Transcription du comité 1997-mars-24 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, unités Essex élémentaire et secondaire ; unités Windsor élémentaire et secondaire

M. Paul Lachance

M^me Nicole Lalonde

M^me Marilyn Laframboise

M^me Marie-France Boulet

Mr Gerard Charette; Mrs Beth Warren; Mr Rick Macdonald

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Présidente: Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron PC)

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)

Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum

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

The committee met at 1156 in the Windsor Hilton Hotel, Windsor.

FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

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

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Welcome to the hearings of the standing committee on social development. This is our ninth day of hearings and the first one here in Windsor.

Members of the committee, we have two documents that have been circulated. One is a list of questions that have been posed to the committee to date and have not yet been answered by the Minister of Education, and the other is the summary of hearings to date. You might want to review those at your convenience.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Madam Chair, I have a motion. Is this an appropriate time?

The Chair: This is an appropriate time.

Mr Duncan: I have provided written copies for the committee as well as the ministry. I move that:

Whereas a number of organizations have expressed the view that parts of Bill 104 are unconstitutional;

Whereas a number of these organizations have indicated that they intend to challenge the constitutional validity of Bill 104;

Also recognizing that the government of Ontario has in the past referred education legislation to the Ontario Court of Appeal for a constitutional opinion, Bill 30;

Be it therefore resolved that the standing committee on social development recommends that the government of Ontario submit Bill 104 to the Ontario Court of Appeal for a ruling with respect to the various constitutional issues that have been raised in the course of these public hearings.

We present this because we have now heard from a number of presenters that they are challenging parts of Bill 104 in the courts, and it was pointed out at a forum I hosted last night that there is a precedent in Ontario for the government to submit a piece of education legislation to the courts for a constitutional opinion. Accordingly, we think it would be in order at this time to do the same, because a number of groups are contemplating this kind of action and perhaps once the bill is passed it will be an opportune time for the government to save everybody a lot of hassle and submit it to the courts.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I would strongly like to endorse the motion and also present to the government for their consideration the fact that this could be a way of saving considerable cost. There's no question that the constitutional challenge is going to go forward. It will be a costly process, not only for those who are taking forward the challenge but also for the government to respond. It would be much more expeditious and much more cost-effective if the government were to follow a precedent which has been set under Bill 30 and seek a Court of Appeal ruling on whether this bill and its accompanying proposals are indeed constitutional.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): The government is opposed to the motion. Basically, there has been legislation in the past that organizations had indicated they would oppose but the government has gone ahead in any event. There's lots of precedent for that, and virtually on every occasion the court challenges do not succeed. So the government is opposed to this motion.

Mrs McLeod: I would suggest to Mr Skarica that the most recent example of a court challenge was one in which the government lost. I think it is inappropriate for a government to continually bring private citizens and representatives of public organizations into a situation where they have to expend a great deal of money to challenge what may not be constitutionally valid legislation.

It seems to me it's appropriate for the government, if it's confident that its legislation is indeed constitutional and would sustain a court challenge, to seek that voluntarily, rather than subject these groups to even further costs.

Mr Duncan: Just one other point: The government has continually argued that we should proceed as quickly as possible. In fact, you have restricted the amount of public hearings, the time over which the hearings can be held, and have insisted on an agenda that moves very quickly to implement your reforms. It would seem to me that it would be in the government's interest to pursue this. If indeed the government is interested in reform and doing it as quickly as possible, this will save time and allow the courts to make a decision with respect to the constitutionality of the bill.

The Chair: Any further debate? We'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, I'm appreciative of the fact that the outline of questions which we raised during the course of last week's hearings has been tabled. It is now Monday. Clause-by-clause is to begin Wednesday. I'm wondering if we can anticipate some response to the questions before that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs McLeod. I was quite prepared to put a time limit on this issue, but Mr Skarica actually has something to say.

Mr Skarica: I spoke with ministry officials this morning and we will be tabling a number of answers today and the rest of them tomorrow morning.

The Chair: Could I suggest that they be here by tomorrow noon so that the committee has time to analyse the responses and internalize them for clause-by-clause the next day?

Mr Skarica: Okay.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL STUDENT ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Chair: May I call the St Gregory Separate School student advisory council to the table: Ms Pat Machina. We're very happy to have you here and are looking forward to your comments. You have 15 minutes within which to make your presentation. If time permits, the committee will ask you some questions.

Ms Pat Machina: Members of the Legislative committee on social development, as chairperson of the SAC of St Gregory's school, a taxpayer, and the mother of two children in the English separate school system, I would like to thank you for allowing us this opportunity to express our opinions and ideas regarding Bill 104.

We feel the amalgamation of existing school boards will reduce the complexity of managing education and it will save tax dollars. The dollars saved can be put into front-line education services. We were delighted at your announcement January 13, 1997, regarding your "commitment to move students to the head of the class: refocusing resources where they belong -- on the individual student and teacher in the classroom."

We support the creation of the Education Improvement Commission and the proposal to appoint Mr Cooke as co-chair. We respect Mr Cooke as a person who cares about parents and students and as one who is knowledgable about the problems facing our local school systems. We also believe he has the courage to make the tough recommendations that will improve our school systems.

We believe that parents and SACs shall have a greater role to play in managing the delivery of educational services to our kids. With the simplification of management systems, today's parents will be able to play a supervisory role in managing the schools that their children attend, for example, choices on curriculum, dealing with problem teachers and, yes, dealing with problem parents, peer counselling with parents, resolution of problems that arise between teachers and students. School councils should not replace school boards, but we would like a voice with the passing of Bill 104.

Bill 104 promises to distribute equitable funding to ensure the high quality of education, meeting all students' individual needs. This would include children at both ends of the learning ability continuum: children with special needs and the gifted. We would like to recommend you show us by:

Lowering the PTR; 38 and 39 students in a grade 7 class is not acceptable.

Increasing the support staff for the special needs and the gifted. They need to exist in a symbiotic environment, with programs and resources in place for both these areas of need.

Providing continuity of care within the school that outsourcing will not provide. Our children need to see the same faces daily. They need to feel secure and safe. They need to feel part of the school family.

Filling the classrooms with adequate textbooks and resources for updated curriculums.

Providing an adequate number of classrooms so that there are no more portable cities.

Maintaining the English-language separate school boards.

All of these issues are important to the parents of our children. The education of our children should be the number one priority of the Education Improvement Commission. The fear that is being perpetuated by Bill 104 needs to be addressed so that the creation of the EIC has a positive effect on parents, teachers, support staff, trustees, and in particular, the children. We recommend that the parents have a voice and a place on the local EIC. Who has a better feel for the pulse of the school than the parents of the children who attend these schools?

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. I think if we all had an assurance that there were going to be significant savings and that those savings were going to be returned to the benefit of students in the classroom, many of us would have fewer concerns about the legislation that's before us, so I think we share that perspective. If there were really dollars and if they would benefit children from the classroom, we would all be in agreement.

I guess there are a couple of concerns I'd like to raise with you. First of all, the Ministry of Education's projections of what they think they could save only give us about $150 million on a $14-billion budget, and even some of those savings come directly out of the classroom. So it's difficult to be optimistic that there are actually going to be dollars returned to the classroom.

There is also the fact that the ministry's consultants have indicated that amalgamation could lead to increased costs rather than to savings. You may be aware that when Mr Wells, for the previous government, did a study of school board amalgamations in Windsor and Essex, he came to exactly that conclusion. He said, "From everything that I've studied and heard, I concluded in fact that the amalgamation of boards is more likely to increase costs than to reduce them." His concern was that they would rise to the level of the highest spender.

Given the fact that all the studies -- Windsor-Essex was repeated in other areas -- concluded that there would not be savings, because of the whole cost of harmonizing services and salaries and that you would not want to see services at the lowest level, you'd want to see them at a higher level, where do you see the dollars being saved that might go back into the classroom?

Ms Machina: In the board, for example -- especially I have had to deal with the Essex county separate school board -- I think there's a bit of redundancy in payments made out to some of the board members there, and I think perhaps there won't be a duplication of any disbursements from the boards if the boards are amalgamated into one.

Mrs McLeod: It was Mr Wells's suggestion that those kinds of savings could be achieved and should be achieved, but they could be better done at a local level between the coterminous boards; in other words, the public and separate boards making agreements to find the most cost-efficient way of providing the services, rather than amalgamating, with the potential for considerably greater costs through amalgamation.

The other concern we have -- and I'll look to the Chair in terms of time, whether there is time for a second question -- is that the statements by both the Minister of Education and the Premier are that they're really looking for $1 billion to take out of education, not to go back into the classroom but to pay for the tax cut. I assume, based on your presentation, that if that's really the direction the government goes, that would be a great concern to you as a parent.

Ms Machina: Absolutely. What I am looking for for my child is the best education for the dollar, and right now I don't feel I'm getting that.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm curious about what your vision is of the role of the parent advisory committee, because you say in your fourth paragraph that you would like parents to be able to play a supervisory role in managing schools that their children attend. Would you please explain to me how you see that role working?

Ms Machina: I don't anticipate them taking the place of the principal or the teachers. It's a very scary thought to have parents running a school. If you have the wrong parents in there, it could be very detrimental to the child's education. I'm not trying to take anything away from the teacher or the principal -- they are the foundation of the school -- but the parents should have a say in what is being maintained at the school.

Mrs Boyd: When you go on to say that you should have a say in the choices on curriculum or dealing with problem teachers, do you see yourself as having a formal role in the disciplinary process?

Ms Machina: It would be nice that if there was a problem and there was a grievance, it would go further than the school.

1210

Mrs Boyd: You know that we've just gone through a process of setting up the teachers' college.

Ms Machina: Right. A lot of parents feel that if there is a problem, there's nowhere for them to go. It's dealt with at the level of the teachers and it doesn't go anywhere from there. That's one of the problems.

Mrs Boyd: On choices of curriculum, would you see yourself or a council as being in the position of banning a book, for example?

Ms Machina: We had this problem at our school actually not very long ago and we are still working on that. Again, that would affect the freedom of the press and the constitutional right of the child. It would be nice to have some input into what is available to the children.

Mr Skarica: I'm looking at the Wells report myself and it has three areas that are being addressed by this legislation. One is that Mr Wells felt that sharing should take place between the boards that exist in Windsor-Essex, and that was in August 1993. Do you know what progress has been made, if any, towards sharing arrangements between coterminous boards?

Ms Machina: I don't know; I'm not aware.

Mr Skarica: That's fine. As well, he suggests that parent advisory committees should be set up to help establish positive linkages between parents and schools. Do you think that would be a benefit in your area?

Ms Machina: Sorry?

Mr Skarica: To strengthen parent advisory committees.

Ms Machina: I think the parents have a lot of input. There's a lot of potential there with the parents. They could have a positive effect on the school.

Mr Skarica: Finally, Mr Wells indicates that he recommends a reduction in the number of trustees and limiting their salaries. Could you comment on that? Do you think that would benefit or not benefit your area?

Ms Machina: It could make the trustees who would be available to the public more accountable to the public.

The Chair: Thank you very much for being here and taking the time to speak to us. We appreciate it.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Just on a point of order: The motion that was passed by the committee that was presented by Mr Skarica last Thursday in Midhurst, how is that being communicated to the minister?

The Chair: Would you refresh my memory with respect to the motion?

Interjection.

The Chair: I'll ask Mr Skarica to respond to that.

Mr Skarica: I don't know what the usual procedure is, but I can pass the motion on to the minister.

Mr Wildman: That would be helpful. The normal procedure would be, after a committee passes a motion, for the Chair of the committee to write a letter to the minister passing along the motion.

The Chair: That will be done, Mr Wildman. As you know, this is a bit of an unusual circumstance because I was not in the chair last Thursday, but that will be done.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate that, and thank you to Mr Skarica.

ONTARIO SCHOOL BOARD REFORM NETWORK

The Chair: May I call on the Ontario School Board reform Network: Mrs Beth Cooper. Welcome.

Mrs Beth Cooper: It's a pleasure to be here before you. I have heavy-duty briefs being circulated to all the members of the committee. I will base my remarks today in the context of the reform network's brief to the commission, the former minister and the current Minister of Education.

The first principle of the reform network in recommendation 27, from the Legislature's own select committee on education was,

"To reaffirm the basic democratic principle that local control over education is centred in elected trustees, and to solidify the authority of trustees over board program and financial decisions by reforming the Education Act." This is attacked by Bill 104.

Local democracy works. Local elections work. Local trustee governance works. As a founding member of the reform network, I have seen two more waves of reform trustees, in both 1991 and 1994. Our brief shows 112 trustees in Toronto before the last election. 1 believe there are 88 now. In fact, prior to 1994, there were 2,132 trustees in Ontario. Our board went from 15 to 10. Reductions were occurring throughout the province. All that was needed was empowerment through the Education Act.

The reform network clearly outlines that boards and trustees should be reduced by as much as 50%. This is realistic, reasoned and sound downsizing. A further reduction risks dysfunction and dumbsizing. It eliminates the effectiveness of both boards and trustees. This is the third "e" that belongs with economical and efficient, the effective delivery of a service.

Provincially, funding from the province is at the 1990-91 level, only the province pays less. In 1990-91, the province paid 45%; now it's quoted at 40%. I believe it's even less than this. Much has been made of the 16% increase in students versus the 120% increase in board spending.

As politicians, we all live in glass houses. In 1985, education cost $6.8 billion. The Macdonald commission stated the provincial share was 46.5%. But the previous Tory government closed provincial institutions for exceptional students and mandated their accommodation in schools: high-cost and high-resource programs. Second, the Tories extended full funding to separate secondary schools: automatic duplication and cost. The NDP and the Liberals added employer health tax, employment equity, pay equity, low PTR, junior kindergarten.

All these are costly mandated additives and the boards have the responsibility to locally fund them. Unless the province tears out these costs and these programs, they will bear 100% of these costs. I can hardly wait to see the duplication and bureaucratic needs for four recognized systems.

Radical restructuring as outlined in the bill undermines an accountable system, because it entrenches even more the educrats at the ministry level. It weakens the power of the elected local arm, and in so doing increases the powers of local bureaucracies. We stated in 1993, "It is clear that unless school trustees take the initiative and propose new more responsive and democratic structures, they now face the real prospect of being excluded entirely from a reformed system of local education governance." Visionary comments come to life. I regret greatly that the reform trustee positions and models weren't considered for a truly reinvented and effective model.

Bill 104 does not empower trustees, does not strengthen or clarify roles; it castrates them. The pittance for honorarium opens the door to further abuse and special interests. My honorarium is $11,500. That includes mileage. For time, effort and service availability, I have concluded that amounts to some 35 cents an hour for my community service. That's part-time service. Utilities commissioners receive more than this for one half-hour meeting a month. They receive $8,000 in Windsor. You have dealt trustees two blows, this cap and the loss of the tax exempt status. We are your sole targets in this. It is not fair, and I believe you'll get what you pay for.

Bill 104 will not pass the Titanic test. The shifting of the power base and finances to the province will not right the system. Sink it, it will. The educational power structure is left intact with Bill 104 and this closes the door to true democratic change and the balance needed for an effective system.

British reforms and the most recent in New Brunswick are painfully aware that the reforms believed possible do not necessarily become reality. The envisioned reforms are hampered because the bureaucrats didn't change. In New Brunswick, there has been no change in curriculum rigour. I beg you to learn from these examples of known roadblocks. There is great unhappiness in New Brunswick and the possibility even exists to reinstate boards. The reform brief outlines several models for change, but the government has chosen a model that does not abolish but also does not democratize boards.

1220

The long history of school boards and trustees in Ontario goes to 1816. Property tax was solely dedicated to education, one of the reasons being to rid the streets of criminal waifs. The responsibility for education was the first responsibility ever given to communities. This has laid the firm foundation for a common, publicly elected, publicly funded system with local accountability assured through elected trustees.

The system needs overhaul and change, not abandonment in favour of centralized control and a hodgepodge, decentralized collection of school councils and volunteers. Education is a public resource too important to be left exclusively to the professionals. A redistribution of power is essential. We need a new system that has clear checks and balances for the province, for the boards, for the school councils.

Not only has the bill weakened public education through its balancing act with linguistic and religious rights, it fails to recognize that 70% of students, that's 1.6 million, are educated in public schools. Only public schools must be open and accessible to all. The other systems have inherent exclusionary rights. There is no acknowledgement of the 70% factor in the 33 boards plus 33 boards equals 66 boards. Education is too important to have simplistic solutions.

Taxpayer equity will not result in student equity, nor should it. Ontario is too diverse. That is why true empowerment for the local government in education is vital. I am passionate about democracy, especially locally driven democracy. I have been tenacious locally for accountability, accessibility and effective delivery of education. It took use of the freedom of information laws to gain the report to parents and the testing policy at the Windsor board. This is the value to be found in locally elected, empowered trustees, and it's a far better report than I've ever seen from the province.

There is much in the briefs, recommendations that are prescriptive and specific. I was a PC candidate in 1987, just following the full-funding issue. From door-to-door experience I know and have felt the feelings of the common electorate and just how they can react to government-imposed change.

Recent comments from a New Brunswick Department of Education bureaucrat rang many alarm bells for me. He said that with technology we can reduce the need for many schools. We can replace teachers; technology is better than many. But the worst comment by far was that students can learn social and interpersonal skills from Internet chat lines. I believe there is a great deal more to be learned from and about humanity.

I must trust that this is not the attitude to be found within the Mowat Block. If it is, I fear then that as a province we are on that slippery slope towards a morally bankrupt society.

Please read the entire brief. As a society, we should learn from our history and the mistakes of those who came before us. Temper Bill 104 to offer enough checks and balances to provide an economical, efficient and effective reinvented education system. Strengthen the role of elected trustees. Strengthen the authority of boards. Redefine the role of local bureaucracies.

In closing, I commend you on some of the needed changes as seen through the Audit Act and with reservations in conflict of interest act changes. I again caution about reliance on the professionals without a strengthened local board and trustee structure. I firmly believe the Bill 104 scenario will be a disaster for education and for our children. I am shocked at the autocratic provisions contained in Bill 104. I know they are not democratic. Indeed, no one -- no one -- should be above the law.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Cooper. You've used up all of your time. I regret there won't be time for questions. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward and sharing your views.

Mr Duncan: Madam Chair, I wish to place another motion, and you may want to deal with it later in the day, if it's appropriate at this point.

The Chair: All right. Why don't we circulate it? In the interests of time, perhaps we can deal with it just before the break unless you think it should --

Mr Duncan: Can I just read out the motion?

