served by existing boards.
(2) For the reasons previously stated, one board west of Thunder Bay is totally impractical. The government must correct this situation. Our recommendation: the government change the boundaries of proposed district school board number 5 to create at least two boards. The two-board structure would have the Kenora Board of Education, Dryden Board of Education and Red Lake Board of Education together as one board, and the Fort Frances-Rainy River and Atikokan boards of education as the other new board. All five boards have unanimously agreed to this proposal.
(3) Trustee representation must include a representative for native students. The geography of the board must be a consideration. Our recommendation: that through regulation a trustee representing native students should be recognized in addition to the elected trustees of the board.
(4) Local education improvement committees represented by the existing boards are in the best position to make decisions for the new board up to January 1998. These decisions should include, but not be limited to, restructuring of staff, including the new board's senior administrative staff; program needs; and restructuring of operations, including outsourcing.
We are concerned about the sweeping powers given to the Education Improvement Commission under Bill 104. We find it peculiar that a non-elected body that is accountable to no one is given power to change, eliminate or modify decisions made by an elected body that is accountable to its electorate. A similar scenario would be myself and four or five of my peers having the authority to overrule decisions made by the Legislature.
Mr Wildman: That wouldn't be a bad idea.
Mrs Sletmoen: Our recommendation: that Bill 104 be written to ensure local education improvement committees have decision-making power and include trustees from all existing boards.
(5) The transition period must be flexible to provide for a smooth flow of operations, restructuring of staff and careful planning. A bare minimum of the new board structure should be outlined for January 1, 1998, with the remainder to occur during the next year or two. Our recommendation: that extended time lines with clear direction be provided to existing boards and the local education improvement committee to assist them with planning.
(6) Transition costs will be a burden on small northern boards. We already operate our board functions at levels much lower than most other boards in the province. Our recommendation is that financial assistance over and above the normal grants be provided to cover transition costs, including a salary for a coordinator, travel, accommodation and out-of-pocket expenses for members of the local education improvement committee.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: We have approximately three minutes per caucus. We begin with the government caucus.
1340
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Thank you very much for your presentation. You painted an interesting picture of the size geographically. I liked a couple of the points you made in your presentation, and you spoke briefly of different ways of the students getting to their schools. I thought it was quite interesting, as a person who is from the south, and to have that enunciated makes it that much more important, to show the diversity or different approaches here in the north.
You also mentioned, I think in recommendation 8, the curriculum issue, the outdoors education program. I want to ask two questions if I may. Could you perhaps explain to me, is that program in respect to living in the north and the incumbent knowledge you should have about the outdoors and the way it is out here, or is it specific to the survival mode? What is that exactly, that course?
Ms Helash: If I could answer that on Atikokan's behalf, because it's Atikokan that particularly --
Mr O'Toole: Yes, I noticed.
Ms Helash: They may probably well address it to you this evening. We also run an outdoor education program, which really includes both the idea of survival --
Mr O'Toole: Is it a curriculum-based course with a credit? That's what I'm interested in.
Ms Helash: Yes.
Mr O'Toole: It is. Okay, that's quite interesting. I think that's very important given the fact of the geography and the different approaches and the lack of necessity of having a cookie-cutter answer to everything.
Mr Wildman: Considering the distances the trustees will have to travel.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Wildman. You'll have a question later. I'll share part of your time.
The other one is, looking at the map, we have copies of the current boards and the proposed new arrangement of the number 5 and number 6 areas. In my view, today it must be a problem in some of the areas for travel for board meetings. My question is this: Are the trustees paid for all of their out-of-pocket expenses like mileage, hotels and all of those things, and is it part of the overall cost per student?
Mr Penney: If I can respond to that, it is part of the overall cost per student. We are indeed reimbursed for mileage and for meals and hotel rooms.
Mr O'Toole: You said something in the order of $5,000. I don't mean this to be critical, by the way; I have been a school trustee myself in the south, and they make a bit more. But how much would an average trustee spend on expenses in a given calendar year?
Mr Penney: Speaking for the Dryden board, because I'm not sure of what the actual expenses would be for some of the other boards in the northwest --
Mr O'Toole: Just an average.
Mr Penney: Speaking for the Dryden board, an average expense per month for trustees, excluding the summer months, would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $250 to $300.
Mr O'Toole: That's hotel and mileage?
Mr Penney: Right. There are very few hotel rooms required, certainly an awful lot of mileage. As chair of the Dryden board and someone who has been chair of the Dryden board for eight out of somewhere in the neighbourhood of about the last 10 years, I can tell you that I have put on well over 350,000 kilometres and gone through three vehicles just travelling to board meetings.
Mr O'Toole: I can believe it. Thank you very much.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Thank you for your presentation. When I take a look at the number of uniquenesses that you outlined in the presentation -- you talk about the Kenora Board of Education student trustee, which I think was a great step forward in terms of boards asking for students to become part of their membership in terms of trusteeship. You talk about the young parent, the single mother and the impracticality, I guess, of them becoming a trustee of the board of education. In terms of the scenario that the government has put forth so far, who do you actually see as being people who would want to take on the role of a trustee in a board of that size?
Ms Helash: I don't know if one thing could really be the answer to it, except people who may have to be responsible, people who have some independent wealth, people who are retired, unless there were two-parent families where it was possible for one parent to remain at home, that type of circumstance. I think it would eliminate people who really want to. I've lost a day's pay to come here today.
Mrs Sletmoen: If I could just add a little bit to that, I think that we see in the Fort Frances board, in our board, our existing honorarium, which is our basic monthly honorarium, if you will, which is well below $5,000, as a means to afford everyone the opportunity to serve on a board who wishes to, because they could not afford to do so if they didn't have some compensation, not as a salary, and certainly we would have the same concerns with finding people who are physically able to run for a new board, who would be able to manage the distances and time commitment and who would see the role of a trustee as being meaningful in the new scenario.
Mr Miclash: I guess what you're telling me then is that the representation wouldn't reflect the younger people in the classroom, like a wide variety of the number of people we have; you mentioned native students, students of single parents. So in essence what you're saying is that that trusteeship would not reflect the students in the classroom?
Mrs Sletmoen: That's certainly our belief right now.
Mr Hampton: A couple of questions. As you know, Bill 104 has in it no provision for aboriginal representation on a board of education. By my estimates, there would be about 10,000 Ojibway people within this proposed district 5 board and in excess of 10,000 Cree people who would use the services of this board. What do you foresee happening if there is no provision for representation of the Ojibway and Cree people? What do you foresee happening in terms of your local boards, local schools etc?
Mr Penney: I think one of the things that is more than likely going to happen or that could happen -- of course, we're speculating a bit here -- is that you're going to see more and more of those particular students being moved into schools in other areas where perhaps they have got some sort of representation. At the current time, I think a good example, for instance, is that in some of the schools within the Dryden board we have a lot of students from the north who are coming down to our high schools, and should we lose that, there is the danger of some of those high schools being in jeopardy of being able to support themselves. In other words, we may not have the student population there any longer in order to keep the high school open.
Mr Hampton: So it's fair to say that many of the schools in your respective communities, in terms of having a school population, are dependent upon cooperation and cohesion with native communities?
Mr Penney: Very much so, yes.
Ms Sletmoen: Absolutely.
Mr O'Toole: Chair, for the purpose of the record, I don't particularly agree with Mr Hampton. Section 327, subsection (3), I believe it is, referring to subsection (7), does make reference to the appointment of first nations representation, so it would be wrong to leave the impression with those listening today that no provision whatsoever was made for representation of first nations. For the record, I clarify it. It's very important, and I agree with the sentiment he is bringing up, but it does make provisions within the current bill.
The Chair: I'll take that as a point of information, not clarification of the record.
Mr Wildman: On the point, Mr O'Toole is correct. There is reference to the appointment of first nations people, but there is nothing in the bill as currently drafted that responds to the concerns raised by the deputants here; that is, that there is provision for one first nations representative on a board. If you have a significant number of Ojibway communities, some of whom have significant differences, and you have a significant number of Cree communities, some of whom have significant differences, and the two of them have significant differences overall, how are you going to accommodate this? It isn't in the bill, and that's the problem. We certainly want to ensure proper aboriginal representation so that they can have proper input and say over the education of their children. At the same time, we don't want boards swamped by a very large number of communities demanding representation, even though we understand why they would want to have that representation. When we asked for clarification on this when we were briefed by the ministry officials, they hadn't figured it out and they hadn't thought about it. They didn't know what to do about it.
The Chair: Thank you to all of you for being here today representing the concerns of your boards and for accommodating the changes we've had to make today.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Chair: With regard to the proposed recommendations from this deputant, maybe I can just put the question on the table. I see the clerk is coming back. She may give us some advice here. Is it going to be possible for us to move amendments on the clause-by-clause that would respond to the proposals made here? Or would amendments of that type, to respond to these, not be in order? I don't understand how we're going to amend the bill in order to respond to the recommendations.
The Chair: I'm not sure I follow your point, Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: I'm just wondering if we're going to be able to do this. I'm asking for advice. Are we going to be able to amend the bill to respond to these recommendations, or are they simply going to be dependent on the cabinet responding to these recommendations by regulation?
Mr Skarica: I think we should get some clarification from legislative counsel on that particular point, because we don't have the actual boundaries in the bill itself.
Mr Wildman: That's the point I raised. We don't have the boundaries in the bill.
The Chair: All right. We'll seek some direction with respect to that.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, my understanding -- and I trust it will be confirmed by legislative counsel -- is that while the Lieutenant Governor in Council clearly has the final decision-making power, it's possible to bring in amendments that would add caveats to this bill, that would set out the terms and conditions under which the boundaries would be developed.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll deal with that.
1350
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
The Chair: Could I call upon the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Natalie Galesloot and Kathy McMonagle. Welcome.
Ms Kathy McMonagle: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the panel. I am here to speak with you on behalf of my brothers and sisters employed in the education sector from Marathon to the Manitoba border. I am representing the Office and Professional Employees International Union and would like to share our concerns regarding Bill 104.
We have not requested standing to come forward and primarily complain about our potential job loss. Most of us within this province are already trying to survive downsizing and restructuring already imposed by the Harris government. Although this is a threat for our members, we are here as a voice for our most precious commodity, our children and their future.
We must agree with Mr Snobelen's statement that the education system is critical to the future success of Ontario and that education is a priority and should always be a priority, but at whose expense? This government has been negligent in investigating important areas of this proposed bill. They have not carefully considered their actions, nor have they appropriately thought out the consequences. They have failed to realize that there are different experiences for every community throughout this province. You can't make one model and expect that it would meet the needs of everyone involved.
The statement endorsed by Mr Harris and Mr Snobelen to the constituents of Ontario is that there will be improved accountability to parents and taxpayers through the funding model. All that has been said thus far about it is that the funding for our new education system will be shifted from the residential taxpayers to provincial grants and business taxes.
Have we missed something here? Is this proposed funding model that no one has yet seen not actually robbing Peter to pay Paul? How will this practice better our economy and enhance student performance? The concept may look great on paper but the truth is, money from provincial grants comes from taxpayers. Therefore, do Mr Harris and Mr Snobelen believe that the people of Ontario are not educated and intelligent enough to figure out that they will be taxed in other areas -- again, areas which have not been identified?
Our education dollars must come from somewhere and we the taxpayers will be paying a higher price for a lower rate of return in education. We can assume that the new trend from this government will be to shift its responsibilities to municipalities. It is no wonder that the Harris government can cut its expenditures by 33%, or $1.4 billion, over two years, and it should. Obviously, they will no longer be performing their duties with this new trend.
The geographical boundaries outlined by the Minister of Education are also alarming considering the imposed number of trustees. How does this government expect trustees to fairly represent the needs of each community in northern Ontario? Our northern Ontario communities do not have easily accessible routes from one community to another like southern Ontario. It is next to impossible for trustees from district board 5 or 6 to come together to make important decisions regarding our children.
Have any of you ever had the opportunity to drive from Red Lake to Fort Frances during winter? At a meeting on February 18, 1997, in Thunder Bay with the co-chairs of the Education Improvement Commission, Mr Cooke stated that he was coming to the north to look at the distance and was going to drive, but it was too impractical. Yet this would be expected by our trustees and possibly community members or committee members.
We recommend that this panel seriously consider and promote the constituent boards' proposal of splitting district 6 into A and B. Their proposal remains fiscally responsible as it still shares some common functions of school boards. This should also be considered and promoted throughout the northern region as it was reported in yesterday's paper, where district 5 also proposes the same concept.
To meet students' needs and to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent in the classroom should not mean that you exclude or replace the vital components that are already in place and working for students and their schools. These components include the non-instructional staff members. One of the powers the Education Improvement Commission has been given is the specific power to consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on "how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards." This concept is frightening.
When the Harris government passes -- if it passes -- Bill 104 and privatizes services now performed by non-teaching staff, the personal touch which school board support staff presently demonstrate in their daily work will vanish. It will be replaced with an indifferent attitude which would not be in the best interests of all our children. With these services contracted out, can this government ensure the safety of our children? Can outsourced employees earning a minimum wage give the same care and consideration to our children that current employees, who display pride and ownership in their jobs, do?
The Minister of Education states that the current model does not meet the needs of our students. We agree, but losing essential service that is now provided by support staff workers will not help meet that need either. We believe it only destroys it. Presently, support staff workers are a vital and intricate part of the school system. They are trained in their areas of expertise and they provide essential and professional service. In all cases, they are the familiar faces that children can rely on daily.
A child may have direct contact with a secretary several times a week, whether it be a scratched knee, a bleeding nose, a call home because of a sore stomach or just a safe place to go. She may very well be the person who provides orientation to new students and their parents, always maintaining an open line of communication between school and home. Also, an integral part of their job is maintaining a high level of confidentiality. Safety is ensured through the secretary monitoring and identifying visitors to the school, which is especially important in parental disputes. They also make arrangements during emergencies, such as ensuring the safe arrival home of children due to inclement weather, and also participate in the safe arrival at their school when they call home when your child hasn't arrived to find out why they're not at school that day.
Library technicians and assistants provide the opportunities for students to enrich their thirst for knowledge by utilizing the resources available in the libraries. The school library may be the only place a child can experience or appreciate a love for books -- again, a familiar face to approach in time of need.
Special education assistants assist and provide support to developmentally delayed, physically challenged and learning-disabled students in an integrated setting. This includes maintaining current knowledge and an understanding of sign language, Bliss boards, FM systems, closed-caption machines, pictograms, Braille, crisis prevention intervention, and physio and speech therapy programs. They also encourage self-care, basic life skills, feeding and medication programs. Special education assistants modify individual academic programs in consultation with resource and classroom teachers, all of which is to attain the common goal of integrating special needs students, being able to meet their needs and prepare them for future success in society.
Again, we cannot stress enough how the thought of outsourcing these services is frightening and appalling. This legislation is only handling the present problems of the education system with smoke and mirrors. By terminating present employees to hire others through outsourcing will only cost taxpayers more money. Companies who out-source are looking to profit and not at the public's best interest
Dollars aside, schools may no longer be a safe place for children. What companies, moving into our communities, taking our jobs, can ensure that the level of quality service be maintained and at what cost to our children? By outsourcing we are only jeopardizing the quality and the integrity of education and threatening our children's educational rights and their future.
The Harris government should not exercise their power by eliminating the quality of programs through reduced dollars and services allocated to education. How can we, as members of society, accept the dictatorial powers of the Education Improvement Commission being exempt from judicial review or public scrutiny when they are appointed and not even elected? This government should also ensure that all groups that have an interest and that are likely to be affected by the proposed changes have representation on the various committees which will be established by the commission itself. As taxpayers, where are our democratic rights?
Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, we thank you for your time and hope that you can influence our government back into democratic decision-making. Remember, the things that work in the system work now because we do. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation, I'd also like to thank you for listening and I'd also like to say that I hope you really heard what was really presented here today.
1400
Mr Miclash: Thank you for your presentation. I guess one thing that we hear over and over again from the Minister of Education is that funding cuts will not have an impact on the education of the child in the classroom. Can you maybe give us some examples of where you have seen this to be the case or not to be the case?
Ms McMonagle: When you look at the grade 9 destreamed program, just the fact that the children in those classes don't each get to walk out of the class, at the end of the day, with a textbook. If there's homework, assignments that they need to work on, there are not enough textbooks so that every child or student in that class can maintain their academic standing in that room. That's just textbooks.
The staffing resources too are very limited. As a special education assistant in a particular science class, I am responsible for four separate children, all of whom work at a totally different level -- non-readers, non-writers -- than someone who is working at a basic level. It certainly makes my job very difficult to provide the best support I can when you're short-staffed in that sense.
Ms Natalie Galesloot: I would like to add to that. If you take away the non-instructional staff from the classroom, you are going to utilize more of your resources in the classroom. If there's nobody there to do the things that these non-instructional staff are doing, what will your teachers be doing? How will the daily events be addressed, as far as getting everything done is concerned?
The school system works to a point. Yes, there need to be cuts within the system, and we totally agree with that, but you need the non-instructional staff. If the government looks at outsourcing those functions, they're going to lose the quality that they are now getting with people employed by the board.
Mr Wildman: I appreciate your presentation, but I'm going to take issue with part of it; that is, your acquiescence and use of the word "non-instructional" staff. I think you mean "non-teaching" staff. I think everybody -- a teacher's aide, an educational assistant, a custodian, a secretary -- who works in the school is involved in the instruction of students. I think there has been a phony redefinition by this government of what is classroom education and what isn't. I take issue with your accepting that term. I understand why you do, but I don't think it should be accepted.
If there are fewer teachers' aides -- let's use that as an example, educational assistants -- in a class, how does that affect the students most directly needing those aides? But also, how does it affect the other students?
Ms McMonagle: If my job in the classroom is to provide a service, and I'm not there, then they probably don't do anything. Part of my job is to encourage them to participate to the best of their ability, to give them the opportunity, to say, "Now is a good time to bring up the point you were going to make," certainly to make them feel part of the classroom.
I don't think they will feel part of the class if someone isn't there to show them how to behave as part of the class, to say, "No, it's okay, Joe. Go ahead, you can do it," to give them some confidence, especially when you're looking at class sizes of maybe 35 kids.
It's hard to realize that aside from looking at the class as a whole, there are individual kids there who all work at different levels, who all have different needs. It's hard for one person, the classroom teacher, to the best of their ability, to meet the needs of everyone in the classroom. I feel that I am a benefit to the class, because I know that even if I can only get to four or five kids, that's better than not getting to any at all.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you for coming. In the Legislative Assembly of Ontario we have a standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions. It doesn't matter what government, it's a standing committee of the Legislature. People who are appointed to the commission are brought forward and questioned, and so on and so forth. Mr Cooke was questioned when he was appointed. My question and my comments are related to outsourcing. He was asked about this and he said:
"I think the first thing, as I said before, that has to be done is some solid research to find out exactly what the range of outsourcing would be and what has worked and what has not worked.... There are some areas where it will work and there are other areas where it would be simplistic to think that it would work. That's the purpose of the commission: to do some research, to have some consultations and to make recommendations where we think it would work appropriately and where it would serve the best interests of students."
Would you agree with this statement? When we talk about outsourcing, regardless of who can do it, if it's the best possible service for the best possible price, the best deal for the taxpayer, if the government can do it, it should do it, and if it can't do it, the private sector should do it. What's your comment on that statement?
Ms Galesloot: First of all, I think the commission has been given too much power in order to decide what's good for the public. I think that should be put back to the public and the public should be asked what they think is good for them. To answer your question, no, I cannot agree with you, because I think that people who work for a particular organization take pride and ownership in their job and I think they represent the interests of that sector better than any outsource. If you have an outsourcing issue -- and now we're looking at having a freeze on minimum wage -- it would be like a revolving door going through our school. Can you ensure the safety of our children not knowing who's being hired? Because these contractors can't keep up to who is working for them.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We thank you for taking time from your busy work schedules.
RED LAKE BOARD OF EDUCATION BEARDMORE, GERALDTON, LONGLAC AND AREA BOARD OF EDUCATION HEARST BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: Could I call upon the Red Lake Board of Education, David McLeod; Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac and Area Board of Education, Sharon Arsenault; and Hearst Board of Education, Lise Haman. Thank you very much for being here. I would ask you, since there are more than those I announced, to introduce yourselves. As you know if you've been here for some time, the committee rejigged its schedule to allow you 30 minutes for your presentation. If there is any time left over, then the committee will ask you some questions.
Ms Gloria Williamson: Good afternoon. I'm Gloria Williamson, trustee with the Red Lake Board of Education. The trustees of the Red Lake Board of Education appreciate having the opportunity to speak with you today.
The Red Lake board supports the recommendation and concerns that have been raised in the submissions of the Atikokan, Kenora, Dryden and Fort Frances-Rainy River boards of education. The issues have been discussed by the boards collectively and have been presented from the viewpoint of harsh reality.
We will not repeat or comment on these issues of geography, technology, the various socioeconomic patterns or relations and the emerging first nations political issues, since they have been dealt with in the abovementioned boards' presentations.
Earlier today you had members from our parent councils speak about their concerns of the possible consequences of the district 5 amalgamation. You heard them describe their schools and programs and articulate their fear of losing aspects of such that are very important to our students. As a parent, I share many of their concerns.
1410
It is very easy for one to say that voicing concerns is fearmongering, or that the new board will address issues of equity fairly, or that the new funding model will address northern and local anomalies. We have heard these statements from many in our area, and let me clearly tell you that we as a board have the same concerns.
We realize that there are several realities in our province that will not change: (a) The available financial resources for education are shrinking; and (b) all school boards across the province have to become more efficient in their operation, have to do business in innovative manners, have to create partnerships, linkages etc, and have to engage in alternative resource-generating activities.
Since available financial resources will continue to shrink across the province, it probably is safe to say that the new funding model won't deliver more money to the new district 5 board than is presently available to the five existing boards. Second, we think it is reasonable to believe that parents, staff and trustees in the new board will have an expectation of equitable access to services and resources. We in the Red Lake board, who are three hours from the nearest school board, will definitely have an expectation of access to all services that will be in place in the boards we will be amalgamated with. The other boards will have the expectation of having the same school organizational model as our board: full-time principals and secretaries in all schools, student assistance for special needs children, full custodial and maintenance services in each school. I could go on and on. I suggest the expectation of equity of services and programs will cause the operational costs of the new district 5 board to be higher than is expected by the government.
If you combine the diminishing resources with the type of services we presently have in place for our students and add the explosive equity issue, it is inconceivable to believe that this district 5 amalgamation will not negatively impact on our students.
Do you think that all boards in district 5 will adjust to match our school delivery model, or will our model have to change to match the model for the rest of the new board? Since we represent less than 10% of the student population of the new board, we believe our school delivery model will have to change to reflect that which is in place in the rest of the new board. Consequently, our students will be negatively impacted.
Over the years we have developed a philosophy of maximizing the amount of financial resources directed towards the classroom. Government grants and local taxation have been the main source of revenue but have not been sufficient to allow us to provide the services to our students that we are presently providing. Earlier I spoke of boards needing to do business differently and engage in alternative revenue-generating activities. I would like to give you an example of such, show the benefit to our students and comment on this as an example of an activity that could be curtailed in the large board environment, thus negatively impacting on our students.
Our board has actively engaged in a host of training activities over the years: Jobs Ontario broker, adult education, industry and first nations partnerships, to name a few. These activities have generated considerable revenue that has been directed to students. For example, we have purchased computers in large numbers for students on a continuous basis, mainly from training profit revenue. We have one computer for every three students in our high school. This year alone our board's training activities have purchased $150,000 worth of computers that will be placed in our schools at the end of the year.
With 1,200 students in a board, that translates into approximately $125 per student. If a board of 10,000 students did the same, it would mean that board spent $1.2 million on computers for students from revenue that did not come from the government or taxpayers. That is significant.
Another innovative Red Lake board initiative has resulted in healthier learning environments, more productive learning environments and significant financial savings. This is due to our alternative energy program. Over the last seven years we have retrofitted or built new elementary schools, one school in each of our three communities, with groundwater or solar heat pump energy systems. Not only does this technology provide free air conditioning, which makes a more productive learning environment, and vastly superior outside air exchange in the winter, which makes a healthier learning environment, but it saves the board approximately $100,000 per year in energy costs for the three schools. Can you imagine the provincial financial significance if this were extrapolated to many more boards and schools? The numbers are staggering, to say the least.
We are concerned that initiatives such as these will not be continued in the large board environment or that the specific benefits that accrue to our students as a result of these initiatives will be funnelled to the large board in general, once again possibly negatively impacting on our students.
Local partnerships that have been negotiated or developed as a result of people knowing and trusting one another and having the same goal in mind are at risk in a large board environment when there may not be local senior staff and trustees to guide the formation of the partnerships.
An example of a very significant partnership will be outlined by Mr Louis Simard, the co-chair of our Native Education Circle, in another presentation later this evening. We as a board can't say enough positive things about the cooperation and relationships we have with the first nations people and organizations in the area. We are very concerned with the implications of the amalgamation on this exciting project and on the variety of issues that will affect first nations trustee representation and the various agreements boards presently have in place.
I have touched upon a variety of situations, programs, and concerns that trustees, parents, community members and staff have spoken to us about at school. All these concerns relate directly to students in our classrooms. Due to a variety of factors, some of which I have mentioned, we feel the government's agenda of directing as many financial resources to the classroom as possible has been achieved in our board. We can clearly demonstrate how students have benefited from our efficiencies, innovative partnerships, linkages and actions over the past few years.
We are very concerned that the amalgamation will not improve the teaching situation, school structures and benefits for students in our board. We feel the opposite: that our students will be negatively impacted.
I urge you to consider the makeup of district school board 5 from the viewpoint of not only the effect on students in our board but the effects on students in other boards also. We strongly believe that a smaller amalgamation will dramatically reduce the potential negative impact on our students. Thank you.
Ms Sharon Arsenault: Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Arsenault and I am accompanied by the director of my board, Joe Virdiramo. I am a separate school board member of the Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac and Area Board of Education. I thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express the concerns of separate school trustees in northwestern Ontario.
At the case study meeting held in Thunder Bay with the chairs of the proposed Education Improvement Commission on February 18, 1997, I asked the following questions about separate school representation on public school boards: What will happen to separate school representation through Bill 104? What does it mean that boards are "deemed extended"?
Many rural boards in northwestern Ontario have chosen not to extend, for various reasons. At least representation was present through separate school trustees on public school boards. The Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac and Area Board of Education has two such representatives. Altogether, northwestern Ontario has 12 separate school representatives serving on public school boards stretching from the Ontario-Manitoba border to Manitouwadge.
Clearly, Bill 104 is based on the demographics of large southern Ontario boards of education. In our part of the province things are significantly different and this requires a different set of considerations. From this perspective, we come to the significant issue of separate school representation on public school boards.
1420
We are in perplexing and confusing times, where it would seem that the old phrase "taxation without representation" is surfacing again, in the spirit of Bill 30, to the proposed Bill 104.
For practical reasons, the vast majority of our students who complete an elementary education in the separate school system must enter a small public high school. We already have enough difficulty offering the full range of required courses to our students who attend our small high schools. Simply stated, unlike many of the boards to the south, there are no "economies of scale" to justify a second high school in most northern communities. To do so would be an injustice to the student and the taxpayer.
We in the smaller communities in northwestern Ontario have a long history of sharing of services. Providing the best education for our young people has been our greatest priority. Because of this, we have entered into many agreements with our children's best interests at heart. Attached, I have provided as an example a listing of partnerships between the Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac and Area Board of Education and various agencies and organizations in the communities under the jurisdiction of the board.
On January 13, 1997, the Minister of Education and Training announced school board amalgamation. The proposed district school board 6 is to be made up of four amalgamated school boards. One of the boards, the largest one, has a coterminous separate school board with two Catholic high schools. The three smaller boards are situated in communities where the separate school boards have chosen not to extend at the present time. This means that there are no Catholic high schools in the communities and the separate school students attend public high schools. There are, in total, seven school trustees on these three public boards.
Are we, the Catholic taxpayers, destined to be eliminated? Are we like the ant who was crushed by the gentle giant simply because the giant did not know the ant was there? One of the comments when we met with the co-chairs was that they didn't know we existed.
Bill 104 in its present form ignores this fundamental reality and must be amended to accommodate this fact. The following proposal is recommended: that Bill 104 is amended to allow for adequate representation on public school boards of the interests of Catholic secondary school students; that it is recognized that this is a unique situation for northwestern Ontario; and that there is representation of separate school trustees on local committees of the Education Improvement Commission.
In conclusion, we would ask that you consider the above recommendations, which will ensure representation and quality education for all our students. Thank you.
Ms Lise Haman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lise Haman. I'm the supervising principal for the Hearst Board of Education. My colleague is Ruby Brunet. She is the chair of the Hearst Board of Education.
Just before coming in here, someone suggested I give you a minute to look for the town of Hearst on the map of Ontario. Just to help you, all you have to do --
Mr Wildman: It's a suburb of Hornepayne.
Ms Haman: Yes. Just to help you out, past Longlac you drive another two hours and 10 or 15 minutes. It's about 210 kilometres of absolutely nothing but trees and a straight road. It's about five and a half to six hours from here, northeast. And you thought we were far north here, for those of you who have never come this far. The closest community to Hearst on the east is approximately a little over 100 kilometres, and that's Kapuskasing.
When you get to Hearst, Hearst is the most heart-warming community of approximately 6,000 people, of whom 98% are francophone. French Canadian culture is predominant in all aspects of community life. Within this francophone society, the Hearst Board of Education offers English education to a total, right now, of 332 elementary and secondary students.
In the next two years, the Hearst board will be struggling to maintain quality programs for its English-speaking students. Not only are the English-speaking residents concerned about losing English services in this community, but the Hearst Board of Education will also be losing 131 non-resident students who will be moving into their own first nations school at Constance Lake. A total of approximately 201 English-language students, elementary and secondary, will be remaining in what presently constitutes the Hearst Board of Education.
The Hearst Board of Education has been active in maintaining English education in Hearst and in restructuring its administration and its financial services in order to fulfil its mandate as well as practise fiscal restraint. It is presently experiencing what the future administration of a larger board will look like. I was hired on a part-time basis in September to assist them in their restructuring. I live and work here in Thunder Bay and I travel to Hearst on a monthly basis for two to three days. We communicate all the time through e-mail, telephone, fax and teleconferencing. Despite all the modern technology available to us, the reality is that there still remain issues which are difficult to deal with from a distance.
Fortunately, at the present time, there are representatives -- trustees and administrators -- who can fill in many of the gaps for me. However, in the future, if there are no representatives, who will look after the needs of the English students in this community?
Ms Ruby Brunet: As a result of our experiences, the Hearst Board of Education is concerned that there may not be any representation on their part on either the new district board 1 or on the local implementation committee. If there is no representation for communities of this type, what will happen to struggling minorities such as this one? In the case of Hearst, it will become extinct.
In conclusion, we would like to recommend that the committee take into consideration the following matters as implementation plans for Bill 104 are being developed:
That Bill 104 allow for adequate representation of diverse educational communities in the province. Representation on the board or on the local implementation committee is critical to ensure that the unique and diversified needs of each community be met in order to avoid a less-than-adequate level of education and, in a case such as Hearst, extinction of the English-language program.
Ms Haman: That Bill 104 recognize the geographical nature of the area. District board 1 will span a distance of 700 kilometres from one end of the board to the other. Despite all kinds of technology available to allow for ongoing communication, there will always remain a need for people to come together on issues of critical importance. Education is a people business, and in order for it to succeed there must be personal connections and opportunities to grow as a team on a regular basis. How can communities such as these possibly work as teams unless there are ways to ensure that they can come together at critical times to fulfil their mandate to the best of their ability and, as a result, improve the quality of education in their communities? In order to work effectively as teams, they will require financial support for travel as well as appropriate technology to function.
Finally, that Bill 104 recognize the unique needs of the smaller, isolate communities in Ontario, and I believe you've heard examples of this already. In many of the communities there are very small schools. Will students have to travel 100 kilometres to get a secondary education, for example?
Thank you very much for your attention and for allowing us the opportunity to express our concerns with regard to Bill 104.
Mr Wildman: I very much appreciate your presentation and the fact that we were able to hear a little more than we might have otherwise. I've raised the problem about district board 1 in the House because, as you probably are aware, I represent Hornepayne. The suggestion that has come is that we should use technology; that we can have teleconferencing so that people from Hornepayne or Hearst are not going to have to drive all the way to Timmins or to Timiskaming to participate in a meeting.
You've described the difficulties, that even if you do use modern technology, if the infrastructure is there, you still have to get together. Is it your concern that because of that, the cost of travel and accommodation for those kinds of necessary meetings will inevitably come out of the budget that could otherwise be going into classroom education, in your case for English education in Hearst?
1430
Ms Brunet: This is my fourth trip out of town in the last two weeks concerning Bill 104.
