Transcription du comité 1997-mars-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Consideration of Bill 104, An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 104, Loi visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte, l'efficacité et la qualité du système scolaire ontarien en permettant la réduction du nombre des conseils scolaires, en créant la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, chargée d'encadrer la transition vers le nouveau système, en prévoyant certaines questions liées aux élections de 1997 et en apportant d'autres améliorations à la Loi sur l'éducation et à la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales.

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our committee. Bonjour à tout le monde. This is our sixth day of hearings, the second in the north, and we're delighted to be here and to have you all with us. We'll begin promptly with the Manitoulin Board of Education.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Just before the Manitoulin Board of Education, Madam Chair, I have a motion that I'd like to introduce for the committee's perusal at this time; I'd like to move it at this time.

The Chair: Would you like to read it?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Could we have printed copies of this?

The Chair: Yes, it's being distributed right now.

Mr Bartolucci: The motion is as follows:

Whereas parents and teachers are growing concerned over class sizes in our schools; and

Whereas it is deemed important by all Ontarians to protect the quality of education; and

Whereas we, as responsible legislators, believe the quality of education is negatively impacted by excessively large class sizes; and

Whereas the children of our schools require our support as legislators;

Be it resolved that the standing committee on social development move that the private member's Bill 110 entitled the Smaller Class Sizes Act be appended to Bill 104.

The Chair: Did you want to speak to the motion?

Mr Bartolucci: I think the motion is self-explanatory, but I sat in on several hearings in Toronto and certainly I was talking to my colleagues and the member of the third party, and he too and they mentioned that parents all over are concerned about the growing class sizes.

We debated this motion in the Legislature during private members' hour and we had three-party support to refer it to the social development committee. Nothing's happened. I'm concerned, as parents are concerned, as members of the opposition are concerned, and as I'm sure those people on the government side who supported the resolution are concerned, that it's going to die. We don't want it to die because we believe it is an integral part of any type of educational reform, the protection of children in the classroom so that they can be taught in reasonable numbers as opposed to numbers that are so large that meaningful education is not possible.

That was the intent of the bill, and the intent of this motion is certainly that, in order to get some debate on this, if we append it to Bill 104 then it becomes part of the discussion that we feel is essential.

The Chair: Any further debate?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, Madam Chair. I completely understand what Mr Bartolucci is debating here, and he knows that all three parties supported this in his private member's session. It did carry. My contention is, though, that Bill 104 is not the appropriate place because it only deals with the governance model; it doesn't deal with curriculum or indeed the educational model. I think the funding model is the appropriate place. Class size will determine what the expenditure per child is. A lot to do with it is class size. So I think it's a bit premature. I understand your concern. That's my view on it.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I just have a couple of questions. Is this, in your opinion, Madam Chair, in order?

The Chair: He certainly is entitled to bring a motion. The motion can be defeated or passed.

Mr Arnott: But would it be in order for a private member's bill to be added to an existing government bill that is before a standing committee?

The Chair: There's a motion on the floor. We have to deal with the motion. So I ask you to stick to the debate and then you can vote accordingly as to whether we will deal with it or not.

Mr Arnott: I'm not really satisfied with that answer because my suspicion is that it would not be in order for a private member's bill to be simply added to a government bill at committee. I could be wrong, but that's my suspicion.

The Chair: The committee could recommend amendments if it so chose. This motion is in the nature of an amendment. Therefore Mr Bartolucci is free to bring it to the committee. We can discuss the substance of the motion and vote accordingly.

Mr Arnott: Okay. One question. When was this bill referred to this committee? What was the date?

The Chair: Does the researcher have that information?

Mr Arnott: It's on the committee's agenda but --

The Chair: It is on the committee's agenda. Yes, it is.

Mr Arnott: The committee has not dealt with this bill in any way --

The Chair: We don't have the details yet as to when hearings will take place with respect to the bill or anything, but it has been referred to this committee, yes.

Mr Arnott: I'd like to say to Mr Bartolucci, I supported your bill at second reading in the House and also supported that it be sent to this committee, but I guess I have concerns about the process we're following here. We've only had one hour's debate on that bill in the House, and I certainly have some reservations about moving ahead without more extensive public hearings on that aspect of the bill, because we're fairly late in the public hearings process. In most of the presentations that we've heard to date -- nobody's been aware to date that this was coming, I don't think. Certainly I supported the concept of some minimum guidelines for class size, but I'm not sure I support exactly the letter of what you are suggesting and I think we need more public discussion on it, quite frankly.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'm a little confused about the position taken by Mr O'Toole and Mr Arnott on behalf of the government. If the position that has just been put forward by Mr Arnott is that we really need more time, more public hearings, to deal with this motion, which is supported by all three parties and has been supported at second reading, the proposal, I find it rather strange that on a major bill like 104, which affects every board in Ontario and every student in Ontario, the government has chosen to limit debate and to limit public hearings.

1010

I remind members that during the debate on second reading, the opposition did not prolong discussion of Bill 104. There were no delaying tactics, no deleterious motions. As a matter of fact, we had three days of debate at second reading and then the government chose to bring in a time allocation motion which limited the hearings to four days in Toronto and six days outside of Toronto, not nearly enough for all of the people who are interested in participating in discussion on Bill 104 to be able to put forward their views. Then the government included in its time allocation motion only one day for clause-by-clause debate for amendments to this legislation and only one hour for committee of the whole discussion in the Legislature before it could be passed at third reading in only one day.

So if Mr Arnott is really serious that we need to have further debate on Mr Bartolucci's motion, which everybody supports --

Mr Arnott: In principle.

Mr Wildman: In principle -- then why on earth did he and his colleagues support the motion put forward by the government House leader to curtail debate on 104, about which there is tremendous controversy, and that very few people we've heard from agree with?

The Chair: Mr Wildman, I appreciate that is an issue that members of the committee feel very strongly about, but I wonder if you could stick to the substance of this motion.

Mr Wildman: That's why I said I was confused, Chair, because I would think that since all of us on this committee, or certainly all three parties in the Legislature, supported Mr Bartolucci's bill when it came before the House at second reading, supported it in principle, we would be in support of moving it forward. Since Bill 104 deals with education, according to the government, and the quality of education, it would make sense to have it appended.

I suspect that Bill 104 is not really about education, that Bill 104 is about control and money and getting money out of the system, and that's why the government members don't want to deal with education and Mr Bartolucci's motion when they're dealing with 104, because 104 really isn't about education; it's about ending local accountability, local democracy. It's not about improving education. There isn't one thing in Bill 104 that improves education for students, so maybe we should be putting Mr Bartolucci's motion forward because it would indeed do something for education for students in the province.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, thank you. I'd like us to stick to the substance of this motion. We will deal with 104 throughout the course of the day.

Mr Wildman: I am. I'm dealing exactly with the substance of the motion.

The Chair: I've been advised by the clerk that Mr Bartolucci is in fact not an official member of the committee, he's not been subbed in for anyone, so I require someone to move the motion.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'll move it.

Mr Bartolucci: I have been subbed in. The duly authorized form was signed several weeks ago.

Interjection.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): It's all right; Dwight's moved the motion.

The Chair: Thank you very much; I appreciate that. Mr Duncan, as it happens, it's your turn.

Mr Duncan: I think the reason Mr Bartolucci has first of all brought the original bill forward in the Legislature and now wants it brought forward is so that it's not just passed off and allowed to die on the order paper, so that we force the government to not just pay lip-service to the concept of improved pupil-teacher ratios but that they do something about it. I think this resolution that Mr Bartolucci has brought forward today and his bill allow us the opportunity as individual legislators to debate a bill that will substantially improve education in the province of Ontario. If the government votes against this particular motion, it would signal to me that they are not seriously intent on debating Bill 110 and getting it to hearings at social development. We will challenge the government through other ways to get that bill into committee as quickly as possible.

The Chair: In fairness to all the people who have come here to present, I have two more speakers on the list and then I will call it at that. Mrs McLeod and then Mr Jordan.

Mrs McLeod: I'll be fairly brief because I know from all of our previous committee hearings that there's considerable pressure on our day to give everybody a fair hearing. But I do think this is an important beginning to the day because it touches on something which has been a consistent theme of virtually everybody who has presented at the committee, and that's the frustration that Bill 104 is really only one piece of a puzzle. People are extremely concerned to see these kinds of structural changes being made in education when the other pieces of the puzzle are not known, the government's agenda specifically in terms of funding of education and how the proposed equity that is to be provided is actually going to be achieved in real-dollar terms.

We have tried in every way possible to get that kind of information directly from the ministry. We've put questions on the record for the committee, we've asked for written responses, we've had a briefing. We simply cannot get information.

We've also been told as of yesterday that the EIC, which is moving ahead to make recommendations even before this legislation is passed, might well be amenable to suggestions from the committee, at least in the area of board boundaries. I think if that's the case, they might also be amenable to recommendations from the committee in relationship to class size, which is a fundamental part of the funding formula. I do believe it is perfectly appropriate for us, if the wording of the resolution was not seen to be appropriate to simply amend the act, to actually provide direction in the act on class sizes so that that can be a basis for looking at the funding formulas.

We know that this can't be delayed because the funding formulas are being developed as we speak. One thing the ministry has made absolutely clear in their briefings to us is that they are going ahead on the assumption that the ministry is to take over 100% funding and that they are preparing the funding formulas now. If we wait and debate this whole issue again, something which has had support from all three parties, then our recommendations on class size will be too late to influence that funding formula.

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I just wanted to point out that we invited the public here for 10 o'clock for public hearings. This part of the discussion is not part as scheduled here. These people have a busy schedule ahead of them for the day. They planned to be here for 10 o'clock --

The Chair: Mr Jordan, amendments are always in order. I'd like us to move on to give the public a chance to have their say as well, so perhaps you could make your point and we could move on.

Mr Jordan: Yes. It is a Liberal motion and they have the responsibility to bring it forward at the proper time, after the hearings here on Bill 104.

Mr Wildman: We only have one day, according to the time allocation motion --

The Chair: Is there anything else? That's your point?

Mr Jordan: I'm concerned about keeping the people who are scheduled waiting.

The Chair: I will put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mr Duncan: Madam Chair, I would move that this committee meet in April for two weeks to consider Bill 110, Mr Bartolucci's private member's bill.

The Chair: Any discussion on that motion?

Mr Arnott: Could we have copies of that motion?

The Chair: Yes. Mr Bartolucci.

Mr Bartolucci: I will be brief. The intent of this motion is to ensure protection for children in the classroom, for students in the classroom. I don't want this motion to die; I don't want this bill to die. If we're not going to append it to 104, then obviously I am in support of having public hearings, and the two weeks in April would suit my schedule just fine. More importantly, it would suit the people of Ontario just fine.

You're going to hear today from parents, from educators, their concerns about growing class sizes. This has to be addressed. There is some urgency attached to it because the government is going ahead with its funding formula. This is important to the government's funding formula, as our education critic said. So I would be most supportive of that resolution.

The Chair: Further debate?

Mr Wildman: I would support the proposal, particularly in view of Mr Jordan's concern about the lack of time. I'm sure the government members would accommodate the possibility of dealing with this bill in April. Considering the fact that the government has said that the funding formula will be published in April, this discussion would be right in line with how much money is available for education in the classroom and for ensuring that there are proper resources made available to students. So I think it would make sense.

Frankly, it would make a lot more sense to have the funding formula available before Bill 104 is dealt with, but since the government is putting the cart before the horse, at least we can have some discussion of class sizes in relation to the funding formula in April.

1020

The Chair: In the interest of making sure we move on and hear the public, Mr Arnott, you will be the last speaker on this motion.

Mr Arnott: I haven't got a copy of the motion yet.

Mr Duncan: It's being copied.

The Chair: It's being copied. Perhaps you could repeat it for us, Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: The members of your committee indicated that you were more than willing to have public hearings. This committee is not meeting, has nothing on its agenda for the month of April. I think it's quite appropriate then that we consider it, in that it's been referred to us from the Legislature and it simply calls upon us to do that, to fulfil our obligations as members of provincial Parliament and members of the committee.

The Chair: Could you give us the motion, Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: That this committee meet for two weeks in the month of April 1997 to conduct public hearings on private member's Bill 110.

Mr Arnott: I believe I said in my initial comments that I felt we needed more public discussion on the issue, not public hearings. One other qualification is that the committee does not have the opportunity to sit just because it wants to sit when the House is not in session. We need authorization of the House to sit, is my understanding. The House sits April 1 for one week, so we'd have a week there possibly, and then on the 21st we resume sitting. So we could only sit --

Mr Duncan: Two weeks after the 21st, which is what I called for.

Mr Arnott: But your motion doesn't say it quite that specifically. Is there any other business before the committee, other than this bill?

The Chair: Not that I'm aware of.

Mr Arnott: On that basis, I'd be prepared to support the motion with those qualifications and the understanding that the committee can only sit when it has the authorization of the House or when the House is in session.

The Chair: Is that acceptable to the mover?

Mr Duncan: Subject to the normal rules of the House?

Mr Arnott: I guess.

Mr Jordan: It's a decision for the House leaders.

Mr Duncan: We're giving the House leaders an expression of our desire to consider it.

Mr Jordan: We're wasting the public's time.

Mr Duncan: It's not a waste of time. It's a friendly amendment, subject to the normal rules of the House.

Mr Arnott: I'm not speaking for the government. I'm speaking for myself.

The Chair: I understand. All right, then, we'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mr Wildman: I have another motion. In view of the committee's concern about the short time available for public input on Bill 104, as expressed most recently by the MPP for Lanark, Mr Jordan, I move that the committee request that the time allocation motion be amended by the Legislature to allow more time for public hearings by this committee.

The Chair: Debate on this motion?

Mr Wildman: I think it's obvious. I don't really think we need to have a long debate.

The Chair: Then let's not have one.

Mr Wildman: We have a lot of people who want to make presentations. We don't have enough time to hear them all. We only heard about one tenth of the people who had indicated they wanted to make presentations in Toronto. There's a tremendous amount of interest in this, so obviously we need more time. We should ask for the time allocation motion that was moved by the government to be amended to allow for more public input on Bill 104 before it passes.

Mrs McLeod: I would simply add that we've seen the limitations of time and what that does in terms of excluding groups and individuals who are going to be directly affected by the legislation if it's passed. We had to group school boards yesterday. There were boards we had to add at lunch-hour to be able to just give them a hearing. We know that as we go into London, the London board of education has had to be added because it was going to be excluded otherwise. It becomes very clear that there just has not been enough time to hear people who should be represented in a full and fair way.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I want to respond to that. We did add boards and we tried to accommodate people as best we could. This motion has been made before and defeated, and in my opinion, you're just playing politics. We've already lost half an hour. People are here and they have busy schedules and we're not getting to the business of the day.

The Chair: Mr Bartolucci, this will be the last comment.

Mr Bartolucci: Absolutely. I take exception with Mr Skarica's assumption that we're playing politics. We're not playing politics at all. We're trying to protect the quality of education for the students of this province. You had a perfect example, the people out here have a perfect example of how insincere the government is to at least recognize the possibility that someone in the opposition has a better idea or an idea that's worth further discussion. That's obviously been shown with today's votes.

I'm telling you, the people of Ontario are upset. They support this motion, they supported Mr Duncan's motion, they support my bill. I'm telling you that if you don't start listening to them, it is going to be the one single reason, the most important reason, that the people of Ontario will not vote for you next time, because you don't want to listen to them.

I give Mr Arnott a great deal of credit. He's the only one who believes that his constituency and his personal ideas are of greater importance than the government's ideas. Mr Wildman is simply asking for more discussion. Mr Duncan was simply asking for more discussion. My bill, this resolution today, was simply asking for further discussion, so that if we're going to do the changes, we can get it right, and you refuse to listen and you refuse to grant those requests. That will not sit well with the people of Ontario.

The Chair: I'd like to move to a vote. All in favour of Mr Wildman's motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not going to ask for a vote on this now because I'm anxious to move on with the hearings. I want to propose a motion that I sincerely hope the government will consider, which is why I want to serve notice of the motion for a later vote.

The motion will be that the standing committee on social development ask that the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 104 be deferred to allow for consideration of public presentations in the preparation of amendments. I think the committee will appreciate the fact and I think Mr Jordan will appreciate the fact because he was very persuaded by the presentation of the Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Stormont Dundas and Glengarry, and Prescott and Russell boards that are to be amalgamated, that that amalgamation won't work. We were similarly persuaded, I believe, as a committee by the presentations we heard in Thunder Bay yesterday. I believe we will be similarly persuaded by the presentations we hear today.

Unfortunately, in the way in which the time allocation was set up, we begin clause-by-clause consideration immediately after the last day's hearings. That meant we had to begin the legislative drafting of amendments before the hearings outside Toronto began. I truly believe that if we're to do justice to the public hearings we need at least a day in between, and preferably more, and I don't believe the same urgency to pass clause-by-clause --

The Chair: Mrs McLeod, I appreciate the notice, but the motion, as it's presently worded, I would have to rule out of order. Could I suggest you work with the clerk to bring in a motion that would not be out of order and we'd find an appropriate time to debate it.

Mrs McLeod: I think it's identical to the wording of motions, except perhaps "ask the House leaders to reconsider" to amend the time allocation motion.

The Chair: I think, since we have the time -- we're not dealing with it now -- you might just want to reconsider the wording to make sure it's in the proper form.

MANITOULIN BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: Thank you very much, everyone, for being so patient. Thank you in particular to the Manitoulin Board of Education before us today. Mr Scott, welcome. I ask you to present your co-presenter. You will have 15 minutes to make your presentation, and if time permits, the committee will ask you some questions.

Mr Rob Scott: I'd like to introduce Mac Hall. He is our director of education. My name is Rob Scott. I'm chairman of the Manitoulin Board of Education. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to share our hopes and fears concerning the Fewer School Boards Act.

The Manitoulin Board of Education has provided a quality education, sensitive to local needs, for the past 28 years. It has managed its affairs in a prudent and businesslike manner. It has consistently improved its services in response to the needs of its students. During these 28 years the Manitoulin Board of Education has consistently managed the change process.

As the chair of the Manitoulin Board of Education, I take pride in our accomplishments. Our graduation rate is high and our graduates fare well in post-secondary institutions. Our introduction of technology into our classrooms provides one of the highest access rates to computers for our students in the province. We are proud of what our teachers and students are accomplishing.

The Board has also been responsive to local needs and community issues. We have implemented policies and procedures to deal with AIDS, alcohol, drugs and tobacco, anti-racism, family violence and child abuse.

The board has continually demonstrated fiscal responsibility. You can just ask the federations or our administration how difficult it is to get an extra dollar out of the board. We have managed to keep our cost of education below the provincial average. We have done this while ensuring the resources are available to provide a quality education in the classroom.

So when we as a board look at the Fewer School Boards Act we see it as both an opportunity and as a threat. We see it as an opportunity as it is an incomplete solution to the many issues in education. It represents, hopefully, the beginning of a complete reform in education, a reform that has been noted as needed in dozens of reports over the years.

1030

We see it as an opportunity for us to work with our new partners in Espanola and Sudbury, to work together to design and implement a new system that will be stronger and more responsive to the needs of our students, an opportunity to bring together the strengths of our present systems. We believe collectively we can forge a better and more vibrant system. Towards this end, we have begun discussions; we have begun to seek solutions.

The Fewer School Boards Act is also a threat. It's a threat to the kind of community-based system the people of Manitoulin have grown to expect.

The new district school board will have approximately 18,000 students attending 59 schools. This means there will be 59 school councils advising the new board, possibly 59 sets of recommendations that will be quite contradictory. The Manitoulin Secondary School will become one of 16 secondary schools in the new board. We are very proud of MSS and would not like to see its role diminished in this amalgamation.

In 1969, the board and the local first nations pooled their resources to build what was at the time a state-of-the-art secondary school. Over the years the community has strived to maintain that status. It is the only facility on the island owned by everyone.

Currently, approximately 40% of the student enrolment is students sponsored by the first nations. Over the years we have worked closely with the first nations to ensure MSS meets the needs of their students. We believe our experience provides direction for all those involved in native education. In the new district school board, MSS will have to struggle to maintain its identity, to maintain its focus.

At the political level, the Manitoulin Board of Education has for many years had two native trustees. One represents the first nations belonging to the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin. The other represents Wikwemikong First Nation. These trustees have been active members of the board, bringing their knowledge and expertise to all decisions.

Within the context of the Manitoulin Board of Education, these two representatives are justified and welcome. In the new district school board, the Education Act would permit only one representative from the first nations. In the larger board there would be at least 100 native students, but not the 25% of the total enrolment required to provide for two representatives. In addition, the new district school board will encompass additional first nations communities that have representatives on the Espanola board. We would ask that the EIC in its deliberations work with us to find an equitable solution to this issue.

In conclusion, I am pleased to have had this opportunity to address the committee. Too often we feel only larger and louder voices are heard. Your invitation gives us hope that as the transition process unfolds, our voice will be heard.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you for your presentation. I have to say I'm interested in this issue because yesterday we heard extensively the success stories that have existed in smaller school boards across the province and the concern they have that some of those success stories are going to be compromised by a larger jurisdiction.

The perspective I bring is one whereby in my own community, about four years ago, the previous government undertook a major amalgamation in London-Middlesex. I heard from parents and teachers and students in Middlesex at that time, and they were afraid they were going to lose the identity of what was predominantly a rural school by virtue of it being transferred to an urban board. I would have to say that hasn't occurred. In fact, there are probably as many success stories today about that transfer as there are unsuccessful stories.

Can you help me with this whole issue? What is the fear or what conclusions are you arriving at that would make you believe that some of the success stories you've experienced are going to be compromised by this particular legislation?

Mr Scott: In particular the issue that's a concern is that in the last year or year and a half we've been trying to work even more closely with our first nations partners. We've been working on a tuition agreement that has more native inclusiveness in the school, in the classroom, involving native heritage and native beliefs more so in the curriculum. There is a feeling right now that with the formation of a newer board, where on Manitoulin the percentage of the native students is quite high, in the newer board that percentage will be almost non-existent. There's a feeling, I believe, not only by the board but by some members of the first nations community that the identity they have worked so hard over the years to be able to get into our education system on the island will be lost.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Thank you, Mr Scott and Mr Hall, for making the same trek I made this morning, about two hours over here. This will be where the new board is centred, so people should understand that just to get here on dry roads it's about two hours to arrive.

I think Mr Scott was making an important point. He's written me and the minister about it, and that is the absolutely unique situation Manitoulin Island is in. First of all, geographically it's easily defined, probably the most easily defined board of the entire province because there's water around it. Mr Scott's point is that roughly a third of the total population of Manitoulin, maybe 40%, is first nations people. The community has developed in a unique way to resolve any differences there might be between first nations and the general population.

The school board has done an excellent job of bringing programs to the secondary school that are sensitive to all students within that school. What I think Mr Scott is telling you today is that in this new, huge critical mass that has to extend across a huge portion of northeastern Ontario, that balance on Manitoulin will be broken. I wonder, Mr Scott, if you could maybe elaborate, because I'm not getting the sense that you're being understood.

Mr Scott: I would have to admit that the natural flow from Manitoulin is to Sudbury. That's where we go for medical services, for everything, so from the point of view of it being a burden to the people of Manitoulin to have to have their education system centred in Sudbury, I don't see that as a huge issue.

The issue at hand, and what concerns a lot of the residents of Manitoulin, is that we don't want to become the tail of a Sudbury-driven board. I know that's an issue you've heard across the province. Everyone is saying the same thing. But I think what makes Manitoulin unique is the fact that there is such a large percentage of first nations populations and communities, and over the years the individual communities, in my opinion, have blended fairly well.

There's been a lot of work done over the years with the board and with the administration at our only high school. That's the only option there is on Manitoulin. We have one high school to service the entire island. There are no options unless parents want to send their children away from home and board them in Sudbury or Sault Ste Marie or where have you.

A lot of time and effort have been spent developing programs that can meet the needs of all our students. The concern is that in a larger board, the concerns that are so important in the Manitoulin, which will be a very small minority on the new board, will be missed.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much, Mr Scott. This issue is a very important one in some areas of the province and certainly very important in Manitoulin, as you've indicated. I'd like to commend the board for the work you've done for the whole community of Manitoulin Island and the work that's part of that with the first nations.

Just to get a bigger picture of this, the new board will encompass the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin, as well as Wikwemikong Unceded First Nation.

Mr Scott: Yes.

Mr Wildman: Wikwemikong would certainly not see itself even now as being properly represented by a representative from the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin. That's right now just on Manitoulin Island. But now the new board is also going to take in a portion of the North Shore tribal council, Espanola, and the first nations in that area, and the tribal council in the Sudbury area, which represents first nations in the Sudbury basin. So you have then four different first nations entities representing quite a large number of first nations. Do you think it's conceivable that even if there were an amendment to the bill, as proposed, the new board would be prepared to have four representatives of first nations on the new board?

1040

Mr Scott: My own opinion would be that I couldn't see that being a reality, the way things stand right now. I don't have the answer as to how that issue can be dealt with.

Mr Wildman: Neither do I.

Mr Scott: I have limited experience dealing with members of the first nations communities. Their interests and values and beliefs are varied from one first nation community to the next. Like I said, we've worked very hard over the years to develop a partnership with our neighbours. We don't want to see that role be diminished to that of a special interest group.

Mr Wildman: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Scott and Mr Hall. May I say as a frequent visitor to the island of Manitoulin that I've always been impressed with the uniqueness of the place geographically and also culturally, and the fact that it alone has a sovereign state within it, which is the reserve of Wikwemikong, which has never been ceded to the Canadian government. Thank you very much for being here. We really appreciate the long drive that you've had.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, NIPISSING ELEMENTARY UNIT, SUDBURY SECONDARY AND ELEMENTARY UNITS

The Chair: May I call upon the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Sudbury elementary unit, Sudbury secondary unit and Nipissing elementary unit. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Bob Kirwan: My name is Bob Kirwan. I'm with the Sudbury elementary unit. To my left is Nina Stapleton, with the Sudbury secondary unit, and to my far left is Ann Coates, from the Nipissing unit. We intend to make a few brief comments each on Bill 104 and its probable consequences, and then hopefully there will be some time for questions. We will try to be brief.

I guess the main concern I have with Bill 104 is that it fails to address all of the elements that may form part of the transition in education governance in Ontario. As long as we're unaware of the changes that will be coming with respect to education finance, with respect to enhanced powers to be given to school advisory councils and with respect to the revision of the system of collective bargaining in the province, we really cannot adequately make any comments on how education in the province is going to be affected.

Because Bill 104 deals in isolation with only one aspect of all the changes, it is our strong recommendation that before proceeding with Bill 104, the full education package be put on the table so we can see everything that is there. Only then can we be sure that Bill 104 is not just a smokescreen to try and extract $2 billion from education to pay for a tax cut that was promised in the last election.

Premier Harris has stated time and time again that the government is committed to quality education. We have grave concerns, however, with the probable consequences of Bill 104, and at this time we cannot see how the quality of education can be preserved if the government continues on its present course.

There is absolutely no way that publicly funded schools can maintain the quality of education if this government intends to reduce the amount of time teachers have to prepare and organize instructional materials for the classroom; if this government intends to reduce the amount of time teachers have to work with special needs children; if this government intends to prevent young children from attending junior kindergarten and getting a solid foundation for their future education; and if this government intends to reduce the funding to school boards while at the same time preventing boards from raising taxes to fund the shortfall. We feel this is going to create a climate that's conducive to widespread growth of private and charter schools.

To conclude my part, I again strongly urge that when you return to the Legislature, you recommend that Bill 104 be put on hold until we can see the whole picture.

Mrs Nina Stapleton: From my perspective, it appears that the education reform that's before us represents just one element of the landscape of Ontario, which this government proposes to devastate in order to bring the southern states north of the 49th parallel.

Bill 104 in itself does not address all the components which may form part of the transition in education governance. Some of these components relate to education finance, school advisory councils and collective bargaining in the education sector. Bill 104 deals with only one aspect of the many proposed changes to the education system. The scope of Bill 104 will only become apparent as these other amendments are introduced and come into play. The government appears to be isolating various components of its proposed changes and hence raises many suspicions about its real intent and true objectives. There's been no hard evidence presented by the government which would indicate that the proposed changes will lead to any improvements in the quality of education of our youth in Ontario.

We are seriously concerned about the creation of the Education Improvement Commission and the scope of powers granted to it. The creation of this commission undermines the legitimacy of democratically elected local bodies. It appears that the government is eradicating age-old principles of democracy in this province, be it in the closure of hospitals or the diminishment of school boards. It appears that local control or autonomy in any arena is of no concern. The Education Improvement Commission extended trusteeship undermines the autonomy, accountability and legitimacy of democratically elected school boards. It would appear presently in Ontario that the people must serve the government, and not the government the people.

The commission has the authority 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. Special education teachers, librarians, guidance counsellors, music teachers and the like all contribute in a positive manner to the educational experience of Ontario youth. It's incumbent upon us to ensure that our young people's future is not jeopardized. The concept of outsourcing in education perhaps can be compared to training housekeeping staff in hospitals to provide bedside nursing services.

The parents and young people in Ontario are being scammed if we try to lead them to believe that the quality of education is not going to suffer from all of these proposed changes. All of the proposed changes -- let's face it -- are driven by dollars, not by any concern about quality education for our youth.

As a parent, I believe the real intent of this government is to strip away dollars and strip away the educational infrastructure support system such that the public education system in Ontario will go the way of education systems of many of the states south of the border. Hardworking parents will be forced to demand a voucher system of education, which they will be forced to top up with any tax reduction they receive from this government's initiatives, along with more money of their own, in order to ensure a quality education for their children. Hence, Ontarians will see quality education for all Ontario youth become only a privilege for the few. Ontarians will pay highly for their tax break. We will see increased crime rates, increased unemployment and increased unrest in a province once the envy of many.

The progress of Bill 104 should be halted until the government puts the whole agenda on the table for the constituents of this province to assess in order to make informed decisions. The government has been given a mandate to govern this province, not decimate it.

Miss Ann Coates: Good day. I thank the committee for allowing me to come and share my concerns. I work for the Nipissing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board. We have 13 elementary schools in our present district.

My colleagues have covered many of the major issues within Bill 104, so what I would like to do is actually talk about the impact of expanding our school board into a new district school board.

The model currently proposed in the act reduces six existing separate school boards to a single district school board in the northeastern region. The proposed district school board in the northeastern region will extend almost 800 kilometres, from North Bay through Kirkland Lake, Timiskaming, Cochrane and Iroquois Falls, Timmins, Kapuskasing to Hearst, over areas where geographic isolation, difficult road conditions, transportation costs and the scarcity of technological tools are a daily reality in northern Ontario. Many of the concerns that I have are based on exactly those concerns of the daily conditions we're facing here in North Bay.

1050

Constitutional issues -- the change in the borders: With such an area, how will that affect the ability of our elected separate trustees to adequately represent the local communities due to the distance and communication technology difference?

We also have two native communities within our district, Cree in the north and Ojibway in the south. How is that going to impact on their representation and their input into a new district board?

Geographic considerations: The expanse of the new district school board presents serious practical concerns, especially in terms of weather and road conditions. A round trip from North Bay to Hearst represents 1,600 kilometres. It's an 18-to-20-hour travel time by car, bus or train in ideal conditions. The air corridor that our area serves is one of the most costly corridors in the province. It would not be an easy commute to visit schools within our district if it became necessary. The distance would have a negative impact on the ability of our district school board to conduct business with parents, staff and trustees. Communication to establish a sense of community between schools, central office and parents may deteriorate because of the large distances and the resulting difficulties in holding regular meetings.

The proposed district school board does not address the distinct community differences between the northern and the southern portions of the region. There has been a historic convergence in northeastern Ontario, in the north to Timmins and in the south to North Bay. This does not recognize the different practices, approaches and expectations of the community within the northeastern region.

Our educational partnerships: As a northern separate school board, we have administration costs of below 3% and a per pupil funding rate of less than the provincial average. We have a no-frills board. We have had to establish current informal and formal partnership agreements and they may be in jeopardy because now we are not coterminous with the public school boards.

The infrastructure that has been established by the Nipissing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board to promote efficiencies cannot be extended to the proposed district school board due to distance, transportation and communication difficulties in northeastern Ontario. Any alternative infrastructure procedures would prove to be more costly and less efficient, and any additional financial stress due to the costs of the proposed district school board will have to impact directly on our classrooms.

The Nipissing elementary unit supports the proposal of the Nipissing District Roman Catholic school board in its application to the Ministry of Education and Training for a reconsideration and review of the proposed board amalgamation in northeastern Ontario.

The Chair: Miss Coates, may I ask you to wrap up, please.

Miss Coates: We would like to have the same boundaries as our public school counterparts. Thank you for letting me make a representation to you.

The Chair: We appreciate your being here. I know that you had to drive a fair distance to be here and we appreciate the views that you've stated for us today.

The Larchwood Public School Advisory Council, Trish Eisenhour? Is the Larchwood Public School Advisory Council here?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum) That's the one that cancelled.

The Chair: Oh, all right.

JOHN FOLLIS

The Chair: John Follis? Thank you very much for coming. We look forward to having your presentation.

Mr John Follis: As you can see, I am not Trish Eisenhour.

The Chair: There was a cancellation and you were kind enough to move up to the spot.

Mr Follis: When I saw the length of time this process may take -- I was originally to address you at 3:40 -- I thought if I also was going to get back to North Bay today, it's best to see if I could jump in early.

I might say right at the beginning that I come here with no vested interests; that is, I represent no school board, never having been on a board, I am not sitting on one and have no intention of running for one. I'm also not a politician and have no intention of being a politician. What I am is a person passionately concerned about education. I have, if I may humbly say, been involved in raising over $1 million in scholarships for students. I have worked towards higher levels of education in northeastern Ontario, so I hope you'll accept my viewpoints as being from one who is concerned about our children.

I thank you for being here in Sudbury today, and hopefully not to defend your own opinions or political beliefs but to take the time to listen and document the opinions of myself and other residents of Ontario before making up this new legislation.

It's recognized that Ontario school boards have not changed much since those times when having to deal with the question of the use of calculators in the classrooms preoccupied board meetings. Let me, if you will, offer a couple of reasons why I think reorganization is necessary.

Case in point: In one Ontario school board its objective is to have three computers in each classroom in five years. To me this is criminal. It's also assuming that they reach their goal. I can assure you that there is no shortage of computers in their boardroom. Might I guess that in five years there will be more students with computers at home than in our schools, providing they reach their goals.

I share in your belief of well-paying jobs, and not minimum-wage jobs, for the graduates of our system. I quote Peter Broadmore of the National Consortium of Scientific and Education Studies, who recently told his committee that in disciplines such as mathematics, computer science and software engineering, the supply does not even come close to reaching the demand. The Software Human Resources Council estimates that 30,000 jobs could be created if skilled software personnel were available. In the biotechnology field, again major shortages. Last year nearly 50,000 immigrants were welcomed into Canada because of a shortage of skilled Canadians. This is the kind of high-paying ecojobs of the present and of the future -- and the school board has as its goal three computers in five years?

It is my opinion that every cost not directly related to the actual teaching of students be examined, with the goal of putting our financial resources back into the classroom and not into boardrooms.

Over the next few weeks, numbers will be thrown around -- 50%, 75%, 80%, 90% of spending is outside the classroom. But will we hear about the numbers of students who, for whatever reason, never seem to get challenged, who are never really were stimulated to learn and create, or the students who are pawns in a game played by stakeholders preoccupied with their agendas other than teaching and motivating young minds? We should not lose sight of the goal. The goal is to raise our educational standards, to equip our children with a competitive knowledge base. Yes, despite the rhetoric and disclaiming by some groups, we live in a global economy and we must be able to compete. We all know national and international testing has proven embarrassing at best, but when our students spend less time in the classroom than students in other industrialized countries, we cannot expect more than embarrassment.

Education is not a reason to establish power groups where power is the goal and education is the medium. Education still remains, in my opinion, the reason why we have schools. It is there for the students, not the teachers and not the boards. One of the most interesting exercises I ask you to consider the next time you are at home is, ask the first person see or you come into contact with the following questions:

(1) What issue have you last talked to an elected school board official about in the past 20 years? I was going to say one year, but let's go 20 years.

(2) Name three elected school board officials.

(3) When and where does the school board meet?

If your experience is anything like mine, you must question the local need as it now currently is.

1100

On the other hand, I gather from the changes being proposed that parents will have a clear and consistent standard for what students should be learning, and have input at the school level in areas concerning academic progress, discipline and programs.

Proposed changes will sit very heavy on some people. Some will see changes through territorial lenses, some from a dollars-and-cents perspective, some may resist based on tradition and some just resist change.

To say our present board system shouldn't be changed or tampered with is to accept 1960s planning for the 21st century. It is accepting portable classrooms for students and glassed-in office suites for those responsible for buying portable classrooms. The same leadership that allowed the removal of province-wide testing is now being tested, and so it should be.

In conclusion, let me again thank you for your open-minded approach to the required changes. Let us -- parents, taxpayers and politicians -- keep our eye on the real objective of education and acknowledge that restructuring will help us refocus.

One last point, if I may: When discussing with others many topics ranging from summer school to municipal use of school buildings, the subject of the school year as we currently know it came about, where we close down some time in June and reopen some time in September. We all know the parameters that went into that choice, a good choice at the time but a carryover from days gone by when students were needed on the farm to plant, cultivate and harvest crops during the summer months. It is time to rethink the present and plan for a greater tomorrow for our children.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Follis, for taking time out of your busy day to be here and share your views with us. Have a pleasant drive back.

Mr Duncan: Can I ask a question of the ministry?

The Chair: I'll call on the Women Teachers' Associations of Sudbury, Manitoulin, Espanola, North Shore, Timmins and Timiskaming, and as they make their way, Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: I wonder if the ministry can provide any background information in written form to this committee about the outcomes related to this bill; how much higher they expect student scores to be on standardized testing as a result of Bill 104.

Mr Skarica: There's a ministry staff official here and I'll forward that request to him.

SUDBURY, MANITOULIN, ESPANOLA, NORTH SHORE, TIMMINS AND TIMISKAMING WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS

The Chair: Welcome, ladies, and thank you very much for coming.

Ms Val Duhaime: Good morning. I'm Val Duhaime, representing the Sudbury Women Teachers' Association. To my left is Joann Smith from the North Shore WTA. To my right is Linda Leonard from the Espanola WTA. To my far right is Leslie Field from the Manitoulin Island WTA. We'd better get to know each other better; we're going to be partners very soon.

Mr Wildman: It's not a foregone conclusion.

Ms Duhaime: Well, that's what some people say.