I move that:

Whereas Ontario's education system is vital for our children;

Whereas future economic development and growth will be closely linked to a top-quality education system;

Recognizing that business leaders ranked Canada's education system ahead of the United States in terms of its ability to meet the needs of a competitive economy (1996 World Competitiveness Report);

Also knowing that Ontario's graduation rate in 1993 was 84%, 2% higher than the national average and an improvement rate of 10% per decade since the 1960s;

Cognizant that according to the OECD and Statistics Canada, Canada has the highest post-secondary participation rate in the world. More than 40% of secondary school graduates go on to higher education; in Ontario the rate is 50%;

Also knowing that the Durham Board of Education won the 1996 Carl Bertelsman Foundation award for excellence, which recognizes the school system that best demonstrates an exemplary framework for school development in the world;

Recognizing that the government of Ontario has repeatedly stated that it wants to improve the quality of education in Ontario;

Also knowing that many citizens and taxpayers in Ontario want a full and public debate around education reform in Ontario;

Be it resolved that the standing committee on social development strongly urges the appointment of a select committee on education whose mandate will be to travel the province and conduct public hearings on the broad question of the future of education in Ontario, including but not limited to governance, curriculum, standards and accountability, financing, and future direction.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Duncan. With your indulgence, we'll defer it until just before the break so we allow people to present their briefs.

1230

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, WINDSOR DISTRICT

The Chair: May I call upon the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Windsor district: Carol Harvey and Wayne Boughner. Welcome. Thank you very much for being here.

Mr Wayne Boughner: OPSTF Windsor District thanks this committee for the opportunity to bring forth their concerns about Bill 104. We are aware that this is nearly your last stop throughout the province and sincerely wish to bring some new concerns to this committee. However, most presentations will probably have a common theme as this particular piece of legislation is encumbered by ill-conceived ideas, poor planning and a lack of definition. Coupled with the above is the general lack of trust most unions and specifically most teachers have with the present government.

First and foremost, OPSTF is not opposed to the amalgamation of school boards, but is genuinely cautious of the intent and direction of Bill 104. In its present form, this proposed legislation violates the very nature of democracy, negates the rights of employees, threatens to cause turmoil throughout the province, ignores geographic limitations, places sweeping powers in the hands of relatively few people, who incidentally are not held accountable through any legal process presently enjoyed by the citizens of this country, and advocates time lines that are simply too short for proper consideration of such monumental changes.

To further our arguments, let me first quote our present Minister of Education. The following was stated in the Legislature in response to NDP education critic Bud Wildman on January 28, 1997: "The commitment of our government is to meet the needs of every single individual student across the province, regardless of their circumstances. We will commit the funds that are necessary to do that because we are committed to student achievement in this province, committed to taking our students to the top of the class. We will do that."

We say this: Tell that to the students in this province who have lost JK programs. Tell that to the students in this province who have seen their class size increase significantly. Tell that to the teachers in this province who have lost their jobs due to downsizing, or to future teachers who now have to put their careers on hold while downsizing continues. Tell that to child care workers, custodial staff, secretaries and teachers' aides who have suffered job losses due to downsizing. Tell that to the students and parents of university aged children who have seen tuition fees double in the last two years. All of this was the direct result of the $400 million already removed from the educational sector in the last two years.

This government has openly stated it wants to remove $600 million more from the educational sector, but cannot do so without irreparable damage to our system. It is the belief of many of our members that this restructuring is just a ruse to take away more money from the system. We are concerned this is only an attempt to fund the ill-advised 30% provincial tax cut.

We must remember it was this minister, Mr John Snobelen, who created the educational crisis in the province when he assumed office. If the reduction in school boards was motivated by altruism for the betterment of education in this province and for the benefit of our students, we could agree with this legislation. However, we firmly believe that this is not the case. Too many issues are without answers.

The minister is putting the cart before the horse. First, this government wants to reduce the number of school boards, thus trustees. Then they want to examine the mechanisms that allow this. It simply cannot work that way. There are too many unanswered questions, too many areas of potential risk to the educational structure of this province.

We could present facts ad nauseam to counter many of the untruths and outright deceptions practised by this government, but that is not the purpose of this forum. To get specific, I would like to outline some of the concerns that we are experiencing in our everyday attempts to come to grips with this dilemma, for there is no other term that can adequately describe this bill.

A study of the amalgamation of Essex-Windsor was conducted at the request of the NDP member for Windsor when he was Minister of Education with the last government. Mr Wells, who conducted the study, demonstrated there would be no appreciable savings in said amalgamation. In fact, he pointed out that there could actually be an increase in costs for such an endeavour. His report is a matter of public record and available to any member of this committee who desires to follow up on it.

Granted, the amalgamation of boards would eliminate the duplication of services, reduce some senior administrative duties, allow for the creation of a purchasing conglomerate and combine computer services for some modest cost savings. All of this would make sense if the dollars saved could be kept in the local economies. However, under the present structure, it would go into the coffers of the government and be used no doubt to finance areas other than education. It would certainly relieve the extra load that has been placed on the classroom by the social contract and the initial removal of $400 million from the educational sector.

The following are some of the questions to which we have no answers and some of the questions that this government needs to examine before it enacts this bill:

What rules are going to apply to negotiations? Will we still operate under Bill 100 or will we be regulated by the Ontario Labour Relations Act? If we are assigned to the OLRA, will they have a process in place which can realistically resolve conflicts that occur, such as we have in place with Bill 100? If a dispute mechanism is not part of the solution, we will toss negotiations in this province into chaos.

How are collective agreements to be merged? Most areas enjoy specific language that addresses local concerns and unique situations applicable only to their individual board. Will we go to a new collective agreement while holding the old ones in place until consensus is reached? Do we aim for a middle position while guaranteeing previous provisions until all catch up? Do we redline higher salaries until lower ones catch up? Will there be language guaranteeing successor rights to protect current employees? We have noticed that this has already been addressed for senior administrators, and the lower level employees would certainly want to maintain the same rights.

What is the status of current grievances that have yet to be resolved? These issues deal with the daily machinations of each district and are of importance to the employees. This bill has yet to even address this.

What specific changes will occur to the Education Act, and what new regulations will accompany this bill?

Will there be a mechanism to resolve board turf wars? An impact study is needed so the specific financial responsibilities can be delineated.

Why is this government rushing into this so quickly? The timetable for change is simply too close -- presently January 1, 1998 -- for a proper job to be done. It would be better to approach this carefully, with much thought given to each stage. The general public would also have time to absorb the significant changes that are on the horizon. There is less than nine months available for such monumental change to take place.

Will there be a transition period so that adjustments can be taken into account? What assistance will come from the ministry to ease the amalgamation? When will the new boundaries be available for the public to see and will there be any input from them beforehand?

Along with the myriad unanswered questions is that omnipotent body called the Education Improvement Commission. This legislation creates a very powerful group which, in essence, answers to no one. The inability to challenge their decisions is an affront to the democratic process enjoyed in this country. Is this government so unsure of its direction that it must remove the cornerstone of accountability, the judicial process? We think so.

Other throwbacks from this legislation include the veiled threat to remove principals and vice-principals from the federations. This move could only serve to divide our ranks and has no basis in necessity other than to allow for a change in what a principal is somewhere down the road, say as a first step towards placing financial administrators rather than educational administrators at some future date. You need only look to the province of British Columbia to observe first hand what an administrative nightmare this has proven to be.

There is also the belief that this is just a forerunner to provincial negotiations so that vested benefits, such as retirement gratuity and sick leave credits, can be stripped in the name of fiscal responsibility.

In summary, the above-stated questions and areas of concern lead us to believe that Bill 104, in its present form, is a tool for the destruction of the educational system as we know it and can only lead to weakening the educational structure of this province by removing local input through the removal of local fund-raising powers, thus weakening ability to address unique concerns of each area.

There is no accountability to the voters of Essex county under the new proposed legislation. The weakened role of trustees does nothing to ensure top-quality competition among potential candidates. It seems that this government is satisfied in leaving the day-to-day operations of the schools in the hands of parents who do not want these awesome responsibilities and trustees who have had their roles diminished so much that they become nothing more than guardians of the piggybank, while our provincial government runs the show from a distance, dominated by their Common Sense budget, which has already proven to be sadly lacking in both the understanding of the needs of the classroom and the actual functioning of a school district. This bill has every appearance of a juggling act to reduce significantly the present level of service enjoyed the students of this province.

Mr Wildman: You say that you think this bill is "just a ruse to take more money from the system" and then you pose a number of questions regarding the future of Bill 100, the teacher collective bargaining, and merging of contracts, the settlement of differences among boards that are to be amalgamated, the boundaries and so on.

Essentially, most of those questions are left to the Education Improvement Commission. The ministry itself doesn't know the answers to a lot of those questions, except we do know that the changes to Bill 100 are coming. They're going through the cabinet process now. I guess the major question is, what's the rush? You posed that question. Do you have any ideas about why there is such a hurry, why this has to be in place before January 1?

Mr Boughner: Simply put, there are collective agreements coming due this September, collective agreements coming due next September. We have to know what rules you operate by, and collective agreements are not negotiated overnight. Collective agreements are negotiated over a period in excess of eight months to a year, and much thought goes beforehand into these presentations before we even approach negotiations.

The bottom line: We're starting now and our contract is not up until August 1998 and we have absolutely no idea what direction this will take, and that truly is a dilemma.

1240

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Thank you, Mr Boughner. You've listed your areas of concerns: negotiations, the Labour Relations Act, Bill 100, dispute resolution, collective agreements, redlining salaries, successor rights, grievances, board turf wars, removing principals and VPs from the bargaining units, among others. None of those have anything to do with what I'm sure you and I will agree is the purpose of education, and that is to educate children. I'm sure it was an oversight on your part not to mention that. Could you explain to me what impact you think Bill 104 will have on the education of children?

Mr Boughner: First of all, we differ in your summary. I'll tell you that right now. Anything that reflects upon the operation of schools, whether it be through collective agreements, whether it be through teachers and how they operate within the system, it most certainly has a great baring on Bill 104. The amalgamation of school boards reflects a change to how everyone within it will operate. Everyone within it has a piece of it and everyone within it wants to see it done rationally, sanely and at a pace that is understood by all.

Mr Duncan: Mr Boughner, the OPSTF has put forward a number of positions with respect to issues such as curriculum, finance, governance, accountability. Would it be the position of your organization that this bill should not be dealt with in isolation but rather that we need to look at the broader questions in education and allow for a complete and full public input into all these questions?

Mr Boughner: Shortly put, yes.

Mr Duncan: Would you say, then, that the hidden agenda is not on the table, that we need to deal with the broader questions in order to talk about meaningful education reform?

Mr Boughner: I'd agree with that, yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Boughner, for being here this morning and sharing your views with us.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, first, as a point of record, the report that was done on proposals for school board amalgamation in Windsor and Essex county for the former government by Tom Wells, a former Conservative Minister of Education, has been tabled for all committee members. I would just draw their attention to that report today.

Second, if I may, I have a number of submissions to the committee which I would like to place on the record.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mrs McLeod: The first is from the Dryden District Roman Catholic Separate School Board; the second from the Kenora Women Teachers' Association, Red Lake Women Teachers' Association and the Dryden Women Teachers' Association; the third from the Kenora unit of OECTA; and the fourth from the Kenora District Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

I place these on the record of the committee as submissions to the committee, but I would also like to express my appreciation to you, Madam Chair, for having taken the time to have heard these submissions in person by travelling to the Kenora area.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll have those copied and distributed for members of the committee.

ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: I call upon the Essex County Board of Education. Mrs Flood, welcome. We're happy to have you here to present to the committee. You have 15 minutes, which you can use as you wish. If time permits, the members will ask you some questions.

Mrs Joan Flood: I am pleased to introduce myself, Joan Flood, chairperson of the Essex County Board of Education. On behalf of the Essex County Board of Education, thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns with you on Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act.

Effective January 1, 1998, the Essex County Board of Education and the Windsor Board of Education will amalgamate into one district school board. The Essex County Board of Education is committed to working closely with the Windsor Board of Education to ensure a smooth transition for students and staff. We will strive to protect program integrity for students in the classroom, particularly in the area of special education. As all functions are merged, best and exemplary practices will be recognized and implemented. Initial meetings have been held with the senior administration of both boards and a joint meeting has been held with trustees. We are extremely pleased with the progress of our initial meetings and believe that local, rather than provincial, processes and decisions must be encouraged.

The focus of the Essex County Board of Education has consistently been on the students in the classroom. We have consistently worked very diligently and cooperatively for the advancement of public education in Essex county in a financially responsible fashion. We have conscientiously directed money to the classroom through restructuring, sharing services, and creative programming. It is recommended that the new funding model recognize these past efficiencies achieved by boards.

Our board currently shares transportation, media centre services, courier services, central office facilities and continuing education programs with our coterminous board. This provides a significant savings to the Essex county ratepayers, particularly in the area of transportation.

Further, the board supports other shared services, such as the gas consortium, the curriculum consortium and the purchasing consortium between school boards and other public sector institutions in the area. It is recommended that legislation protect and encourage shared services.

In October 1995 the Essex County Board of Education conducted a public meeting subsequent to the release of the interim report of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force. One of the issues arising from this public input included maintaining community schools. The specific concern expressed: Would an amalgamated board be less responsive to the rural community of Essex county? Our board currently operates 29 elementary schools and eight secondary schools. These schools are a well-established component of their respective rural communities. We are committed to community schools and we need assurance in the legislation that they will be protected.

The Essex County Board of Education values the contributions of parents and other partners involved in education and believes the quality of the programs and services offered to its students can be improved and enhanced by building stronger board, staff, parent, student and community relations. In accordance with the Ministry of Education and Training requirements, our schools are adapting their existing parent associations' mandate and membership to meet the requirements for school advisory councils.

During this transition, parents have expressed concerns regarding the increased role the legislation will incorporate. A small nucleus of parents traditionally take on the responsibilities in each school. The consensus is that they wish to continue to work with the school in an advisory and assistive role. It is recommended that the existing model for school advisory councils be maintained and that their role remain as advisory.

The new role of the trustee must be clarified. We must not lose the democratic advantages and qualities of the Ontario school trustee. If I can regress just a bit, when we talk about the quality of the school trustee, I dearly wish this government would stop being so negative about trustees. Although there may be concerns in other areas of the province, certainly that is not true with our board. Our board has always worked very diligently and conscientiously for our students, ensuring that the money stays in the classroom.

I hope this message gets back to our Premier because this past weekend there was a strong message again from our Premier indicating that we really don't have any self-worth. That doesn't make any one of us feel very good. All the trustees here give of their time and are very supportive to our students, so I would really like that support from our government as well.

School boards are an integral part of the democratic government and civil society. It is vital to have some form of direct community input into running our schools beyond centralized decision-making at Queen's Park plus parent councils at 5,000 schools. A trustee's responsibility is to advocate for decisions which will better serve the board's entire jurisdiction, while parent councils advocate for their own students in their own schools.

Trustee representation formula is another concern. A decision is approved by a majority vote at the board table. Should the representation for Windsor residents exceed the representation for Essex county residents, the voice of the county resident, through their trustee, will not be acknowledged. It is recommended that an equitable representation of trustees from each board be maintained for amalgamated district school boards.

1250

Bill 104 establishes an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition of existing boards to district school boards; determine distribution of assets, liabilities, and transfer of staff; assist with and approve 1997 budgets of existing boards; and provide guidelines on appointments, hiring and promotion of staff. This transfer of responsibility to the Education Improvement Commission, effective January 13, 1997, has virtually removed the power and responsibility from the elected representatives of existing school boards. During the amalgamation process it is recommended that local solutions be provided for, and encouraged, within the legislation.

The Education Improvement Commission is empowered to establish and delegate powers to education improvement committees. The local committees will be considering issues such as security of property, financial or personal information about an employee, and labour relations. It is recommended that education improvement committees include locally elected school trustees and senior board staff, be given clear mandates, and consult and communicate with existing schools boards in an open environment.

Bill 104 does not address the planned changes to the funding process; however, the province is taking education off the residential tax base and replacing the funding with provincial grants. These changes in the funding of education will eliminate the need to direct school support for the purpose of designating attendance at either a public school or a separate school. This implies that students will be eligible to attend the school of their choice. This implied open access has in effect provided one publicly funded system and initiates a competitive system whereby schools are vying for students. It is recommended that provision for student access from junior kindergarten to OAC be clarified for boards under the new funding model.

Finally, the current recommended configuration of Ontario district school boards does not reflect a fundamental of democracy that we have enjoyed under the present Education Act: representation by population. The Roman Catholic school system, representing approximately 600,000 students, is allocated a total of 33 English and French school boards. The public school board system, which serves nearly 1.5 million students, has been allocated a total of 33 English and French school boards. It is recommended that the configuration of district school boards be further considered and reflect an equitable representation of the population served.

I have appreciated the opportunity to address the committee and I thank you for receiving the concerns of the Essex County Board of Education.

Mr Skarica: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mrs Flood. The Wells report indicated that savings could be achieved by both the Windsor board and your board by your getting together and doing cooperative ventures on purchasing and that type of thing. Has that occurred in the last three years since that report, and if it has, could you tell us what has happened?

Mrs Flood: Yes, it certainly has happened. The director and the chairs of the four boards have been meeting on a regular basis and have been addressing issues on where we can save. I'm pleased to say that the Essex county public board and the Windsor board now share the purchasing service. Our purchasing department has moved over to the Windsor board, so that is one area. Previous to this, we were looking at transportation for all four boards rather than just the two. We're looking at computer services, so that has been done. Certainly the Tom Wells report is the report that we believe should have been implemented here.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good afternoon, Joan.

Mrs Flood: Good afternoon, Bruce.

Mr Crozier: I want to emphasize what you've just said, that in the past the Essex county public school board and the Essex county separate school board have been a model when it comes to sharing of costs, particularly in the area of transportation.

I want to ask you, though, on page 4 of your submission -- which is a very complete one, thank you -- when you say that Bill 104 does not address the planned changes in funding, I know a concern with the Wells report and with any discussion of amalgamation of boards in the Essex county area was that you in the public school board have run a very efficient ship and that your cost per student has been lower than that in the cities. How do you think the past, that being the fact, will be affected in the future, with your concern towards funding between two boards? In other words, do you think that you being efficient will hurt you? How do you feel about it?

Mrs Flood: I think you're going to see our costs going up, because again we have been a very efficient board. We educate our elementary students at $25 a day, which is lower than day care. We do that through our shared services with our coterminous board. Our dollars are kept in the classroom. The Windsor board has different needs. They have a higher multicultural area maybe than we do, but I think you're going to see our costs going up. Our collective agreements are not as rich as the Windsor board's, so I believe you're going to see our dollars are going to go up.

Mr Crozier: But you would hope the grants reflect that, then.