Mr Wildman: If I could play the devil's advocate then, I'd ask this question: If it's a problem for your board as it relates to English education, how come we're not hearing the same thing from the new French boards, which are going to be covering enormous territories? We all support the establishment of the new French boards. They are going to have enormous problems with regard to small numbers in certain areas and very large distances. Can you speculate on that, since you come from Hearst and you know what's happening on the other side?
Ms Brunet: The coterminous board in Hearst is a unilingual French board and they're very pleased. They're getting equal funding to us right now, so they're very happy with what they're getting and they're not at a point to be arguing with anyone right now.
Mr Wildman: In other words, they'll live with it.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): My question is more to Ms Williamson. I certainly understand and respect the success stories you've had with your different partnerships and cooperative services that you've highlighted in your presentation. I am approaching this from the perspective of someone who has seen school board amalgamation in my area involve four boards on the public side, representing some 85,000 students. The concern I have is, given the efforts that have been undertaken in my area to date, how are you arriving at the conclusion that those success stories you've experienced locally are going to be compromised by the process or the outcomes anticipated by this bill?
I think those are very valuable experiences and tools to build on as you move forward. From what I've seen in my own area in London, Middlesex, Elgin and Oxford in southwestern Ontario, those school boards are starting to recognize those, albeit it was problematic for them at the outset; I'm not going to dismiss that. But I'm concerned that you're arriving at conclusions prematurely that the success stories you've experienced so far are going to be compromised somehow.
Ms Williamson: I guess some of our concerns are around trustee representation. In our case we only have 1,200 students and, as I articulated, we will be very lucky to get one trustee on that new, larger board. That would be one of the major concerns we would have. Also, at this time, when we've gotten into the partnerships with first nations communities, with industry, with business, the revenue we have generated from those initiatives has remained to service our students. We're a little bit concerned that the revenue will now go into a broader base and it won't come back to the students within our geographic area.
Mrs McLeod: A very brief question, but I want to begin by thanking you for making the effort to make your presentations as a group. It is an absolutely impossible situation, made only slightly less impossible by the fact that you had a little bit more time than was originally allotted, and bizarre that Hearst would be coming to Thunder Bay, even though the amalgamation proposal is that you be in district 1, not in district 6. The very fact that you applied to speak here and not in Sudbury tomorrow is an indicator of just how crazy this whole thing is. But you've done what I knew you would do, which is to speak very eloquently of the way in which small boards in northern Ontario meet the challenges, and the value of small boards.
For your information, Steve Lawton, a researcher whom the minister has used from time to time, did a paper in which he looked at all the recent research and he said it's counterproductive to amalgamate any board with more than 3,000 students. So I think research says there is value in small boards.
My only question, and it will be very brief, is that as bizarre as all this is, impossible as it all is, I really believe it is the first step towards essentially the dissolution of school boards. Your role will become so impossible -- lack of access, size of boards, difficulty getting people to run and total loss of funding control -- that eventually we will just simply lose boards altogether. I don't know if any of you want to comment on that.
Ms Arsenault: The distances in the north -- I drove three and a half hours to get here. I took a day off work. We have lives other than what we're doing. We have to work for a living. So you won't have people.
The Chair: I want to thank all of you for coming, making your presentation and the extraordinary efforts you had to make to travel over such long distances to be with us. We appreciate it.
LAKEHEAD BOARD OF EDUCATION SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Chair: May I ask the special education advisory committee, Lakehead Board of Education, Leah Salini, to come forward, please. Welcome, Ms Salini.
Mrs Leah Salini: Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. Before I start, I'm the mother of four children. Two children attend high school, two children attend elementary school. Our youngest daughter has Down syndrome; hence my interest in special education and my involvement with the special education advisory committee for the Lakehead board.
I speak today on behalf of the special education advisory committee of the Lakehead Board of Education. Our committee consists of 12 members. They represent a variety of community organizations and parent organizations within the city here. They're listed on the little chart on your handout on the front page there. We represent the interests of 845 identified exceptional students in our board and their families. We strongly recommend that the new board of education structure include mandatory special education advisory committees to ensure the ongoing concerns of students with special needs will continue to be addressed.
It's very important that the voice of SEAC be heard by those who govern. In the new region that makes up our board, we have strong concerns about how this can occur. The technology does not exist in northwestern Ontario for videoconferencing. The communities are too far apart to make meetings cost-efficient. We cannot presently be electronically joined.
The Fewer School Boards Act has a number of implications for us as a committee and for the various students we advocate for and represent.
The geographic area of district 6 is far too large for SEAC to be able to advise and present issues and concerns on behalf of children who have special needs. SEAC has no budget to access for funding of technological equipment to connect the district 6 communities. Communication between boards is both extremely expensive and unavailable in some parts of the district. Focusing on the individual needs of children and families, while at the same time sharing information and dealing with the issues of all the different communities, will be a very large challenge.
Our group is very concerned with the possible negative impact on our children locally and how they are served. The region may have unrealistic expectations of our board and its ability to serve students and provide services. We worry that the region may look to us for resources that are not available. Our board's current initiative to include children in their neighbourhood schools will be severely compromised if the region expects our limited resources to extend to include them.
One SEAC representing the diverse geographical communities will not be able to satisfy local individual needs. A process to ensure that the needs within the district are being met should be established, preferably at the local level. Each community will have to continue to monitor the special needs of their children, provide support to families and act as advocates within their own communities. Board support, both human resources and financial resources, will be required to accomplish this effectively.
The people who give their time to SEAC are volunteers. Adding significant travel and time costs to enable SEAC to function effectively would place an unfair burden on SEAC parents, many of whom have jobs and most of whom have to care for children with special needs. It is unrealistic to expect volunteers to travel 500 kilometres to attend a meeting or help a family.
We recognize transition issues will emerge as SEACs throughout the district will bring different perspectives. Considering the overwhelming geographical disparity, we question how equity of delivery of services and programs can be accomplished for children with special needs.
The future power of school councils to make decisions on school budgets is an extreme concern of ours. The potential exists for schools to place undue emphasis or make decisions that will have a negative impact on including students with special needs in their neighbourhood schools. It may evolve that individual schools would not be truly representative of a cross-section of the population, and it's with some interest that I was given a news release today where the parent council is urging stronger school councils, which is something that certainly is in opposition to what we feel should happen.
SEAC has a major concern with the commitment and longevity of volunteers on school councils and their accountability in regard to tasks currently undertaken by our elected trustees. I know the current structure of school councils calls for a one- or two-year commitment on the part of council members. I've been involved with education with my children locally for 14 or 15 years. I wouldn't pretend to know in one year or two years all the issues that are needed to make effective decisions at a school level.
Serious inconsistencies could arise among individual schools in attempting to meet the demands of school councils which insist on excellence at the expense of inclusion. Each school board must work cooperatively with SEACs to assure equal opportunity for students with exceptionalities and to ensure consistent treatment of all students.
In conclusion, our group lends its strong support to the majority view of our board, as it was presented to you earlier today by the chair. As representatives of our government, you are being called upon to make decisions about the future of our school boards. It is our expectation that you will make decisions based on the best interests of children and their needs. Our children deserve the very best.
1440
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. We certainly heard yesterday in Ottawa that there's a feeling that there's a great deal of inconsistency in terms of how ministry policy -- and there was qualified support for the existing ministry policy as it applies to special needs students and certainly inconsistency as it is applied between boards across the province as well, in terms of their commitment or lack of commitment in the area of special needs.
You raised the issue of parent councils and we've heard as well support for stronger legislative empowerment of parent councils; we've heard a more cautious approach to parent councils as the committee has received deputations. What is your level of support, given the comments you made? What is your bottom line for the range of responsibilities that parent councils should have in this province?
Mrs Salini: I would have to speak personally on this issue. I think there is a very large place for parental involvement in schools. I've been a volunteer in my children's school for the whole time they've been there and I think my input and my time has been well received by the school community.
I would not as a member of a school community, as a parent, pretend to know how best to run a school. I don't feel that I would be qualified to make decisions that would affect the quality of education that our children could be getting, and from the special education perspective my concerns are that parents on parent councils would have within their hands, under the new proposed legislation, the opportunity to make some very pointed decisions and make life very unpleasant for some children and families within schools, which I think is very unfair. I strongly support all parental involvement in schools, but I think as far as school councils are concerned it should be an advisory capacity, not making strong decisions for children.
Mrs McLeod: I want to thank you for taking time to come and present and for making clear why children with special needs are at greater risk if this amalgamation goes ahead. One of my great frustrations in dealing with this bill is that people somehow don't think it's really going to affect kids in a classroom in a negative way. That's why it's so important for parents such as yourself to come forward and say, "Here's what it actually means to me as a parent advocate for a special needs child."
That's what I want to ask you about, because you've said how much more difficult it will be to be an advocate, just to reach the board meetings, just to be part of the advisory committee meetings, just to be part of the reviews of individual children's assessments. I have some very real concerns about the ability of parents who know what the needs are to be advocates once the ministry takes over 100% funding, because under that scenario not only will it be difficult for you to get to that board meeting, to sit on the advisory committee, but when you go to your local trustees and say, "We don't think you're doing enough, setting enough of a priority on special ed," they'll say, "We simply don't have the funding flexibility." The Minister of Education will say, "It is the board setting the priorities." I think the ability of parents to lobby the Ministry of Education directly is going to be much more minimal.
We've seen the indicators. Even in the $150 million that the ministry has suggested is going to be its savings through amalgamation, $1.3 million of that comes directly out of educational support for children with special needs to be in an integrated setting.
My worry is that as the funding formula comes out, it's going to be simplified, they're going to look at a flat rate to meet special needs, maybe a percentage of the population that you would expect to have with special needs, and that will be it. I guess I just want to ask you what that does to you as a parent advocate.
Mrs Salini: There's plain and proper evidence that we need the ability to make decisions for our own children at the local level, especially for our children with special needs. We have built into our system here the opportunity to call for extra help for children in identified areas where it's needed. With funding coming from someplace far above, we're not going to have that opportunity, most definitely.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I too appreciate your being here today. I think you bring a very important perspective to our consideration of this bill. I was struck by the concerns you raised with respect to the role of parent councils. I think this is very important. I believe that most of us are supportive of increased parent involvement and would encourage that, but it's very important to determine the nature of that and how that differs perhaps from the role of an elected school trustee, whether it should differ and how it differs.
I think we've heard a great deal about the inappropriateness of the size of the boards and what it means here in northwestern Ontario. I think that while some amalgamations are appropriate, the numbers and the boundaries are wrong. But even more than that, I'm also concerned that this bill takes away decision-making powers from the elected trustees, and I fear that they will become in the future almost a buffer between parents and ratepayers and the decision-making which will be taking place within the Ministry of Education. I wonder if you could talk about how your relationship with trustees has been important in terms of the delivery of the programs that you care about and have worked and advocated for.
Mrs Salini: As you can see by our little chart on the front of our presentation, by law, three of the members of our committee must be trustees. They have provided a very valuable role over the years in hearing issues from parents with children, meaning those of us around the table, and as a place where I as an advocate for parents and children can send people who are having problems and concerns that can't be resolved within their own school communities. I can direct them to trustees who, in my best estimation, will help them with the problems they have. Elected trustees are people who represent all the people.
My concern is that with parent councils, those people could be representing a very small group of people with a very strong opinion and that could certainly flavour the direction a school would take where children with special needs are concerned. I think it's important to say at this time that in the past six or seven months I have been hearing in our own community rumblings from parents of normal children about, "Why do these kids have to be in our schools?" In times when education funding is declining and money is becoming tighter, children with special needs are being seen as a big expense. May I tell you -- I'm getting the sign this is almost over -- they're a most worthwhile expense.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Dwight Duncan): Thank you very much for your thoughtful presentation today.
1450
MICHAEL BALLANTYNE
The Vice-Chair: Next up is Mike Ballantyne, an individual presenter. You have a total of 10 minutes.
Mr Michael Ballantyne: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Ballantyne. I'm a student at Thunder Bay's Lakehead University and I'm a lifelong resident of Thunder Bay. I received all of my primary and secondary education here in Thunder Bay, within the Lakehead Board of Education. I come to you today to present my personal views on Bill 104, as someone who has recently left the secondary school system and as someone who believes in quality education for Ontario's children but also as someone who is interested in an efficient and affordable education system.
I feel that I did receive a quality primary and secondary education here in Thunder Bay, but I fear this quality is in jeopardy. While I have recently left the system, I have a younger brother who is still in the system, in grade 6. It has become apparent to me that although it wasn't really that long ago that I was in grade 6, my brother is not receiving the same education I did. The basics of reading and writing and the fundamentals of math and science seem to lack the emphasis they were once given.
While standards have clearly slipped, school board spending in Ontario grew by 82% between 1985 and 1995. On the other hand, students in the classroom have not experienced improved education despite the increase in spending. We can do better, and it is time for a change. In my opinion, Bill 104 puts Ontario's education system back on the track of being among the world's best.
In recent years, our education system has become too top-heavy with bureaucrats, trustees and supervisors while the student in the classroom has clearly suffered the cost. While property taxes have increased tremendously to feed this bureaucratic monster, the quality of education has suffered.
Bill 104 puts the needs of students first, ahead of the revenue-hungry educrats whose insatiable appetite for tax dollars has placed a burden on today's economy. Too many young people, when finished their education, are unable to find meaningful employment, because of these high taxes. The quality of education has gone down, the education taxes have gone up, and as a result job opportunities for students leaving the system have decreased. Change is clearly needed.
By cutting the number of trustees to 700 from 1,900, capping their salaries at $5,000 a year and reducing the number of school boards almost in half, Bill 104 makes a clear statement that education takes place in the classroom, not in the board offices. It is in this classroom where we must focus if we are to achieve the quality education we all want. This is not a new concept, and many other provinces have already acted on reforming their education systems.
I find it interesting that most of the arguments against change and criticisms of Bill 104 have come from administrators, trustees, teachers and union leaders, all of whom have an interest in keeping the system bloated and top-heavy. It is time we started listening to parents' and students' concerns first. Parents want a more accountable education system, one that allows them more say in their children's education. I believe that the school councils provide that voice for parents. The government has promised a more meaningful role in which they will be more responsible for reporting on such things as academic progress, discipline and program offerings.
While the size of most boards will increase, parents will have more of a say. As the role of school councils becomes more meaningful, trustees will also have to focus more on their jobs. I expect their role will focus more on management issues such as busing and school maintenance. The province as well will have to focus on its new responsibilities of curriculum and monitoring standards. Annual reports will also be published to give parents more information on their education tax dollars and how they are being spent. The result of this more clearly defined system will be a more effective, accountable and responsive education system.
The real winners in Bill 104, however, are the students. With a provincial commitment to curriculum standards, students will get the education they deserve. A return to core basics of education will be welcomed. They will also receive this education without having to carry the future heavy burden of the wasteful overspending of today.
I want to commend the government for taking these bold steps today to ensure the continuing success story of Ontario's education system. I firmly believe that these changes are in the best interests of the students of today and the students of tomorrow.
Finally, I want to thank the committee for coming to Thunder Bay and hearing our opinions in the north. We appreciate it.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good afternoon, Mr Ballantyne. So you don't think that the proposed district 6 or region 6 for the board is going to be a problem in terms of the size, in terms of the massive area that will be covered and in terms of the opportunity for people to be involved, for parents and people to go to public board meetings? You don't think that's a problem?
Mr Ballantyne: No. I think that the increased importance of the school councils will give parents that input. It's also really important that the province is taking on to maintain some standards, especially in curriculum. The role of the school boards will become less important, and I'm not as worried about the size. I was reading that in New Brunswick they don't have any boards. The role of boards will be decreased and parents will still have a say.
Mr Gravelle: I don't mean to be rude in the slightest, but your speech had all the qualities of one that would have been written by or for the minister himself. That's fine, but I guess I want to ask you whether indeed -- are you obviously somebody who supports the government's agenda in general and this is part of your support?
Mr Ballantyne: I support it.
Mr Gravelle: Did you seek some of their input in terms of your remarks?
Mr Ballantyne: My report today? I received information, but they didn't write my report for me. I don't think there's anything wrong in supporting the government. Lots of people support the government. I strongly believe the government is on the right path.
Ms Lankin: I think the point Mr Gravelle was making is that some of the language is verbatim from the minister's speeches, and those of us who listen to him answer questions in the House ad nauseam are kind of nauseated by some of the language, and so we respond when we hear those pat phrases.
The problem I have with the argument you put forward, that all those who are complaining are trustees, teachers and unions who have got a vested interested, is that it's an awful lot like what we hear from the government about all those special interest groups and anyone who opposes the government is a special interest group. I think some of those people have some very valuable input to make. You suggest that parents and students should be listened to. In fact, virtually every parent representative who has come before this committee has been opposed to the changes that are taking place in Bill 104 and with respect to other changes that are coming down the pike in the education system.
I myself have been meeting with students involved in secondary school student councils across the province, their provincial executive, and recently I attended a conference of over 350 student council representatives, very bright, energetic, high level of activity and participation in the school system, that group of students. They were overwhelmingly opposed to the directions in this bill and what is coming with respect to the funding reform in the nature of per pupil grants. So I'm at a loss when you say we should be listening to these people and in fact those people's voices are critical. I wonder, what parents and students are you referring to who you think are supportive of this?
Mr Ballantyne: I can't comment on presentations you've heard elsewhere around the province, but obviously the number of presentations you can hear is limited. The opinions I've heard are that reform is needed, that if we continue on the track we're on, too much money will be taken out of the classroom.
I've heard a lot of debate about how many boards we need up here, but I think the overall direction of more money in the classroom and a more accountable education system to taxpayers, that's an opinion I've heard.
1500
Mr Skarica: Thank you very much for your presentation, sir. We did hear from some of the trustees from the Lakehead board this morning, and they were by and large in favour of the direction that Bill 104 was going. Renny Maki in particular told us -- he was a trustee -- that he felt that currently trustees are little more than rubber stamps, that they rubber-stamp decisions already made by the administration. He was in favour of school councils. Perhaps we could ask you what, if any, input right now comes from parents towards the day-to-day education of their students and how would you like to see that role develop over time with school councils?
Mr Ballantyne: I think it's important that parents' input is directed at the school level. I'd be interested. I think Mr Gravelle mentioned about how much input parents would have into these new boards. I wonder how many parents could name any of the trustees on the Lakehead Board of Education. I don't think right now there's a lot of input from parents into that body anyway. I think that input by parents at the school level, as far as what courses are being offered and the standards they expect in their schools, is much more valuable for parents.
Mr Skarica: You had indicated that you felt that your brother wasn't getting as good an education as you had when you went to school. What input, if any, did his parents or you have in dealing with that situation, indicating to the school system what you've told us today?
Mr Ballantyne: I think right now there are some school bodies, but they are somewhat limited. I am hoping that with the province taking over a core curriculum and making sure that those standards are met in all schools across the province, and also allowing parents' input at the local schools to make sure that their schools meet the standards they're expecting in their local schools, that's the input we need. The most valuable input a parent can make is at the school level.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Ballantyne, thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation today.
MOTHERS FOR EDUCATION
The Vice-Chair: Next up is Mothers for Education, Beverley Rizzi, founder. Welcome.
Ms Beverley Rizzi: First of all, I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to share our point of view today. I'd also like to share that Kathleen Wynne, Citizens for Local Democracy, and Jacqueline Latter, Ontario Education Alliance, are here lending their support today because we are united Ontario-wide and we are quite opposed to Bill 104.
I stand before you today as only one member of Mothers for Education. I bring with me Kazia, a grade 10 student, and Susan Gliddon, another concerned parent. I do this to ensure that it is not only my point of view that is heard today, as I believe that many voices have not been heard and many children have no voice.
Our children do not vote and we speak for them. I submit to you today letters from parents and students to aid you in your decisions and help give you a more accurate overview of what isn't in education today.
I am here to question, what is the education plan for Ontario and which direction are we going in? To date we do not have that information. Most of all, I'm here to plead why we should not follow through with Bill 104.
Bill 104 is predicated on the assumption that the education system in Ontario is broken. We, as parents and students, challenge that assumption. We believe that Mr Snobelen succeeded in creating the crisis he publicly promised to create, and that in itself is no basis for Bill 104.
Our system is repairable, as our system was functioning. We want to preserve the excellent education system that we once had, and that was only a short time ago.
Bill 104 removes democracy. Our local representatives will be less accessible to parents and students and therefore less responsible for the real decisions in education. I would like you to answer me today, how will we as parents advocate for our children with only one board, district 6, and that board's boundaries governing an area equal to that the size of a country like France? That's a mighty big board.
Are we to call a 1-800 number? I use family support and at times I've waited for days to access them, only to find that when I do get through I wait for close to two hours before finally speaking to someone. I can't imagine a system like this for education. I really can't. Can you?
Your Education Improvement Commission meets behind closed doors. I find that inexcusable, as our government is not above the law. We have no history on them or knowledge of their expertise, other than Dave Cooke -- does he have children? -- and Ann Vanstone. Can you fill us in on what we don't know? Who else is a party to this commission? What kind of people are they? What is their background? Do they have kids in school today? How long ago were they in the school system, or their children? Most of all, how long has it been since they have even entered a classroom?
We, as parents and students, do not want to trust blindly in our government when the information just isn't there and so many questions go unanswered or simply ignored. We have questions such as: Efficiencies like closing a school? How does one close a school without representatives to advocate for that school? Doing things your way will leave us with communities without representation.
Your unwillingness to share the information with the people of Ontario worries me, or does this government know what is ahead? I have talked to some of your representatives who do not even know the details of Bill 104. I can equate this with the blind leading the blind. I'm sorry, but I can. I have called everywhere. I will not support Bill 104 without knowing all the necessary information and what kind of repercussions it could have.
Let us talk about the companion piece of this bill, the removal of taxation authority of the local school boards. So now we have an education system totally under government control. Of course, the piece that falls thereafter is the downloading of all other taxes on our communities.
Ontario is a province made up of much diversity, with affluent communities and some not so affluent. How will those less-advantaged areas support your new, more efficient taxation channels? It's a really good question. I live in Nolalu. It's pretty scary for us out there right now. Will they crumble in the fall? The gaps between the rich and the poor grow wider and wider still. Is this more efficient to you? Because it isn't, it really isn't, to me.
I want to know your stand on funding. What are your funding levels going to be for the children of Ontario? We will be taking it down to the lowest dollar figure, is that what it is? Are we going to be taking it down there? Is that somewhere around $4,800 per student? To instil change without transition is morally wrong. Are we dealing with a government without humanity?
What is your plan for special needs children? What is your plan for exceptional children? What is your plan for all those kids who fall in between?
One student writes me, "I am not a robot." Programming such as art, phys ed, sports programs, home economics, shop and music are vital to turning out well-rounded children who can learn to take a basic math application and put it to use in something like art. Basketball, for example, is geometry: distance, calculation and estimation. What good is book learning if our children do not know how to apply it? Where will our future artists, musicians, authors, chefs, mechanics and so on come from if our children are not first exposed to these options in school?
Contrary to popular government belief, we are not just a society of big business and computers. I resent the possibility of business advertising in our gymnasiums and the notion that my child could work at some hamburger stand to earn a high school credit. Children find themselves in school. They learn not only about themselves but how to function well in our society.
What is your plan for classroom supplies, or are we as parents expected to foot that bill? We already volunteer for playground equipment, computers and such, and still carry on with our independent lives and our independent contributions to society. How much more are we as parents expected to do?
How dare you rearrange expenses? Essentials -- principals, SESP teachers, books, custodians, heating and snow removal -- are all vital to education in Ontario. If you look at a country like Japan, it took Japan years to develop an education plan for their children, and it works. Again, I suggest, what are we doing to Ontario's children?
What are you offering to help our classroom children today? I hear of nothing. Is there anything for their tomorrows? How many children have already fallen through your cracks in the name of efficiency, or is it really in the name of funding a 30% tax break? How many more are we going to lose tomorrow? What scares me most is will we ever get back what we lose now?
You claim that you will not increase the gaps between the rich and the poor. All children will have an equal education. There will be no second-class education in Ontario. I recall Mr Snobelen making that statement more than once. Then I ask you now why we have, within the last year, private schools charging private dollars to give our children what they are not getting in school today. I can't pay for a private school. Many of us can't. What are you going to do for my special needs son or my exceptional daughter? I don't think there's anything there. I really suspect nothing.
Lastly, I challenge you today to show me a plan -- yes, in reading, writing and arithmetic -- of where this money, this new-found money, money gained from cuts and Bill 104, is redirected to our children in classroom education.
Kazia, our grade 10 student, will have the last and final word in our presentation to you today. She is, after all a student, and her voice is important.
Mr Skarica, I have two questions for you: Why were you unable to attend our forum, or at least send a representative? Both the Liberals and NDP thought it important enough to attend. I'd like to know, why didn't you? Please, today, will you accept these tapes from me of that forum so that you can hear what you missed and maybe you might recognize the need for parent groups, now in these changing times, like Mothers and Fathers for Education. Would you accept that for me today, please?
Mr Skarica: Sure.
1510
Ms Susan Gliddon: I'm just going to say a few words. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to present. I am the mother of two school-aged children who found it necessary to join with other concerned parents when I discovered that our son would be segregated from his grade 4 peers as a result of last year's massive cuts in funding to our local school board. Legislation such as Bill 104 will surely keep parents like myself involved with grass-roots groups like Mothers for Education.
Bill 104 states that it is An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system. I would like to hear how fewer boards with drastically fewer representatives covering much larger areas will begin to be more accountable or effective. It would appear that the mandate of those elected will be broadened but that their ability to make timely or meaningful decisions will be considerably curtailed. If trustees are doing their job they more than earn the small salaries they are paid here in the north. If we want knowledgeable, dedicated people working on our behalf, they deserve to be compensated for their efforts, which brings me to school councils.
On page 16 of Bill 104 the idea of strengthening school councils is mentioned. Some schools had difficulty setting up the recently mandated school councils. Most parents work and are busy people. The parents who sit on school councils are concerned and caring people, but they are volunteers. How much time can you expect from them? How long do you expect them to volunteer for? One year, two years? Where will the continuity of knowledge come from?
Parents volunteer because they have a little bit of time to contribute. They want to help out. I would like to think that our schools will continue to be managed by accountable individuals paid to be there and oversee our schools, accepting input from concerned parents, but not run by a cluster of volunteers who in all likelihood want to improve their child's school environment, not manage a school environment of 200 to 500 children.
The introduction to Bill 104 goes on to say that an Education Improvement Commission will be established to oversee the transition to a new system. I didn't know our education system was broken. Despite the financial constraints that our board has faced with a 30% reduction in provincial grants over the last five years and an $8.3-million cut last year, our board has worked hard to manage with the funds it has. A consortium was initiated with the Lakehead separate board to maximize the two boards' buying power. Transportation routes have been continuously reviewed and revamped. Class sizes have been increased. Programs have been cut -- many programs. Schools closed and some amalgamated. The list goes on. I'm sure you've heard all this before.
As a mother of a child requiring one-on-one support to attend, let alone experience some measure of success in school, I am very aware that our system is far from perfect. Certainly there is room for improvement. There is always room for improvement. But I would hasten to add that I do not think our educational system should be dismantled. I think that if this government truly wants to make positive change, improvements, it would be sharing its ideas with those in the education system who have dedicated their working lives towards education, and parents who are willing to volunteer their ideas. There seems to be precious little opportunity for people to share their ideas or their concerns. These hearings are a good example of that. Time lines are very short.
As a point of interest, I noticed that four staunch Conservatives were granted one hour's time between them to speak while the Lakehead Board of Education was allowed 15 minutes to present its platform. We salute the opposition for pointing this out and addressing this issue. As this bill is a Conservative one, one would think that perhaps this might be the time to listen to opposing views.
In conclusion, our education system is far too important to dismantle. Public education is important. I do not want to see us moving towards a system of private or charter schools. Thank you, those of you who took the time to listen to me.
Ms Kazia Picard: As a student, it is fortunate I have an opportunity to speak here, because despite the fact it is about us, we are not given a say in our education. Now you'll know first hand what is happening. Mr Snobelen has certainly created the crisis in education he said he would.
It started in elementary school. As I got older, field trips stopped. I missed out on home economics and shop. In grade 8 there was no music program when music has, in tests, been proven to help math and reading development. My classes today are so large I do not know who is on the other side of my classroom and in some of my classes I've sat on buckets, heaters and floors for weeks.
I see students struggling with no special ed and exceptional students not exceeding as they should. So how can the government say students are not affected when they are not in the system nor have they bothered to consult the people who are? How are the cuts and amalgamations of Bill 104 supposed to help us when they have nothing to do with a better education and everything to do with money, money and power over how things are run in my education?
I see, after these changes are implemented, students with even less say and the government with more control to cut money and cut our education. The Harris government tells me this is being done to cut taxes -- the Common Sense Revolution -- and that they hear people saying they wish this to be done. I'm telling you these things should be less important than the public education we all benefit from.
I may not have the legal right to make my vote according to these issues, but I do have a right to a fair and equal education, yet our education will be anything but equal if we are to have such diverse regions with so many different needs. In the north we have costs of snow removal and transportation that may not be addressed accurately by an out-of-touch or distant school trustee.
This makes it obvious that what is being proposed in Bill 104 is not at all for the benefit of the schools or students. Nothing was taken into account of the geographic, social or cultural differences. At this point, the Minister of Education, John Snobelen, is so removed from education that we must make ourselves as students heard and understood so that he may not dictate to us what is happening to our education any longer.
I am here desperately trying to keep my education from dissolving into a system where the gap between the Tory government's and the students' reality is so wide that the government does not understand what is going on.
The Chair: Could I ask you to wrap up, please.
Ms Picard: It is also evident that the Conservative government did not look into any alternative programs but chose to slash and gouge into my education. Mr Snobelen is doing this as a person who is supposedly educated? What I find more offensive than your lack of consultation is that never are we directly informed of changes, and when we attempt to find out more we learn that facts are biased or untruthful, and figures are blurry and not specific. It seems to me that from the beginning the Minister of Education has been denying us knowledge.
I would like to direct this to the Minister of Education, though he may not be here. When you see us, look at what you are doing to your future as well as mine. When you cut art, you lose culture. When you cut music, you lose the heart to help you learn. When you cut programs like parenting, you jeopardize a generation. When you cut phys ed, you have poor health and built-up aggression. When you cut drama, you cannot communicate.
Back to basics may produce logical fingers, but that will result in a nation of machines ignorant of human feeling and morality. Then we'll be perfect candidates to replace a man such as you, Mr Snobelen, and then you'll be jobless, sick, alienated, numb and without anyone to assist you. You are forming your future now when you are proposing this bill, so listen to us, though you haven't before; for once, listen to us.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Rizzi and Ms Gliddon.
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, ladies and gentlemen, no. I would ask you please not to applaud or interject in any way. You really are shortening the time other people have available to speak. I also in particular want to thank Kazia for her eloquent presentation.
Ms Lankin: Madam Chair, while we received copies of a significant number of letters and attachments with the Mothers for Education presentation, there was not a printed version of Ms Gliddon's or Kazia's. I noted they had a copy. Perhaps we could ask the clerk to obtain copies and to circulate them. I didn't receive them.
The Chair: We'll do that and make sure it's circulated if there's one available.
1520
FORT FRANCES-RAINY RIVER ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS'
FEDERATION;
FORT FRANCES-RAINY RIVER WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION;
FORT FRANCES-RAINY RIVER ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Chair: May I call upon Sharon Preston, Ray Maynard and Rudolf Zeitlhofer. Welcome, and thank you very much for being here. You have 15 minutes for your presentation.
Mr Rudolf Zeitlhofer: We'd like to thank the committee for allowing us to speak to you today. I'm Rudolf Zeitlhofer with the OSSTF. I'd like to introduce my colleagues Sharon Preston of the federation of women teachers, and Ray Maynard, OPSTF.
We're the delegation from Ontario's other time zone. We'd like to start off by saying that we think Bill 104 is great if your goal is to get ordinary people involved in the political process, because that's what it's doing.
Bill 104 is one of the most contentious pieces of legislation Ontario has seen in sometime. There have been many demonstrations against this bill by a variety of groups: teachers, parents, education workers and others concerned with the future of our education system. Countless letters, postcards and fax messages have been sent to the Minister of Education and Training about this bill, and I'll bet the government members here have seen plenty of that too. Numerous petitions have been signed and delivered and more are in the works.
Why are so many of Ontario's citizens agitated over this bill? A glance at this proposed legislation does not provide the answer, nor does a thorough reading of the bill shed any more light on what sparks this intense opposition to the bill. The bill itself is a rather innocuous document, surprisingly so for having engendered so much passion in so many, as we saw here moments ago. The truth, quite frankly, is that people are agitated not so much over what Bill 104 does as they are over what Bill 104 might do. This, I put it to the members of this committee, is the essence of what makes this bill a deeply flawed piece of legislation.
As the preamble states, this is An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system, but given the contents of this bill, how would this bill accomplish that?