The six associations that I will speak on behalf of this morning represent approximately 800 women who teach in public elementary schools within the jurisdictions of their respective boards of education. I might say that because of that we were delighted yesterday to find out at 9:30 in the morning that indeed we could go ahead and prepare a brief and you could slip us in here today to speak with you.

As educators, we are committed to ensuring equity in educational opportunities for our students and providing our young people with the necessary skills and attitudes they will require to allow them to make meaningful contributions to our communities and to society as a whole. We are commonsense people who believe in accountability and embrace positive, planned change as a vehicle for improvement.

It is for these reasons that we view the intent of Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, with some suspicion and a large measure of confusion. We believe that the vagueness of the bill and the obvious lack of implementation details will most probably lead to turmoil within the Ontario system of education and will certainly have a negative impact on the rights and responsibilities of all local community partners within education. Indeed, a crisis may be possible after all. Bill 104 appears to have been developed not to improve learning for children but to cut costs and grab central control over the delivery and funding of education in Ontario.

Recently Premier Harris attempted to rationalize the strong No vote on the megacity question by stating that the results were skewed because voters were confused by the myriad of major changes proposed by the government, including education finance and downloading of services to municipalities. As much as I hate to admit it, there's probably some truth to his statement, but indeed what has he learned from this? Obviously very little, because the government continues to forge ahead with other initiatives without in-depth study or planning and without involving stakeholders in the process before -- I repeat, before -- decisions are made.

Further proof that Ontario citizens are frustrated is evidenced in a $177,000 Decima poll commissioned by the government in the fall of 1996 which concluded that "The public feels it has no voice in decisions being made about their health care system." We shudder to think that it will take the government another $200,000 expenditure to alert them to the fact that educational stakeholders and indeed the general public are bewildered by the magnitude of the proposed changes in educational governance and funding and cannot be expected to reasonably cope with the speed at which these changes are being proposed and implemented.

Although there may well be merit in the amalgamation of some local school boards, such wholesale and in some cases irrational mergers as outlined in Bill 104 will undoubtedly result in a reduction of local input and accountability which cannot be rationalized through the resulting relatively minor cost saving.

Just as an aside -- it's not in my notes -- I was thinking this morning as I was reading this over, having my coffee, that that $200,000 -- and I'm sure Mr Bartolucci would be interested in this -- would have put five full-time teachers back into overcrowded classrooms in Sudbury, would have put perhaps 10 half-time special ed resource teachers back into overcrowded classrooms in Sudbury and could possibly have put 20 quarter-time guidance counsellors back into overcrowded classrooms in Sudbury. But indeed, we all have different priorities.

The size of the proposed Espanola-Manitoulin-Sudbury district board is very large, encompassing one city, numerous small towns and villages and a large rural area. Unfortunately, history shows us that in similar situations, the larger, wealthier, more densely populated area assumes a role of control rather than one of partnership. What guarantees are in place that concerns of all areas, big or small, involved in this amalgamation will be reflected in overall decision-making?

The Sudbury Board of Education has been forced to make difficult decisions regarding the closure of smaller schools. Will some of the smaller, more isolated island schools be added to the endangered species list? Residents of larger centres do not always appreciate the role of the school in a small community, where the school is often the nucleus of that community, attracting residents with young families, supporting a variety of employment opportunities and establishing a focal point which encourages the whole community, the whole village to assume responsibility for the education of children.

Timmins and Timiskaming will be part of the new, amalgamated district board number 1, which takes in a geographic area that stretches from Hornepayne to Temagami, a distance comparable to Timmins from Toronto. Barb and Irene apologize they can't be here today. It's a long drive on short notice.

1110

Mr Wildman: That's going to be a problem in the future.

Ms Duhaime: More than likely.

There are no direct flights between these communities and it takes approximately eight hours of driving time to connect with them all. The winters are long -- you may have noticed that, those of you from the south -- and the roads are hazardous, but not today. Regular face-to-face dialogue between educational partners will be almost impossible and communication breakdowns are inevitable. Currently there appear to be no plans in place to deal with this serious problem.

In the past few years, parental and community involvement within schools has increased dramatically. This has resulted in the development of highly successful collaborative relationships which have impacted positively on the learning environment for students. School advisory council members have willingly accepted the responsibility of providing input and support to the individual schools and to the boards. The government has indicated that the scope and powers of these councils in educational governance will be increased and they will fill the void created by dismantling local school boards. Parental involvement is crucial, however details of the government's plan of action in this area are, not surprisingly, sketchy.

There can be no assurance that the present equity in educational programming provided throughout a region by a local school board can be mirrored in individual schools governed by individual councils. Also, we can foresee great difficulty attracting people to serve on these councils given that parents already have a vast number of family and work responsibilities to meet. Informal surveys undertaken by the Sudbury WTA indicate that most respondents feel that they do not have the necessary time nor the expertise to assume larger roles in the development of discipline, curriculum or reporting policies other than to provide input.

Under Bill 104, the Education Improvement Commission, an appointed body, will have unprecedented powers to control school board budgets, staffing and distribution of board property during the transition period. There is no appeal process regarding the decisions of the commission. Its decisions are final and cannot be reviewed, even through the courts. A great deal of power will rest in the hands of five to seven appointees who depend on the government for their living. Although the commission will have the authority to appoint local committees to address specific issues related to transition, there is no guarantee that their recommendations will be acted upon or indeed even considered.

To place such power in the hands of a few and to limit the input and responses from local citizens is an action that in our minds can only be described as repressive and undemocratic. It's ironic that a government that has recently expended large sums of money to advertise to the public that it is implementing accountability in education would at the same time appoint a powerful, independent body that is accountable to no one.

There are no clauses in Bill 104 which deal specifically with teacher-board negotiations. The problems of melding several collective agreements into one are vast and they're varied. Surely it's incumbent upon our elected leaders -- you -- to ensure that the legally bargained rights and working conditions of all educational workers are protected. Surely there is no need for us to worry that our elected leaders would take advantage of the transition period mandated under Bill 104 to unilaterally strip teachers of salary and benefits that they have negotiated in good faith. Surely it is not the intent of our elected leaders to have teachers finance the promised tax cut.

We believe that when school boards are amalgamated, collective agreements must be in place that will guarantee protection from job loss due to amalgamation, maintain current contract forms, honour seniority rights, safeguard sick leave and retirement gratuity benefits, recognize experience and grid placement and deny involuntary transfers outside the boundaries of the original school board. These issues must be addressed quickly and action must be taken, and that action must be the result of meaningful dialogue among the province, the boards and the representative teacher federations.

In closing, may we say that we believe this government's vision of the future of education in Ontario is blurred by dollar signs. This government is moving too far, too fast, providing little concrete evidence of a well-thought-out educational plan other than to reduce expenditures in order to finance an ill-advised tax cut. We strongly urge this committee to urge this government to slow down, to consult meaningfully with stakeholders and to develop in a collaborative forum a detailed, long-term plan for education in this province, focusing on improvements which directly impact on positive learning opportunities for children and ensuring that the specific needs of local communities are safeguarded. This is the democratic way. Thank you.

Mrs McLeod: There are so many areas to explore that come from your presentation. It's the first chance we've had in the area to start to get a sense of the sheer magnitude of the board groupings, and because you represent such a diversity of boards, I'd like to just ask you about that.

I don't know if you spent any time looking at the proposals that came from the Sweeney task force, the school board reduction report. I was trying to do a quick count as you were describing the areas that the boards you represent cover. It looks to me as though the Sweeney recommendations would have had about nine boards in the area compared to the three that this now represents. Is that right?

Ms Duhaime: One of us had better answer quickly. We're running out of time. I believe that probably would have been a better solution. I'm not sure of the number but I do know that the Sweeney recommendations did call for more boards in the northern region; the exact number I'm not sure of.

The geographical distances are very, very difficult, and I will admit, and my partners here will too, not to the extent in our own area as they are in district board 1. I don't know what those people are going to do. I know I'd feel awfully left out if I were a citizen in that area.

Mr Wildman: You refer in passing to board number 1, which is going to go from Hornepayne all the way along Highway 11, from Hearst, through Timmins, to Temagami. It's about an eight-hour drive from one end to the other.

I would like to ask, though, specifically with regard to the overall presentation you've made, do you see anything in this bill, Bill 104, which will improve education in the classroom for students, which is what we're supposedly here about?

Ms Duhaime: In the specific details in the bill, and there aren't too many specific ones, I see nothing that refers to the improving of learning opportunities for children. Perhaps that's going to come later, but then we don't know that. That's why it's difficult to review this bill when this government doesn't even know what they're going to do with all the other parts of education. But I see nothing in that bill that refers to kids, that refers to learning at all.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning and your very unique sense of humour. You have tried to make light of it. I just wanted to clarify one thing. I want to make two points first. The first point is, the debate on education governance in your opinion has been going on for how long?

Mr Wildman: A hundred and fifty years.

Mr O'Toole: I'm only trying to establish that it's not a recent debate, to be fair.

Ms Duhaime: No, it is not a recent debate.

Mr O'Toole: All three parties are clearly on record that education governance -- the boards had to be restructured.

Ms Duhaime: Absolutely.

Mr O'Toole: So to be fair to the public here listening today, it's not new. This bill in itself has nothing to do with curriculum, has nothing to do with teachers. In the purest sense, it has to do with education governance and really, subtly, funding and constitutional entitlement groups and how we get from where we are to where we should be, the implementation commission. So it would be wrong again to assume this bill on its own has anything to do with curriculum and improving the quality of students. It is ensuring the structure to delivery by removing the administrative top.

Do you agree that there is too much administration? You're a teacher. You're a front-line deliverer. In your opinion, would you think there is too much at the top? How much, I am not sure, whether it's 5% or --

The Chair: Ms Fields wants to respond, Ms Duhaime.

Ms Leslie Field: May I answer that?

Ms Duhaime: Sure you can.

1120

Ms Field: I represent the Manitoulin Women Teachers' Association, Linda is Espanola and Joann is North Shore. Our boards have worked for several years now in a five-board amalgamation that works very well in purchasing, providing curriculum and so on. That initiative was a grass-roots initiative. It worked because there was a need and they wanted it to work. It was not top-down administration just to save money.

If you allow the people of Ontario to do what is best for their areas, I think you will find that change will take place and it will be positive for the children, the family, the community, and that is what we're concerned about.

The Chair: Thank you very much for being here today. It's extraordinary that the six associations were able to come together on such short notice and present a brief.

Ms Field: You should see our phone bills.

The Chair: We do appreciate it. Thank you.

Est-ce que je peux avoir le Conseil des écoles séparées catholique du district de Sudbury, M. Lefebvre ? Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, once again Mr O'Toole makes references to what other parties might or might not have supported in terms of school board reorganization and restructuring. If he is going to continue to make that note, I will continue to make the note that any support we would have had for any school board restructuring would have been conditional upon its making sense and being shown to be cost-effective for students in a classroom.

The proposals that are before us today -- and I think it's important, as we're here in Sudbury, to please recognize the differences between the only other proposals that were ever put forward for school board consolidation, which were Sweeney proposals, and the ones that were presented with Bill 104.

Just take the district 1 that was mentioned. It is huge, and I ask members of the committee to look at the comparisons between the Sweeney proposals -- and I'm not suggesting those were ideal -- and the ones that are before us now compared to those.

The Chair: I've allowed a fair amount of latitude to all members of the committee to express their views. I would like to remind us all that we're here to listen to the public, and let's try to keep those interventions to a minimum on all sides.

CONSEIL DES ÉCOLES SÉPARÉES CATHOLIQUES DU DISTRICT DE SUDBURY

La Présidente : Bienvenue. C'est un plaisir de vous avoir avec nous.

Mrs Claire Pilon: Good morning, Madame Chair. I am not Léo Lefebvre. I am Claire Pilon. I am president of the French section of the Sudbury separate school board. I have with me members of the community who work with us in this great project that we're undertaking.

M. Arnel Michel is a businessman, M^me Pauline Pelland is a member of the parents council, M. Luc Filion is the custodian with our board and Adrien Montpellier is a secondary student.

L'enseignement catholique en langue française à Sudbury remonte à 1884. En 1969, 25 commissions scolaires ont été fusionnées pour former le conseil scolaire séparé du district judiciaire de Sudbury. Depuis l'automne 1996, sept conseillères et conseillers élus ont formé la section de langue française du conseil scolaire et pour gérer 33 écoles, dont quatre écoles secondaires, pour un total d'environ 8 500 élèves.

La section de langue française du conseil appuie le projet de loi 104 pour les raisons principales suivantes :

Les écoles séparées catholiques en Ontario, garanties en vertu de l'article 93 de la Loi constitutionnelle, sont maintenues ;

Le droit de gestion scolaire que confère l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés aux minorités de langues officielles habitant en milieu minoritaire au Canada sera appliqué en Ontario français ;

Des modifications législatives ou réglementaires à venir serviront à aplanir des difficultés ou à résoudre des problèmes de mise en oeuvre du nouveau régime ; et

Aucun droit acquis n'est renoncé, ni troqué par la communauté franco-ontarienne, notamment le droit d'obtenir des jugements des tribunaux sur diverses questions et le pouvoir de taxation des éventuels conseils de district des écoles séparées de langue française.

À trois reprises en sept ans, la section de langue française du conseil a demandé au gouvernement de l'Ontario d'établir un conseil scolaire catholique français dans la région de Sudbury. Les requêtes adressées au gouvernement libéral en juin 1989, au gouvernement néo-démocrate en juin 1992 et au conservateur en août 1996 ont été reçues défavorablement.

Les conseillères et conseillers de la section appuient la mise en oeuvre de la gestion scolaire française pleine et entière sur l'ensemble du sol ontarien. La section de langue française est prête à prendre les grands moyens pour obtenir la pleine gestion scolaire sur son territoire. Deux avis juridiques commandés l'automne dernier recommandent à la section de procéder par «requête en révision judiciaire», en Cour divisionnaire, afin d'obtenir gain de cause au chapitre de la gestion.

En novembre 1996, un comité élargi de la section sur la gestion scolaire est établi avec des représentants de langue française de plusieurs groupes intéressés à l'éducation, soit les élèves, les parents, les enseignants, les directeurs d'école, les concierges, les personnes des milieux d'affaires, le clergé et les communautés religieuses, qui endossent, à l'unanimité, la création d'un conseil scolaire catholique de langue française pour Sudbury.

La section catholique de langue française accepte de se transformer seule en conseil de district ou de se fusionner avec des sections minoritaires avoisinantes dans le but de créer un nouveau conseil scolaire de district. Nous savons qu'au courant de la mise en oeuvre de cette loi, il y aura des difficultés, mais nous sommes convaincus que les problèmes ne sont pas insurmontables et qu'ils pourront se régler en cours de route.

La section de langue française constate que plusieurs groupes ont un rôle à jouer dans la mise en oeuvre du nouveau régime de gestion scolaire en Ontario. La législature ontarienne débattra certes d'autres modifications législatives en matière d'éducation d'ici à l'automne prochain. Le Conseil des ministres, la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, les comités d'amélioration de l'éducation et le ministère de l'Éducation et de la Formation sont des organismes gouvernementaux qui participeront à la réalisation de ce projet d'envergure. Les conseillères et conseillers scolaires, le personnel des conseils scolaires existants, les associations d'enseignants, les syndicats, les groupes de parents, les élèves et le clergé seront également impliqués dans ce dossier. Du travail de planification devra même être entrepris par les autorités municipales.

Les conseillères et conseillers scolaires de la section communiquent avec des représentants de ces groupes depuis le dépôt du projet de loi 104. Des suggestions pratiques ont été faites à certains groupes dans le but d'aligner correctement la mise en oeuvre de nouveaux conseils scolaires de district. Auprès des instances appropriées, la section a déjà souligné l'importance de régler rapidement des questions de base telles que : l'établissement des secteurs qui relèveront de la compétence des conseils scolaires ; le calcul du nombre des membres de chaque conseil scolaire ; l'établissement aux fins électorales de régions géographiques ; la répartition des membres d'un conseil scolaire entre les régions géographiques ; la préparation de listes d'électrices et d'électeurs pour les quatre types de conseils ; ainsi que les fonctions que conserveront les nouveaux conseils scolaires et les fonctions reliées à l'éducation qui seront transférées aux gouvernements municipaux.

Les membres de la section ont aussi fait connaître leur point de vue en prodiguant des avis tels que : la nomination de deux personnes franco-ontariennes, dont au moins une catholique, pour siéger à la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation ; l'embauche d'employés de langue française pour former des unités administratives au sein de la Commission et pour travailler dans le dossier à partir des bureaux de district du ministère ; l'établissement de comités d'amélioration de l'éducation de langue française ; la création d'un fonds de transition ministériel pour supporter la mise en place de conseils ; et l'élaboration d'un modèle de financement de l'éducation équitable pour tous les conseils compris. Ceci inclut des sommes de rattrapage à l'intention des élèves qui fréquentent les écoles séparées de langue française.

1130

Les conseillers et conseillères scolaires de la section travailleront de concert avec tous les partenaires du monde de l'éducation catholique franco-ontarienne afin de s'assurer de mettre en place de manière ordonnée un éventuel conseil scolaire de district d'écoles séparées de langue française pour desservir la région de Sudbury.

À l'heure actuelle, les intentions du gouvernement veulent que la section catholique de Sudbury soit jumelée avec quatre autres sections minoritaires, soit Michipicoten, Sault-Ste-Marie, Rive-Nord et Chapleau. Ce nouveau conseil numéro 61 dispenserait de l'enseignement à environ 10 250 élèves dans 43 établissements scolaires.

Les porte-parole des cinq sections minoritaires du «centre-nord» ont déjà organisé une réunion qui aura lieu à la mi-avril à Sault-Ste-Marie. À ce forum, les participants feront place à plusieurs groupes intéressés et ils s'attendent à une participation de tous les partenaires impliqués dans l'éducation.

Pour conclure, je voudrais indiquer que la section catholique de langue française du Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques du district de Sudbury appuie le projet de loi 104.

Les conseillères et conseillers scolaires tiennent cependant à souligner que la situation scolaire pour l'Ontario français est très différente de celle de la population ontarienne dans son ensemble. La mise en oeuvre de conseils scolaires de district de langue française doit tenir compte des spécificités de l'Ontario français, dont celle d'un effectif scolaire à 83 % catholique. Ceci est comparatif à 72 % de l'effectif scolaire anglo-ontarien qui fréquente des écoles publiques.

Le nombre de conseillères et conseillers scolaires doit être suffisamment élevé pour être représentatif d'une réalité francophone dispersée à travers le nord de la province et afin d'assurer une gestion saine et efficace.

Aussi, la réforme de la gestion scolaire se pose différemment et plus durement pour l'Ontario français. La communauté franco-ontarienne doit essentiellement créer des conseils scolaires alors que la majorité de langue anglaise doit fusionner des entités existantes en conseils plus grands.

Les conseillères et les conseillers de la section suivront de très près les travaux et les discussions concernant le nouveau modèle de financement de l'éducation en Ontario. La section voudra s'assurer que la formule de financement sera équitable pour tous, qu'elle tiendra compte du coût de l'éducation des élèves et des circonstances particulières.

La Présidente : Merci bien, Madame Pilon. Nous avons presque trois minutes pour des questions. We have one minute per party. Ms Martel.

M^me Shelley Martel (Sudbury-Est) : Merci pour votre participation ici ce matin. Je peux comprendre la raison pour laquelle vous voulez avoir un conseil ici à Sudbury, et je peux accepter aussi la raison pour laquelle vous êtes d'accord avec le projet de loi, parce que à ce moment, ça donne la responsabilité et ça donne la création d'un conseil scolaire ici à Sudbury pour les francophones à l'échelle des écoles séparées.

Mais j'ai un problème. C'est que le gouvernement n'a pas donné au public jusqu'ici la formule de financement pour l'éducation. Je crains en ce moment qu'à la fin, les écoles francophones, les conseils scolaires francophones, ne vont pas avoir assez de fonds pour que les écoles et aussi pour que le conseil puissent fonctionner effectivement pour les francophones.

Alors, ma question : Est-ce que vous avez des garanties en ce moment de la part du gouvernement d'avoir une formule d'éducation, une formule de financement équitable, qui peut améliorer la situation des francophones en Ontario ?

M^me Pilon : Non. Nous n'avons aucune garantie de financement. C'est une de nos inquiétudes. C'est pour cela que nous guettons de près les démarches qui seront prises. Puis une chose qui va de pair avec la gestion, c'est le financement. Si nous n'avons pas le financement équitable, avoir la gestion, c'est rien.

M. Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Bienvenue ici aujourd'hui. Ma question est très brève ce matin. Comme vous le savez, les territoires vont beaucoup changer avec le projet de loi 104. Est-ce que ça vous cause beaucoup de difficultés ? Est-ce que ça vous inquiète un peu, avoir les distances entre les --

M^me Pilon : C'est évident que nous aurions préféré avoir notre conseil, mais nous sommes et nous avons toujours été ouverts à fusionner avec d'autres sections minoritaires. Nous sommes chanceux plus que d'autres conseils puisque nous travaillons déjà avec les sections de Chapleau, Sault-Ste-Marie, Rive-Nord et Michipicoten au sein de la «co-op» d'éducation que nous avons établie il y a quelques années. Alors, on connaît les gens, on a déjà commencé à avoir des rencontres, et puis on est confiant que ça peut fonctionner.

Mais il est évident que oui, il y a les distances. On faudra s'organiser parce que ce n'est pas facile pour les gens de se rencontrer du vivant. On va devoir s'organiser autrement.

M. Beaubien : Dans la passé étaint-ils forcés à travailler avec vous autres ?

M^me Pilon : Non. C'est parce qu'on le voulait. C'est à l'avantage de tout le monde de travailler ensemble quand on est minoritaire. Alors oui, ça fait quelques années qu'on travaille ensemble, puis on est chanceux, mais il y a quand même encore beaucoup d'inquiétudes : si on va avoir les réunions, combien de conseils scolaires. Ce sont toutes les questions qui ne sont pas réglées.

Mr Bartolucci: Claire, thank you very much for your presentation. If there's a part of Bill 104 I agree with, this is it. I know from 30 years of service that there's an excellent cooperation between the francophone and the anglophone population in Sudbury. It will be a model board; there's absolutely no question about that.

Given the ramifications, though, that the government is placing on you with the EIC, do you see the problems which will evolve with regard to handling the money, and would you like to just outline some of your concerns to the government members with regard to that?

Mrs Pilon: The first concern we have is to have the money.

Mr Bartolucci: Right.

Mrs Pilon: Once we have the money, we're guaranteed we have the financing, I'm sure we'll find ways of dealing with it. But our main problem now is to make sure that we have the money.

Mr Bartolucci: Absolutely. Thank you.

La Présidente : Je vous remercie tous d'être venus ici ce matin pour partager vos opinions et la position de votre conseil scolaire.

ESPANOLA HIGH SCHOOL

The Chair: Espanola High School, Megan Boardman. Welcome, Ms Boardman.

Ms Megan Boardman: Good morning. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Megan Boardman and I'm an OAC student at Espanola High School. Espanola is a community of about 5,500 people and it is located about an hour west of here. I am the editor of our school newspaper, which publishes on a weekly basis on the World Wide Web, and I am also a student representative on the EHS school advisory council. However, I'm here today as a concerned citizen. I am very worried about the direction in which this government is taking education and I have a number of concerns about their latest piece of legislation, Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act. I would like to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to come here today.

As we all know, the amalgamation of school boards is not a new idea and it is certainly something that has been discussed in the province of Ontario for quite some time. However, I think most of us assumed that democracy at the local level would still be preserved when school boards were amalgamated. Sadly, Bill 104 does not do this, and I think this bill will be particularly harmful to northern Ontario students.

Bill 104 significantly erodes the democratic rights of rural northern Ontario residents. We are facing a merger of 28 English-language public boards into a mere six. Each of these boards will be governed by anywhere from five to 12 trustees. Since these trustees will be allocated according to size and density of the electoral population within the school board, it would be reasonable to assume that northern Ontario boards will operate with significantly fewer trustees than boards in the south. But given the tremendous size of northern Ontario school boards, some of which will be larger in area than the country of France, how on earth are you going to ensure the access and accountability of trustees that all northern Ontario residents are entitled to?

But more than that, let's consider the problem that arises when you amalgamate rural boards with urban boards. Manitoulin and Espanola are being merged with Sudbury; North Shore, Chapleau, Michipicoten and central Algoma with Sault Ste Marie; and so on all across northern Ontario, rural boards being swallowed up by boards that are largely urban in nature. How can you realistically expect to protect the rights and interests of rural students when, in order to be truly democratic, the majority of trustees on these boards will inevitably represent voters in urban communities?

1140

The task force for school board reduction's final report, often called the Sweeney report, a report that Bill 104 purports to be based on, took a very different view of school board amalgamation. One of the most important criteria used in the Sweeney report was that of contiguity -- the amalgamation of boards that were not only neighbours but whose constituents shared similar needs. To quote, "Even with a reduction in the number of trustees and administrators, the amalgamation of two or more similar boards will not only result in savings but will meet the needs of students more efficiently." Rural was merged with rural. Why, then, after the Sweeney report placed such importance on amalgamating similar boards, does Bill 104 strive to amalgamate urban with rural?

The problems faced by rural schools are very different than those faced by urban schools. The needs of rural and urban students are not the same. You cannot mix the two and expect both to remain intact. The Sweeney report recognized this; Bill 104 does not. Rural students are not just some kind of special interest group that can be shoved under the carpet and ignored. We have rights too, and those rights need to be protected. Democracy at the local level must be preserved.

I applaud the minister's goal to provide equality of educational opportunity to all Ontario students. No Ontario student should be disadvantaged by where they live. Rural students deserve an education that is just as diverse and challenging as that offered our urban counterparts.

But let us look at how school boards might try to achieve educational equality for students in rural areas. Two days ago, the Sudbury Board of Education voted seven to three to close Capreol High School. The board is attempting to improve the quality of education for Capreol students by busing them to city high schools, where they will have a wider curriculum and more educational resources. This is consistent with the current trend towards centralization of services under the guise of improving quality. But are you really improving the quality or just making the system more cost-effective? If financial savings exist, are they really worthwhile?

Canada is not by nature an urban country. We treasure our small towns and our small-town way of life. While transporting students to urban centres may seem to make more sense from an educational and a financial point of view, it is also an affront to the traditional Canadian small-town lifestyle. I am small-town student. I have a right to an education in a small-town environment, in a small-town school, with all the benefits and disadvantages that entails. By shoving rural schools and rural students into a board that is dominated by urban interests, a very important part of Canadian culture is at risk of being lost. Bill 104 casts into doubt the future of northern Ontario's small, rural schools.

An even bigger concern I have with Bill 104 is the establishment of the Education Improvement Commission, whose co-chairs were appointed before the bill even passed first reading. It is this commission that will have ultimate say over how our school boards spend our tax dollars. It is this commission that will decide the fate of our present school boards' assets during amalgamation, assets that were raised on the backs of local taxpayers for the funding of local education. These are only a few of the roles this commission can perform, this non-democratically-appointed commission, this commission that is accountable to no one except itself.

What you're essentially saying in this bill is: "Trust us. Trust us that the Education Improvement Commission will manage your boards efficiently. Trust us that there will be enough money to adequately fund education. Trust us that you will get all the trustees you need. Trust us that the quality will improve and that all our students will be taken to the head of the class. Trust us."

But where is the evidence that our trust would be justified? As our education minister is so fond of pointing out, we are not the first jurisdiction in Canada or in the world to reform its education system. Indeed, this bill and the government's plans are basically identical to the educational reforms brought in by Britain five years ago. They amalgamated local education authorities; they removed education funding from the municipal tax base; they brought in a rigorous common curriculum; they brought in standardized testing; and they improved accountability to parents by publishing exam results. They strove to improve the quality of their educational system and to take students to the head of the class.

But what has happened since then? Five years later, the number of private schools is blossoming. Private schools dominate the tables of exam results, while state-funded schools struggle far behind. Millions of pounds have been spent on curriculum reform, but they are still looking for a curriculum that will actually work. More and more high school students are achieving high grades in final-year exams, but they are less prepared for university than ever as the exams are getting easier and easier year by year. Educational standards are declining. Recent standardized testing of 11-year-olds showed that in only 12 out of 14,500 primary schools did all students reach the level expected of typical 11-year-olds. The highest scores were achieved in affluent suburban schools and the lowest in inner-city schools. The test results seem to suggest that there are factors influencing student performance other than just curriculum, assessment and accountability.

In short, the performance of British students has not been enhanced under the government's reform package. The students have not gone to the head of the class. Here we are, heading down what appears to be the same path. Why, then, does this bill deserve our trust?

American philosopher and progressive education advocate John Dewey once said that the end justifies the means only when the means are such as actually bring about the desired and desirable end. I agree that Ontario's education system is in need of reform. However, I cannot in any confidence say that Bill 104 will meet the needs of Ontario's students and take them to the head of the class. This bill does not contain the means to bring about the desired and desirable end.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you very much for coming. You said at the end there that you think, you thought and you know that change needs to be made. What are your suggestions, if not Bill 104?

Ms Boardman: My suggestions for northern Ontario in particular are that we need to consider boards on a case-by-case basis when establishing trustees. This is something the Sweeney report recommended. We'll need more trustees simply because of the size of the school boards and the diversity of the population in them. We have situations, such as was mentioned earlier about Manitoulin, where you have large native populations and they need to be represented.

Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, Megan. I think you're the first OAC student we've had talking to us, at least today, and we're most proud to have someone come from Espanola.

You're aware, as we're all aware, and I believe Ms Field from the Manitoulin Women Teachers' Association pointed this out, that the five boards, the four boards of Manitoulin, Espanola, the North Shore and Central Algoma, plus the separate board, had formed a co-op.

Ms Boardman: Yes.

Mr Michael Brown: The Espanola board and the North Shore board are even sharing directors of education and business operators. So there have been huge efficiency increases within those five rural boards, the boards that were going to be amalgamated. As a student in Espanola High School, are you finding that the availability of good, solid curriculum and teaching has been your experience?

Ms Boardman: Yes. I think I have received a very good quality of education at Espanola High School. I think it has been a challenging education. I have not only benefited from a good in-class education but a good extracurricular education. I have participated in sports teams, as I mentioned.

1150

Mr Michael Brown: You probably played against my daughter.

Ms Boardman: I'm the editor of the school newspaper. For a small northern Ontario town, we have a very wide range of high-quality in-class and out-of-class activities. The cooperative you mentioned has worked reasonably well simply because we are similar boards with similar interests.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much, Ms Boardman. I have a question for you and then I have a question for the government following on your presentation, which was certainly an indication that if you're a good example, then education is not broken in this province.

Ms Boardman: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: The Sweeney report recommended that your board, the Central Algoma board and the Manitoulin board be amalgamated because they were similar boards with similar numbers of students, with similar distances involved and they had worked together on curriculum in the past. You also played against each other in sports and so on. Do you think that would have been a better solution, if there were going to be amalgamations, to amalgamate those boards rather than combine your board and Manitoulin with Sudbury and Central Algoma with Sault Ste Marie and a number of other boards in Algoma?

Ms Boardman: Yes, by far, because we are similar boards with similar interests and with similar problems. As I mentioned earlier, the needs of rural and urban students are very different, and schools in rural and urban areas face very different problems. I really am concerned that by amalgamating our two rural areas with Sudbury we may end up playing second fiddle behind the urban interests; 80% of the students in that board would be in the Sudbury area, and we'd be the mere 20% off in the other area. I'm very concerned about that.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Boardman. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for your very thoughtful presentation. May I say on a personal note that you are a high testament to the quality of education in this province, and I encourage you to continue with your civic participation.

Mr Wildman: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant following on Ms Boardman's presentation. Since many members of the government party have made it clear that they're following through on proposals that were made by Mr Sweeney, could the government please explain why in this case they did not follow the recommendation with regard to these boards?

Mr Skarica: I don't have that explanation handy at this time, Mr Wildman, but I can make further enquiries for you.

ONTARIO BUSINESS COLLEGE, SUDBURY

The Chair: Could I have the Ontario Business College come forward, please, Jacquie Williamson. Dean Williamson, it's a pleasure to see you.

Ms Jacquie Williamson: Thank you Madam Chair and members of the Committee. My name is Jacquie Williamson, and I am the dean of the Ontario Business College here in Sudbury. The Ontario Business College is a province-wide institution which has provided career training to the citizens of Ontario for over 125 years. I am here today representing the Ontario Business College to offer our input and suggestions to the necessary process of change in education in Ontario and specifically on Bill 104.

Business and residential taxpayers can't afford to keep paying for the ever-increasing costs of school boards. I understand that over the last 10 years school boards have increased residential and business taxes by an average of 5% every year. That's a 50% increase. No salaries have increased by anywhere near that amount over the last 10 years. Business profits, for those few small companies that have profits, certainly have not increased by 50% over the last 10 years. In fact, those small businesses which have survived have done so by doing more with less, by cutting costs wherever they can just to stay in business or just to keep from laying off staff.

On the other hand, some school boards didn't even notice that Ontario has been suffering through the worst recession in more than 50 years over the last 10 years. During that time, total enrolment at Ontario schools has increased only 16% while school board spending has increased by 82% and school taxes have gone up by more than 120%. Any business that budgeted like that during the recession has now gone bankrupt. Only government and taxpayer-funded school boards have continued to raise taxes while the economy has been suffering in the real world. It's time to get school board spending under control, and that's what Bill 104 will do. It will also force school boards to redirect their spending of tax dollars into the classroom, where it should be spent.

We understand that last year across the province almost 80% of school boards continued to increase property taxes while the provincial government was cutting its own spending and urging school boards to do the same. Most school boards didn't get the message. The province is broke. Any spending on new programs must be borrowed from the United States or Europe and eventually repaid by taxpayers. But at the local level, school boards are prevented from borrowing; they just raise taxes. But it's all the same taxpayer, and the limits of how much people and business can pay in taxes has been reached.

School boards and government must now do the same as businesses and families have been doing for the last ten years, they must do more for less and redirect tax money to pay for the most important part of education, classroom teaching. Education spending must be accountable and well managed. Last year Ontario spent more than $13 billion on elementary and secondary education. Hopefully, this bill will refocus resources where they belong, on the individual student in the classroom, and streamline administration by cutting the number of trustees by two thirds.

The existing 129 school boards in Ontario will be cut in half, to be replaced by 69 school boards. The number of trustees will be cut from 1,900 to about 700, with huge savings for the taxpayers. These trustees will no longer receive up to $49,000 a year, more than most people earn in their full-time jobs. It's about time. There are more than enough elected officials being paid for by the taxpayer.

Just as businesses have had to make do with fewer managers over the last few years, now it's time for government to cut the number of elected politicians and school board trustees.

Another aspect of the bill that we support is the new criteria of qualification for trustees, which will reduce conflicts of interest. School board employees and their spouses will not be able to serve as trustees in any school board. This is a positive step.

Parents will have more input on major decisions affecting their children's education, such as programs the schools offer. Parents will now have a clear and consistent standard for what students should be learning and when and how that learning is funded.

Under Bill 104, local businesses like ours will continue to pay local taxes for education. We don't mind paying our fair share of education funding if the money is spent wisely and in a businesslike manner. School boards must start to treat every dollar they spend as if it was their own money, from their own family budget, because that's what it is. Families and businesses must budget to pay their taxes.

The tax money that goes to school boards must be treated with more respect. Just as a parent has to say no to a child that wants a new toy or the business owner who has to wait another year before he can afford a new delivery van, so too school boards must make do with what they have.

Taxpayers have seen their taxes rise as school boards have built elaborate administrative centres across Ontario, new offices that very few taxpaying businesses could afford. But school boards are tax spenders, not taxpayers. I also understand that one school board even has an ownership interest in a golf course.

Even the previous NDP government and its former Treasurer, Mr Laughren from outside Sudbury, learned that there are limits to how much government can tax and spend.

As part of this process, the government intends to establish a commission, which includes former NDP Minister of Education Dave Cooke, to ensure reforms take place in an organized and careful way. While Mr Cooke was in government, he learned that there is no bottomless pit of taxpayers' money. His experience in government makes him an ideal appointment to his new commission.

Taxpayers are concerned about the quality of education and the way education dollars are spent. Other jurisdictions in Canada have reduced duplication and waste and streamlined administration and bureaucracy. Ontario needs reform of the education system to focus resources on the classroom, where they belong, and to improve the quality of education at less cost to the taxpayer.

In the past, trustees also approved their own salary increases and severance packages. This led to several abuses of the system. Now is the time to act.

Because the new funding model is based on the needs of the students, it will help to refocus resources back on the classroom, where they belong.

A recent report on school board spending in 1995 and 1996 shows that some school boards spent as little as 51% of their money in the classroom. This report states that, on average, for every dollar spent on education, more than 80 cents was spent outside the classroom. Non-classroom spending must be reduced in order to maximize the resources focused on the classroom.

The Ontario Association of Career Colleges, which represents 181 private sector colleges across Ontario, is also concerned with the recent trend of school boards establishing career training centres for adults. These centres are using tax dollars which were earmarked for primary and secondary classroom education to subsidize the cost of operating these centres in direct competition with the 340 private sector vocational schools across the province. We believe that this issue needs to be looked at closely and that the following questions need to be asked and answered:

(1) Are school boards required to charge the public the full cost of training or the market cost of training that is also offered by private sector vocational schools?

(2) Are school boards permitted to divert funds received from the government and intended for other purposes, like classroom education, to cross-subsidize the fees charged for training courses that are also provided by private sector vocational schools?

(3) Are the full costs of all personnel, plant and equipment used to deliver training courses that are also offered by private sector schools properly charged against the budgets of similar training courses offered by school boards when they establish the fees they charge for these courses?

1200

Another important consideration is the tax status of these school-board-funded adult training centres.

Recently, Catherine Swift, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, wrote to the federal Minister of National Revenue on this matter. On behalf of CFIB's 40,000 member firms in Ontario, she asked for an interpretation of the GST status for not-for-profit and for-profit corporations created by Ontario's public school boards.

She said CFIB was concerned that non-profit creations, such as the Ontario Member School Board Corp, which includes 15 school boards in Ontario, and a for-profit corporation created by the Huron County Board of Education, are competing unfairly against existing private firms in both training and supply of other goods and services.

The CFIB has heard of school board staff working for these spinoff corporations while being paid to perform their school board duties. They are concerned that these quasi-public corporations are not paying property or business taxes or PST.

This constitutes a significant unfair advantage for those school board corporations when competing with private firms that must pay these taxes. This unfair advantage could be enough to threaten the viability of existing private businesses and the future jobs of their employees. Tax spenders can only spend the taxes if there are enough taxpayers left to pay the taxes.