Mrs Flood: I would sincerely hope the grants would reflect that.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation, Joan. On page 3 you talk about your fear as a rural board of being flooded by more representation from the city board. You know in my area of London, now London-Middlesex-Oxford-Elgin, obviously that's the same fear, particularly if there are only allowed to be 12 trustees. Can you talk a little bit more about how your board feels about that and what you think would happen, for example, if a school were to be closed or if a need for a new school were to be identified? How do you think you would fare?

Mrs Flood: I don't think we would fare very well if we didn't have equal representation, the reason being that at the county board, although we do offer education at a very frugal point, we still are committed to our eight community secondary high schools. We have a policy saying that we are going to preserve those schools. We see them as an integral part of that community. Although we don't need eight community schools for the number of students we have in secondary education, it's very important to keep that community school and I don't believe that once we're amalgamated they will have the same interest in those community schools that we do.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Flood, for your eloquent presentation. It's much appreciated.

WINDSOR COUNCIL OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS

The Chair: May I call upon the Windsor Council of Home and School Associations: Ms Bette Turner.

As Ms Turner makes her way to the table, I'd like to address the members of the audience for just a minute. We're very grateful to have you here, that you've taken the time to be with us. Just two things: There will be many things that will be said during the course of the day that you will agree with or disagree with and you may feel the urge to express yourselves, and that's understandable. However, bear in mind that individuals do have a right to express opposing views. That hasn't happened yet with respect to the audience, but it may. Bear in mind as well that when you interject, you're taking away from the time that presenters have. So I would caution you to limit participation as much as possible.

Ms Turner, you have the floor. I would ask you to introduce your co-presenter. We thank you both for appearing here and we're looking forward to your presentation.

Mrs Bette Turner: Good afternoon, members of the standing committee on social development. JoAnn Percy is also a past president of the Windsor Council of Home and School Associations. She's here with me this afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to submit and present the input of our organization in respect to Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act. Be aware that our provincial organization has made a presentation to you. Therefore we will deal primarily with local issues.

Our submission clarifies our support for the concept of district boards. The primary focus of our concerns is the process as revealed by the act, as well as the absence of information to appropriately evaluate the process. This lack of information, combined with short time lines, hinders a collaborative and democratic effort to reform education. On behalf of students and the young people of Ontario, we trust our concerns will be integrated within your initiatives and actions. We've provided you with information explaining our organization and policies.

1300

Three provincial governments have said they would like to reduce the number of school boards, and this government has initiated the process with Bill 104. In 1992, the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations petitioned the minister and the Ministry of Education and Training to strongly encourage school boards to amalgamate mutual services, starting with coterminous boards. This petition and our support to reduce the number of boards in the province is based upon two distinctive policies. Equity of education as a concept has been supported by our membership since 1964. We have promoted equal educational opportunities for all students in Windsor, Ontario and Canada. Also, it is our position to promote one publicly funded system to address the uniqueness of religion, language and culture, and to ensure the ultimate in efficiency.

Will the format of the proposed district boards eliminate divisiveness and concurrently be cost-efficient? Currently, 1.5 million students are registered within the public school system and 500,000 students are registered within the alternative school systems. Minister Snobelen announced in January the number of boards halved as follows: There will be 55 English-language boards, 29 public and 26 separate, and the existing French-language boards, four public and seven separate. Proposing one half, or 33, of the district boards be established to represent the current 70% of the ratepayers in Ontario who support the public system does not appear to be equal nor democratic. A more equitable and representative formation of district boards may be facilitated under the notion of one publicly funded system.

The minister has projected a November 1997 election for trustees to take office as of January 1, 1998. In addition, Bill 104 proposes an option to provide trustees an honorarium of up to $5,000 per year. Short time lines and limited information are compounding our concerns. Will trustees be elected by ward or at large? How would such boundaries be defined, and when would the public become aware of this information? We believe an informed decision at the ballot box is a critical component of the democratic process that may be overlooked.

Also, we're concerned about the qualifications and expertise that the honorarium compensation may realistically attract. Sincere and qualified candidates need to he attracted and able to at least cover their expenses. We appreciate the abuse and cost ineffectiveness that has stimulated the proposed honorarium and agree it is an area for improvement. Our local school board has demonstrated responsible and effective changes to minimize abuse and reduce trustee costs. A realistic honorarium and alternative tactics relevant to trustee cost appears to be a functional and viable approach.

Last year, volunteers representing different educational partners formed the mandated school councils. An absence of ministry guidance and training did little to enhance the skills and knowledge of school council members. Windsor school communities have school council members who perceive political action as an appropriate advisory function. Other local school councils struggle with power confusion: Who sets the agenda?

In accordance with policy memorandum 122, the elected school council chair is responsible for setting the agenda. The memorandum fails to state that in accordance with the Education Act, the principal is responsible for all activities conducted on behalf of the school. Therefore, responsible principals review and approve the school council chair's proposed agenda as part of their job. No ministry guidelines have been issued to facilitate the collaboration of old and new parent-volunteer groups or associations. Additional confusion is common and is demonstrated by power struggles between groups of volunteers.

Memorandum 122 recognizes established parent-volunteer groups by stating: "The school councils are not intended to replace such organizations, which continue to make valuable contributions within the education community." Home and school organizations have demonstrated a long history of effective and beneficial contributions to education and the welfare of children. Our history is not littered with power struggles. Our members have the opportunity to participate in training workshops annually and our members are knowledgeable and informed. Our activities are presented in a non-partisan format.

It is from this context that we seek a leadership role in the status of school councils. Bill 104 firmly establishes a preference for volunteers to perform many of the functions of local trustees. Too many school councils and volunteer members are confused or struggling with power to effectively contribute within an advisory capacity. Shifting the advisory status of school councils to governance would demonstrate grave irresponsibility.

As proposed, the Education Improvement Commission will be responsible for investigating the role of school councils. We suggest the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations be represented on and lead the Education Improvement Commission's responsibilities as related to school councils.

Our review of Bill 104 has prompted deep concerns in relation to an absence of data, detail and information. The compounding effect of short time lines compels us to urgently suggest such topic areas be addressed immediately. Bill 104 endorses an incomplete package of changes that are directly or indirectly correlated: the funding model, fiscal responsibilities between school boards and governments, future negotiations, curriculum and program delivery, attrition and disruption of educational staff, and outsourcing of educational services.

We are particularly concerned with how the incomplete package of changes will affect program and curriculum delivery. Currently, our board of education delivers specific programs that reflect the preference and needs of our community. Specific examples of unique Windsor programs are an enhanced special education program, an enhanced arts centre, and a junior kindergarten, to name just a few. How will these and the unique programs of other boards be maintained? What portion of the funding model may or may not address the support of unique programs? Who is more familiar with our community and the communities of other boards?

Funding, control and program delivery represent a concurrent and interdependent educational issue. This aspect has been neglected within the context of Bill 104. There are several home and school policies that reflect a broad scope and diversity, a demand and a need for local unique programs and control.

We are concerned that Bill 104 does not stipulate any detailed guidelines to address the attrition and disruption of educational staff that must accompany the formation of district boards. Recently our board facilitated a collaborative effort to identify and honour our educational staff as heroes. How will our heroes be accommodated and how will the heroes across the province of Ontario be accommodated?

We have serious reservations concerning the notion of outsourcing educational services. Of noted concern are supporting staff personnel: office, custodial, school aides, social workers, child and youth workers, early childhood educators, interpreters, developmental service workers, technicians, school clerks, speech pathologists, psychologists, and the list goes on. The service such personnel supply is not limited to their job descriptions. We note an intangible and indispensable service that support staff deliver: Intimate familiarity with our students, parents and school community residents enhances the high level of security we expect in our schools. How can strangers from an outsourcing program deliver this imperative and intangible service? Some of our members articulated, "If you think internal security is in jeopardy, consider outsourcing's effect on the status of zero tolerance for violence."

One final note is critical, an area that Bill 104 does not address. The entire educational package is in a state of change; public services are in a state of change. The combined pressures are creating communities in turmoil. Long-range planning, assessment and consultation are evidently overdue. Many of the projected reforms within the context of Bill 104 have been established in other provinces. We have heard negative testimony from those who have been there and done that. Can we learn from the mistakes of others?

There's nothing wrong with change, but change for the sake of change is neither positive nor cost-effective.

1310

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Thanks so much for coming today to present.

You spent some time talking about the creation of school councils and their role. In my limited experience with some of the inner-city schools in Windsor, Toronto and Ottawa, what I found only in looking at the breakfast programs that exist in those schools is they've been organized primarily by staff people in that school who recognized a need for breakfast programs. They found that the majority of students they were dealing with had parents whose first language was not English; it was Chinese, Lebanese, Portuguese etc. As new Canadians, they were still learning what it meant to be a volunteer. From many countries of origin, our new Canadians are still coming to grips with the role of a volunteer because their home country doesn't have that same thought as yet.

Given that they were having difficulties in even bringing parents out to assist in serving breakfast in many cases, how do you feel those inner-city schools are going to get out into their community and into their parent group and have parents participate at a very sophisticated level like a school council with the outline we're seeing so far?

Mrs Turner: It's going to take time, and because schools are state-operated, many of the new Canadians are afraid of them. If you look at the makeup of the community we live in right here in Windsor, it has about the same mix as the Metro Toronto area has for immigrant populations. You'll find that it takes two or three generations before people are involved in doing that sort of thing.

The other thing is that the new Canadians are too busy trying to establish themselves financially to have time to even look at anything else. As long as the children are going to school, that's it.

Mr Wildman: Thanks very much for your presentation. With regard to school councils, would it be your view that whatever happens -- I understand what you said about the turmoil in terms of all the change -- school councils should remain advisory in their role in terms of the operation of the school and that parents should be influencing what happens in the school and to their children but that it should be advisory rather than administrative?

Mrs Turner: From our organization's point of view, yes, and from the information I've received from people on them, because I do serve on one as a community person.

Mr Carroll: We've had some recent information published by OSSTF that the cost of education in Ontario is about $1,300 per student higher than it is in Alberta. Based on the results of some recent testing, our students don't fare as well as the students in Alberta do. There have been several studies, royal commissions; lots of things have been studied.

A couple of questions: Do you agree that we need to have some change, and would you agree that it's now time to get on with the change?

Mrs Turner: There's nothing wrong with change. The problem is that Alberta has a more homogeneous group of students to test than Ontario.

Mr Carroll: So that accounts for the difference in the cost too?

Mrs Turner: Yes, definitely.

Mr Wildman: They don't have as many English-as-a-second-language groups.

The Chair: I'm going to allow Ms Percy to speak, if you don't mind.

Mrs JoAnn Percy: I should mention that Mrs Turner has lived in Alberta, and as a Canadian representative for central Ontario to the home and school association, she has an overview that not all of us can reach and she has had input from other people as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Turner and Ms Percy, for being here. We do appreciate the time that you took.

Interjection.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please, this really doesn't help.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, ESSEX COUNTY

The Chair: The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Essex county: Karl Dean. Welcome, Mr Dean. Thank you very much for being here this morning.

Mr Karl Dean: I will guarantee you that I will be somewhat a breath of fresh air to probably most of these hearings. I am aiming to be the shortest presenter, not in physical stature but in length of dissertation.

I'd like to suggest to the government that they might change the name of Bill 104. It should be called "the omnibus bill for education." I think that would be more appropriate. As I see it -- I've taken a look at Bill 104 -- it is a smokescreen. It is about saving money. It is about downloading costs of education to municipalities. It is about taking control of education. It is about removing democratic representation and funding independence of local school boards. What Bill 104 is not is about improving educational opportunities for students. It is not about amalgamation and it is not about democracy.

The problems we see are outsourcing, job losses, an unfriendly school environment for the students to learn in, less money to the classroom. How can we amalgamate in a short period of time and not understand the rules of the game? No rules have been given.

It was interesting to hear the chairperson of my board speak just a little while ago and comment on the fact that there have been numerous meetings between the two boards that are intended to be amalgamated, Windsor and Essex; we tend to think of that as Windex. What causes us a great deal of concern as educators and as representatives of employees is that nowhere in this process is there a place for employee representation. We need some rules to this game if we're going to play appropriately and if we're going to effect changes in the system that will be fair and equitable.

We recommend that this government withdraw Bill 104. Go back to the drawing board. Rethink what you've done.

If amalgamation was the intent of this government, then I would suggest that you review the 1968 legislation that imposed a far greater reduction of school boards in this province. That government did not need the extraordinary powers this government seems to. That government was able to define, by legislation, the parameters of school board amalgamation, a transition process that was open and transparent and included guarantees for all board employees.

My final suggestion to this government is that you be open and honest with the people of Ontario. Lay all of the cards on the table at the same time so we can see what the game is. Thank you very much.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming today, Mr Dean. You certainly have hit the nail on the head with such a very brief and succinct proposal. I'm really interested in the issues as you put them out in terms of this bill being about saving money and your concern that all the cards aren't on the table. Because if, as we are aware, there are going to be changes to Bill 104 that are going to cabinet, and we do not yet have the reform to education financing, there are a huge number of pieces that are missing here, aren't there?

Mr Dean: Absolutely. It's just not well thought out, it's not well planned and we wish some more thought would go into this.

Mrs Boyd: Is it your concern that this propaganda that the government has been giving about taking education off the property tax is going further to destroy the public's commitment to public education?

Mr Dean: Absolutely. If you remove the local school board's ability to tax, to generate money to meet the needs of the school board and the community, if you remove that and you've downloaded the other things on to the municipalities, you set things up so that municipalities may have to determine if they want to pave roads or provide service in the schools, and that's fundamentally wrong. The reason education was put in the hands of the tax base was to allow for the students. Students do not have the representation that we do and we must maintain that ability.

Mr Wildman: I noticed your concern with regard to the friendly environment for learning and the question of outsourcing. What is your reaction to Mr Snobelen's definition of the classroom and saying a number of things, such as custodial care, clerical, principals, vice-principals, librarians, psychologists, all these are outside of the classroom and therefore should be treated in a different way and thus can be outsourced perhaps?

Mr Dean: I disagree with Minister Snobelen's and Ernst and Young's assessment of what's inside and what's outside the classroom. I believe all of those people you mentioned contribute to the educational environment for our students. One of our major concerns is that if the government gets this education employment commission, gives them the power that they seem to be intent on giving them, outsourcing will be the rule, not the exception. You could create a situation where you have people in the schools working with our children -- my children, your children, your children's children -- who are not part of our local community, who we don't know, who are not employed by the board. The screening processes and so on -- I mean, you go into a school in Essex county or anywhere in this province and everyone knows who people are. When you start to do the outsourcing and money becomes the focus, then you lose that ability.

Mr Wildman: So there's a question of safety.

Mr Dean: Yes.

1320

Mr Skarica: Sir, I'd like to read you a part of a presentation given by Water MacLeod, a trustee for the Sudbury board and he had this to say -- I'm reading from his brief:

"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 in education. Trustees and trustee organizations have expressed concerns that with fewer trustees and larger units of administration many small municipalities will not be represented. Federations have stated that the reorganization of boards may dilute the quality of education."

Do you agree with those comments?

Mr Dean: I'd like to see his entire document before I agree with anything.

Mr Skarica: All right. He goes on to say that those statements were made in 1968, prior to the amalgamation of boards with the present structure. The reason I mention it is you asked us to go to back into 1968 and that's what was said at that time in criticism of the proposed amalgamation.

Mr Dean: I guess the only response, if you're looking for a response, is that obviously in 1968 they had the right plan so if I were you I'd go back and look at that.

Mr Skarica: In 1968, an example of what happened in Ottawa was that the Carleton secondary school board had a number of schools that were amalgamated but they were concerned about the amalgamation and many of them went into debt. The reason they went into debt was that small schools wanted to spend money so that they wouldn't lose out in the amalgamated board. The net effect of it was that the Carleton secondary board was saddled with debt. How do you propose to prevent that in any future amalgamation? Because that's what did happen -- I'm not saying in all boards -- but as an example, in 1968.

Mr Dean: I don't know. I'm not a finance person. I'm sure there are ways.

Mrs McLeod: I'm one of those ancient beings who was actually around during the school board amalgamations in 1968 and I think there are several differences. One is that, first of all, the amalgamations made some geographic sense, and certainly one of the concerns we've heard consistently on this committee is that the amalgamations don't make geographic sense. The other was that we were going from a very large number of boards to what was considered to be a very reasonable number of boards, and now we're going to something that people consider to be unreasonable in terms of representation. Another was that there were very clear transition plans put in place that guided the process. Even with all of that, my recollection is and any research that I've read of it is that there were no cost savings. In fact, the costs increased for boards after the 1968 amalgamation. It's hard to see how this amalgamation is suddenly going to lead to savings for the classroom.

Having said that, I also wanted to ask you about the processes. With regard to the 1968 transition processes that were put in place, particulary in the area of dealing with harmonization of contracts, we have asked for that information to be provided to the committee. It could be a very important guide to doing some amendments to this legislation. It's clear that the government has not looked at it because it's very difficult still to compile it. I hope we are going to have access to that background before we do clause-by-clause on Wednesday. I guess that's one of the frustrations, that not only have they not put the transition plans in place, but that they're rushing the legislation through so that by Wednesday we have to be dealing with it.

I'd ask you very specifically, because you've talked about the climate, what kind of climate do you see if this is rushed through to this extent that as of December 31, 1997, your legal employers essentially disappear? There is some suggestion by Mr Cooke that maybe the existing contracts will be maintained until there can be some renegotiation. I'm not sure that's the government's position, but even if they are, what climate does it create if you have employees for the same board working under different contracts and different salaries? What do you see as being the climate under this?

Mr Dean: To be very brief, and I know that's unusual for me, all I see is chaos. It's unbelievable that the plans for this amalgamation process are going to come out, I anticipate, in the form of regulations. I don't know, do you get to debate regulations? They're just going to be laid on. So there won't be any input into the regulations, and I think that's a sham. I think that's a travesty. I see chaos. That's all I see. You've all heard just way too many unanswered questions in this entire process.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Dean, for coming here and speaking to us this morning.

ESSEX COUNTY ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD, ELEMENTARY PARENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Chair: The Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Elementary Parent Advisory Committee: Rick Macdonald, Catherine Tobin, Cathy Beaudry and Beth Warren. Welcome all. We are delighted to have you.

Mr Rick Macdonald: We are today representing school councils in the Essex county area. The four of us represent 30 years of school council experience in total. We're going to open some eyes today in our presentation. You're going to see something that you probably haven't seen across the province in your hearings.

At some point in time, I'm going to be doing my presentation on overheads and slides as well. I would appreciate it if you could maybe turn your chair around and you can listen to me while you're watching what we're doing up there. I will go to the screen to do some pointing.

We represent 19 school councils in the county of Essex for the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Our school councils have been up and operating for anywhere from 10 to 25 years. Lately we've been pulled into the mix as a necessity rather than as providing the school uniforms, soup days and things like that. Our parent councils didn't need to be mandated. Because of our lack of funds in this area, we became a necessity in our assessment-poor board.