Ontario presently has a public education system that works. The high quality of our graduates, among whom I trust I can include members of this committee, attests to that. The Premier himself has gone on record as saying that the high quality of education in Ontario is one major reason Ontario is a good place to invest. Having said that, I'm sure no one here would be averse to any improvement that might be made to Ontario's school system, and we certainly aren't. But before we tinker or indeed do a major overhaul on a system that everyone agrees already works well, we should have a clear idea of how we will accomplish that goal and what that goal is. Would you let a mechanic work on your car if he or she couldn't give you a clear idea of what the end result would be? I think you would be very reluctant, especially if your car already worked well.
This law is just too vague. It creates district school boards without clearly stating how district school boards will provide a better education than the current system. It creates the Education Improvement Commission without stating clearly what the ultimate goals of the commission are to be. How will the Education Improvement Commission know when they have accomplished their task successfully? How will we know? Since the bill does not clearly state what the ultimate aims are beyond the vague term "improvement," how can we be certain that what they will do will be in the best interests of education in Ontario? How can we be certain that what they do will indeed be an improvement if we are not sure what they are going to do?
The bill refers, for example, to "strengthening the role of school councils over time." I don't think anybody would disagree with that, but please tell me, clearly and explicitly, what "strengthening the role" means. What is the ultimate role envisioned for school councils once they have been strengthened? This bill does not say. How then can you propose to enact legislation without having a clear idea of what the end result of that legislation will be?
The bill refers to "increasing parental involvement in education governance," but does not give any indication of what form this parental involvement would take. This amounts to a carte blanche to the Minister of Education and Training and the Education Improvement Commission to order things as they see fit. The bill should clearly say what role parents are to play in education governance. It's only sensible.
I don't mean to keep going about in circles, but I think you now understand why I refer to this as a flawed piece of legislation. In order for a law to be effective it must, above all, be clear in its intentions and how the mechanism of the law will accomplish those aims. This bill fails to do that and fails badly. This bill, for example, hands a great deal of power to the Education Improvement Commission. Shouldn't the law clearly spell out what they are supposed to do? When the Legislature delegates power to any official, board or other institution, it clearly defines the parameters of how that board or official can and should function. Why is this legislation different?
The noted English jurist Sir Edward Coke is famous for saying, "Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason.... The law, which is perfection of reason." Only a lawyer would actually say that, but I think you get the idea. I put it to you that this bill is unreasonable. I ask not that you defeat this bill, not at all; I only ask that you improve this bill so that it clearly states what it intends to accomplish and how the attainment of that end will be an improvement to our current system. This can only be accomplished by withdrawing this bill from consideration and redrafting it in its entirety.
Before we get on to what the bill actually does, let's make sure we know what it does or what it's going to do. You cannot in good conscience approve this bill simply because you would not be at all certain what you would be endorsing. Law is order, and good law is good order. This law substitutes vagueness for the order we expect in a good law. It is a bad bill. Please make it better before you make it a law.
I teach a grade 11 writing class. One of the things I'm constantly harping at my students about is to be specific and be clear; don't be vague. If they handed me this, I would give it back to them and I would say: "Clearly state what your goal is. What will it look like when it's finished?" If you're going to build a house, even a doghouse or a birdhouse, you know what it's going to look like before you begin building it. What's education in Ontario going to look like when we're finished rebuilding it or improving it? If it's better, I don't have a problem with that, but I'd like to know what it's going to look like.
Mrs Sharon Preston: On to the specifics. The Lieutenant Governor in Council: Bill 104 gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council, that is the cabinet, carte blanche power over our education system, as well as the future of our children and all education personnel. Decisions can be made behind closed doors with no provision for discussion with or input by those affected. These decisions will impact on individuals, groups and communities with no representation by the same. The potential costs to people's present and future lives are very real. To disregard these personal costs is both callous and irresponsible. No one here would sign a blank contract and allow the details to be filled in later. Why are we being told we must do this very thing with our education system?
The orders in council are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court. Having no appeal process for such orders gives the Ontario public less recourse than someone who has been sentenced as a criminal in the eyes of the court. What vile things have the people of Ontario done to be granted less democracy than someone who has broken the laws of the land?
This ruling replaces democracy with dictatorship. That is very frightening. As citizens of a democracy, we must always protect and maintain our right to review and question the decisions of those in power. It is our right and our responsibility. It is disrespectful to the people of Ontario to tell them that they must accept such restrictions on their democratic rights.
The impact of amalgamation and privatization: Amalgamation and privatization directives will impact on our communities. Such initiatives will result in lost jobs and decrease in salaries. Both will mean less purchasing power at the municipal level. In small communities like those in the north, the economic impact will be considerable. Job flexibility in small communities is very limited. The economic losses will be long-term.
1530
The comprehensive education plan: The people of Ontario are being asked to accept funding cuts and restructuring without a comprehensive education plan being in place. Teachers must have day plans that clearly define objectives as well as long-range plans for the year. In asking for a detailed education plan, we are asking for nothing more from the minister than he demands from every teacher each working day.
The minister's pat answers of making education more accountable and efficient are non-answers. Published, well-formed and detailed plans are necessary. They are needed so the public can predetermine whether or not the government is proceeding in an acceptable direction with our public education system before any further restructuring is done.
The Education Improvement Commission: Bill 104 sets up the Education Improvement Commission to make recommendations to the Minister of Education and Training on a number of items. This commission is perceived as having almost magical powers as a transition medium. It will be able to answer all questions and create solutions for all education woes. It apparently can do no wrong. It can recommend giving or taking or placing at will, without being accountable for its actions. Despite the many-splendoured thing that the commission is billed as being, we have objections with the commission on several fronts:
(a) The commission members are appointed by the government. Their salaries will be paid by an employer which has already stated that it is looking for ways to save money. We can then infer that this commission will be seeking outcomes which support the boss's wishes. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. We sense a conflict of interest here.
(b) Bill 104 restricts the discussion to only allow the Education Improvement Commission to look for ways to promote and facilitate the privatization of some education services. Such a directive by the government does not allow for even an illusion of freedom of choice for the Education Improvement Commission.
The Minister of Education and Training is facilitating this privatization initiative by declaring specific education services and costs to be outside the classroom. The direction in which the Education Improvement Commission is being told to move is fairly evident.
Government control, to realize government preconceived outcomes, appears to be the motivating factor, rather than democracy, responsibility to the electorate and quality education.
Mr Ray Maynard: The northwest portion of Ontario is a vast expanse of territory which is purported to be larger than France. To put such a large region under the governance of one school board is surely not in the best interests of anyone. Presumably this board would be located somewhere near the middle of the district, which would make it a two- to four-hour drive away from any of the more populated towns.
The communities and schools in the northwest are as unique as their settings. There are towns such as Fort Frances and Rainy River whose citizens are as apt to eat in the USA as they are in Canada. On the other end of the spectrum there are towns like Red Lake that are situated at the end of the road -- beyond this point there be dragons, or at least no paved roads.
At first glance, many of the communities in the north appear to be one-industry towns. However, if one is willing to dig a little deeper, the unique history and character of each town become apparent. Within each town there is a sense of pride and a unique way of getting things done. This uniqueness is not tied into a particular philosophy. Instead, it is tied into the people, the individual citizens who make up the community. It is not what you know in a northern town that gets things done, it is whom you know. The personal contacts that you are able to make with people will get things accomplished. A wide range of issues, from transportation problems to emergency repairs, can be sorted out quickly when there is personal contact.
Living in a small town, one becomes aware of the sense of ownership that local citizens have towards their community buildings such as schools, arenas and auditoriums. This sense of ownership develops through years of involvement with various organizations that use them. Schools are often the buildings to which there is the greatest attachment, most likely because the greatest number of people have had affiliation with them.
It is quite common to call on a former student of a school to make a presentation to a class. It is equally common to make a request for donations towards refurbishing part of the school. In these towns, the response to such requests is most often very generous, because the people feel a genuine sense of ownership. These donations may not be strictly altruistic. There is often a degree of selfishness, that a child or grandchild of the donor will most likely benefit from the donation. Often the donations are not money, but service. A carpenter's volunteer services can go a long way towards making the much-needed bookshelves a reality.
Placing the decision-making body in a distant community will drastically reduce this sense of ownership. This will in turn reduce the community commitment to the school. Without the support of our local citizens, our local community schools will no longer flourish. A distant body may decide that a small school is not needed, based strictly on numbers. These sorts of decisions do not take into account the needs or wishes of the local community. Through local cooperation and pooling of resources, the local citizens may have preserved their community school, but this decision would no longer be in their control.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here. The time is always too short. We wish there were more of it. Thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair --
The Chair: Could I call the next presenter while you speak. I believe it's Andrew Horsfield. Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you. I'm sitting here and, I won't take but a moment, but I'm getting increasingly concerned about whether we're going through a sham process here. I say that because I hear people coming forward with their concerns, with a real need to make the members of the committee understand the realities of the northern boundaries of the board that are proposed. We heard the same thing yesterday in Ottawa. We'll hear it again tomorrow in Sudbury.
I know that at the same time the members of the EIC who aren't yet appointed, legally, are having their own hearings, meeting with boards. We've already heard that referenced a couple of times today. I understand that they have maps up on the walls showing board boundaries. Whether they're the same board boundaries that people are coming here to express their concern about, I don't know.
My concern is, is this process going to serve any purpose at all if the people who are going to be advising the Lieutenant Governor in Council are not privy -- or we don't know that they're privy -- to the concerns that are being raised here? I'm presenting it as a problem that I would like the parliamentary assistant -- I'm not going to make a motion. I don't want to be controversial and take time. If you would consider that if this legislation passes, post-amendments or whatever scenario might come forward, it seems to me reasonable that the EIC, if it exists by law after this vote is taken, meet with the members of this committee so that they can be apprised of what we have heard and we can understand what they have taken from all the concerns that have been presented in these hearings.
Mr Skarica: That's an excellent suggestion. Perhaps our subcommittee could meet with the EIC once we're done these hearings. I have some of the presentations here, actually, and notes regarding boundaries.
Mrs McLeod: Or the full committee, perhaps.
Mr Skarica: Certainly.
Ms Lankin: I think that is a useful suggestion. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant if there's a possibility of taking that a step further. We will of course be spending a day next week on clause-by-clause, and at some point it would be helpful to know the government's intentions. Many of these issues that are being addressed are contained within regulations and there may be the possibility of an amendment which would actually bring some of this into legislation and allow us as a committee to do the work which reflects the concerns that have been heard through these public hearings. I'm sure there would be a willingness to work on a tripartite basis to draw up an acceptable amendment to achieve that goal if it was something the government would be open to.
Perhaps I'd put that forward as a suggestion and ask you to give it consideration. I think that while the EIC has work and that may be an appropriate approach without it being in the legislation, this committee has much of the expertise and has listened to many of the people, has heard the representations directly and could at least take a first attempt at responding to the concerns that have been heard.
Mr Skarica: I'll take that back to the minister.
1540
ANDREW HORSFIELD
The Chair: Mr Horsfield, welcome. Thank you for being here.
Mr Andrew Horsfield: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you today. In some ways I'm not exactly sure why I'm here. You see, I don't belong to any group directly affected by these changes. I'm not a teacher, a trustee, a union member, a janitor, politician or anything like that, nor is anybody in my family. The truth is, I don't even have any children in school -- soon, hopefully. I'm just a real estate agent from Thunder Bay. When I heard that you were coming here, that you were travelling about seeking opinions on Bill 104, I began to think seriously about just who would be applying to speak to you. So many groups and organizations are going to seek to help you form an opinion, so for what it's worth, here's what I think.
I think you are going to be told by speakers far more eloquent than I about the importance of trustees and administrations and local representation and school boards and the imminent collapse of the system and a million other arguments that only serve to defend the status quo. But in my books, and I should add, in the books of the people I talk to every day, there's not one trustee nor one school board nor even one administrator, for that matter, who is as important as a child's education in the classroom.
These defenders of their self-made empires will assail you from all sides, speaking all the time of their concern for the education of children, when really their primary objective is to protect their own turf. I'm asking you to be courageous, to stand up to these power brokers of the system and say, "Enough is enough." Think of our children and think what they are going to face in the future. The days are long gone when Ontario's children could compete without an education. If you don't have a good education, you can forget about meaningful employment. Let's spend our limited money in the classroom and not on administrators, directors and politicians.
Bill 104 proposes a change in taxation. It seems to me that a move that streamlines the collection of taxes, that will eliminate bureaucratic duplication, will put more money where it belongs. Who knows? Maybe there is an argument that can be made that somehow it makes economic sense to have all these different school boards collecting different taxes at their own expense, but I just can't see it.
As I understand it, this bill will remove the power of taxation from these multiple school boards all over the province and we'll have one agency collecting taxes and distributing the money according to the need and the cost of the education in the region. It seems so simple. The money saved on administrative costs alone should be staggering, so let's take that money and put it to better use. Let's spend that money giving our children the tools they need to compete in the future.
While I'm on the subject of taxes, I'm a real estate agent. I see people trying to buy their first home all the time, or families trying to get just a little bit more room for themselves. Ladies and gentlemen, there is absolutely no way you can raise residential taxes any higher to cover costs. People are dying out there. Our education system is one of the most expensive in the world and yet our children are not the best educated. That proves the answer is not more money, and believe me, there is no more money. We -- you -- have to find a way to spend what we have more effectively. This bill is part of the answer.
Furthermore, any move that reduces the number of politicians anywhere in this province is okay by me -- nothing personal. I have nothing against trustees. I assume that they are hard-working, dedicated individuals. We just have far too many. I know that not all trustees earn $50,000 a year and have personal secretaries and supplied cars, but some do. Let's take the average trustee, the trustee who earns about $7,000 a year. "Only $7,000," you say. "Come on, that's peanuts in a big system like ours." That's the problem. For too long we've been saying that's only $7,000. Where I come from, and the people I talk to, $7,000 is a sizeable chunk of money. If we don't watch the pennies, what happens to the dollars?
Seven thousand dollars represents two, maybe three, computers into a classroom. How many kids is that going to service? Or maybe it's about one eighth of a teacher's salary to reduce the size of the class. That's the way we should be thinking. That's what $7,000 represents: more teachers, more classroom supplies, more computers, whatever. Given the choice between paying a politician or putting more teachers and supplies into the classrooms, I'll take the teachers every time.
I have always wondered why trustees seem so involved in administrative duties. I thought they were elected to set policy, to guide, to be leaders, yet we have elected trustees involved in day-to-day matters such as union negotiations, the selection of principals and vice-principals, sports committees and other individual programs. Not only should this be the domain of the paid professionals in administration, but it sets up a massive potential conflict of interest. Trustees are often voting on the future of their spouses. This practice will be stopped under Bill 104, leaving trustees free to be the policy setters, not daily managers.
Stephan Covey discussed leadership versus management. He said to imagine a company cutting its way through a rain forest. The workers are busily hacking away at vines and trees. The management stands back, organizes the work crews, the breaks, the sharpening of the axes. The leader is the individual who climbs the highest tree, looks around and says, "Oops, wrong forest." We're in the wrong forest. We've been steadily heading deeper into it for 25 or 30 years.
Furthermore, I certainly like the idea of more parental input as proposed by the advisory school councils. Concerned parents should be the backbone of the system, not an accessory that is told what is best for their children by so-called experts. I would want to know what my child is learning, at what rate my child is learning and whether my children are being prepared for the world they will face in the future.
In real estate we are taught the importance of goals. In order for a goal to be effective, it must be written down on paper and it must have a time limit attached to it, otherwise it's simply a wish and a dream. How can we ask our children to achieve goals without a clear understanding of what those goals are? If the idea of a clear and consistent standard, as proposed in Bill 104, frightens some teachers and administrators -- maybe they're afraid they might be held accountable if a kid graduates from high school and can't read -- then maybe it's about time.
The first thing Confederation College here in Thunder Bay does is test all the incoming students to see if they can read and write. Many fail. They're forced to take a basic English course, yet they're graduates of high school. It shouldn't even be an issue, but it is, and that's pretty sad.
A consistent standard and testing throughout Ontario should allow us to pinpoint problem areas and move to address those areas quickly. Through the advisory school councils, parents will be better informed about their children's learning and hopefully will help their children succeed academically.
I realize I don't have much time left, but there are just a couple of other points I'd like to emphasize. In my daily work I talk with real people from all walks of life. I've been raising this issue with them, very gently, I might add, because it's not usually a good idea to discuss politics with potential clients, but I have, in an unscientific effort to get their thoughts. To be honest, most know absolutely nothing about this bill, or they maybe have a general idea. But after we talk a little bit, I find that most everyone seems to agree that this bill is pointing our education system in the right direction. We're finally in the right forest for a change.
The people I know have bills to pay, be it a mortgage or car loan or credit card. Most everyone is struggling, especially the younger families. We truly understand the concept of no more money. We can't just vote ourselves a raise because we don't want to cut back our lifestyle. This fact seems to have escaped too many politicians before now. People really believe that Ontario's education system has repeatedly raised taxes and cut costs at the bottom, in the classrooms where it does the most harm to the students.
Maybe this response to shrinking budgets is designed to create as much damage as possible in some vain hope of increased funding. Who knows? What we do know is that this bill will reduce the political element in our school system and save money at the same time. It will put in place a system that just may be able to rein in spiralling costs. It will increase the potential for parental involvement. It will create an environment that will allow scarce dollars to move from useless, redundant administrative and political functions and hopefully be spent where it counts: for the kids in the classroom. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Horsfield. You went right to the limit. I thank you for coming and sharing your views with us.
LAKEHEAD, GERALDTON AND NORTH OF SUPERIOR ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARDS
The Chair: Next are the North of Superior, Geraldton and Lakehead Roman Catholic separate school boards: Carole Weir, Kevin Debnam and Joleene Kemp.
Welcome. Thank you for coming before us.
Mrs Joleene Kemp: We're just going to put a map up.
The Chair: We're very fond of visual aids in this committee.
Mrs Kemp: Actually, you can't have this one because we found out yesterday, just around 4 o'clock, that we were able to come and make a presentation to you. As a result, you'll have a copy of this sent down to you so that you may use it, but for your information, this is already with Mrs Vanstone and Mr Cooke. They already have a copy of it because they have already been here and have spoken to us. We want to make sure that we're succinct and that you see exactly what we're talking about, so we have a map that demonstrates the Catholic district board number 34 up there for you.
This afternoon, as part of this presentation, we have the director of the Lakehead separate school board, Kevin Debnam, and we have the director of the north of Superior separate school board, Carole Weir. Guy Legault, who is the superintendent involved with Geraldton-Longlac, has been summoned to Longlac to be part of the native education undertaking that is happening all this week in terms of where they're going to go with their particular issues.
Jack Duhaime, who is the chair of the Geraldton-Longlac board, thought it might be a good idea for him to work today, considering that it's only a six-hour drive in, and that he felt he would be more productive within his own community. Paul Paradis, who is the chair of North of Superior, has just started his new job as CEO of Marathon's Wilson Memorial Hospital and felt that his presence could best be spent dealing with restructuring in health care.
Having said that, we're not here to whine, but we're here to get on with the task that is before us, and that's to look at Bill 104.
1550
Mrs Carole Weir: Good afternoon. The Lakehead, Geraldton and North of Superior Roman Catholic separate school boards are here today as advocates for the 10,000 students we serve in this great region. As Catholic-based organizations, collaboration, consultation and cooperation form the very fabric of who we are as people of God and the manner in which we function as school boards. We applaud the government's commitment to consulting directly with those affected by change and appreciate that finally time was found for us to voice our concerns, with the hope that you will carefully consider and reflect our suggestions in the decisions ahead of you. We are grateful that time was found and we're very aware that we're cutting into your break, which you truly deserve, but want to express our gratitude for listening to us.
Our comments on Bill 104 are selective in nature. We, as representatives of the school boards slated for amalgamation in this part of the province, have chosen to make public statements on a few issues that directly affect the quality of Catholic education in our schools, and accordingly, the children in our classrooms. Our presentation today reflects the unified voice of the three Catholic school boards defined by the proposed legislation as district Catholic school board 34.
Mrs Kemp: Our presentation on Bill 104 is underpinned by four basic principles. It is the unified position of the three boards that any changes to the educational landscape of northeastern Ontario must be: (1) in the best interests of the children we serve; (2) cost-effective; (3) fiscally realistic for a large geographic area; and (4) socially just.
It is within the framework of these four principles that we present our comments. Before dealing directly with the proposed legislation contained in Bill 104 and its impact on this special part of the province, we wish to situate it within a bigger picture, namely, the massive provincial restructuring of education in Ontario, of which this bill is only one particular part.
The legislative enactments of Bill 104 will improve Ontario's education system only if they are accompanied by legislation which ensures: equitable and improved educational opportunity for all children in the province; respect and justice for all those who provide education; and guarantees for the constitutionally protected rights of our Catholic education system.
Therefore, we recommend that any proposed model of school board amalgamation be in the best interests of the children in the province of Ontario; cost-effective; fiscally realistic for a large geographic area; and socially just.
Mr Kevin Debnam: Therefore Bill 104, in substance and detail, will result in better education only on the condition that:
The government implement its promised new, fair funding model which will achieve equal educational opportunity for children from distant and disparate communities.
Any employees of school boards who are affected by the reduction of the number of boards in the region be dealt with according to clearly defined principles of social justice.
The new funding allocation formula allow local autonomy through flexibility for discretionary spending by Catholic boards in order that they may maintain, foster and develop that specific and distinctive education offered by Catholic schools. This will permit the continued development of distinctive curriculum materials and professional development programs.
The amalgamation of school boards should recognize distinct and different community affinities such as geography, economy, culture, history, and religion; and the size of the school board should permit effective administration and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of educational services with consideration for the additional challenges faced in the area.
We assume that it is not the government's intention to promote size for the sake of size. In our circumstance, a new district school board will comprise 23,000 square kilometres. This could result in inefficiencies and additional costs.
We now draw your attention to the proposed amalgamation of the Geraldton, North of Superior and Lakehead Catholic school boards.
It is the unified position of all three boards represented here today that amalgamation is the preferred option for this part of northwestern Ontario. However, it comes with a pricetag and perhaps some cost savings in the future. We collectively believe that we have the talent, skill and wherewithal to effect a three-board amalgamation and to do so for the good of our kids, to effect cost savings over time and in a manner that is socially just to our employees.
In order to effect successful amalgamation in this region, our boards require -- may I say our boards demand -- a four-year phase-in period; a provincially developed and funded human resources package that ensures the fair and just treatment of staff; transitional funding to assist school boards in overcoming defined barriers that could mitigate success; and adequate trustee representation to ensure that new boards reflect the many diverse needs of a larger school board community.
In point of fact, these are conditions upon which we base our unified support for board amalgamation. Without these conditions being met, the boards would be forced to propose alternative models to amalgamation. Accordingly, we forward the following comments and associated recommendations.
Mrs Weir: Amalgamation as a phase-in period from 1997 to 2000: It is our collective position that each Catholic board in District 34 is an equal partner in the amalgamation process. Accordingly, we are not operating on the assumption that the larger Lakehead board will systematically fold the two smaller boards into its current infrastructure and overall operation. Rather, we intend to create a new Catholic school board in the region, one built on a solid foundation of clearly articulated regional needs. These needs will be reflected in the crafting of a new or revised board infrastructure, one which will rise, much like the mythical phoenix, from the ashes of the previous three school boards.
We are confident that if the funding allocation framework is adequate, then the new board infrastructure can be designed to overcome the geographic, climatic, transportation and telecommunication barriers, of which you've heard a lot today, that define the approximately 23,000-square-kilometre area of the proposed district 34.
Mrs Kemp: This is what our board looks like, and this is very real. This doesn't take into account the one- and two-lane highways, the deadend roads, the school communities that exist because of the wherewithal of the Catholic parents. It doesn't take into account the cooperation that exists today that has allowed our Catholic school boards to function and to grow and to survive. It's all there. It's this blank that we're making reference to that is up there, that we show you in terms of what we have and what we don't have. But this is it, minus the faces, minus the realness, and this is what we look forward to in our newly expanded Catholic school board.
Mrs Weir: The magnitude of restructuring proposed under Bill 104 requires careful strategic planning and skilful implementation by those directly affected by this initiative. It is imperative, therefore, that the province recognize that this process will take time. Only in this way will the success of the innovation be assured and the needs of the children we serve in this special part of the province met. Only in this way can our boards work together to help ensure that in the future there will be no second-class students in our schools.
The Chair: Excuse me. I note that you have quite a lengthy brief and you have very few minutes at your disposal. I wonder if you might want to summarize in some way so that you don't miss some of the points you want to make.
Mrs Weir: We appreciate your help. Thank you. The recommendation, you can see, is a reiteration of what we just said, so we'll move on to social justice.
Mr Debnam: In the area of social justice, without going into all the details, we are a Catholic-based organization. Many of the basic principles upon which we function are dictated by the Catholic church. The social justice issues that we try to implement and live out on a daily basis and that context are clearly defined by the bishop of the diocese of Thunder Bay. The area of social justice, without getting into the details, is one that is near and dear to our hearts. We want to ensure that our recommendations in terms of the fair treatment of staff are heard.
More specifically, we have a recommendation that states that the province develop and fund a comprehensive, four-year human resources package that ensures the just and fair treatment of staff affected by school board amalgamation; that the human resources package contain, among other components, the provision for training, upgrading of skills, counselling, redeployment assistance, early retirement incentive plans and voluntary early exit packages; and that this package be made available to all staff over the course of the four-year implementation phase.
Mrs Weir: Another recommendation I will précis for you, as we have written it out, is with regard to transitional funding. You've heard expressed eloquently today some of the concerns of people who live in this region. In order to put amalgamation into the process, we must have a four-year provincial transition fund that will help us. The recommendation is that the province create such a fund to assist us in overcoming the regional barriers that are present.
Mrs Kemp: We're looking for the minimum number of trustees to be increased to seven and that the formula for determining the number of trustees on a district school board include factors such as geography, urban density and population scarcity. This is very real for the people in the communities that we presently are called to serve.
We began this brief by saying that the Catholic school boards slated for amalgamation would work hard to ensure a successful board amalgamation; we did so by articulating very carefully principles upon which we feel we can do this because we are called to serve and, in doing so, we serve our children, because we believe in our future. You have it there before you. You will receive a copy of the detailed map which lists the inefficiencies that are there. We will also begin to cost for you some of the basic areas that will have to be upgraded and provided, which each presenter has discussed in his or her presentation, specifically the areas of technology, upgrading and hopefully something done to highways so that we can communicate face to face with the parents of the children we serve.
We thank you very much for allowing us this opportunity. We only wish you had the time to come into our schools and see what's going on in Nakina, Marathon, Manitouwadge and Thunder Bay, what has in fact happened, because then you could begin to appreciate what we are talking about and the passion with which we carry out our call to service.
The Chair: Thank you. We appreciate the passion with which you have stated your position here today and we regret that we're not able to go into every school. On behalf of the committee I thank you, and we look forward to the additional information you will send us.
We are recessed until 4:30.
The committee recessed from 1605 to 1630.
HOWARD WHENT
The Chair: I would call the meeting to order and call Howard G. Whent. Thank you very much for being here, Mr Whent. We look forward to your presentation. You have 10 minutes.
Mr Howard Whent: I notice all the committee is not here yet. I hope their coffee is over quickly.
First off, I'm not too sure what role I'm in. I'm an educator and a parent and a taxpayer and a concerned citizen, all those things. I won't apologize for being here out of special interest, and if somebody wants to characterize that as a special interest group, my kids are, thank you very much.
I live with my family in the town of Wawa, in the township of Michipicoten, some 500 kilometres away. Education has undergone many changes and will continue to evolve. The Minister of Education and Training has stated that the proposed changes will make the education system more accountable and create equal opportunities for all students. This statement could have been made by Mr Davis, Mr Robarts or even Mr Frost. That's where I end the comparison.
Bill 104 is part of a package of bills that the government claims is aimed at restructuring the relationship between various levels of government and the citizens of the province. These changed relationships will, I believe, divide this province along social, economic and regional grounds as never before. It is not the kind of society I or any caring citizen would want to have as a legacy.
Bill 104 is more significant because of what it does not say. There are too many unanswered questions. Yes, the taxpayers will not be paying education taxes, maybe. Business, commercial and industrial educational taxes will continue to be paid, not for local education, but to the provincial treasury. Will every dollar collected be directed towards education? What process will be used to set these rates? Will this process be subject to a strong business, commercial, industrial lobby?
The ministry report entitled A Report on School Board Spending 1995 to 1996 used the median per pupil spending as a basis of comparison. There have been a lot of presentations today that handled a lot of regional concerns, and I think they have been well presented. I'm interested in my community and my kids. A document entitled "Redistributing Education Wealth in Ontario -- the Winners and Losers," which I believe came from a trustees' association magazine, also used the same basis of comparison. It says the amalgamated Algoma district would lose about $1 million. Most of this would come from the schools in Wawa. We could lose 16.5% of our teachers, class sizes at the elementary level could increase between 20% and 30%, and many programs and high school options would be ended.
The new funding model must differentiate the needs of small communities with few schools from urban centres that have more flexibility in assigning staff and redistributing student loads.
My community has been impacted negatively and will continue to be so. We have 4,600 people. The impact, and this is in the appendix, will be equivalent to hitting Toronto with a couple of billion dollars out. I suggest you take a look at those numbers.
"Accountable": Accountable for what and how and to whom?
"Governance" means "exercise of authority, direction, control." The Education Act assigns specific responsibilities to various individuals and groups. Does Bill 104 give the minister the power to amend the Education Act through regulation? An example of this would be giving to school councils some of the governance responsibilities now assigned to a principal.
"Accountable" means "liable to be called to account, responsible." The Ontario College of Teachers has the power to hold teachers accountable for their responsibilities. There is no parallel process in place to hold anyone else accountable for their responsibilities as defined in the Education Act. Bill 104 goes one step further in exempting from liability the Education Improvement Commission and its appointed committees as long as they are acting in good faith. Try to prove that in a court of law.
Educational bureaucracy is viewed by some as self-serving, unresponsive and élitist. Will this new governance model make the system more accountable? The process towards this new system is to be totally controlled by the EIC and its guidelines or by regulation. What mechanisms will exist to ensure that these measures are fair and reflect the needs of all the stakeholders? Bill 104 proposes none.
My understanding is that local improvement committees are to be composed of board chairs and administrative personnel from each of the existing boards. Some of these members would have a problem and I understand their concern. They would be dealing with organizational models which could include the elimination of some of their own positions. I have heard that teachers and parents and possibly students may be allowed to sit on subcommittees to make reports, but with no decision-making input whatsoever. The composition of the committees should be representative and conflict-of-interest guidelines instituted.
Decisions within the new districts -- this to me is the heart of the whole thing -- will have to be made at three levels: the school level, the local community level and the district level. The types of decisions to be made, and at which level, must be decided first, followed by an organization of personnel to satisfy the need; in other words, what gets done by whom. I think it's dangerous to put in place people in positions of authority without responsibility. As soon as you do that, you now have a power trip on your hands. There could be a case made for retaining some administrative presence in each of the affected small board areas. There is no assurance that each of the small boards would even be given a trustee.
The balance of power between elected trustees and bureaucrats will be changed. Bill 104 will create a more bureaucratic system. Trustees will find it more difficult to make informed decisions. Boards may become rubber-stamp organizations. Administrators will be making decisions with the pressure of knowing that the EIC is looking over their shoulders. Valid concerns could get lost in a bureaucratic jungle.
The Ministry of Education and Training does not now have enough personnel to fulfil its mandate, and I can tell you as a practising teacher the number of times we wait months and years for material to come from the ministry. What will the additional cost be for the increased central bureaucracy?
Why is it necessary for the EIC to maintain a mandate until the end of the year 2000? If the reason is that it will take this long to work out all the problems, then it is obvious that the implementation date of January 1, 1998, is far too soon for the new school districts. Children could be hurt by decisions made in haste. The real reason has everything to do with the government's desire to extract more money from the system and to make these decisions without public scrutiny. This suggests that the government will be making decisions which will be detrimental to public education.
Public education will not be well served by Bill 104. You cannot expect change to work in an atmosphere of uncertainty and mistrust. Educators, classroom support people, parents, students and administrators have to feel that they are part of this change, not the target of it. My children and all our children demand that their needs not be subordinated to the perceived political need of any political party.
In the addendum, just to comment, if there is a reshuffling of things, I think your timetable is out of whack, it's far too quick, and things are going to fall through the holes. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Whent. You used up all of your time. We thank you for bringing your views to the committee.
LAKEHEAD BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL COUNCIL PROJECT TEAM
The Chair: Could I ask the school council project team, Lakehead Board of Education, Connie Hartviksen and Lyn Walter, to come forward. Welcome to our committee. We look forward to your presentation.
Ms Connie Hartviksen: Good afternoon, members of the panel and all concerned public who are present. We are very pleased to be presenting today and we have a very important message to share that reflects the views and concerns of parents and school council members from the 39 elementary and secondary schools within the Lakehead Board of Education in Thunder Bay. This position also supports the majority opinion of the Lakehead Board of Education regarding Bill 104.