As an example of one of these spinoff corporations, on January 14 of this year the Peel Board of Education became a member of a new non-profit corporation of Ontario school boards. The new cooperative venture, called the Ontario Member School Board Corp, brings together 15 publicly funded school boards from Ontario. The Peel board director of education, Harold Braithwaite, was named the corporation's president.

More than a dozen school boards have already joined, including Brant county, Elgin county, Haldimand, Halton and Hamilton, just to mention a few. Other boards are expected to join over the next few months.

In the future, this spinoff corporation will arrange Visa affinity cards, school bus messaging and banking arrangements. Interestingly, Mr Braithwaite does not expect this bill will in any way restrict the workings of the corporation. That's a scary thought.

If Mr Braithwaite is correct, even more taxpayers' money will be diverted from classroom education to pay for adult training schools that will compete directly with the private sector. We think this practice must be stopped as soon as possible and the money redirected back into the classroom, where taxpayers think it's being spent now.

In summary, it's time for school boards to cut spending and to concentrate on their main job: classroom education for our children.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dean Williamson. We appreciate the time you've taken to come here and make your presentation. You used up all of your time.

Mr Wildman: I've got a question for the government. Following from the presentation, I would like to find out from the ministry if it has investigated the allegations that have been brought forward about the Huron county board, particularly since on this committee, Ms Johns, the local MPP, has made a very strong argument on how little money that board has.

Has the ministry investigated this and could the information be given to the members about this? Also, what is the government's position vis-à-vis the non-profit corporation that was referred to in the presentation involving publicly funded boards in the province that is chaired by the director of education for the Peel county board, the board from the minister's own riding?

Mr Skarica: Mr Wildman, I don't have that information but I'll forward it to the ministry to give you further details.

Mr Duncan: I wonder if the ministry would provide for us, on a board-by-board breakdown, mill rate increases for each of the last 10 years for education purposes compared to the consumer price index.

Mr Skarica: I'm not sure if that exists.

Mr Duncan: Actually, it does. We've done the research and what you'll find is that mill rate expenses have gone up a lot less than has been suggested by the government.

LO-ELLEN PARK SECONDARY SCHOOL COUNCIL

The Chair: Lo-Ellen Park Secondary School Council is next. Chair Hewitt, we're delighted to have you and your colleagues here. If you might introduce your co-presenters, you then will have 15 minutes to make your presentation.

Ms Mary Hewitt: There is our vice-chair, Louise Kirchhefer, and the secretary of our council, Lynda Olsen.

We would like to thank the standing committee for allowing us the opportunity to comment on Bill 104. Lo-Ellen Park Secondary School has a student population of 850. Our school district includes the south end of Sudbury and all of the communities along Highway 69 south to the French River. In good weather, many of these students, especially those in Killarney, travel at least an hour to school. Eighty-five per cent of our graduating class goes on to university.

Education, or the process of learning, is increasingly more important. More than ever before, students need post-secondary education or technological training to obtain meaningful employment.

We want our children to fulfil their intellectual, physical, moral and social needs as well as be competent in reading, writing, mathematics and problem-solving. There must also be flexibility within the system so that it can respond to the unique needs of children; for example, exceptional as well as special needs. We want the students to be challenged, to meet certain expectations. There should be a balance between these expectations and the student's needs.

We support any educational restructuring that will meet the needs and improve the outcomes for students. However, change for the sake of saving a dollar is at best questionable. We may have saved money with some recent changes, but at what cost? Increased class size diminishes the amount of time the teacher has to assist individual students. Change must proceed with the appropriate caution, thought and allotted time for proper implementation to ensure students' needs will be met.

Money spent on education in Ontario is a long-term investment in our future and will save money elsewhere. For example, on the average, it costs $6,400 per year to educate a child. It costs over $100,000 a year to incarcerate someone. Most young offenders are high school dropouts. We must not skimp on education.

Parents have the right to have input into their children's education. We believe that the school, the parents and the community working in collaboration will provide the best education for the children of Ontario.

The amalgamation of school boards: We agree that the amalgamation of the school boards may be beneficial in some areas, but with the new large geographic boards, staff will be required to travel great distances to personally assess classrooms and schools. They must be familiar with the needs of each school and community within their board so they will be able to make informed decisions. We expect there will be distance subsidies for administrative staff and trustees to travel throughout the large district school boards. Please remember that for five to six months a year, winter weather and icy roads make travel difficult and roads are often closed, resulting in many cancelled meetings and extended stays, causing ineffective use of board employees' time. These unforeseen events will increase costs of operation in the north.

We see cost savings in such areas as administering payroll and ordering supplies. It is going to be difficult to attract staff and candidates for trusteeship, with the long distances, increased work load due to more students, more staff and more schools. Satellite offices could be a solution.

From section 335(3) we understand the Education Improvement Commission's job is to study, research and make recommendations to the minister for the purpose of overseeing the transition to the new system of governance.

We are very concerned with section 344(2): "The decisions of the Education Improvement Commission are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court." We strongly recommend that this be removed from Bill 104. No commission, committee or group of people should be given the power to place them above the law. No commission, committee or group of people can be expected to have all the right solutions to all the problems. We ask that this commission establish a process which will allow, not only input from the stakeholders to advise the commission in making decisions and recommendations but to provide an opportunity to respond to the final recommendations.

1210

The proposed local education improvement committee must have a process to collaborate with teachers, board staff and parents as well as communities to allow them to respond to final decisions. We trust that parent representatives will be included on the local improvement committee. When will this committee be appointed? Who will choose the candidates? Can we hope this committee will be representative?

We also feel it is time that the government form a partnership with the teachers and school boards to work together to improve the education process in Ontario. After all, the teachers have to implement the guides and regulations stipulated by the government. Working together, using all of the resources available to both groups, could save money and create the best education system anywhere.

It is our understanding that school councils were formed so that parents would have an opportunity to share with school officials their views on what is happening in the school. Parents across the province are struggling to form and implement memorandum 122. The large geographic school boards with fewer administrative staff and fewer elected trustees will cause a downloading of responsibility to the school councils which are mandated advisory bodies of elected volunteers.

Because school councils are new, relatively unknown bodies, currently members are most likely to be former PTA, home and school or fund-raising volunteers. Many school council members who originally signed on are not prepared to take on such tasks as that the school councils are being asked to do. In many cases, the same people are overwhelmed by commitments. School council members, mostly moms, work full- or part-time, deal with household duties, elderly parents, children's extracurricular activities and, yes, even with our teenagers we are still involved. Already for many people there are not enough hours in the day.

The lack of parent volunteers and community representatives is one of the hurdles to getting a school council started. At the secondary level in particular parents don't often know one another or all of the school staff. There are no funds to print brochures to reach out to the school community and its surrounding neighbourhood. School councils can have a budget. Where does it come from? We have no funds for printing materials for distribution to our own members and certainly our schools do not have funds to spare.

With all the changes going on, for example, the new funding model, secondary school reform and now amalgamation of school boards, we are being bombarded with tasks and have little time to deal with such issues as our constitution and school profile. To be credible and accountable, school councils need access to training and resources. There is a need for in-service workshops or seminars on consensus-building, team-building, networking and even how to chair meetings.

Section 335(3)(g), "Consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on the feasibility of strengthening the role of school councils over time," and section 335(3)(h), "Consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on the feasibility of increasing parental involvement in education governance": These two sections indicate increasing powers for the school councils. How do you legislate or further strengthen the advice of volunteers? Are we comfortable with the concept of being an advisory body and working with the school administration and staff? We don't want to take on duties of a person who is now being paid.

In conclusion, today you have given us the opportunity to share our views on Bill 104. Our school council has spent 40-plus hours reading, discussing and writing this brief -- and by the way, this was done over the March break, which was supposed to be a holiday. My husband thinks he's married to Bill 104.

The Chair: So does mine.

Ms Hewitt: We hope you give our submission the consideration it deserves. It is our understanding that this bill will receive third and final reading on April 2 or 3, only five days after the standing committee on social development finishes the last hearing on March 25. Will there be time to review, assess and implement changes in response to the presentations? We hope these hearings are just not a waste of taxpayers' money.

Again, we are concerned that the proposed changes in education are occurring much too fast. There are too many unanswered questions. What are the guidelines for the school councils? What is the administrative structure for the new boards? What are the outcomes of the many proposed changes?

In the last 13 years there have been four changes of government in Ontario. Each government has instituted a number of major changes for education. We are tired of what seems to be change for the sake of change. We caution the government that education reform needs to be carefully thought out and planned to guarantee the needs of all students. If it is not carefully planned, it means wasted effort, wasted opportunities and perhaps an increase in social and financial burdens in the province of Ontario.

Your goals are worthy, but please slow down and do it correctly. Education is not just about buildings, salaries and textbooks; education is about children.

Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much for a very excellent presentation. In answer to a couple of your questions, "Will there be enough time to review, assess and implement changes in response to the presentations?" I think not.

Earlier this morning we tried to pass two different resolutions: one which would allow for some more time, which was defeated by the government; to incorporate Bill 110 which addresses one of your concerns that you made at the very beginning of your presentation about class sizes, and again it was defeated by the government members.

I'm concerned that we're listening but not enough members of the committee are listening. The government should realize that this has to be a much slower process, as you've illustrated in your final statement.

Let's talk only about one section, about the education improvement committee -- the commission; let's not go to the committees, let's go to the commission. You realize that's an awful lot of money being spent out of the classroom. What value do you see this commission having, if any? I'm not talking about the committees, I'm talking about the commission.

Ms Hewitt: Actually, I'm really not informed enough to make a decision on it. One of the biggest problems we have on school councils and parents is trying, first of all, to find out what information is out there and how to access it. I spent something like two full days on the phone calling around to principals, teachers, trustees and school boards and even your office and that's what it took to come up with this. So really I'm not prepared to respond to that.

Mr Bartolucci: Absolutely. Isn't that the fundamental flaw of Bill 104?

Ms Martel: Thank you to the three of you for taking the time to make this presentation and thank you to the other members of the council who spent a lot of time in preparation for it.

I see on page 3 you said, "We expect there will be distance subsidies for administrative staff and trustees to travel throughout the large school board." The bill doesn't say anything about that. The minister hasn't said anything about that. I don't think teleconferencing is the way to go, although I understand some government members have suggested that for northern Ontario. You can be sure that we will push for that because in northern Ontario, given the distances and the smaller number of trustees, it will be impossible for people to visit schools, and they should be visiting schools; they shouldn't be trying to do this by teleconference.

Why are you so worried that what might happen under this bill is that responsibilities and roles of trustees or current school board staff are going to be offloaded on to you?

Ms Hewitt: The whole problem with what's going on in education right now is that there's no explanation of how things are going to be accomplished. There's no detailed information. We're scared because we don't know what's coming. We just don't know.

Ms Martel: Are you concerned that there isn't a whole lot of meat, so to speak, to this bill that would give you any of that indication?

Ms Hewitt: Like we've said, we want to know more about what's coming down. We want detailed guidelines, information and outcome. We want to see the research. Is the curriculum in place for the changes for the secondary school reform?

Mr Skarica: We've heard a number of presentations, both from people who are supportive of Bill 104 and people who are critical of it, that they feel that in principle amalgamation of school boards can be beneficial. You also make the statement, "We agree that the amalgamation of school boards may be beneficial in some areas." Could you elaborate? What do you mean by that? Where would you think amalgamation of school boards would be beneficial?

Ms Hewitt: Earlier this morning, the young lady from Espanola indicated that the Espanola board and the North Shore appear already to be amalgamating and sharing services, so that would be a logical group to put together for amalgamation to save costs. But when you have distances of eight hours to travel across a school board district, I think that is excessive. You have to look at what is common to a group and put them together.

The Chair: Chair Hewitt, Ms Kirchhefer, Ms Olsen, thanks very much for being here today. We appreciate it.

1220

As the Sudbury Board of Education comes forward, I would like to tell the members of the government caucus that I am quite capable of chairing a meeting. If I wish your advice, I will certainly avail myself of it. Let's move on.

Mr Jordan: Thank you very much. There'll be no charge.

Interjections.

The Chair: I'm referring to the constant advice I get from that side of the table.

SUDBURY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: I call upon the Sudbury Board of Education. Welcome. We are looking forward to your presentation. Ms Dewar, I wonder if you might present your co-presenter.

Mrs Doreen Dewar: Yes, I will. My name is Doreen Dewar and I'm currently chair of the Sudbury Board of Education. My partner is Ernie Checkeris, who I think most of you know, and who is the past chair of the Sudbury Board of Education. By the way, he asked me to mention that he was chair of a board when over 30 school boards were amalgamated in 1968. My goal in life is to become as notoriously protective of education for kids as Ernie is.

I just want to let you know that it took 12 phone calls and I spoke to seven different people to get a spot here today, but I believe we have extremely relevant ideas and I thank you for this opportunity.

Will Bill 104 improve our education system? That is the complex question that must be answered by the Ministry of Education and Training, politicians, federations, school councils, bureaucrats and trustees. The minister has said that changes incorporated in Bill 104 will result in classroom improvements, and I ask you to check out appendix A, which is a letter from the minister.

But, we ask, will this in fact happen? How will these improvements actually take place? Trustees of the Sudbury Board of Education were not elected to save money. We were elected to oversee the education of children, and as such we are in favour of anything that will improve education. If Bill 104 does not improve education, it is a fiasco. If it does improve education, we are for it.

Bill 104 reduces the number of school boards. That in itself is not necessarily bad. The main criticism of Bill 104 is that the democratic process will be lost with the formation of the Education Improvement Commission. This commission has far-reaching powers, and because it is appointed, not elected, it is accountable to the minister, not to the people. However, buried within Bill 104 is the provision for the EIC to appoint local education improvement committees.

Recently Dave Cooke and Ann Vanstone, co-chairs of the EIC, indicated that school boards should elect local education improvement committees. Bill 104 states that the EIC may delegate any of its powers and duties to the committees. Local education improvement committees made up of locally elected trustees will serve to dispel the myth that basic democratic rights are being removed with the passage of Bill 104.

Perhaps the greatest single failing of Bill 104 is not what it has, but what it has not. The following are some of the critical issues and questions which need to be addressed as expediently and coherently as possible, always with the single goal being the improvement of education.

We have personnel issues. It is essential that the government give school boards the tools to implement Bill 104 where personnel issues are concerned. School boards cannot pass legislation; only the government can do that.

(1) We need a legislated process to harmonize collective agreements of the various boards that will form the new district school boards.

(2) We need a legislated process to ensure that the cost of this harmonization does not exceed the current cost of all collective agreements.

(3) Currently, there are different unions representing the same classification of employee groups at various boards. A legislated process is required to determine which unions will represent the various employee groups in the new district school boards.

(4) Will there be staffing formulas for non-teaching groups to be adhered to by the new district school boards? If so, when will these formulas be available to use by the local education improvement committees?

(5) Will the province fund severance pay packages for employees displaced by the amalgamation process? If so, what are the details?

(6) Will the province consider implementing an early retirement package for non-teaching employees to reduce redundancies?

Now we go on to questions concerning trustee representatives:

(1) Will the total number of trustees be determined for the new district school boards?

(2) Will the Education Improvement Commission consider amendments to the total number of trustees for boards with large geographical areas?

(3) Can local education improvement committees determine the method of allocating the trustees of the new district school board or will there be prescribed formula, such as population or geography?

Good intentions and legislation are not enough. Improved education often comes down to solving one problem: funding. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that we are consistently faced with the challenge of delivering quality education with limited resources. Cuts to education in the last one and a half years are no better or worse than cuts made in the previous four years. Let's face it, if we had unlimited funding, the governance model, namely Bill 104, would not be relevant.

Bill 104, however, does afford an ideal opportunity to improve funding with no increased cost to taxpayers. Since Bill 104 removes funding from the local tax levy, it is an ideal time for the government to make changes to the fiscal year. Regardless of the funding formula that is used, March, April, or May is too late to announce grants to school boards. Boards have spent half their annual budget by June. It is too late to alter budgets or make spending cuts. Currently, all adjustments must therefore be made as of September of the current budget year and shortfalls must be accounted for in the brief four-month period from September to December.

Bill 104 gives the government an opportunity to change the fiscal year, which, without additional costs, can provide for better management and increased savings. Our provincial grants, whatever they are, must be effective from September to August to coincide with our school year structure in order to result in improved education.

A second funding consideration is based on the fact that in Ontario we have vast differences between urban and rural communities. The minister has placed equality of education as a priority. I draw your attention to a map we had produced in the Sudbury area before, but it's still very relevant. This is the current Sudbury Board of Education jurisdiction superimposed on southern Ontario. You can see what happens. The distances are phenomenal.

1230

Also, the population density in terms of pupil population is quite different in northern Ontario compared to southern Ontario. To bridge the gap created by geographical distances, northern Ontario needs technological equipment, but technological equipment is not enough. Allocations for distance education must be incorporated into the funding.

We currently have students who travel from Killarney to Sudbury for one and a half hours one way. Imagine being 14 years old and spending three hours a day, five days a week, approximately 200 days a year, on a bus. The cost of transporting students could be termed, and I worry about this, an out-of-classroom expenditure, but for Northern Ontario students it means getting to class. Any proposed funding model must address this relevant issue. If you look at the map, you can see why northern Ontario educational problems cannot be solved with southern Ontario solutions.

In a letter to the Sudbury Board of Education, the Minister of Education and Training said, "The profile of your cost reductions" -- that's us, the Sudbury Board of Education -- "since 1992 could be a model for other very large boards in the province."

Although we appreciate the kind words and the pat on the back from the minister, we would like to suggest something more concrete. We suggest that fiscal responsibility should be rewarded. The ministry should challenge the new district boards to adopt innovative education delivery practices by offering incentives. For example, for every surplus dollar at the end of the fiscal year, the ministry could award a bonus. This bonus could be designated by the ministry for specific educational purposes.

In closing, the Sudbury Board of Education has provided within this brief three funding suggestions, we have listed essential legislative changes, and we have demonstrated the accountability inherent in the democratic process. Although opposing political parties would have us believe that Bill 104 heralds the death of democracy and the ruination of education, we have shown ways and means for all partners in education to maintain, perhaps even surpass, the high expectations we deservedly place on education in the province of Ontario. Now let's get on with it.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much. I'm looking at your map of your current board superimposed on southern Ontario. For the new proposed board, a map of it would go as far as Montreal, would it not?

Mrs Dewar: No, no. Actually, for the Sudbury Board of Education, the new district board, which is simply the English-language section of the current board, would join up with the English-language section of Manitoulin and Espanola.

Mr Wildman: If you were going to superimpose it on southern Ontario, it would go as far as Ottawa and Montreal.

Mrs Dewar: It has to go up, yes.

Mr Wildman: It would go up towards North Bay.

Mrs Dewar: Yes, it would.

Mr Wildman: With this kind of area, are you going to be able to properly serve the small outlying communities and the students from those communities, do you think, as a trustee?

Mrs Dewar: I'm going to refer back to these local education improvement committees. We have already met with both the Espanola and the Manitoulin Island boards. We are setting up committees. We are working together. We don't know what their specific problems and educational needs are, but they're going to tell us and we're going to work together. If we have the legislation in place to do it -- and that's up to you people to make sure we get that -- we can work together. They will know their needs and requirements for their students and we can do it.

Mr Skarica: I found your brief quite fascinating and your presentation excellent. You gave us some excellent, positive, constructive points to work on.

You indicate on page 1 that there's a myth that basic democratic rights are being removed by Bill 104. I note that subsection 338(1) of the bill indicates: "The Education Improvement Commission shall develop and implement a process for establishing education improvement committees." How do you see that working, now that you've met with Mr Cooke and Ms Vanstone?

Dr Ernie Checkeris: As a matter of fact, it's a logical thing to do. It happened 29 years ago. When the reorganization from some 1,500-odd boards to 170 boards was made, we had no legislative help. As a matter of fact, in this area several boards endeavoured to get rid of their surpluses by providing more resources and things for their particular schools before the amalgamation. They didn't want to share those resources, which is fair ball. As a result, we had to serve injunctions against these boards to prevent them from doing that.

It's logical to me to have a commission, and I assume it will be legislated eventually, that will oversee that sort of thing so it doesn't happen. It's like you require a police force, because boards are humans and boards act that way and they have a tendency to be a little selfish and protective of their particular seats and so forth and so on. So there has to be something like that. The commission may have been ill-thought-out the way they did it, but eventually I would assume there will be legislation to cover that. You have to protect the dollars that are supposed to be spent on kids, and in the end I think it will all wash out. It did 30 years ago.

Mrs McLeod: I wish the dollars being spent on kids were going to be protected, although it worries me when the government's own assessment of how they're going to save money in amalgamation includes taking $9.9 million directly out of school classroom equipment and supplies.

The Ernst and Young study, the study that addresses the savings in amalgamation, says very clearly that amalgamation can lead to an increase in costs because of the harmonization costs of both salaries and services. You've touched on the salary issue. I want to ask you about the service issue as a northern group.

We heard yesterday in Thunder Bay -- and I think this is crucial to understand -- from the small boards that are going to be amalgamated with larger, what we in the north consider to be, urban boards. The cost of providing less service in those small northern boards is greater than the cost of providing more service in the urban board, and you know the reasons why. My concern is, how do you then harmonize the costs?

Let me assume that's true for Espanola, that it costs more to provide less service in Espanola than it costs to provide more service in Sudbury. So the ministry decides, what's a fair funding formula now that they take over 100% of the costs? Even now, they protect the Sudbury level of funding. How does the new Sudbury board extend equity of service to the kids in Espanola with the funding you've got in Sudbury?

Mrs Dewar: We don't have the figures --

The Vice-Chair (Mr Dwight Duncan): I'm afraid you've got no time to answer. I apologize.

Mrs Dewar: Oh, I want to answer, though. Come on.

The Vice-Chair: If we have unanimous consent in the committee.

Mr Jordan: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair: All right, if it's agreed, fair enough. Go ahead.

Mrs Dewar: I'll try to keep it really brief. I told you, we do have to work together. We don't have all the figures from these other boards. We met, though, and that's what we're going to do; we're going to take a look at the figures. I don't think anybody can justify the fact that currently we have 28 trustees -- 14 Espanola trustees, 14 Manitoulin Island trustees -- servicing less than 4,000 kids, and in Sudbury we have 12 trustees taking care of 16,000 kids. Now, that's just the trustees.

Let's take a look at some of those other things you're talking about, the actual deliverance of education costs. Those trustees will know what their requirements are and we're going to work with them to make sure that what they say the kids require, we will do our best to do as one board. But we do need the legislation.

Interjections.

Mr Wildman: That's not what you did in Capreol.

Mrs Dewar: Yes, we did it in Capreol, sir.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order. Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate it. I'll recognize Mrs McLeod, on --

Mrs McLeod: It is a question for the parliamentary assistant to place to the minister.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order. I've recognized Mrs McLeod on a point of order. Order. We're now running more than half an hour behind. There are delegations waiting to be heard.

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Martel, please. I understand Mr Skarica has a point of order.

1240

Mr Skarica: My point of order is: I think it's inappropriate for any of the members -- the government side and the opposition side -- to berate the deputants. I think they have a right to their opinion and they shouldn't be berated.

Mr Wildman: Chair, I apologize. I was just speaking out for the people in Capreol.

The Vice-Chair: I think we all need to remind ourselves that these are controversial issues.

Mrs McLeod: My question is for the parliamentary assistant. As you'll remember, yesterday it was indicated that the EIC had told a group outside of this committee that salaries would be essentially protected, that the same contracts that now exist would be protected under the amalgamated boards. That came as a surprise to us and we asked whether that was ministry policy. You undertook to determine whether that was.

Today we've heard another new piece of information which is that the EIC has said that it will be possible to elect local EICs. There is nothing in the legislation that suggests that. In fact I think it is directly contrary to the wording in the legislation, which speaks of the EIC appointing local committees. I would ask again, Mr Skarica, if you would determine whether this is to be an amendment from the government to the legislation in accordance with what the EIC is apparently telling people should happen.

Mr Skarica: I heard that. I was going through the act and it seems to be totally consistent with subsection 338(1) which leaves it up to the commission to develop and implement the process for establishing the education improvement committees. So it seems to be consistent with the legislation.

Mrs McLeod: So there will be a process of election and this will be the government's position, that --

The Vice-Chair: Could we ask the government to respond to this question in writing so that we can get on with the delegations?

Mr Skarica: Yes, I'll respond to that.

CHAPLEAU, NORTH SHORE, MICHIPICOTEN AND SAULT STE MARIE DISTRICTS ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARDS

The Vice-Chair: The next delegation is the Sault Ste Marie District Roman Catholic Separate School Board, William Struk and Mike Sheehan. You have 15 minutes beginning now, including your presentation and any time you choose to leave for questions and answers.

Mr Mike Sheehan: My name's Mike Sheehan. I'm the vice-chairman of the board. To my left is the director of education.

Due to work commitments and the distance the chairs of the four boards to be amalgamated in our region would have to travel, they are unable to be here today for this presentation. Since I'm retired, it was their opinion that the six-hour return trip should be my lot. But I should be thankful. If I resided in Wawa, the return trip would be 12 hours, 11 hours of which would occur within the suggested boundaries of the amalgamated new board. Were I from Chapleau, the time would be dependent upon whether the sun or the snowplows were out.

Bill 104's effect on our region of Ontario is to combine four existing boards into one new larger board. The boards which would be affected by the amalgamation are the Chapleau, Michipicoten, North Shore and Sault Ste Marie separate school boards. None of these boards are contiguous. In fact great distances separate the boards from each other at present. The Michipicoten separate school board is approximately 240 kilometres north of the Sault Ste Marie separate school board, which in turn is 160 kilometres west of the closest part of the North Shore separate school board. The Chapleau separate school board is approximately 240 kilometres northeast of the Sault board. These boards have over the years developed their own educational systems to meet the needs of their local students and populations.

To the trustees and school supporters in these four boards, the concept of amalgamation does not make sense. They see no positive gain. Instead they see a loss of local representation and autonomy. There has been much talk on the part of the government that the amalgamation of boards will save money. Research carried out by the Royal Commission on Learning shows that this is not the case and there are no real savings resulting from amalgamation of school boards. Where savings may occur in some areas, additional costs may rise in other areas, and they definitely will in ours.

Based on enrolment, all four of these boards are small when compared to the rest of the school boards in Ontario. The administration costs are already low, and the statement by the government that there are many dollars that can flow from savings in administrative costs to the classroom is simply not valid in this area.

We feel it is important to reiterate to the committee that the people in this area see no value to the proposed amalgamation of the four boards into one new larger board. However, the trustees also realize that the government is set on amalgamations occurring across the province, and in an attempt to minimize the damage to our educational systems, we would like to make the following recommendations.

With Bill 104, the four existing school boards which I have mentioned will be combined into one board which will stretch 650 kilometres from west to east and 240 kilometres from south to north. To put this into a southern Ontario perspective, this is the distance from Windsor to Kingston from west to east and from Toronto to Parry Sound from south to north. The new board created in our area would be equal in size to two thirds of all of southern Ontario. The enrolment within this new English-language separate school board would be approximately 8,400 students.

This amalgamation would result in one of the larger school boards in Ontario in geographic size but one of the smaller of the 55 new major boards based on enrolment. Bill 104 states that the number of trustees on the new school boards would vary from five to 12 trustees. Based on the enrolment of the new board in our area, the number of trustees would probably be closer to five than 12. However, due to the geographical size of the new board, we strongly feel that the number of trustees should be the maximum number identified in Bill 104, that being 12 trustees.

We feel it is imperative that parents and other school board supporters of the new board should have local representation on the new board and not be faced with the fact that their nearest trustee may live a hundred kilometres or so away. Even with 12 trustees, the contact between the people in an area and their local trustee will be dramatically reduced from the present situation. To have fewer than 12 trustees elected to the new board would severely curtail local involvement of the people with their school board. This involvement of people with their school boards is what makes these boards responsive to the needs of the students and parents in their local area. Bill 104 will reduce this involvement. However, we ask the ministry and the government to do all that is possible in the act to minimize this loss of involvement. In our case, as we have stated, this would mean providing for 12 trustees for the new board in our area.

As well as determining the number of trustees to be elected to each board, Bill 104 also enables the ministry to determine boundaries of the electoral zones in which trustees will be elected. While it might be easy to assign a specific number of trustees in our case to the city of Sault Ste Marie, it would be much more difficult to work out equitable electoral zones in the vast area encompassed by the new board outside the city. If the determination of these electoral zones is to be carried out by ministry staff situated in Toronto, we strenuously object. Staff located in Toronto would have no conception of the regional affiliation of people in the areas being amalgamated. Electoral boundaries determined in Toronto could cross clearly defined lines of regional affiliation and lead to much discontent among the people in the region.

Once the total number of trustees is determined by the government for the new board as well as for the area outside the city of Sault Ste Marie, we would recommend that the present existing school boards be given an opportunity to recommend to the government what the new electoral boundaries should be. In this manner local input on a sensitive political issue will be obtained before decisions are made.

The area covered by the new board will include eight first nations. Two of the four boards involved in the amalgamation have first nation representatives on their boards for a total of three representatives. We would strongly recommend that the first nations be represented on the new board to address the needs of native students and that the representatives be in place when the new board comes into effect on January 1, 1998.

Our recommendations, which I refer to in this section, are: That the Ministry of Education and Training take into consideration the geographic size of the new amalgamated board and provide for the election of 12 trustees to the new board; that the Ministry of Education and Training provide the opportunity for local input in the determination of electoral zones for the new board; and that the Ministry of Education and Training ensure appropriate first nation representation on the new school board.

In conjunction with the announcement of Bill 104, the Honourable John Snobelen announced the reform of educational finance whereby educational funding in Ontario will become a provincial responsibility and there will be no more residential taxation to support financing school boards. Bill 104 creates an entity called the Education Improvement Commission which will have the power to closely monitor and approve school board expenditures for some time to come.

1250

Separate school boards in Ontario have been underfunded for many, many years and the minister's announcement that equal funding for students, regardless if they are separate school or public school students, is welcomed and long overdue news. Because of the underfunding of separate schools, we would call on the government to initiate this equal funding for the 1998 fiscal year and stress that the funding be equal from the date of the introduction of the new funding model. Too often in the past, when the ministry has improved funding or access to assessments for separate schools, these changes have been phased in over a number of years to the detriment of separate schools. It is time to forgo the phasing-in concept and begin to immediately fund all students in Ontario equally.

Presently school boards enjoy local autonomy in funding their educational programs. Based on ministry requirements and local needs, boards prioritize their various programs and services and fund them accordingly. This method has placed the decision-making of the board close to its local population and has allowed school boards to be responsive to these local needs. These needs vary across the province. Bill 104 removes this local autonomy of school boards to determine their own priorities and fund them accordingly. The Education Improvement Commission will have the right to monitor expenditures and require boards to make changes to their budgets if the commission so deems.

Also of great concern to us are the indications coming from the Ministry of Education and Training that funds for education will come in the form of envelopes. By this is meant that the ministry will determine how many dollars will be given to support each specific program within a board's budget. If this is the case, it would remove the local autonomy of school boards across the province to fund programs according to local needs. There would be little or no flexibility for boards to respond to the priorities of their communities if these priorities were different from those of the ministry.

The imposition of such envelope funding would indicate a lack of faith on the part of the ministry and the government in school boards to carry out their duties in a responsible and effective manner. In effect, it would be said that the ministry and the government know what is best for everyone everywhere in the province, and that the ministry and the government do not trust the locally elected trustees to do what is best for the students in their local areas. It is our strong recommendation that the concept of envelope funding should not occur and the operation of school boards should be left to the elected trustees.

In the past, the ministry has utilized incentive grants to assist school boards in financing specific programs which the ministry felt should have high priority, for example, special education and the GEM student computer program. The ministry should continue to utilize such programs in its new funding model for education without curtailing a board's local autonomy. This local autonomy should be protected by amendments to the act that clearly state this fact.

Catholicity in the school system: The purpose of the Catholic separate school system in Ontario is to teach the Catholic faith and gospel values to the students entrusted to it on a voluntary basis by Catholic school supporters. Over 600,000 students attend separate schools in the province and this number continues to grow, a strong indication of the support by the Catholic community in Ontario of the separate school system. It is therefore vitally important to us that the rights of Catholics, guaranteed in the Constitution, be in no manner reduced or limited due to the educational changes being introduced by the government.

In order to ensure these rights, we would like to address the following issues: It is imperative that the Education Improvement Commission, and any education improvement committee created by the commission, have members who are fully cognizant of the Catholic separate school system in Ontario. According to Bill 104, the commission and its committees will have important roles to play in education in Ontario. It is therefore important that the members of the commission and committees have members who are knowledgeable about Catholic education and the needs of separate school boards.

It would be insufficient for the commission and the committees to rely upon outside sources for knowledge and information. We recommend that the minister, in appointing members to the commission, and the commissioners, in appointing members to the committees, ensure that adequate representation exists on these bodies to represent the needs of the separate school system in Ontario.

Bill 104 does not speak of the staffing of schools per se, however regulations will certainly flow from Bill 104 and these regulations may address this issue. We would recommend that the Ministry of Education and Training ensure that there are no provisions in any amendments to Bill 104 or regulations flowing from Bill 104 to limit the right of Catholic separate school boards to hire Catholic teachers for their schools.

Presently the Ministry of Education and Training has responsibility for determining the curriculum of elementary and secondary schools in Ontario. Recently, due to severe financial cutbacks in the ministry, its role in curriculum development has been reduced and more work in curriculum development has fallen to school boards. In northern Ontario, the separate school boards have formed the Northern Ontario Catholic Curriculum Cooperative to do this work.

The curriculum materials developed in the past and currently being developed by the Ministry of Education are secular in nature and do not relate to the religious educational needs of a Catholic curriculum, which requires the gospel's values and Catholic beliefs to be integrated into every subject being taught. As it is the Ministry of Education and Training's responsibility to provide a curriculum for all students in Ontario, the needs of 600,000 students in the separate school system are not being fully met.

Over the years there have been many requests for the ministry to meet these needs. However, with the exception of one-time grants approximately four years ago to establish curriculum cooperatives, such as the one previously mentioned, no support has been provided by the ministry. We feel the ministry's support for the development of curriculum for Catholic schools is part of its mandate and this mandate should be honoured.

Support for the development of Catholic curriculum can be carried out in a number of ways. One option is the establishment of a curriculum unit within the ministry to take secular curriculum developed by the ministry and adapt it to Catholic schools. Another option is to fund the operation of the existing Catholic curriculum cooperatives in the province --

The Vice-Chair: You're down to one minute.

Mr Sheehan: One minute. I'd better skip, hadn't I? I was going to refer to the effects of the amalgamation of school boards on existing board employees. All I'll suggest is that hopefully the objective would be social justice and that injustice does not prevail when we amalgamate.

The magnitude of the planned amalgamations will require a great deal of work to be carried out by the existing boards. In northern Ontario a good deal of travelling will be involved, as well as staff and trustee time. Already in our area a number of meetings have been held and a good deal of time spent on telephone calls and faxes. Much staff time has also already been reassigned to meet the requirements of Bill 104.

All of this commitment of resources is being borne by the present boards and costs are beginning to mount. We would recommend that the Ministry of Education and Training immediately establish a transition fund to assist boards in implementing board amalgamations and that this fund continue into future years for these ongoing costs.

At the beginning of this brief the boards in this area stated their position regarding amalgamation of school boards, namely, that they did not see this as a positive initiative. Rather, the boards view this initiative as reducing local representation and involvement in the educational systems of Ontario. We are however appreciative of the opportunity provided by the government to our group and to others across Ontario to express our views on Bill 104. We thank you for your attention and interest in this presentation.

Since I'm representing four boards, do I get an hour?

The Vice-Chair: No, I'm afraid not. I wish you could. Thank you very much for your presentation, both Mr Sheehan and Mr Struk. I apologize for mispronouncing your names earlier. The entire presentation will be part of the official record as well. Even the parts that you had to skip over will be there.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, SUDBURY DISTRICT

The Vice-Chair: The next delegation is the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Sudbury, Ken Collins, president.

Mr Ken Collins: Thank you very much, members of the committee, for being here to listen to our concerns and our input. Some of the things I'm going to be saying this afternoon will echo a number of the points brought up by Mrs Hewitt and our board chair, Mrs Dewar, and past chair, Dr Checkeris, so if there is a little bit of an overlap, please forgive me.

My name is Ken Collins and I'm an elementary teacher at Pinecrest Public School. It's located in Hanmer, just north of here. I've been teaching with the Sudbury Board of Education for nine years. I have four children currently enrolled in public elementary schools here in the system. One is in junior kindergarten, another is in grade 2, a third in grade 4, and my oldest is in grade 5. All of them are at Algonquin Road Public School. My wife is also an occasional teacher with the Sudbury Board of Education.

As well as this involvement, I am the president of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Sudbury District, and as you've probably already surmised, I have a tremendous personal stake in public elementary education in this province and I wouldn't be here addressing you unless I and many of the teachers I represent had some very strong concerns about the direction in which the government is taking education right now.

1300

The Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Sudbury District, is comprised of some 125 statutory and voluntary teaching members. We're committed to improving education in all of the communities in which we have members, regardless of geographic size or proximity from large urban centres. We encourage change if the outcome is to improve educational conditions, teacher effectiveness and better learning environments and opportunities for children.

We believe that introducing Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, will have no positive impact on education as it affects us and indeed may very well erode much of the good work local boards are still carrying out despite steadily reduced funding over the last several years.

While we question the overall benefit of amalgamating school boards provincially, our, and particularly my, greatest objection is with the issue which will affect us most and that's the local merger of the Sudbury Board of Education with the Manitoulin and Espanola boards of education.

Distance and the differences in the various communities created by distances are issues of concern to both parents and teachers, the ones whom I've talked to anyway. There are several hundred kilometres between the most easterly school in the Sudbury board at Warren and the furthest school on Manitoulin Island at Gore Bay. A number of people who have already presented have illustrated these differences. I haven't gone into it in too much detail.

In good weather, the travelling time between these schools would be five and a half hours. During inclement weather, though, these communities would simply be inaccessible. Even if board administration offices were centralized at Sudbury, visits to the outlying area schools by supervisory officers or trustees would be all-day events, highlighted largely by car travel, rarely conducted in the winter. One can only guess how much attention smaller outlying rural schools -- and we've brought this up before -- would receive should the amalgamated school board be created.

The question about whether the local school board will have meaningful decision-making authority too is rather uncertain. While trustees will be maintained, apparently, their role, it appears, will be greatly diminished. In an educational jurisdiction as large as Sudbury, and possibly later as large as Sudbury, Manitoulin and Espanola, local educational priorities and the tough decisions which must be made based on those priorities are currently the responsibility of the caring board trustees. However, there are considerations in Bill 104 which will undermine much of the local democratic control presently exercised at the board level.