If you take a look at the overhead we have presented right now, I'm leading off with "Parent Councils Are The Wrong Way To Go." That's an article done by Gerald Caplan, who was the co-chair of the royal commission. By the time you're finished today, you're going to see that without us, I'd hate to see what our system would be like down here; the parents, the mothers, the fathers, and the total active roles they play in the educational system in Essex county.

In the best of times not a lot of money had to be spent, but we've had to expand our responsibilities as parents in our school councils. We've had to buy textbooks, audio-visual equipment, computers, science and technology equipment, library books, gym equipment and office machines.

This is the play equipment that's in a school of 500 kids. This has been the play equipment there for ages. What we've done is we have gone in as school councils and parents actively involved and we've put in safety-conscious play equipment. Want a shock? That piece of equipment right there four or five years ago cost the school council $32,000. All our school councils have been very actively involved in upgrading what we need in the school yards.

1330

If you take a look here, asphalt, completely safety-wise. We as parents -- mothers and fathers -- did the asphalting here. We supply the basketball courts. We do the storage bins. No place for school councils to put their equipment, so put the equipment in a storage bin that the school council bought.

The asphalt repairs are necessary because of safety hazards. Here's a school where we need asphalt, but right now there are no funds to put the asphalt in. We supply the soccer standards here as well as the basketball standards.

Another school. We improved the habitat area. This is an elementary school. This school has 900 kids. We've got areas for the kids to sit down, converse, have lunches.

Just to show you right now, the parents did all the work, the habitat, the walkways, the tree planting and the track around the perimeter of the football pitch or the soccer pitch to the tune of better than $150,000 in the last few years.

We supply office equipment for students to have a more comfortable environment to deal with when talking to a principal or teachers. We provide the equipment, the couches, the internal equipment, computers, workstations.

This stuff is all there because parents have worked together to do it. This isn't just one school, this is a number of schools.

Computer equipment, labs, we're doing this. In the last two years we've spent probably close to $40,000 on computer equipment for this lab. Not only do we do the lab, we do the tables, we do the blinds that are down. This is one of three small windows in this area. We do the fans for moving the air around. We do the carpet for breathing problems. A musty old carpet's been there for years. We've replaced it. We've painted it. It wouldn't get done without the school councils.

Again, another shot. We use our lab here not only as a computer lab but also our library books are over there as well. This is the extent of a library right here in an elementary school that in the past year and a half has had $15,000 invested -- $10,000 in the last two months -- in the books. That's the total extent of the library. It's got a brand-new encyclopaedia set that's just gone in, and $10,000 bought roughly 560 books to go into the stacks.

This is another library. This is an extremely good library. It's got lots of books. The parents have put most of the money into those libraries.

Here we've got television sets and other peripheral equipment that's necessary for the operation. The stage. The area here was paid for by the parents, and the decor. Nothing fancy but put in by the parents.

We are also involved with community efforts. The green area. And, you see, kids. We have a vested interest in this presentation, more so than anybody else here. We are the parents of the kids who go to these schools, and our vested interest is the kids.

The playground area. I'm just going to show you something here. We've got to take care of the health and safety problems in the schools because there's no money. Right now, as of this past week, before the kids went back to school, we put a JK -- this is the JK area. This little piece of equipment here was $10,000 and that's about $8,000. This is what we're replacing, these two yellow things which will be coming out, which by today's safety standards aren't acceptable, this and this. What we've also done is we've taken the fence here. We've spent probably $20,000 in this little JK area.

This is another shot of the fencing as it's going up.

This is a completed JK area in one of the other schools -- again, school councils, parents, active participants -- fenced, with areas for the kids to play, teachers and kids to sit at picnic tables. The habitat area is here. Each one of these is a separate garden growing separate things.

This is another habitat area in another school. A pond here and all these areas in here are set up so the kids can plant different things. Each of these bushes is set up for different types of birds, so the kids in the JK and kindergarten classes can see the birds and butterflies coming into these areas during the school day.

Another school with a habitat area for the students to come and sit and talk outside the school, to have lessons taught. This is elementary school as well.

The community efforts we make as school councils: We work with ERCA, which is the environmental group in our area, cleaning up creek beds and river banks. Students are all actively involved.

Planting trees: I think it was 1,000 or 1,500 trees planted in certain areas. The kids all did this. They're all participating in the community with the teachers and the parents.

Here we are doing cleanup stuff, one of the schools doing a cleanup.

Environmentally green school: This is a goal that a lot of the schools are setting up right now. They want to be green schools.

Portables: We've got a lot of them. The parents played an active role; all six school councils played an active role in getting additions put on six schools. We worked for over a year on it. The six schools are going ahead as of this March.

Again, portables. We've got a lot of portables here.

That's our last one in that group.

The province-wide problem of overcrowding in schools: There are over 12,000 portables in this province as of today. What's the problem? Well, you listen to people talk and you get ideas, but parents, business people, male and female, mothers and fathers, can come up with some tremendous ideas.

One of the problems is the total lack of communication between municipalities. Our school council as a group of 19 schools has a committee that looks now at all plans of subdivisions going up. We've got to have sewers, we've got to have parks, but nobody says we've got to have schools. If you're putting up 1,500 houses, you're going to need some schools there to educate the kids. They plan for the vacant land on the plan, but no schools. That doesn't pay for the school, and you can't educate your kids on a piece of vacant land.

Mrs Beth Warren: EPAC stands for the elementary parent advisory committee. We are from the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. We meet once a month. We hand out newsletters and agendas to all schools. We have elected officials from all 19 elementary schools that come to EPAC, but any parent in our system is welcome to come. We run a very informal meeting. Although we have a protocol, we find that parents aren't as intimidated as perhaps attending a trustee or a board meeting. We have become a network for these 19 elementary schools to share their concerns but also to share our successes, our energy and the proactive way we tackle issues that are relevant in our individual schools.

EPAC is the next step of what school councils are. We are fortunate to be the prototype. Because we have already well established ourselves as school councils, we took it the next step further. We are a group of parents who know that if we talk to each other and we solve problems, the more communicating we do among ourselves the more successful we are.

We host guest speakers, teachers talking about curriculum. We try to educate our parents on the issues that are important in education today. We are an information network for any private concerns among parents. The board also uses us as a vehicle to get messages and information out to parents.

We're not just about bankrolling projects for our schools, though. We have a much larger role, involving curriculum and standards, and we are thirsty for that information and those issues to come to parents in a format that parents may have found frightening or threatening in the more traditional setup.

We are the link between the parents and the board, and we have a role. We've been valued. We're a valuable resource with the purest agenda, and that's our children.

The Chair: You have quite a brief here, and it's most interesting, but you only have a couple of minutes left. I just wanted to remind you of that.

Mrs Warren: We're not going to read the whole thing.

1340

Mrs Catherine Tobin: The following are the issues we at EPAC support pertaining to Bill 104:

Accountability and community involvement in the education system.

The entrenchment of the school councils.

Annual reports allowing parents to monitor and evaluate the performance of local school boards.

We are pleased to note that constitutional rights will be protected and that parents will still be offered a choice of either public, Catholic, French or English education for their children.

We are delighted that parents will have more input on major decisions affecting their children's education, such as programs the school will offer, ways of reporting student academic progress and student discipline. We are disappointed, however, that a voice in the selection of the principal and support staff was not included in the examples given in Bill 104. We hope this was merely an oversight.

We support clear and constant standards for what students should be learning and for when and how the learning is funded.

We applaud the government for its decision to publish its own report card and allow the public and parents to grade its efforts.

We too believe it is essential that all children across the province receive the highest quality education. This bill must ensure that a more equitable way of funding our schools becomes a reality as a crucial first step in reaching our goals.

We will have concerns related to the amalgamation of our local school boards, the reduction of trustees and the future of support staff, and we will be ever vigilant about the preservation of Catholic education. We support Dave Cooke as co-chair of the EIC. We understand the enormity and necessity of the task which lies ahead of the EIC, and we heartily support its objectives.

The Chair: I'm afraid you've gone beyond your time. It's a most interesting presentation but time really goes quickly. We thank you very much for being here. I assure you that the full text will form part of the record of the committee.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, ESSEX ELEMENTARY UNIT

The Chair: The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Essex Elementary Unit: Mr Dupuis. We are delighted to have you here today. You have 15 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Bernie Dupuis: My name is Bernie Dupuis, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. The Essex elementary unit is comprised of 400-plus teachers who have chosen as a career to teach in the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Thanks for allowing me to make our presentation today. I hope you have a copy of the brief I've provided.

I won't read the introduction in the brief word for word, but I want to make some comments on the various statements I've made. We spent an awful lot of time in 1993 with Tom Wells. He allowed tremendous input. He spent three months in the Essex-Windsor area. He did a cost-benefit study. I've heard today the recommendations he made -- which all of you seem to be aware of -- that at best there will be no cost savings; at worst there will be increased costs if there is an amalgamation.

When Mr Snobelen said that trustees seem to be the problem in costs out of control, Mr Wells took an opposite view. He stated in his report that Windsor and Essex separate school board trustees are very frugal.

I've been in the system 34 years. I've had four daughters go through the separate school system in Windsor and Essex. I now have seven grandkids going through the separate school system in Oxford, London, Middlesex, Windsor and Essex. I would expect them to have the same opportunities I've had, which is to have a school system that's democratic and constitutional. I would expect them to have what Mr Wells said, representative democracy, representative trustees who are accountable to the taxpayer.

I've yet to see any cost-benefit data provided by the Ministry of Education to counter Mr Wells's report. Until such time, it's very difficult to study any opposite view, other than the statements of the minister, without any data provided.

If you would give us your cost-benefit data, then maybe we could study it, maybe we could look at it. Mr Wells gave us at least three months for one school board amalgamation. We had ample meetings. We met with him on three occasions just as federations to take care of the concerns. None of that is provided in Bill 104, the way I read it.

In section 1.05 I make a statement about the greater context we need to study Bill 104, since I believe this government has another agenda that is not specifically stated in Bill 104, and until that greater context is known it really needs to be at minimum postponed, although OECTA Essex elementary agrees with Tom Wells that the amalgamation of Windsor and Essex separate school boards should not occur. There seems to be no data that suggest it should.

In section 2.01 I term the new definition for "democracy." Being in the business for 34 years, we've certainly had some major difficulties in discussions with our trustees, but I have the utmost respect for each individual who serves as a trustee for the time, energy and expertise they offer to representing the parents and the community in their job.

To put them in a position where they have no power, to put them in a position where they're blamed for the costs that are seen to be outlandish, is uncalled for. To make a correction by making it undemocratic is just not the Ontario way. So I'm urging you that if you're going to look at changes you certainly must maintain democracy, and not provide democracy in its new definition where the person who's in charge is picked by the minister and the persons who are elected have no power, no representation and no accountability.

The community needs and priorities will not be addressed by any democratically elected and accountable body under Bill 104: The previous speakers -- I know most of those individuals. I worked with the PAC. We have representation on the Essex county PAC and there's no question that the parents in my own individual school have done wonders in providing the various slide pictures you've noticed.

The one thing that maybe should have been mentioned in our presentation is that the trustees are the ones who allowed the JK program to exist, for the JK equipment to be put there. Those are the local needs that were addressed by our trustees. They listen to the community. That will not happen after Bill 104. All that equipment can go for naught, all that stuff in the library can go for naught, if no one will be accountable to make the decision on what the local community needs. Presently our trustees work hand in hand with the parents and the teachers to ensure as best they can fiscally to provide for the local needs.

I've listed the recommendations. I hope democracy will reign and the Essex county Roman Catholic school board's autonomy and governance will continue to be recognized as integral components of the democratic system of this province.

I believe we need to make mention of the constitutional rights I have as a separate school ratepayer. I believe Bill 104 in some manner allows someone else, not elected, to make decisions that my minority needs to be made by the duly elected representatives I vote for. I urge you not to touch the constitutional rights and certainly not in a manner that decisions are made by an appointed body and not by the duly represented trustees I would vote for. Bill 104 certainly suggests the opposite.

In the Common Sense Revolution, I didn't think democracy and constitutional matters were issues in the last election. Bill 104 suggests that democracy and constitutional matters are serious matters that this government is putting on the people of Ontario, and I resent that. I didn't have an opportunity to say no to you, if that was the case.

1350

I have listed three recommendations if you're going to listen to at least postponing Bill 104 until the whole agenda is made known to the community, to the teachers and to the parents, but if not then I've made recommendations that are needed in case Bill 104 goes through. Specifically, I'm talking about successor rights, I'm talking about transfers of teachers, and I've listed them for you to look at. My understanding is none of those have been outlined in Bill 104 or even suggested that there will be an opportunity to discuss them.

Finally, I believe there's a lack of consultation. Bill 104 cannot be taken in a context by itself. Bill 104 has to be taken in the context of the government minister having announced $1 billion more in cuts in education. We have to talk about Bill 104 in that context. We have to talk about Bill 104 when this government is desperately searching for areas to cut so it can provide its tax break. We have to be knowledgeable of that context. We have to be knowledgeable of the context when the minister promised to create a crisis, to break what is not broken, as his friend, the lawyer from Windsor, stated to us at his hearing.

Bill 104 is taken out of context where it is silent as to successor rights, transfers, rights which are governed by collective agreements. Bill 104 must be taken in the context of the Education Improvement Commission, which has fundamentally taken over control of education with superpowers above the law. Bill 104 must also be taken in the context that the government, I understand, has redefined classrooms, which will facilitate its intended outsourcing.

The Essex county Roman Catholic school board, for your information, outsourced custodial services in 1985. In 1990, the Essex county Roman Catholic school board tabled in negotiations that it would no longer outsource because of the devastation that occurred in all the schools, that the maintenance of the schools was a disaster and there was the cost to put the schools back in order, because of the $2.50-an-hour and $3-an-hour jobs that were provided with outsourcing. It just didn't fit. It was not the janitorial union that tabled to stop outsourcing; it was the school board. I hope the minister has that input. I assume he doesn't, but I hope someone will bring it to him.

I have three recommendations. I hope they're taken seriously: to at least postpone Bill 104. If not, I've listed numerous recommendations if Bill 104 is passed, that there are certain guarantees that are needed, as previous speakers have stated.

Finally, I will just go through the conclusion. I'd like to state a couple of paragraphs. The changes proposed by Bill 104, particularly the process of implementation, are unconstitutional to my rights as a separate school taxpayer, and certainly undemocratic since my representative no longer has any power.

Democratic rights, including electing local school trustees who have authority, have been an occurrence since 1843. Constitutional rights for separate school supporters have been an occurrence since 1867.

The entire process of Bill 104 amalgamation must be halted until studies prove that amalgamation is warranted and that it will benefit the students of Ontario. Remember, the Royal Commission on Learning stated that there is no value to amalgamation vis-à-vis education of students. Tom Wells recommended there is no cost savings. Our board could save $2 million; it would cost us $10 million to do it. That was in his report. That was stated to us at the meeting with him.

In closing, it is clear that Bill 104 is not about improvement or enhancement of educational opportunities for the children of Ontario, but has everything to do with this government seizing complete financial control of the education system to further reduce expenditures and severely affect the classroom without interference from the local democratically elected representatives of the community.

OECTA Essex will continue to stand up and defend the position that quality, publicly funded education be accessible for every child in every community in Ontario through strong, local, accountable and accessible democratically elected representatives from the community.

Thanks for your time, and if there's time I'll certainly entertain some questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Dupuis. You were right on; I mean in terms of time. As Chair, I'm not allowed to express a view.

Mr Dupuis: I hope you can erase that last line.

The Chair: Thank you very much for being here.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, ESSEX SECONDARY UNIT

The Chair: May I call upon the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Essex Secondary Unit. Mr Meloche, welcome. Thank you very much for being here this afternoon.

Mr Rick Meloche: My name is Rick Meloche. I'm president of the OECTA Essex Secondary Unit and I thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning with my many concerns. You have before you, I believe, my brief.

I'd like to start off by saying that I think it's impossible to deal with this Bill 104 in isolation, as many other members and presenters have already stated, because of the other critical issues in education today as we know them: education finance, education governance, and one problem that I see as a very severe problem, secondary school reform.

I'm here this afternoon presenting as a ratepayer, as a parent and as a teacher representative. As a ratepayer, I'm very concerned about the downloading of health and welfare and other services to municipal taxes and taking education off that. It has been stated that there is going to be an increase in cost. We don't know how much. You haven't provided us with that information. The general public, I don't think, is aware of the fact that it's going to cost them more in their pocketbooks because of what you are doing.

As a parent, I am really happy that my two girls are out of the elementary and secondary systems. I would not want them to have to go through what's going to take place in the next few years. You are going to decimate our system as we know it and I am only thankful that they have already received their education, and a good one.

As a teacher representative, I have several concerns. I will take you through the brief, indicating certain sections that I'd like to highlight. I will leave the majority of my time for my last couple of pages, where I have several questions for you.

On page 1, section 1.02: The Essex Secondary Unit is strongly opposed to the proposed changes, real and especially implied, under Bill 104. We are committed, in rejecting these changes, to maintaining equality of educational opportunity for all.

Sections 1.05, 1.06 and 1.07 I will be dealing with later under "Questions." The same appears for 2.03 and 3.01.

If you turn to page 3, there's a recommendation that I have with respect to my fear that this is going to lead to public education being eliminated and with charter schools coming into play in Ontario. The recommendation is 6.02: That local school board autonomy and governance structures continue to be recognized as integral components of our democratic system and that duly elected school board trustees be permitted to carry out the duties bestowed on them by their office in accordance with the wishes of the electorate.

Very clearly, what I see happening is that by taking the power out of our elected representatives' hands, we will face a situation down the road, probably in four or five years, where this government says: "See: trustees aren't necessary. We don't need school boards." It may just be a concern because I'm cynical. I don't believe so.

On page 5, another recommendation that I have -- again, this is coming from me as a teacher representative, as the president of my unit, because I have grave concerns for my teachers -- is 9.05, the last one: that all rights which are covered by collective agreements be guaranteed in Bill 104. We don't know right now what will be guaranteed under any bill or legislation that's coming down by this government. We certainly have an idea of what we can look forward to and it's nothing that we are looking forward to, for sure.

On page 9, under my conclusion, 22.02: The future of young learners and teachers in this area can only be negatively affected by these unwarranted sweeping changes. The entire process of amalgamation must be halted until studies prove it is warranted and will benefit the students in our local schools. Previous amalgamations have demonstrated that integration of diverse structures, operating systems, policies and human resources have led to higher costs. Consequently, should this government proceed with Bill 104, it is imperative that a transitional assistance fund be established to meet these increased costs.