Our names are Lyn Walter and Connie Hartviksen. We are school council chairs within the Lakehead Board of Education, Lyn from the elementary panel and myself from the secondary. We are also on our board's school council project team. Our mandate on the team is to help facilitate school council implementation during the first year and to help them through the growing pains.
In preparation for today, we have contacted each of our 33 elementary and six secondary school councils to inform them of Bill 104 and to get feedback. This has been a major undertaking. This verbal and written report reflects the comments and concerns that were shared with us through this process. The comments have been analysed and grouped into two areas: (1) concerns about how Bill 104 will directly affect school councils, and (2) general concerns school councils have about the implications of implementation of Bill 104 in northwestern Ontario.
Ms Lyn Walter: The amalgamation of school boards in northwestern Ontario will result in an unmanageable geographic area for the proposed new jurisdiction, specifically 60,000 square kilometres, with a distance of 520 kilometres between schools on either side of the proposed boundary. That is the same distance apart as Toronto is from Montreal. Combined with the proposed reduction of trustees, this will cripple the ability of the new board to be responsive to local concerns and issues. We cannot expect good local representation for any of the communities affected by this. School councils will not be able to function effectively as an alternative to local boards of education because they have neither the authority nor the additional resources required to enable them to fulfil an informed role in decision-making at the school level. School boards currently serve a valuable function with an elected responsibility.
1640
The proposed amalgamation will result in centralization of decision-making about the education of our children. This will inevitably mean that local issues and concerns from parents, teachers, trustees, school councils and students will not be heard, the morale of teachers and volunteers will be destroyed, the quality of education in the classroom will diminish, systemic synergy will be prevented, and issues involving the neediest children will fall through the cracks.
This plan is not feasible for the rural communities in northern Ontario, with schools separated by hundreds of miles and with populations of a few hundred or a few thousand. We face unique and exceptional challenges associated with our northern and rural geographic location, including harsh winters, poor roads and the high costs of doing business at a distance.
Ms Hartviksen: If the ministry's counter to this is to say they'll infuse the north with advanced technology, any of the proposed net gains thought to be recouped through this restructuring plan will evaporate. Fibre-optic cable and telecommunication capabilities are tremendously expensive to put in place, and even once operational are tremendously expensive to use and maintain. Take for example a conference call. A one-hour, four-line conference call in northwestern Ontario will cost $250. Typically, board meetings run anywhere from two to four hours long, depending on the agenda, and occur twice a month. You are looking at a minimum monthly bill for board meetings alone of $2,000. Subcommittee work will be a challenge, and those costs will be in addition to regular board meetings. That doesn't even begin to address the problems associated with the questionable effectiveness of audio conferencing.
I'd like to share with you one quote that was provided to us from a school council: "We need to get some of these policymakers up here and squire them around for three days. Drive to Marathon for a meeting, then drive back eating food out of a cooler both ways since $5,000 isn't going to begin to cover out-of-pocket expenses. Then take them to the eastern end of the district on day two -- same drill. Then, after they've managed on a few hours of sleep and soggy food for two days, let's do a northern community on day three. This should happen in the winter when the days are short and the roads are bad, although I fear for anyone driving the highways this time of year."
Ms Walter: Skills, knowledge and expertise are necessary to make effective decisions as a school council. Time and training is necessary to learn how the system works. How will training be coordinated? Take Longlac, for example, a community 291 kilometres and a seven-hour return trip drive from Thunder Bay. Whether school council members come to the central board office or trainers go to them, there will be incredible costs -- time, fiscal and human -- associated with this. The government committed to in-house training and saw this as integral to the success of school councils. How do you manage these logistics and ensure access to training for everyone in a board that is 520 kilometres wide and 60,000 square kilometres in area? How will expenses of travel, accommodation and meals be covered when we are told there is no money for school councils? Where will the resources come from to ensure that school council members remain informed, knowledgeable and committed? We are concerned about who this might eliminate. This won't save money in the north.
At the fall forum held in Thunder Bay in October 1996, school council members ranked the need for ongoing communications as the top priority. School councils will not be able to communicate and network throughout such a large geographic area. School councils need intraschool and board support, an appropriate enabling structure to facilitate their mandate, adequate information to perform their duties and a heightened awareness of their role by the public at large. This is critical during the implementation stage and will determine the overall success or failure of school councils. Without financial assistance or a budget for phone, fax, mail, FedEx, teleconferencing, video conferencing, e-mail technology, this is sure to cease. The increased costs for doing business at a distance must be addressed if this government moves forward on this bill.
Ms Hartviksen: As school councils, we are asking, who will let their name stand for trustee when there will be increased accountability for the few remaining trustees, a larger geographic area to be responsible for, increased travel expectations, total chaos in education caused by massive restructuring, more schools to visit, a larger constituent area, loss of real power to effect change, and all for less money?
Considering this government-imposed proposition, there is a genuine possibility that the proposed new school board structure will be less effective. Whether this is real or perceived, we feel that parents and the government will ultimately turn to and focus their attention and expectations on school councils for solutions and answers. The workload will undoubtedly become greater for school councils.
School councils are only at the forming stage. This is very new territory for everyone. It will take time to improve this democratic involvement, and then again, maybe not. Many parents have indicated that they don't want to assume the roles and responsibilities of paid elected trustees. Any fewer trustees for an area this size will have a detrimental effect for students. This will not translate to improved learning. This is a recipe for failure. As the board devolves, local representation will decrease. With fewer trustees and superintendents, boards will be unable to support and monitor school councils. It won't be possible to put the time and energy into the implementation of this new mandate.
With the loss of control, communication and coordination inherent in the changes proposed in Bill 104, school council members are afraid that fragmentation will result as the local board loses its profile and presence. This is the hidden agenda that we are afraid of and will take action to guard against, the hidden agenda behind what Mr Snobelen has had in mind from the beginning: Set up the system so that school boards will become ineffective and fail, then eliminate them altogether and have school councils take over. We are aware that this has been the recipe other provinces, states and countries have followed to get the charter school concept off the ground and we do not want to go that route.
If we consider the scenario that school councils follow this route and evolve to the point where they become powerful and high-profile, there will be active campaigning for school council positions by single-issue individuals and/or those with personal agendas. This was the same route that was followed in New Brunswick, where school boards were eventually eliminated and replaced with two interim boards that were handpicked by the minister. If we shadow this process in Ontario, we too will fall into the same political trap of favouritism and party politics. We are not flattered and seduced by the government finally giving us our voice in these matters. We have our eyes wide open.
Currently in Ontario there is an 18-member appointed Ontario Parent Council with a $600,000 budget. This is the official provincial voice for parents to the minister, and yet there are only two appointed parents from northern Ontario. Just yesterday, the Ontario Parent Council issued a press release in support of Bill 104 to strengthen school councils and increase parental involvement in education governance. The Ontario Parent Council has made this statement, and yet who have they consulted?
This isn't the position that the parents and school councils have taken within the Lakehead Board of Education. School councils want elected provincial representation that reflects a regional balance to ensure that our voice is heard. Those of us who are involved are all here because we are real parents of real kids in schools. We know what our children's needs are and we are concerned about the education they need to prosper beyond what we as parents can give them. We are in it for our kids, and we need to be sure that those perspectives are heard provincially. We're not in this for power or political advancement or personal agendas.
Ms Walter: The time commitment is overwhelming --
The Chair: Excuse me just a second. I notice your brief is quite lengthy. You have very few minutes left, so you might want to make some choices.
1650
Ms Walter: The time commitment is overwhelming for many, as are the new roles and responsibilities suggested for school council members. There are a lot of questions around just how far parents should go re advising, policymaking and implementation of policy.
What will the new role involve and how far will this allow parents to go in these areas? You can't legislate volunteers. How much can you expect of volunteers, most of whom already work full-time? Most parents want involvement in their children's education but few are prepared to take it on as a full-time job for free in their spare time. This will get unmanageable for some, and we are concerned about representativeness and who this will leave.
Many school councils from which we have had feedback expressed concerns about school council members as volunteers and the potential for abuse. As volunteers, you cannot assume that school council members will do the job of paid trustees. Remember that most school council members work full-time. Both of us have professional full-time jobs, families, and so far, husbands. Our school council involvement has had its effect on all of these. In the last month, between us we have worked over 200 hours. What parents hearing this are going to want to do the same? There have been times lately when we've wondered if we would have to give up our jobs to continue our volunteering.
Ms Hartviksen: There are a number of issues that I hope you will refer to in this document, because I have a feeling we aren't going to get through them; we'll be cut off.
Linked very closely with the volunteer nature of school council membership is the fact that, while we're very busy and we have concerns over just how much time we can continue to commit, the issue of how seriously we're going to be taken is very real. Many parents have told us, "If we're not going to be taken seriously and if we're just going to be window dressing, we're not going to be here for long." That was one major point.
Ms Walter: School councils would be self-funding, with the expectation for training, communication and outreach activities creating awareness that even the sharing of information among school council members and the running of meetings require simple resources that cost money. Currently, our individual schools are pulling this out of their existing budget to the best of their ability and to the detriment of the classroom. There are no other alternatives being offered. An enhanced role for school councils means increased needs and costs. This is bound to become even bigger as parents question limited classroom resources.
Ms Hartviksen: School councils are struggling with the new mandate as it stands without any further change. The concept needs a chance to gel. The progress and success of school councils need to be monitored before downloading any more. Don't change the rules midway through. We aren't even seven months old yet. People are being frightened away. This is a very fragile situation. We understand that a number of research studies are under way in Ontario that have been funded by the Ministry of Education and Training to study school councils. The deadline for submission of some reports is June 30. We suggest that careful attention be paid to those findings. The government should monitor and rethink this situation before it totally dismantles the school board structure.
Ms Walter: Stakeholder representation is currently an issue and needs to be resolved. For example, home and school and parent associations are struggling to find their role in light of the new legislation. They feel they have been eased out or displaced by the politics. They are left to compete for members to remain viable. Currently, many school councils have home and school and parent association members on council to provide a liaison and integration; however, it hasn't been without its challenges. There is also extensive overlap on most councils, with school improvement team members as well as parent council members. All of these parent groups have made tremendous contributions to schools over the years, yet it is difficult to say at this point whether all these various stakeholders will remain self-sustaining. Where will schools be without the support, hard work and fund-raising that these groups have provided in the past?
The Chair: I want to thank you for your presentation. I regret we don't have time for the full text, but the full text will be part of the record. Thank you for sharing your views with us.
Ms Hartviksen: Could we end --
The Chair: We are out of time. There are lots of people who are waiting to be heard.
WARREN HUGHES
The Chair: Our next presenter is Warren Hughes. Welcome. Thank you very much for being here. We're looking forward to your presentation.
Mr Warren Hughes: My name is Warren Hughes. I'm a personal and business planning consultant here in Thunder Bay. I'm also a residential and business taxpayer. I'm also a parent. I'm also very concerned about the education system, just like many others here today.
Several years ago, prior to the last provincial election, Mr Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party tabled a document and asked the voters to decide whether our province should go in the direction of reforming the education system and many other areas. The provincial voters responded overwhelmingly and told Mr Harris to implement his plan and to make Ontario strong again.
As a consultant, I'm a big believer in plans, especially plans that are written and implemented. The election has come and gone. Premier Harris is still keeping his word and implementing the voters' plan: the Common Sense Revolution.
Some say the changes are coming too fast and are too extreme, but I feel the province was out of control due to mismanagement and incompetence and it was time someone put a plan into place to change the direction of Ontario before we were in too deep.
It wasn't long ago, as I'm 34 years old -- I can remember being in grade school; I can remember being in high school. I spent six years in college and university. I can look back at the grade school system and say to you that it wasn't flawed, it was broken. After 10 years of studying the education system through many reports from independent education consultants and so on, it's time we take the bull by the horns and start making some changes to the system before it's too late.
I think everyone will agree this afternoon that there's not enough money being spent on students directly. I feel the Fewer School Boards Act is one step towards less administration and more essential services towards our kids. The excellence of education and training will be put first.
Education reform is essential for Ontario's next generation. If my son and your children are to find high-paying, productive jobs in an increasingly competitive global world, we have to take a look at their education system today. Even the federal political parties are now seeing how essential it is and assisting the provincial governments in educating and training a healthy, strong future workforce that supports technology, research and business development. Their productivity in the future will be Canada's economic future, and this is all at risk if we don't do something about the education system today.
I'd like to touch on a few areas that I feel are important about this act: the reduction of the residential tax burden. If the municipalities that will feel an impact from this tax don't have their houses in order now and can't get them into shape quickly, they should be tossed out as well. People should be looking at their municipal governments very hard to see if they have the right leadership in their local governments.
The reduction of bureaucratic duplication and waste with the elimination of school boards and the number of trustees is a step that I encourage and I think is very positive. Actually, I feel it could be reduced even greater, with more savings to the local taxpayers. Some of the school boards could cover a larger geographic area in southern Ontario.
I also feel the conflict-of-interest guidelines are very appropriate. In this day of special interest groups, some of whom are here today, more people are worried about themselves instead of the whole system.
I also like the advisory school council. I think that's a great way to encourage the parents to get involved in the system. This will strengthen our school system in the future.
1700
To conclude, I feel that this act is long overdue. The education system has been examined to death. We have to improve our system quickly, and this is one positive step to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. I feel these changes will ensure that our school system moves from 15th place in the ranking of education quality to number one in the future.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hughes. We have one minute per caucus, and I would like you to stick to that one minute.
Ms Lankin: I'm interested in some of the comments you've made. To a large degree, I would agree with you in terms of the importance of the education system to our country's economic future and cultural future and a lot of those comments. My concern comes when you arrive at a conclusion that this bill is going to achieve that. For example, you say, "The savings as a result of fewer school boards means there will be less money spent on administration and that will be redirected to essential services in the classroom." That's nice language, but we've got no commitment from the government that the savings will be reinvested; in fact, we're expecting even greater cuts than that to the education budget. In the government's own figures, $150 million is projected to be saved by these amalgamations of school boards. Would you support that only if that money is in fact redirected and spent in the classroom?
Mr Hughes: I never heard the government say they were going to reduce the amount of money allocated for the educational system. Did you? They were going to reduce the entire -- I heard redirection, reinvestment, but I never heard cutting.
Ms Lankin: I'm asking you, is your report for this concept predicated on the fact that those savings from administration, end of duplication etc, are reinvested in the classroom, that that envelope of education spending is sealed? Is that what you're saying to us?
Mr Hughes: I believe that what the bill has tabled before us is something that -- as a consultant, we've analysed the education system to death. We have a good plan put in front of us with this Bill 104 and I think it's a step in the right direction to start to tackle this problem of education reform.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Hughes. I appreciate your candidness and the frankness and sincerity of your presentation.
Governance in education has evolved in the last 20 years from many, many small boards, some 1,500, down to the current model of some 150, and now it's evolving again. What comes up continually -- the last two governments have all talked about the role of the parent. It's been philosophically an issue, and parent councils or community councils are a part of that. My question to you is this: Closer level of governments, a parent council working with a district board -- do you think this is a workable model in the evolution of school governance?
Mr Hughes: Definitely. Even in some areas of the United States they're made up of advisory boards of local citizens, parents of children in their school system. If we get concerned parents involved in it, the system's only going to be strengthened by their cooperation.
Mrs McLeod: I want to pick up on the question Mr O'Toole just asked; it will be very brief. There was an expression of concern by the parent councils that just presented about the stated public views of the Ontario Parent Council yesterday, which is of course made up of government-appointed members and which is in direct opposition to every presentation we've had from parent councils, including all the umbrella groups of parent councils in Ottawa yesterday, the group representing all of the parent councils in Carleton, the group we've already heard from this afternoon representing 39 school councils in the Lakehead board. If we're going to talk about the role of school councils, let's listen to the views being expressed by the umbrella groups.
Mr Hughes: Do you have a question?
Mrs McLeod: No, sir, I don't. I'm following Mr O'Toole, which is within my prerogative.
Mr Hughes: I thought you were supposed to be asking a question.
The Chair: No. With respect, Mr Hughes, Mrs McLeod can use her time as she wishes.
Ms Lankin: Show us your Tory card.
Mr Hughes: If you want to debate him, go ahead, but if you have a question for me --
The Chair: Mr Hughes, thank you very much for coming and sharing your views with us.
Yes, Mr Duncan?
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. Is it the government's opinion that Ontario's education system is the 15th in the world?
Mr Skarica: No.
Mr Duncan: So the information he provided you wouldn't agree with?
Mr Skarica: He's probably referring to some testing of some points. We rank about in the middle, depending on what tests you're talking about. We rank about the middle --
Mr Duncan: Where does the government of Ontario view the ranking of Ontario's education system? I'd be curious to know where these numbers are coming from and the background for them.
Mr Skarica: I can tell you that right now. The recent testing results we're getting show us about average in national results and international results.
Mr Duncan: Yes, I've seen those results, and I've seen results that put us as number one in math and science. I've seen results that rank our graduates going into post-secondary education as among the most competent in the world. I would like the government, in writing, to respond to the question specifically: Where does the government view Ontario's education system vis-à-vis being ranked against other education systems?
Mr Skarica: I can get you statistics on the recent test results both nationally and internationally.
The Chair: Thank you. We appreciate it.
Just for the information of the audience, members of the committee can use the time in whatever way they wish when it is their turn to speak. Mrs McLeod was perfectly in order to make the comment and not ask a question if that's what she chooses to do. That's open to every member, as long as they stick to the time lines, which we are falling behind at the moment.
IGNACE SCHOOL
The Chair: I ask Beverly Hall and Allyson Lyght to come forward, please. Thank you very much for being here. Welcome to the committee. We're most anxious to hear what you have to say.
Mrs Beverly Hall: My name is Beverly Hall. I am the principal of Ignace School in Ignace, Ontario, and I have with me today Allyson Lyght, who is the chair of our school advisory council. Allyson and I left Ignace around noon, drove three hours through a different time zone so we could be here to talk to you about the problems we see that might happen to small high schools and small elementary schools in communities like ours. The fact that we're here today and that we drove that distance -- we are going to turn around and drive back so we can be at work tomorrow -- shows that we are concerned and interested in the education of our students and what will happen to our schools and our community, so I ask that you listen to what we have to say today.
I appear before you today to present a case for the small schools of northwestern Ontario.
In discussions I've had with other principals here in the north, we all agree that the viability of our schools is being threatened. Ignace School has worked hard to offer programs that provide opportunities for students when they leave our community for post-secondary education or seek employment in larger centres. I am concerned that the changes you threaten will result in a "stripped-down" model of education for our students.
Allyson and I would like to comment on several areas that make Ignace School unique: size, distance and isolation. In addition, we will comment on the new mega-board of which we will be a part. We recognize that the government wants to cut education costs. We agree that any cuts should come from administration rather than the classroom. However, we do not like your solution to cutting costs. We have a suggestion of our own that would give you your savings and solve the distance problems you have created for us.
Ms Allyson Lyght: Ignace School is a JK-to-OAC school, one of only three in the province of Ontario. It has a population of 200 elementary students and 200 secondary students. We are unique in other ways as well. Our secondary school offers an education to many non-resident pupils from Upsala, Savant Lake, Saugeen Reserve and other reserves north of Sioux Lookout. Some students board in the community; others travel an hour and a half to a different time zone. The school is fully inclusive, offering education to students with special needs directly in the classroom.
1710
Mrs Hall: While watching these hearings from Toronto, I listened as group after group, parent after parent demanded that services not be lost to their children. They mentioned art, music, dance, heritage language, multicultural programs, full-time trustees and even a high school for gay students. I could only drool as the opportunities offered in Toronto were mentioned. Our students have no such opportunities. We can only offer a limited academic program -- English, math, science and some geography and history. We supplement our OAC program with that offered by distance education. We are not able to offer art, drama, dance or music programs. Any fewer teachers on our staff will further dilute our offerings.
In addition, there are no opportunities nearby to give our students access to such programs. Bringing the students to Thunder Bay is too costly for our school budget. We attempt to bring drama and music presentations to the school, but the costs for these productions take a healthy chunk from the school budget.
When the Ministry of Education announced special grants to keep class sizes below 20 students at the primary level, we were excited that the ministry recognized the importance of primary education. We were not to know that this long-awaited grant would push class sizes in the junior division to 35 to 40 students. In September 1996, we received many complaints from the parents of students in grades 3, 4 and 5 who were concerned that their children were in classes of 36 or 38. There was nothing we could do about the situation.
Ms Lyght: The secondary section of Ignace School is presently the recipient of a small school grant from the Ministry of Education. It is this grant that provides us with extra teaching staff to offer the small program we have now. It is this grant that assists with the travel costs when our teams participate in NorWAASA. It is this grant that helps bring in drama productions. It is this grant that allows students to visit the college and university in Thunder Bay once in their school career. It is this grant that allows us to offer a small outdoor education program, one that is so vital for our part of the province. We are deeply concerned that this special assistance will disappear.
We are pleased that the government states that it will protect funding to the classroom. However, we are concerned about their definition of "classroom." Do you really believe that guidance, special education, caretaking and secretarial services are not part of the classroom, not to mention principals, vice-principals and department heads? These services are as essential to student learning as the classroom teacher.
Mrs Hall: Our guidance counsellors have two roles: education counselling and personal counselling. Very few counselling services are available in our community, and when they're available is not when the student is experiencing a crisis. Last week I overheard a conversation between the caretaker and a grade 6 student. The student was very distraught because he had noticed comments on the bathroom stall that suggested he was in love with a certain girl. He went to find the caretaker, showed him the graffiti and the caretaker spoke to him sympathetically, assuring him he would remove it immediately. You can rest assured the boy felt more comfortable when he went back to class. I could continue giving you examples of how these support staff help our students, but I don't have enough time for that.
Our small school has already been the victim of deep budgetary cuts. Last year our school budget was reduced by 15% and the support staff -- library technicians, secretaries, caretakers and lunch-hour supervisors -- was either reduced or eliminated. We can't handle any more cuts.
Presently, Ignace School is one of several schools in the Dryden Board of Education. In January 1998, we are to be part of a mega-board that will cover the whole area of Ontario west of Thunder Bay -- some have said an area as large as France. Every meeting or workshop of principals or teachers requires us now to travel 115 kilometres each way to get to Dryden. We take our lives in our hands every time we travel in the winter. The roads are in terrible condition, the weather is unpredictable, the snowplows don't keep the roads clear and when we least expect it, we can find a moose or a bear in our path. Now you want to make our board area wider and put more people on these roads to travel longer distances.
As part of this mega-board, five communities and the unorganized territories come together to provide education to a very disparate group. Each community has its own unique needs. Each community will want to protect programs they've developed over the years. Atikokan is in a different time zone; Sioux Lookout has a large native population; Ignace and Rainy River are the smallest communities. How will one group of trustees meet the needs of these communities? Will Ignace even have a trustee? Maybe not.
A board of education of this size is simply ridiculous. Who will want to be a trustee, especially if the meetings are held in Kenora or, worse still, in Red Lake? You couldn't even drive to a meeting after work.
The saddest part of this is that the government could have done things differently. They could have halved the number of school boards, as they wanted, and kept the school boundaries as they were, or close to it. They could have amalgamated the public and the separate boards. But no, they made a political decision, one to save their jobs. They hid behind the Constitution to save their jobs. The public and separate boards could have amalgamated and still offered Catholic education in some schools. The boards could have had both separate and public trustees.
This leads me to question whether the government has given any thought to the changes to education that they wish to make. Where is the strategic plan? My experience with planning leads me to believe that an overall strategic plan needs to be put in place before the action plans are formulated. This government is doing things backwards, putting the action plans before the strategic plan.
I am asking that when you return to Toronto and begin deliberations on our future, you listen to the comments that have been presented to you. We ask that you remember Ignace School when you make your decision. We remind you that things that work in large schools often do not work in small schools; isolated schools and single-school communities have different and additional costs when providing an education to their pupils; distance from other schools and communities is very expensive; and equality and equity are separate issues. Treating all students equally will not ensure equity.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Hall and Ms Lyght, for your presentation, for putting so passionately the problems of your school. You've used up all your time, but we thank you very much for coming.
SCHOOL COUNCIL CHAIRS, LAKEHEAD DISTRICT ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
The Chair: The school councils of the Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Good afternoon.
Mrs Joan Powell: Good afternoon. My name is Joan Powell. With me here today are Anita Shearer and Christine McAneely. We three are parents and among us we have seven children. We are also school council chairs with the Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board.
We believe it's important to let you know that none of us has been involved in a political process such as this before. We think it's a very positive thing that parents are becoming more involved in their children's education, although spending our March break away from our children in order to prepare for a government hearing was not what we had in mind when we joined school councils. We're here today because we feel compelled to be here. We are upset and worried about what has been happening to our education system lately, and we are very fearful about the changes that are now being forced upon us at an alarming rate.
During the past four years, the operating budget of our school board was cut by close to 20%. That means that approximately $4.7 million was to be taken out of an already lean organization. In our view, our board and administration did a commendable job, for as long as they were able, of making cuts as far from classrooms as possible. Eventually, though, as the cuts continued to rain down upon us with unprecedented and unmitigated force, they began to have a direct and disturbing impact on students. In our neighbourhood schools, we have seen essential personnel removed, programs lost, services cut, class sizes increased, and in spite of Mr Snobelen's promise to the contrary, our children in their classrooms have suffered the effects.
Cuts to our children's education have made us react with fear, anger and a threatening undercurrent of unease about the future. Many parents have not been prepared to sit idly by as their children struggle in larger classes with fewer resources. Those of us who are able to afford it have begun to look beyond the neighbourhood school for help, so we have seen the foundation of a two-tiered system of education being laid in Thunder Bay. Over the past few years, we have witnessed a huge growth in tutorial services in our city, services that offer supplemental instruction in the basics of reading, writing and mathematics, as well as those that offer enrichment in a variety of school subjects. The waiting lists are enormous for the services of private practitioners who offer educational services to school children.
1720
Alongside these pricey private services, there has been a groundswell of interest in the creation of private schools in Thunder Bay. It was not until these recent cuts and their painful effects that we heard any real interest in establishing private schools here, but parents are worried about their children's futures and they are increasingly losing faith in Ontario's schools. Clearly, the creation of a parallel system of private schools in cities like ours would have disastrous effects on public education in this province. We are here today to say that we are worried about the creeping reality of a two-tiered system.
We support Mr Snobelen's plan to ensure that "there will be no second-class students" in this province. However, it is our perception that there already are and the only way to contain the trend is to move towards eliminating the gap between those who are having their needs met in our publicly funded education system and those who are not.
Mr Snobelen now proposes to put money back in the classroom. We parents believe that money must be put back in the classroom, but two things concern us: How will the government define "classroom" in their funding model and where is the money going to come from?
When looking to focus resources on the classroom, we urge Mr Snobelen to employ a definition of "classroom" that recognizes the importance of librarians, guidance counsellors and special education personnel, as well as a myriad of other resources and professionals who, along with competent teachers and principals, provide the basic foundation and support upon which well-managed, focused and successful classrooms are built.
Concerning money, we have heard of Mr Snobelen's plan to take another billion dollars out of education. We parents are astounded at that assertion. If the proposed amalgamation of school boards will free up only $150 million, where will the rest come from? We realize that there may still exist excesses in boards other than ours, but a billion dollars worth of excess seems unbelievable. If Mr Snobelen is wrong in his assumption that he will find this money through a reduction of unwanted fat in education, where will he carve it from? We parents are very alarmed and frightened at the prospect of this money being squeezed from our schools. It is without question that any further cuts to the operating budgets of our schools will have a devastating effect on our children.
We support the government's proposed commitment to repair the current inequitable and unfair funding model "to ensure a high quality of education that meets all students' individual needs, regardless of where they live." We want assurance, however, that this new funding model will set a provincial per pupil amount that is based on an intelligent and informed notion of what comprises a good classroom, with provisions to adjust that amount up for our children to account for the higher costs of living in the north. We also want assurance that the new funding model will allow flexibility for discretionary spending by Catholic boards in order to maintain and nurture the specific and distinctive education that is offered in our Catholic schools.
As parents, we are very worried about the future of our separate school system. We worry about how our Catholic schools will remain distinct and apart from public schools now that our right to designate our taxes towards a separate school system has been suspended. Let us impress upon you today that we cherish the distinct nature of our separate school system and all that our Catholic schools provide for our children. We value our Catholic teachers and principals and we value our integrated Catholic curriculum that allows our children to strive to become not just the best students they can be but the best human beings they can be.
As parents, we are very concerned about the notion of outsourcing in our schools. We don't want to lose our secretaries or custodians or other non-teaching staff to a rotating band of strangers. We parents understand the role that these staff people play within our school community, a role that goes far beyond any job description. In the coming years, we want to continue to be greeted by the familiar faces who know our children by name, who participate as full members of our Catholic community and who can be trusted to treat our children with care and respect.
The issue of amalgamation here in the northern part of Ontario is a very worrisome one for parents. We worry that the plan for amalgamation in our region is not a sound one in terms of cost effectiveness, which is apparently the government's main concern, or benefits for our children, which is our main concern. We worry how we will attract intelligent, competent, caring people to run for trustees for our amalgamated board, given the new mandate and the physical demands of our huge region. We worry that the meagre resources that do remain in our school board today will have to be spread thinly throughout our new district school board tomorrow. We worry about our expanding role as school council members, as responsibilities are taken away from trustees.
Speaking as school council members now, we want to emphasize to you that in the interest of improving our children's education we're not afraid of the hard work, the long hours and the measly pay -- that is to say, no pay -- that goes along with the job. You should be aware, however, that many of our most dedicated, bright, committed parents do not plan to return to the school council next year. For the past eight months, working hard to fulfil our mandate on school councils has left many of us feeling discouraged and disheartened. There are two main reasons for this: First, we have not been supported in our new role and we have received far from sufficient training to function effectively. The second reason is that people are very frightened by what they see as an ill-defined yet rapidly expanding role for school council members. In other words, many of us don't feel prepared, supported or equipped for the role as it stands now and we are not willing to take on more unless there's some effort on the part of the ministry to ensure that at least the most basic types of training and support systems will be provided.
Another area of great concern to school council members is the rush towards amalgamation of school boards. The breakneck speed with which school boards are to be dismantled, refocused and reformed causes many of us to react with alarm. What mistakes will be made during the race for change? We wonder about the government's ultimate goal for school boards as we consider the concurrent impact of taking responsibilities away from trustees while moving to strengthen the role of school councils and increase parental involvement in education governance. Quite frankly, we're worried that the government plans to take us the way of New Brunswick and eventually do away with school boards altogether.
Please allow us to make this crystal clear today: Members of our Catholic school councils do not want to take on the responsibility of trustees. We value our trustees. We believe deeply in the importance of a strong, dedicated board of trustees working as guardians of our Catholic system as a whole while advocating on behalf of our special needs students, our first nations population and other groups and programs that require the clear and united vision of a governing body. We on school councils plan to develop a strong partnership with the trustees of our new DSB to provide them with insights and information about our individual schools and to work cooperatively with them while respecting the very different mandates we have each opted to fulfil. But please allow me to repeat: We do not want their jobs.
A final point we wish to make has to do with the Ontario Parent Council. As you must be aware, the OPC is made up of 18 politically appointed individuals who operate with a reported budget of $600,000. First of all, we think a budget that size would be much better put to use in the classrooms of our children. Secondly, we do not want our messages about how our school councils are functioning or not functioning filtered through the tinted lenses of non-elected individuals who may support a political agenda. If school councils are in fact an integral part of the plan to reform education in this province and if our responsibilities are going to increase over the coming years, then we want and need a direct link to the Minister of Education and Training. Given our level of commitment and dedication to the pursuit of quality education, we hold that school councils deserve a voice at the provincial level.
Before I close, I feel compelled to comment on the manner in which this government has chosen to undertake education reform. Throughout this presentation, I have stated again and again that parents like the three of us here are worried, fearful and angry. It is our opinion that the Conservative government of Ontario has been shamefully irresponsible in its recent announcements of change. They seem to us arrogant and dogged in their delivery of grand schemes, devoid of all detail. They rush us towards amalgamation without bothering to examine or explain how amalgamation here in the north will benefit any of us. They tell us that resources will go to the classrooms, but they fail to provide us with the critical funding formula. They urge the changes forward with a vigour that allows for minimal public input and debate and they choose not to participate in public sessions on reform hosted here in our city.
Finally, to implement their reforms, they set up an all-powerful commission that cannot be challenged or made to respond to the concerns of the people.
I started out today saying that none of us had been involved in a political process such as this before. We are involved now, and we parents are examining the proposed education reforms with great interest and a greater willingness to participate than many of us have experienced before. The increased participation of parents is to be celebrated. It is also to be taken as fair warning. We parents will be watching very carefully as this government implements change that will affect our children's futures, and we will be watching very closely to see how our concerns of today are addressed in the details of reform tomorrow.