Removing the greater part of financial control from the boards and placing it in the hands of the Education Improvement Commission will relegate the board to merely an advisory body. With so many unique social, economic and educational situations within the geographical area, there will be not a hint of the same kind of responsibility trustees are currently authorized to undertake, meaning the local will of the community will rarely be addressed.

For example, already in the Sudbury Board of Education we have students who are bused in excess of one hour to school and another hour or more home from school in some cases. We have used the example, with other speakers, of the distance having to be travelled to Lo-Ellen Park Secondary School from the southern reaches within the Sudbury Board of Education. There are also cases of the little tots at Wanup public school -- this is according to Diana Haaranen, the principal -- who have to travel the same amount of time; very tiny children, and they are on buses for in excess of one hour going to school in some cases and in excess of an hour going home again. That already exists in Sudbury. Does this amalgamation of school boards mean that more community schools will close and more children will be bused in order to save money? If saving money is the case at hand, then perhaps this would be a logical following. Take the local power away from the community representatives and these kinds of discriminating decisions can more easily be made.

The savings figure has been reported to be $150 million if all aspects of Bill 104 were enacted. While fiscal responsibility is to be applauded, and we all agree with it, our concern is whether our local schools and children are able to enjoy any increased value from the education system if these changes are made. We believe the negative consequences will far outweigh the financial savings locally. I can't speak for the rest of the province, but locally this is how we feel.

We've heard how fiscally responsible the Sudbury Board of Education is, and it should be applauded. The Sudbury Board of Education has done a very good job in very difficult circumstances trying to cut its budget and trying to make do with the kinds of grants it's been given over the last few years. At the Sudbury Board of Education alone the budget cuts have been enormous. These are changes which, through no stretch of the imagination, have had a profound impact on classrooms. I just list a number of these events so that you may think about them.

Teaching staff were reduced by 81 in 1996, that's last year, for this year. In elementary alone, 41 teaching positions were reduced out of a total of 551 the previous year, while enrolment over the same period of time increased from 8,926 to 8,950. So enrolment increased and the teaching staff, in elementary anyway, dropped by 41. Non-teaching staff were reduced by 54 in 1996.

In-school special education staffing was reduced by 50% at the beginning of this year, and starting next year it will be eliminated completely. All staffing for elementary guidance counsellors has already been eliminated. Use of occasional teachers has been dramatically reduced. The way it's done right now is that we're trying to save three days per teacher per school, and it's having a significant savings right now. One elementary school has been closed, the former Eden public school. Seven principals are in twinned school situations; 19 elementary schools are currently sharing principals. Secretarial time has been reduced.

Audio-visual technicians have been dramatically reduced and resources like educational media centre operate on a skeleton staff, at least skeleton in comparison to its former self, which was substantially better occupied. One educational psychometrist and a psychologist have been cut out, and elementary school budgets have been reduced by 10% right across the board. In 1996, the board of education budget slashed $10 million out of its budget. It was almost $140 million and it slashed $10 million out.

Despite the promise that cuts to education will not affect students or the classroom, none of these cuts is without some impact on the child's learning. Is Bill 104 another fancy way to cut money at the expense of the children of this community? We think it is. The savings attributable to this legislation have no meaning to, for example:

The child who will have to spend hours on a bus. Will this number of children be increasing? We don't know. The bill doesn't address that.

Or the community whose school will have to close because it is too far away from urban centres and doesn't get the attention of the various individuals who will be making these kinds of decisions?

Or the frustrated trustees who will have no budget to implement the priorities they, as members of the community, know are needed?

Or the teacher whose board offices are so far away that they have only seen them in pictures and have no way to access the much-needed services?

This government keeps badgering education as the huge pit which sucks the province of all its resources. If education costs are too high in this province, we have to ask the question: As compared to what? Here are just a couple of bullets to chew on: The cost of education in Ontario is the same as it was in 1990 -- that's provincial funding -- but currently 12% more students are being educated.

Ontario taxpayers support two fully publicly funded education systems in both of which there is an English- language section and a French-language section. For this luxury, a premium must be paid. If you buy a Cadillac, you've got to pay a Cadillac price. We have a Cadillac system. It isn't a broke system; it's an excellent system.

Ontario per pupil costs are $165 higher than the national average because it includes things like educating adults, health and social services for at-risk students and English-as-a-second-language training for the large number of new Canadians who settle in Ontario urban centres. Ontario spends less per pupil, despite the fact that we have a higher average, than British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. While ministers Snobelen and Eves said that $1 billion more was spent in education in 1995 than the national average, since then there has been a reduction from $13.842 billion to $13.11 billion.

1310

In summary, we recommend that the province reconsider its decision to further target education with its cost-cutting axe. Teaching children is not a business in which wholesale cuts and change can be swept into place. Changes, if not carefully considered, can result in disastrous consequences. If the province is interested in change for the improvement of educational opportunities to children, as Mrs Dewar said, then that particular legislation would likely be endorsed heartily by ourselves. But Bill 104 gives us no indication to believe that these changes are for the betterment of education, and the government's record so far is evidence that quality education is not a foremost consideration when developing educational policy.

Mr Beaubien: Mr Collins, thank you very much for your presentation. In your brief you point out, on page 2 I think it is, that teaching staff was reduced by 81 in 1996 and yet enrolment had gone up from 8,926 to 8,950, and you mentioned rationalization, the process. On the next page, you show that the cost of education in Ontario is the same as it was in 1990 but currently 12% more students are being educated.

On the page that I have in front of me, looking at the boards in this area, there are 29 boards. Out of 29, 25 show a decrease in enrolment; four of them have increases. The highest increase is 1.1%. The highest decrease in the system is 11.2%. Can you tell me where you got your figure of 12% more students being educated in Ontario? Because I think it's prevalent throughout the province that the enrolment is going down, not going up. So where did you get your 12%?

Mr Collins: The figures for the enrolment increase come from the Sudbury Board of Education annual report. The staff figures come from the Sudbury Board of Education annual report. The change in the budget comes from the Sudbury Board of Education annual report. That is based on our Sudbury Board of Education. As I said, I was speaking locally. I think I might have said "provincial," and I didn't mean that. I meant our budget.

Mr Beaubien: You said the cost of education in Ontario.

Mr Bartolucci: Thanks, Ken, for another excellent presentation. I have a quote here from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association that I'd like clarification on. In an earlier presentation, one of the presenters said it was the opposition that were preaching an assault on democracy. This is a quote from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and I ask if you concur with it: "Our primary concern with Bill 104 lies with its assault on democracy. In essence, it is the province's first step towards eliminating local education governments and their local taxing authority and seizing total control of education in Ontario." Do you agree with that?

Mr Collins: From all indications, that's what it seems to be. It seems to be an attempt to reduce any community involvement. If I'm not mistaken, Egerton Ryerson 150 years ago set it up so it would be a locally based, community-run, community-involved institution, and it sure is about to change a whole lot from that.

Mr Bartolucci: You certainly agree with the Ontario Public School Boards' Association.

Ms Martel: Thank you, Ken, for your presentation today. You say in your final paragraph, "Bill 104 gives us no indication to believe that these changes are for the betterment of education." When you read through Bill 104, is there anything that you can see in there which would lead you, as a teacher and as a parent who has four kids in the system, to believe that the quality of their education is going to be improved?

Mr Collins: Not presently, no.

Ms Martel: Can you say why you are worried about the government's track record, so that in looking at that, you are concerned that the situation is actually going to continue?

Mr Collins: In a nutshell, we were promised that the classroom would not be touched. I have four children in the system right now -- superb teachers doing a wonderful job in a great board of education. However, the special ed services aren't there, some of the classes are starting to become bigger. It's a situation which is not improving right now.

The Chair: President Collins, thanks very much for being here and for presenting the views of your organization. We appreciate it.

Mr Collins: Thank you very much for giving me the time to present.

FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES

The Chair: First Nation Communities, Doris Boissoneau. Welcome to the committee. I would ask you, as you are seated, to introduce yourselves.

Mrs Doris Boissoneau: Meegwetch. I just want to introduce the two people with me: Elaine McDonagh from the Batchewana First Nation and Vaughan Johnston from the North Shore Tribal Council, who is the education director. My name is Doris Boissoneau. Before I start, I would like to introduce myself in my language.

Remarks in Ojibway.

I know nobody understood what I said.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm sure it wasn't good for the government.

Mrs Boissoneau: No.

Mr Beaubien: I thought it was quite flowery.

Mrs Boissoneau: My name is Doris Boissoneau and I am a member of the Garden River First Nation. I'm presently serving my second term as a native representative for my community in the Sault Ste Marie separate school board. I work at Sault College as a native language professor, and I'm committed to the preservation of the native language and culture of our people.

Since the introduction of Bill 104 in January of this year, many aboriginal leaders, educators, administrators and parents have met to discuss the implications of this bill. Member nations of the Union of Ontario Indians met in Garden River on February 12 and 13, and on February 14 member nations of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians met in London, Ontario. Today, this education issue will be discussed at the all-chiefs meeting taking place in Toronto today. Further meetings are planned with all native trustees at the end of this month.

I am pleased to be able to address your committee today and bring to your attention some areas of concern and recommendations from the first nation communities.

The government of Canada recognizes the inherent right of self-government as an existing aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. We also recognize that education within the act is a provincial responsibility.

The right of self-government is a right which must always be interpreted in a manner that respects aboriginal and treaty rights -- section 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is a federally recognized inherent right that must be responsive to Ontario's educational circumstances of the first nation people, our right to be a distinct people with governments, and in terms of distinctiveness of diversity of cultures both within and across aboriginal peoples of Ontario.

The guiding principles: The first nations, previously made reference to, utilize the following guiding principles and envision the changes in the education system under the Ministry of Education would reflect that aboriginal people are a distinct people; aboriginal people are a self-determining people; aboriginal people must be dealt with on a government-to-government basis; aboriginal control of aboriginal education must reflect the need to have direct involvement in the impacts of Bill 104.

1320

Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act and amendments to the provincial Education Act: The province of Ontario is changing the way it deals with elementary and secondary education. First nations in general can appreciate and support change in the system as it presently exists.

It is with progressive change that we may collectively better the system that serves our children. To ensure positive and progressive growth, the first nations are recommending that education legislation at the provincial level actively address the issues of education for first nations.

Throughout several discussions with the aforementioned first nations many concerns were raised, with recommendations attached. It is only with first nations involved that the issues raised can be met, with long-term gains for the first nations and the people of Ontario.

Highlights: First nations are desirous of a relationship with the province of Ontario where our guiding principles are recognized and included in meaningful discussions that pertain to improving the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system. The changes in the education system in Ontario raise several issues reflecting first nations and first nation direction. First nations identify with change but emphatically state that the first nation involvement is essential in the development and implementation of the new initiatives.

First nation issues raised, but not limited to, include the following: With regard to fewer school boards, first nations are concerned with native representation on the amalgamated school boards. First nations anticipate their involvement on the district school boards and are desirous of establishing the process of inclusion of aboriginal representation and the agreed-upon process identified in the Education Act.

First nations spend more than $60 million annually for 8,344 first nation students in tuition payments to the provincial school boards in Ontario. This is provided by INAC. First nations collectively rebuke any reference to a master tuition agreement between the province and the federal government.

First nations want assurance that tuition agreements will be negotiated with first nations and that the process will be determined in consultation with first nations. It is equally important that the agreed-upon process be identified in the Education Act.

Previous capital investments made on behalf of the first nations by INAC represent large capital infusions to respective boards of education. It is recommended that capital investments be revisited with consultation with the first nations.

The Education Improvement Commission represents a body that will be instrumental in effecting change and growth in the provincial school systems. It is essential that a first nation representative be included in the makeup of the commission, their committees and their subcommittees. First nations expect to be part of the solution. Here are some of our recommendations.

On fewer school boards:

Aboriginal representation: that first nation representation be included in the district school boards and that first nation consultation occur to determine process.

Tuition agreements: strongly disagree with a master tuition agreement between the province and the federal government. Tuition agreements must be negotiated with first nations and the process be determined with first nation consultation, the agreed-upon process to be identified in the Education Act.

Native advisory committees: that native advisory committees be included as essential on the district school boards and that native consultation regarding representation and process on such committees occur.

School councils: that school councils include native representation and that the process include native consultation.

Special education advisory committee: that SEACs include aboriginal representation and that the proper process leading to this be done through native consultation.

Capital investments: that capital investments by INAC on behalf of first nations be revisited with first nation consultation.

On the Education Improvement Commission:

Representation on the EIC: that first nation representation be included on the EIC and that first nation consultation occur with the Chiefs of Ontario.

The EIC committees, Bill 104, section 338: first nations conclude representation on committees is essential and that representation on such be determined by a first- nation-driven process.

The EIC subcommittees, Bill 104, section 339: first nations conclude representation on committees and subcommittees is essential and that representation on such be determined by a first nation-driven process.

Curriculum development: that curriculum be developed in consultation with first nation people to ensure native inclusiveness.

Native as a second language and native studies -- which is what I am involved in -- that curriculum be developed and delivered by native people themselves.

First nation people are a distinct people, a self-determining people, a self-governing people; aboriginal control of aboriginal education: that these social factors be recognized by inclusion in the Education Act and that they be used as fundamental principles in guiding educational reforms.

Mr Michael Brown: Meegwetch. You've made some significant points, one of which I think is being overlooked by the government: The large amount of first nation dollars that are spent on our educational system.

This morning we had the Manitoulin Board of Education here, which has a large proportion of first nation students within its board. They tell me, at least in the secondary panel, a third of their revenue is derived from the first nations. If the first nations choose to educate their own students, perhaps at the secondary level, the impact on the Manitoulin Board of Education would be to have the number of their high school students cut to about 400 or 450 and therefore not only the resources financially reduced but also the number of courses they could offer to students in general because of the smaller school.

I think you're making some excellent points, and you have some excellent allies among the present boards of education, which are saying virtually identical things to what you're saying. The government needs to take heed of what you're saying to us today. Meegwetch. Thank you for coming.

Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. I again reiterate the comments of my friend from Algoma-Manitoulin about the contributions of INAC and the first nations to education, particularly in northern Ontario, but in many boards in southern Ontario too, for instance, in areas around Brantford and so on.

I guess the main point you're making is that you should be dealt with on a government-to-government basis and that the first nations must be consulted and must have representation on the Education Improvement Commission, on the committees. There must be native representation on the new boards, and how that is determined must be determined through consultation and negotiation with first nations.

What approaches has the government made to the Chiefs of Ontario and/or the treaty organizations with regard to beginning those consultations and negotiations?

Mrs Boissoneau: I can also say that there actually never has been any consultation with regard to the education needs of the students with our first nation leaders. It has always been handed down: "This is the way it is. This is the way it's going to be presented."

Mr Skarica: I was impressed by the $60-million figure, over $7,200 per student. We heard from a first nation representative yesterday, and he gave what I thought was a very impassioned speech indicating that there are still high unemployment rates among first nations, that the education system -- my impression of what he was telling us -- is not serving the first nation people all that well and there needs to be a lot of improvement.

It doesn't seem to be money, because that's a staggering amount of money. What's wrong and what do we need to address? How can we improve that situation?

1330

Mr Wildman: That's a good question, but we could use a week on it.

Mrs Boissoneau: What is the problem?

Mr Skarica: I know you can't adequately answer it in a minute.

Mrs Boissoneau: The problem is that there's no direct involvement by the aboriginal communities for our input in the education of our students.

The Chair: Thank you very much, all of you, for coming. It's really been very enlightening to have you here to present your views. I know you drove all the way from Sault Ste Marie as well. We truly appreciate that.

Mrs Boissoneau: Meegwetch.

The Chair: And meegwetch. Absolutely.

ASSOCIATION FRANCO-ONTARIENNE DES CONSEILS D'ÉCOLES CATHOLIQUES

The Chair: I call the Association franco-ontarienne des conseils d'écoles catholiques. André Berthelot. Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you Madam Chair. As you'll know, I had indicated yesterday that I had, after the ministry briefing, given an indication of what questions remained outstanding that required written responses in order to lessen the workload for the ministry in providing written responses to all of them. I've tabled that list of outstanding questions with the research officer and I believe he will circulate that to members of the committee. I want to point out that that is exclusive of any questions that have been raised yesterday or today.

The Chair: Thank you for that. Bienvenue. C'est un plaisir de vous voir ici.

M. André Berthelot : Je suis président de l'Association franco-ontarienne des conseils d'écoles catholiques, et à côté de moi, le directeur général de l'AFOCEC, M. Armand Malette. Je vous remercie de nous accueillir et de nous permettre la chance de faire quelques interventions au sujet du projet de loi 104.

Notre association regroupe environ 23 000 élèves. Les conseils s'étendent de Thunder Bay à l'ouest, Timmins au nord, Simcoe-Essex dans le sud et le conseil de Sudbury est un de nos conseils membres. Nous avons quelque 90 conseillers scolaires qui oeuvrent à l'intérieur de l'AFOCEC.

Les caractéristiques d'un conseil catholique français ont beaucoup à voir avec les recommandations que nous allons vous faire concernant le projet de loi 104. Nous tentons de prévoir un lieu d'apprentissage et de développement dans notre système d'éducation, une communauté de foi. Nous agissons à notre avis comme les garants et les promoteurs de la culture et de la langue françaises, et nous tentons toujours une ouverture sur la communauté environnante.

Je dois dire de prime abord que l'AFOCEC appuie le projet de loi 104, et pourquoi ? C'est parce que nous avons attendu depuis très longtemps la gestion par et pour les francophones à travers la province. Ce projet de loi nous donne cette occasion, et malgré les réserves que nous pouvons avoir, il reste encore que nous devons féliciter le gouvernement pour avoir mis en branle ces démarches, même si on n'est pas aussi simples pour croire que c'est la raison d'être de cette législation.

Les concernes que nous avons, concernant le projet de loi, ont plutôt à faire avec le financement. Cela a toujours été le cas. Nous sommes rassurés quand même par notre participation et par l'ouverture du gouvernement aux démarches que nous avons prises pour développer un modèle de recasion par étudiant à travers la province. Nous croyons que les obligations du gouvernement vont au-delà de cette formule que nous attendons incessamment et impatiemment. À notre avis, le gouvernement doit aussi pourvoir une éducation qui est équivalente. Les tribunaux ont statué que dans certaines circonstances, les montants d'argent alloués par élève devraient dépasser les montants alloués aux élèves anglophones afin de permettre le rattrapage et le démarrage.

C'est pour dire qu'il y a eu pendant les courants des années, par la négligence certainement des recettes fiscales de l'assimilation, il y a eu des pertes d'accusées, et il nous semble qu'il est temps de remédier à ces torts et c'est avec des subventions de démarrage et de rattrapage que cela peut être fait. À notre avis, l'article 335(3)(e) où la commission doit examiner des questions touchant à la répartition de l'actif et passif des conseils existants, doit être amendé afin de refléter ces principes et de reconnaître les besoins légitimes du système catholique français des argents de rattrapage et de démarrage. Ce modèle de financement, à notre avis, doit contenir aussi une certaine flexibilité concernant les dépenses discrétionnaires afin de maintenir et de favoriser l'éducation catholique.

Selon ce ressort du mandat unique que nous avons de promouvoir la foi catholique, l'établissement du curriculum catholique est une responsabilité primaire de nos conseils scolaires, et c'est une responsabilité que jusqu'à présent, le gouvernement de l'Ontario n'a pas voulu soulever.

Nous voudrons aussi faire quelques suggestions en rapport avec la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, c'est-à-dire sa structure-même. Attendu qu'au-delà de 83 % des étudiants sont catholiques français dans le système français, il nous semble impératif que la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation soit constituée d'au moins deux francophones, dont l'un serait catholique. Je crois que vous n'avez qu'à examiner l'étendue de l'effet sur ce projet de loi en rapport avec les conseils de langue française pour vous rendre compte de l'importance de ce genre de représentativité au sein de la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation. Il y aura peut-être une autre mesure de rechange qui serait acceptable -- et je crois qu'ayant parlé à M. Cooke et à M^me Vanstone, c'est une chose sur laquelle je crois qu'ils se penchent, et cela serait la création d'une équipe francophone à l'intérieur qui serait en mesure de traiter, de transiger avec les intervenants francophones dans la province.

En ce qui à trait à l'article 335(c), on remet à la commission la responsabilité de cerner les questions touchant à la création des conseils de district de langue française. À notre avis, ce mandat est un peu imprécis et incomplet. Il y a certainement des différences très importantes entre le système catholique français et les autres systèmes d'éducation. C'est sur ces items-là que nous croyons que c'est important d'avoir d'autres études : par exemple, les besoins de curriculum catholique et de préparation pour des programmes pour contrer l'assimilation de permettre le rattrapage.

Ce sont toutes des questions, à notre avis, qui devraient être confiées à un comité local d'amélioration, et pour une étude approfondie par ceux qui sont principalement intéressés. Alors, c'est une proposition que nous vous faisons pour l'amendement de 335(c).

En ce qui à trait à 335(f), ce qui traite de l'approvisionnement à l'extérieur des services non liés à l'éducation, nous avons déjà tenté de vous éclaircir dans la mesure de notre possible de l'importance que nous tenons de pourvoir à la communauté francophone un lieu où ils peuvent travailler en français. Pour cette raison-là, nous croyons que n'importe quelle structure qui est approuvée éventuellement pour prendre la relève des services non liés à l'enseignement doivent tenir compte des droits des francophones de transiger dans leur langue. Que ce soit par le truchement d'assujettir ces organismes à la Loi des services en français ou d'autres façons, l'important c'est que nous soyons certains que, dans la mesure du possible, l'enfant aux soins de nos conseils de 8 h 30 jusqu'à l'heure où il est remis à ses parents soit capable de jouir de l'influence de sa culture française.

1340

En ce qui a trait à l'article 344, les décisions définitives de la commission : Selon cette disposition ou cet article de la loi, il n'y aurait pas de recours aux tribunaux. À notre avis, si ce genre d'article a l'intention de diminuer les droits des francophones et des catholique de s'appuyer sur le droit constitutionnel, il est non recevable. Je ne crois pas que ce soit l'intention du projet de loi en effet, mais quand même je doit souligner qu'en ce qui a trait à la confessionnalité, en ce qui a trait aux droits linguistiques, nous nous attendons à ce que, si nous avons un accord de quelque sorte avec la commission, cette question ne sera pas réglée par la commission mais, je crois bien, par les tribunaux de l'Ontario.

Je passe maintenant à une préoccupation centrale à plusieurs de nos conseils membres, soit la création des conseils de district et leurs membres. Je crois que certains principes de base devront être pris en considération dans la restructuration des conseils de district.

Une de ces affaires-là, c'est que le nombre d'étudiants ne devrait pas être le seul critère. C'est un non-sens de penser qu'en jugeant simplement par le nombre d'étudiants, la représentativité effective, démocratique puisse se faire. On doit prendre en considération les affinités existantes des communautés. On doit prendre en considération les distances géographiques. Nous avons plusieurs inquiétudes en ce a trait à la redevabilité envers nos parents.

Demandez-vous et posez-vous la question : Comment est-ce qu'un conseiller scolaire muni ou nanti des mesures qu'on lui donne peut représenter effectivement des gens qui s'étendent sur 450 milles ? C'est une question qui doit être abordée. Il y a plusieurs façons de pallier ce problème. Ce ne sont pas des problèmes sans méthode de résolution. Évidemment, on doit se pencher sur la technologie, et pour ce faire, le gouvernement, je crois, est ouvert et doit encourager des argents pour augmenter le niveau de technologie disponible. Mais ce n'est pas suffisant. On doit avoir la capacité de se rencontrer face à face, non seulement au table du conseil mais aussi d'avoir l'occasion de le faire avec les électeurs.

Nous proposons à cet égard, et surtout au niveau du nombre de conseillers scolaires, parce qu'ils sont peu nombreux maintenant pour faire le travail qui leur était assigné et on peut se douter qu'avec les nombres arbitraires qui sont imposés, leur tâche sera facilitée, que le règlement à cet égard prévu à l'article 327(3)(d) soit assoupli afin de permettre que la décision sur le nombre ultime d'un conseil, des membres d'un conseil, soit l'objet d'une recommandation à la commission par un comité local. Alors, vous avez à l'intérieur de la loi la possibilité de créer des comités locaux qui pourraient travailler ou faire des recommandations à la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation qui sont pertinentes dans la région. Je vous encourage, messieurs et mesdames, de ne pas juger qu'une seule solution soit admissible pour tous les conseils, français, anglais, catholiques et publics.

Il y a peut-être de différents modèles de représentativité qui doivent être considérés pour mieux assurer la représentativité. En tant que membres élus, je suis certain que vous reconnaissez l'importance de la démocratie et l'importance de la redevabilité. C'est pour améliorer ce genre de représentation que nous vous demandons de bien vouloir vous pencher sur les comités locaux qui auront, eux, une très bonne idée de ce qui est nécessaire concernant le nombre de conseillers scolaires qui doivent siéger à ces conseils scolaires.

La Présidente : Merci bien. Vous avez employé tous le temps à votre disposition. Je m'excuse, je regrette que nous n'ayons pas plus de temps, mais merci de votre présence, de votre participation.

CONFEDERATION SECONDARY SCHOOL PARENT ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Chair: Confederation Secondary School council, Doug Anderson. Welcome, Chair Anderson. We're pleased to have you here.

Mr Doug Anderson: Thank you very much. My co-presenter is our student rep on the council, Erin Marjerrison. Erin is going to present a little bit and I'm going to present a little bit, but before we start, I'd like to present our regrets to this council, this hearing, that our twin school couldn't be here with us. They wanted to be with us but I'm afraid Capreol high has been closed, so they could not come and present with us.

Mr Wildman: Don't raise that. I got in trouble for raising that.

Mr Anderson: I'm sorry, but that's our twin school. They couldn't be here.

You're a pretty intimidating group, so it took up until last night to convince Erin to come with me here today to talk to you people.

The Chair: I can assure you they're not an intimidating group at all. Go right ahead.

Ms Erin Marjerrison: My name is Erin Marjerrison and I sit on the parent advisory council as a student representative for Confederation Secondary School in the valley.

As a student during this time of educational reform I find myself at a loss. Any changes that come about to the educational system will directly or indirectly affect me as a student. Sadly, I must say that I have limited information about what is really taking place.

Everything moves so quickly, and only filtered information is received by me as a student. Often what I hear are opinions of people with a vested interest. It is disheartening for me, knowing that the people these changes will affect the most, the students, are not informed of what is happening. Consequently they are not able to form their own opinions and are not given a chance to express their views on some of these issues that will in turn affect them.

Most of what I have heard in response to the changes being discussed here today has been only from a negative standpoint. From what I know of Bill 104, I have formed some of my own opinions.

The amalgamation of school boards may be good for down south, but it is my understanding that for us northerners this may not be such a good idea. With regions spread over a great distance, I'm not sure if the needs of each individual board will be reached. I don't want the students to suffer, so this is a very great concern of mine.

With the enlarging of the region boards comes a need for fewer trustees. I personally see no problem with this. I feel that a good move was introducing the clause that inhibits spouses of teachers to become trustees. These people would have a vested interest, so therefore I believe this is a step in the right direction.

I hope that communication between the students increases so that they have a chance to state their views and give input on what is directly going to affect them.

I have to apologize. I feel really badly that I wasn't able to present a strong, in-depth, detailed presentation for you, but I don't blame myself; I blame the people who don't feel that students should have a chance to get this information and be able to speak about it.

Thank you for your time.

Mr Anderson: With all the major changes that have been happening in the education system in Ontario, and being new to a parent advisory council and what a parent advisory council is, it has been a challenge to keep up to and understand what is happening to the education system we have.

Change is something we have to accept in today's society, but the changes that are being made today are only a small part. It seems to us that we're being fed only a little bit of information at a time and we do not get the whole picture all at once. We question the rationale and ulterior motives behind the government's thinking on education reform in Ontario. What we are saying is that as parents we don't understand what you are doing, and why so fast. We are the ones who are paying for this. Slow down. Let us all work together on this.

1350

You as a government are telling us that we need fewer school boards and that they will be able to cover a larger area, with better results and put more money in the classroom and improve the quality of education. How? You haven't told us or shown us.

With the consolidation of the school boards, trustees will have a much greater area to cover. This means that there will be greater transportation and associated costs with the holding of meetings for the boards. Are we now going to have to look at teleconferencing, e-mail etc, and just what is the cost to implement these items?

You say that we will not have to tax locally as you are going to do this for us from the provincial level. How? Any time that you have taxed us in the past and stated that the money would go back into the system has not worked out. Take our hunting and fishing licences. The money that was generated from these is not being fully put back into the sport so why would you do it for education.

In northern Ontario we have special needs, and as a parent and parent advisory council rep I would like to know if you are going to set money aside for our needs. Snow removal: With the winter we've just had, the cost of removing snow so students and staff could get to schools is of prime concern in any budget. Also heating: You have to have a warm and comfortable environment conducive to learning. In northern Ontario it takes up a major portion of any school budget, but at the same time it is also necessary. We would like to know if any money is going to be put aside for northern Ontario concerns.

Bill 104 is establishing a five- to seven-member commission to oversee the transition to a new system. As a parent and parent advisory council rep, I strongly suggest that you repeal section 344 of this bill, as no one governing body should be given total dictatorial powers over education with no recourse on any party's part. Can you tell me when in Ontario we formed a dictatorship? Because that is what you are creating. You are elected by the people, for the people, and you have to be answerable to the people for the wellbeing of the students.

You are creating implementation committees, but who is going to make up these committees? Will parents, teachers, principals and trustees as well as students be represented? I hear that you have already created some of these committees. When will we as the parents know about this? After it is all over and done with?

One of the greatest difficulties we have discovered -- and I see nothing reflecting this in Bill 104 -- is the parent advisory council's lack of being able to access information. Everything is given to us at the last minute and we have to dig for information. Is this on purpose or has this government another motive for our council that it is not telling us about? There is no provision in this legislation to provide for and protect parents' legal liability. Why? You put in protection for everyone else but not the parent advisory councils?

I don't see any mention in this legislation that when schools are about to be closed -- and I hope the government will realize it is important to practice what it preaches -- to form partnerships in education, parents, students, teachers, principals and board trustees all have to be included in the whole process and not be brought in at the end when there is no other choice but to follow through with the closing.

We hear of lots of cuts and changes to schools, principals, staffing etc, but I don't see very many solutions to the problems being presented. We are not here as a parent advisory council to be a new and free workforce for this government, and we will not sit by and let this or any other government destroy our education system. We are accepting the challenge to try to comprehend and understand what has been taking place, but you better not forget the most important thing -- the students. They seem to be left out of this equation. Those students are our children and we as parents will not let you or anybody else tamper or harm our kids. What we are saying is, don't throw education reform at us a little bit at a time and expect us to buy it. We as parents won't buy in unless we are included as part of the whole process and not just little pieces here and there.

Ms Martel: Thank you very much, both Doug and Erin, for coming today. We appreciate that you've taken the time to do so.

Doug, you said in your comments, "We are not here as a parent advisory council to be a new and free workforce for this government." Through your remarks you certainly talked about your concerns already about your inability to get information, have some sense of what your role and your responsibilities are. Are you concerned that with Bill 104 going into effect, your roles and your responsibilities are going to increase but you will be in the same position as you are now, not having any idea of what you're supposed to, how to do it and how it's going to make the system better?

Mr Anderson: Totally. Just to present on this, I found out five hours after the hearing closed, the deadline to be able to present here, that this was taking place. I would like to thank Lyn McLeod and Shelley very much for answering my concerns on being able to present to you. We can't seem to get information.

You've set up parent advisory councils in Ontario. You as a government have access to all our names and information. We can't get information. You should have access; you're the ones who set us up. You shake you head, but our boards all have our names, so the information has to come for us in that we've got to know what's going on.

I had to go through Shelley, through your office, to get a copy of Bill 104, to be able to read up on it. The lack of being able to get information is phenomenal, and it's hard. Then how can we come and make an informed presentation to you? I have three kids in high school, and I'll tell you, it's very concerning to me as a parent.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank you very much for your presentation. Just why I was shaking my head: You indicated that as parent councils we know exactly who you are. I just want you to know that I tried to get a list of the chairs of the school councils in Wellington county, which is the area I represent, from our school board, and I had great difficulty in getting it. In fact, initially I was denied that information because of privacy legislation. I eventually did get the information because I persisted, quite frankly.

Mr Anderson: I'll give you a copy of our region here.

Mr Arnott: I'll look forward to getting that. Thank you.

Mr Anderson: I brought one with me, so if you've got a photocopier machine.

Mrs McLeod: I'm pleased that neither of you felt that you should apologize for not having the full picture, because none of us has the full picture. That's been a constant frustration of people who have presented. As you've said, what we have here in front of us is one small piece of a puzzle and we'd all like to know what the rest of the puzzle is going to look like.

Somebody was just saying to me out in the hallway that they were able to get a copy of the bill but they didn't get the maps. How can you deal with what school board amalgamation means in northern Ontario if you haven't even had a chance to look at the maps? You haven't seen the maps, either.

Mr Anderson: I didn't even know there were maps, until now.

Mrs McLeod: The maps that show what boards are going to be amalgamated and what the jurisdictions will be like, so it is very frustrating.

In spite of all of that, in my view, the reason I'm so concerned is that this is one step towards the eventual loss of school boards because I think the school boards are going to become totally ineffective. That leaves only parent councils. Somebody yesterday said we're going to end up with 5,000 mini-school boards, every school council. How optimistic would you be of being able to effectively lobby Queen's Park on behalf of the students in your school if that's where you had to go?

Mr Anderson: If that's where I have to go, I will go. I have no qualms on that because I am very adamant. We are very fortunate that we have students and parents in our school who will stand up and be counted in our region. I would have liked the other half of our school to be here with us.

1400

Interjection.

Mr Anderson: Yes, that's right. That's why we have empty chairs here. They don't exist any more and that's the problem.

Mrs McLeod: You're going to make sure they hear you.

Mr Anderson: Yes. We would be willing to go.

The Chair: Erin, I want to thank you for coming forward. It can't be easy, but you did it with tremendous grace and eloquence and we thank you. Chair Anderson, thank you as well. I'd like to give you my personal copies of the map to take with you so that maybe the bill will make a little more sense.

COALITION POUR L'ÉDUCATION, DISTRICT DE COCHRANE

The Chair: I call upon la Coalition pour l'éducation du district de Cochrane, Marie Jeanne Lacroix.

M. Bisson : Pour ceux qui ne me connaissent pas, je suis Gilles Bisson, député local de Cochrane-Sud. Marie Jeanne Lacroix, de la Coalition de l'éducation du district de Cochrane, est une autre présenteure, et M. Smith est étudiant. Je veux seulement donner le contexte de la présentation, et M^me Lacroix va faire la présentation détaillée.

Tout comme on a dit jusqu'à date, le gros problème avec le projet de loi 104 et avec beaucoup d'initiatives du gouvernement de l'Ontario, c'est que les commissions scolaires, les éducateurs, les parents et les étudiants n'ont pas l'information pour être capables de décerner exactement ce que le gouvernement veut faire et de quelle manière s'y prendre.

Quand le projet de loi a été soumis à la Législature en automne, le débat qu'il a eu en janvier, les conseils scolaires de la région de Cochrane, des parents et des étudiants, des syndicats et autres m'ont contacté en tant que député. Ils ont dit : «Écoutez, Gilles, on veut savoir ce qui se passe. Peux-tu nous donner de l'information ?» À ce point-là on a formé une coalition faite des conseillers scolaires, des éducateurs, des élèves, de tous ceux dans la communauté de Cochrane-Sud qui sont représentés sur ce comité pour se pencher sur la question d'où va le gouvernement avec le projet de loi 104, et comment pouvons nous, comme communauté, agir ?

Le comité a organisé des séances publiques à Iroquois Falls et à Timmins et il y a eu des audiences publiques d'une journée chacune. Au-dessus de 350 personnes entre Iroquois Falls et Timmins sont venus pour écouter, d'autres pour présenter, d'autres pour s'informer, et la présentation que vous allez entendre est la coalition de tout cet ouvrage qui a été fait avec les présentations.

M^me Jeanne Lacroix : Notre présentation est faite en points. Premièrement, la taille des conseils scolaires. Plusieurs présentations traitaient de la grandeur des conseils scolaires dans notre région. En général, les gens trouvaient que la région représentée par le conseil était trop vaste.

Les gens étaient choqués du fait que sept conseils scolaires avaient été fusionnés pour créer un mégaconseil, qui serait difficile à bien desservir.

Un conseiller scolaire a fait remarquer qu'il faudrait huit heures de voyage en voiture pour se rendre d'un bout à l'autre de la région. Ce conseiller craignait que la dimension humaine soit perdue avec la gestion d'un conseil si vaste, et qu'il est essentiel de préserver l'aspect humain dans la gestion scolaire.

D'autres participants ont souligné que ces mégaconseils comme le nôtre, à titre d'exemple, couvriraient 22 communautés, et qu'il n'y aurait pas de représentation équitable puisque le nombre de conseillers est limité à seulement 12.

Un enseignant a fait remarquer qu'avec un tel mégaconseil, les parents n'obtiendraient pas la représentation nécessaire au sein de leur communauté. Cet enseignant craignait que l'éducation allait souffrir en l'absence de représentation vraiment communautaire de la part des parents et des conseillers.

D'autres préoccupations soulevées traitaient du fait que ces nouveaux conseillers scolaires de mégaconseils n'auraient aucun pouvoir décisionnel, étant donné que le gouvernement prendrait toutes les décisions quant à la gestion et au financement des écoles.

Un participant était préoccupé du fait que les entreprises locales ne pourraient pas travailler avec le nouveau conseil, puisque l'achat de biens et services serait centralisé, sans l'implication de conseils locaux. La préoccupation était essentiellement que les gens d'affaires locaux ne pourraient pas faire concurrence contre les mégavendeurs et fournisseurs faisant affaire avec un pouvoir d'achat centralisé au mégaconseil.

(2) Les conseillers sans pouvoir : Certaines personnes étaient préoccupées du fait que le projet de loi 104 entraînerait l'élection de conseillers qui n'agiraient essentiellement qu'en tant qu'agents du gouvernement. La préoccupation était que cette situation n'était pas démocratique, puisque les gens croient que leurs représentants élus peuvent les représenter de façon réelle.

Il a été commenté qu'en l'absence de conseillers qui peuvent vraiment prendre des décisions, les services locaux et communautaires impliqués dans le secteur de l'éducation seraient perdus, puisque le pouvoir décisionnel serait centralisé à Queen's Park.