I'd like you now to refer to pages 10 and 11. These are questions regarding specific sections of this brief. I'm going to take you through this, asking these questions. I realize you cannot give me any answers to them right now. I would guess, though, that these questions being asked are many that you've heard before and that you are going to be contemplating in the near future. I'm not sure you have enough time to look at these seriously before this bill gets implemented.

1400

My question with respect to 1.05, and I've prefaced some of these questions with remarks: The Minister of Education in his January 13 speech and news release and in prior and more recent speeches has alluded to innumerable changes to the education system, which in his words is broken and in Mr Paroian's words is broken, and in his words again, "If it's not broken, we'll break it."

There is indeed a crisis in education caused by this government in the hands of this minister. How can we intelligently and seriously discuss Bill 104 and its possible ramifications when so many other critical issues remain unanswered? What will take place with secondary school reform? When is it coming? What will be in it? If it proceeds as anticipated, my next question is, how can secondary schools provide for their students with 25% to 40% less qualified teaching staff in those schools?

Another question that comes up is, what happens to collective agreements? Will there continue to be teacher federations? How will the amalgamation process unfold? Where are the ground rules? When will we find out how we are going to be amalgamated if in fact we are? After the fact or when we have no input? Do we pass Bill 104 before we have these questions answered? I think not.

1.06: In Thomas Wells's report he concluded for many reasons that the process would be more costly than the present system and would not be educationally advantageous. If this was the case in 1993, what has changed? If this government is not planning on gutting the educational system, how can amalgamation be such a cost-saving measure?

Here's a local concern, a very big one, in 1.07 and 13.01: There are several areas in which the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Windsor Roman Catholic Separate School Board programs differ. Junior kindergarten, senior kindergarten, instrumental music, industrial arts, French immersion and special education are but a few. There is also a very real situation where the boards have different personnel as support staff: coordinators, consultants, speech pathologists. Can this government guarantee that the delivery of these services will not change for the worse? How can this proposed amalgamation be anything more than a race to the bottom?

I want you all to keep something in mind, because we teachers are looked at as a special interest group: Teachers' working conditions are students' learning conditions. If you have happy teachers, you have happy students. Right now you have teachers who are feeling demoralized to the point where they don't know if they're coming or going, and this is before Bill 104 gets passed. Can you imagine how they are going to feel after it gets passed?

Page 11, 2.03: How can this government create an Education Improvement Commission with such dictatorial power that its decisions are binding and cannot be reviewed or questioned by a court? Is this another example of the democratic process illustrated by this government? How could members be appointed to this commission before Bill 104 is passed? Do these appointments suggest that these hearings are a sham and that this government is once again using a supposed consultation process to create the illusion that meaningful dialogue took place?

If the local school boards and the elected trustees have little or no autonomy or decision-making power, what is their purpose? Is this not part of the government's grand plan to eliminate school boards?

Bill 104 does not guarantee that the new local district board will assume the liabilities of the existing Essex and Windsor boards. What will happen to collective agreements? What will happen to grievances? Will they be dismissed out of hand? If so, is this democracy? Where is the justice for my members whose rights have been violated? Perhaps you will handle that really well when your legislation comes down. I don't think so.

This government puts on the appearance of concern that the classroom not be affected by the proposed changes to education. Does this government not realize that all teachers, including guidance counsellors, librarians, special education, music and art teachers contribute to the education of our students? Should educators not decide which services are instructional or non-instructional?

How can outsourcing support staff not adversely affect the classroom? I'm in a high school every day. It cannot be run efficiently without our secretaries, without our pupil assistants, without our pupil aides, without our teacher assistants. It cannot function without them. You seem to think we can outsource these people and privatize, bring someone in to do the job. It will not happen. For health and safety reasons, our custodians care about what goes on in our schools. Their kids are our students. What will happen when a fly-by-night company comes in from 2 in the morning until 4 in the morning to clean the schools? How will that affect the cleanliness in the schools?

Last, how can the level of communication between the board, trustees, parents, students and teachers not be negatively affected by this amalgamation? With greater distances to travel, it will be bad enough in Windsor and Essex county. Imagine up north where it's going to take someone eight hours to travel from one jurisdiction to the next to try to meet. Are you going to provide them with lodging?

I have very many concerns, as do my teachers, and we don't have any answers. I certainly hope that before Bill 104 gets passed, you can provide us with answers so that we will not be demoralized any more than we already are at this point. Thank you.

Mr Skarica: There are a lot of concerns that you raise and I only have a minute. In fact there's a francophone board in Ottawa that we heard from that has done outsourcing. It's allowed them to do many things, including increasing the number of teachers in the classroom, putting additional funds into computers, maintaining their kindergarten program, not raising taxes and so on and so forth. I just mention that, that it depends on the circumstances. There are circumstances where outsourcing can benefit the classroom and there are other circumstances, I recognize, where it cannot. In fact Mr Cooke has recognized that.

Mr Meloche: If I may in brief comment, I think the outsourcing perhaps will be a cost-saving venture but it will do nothing for the educational purpose of our students.

1410

Mr Crozier: Good afternoon, Rick, and welcome. With reference to your point 10.02 on the last page, the minister has time and time again given what I think are absurd examples of costs that are outside the classroom, and they're significant. For example, transporting students to school has nothing to do with getting students in the classroom; clean halls have nothing to do with getting students into the school in a clean environment; libraries have nothing to do with classroom instruction. You've made some comment relative to that and I just wondered if you'd like to expand on that, how this debate goes on. I think it's a smoke-screen debate.

Mr Meloche: Exactly. I think what we have to understand is that when we're looking at education of our students, whether it be elementary or secondary, we have to look at all the pieces of the puzzle. Who in fact is educating our students? Is it just the classroom teacher? I think not. I can't function as a classroom teacher without the support staff, without guidance people helping me along. We have to have those resources. Without them the students are being shafted, and this government is about to shaft our students.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation, Rick. Could you give us an idea what education programs currently existing in Essex county are likely to get lost as a result of Bill 104?

Mr Meloche: We have the special ed program and it has been acclaimed by many groups as being one of the finest in the province. It is a costly program. Unfortunately, I don't believe that program will be able to be maintained with the government cuts. They cannot take $1 billion out of education and keep all of the programs that we have as viable programs and keep all the programs that Windsor has as viable programs and expect them to operate within that cost-cutting venture. It will not happen.

Mrs Boyd: So the children will suffer.

Mr Meloche: Yes, they certainly will.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Dwight Duncan): I'm sorry, Ms Boyd, your time is up. Thank you, Mr Meloche.

WINDSOR-ESSEX PUBLIC SERVICE COALITION

The Vice-Chair: The next delegation is the Windsor-Essex Public Service Coalition: Bernie Dupuis, treasurer, and Scott Hunt, chair.

Mr Scott Hunt: My name is Scott Hunt. I represent the Windsor-Essex Public Service Coalition. We represent the five teacher affiliates, as well as CUPE, OPSEU and the Service Employees International Union. We were formed because we were concerned about the future of education. We are still concerned, so therefore we are still being very involved.

I hope my comments will be brief enough that there will be questions, because I think dialogue is important in this whole process.

I believe there is a conspiracy going on in this province, and the purpose of the conspiracy is to destroy public services in favour of a privatized system. I must compliment the government, however, on the strategies it's been using to achieve its purpose. They certainly have been effective, but it's now time to expose them.

You first portray spending on public services as out of control and commence further cuts, and that's what's happened. In fact, debt-servicing costs have been the real reason for increased spending. John Snobelen keeps fabricating his story by indicating that we are massively overspending on education. In fact, in 1993 we were 29th out of 63 jurisdictions on the continent and now we are 46th. As well, in 1996 Ontario spent $165 above the Canadian average and $277 above the average of the other provinces on education. This level of expenditure is entirely justified given the cost of living in Ontario and the nature of our population.

John Snobelen also says that 80 cents out of every dollar is spent outside the classroom. According to the Ministry of Education's own statistics, in 1994, 50.8% of education dollars were spent on teachers' salaries. I am sure everyone here has heard the expression, "You don't get something for nothing," but John Snobelen says, "By making these reforms we are going to improve the quality at less cost to the taxpayer." While spending a lot does not guarantee good public services, spending too little does guarantee poor public services.

Another insidious tactic is to deny the existence of any power while at the same time to work quietly to shape people's beliefs. The Premier tells us about the need for less government while at the same time John Snobelen paints the school system as broken, unaccountable, bloated with bureaucracy, wasteful of property tax dollars and in need of Queen's Park to step in and rescue the poor property owner. In fact, school boards have had to raise more money from taxes as they are getting less help from the Ontario government.

Bill 104, as part of this tactic, reduces the status of democratically elected officials while the Education Improvement Commission has tremendous power which may not be challenged by the electorate nor by existing boards or the employees who will be directly affected by its decisions. This bill strips away the democratic right of board employees and their spouses to offer themselves as candidates for school boards.

What this bill is about is the government being hell bent on finding money it needs to pay for its tax cut.

What this bill is about is the privatization of education in this province. John Snobelen wants to eliminate school boards and substitute for them parent councils that will have the power to establish a two-tiered system of education based on charter schools.

I am left with a series of questions about this bill:

Are district school boards school boards within the meaning of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act?

Do the new district school boards have to honour existing collective agreements?

Who is going to pay for the $2.8 billion in non-instructional board costs?

Is the government's objective to privatize 36,000 CUPE jobs?

Does John Snobelen want to take us back a century to a time when students had to walk because there were no buses; to a one-room schoolhouse with no principal; where they wore coats all day -- no heat; where they took turns sweeping up -- no custodians?

The people of this province care about democracy. They want elected trustees who are accessible and accountable for what happens to their children in their classrooms. Egerton Ryerson, the founder of public education, said that the education of young people had special status in society and deserved an independent governance and funding structure to ensure that all students have access to a free public education. The government wants to destroy that founding principle. We, however, are committed to the destruction of Bill 104. We are committed to maintaining equality of educational opportunity for all. We are committed to the full-service school which includes all those services that this government wants to outsource.

Mrs McLeod: We know, as you've noted, that the government, through both the Premier and the Minister of Education, has indicated it needs $1 billion in order to fund the tax cut. They've said that publicly.

We also know that last November and December we were expecting the Minister of Finance to make financial statements to the Legislature. They decided not to and the next thing we had was Bill 104 and the announcement that the government was going to take over educational funding. You've noted that you believe that taking over educational funding is a way of making that cut. I'd like to ask you then, if the government's goal is to take more money out of education, what does that do to classrooms and to students in a classroom?

Second, if I may, the government says this is about equitable funding. What does equitable funding mean if at the end of the day there's going to be less money for every student?

Mr Hunt: In answer to your first question, since I am a classroom teacher and I've already felt the cuts in my own classroom because I teach a destreamed grade 9 class -- if everyone will remember back when destreaming was introduced, the concept was that we were going to help those students at the lower end of the academic scale to achieve better in high school by creating a homogeneous classroom in grade 9 where those students would have an opportunity to work with other students, and we were going to create class sizes of approximately 25 so those students would be able to get more individual help from the teacher etc.

Of course, now I'm faced with the fact that all three classes in grade 9 have 33 students in them and there's no homogeneous nature at all in that classroom. Therefore, those students are facing the situation where they just are not going to get help. The weaker students in that classroom are not going to get the same education.

Incidentally, we also don't have enough textbooks, another problem.

In response to the second question -- I'm sorry, Mrs McLeod, what was --

1420

Mrs McLeod: The whole idea that this is going to provide equitable funding, and what is that going to mean.

Mr Hunt: Unfortunately, I don't think it can provide equitable funding, because equitable funding means that you spend money to provide resources for every student in this province, and that's not their agenda. Their agenda is to privatize; their agenda is to take money out and use it for a tax cut. If we were serious about this, about reform -- I mean all of us -- it would have been consultation and discussion with the people in the classroom, but there was none. Therefore we're left with this situation of having to fight back against this campaign, and we will continue.

Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. You mention lack of resources, not enough textbooks. It's widespread across the province. But I'd like to hone in on one quote you made of Mr Paroian, who was appointed by Mr Snobelen to study collective bargaining in the education system. He is widely quoted as having said during those hearings, "If it ain't broke, we'll break it," as you said. How do you interpret that? What does that mean to you as someone who's going to be affected by the recommendations he made? What does it mean for education?

Mr Hunt: I think it means for education that he's going to create a crisis by suggesting that there are problems in the system. He comes out with the statements about our students and therefore suggests that we have to change the system, we've got to make it more accountable. My problem with this whole process is that it's not going to be achieved that way. That is not the way you improve the system, although I know that he also said that improvement is the enemy of change, so therefore obviously he doesn't want to improve.

Mr Wildman: He said you can improve to death.

Mr Hunt: Yes. Therefore improvement is not the goal. What we need is real dialogue, which we could have. I know that takes time, but of course they don't have time because they've got to get that 30% tax cut.

Mr Carroll: Thank you very much. Good to see you again.

Mr Hunt: Good to see you, Jack.

Mr Carroll: We've had several interesting discussions. Glad to see you haven't given up on any of those.

Mr Hunt: I won't.

Mr Carroll: One of the things that you talk about at length in your presentation that you're committed to is maintaining equality of educational opportunity for all students, a very lofty idea and one that we certainly share with you. In keeping with that particular commitment, could you explain to me how the variation in per pupil spending by the four school boards in and around Windsor and Essex county, the variation of $1,000, which is 20%, is in keeping with equality of educational opportunity for all?

Mr Hunt: Jack, in terms of the school boards, I would not know enough about their individual budgets. I know this is what John Snobelen says, that he's going to take it out of the administration and put it in the classroom. The problem is this: In terms of those four school boards, I don't think any one of them is spending exorbitantly outside the classroom. There may be individual differences, I presume based on the programs they're providing. That's why each individual board has different expenses: because of the programs.

Mr Carroll: But you talk about equal opportunity for all, though.

Mr Hunt: Yes. In my system, which is the public secondary system in the county, if we have students who have special needs, then obviously we have to provide those services for those students and therefore we have to spend more money. When we talk about equality of educational opportunity, you have to look at each board individually, and you certainly can't make decisions in Toronto. How can somebody in Toronto make a decision for a student in Essex county?

Mr Carroll: Is there a possibility that there is some inefficiency in some of these boards, that we can take the money and spend it in the classroom? Is there a possibility of that?

Mr Hunt: If we assume, Jack, that that is a given, let's assume that you are right, the problem is this: That isn't what you're about, that isn't what the government's agenda is about. The government's agenda is not about improving the system. The government's agenda is totally different. If you wanted to improve, then you'd sit down with those people and talk to them, rather than just arbitrarily imposing Bill 104 on us.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hunt. We appreciate your coming forward and making your views known to us.

WINDSOR BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: The Windsor Board of Education: John Bentley, Mary Jean Gallagher and Bill Piliotis. Welcome to our committee and thank you for being here.

Mr John Bentley: On behalf of the Board of Education for the City of Windsor, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to share our views with respect to Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act.

We recognize that this bill is the first of several pieces of legislation which will be proposed as the government moves forward with its plans to restructure and redirect education in our province. The governance changes included in Bill 104 are but one piece of the puzzle, as we see it. Ultimately the success or failure of the new system depends on the combination of all the pieces that are yet to come with respect to this educational restructuring: the funding model; final decisions on the rearrangement of fiscal responsibilities among school boards, municipal governments and the province; and any future negotiations processes and revisions. Because the rest of the puzzle is yet unknown, it is particularly difficult to predict the effects of this one piece of legislation and to respond with any degree of precision as to its impact on our community.

At the outset, let me state that the number of school boards in and of itself is not an issue with the Windsor Board of Education. As a board, we have been formally in support of the consideration of amalgamation as a means to more effectively focus resources in support of student learning since March 1991, when our board adopted the following resolution:

"That the Windsor Board of Education investigate the concept of amalgamation with the Essex county public school board and notify the Ministry of Education and the Essex county board of this intention."

Historically, we have also been in support of the need to reduce the number of trustees, to find ways to ensure public representation in our education system is not only effective but also fiscally efficient. In the first year in which boards were allowed to increase the number of trustees, we reduced our board from 15 to 13. We have since reduced that number to 10 in an effort to achieve greater efficiencies in governance, as we have with every other area of our board's operations. We do, however, have some concerns regarding the adequacy of this Bill 104's proposal that as few as five trustees represent some boards of education in our province. Certainly numbers are important, and the critical number has to be somewhat more than what I think is being suggested in the legislation to date.

This reduced level of local representation appears to be part of an overall plan to move funding of our education system away from local sources and decision-making to the provincial centre. Our board is greatly concerned with the potential implications of this on our community. At issue here is the ability of a more centralized system to consider and respond to the differences in local needs for critical services, services which not only determine the quality of life in a community but also services which directly impact upon our ability to build a competitive and healthy local economy.

The city of Windsor differs a great deal from the county. As a city, we experience double the amount of immigration numbers as our neighbours. Studies have indicated that we have three times the proportion of population living in poverty than our surrounding area. In this area we exceed the province by 50%. We have a higher proportion of mothers with lower reading levels. The recognition of our unusually high incidence of low-birth-weight babies has led our provincial government to fund special programs like the Sandwich Community Health Centre in our city.

Almost one third of our elementary schools are designated "compensatory," meaning the combination of families on social assistance, lower-income neighbourhoods, single-parent families and lower reading levels of students is significant enough to warrant special staffing and budget provisions. Finally, our proximity to a major American city with its many inner-city problems creates a significant spillover effect. Our community experiences more urban problems than its own population would normally predict. Our economy for decades has followed a boom and bust cycle. All of these factors create very special educational needs, different from most other communities in this province.

For example, our community demands and needs junior kindergarten in all of our schools. We have an expanded arts magnet program which is designed to provide opportunities for artistically talented young people who may not have had the experiences of private arts instruction. An extended and heavily subscribed range of special education services is provided in our system. We have an expanded adult and continuing education program and a higher demand for specific work preparation and career training programs, such as our manufacturing technology apprenticeship program and hospitality services and chef training programs.

These programs were not determined by the whims of elected officials. These programs were articulated by the community at large, and what they demanded we provide our students. As a board, we responded to that articulation by making sure in our budget deliberations that we were able to allocate sufficient funds to maintain these programs and to continue them to date.

The program needs, as determined by the community, have formed the basic premise for our boards's budget deliberations over the past few years. We have in fact completed a major restructuring of central administration and services as well as a reduction in the number of our school facilities in order to be able to maintain our programs in these and other critical areas. We have significantly reduced our overall budget in the last two years. This has been accomplished while absorbing the costs of new provincial initiatives, including pay equity, changes in workers' compensation, class-size changes as it relates to the primary division, and the costly impact of the reduced enrolment and a reduced assessment base occasioned by the extension of funding to separate schools.