The Chair: Mrs Powell, I thank you and your colleagues for being here today, for your participation at these hearings and for putting your viewpoints forth so eloquently.
1730
PORTER BAILEY
The Chair: Could I call upon Porter Bailey. Welcome, Mr Bailey, and thank you for coming.
Mr Porter Bailey: Good evening, committee members. First I'd like to present a little bit of personal data and background on myself. My name is Porter Bailey. I grew up in Thunder Bay and attended Heath Park Public School and Westgate High School, both of which are not too far from here in the Westfort area.
I am currently working in the computer and information-processing field, where I find there is a virtually unlimited amount of work with constant demands to take on new projects and to become involved in new skills. As one would expect, there is a limited amount of time and personal availability to handle what there is to do. There is considerable pressure for growth in this field in the Thunder Bay area.
In regard to the education environment, I wish to talk at first about a particular learning environment that several of you will be familiar with. One of the most notable aspects of the career area in which I find myself is the fact that one is part of a total, all-encompassing, ongoing learning process that does not stop or slow down. New facets and features, new hardware and software, new processes by which things are done are the norm, and these things must be absorbed at the fastest possible rate. I often feel nearly engulfed and overtaken by the new skills required and the new concepts that must be thought through on an ongoing basis. Consequently, in the past few years I have been involved in a continuous learning process.
Having said that, it is worth noting that there is a huge educational industry out there involved in the process of assisting adults with the adoption of new skills and the maintenance and upgrading of existing levels of current skills. To describe briefly how this process takes place, I would note that several facets include the following: Various organizations conduct in-house seminars. External seminars are a fact of life involving many employees.
On any given day, I usually receive one or more brochures on skill-enhancing educational seminars, on product-specific meetings and on industry trade shows. As many people are aware, colleges and universities are continually offering adult upgrading courses, including everything from learning basic computer skills to earning an MBA. The Internet is used as a forum of learning and as a source of reference by large numbers of people. The level of this form of learning activity is tremendous and it has obviously found a very strong market.
The point is that here is a major industry very much in demand, running along by itself, adapting to the needs of its constituents in a very fluid and dynamic manner on a North American or worldwide basis, and yet being in a constant state of change. I mention this briefly at the outset as a particular model with which many people are familiar and from which some points may be drawn later in this presentation.
Bill 104, the proposed legislation: The legislation under review by this committee proposes a number of changes to Ontario's education system, among them the reduction of the number of school boards from 129 to 66. The general thrust of the change is to effect cost reductions related to the running of the system. To evaluate changes in a system, it is often useful to think about where we are going. By developing some focus on the end point we are better able to decide a reasonable path to follow in getting there.
Evaluate current economic model of elementary education: First of all, what is the economic basis for the classroom system? This model, which sees one teacher teaching some 25 to 30 students, is an effective means of providing the lowest cost per pupil by defraying the fixed teaching expense over many students. Similarly, given the fixed costs of the physical plant, ie, classrooms, school yards etc, the cost of the facilities to each student is minimized.
The current economic model for our education is an ancient one and, generally speaking, practically a universal one. It is widely used, principally because it is the best and most economic model devised. On occasion it is carried to extremes. Many people in this room will recall university seminars in which a particular professor spoke in a hall with up to 200 or 300 students present. We all remember some of those courses, and from the university's point of view, they must have liked this model quite a bit. In any event, the model and the general economics of it are likely totally familiar to everyone here.
However, the world is changing. The path of change now involves a lot of new and developing technology. Most teachers and parents will agree that students love to play on or use the Internet. In fact the Internet is becoming a tremendous source of information and learning, to the point that in preparing for this presentation I spent some time on the Internet learning about some of the matters that are being heard before this committee.
Suppose in the near future that, for instance, the University of Tennessee decided to develop a grade 10 English literature course and post it on the Internet. First of all, from an economic point of view, it costs no more if a single individual uses the course or if thousands of people around the world decide to do so. The costs go in up front and the costs going forward are minuscule.
Now consider the student point of view. Students like using the Internet and they like the multimedia that computers offer. Students have a general dislike for getting up early and getting to class. This course would be available 24 hours a day, seven days per week, and as many or as few as wanted to could do the course at any one point in time.
It is possible to develop online interaction between students and between teachers and students. It is quite possible to have links available to allow for additional research and inquiry. Each student would be able to proceed at his own pace and manage his own curriculum. The course could easily be made available in the remotest areas. In summary, programs in numerous disciplines are similar worldwide, thereby allowing for a huge market and constant competition to provide a better quality of course product.
Given that this is the sort of thing that is presently developing in the wings in our educational world, the question now is, is it so important that we maintain the existing version of our educational system? There is a proposal before us to make some changes in the interest of saving money. Given the much more major dramatic changes that are moving into view, I believe the proposed changes are not particularly monumental. Let's go ahead and save the money while we can and then refocus more of our attention on other developments that are possible and will happen in the broader field of education.
As noted, there is a major change proceeding now, independent of this province, that will affect all the information gathering and handling industries. These industries include such areas as education, finance, accounting, insurance, law and the area of politics. In a broad context, my position is also that the whole system of province, board and schools is now approaching a time when the existing model will have to be moved off centre stage in the interests of a new evolutionary model in which diversity and flexibility are the key criteria.
One of the questions under consideration today is, should there be 129 boards or should there be 66 boards? I support a move to 66 boards, but I am of the view that a different number, perhaps zero or 16 or 76, may be the necessary answer in the not very distant future. For now, there is a chance to reduce the ongoing costs and we should proceed to do so.
I therefore conclude that I support the changes proposed on the basis that these changes alone will not really be a major change, given the above context, and will likely save some dollars overall. Bill 104 is about funding, and if we can save money, we will all benefit.
I would like to make a few final points. I question that there should be representatives to this committee from individuals and groups involving those currently employed by the school boards that are under consideration. I believe they would be in a straight conflict of interest and cannot properly represent the views of society as a whole. If heard from, these views must be accepted in that light.
1740
On a second point unrelated to the above, I firmly believe society should allow and protect the freedoms of individuals, particularly the freedom of the right to work. The Legislature in the past has set up laws that guarantee teachers must be part of a closed-shop employment organization. I do not believe that this is in the best interests of society, more so in light of the changes that I believe are moving towards the educational system at the present time. Therefore, it would appear to me that the Legislature should consider changing this area.
Finally, I would like to commend the government for having the courage to begin the process of re-evaluating the basis of our educational system. I would also like to thank all the MPPs on the committee for taking the time to come to Thunder Bay and for hearing the various depositions on this matter and for giving citizens a chance to be heard.
The Chair: Mr Bailey, on behalf of the committee I want to thank you for taking the time to come here and present your views as an individual.
SUSANNE MARQUARDT
The Chair: I would now call Susanne Marquardt. Thank you for coming and welcome to the committee.
Ms Susanne Marquardt: A bit of background information on myself: I grew up in Rainy River, a town of 1,200 people on the American border 100 kilometres west of Fort Frances. I attended Lakehead University, graduating in 1976 with an honours bachelor of arts and a bachelor of education. I have taught for over 15 years in Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario at university, CEGEP and elementary levels. My specialties are French immersion, special education and English as a second language. During the past four years I have written a weekly column on education for the Thunder Bay Post.
I come before this committee today with many questions and concerns regarding Bill 104. I begin with a question regarding the government's explanation for the Fewer School Boards Act, An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards. I have examined this act very closely, line by line, and I am left with the question, how will reducing the number of school boards accomplish greater accountability, effectiveness and quality of education in northwestern Ontario?
For me the statement is an obvious oxymoron. How does one pay less to get more? How do we reduce to improve? Will Bill 104 give us smaller classes? Will it make a difference to the French immersion teacher in his second year of teaching who has a morning grade 7/8 split of 40 students and an afternoon class of a 5/6 split? How about the high school students who ride a bus for two hours in the morning to get to school? Will Bill 104 build them their own rural high school? Quality implies attention to detail, the finest of materials, the best craftsmanship and a high price tag. This act does nothing to apply these aspects of quality to our education system.
Bigger is best rules the day here. Instead of narrowing communication gaps, we are expanding them. Instead of uniting administrators and educators, we are increasing the distances physically and emotionally. Children are already being corralled into larger schools with overcrowded classrooms. Schools have already lost their prominence as centres for community solidarity. We have already taken the schools out of our communities. Now we are threatening to take the community out of our schools.
By amalgamating school boards we are losing too many individual voices. We are encouraging apathy by overloading trustees and paying them a pittance for 10 times the effort. How about the parent who needs to talk to a board member living 500 kilometres from their school? Why bother? By the time he's provided basic information, he won't have the energy to discuss the problem. Communication between parents and administrators is already lacking. Parents are resorting to lawsuits to make their voices heard.
Instead of creating even larger distances between education members, money could be better spent in setting up a liaison office where an impartial ombudsperson would listen to concerns and mediate a solution that is viable for both parties.
There is one group that stands to benefit from this act by improving the quality of their education system. I refer to the separate school boards. The support of Bill 104 by the Catholic trustees association is based on a handshake promise of equity funding. But as Marilies Rettig, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, points out, the terms of the funding promise have not been disclosed and equity could be achieved by less drastic means. However, separate school board members unanimously recognize the obvious: They will be able to offer a higher quality of education with more money. That's how quality works: You invest money now and your investment pays off later.
In the matter of accountability, I can see how strengthening the role of school councils over time pays lip-service to greater accountability. However, even this token effort is fraught with suspicious error. First, the expression of strengthening is very vague. Does this imply that parents will be involved in the hiring and firing of teachers, a practice which could be potentially prejudicial? Will parents be paid for their greater involvement? How many parents are willing to take on greater responsibilities?
There are already indications that certain special interest groups such as fundamentalist religions are moving in to dominate school councils. There is also a noticeable absence of fathers on school councils.
A stronger case for accountability comes in our expectations as a society of our government and of its duty to make education a number one priority on its political agenda. Our citizens are accountable for public education through our present taxation system set up by Egerton Ryerson in 1846 to "compel selfish rich men to do what they ought to do" in terms of universal education.
Our teachers are also extremely accountable for their instructional expertise. They continually update on ministry guidelines. They issue regular reports, employ an immense variety of testing tools, and are constantly under the scrutiny of parents, administrators, students and, over the last couple of years, the government of Ontario.
In a difficult economic time when job security is relatively non-existent, many people look with envy on teachers with their summer vacations, good pay and job tenure. This government over the last year and a half has fanned the flames of envy with open jabs at teachers' integrity. It is not surprising that the government will find much sympathy in the private sector for seizing 100% control of education financing: "Now those blankety blank teachers will have to negotiate new contracts with Toronto. We'll see how they like losing their `privileged status' of job security."
The gift of the provincial government in appropriating local education costs will soon show its true Trojan Horse identity. As welfare costs, housing and police expenses come spilling forth, the benevolence of the government will show its true intentions. This gift is no gift at all. As municipalities become overburdened with these new social service costs, they will be tempted to privatize public services. We have already seen the disastrous consequences in wages and benefits to workers, job layoffs and the lowering of standards of service in other situations where privatization has occurred.
I am also alarmed by a certain vagueness in Bill 104 concerning the appointment of the Education Improvement Commission. Much is left to the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor and to the Minister of Education and, it would appear, to the pleasure of the commission itself.
1750
The Chair: Ms Marquardt, can I ask you to wrap up, please?
Ms Marquardt: All right. The status of the commission is very totalitarian. I'll just skip ahead here. Who will be chosen for this crucial role, or are we simply replacing 150 years of democracy with the Gang of Five?
I am searching for evidence that this bill is not just another step down the road to privatizing public responsibilities. I am trying very hard to believe that it will not open the door to corporate sponsorship of schools. Yet all the evidence points to a retrogressive step back to the time when Egerton Ryerson first began his battle for a strong system of public education. This bill does not enhance the effectiveness or the accountability of education. It most certainly does not improve the quality of Ontario's education system. Au contraire.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Marquardt. On behalf of the committee I regret there is not enough time for the full text, but I assure you that the full text will form part of the official record.
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, KENORA UNIT, THUNDER BAY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY UNITS
The Chair: The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Kenora unit, Thunder Bay elementary and secondary units. Welcome. You have 15 minutes to make your presentation.
Ms Eleanor Pentick: I'm Eleanor Pentick. I am president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association of Thunder Bay, the elementary unit. With me are Don Cattani, the president in Thunder Bay of the secondary unit, and Rosemary Robertson of the Kenora unit.
Before we begin I'd like to first of all thank you very much for providing us with this opportunity, and I would like it clearly indicated in the record that we do not in any way apologize for being a special interest group. We are indeed a special interest group. We have a specific special interest, that is, the education of our children in Ontario.
We do know that the English Catholic Teachers' Association provincially has already presented a brief to you and of course it is not our intention today to highlight what they spoke to you about, particularly the issue surrounding constitutional rights. However, we do stress that we fully agree with the positions taken by our provincial association and the ones stated to you in that presentation.
Our intent today is to highlight but a few of the other issues which are of particular concern to the teachers in Thunder Bay. Mr Cattani and Ms Robertson will be addressing those issues shortly, but first I would like to make a few general comments regarding the Education Improvement Commission.
The powers being placed in the hands of this Education Improvement Commission, the EIC, are very disturbing to us. As you know, they will have sweeping powers to supervise and monitor the actions and control the financial expenditures of our present board and for the new district school boards until the year 2001.
Since the decisions of that commission are binding and cannot be reviewed or questioned by a court, in essence our boards will be placed into receivership without any real autonomy or authority. We find that particularly disturbing because we are extremely proud of our board and what they have accomplished over the years. They have shown a remarkable ability to run a very excellent system with inadequate funding and they have done that responsibly.
We believe that the seizure of our board's powers is not only undemocratic but will prove to be costly as well. This government is constantly speaking of the need for school boards to be more cost-efficient, and yet, to our knowledge, no estimates of the transitional costs related to amalgamation, including the costs of the EIC, have been released. We cannot help but wonder why.
We also note that the EIC is empowered to make recommendations on the outsourcing of non-instructional services. Although the minister has again publicly stated that the restructuring will not affect the classrooms, we're concerned that his definition does not appear to include principals, vice-principals, teacher-librarians, guidance counsellors, support staff, secretaries, heat, lights and maintenance.
We would remind this government through you that schools are not factories; they are communities, and each employee in that community does have an effect on the classroom and the students therein. We believe that the use of non-qualified and/or migrant workers in our schools will negatively impact on our school communities and will in no way improve education in Ontario.
OECTA is also concerned that Bill 104 does not guarantee that the new district boards will assume the collective bargaining and collective agreement obligations held by the existing boards, nor does the bill ensure that teachers will not be transferred between municipalities. The latter is of great import to the teachers in northwestern Ontario where the proposed district school boards encompass vast geographical areas, as you've heard. Unless fair labour practices and successor rights are guaranteed, one can only expect labour disputes which will in the end be very costly.
Ms Rosemary Robertson: No apologies this afternoon for the repetitiveness of what you're going to hear in terms of amalgamation issues and our concerns about them. Specifically, I'm going to touch on a few of them.
Representation on school boards: We are very concerned about the limitations on eligibility to hold the position of trustee and the fact that a large geographic area -- in our case, 10,000 square kilometres -- may be prohibitive for some people in considering running for trustee.
The question might be raised, will there be equal representation from all the communities with a limited number of resources and how can that be possible? Fewer trustees over a larger area will make them less accessible to the public and to the parents and it will be nigh unto impossible to assess them in terms of accountability. I believe that's one of the government's aims in this whole exercise.
Our recommendation is that amalgamation would be postponed pending appropriate public consultation on the electoral boundaries, and also that employees of existing or district school boards and their spouses, as well as municipal employees, be eligible to run for district school boards without taking unpaid leaves of absence from their jobs.
In terms of board meetings, it's going to be very difficult to conduct day-to-day business. Communication technology is a solution, but it's not a reality in the north. Circumstances arise which necessitate a physical presence at a meeting, and time and costs in travel are going to eradicate the savings that are supposed to be made by Bill 104.
Communication: Access to information from boards and the ability to input to boards will be difficult due to the distance and the lack of technology again, and the groups to suffer will be the parents and the children and the board staff.
In reference to school councils, governance is going to change at the local level due to the EIC having the power to recommend strengthening the role of school councils. Under current legislation, school councils are functioning in the north and strongly, although finding people willing to serve has not been easy and will not be any easier in the future, considering a heavier mandate that may be required of them. Therefore, we would recommend that the powers afforded to school councils remain advisory in nature.
Mr Don Cattani: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the MPPs to our beautiful city, with the sun shining today, and invite you back at any time for maybe a pleasanter encounter, if we talked about something like recreation or fishing.
In particular, welcome to Conservative MPPs. I'll be 50 before your term's over and I've only seen two in Thunder Bay in my life, so it's nice to see a few of you around.
Mr Beaubien: I was here fishing and hunting in the fall. Maybe I should take you around and show you a few spots.
Mr Cattani: Excellent. I'd appreciate that, monsieur.
Mr Beaubien: Just because we are from the south, it doesn't mean that we don't travel to the north.
Mr Cattani: I can continue now? Thank you.
There's the possibility that present in all of us is the conviction that we are far more interesting in what we have to say than in the questions you may have to ask us, so I'm going to try to be very brief in the hope that I can get a few questions out of you -- hunting or fishing or whatever.
I'm not here just as a teacher. I'm a parent of five children and I'm a ratepayer, a taxpayer and a federation president as well, so I have a lot of particular interest caps on. I'm also very interested in saving money, so rather than bash you on this Bill 104, which, by the way, I wish you wouldn't put through to third reading, I'd like to talk to you about saving money. Really, saving money seems to be what our minister is all about.
1800
I'm reminded of Robert Frost on distance. I'm sure you're all familiar with his lines: "The woods are lovely, dark and deep/But I have promises to keep/And miles to go before I sleep." I think most of our trustees and board workers in this new board, which I've heard described as the size of Spain, France, two Irelands or whatever, will be thinking of that in the late nights and early mornings as they travel through northwestern Ontario.
Many people have talked to you about the transportation infrastructure, the inadequacy. It's just not southern Ontario. We have two towns in our entire new board that have rail service. The only deal is that you have to drive to Winnipeg first to board the train. It's really not an issue. There is not same-day bus service to all of the communities. Later on in our presentation, I believe on page 12, is an entire breakdown of transportation.
You've heard people talk about communication: the cellular technology, the e-mail, the Internet and things like that. I'll leave that for you to read.
In conclusion, what we're saying is that we think it's going to be costly. Our board appeared earlier today and said: "Sure, go ahead with the amalgamation, but we need four years of transition and funding for that transition." Let's speak businessperson to businessperson to Mr Snobelen: We don't think this is going to save any money, unless of course it's going to save money from some children vis-à-vis other children.
If you'll note the last page of our presentation, the per pupil expenditure in Geraldton and in Longlac and in Nakina and in Terrace Bay and Schreiber and Manitouwadge and Marathon is higher than it is in Thunder Bay. That's not a surprise if you've been to any of these communities, as I'm sure Monsieur Beaubien has. It's not a surprise at all; it's very costly to live in those communities. If we're going to get a fixed amount and if equality and justice are the rule of the day, either Thunder Bay's per capita has to go down to maintain Geraldton's or Geraldton's programs have to be lessened to equalize Thunder Bay's. Which is it? Or are there going to be transitional funds?
We would say to you that it's not a sign of weakness -- in fact we really appreciate the chance to consult with you. It's a wonderful thing. It's not a sign of weakness to go back to the people and say: "Yes, we went from 129 to 66. Maybe we need 71 boards. Maybe that's all right." It's not a sign of weakness to take a look and say, "We could save a lot of dollars," but in northwestern Ontario, in particular in the Kenora and Thunder Bay regions, those boards are unwieldy and may end up costing more than you're going to save.
Thank you very much for this opportunity, and we'd be pleased to have any questions from you.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you for your presentation. I'll just ask a quick question that was asked earlier by one of the presenters. Do you think OECTA has benefited from full funding way back in -- what was it? -- 1982 or whenever it came into place: full funding of separate schools.
Mr Cattani: It's not really full funding, as you know, because --
Mr O'Toole: Yes. I was a separate school trustee at the time, so I'm fairly familiar with it.
Mr Cattani: When we get our share of Eaton's taxation -- maybe that's a bad example; of Sear's taxation -- then we'll consider that we have full funding. As you know, with our commercial-based assessment, we don't have a formula for pooling --
Mr O'Toole: That's more the grant ceiling. Do you think you've gained --
The Chair: Mr O'Toole, will you let him finish, please.
Mr Cattani: To have completion and to have the Catholic education system up to OAC has been a wonderful thing, so obviously the answer is yes, Mr O'Toole, but I think we could talk for a long time on the funding issue.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much, first of all, for agreeing to present jointly so that we could hear the views of OECTA and your concerns. Thank you, maybe particularly, for giving us that last page that shows the costs in areas like North of Superior and Geraldton, as opposed to the Lakehead, because I think that helps to destroy the myth that there is this great abundance of wealth somewhere else that can then be pulled back and redistributed to create the equity.
One of the reports that was done for the minister said very clearly that amalgamating boards could lead to an increase in costs rather than a reduction in costs. It's one of the statements that the ministry has chosen not to address, other than by saying to the consultants that they would solve that problem by taking over control of educational funding.
The consultants said the reason the costs would go up was because of the cost of harmonization of services and salaries. The ministry is going to avoid costs going up by taking control. They're going to have to either cut services or salaries. Any idea which it's going to be?
Mr Cattani: I don't think we're very optimistic. Pick your poison.
Mrs McLeod: It could be both.
Mr Cattani: It could be both, yes, a little bit of each.
Ms Lankin: To follow up on that point, the scuttlebutt around Queen's Park is that yesterday, for the policy and priorities committee of cabinet, the Ministry of Education presented a report for the recommendations on major changes in collective bargaining in the education system, based largely on the Paroian report. I haven't heard any rumours in terms of what P and P decided with respect to that because I had to come up here, but I think those major changes are forthcoming, particularly if the government wants to count on the numbers they've put forward, because nothing else actually seems to make sense; the numbers aren't really achievable.
We've heard from a number of presenters that the costs of education have skyrocketed over the last number of years. They talk about this 82% increase in costs of school boards. It seems to me that if you take the increased number of kids in the system, inflation, provincial programs that have been mandated down, the cost of extension of public funding to the separate school system, all of that, that 82% can actually probably be explained and it's not really a result of irresponsibility. I wonder, from your boards and your organization, if you had a perspective.
Ms Pentick: I believe one the things the minister has been saying is that he is concerned that the local school boards have been raising their taxes on an annual basis. I guess what he failed to tell the people is that one of the reasons they were raising their taxes is because they were getting less money from the provincial government. Of course, as that funding from the provincial government was reduced they had to raise money locally.
I also would like to draw to your attention that, according to Stats Canada, the Ontario average per pupil expenditure in 1995 was $6,961. The Canadian average was $6,796. The difference between the Canadian average and the Ontario average is only $165 per pupil, or approximately $390 million, not the $1 billion claimed by Mr Snobelen.
I think you also have to bear in mind that of course our costs are higher: Ontario is far more industrialized; it is more urban; most of the immigrant families for whom English is a second language come to Ontario; more of our students stay in school longer. I think that's very important.
Mr Cattani: I would like to add that Stats Canada also showed that when the NDP government took over, I think we were 35th of 60 jurisdictions, the American states and 10 Canadian provinces combined. We've slipped to 47th.
The Chair: Mr Cattani, Ms Pentick, Ms Robertson, we thank you very much for coming here and presenting jointly the positions of your respective organizations.
CRAIG NUTTALL
The Chair: I call upon Craig Nuttall. As Mr Nuttall makes his way, I noticed there are a number of people standing in the back. There are some seats in the front if you wish to be seated.
Welcome, Mr Nuttall. We're looking forward to your presentation.
Mr Craig Nuttall: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would first of all like to make it very clear in Hansard that I am the president of the Kenora PC Riding Association. I'm not here representing them tonight.
The Chair: You're welcome in any event.
Mr Nuttall: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I'd just like to perhaps tell you a little about my experience. I have been chamber of commerce president in Dryden, at which time we had over 200 members, in 1984, 1985 and 1995. I was a town councillor for the town of Dryden from 1980-82 and 1989-91. I served on the hospital board from 1979-82. I was also a coordinator for the Youth Trust of Ontario, which was an organization that helped youth get into the business world, which the Liberals cut; we no longer had funding so we had to dissolve it. I also won the Dryden High School teachers Excellence in Education award in 1983.
Actually, I'm here today as a past councillor and business representative to talk about Bill 104.
1810
I'd like to turn your attention to the first page here from the corporation of the town of Dryden just to explain to you the situation that we had when I was on council. From the years 1984 to 1989, town council did not increase taxes once, but in that same time period, from 1984 to 1989, education taxes were increased 33.11%. I can tell you right now -- and this is from the town -- that if the municipal tax bill in 1982 was $100, your taxes would be $144 right now from the municipality in 1997. Your education tax of $100 in 1982 would be $189.
I've also enclosed the three pages that I received from the Dryden Board of Education on their actual budget for 1995. It's salaries and wages for trustees, allowances, travel expenses, supplies and services, general administration, personnel training. If you turn to page 3, you'll see that our board, with the administration that they have and the trustees, the total value that they spend is $596,396. That's for a board that we have in Dryden alone. If you figure out the other five boards, that they spend approximately the same amount, you would have over $2 million to put back in the classroom. I think that everyone wants to see the money towards the education of our children.
I'd like to talk about the quality of education in the past years that I've been associated with the business community. For 13 years I owned a restaurant, and at the restaurant we used to have takeout delivery of food. We would hire students in grade 10 and grade 11, good students, and we appreciated that we could help the youth. One of the first questions they would ask me is: "When we go on deliveries, do we have to make change?" "Yes, you do. You also have to have a float." "Well, Mr Nuttall, would you mind if I have a calculator?" I would say, "Why do you need a calculator?" "Because I can't figure out change." I would ask them: "What do you mean you can't figure out change? What do you do when you go into a department store?" The kids would tell me, "I'm very fortunate because it's on the till." Well, God help us if we ever have a power failure.
I think that there is no knowledge of current events being taught at the present time. There's no status of political parties. If you asked a kid in high school who the Prime Minister was, he'd probably tell you O.J. Simpson because he's seen it on TV. There is no proper education being taught to the children.
Let's talk about the teaching profession. Teachers right now are threatening, if you proceed with this Bill 104, they will go on strike. Isn't that great? Once again our youth of today will be suffering because of the selfishness of the teachers. I agree that principals and vice-principals should be the managers of the schools. There is no doubt in my mind that the principal knows better than anyone else what goes on in the schools, and they should not be in the federation. They should be independent and they should be able to be managers of the facility.
I would like to say that one of the things that everybody is forgetting: There is only one taxpayer. We pay the teachers' salaries, the taxpayers do, and we're not getting the service that we should get.
I think the evaluation of the students is very good. We have to continue that and make sure that our children are ready for tomorrow. I'm very disappointed Mr Hampton is not here because --
Ms Lankin: He was here today.
Mr Nuttall: I understand he was but you're here representing the party, and I'm glad to see you because I see you on TV all the time. I saw the day you got thrown out and I felt sorry for you.
Ms Lankin: I felt sorry for myself, too.
Mr Nuttall: I have a chance to watch what I call the comedy hour, the question period, and really, when David Cooke resigned his seat, everybody got up, the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives, and said what a great man he was, one of the best men that you'd ever had. He was very conscientious about his values and education, a former education minister of the NDP. He resigns his seat to work on this education commission. I say to you, the NDP, please understand that David Cooke really knows what he's doing when he quits the NDP, and I take my hat off to David because I think --
Ms Lankin: He hasn't quit the party, sir.
Mr Nuttall: Well, he's still in the party but he's not in the House.
To wrap up, I'd say that the quality of education is what we're looking at, and whether there's few boards or not, I think it will work. I spent time on the hospital board. It was a local hospital board and I received no remuneration whatsoever. My remuneration is my reward that I did for the hospital board. We also had district health councils at that time; we still have, and they work out fine. We have no trouble with the district health councils. They make recommendations and the boards go along with their recommendations. I see no problems here with the education. I think the number one priority that we have to understand is that the government is doing this to save money, to put it back into education. We have to educate the children of today because they're our leaders of tomorrow. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Nuttall. We have approximately one minute per caucus.
Mr Miclash: Mr Nuttall, I was at the hearings which you attended in Dryden where you referred to MPPs as nothing but a bunch of ribbon cutters, and I remember it quite vividly after a good number of MPPs from all parties travelled to Dryden for those hearings. I'm just wondering, after hearing some of the board chairs and the trustees and the presentations that they've made here today, the work that they put into our system, do you consider them in the same category?
Mr Nuttall: No, I don't, Frank. First of all, they're doing a fairly good job in education. It's just the bureaucrats are too big. In your case, it was a personal remark I made of you and I still say that that's all you really do, is cut ribbons.
Mr Miclash: After hearing the uniqueness of the boards -- we talk about the first nations school in Ear Falls operated by the Red Lake board, the student trustees as found on various boards throughout the region -- do you think we're going to be better served by taking the power away from these local boards, as I mentioned, the students, the trustees, the parents, the chairpeople, and giving it to a larger party?
The Vice-Chair: I'm afraid time is up.
Mr Miclash: Just a yes or no.
The Vice-Chair: I'll ask Mr Nuttall to respond quickly, please.
Mr Nuttall: First of all, I don't think you're taking any power away from them because the transitional school in Ear Falls, for instance, Frank, which you know -- if you were up there you would understand that the first nations do have a big impact in that school. We will still have the parent-teachers, similar to we have the health boards in schools. You know, Frank, if you would travel the area, you would understand that there are good things out there.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Nuttall, the time is up. The third party, Ms Lankin.
Ms Lankin: I'm actually quite pleased that I have a much more respectful relationship with the president of the local PC riding association in my riding than is apparent here.
Let me say to you, respectfully, the figures that you put forward in terms of while you were on local municipal council --
Interjection.
Mr Nuttall: Frank, I can't hear her question. Sorry.
Ms Lankin: The numbers that you've put forward with respect to -- I really think that this is just partisan crap.
Mr Nuttall: Well, a little bit, yes.
Ms Lankin: Yes, I really do.
Mr Nuttall: I try to flatten his tires now and then, but I don't --
Ms Lankin: I don't think it's really in the interest of the hearing of the bill and to try and understand what expertise you bring to this.
You have given us some numbers from when you were on council -- and I take this very seriously, the numbers you put forward -- and you show that the education portion of the tax bill increased over that period of time. The concern I have with that, because I've seen some similar numbers being presented in areas of the Toronto board and the East York board etc, in the area of the province that I represent --
The Vice-Chair: Ms Lankin, your time is up.
Ms Lankin: I'll wrap up. Those numbers actually reflect increase in the numbers of students and mandated provincial programs that the boards had to pick up, so do you think that's actually a fair way to present these numbers? Isn't it blaming the wrong people to be --
Mr Nuttall: I really can't answer that question fully. You know why? Because when I was on council, we used to question the board of education's increases and why they had increases. We were told: "You people on municipal council, it's none of your business. You look after the municipality and we'll look after the education."
1820
The Vice-Chair: Time is up for Ms Lankin. To the government, Mr Froese.
Mr Froese: Just a comment with respect to Ms Lankin's comment. I think you do have the expertise. Your résumé shows that you do.
Ms Lankin: I was acknowledging that too. I was trying to get to that expertise.
Mr Froese: Okay, thanks.
Thank you for coming. I appreciate the comments you made about David Cooke. I think it behooves everybody to realize and understand that when we as a government have to do something -- we said in the Common Sense Revolution, our party platform, that we would look at all aspects of government. How do we get those persons to bring forward those plans? We look at all people, and Dave Cooke is a prime example. It doesn't matter what political party they're involved in; we get the right person to do the job and do it right. So thanks for those comments.
The Vice-Chair: Time is up. Thank you, sir, for coming down today.
GEORGE SAARINEN
The Vice-Chair: The next delegation, and I apologize if I'm not pronouncing this right, is George Saarinen. Mr Saarinen, you have 10 minutes for your presentation and any time you leave over for questions and answers.
Mr George Saarinen: My name is George Saarinen, and I brought my daughter Sadie along today just to see what it's all about. After all, they're the leaders of tomorrow.
First off, I'm a parent of two children in the Lakehead board system. I'm the chair of the McKellar Park school. My comments are coming as a parent and as a volunteer. I'm not involved with the hierarchy of education. I don't know about capital grants and too much else. I know about school closures. I'll talk about that later.
First, I'd like to say welcome everyone to Thunder Bay. We are very happy you're here. It's just unfortunate you weren't able to go to the surrounding communities, because they would have really benefited from this.