(3) Manque de responsabilité juridique de la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation. Les gens ont exprimé leurs craintes que la CAE serait trop puissante et, effectivement, non démocratique puisque ses décisions seront finales, sans pouvoir faire l'objet d'une révision du tribunal.

Certains ont commenté le fait que ce petit groupe de personnes nommées à la CAE aurait trop de pouvoir et qu'il ne serait pas tenu responsable de ses actions ou des décisions qu'il prendrait concernant le système d'éducation publique.

Il fut également noté que le gouvernement ne veut pas transférer le contrôle de l'éducation, par le biais de la loi 104, à des conseillers et des conseillères élus. Les conseillers seront obligés de mettre en oeuvre les décisions de la CAE, et ne contrôleront pas les finances de façon importante, donc, indirectement ils ne géreront pas leurs propres conseils scolaires.

Les gens ont fait connaître leurs préoccupations du fait que la CAE prendrait des décisions importantes au sujet du système d'éducation publique sans consulter la population de façon convenable, et plus particulièrement, les personnes travaillant dans le secteur de l'éducation.

(4) La gestion scolaire et les décisions financières de Queen's Park. Les représentants de l'AEFO secondaire de Timmins ont rappelé que le groupe de travail du ministère de l'Éducation formé de divers intervenantes et intervenants du milieu de l'éducation a conclu que le financement de l'éducation devrait se diviser en trois catégories, à savoir : le programme de base en salle de classe ; le soutien à l'enseignement et à la salle de classe ; et l'administration centrale et la régie.

Le gouvernement actuel a promis de ne pas toucher à la salle de classe, mais il ne faut pas se leurrer. Les grandes compressions budgétaires qu'il doit effectuer ne pourront faire autrement qu'avoir des conséquences directes et indirectes sur celle-ci. Dans son estimation, le gouvernement a déterminé que 80 % des coûts de l'éducation ne sont pas reliés directement à la salle de classe et que conséquemment des coupures peuvent être faites dans les domaines suivants : temps de préparation et de correction ; orientation et services professionnels ; services de maintien ; administration des écoles ; postes administratifs du conseil.

On ajoute aussi à la liste les services essentiels, tels que le transport, le chauffage et l'éclairage ainsi que l'entretien de l'édifice. Comment le gouvernement peut-il croire que des coupures drastiques dans tous ces services n'auront pas de conséquences directes dans la salle de classe?

De plus, dans les faits, les réductions d'impôts promises par M. Harris grâce supposément à ces compressions n'aboutiront à rien de concret, puisqu'au bout du compte les municipalités devront augmenter leurs impôts fonciers pour couvrir les responsabilités accrues qui leur incomberont, ce qui ferait bien sûr paraître les municipalités comme des «grosses méchantes» de tout cet exercice.

N'oublions pas les conséquences sociales néfastes de toutes ces coupures, à savoir la mise au chômage ou à des conditions de travail beaucoup plus précaires et moins avantageuses de tous ces travailleurs qui ne sont pas en salle de classe et chez qui on va sabrer.

Cela causera aussi des problèmes aux écoles francophones. En raison du mandat culturel et linguistique confié à ces écoles, quelle garantie avons-nous que le financement des services soutenant cette mission ne sera pas touché ?

Selon une enseignante du niveau élémentaire, le gouvernement tente par tous les moyens de démontrer que le système actuel d'éducation va mal, tout cela afin de justifier les coupures. Selon elle, même les tests d'aptitudes provinciaux au niveau élémentaire peuvent être perçus ainsi.

Les difficultés ainsi que les incongruités des questions de ces tests prouvent bien la méconnaissance du ministère sur ses propres programmes.

Il est aussi souligné que les écoles catholiques qui ont comme tâche supplémentaire l'enseignement de la catéchèse ne peuvent toujours être rendus au même endroit dans le programme que le ministère le prévoit.

Avant de parler de coupures et d'autres réformes, le gouvernement devrait essayer de réparer les failles déjà existantes dans le système : mauvais timing, informations à la dernière minute, examens d'aptitudes standardisés pour toute la province, ne tenant pas compte de la vrai réalité du milieu scolaire.

1410

Tout cela démontre bien que le milieu scolaire n'est pas suffisamment consulté et que, quand on semble le faire, on ne tient pas compte de ses recommandations et des besoins qu'il exprime.

(5) Sous-traitance et privatisation de services : Les gens ont fait aussi remarquer qu'à long terme, il n'y aurait pas de véritable économie en accordant des contrats privés, puisque l'entreprise doit d'abord être payée, pour ensuite payer ses employés, tout en faisant un profit. De plus, les anciens employés se retrouvant au chômage ou sous toute autre forme d'assistance publique, cela finira quand même par coûter plus cher aux contribuables.

Un travailleur d'entretien a fait remarquer que le roulement du personnel avec des entrepreneurs privés serait un facteur plus important, affectant l'environnement scolaire et entraînant possiblement des situations non sécuritaires.

Un enseignant a soulevé la préoccupation que la sous-traitance de services autres que 1'enseignement n'était qu'un début, et qu'elle entraînerait bientôt la sous-traitance de toutes sortes de services, y compris l'enseignement. Elle entraînerait également la privatisation de notre système d'éducation publique, nous rapprochant ainsi du système américain.

(6) Conventions collectives : De nombreux enseignants ont fait connaître leurs inquiétudes face au manque de provisions dans le projet de loi 104 en ce qui a trait aux conventions collectives conclues avant janvier 1998. La crainte est que le gouvernement veut changer la façon dont elle compose avec les conventions collectives qui sont en place actuellement.

Il était également noté que le gouvernement pourrait peut-être tenter de fusionner tous les différents syndicats en une négociation centralisée, selon un format restreint, pour ne pas avoir à composer avec des syndicats particuliers. Cela représenterait une confrontation importante impliquant les syndicats d'enseignants et enseignantes qui ont été développés au cours des dernières décennies.

Il est également à craindre que le gouvernement tenterait de désigner le rôle d'enseignant et d'enseignante comme service essentiel, éliminant ainsi le droit de grève dans ce secteur, s'il le voulait.

Les gens craignent que le gouvernement, dans sa détermination de maintenir sa promesse d'une réduction d'impôt aux gens de l'Ontario, au profit des riches surtout, pourrait tenter de faire payer ses réductions d'impôt sur le dos des enseignants et des enseignantes.

Nous avons sept conseils d'éducation qui seraient ensemble. Ça veut dire qu'ils y aurait sept contrats pour les secrétaires, sept pour les concierges, sans compter les maîtres. La question était comment le gouvernement pensait les mettre tous ensemble sans coûter encore bien plus cher.

La Présidente : Excusez-moi. Il vous reste une minute.

M^me Lacroix : (7) La création de nouveaux conseils scolaires francophones : Le seul point positif du projet de loi consiste dans le fait que les francophones auront la gestion de leurs écoles, officiellement après 125 ans de lutte. Mais dans les faits, c'est loin d'être la même chose. Comment ces écoles seront-elles gérées, avec quels moyens et quelle véritable pouvoir et autorité ?

Comme dans le cas des écoles anglophones, que signifie vraiment avoir la gestion de nos écoles sans pour autant avoir les outils pour vraiment pouvoir les gérer efficacement ?

Si les conseillers scolaires n'ont pas la possibilité de prendre les décisions financières, ils n'auront véritablement aucun vrai pouvoir, et cela même s'ils sont élus par la population. Ce n'est pas un véritable pouvoir de gestion. Ils ne feront alors que gérer les politiques gouvernementales. Où est la vraie démocratie là-dedans ?

La Présidente : Merci bien. On apprécie que vous nous ayez donné la perspective de votre coalition. Je regrette qu'il n'y a jamais beaucoup de temps.

Marketing Support Services; is Peter Mandl here? No. For the first time in about six days we have a lunch break. Ladies and gentlemen, with that we will be recessed until 3 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1415 to 1501.

SUDBURY BOARD OF EDUCATION / CONSEIL DE L'ÉDUCATION DE SUDBURY

The Chair: May I have the Sudbury Board of Education, French-language section, Jean-Marc Aubin. Monsieur Aubin, les autres ne sont pas venus, mais nous allons commencer.

M. Jean-Marc Aubin : Merci bien de nous accorder cette période de temps où je pourrai partager avec vous mes réactions au projet de loi 104.

I will be alternating in French and English throughout my time allotment. Thank you for granting me space so that I can share with you my reactions to Bill 104.

My name is Jean-Marc Aubin. I'm chair of the French-language section of the Sudbury Board of Education. I've been involved in education since 1982, previously on a French-language advisory committee, and for the last six years as chair of the French-language section.

The French-language section of the Sudbury board of ed comprises eight schools -- four secondary and four elementary -- with a total of about 2,000 students.

Nobody knows better than I do that the main requirements, if one wants to engage in educating children, are students, programs and teachers. The rest will be determined according to available resources. We experienced in this very region clear proof of this when parents and guardians registered children in schools made entirely of portables because of the choice of programs offered therein. I will come back to this towards the end of my remarks.

Bill 104 provides for the establishment of district school boards. The latest attempt at rationalizing a restructuring or realignment of school boards before this bill was the Sweeney commission. As in previous studies, it recommended fewer school boards. Bill 104 does this at last and in a clean-cut fashion. It dismantles and eliminates existing boards, which is logical before defining boundaries of new ones. Near-unanimous approval of this purpose of the bill is evident in Ontario. The French-language section of Sudbury Board of Education could not agree more.

We regard the district aspect as a natural evolution of our efforts. It happens that for over four years now we've experienced very positive results in areas that are known as exclusive jurisdiction in a partnership with our counterparts from various communities of the north-central region. This first purpose, of "establishing district school boards," is the best way to go as far as we're concerned, at least for this region of north-central Ontario.

Comme autant de Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, je me réjouis bien sûr d'enfin pouvoir toucher à une vraie et pleine gestion par et pour les francophones. Nous pourrons, semble-t-il, mieux respirer et partager notre vision plutôt que de s'inquiéter tellement de notre survie comme Ontariens et Ontariennes, croire davantage à l'atout précieux que nous sommes, de par notre imagination et l'enrichissement que nous apportons à notre société.

La section de langue française du Conseil de l'éducation de Sudbury, forte de ses efforts coopératifs et du partage de ses meilleurs atouts, met au service du gouvernement toutes ses ressources afin d'assurer la plus grande réussite possible de la mise en place des nouveaux conseils.

Bill 104 permits the transition to a new system as defined in section 327 of the Education Act. When major changes such as this bill initiates are thrust upon us, literally hundreds of questions invade our minds because we care, because we are uncertain of the future and mostly because change is difficult, especially this magnitude of change.

There are three major types of initial realignments of school boards, as we see it.

First there's the Metro Toronto board. It already knows its boundaries and the number of trustees it will be comprised of, which is 22. It's in a peculiarly favourable situation in that it has thrived on negative grant structures for years, and it's in a position of strength as far as negotiating or inputting to the province about funding of education.

The second type is amalgamated boards, such as the Sudbury board, which I'm a part of. The Sudbury board and Espanola and Manitoulin are existing boards and they will, for practical purposes, be amalgamated. They will lose, at the same time, their French-language sections.

Then there's a third kind, the newly created boards, such as French public boards that will cover vast territories and be comprised of sections of boards that heretofore were not legal entities except for areas of exclusive jurisdiction. A lot has been made of the territory covered by this board that I will be part of. It's the biggest one in the province, I guess. There's a lot of press that comes with it and there are a lot of reactions from associations of school boards and of teachers and from whoever wants to speak about the subject. It's the example that's used the most to show that the project is not feasible.

The reality is that when you talk of French public education in that vast territory, there are sections in Sudbury, in Espanola, in North Shore, in Michipicoten and Chapleau. Those have been involved in a cooperative of educational services for over four years now. All these people are used to working together and are probably best situated to make this board really flourish and be a success in a very short period of time. It's not like it's portrayed in the press; it's not a vast territory that's unmanageable.

It is in fact a number of individuals who are used to working together. The only individuals who will be added to this group that's already existing and functioning very well are the group from Geraldton and the group from Manitouwadge. They're small sections. One is very small and one has a high school. We've already communicated with these people and initiated some partnerships. When people across this province start pointing to this school district that goes from Sudbury to the Manitoba border, the reality is what I've just spelled out to you.

An important question in my mind relates to one of the newly created boards, and it begs a commonsense answer: Why could newly created boards not come into existence the very day of the next elections? If they do not, then legislation will have created a period in limbo that can be avoided.

In our case, for instance, sections of public boards from Chapleau, North Shore, Michipicoten, Espanola, Geraldton, Manitouwadge and Sudbury, after electing trustees to a long-awaited board, will have to sit by until January to take office. In the meantime the boards from where they originate will be adapting to one or more types of amalgamations. My suggestion is that in the case of newly created boards, the election date or even September 1997 is the answer. An appointed group can assure the same transition, a logical one, but the logic is gone if you wait until January 1. It's not there. People are going to be in limbo in between and others are merely taking care of amalgamations. Those who have the most to do will be in limbo.

1510

My suggestion, therefore, is clearly to go on election day or before that with the newly created boards, not to have a limbo period. It's a question of destabilizing in the least possible way the expectations of parents, of children and of teachers. I come back to the point I made at the beginning: to educate, we need students, we need programs and teachers. The better we address this reality, the more success we will have. We have lived that here in a very real fashion, where we had portables for six and seven years respectively, schools made entirely of them, and students left brick buildings to come to these schools because of the program. If anybody doubts that to educate you need students, programs and teachers, there's living proof here in this town, and not just a few examples.

Nos expériences coopératives des années récentes nous ont permis de réaliser comment importante est l'autonomie locale. Afin d'assurer le respect de cette autonomie, nous suggérons que les argents générés dans une communauté y demeurent.

Local autonomy, whether it be it through trustees or through school councils or whatever, is and will be very important, especially to small communities. We have not found provisions that would ensure that money generated in a community remain or return to that community. We recommend this type of protection in the amendments.

What I'm talking about here is that if the province comes out with a formula that gives a number of dollars per student and allocates a number of square feet per student at an elementary or secondary level, moneys that are generated in Chapleau or in Wawa stay in Chapleau and Wawa, whether they're part of a district board, so that when the crunch comes, somebody doesn't decide to close a program because there are only eight kids in it in Wawa and there are 11 in Sudbury. The moneys that are generated in a community should stay in that community by whatever formula it is.

Another question that has to be addressed in certain communities is program funding. Picture this, if you want: A student in London and another one in Niagara Falls have to go to Toronto to get a grade 12 options because their formula doesn't generate the moneys. You have to have program funding in some localities in northern Ontario for this reason: The economy of the province of Ontario is based on natural resources. The extraction of natural resources now requires a lot fewer people, so that in towns like Gogama and Chapleau you have just a few people with machines that cut down a lot of trees. In mines of Sudbury and smaller communities you have machines that extract a lot of tonnage. Their kids have to get educated.

Our economy is based on natural resources, and children of the young people who extract these natural resources have to be educated to the best of our potential. The best of our potential requires that we do program funding so that if there are only five students in grade 12 in Chapleau, they have program funding and can access a number of courses that they surely would get if they were in London or Niagara Falls. Even though they live far from Toronto, I'm sure somebody would find a way of getting it to them.

De nombreuses inquiétudes ont été soulevées dans la presse et par les associations d'enseignants et de conseils scolaires quant aux pouvoirs de la commission. Étant donné les individus choisis pour la coprésider, cette commission, je ne m'en inquiète pas plus qu'il ne le faut.

Finally, I urge you and the government not to fall for the belief that technology will resolve the problems of geography. Teleconferencing etc is unacceptable as a solution. I have had ample experience, as a founding member of Collège Boréal, with these tools of technology.

The Chair: Could I ask you to sum up, please.

Mr Aubin: Yes. Anyone who tells you that they are satisfactory either does not know better or probably lives in Ottawa.

Merci, Madame la Présidente et vous tous et toutes, membres du groupe, de m'avoir écouté, mais plus important, de m'avoir permis de participer encore une fois à un moment historique de notre nation.

La Présidente : Merci bien, Monsieur Aubin. Je crois qu'on veut que ce soit vraiment un moment historique. Vous l'avez bien dit.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 30

The Chair: Wayne Jackson, welcome. May I say in advance, on behalf of the committee, that we regret that this place is not as accessible as we had hoped. I've had some difficulty getting here. We will make sure next time that this doesn't occur.

Mr Wayne Jackson: Chair, members, thank you very much. My name is Wayne Jackson. I'm president of District 30, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. I'll tell you a little bit about District 30 momentarily. I'm joined in this presentation by Jim Agnew, a colleague from District 30 who serves in the capacity as our provincial councillor. Once again I thank you kindly.

You have a printed submission. I don't intend to go through it, in light of the time assigned. I do, however, want to make some references to it and to add some supplementary comments about our concern regarding Bill 104.

District 30 is the organizational unit of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. It represents the professional and occupational interests of 473 secondary school teachers and education workers employed by the Michipicoten Board of Education, the Central Algoma Board of Education and the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education. These individuals, of course, comprise a significant portion of what might very well become district school board 2.

Already District 30, the small portion that I've shared with you, covers some 300 kilometres. The boundaries proposed for district school board 2 will encompass in addition Chapleau and the North Shore. To give you some idea of the expanse of this board, it would mean a full working day's driving time in very good weather -- which means perhaps during the four months of the year that would allow that -- from one end of the new board to the other. Regrettably, given cutbacks recently, air transportation and rail transportation are not alternatives.

At the outset, let us register the fact that my members in District 30 are very bitter about the way this government has treated education and education workers. Our anxieties are further aggravated by legislation such as Bill 104 that assault the very basis of Ontario's system of public education. The manner in which the bill was introduced, the intention of the government for speedy passage and the unprecedented scope of its contents are matters we believe should disturb all citizens of a free and democratic country.

Furthermore, we're concerned about the process of public hearings, part of which we're involved in here today. They might be construed as giving merely the appearance of consultation. I would suggest that the allocation of 10 minutes before this committee does nothing to dispel our fears or our conclusion about the perfunctory nature of this process.

1520

In our brief, and I do trust it will be given a thorough read by members of the committee, we note that in Mike Harris's Ontario public education has become simply another victim of a widely publicized and accepted neoconservative agenda. Cuts to such programs as social programs and education are being made at a cost to society which is regrettably hidden and unfortunately very long term.

Ontario's spending, I'm sure you've heard before, compared to other jurisdictions, contrary to data released earlier, is plummeting as the provincial government withdraws funding support from elementary and secondary schools. In 1995-96, five Canadian provinces and territories and 40 American states spent more per pupil than Ontario. That's very regrettable. That's a most disturbing change.

A dramatic indication of the impact of these cutbacks on the classroom is certainly evident from the increase in pupil-to-classroom-teacher ratio. Even when compared with the United States, we find that Ontario has dropped to 45th place when so ranked.

Bill 104 then, together with the fewer hospitals initiative, the fewer patients initiative, the fewer unions initiative, the fewer workers' rights initiative, is rooted in a neoconservative ideology that denigrates government, abandons the unfortunate and the marginalized to the vagaries of free market economies.

If Bill 104 were merely about the orderly transition to a new board structure, a new administrative structure, my members would be relatively at ease with its proposals and its provisions. If the reforms guaranteed that the special status and the needs of Ontario's youth would be protected and maintained, our members would be supportive. Bill 104 is not that, however. It's part and parcel of the most determined cut to funding of Ontario's public education that has ever been experienced. You know full well the figures. Close to $1 billion has been removed from elementary and secondary school education.

Our brief argues in several sections that Bill 104 transfers effective control of education from the local school board to the authority of the province. With this loss in democratic representation, local communities have been stripped of their right to control our most important resource: the future of our students.

In these new district school boards, who, I ask, in our communities in northern Ontario can afford the time to travel that would be required of these new trustees? A trustee resident in Elliot Lake would need 14 hours of travel to simply attend a meeting in Wawa. It would seem much more advantageous to all that we ensure that local boards have the ability to continue to meet local needs. A portion of the cost of local education must be raised from the local residential and farm property rate and commercial and industrial tax through a mill rate struck by local school boards.

We request that the committee consider no further cuts to the level of funding for Ontario elementary and secondary education. We ask that funding levels be adjusted upwards to reflect increases in enrolment and in the cost of living, and that the real needs of Ontario students be addressed, including population sparsity and the isolate nature of northern communities.

We were indeed shocked, as you can appreciate, by the government-funded study that redefined the classroom. I need not go through the litany of our concerns. I know that members of this committee share them and have heard them before.

Let me note, however, that all activities necessary for the efficient operation of the school, be they psychometrists, principals or vice-principals, and its programs for students must be funded as classroom services. My position and that of my colleagues in District 30 is that the whole school is the classroom.

It appears that at the core of this government's education reform initiative is the implementation, regrettably, of an economic agenda, the evidence of which is far too prevalent, that is shifting wealth to the corporate world where it is taxed very little, if at all, and where it does not contribute its fair share to the wellbeing and social fabric of this province.

The main tenets of Bill 104 present us with a path to a divided and élitist society in which the rich retreat to the comfort of the guarded and gated communities while the rest of the citizens of Ontario struggle to survive with ever-diminishing social and public services.

We implore the provincial government to rededicate itself to support public education. There must be no further reduction to government funding for school boards. School councils, we declare, cannot be substitutes for democratically constituted and accountable school trustees. The powers and focus of the responsibility of school advisory councils should remain advisory under the authority of local school boards.

That concludes my remarks. I'm going to ask my colleague if he might, if you would indulge us, make a few concluding remarks.

The Chair: You have one minute left.

Mr Jim Agnew: I don't think I can add too much to what Wayne has said. We are concerned of course too about employee rights in amalgamated boards. We have included in our brief a set of protocols in the appendices that would provide the basis for beginning to do something about employee rights. In previous amalgamations the rights of employees in existing collective agreements were adequately provided for in legislation.

We're concerned that what we're going to end up with in northern Ontario is not shared education resources, that we're going to end up with shared poverty. That is a very real concern of our membership. To add to what Wayne said, we think the new boards of education will be a shadow of governance, will just be a very pale shadow of what should be there for education governance in a community.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Agnew and Mr Jackson, for coming here and sharing your views with us.

RAY PORATTO

The Chair: Ray Poratto is next. Welcome, Mr Poratto.

Mr Ray Poratto: I'm pleased to see the number of MLAs who have returned to the table. I was getting to suspect that maybe they were on four-martini lunch hours or some such thing, so I'm pleased to see they returned.

My name is Ray Poratto. I want to give you a short backgrounder and give you some idea of where I'm coming from on this question. My experience in terms of background is of course that I have been through the education system locally. I have seven children who have been through the education system locally. I now have eight grandchildren who are in the education system locally. So from the perspective of experience with the local education system, I count up about 132-odd school years that I've had some participation in.

I'm a taxpayer to the school system for the past 48 years, both residential and commercial. I've been an employer in small business for 35-odd years, dealing extensively with graduates and failures and outcomes of the system, employing anywhere from three to 103 people over various years over various businesses. I have no relationship to anyone employed in the education system at the present time and I have no provincial political party office, so I come here as an independent, I hope without bias, wanting to reflect on some of this system as I see it.

At the outset I want to tell you very clearly that my viewpoint, from all of my experience and background, is that this legislation is a godsend. This legislation was long overdue. We've been handicapped as a society to compete globally and nationally by the failings of the present system. We have not achieved the benefits that could be ours in education in this province.

Let me tell you something about outcomes. That's a new word that's been coined. As an employer, I can't tell you how many times I was disappointed with the outcomes of the system that sent workers to me who lacked the three Rs, and you know what I'm talking about there. I had to spend much time, much money in a small business that is in a very competitive field to do the work that I believe should have been done in the system, but it wasn't done.

1530

Item, Toronto Star last week: "Why are our kids at the bottom of the class in science?" And later on it describes in math. It talks about the probe urged into what's going on in the classroom. That comment has been repeated you know how many times over and over across this province for a number of years that I have observed.

From the standpoint of my seven children and my eight grandchildren I can tell you that for the amount of money we spend on education they deserve better. Our cost per student, as you're well aware, is among the highest, if not the highest in the country.

Local education taxes have been increased every year over the past many, many years to support a system that is failing. In excess of inflation these increases occurred -- and hear this one, Ms McLeod -- at a time of declining enrolment. One small business operator commented to me: "The cost is the highest and the outcomes are among the lowest. Go figure." Can you hear me, Ms Martel?

Ms Martel: Yes, provincial enrolment is going up.

Mr Poratto: Oh, I'm glad. I'm glad. I didn't think you could hear me if you were talking. You'd have difficulty doing both. I have.

Ms Martel: I think we have a difference of opinion on your figures.

Mr Poratto: A small business proprietor observed, "The system operates, for example, 182.5 days of the year." That's less than half-time. That's part-time. He operates his business 315 days of the year and more recently he's going to have to operate it 365 days of the year because of Sunday openings. That's why I guess those small business operators are called the engine of the economy. Let me tell you something about the engine: It's sputtering under the load of the tax-imposed system that is the result of the trustees system.

I look at another aspect of the system where I have to take employees and console them; for example, the working moms I have had in my operations over the years, struggling through school holidays, through PD days, through summer holidays, through early release days and on and on. They've had a great deal of difficulty. The trustees have been part of that process.

I believe the provincial government is better positioned to match the powerful bureaucracy, the powerful education bureaucracy, the powerful school teachers' unions that have imposed this kind of schedule on the trustees.

I want to give you an example I alluded to the other day that was brought to my attention when we talk about the trustees system as it existed. Teachers' pension plan: $43.5 billion in its coffers and growing every day, attained through the legalized extortion at the bargaining table. Now they're buying up shopping malls, hockey arenas, and I understand from one banker recently that they're circling a couple of banks. Compare that with our beleaguered CPP plan to look after the other 30 million Canadians.

That's the kind of system the trustees system has developed. Obscene, you say? No, but badly needing fixing. I say remove the taxing authority from the school boards, put it in the hands of the people who have the same kind of power that is brought to the table by these other two groups I mentioned. The trustees system has grown obsolete.

I sympathize with many of them. I heard them over the years complain about they only control 20% of the budget, the roof repairs and the boiler repairs each year when they do the budget. The other 80% is locked into salaries and collective bargaining agreements. I had to observe very conveniently that they were the guys who sat at the table and did the bargaining, but they were no match for the big, powerful groups I mentioned previously.

The Chair: Mr Poratto, could I ask you to wind up?

Mr Poratto: I'll just be another half a minute. Our city council, on the other hand, has very effectively held the tax line through the past six years. So I believe sincerely that it takes the power of the provincial government to correct this situation.

I say to Minister Snobelen, congratulations. I'm sorry he isn't here today. I don't think he's here. I don't know him to see. Congratulations in any event --

Mr Skarica: I'll pass it on.

Mr Poratto: -- for having the courage to take on this situation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Poratto, for your views and for being here today.

WALTER MACLEOD

The Chair: Walter MacLeod. Mr MacLeod, welcome to our committee. We're delighted to have you and we're looking forward to your presentation.

Mr Walter MacLeod: I'm one of those irresponsible trustees, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I won't comment. You have 10 minutes for your presentation and if time permits, the committee will ask questions.

Mr MacLeod: My name's Walter MacLeod. I'm a trustee of the Sudbury Board of Education. I have 11 years' board experience from 1961 to 1972, was reappointed to the board in 1992 and re-elected in 1994. I've served as board chairman twice, was vice-president of the trustees' association and trustees' council. I'm currently chair of the Sudbury board local education improvement committee and the salary committee.

This will be my third involvement with the consolidation of boards: in 1961 with the amalgamation of the then city of Sudbury and McKim township, and the 1969 consolidation of Ontario school boards.

Many statements have been made by various organizations and individuals concerning the consolidation of school boards. The opposition supports changes in administration, but objects to the undemocratic and paternalistic way in which the government has proceeded. The third party says the government is preoccupied with the structure at the expense of equality. Trustees and trustee organizations have expressed concerns that with fewer trustees and larger units of administration, many small municipalities will not be represented, and federations have stated that the reorganization of boards may dilute the quality of education.

If that sounds familiar, it should because those statements were made in 1968 prior to the amalgamation of boards into the present structure. What is interesting is the attempt to preserve the present structure which was previously so highly disparaged.

The Ontario Public School Boards' Association and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation should be ashamed of their decisions to threaten legal action in a futile attempt to prevent passage of Bill 104.

The Ontario Public School Boards' Association is virtually 100% funded by Ontario school taxes and had the nerve to ask boards for a special assessment to mount a legal action. I'm pleased to say that many boards have refused the request. The federation derives its funds from teachers' dues which are tax deductible and therefore a large amount of their funding is paid by taxpayers. If these, and others, have real concerns about the impact of Bill 104 on the system, why do they not make a genuine effort to assist in implementing the bill?

1540

Maintaining the status quo means precious tax dollars would continue to be used in very large amounts for non-classroom functions. I'll give you a small example. Some trustees cost their boards more than the starting salary of two teachers. That's insignificant when the entire provincial education budget is considered, but having negotiated salary settlements at both the local and provincial levels, let me assure you that two more teachers are mighty important when negotiating a staffing formula or a pupil-teacher ratio, far more important than a trustee.

What are the priorities? First the students, then surely it's got to be the classroom teacher; not a department head, principal, superintendent, federation, trustee, or trustees' organizations.

The major criticisms of Bill 104 have been centred around how data were collected, what is included in classroom cost and the alleged transfer of responsibilities to school councils -- all, in my opinion, superficial complaints raised mainly for political or self-interest reasons. I therefore urge the government to get on with Bill 104. Do not slow down the process. Calls for a longer period of time for more study come from those with self-interest who want to stop the bill, not offer improvements.

Can you really believe that with over 100 directors of education, a similar number of superintendents of business, together with their staffs, plus hundreds of trustees, more time is needed? Major business mergers are accomplished with far less knowledgeable assistance. I also find it strange that some of the most self-interested complain about morale problems among their staffs because of uncertainty created by Bill 104, yet they want the process extended -- disingenuous, to say the least.

In the 1969 consolidation of boards, the Sudbury Board of Education had to deal with the amalgamation of 32 boards, and you heard something about that with our board chairman this morning and Ernie. Only two had superintendents of education -- the Sudbury high school board and the Sudbury public school board -- vastly diverse salary schedules, undefined working conditions, many unqualified teachers teaching on letters of permission, almost 30,000 students and the displacement of a couple of hundred trustees. Was it easy? Certainly not, but in the years following, the trustees, officials and staff put a system in place -- lots of work but lots of accomplishment. I can't tell you it was without problems, but the problems were resolved.

It has puzzled me that reactions to changes in the education system are most vociferous when it comes to board restructuring, school closings and so on. Many changes which have had a much more direct effect on students are seldom discussed or challenged. Just as an aside, we had a period for six months for people to come to board meetings and ask questions. Not one person showed up.

Where was the outrage when boards and educators decided to construct schools without walls? I was involved in that stupid decision. Where were the opponents of learning by discovery, the so-called new math, whole language to teach reading skills, de-emphasis of technical training and physical education --

Mr Bartolucci: We were there.

Mr MacLeod: That's right, you were there -- all decisions which had a greater effect on students than the currently proposed consolidation of boards?

I now have grandchildren in the local system and I want to advise you that they, as all students, contrary to what you've just heard, are being well served. Contrary to the attention-grabbing comments, students by grade 2 read, they perform advanced math functions, they use computers and they are more aware than ever. Teachers are well trained and performing well. Of course there are no headlines in affirming a job well done.

Complaints about education usually pertain to busing -- too much; to two systems of education -- there should only be one; discipline -- too little; and taxes -- too high. it seems that what is taught is of minor importance, or is it generally well accepted? Quite possibly parents on the whole are satisfied with the education their children are receiving. Board structure and the method of financing have little to do with a student's day-to-day education. It's the teacher who counts.

To ascertain a trustee's importance to education, ask any ratepayer the name of their trustee. For that matter, ask them to name any trustee. Trustees are quite often elected because of the position of their name on a ballot. Understand that about 70% of ratepayers in this area do not have children attending elementary or secondary school in either system. The trustees set and implement policy, approve budgets and staffing and act as a board of governors. They should not attempt to micro-manage the system. That's the job of the educators.

I'm always perturbed when I see a comment by a trustee or an association saying that something needs to be done "for the kids." The "for the kids" comment is often used to promote something trendy which may very well not be in the interest of the kids. It ranks close to the current buzzword "scary." When opposed to something such as Bill 104, with little to support their opposition, opponents blurt out, "It's scary." It's used almost as often as "at the end of the day."

I suggest to you that in January 1998, when staff and students return to class, they will carry on with a good educational system and the system will not be disrupted, but over time will be improved by Bill 104.

When I review Bill 104 and the comments of its opponents, their biggest objection seems to be the control in the hands of the Education Improvement Commission. It's not control to which they object, simply who will exercise it. Bill 104 does not refer to education finance reform as this will be addressed in other legislation, nor does it deal with collective bargaining.

Having spent some time with the co-chairs of the commission, I remain convinced that, on the whole, Bill 104 and follow-up legislation regarding finance and collective bargaining will not harm students' education now or in the future but will do what it's intended to do: control costs and put more emphasis on the classroom where it belongs.

Do the critics really believe that the EIC, or local education improvement committees, will attempt to destroy Ontario's education system? Will critics of the education system be mollified after all the changes are made? Absolutely not. Everyone has, and will continue to have, an opinion on what should or should not be done to "improve" the system.

Based on 15 years of board of education experience and two reorganizations, in my opinion Bill 104 is a good start to an improved system for students. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr MacLeod, thank you very much for your very lucid and comprehensive presentation.

RONALD ROSS

The Chair: Is Mr Ross here? Welcome, Mr Ross. We're pleased to have you with us this afternoon.

Mr Bartolucci: Ron, are you still assigned to Richard Pentney? Are you still a policeman?

Mr Ronald Ross: I'm still a policeman.

First I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Mr O'Toole: May I have your name?

Mr Ross: I'm Ronald Ross. I come to the board as a student. I'd like to explain why I decided to come to speak to this committee and why I became interested in this particular piece of legislation and other education reforms.

A few weeks ago I heard a radio advertisement on a local radio station, and the commercial included a little boy telling a sad story. The little boy described that there were 31 other students in his classroom and he was not getting the attention he needed. He also proceeded to blame Mike Harris and the government for this problem.

At this point I recalled my primary school education and remembered that the numbers of students in my classes ranged between 28 and 33. That was 10 to 20 years ago. It's obvious that this radio commercial was a flat-out lie and that this problem has been around for many years. I heard that this commercial was put on by unions and I understood that this was a ploy to attack the government to meet its own agendas. This lie infuriated me so much that I proceeded to find out what this education reform was all about.

I'm not an education specialist or an economist, but when reviewing the material, it only seemed to make sense. First I found out that the problems with the education system were around for many years and that there were two royal commissions, 10 commissions and committees, two fact-finding reports and two panels since 1950 that have investigated the problems. It seemed that this government is the first that is dedicated enough to pursue these reforms despite these different types of commercials on radio stations and attempts by special interest groups to throw off its pursuits.

1550

After my research, two things surprised me and convinced me that the system is wrong and the proposed system is better. The first is that not all students are funded equally. I agree that the same amount of money should be spent on each average student, and that if there are any special circumstances, there should be funding set aside for them. I think this bill before us will achieve that.

The most surprising thing I discovered was that spending in the classroom was as high as 73% and as low as 51%. I took this figure to include the buildings, desks, books and teachers, so I was trying to find out what made up the difference. To me, the difference represented administration costs. Again, I'm not a statistician or a business expert, but does that not translate to 27% or 49% administration costs?

I'm sure there are not too many businesses around that can run with a 49% administration cost. To me, a 49% administration cost is just too high; there's probably a lot of fat to be trimmed there. With the cutting of the number of school boards and trustees, whose salaries reach up to $50,000 a year, to a $5,000 honorarium, there would probably be great savings. With the amalgamation of school boards, we could probably realize saving with economies of scale that would include board offices, curriculum development and payroll.

I'd like to say that I agree with the bill, and it's about time. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ross. We have a few minutes left for questioning, about two minutes per caucus.

Mr Skarica: Perhaps I can ask a question then, sir. We heard from the Lakehead board yesterday that many of the trustees felt they had no real role and that they were just a rubber stamp of the administrative budgets and so on and so forth. Would you care to comment on that? In your experience, is that accurate or would you have sufficient experience with the system to comment?

Mr Ross: Just on the research I've done, it seemed there were certain powers given to the boards and they don't seem to have done a very good job of it. Now that we've taken it away from them, it seems like they're crying. If you didn't do a good job out in the business world, you'd probably be fired or downgraded, and it seems that's what's happening.

Mr Skarica: One of the concerns we've heard here in northern Ontario is that the boards are going to be too large for trustees to be able to adequately represent their constituencies. Would you care to comment on that?

Mr Ross: It seems that with new technologies you don't need a face-to-face meeting. With conference calls and videoconferencing and e-mail and the Internet you can pretty much set up a meeting without travelling seven hours away or whatever. You could just do some conference calls and get the same work done.

Mr Duncan: Would you say that any savings that would be realized by cutting the fat out of administration should be reinvested in the classroom?

Mr Ross: I would prefer to see the cutting of trustees and adding teachers.

Mr Duncan: So you'd see it reinvested in the classroom.

Mr Ross: Exactly, yes.

Mr Duncan: You're aware that the bill doesn't address that issue at all?

Mr Ross: Which issue is that?

Mr Duncan: The reinvestment in the classroom.

Mr Ross: I understand that, yes.

Mr Duncan: The figure, by the way, that the ministry published -- I'm not sure for your specific board -- for administration is not 49% or 50%. It's more in the range of 18% to 20% in most average school boards in Ontario.

So you're content, then, simply to keep Ontario the 46th jurisdiction in North America, in terms of per pupil spending? Do you think that will keep us competitive to the 21st century and give young people an opportunity to advance?

Mr Ross: I think that the way the system is now, we're really too top-heavy.

Mr Duncan: Even if we can agree on that --

The Chair: Let him finish.

Mr Duncan: Yes, but that's not answering my question, with all due respect. Even if we agree on that, wouldn't you say then that we should be reinvesting those savings in students and in the classroom?

Mr Ross: I agree with that, yes.

Mr Duncan: So you would say the bill is flawed because it doesn't demonstrate that?

Ms Martel: He said the bill did.

Mr Duncan: He did. That's why I asked him the question.

Mr Ross: The bill dealing with funding?

Mr Duncan: It doesn't deal with it.

Mr Ross: I was speaking in a little broader sense, but I was talking about education reforms as a whole. I understand that this is just on the one bill, and when I started doing my research, I was doing it on all the proposed education reforms. I'm sorry if I misled anyone on that.