1430

The age and experience levels of our secondary teaching staff is still among the highest in the province, a significant salary cost which is not currently accommodated in any special grants that we receive. Our board has functioned well in its budget and planning decisions, very carefully balancing the educational needs of our community with taxpayer willingness to financially support those needs.

Bill 104 represents the beginning of an increased distance or separation between those who deliver the programs and services and those who will decide how those programs and services are funded. On behalf of our community this is a very grave concern. In fact, it is the opposite of disentanglement, the notion that those whose interest is in the service should pay for it. We are seeking some assurance that local needs will continue to be adequately met in Ontario's new education system, and by needs being met we are specifically referring to adequate funding to provide for all the programs that our community deems necessary for our students.

On behalf of our board, I wish to state that our commitment, within the scope of Bill 104, is to work to make our amalgamation with the Essex County Board of Education a successful change for our community. Our goal is to use this time of change to create a new board of education in Windsor-Essex which will combine the best practices from both boards with other best practices and approaches in order to continue to provide high-quality educational services to our students and citizens.

We intend specifically to build upon our board's growing record of partnerships and service initiatives. This record of partnerships includes the following:

We're making our newest school, Brock, a partnership endeavour among a school, a library, a police station and a child care community centre. In one of our schools we have located a community health centre. We have entered into successful agreements with our board, the ministry and our coterminous board, which has resulted in school transfers which have benefited all citizens in this community. We are currently in joint purchasing ventures with the city, the university, St Clair College and other area school boards, and we are currently negotiating a joint transportation policy with the Windsor separate school board. Hopefully that will be on stream later this year.

In whatever form the district boards of education take, and specifically in the workings of the Education Improvement Commission as proposed in this bill, we would seek some processes which will continue to support the ability of boards to take advantage of existing savings from shared-service initiatives between coterminous boards and other agencies, as well as processes which would provide ongoing incentives for new and more effective sharing arrangements.

With respect to the Education Improvement Commission, we do have certain concerns. We believe that the financial control provisions in that bill are so detailed as to run the risk of becoming non-viable. To expect boards to provide the number of reports required and the level of detail involved would suggest the commission is expected to micromanage the province and certainly represents a considerable workload for local boards. We believe this area of the bill should provide the Education Improvement Commission with the flexibility to ask for these reports, but to expect this volume of tracking to be done in every board every month may well present an obstacle to successful merger planning.

In addition, as elected trustees responsible to our ratepayers, we wish to express our concerns regarding the authority and the lack of accountability to the taxpayers of the commission members. Education was the very first local responsibility given to communities in Ontario in the Assessment Act of 1793 and later pieces of legislation.

I wish to comment as well on two other areas in the Education Improvement Commission's responsibility within Bill 104: first, the role of school advisory councils, and second, the outsourcing of services.

With regard to the role of school advisory councils, we wish this committee to know that we strongly support the need for increased parental involvement in our schools. Research is clear that one of the strongest factors affecting a student's success in school is the support and involvement of their parents.

Parental involvement in governance, however, is only one component of this. In our board, school advisory councils have successfully been launched in all our schools. A committee of parents and principals work together to plan training and information sessions for our school advisory council chairs and principals.

At the moment there are a number of mixed messages being sent regarding the role of school advisory councils and also the role of trustees. These messages about governance must be clarified if Ontario's education system is going to maintain consistency across the province.

The successful functioning of our schools will not be enhanced if school councils and trustees do not have a clear understanding of their respective roles. If trustees are to have an ability to concentrate on their role and objectives of being guardians of public education, they must continue to have real authority to make decisions which matter, decisions about programs and resources which affect the factors contributing to successful student learning. Many of these decisions cannot appropriately or consistently be made on a school-by-school basis.

We also wish to express some concerns about the issue of outsourcing of educational services. Our staff, in almost every level and role, act as guardians for our children. We expect them to be alert to strangers in our buildings and to individual students' needs, sometimes in dealing with even their own family circumstances. On occasion, students will share this information with a custodian or a support staff person more readily than with a teacher.

We have very deep concerns that any outsourcing processes may attend to the financial bottom line at the expense of the important, consistent extra roles and access to children many of our staff currently have. Decisions about services in our schools are very different from the decisions municipalities normally make about the provision of other community services.

Finally, one of the most glaring omissions in this bill is any reference to the principles which will guide the human resources implications of these changes. Our board believes strongly that our staff should be involved in the identification of processes to handle any staff restructuring.

In addition, it is important that the bill include commitment to making these changes in a fair and humane manner, a manner which recognizes the excellence and caring of our many staff who currently dedicate their life and work to our students. Presently, there is considerable anxiety among staff of boards of education because they do not know what their status is going to be come January 1, 1998.

Currently, as I understand it, Bill 103 provides for the transfer of staff from the existing municipalities to the new entity. We believe strongly that a similar provision should be incorporated in Bill 104 to formally recognize the transfer of employees of the existing school boards to the new district board.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for your kind attention, and while we support in general the governance intentions of this bill as they relate to Windsor and Essex counties, we do have serious reservations about the processes implied and what we expect will be happening in the very near future.

The Chair: Chairman Bentley, thank you very much, along with your colleagues, for being here. You've used up all your time. We thank you for your very thoughtful presentation.

1440

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1348

The Chair: CUPE Local 1348: Rose Gunnell. Thank you very much for being here. Welcome to our committee.

Mrs Rose Gunnell: Good afternoon. My name is Rose Gunnell. I'm a wife, a mother of three teenage sons, and a taxpayer. I'm president of CUPE Local 1348, the Essex County Board of Education, and an area representative to CUPE's Ontario educational institutes coordinating committee, and I'm concerned. This presentation is on behalf of all CUPE educational workers, who are also taxpayers and concerned.

In July 1995 Mr Snobelen publicly stated his intention to "invent a crisis" in Ontario's education system, a crisis that would justify the kind of radical reforms his government wanted to make. Not surprisingly, our schools have come under a constant barrage of criticism ever since. The charges, each one disputable: Education spending is out of control; too much money is being spent outside the classroom; our students are graduating without a good education; teachers are overpaid and have too much control over education.

If Bill 104 is passed, the government will begin to exert a new control over Ontario's education system, starting with the establishment of the undemocratic Education Improvement Commission.

Bill 104 is the government's first big step down the road of privatizing Ontario's schools. First, non-instructional services will be outsourced. Next, no doubt, will come the handing over of construction and maintenance of schools to the private sector, then charter schools, and finally, privatization of curriculum and even teaching, as exists south of the border.

CUPE does not believe that our public education system is broken. At least it is not broken yet. It will be if this government gets its way. In fact, we wonder if that might just be the agenda: break the system, then use the public dissatisfaction that is created to build public support for a private system.

This presentation will focus on the issues in Bill 104 that most directly touch the lives of the 1,000 CUPE workers who work in the Windsor, Essex county and Kent county education systems.

Who are the non-instructional workers in the education system? CUPE members work in all occupations in the education sector. CUPE members are educational assistants, caretakers, maintenance and tradespeople, clerical workers, audiovisual counsellors, clerks, accounting personnel, computer programmers, technicians, library technicians and purchasing officers.

All of these occupations are an important part of the quality of the education delivered in the classroom, yet school support workers tend to receive a very modest rate of pay for the important work we do. The average wage is $24,000 per year.

The school caretaker is the first person in the school in the morning and last one out at night. They keep the school clean and safe. They change fluorescent lights and ballasts, check the water supply and fix flush valves; fix broken desks and equipment to save the school money; paint, wash furniture, clean walls, wash and wax floors, clean carpets and windows; shovel sidewalks and playground areas to make them safe for everyone; meet the needs of community groups; know who's in the school at night; know and look after the students, whether it is the lost mitten of a grade 1 student or the lost locker key of a grade 12.

The school secretary is the link between the school and the rest of the world. He or she deals with children, parents, community, school staff, board staff and outside companies; is the school communications centre; helps sick children; keeps track of report cards and other records in a professional and confidential manner; calls home when a student doesn't show up to make sure everything is okay.

The educational assistant is not a teacher but is in the classroom with specialized skills. They have programming and training on specialized computer programs; sign language, Braille, PIC symbols, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. They take yard duty; administer medication; modify and deliver programs; and integrate.

Bill 104 is an attack on the jobs in our communities. The Education Improvement Commission will be mandated to recommend to the government how to, not whether to, outsource all non-instructional services in our systems.

It would appear that the privatization of decent jobs is based on the government's constant contention that too much money is being spent outside the classroom on services like caretaking, maintenance and school administrative services. Are the many services available in today's system worth the extra costs? Of course they are.

We have a world-class education system, as was attested to when the Durham Board of Education and Sinclair Secondary School were awarded the prestigious Bertelsmann prize for excellence in education last fall. These are not the only world-class boards of education in our province. Our systems are world class because they are public and have developed good processes of governance and accountability.

If the government is not suggesting we can do without these important services in our schools, what they must be saying is that employees should just do these jobs for lower wages and worse working conditions. This is an unacceptable job strategy by everyone's standards.

The average CUPE school board worker supports a family on less than $24,000 a year. CUPE members believe our education system, and their jobs, are worth defending.

Bill 104 is an attack on the services. What about the quality of non-instructional services? Does it matter if a private company cleans the school, maintains and repairs the plumbing and the furnace, handles student reports, staffs the school and board offices, integrates students, modifies their programs, interprets for the blind or deaf? In CUPE's experience, it very much does.

Our students deserve the best possible environment in which to learn. In fact, studies have shown that students do better in clean, comfortable learning environments. They also deserve reliable, well-trained and well-treated staff in their schools.

CUPE's experience with privatization in the education, health care and municipal sectors shows that service invariably suffers. Buildings are not as clean. Lower-paid and insecure staff have a higher turnover. Sometimes contractors go out of business, leaving the public to pick up the tab. Ironically, it can often cost more, not less, to contract out public services. Time and again, we have seen that privatization is done only for ideological reasons, not because it provides better service and not because it costs less.

Bill 104 is an attack on our communities. When the Harris government attacks jobs, it attacks communities too. Yes, there will be private sector jobs in the schools if private companies take over non-instructional services. But the need to make a profit will dictate that there will be fewer jobs provided. They will pay less and they will not provide the benefits and fair working conditions that inspire loyalty and consistency in staff.

Taking money out of the pockets of workers takes money out of local economies around the province. Consumer confidence is already low. If Bill 104 is passed, landlords will find usually reliable tenants suddenly not able to pay their rent. Banks will have former school board employees defaulting on mortgages and local retailers will see business fall.

Such an economic strategy is simply unacceptable, especially in a province where the real unemployment rate of November 1996 -- it was CUPE research that included discouraged workers -- stands at 14.2%.

Privatization will not only take money out of local economies. Currently, large American-based companies are in the best position to profit from the sudden and massive privatization of non-instructional services in our schools. Contracts with these companies will siphon taxpayers' money out of the local economy, the region and even the country.

Bill 104 is an attack on democratic institutions. CUPE's 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 the elected politicians at both the provincial and local levels.

The North American free trade agreement, NAFTA, and current negotiations on the agreement on internal trade, AIT, also present serious considerations that must be taken into account. Provisions in NAFTA make it virtually impossible for services that have been privatized to be taken back into the public service, whether or not privatization works out. Once the AIT is expanded to include the local government sectors, there is reason to believe that these provisions will also apply to school boards. If total privatization of non-instructional services were not to work out, therefore boards could only take this work back in-house if the companies involved were financially compensated for all lost business now and in the future. Obviously, the cost of taking the work back into the public sector would be prohibitive.

When there are cuts, it's not the workers who are responsible. It's not the parents who are responsible. They pay their taxes. It's elected politicians who promised not to cut education. Our children are not responsible for cutbacks, yet they seem to be the ones who are going to suffer.

Will Bill 104 "improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system" as it promises? No, nor is that the government's obvious intent. Bill 104 is designed to start privatizing large portions of the education system, while giving the provincial government the control it needs to continue on that path, whether through charter school legislation or the sale of schools to the private sector.

1450

CUPE members will not stand by while their jobs are being eliminated. They will fight to maintain the high-quality services they provide and to defend the wellbeing of the communities they live in.

Our recommendations:

Reaffirm the need for the public delivery of education, acknowledging that a public system is more efficient and more equitable.

Defeat Bill 104 and engage in true consultation with stakeholders.

If meaningful consultation with stakeholders still results in school board amalgamations, establish a process that protects jobs. Put fair workforce adjustment programs in place, and protect the public delivery of all aspects of the system.

Return accountability to the hands of elected representatives -- the MPPs and trustees -- not the unelected and unaccountable Education Improvement Commission and education improvement committees.

Ensure that elected boards of education are stronger, not weaker; more accountable, not less accountable.

Invest more, not less, in our public education system.

In conclusion -- and maybe this will clear up your explanation, in what I perceive as spending in the classroom. As I mentioned at the beginning, I am a taxpayer and parent, a parent of a learning-disabled, visually impaired son with asthma. Jon will be 20 next week. Fifteen years ago, you could say I put Jon on a bike and sent him on his way to ride through his education. His wheel started to turn and at first it turned slowly, but then he had a special education teacher who helped him turn that wheel. He had many special education teachers.

Along the way the caretaker provided him with a clean, secure and safe environment to learn -- more than one caretaker. He had efficient, calm, cool, dependable secretaries who on numerous occasions had to call mom -- more than one secretary and clerical support staff. Jon also had the professional, qualified services of an educational assistant who was not only comforting during the difficult times but firm and invaluable in the services they gave Jon in assisting with his daily routines, such as ensuring large print and organizing -- and there was more than one educational assistant that touched his learning life.

You see, he went to five schools throughout his education, not because we moved but because he went to the schools that could provide him the best education possible.

But Jon's bike had two wheels, and along the way he had many principals, vice-principals, counsellors, speech teachers. All would become spokes to his wheels to keep them turning smoothly. He never fell off, he had all his spokes, and his bike was never broken. How can you strip away the essential services of clerical, caretaker and educational assistants, to name a few? Spending educational dollars was in the classroom, not outside the classroom. That is where Jon was, in the classroom, and he needed every service to be a part of his education and the spokes of his wheels.

The next learning-disabled student won't have the wheels. He won't be a 20-year-old attending college, reading and confident in himself if you pass Bill 104. Think about that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Gunnell. You've used up all your time, very effectively I might say. I thank you on behalf of the committee.

Mr Wildman?

Mr Wildman: Chair, the parliamentary assistant isn't here. I want to table a document I've just received which is on Ministry of Education and Training letterhead. It is directed to all four directors of education in the Windsor-Essex area, both public boards and both separate boards, from Bill Jock, who I understand is the regional supervisor of the Ministry of Education and Training in the Windsor office. I'll read the first page, the covering page, into the record and then I'd like to have an explanation.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Wildman. Is this something that you want the parliamentary assistant to respond to?

Mr Wildman: I want the whole committee to be aware of this because it affects directly what we're doing here.

The Chair: Could we have it copied and then have it --

Mr Wildman: Certainly, after I read it into the record.

Directed to the directors of education:

"Attached you will find the schedule for Dave Cooke and Ann Vanstone for April 9 in Windsor at 430 Ouellette, Howard Johnson's Plaza, 254-3726.

"The purpose of the meeting is twofold:

"1. To obtain information about what stage boards are at in the implementation process -- how far along are they?

"2. To ascertain and clarify concerns and issues which have arisen and/or are likely to emerge as the process continues."

That's in print, and attached is a schedule of meetings with all the players.

Then in handwriting, which I assume to be Mr Jock's -- it's his signature -- it says:

"Please forward the names of the representatives who will attend the meetings described on the attached page. The deadline for this information is March 26th." Two days from now. The deadline for this information is March 26. "Please fax this information directly to Anne Evanoff at (519) 667-9769 (fax no). Attendance will be confirmed with the boards by Anne via a chart containing representatives' names and meeting times through a return fax to you." Signed Bill Jock.

The deadline here is March 26. We are just having hearings on this legislation. The hearings end tomorrow and then we go to clause-by-clause on March 26, yet we have a memo from the Ministry of Education and Training which is written in a way to just assume that this legislation is passed as is and the implementation has already started.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. I'll ask for that to be copied and distributed. I propose that we defer the discussion to just before our break, when Mr Skarica will be here. Is that acceptable to you?

Mr Wildman: That's acceptable. I want to know what this process is about. If we're really here to hear what people have to say about school board amalgamations and to amend the bill in a way that respects what they've had to say, we shouldn't be sending out memos now before the process is even complete.

The Chair: We'll deal with this just before our break.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION SUPPORT STAFF BARGAINING UNITS, DISTRICT 1, WINDSOR

The Chair: The support staff bargaining units of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. Thank you very much, Mrs Sahli-Scott, for being here. Welcome to our committee.

Mrs Sandra Sahli-Scott: Thank you. As you can see, I've brought Patricia Pajot with us. She's a support worker for the hearing-impaired in the Windsor board and she will sign this presentation.

On behalf of the support staff bargaining units of the Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers' Federation, District 1, Windsor, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share our views on Bill 104.

The support staff bargaining units include two bargaining units that are employees of the Windsor Board of Education. One unit is office, clerical and technical employees who work in a variety of positions in our elementary, secondary and adult education schools, in our administration building and in our plant department. The other unit is educational associates who are employed to work in a number of special programs in our elementary and secondary schools. This group includes child and youth workers, developmental service workers, early childhood educators, support workers for the hearing-impaired and non-teaching aides for special needs students.

The two bargaining units represent over 250 very dedicated and qualified employees of the Windsor board who every day contribute to the quality education system provided to our students.

1500

I am a full-time child and youth worker who, in a volunteer capacity, has the honour to represent these two bargaining units as their vice-president and chief negotiator. I am deeply concerned with the attack this government has made on education. I have watched as this government has repeatedly undervalued the work and services provided by educational support staff in Ontario. I have watched my members become demoralized by this government's suggestions that their jobs can be easily outsourced because they are non-essential services. I am appalled at how the government is toying with the job security and future of these fine employees.

I have come here today with what I believe are concrete suggestions on how Bill 104 can be amended to change all this. To date, the educational workers I represent believe that this government has never considered or attempted to address the impact these changes will have on their working lives.

It is essential that the results of these hearings on Bill 104 demonstrate a willingness on the government's part to listen to the concerns of the educational community by making the necessary amendments to this bill. If this is not done, the students and our school communities of Ontario will ultimately be the big losers.

It is essential that the public know that Bill 104 will do more than identify new boundaries for school boards. It will also lead to the complete reorganization of educational governance and finance in Ontario.

It is important that the government is honest with the public and that the public understands that amalgamation is really only one issue addressed in Bill 104. It would appear that the main thrust of this bill is the fundamental takeover of education finance and governance by this government.