It's unimaginable to me to have one school board to service an area of this size. Presently we have four school boards, with representation to all towns within their jurisdiction. At present the Lake Superior board, which is the Manitouwadge to Schreiber one, has 15 trustees, the Nipigon-Red Rock board has nine, the Geraldton board has 13 and the Lakehead board, Thunder Bay, has 13 trustees. With the new legislation, will we be looking at one trustee to represent the towns of Manitouwadge, Marathon, Terrace Bay, Schreiber and Rossport, one to represent the towns of Nipigon, Red Rock and Dorion, and one to represent the towns of Longlac, Geraldton, Jellicoe and Beardmore? Possibly three trustees to represent an area surrounding Thunder Bay.
I understand we will be allotted anywhere from five to 12 trustees for all of area 6. I don't know how that single trustee can visit all of these towns and discuss the concerns of the ratepayers concerned with school board related issues. The legislation is putting a tremendous strain on these trustees who are considering to represent these vast areas.
I was born and raised in the small community of Geraldton and feel I received a quality education through the Longlac-Geraldton-Beardmore board of education. In Geraldton, you knew who the trustees were and you could talk to them about any concerns. When Bill 104 passes, will we have one overworked and underpaid trustee who will be run off his or her feet attempting to answer constituency concerns? Will we see this trustee once or twice a year and have a 1-800 line set up to talk to this person? Instead of making education more accessible, the Harris government has created such a mess that it will be impossible to have time with these elected trustees, and attempting to get information from this new super school board will be very difficult as well.
How in the world will Superintendent Smith, as an example, from the area 6 school board know the concerns of B. A. Parker public school in Geraldton or Margaret Twomey public school in Marathon? Will Mr Smith be able to supervise the elementary school teacher in Manitouwadge or deal with a leaky roof at the Schreiber high school? The duties of the area superintendent, already cut to the bare bones, will be next to impossible to carry out due to the geographical area we now are part of.
As a funeral director, I have removed many accident victims off Highway 11-17 and Highway 11 due to the severe road conditions. Road conditions any time of the year are dangerous due to cutbacks in road repairs and overall maintenance. Remember, there are thousands of students who have to travel these treacherous highways on a daily basis from home to school and back again at night. Students spend up to three hours a day commuting to and from their area schools each and every day.
These selected trustees will be putting their lives on the line every time they are expected to attend meetings or meet with any school council or tour any school in their jurisdiction. It's unfathomable how you expect these trustees to have their monthly meetings or various committee meetings.
I think it's unfortunate that this committee has not taken time to visit the communities affected by Bill 104 or the individual schools that are part of area 6. These schools serve a much smaller population base than Metro Toronto and offer a quality education to all of their students. Had the committee taken time and visited schools in these areas and talked to the parents, students, teachers and administration, I feel more would have been accomplished, rather than the formal hearings where the Tory supporters praise the bill and the NDP and Liberal supporters condemn it. Again the Big Blue Machine bulldozes through, dictating to us, the alienated people of the north, what we will be, with no consideration as to distance or the special needs of northern Ontario.
I have been involved with the education of my children for the past seven years. For the first six, my daughters enjoyed a well-rounded education at an elementary school in Thunder Bay called Drew Street school. This school, which educated the youth of the Lakehead for 86 years, was named after the late Tory Premier George Drew and his family. How ironic that it was a Conservative government that forced the closure of this fine institution of learning. My, how Premier Drew would be rolling over in his grave to realize how this heartless Blue Machine called the Harris mob closed a school named after him. The Big Blue Machine is rolling over everyone in its path to put forth a very dictatorial agenda. Are we to address the Premier as Dictator Harris?
Bill 104 will create a large divide in the have- and the have-not schools. The schools in the affluent areas with a higher tax base will fare much better than inner-city schools. Older schools will not receive the proper care and upkeep. Where will the funding come from for capital projects like window replacements or a new roof? Will the Group of Seven sprinkle their fairy dust on the schools that need attention, or will it be the ones that have a very powerful lobby to the government and will get its undivided attention?
As a school council chair, I can honestly say it is very difficult to get volunteers to sit on school councils. Our school, McKellar Park school, is an inner-city school, and I can see our school going downhill with a lack of books, resource materials, computer equipment, poor school maintenance, and a drop in the quality of education, with experienced teachers seeking other schools where more resources are available. Now we have a PTA that is being asked to buy school supplies like computer monitors and computer programs, and help defray the cost of field trips by picking up the transportation costs.
Hearing that school councils will have more jurisdiction and control in the schools will scare off potential volunteers to sit on school councils. Entrapment is what our provincial government has done to the present members of school councils. Very few school council members were aware of the Tory agenda to reform school systems to this degree. I know the discussion around many school councils is: "What does the government expect of us? How much time do they expect volunteers to put into school councils so they can run effectively?" I see a demise of school councils in the near future as there will be no one willing to donate so much time and energy for no return. Does Mike Harris expect these so-called volunteers to contribute so much time for no reward or payment? I honestly feel the only message school councils could send Mike Harris is a mass resignation of the entire school council body from every school council in the province and tell the Premier to stick it.
Training for school councils is a concern of many. Fortunately, the Lakehead Board of Education has set up a team of parents, teachers and administrators to act as school council facilitators. We have run workshops on consensus-building and will be having additional workshops on running effective meetings and dealing with difficult situations. I am a team member of this facilitator team and we all feel we are contributing to the betterment of school councils within the Lakehead board.
Many smaller boards do not have training teams built in for their school councils. How in the world are these school councils to operate effectively with no training? I understand the Ministry of Education has provided manuals to every school, but hands-on training in group situations goes a lot further than a binder of instruction. Will a manual help a parent who has no idea how to run a meeting or any other aspect of school council? I don't think so.
When you, the government, push school councils, why not cough up money for training as well for all school councils? Other boards in our area have asked for our help. How can we as volunteers give more of our time to do additional training if we don't have the time, energy or resources to help other boards with the training of school councils? As this change to school councils comes from the Harris government, perhaps additional dollars should be put forth for additional training to all school councils.
Special consideration should be given to the smaller, more remote communities like Nakina, which has the Internet link with Queen Elizabeth. We have hundreds of smaller isolated communities that would benefit from additional training to school councils to help them run effectively. We are not Toronto; we are northern Ontario.
A little thought goes a long way. Bill 104 and all of its repercussions on all of northwestern Ontario were not planned. Every student will suffer under this new reform of education. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. In this instance you are giving school councils more power and discretion in running the schools with no idea of training for what they are doing and are eliminating effective school boards that have a wide representation of the general public now.
1830
When you look at school budgets, over 80% is salaries and benefits. We have dissected that remaining 20% until the cows come home. Perhaps it's time to tackle the salaries of the high-priced employees of the boards of education. I'm not referring to any of the support services; I'm referring to teachers and administration. I feel I've said enough on the subject.
I'd be more than willing to answer any of your questions. Thank you for your time.
Ms Lankin: Thank you very much, and I truly appreciate your presentation and having your daughter here with you to experience this.
I'm interested in your comments, as a school council chair, about the role of school councils. The proposal is vague at this point, but it's to increase the responsibility of school councils, decrease the responsibility of trustees and put some more decision-making in the ministry. I worry that those trustees will become a buffer between parents and the decision-makers in the bureaucracy. Do you think you can take over the job of trustees? Do you want to take over that job?
Mr Saarinen: We were set up as an advisory board. I'm sure 99% of the people who volunteered for school councils wanted that role. No.
Mr O'Toole: Just quickly, has your council seriously debated the issue of where to look at how to have a more effective budget if 80% is salary and wages? Have you actually looked at that as a council and discussed it?
Mr Saarinen: No, we haven't.
Mr O'Toole: Is it something that's on your mind?
Mr Saarinen: It's something that has been on my mind for several years. I've been involved with school closures. I've looked up the budgets. I've had all the information in front of me.
Mrs McLeod: As Ms Lankin has said, I appreciate your coming and making a presentation, again representing a parent council. I'd like to further the question Ms Lankin was asking. You're obviously an involved parent and you're going to stay involved. I suspect that whatever school your kids are in, you're going to make sure their education is okay. That leads me to ask you why you're so concerned. Is it because you see that if school boards disappear and parent councils are running the show, some are going to get more than others?
Mr Saarinen: Basically what I see is over 5,000 mini school boards in the province all fighting for the almighty buck. The smaller, inexperienced schools will be the ones suffering. We're all here for these guys. They're our future. I really want to say this: I wish more parents and more student councils and more kids would come out to these hearings and say something.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Sadie, thank you for coming. Good luck.
BEARDMORE, GERALDTON, LONGLAC AND AREA BOARD OF EDUCATION LAKEHEAD BOARD OF EDUCATION LAKE SUPERIOR BOARD OF EDUCATION NIPIGON-RED ROCK BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Vice-Chair: The next delegation is the Nipigon-Red Rock and Lake Superior boards of education; Betty Chambers, chair. Please proceed.
Mrs Betty Chambers: Good evening. My name is Betty Chambers. I am chair of the Nipigon-Red Rock Board of Education. I am joined this evening by Joe Virdiramo, director of education for our board and also a shared director with the Beardmore Geraldton Longlac and Area Board of Education. We thank you very much for the opportunity this evening to voice our strong concerns regarding this legislation.
I'm going to take a break from my written report here. Earlier today I think you heard repeatedly about the makeup of district 6 and the fact that the geographical area is huge, to say the least, and the governance issues that come about through all this new legislation. I'm going to very quickly go over my report, because I would really appreciate the opportunity to have you ask questions of me and Mr Virdiramo, so if you'll just bear with me flipping through.
The new proposed amalgamation of district 6 will not, in our opinion, improve accountability, effectiveness or the quality of education, but rather will have the opposite effect. The drastic reduction of publicly elected representation, possibly in some cases leaving communities or regions without a local voice, reluctant school councils and an added layer of bureaucracy with the Education Improvement Commission and its local committees do not promote accountability, in our opinion; this huge amalgamation achieves the opposite. We have very strong concerns about the public's ability to access this new board. We feel that without access, there is really no accountability.
Bill 104 is incomplete as it does not provide the boards with a funding model, methods of dealing with the harmonizing of collective agreements, capital or contingency concerns. As a trustee, I have been really frustrated to think that I am being asked to make appropriate and informed decisions without knowing exactly what the details are, and I am being constantly asked by ratepayers and staff, employees: "How are we going to be funded? Are we going to continue to have the services that we have now?" I have no answers. I find it very frustrating to have to be sitting here as a chair of a board telling my constituents that I have no answers for them. That's a personal comment.
Education and Training Minister John Snobelen has said that there will be no second-class students in Ontario. In other words, there will be equity of access. In reality, what does this mean for students in the north? Does it mean easy access to professionals servicing students with special needs? Does it mean access to special programming, now difficult due to student numbers, remote locations and limited resources? Does it mean we will now automatically get music programs where none have existed before? Does it mean shorter bus rides for students who currently ride for an hour in the morning and again for an hour in the afternoon?
This concept is excellent, however very difficult if not totally unrealistic, given our northern geography, not to mention fiscal constraints. We are very concerned that to keep this promise, district 6 will either see costs rise for all students or we will see a drastic decrease in services and programs. We recognize the fact that in our boards costs are considerably higher per student than in the Lakehead board -- again I would like to just mention that I am speaking on behalf of the three smaller boards, Lake Superior, Nipigon-Red Rock and the Geraldton board -- in that we spend a considerable amount above the Lakehead board per pupil. Our average is approximately $1,000 per year over and above that of the Lakehead board per pupil to deliver education in an outlying region.
The Sweeney and Crombie reports both recognized the uniqueness of northern Ontario. We strongly urge you to do the same.
We question the fact that the Education Improvement Commission, an unelected, unaccountable body, supersedes the authority of a duly elected board. We stress very strongly that the cost, complexity and the time frame dictated by this legislation has costs attached to it, and the significant transition costs must be addressed by this committee. One hour of teleconferencing costs $250; a round trip to Manitouwadge involves eight to 10 hours from Thunder Bay, if weather permits, and $240 in mileage. This district 6 board is not able to absorb these expenses without directly impacting on resources to students.
Bill 104 will not improve student learning. Just as effectively, the same ends could have been met by allowing boards like ours to amalgamate where it was reasonable, to voluntarily reduce our number of trustees, to recognize efficiencies where there were great efficiencies in the north and place sanctions against wasteful boards and to recognize many shared services. In our board we have shared busing for over 20 years with our coterminous board. I think we should be recognized for those types of things, which we have been very proactive in doing.
To survive in the north all boards have had to be very innovative and resourceful. Sharing of services and cooperative endeavours have been a way of life. We feel that our three boards have worked very hard to meet the needs of our varied student population, sometimes in very difficult economic climates.
Let me state clearly that we are not opposed to change and recognize that the status quo is not a viable option. But when all is said and done and the final decisions are made with this committee, I trust very strongly that our students will have no less than better than what they have now. We must keep the needs of our students in the forefront and not allow the governance issues of this new legislation to use up all of our energies, and that's what's happening now.
Please hear our concerns. Bill 104 must be amended to recognize the unique needs of northwestern Ontario. Added to this document I have presented, we have a school boards restructuring program. These three boards that I represent plus the Lakehead board have come up with a restructuring program, which you've heard about today, proposing that district 6 be divided into 6A, which is the Thunder Bay board, and 6B, which is the rest of the rural region. One of the main reasons, and it's bulleted under 3.2, is that district school board 6B would be made up of similar-sized communities, eliminating the perception of being swallowed by a large board. We have great respect for the Lakehead board, but this is a major concern with the rural communities.
I would welcome any questions from the panel and Mr Virdiramo would certainly welcome any questions.
1840
Mr Skarica: I'm comparing your brief to Renny Maki's brief. He was one of the trustees with the Lakehead Board of Education, and you've been working with him on the model you've indicated in your presentation.
Mrs Chambers: I've worked with all the trustees. I must mention too that this is a unanimous proposal by every trustee in all four boards.
Mr Skarica: It looks to me like you've done a fair amount of work on it, because it's a very unique model and you're basically having separate boards, but you're merging a lot of your administrative functions, as I read it. Is that correct?
Mrs Chambers: We have a shared service initiative in the middle of these two boards.
Mr Skarica: You say it's unanimous from all the trustees in the boards that this is what you would like us to consider. Is that a fair comment?
Mrs Chambers: This proposal has already gone to the co-chairs of the Education Improvement Commission, and we are awaiting at this point a response. But we have strongly expressed our concerns with the co-chairs and we have worked very hard within the region trying to do what we know is best for our region. I think that's the thing that has to be really stressed. We live here, we work here, our children's future is here. We know what the north is about and we know what's best for the people here.
Mr Joe Virdiramo: I just wanted to add to what Mrs Chambers has said here, your question concerning the presentation and the consent of all the boards. When Ann Vanstone and Dave Cooke were in Thunder Bay, we met with them, all the boards met with them and they said, "If you boards get together and do up a presentation and get unanimous consent on the part of all the boards, that might be considered." It wasn't a promise. Within two weeks all the boards got together, the presentation was put together, the chairs of all the specific boards had three teleconferences and they unanimously passed resolutions at all board sites to support this particular proposal.
Mrs McLeod: I understand that at that same meeting it was also indicated that this committee could be influential in supporting those kinds of recommendations to the EIC. I hope committee members are suitably impressed with the work that was done.
I'll ask you about the whole issue of equity funding. I think the point you're making in your brief is a really important one for us all to understand, because you're saying that it costs you more in your boards to provide less service than is provided to students in the Lakehead, for example. So if you were to have equality of service with what currently exists in the Lakehead, there would have to be a lot more dollars coming into it.
Mrs Chambers: The strong concern right now, and I think the Lakehead board must have some very strong concerns, is that the expectation of the outlying region is very, very high, because the minister is saying "equity of access." What does that mean? What does it mean to boards that have not had programming, that have not had special professional people available to us, that have not had some of the benefits that areas our bigger boards with more enrolment have had that opportunity of? I think these kinds of things, the expectations are very high, and for that to happen something is going to have to be lost. If we're looking at raising the outlying regions in some areas, we're going to be talking about knocking down Lakehead, or vice versa. I think there's going to be lots of give and take, when the day is done, that will not make for a lot of happy campers, because we have some very good things within our outlying regions too that we do not want to see lost.
Mrs McLeod: If you even equalize to the level of Lakehead funding now, what would that mean to your students?
Mrs Chambers: We would definitely see larger class sizes. We would probably see more students bused. We would see programs go. These are very major concerns to our small boards, and we are all struggling in an economic time to deal with small schools. We all have very small high schools where we are trying desperately to accommodate programming and make our students ready to go on to college and university, with some great difficulties.
Ms Lankin: I appreciate your presentation. I also hear from Mr Skarica some sense of interest in the proposal you've put forward and I'm pleased to hear that. I hope that means the government members of the committee will consider, along with the Liberals and New Democrats, endorsing the proposal you've put forward.
I'm driven to distraction to hear the government refer to this as "new and innovative." In fact, you have been coterminous boards sharing services, as you said, busing for 20 years. You have a shared director of education. Many of the steps which the government lauds as being necessary to end duplication and to share services you've already done. This cookie-cutter approach out of the Ministry of Education doesn't give recognition to those local concerns. My fear is that where you have less responsibility at the school trustee level, less power to actually implement locally related decisions and more of that centralized in the ministry, you lose the ability to understand the local concerns.
Outside of amalgamation, because that's only one piece of this, in the legislation there's also a diminishing of the powers and responsibilities of school trustees, with much more of the decision-making being centralized in the ministry. I'm wondering how you think that will bear for the students and parents and ratepayers of your district.
Mr Virdiramo: Right now at the local level, your ratepayer is your next-door neighbour, your teacher, your student. You're next door; you're right there. At 6:30 in the morning, when there's a tendency for the buses not to run, I get a call from the chair saying: "What are we going to do with the buses, Joe? Do you think we're going to run?" The parents phone the chair to find out what's happening in the system. You will not get that kind of close, intimate relationship with the people you're dealing with. That will not happen.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Chambers. We appreciate your time today.
ATIKOKAN BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Vice-Chair: The next delegation is the Atikokan Board of Education; Wayne McAndrew, director of education.
Mr Wayne McAndrew: On behalf of the Atikokan Board of Education, I'd like to extend our appreciation for the opportunity to be here. It came as a bit of a surprise, and unfortunately our chair was unable to be here due to illness, so on her behalf I'll make the presentation.
I understand you've probably been supersaturated with a lot of information today, and in anticipation of that we'll keep our presentation brief. I'd be very happy to answer any questions you may have with regard to our presentation and other information that's been presented today.
By way of introduction, my background is somewhat diverse. I was a director in the Maritimes, in New Brunswick, during amalgamation there and I think I could provide some firsthand insight with regard to some of the implications that took place in the Maritimes. I was also the director of education for the Sioux Lookout district of Indian affairs. That represented the Treaty 9 communities stretching from Highway 17 through the Hudson Bay, so I could perhaps comment on that if you're interested.
With that introduction, I'll begin with my presentation. The trustees representing the students of the Atikokan Board of Education would like to take this opportunity to respond to the government with regard to Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act. Our board has had the opportunity to review the submissions prepared by other area public school boards. Our board fully supports the key elements of these proposals and will not restate these issues. Instead, we have chosen to focus our efforts on several other key issues that we believe should be considered.
1850
It would appear that the driving force behind the bill rests on the beliefs that there is a need to (a) reduce education costs outside of the classroom and (b) ensure that trustees focus attention on the policy issues of education. In other words, the government is saying we spend too much money outside of the classroom and trustees get too involved in the day-to-day operations of schools.
While trustees across this province clearly take exception to these assumptions, the Atikokan Board of Education takes exception to the misplaced view that Bill 104 offers any constructive financial benefits to northern citizens or any educational benefit to northern students. Clearly, the authors of Bill 104 have little understanding of the economic, geographic, social and political realities of northwestern Ontario. The following observations and suggestions are worth outlining in view of these realities.
It is quite apparent that the one-board model will not provide the financial and educational benefits that the government anticipates. We sincerely recommend that the government revise the proposed boundaries with a view of creating a two-board model or implementing the recommendations made by the Sweeney task force.
A one-board model for this section of the province contradicts the natural patterns of the region. In northwestern Ontario, the economic, social and political borders are naturally shaped by the two major east-west highway networks of the region. The southern corridor is defined by Highway 11, and the northern corridor is centred along Highway 17. Minor north-south roads between these two highways exist to serve the resource industries. In its one-board model, the government plans to overcome a barrier that the private and public sector leaders of the region have been unable to overcome for decades: merging the two corridors. This notion is unsound.
Considerable import on the effective future use of technology has been used to justify the viability of a large geographic board in Ontario's north. The Atikokan Board of Education and indeed most northern boards have been active and positive users of these technologies. We willingly accept the fact that students, teachers, trustees and indeed all stakeholders have and will continue to benefit from these innovations.
It is naïve to think, however, that technology is the answer to most of our geographic challenges. Significant issues relating to the day-to-day operations involving students, parents and community partners will continue to require direct contact. It is incredibly simplistic to think that these valued interchanges can be effectively addressed through technology. While northern Ontario is significantly behind the south in terms of technical infrastructure, the government's assurance to eliminate this gap does not diminish the harsh reality that technology by itself represents a partial solution to the geographic impediments that are central to the government's single-board model for northwestern Ontario.
A critical government justification for the reduction of school boards rests on two criticisms related to trustees: first, that the costs associated with trustees are too high, and second, trustees have historically and unnecessarily overtaxed their ratepayers.
On the first point, trustees throughout the north are incidental costs to education. Honoraria are typically well below the $5,000 ceiling within the proposed legislation and radically less than the salaries quoted in government press releases. In light of the significant amount of time invested in serving their boards, our trustees represent a valued and cost-effective resource to education in northwestern Ontario.
In terms of the second point, trustees from small-town northwestern Ontario are intimately sensitive to their ratepayers. Similarly, ratepayers are very supportive of trustees and the issues they face. Unlike in southern Ontario, everyone knows everybody in our communities. The fiscal decisions made by trustees continue to respect and build upon the best interests of students and ratepayers.
There is no evidence to suggest that a one-board model will bring about any significant savings to the costs of future trustees, and certainly there is no indication that our taxpayers and students will benefit by replacing residential taxation with increased grants from Queen's Park.
While geography poses an incredible impediment to a one-board approach to public education in northwestern Ontario, clearly Bill 104 failed to recognize the long-standing affiliations among our 50 first nations communities and five public school boards. There exist two major native cultures in northwestern Ontario, the Cree and the Ojibway, with various subgroups within these cultures. Treaty 9 first nations are located north of Highway 17 to Hudson Bay. Treaty 3 first nations are mainly found along the Highway 11 corridor. While both groups share many things in common, they are two fundamentally distinct cultures. Clearly, a two-board structure that utilizes the two major corridors of the region will help protect the positive relationships that exist between public boards and first nations. A single-board model promotes a generic melting pot approach to its affairs with two very different groups of first nations.
In summary, the Atikokan Board of Education and the citizens of the community find few redeeming features in proposed Bill 104 that improve the financial and/or educational opportunities for its ratepayers and students. It is generally perceived by most local people that the proposed legislation is intended to resolve issues in southern Ontario that have little if any bearing on northern Ontario. We urge you to recognize the special circumstances we face and consider the suggestions that have been outlined above. Your review of this submission is sincerely appreciated.
Mrs McLeod: Do you have any idea where this new proposal for one board came from? Sweeney would have recognized the Highway 11 reality as well as the first nations divisions between the southern and northern parts of that area.
Mr McAndrew: I don't want to be critical of the individual who drew the boundaries, but I suspect he was given an instruction to prepare some boundaries by a certain time and, not having firsthand information, came up with some boundaries. That's how it happened, Lyn. It honestly surprised me. I've been involved in many reorganizations at the federal government level. I was quite surprised that they tried to merge the north and south corridor. I was really surprised, personally.
Mrs McLeod: Another quick question: You're one of the clearest examples of a small, assessment-poor board. You're supposed to be one of the winners under this new equity, "no second-class students in Ontario." Why are you worried?
Mr McAndrew: When you look at the Atikokan board, you have to understand trustees. Trustees there honestly don't perceive themselves as being politicians. They don't see it that way. They see themselves serving students and they make some tough decisions that sometimes need to be made.
I'm worried that with school councils -- they've been in Atikokan for decades, but they don't want to get involved in the special interest group things that school boards get involved in because you know everybody in so many different circumstances. The board provides a level of objectivity that's not available at the local level, because you're on the hockey executive, you're on the church committee and so many things. When you have to make a tough call in a school committee over student discipline or a suspension, it's a tough call because you know the other person in so many different ways. There's a great worry that when you lose that school board you lose that objectivity, and we're afraid we end up with vested interest in some significant decisions that involve kids.
It's interesting to note too, when you talk about the number of trustees, that there are unfortunately several obstacles that cause us to have as many trustees as we do. One is the Education Act. As a director I'm always baffled when I have a trustee retire and I want to reduce him, when we want to reduce the number of trustees, that we can't. We as a board knew the pressures we were under financially province-wide. We tried to cut costs in so many ways and we were quite successful, but amazingly in some areas we couldn't do it.
1900
Ms Lankin: I want to follow up on the questions in the area you've just moved into. The majority of your presentation, rightly so, is on the issue of the one board and the absurdity of that from a northerner's perspective. I think the government is hearing that and I'm hoping they're going to move on that point, but it strikes me that there are many other aspects to the bill that we should be talking about as well.
The diminished role of the trustees, whether it's one board or two, gives me great concern. You've spoken to one side of it, which is the potential for smaller, narrower interest-driven processes at the school council. I also want you to address the other end of it, those decisions that are going to be taken up into the ministry. You just talked about how someone down in Toronto drew the boundaries obviously without knowledge of up here. Do you worry about the board becoming essentially a buffer between the parents' concerns and ratepayers' concerns and the decision-makers in the ministry in Toronto?
Mr McAndrew: Yes, it is absolutely unfounded to think that the day-to-day key issues that make a school successful can be managed from Queen's Park. The ministry can provide a lot of excellent tools and a lot of excellent information, but to think they could manage that is unlikely and it will not happen; that's fair to say.
But my sense is that school boards and people like myself -- we're called so many names, but to be quite honest, my job is to free teachers from a lot of the things that get in the way of teaching. If trustees take over some of those tough policy issues and some of the tough operational issues and take them away from the school level, you are empowering your principal and your vice-principal and your teacher to do what they have to do. You just need to read the journals and look at the stories from Chicago and in California where you try to take those things and put them too far down. You've got to empower those teachers to serve those students. My worry is that when you take school boards out of the equation, Queen's Park will not manage those quality decisions. Who will?
Mr Skarica: Two quick questions, again going to the point that you made about the large boards. We heard from the Dryden, Fort Frances, Rainy River and Kenora board this morning; they basically indicated that they would be content with amalgamating those three boards and that you, along with the Red Lake board, would amalgamate into another board, that you all have agreed to that. Is that right?
Mr McAndrew: That's correct.
Mr Skarica: We also heard from the Lakehead board and the surrounding boards that they would basically, if they weren't merged, merge a lot of their services. Is that something you've explored with the five boards I've mentioned, of which you are one?
Mr McAndrew: That is already taking place now. For example, we have Program Council West, a regional consortium dealing with all sorts of professional development issues, and we have a number of other cooperatives. But I want to speak on that in one point that's important, because you're looking at it as I did in other positions, in other geographies.
A lot of the consortia cooperative things that happen in these small communities happen with other sectors in a community, whereas if you're in Toronto and you have economies of scale you might look at your coterminous school board as the natural marriage. I'll give you a simple example. Atikokan, 210 kilometres from Thunder Bay, speech pathology: How do you do it? If you're in southern Ontario you'd look to your partner board and work out a marriage. When you get into small northern Ontario, you break those rules; you look at child and family services, you look at medical clinics and you look at everybody else. In the case of Atikokan, with three other partners, we hired a pathologist for Atikokan. I get the person some of the time, the old-age home gets him some of the time, and the hospital and the Catholic school board.
There are lots of consortia, but it doesn't follow a lot of the lines we're familiar with. My worry is that when you go into a broader context you lose some of those opportunities because you're not at the front line. I meet with all the business and social folks monthly, and when you see an opportunity you jump at it in Atikokan. I'm not convinced -- and we'll just have to deal with it -- that we'll be able to manage those opportunities for places like Atikokan in a broader context.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McAndrew, for putting your views to the committee and coming such a long way to do it.
FORT FRANCES-RAINY RIVER DISTRICT ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
The Chair: The Dryden and Fort Frances-Rainy River District Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Paul Jackson. Welcome, Mr Jackson. We're happy to have you here. As you begin your presentation, I wonder if you might introduce your co-presenter.
Mr Paul Jackson: I was just about to do that. I have with me this evening the chair of the Fort Frances-Rainy River district separate school board. I just want to clarify that the brief we're presenting to the standing committee this evening is the one prepared for the Fort Frances-Rainy River district. I'll have the opportunity of presenting the brief prepared from the Dryden district separate board to Annamarie when we meet on Thursday in Kenora. This is directed from the community west of us here right at the very end of Ontario, Fort Frances-Rainy River.
The Chair: Mr Jackson, would you mind introducing the chairman by name?
Mr Jackson: I'm sorry. Our board chair is Orielle De Gagné.
Mr Orielle De Gagné: How do you do?
Mr Jackson: The Fort Frances-Rainy River District Roman Catholic Separate School Board welcomes the opportunity to appear before the standing committee this evening to address its concerns about Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997.
This brief is limited to those concerns about Bill 104 on which the board has particularly strong feelings. This perspective is not meant in any way to relegate other issues to a lower level of importance. Indeed, the board wants to go on record as supporting all aspects of the brief presented to your committee by the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association on February 18, 1997.
Some particulars about our board: We're located in the town of Fort Frances, approximately 340 kilometres west of here, 210 kilometres southeast of the town of Kenora and 184 kilometres south of the town of Dryden. Its jurisdiction includes the towns of Fort Frances, Emo, Rainy River, as well as seven other small townships and approximately 20 other unorganized municipalities. The electoral population for the board is approximately 2,800 and the geographical area of the board is approximately 11,913 square kilometres.
The board currently offers an elementary level education program -- we are non-extended -- for JK through grade 8, and a French immersion program in the town of Fort Frances which runs from senior kindergarten through grade 8. Graduates of our system attend the public high schools in Fort Frances and Rainy River. We currently have 713 students enrolled in our three elementary schools, two of these located in Fort Frances and one located in a small community west of Fort Frances called Stratton. The students are served by 33.85 full-time equivalent teaching staff and 19 support staff. We currently have three tuition agreements with the 10 first nations in the Rainy Lake tribal region.
Our board was formed in 1969 when the small separate boards located in Fort Frances, Morley-Dilke and Rainy River were amalgamated. Currently, our school communities are about 58 kilometres apart. That's the distance from Fort Frances to Stratton. If the proposed amalgamation of the Fort Frances-Rainy River, Dryden and Kenora district separate boards becomes a reality, the distance between some of our school communities could be as far as 340 kilometres. That is the distance between Stratton and our school in Sioux Lookout, Ontario. This is indeed a tremendous distance for any area in the province but is particularly concerning in northwestern Ontario when our road and weather conditions are taken into consideration.
1910
Funding of education is also a concern. We feel that the legislative enactment of Bill 104 will improve Ontario's system only if it is accompanied by legislation which issues an equitable and improved educational opportunity for all children in the province, ensures respect and justice for all those who provide education and guarantees the constitutionally protected rights of our Catholic educational systems.
As Bill 104 is implemented, the government must put in place a new, fair funding model which will achieve equal educational opportunity for all children in Ontario. It is in recognition of this promise of equitable funding that our board, along with other Catholic boards across the province, is holding in abeyance and not exercising our constitutional right to tax. We expect, however, that the designation of taxes will continue through the regular enumeration process.
Electoral issues are another concern. Our board feels strongly that there are a number of critical issues to be considered when determining the number of trustees for the district school board. If representation by population becomes the key criterion to be used by the government in making this decision, the amalgamated board which the Fort Frances-Rainy River district separate board will become a part of will most likely be limited to the minimum number of five trustees as set out in Bill 104.
Under this bill, our board will be merged with the Dryden separate board and the Kenora district separate board. Their combined population area is relatively small when viewed from a provincial standpoint.
Our board believes that the proposal in Bill 104 to establish district school boards with as few as five trustees will compromise its ability to meet its responsibilities as educational stewards for the northwestern Ontario Catholic school community. Indeed, with such a limited number, whole communities in our part of the province will be left without representation.
The government must consider such factors as geography, distance and rural sparsity when determining the number of trustees. Five trustees is not an adequate number. Catholic parents will be left without representation on their district school board.
Our board is also concerned with the ability of district school boards in northwestern Ontario to attract people to serve as trustees. Faced with board meetings requiring two- to three-hour drives, weekend scheduling and being away from home overnight, our board sees problems in getting people to step forward and take on the responsibilities of a board trusteeship.
Another area of concern is administration of our district school board. Our board currently operates with a minimal number of supervisory officers. It employs a half-time director of education and a full-time superintendent of business. The director's services are shared with the Dryden district separate school board. That board employs the director of education on a half-time basis as well.