Mr Wildman: If you feel a little cool in here it's because the committee just wanted to give everyone the experience of what it would be like if you actually defined a classroom the way the government does, because they don't include heat and light. We did include light, but we didn't include heat today.

The Chair: That's not entirely true, Mr Wildman.

Mr Ross: I wasn't exactly sure what the numbers represented.

Mr Wildman: When you said the numbers of 40% to 50% and so on, it doesn't include heat and light. It doesn't include custodial. You said you thought it would include the building; it doesn't. It doesn't include principals, vice-principals, librarians, all those things, and the bill doesn't deal with funding. But you indicated that you thought Bill 104 would help to free up money for the classroom. Could you tell me where in the bill you found that? I've been looking for it?

Mr Ross: My understanding of it was that if we're going to --

Mr Wildman: Sorry, what section of the bill or what part of the bill are you referring to?

Mr Ross: Oh, I don't have --

Mr O'Toole: Madam Chair, I resent the fact, if I may intervene, that he's cross-examining a presenter who's -- we've not cross-examined one teacher, and this bill doesn't deal with collective bargaining either. He's just a citizen. He has a right to express his opinion. I think you're out of order.

The Chair: You are out of order.

Mr Wildman: I rest my case.

The Chair: Mr Ross, is there anything you want to add?

Mr Ross: I forgot the question, actually. I wasn't exactly sure how the numbers that were published were calculated. I just kind of inferred.

The Chair: Mr Ross, we want to thank you for coming here. It cannot be easy to come before a committee of this kind as a student who has done the research you've been able to do. We really appreciate that you took the time to come.

While our next presenter is making his way to the front, I should explain that it is indeed cold in here, but the reason it's cold is that the heaters in this area interfere with the technical equipment because they are so loud.

Mr Wildman: I thought it was because you redefined what is committee work.

The Chair: You can reinterpret it any way you want, but the reality is, that is why the room is unduly cold. Hopefully it will speed us along and we'll not have so many interjections from members.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 31

The Chair: I call the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation; Alexander Bass, president. Welcome. We're delighted to have you here.

Mr Alexander Bass: Good afternoon. My name is Alexander Bass. I am president of District 31 OSSTF Sudbury. My co-presenter is Joe Meuleman, who is the chair of our contract maintenance committee.

First, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for my being able to make this presentation before the committee. I'll keep my comments as brief as I can. Hopefully, there will be a chance for some questions at the end of my presentation.

In common with many of the presentations you've already heard, both on this date and earlier, the members of District 31 of OSSTF -- teachers, school support staff and professional service staff -- have a number of concerns, with both the legislation as outlined in Bill 104 and the implications that lie behind it.

1600

While we lack the time to go into depth with our concerns, we would like to address four areas in particular: the extremely short time for public input into this legislation; the extraordinary speed with which this legislation will need to be applied; the terms of reference for the Education Improvement Commission; and the issue of implied costs and savings.

Dealing with the first issue, the style of the current government in its rapid-fire action, from the first official announcement to the end of the time for consultation, is one with which we are becoming distressingly familiar. Within this school year we have had to deal with the proposed secondary education reform, the Paroian commission on teachers' collective bargaining, and now this particular legislation. Further, we are well aware that, as the bill states, further legislation and regulations to implement the legislation and the proposed changes in education financing will all be descending on us.

As employees in the education system, we believe it is both our right and our duty to give a thoughtful and well-considered response to all of these matters. As teachers, we would be considered negligent in our duties if we did not give our students, at the beginning of a course, a clear outline of both the content and the expectations they were required to meet. Altering the agenda every month or so, and on top of that expecting students to meet a new set of conditions on short notice, would be considered poor teaching indeed. Yet this is exactly the way that the entire education system is being dealt with by this government.

This committee held its first hearing only a month ago. The timetable for hearings outside of Toronto was not available until even later, and confirmation of our opportunity to make this presentation was received less than two weeks ago, which was the last day before the beginning of our March break.

We know that Bill 104 and the other changes to the education system that will follow from it will have very direct implications to the work environment of all employees in the education system, yet we have been given very little of substance on the nature of many of these changes. Even if it becomes clear very quickly after this bill is adopted, there is not enough time between then and the end of 1997 to study and to give a considered response. Therefore, we propose that the implementation of this legislation must be delayed for at least a year, and perhaps until the next round of municipal and board elections after 1998.

There is also the issue of the very short time, once the legislation is adopted, to put into place all the mechanisms required to implement it. We are already one quarter of the way through 1997, yet current school boards will not even be able to implement final budgets until this legislation is passed and the EIC approves them.

Municipal and school board elections in November require nominations by early October. Before that occurs, the structures of the new boards must be defined and the number, distribution and responsibilities of the trustees need to be outlined. Or perhaps the hapless candidates for the positions will be asked to offer themselves up for election without knowing what they are getting into, except for the fact that they will have more responsibility, will have no power to raise funds, will represent a far more diverse constituency and will do this all for less pay.

A merger of school boards is more than just a matter of extending the jurisdiction of a given board over a wider area. The issue becomes even more complicated when the merger is to occur at the start of a calendar year. At the secondary school level, where many schools operate on a semester system, which divides the school year at the end of January, the issue becomes yet more difficult. Athletic schedules and system-wide events, such as science fairs, mathematics competitions, writing competitions etc, are all based on current jurisdictions. There will be little or no time to consider the changes needed to accommodate the new board structures.

At present, school boards are submitting to the Ministry of Education their outlines for the 1997-98 school year structure, dates for professional activity days, school holidays and exam times. There will not even be an opportunity to arrange for coordinated professional activity days between boards that will be operating as one board starting in January 1998.

A matter of grave concern to us as employees is the way in which the variety of collective agreements, conditions of work and current board policies will be treated. Already the legislation has implications for issues which employees will have to consider within the next few months. As the staff changes are being made for the 1997-98 school year, what happens to their place of work in January? In Sudbury we have had a history of staff transfers between the French- and English-language sections of the Sudbury Board of Education. With the implied division that will occur in January, how will employees who have made such changes be treated? Will the merged boards be required to maintain separate payrolls, benefit levels and benefit carriers, seniority and transfer rights after January, and for how long?

Again the issue of time to consider all these matters and to plan appropriately for them becomes critical. Again we propose that the implementation date of January 1998 is much too early and must be delayed.

We understand that many of the questions we have raised above will, we are told, be dealt with by the Education Improvement Commission. Yet this body is not even in place, let alone staffed to deal with these matters in the very short time that will be available to them.

But we have a further concern with the commission, especially with the wide-ranging powers and responsibilities given to it in its terms of reference outlined in section 335. Of special concern are those powers granted to the commission that extend well beyond the task of overseeing the orderly merger of school boards. For both teacher and non-teacher members of District 31, perhaps most frightening is clause (f): "...make recommendations to the minister on how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school hoards."

When this is combined with statements from the minister and the ministry on its definitions of what is considered "inside" and "outside" the classroom, many members, both teaching and non-teaching, see their jobs in jeopardy. If jobs are outsourced, what will happen to those currently holding them? What will happen to their salaries, pensions, all the matters that we have worked so hard to obtain in previously negotiated agreements?

Most important of all, what impact will all this have on the students, who should be the primary focus of the entire education restructuring? A school is much more than a teacher standing in front of her or his class. The support of an active and involved administration, a knowledgeable and experienced office staff and a trustworthy and familiar custodial staff are all very important components. At a time when we hear more and more frightening tales of adults who take advantage of children, will our schools be looked after by an uninvolved and frequently changing staff? Will the "outside the classroom" component, which includes administration, library, guidance, office and custodial services, we're told, consist of workers from some type of external temporary agency with no real loyalties to the school or the students?

All of these matters are subject only to the EIC, since a reading of the bill indicates that they are subject to no one except the minister. We propose that the powers of the Education Improvement Commission should be limited strictly to those matters involving the implementation of changes to the school board structures and should be subject to the usual challenges and reviews common to any government agency or commission.

While this does not nearly exhaust our concerns with this legislation and its implications for education in Ontario, as a final issue let us address our concerns to the matters of finance. It is clear that one of the primary motivations behind this and many of the other changes being considered for education are driven primarily, not by a desire to improve the system of education provided to our students, but by a search for financial savings.

To take our area as an example, it is hard to see where the savings will occur. Instead of fewer boards, the Sudbury region, currently the responsibility of two, the public and separate boards, will now be covered by four: English public, French public, English separate and French separate. Instead of making cost savings and the integration of such matters as busing, central purchasing, common maintenance and other central services easier, this will become more difficult than ever. Anyone under the misapprehension that creating these four entities will not result in the creation of four distinct, separate bureaucracies must be dreaming of some Utopian future.

Add to this the cost of administration of school boards spread over immense geographic regions, along with an additional layer of bureaucracy implicit in the creation of the Education Improvement Commission, and it's hard to see where the cost savings are to be realized. A wise entrepreneur might be well advised to get into the charter air service to allow school board administration and trustees in some of these proposed northern boards to do their work.

Beyond the direct savings that Bill 104 is supposed to generate from the merger of boards, there is a much wider and more frightening implication of the money that may or may not be made available, at the sole discretion of the ministry, to operate these schools. In a province with the size and diversity of Ontario, it will require the wisdom of a Solomon to come up with a funding formula that deals fairly with the special needs in all the different areas and the speed of Superman to do this by January 1998.

Even with years of experience with the present system, it is acknowledged that the general legislative grants currently made to school boards still leave inequalities in the system. At least some of these inequalities are in turn addressed by boards through their local taxation powers. With the limited time available to the ministry and the commission to create the new funding models, we foresee, at minimum, several years of chaos. We propose that much more time is needed to implement any changes and that local school boards must be allowed to have some local taxing powers to address the needs of their constituencies.

In summary, it is our view that Bill 104 is too ambitious and leaves too many questions unanswered, with not enough time to give proper consideration to all the follow-up matters that will need to be addressed before it can be implemented. It is for these reasons that we stand opposed to this legislation.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bass and Mr Meuleman. You've exhausted your time. We thank you for the presentation you made for us today.

The Chair: We'll try. Mike Whittle? He's not here yet. He is on my list to call from time to time. I didn't see anyone new coming in.

1610

LASALLE SECONDARY SCHOOL PARENT ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Chair: I call Lasalle Secondary School Parent Advisory Council, Dr Sylvia Thornburg. Dr Thornburg, thank you very much for being here.

Dr Sylvia Thornburg: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Like the others here, I'm grateful for the opportunity to address this committee on behalf of the Lasalle Secondary School Parent Advisory Council. Your committee has heard many presentations today and previously, and you will be hearing more still. I'm sure all of us hope that you consider your time well spent and that you will incorporate those ideas you consider worthy before any final action is taken on this bill.

Each speaker coming before you represents one or more vested interests in education. I am no exception. The Lasalle parent council, of which I am a co-chairman, consists of a parent majority plus school and community personnel, many of whom are also parents. To state the obvious, we are first and foremost advocates for our children, thus high-quality, effective education is a high priority. We are also taxpayers, so we are strongly in favour of dollars being spent efficiently and accountably. Given all that, Bill 104, an act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system, should be music to our ears. Regrettably, there are some very sour notes.

Simply stating that the bill's purpose is to improve accountability doesn't make it so. In fact, we believe the opposite is true. This bill virtually eliminates accountability. This is one of two major flaws we believe the bill has. The second is an extraordinary lack of clarity regarding vital portions of the legislation. The two difficulties are correlated since, when roles of the various participants in the educational system aren't sufficiently defined, accountability becomes difficult to assign.

But we'll start with the question of accountability. Simply put, where is it? If the transition period before the amalgamation of current school boards takes place, decisions must be made regarding many critical and potentially contentious issues, especially where individual schools are leaving a board: equitable allocation of reserve funds, property, assets, staffing. In addition, a new funding formula will allocate dollars differently in the future. If the Premier's stated intentions are fulfilled, further cuts to education will mean less to allocate overall in coming years.

The body designated to make these far-ranging decisions is the new Education Improvement Commission, its members appointed, not elected, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The two co-chairs of this five- to seven-member commission are also given those roles by appointment. In fact, two individuals, Ms Ann Vanstone and Mr David Cooke, are serving already as ministry consultants, or commission co-chairs-in-waiting, if you prefer, until Bill 104 receives royal assent.

This commission is being given absolute power to carry out its sweeping roles with no appeal or court review. This commission, created by pen stroke and with an expiration date already set, has no accountability to anyone. To set up such a body might make sense in a totalitarian regime or a secret brotherhood, but it is profoundly inappropriate in a democratic society's most fundamental endeavour: the education of its youth.

When someone actually decides upon the precise wording of legislation, the process must be driven, we think, by particular thoughts in the minds of the writers. Some of the results make us very curious, not to mention suspicious, as to what the authors of this legislation were thinking. What motivated the minister and his staff to believe his commission might need this extraordinary immunity to appeals and court action?

Yes, surely the stakes and emotions will run high in some of the decisions to be made, but that makes a judicial review of the commission's actions even more necessary. Not to allow for it is an affront to all of us with vested interests: parents, students, teachers and all other staff members, board members, and taxpayers at large.

Mr David Cooke was asked during the hearing regarding his appointment as co-chair of the commission about the necessity of having financial supervision of the school boards during the coming transition period. Mr Cooke indicated that such controls would be necessary. He said: "The only way it works currently is through accountability. Accountability doesn't exist when, of the boards that are there now, many will not exist on January 1, 1998, and those trustees will not have to run for re-election because there won't be a board to run for re-election to. So if there's not democratic accountability, there has to be some imposed by the ministry."

He seems to have missed the enormous irony of his reply. Perhaps because of the pressures of his appointment hearing, he failed to note that the commission members don't run for any election at all and never will. It may be argued that this commission will be accountable because it is subject to sufficient ongoing scrutiny and feedback to ensure sound and equitable decisions. We can't say. Even if all its meetings are open to the public, for most of us here it will be a decidedly awkward commute.

I'd like to change the focus of these remarks now and address the second of our concerns: clarity. Parts of this legislation are generating the impression that something is about to be done to us, but we're not at all sure what. It should not come as a surprise to anyone here that stakeholders in a field as complex as education will tend to oppose or at least be uneasy about the many components of this legislation that convey this impression.

It's not the first time we've had this reaction. In fact, the minister's efforts towards educational reform are beginning to fall into a troubling pattern. They seem to involve large-scale initiatives, precipitous timetables for implementation and hasty arrangements for feedback and hearings. Next, we get, often at the last minute, documents containing heavy doses of unassailable generalizations:

"An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness, and quality of Ontario's school system" -- how can you argue with that?

"...students better prepared for the workforce or further education." Sounds good to me.

"...a high-quality education system based on a relevant and challenging curriculum." Absolutely.

However, the documentation is so lacking in critical details that reasonable judgements about it are virtually impossible.

Last November, our parent advisory council began to consider the ministry proposal on high school reform. By the way, the proposal is titled Excellence in Education, another of those neat phrases that get thrown around without any definitive detail. Our parent council wrestled at length with those documents. We sent two letters to Mr Snobelen and Mr Harris asking first for more time and, second, for answers to over three pages of questions. We struggled at length to understand, interpret and respond constructively to the proposal. It was a profoundly frustrating, unsuccessful exercise. We just recently received the minister's response, a form note which thanked us perfunctorily for our input in spite of the fact that we hadn't yet given him any. I guess we're even; he hasn't given us any either.

Now we're trying to comprehend Bill 104, as well as the implications of its companion legislation moving educational funding out of the local tax base and into the provincial domain. Lack of clarity once again raises huge questions. First, the two pieces of legislation are inextricably linked and should be considered simultaneously. However, we've only got one piece of the puzzle, and we're not sure what parts of it mean.

What exactly isn't clear?

(1) Nothing in Bill 104 explains how either the effectiveness or quality of education will be improved, as its opening statement claims. Making fewer school boards means trustees are farther removed from their constituents, either by sheer numeric ratios or by huge chunks of geography. How does this help?

(2) What are the intentions behind the new commission's mandate to make recommendations regarding the "strengthening of the role of school councils over time" and "increasing parental involvement in education governance"? We note that the last term is "governance," not an advisory role. What are we to surmise? In fact, school council roles currently vary from actually hiring principals in some jurisdictions to not even being established in others. But what about the future? Extreme projections include the complete demise of school boards, with school councils somehow taking over the entire role. Why not state the intentions more clearly?

1620

(3) What is the role of the local education improvement committees? We can see that the legislation specifies the utterly vague tasks noted in section 338(7)(a) to (e), which can be paraphrased as "anything the commission wants." However, what did the legislation intend? How do these committees interact with the current and future boards? Are the members paid? How are these committees constituted, and who determines their membership? Someone must know something about this, since our local board has already picked three of their own to be on that committee. Mr Walter MacLeod has just identified himself as the chairman of that body. Presumably they realize where the power is going to be, but it leaves the rest of us wondering about procedures.

(4) Both clarity and accountability are fuzzy in the statements by Ms Vanstone and Mr Cooke, the future commission co-chairs, who maintain that local boards will still be in control and be accountable for the running of the school systems. How that is so remains a mystery to us.

(5) The still undefined funding formula is fundamental to determining whether sufficient dollars will enable education quality to be maintained in any given board. Why can't passage of Bill 104 be delayed until that formula can at least be examined?

By the way on this last point, if any of you have any influence, at Lasalle Secondary we're really hoping for sufficient supplies dollars that the teachers can stop stealing chalk from each other, and it would be a bonus if students could spend less time copying information from overhead projections -- the cost of Xeroxing, of course, limits the distribution of copies -- and many of us in this room would prefer not to have to buy all those things that our kids and neighbours' kids sell in their fund-raising efforts.

More seriously, we have two recommendations we believe you should implement. First -- you've heard this before -- slow down. More clarity must be offered in this legislation before it is rammed through third reading. Stakeholders in the education process need to understand what is really being proposed. The debate over the merits of the legislation would make a great deal more sense, and perhaps be less acrimonious, if the legislation were clear prior to its passage. Wouldn't it make more sense to do the required homework first? Someone, for example, took the time to determine the detailed boundaries of the 66 school boards defined by the new legislation. That was considered sufficiently vital to pin down ahead of time. Please fill in some of the other blanks.

Frankly, it would seem that each of you would be in a better position to defend your votes to your constituents if you could explain precisely what impact you anticipate locally. Can you envision a situation where you are questioned after the bill results in big hits to your riding? "Gee, I didn't realize that's what would happen," is not a vote-getting comeback.

Second, section 344, dealing with immunity for the commission, doesn't belong in any legislation dealing with education. Take it out.

Passage of this bill as it stands, with its companion legislation removing education taxation and funding from the local level, will result in the following: an appointed Education Improvement Commission with virtually unlimited powers to restructure the most fundamental aspects of funding, governance and accountability for education, and to do so with absolute impunity; an appointed education improvement committee for every board, with an unknown makeup and with completely unspecified powers and roles, subject only to the commission; and a presently unknown provincial funding formula for education which will inevitably result in unpredictable shifts of millions of dollars throughout the Ontario boards.

If no answers are yet available on these last two items, then we assert that to predict the impact this bill will have on any of your local constituencies is impossible. Ladies and gentlemen, it follows very simply that a vote for Bill 104 as it stands is indefensible. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Thornburg. We have time for one very brief question per caucus. I say that for their benefit and not yours.

Mrs McLeod: A brief question. I'm one of those who believes that at the extreme this could be the beginning of the dissolution of school boards, almost by default if not by intent, which leaves school councils, again by default if not by intent, in the position of having to be the sole advocates for the children in their particular schools. I would ask you the question I've asked of other school council members: In addition to the responsibilities of managing the school, do you think school councils can lobby effectively with Queen's Park in order to ensure that their students are going to receive the education they need?

Dr Thornburg: Absolutely not. Not only that, I don't believe we can effectively manage the schools. Parents are not there to do that. They are not, by definition, with few exceptions, trained educators. That's just not what we're there for.

Ms Martel: We will be moving an amendment to take out the fact that the commission doesn't have to stand any legal or any other type of court challenge. But I wanted to ask you, as a result of everything you've seen, do you not worry that before this is all through you will end up with a whole new set of rules and responsibilities because of the downloading of this, either because there will be fewer trustees or less staff at any of the boards across the province?

Dr Thornburg: It's a worry in theory. I think functionally that cannot happen because I don't think parent councils are constituted in such a way that they can do that. I don't think parents are willing or equipped -- and certainly not for free, to be blunt -- to take that on. It's inappropriate.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for a thoughtful and sometimes humorous, I believe, presentation.

Dr Thornburg: Thank you. I can use a break now and then.

Mr O'Toole: Yes, that's right. And very informative. I just wanted to ask one question, and sincerely: On page 3 at the bottom, you say in some humorous way, "Stop the teachers from stealing chalk from one another," commenting on the dollars in the classroom. My question is simple: Do you believe the fundamental theme that every student deserves or should be entitled to an equal amount of funding, of course suggested for your geography, their language, their culture, whatever the magic Superman formula that you mentioned?

Dr Thornburg: That wasn't mine.

Mr O'Toole: Somebody else used that phrase.

Mr Wildman: That was the teachers.

Mr O'Toole: It was the teachers, yes, the OSSTF people. Do you think, fundamentally, if we can get down to the basics, that every student deserves an equal amount of limited resources? We don't have everything. I wish I did --

Dr Thornburg: Yes, I understand there's a limited pot, but to make it absolutely equal when students are not absolutely equal, I would have to say no.

Mr O'Toole: Adjusted for those differences.

Dr Thornburg: Okay, if you say adjusted for all the differences, then the debate focuses on the nature of the differences and the size of the adjustments.

Mr O'Toole: I'm not sure, is that a yes?

Dr Thornburg: I don't think I can say yes or no to that question.

Mr O'Toole: That's why the bill's like that. Some of it isn't as easily defined, as you've just explained.

Dr Thornburg: The funding formula is still going to have to be derived.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Thornburg, for your presentation and the eloquence with which you delivered it.

Mrs McLeod: Dr Thornburg drew my attention to something that I had overlooked in the previous presentation by Mr MacLeod, when he indicated that he was currently chair of the Sudbury board local education improvement committee. I don't know whether that is a coincidence of names or whether this is indeed seen by the Sudbury board to be one of the local education improvement committees to be established if this legislation becomes law. If so, I would think it is highly premature. I'd like some clarity as to whether this is a presumption on the part of the Sudbury board or whether there is yet another backroom process going on, even as we have hearings on this legislation, that would establish these committees.

Mr Skarica: It must be very backroom, if you want me to answer it, because I know of no such process.

Mrs McLeod: Can we determine, then, what local education improvement committee exists in the Sudbury area that Mr MacLeod chairs?

Mr Skarica: Is he still here?

The Chair: Perhaps we can find that out for you, Mrs McLeod, and report back.

1630

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LOCAL 895

The Chair: CUPE Local 895, public school support services, Bob Cullens. President Cullens, welcome. We're delighted to have you here.

Mr Bob Cullens: Hopefully, time will permit that I can finish the whole presentation as well. Without any further ado, then, we'll start right in.

I'm a member of the executive board of CUPE Local 895 and I'm here speaking on behalf of the 235 caretaking and maintenance employees there who are affected by the outsourcing clauses.

Mr Bisson: How many did you say?

Mr Cullens: Two hundred thirty five. For the past year, the government at Queen's Park has accused unions of unfairly treating students as pawns in an attempt to save our own jobs. The interesting part of this government reaction to union mobilization is the reference to playing chess. Chess is a game in which one must be extremely skilled to survive. It's the same game in which the one who controls the board controls the game. Governments and school boards have used the students as pawns since the very creation of the school system. They were used to generate public sympathy or outrage whenever it was convenient for them to institute change. Now the government is crying foul because someone else has decided that they are also willing and capable of playing chess.

In July 1995, the Minister of Education, Mr John Snobelen, publicly stated his intention to invent a crisis in Ontario's education system. This crisis would justify the radical and sweeping reforms that the government of Ontario wanted to make.

Since the minister's announcement, our public school system has come under a constant and seemingly never-ending barrage of criticism. The charges, all of which are disputable, are: education spending is out of control; too many education dollars are being spent outside the classroom; our students are graduating without a proper education; teachers are overpaid and have far too much control over education.

In support of their disputable charges, the government brought forward Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act. Once this bill is passed and becomes law retroactively, the government will begin to exert a new control over Ontario's education system, starting with the establishment of the undemocratic, unaccountable and appointed Education Improvement Commission.

Bill 104 is a giant leap down the road to the privatization of Ontario schools. First, non-instructional services will be outsourced. For those in this room who are not aware, "outsourced" is the politically correct buzzword de jour for contracted out, period. The next to go will most likely be the construction and maintenance of new schools to the private sector, and then charter schools, finally followed up with the privatization of curriculums and teaching, creating our own little Alabama of the north.

CUPE does not believe that our education system is broken; at least, it's not broken yet. It will be broken if the government gets its way. In fact, there is growing support for the speculation that the agenda of this government is to break the system and then use the public dissatisfaction that is created to build support for the creation of a private system.

This presentation will focus on the issues in Bill 104 that most directly affect 35,000 CUPE members: 450 of them work right here in Sudbury as cleaners, custodians and maintenance workers with both the public and separate school boards. I am speaking, once again, directly on behalf of the 235 members of CUPE Local 895 with the Sudbury Board of Education.

Bill 104 is an attack on our community. Once established, the appointed Education Improvement Commission will be mandated to recommend to the government how to, not whether or not to, outsource all non-instructional services in the system. It definitely appears that the privatization of our 235 decent jobs is based on the government's contention that too much money is being spent outside the classroom on services such as caretaking and maintenance, not duplication and over-administration. It definitely sounds as if the government wants to return to the days of the one-room schoolhouse. That was when students walked all those miles in minus 40 degree weather to get to school and home again, like my father-in-law.

Mr Wildman: Uphill both ways.

Mr Cullens: Yes, uphill both ways, carrying coal.

The teacher swept the classroom and lit the wood stove in the winter. Nice neighbours would stop by and shovel the snow, repair the roof or windows and do any odd jobs like painting. The full day would be spent concentrating on learning because students would not have to be bothered by those overpaid school psychologists, speech therapists, guidance counsellors or special education assistants. Of course, there would be no photocopiers, phones or faxes, so we won't need the school secretary either. In those good old days the system was run very cheaply.

One question that the government is not asking the public is, are the services available in today's system worth the extra costs? They don't ask because they are afraid that they would receive a resounding yes and that is not what they want to hear.

We have a world-class education system here in Ontario. It is world-class because it is public and has developed good processes of both governance and accountability. If the government is not suggesting that we do without these important services in our schools, then what it must be saying is that employees should do these jobs for lower wages and worse working conditions. This is an unacceptable job strategy by anyone's standards. The average CUPE member supports a family on less than $24,000 per year. CUPE members definitely don't need to be convinced that our education system and our jobs are worth defending.

Bill 104, an attack on services. What about the quality of non-instructional services? Does it matter if private companies clean the schools, maintain and repair the plumbing and the furnace, handle student reports and staff the board office and schools for profit? In CUPE's experience it most certainly does. Our students deserve the best possible environment in which to learn. In fact, studies have shown that students do much better academically in clean, safe and comfortable environments. They deserve well-trained and well-treated staff in their schools.

CUPE's experience with privatization in education, as well as in the health care and municipal sectors, shows that services invariably suffer. Buildings are not as clean. Lower-paid and insecure staff tend to have a higher turnover rate. Sometimes contractors go out of business, leaving the public to pick up the bill. Time and time again we have seen that privatization is done only for ideological reasons, not because it provides better service and not because it costs less.

Bill 104, an attack on communities. When the Harris government attacks jobs, it also attacks communities. Yes, there will be private-sector jobs in schools if private companies take over non-instructional services. Unfortunately, the need to make a profit will dictate that there will be even fewer jobs than there are in an already cut-to-the-bone workplace. These private-sector jobs will pay less and they will not provide the benefits and fair working conditions that inspire loyalty and consistency in staff.

In taking money out of the pockets of workers, you also take money out of our local economy. Consumer confidence is already low, with people hanging on to their hard-earned dollars. If Bill 104 is passed, landlords will find usually reliable tenants not able to pay their rent. Banks will have former school board employees defaulting on their mortgages. Local retailers will see business fall off.

Such an economic strategy is simply unacceptable, especially in a province where the real unemployment rate stands at 14.2%. That was in November 1996, and that includes, by the way, the people who have given up looking for jobs because they just won't be available.

Privatization of our public school system will only take money out of Ontario's economy. Currently, large American-based companies, such as ServiceMaster, are best positioned to profit from the sudden and massive privatization of non-instructional services in Ontario schools. Entering into contracts with these companies will siphon our tax dollars out of this city, region, the province and even this country.

Bill 104, the attack on democratic institutions. The North American free trade agreement and current negotiations on the agreement on internal trade also present serious considerations that must be taken into account. Provisions in NAFTA make it virtually impossible for services that have been privatized to be returned to the public sector, whether or not privatization worked out. Once the AIT is expanded to included local government, there is reason to believe that these provisions will also apply to school boards. If total privatization of non-instructional services were not to work out, boards could only take this work back in-house if companies involved were financially compensated for all lost business now and in the future. Obviously the price of returning the work to the public sector would be cost-prohibitive.

1640

CUPE members are very concerned about the establishment of the Education Improvement Commission. It seems that the government is unwilling to take full responsibility for the changes it is about to unleash on our schools. Instead, an unelected and unaccountable body will take over what should be the responsibility of elected politicians at both the provincial and local levels.

Our conclusion and recommendations: Number one is that clean and safe schools are not a luxury.

The next piece is an excerpt from Our School, Ourselves, 1988, and it reads:

"Boards are starting to recognize that caretakers are not simply engaged in cleaning buildings; they are an integral part of the school community. They keep an eye out for vandals, deal with numerous problems brought to them by teachers and students and generally provide a stable and supportive presence in the schools. The high labour turnover associated with contracting out undercuts this important social role."

For-profit contractors do not have the same commitment or dedication to students, staff and facilities. They are there to clean and get paid. They are not there to look for safety violations or contraventions. In far too many instances, the work performed by these contractors is not up to standards, ours or yours. Far too often we have to go behind them and correct deficiencies.

Will Bill 104 "improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system" as it promises? No, Bill 104 is designed to start the process of privatizing large portions of our education system while giving the government the full control it needs to continue on that path, whether through charter school legislation or the sale of schools to the private sector, and the list goes on and on.

CUPE members are not prepared to sit idly by while their jobs are eliminated. We will fight to maintain the high quality of services that we provide and defend the wellbeing of the communities we live in.

Recommendations:

(1) To reinform -- reaffirm; reinform would be good too -- the need for the public delivery of education, acknowledging that a public system is more efficient and more equitable.

(2) Defeat Bill 104 and engage in true consultation with all partners in education. We take away the word "stakeholders" because I keep thinking of vampires, and we're not after them yet.

(3) If meaningful consultation with all partners in education still results in school board amalgamations, establish a process that protects jobs. Put fair workplace adjustment programs in place and protect the public delivery of all aspects of the education system.

(4) Return accountability to the hands of elected representatives, being the MPPs and trustees, not the unelected and unaccountable Education Improvement Commission and the local education improvement committees.

(5) Ensure that the boards of education are stronger and not weaker, and that they're more accountable, not less accountable.

(6) Finally, invest more, not less, in our public education system.

Summing up, who are the non-instructional workers in the education system? That's with the Sudbury Board of Education etc. CUPE members work in all occupations in the education sector. Across Ontario our members are education assistants, custodians, cleaners, tradespeople, clerical workers, audio-visual technicians, English-as-a-second-language instructors, speech pathologists, counsellors, school bus drivers, accounting personnel, computer programmers, technicians, gardeners, librarians, purchasing agents, and the list goes on, in support of our education system. Here in Sudbury, CUPE represents cleaners, custodians, maintenance and tradespersons.

All of these occupations are an important part of the quality of the education delivered in the classroom. Yet school board workers tend to receive a very modest rate of pay for the important work we do. Many of our members are only paid 10 months of the year.

We are the most visible members of the in-school team. We are the first to arrive in the morning and the last to leave at night. We keep the schools clean and safe. We check the boilers to make sure they are operating properly and safely. We damp-mop, scrub, wash, spray, buff, polish floors and change burned-out lights. We shovel snow and sand to keep the outside area safe, which this year may be year-round. We ensure a safe and clean learning environment. These jobs we do because we care about the health and safety of the students and staff and because it is our role as members of the school team.

We have the little extras that we do as well, because we care about the students, such as: retrieve balls and kites off of school roofs, repair broken eyeglasses, inflate bicycle tires, fix broken coat zippers, volunteer extra hours, coach sports teams, work extra hours for after-school functions, and security, to name a few. We could name these for hours.

Our schools have a family atmosphere that we're very proud of and are not going to give up easily. The students know us and are comfortable with us. They know that they can come to us when they are hurt or in need of help. This relationship would be lost with the strangers that private contractors' turnover rates would provide. The students would lose again. Boards of education will have no control over who the private contractor hires or fires, and therefore will have no control over who works in our schools; in your schools. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cullens, for coming here today and for presenting the recommendations and positions of your organization. You've exhausted all the time you had.

Mr Cullens: Right on cue.

The Chair: Right on cue. You were perfect.

Mr Skarica: In response to Mrs McLeod's inquiry, Mr MacLeod is still here and he indicated to me that, after the meeting with Mr Cooke and Ms Vanstone, the Sudbury board decided to set up an education improvement committee in anticipation of the legislation. There's no deal or legal authority or anything to bind the government. The board decided to initiate a process to get a jump on the legislation.

The Chair: Thank you.

HORNEPAYNE BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: Could I call on the Hornepayne Board of Education. Ms Beatty, welcome. We're happy to have you here to present the views of your organization.

Ms Janice Beatty: Thank you very much. I represent two groups this afternoon. I represent the Hornepayne Board of Education and I also represent our proposed district partners, namely, the Hearst, Kapuskasing-Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls, Black River, Matheson, Timmins, Kirkland Lake and Timiskaming boards of education.

As a group, we represent a very large and diverse section of the province. However, we share similar concerns about Bill 104. One of our main concerns is the geographic distance involved: It is over 700 kilometres from one end to the other of our board. It's an eight-hour drive in good weather and with ideal road conditions.

Mr Wildman: How long did it take you today?

Ms Beatty: It took me nine hours' driving to get here and the roads were bare.

That means that no matter where the central office is, even if we locate it in the geographic centre of our board, it will still be a four-hour drive to the centre. This is a distance that is going to be involved in providing education and service to children at the extreme edges. We encompass, I believe, four provincial ridings in our board.

We believe that because of the size the local accountability will be drastically decreased. Currently, most communities in that very large area have representation. With Bill 104, most small communities will not have any representation on the board. In fact, our own small community will very likely have none. The proposed scarcity factors will not sufficiently address the issue. There just will not be enough places on that board for all those children to be represented.

To whom will local parents address concerns or complaints when the representatives are that many hours away? For example, if there was such a thing as a suspension hearing -- these are often held by boards -- as the parent, would I be required to drive six or seven hours to attend a district board suspension hearing to plead my child's case?

School councils are advisory, and while they are a great adjunct to our school system, sometimes action rather than advice is required.

How will our small schools and specialized programs so vital to the local communities -- and I'm talking very tiny, local communities which are isolated -- survive? Small schools traditionally have higher per pupil costs. I know our own high school has probably the highest per pupil cost in the province of Ontario. Who is going to fight for that school on a large district board when budget cuts are to be decided if we don't even have a representative from our community? At what point is our school, because of its high per pupil costs, going to attract attention for budget-cutting purposes, and who will speak for our children at that level?

1650

Technology may resolve some problems associated with distance but it cannot resolve them all. You may be interested to know that some of our trustees attended a meeting in Timmins last weekend and did a trial with videoconferencing. I understand it was a disaster. Additionally, we do not have cell phone service in Hornepayne. Modem lines are often unreliable. I've been on line with OISE and a number of other institutions and often in the winter you just cannot get through. You get on to the line and it cuts you off. We do not have digital technology.

Are children in the north to become second-class citizens in Ontario simply by virtue of where they live? We are particularly concerned in Hornepayne. To give you a sense of where Hornepayne is, as I told you, we drove nine hours to get here. It's a very small, isolated railway community. We have about 1,400 people. We have one grocery store, one northern store, and the nearest surgical hospital is in Hearst, 140 kilometres away, which is a two-hour drive in winter over secondary highways. Secondary highways are not plowed to bare. They remain snow-packed and they are not a priority. That means if our kids are ever considered for busing in a large board, they would be travelling two hours over secondary, snow-packed highways in sub-40-degree temperatures. The alternative would be to board and lodge them. I don't know how many of you would be willing to let your 13-year-old go away to school.

What will happen to our schools? How will they survive viability standards of a district board and who will vote to protect them? Hornepayne is currently, I believe, the smallest complete board in the province. We have one school. It's an SK-to-OAC school, with 225 students. The speaker before me described the small schools of the past where the neighbours would stop by and shovel the snow and help out with things at the school. That's very much what our Hornepayne school is like. As I say, we're a very small community and everyone pitches in. Our trustees have gone on the roof to shovel snow. Our high school has 85 students. How many high schools do you know with 85 students? Think about it. How viable will our high school be in the context of a district board?

We also have separate secondary students attending at our high school. Our separate ratepayers have two representatives on our public board for secondary purposes. The local RCSS board has identical boundaries and an elementary school of approximately the same size as ours. We offer the only secondary education in the community. The local RCSS board is going to be an education authority. They are currently an isolate board. We believe the same should occur with our board. It makes no sense for two boards in the same community, sharing a high school, sharing trustees, sharing boundaries, to be treated differently.

Look at a map. I don't know if you have one here, but if you look, Hornepayne does not fit easily or well with any jurisdiction. We are centrally located between Highways 17 and 11. We are a six-hour drive from Thunder Bay. We are a five-hour drive from Sault Ste Marie. We are a nine-hour drive from Sudbury. No matter where you put us, we're going to be at the end of the line. Because of our size and isolation, that doesn't make us attractive to anyone. We will not be a partner; we will be a poor cousin and our kids will suffer. It will be very hard to serve those isolated children because of the distance and the natural barrier that is created by the weather in the north.

The purpose of Bill 104 is to improve the quality of education. That's one of the headings at the beginning of the bill, if you read it. We don't believe it's going to improve education for Hornepayne.

We are certainly at a crossroads in education in Ontario, but the application of these changes must make sense and they must make sense on an individual basis. Students must be protected if you're going to improve education. What you are planning to do in Hornepayne will not protect students or improve education. These children are going to become isolated, poor cousins at the end of the line, receiving the last of anyone's attention.