I would like to express our concerns and recommendations on three specific areas in Bill 104: the restructuring of school boards and the impact it will have on employee groups, the powers legislated to the Education Improvement Commission, or EIC, and the mandate given to this commission to research and make recommendations on the outsourcing of non-essential services in education.

It is important to compare the difference in approach taken by the former Tory government in 1968, when school boards were last amalgamated with the approach of this government today. In the former case the government included in its legislation the details of how school boards would be merged, including the distribution of assets and liabilities and the protection of school board employees, their existing collective agreements and their bargaining rights.

This government has not provided any details and has shown no forethought or concern for these matters. As a result, the introduction of Bill 104 leaves us with more questions than answers. This has resulted in an underlying fear among those in education that the present government has a hidden agenda to privatize education and break those organizations that represent educational workers.

Bill 104 says that the newly announced EIC's actions must conform with the Labour Relations Act and the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. It is important that this guarantee remain in Bill 104 and that it be strengthened with details on how the process of school board restructuring will be accomplished for employee groups.

OSSTF recommends that the following principles be placed within the framework of Bill 104 to ensure that the rights of employees are protected and guaranteed after board restructuring. Detailed protections for school board employees must be included based on the following principles:

That there be full and timely disclosure of all relevant information by government and school boards to employee bargaining units;

That there be an active role for bargaining units equal to that of school boards in all discussions with respect to employment or other matters related to school board restructuring;

That current employees be guaranteed job protection; that there be full recognition of seniority; that employees be entitled to the form of contract to which they would have been entitled if there had been no school board restructuring;

That there be full recognition of category placement, qualifications and experience; that there be full recognition of benefits, including sick leave gratuities and service gratuities;

That there be protection regarding maximum distance for involuntary transfer;

That the previous collective agreements remain in place until a new collective agreement is negotiated; and

That if the parties fail to reach a settlement, the first collective agreement arbitration identical to that available under the Ontario Labour Relations Act be established.

Bill 104 and the regulations accompanying it must contain provisions that reflect the procedures of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and the Canadian Labour Congress to solve jurisdictional disputes that may arise among employee groups.

Bill 104 and the regulations accompanying it must contain the following guaranteed protections:

The right to an OLRA-supervised vote to decide which union shall represent similar bargaining units currently employed by different employers;

That all collective agreements remain in place until a new collective agreement is negotiated between the new employer and the new bargaining unit;

That employees are protected from the loss of any rights; and

That successor rights are provided for all OLRA bargaining units.

I have included more detailed descriptions of these protections in my written submission.

Our two major concerns with the EIC are the extreme powers this commission has been given and its mandate to investigate the outsourcing of non-essential services in education. What is most alarming to us is that the decisions of the EIC are final and are not subject to review in court. The commission as it presently exists in Bill 104 is an affront to democracy, and if the legislation remains as written, we fear the commission would lead to the undermining of quality education in Ontario for years to come.

The concept that this commission should have powers that supersede those of democratically elected representatives and that such a commission should be above the rule of law and of due process of law is repugnant to us as citizens of this province. Therefore sections 344 and 346, which give the EIC these extraordinary powers, must be removed from Bill 104.

The suggestion that some services are non-essential to education and that the positions could be outsourced has been devastating to the dedicated educational workers I represent. These employees have been loyal to the board and dedicated to the welfare of students for years. It is appalling that this government would resort to minimizing their role in education in an effort to make cuts. Such cuts and the privatization of these services can only result in an inferior educational system.

For a moment, let's apply the government's proposal to save money by cutting the supports to education to a construction site project. A builder needs to cut costs but needs to do it in a way not readily noticeable to the public. He decides to save money by using fewer supports for the building, using inferior materials and employing less qualified workers. Initially the appearance of the building will look the same to the public. However, over time, safety and quality problems will surface and increase, and the public will soon see that saving money on supports can have a devastating effect in the long term. The same will hold true if this government is allowed to go forward with their plan to outsource what they are referring to as non-essential services of the education system.

OSSTF developed a full-service school model that they believe is essential to meet the needs of today's students from junior kindergarten to adult education. I am proud to say that the Windsor Board of Education is an excellent example of this model in action. This model includes an educational staff comprising teachers, instructors, administrators, educational associates, technicians, secretaries, custodians and professional student support services. To be effective, this school team works together with parents and students to meet the needs of every student. The government's plan to privatize or outsource part of this team jeopardizes the working relationships and consistency that promote positive physical learning and emotional development in all our students.

The school and administrative secretaries and technical staff I represent are responsible for the smooth running of our board and school offices. Their roles are significant in a school environment and they must be performed by consistent, qualified staff members who are part of the school team and who are knowledgeable about the school community. Secretaries facilitate communication among administration, staff, students, parents, volunteers and members of the community. Secretaries play a vital role in the area of the safety and wellbeing of students by monitoring attendance and parental and custodial issues.

1510

Our technical members provide invaluable services in audio-visual, library and computer programming. They are responsible for supporting a variety of services for staff and students. It is essential that they remain part of the school team to ensure the appropriate use of today's technology. Their services are vital.

Educational associates are integral members of the school team both at the elementary and secondary levels. In conjunction with the classroom teacher and school administration, they plan and implement special programs for our kindergarten and special needs students. These programs address a variety of medical, emotional, physical and intellectual needs that must be met if these students are going to have the opportunity to experience success.

Staff members in these positions must be consistent, qualified personnel. They assist the students with acquiring social and personal management skills, acquiring an appropriate level of independence and developing the habits to achieve their best academic performance. Removal of these staff members from the school team or replacing this staff with less qualified employees will jeopardize the integration and programming for our younger and special needs students.

OSSTF's full-service model provides a school and educational environment that is vital to the learning and working of all our students. Our system's effectiveness in addressing the needs of the whole child is at stake if educational support staff are privatized or outsourced. Please don't be fooled into believing that outsourcing support services will not affect the delivery of programming in our classrooms and in our schools. We believe that if the government's plan of outsourcing is implemented, it will have a great negative impact on the safety and learning environments of all our students and our staff.

Therefore this government must develop a realistic definition for classroom services. In addition to the teacher and supplies, all those support services that make student achievement possible must be included in the definition for funding purposes and seen as key components of the educational system. Any other definition of classroom and educational funding would be fraudulent and a betrayal to every student in Ontario.

The definition of classroom services for funding purposes in Bill 104 must include principals; vice-principals; guidance teachers; psychologists; social workers; speech and language professionals; educational associates; office, clerical and technical workers; and custodial and maintenance staff. The government should be using the term "school services" or "educational services" for funding purposes to ensure that the model represents the reality that a quality education includes all services in the school and in its supporting administration buildings.

In order to protect the safety and welfare of Ontario students, we would recommend that section 335(3)(f) of Bill 104 be deleted. We strongly believe that the Education Improvement Commission should not be directed 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."

In closing, the students of Ontario would be better served if this government rededicated itself to making these changes in consultation with the educational community, slowing the process down to ensure adequate time for consultation and implementation, and changing the legislation to ensure that local boards continue to have the power to be effective advocates for the students in their communities. If this is not done, we fear the government will create conditions that will lead to the privatization of public education in Ontario, and at the very least, lead to an educational system that is not responsive to the specific needs of its community.

The revisions to Bill 104 must assure the public that this government is truly committed to quality education for all students in Ontario. The fears must be put to rest, and this government must prove that it does not have a hidden agenda to privatize education in Ontario and to produce an American-style education system which fosters affluent suburb education versus desperate inner-core-city-style education.

Thank you for the opportunity and your attention to our submission today.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Sahli-Scott. You've used up all of your time, and we are grateful for your appearance. Thank you too for your co-presenter.

Mr Wildman: Madam Chair, now that the document has been circulated and the parliamentary assistant is back, could we have an explanation of why the ministry is sending out memos asking for names of people, with a deadline of March 26, when the legislation cannot possibly be passed, even with this government's tight time frame, at that point? Why is it that the government and the ministry are acting as if the implementation has already begun and the so-called Education Improvement Commission is already in operation?

The Chair: Mr Wildman, I thought we had agreed to defer this matter to just before the break.

Mr Wildman: When is the break?

The Chair: In about half an hour, just so we can give the presenters an opportunity.

Mr Wildman: Okay. I want the presenters to know that what they're saying here may have little relevance to what the government is actually doing.

The Chair: May I call upon the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Windsor, Peter Guthrie.

Mr Skarica: Perhaps I should deal with it now.

The Chair: I think we're going to listen to Mr Guthrie.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 1

Mr Peter Guthrie: My name is Peter Guthrie. I am the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, OSSTF, District 1, here in Windsor. I am representing the public secondary school teachers this afternoon, as well as the students that they teach. I'd like to thank you first for the opportunity, for allowing the secondary school teachers to express their views on the Fewer School Boards Act.

I'm here today because I'm deeply concerned about the impending legislation that is known as the Fewer School Boards Act, or Bill 104. I should make it clear that we support administrative change. We support a cost-effective educational system. We support reasonable and rational plans to improve the quality of instruction and learning in this province and in this community. However, from our perspective, this legislation will not achieve these objectives, and our analysis indicates that these are not innocent changes that are being proposed, as the legislative title indicates. There appear to be no concrete plans whereby the objectives could realistically be attainable without serious negative disruption to the ratepayers, to the curriculum, to the students, to the teachers, and to the educational workers in general.

We believe that Bill 104, if adopted in its current form, will drastically reduce the educational opportunities for our students because it paves the way for dramatically reduced funding that has been the hallmark of Mr Snobelen's tenure as Minister of Education and Training. Programs that have been central to our philosophy of universal education in which every student is given the opportunity to develop to his or her maximum potential will be lost.

The Windsor board has for many years developed specialized programs in order to address the diverse needs of students in this community. Mentally and physically disadvantaged students are provided with educational opportunities in the community living program at Walkerville Secondary School. Students interested in developing their skills and aptitudes in theatre, visual arts, music or dancing have opportunities to study in these areas at the Windsor Centre for the Creative Arts, a program designed to supplement the regular secondary school program for approximately 140 students. Students with learning disabilities are assisted in their studies by special education teachers known as learning support teachers.

Students afflicted with dyslexia, hyperactivity, or other forms of learning disabilities benefit from instruction in small groups or on an individual basis. Reduced funding has already minimized the effectiveness of this essential service in every secondary school in Windsor.

Approximately 400 students with special needs are provided vocational training that teaches them entry-level employment skills at Century Secondary School. More severely disadvantaged students are taught in the adapted basic program, also located at Century. A French immersion program has developed at Herman Secondary School for students wishing to receive French-language instruction. Ontario youth apprenticeship programs have grown in auto mechanics, sheet metal and fabrication, and the culinary arts. In these programs, students graduate with a secondary school diploma and journeymen's papers in their desired trade. Many of these students move directly into the world of employment upon graduation.

Intellectually gifted students have the opportunity to study in the enriched program at Massey Secondary School, where studies are provided in a more challenging mode that is essential for this unique group of students as they aspire to achieve their academic potential.

These are programs whose value cannot be measured by a test score. These programs enrich students' lives. They make learning meaningful and enjoyable. They make education successful. In spite of the apparent need of these programs in this community, their future appears to be in jeopardy if Bill 104 is adopted. What is needed is more, not less, funding, but this principle runs contrary to the stated objective of the Ministry of Education and Training, which aims to further reduce funding by $1 billion. The existence of these programs is not mutually compatible with this bill. We fear for their future.

As citizens, as taxpayers, as meaningful members of this community, of this province and of this country, we are astonished at the disregard of our fundamental rights to which we are entitled as members of a modern democratic society. There cannot be any place in this province for the arbitrary powers which are being granted to the Education Improvement Commission. Denying judicial review or the appeal of decisions made by a government commission is unprecedented and has no place in any democracy. It is unthinkable that the powers of a government-appointed commission could supersede those of democratically elected trustees and that such a commission would be above the rule of law. The right of representation by duly elected representatives is the cornerstone of a democracy. What is the justification in denying rights to local parents, taxpayers, students and elected trustees? This is a blatant affront and disregard of democratic principles.

1520

It would be a major understatement to say that there are not grave concerns regarding the role of school councils. It is widely understood that the Education Improvement Commission will make recommendations to strengthen the powers of school councils and to increase parental involvement in education governance. While we do not object to this in principle, in reality the effectiveness of school councils varies from school to school. In most of the secondary schools in Windsor, school councils encompass small groups of parents whose involvement, though admirable, is spirited by their son's or daughter's enrolment at a given school. Their knowledge of the school system, curriculum, school policies and administration is, at the very best, limited.

From our experience, most parents do not want or aspire to an expanded role that infringes on some of the duties of current trustees whom they elect. Furthermore, the continuity of expertise by parents who are members of a school council would be lost when their child ceases to be enrolled in the school system. The practice of trial and error would begin again, further destabilizing educational governance. Parents generally do not have the vision of the expanded role which the government desires.

Locally, many of our school councils are small in size, which we interpret to be an indication of their satisfaction with the manner in which their schools currently are being administered. It is our opinion that volunteer parent councils cannot adequately take the place of duly elected and accountable trustees. Although some parents want and demand a say in how our schools function, generally they have neither the time nor resources to manage a portion of a school system. They have traditionally relied upon local trustees who are accountable to them and who not only know the needs of the community but are also readily accessible and accountable to all the voters. To my knowledge, parent councils have never been able to provide the expertise which is needed in the governance of schools, so unless Windsor is an abberation, it is highly unlikely they will be effective here.

Furthermore, this legislation not only reduces the responsibility and accountability of locally elected trustees, it transfers fiscal responsibility from the local level into the hands of the province through the proposed pooling of funds. Local autonomy in the decision-making process will be lost. It is also our concern that the potential outsourcing of education service jobs to the lowest tender will cause much labour unrest in this community. This will further destabilize an already unstable educational environment and will further erode confidence in public education.

Moreover, this legislation differs dramatically from all previous amalgamations of school boards that have taken place over the last several decades. For example, in the amalgamation of boards in 1969, a previous Conservative government had guaranteed employees' rights of succession and seniority. However, when asked about his government's plans for the current employees of a school board, Mr. Snobelen was and continues to be vague and evasive in his answers. It would appear that there is a lack of commitment and concern for the welfare of current educational employees by this government. Once again, this evasiveness has created a great deal of insecurity among those employed in education. As a consequence, a negative impact is created, as opposed to a positive atmosphere which is so necessary for effective instruction and learning to take place.

Amalgamation of school boards is not new to this province. The process that is outlined in Bill 104, however, is very unique in that it outlines its objectives but lacks comprehensive plans for implementation. Previous governments embarked on this initiative through carefully planned legislation that defined guarantees to employees and guided the process through successful implementation. Bill 104 demonstrates an insensitivity to the needs of students, teachers and educational workers in general. It has created an aura of suspicion of government for the citizens of this province.

In our view, all of this uncertainty which surrounds this legislation has already negatively impacted on the instruction of our students and it has little prospect of achieving the lofty objectives to which it ascribes. While the rest of the world, including our North American neighbours to the south -- but in Windsor they're to the north -- are investing in education to achieve the standards of Ontario schools, it's ironic that we're reducing our commitment to our students, who represent the future of this province.

Our recommendation is simple: consult, rethink, replan and proceed with caution. The proposed changes through Bill 104 are insidious and undemocratic. To proceed with these plans will damage our system of education for decades.

Mr Wildman: In light of the document, which I'll show you, that I've tabled with the committee, are you confident that your concerns will be properly taken into account by the government before the implementation of Bill 104?

Mr Guthrie: I have absolutely no confidence in this government's willingness or commitment to students, to education in general and to the employees of education.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'd like to raise the comment you made on pages 4 and 5 that "parents generally do not have the vision of the expanded role which the government desires." Earlier today we had the opportunity to hear from a parents' advisory group who seemed to be most enthusiastic and well-informed and were quite eager to take on responsibility in regard to education. Could you perhaps explain what you mean by "parents generally do not have the vision"?

Mr Guthrie: I can explain from my own experience, having been either a teacher or a secondary school vice-principal in four different schools. In the four different schools that I have been employed in, I have experienced essentially one parent council group that was well-organized, well-informed and willing to participate to the level to which the current expectation seems to be. In most cases parent councils are very small, and it is very difficult in some cases to get parents involved because of the diversity of their own lives and I believe as well due to the satisfaction parents have in the job that teachers in this community are doing and the way in which our schools are being administered.

Mrs McLeod: Along the same line, we've heard representatives of well over 200 parent councils at this point in our committee hearings, and parent councils are saying, by and large, they're anxious to be involved in education in their particular schools. They feel there has to be some training and some support and some resources so they can continue to grow.

The other thing they've said virtually almost unanimously, with one exception this morning, is that they don't want to take the place of school boards. It was unfortunate that the Essex group that made the presentation on the value of school councils didn't get a chance to finish their brief, because they also say school councils should not replace school boards. That's a constant theme we hear. Are you concerned that, by default, school councils may end up replacing school boards because school boards will become unworkable under Bill 104?

Mr Guthrie: I think that is a very realistic possibility and a fear at the same time. I still do not have the confidence at the present time that school councils can adequately do the job that our duly elected trustees do. In the trustees, we have a group of people who have a very serious commitment to their role. They spend many hours in fulfilling that role to serve the students, the administrators of schools and the teachers in the community. I don't perceive that school councils at any time will exist with the level of dedication that exists in our current trustees.

The Chair: Thank you very much on behalf of the committee for the time you took to make your presentation.

1530

OXFORD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCILS

The Chair: The Oxford county school councils: Betty Pittman. Welcome, Ms Pittman. I notice you have a co-presenter. Perhaps you'd introduce her to start.

Mrs Betty Pittman: I will, thank you. You have to think Woodstock now, not Windsor. Thank you for squeezing me in. I know we were late applicants and I appreciate the opportunity to come.

My name is Betty Pittman and I'm here essentially because I gave birth. I am following up on the responsibilities of those births. One was birth by Caesarean and one by adoption, and now I am looking after those two children, who are in the public school system.

I am also the chairperson of the Oliver Stephens Senior Public School Advisory Council, and that is a consequence of volunteering to listen to children read in my child's class several years ago. I'm unelected, unmandated and unchosen, but I am accepted as a spokesperson for a number of the school councils and the parent councils in Oxford county.

This is Janice Rouse. She is also an active member on three levels of school councils where each of her children attend -- elementary, senior public and high school. She is here as a support for me. We're not about to present a polished political statement, but we have promised to present all of the feedback that we were given from the parents.

We have 42 schools, and 14 of them made direct submissions to us. Copies of their actual submissions are with the Chair. Some 15 of them gave positive verbal support to come but felt they were not prepared in the short time to present a brief to you. Some of them were in the midst of electing new members. One group is grieving the death of one of their members in a car accident, and other things just precluded them contributing. Twelve of our schools are represented by Home and School and only two abstained from taking part in any way. Each submission was accepted and all the points and comments were included, although statements were not repeated. Some came from joint council consensus and some from individual council members and the parents they canvassed.