As a board that currently operates in an efficient, cost-effective manner, we strongly recommend that the government provide sufficient funding for the district school board to operate in a similar fashion. Research needs to be done to determine the minimal level funding needed to provide for the effective operation of the administrative function of regional boards in northern Ontario. Once set, this amount can serve as a base level and be adjusted upwards in situations where greater school population so demands. The money must be there to provide the administrative and support staff necessary to provide efficient and effective management for its programs and services. Geography, distance and the special needs of small Catholic boards in the north must be taken into consideration when setting the fiscal limitations for the district board's administration and support functions. Without this special consideration, the amalgamation process in our district will not improve efficiencies and cost-effectiveness.
Over the years our board has been able to accumulate a reserve fund through a consistent effort to effectively manage our financial resources. The funds from these reserves have come from our local ratepayers, and these funds must be protected and designated for use in those school communities for which they were raised.
Employees affected by amalgamation are another concern. School board amalgamation will result in board employees across the province losing their jobs. In northwestern Ontario, geography and distance will play a factor in the downsizing process. Some long-term employees will find it impossible to relocate in order to maintain a position with the school board. The government must provide guidelines and resources to allow boards to follow clearly defined principles of social justice in dealing with redundant staff.
In conclusion then, in our appearance before the standing committee today, the Fort Frances-Rainy River District Roman Catholic Separate School Board has outlined a number of concerns it has that are relevant to the reorganization of school boards in this province. Its concerns all relate to providing the best possible education for Catholic students in northwestern Ontario. For this to occur, there must be equity in funding across the province, sufficient trustee representation to provide access for all parents and students and a level of administrative and support staff to ensure quality, cost-effective education for our kids.
Beyond these concerns, the board still has serious reservations about the quality of service that can be delivered through an amalgamated district school board of the geographical size that has been proposed. Even with today's technological support, the logistics of operating a relatively small school system over a vast expanse of Ontario will be extremely difficult. We are also concerned for the safety of our future trustees, administration and staff who, in order to fulfil their duties, will need to travel greater distances under the road and weather conditions that are unique to our part of the province.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about a minute per caucus.
Ms Lankin: I appreciate your presentation. There are a number of areas I would like to pursue with you, but due to time, I'm going to pick up on your comments about protection of reserve funds. I think that's an interesting point. There is no guarantee at this point in time that those reserve funds would not be subject to raiding by the provincial treasury, let alone a guarantee that within any kind of new board, pooled structure those funds would remain local and not be pooled across the new board entity. Do you have concerns about that? Are there, for example, situations you're aware of where there are coterminous boards that you think perhaps have not been as fiscally prudent and don't have the same reserve funds or that have financial problems that you would end up funding through your reserve funds? What gave rise to that concern you've brought forward?
Mr Jackson: Our communities in Fort Frances, Dryden and Kenora are somewhat distinct because of the distance between them. They don't merge in any sense at all, and indeed our concern relates to the fact that the ratepayers of each of those communities have contributed to those reserve funds, and certainly through wise fiscal management. I believe sincerely -- and it's certainly indicated by the number of administrative staff we have now -- that we manage very wisely. We share resources between Dryden and Fort Frances, for example, in a semi-amalgamated way. But our concern is -- those moneys are raised locally; they really aren't seen as being shared, because of the distance between communities -- I think we would have a reaction from our ratepayers if the money is shared.
Ms Lankin: Are you looking for a guarantee in the legislation that this won't be forced upon you?
Mr Jackson: I'm looking for something in the guidelines that will give direction on that. I think that is needed, and I'm not saying here that any of the boards we are looking at being merged with, those in Dryden and Kenora, are not wisely managed as well. But I think those funds should remain in the local community, and our trustees feel strongly about that.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Jackson, for your presentation. To reiterate your opening remarks, I want to be clear that you're supportive of the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association as remarked on February 18, a position of recognizing the important achievement of Bill 104 in its recognition of the four constitutional groups. That's important, you're agreeing?
Mr Jackson: Yes. Our trustees --
Mr O'Toole: I just wanted to ask you if you have -- I imagine you're familiar with the OECTA position by their president, Ms Rettig. Her view is very much disposed to be averse to your view. Are you familiar with her position, the president of the English Catholic teachers' union?
1920
Mr Jackson: Yes, we are familiar with that position.
Mr O'Toole: Do you support her view, or are you of the opinion that her view is a serious concern for the Catholics in Ontario, or is she misleading the people of Ontario?
Ms Lankin: "Misleading" is out of order.
Mr O'Toole: It's a fair question.
Mr Jackson: I think you're leading me a bit there. I can say our trustees are supportive of the OSSTA brief which was received by the committee on February 18.
The Chair: Mr O'Toole, I ask you to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.
Mr O'Toole: There's a difference of opinion. I don't think it's important. My own view is that --
The Chair: I understand, but you can ask the question to say, is there a difference or why --
Mr O'Toole: I was asking him a question, if he felt it was misleading.
The Chair: I'd ask you to withdraw that adjective, please.
Mr O'Toole: I'll reword it, if I may.
Ms Lankin: Withdraw it.
Mr O'Toole: No. I'm rewording it so it's clear.
The Chair: I'd like you to withdraw it and then you can reword it if you wish.
Mr O'Toole: I'm prepared to withdraw and reword.
The Chair: Thank you. That's fine.
Ms Lankin: Time's up.
The Chair: Mr Miclash.
Mr Miclash: Thank you very much, Mr Jackson and Mr De Gagné, for your presentation here today. You mentioned trustees, and that's come up a number of times during the presentations today. A good number of people feel that the trustees will not reflect the actual student population. You talked a little bit about the student population from our first nations, other presenters have mentioned the student population of single parents, and we've heard about student trustees as well. What further recommendations can you make, in terms of trustees, that you think would be a good number for representation and how these trustees could maybe be attracted to the positions for the committee? What recommendations could you make?
Mr Jackson: That is a difficult question to answer. We have difficulty at times getting parents to serve on school councils, but recommendations for numbers -- we certainly feel that five is far too few when you're considering that our district school board will run from Sioux Lookout through Kenora, north of Kenora and then down to Rainy River in the far southwestern corner of Ontario. Our thoughts were that we would need to have more than five. I think it would have to be in the range of 10 to 12 to adequately serve the area.
As far as attracting trustees, I think that will be a challenge, and I really don't have any answers to that.
The Chair: Gentlemen, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for coming here and for coming from such a long way as well.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, THUNDER BAY AND KENORA DIVISIONS
The Chair: The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Thunder Bay and Kenora. Welcome. I wonder if you might identify yourself for the record.
Ms Arlene Gervis: My name is Arlene Gervis, and I represent District 29 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, which takes in the Lakehead and points east.
Mr Dave Rhind: I'm Dave Rhind, president of Kenora division of OSSTF.
Ms Gervis: We've decided to each take 7.5 minutes of this presentation. My presentation is the one in blue. I'd like to walk through it with you, highlight what's in it and then speak to it if I may. I've got three parts here. The first part is called "The Lamentation"; the second part is "A Point of Consensus," on page 3; and the third part is "The Guide." I have also added two appendices to it. One is the production of statistics that was gleaned from both the US Department of Education and Stats Canada. I have also attached, as have a couple of other representations from the new district board 6, the proposed plan for district boards 6A and 6B. I'll speak to that as I go through.
Part 1, The Lamentation: I think a lot of points have been covered throughout the day that include the geography, that include the new powers that perhaps are going to be given to the school councils, all those things that most people are in opposition to. I'd like to point out a couple of things, though, towards the bottom of page 1. One is the change in power from the trustees to the school councils. There is a concern here that I think you must seriously address. The question has to be asked, "Who in their right mind would run for election as a trustee?" given the time commitment and the lack of compensation for such a token job that has no power.
We have heard that the government intends to promote the evolution of stronger school councils, and it doesn't take much of a reality check to realize that most parents and business people do not have the resources to commit to such an amount of time and commit to the substantial training required to do an adequate job. You are asking for these people to accept the responsibility and potential liability without compensation, so please consider that point of what's being expected for volunteers. We've been rather fortunate in attracting knowledgeable parents to our school councils in Thunder Bay, but it's questionable how long they'll be able to sustain their efforts. Once their children move on, in all likelihood so will they. Continuity is an issue.
To sum up the "lament" part of this presentation, please seriously consider two aspects that I'd like to emphasize: first that swing of power from duly elected trustees to volunteer school councils, because of the obvious inherent difficulties; and secondly, the loss of local power to fund locally determined needs. That whole issue of funding is still in question. Without the proper funding model, it's hard to really give an intelligent criticism of Bill 104 when we don't know exactly where that accountability is going to come from.
Part 2, The Consensus: I have met or at least spoken with principals and teachers throughout our district, which includes the whole area of the new district board 6, and together we comprised a list of needs that you'll find in part 3, but I want you to know that I have discussed them and represent the district in this regard. There is much merit in separating the Lakehead, in this new model that I have attached to the back and that you have received in some of the others as well, from the smaller communities in the areas we've proposed in this document or that the boards have proposed in that document. There are clear differences between the larger and smaller communities. I think others have pointed out the funding differences, and that is of grave concern to us in the Lakehead.
There's a string attached to our support for this alternative proposal. It calls for the regional shared services agency and lists several areas of jurisdiction that are fine, and it also lists those in the area of labour relations and negotiations. There are differences in our collective agreements that must not be lost. Our little string to supporting it is to make sure that recognition is given to the diversity within those agreements that presently exist and that federation representation on the decision-making bodies which deal with teacher-related issues be assured.
We were somewhat reassured by Ann Vanstone and David Cooke on their recent fact-gathering mission to Thunder Bay, that they recognized our diversity and indicated their personal commitment to allowing for divergent collective agreements within the boundaries of the new district boards. Clearly, this is important enough to become a part of our guide that follows in part 3.
I want to mention that District 29 of OSSTF follows the boundaries pretty closely of the new proposed model, so we don't see a great difficulty for our own personal organization representing the teachers in the new proposed district board 6.
1930
It's important that if a local education improvement committee is going to be struck, in addition to their obvious problems of administering, auditing, budgeting and operating plant, there are the 10 points I list in this guide that deal with the primary business of the boards of education; that is, in classrooms, their teachers and their students. That's what this list is all about. If Bill 104 passes and we establish these local committees, these 10 items are what we came up with as priority items. I'm just going to mention the 10 because I want to give Dave his due time too.
(1) We need employee representation on the EICs.
(2) We must make sure there's time for familiarity so the EICs, the education improvement committees, will get to know the communities they're going to represent.
(3) We must look at the differentiated costs, and I think others have brought up that aspect.
(4) There are some smaller communities that have NSL agreements, native as a second language, that must be honoured and can't be forgotten.
(5) We have to look out for the high-tech pitfalls. I want to mention that one in particular, because it seems to me that we're starting to depend more and more on distance education. Distance education will solve some distance problems -- it's a useful tool -- but it cannot replace the teacher in the classroom.
(6) There needs to be additional funding in technical areas. Some of the smaller boards have gone in different directions than the Lakehead board, and vice versa, in establishing the communications technology.
(7) We have to consider the workload. We're going to have to take a look at those who are going to be doing this job over the next transitionary time and account for that in the funding.
(8) This is of particular importance, and those from the outlying areas really wanted me to emphasize this one for sure. We have to acknowledge the one-industry-town problem. Schools and teachers in one-industry towns -- and I think the gentleman from Atikokan spoke quite eloquently to this too -- are inextricably tied socially and economically to the town's main employer. They're extremely sensitive to the cost of living and the social obligations that fluctuate with the good and bad times of their neighbours in their communities. That has to be considered.
(9) Respect the importance of home and family, that home community education must be a top priority. We can't start expecting to ship our students off to other areas and take them away from their families.
(10) Honour the differences in staff needs: Differences in collective agreements -- and this is the one I referred to in part 2 -- need to be respected and maintained. For example, employees in smaller communities require travel time for medical and legal services only available in Thunder Bay and they have accounted for that in their collective agreements. Staffing of the schools is different in those smaller communities and it has evolved with their varying needs. There's not one staffing formula that can suit the needs of all of our communities. That's why we were a little reassured when Ann Vanstone and David said, yes, that has to be recognized.
To conclude, even though we see the change that Bill 104 proposes as overwhelmingly destructive to education as we know it right now, we are not so naïve as to think that change will never come. As primarily teachers we would be negligent if we did not point out what must be safeguarded as the government stands on the brink of dismantling the present system. That is why first we lament, then we offer an alternative, and then finally list what is essential for survival for quality education in northwestern Ontario.
Mr Rhind: In the interest of time, you have my submission, but on the drive down here, which takes six hours, 300 miles, I decided to redo everything. I'm just going to read from a statement.
I want to talk to you as both a concerned educator and as a parent with three kids in the public system, as well as a ratepayer from the town of Kenora. This name of Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, does not do it justice. It isn't really about just reducing the number of school boards. It is about dismantling education as we know it in Ontario. My colleagues and I have some very grave concerns; I as a parent have grave concerns about this bill and what it is going to do to education in the small towns. I'm here today basically to relay those fears to you.
One of the things we fear most is the loss of accessibility to decision-makers. In small towns you know your trustees. In the larger board that is going to be created for us -- I'm going to call it a mega-board, and I'll avoid saying how large it actually is because I hear you're getting tired of that -- there will be no chance to get to know these trustees. We're being told we get two, and that's it, for an area that large. Distance is always a major problem. Our closest neighbouring town is 90 miles away. That's two hours, give or take, on good days, and the roads in northwestern Ontario are not the greatest. The longest distances people will travel are five or six hours. This is to go from one school in the board to another school in the same board.
I fear most probably for the loss of the school family. In small northern towns, schools are often the focal point of the community. They provide not just the three Rs but a fourth R: recreation. In our town every member of the school family, from the trustee to the school secretary, custodian, teacher, parent, student, maintenance, you name it, are all part of that family. Each has a role to play in the operation of the school. Bill 104 would leave large gaps in that family and would, in my opinion, result in its eventual death.
As an educator, I decry the demise of democratic principles and rights contained in Bill 104. The creation of appointed commissions to oversee operations of duly elected boards is an example. That such a commission possesses almost dictatorial powers over budgets, staff, assets etc and their decisions may not be challenged or reviewed by the courts is contrary to the principle that no one is above the law.
Finally, my colleagues and I are concerned about the fate of our collective agreements. To say otherwise would be an insult. It is no easy task to amalgamate contracts from five boards into one, especially as these agreements have come to reflect local concerns and local issues over the last 20 years or so. Issues such as seniority, benefits and staff transfers must be settled within the framework of collective bargaining, not at the discretion of an appointed commission. Teacher input into this process is essential to put an end to the anxiety -- and that's right, it is anxiety -- which is already hurting teacher morale in the north.
As a parent I fear the loss of accessibility and accountability which the new northern mega-board creates. The decision-makers, wherever they may be -- and no one knows quite where that board will be -- are going to be so many hours of driving away from several of the towns their decisions will affect. How accountable are 12 trustees going to be, trying to run a board that size?
I fear the loss of programs which will result from the further reductions in funding in education. As I said before, an integral part of life in the north are the extras provided by the local school, yet Bill 104 would allow for reduction of funding to all but classroom expenditures. That's teacher, book and an assistant, if you're lucky. What about sports teams, library, drama, music, clubs etc? The list goes on.
As a parent I also fear the loss of democratic rights inherent in an all-powerful Education Improvement Commission over which I have no control.
Last, as a citizen of a small community I am very concerned about the potential downloading of costs connected with maintenance and capital construction of school buildings. In my town this is a potential $7-million bill on a small tax base. Who pays?
In conclusion, I would like to say this bill and the rhetoric surrounding it remind me very much of George Orwell's doublespeak: Bad is good, less is more, and slavery is freedom.
Last, here are some questions I was asking myself on the drive down. You have lots of time when you've got six hours on the road.
Will the removal of locally elected independent school boards improve quality and accountability? Will the demoralization of the entire school family -- and I include trustee, teacher, secretary, custodian -- actually improve education for our students in small northern towns? Will the potential dumping of large outside-classroom expenses, like building maintenance, on the local taxpayer create an improved, fairer education system leading to greater student success or a multi-tiered system, one for the rich and one for the not-so-rich communities? As I said at the beginning, I fear for the future of education in Ontario. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Rhind, for coming so far and for sharing your views with us. Thank you both for being here this evening.
Mr Duncan: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. On page 4 of the presentation, Ms Gervis indicated, "We were somewhat reassured by Ann Vanstone and David Cooke on their recent fact-gathering mission to Thunder Bay, that they recognized our diversity and indicated their personal commitment to allowing for divergent collective agreements within the boundaries of the new district boards." Is that the view of the government as well?
Mr Skarica: This is the first I've heard of it, quite frankly, and I don't know that. But I would think the statements they are making would be the view of the government or they wouldn't be making them.
Mr Duncan: I'm going to put that as a question, please, to have a written response to. I would be curious to know how committed the government is to that. We will raise this question with school boards and others in the future, as they come in, to see if they feel that would be an ideal situation.
1940
The Chair: All right, that's raised as a question.
Ms Lankin: I just want a clarification. Mr Skarica, did I just hear you say that you didn't know but you assumed that would be the view of the government or these two individuals would not be putting that forward?
Mr Skarica: I think it would be irresponsible for them to make statements to a community that they couldn't --
Ms Lankin: I must say, that raises a question for me in terms of the role of the Education Improvement Commission and the independence of its two co-chairs in their recommendation to the government. Quite frankly, if you're suggesting these two people are simply a rubber-stamp for the government's policies or mouthpieces for the government's policies, I don't believe those two individuals believe that is their role. I think you should provide some clarification. I don't think that is an accurate reflection of the responsibilities you propose to set out for them in this legislation.
The Chair: Mr Duncan has asked for a written response and we'll ascertain it at that time.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, I think Ms Lankin's question is somewhat different. It's the same question that came to me. Either they are the spokespersons for the government or they are dictating government policy. Either way, I think that is unacceptable. We then need some clarification, first of all, of the powers already extended and about to be extended.
The second question I want to place is in relation to Mr Duncan's question. If it is indeed to be the policy of either the EIC or the government or both that existing collective agreements be honoured as they are, I would want to know exactly how that will be reflected in the funding that's given to the boards.
Mr Skarica: I can't give you an answer to that now. I was advised by some of the ministry personnel that their role, as you know, is to advise the minister and so on and so forth. I'll get further clarification on the question.
DOUG HEIKKINEN
The Chair: I call Douglas Heikkinen. Mr Heikkinen, welcome. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.
Mr Doug Heikkinen: My name is Doug Heikkinen. I live in Oliver township, just bordering Thunder Bay. I am a lifelong resident of the Thunder Bay area and have had my entire education at local elementary schools, local high schools and Lakehead University. I have three young children currently enrolled in a local elementary school. I am close to finishing my second year on the school council at my children's school and I am the vice-chair of that council.
I am an owner of a business in Thunder Bay which currently has approximately 80 staff, most of whom are graduates of the local education system. Through my business I pay substantial education taxes. I'm a chartered accountant who specializes in business mergers, acquisitions and business re-engineering.
I mention these matters so you understand that I'm a very serious, concerned citizen with the interests of my children and my livelihood at stake and that my background gives me a credible basis for giving input to this process.
That said, I must also make it clear that I am speaking only on behalf of myself tonight. I am not purporting to represent the school council I belong to, to represent my staff or my profession or any other group. The views I express here are mine, and I will state that I voice support for Bill 104.
In terms of governance, I believe the needs of the communities in terms of overall governance issues, such as budget control, adherence to ministry requirements, procurement matters and human resource matters, can be better addressed by a single, more focused board. Boards currently try to govern every aspect of the delivery of educational services. I don't believe day-to-day operating issues can be effectively dealt with at the board level. They need to be dealt with at the school level. And there is no need to do it at the board level; there are many other resources to draw from.
Each school currently has a dozen or more highly trained and highly experienced education professionals. I don't believe we give them enough credit. It is my belief that over the years a combination of influences has created a situation where these professionals have been deprived of the ability to exercise their judgement freely, even though they have the training and the experience to do so. I believe a number of decision-making functions which are currently controlled at the board level can quite easily be handled at the school level.
I have yet to meet a principal in any of the schools I have been associated with over the many years whom I would not be able to trust to make very sensible decisions in consultation with the teachers in their school. This is a vast resource which the boards could easily empower to address many issues. In so doing, issues would also be addressed in a more timely manner and in a manner which better addresses the specific needs of the particular school or the particular student. We have to get away from the notion that each school should be run identically. Each school and each student is unique and needs to be governed with flexibility to address their uniqueness.
Parents represent another resource which is vastly underutilized in the educational structure. These parents, such as myself, were educated in our schools. They are very capable people and they know the students and the communities. Yet their role in education has long been reduced to helping out at events, helping out at recess, helping out at lunch and fund-raising. While these are valuable contributions, many of these people have very valuable insights and creative minds with respect to the educational process and they can be of great assistance to the teachers and the boards in carrying out their roles at the school. For too long the parents of Ontario have been deprived of participating in the true decision-making that goes into the formal education of their children. I believe they want to be involved and they have every right to be more involved.
I don't believe Bill 104 will be a success without empowering more decision-making at the school level and I believe appropriate school council structures will have to be in place for the boards to successfully operate.
I believe northern Ontario is unique in terms of the distances and the relatively sparse populations. By substantially shrinking the number of boards, I must conclude that the resulting boards will require additional resources to deal with the necessary communication linkages and the necessary travel costs and difficulties I'm sure you've heard about from other groups today, for both the board members and the senior management who will have to govern.
Further, we need to ensure that you understand that much of northern Ontario can be thought of almost as rural schools. We need you to recognize the difficulties that rural-type schools have. We need you to recommend that the standards for things such as special education requirements, busing requirements, even things such as pupil-teacher ratios be reviewed for the uniqueness of northern Ontario. I believe that children who ride the bus for an hour and a half before school don't always learn as well as those who don't have to do that. I believe there are special education needs outside of Thunder Bay that aren't addressed as well as they are in Thunder Bay. I don't always believe that a split class works as well as a single-grade class. I believe Bill 104 provides an opportunity for the ministry to begin addressing some of the unique needs of the north.
I am confident there will be financial savings in the north as a consequence of the implementation of this bill. I'm requesting that those savings be earmarked for reinvestment back into this region. I suggest the following priorities:
(1) Ensure that those residents who do step forward to take on the task of being board members on what I've heard referred to as these mega-boards have the tools and the budget necessary to get those communication and transportation matters dealt with.
(2) That there be investment to implement an empowered school council structure.
(3) That whatever is left go directly into investment to help equalize the opportunities for learning in our northern schools.
In northern Ontario, I see these three as the most effective manner to reinvest savings to ensure improvement of front-line education. I see Bill 104 as an important first step towards a more effective system, which will involve more of us in the education of our children and will free up money for front-line education, putting children first.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Heikkinen. You've used up all of your time. We thank you very much for taking the time to come here.
Mr Heikkinen: Thank you for having me.
1950
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 268
The Chair: The Thunder Bay and District Labour Council, Evelina Pan. Good evening. Thanks for being with us this evening. Might I ask you to introduce your co-presenters and then you have 15 minutes.
Ms Evelina Pan: Certainly. My name is Evelina Pan and I'm the president of the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council. To my right is Glen Oram, who is acting vice-president and local director of the service employees union, Local 268.
I'd like to start by saying that the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council is happy to have been granted status to present here today. Many groups and organizations weren't so lucky. Based on the number of requests, the government should have been able to get the message that fewer democratically elected school boards is an important issue to Ontarians and more time should have been allotted for regional consultations.
Nevertheless, this lack of concern for the wishes of the people of Ontario shouldn't surprise us. After all, this is a government that has launched the most wide-ranging assault against democracy ever seen. This is a government that was elected by barely one in three Ontarians. They think we're stupid and we can't see what they're doing. They think that by changing the way public education is funded we will think they're saving money. This simply isn't so. Bill 104 takes away the taxing power school boards have had up till now and replaces it with a system of provincial grants based on a funding formula that hasn't even been worked out yet.
They want to dismantle what has worked for generations and replace it with -- well, we don't know what they want to replace it with because they haven't decided yet. In any case, the people of Ontario will still pay for education. However, we will be deprived of the opportunity to elect the representatives from within our own communities to make decisions on our behalf.
The government says that residential property taxpayers will no longer be required to bear the burden of funding education, which implies that paying for the education of our children and our future is an unwelcome hardship, when in fact what the government aims at is eliminating local democracy and participation in determining education programs while transferring funds from education to the corporate sector.
A clear example of the undemocratic intent of Bill 104 is the so-called Education Improvement Commission, which is not an elected body but one appointed by cabinet. Who will be the five to seven members? What say will Ontarians have in how the selections are made? Cutting the number of trustees and capping their remuneration at $5,000 is most certainly another attack on our democratic rights. After all, how many people can afford to work at an almost full-time position for only $5,000? How can so few truly represent such a large geographic territory? With the stroke of a pen, the Harris Tory government wants to wipe out decades of hard work done at collective bargaining negotiations between unions and employers.
The promotion and facilitation of outsourcing of non-instructional services is another example of their truly anti-democratic, anti-worker agenda. Outsourcing is just a nicer way of saying contracting out, which is also a euphemism for getting rid of decent-paying jobs. Workers and employers -- in this case, school boards -- have collectively bargained language to ensure that there will be little or no contracting out of work performed by employees of the board. Contracting out not-for-profit public service jobs to private, for-profit businesses turns the function of providing an education to students into a business where profit determines what happens, rather than the needs of the children getting an education.
Contracting out usually means that those left in the public service are forced to do more with less, straining capabilities, because private contractors cut corners to increase their profits without regard to the quality of the educational experience, both inside and outside the classroom. In order for school boards to make ends meet, more and more are turning to corporations to help fund various school programs. Corporations and businesses don't give money or materials away out of an altruistic sense of community; far from it. They do it to get name recognition among children from the very earliest age. This is not only crass, it also attempts to indoctrinate children with corporate culture, rather than encourage independent and critical thought.
Bill 104 is a vicious attack on education, on children and on working people in general. If this government had so much as a shred of decency, it would scrap the bill entirely. There is nothing in it that's worth salvaging.
At this point, I'd like to turn over the rest of the labour council's time to Local 268, SEIU, which was the only union that we know of which had applied for standing and was not granted standing.
Mr Glen Oram: My name is Glen Oram and I'm the acting vice-president and a local director of the Service Employees International Union, Local 268. Our union represents approximately 300 support staff employed by four school boards in northwestern Ontario. Our members work as custodians, maintenance workers, clerical staff and library assistants. Our members are employed by the Atikokan Board of Education, the Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the Nipigon-Red Rock Board of Education and the Lake Superior Board of Education. Our membership works in the municipalities of Atikokan, Thunder Bay, Nipigon, Red Rock, Dorion, Schreiber, Terrace Bay, Marathon and Manitouwadge.
The main focus of my presentation today will be to talk about the enormous administrative difficulties that will be encountered should the Education Improvement Commission continue to insist on maintaining the current proposal for the amalgamation of school boards in northwestern Ontario.
I am sure you have heard time and time again about the geography of northwestern Ontario. We're talking about geography; we're talking about places the size of small European countries here. We're talking about vast distances. Just to give you some examples of the administrative difficulties that boards could encounter, think of a situation that, if I have a custodian in Manitouwadge who has a grievance that needs to be dealt with and we've got to have a grievance meeting, the board has to send the personnel person from Thunder Bay to Manitouwadge -- four and a half hours. The meeting may last a half an hour and then they've got to drive all the way back.
Just amalgamating school boards doesn't guarantee there are going to be any savings out of this amalgamation. The costs of administration and travel will soon take up any cost savings from administration, clearly. Even administrative costs -- you've got plant and maintenance. You've got probably around 10 different communities in some of the boards. How would you expect one person in Thunder Bay to administer the plants over a distance of seven and a half hours one way, 14 hours both ways? You're still going to have to have administration in all those different municipalities. We don't see any savings as a result of the restructuring. The only result of the restructuring is going to be less democracy and less say that the people in these communities have over the education of their children. That's the only result from this.
I deal with school boards now. The Lake Superior Board of Education is spread over Marathon, Manitouwadge, Terrace Bay and Schreiber. I deal with them now and there are trustees in Manitouwadge who don't know the issues in Terrace Bay and Schreiber or Marathon. They don't know what's going on. In fact, we have difficulty making sure our collective agreement is administered the same between Manitouwadge and Terrace Bay and Schreiber, let alone a larger board. The chances of things being consistent in administrative policies are going to be an enormous task for individuals. You're going to need twice as much administration in Thunder Bay to do that.
Just quickly on some of my other concerns: Another concern is the Education Improvement Commission's recommendation that they facilitate discussion and make recommendations on how to promote the facilitating of outsourcing. Clearly, that is an issue with our membership. It's a concern. If you talk about outsourcing in those small communities, there are a lot of employees who work in those small communities who make decent wages and have decent working conditions. To outsource jobs or to close school board buildings and lay people off in those communities is going to have a devastating impact, not only on the employees themselves but on businesses in the community, on the tax base of the municipality. When they leave, their children who go to those schools leave, and that devastates the school system as well.
Just to summarize, I'd like to state we're in opposition and our membership is in opposition to the merger of the school boards as proposed by the education restructuring commission.
Mr Skarica: I can imagine, as has been indicated before, that there's some anxiety for outsourcing, but it's in fact happening in other areas of the province. We heard in Ottawa yesterday that the francophone board there was doing it and rather than having a devastating impact on the education system, it's had a very positive impact in that it's given them more money to hire teachers, cope with the cuts and that type of thing.
So I'm going to suggest to you it's not the outsourcing per se, it's how you do it. Since we're referring to David Cooke, he has this to say: "There's no way on earth that as co-chairs we would think we would be serving the province well by treating them," and that's the people affected by outsourcing, "with anything other than respect and justice as we go through these changes across the province."
So I just take issue with your fact that it will be devastating to the education of children, because in other parts of the province, rather than a devastating impact, it's had a positive impact.
2000
Ms Pan: I think, though, what you've done is you've cited one example, but in most instances in the real world what happens with outsourcing is that a public service is farmed out to a private business. The public service is not there to make a profit; the public service is there to provide a service. In this particular instance we're talking about education for our children. When we're talking about private businesses, their reason for existence is to make a profit, and therein lies the major difference.
Mr Gravelle: Following up on that point with Ms Pan, Mr Oram and Mr Skarica, the truth is there is not exactly overwhelming evidence that outsourcing works and is profitable. Also, when you're looking at the large board that's being envisioned, I think it's even more of a disaster. Certainly listening to the earlier presentations today by a number of groups, they talk about the fact that the relations that have developed with those particular non-teaching staff are really very important.
It seems to me, though, that there may be another concern. Even if there is outsourcing, is it not true -- and either one of you can address it -- that with this new board, if it goes into place, there could be a situation where employees are told they've got to go to work in various parts of that particular region? In other words, there wouldn't necessarily be any guarantee that they would stay in their location. Is that not true? Even part-time staff could be told that one week they're going to work in Geraldton and the next week they're going to work in -- is that something else that would concern you?
Mr Oram: It is a concern to us. Right now in most of our collective agreements, we have job-posting language. People post on jobs in different cities, but that doesn't mean that given the restructuring, the employers may not come after those and decide to say, "You've got to go and work in Manitouwadge or Marathon tomorrow."
I certainly have some concern with the comments of Mr Skarica. If you look at outsourcing and you look at what private contractors are going to pay, they're going to pay people minimum wage. What kind of screening are they going to have for employees who work with children? We just saw an article in the paper the other day where they're setting up national programs for volunteers to screen out people with criminal convictions, to screen out paedophiles, to screen out those people. How are you going to ensure that these private contractors are going to have proper screening and disciplinary procedures over their employees? How are you going to ensure that? You're not going to have any say over that.
Ms Lankin: I think that's an important concern you've just raised. I've actually heard that from a number of parents in my constituency who are concerned that outsourcing without appropriate controls -- and I question whether appropriate controls could even be put in place -- puts their children in jeopardy.
The specific powers accorded to the commission suggest that the commission is required to "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards." It would seem to me that if the government doesn't have the case made that outsourcing is necessarily the best way and it has an open mind, the recommendation should be for the commission to "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations" on whether or not, or on the advisability of, or in what circumstances to, or under what conditions to. If this bill proceeds as we see it, would you support a change in that direction that actually suggested, "Make the case before you simply ideologically, blindly go ahead and say you have to promote and facilitate outsourcing"?
Ms Pan: If anything, I would say they should just cut that particular paragraph right out, just get rid of it. I don't think there's a whole lot of documentary evidence that can be rounded up to support their case, so why bother? Why bother spending our time, our energy, our money? Let's do something productive. If we've only got a finite amount of money to spend, let's use it in a more productive way. Save the money they would have used to determine that -- and they're not going to find the answers they want for that -- into something more useful.