The application of standardized rules has resulted in a strange dichotomy in Hornepayne. Our students are entitled to education within our own community. This is not about job preservation or trustee preservation. It's about ensuring that a community has public education that is locally based.

The province has assured that for our separate elementary students. Are not the public students entitled to the same thing? The creation of a public education authority not only makes sense, it can be easily done. There are only two or three areas in the province where there are coterminous isolate and non-isolate boards. Hornepayne is one of them. Such a move would not open the floodgates, but it would make a lot of sense. We urge that you consider this for the children of Hornepayne. Don't let them get lost in the shuffle.

If this bill is to go forward, it has to be applied in a way that is sensitive to the communities and the children. Please ensure that it does. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We were intrigued by finding Hornepayne on the map.

Ms Beatty: Did you find us?

Mr Wildman: Hornepayne is not hard to find. It's halfway between Winnipeg and Toronto.

The Chair: Winnipeg and Toronto aren't shown on this side of the map. That was the problem. Thank you very much. You've been very clear and cogent in your presentation. You've exhausted all of your time but you've made your case.

Mr Wildman: Madam Chair, I'd like to move a motion.

The Chair: May I please first, Mr Wildman, call upon the School Advisory Board for Holy Angels School, Henry Rowlinson. Is he here? Perhaps we'll move to the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education. I know Ms Pat Mick is here. Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: I move that the standing committee on social development express the view that the Hornepayne Board of Education should become designated a school authority under Bill 104.

The Chair: Do you wish to speak to that motion, Mr Wildman?

Mr Wildman: I think Ms Beatty has made the point very clearly. The coterminous board will be --

Mrs McLeod: Excuse me, Madam Chair, I have a point of order: There's a motion before the committee. A number of people who are obviously concerned about the motion are talking to the last deputant. I wonder if we should hold the motion until all members could be present.

Mr Wildman: I'd be happy to do that. I'll just write it out then.

The Chair: We'll defer that.

Mrs McLeod: I raise a question again for the parliamentary assistant. It arises from the opportunity of looking at Hornepayne in relationship to that bizarre district board number 1 which includes virtually all of the boards that are north of Sudbury. If I go back to the Sweeney map, I'm not going to dwell on that in terms of the fact that it would have had three boards where that district 1 is, I notice that there is an area that is completely left off the government maps that does, I believe, have a board of its own, or at least was to have a board of its own under Sweeney. It doesn't appear in anything we have from the government, and I would like to ask what has happened to Moose Factory, James Bay lowlands and Moosonee?

Mr Skarica: Obviously it's not on the map. I'll have to inquire why it isn't on the map.

Interjection: It is.

Mr Skarica: It is on the map?

Mr Bisson: I would like to point out that the James Bay lowland is part of Ontario and I wish it would have been included in this particular --

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs McLeod: It's on the map of Ontario, it's not on the map of --

The Chair: The question has been raised and Mr Skarica will provide an answer.

1700

SAULT STE MARIE BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: Ms Mick, thank you so much. You've come a long way to be here this evening and we're happy that we're able to have you a little earlier so you don't have to drive home quite so late.

Ms Pat Mick: I'm happy too because I'm actually driving to Kitchener tonight.

The Chair: My gracious, that's even farther.

Ms Mick: Better highways, though.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education. We realize that we are fortunate, as many others were not able to have this opportunity. I've attached the brief from the Cental Algoma, North Shore, Michipicoten and Chapleau boards on the back of mine, as they were unable to come. Many trustees from northern boards are unable to afford the time and costs entailed in driving several hours to Sudbury.

The trustees from Sault Ste Marie are like most trustees in that we are, above all, advocates for children and their education in our role as representatives for local taxpayers. We are democratically and locally elected citizens who care very much about the education of the students in our community and who wish to concentrate our energies on making any necessary changes to equip all students educationally for our rapidly changing world.

The Sault Ste Marie Board of Education has always been open to thoughtful change that has been well planned, and above all, of benefit to our learners. Previous governments implemented change by holding extensive hearings to seek input from educators and trustees. Studies and pilot projects were run to test effectiveness. This government is planning massive changes at lightning speeds without meaningful consultation, thoughtful study or consideration of the results of these changes. As elected local representatives, we feel compelled to respond to the way in which this government is proposing change.

We have yet to see a study that proves cuts and cutbacks improve student achievement. In particular, the elimination of local school boards greatly concerns us and here are the reasons:

The system could become inaccessible and non-responsive to the concerns of students, parents and all other citizens; as locally elected trustees, we face and consult with our electorate daily on the street, in the schools, in the shops and at community activities; every time we make a decision we know that we are directly accountable to our fellow citizens; at present, if a citizen wishes to contact us, all it takes is a local telephone call; with increased reliance on school advisory councils and the reduction in the numbers of trustees, the majority of taxpayers, who do not have children in school, will have minimal or no access to local representation.

In summary, after 150 years, the citizens of Ontario will lose local accessibility for addressing education concerns.

Another grave concern we have is the size of our proposed new board with its geographical characteristics. Our proposed new board would include most of the Algoma district, without Hornepayne, by the way, but we have the area of Chapleau.

We are concerned because the size of this area is as large as Great Britain, but without the same efficient transport system or moderate climate of that country. The boundaries of the district in relation to Sault Ste Marie are: White River is 330 kilometres northwest; Spanish is 186 kilometres east; Chapleau is 368 kilometres or 309 more dangerous kilometres north, depending on which road is more passable.

Road travel in the north is often treacherous and many times impossible. In 1995 there were 21 road closures because of poor weather conditions, in 1996 there were 32 closures, and in 1997, from January 5 to January 22 alone, there were 13 closures. These are figures from the MTO and they are our area alone.

The distances in another perspective: To travel from one end of the board to the other would be equivalent to travelling from Toronto to Montreal. To travel from the northern border of Michigan down to the Illinois border is faster than to travel from White River to Spanish, and that's over four-lane highways.

We are concerned about the costs to administer this huge jurisdiction. Transportation, meals and accommodation for staff and trustees to travel will be very costly. Telecommunications will be far more costly. Telephone conversations throughout most of the district involve long-distance charges. Citizens may face the expense of long-distance charges whenever they wish to contact a trustee or administration. Teleconferencing and other technological infrastructure is either inadequate or non-existent. We understand that Bell Canada would equip northern boards in two years if the government is willing to fund the technology. In addition, the Education Act must be amended to allow electronic technology to be used for meetings.

We are concerned because the five boards presently existing in the proposed new district are very unique entities. One is a remote lumber community. One has a large retirement community, several small towns and a rural area. One is a remote mining and manufacturing community. One is mainly rural, composed of 15 unique communities. Sault Ste Marie, with about 60% of the students of the proposed board, is a combination of city, rural, and small communities.

By amalgamating these boards which are represented by over 25 municipal governments, many citizens and whole communities and several native reserves will be virtually -- they don't vote but we do represent them -- disfranchised on educational issues.

We are not disputing downsizing to a reasonable extent, but we see this proposed board as too huge and unmanageable to be in the best interests of the education of our children. The onerous load for administration of this mega-board cannot possibly be cost-efficient and can only affect children adversely.

As trustees, we see our present role as uncomplicated -- serving our students, ratepayers, employees and community in the fairest way possible. With this proposal, we will still be municipal politicians but we'll be treated far differently from municipal councils. We would become one board with five to 12 trustees representing the same area covered by over 25 municipalities, each with a mayor or reeve and many councillors.

We anticipate this information will help you to more fully appreciate the concerns we have about the reduction in the number of northern boards, given the distances, geographical peculiarities and uniqueness of the individual communities, which all play a very important part in the effectiveness of local representation.

Regarding representation, we are concerned that:

The suggested five to 12 representation range will not be adequate to ensure that an elected representative is accessible, accountable and representative of the population served.

The size of the proposed board will make effective policy discussion and decision-making at the local level very difficult, if not impossible.

The costs for running for election in this larger jurisdiction will be prohibitive for many.

All northern trustees receive well below the $10,498 provincial average honorarium and many collect little or nothing.

Trustees serve on many committees as well as attending regular board meetings. Many trustees work at full-time jobs in addition to their duties as a trustee. To add the difficulties and time commitments of travel may preclude the average citizen from taking part.

We are concerned that not enough recognition has been given to boards which have effectively found ways to share resources with their coterminous neighbours. We see this as a much more commonsense approach to save tax dollars. For example, given the challenges of geography and distance, many coterminous boards in the north are saving taxpayers thousands of dollars.

For example, in the North Shore board, Elliot Lake Secondary School houses public and separate board students with a French secondary program housed nearby, all under one umbrella. In Blind River, Chapleau and Wawa, English and French public and separate board students are housed in the same school. Michipicoten and Chapleau do not have a director of education but share a superintendent of schools for both Michipicoten public and separate boards and the Chapleau public board. They also share a business administrator.

1710

These small boards are very worried that their cooperative, economical systems will cease if they are amalgamated into one large public and one large separate board, costing the taxpayer much more money.

We would like to follow their examples to have more pressure applied to force cooperation with our coterminous board in Sault Ste Marie. We feel this would save many more tax dollars than the current proposal for amalgamation.

We see Bill 104 as actually increasing bureaucracy and costs by establishing a central Education Improvement Commission, a multitude of local EICs, and for the first time entrenching in legislation four types of boards for Ontario: English-language public and Catholic boards and French-language public and Catholic boards.

The mandate of the task force on school reduction was to reduce boards by 40% to 50%. In their report they said they tried to ensure "reasonable distances between a board and the communities whose schools it administers." They also said, "We acknowledge that new technology and school councils will not resolve all the problems of boards that cover a large geographical area."

Given the information we have just presented to you, we ask that you take these two statements seriously in your deliberations regarding northern boards.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much, Ms Mick, for coming to make a presentation here in Sudbury. You mention at the very end, on page 4, after making a very good case about the area involved and the diversity, that the task force on school board reduction, that is, the Sweeney task force, made a very different recommendation.

Ms Mick: Yes.

Mr Wildman: Is it fair for me to ask you, can you tell us what Sweeney recommended with regard to the boards in Algoma district?

Ms Mick: With regard to Sault Ste Marie, they were left as one board, as at present. Central Algoma, I believe, was included with North Shore.

Mr Wildman: Espanola and Manitoulin.

Ms Mick: Espanola, North Shore, Chapleau and Michipicoten, and they are sharing schools; they're sharing just about everything right now and it made a lot more sense.

Mr Wildman: Instead of one board. They were talking about amalgamations but they were talking about amalgamations that would end up with three boards.

Ms Mick: Yes.

Mr Skarica: We heard yesterday from many of the northern boards that they are setting up a situation where they're sharing a lot of services and basically amalgamating a lot of administrative services, but not in fact amalgamating the entire boards. How feasible is that in your situation here?

Ms Mick: We've been meeting for several years with our local -- you're talking coterminous boards now?

Mr Skarica: Yes.

Ms Mick: We've been meeting with our coterminous board for several years and we've been really trying to share. We share a couple of bus routes and that's about it. But because of the convoluted grant system for their transportation, they wind up with a much more generous grant system than we do and they feel they're in competition. They can pick up their JKs at the door, whereas we can't, and they don't want to make their children walk to meet our policy because they're afraid of losing students. That's what a lot of it is out there; it's that fear.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciated the clarification of the differences between this proposal and the one that had come from Sweeney. How do you see your role as a trustee under this new amalgamated board, given the distances that you would have to travel to board meetings, and as well given the fact that the companion piece is to take over 100% of the funding so that essentially you won't have a lot of control over the funding in your area as well?

Ms Mick: No, we're told our role would be policy. I guess we'd sit at meetings and be into a lot of the drier stuff. We wouldn't have this face-to-face contact. A lot of people say trustees don't belong in schools. I know our local schools love to see us, the children love to see that we are interested. As far as the distances go, it does preclude a lot of trustees from taking part. It'll be, as someone said, the rich and the famous. I don't think the famous; it would be the rich or the retired who would be able to be a trustee.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Mick. We appreciate your time.

We were scheduled to hear from the school advisory board for Holy Angels School at 5:20, Mr Henry Rowlinson. Has Mr Rowlinson come in?

Mr Wildman: Could I ask a question of the parliamentary assistant and then raise a matter with regard to the motion I put?

The Vice-Chair: Yes, certainly.

Mr Wildman: Just in regard to the last presentation made by the Sault Ste Marie Board of Education, if, and I underline the word "if," the government is prepared to consider the presentations that were made to us in Ottawa with regard to the Lanark, Leeds-Grenville, Prescott-Russell and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry amalgamation, where the suggestion was made we should follow the proposal of Sweeney to have two boards rather than one, would the government also take that same approach in terms of areas like Algoma district?

Mr Skarica: Sorry, I didn't get the last part.

Mr Wildman: Would you take the same approach in considering amalgamations of boards in areas like Algoma district?

Mr Skarica: I can tell you when I approach the minister I'm going to go over the submissions we heard here, and I think each board is on a board-by-board basis. The considerations in northwestern Ontario, quite frankly, are somewhat different than northeastern Ontario, because my impression of northwestern Ontario was that it didn't have the infrastructure for teleconferencing and so on and so forth, as we saw in northeastern Ontario.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate the answer from Mr Skarica. I would just point out that in my view fair is fair and if you're going to treat eastern Ontario one way, you're going to treat northeastern Ontario and northwestern Ontario the same.

Mrs McLeod: I must then ask for some clarification from the parliamentary assistant. You may have heard from the Sudbury board that there was some infrastructure. It would not extend to Espanola. He certainly heard from all the northern area boards in that vast area 1 of northeastern Ontario that there is not the infrastructure, whether it is technological or transportation.

Mr Skarica: I was talking about that horseshoe board around Ottawa. It has more infrastructure than what exists --

Mrs McLeod: Right. So then your answer to Mr Wildman is that both in northwestern Ontario and northeastern Ontario you'll take back the considerations you've heard?

Mr Skarica: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chair: While we have a moment, Mr Wildman, perhaps we could return to your motion.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate the indulgence of the committee. I'll just read the motion first:

I move that the standing committee on social development express the view that the Ministry of Education and Training should designate the Hornepayne Board of Education as a school authority, as the ministry has stated it intends to designate the coterminous isolate Hornepayne Roman Catholic Separate School Board, and that the Hornepayne Board of Education should not be amalgamated with the other boards to form the proposed district school board 1.

The Chair: Debate on the motion?

Mr Wildman: There are other presenters here. I don't need to hold it up, but Ms Beatty made the case very well. Hornepayne is a very isolated community, as I said, halfway between Winnipeg and Toronto on the CN line. It is not close to anywhere else in any of the other proposed amalgamated boards. Its coterminous board is going to be one of the school authorities as proposed under Bill 104. It has exactly the same boundaries as the Hornepayne Board of Education. It serves a similar population and a similar number of students. It serves the same community. It makes sense that the Hornepayne Board of Education and its students and ratepayers be treated the same way as the coterminous board.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not sure if there's been an opportunity to get an answer to the question I raised on the status of the James Bay --

1720

The Chair: We're dealing with the motion.

Mrs McLeod: It is directly relevant to the motion. I think it's in a comparable situation and I'm not sure of the status. If I could get the answer to that now, I think there's a very definite relationship between that area and the Hornepayne area.

Mr Skarica: I was going to propose for the time being, until we get clarification of Mrs McLeod's point, to amend your motion to read -- as I was impressed with the Hornepayne submission as well -- as follows: "I move that the standing committee on social development express the view that the Education Improvement Commission investigate the feasibility of designating," and then just go on, and then it's in accord with the rest of the act. The act, as it presently stands, doesn't deal specifically with any borders.

Mr Wildman: If I could respond, I appreciate the effort of Mr Skarica to respond in a positive way, but I would say that if the committee expresses the view that the ministry should do this, that then gives direction to the Education Improvement Commission; that is, if the ministry agrees with the committee. There's nothing binding by this motion on the ministry, but whatever happens to this motion, I know that the people of Hornepayne will be putting pressure on the Education Improvement Commission to do exactly this. I would just like to avoid them having to go through that process.

The Chair: Mrs McLeod had the floor when Mr Wildman was responding.

Mrs McLeod: That's fine, and I guess I partly direct my comment to Mr Wildman as well in terms of whether there would be any benefit in holding the motion until we could find out the status of the James Bay-Moosonee-Moose Factory area. I think it's relevant because it simply doesn't appear on any of the government's proposed reorganization. That says one of three things to me, and I don't know the current status: It is a board now and is going to be made a school authority; or it's a school authority now and is going to remain a school authority; or it's just been forgotten about. In any case, if that area is a school authority, I think the precedent is there to look at Hornepayne in exactly the same way. I just think the two cases are so comparable, given their particular geographic location.

Interjection.

The Chair: Mr Skarica does not think he'll have an answer for that today.

Mr Wildman: Also, I think the information Mrs McLeod is asking for is important, but I don't think it's crucial to this motion. The crucial matter is that it has been indicated that the coterminous board, serving exactly the same community, is going to be designated as a school authority if Bill 104 passes. If the coterminous board is going to be, then so should the public board.

Mr O'Toole: I would like to just go on the record expressing my view individually without consulting with my other government members here that clearly this is an exception, that clearly it's an exception we all want to recognize. I think it's rather hasty, without full review, to set any sort of precedent and direction without taking it back and looking at all alternatives.

When I asked the presenter -- I was impressed with her sincerity and knowledge -- it was clear that there was some other information at large here that predetermined the decision to take the decision of creating an authority for the separate board. This has to do with the number of students and who runs the high schools. There are a whole bunch of things here. Perhaps it is unique and perhaps it could be a confederated situation of some sort. I don't think it falls into this formula at all, personally. I'm not supportive of the motion as it's written.

Mr Beaubien: Just a quick comment. I agree with Mr Wildman's intention here, but basically I don't think it's fair. I cannot support it at this point in time, even though I agree with it, because I just don't have enough background information. To have one person coming in front of the committee, make a presentation, I don't have any other background information and I don't think it's fair to try to put us in a situation that we might regret down the road. I need more information before I can vote on it.

Interjection: I think the parliamentary assistant had the answer.

Mr Duncan: When you pass this bill it doesn't matter anyway, because the EIC has total power. I think we should say, as an expression of support to this community and to the boards, "Listen, EIC" -- they've put a very compelling case to us. Frankly, passing this resolution, they're not bound by it in any event. I think it's simply a matter of expression at this time which I personally can support because the case is compelling. Whatever other details may have been omitted or not discussed here, certainly the EIC can take that into consideration.

Mr Bisson: I just want to add to the argument, without rehashing everything, that we are the MPPs; it's our responsibility to bring forward in the debate of legislation amendments that complement the bill or try to strengthen it. Clearly what we've got here is that everybody agrees there is a problem. If we have an opportunity to address it, I think we should.

As was mentioned earlier, in the end the Minister of Education will do what the Minister of Education does, but if we as a committee want to make a recommendation, there's nothing that prevents us from doing that. I don't think we should just say, "We're not going to take our responsibilities," and throw it on to the Education Improvement Commission. The buck stops with us and we have to start the process.

Mr Arnott: I thought the Hornepayne presentation was very compelling as well, but like Mr Beaubien I'm not sure I fully understand the ramifications of Mr Wildman's motion. It might be helpful for him not to push for a vote on this motion. Perhaps we could defer it until tomorrow so that we'll have had more opportunity to reflect, and perhaps ideally to have some sort of presentation from ministry staff as to what the full ramifications are. That would be my suggestion.

Mr Wildman: Madam Chair, in light of the comments made by members, I don't want to have this motion defeated. I'll be very blunt. If deferring until tomorrow means it is possible that we will get the chance to pass the motion, since most members have said they are sympathetic to it, I'll be happy to stand it down. I will say this, and I'll be very frank: If in the intervening hours the ministry staff scurry around to try and persuade government members to vote against this motion, I will be very disappointed.

Mr Skarica: I think we're too independent-minded for you to worry about that.

Interjections.

The Chair: Seeing some unusual consensus, we'll stand the motion down until tomorrow.

Is the school advisory board for Holy Angels school here yet? No? All right, then.

CITIZENS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

The Chair: Citizens for the Preservation of Public Education, Phil Smith. Welcome again, Mr Smith. You're here in another guise, but we're pleased to have you here.

Mr Bisson: I'm just going to take one minute, no longer, because I want to leave the time for Phil to be able to present. I want members to understand clearly what the process has been here. There has been very little time for a lot of people to try to understand what Bill 104 is about and to get our heads around it so we can move forward with the implementation of the amendments as need be.

The school boards, the trustees, students and everyone involved in the education community in the riding of Cochrane South put together a committee, and this committee held its own public hearings in the communities of Cochrane South. This is a citizens' committee that went out, heard from everybody from trustees to parents, to teachers, to you name it, and this presentation is a culmination of what was heard at those particular hearings.

I just want to add, and I don't do this to be combative, that I wish the committee had travelled to the areas of Cochrane South or Cochrane North or even Timiskaming because it is going to be the largest school board in Ontario. Issues such as Hornepayne that have been raised here I think could have been clearly spoken to by the people in our area. I only regret that it didn't come, so we organized our own hearings, and this is what you're going to hear.

The Chair: We're doubly interested in what you have to say, Mr Smith.

Mr Phil Smith: As has already been said, the size of the Cochrane district is daunting, the smallest being 700 kilometres from end to end, and this is not counting the detours off Highway 11 to places like Timmins.

Pat Toffolo, the Chair of Cochrane Iroquois Falls/Black River-Matheson Board of Education, issued a personal invitation to the EIC to visit the proposed district 1. This combines seven English boards and requires eight to nine hours of travel from one end to the other. Trustees, parents and students all expressed the fear of losing the contact which now exists between community and board. With the limited numbers of trustees, many of our smaller communities will be without representation. Many of these same communities would not be able to participate through teleconferencing either because of lack of phone service entirely -- Wagoshi has one radio phone -- or have party line services -- Val Gagné and parts of Matheson.

1730

One trustee stated that she would not like to make a decision on a school in another town without having at least visited that site. That will mean much time on the road, and many people now serving as trustees would not be able to spend much time away from home and away from family responsibilities.

One parent worried about access to the board and keeping up with developments. She has two children with special needs and is working closely with her board to improve services. Trustees may be able to meet by teleconferencing, but how will parents attend such meetings?

Another parent is also a trustee. She made the decision to get involved to help improve our schools. As a parent with young children, she feels she and other parents will effectively be barred from the process now. With limited numbers of trustees and large school districts, the elections campaigns will be costly and time-consuming and potentially very political.

A student representing her school's student council suggested that if we must have these mega-boards, they should be only on paper. Only very top administration and perhaps departments like curriculum services should be centralized. Superintendents should have offices within the schools they actually serve.

French-language teachers and trustees all applaud the creation of separate French boards, but find the sizes of the school boards in our area are a serious problem. It is recommended that school districts should involve no more than two and a half hours of travel from end to end.

Students, trustees, parents and teachers are appalled and frightened of the considerable powers given to this appointed body. They resent what appears to be the dictatorial nature of this commission and the fact that it can override duly elected boards before this bill is even passed into law.

One student pointed out that if taxpayers don't like what trustees are doing, they can choose to not re-elect them. If taxpayers don't want what the commission is doing, they have no recourse.

Parents from school councils did not feel that these councils should take on the responsibilities of governance, but they are concerned that the focus on the child will be lost in the process.

Everyone expressed confusion about what the role of the new school boards will actually be under the EIC. It appears they will be elected but have no power. Their present duties will be taken over by the EIC and the appointed commissioners will not be accountable to the school communities they govern.

Under part XIV of Bill 104, the EIC would apparently have the power to compel the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards. Understandably, this is a real concern for the local OPIEU, CUPE and USWA members who presently work in secretarial and custodial positions, because it means their jobs will be gone.

However, it is interesting to note that this is a real concern for parents as well. Several parents expressed the fear that the contracting out of these jobs could mean a high turnover rate in personnel within individual schools. Parents rely very much on the personal care their children now receive within the schools and the trust that has developed. Other parents pointed out that their school secretaries and custodians knew their children and knew which child should go on which school bus and who has permission to pick them up at school.

Parents of children with special needs worry too. Since professional support staff are not considered part of classroom education, are these workers also on the chopping block?

Secondary school students like myself are concerned about the effect this bill will have on certain programs such as the arts and physical education. Many students presently require these programs, and some of these programs are favourites. They are afraid they will be lost in the shuffle of change. Will they have to find the money for private schools in the future if they want a first-class education? They expressed fear and a sense of isolation. Money rules and students don't count.

None of the presenters liked the idea of the shift of school taxes away from local sources. Although they conceded that centralized control could mean better services for some areas, they do not trust this government to bring all schools to the highest level. They do believe it will mean erosion of our public system as the total control of funds will be in provincial hands and subject to even more cuts. Trustees worry that present reserves generated from local taxes will not be spent locally but could be siphoned off to other areas.

Although one parent felt that principals and vice-principals should not be in the same bargaining unit as their teachers, all the presenters were convinced that these positions must be held by teachers. Some parents expressed the concern that removal of principals and vice-principals from teachers' federations will open the door for non-teachers to become school managers.

Teachers see their principals as educational leaders in the school, not as business managers. Although everyone agreed that rearrangement and sharing services are good ideas, they want to make sure this will also lead to a better education system, not just a cheaper one. They don't understand this apparent haste and they want to be part of the change and they want to be consulted. Right now students, parents, staff and trustees feel shut out of a process they feel is undemocratic.

Without any indication by this government of what direction it wants to take with education, with no vision of the future, presenters expressed mistrust and fear of hidden agendas. More than one person expressed the concern that a crisis has been created in order to dismantle our public education system in favour of vouchers and charter schools. As one teacher pointed out, if we allow the destruction of public school system, the rules under NAFTA make it nearly impossible for us to retrieve it again.

In conclusion, I heard from the people of Timmins and Iroquois Falls that our schools are very much a part of our communities. They are more than a random collection of students, teachers, principals, staff and parents. They reflect the individual characters of our communities. Our schools are safe and nurturing places for all our children to learn and be part of their communities.

Our public schools are not and cannot become cost-efficient factories for uniformly programmed young people. All our children deserve the best education we can give them, and this requires a vibrant, flexible and receptive public school system. It also requires everyone's participation.

The Chair: Thank you very much for bringing that to us. It was very useful. We have a few minutes for questioning.

Mr Froese: Thank you for making a presentation. I've spoken to a lot of students your age, older and younger, about the education system and how things work and how things are structured. They told me they weren't necessarily concerned about what the structure was. They expressed some of the same concerns that were in the paper, that you expressed, that stuff like art or physical education and all that was being removed or whatever, some of those programs, because boards made decisions because of the reductions from the provincial government; let's face the fact. They had to reduce their spending or rearrange or reorganize their own organization, their own board. Students weren't concerned about what that structure was as long as they've got the education and the programs that were there that they needed for the future. I'd like to know your opinion on that.

Mr Phil Smith: My opinion on what's being cut?

Mr Froese: No, your opinion on the comments I've been receiving from students saying that they didn't really care how many boards there were, how many trustees there were; they wanted the funds in the classroom, they wanted the funds in programs where they could get their proper education for their future.

Mr Phil Smith: I think a lot of things shouldn't be cut, like secretaries and custodial workers, because they are part of the school. One of the secretaries came up to us in our committee meeting yesterday and said the secretaries become almost friends with the students.

Mr Froese: I'd like to know your opinion.

Mr Phil Smith: I think they shouldn't be cutting everything too. That's my personal view on it.

1740

Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. I'm very impressed with the process your community underwent for you to get here today to give your community's views with regard to Bill 104. Just in review, you're concerned about losing that local autonomy. Second, you believe there's a role for everyone to play at the local level in education. Am I correct?

Mr Phil Smith: Yes.

Mr Bartolucci: Where then is the shortcoming with the EIC in all of this, the Education Improvement Commission, or, in this case, the education improvement committee.

Mr Phil Smith: I'm not --

Mr Bartolucci: Then let me maybe fill in a little bit. Do you find that with the creation of the Education Improvement Commission you're losing that local autonomy?

Mr Phil Smith: It almost seems like it. Yes, we are losing some stuff.

Mr Bartolucci: Very good. Thank you very much.

Mr Bisson: I've had the opportunity to listen to the presentations in Timmins. A number of students who came before the committee expressed views about what they saw as classroom education. There were some suggestions made that a number of services be removed from the school, such as arts, drama, library services and others. I just wonder if you can share with the committee what some of the students who presented before the committee commented about the loss of those possible services.

Mr Phil Smith: Some of the losses, especially with drama -- a lot of people, like myself, would like to go into drama, get into theatre arts. They don't really like that. One girl came up to us yesterday and told us that with all of this she felt like she was an ant and that she had to follow everything that was going on. You've got this little ant and she's got to follow the queen ant; I guess the queen ant is the government and we all have to follow that, which she didn't agree with at all. There are a lot of little things like that too.

The Chair: I suggest to you that if the head of the government had indeed been a queen, it might have been different. In any event, Mr Smith --

Mr Jordan: That's out of order.

The Chair: I don't think the Chair can be ruled out of order, Mr Beaubien.

Mr Beaubien: I didn't make that comment.

The Chair: Oh, it was Mr Jordan. My apologies. I will correct the record.

Mr Smith, I want to thank you. I notice that you didn't have copies for us, but given the significance of your presentation --

Mr Phil Smith: We should have copies. There are copies.

The Chair: Terrific, because we would like to have that on the record. Thank you very much for being here.

I'm going to call again on the school advisory board for Holy Angels school. Is Henry Rowlinson here? I guess not. Is the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association here, or the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario?

SUDBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS

The Chair: We'll move to the Sudbury Regional Council of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations, Roberte Cunningham. Welcome, Ms Cunningham. We're delighted to have you at this hour. Thank you for being here and for presenting to us.

Ms Roberte Cunningham: Thank you. I'm very happy to be here. My name is Roberte Cunningham. I am the past president of the Sudbury Regional Council of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations. I'd like to address some of the issues and share with you questions that have arisen in relation to Bill 104.

Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, an act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system, amends the Education Act and changes how education is governed.

Equity: A recently proposed new funding model promises equity in educational dollars. There is a need in our separate schools for realistic equity so that programs and services may be maintained at a reasonable level. Will there be equal distribution of money?

District school boards: Bill 104, providing for the creation of the new district school boards, will result, in some areas of the province, in large geographical areas and a greater population base. The English section of the Sudbury District Roman Catholic Separate School Board will remain unchanged. Our student population is approximately 8,900. This is a small board in comparison to others. How will this affect our funding? Will additional funds be provided as deemed necessary for our board to adequately meet our students' needs? Will our board be able to continue with the programs presently offered? Will grants be adequate to ensure that the needs of our special education students are met? Our English district separate school board would no longer be coterminous with the English district public school board. Will this not present some difficulties with the coordination of sharing of services?

Outsourcing of services. Non-instructional services: What exactly comes into this category? Libraries, guidance? Who will hire library staff and will there be continuity of service in a specific school? Will guidance personnel be considered non-instructional? As we all know, there are many facets to guidance counselling. Will there be continuity, assurance of confidentiality?

It is assumed that any and all personnel in our schools work under the direction of our principals. How much authority will the principal have in respect to non-instructional personnel? Who will evaluate non-instructional personnel?

With the board no longer employing custodial and maintenance personnel, how will this impact our schools and existing employees? Who will ensure that our standards are being met, and if not, address the situation?

How will transportation be affected? Where will the responsibility for our children lie during transportation? Who will address transportation problems, behaviour concerns on the bus? Who will parents call with questions or concerns relating to transportation? The principal or the company providing the service?

Trustees: Bill 104 provides for representation of five to 22 trustees. Our existing section has seven trustees, to most of us only a local phone call away. A strong commitment to Catholic education ensures people coming forward for the position of trustee. However, there is some question as to what exactly the role of the trustee will be and how much decision-making power they will have.

School councils: One of the functions of the Education Improvement Commission will be to "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on the feasibility of strengthening the role of school councils...."

It is imperative that parents, members of school councils, be current with newly released information in regard to all educational issues. Education and training is essential for our Catholic school council members to work effectively within their schools. Well-informed members, working in collaboration, will truly ensure excellence in Catholic education in all our schools.

Good communication and networking are very important. Our board has in place a regional Catholic school council. We've already held one educational session and at least three are scheduled for the near future.

It is understood that along with the ministry's desire to legislate school councils, funds will be provided to boards to assist with education and training of these councils. Our Catholic school councils provide us with the opportunity to actively participate within our schools. Along with the commitment of Catholic school council members, education is the key to success.

Increasing parental involvement in education governance is an issue that demands deliberation and much more discussion with parents.

Transition: During transition, restrictions are imposed on existing boards, such as appointments, hiring and promotion, approval of budgets, transferring of money between or among reserves or reserve funds or changing the purpose or designation of a reserve or reserve fund. What of our trustees? Will there no longer be local accountability for decisions made? Will decisions be made by the province or by our elected trustees?

Education Improvement Commission: This commission, consisting of five to seven members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, will oversee the transition to the new system of education governance in Ontario.

"Decisions of the Education Improvement Commission are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court."

The minister may apply to the Ontario Court (General Division) for an order requiring any person or body to comply.

Why would there not to be opportunity for appeal of a decision or order of the Education Improvement Commission or any of Bill 104's regulations?

1750

In conclusion, as you can see, there are many questions regarding Bill 104. Parents have a desire for effective partnership in the Catholic education of our children. Proposed changes are occurring so rapidly and the time to disseminate, assimilate, discuss and clearly understand the ramifications of this bill is just too short. At this time, whether or not parents support Bill 104 is another unanswered question.

This forum allows us to bring forward our questions regarding Bill 104 and we sincerely thank you for the opportunity.

Mr Bartolucci: Roberte, thank you very much for your presentation. People around the table, other than maybe Shelley, don't know your enormous contribution to education in the Catholic school system in Sudbury. Certainly you're to be commended for that and for your presentation.

Obviously, you have the same concern we have with regard to the Education Improvement Commission, that is, that we're going to lose local input into education if Bill 104 goes through. Would that be correct?

Ms Cunningham: Yes, that is a grave concern among parents.

Mr Bartolucci: Are you concerned at all about Catholic governance in this whole model that's being proposed by the government?

Ms Cunningham: I would have to say yes to that. Yes, we certainly are concerned about that. That has been discussed quite a bit in the past. Although at some point I believe it says constitutional rights will be respected, among the parents there is some concern as to whether that will actually be the case in the near future.

Mr Bartolucci: I read that section with interest as well. I go back to a presentation by the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, and they've included a recommendation that the following section be added: "including rights and privileges as they were enjoyed by the separate school boards or their supporters under predecessors of this act as they existed immediately prior to January 13, 1997." Do you see that as being fundamental for you to ever consider supporting 104?

Ms Cunningham: Yes.

Mr Bisson: One of the concerns we heard in the hearings in Timmins was the whole prospect of curriculum being developed not at the board level but at the ministry level, and what we heard from the separate school board supporters is that they're worried, not in the short term but in the longer term; that it poses a problem for Catholic education in that, because it's not clearly spelled out in the legislation, the curriculum being developed will in some cases be developed by non-Catholics. Has that been part of the discussion within your particular area?

Ms Cunningham: Yes, it has been. That certainly is a concern among parents in this region, although we are familiar with the cooperatives out there working to ensure that there is Catholic curriculum for our separate schools and we certainly support them in their work.

Mr Jordan: Thank you very much for your presentation. The point that comes to my mind -- I'm meeting tomorrow with the parent council at one of our schools in Lanark county. They have indicated to me that they see this as a great opportunity to participate in many areas of education for their children. Prior to this type of legislation being brought forward, they would have to, maybe 10 days prior to a board meeting, get their item on the agenda so they could attend the meeting to discuss certain things with the trustees. They couldn't just come in and make a presentation.

I don't know if you've experienced that, but they see it as a great opportunity to assess curriculum, assess books being used in their English courses, assess why in the lower grades penmanship isn't there any more and why basic math and sciences and geography -- their children can't even name the provinces and the capitals. People are getting concerned. These are only basics in a lot of cases. You seem to have a definite fear that something may happen and I'm wondering where that's coming from.

Ms Cunningham: I'm not sure I understand your question. The fear of school councils, is that what you're --

Mr Jordan: That you're going to be given responsibilities you can't cope with. But if you network with the trustees who are going to be elected and work together, you're going to, in my opinion and the opinion of some of my parents -- not all of them -- you're going to have a very strong input into the education of children generally in the schools.

Ms Cunningham: How to answer that? The feeling I get from the parents in our region -- we have just newly formed a regional Catholic school council, and that's wonderful and people are very excited about that; parents are very excited about school councils. We all feel that they're going to be very effective and there certainly is that opportunity for parents to get into the schools and to be more involved in a lot of the things you have mentioned.

Maybe the fear comes from a lack of education and the lack of information. Even in Bill 104, there's only one line that refers to school councils. We just don't have enough information. That's where the concern is. It's not so much that they'll be given responsibilities they can't handle, because I think parents can handle all kinds of responsibilities.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Cunningham, for being here and for presenting your views to the committee.

SAULT STE MARIE/CENTRAL ALGOMA TEACHERS' COALITION

The Chair: Our next presenter is the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, the Ontario Public School Teachers and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, represented by Terri Miller and Gayle Manley. Welcome. It's good to have you here. We're looking forward to your presentation.

Ms Gayle Manley: We've just breezed in.

The Chair: You did indeed. You have a way to come. We understand that, and you have day jobs as well. You have 15 minutes for your presentation. You can divide it between you in any way you wish. If time permits, there'll be some questions.

Ms Manley: Thank you again for holding the presentations a little closer to home, at least for us in the Sault. We would have liked them in Sault Ste Marie, but you can't have all your wishes. We actually represent a coalition.

Mr Wildman: You don't look like Art Callegari.

Ms Manley: Art Callegari was originally going to do this. He said, "Maybe you could take my name tag in case people have trouble."

The Sault Ste Marie/Central Algoma Teachers' Coalition is an alliance of approximately 1,400 teachers, from three school boards in that area. All five affiliates are represented in this group. When you listed them all, AEFO is also a member of our alliance.

We welcome this opportunity to present to you our concerns, as you would imagine we would probably have, and recommendations regarding Bill 104, known as the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997.

In the shortened title for Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, there is an underlying premise that less is better, that there will be less bureaucracy with fewer trustees. This concept echoes the same ideas in the Fewer Politicians Act. But it echoes the key words of the 1990s, such as "downsizing" and "restructuring," which are always linked to "accountability" and "our ability to compete in the global market." The two latter phrases play on public anxieties and parental concerns. Similarly, the longer title of Bill 104 attempts to work on these fears as well when it states that this act will "improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system."

It is somewhat doubtful that a document 27 pages in length will accomplish such actions. In fact, it is our belief that there will be less accountability, and effectiveness and quality will probably be more related to a business ethic involving "clients" and "front-line service providers," to quote our Minister of Education and Training.

We reject the concept that education is a business. In The Good Society, John Kenneth Galbraith elaborates on the decisive role of education: "The good society cannot accept that education in the modern economy is primarily in the service of economics; it has a larger political and social role, a yet deeper justification in itself."

Bill 104 is essentially enabling legislation to establish new district school boards with a reduced number of trustees. The bill outlines the qualifications for trustees and who may or may not run for office. Employees of an existing board and their spouses and identified municipal employees are ineligible to run for election to a district school board unless they take a leave of absence without pay.

Not only does this deny a wide range of individuals the right to the democratic process, it also excludes many people who have a high level of knowledge about education from participating in education governance.

1800

The establishment of the Education Improvement Commission to provide for the transition period to a new form of governance in Ontario is of great concern. Firstly, it does seem presumptuous that the chairs of this commission have already been appointed and commenced their work around the province when Bill 104 has not as yet been made law. It begs the question, "Will the government even listen to these briefs presented and make any changes based on public consultation?"

Our experience with presentations for Bills 34, 79, 100 and 81 seems to point out that few changes, if any, are ever made after hearings. Two and a half weeks of 15 minutes per presentation is probably very challenging for those on the social development committee, however it does not seem enough time for true consultation to put in place the vast reforms intended. Screening lists and not allowing all requests to present at these hearings is certainly not permitting full consultation.

Secondly, the powers of the Education Improvement Commission are extraordinary, equal to those of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Its decisions are final and shall not be reviewed by a court. Surprisingly, these powers began on January 13, 1997, before Bill 104 became law. It would also appear that the role of trustees has been usurped by the commission and local appointed committees until the year 2001. One particular aspect of the proposed commission's powers is disturbing; that is, the distribution of assets and liabilities of present boards in the formation of the new district boards. As taxpayers in Sault Saint Marie, it should be up to our elected officials to decide how these taxes collected in Sault Ste Marie should be used in the future. Run a poll of opinion of any taxpayer in any region in Ontario, whether it be Hornepayne, London or Sault Ste Marie; they will feel very strongly about taxes raised in their area going to students in their board.

Two specific provisions relating to the commission which greatly concern the members of the Sault Ste Marie/Central Algoma Teachers' Coalition are the transfer of staff of existing boards and the outsourcing of non-instructional services. In the last amalgamation of school boards in 1992, and that was Kirkland Lake and Timiskaming, collective agreements were honoured and guidelines were set up for employee transfer. As well, the Education Act states that the employment contract of every employee of a board that has boundaries altered becomes an obligation of the board in which the school is vested. We recommend that past practice be respected. However, the powers of the commission are such that its decisions can override the Education Act and cannot be challenged. Herein lies our concern. We get no sense from this legislation that these things will be honoured.

In clause 335(3)(f), the Education Improvement Commission will "research...and make recommendations to the minister on how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services." There's no question here whether it is deciding whether it's an appropriate thing to do; it's going to just promote it. How are non-instructional services defined? Will this mean technicians for teacher-librarians, or counsellors for guidance teachers? Or does it mean the caretaker, the school secretary, the educational assistants who are part of every staff? Does this signal unemployment for these workers, undercut by private firms, all for the sake of a tax break for the well-to-do?

What is not in the legislation is of as much concern as what is proposed. We do not know the configuration of the new boards -- they may change -- the new funding model, the number of trustees per board, how the transitions will take place and what protections there will be for incumbent staff. These details are left to the Lieutenant Governor, on recommendation of the cabinet, to be dealt with through regulation, not legislation. Leaving many of the specifics of education governance in regulations means there can be no debate in the Legislature, no committee hearings or appeal to the general public. The democratic process is thwarted one more time.

There needs to be more consultation on the viability of the proposed boards. Geography has to be a factor. I know that just from driving here today. I drove half of my new board along the highway. In the proposed district boards of Algoma, it would require a seven-hour road trip from one end to the other. For our trustees to service areas of this size would demand more time and cost than is currently available. Transportation in the north offers a number of challenges to its citizens: winter travel, highway closures, cutbacks in highway snow cleanup and the inability to use cellular phones in most parts of the north would make travel in the winter more risky for our trustees.

Accessibility for both the taxpayer and the trustees will be a problem. How easy will it be to contact a trustee who lives in Wawa if you live in Blind River? In section 7, subclause 327(3)(d)(ii), "the establishment...of geographic areas within the areas of jurisdiction of district school boards" is permitted for electoral purposes. Why not allow the establishment of geographic areas, or satellites in the actual governance of education? This would allow for people to continue to have that familiar local trustee to whom local concerns could be addressed. Satellite boards could look after issues specific to that community.

Removing the education portion of property taxes and placing complete control in the hands of the Ministry of Education and Training does not necessarily mean an improvement in accountability. For our Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association colleagues, there are definite concerns about their constitutional access to financial resources. It is important for them that these resources are independent from the decision-making authority of the provincial government.

This government is on record in its desire to make cuts to education. The changes over the last year and a half have not shown a sensitivity to the needs of the education system as junior kindergarten is made optional and special education funding is changed drastically. The classroom has been affected in spite of "commonsense" promises to the contrary. With myths and misinformation as background for every change to education, the government does not inspire confidence in teachers, educational workers and parents in our community. Even the commitment of the Minister of Education as announced in Sault Ste Marie on February 12, 1997, does not ring true based on past practice. The minister stated: "We will fund the needs of every individual student in this province. If that's more than $13 billion, then we will spend it. If less than $13 billion, we will send the savings back to the taxpayer." We are prepared to hold the minister accountable to these words.

To summarize our concern in the form of recommendations:

(1) That employees of an existing or district school board and their spouses as well as municipal employees be eligible to run for election for a district school board without taking unpaid leave of absence from their jobs.

(2) That the Education Improvement Commission only exercise its powers after the passage of the legislation.

(3) That duly elected school board trustees be permitted to carry out their duties according to the electorate.

(4) That Bill 104 be amended to ensure that the new district school boards assume all liabilities and assets of the existing boards.

(5) That all rights which are covered by collective agreements be guaranteed in Bill 104; in particular, successor rights.

(6) That past practice in amalgamation of school boards and the Education Act provisions be upheld and not be overruled by the Education Improvement Commission.

(7) That outsourcing be rejected as a means of saving money; this will negatively affect all our communities.

(8) That Bill 104 be postponed until sufficient consultation has occurred with all affected areas, in particular regarding electoral boundaries.

(9) That Bill 104 be postponed until all aspects of the reform are known so that there can be consultation in all aspects of the reforms that will affect Ontario education for years to come.

The Chair: We have about a minute per caucus. We start with the third party. It's unfortunate Mr Bisson isn't here, because I know he wanted to have extra time.

1810

Mr Wildman: He's out conferring with the francophone representatives who appeared before. But since our deputants are from my area, I'm quite happy he's not here.

Could I ask you to expand, if you would, on your comments on page 6, with regard to accessibility and section 7, subclause 327(3)(d)(ii)? I think members of the committee have been impressed in Thunder Bay and here, and also frankly in Ottawa, with comments about the size of the some of these proposed new boards, so if you could expand on that, I'd appreciate it.

Ms Manley: When you look at the comment, it's difficult for taxpayers to access a trustee. We have no concept actually of how it will be set up, how many trustees there will be in the district of Algoma, so we really don't even know if we'll have two trustees --

Mr Wildman: It's between five and 12, so it's likely going to be about seven, unless we recommend or the government agrees to expand the number for northern boards.

Ms Manley: I have to tell you that the Minister of Education and Training also came out and said that there would be a possibility of more in certainly our district of Algoma, so I gather that is up for changes.

Looking at taxpayers having difficulty meeting up with their trustees, I almost imagine that it will be an 800 number in a regional centre that they'll have to be looking at, and that's a little frustrating with the number systems.

The one particular phrase that's in there, looking at the geographical areas, I am not sure what the intent of that would be, but when I read that I thought perhaps that implied that, "Yes, we'd look at smaller areas and communities, and still respect them for electoral purposes." I don't see any reason why that couldn't apply to the school boards as they stand right now.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon. It's getting late in the day.

Ms Manley: Yes, I know. You look pretty wide awake actually. You're doing pretty well.

Mr O'Toole: It's pretty interesting, no question. Speaking on behalf of teachers, it's obvious that you're defending the position of your association, and I note the complete omission of any reference to students. The word isn't in here. That being said, there is a close call, but you have a duty to represent your union associates --

Ms Manley: I don't agree with you. It is there: when I talk about taxpayers, students, junior kindergarten.

Mr O'Toole: I'm asking a question.

Ms Manley: I'm talking about students, special education.

Mr O'Toole: Junior kindergarten was made optional by the minister. I have had heard for the last two days of the enormous distances, some travelling as long as two hours. Do you support junior kindergarten and students being on the bus for two hours there and two hours home?

Ms Manley: I think you're probably looking at two different things here.

Mr O'Toole: No, I'm asking -- junior kindergarten is a universal --

Ms Manley: I support junior --

The Chair: Let the witness respond.

Ms Manley: Thank you, Chair. I definitely support junior kindergarten. It's a decidedly worthwhile program. There isn't a student in our particular board right now who travels two hours, so if you talk about large district boards, which is the plan, then you're going to be looking at junior kindergarten students travelling long --

Mr O'Toole: Do you have examples?

The Chair: Mrs McLeod, for the official opposition. Mr O'Toole, you've had your turn.

Mrs McLeod: By sheer coincidence, I wanted to draw attention to the reference you make to students and the very basic concern you have for students when you speak on page 7 of a statement that the minister made that "We will fund the needs of every individual student in this province," and that you intend to hold the minister accountable for that. You also note that it doesn't ring quite true with either past actions or past statements on the part of either the minister or indeed the Premier, who in November said they needed to get another billion dollars out of education.

I guess I am concerned that there have been a lot of statements made by the minister and none of us knows what that means in terms of students and meeting the needs of students. We do know that there is not a really good grasp at this point in time of what it would cost to meet the individual needs of students, so when the minister makes that statement, I don't know what it means. When he makes the statement about equitable funding for every student, I don't know what that means in terms of the level of equitable funding or whether he means the same funding at the same low level for every student.

My question for you then is, do you see anything in this amalgamation -- I think you attempted to keep your remarks focused specifically on what is in 104, and there's not actually much specific there -- that might actually free up dollars for kids in the classroom?

Ms Manley: I can't see that. I'll let Terri respond to this.

Ms Terri Miller: I would say absolutely not. As far as the amalgamation of boards is concerned -- and I work and live in a district rural board -- what we are seeing is a phenomenal increase in costs of transportation and accessing social services that we offer now that we would have to pay for out of our nearest neighbour, which would be Sault Ste Marie. When we look at any kind of amalgamation, where we'd have to incur those costs it's definitely going to be an increase.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Manley and Ms Miller, for your presentation, your forthright recommendations and for the extraordinary distance you've had to drive. I hope, if you're driving back tonight in the dark, that it's a safe drive.

Mr Wildman: Just for the information of the committee, 1-800-TRUSTEE does fit the numbers.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that, Mr Wildman.

COCHRANE-IROQUOIS FALLS, BLACK RIVER-MATHESON BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: The Cochrane-Iroquois Falls, Black River-Matheson Board of Education, Patricia Toffolo. I should explain for the benefit of committee members that St Anne School was not able to be here, and Cochrane-Iroquois Falls et al were the next on our list. they have very kindly agreed to jump in the breach and be here with us this afternoon.

Ms Patricia Toffolo: We are a last-minute replacement, so anyway, here we go.

I'm Patricia Toffolo. I'm a public school trustee from Iroquois Falls and I'm also chair of the Cochrane-Iroquois Falls, Black River-Matheson Board of Education. The director of education, Craig Shelswell from our board, is on my right. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak to you this evening. Before I go any further I really must say, folks, this is all about students. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here, and we aren't convinced today that Bill 104 is all about students. That's why we're here.

The comments that I make to you are not only from my own board but from all the boards in district school board 1. There are seven English public school boards in district school board 1, and they are Timiskaming; Kirkland Lake; Timmins; Cochrane-Iroquois Falls, Black River-Matheson; Kapuskasing; Hearst; and Hornepayne. The area that this board encompasses is substantial. To travel from one end to the other is a greater distance than from Kingston to Windsor.

Because of the tremendous implications of the Fewer School Boards Act, it was difficult to decide on the content of our presentation. Other groups have told you, no doubt, about the assault to democracy and the seizing of total control of education by the province, but we would like to highlight several other concerns that school boards, particularly in the north, have about this legislation.

The first concern is the very large geographic area which our new board will encompass. It will take approximately eight hours to drive from one end of the board to the other. Travel to meetings and visits to schools will be difficult and expensive. Cost-efficient technology, if and when it is available in northern Ontario -- because we still have rotary phones and party lines in Iroquois Falls -- will assist greatly, but the human element is still essential in education. Education is a face-to-face, people-meeting-people process.

The communities in northern Ontario are separated by a significant distance and they are linked by a two-lane highway which is poorly maintained and cared for. Driving conditions are often hazardous during our long and unpredictable winters, and long hours spent driving can certainly be put to better use.

1820

Although our communities have many similarities, each has its own distinct identity. There are different needs and values in each community. Each board has programs and services that are unique to its jurisdiction. It will be extremely difficult for a board that encompasses such a large geographic area to provide for differing needs and meet differing expectations. I might add that we have unusual schools, perhaps, very different schools in some communities in the north. We have mixed schools, schools where instruction is in both French and English, and our students are free to move back and forth and take something in French, take something in English, as they choose. I don't think the division the government is proposing is going to be quite as clean and neat as perhaps it thinks, especially in communities like ours. Citizens are going to feel far removed from the decision-making process and local accountability will be lost.

The cost of running for election in such a large jurisdiction will be prohibitive to many people. There is a very real possibility of trustees running on behalf of political parties, heaven forbid, or special interest groups. But once technology, distance, travel and other associated costs are addressed, either the cost of administration and governance in a large jurisdiction will increase or the quality of these services will decrease.

Our proposed new district board is larger than many countries. Does this make sense? Distance, size and access issues need to be addressed for constituents -- this is really important; this is where the 1-800-WHO CARES number comes in -- for staff and for elected officials.

Our second concern is the number of trustees allowed per board. Will five to 12 trustees provide effective representation for such a large area? Will this representation be accessible, accountable and representative of the population served? How can effective native trustee representation in northern boards be achieved within the five-to-12-trustee parameters? We fear that many small communities will be disfranchised and not have access to decision-makers. We need local solutions for local problems, and we must not lose the autonomy of our education system.

Also, we are most anxious about the job security of many of our staff members. Futures are at stake here. Each employee and each family is an important part of our community. It is imperative that students, parents, educators, taxpayers, the entire community, take ownership of change and build upon what exists to expand and improve public education. Sweeping changes in the structure of education must receive in-depth examination and careful consideration. This takes time, but Bill 104 is being implemented in haste, and we fear that it will not lead to continuous improvement of education in our communities. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and we'd be happy to answer any questions, or try to, if you have any.

Mr Skarica: You are one of a numbers of boards that have expressed concerns regarding the size of the boards. You make a brief reference to technology. What technology is available right now, and if there isn't any, what would be required to have teleconferencing facilities, that type of thing?

Ms Toffolo: Perhaps my partner would answer that for you.

Mr Craig Shelswell: The biggest problem with teleconferencing and technology in northern Ontario, and I hate to direct it at a company, but Northern Telephone is the one that deals with our area, and they have not put in the infrastructure that allows videoconferencing on four or six lines, and it becomes a major problem. We've talked to them about it before Bill 104 in our own cases, and their comment is that it's a private enterprise business, "We're there to make money and we're not able at this time to provide you with the service you need."

Last Saturday we had a session. We were looking at how videoconferencing could be used within the size of the area that we are going to be dealing with, and when you're dealing with the two-line process, you have time lag in your speech, there are herky-jerky motions and the picture isn't as clear. When you get into areas where they have better technology, where you can use four or six lines, then it is perfect, just like watching any other form of media that you want to.

All of this is going to cost money. When we were dealing with this issue, the cost of a full setup at one site was $75,000 to $80,000. If we're looking at seven boards coming into one and if looking at spreading it out and ideally saying there should be seven sites where people could go to, you're talking $500,000, along with the staff and the maintenance that go with it. That's one critical area as we try and address the need for technology and the ability to use it. It is a problem and it's an area where the infrastructure needs to be upgraded. It's going to be a costly one.

Mrs McLeod: I'm very pleased you are here. I had just actually finished saying to my colleague that I was particularly sorry that you weren't on our presentation list, because you represent a unique geographical area in the amalgamation. I'm glad you're here because you've talked about the accessibility issues, which are so critical.

Since you've done that, I'd like to ask you about your sense of the cost savings and potential benefits to students from cost savings that might be realized through the amalgamation. I'll just leave it open for you. Do you see that you're going to save dollars through this amalgamation?

Ms Toffolo: We've just spent $500,000 on technology and that has to come out of the classroom. Where else?

Mrs McLeod: Indeed. If I have time for a further question then -- I'm debating between two.

Ms Toffolo: I'll answer both.

Mrs McLeod: I think about the kinds of things we've been hearing from northern Ontario communities about the transportation problem. At the current time, one of the proposals that the government is looking at -- at the municipal table, not at the education table -- is to try and get out of this municipal offload problem that it has created by shifting the costs of school custodians, secretarial staff, busing and school capital construction on to the municipal tax base in return for taking something of the social services back to the province. I find myself wondering, in a northern Ontario set of communities, what happens if the municipalities end up having to decide between road improvements which they are being handed or putting custodians into your schools.

Ms Toffolo: I know what will happen: dirty schools and unsafe schools. I don't know. You're making me make priorities. I know where my priority is, but I'm sorry, I don't trust that the municipality has the same priority.

Mr Bisson: I want to thank you for taking the time to drive all the way in from Iroquois Falls. I think people need to get a concept. That's a four-hour drive just to come in and do a presentation that you found out about this morning. I think it shows the commitment that you have for public education.

I want to say to the members of the committee just quickly, there are many communities within the catchment area of this board and others that don't have phone service. For example, Wagoshi has one radio phone. You cannot do teleconferencing. Communities like Val Gagné, Holtyre, Ramore often are seven or eight people on a party line, so it's not an option. You need to keep that in the back of your mind.

I just want to pick up on something that was said here. All of that cost of doing business as a big board in district 1 -- teleconferencing, the special provisions that need to be made to communicate with all your schools over a large geographic area -- is going to cost money. Are you getting any kind of indication from the government that you're going to get extra money to deal with your special circumstances, or will it come out of classroom funding?

Ms Toffolo: Do you have any indication?

Mr Shelswell: There have been comments made that any setup costs must be dealt with as a special item as we move into the new funding model and the way the new funding model is set up, with each board receiving an envelope and that money being used to provide education. That model itself has been developed and we'll be seeing it shortly. There isn't a provision in that model for setup costs, technology costs and other areas like that. So from my perspective, I have to assume that the government will be addressing that as a separate item. From my own personal, in-depth knowledge of the funding model, I know it's not in there. That's just another item that has to be looked at, and it's a necessary item if we're going to be able to function. I think that's critical.

1830

Mr Bisson: The other issue is that of representation on district 1. I think it's somewhere around 22 communities in district 1. We'll probably get eight or nine trustees because of the size of the board. What does that mean for communities like Val Gagné, Ramore, Holtyre --

Interjection: Hornepayne.

Mr Bisson: Well, Hornepayne is yet another. What does it mean for them? What does it mean to the local ratepayer who's trying to get access to a board decision?

Ms Toffolo: Our board office is in Iroquois Falls and people are extremely hesitant to call the board office from the other communities because it's a long-distance call. We get lots of letters and that kind of thing, but I think it's going to be a real problem for people. I think you are taking education away from the people and that's very unfortunate.

Mr Bisson: Just a very quick one: You raised here, as you raised at the public hearings in Iroquois Falls that took place two weeks ago, that the cost of running in a school board election in district 1 will be prohibitive and you think that what will end up happening is that political parties will sponsor their candidates. I've heard this a number of times. It's not discussed in my riding association, but are lot of trustees saying, "Heck, I can't run unless I get the backing of a party to offset the cost of those elections"? Is that what trustees are saying?

Ms Toffolo: I would think so, because it's very different to run in a small community where you walk around and put your little signs up and you attend your local campaign meetings and everybody knows you. But people don't know me anywhere else. If I am serious and I really want to remain a trustee, yes, it's going to cost some money, and I'm not sure where that's going to come from.

The Chair: Ms Toffolo and Mr Shelswell, on behalf of the committee, I want to express our gratitude for your being here under the circumstances in which you are and driving such a long way. We really find it remarkable that you're here at all. Thanks for your presentation.

Our next presenter is the Sudbury and District Labour Council. I don't see the representative, so perhaps while we wait we might deal with Ms McLeod's motion. Does everyone have a copy of it? It's about to be distributed and Ms McLeod will read it.

Mrs McLeod: Sorry about the scrawl. I am happy to place the motion now. It might be appropriate for me to read the motion into the record, but it's one which I would really like the government to consider. If the parliamentary assistant thinks it's worth considering and would prefer to have some additional time, I'd be happy to defer the vote on the resolution.

Mr Skarica: I'd prefer to consult with the House leader.

Mrs McLeod: Shall I place the motion but defer the vote?

The Chair: I think it would be good for you to place it on the record.

Mrs McLeod: I move that the standing committee on social development ask the House leaders to amend the time allocation motion so that clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 104 be deferred to allow for consideration of public presentations in the preparation of amendments.

Included in my reason for placing the motion is that when originally the time allocation motion was passed, it appeared as though the third reading vote would take place next Thursday. That's not going to happen. In fairness to the presenters and to all members of the committee, to have at least some time before we have to go into clause-by-clause amendment would be appreciated.

Mr Skarica: One of the problems I understand, Ms McLeod, is that the House has to sit for this to be dealt with.

Mrs McLeod: Then the motion may not even be necessary, which would be fine with me, Mr Skarica. As I say, I'm happy to defer. I just would really like to do as much as we can to see a fair process in the amending procedures.

Mr Wildman: I'm not speaking to the motion. I understand Ms McLeod's concern, and also Mr Skarica's, but if the time allocation were to be amended, it would involve debate in the House. Even if we had unanimous consent, we would have to have the House sitting, and that's a problem. I'm not sure exactly how we get around that.

Having said that, I want to raise a concern which I think is a concern of all members of the committee. There are some considerable number of us who are interested in making some recommendations to the government around issues of the boundaries of certain proposed district boards if Bill 104 is to pass. I raised this as a question of order the other day. I don't think we can deal with that through amendments to the bill, but if we as a committee wish to seriously make recommendations about issues like the boundaries and what communities might be included and which boards might be amalgamated and/or the numbers of trustees, for instance, that might be considered in some areas, I'm not sure how that fits into a time allocation motion and I don't know how we deal with that. As the House leader for our party, I'd be prepared to informally consult with the House leaders of the other two parties about that, if I could, between now and next Tuesday or Wednesday.

I really think there is a desire among many of us to make some recommendations on those matters and we can't really deal with that through clause-by-clause. I think we need to look at how we might.

The Chair: Could we ask you to do that and then report back to us?

Mrs McLeod, with respect to your motion, what I suggest we do is stand it down until we hear from Mr Skarica and debate the issue at that time.

Mr Skarica: Perhaps I could get some direction from legislative counsel as well, as to whether the motion is in order, if in fact the House has to sit, because of the time allocation motion.

The Chair: I think that's part of what you would be finding out and reporting back to us.

Clerk of the Committee: The motion as it stands is in order.

Mr Wildman: It's in order for us to ask House leaders to do it. The problem is, even if the House leaders agree, the House has to sit to do it.

The Chair: The House needs to sit; that's correct.

Mrs McLeod: Would it potentially be possible for the House leaders to agree to bring that motion to the House on April 1, if clause-by-clause could be done that week?

The Chair: That is a possibility, yes.

We are still awaiting John Filo of the Sudbury and District Labour Council, but he is not scheduled to make his presentation until 6:50, so we have some 10 minutes. While we wait, we might deal with some housekeeping matters and one not-so-housekeeping matter.

I've asked the researcher to prepare a one-page fact sheet on the Hornepayne Board of Education to assist us all in understanding what exactly is entailed. We hope to have that some time tomorrow to be of assistance. That doesn't change what the ministry may want to bring forward, but the researcher is quite prepared to do that and we thank him for doing that, because it's going to be on top of everything else he has to do at very short notice.

In terms of housekeeping, I would remind you that tomorrow we have breakfast between 6 and 7 and the bus leaves promptly at 7 -- assuming you can get service in this hotel. I'm reassured by the clerk that they're doing a buffet. Maybe there will be food.

Mrs McLeod: The Chair is getting very hungry.

The Chair: For the record, I had not planned on this being a day of fast.

The bus will leave promptly at 7, so we ask you to be ready. The meeting will reconvene in Barrie at 12 o'clock. I regretfully will not be with you. I will miss both the trip there and the day. I have found you a most congenial bunch and you've even learned to behave. But I will join you again in Windsor on Monday.

1840

Mr Wildman: According to our schedule, we're in Windsor on Monday and Brantford Tuesday; then we do clause-by-clause Wednesday. When do we begin the clause-by-clause, what time of day?

Clerk of the Committee: At 1 pm.

Mr Wildman: What time do we go until?

Clerk of the Committee: Until it's finished.

Mr Wildman: Until it's finished?

The Chair: Does that mean 6 o'clock?

Clerk of the Committee: We can keep going; it's in the motion.

The Chair: So presumably we could go for 24 hours.

Clerk of the Committee: Yes.

Mr Wildman: Is there any particular reason that we start at 1 instead of 10 in the morning?

Clerk of the Committee: The amendments have to be filed at 9 in the morning, and that gives the clerk's office time to go over the amendments.

The Chair: I would also suggest that given the gruelling schedule we have had -- we'll be home quite late from Brantford on the Tuesday night. We may not be at our best first thing in the morning.

Mr Wildman: The only problem is that if we have a significant number of amendments, when you say we sit till the end, we may be sitting until midnight.

Mrs McLeod: We're limited to that particular day?

Mr Wildman: Yes.

The Chair: No, the point is, we can keep going.

Mr Wildman: I thought we had one day, according to the time allocation motion.

Clerk of the Committee: "Until completion of clause-by-clause."

Mrs McLeod: So as it goes on, if they're not completed, we can have a motion of the committee to adjourn at a particular hour and resume the next day to complete?

Mr Wildman: That's not my reading. I thought the time allocation motion said one day.

Clerk of the Committee: You're right. At 5 o'clock, all the amendments have to be put and they are deemed moved, so we have to just go through until we're finished. If that takes us until 12 o'clock, we keep sitting until it's finished.

Mrs McLeod: So you're saying we can't start until 1, then?

Clerk of the Committee: We can't start until 1.

"The standing committee on social development shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill for clause-by-clause consideration commencing Wednesday, March 26, 1997, from 1 pm until completion of clause-by-clause. All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 9 am. At 5 pm on Wednesday, March 26, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a)."

Mr Wildman: That's clear. I think the unfortunate thing is that means that as of 5 o'clock the Chair will just have to put the motions. There won't be any debate on them.

The Chair: That's right.

SUDBURY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL

The Chair: If there are no more housekeeping matters, we shall move on to our last presenter in Sudbury, the Sudbury and District Labour Council. Welcome, Mr John Filo. We're delighted to have you among us. We look forward to your presentation.

Mr John Filo: Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I start, I was the individual who applauded when Dr Thornburg spoke against what we consider to be a very undemocratic procedure in Bill 104, and that is the appointment of the Education Improvement Commission.

We represent the sons and daughters of people who left Europe and who left the tyrannies of some of the eastern bloc countries to settle in Canada. Frankly, my father and mother had it up to here with tyranny. It's a special sore point when we see elements of that creeping into the legislation of our beloved province. Canada and Ontario, of course, are places that the entire world envies.

Madam Chair, you admonished me with your gestures that I should not be clapping, yet during the presentation I noted the body language of members of the government, how every time a controversial point was given, they'd go like that and like this and so on. This is a free country. You people are here to serve us, believe it or not. I know you forget that. You tend to forget it because everybody praises you, fills the room with adulation, tells you how powerful you are and how important you are, and that goes to your head. But you're supposed to be the servants of the people. This is a democracy, and we'd really appreciate it if you took that responsibility seriously.

We have people like Runciman saying that discipline is the prerogative of management. Well, I'm a labour leader and I've been a steward for over 25 years. Yes, it may be true that discipline is the prerogative of management, but our system is set up so that management has to be accountable to somebody too, and that's true with the people who sit in the House in Toronto who have our respect but who do not often do things to deserve it.

Now that that's over, I'd like to welcome you to Sudbury. We have a community that we're very proud of.

Mr Beaubien: At least we don't have to go to church on Sunday.

Mr Filo: What part of the church would you look at?

Mr Beaubien: Close to the door.

The Chair: Perhaps, Mr Filo, we will continue with your presentation.

Mr Filo: You see what I mean? There's a person who was elected by the common people who now thinks that he's here to have some sort of debate with me instead of listen to me.

The Chair: In fairness, we had to leave at 5:45 in Thunder Bay. I think tempers --

Mr Filo: I know that. You people aren't the only ones with responsibilities. I had to leave to go to another meeting. I was here earlier and I'm back here.

The Chair: We're thankful that you're here, sir.

Mr Filo: The time says 6:50 on my schedule.

The Chair: And we're here for you.

Mr Filo: What does that mean? Does that mean 6:45?

Mrs McLeod: It means we're running out of time to hear your presentation, sir.

Mr Filo: No, 6:50. What time do you have on your watch? I read 6:45.

The Chair: Perhaps you'd like to continue, sir.

Mr Filo: Well, I would, but I wanted to finish my welcome to you, because we're proud of our community and we think that you coming to this community to consult with the people is a reflection of the democratic process, and we appreciate that. However, into my presentation.

The trade union movement is becoming increasingly concerned with this government's attempts at selling its reductions in funding as improvements to the educational system. The use of the words "improve" and "improvement" in the title of the bill and in the name of the commission, the Education Improvement Commission, is used to justify wholesale tampering in a system that has worked reasonably well and has served the citizens of this province more than adequately. Just look around you in the room. You individuals are evidence of that, and so are the ones who have made presentations to you.

The use of questionable comparators with other societies and jurisdictions belies the fact that Ontario is one of the best places in the world to live, raise a family and educate our children, and do business in.

For any of you who have had the opportunity to live in other countries or travel, it will come as no surprise that, while many countries are a delight to visit, one does not necessarily want to live there. In fact, in my opinion, having travelled most of the countries in the world, the countries of the world really worth living in can be counted on the fingers of both your hands.

What makes Canada and Ontario so special? Many would say that it's our natural resources. However, other provinces and other countries are just as well endowed, or even better than we are, and many enjoy a climate that we tend to describe as a paradise compared to our own.

Ontario is favoured because it has been politically stable, has a highly educated workforce with a strong work ethic and has developed over the years, in a Canadian context, a social safety net which compensates for the excesses of the free market system. We know that the free market is an excellent mechanism to create wealth, but it really comes up short in distributing it equitably.

We know that there is no such thing as a self-regulating, free and neutral private marketplace. My colleague Neil Brooks of Osgoode Hall has opined that its proponents assert that any interference by government regulation or taxation to the property rights acquired in this marketplace is unjustified interference with the nature of things. In fact, this free market is comprised of commercial exchanges that are regulated by countless detailed and complex rules of property and contract law. None of these rules sprang from nature or were ordained by God. They are the result of legislative outputs shaped by the political process. And, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of legal history knows, the rules were largely fashioned to protect and further the private interests of the wealthy and the economically powerful.

1850

Unions have aided in the redistribution of wealth and income because our society in Canada, and particularly in Ontario, has strived to determine an appropriate balance between employers' rights and workers' rights through the enhancements sought by unions to the quality of life of working people. More than 100 years ago, for example, unions campaigned for health care, unemployment insurance, pensions and, among other things, free public education.

That unions are an essential fact in a democracy was aptly illustrated by the insistence of the Allies at the end of the Second World War that trade unions and collective bargaining be recognized in the constitutions of Germany and Japan, elements which are not recognized in our Constitution nor in the American Constitution, but clearly a device there which, when it happens offshore, we cheer because we know that this prevents the rise of tyranny in these countries. Now in Ontario we see that some of the rights and privileges that our grandfathers and grandmothers, fathers and mothers fought and bled for on picket lines half a century ago are about to be scrapped.

We sincerely hope the Bill 104 hearings result in a well-reasoned set of recommendations, for, unlike some of the other legislation passed or contemplated, the impact of changes to our education system may have long-term negative consequences on our society.

The creative use of definitions of what constitutes classroom services for the purpose of reducing funding offends the sensibility of all those employed in education. In his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell defined "doublethink" as the power to hold two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accepting them both. Well, 1984 has arrived in Ontario; it's just 13 years too late.

In Davos, Switzerland, Premier Harris said, "Education is the best way to move people from a have-not to a have position." Why then is the game plan to take hundreds of millions of dollars out of education under the guise of improving it?

It is entirely unreasonable to exempt the Education Improvement Commission from court appeal and proceedings for damages and from the application of the Regulations Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. Checks and balances characterize a democracy.

It is essential that locally elected trustees be allowed the traditional rights of control over staff relations, the purchase and disposition of local assets and liabilities and budgets. To ensure continued local control, it is necessary to raise part of the cost of operating from local residential and farm and property tax, and the commercial and industrial tax. Local school boards would determine the appropriate mill rate.

The protection afforded by the current collective agreements must be retained for all employee bargaining units. Restructuring must not be used to strip away the provisions that the employees have obtained through free collective bargaining. Successor rights that the Ontario Labour Relations Act provides for all OLRA bargaining units employed by the school boards must be maintained. The right to withhold one's services, we trade unionists argue, is a fundamental right in a free democratic society, and no direct or implied limitations to that right would be acceptable in Bill 104.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Filo. We have some time for questions. We begin with the official opposition.

Mr Bartolucci: Thanks very much for your presentation, John: as usual, colourful, to the point and with conviction. Certainly that's John Filo's trademark.

Let's talk about 104 and specifically the EIC, the commission. Do you see this as stripping away that local authority that you feel is so important?

Mr Filo: Obviously it is. The thing that confuses me about it is that we have the Progressive Conservatives -- and let me say that the Progressive Conservatives have contributed positively to this province. Under Bill Davis, Leslie Frost and John Robarts we've built a society that we can all be truly proud of, but the trend is away from that type of balanced society. To set up an EIC that is basically accountable to no one, that is picked by whim or whimsy, is contrary to what we deem is natural justice.

I don't think the people in the EIC have the wisdom, the knowledge and the experience that can make all these very monumental decisions and not be incorrect at least part of the time.

Ms Martel: Thank you, John, for your presentation. Let me continue on this line of questioning. The government has gone further and said that the commission is basically protected from all forms of liability. That leaves me with the suspicion that the government is concerned about some of the work that is going to go on. What do you think about the position we find ourselves in, which is that this commission will be protected, in essence, from any kind of liability? Does it give you any comfort about the kinds of decisions they're going to be making on behalf of the government?

Mr Filo: Certainly not. This ended, basically, in the English form of government in 1254 with the signing of the Magna Carta. The King of England gave up his autocratic right and then shared his power with the barons. The EIC is a throwback to pre-Magna Carta days. Nobody, but nobody, should not be subject to review.

Ms Martel: Let me ask you about the contracting out provisions. What do you think that is going to mean? They have been specifically given the authority to make that happen. What do you think that is going to mean both for the health and safety of our schools and, frankly, their general maintenance?

Mr Filo: The one thing about this government is that they know the price of everything and the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. The problem here is that the people who look after our schools provide a great deal of continuity and show ownership to the institutions that they work in.

Contracting out, having people come in on a per diem or a per hour basis and so on, is going to jeopardize that sense of community ownership, and we're going to lose a lot. Nowadays too, unfortunately, our society is more and more being preyed on by some of the baser elements in our society and, I'll tell you, our children will be at risk when things like custodial services, for example, are handled by contractors and not by employees who have some feeling of belonging.

Mr Skarica: Sir, my parents are from eastern Europe as well, and in fact last year my relatives were in Prijedor, Bosnia, surrounded by ethnic cleansing and bombing. So I personally am quite aware of what democracy means. I find at times that these hearings get very personal and I don't think there's anything useful that gets accomplished by that. I'll just make that remark because I thought some of your remarks were somewhat personal.

To deal with the issues here, I'd like to read you a comment about what has been said about restructuring, and I'm sure you'd agree with it. We have a brief here which indicates that "the opposition supports changes in administration, but objects to the undemocratic and paternalistic way in which the government has proceeded." The presenter who told us that said that was said the last time there was restructuring done by the government -- I think it was the Davis government -- in the late 1960s.

The reason for the Education Improvement Commission is multifold, but one of them appears in the March 17, 1997, Ottawa Citizen, where the columnist had this to say about the Carleton secondary board and what happened there in the 1960s: "In the months leading up to the amalgamationist 1960s, trustees at the schools rushed to start building projects, afraid that a bigger, less personal board would ignore their school. The board started life saddled with debt."

So what we are trying to accomplish is not a repeat of history. Perhaps you could give us, in a positive way, if you could, some suggestions as to how you would deal with the situation with boards who do have reserves and are about to be amalgamated, to prevent them from basically wasting money or spending money that might be termed to be irresponsible. How would you do that?

Mr Filo: I can tell, Mr Skarica, that you are a politician, because you're arguing by anecdote rather than by statistics. That's an acceptable way of presenting an argument, but don't argue about the exceptions. Tell me, for example, that in the educational system, 97% of the collective agreements are settled with bitter strikes, for example. Could you tell me that? Or could you tell me that 97% of all the boards do exactly what the Carleton board did?

Whether you're an MPP or whether you're a board or whether you're a professor, or whatever you are, there's a small percentage of people in that particular group or grouping who are going to do things that are not exactly mainstream. To use an anecdotal bit of evidence, as you're using, to wholesale change an education system is a blatant disuse of ordinary research methods. Give me some statistics. Don't give me what one outlaw board may have done, because I'll tell you what one outlaw MPP has done and then put all of you people into disrepute.

The Chair: We thank you very much, Mr Filo. It seems an odd note to end on, but we do thank you for coming and making your presentation and for bringing a great deal of passion to this committee.

Mr Filo: I'm very pleased to have been here, and thanks again.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned until 12 o'clock in Barrie tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1901.