The Chair: Ms Pan and Mr Oram, thank you very much for being with us tonight. We appreciate the time you took.
Mr O'Toole: Madam Chair, on a point of order: I just want to make it very clear for the record that yesterday -- the point the parliamentary assistant was making was that there was a board that completely and clearly submitted evidence of a reduction of $5 million where they ended up hiring teachers. That point should be made. They did it not by laying people off but by attrition. That should be on the record clearly.
The Chair: Mr O'Toole, I think points have been made all through the session, but that's not a point of order.
LAKE SUPERIOR WOMEN
TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ATIKOKAN WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION LAKEHEAD WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Could I call upon the federation of women teachers, the Lake Superior, Atikokan and Lakehead women teachers' associations. Welcome to our committee.
Ms Patti Bailey: Good evening. I'm Patti Bailey from the Lake Superior Women Teachers' Association. I represent Marathon, Manitouwadge, Terrace Bay and Schreiber. To my left is Sharlene Smith from the Lakehead Women Teachers' Association, and to my right is Pam Money from the Atikokan Women Teachers' Association.
I think the part about Bill 104 that scares me the most is losing what we currently have. Right now we have a fantastic, accessible board that's been highly efficient and very available to serve teachers, students and parents in our area. Bill 104 is supposed to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system, but we're concerned that it will cause so many changes that it will actually produce the opposite. We are concerned that the needs of students of small communities will be forgotten. We are concerned that when students, parents and teachers need to talk to somebody about the education system, nobody will be there. We are concerned about representation of each community that is going to be impacted by amalgamation. We have heard that we'll all be connected through computers and that communications will be better than ever.
As you have heard many times today, we still have analog lines, so cell phones and all the goodies that go along with that aren't available to us. The Internet is tough at best, impossible to get on during peak hours, so e-mail just isn't an option yet. It's really difficult to get on line. We would like to know that there's a real person who is easy to access, who will represent each community. We cannot ask parents to incur long-distance phone charges or "press 1 if you want to talk to this person" when they have concerns about their kids' education. If that is expected, we worry that a lot of people will be turned off by technology and their voices simply won't be heard.
Who will represent our communities? It's difficult enough presently for our trustees to travel between our four communities. Bill 104 would have boards quadruple in size so that they would take in huge geographical areas. You've seen the maps presented all day. How will trustees effectively represent communities? Where will the funding come from to allow them to travel to communities to find out the needs, not just a one-day visit but to spend time and find out what really matters to the people in those communities?
It's unfair to expect computers to represent people. There are many who simply are not computer users, who have no access to these types of communications. Do they just not count any more? What will happen to the quality of education when the stakeholders no longer have a voice? Who will provide funding for the changes to take place? Who will pay the mileage and expenses of trustees who have to travel great distances to represent communities? If teleconferencing is the answer, who will pay for that? Our communities lack the infrastructure to be represented without actual people. Who will pay for improving infrastructure? How can Bill 104 be effective with all these additional costs?
We are concerned about the collective bargaining process. We haven't heard anything on the government's response to the Paroian report yet. How will collective agreements be amalgamated in a fair manner? What will happen to seniority lists, class size, professional development, programs and staffing? There is a real fear that people will be bumped out of jobs. In our communities we rely a lot on people buying homes and buying from local businesses. Teachers coming to Marathon aren't likely going to buy a house in Marathon if they know there's a chance next year that they could be bumped to Geraldton. The housing market just isn't there. What's going to happen to our kids when our communities become transient? What's going to happen to the economy of our communities? How do you build a sense of community and school culture when you never know who's going to be teaching in the school from year to year?
We are concerned that the Education Improvement Commission, an unelected body, supersedes the authority of an elected board. Bill 104 seems to say that reducing boards is effective, yet it adds another layer of bureaucracy with the Education Improvement Commission. The legislation has language which gives this body power above the law. How do we, as a democratic society, impact change with a governing body that has power above all?
Students are our number one concern. Unfortunately, there is precious little in Bill 104 that is going to improve things for the local kids. The students currently in our education system have faced program cuts, increased class sizes, loss of field trips, loss of interschool tournaments, loss of supplies, texts and things that are really important in their lives.
2010
Bill 104 seems like another way to save money. It is not about students or their everyday experiences in the education system; it is about saving money at their expense. Let's put Ontario students first and let their needs be what drives educational change. Bill 104 must be amended to reflect what is best for Ontario students. We cannot support legislation that disrupts the education of students, that negatively impacts on the quality of their education or that is unaccountable and ineffective.
Ms Pam Money: Good evening. My name is Pam Money. As president of the Atikokan Women Teachers' Association, I am here tonight to represent the elementary women teachers and the students of our community. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about some of my concerns.
Bill 104 is cited as an act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards. There may very well be places where amalgamation of school boards does make sense. If such a move would save money and produce positive changes, and if this should be a local decision with input from all of the parties involved, then maybe amalgamation could be a viable option.
The present government, through Bill 104, forces the amalgamation of five existing school boards in northwestern Ontario into one large board. Creating one board to cover a land mass greater than the entire country of France is highly ridiculous and outrageous. While the area may have fewer teachers and students than other regions, we do have a large geographical area. Our travelling time is extensive. Just to be here today for this brief five-minute presentation is a five-hour round trip for me.
Our weather conditions can be extreme, with cold temperatures, wind chill factors, and nothing but trees and rocks and rocks and trees along the way. Traffic is often sparse and travellers can find themselves stranded in the event of an accident, wildlife running out in front of your vehicle, or even a vehicle freezing up. The Ontario government has also hit northwestern Ontario hard with its latest cuts to the Ministry of Transportation, so roads aren't plowed with the same care and frequency with which they once were. For most of the winter, we travel on icy and snow-covered highways. Believe it or not, cell phones don't exist in our part of the province. I am concerned about my members, our trustees, the administration and myself who will have to spend more time travelling under these conditions if this amalgamation goes through.
You can assure me that technological advances will open lines of communication over vast areas, but I have to question the reliability of such technology when e-mail is still suffering severe growing pains in our area. Who will pay for this advanced technology? Who pays the startup costs? Who pays for the maintenance of the equipment? Personal contact and human interaction are still needed and can't be replaced by technology no matter how good it gets.
As you heard earlier today, Highway 11 is a major trans-Canada highway running east and west, as is Highway 17. What bridges these two highways? Two secondary roads, 622 and 502, which are mainly used by the pulp trucks. If you truly wish to save money and believe that amalgamation of school boards is one way to do that, would you please consider the amalgamation of boards along Highway 11, namely Fort Frances, Rainy River and Atikokan, and the separate amalgamation of the boards along Highway 17, namely Kenora, Dryden, and Red Lake. This is the pattern that social and family services seem to have followed, as well as the MNR.
Some of the most exciting things that have happened in education over the years have not come from the Ministry of Education but rather by individual local boards. In Atikokan, we are particularly proud of our band program and our outdoor education Outers program. Within the community, students, parents, teachers, trustees and administration have worked hard to develop educational initiatives which we believe to be unique. I know the same is true of the other boards in region 5. The job of the local school board is to make local policy consistent with provincial guidelines and local realities. They set clear expectations and guidelines for their schools.
At the present time, the school boards provide a direct line of communication between the school system and the general public.
The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Money. I just want to remind you there's only about four minutes left, and if you want to give any time to your other co-presenter, you may have to wrap up.
Ms Money: Thank you very much. Sharlene, go ahead.
Ms Sharlene Smith: Good evening. I'm Sharlene Smith from the Lakehead Women Teachers' Association. We too are concerned about the effects this government's cuts and other measures are having on the children and women in this province. We know that the direction this government is taking will not be good for children, for education, for our community, for the economy or for democracy. We know that it does not make any good sense to make these unrealistic changes to education.
All of these proposed changes in Bill 104 are made for the sole purpose of cutting costs quickly to education. However, no one has addressed how the proposed changes, made in isolation, will fit into the broader vision of what we strongly believe our educational system should look like and how this should be accomplished in this province. LWTA strongly urges the EIC to slow its pace down and give serious consideration to all these issues. We urge this government to reconsider many of the decisions which have led it to the directions proposed in Bill 104.
We strongly believe that if school boards must be amalgamated, then the decisions should be made at the local level, with input from all the parties involved. We challenge this task force to recommend to this government that local communities be allowed to make their own decisions on the amalgamation of school boards. If communities wish to pursue this option, they should be required to do so in a way that honours the responsibility school boards have to their employees. We believe that the local community, and not the government, is the most appropriate level to make these decisions.
We have very serious concerns about having to respond to education reform on a piece-by-piece basis. What will the funding structure be like? How will the collective bargaining structures be changed? What will be put in place around standards, curriculum and other governance issues? The people of this province should be given the opportunity to respond to the whole package for education reform at one time, not forced into taking positions based on incomplete information. There must be more time given to reflect and consult on the implications of these changes.
The minister maintains that reducing the number of school boards by half will somehow free up enough money to improve our educational system, yet he has made no guarantees that the current funding level for education will be maintained after his restructuring of school boards.
We have a lot of concerns about Bill 104 and I will not address them, but I'd like to close by saying that Ontario's public schools are the expression of our society's commitment to provide members of the next generation with the opportunity to learn about our world, to develop to their full potential and to find the resources within themselves to shape their own future. These are the goals of education, and they've nurtured a school system in Ontario which we can be proud of. These goals have helped to fashion a society that is tolerant, caring, generous and prosperous.
These goals for education are now in jeopardy. If we aren't careful, we could leave our children with a very different kind of province, one where narrow self-interest comes at the expense of the collective good; a society of the privileged few and the many who live on the margin. We've already seen signs of this kind of Ontario existing today, and that's why we're concerned about Bill 104.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I regret we don't have more time for your presentations, but the text will form part of the official record. We appreciate the distances you've come to express your concerns.
Mr Gravelle: Madam Chair, may I just use this opportunity to put on the record a written presentation put forward by Rita Ubriaco? Ms Ubriaco was a three-term trustee with the Lakehead Board of Education. She wanted to appear but was not able to make it on the docket.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll arrange for it to be copied and distributed.
PETER ZANDSTRA
The Chair: Mr Peter Zandstra. Thank you very much for being here this evening. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.
Mr Peter Zandstra: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on Bill 104 and some other education-related issues. My name is Peter Zandstra. I'm a retired dairy farmer. I do not represent an organization or a group, but my comments are made as a grandparent, parent, taxpayer and citizen.
Various test results indicate Ontario's poor showing in competitions. The Globe and Mail, November 22, 1996, and our local weekly, the Post, December 10, 1996, reported on a math and science test in which 41 countries and provinces competed. Ontario came in in the bottom half of all participants. In a report in Maclean's, in a competition among Canadian provinces, well below the Canadian average was Ontario's place. When looking at those facts, it comes as no surprise that there is a shortage of skilled workers in the high-tech industries; 15,000 jobs are open, and most of them will be filled by immigrants. Our schools have not equipped our students to fill these high-paying jobs, and our youth unemployment rate remains high.
2020
Funding is not the cause of our problems. Our education system is one of the highest-cost systems in the world. We are turning out an inferior product at high cost. We are failing our youth by not providing the education they deserve. We are also failing them by reckless borrowing, incurring debt on their behalf. This is totally unacceptable and a threat to our society.
The present school boards, the multitude of trustees and the high cost have not been able to prevent the gradual decline in the quality of our education system. A radical change is unavoidable, and so is cost cutting at the top.
Bill 104 is an important step in the right direction. The proposed district school boards will focus their attention on the enhancement of quality education, while the school councils will focus their attention on the day-to-day running of the school, together with the principals. Parents will thus be much better represented through school councils. Where distances play a role, contact between boards and councils can be maintained by teleconference. Besides being more cost-effective, it would also preclude the need for more boards, even in the north.
Another excellent proposal is found in section 333. An employee of a school board or a spouse of an employee is ineligible to function as a trustee. This prevents possible conflict of interest, and it also prevents the boards from being dominated by certain interest groups.
Bill 104 does not deal with financing or curriculum. Therefore, I will not comment on those subjects now. I will, however, express my disappointment at the fact that 80,000 students in the private schools have been ignored in Bill 104 and in all background information.
We are all aware of the profound changes in our education system in the last 35 years. The Christian Roman Catholic system is intact, but the Christian public system has evolved into a public system to reflect the predominantly multicultural, secular society. Christianity has been banished from the public schools. The public schools are now considered "the single most important instrument for inculcating citizenship" and shared moral values in our multicultural society. I quote from Mr Valpy in the Globe and Mail, November 22, 1996.
This is totally unacceptable to Christian parents who want their own moral and religious values taught to their children. They do not need those moral and religious values contradicted in the public schools their children are obliged to attend. Those parents are now maintaining their own schools, which the Ontario government has so far refused to finance.
We may take another look at Alberta. That province has provided partial funding for private schools for over 25 years. It also scores at the top or near the top of all tests. It seems to have one of the lower-cost systems, where the dollar funds the student, not the system.
Except for these concerns, I believe Bill 104 is an excellent piece of legislation and should be passed and implemented without delay.
I conclude with a statement from the magazine Country Guide: "Deficiencies in public housing and local bus service are survivable. But in a competitive and technologic based global economy, deficiencies in the education system are not."
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Zandstra. We have 45 seconds per caucus.
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. Data have been produced earlier today and in earlier hearings from a variety of sources that say in fact that on a per student basis Ontario is one of the lowest jurisdictions in terms of expenditures, and second, in terms of pupil-teacher ratios we have one of the highest.
A number of findings have said quite conclusively that a lot of the significant achievement in education happens in the home and not in the school itself. Shouldn't our objective be (1) to try to improve our per pupil funding, (2) improve the teacher-pupil ratio and (3) encourage parents to get more involved not just through student councils but by simple things like reading for an hour before bed, which has been shown unequivocally to raise test scores?
Given what you've mentioned about Christian schools and the values in Christian schools that are taught, wouldn't you agree that we ought to put a higher priority on our kids and see to it that Ontario, instead of being 46th in North America, should be in the top 10 in terms of per pupil funding? Would you agree?
Mr Zandstra: Yes. The problem is that a school should reflect the values of the home, and that is quite often not done. The values taught in the home should be reflected in the school. The same values should be taught in the school; if not, the child might get all mixed up if he gets it from two sides.
Ms Lankin: I understand the points you're making with respect to Christian schools. I'm going to set that aside for a moment. You spoke about your agreement with the proposal that spouses of teachers, for example, not be allowed to run for boards of trustees. You said you thought there was a conflict of interest and that special interest groups could take over, and yet that's an open, elected process.
You're supporting putting more powers down into parent councils at the schools. Some of what I've heard from parent council representatives who have come forward is that they don't want those extra powers, but they're also concerned about takeovers by special interest groups in a non-accountable forum. Isn't that open to either perhaps something you would agree with, a group which represented your values taking over, or a group of parents which didn't represent your values taking over? I'm a little worried about your belief that this will be more accountable than an actual elected structure.
Mr Zandstra: I believe that groups of parents with similar moral values and ideology should be able to form their own schools and hire their own teachers so those schools can reflect the values taught in the home.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Zandstra, for bringing to our attention some data that I didn't recognize when I read it back in December and November of 1996, Ontario students' placement in math and science, and you've brought that to our attention. What better measurement of how the system is working?
In your report, you also mentioned that we have to fill 15,000 high-tech jobs from immigration because our system cannot provide the students. That again is another measurement or testimony as to how the system is working. It's not a case of how much money the system seems to need and it's not teachers; it's the case that perhaps we need to correct the system.
The final statement that I just want you to reinforce for me is, "We are failing our youth by not providing the education" they need and deserve. You said it so emphatically. I'd like to stay away from the moral stuff and the cost and just say that we have to produce the highest-quality students and educational system we can for all students, regardless of their systems, whether they're in northern Ontario, southern Ontario, wherever. Is Bill 104 able to get us to the first step?
Mr Zandstra: I believe it involves more parents through school councils. I think it's a great improvement over the other system. We have a multitude of trustees, but still they are not as approachable as the parents of children who go to a certain school. Personally, I've been involved with the Thunder Bay Christian School, which is a small school. We have our own board, all volunteers; nobody gets paid. We do not have any problems getting qualified people to run for the boards even though they have to sacrifice their time, their mileage and everything.
The Chair: Mr Zandstra, thank you very much for staying so late and sharing your views with us. Good evening.
2030
RED LAKE JOINT ANTIRACIST AND ETHNOCULTURAL EQUITY COMMITTEE NATIVE EDUCATION CIRCLE
The Chair: I call on the Joint Antiracist and Ethnocultural Equity Committee, Andrea Winik and Louis Simard. Thank you very much for coming this evening. We're looking forward to your presentation.
Ms Andrea Winik: By this time of night, you folks know where Red Lake is now. Good evening. I'm Andrea Winik. I was born and raised in the Philippines and I now live in Red Lake. I am a very concerned citizen and have been a school teacher for the past 31 years. I will be retiring this June.
Interjection.
Ms Winik: I was just a little baby then, yes. As an educator, I firmly believe we have the responsibility to give the best education to our students. There is an African saying, "It takes a whole village to raise a child," and that's all of us.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the Red Lake Joint Antiracist and Ethnocultural Equity Committee. I will be sharing this time with Mr Louis Simard, co-chair of the Native Education Circle and also a member of our committee.
I am here this evening to present some history and background of our committee work and its importance as to why this committee must continue to exist. The controversial issue of racism is rampant. It has been in the world since time immemorial. It has caused all kinds of unnecessary tragedies and will continue to do so if we do not face the real issues and come up with some honest-to-goodness, viable solutions for our future generation.
Racism exists everywhere and of course Red Lake is no exception. The regional multicultural youth council conducted a region-wide survey involving 1,000 students from all the high schools of northwestern Ontario. The study revealed that 60% indicated that racism was a problem in their respective schools and they wanted something done about it. When asked how racism exists, the students gave examples ranging from name-calling, jokes, teasing, taunting, swearing and graffiti to physical assaults such as spitting, fights, and vandalism to property such as books, lockers and clothes.
Also, a local survey was completed regarding racism in the Red Lake area. This study was done through the Red Lake Indian Friendship Centre. Its overwhelming results concluded that racism is a problem here. As a result of the survey, the joint committee was formed and got involved with the Ontario Joint Race Relations Strategy Committee. Systemic discrimination was a great concern, particularly in the Red Lake area. This committee suggested strategies on how we can prevent discrimination in our area. This committee was dissolved when the funding ran out.
Every board has to be dealing with this issue to improve our quality of life in each community. Are they really doing things? In fact, we are. This board has numerous accomplishments. I am extremely proud to say that our board's positive and continued efforts to improve race relations in our community are quite commendable. For the past few years, we have been proactive and sensitive to the needs of our community and, most important, our children. Our committee's priority is to continue to develop an awareness and sensitivity in the business and service community of cultural issues in relation to providing services to first nation clients as well as other ethnic groups in our society. We feel this is vital. It benefits everyone. Our society will have to work together. We recognize this.
Active initiatives must be present in the school systems to help children in different, diverse cultural groups work together. The world has changed. We recognize that, and we are taking specific initiatives in our own classrooms to address this issue.
Every community and every board deals with this at different levels and therefore has different levels of success. The Red Lake Board of Education and St John's Roman Catholic separate school have a joint anti-racist and ethnocultural policy. This partnership has created an extraordinary vision for our school systems. The implementation plan and time lines are in place as well.
To continue the board's proactive approach to positive race relations, a variety of initiatives have been implemented and some are ongoing. Native language programs for both the elementary and secondary panels are now implemented in our school system. More activities and workshops are being developed. The Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario has sponsored Golden Learning Centre as one of the 12 schools in Ontario to participate in their pilot project, Untie the Knots of Prejudices. It is a literature-based program. These curriculum units provide anti-racist and anti-bias education strategies based on books teachers can use for each month of the year.
Through the cooperative efforts of the township of Ear Falls, the Red Lake Board of Education and the Wabauskang First Nation, the native transition school, now called Northern Eagle High School, was established. The Ear Falls business community development presented a workshop dealing with native awareness in Ear Falls for business and/or service people as well as for the general public.
Why are we concerned about district 5 amalgamation? The proposed amalgamation worries our committee. What impact will it have on this committee? Will the new board have this as a priority? How will this committee operate? Who will be the people responsible and involved? Will they be senior staff or trustees? Are we going to continue to exist? Will this new board have a strong commitment? Will there be a guarantee that this committee and its goals will continue?
If it dies, folks, it will definitely have a negative impact on everything we have accomplished, our future plans, their challenges and the growing belief that a good contemporary education is in essence a global education; that is, an education which concentrates on helping students understand connections and interdependence, develop an awareness of the planetary condition and be well prepared to act as effective, responsible citizens in a complex world.
What solutions can be most effective? The best, in my opinion -- this is my opinion -- is to leave the Red Lake Board of Education alone. But the reality is that we are less than 10% of the population of the proposed amalgamated board, district 5. Therefore, on behalf of our committee, we are in favour of a smaller board model rather than a mega-board. We are quite serious regarding the issue of racism and its impact in our community. We are the only board of education that has accessed funding from the Canadian heritage fund to promote and educate our citizens.
Our board continues to be proactive. Hopefully, this hearing will listen to our plea to make sure this committee continues to work within the framework of a smaller board; it could be Red Lake-Dryden or Red Lake-Dryden-Kenora. This is a big worry for our committee.
The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Winik; you have five minutes left.
Ms Winik: I will say it again. I hope you will all see the long-term benefit of working together. We are committed to being a part of the major decision-makers. We are very concerned that our voice as equal partners will be no more.
Just remember, our children's education is everyone's priority, and you, as members of the committee, must take this plea with great consideration. These children's education will depend upon us now. How we deliver will definitely impact upon their future. Let's not fail them now.
2040
Mr Louis Simard: I'd like to thank the anti-racist committee for allowing me to speak. I'm not supposed to be here. Bonjour, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. As I have a short time to speak, I can't read from this. I suspect you all have a copy. I hope you look at it and think about it seriously.
I am Louis Simard. I am here in my role as co-chair of the Native Education Circle. I am speaking on behalf of the first nation students, parents and community members of our local and remote northern communities that we work with.
I have great difficulty with the idea of a larger school board. I'm not reading from the paper. I'm going to talk from the heart. I think we have to look at the remoteness of our communities in the north. The Red Lake school board in particular was very instrumental in helping us build a relationship with those first nations communities in the north so we could have a school in Ear Falls. We worked diligently and hard in building that relationship with the Northern Nishnawbe Education Council, to build and work with them and to help them in the education process as equal partners in education.
It is difficult for me to understand why there aren't any first nations people here speaking tonight. It saddens me deeply to realize that I'm the only person here to speak in the name of first nations people. I realize we are funded through the federal government, but I still think in a lot of ways we work towards building a relationship and working with the province in education.
It's important, because I've seen too many failures, too many sad situations of suicide, unemployment and lack of education for first nations students in this country. It's a sad situation. I work as native employment coordinator in the north at one of the bigger mining companies, and I've seen it. I don't want that for our youth.
There's got to be a way in which we can work with mainstream society to build a better education system for our students. We've got to have that. I'd like to see the first nations students walk alongside the multicultural country we live in, which we call Canada, and be proud of who they are as first nations people. It is time they were recognized as part of the Canada we call our country. It's a sad state of affairs when I'm the only person here who can speak in the name of those first nations people.
I'm not an educated man. I only got my diploma this year; at 55 years old, I finally got my grade 12 diploma. I was laid off after 22 years of working for a particular mining company. I know how difficult it is out there for our youth. I know how difficult it is out there not just for the native youth but for all youth in our country. We have to look at building that partnership that will see all students of all different nationalities have an equal opportunity for an education.
I really think that in the whole process a larger board will not serve us. It won't serve our needs. We need trustees with these particular boards. Because of the vastness of the north and the sparsely populated communities out there -- we're talking about 10,000 Ojibway and maybe another 6,000 or 7,000 Cree. They're isolated, they're poor, they're unemployed. A lot of them just can go to grade 8 and they don't have the opportunity to be successful in big urban centres.
That's one reason we adopted the Northern Eagle education program, to help them find the way to a better education, a better life and success in their young lives so they wouldn't be out there committing suicide or walking the streets of the big cities, not knowing where they live or where they come from.
We want to build a community of communities. We want to be able to be a partner in this beautiful country we call Canada. I'm proud to be a Canadian, I'm proud to be a native Canadian, but above all, I'm proud to have served my country overseas and to have been a proud Canadian ambassador over there. I've seen the devastation and what can happen in wars and ethnic conflicts. I don't want that for my country. I love this country.
I'm here representing those 54 students at Northern Eagle High School. I really thank you for your time. I was very disappointed that the committee sought not to recognize me as co-chair of the Native Education Circle, in which we represent many of our northern communities, students and those people in our community who are first nations. I thank you. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Ms Winik and Mr Simard, I truly regret we don't have more time. We're constrained by the time that we have been given by the government to do this task. You should know that we've had approximately 1,400 requests to appear. We'll be able to accommodate a very small number. Mr Simard, in particular, I think I speak for the committee when I say that we're very pleased to have you here with us today. Meegwetch.
Mr Simard: I would like to give the committee this video. It's about our school. I hope you'll take the time to look at it; it's 18 minutes. It will tell you a lot about what we're doing in the Red Lake area. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Meegwetch. Good evening.
Mr Gravelle: Madam Chair, may I put another presentation into the record?
The Chair: You may indeed.
Mr Gravelle: Mrs Charlotte Matson wanted to appear, but has a written presentation, which I will present to the clerk.
The Chair: Thank you. We will arrange for copying and distribution.
KENORA BOARD OF EDUCATION PARENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Chair: I call the parent advisory council to the Kenora Board of Education; Cindy Christensen. Welcome, Mrs Christensen. You are the last and possibly the best, certainly not the least. We're delighted to have you here with us. You have 15 minutes for your presentation.
Mrs Cindy Christensen: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Cindy Christensen. I'm here representing the parents of Kenora. Four years ago I entered the classroom of my first child going to kindergarten very nervously, thinking I wouldn't see her very much any more. At that point the teacher invited me to come in and do some volunteer work in her classroom; I was just overjoyed and so relieved that this would happen. In my wildest dreams, I never thought four years later I would be sitting at a panel like this representing the parents with whom I work on almost a daily basis in Kenora. I feel very privileged and honoured to be able to be here to address you tonight.
I'd also like to acknowledge the Kenora Board of Education, which works in partnership with their parents. They paid my way today. There wasn't an opportunity to carpool with anybody. They got me a flight. Since I was on at the end, I can't catch a flight home tonight, and they've got me a hotel room. This is a great generosity to me and to the parents I represent.
If I could have had my way tonight, I would have liked to bring all the parents whom I work with to be here. We would really have loved to see some type of teleconferencing so they could all be here participating.
2050
Personally, I have three small children. With the support of family, neighbours and relatives, who were very anxious and very happy to take care of them in my absence -- those people I also represent because they're supporting me in this role.
As I've explained to you, I haven't had the financial costs because of the generosity of the Kenora Board of Education. But I do incur another cost that all parent volunteers incur, and that is that even though we may have time, we sacrifice time in which we could be doing other things or being with our children. An example of this today is that I am an at-home mom, so I bring my kids home at lunch. I missed lunch with them, I missed piano lessons, I missed skating lessons. I work in a Sparks unit as an adviser there -- I missed that -- and I missed putting them to bed and reading to them, which I do religiously every evening. The cost to me is tremendous to be here, but as I was offered the opportunity to come yesterday, I talked with my family, even the two-year-old, to tell her that I needed to go. The consensus with my young family was that I needed to go because it was in the best interests of all children.
With that, I would like to tell you that it is with great pleasure and gratitude that I'm here to represent the parents of Kenora. This is our statement to you this evening.
We are here today on behalf of the parent advisory council to the Kenora Board of Education. Each of the schools within the Kenora board's jurisdiction has an active school council. The parent advisory council is comprised of a parent representative from each school council and a senior board administrator, two trustees, one of whom co-chairs the council with a parent representative, who at this time is me. We find this council to be very effective and satisfying in allowing us to participate in board activities. There is a great fear personally that this council will not be able to continue to operate in this same effective, satisfying way if we don't have access to these people who are such great resources to us on a continuous basis.
While we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, we remind you that our appearance is the result of notification by our board that we had the opportunity to apply rather than direct notification by your committee to apply. While the Ministry of Education and Training stresses the importance of school councils and parental involvement in theory, they largely ignore the input of school councils and parents in fact.
The ministry acknowledgment of our request to appear before you stated that the parent advisory council will be notified "only if the committee wishes to schedule you for an appointment to appear before it." This dismissive attitude is an insult to all parent volunteers who give of their own time for better education within their communities. If parental input is not important to the Ministry of Education and Training, end the charade so that our volunteer time can be spent where we feel it will be more valued.
The very manner in which Bill 104, with its deadlines, was introduced and in which the hastily and poorly arranged consultative hearings came to be represents our worst fears: Education in Ontario is becoming centralized and bureaucratic and will ignore the unique needs of each of its constituent parts.
Bill 104, with the amalgamation of the Kenora, Dryden, Red Lake, Fort Frances-Rainy River and Atikokan boards, will create the most geographically diverse board in the province. In fact, it spans two time zones. Despite this, the Ministry of Education and Training would not extend the courtesy of holding a consultative meeting anywhere within the boundaries of the proposed board. If the ministry finds it too difficult to visit our vast geographical area, how can you expect an amalgamated school board to be practical over such distances?
A large school board is going to affect access by parents to senior administrators. Communication and information between the board and concerned parents will be less effective and accessible. With the creation of the proposed district school board 5, a long-distance call will be inevitable. It is said that technology may facilitate this; however, during a recent teleconference on school councils, parts of the presentation were missed because of technical difficulties with the telecommunication system.
To be able to participate in this new system will require time, money and reliable transportation. The question is, will the opportunity be available to a single parent on a limited income who has the motivation to participate at this level out of interest for her children's education? We think not.
We have learned that Ms Annamarie Castrilli, Chair of the standing committee on social development, will visit Kenora on March 20, 1997. While we thank Ms Castrilli for her visit, we again point out that it is hastily arranged, allowing interested parties little time to prepare proper presentations. Further, her visit to Kenora may be more as a courtesy to our local MPP than an attempt to extend the hearings into our geographical area.
We are not here today to endorse the status quo. Change is inevitable, and the parent advisory council endorses the principle of directing all available resources into the classroom. However, we firmly believe that grass-roots parental involvement levers these resources. Strong partnerships between parents, teachers, administrators, support staff and locally accountable, democratically elected trustees ensures that our children benefit.
Strong community partnerships should be encouraged. The proposed amalgamation of school boards suggested in Bill 104 weakens this concept. How can these partnerships be accommodated within such a vast and varied region? In fact, it creates an unelected, centralized bureaucracy with sweeping powers and little accountability to us, the parents, and our children. The proposed bill and the consultative hearings have done nothing to exhibit an understanding of the unique concerns of the geography of northwestern Ontario.
We strongly urge that the proposed legislation be re-examined and amended with due consideration given to the following recommendations:
(1) Geographical considerations make the proposed district school board 5 impractical. Required travel could be up to six hours one way, with most of the travel on secondary highways. Travel considerations and the required time away from work and family will discourage many capable trustees from coming forward and motivated parents from participating at board level activities.
Recommendation: That the proposal made in the final report of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force be followed, creating three school boards west of Thunder Bay: (1) Kenora, (2) Red Lake and Dryden and (3) Atikokan and Fort Frances-Rainy River.
(2) Many presentations to this committee have been from school councils, home and school associations and other parent groups. It is clear that parental involvement is one of the greatest resources our educational system has, and it is essentially provided free. Our present school councils are developing and feeling more confident in their advisory role. It has been made clear by the members of the school councils that they are not interested in being involved in school governance.
Recommendation: Provide an infrastructure that continues to encourage parental involvement and community partnerships and maintains accountability for the operation of local schools with our locally elected trustees.
(3) We as parents believe that those closest to the home know best its needs.
Recommendation: Reconsider the centralization of powers to an unelected body, the EIC, that may alienate those who are closest and most knowledgeable of our needs.
(4) For whatever reason, through incompetence or by design, the government appears to be paying lip-service to the consultative process. Notification was inadequate, confirmation late and location an insult. Scheduling the Kenora Board of Education and the parent advisory council six hours apart even precluded travelling the 600-mile round trip together. You have shown great disrespect for your most valuable resource, your volunteers.
Recommendation: Prove our perception wrong. Give legitimate consideration to our recommendations and keep us fully informed. Recognize that we are closer to the home and to the classroom than you are.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Christensen, for your presentation. I appreciate that you've come a very long way to make it, and on behalf of the committee let me thank you for that.
To deal with some housekeeping matters with the committee, you'll be delighted to know that the shuttle bus will pick you up at 5:45 sharp tomorrow morning. There are two different flights, one at 6:25 and one at 6:45. The shuttle bus will be here at 5:45 am.
We are adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow in Sudbury.
The committee adjourned at 2101.