Parents who are a part of this are awake. We are at home and the lights are on, and more of them are coming on fast and furious. At times we say "duh" more than our kids do, when we begin to see the big picture. We see and accept the learning curve that is before us and welcome the challenge of change. Some of us have been asking for this for a long time.

All of this is not in spite of the fact that many of us are the products of an education system that is being maligned today, but because of it. Many of us were around when the government decided to have a public and a separate board and integration of special needs children to their neighbourhood schools, with all the subsequent financial commitments they brought.

The creation now of four school boards and continued integration has its financial demands that we have to adjust to. Funding is funding. Whether it's federal, provincial or municipal taxes, it's all coming out of my pocket. Many of us have long seen and acknowledged the need for change, but our message is: "Slow down. What is the hurry?"

Please take into consideration a slower timetable that doesn't always look at the money issue. You are doing in one year what should probably take three to five. The tactic of pushing through changes with little time or opportunity for input is successful in allowing those in power to bulldoze their views through. However, it is the antithesis of democracy and it shows little respect for the citizens.

One doesn't always need to justify change by trashing the past and the present and deifying the proposed future. Wholesale change is often a misuse of information. An example of this is that shortly our children in grades 3 and 6 will be tested for skills based on curriculum that they have not been taught. The information will be misleading, but the confidence and the integrity of the children -- and I'm thinking of my daughter in particular -- will be eroded. If you want to test the curriculum of a grade 3 student, test the grade 4. If you want to test the curriculum of the grade 6, then go to the grade 7 student. Don't pistol-whip us one day, creating a fear, and then offer us a bodyguard the next to calm the fear you've created.

Be specific in your information; be clear and honest and give facts. Many of us don't have enough factual information to make informed, educated decisions and give opinions. Have a strategy in place and engage in full consultation. An environment of mistrust and fear for our kids' education future is a breeding ground for charter schools, a two-tier education system for the élite and well-off. Our communities and the sense of community will be swallowed up. Perhaps you're aware of that.

The education community in Oxford has and is constantly changing to reflect the world around it. The integration of exceptional children; innovative approaches to curriculum; tougher policies on school violence; supportive education; counselling in groups to students who are victims of violence in their homes and with their peers; support and assistance to parents in their new roles on the advisory councils; seeking community input on ways to improve school life; introduction and constant updating of technology; delayed school opening and twinning of schools are just some of the practical examples in our county that we are experiencing. With the new funding potential, we look forward to this and more.

I want you to hear some of the feelings that were written in many of the submissions from parents who were tuned in to the political rhetoric: fear, anxiety, anger, being overwhelmed, feeling betrayed, feeling concerned, horrified, rushed, left in the dark. When they see the government handling of the megacity, it scares them that nobody will be listening. We are not against change, but we do want it done in an orderly manner. We are the consumers of this service. We need to be consulted, advised, educated, informed, shown plans, know rules and strategies, see big-picture goals and learn the political language. For many of our parents, this was the first time they had ever handled a piece of legislation.

Here are some thoughts and concerns and possible amendments for the fewer trustees in the amalgamation, and these were points submitted by parents.

Bigger is not always better, and smaller works. Consider the joining of two or three boards instead of four.

How representative can a board be that has only two from a given geographical area?

How accessible will this board be to the parent living at the other end of the new board's jurisdiction, who will have to consider transportation costs and time in order to be seen or heard?

Inconsistent programs across the board -- and we're talking about Oxford and the London area. When we talk about London, a very big city, and Princeton, a very small town, the inconsistencies will be there. It will help in funding of large urban areas, but it will be too costly to access a lot of the programs, either in time or busing of students.

Boards would be more responsive and representative when the base is the same, if it's a rural base or it's an urban base. An example of this in Oxford is the fact that some of our schools start late in the year due to the farming activity. There is a potential to be swallowed up in the big boards for little places like us. We've already in the media been referred to as the "Oxford county hicks."

We think you should consider joining the public and the separate school boards in one area. A positive would be to access the state-of-the-art technologies and special programs that as a small board we haven't been able to have, but we're not sure of the new funding model and we need to know.

Fiscal concerns should be balanced with the human element. Quality should not be sacrificed, and assuming the debt of less frugal boards than ours is a major concern. Amalgamation itself has become an accepted reality in our parent submissions, but who we amalgamate with is really important to us and it is a concern. The majority of our county want to stay in a rural-based board, and east, in our view, seems to be the most sensible.

A stated purpose of this bill is to improve accountability, but to whom? Another purpose is to improve effectiveness of boards, but when they're so far away and so few are representing us, how can it be more effective? Our boards have no real power and they become physically inaccessible as well. Quality education is another goal, but when there will be inconsistencies within a board by geography alone, what will happen to the quality?

1540

Outsourcing: No teacher stands alone in a classroom. Out-of-classroom personnel -- what does it mean and who defines it? Who's classified as non-instructional?

The foundation and the infrastructure that goes in our schools makes it so that teacher and those students have important supports to operate and form an effective classroom. There are many contributors to a successful learning experience. Don't underestimate or devalue any of our workers. Be clear about teacher-student ratios and definition of "teacher" and the definition of "student."

The teacher-librarian is a partner with teachers in the classroom. They develop research projects, they are into curriculum integration, they develop learning skills, select resources, they motivate learners, they're partners with the students, they teach them to access all the books, computers and technology and help them with their research and their independent learning skills. They maintain academic resources and they instruct individual groups of students. For many schools, the library is the hub of technology. In being fiscally responsible, we don't have state-of-the-art computers in every classroom, nor do we have computer science teachers in every classroom. We focus ours in the library and our library teacher is an essential part of that. A technician will simply open the door, keep the library quiet and lock up at night.

The Education Improvement Commission: This is the part of the bill that has rung more bells, blown more whistles and sent up more warning flags for our parents. The need for such a commission is a given. Limited power and the ability to appeal is the basis of our democracy. This commission's power, above judicial, would be greater than the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, greater than the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Employment Standards Act. More power is being given to fewer people.

Members will be political appointments first and other qualifications will be secondary. We would like you to open up the qualifications required and the process of appointment to scrutiny.

Ensure parent council representation is on the commission. This could be an amendment.

Members of the commission will be paid. The bill states that trustees work for no more than $5,000. Apply this to this commission and the committee members in an amendment.

Membership guidelines are not defined, yet trustee membership and voting powers are clear. The commission is designed to serve the public but is above questioning. They are mandated to be accountable only once a year to the minister and they seem to have powers that can even overturn this legislation. This could be an amendment focus.

Having the ability to negate negotiated contracts is a recipe for insecurity and instability. Plan to be smarter at the bargaining table. There is too much at stake to flex political muscles on a hill that can be won a better way. Amend this power plan.

The EIC's proposed powers are too broad and sweeping. There is no autonomy in the proposed school boards. Budgets will be created at the board level but subject to change at the commission level. The further away from the source of the spending, the less representative and accountable it will be to the students, parents and staff of schools. This is amendment material.

Parents have a right to a democratic process. If the so-called local board has no authority and the commission has no appeal process, where is the democracy?

The Chair: Ms Pittman, I ask you to wrap up, please.

Mrs Pittman: Yes. What we're passing over is the importance of our secretaries and the importance of our janitors. Our secretaries we feel are at the level of executive assistants and often are not given that.

In summary, we would ask you to reflect on the suggestions and the concerns and the thoughts of the in-the-trenches people who have contributed to this submission. Listen to the local concerns about amalgamation and amend this bill to reflect the understanding of the importance of size of boards and the similar bases. Listen to local concerns and amend this bill to reflect and then redefine the membership, the salaries, the powers and the areas of jurisdiction and appeal process of the Education Improvement Commission. Listen to the concerns from interested and involved parents. Amend this bill to include them in the decision-making bodies. Give them the opportunity to be the members of the commission, the committees and the government hearings. Listen to our concerns and slow down.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Pittman and Mrs Rouse, for your presentation. While you didn't get a chance to read all of it, I assure you the whole document will form part of the record of the committee.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 210

The Chair: I call upon the Service Employees International Union, Local 210. Thank you very much for being here. Welcome to our committee. We're looking forward to your presentation.

Mr Ted Durham: First off, I'd like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us to speak. The Service Employees International Union is going to concentrate its submissions on just one section, although we consider Bill 104 fatally flawed throughout.

In our submission, clause 335(3)(f) causes us the most concern. It's that section where the Education Improvement Commission is mandated to facilitate the contracting out of jobs. Our local union represents several hundred what you would consider non-instructional positions in Essex and Kent counties. These are the jobs that people are dependent upon to feed their families, jobs which provide taxes to the very government which now seeks to eliminate them. We fail to recognize how the contracting out of these jobs will improve the education of our children.

The very name of the commission would seem to indicate that the purpose of the commission is to improve education. However, Bill 104 does nothing to improve education but merely restricts funding. The most objectionable part, clause 335(3)(f), does not require discussion of whether contracting out of jobs is cost-efficient or preferable; rather, the commission's role is to promote and facilitate the contracting out of these jobs.

There are barriers, however, to the government's plan to do this. These barriers are called collective agreements. There is also legislation in Ontario which acts as a barrier to the contracting out of these jobs. With these protections in place, why would we be concerned? Our concern stems primarily from the leaked cabinet document of October 3, 1996, of which I have provided a copy to you at tab A.

In this document, the cabinet has listed collective agreements and successor rights as barriers to restructuring. With these issues standing in the way, the government is faced with difficulties in achieving its goals. The cabinet document suggested the answer: The government simply introduces legislation to override collective agreements, have blanket removal of successor rights and removal of service standards. If anyone believes this isn't a likelihood, take a look at the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and see what has happened. It's a real likelihood in Ontario.

Since the 1962-63 session of the Legislature, workers have had the protection of successor rights and, through an amendment in 1970, have had their collective agreements recognized and honoured by contractors. The Legislature recognized the need, as described in the Marvel Jewellery case, that successor rights "Recognize that collective bargaining rights, once attained, should have some permanence. Rights created by the act, or under the collective agreements, should not be allowed to evaporate with a change of employer.... So long as the business continues to function, the obligations run with that business, regardless of any ownership."

We see no reason that shouldn't continue. If that line of thinking was accurate in 1970-75, it's accurate today. We shouldn't go back 20 years in time.

The purpose of successor rights was clearly pointed out by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the Aircraft Metal Specialty case, which said it is "To prevent the subversion of bargaining rights by transactions which are designed to get rid of the union." Any removal of bargaining rights or statutory override provisions of collective agreements to rid themselves of contracting out, in our view does just that.

1550

In regard to contracting out and the contracting out provisions found in many collective agreements in Ontario, the contracting out of jobs does not guarantee that you will save money or that it will be more efficient costwise or otherwise. Perhaps the best-case scenario of using the private sector to provide public services is the American health care system. The American health care system is a prime example of the inadequacies and cost overruns of privatization. Not only does it fail to provide coverage for some 39 million Americans, but it manages to do this at a cost which is much higher than the Canadian cost. Americans are paying 14% of their gross national product on health care, compared to Canada's 10%.

In British Columbia, Premier Vander Zalm privatized highway maintenance. However, there was a recent study that said that the cost had substantially increased and preventive maintenance suffered.

The Macdonald royal commission found that under most circumstances no economic benefit or efficiency gains can be expected through privatization. This only makes sense when you consider the fact that any private contractor has to make a profit. They must realize profits, and profits, like taxes, are extra expenses that are built into the costing of a service that's contracted out. These are expenses that do not have to be paid when using your own employees. It flows from this that when services are contracted out, wages are lowered and services are cut so that a contractor can make those profits.

In Calgary, where cleaners in public schools were contracted out, a number of complaints followed. One Calgary principal summed it up this way: "The most basic cleaning functions continue to be either neglected or ignored." Ontario neither wants nor deserves this in our public schools.

This attack on school board workers through Bill 104 is unwarranted and unnecessary. We ask that you carry the message back that in order for Bill 104 to even start to become acceptable, clause 335(3)(f) has to be removed totally or, in the alternative, guarantee those jobs and those rights of collective agreements, protect them. We didn't have time to reflect fully on the bill, but a cursory reading would seem to indicate that Bill 104 should be scrapped and you should be sent back to the drawing-board. I thank you for your time.

Mr Skarica: On the outsourcing aspect, we've heard on a number of occasions that in some situations it would be beneficial and in other situations it wouldn't be. Could you indicate some of the potential downsides and any upsides of outsourcing in your area that you're aware of?

Mr Durham: In our view, particularly in the area of cleaning schools, the downside of outsourcing is shortcuts. In order for a profit to be realized by the contractor, the contractor has to have fewer staff, and to have fewer staff means you reduce. You reduce the number of staff, you reduce the service that's being provided, and it's an issue of public health. That's an absolute downside to contracting out in our public schools, and that's just in the area of cleaning. That's not in the area that would include those people who would be considered traditionally clerical or support staff, that arena. The upside of outsourcing services? I can see none.

Mrs McLeod: You might be interested to know that the committee has already heard representations from two boards, the Essex Roman Catholic today and the Durham board last Thursday, that have withdrawn outsourced contracts because they thought it was neither cost-effective nor good for their schools.

You might also want to know that we have already submitted amendments that would call for the repeal of the section that directs that the EIC pursue outsourcing, and we have also submitted an amendment that would provide for protection of contracts and successor rights should Bill 104 go ahead. I don't know whether the government will support those, but I think it's important for you to know we're hearing the submissions that are being made.

Having said that, my question is, what happens if the municipalities end up being responsible for all school construction and school maintenance and school busing? I think then all of the protections we might be able to build into 104 become moot, because the whole responsibility is turned over to the municipalities.

Mr Durham: First, I'm very pleased to hear the information you just gave me. I'm excited to know that people are reconsidering moves such as contracting out.

In terms of the municipality, if the municipality is given responsibility for those areas, then we turn our sights on the municipality to ensure that it's being done right, properly and in accordance with what we believe would be good labour relations. But in order for us to do that, we can't have the provincial government say, "Sorry, we're going to override anything the municipality may do." We're prepared to deal with the municipality at this time if that's where our fight lies.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation. I certainly share the concerns you're expressing around the long-term effects of outsourcing because I don't think it's been well thought out. The previous speakers didn't get a chance to read out their section on custodians. They were saying they are more than just sweepers. Who will clean up the vomit, spills, broken glass and plugged toilets during the day? Apparently the profit only lies when you come in as a flying group in the middle of the night, clean up the school and leave it, and then there's no one on site to do these kinds of things. Would you say that's your understanding of how the profit really comes out for a privatized company?

Mr Durham: In our view, that is the only way the profit comes out for a privatized company.

Mrs Boyd: Well, I would say it's not the only way because lowering wages and standards is certainly the other way.

Mr Durham: Part and parcel.

The Chair: Thank you very much for being here with us today and presenting your views.

We have a number of matters to deal with. If I could deal with some documentation that has been tabled, we have distributed a motion by Mr Skarica that was passed last Thursday with respect to the specific conditions in the north, and I've undertaken to write a letter to the minister to forward that motion.

You also have before you a response to question 37 of the 51 questions that have been submitted either to the minister or to the researcher. This is the only one that was submitted to the researcher and I'll ask him to speak to it. Did you want to say something?

Mr Ted Glenn: No, that's okay.

The Chair: This is in response to your question 37, Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, and I've already had an opportunity to speak to the researcher about it. I appreciate getting information on the protections that were built in in 1968 for teachers. I'm hoping we'll also be able to get some information as to what protections were built in for non-teaching personnel.

The Chair: We'll provide that, and we have 50 more questions to go.

Mrs McLeod: That's all right. We've got 24 hours.

The Chair: As I've said before, I think the committee should have at least 24 hours to consider the answers, and I would expect that those responses would be here by 12 o'clock tomorrow.

Two items have been deferred from earlier today. One is a motion by Mr Duncan. Would you like to speak to it?

Mr Duncan: Yes, just briefly, because we've heard this repeatedly from a number of people. Indeed the government has said that it's concerned about the quality of education and wants to improve the quality of education. I've put forward a motion that simply would direct the Legislature to appoint a select committee, which is provided for in our rules of procedure, that would allow for full public hearings on all aspects of education, including governance, curriculum, standards and accountability, financing and future direction.

What we've heard repeatedly -- we've heard it in other cities, we've heard it here today on a number of occasions -- is that this bill is only one piece of a puzzle, and what causes the greatest consternation is what we don't know. What also causes consternation is people's feeling of disempowerment, that they're not able to participate in the very important discussions that surround many other parts of education. I'll remind the committee that according to the 1996-97 estimates, education funding has already been cut by some $760 million and we expect further cuts through time. A number of delegations have expressed their concern that the government in fact intends much deeper cuts.

1600

It would be our view that this type of initiative would serve not only the public but the government as well because the government, I believe, although our politics may differ and our views may differ, wants to see all aspects of education addressed. I would hope they would be prepared to have public discussions not only around Bill 104, but the more important issues. We haven't even had time to talk about curriculum, something that's extremely important. We have not had a chance to talk about true classroom standards and accountability, let alone future direction. This is not to suggest that we further get bogged down in studies, but rather to suggest there's an opportunity to advance education now, to do it in a time-effective way, to get all the pieces of the pie on the table and to allow full accountability.

The Chair: Thank you. Any further debate?

Mr Skarica: As you're aware, the Royal Commission on Learning travelled the province extensively in the not-too-distant past and had extensive recommendations, many of which the government has implemented in the last year, including the establishment of the College of Teachers and the EQAO. As well, many of the matters that you indicated a committee should travel the province on will in fact be done by the EIC. They will be looking into governance and future direction and their mandate is, if and when the legislation is passed, that they will examine many of these matters and report back to the minister.

The government's position is that it's now time for action. There are a number of studies that have been done over the many years and you're familiar with many of them. The government now intends to act on the studies, mainly the Royal Commission on Learning, which is generally accepted I think by all parties as an exemplary document. As well, the EIC will be reporting to the minister and the government will act on those recommendations.

Mr Wildman: I support and our caucus will support the motion. In response to Mr Skarica's comments, I would just say there are many things in the royal commission's report that the government has ignored. There are other things that they've done which are contradictory to the recommendations of the royal commission, such as junior kindergarten and early childhood education. We can cherry-pick as much as we want, but I would think that Mr Caplan, who when he appeared before the committee made it very clear what he thinks of this government and its agenda -- and he was the co-chair of the royal commission.

Second, in terms of the time for action and the Education Improvement Commission, obviously it's already acting even though the bill hasn't been passed. The problem with that commission is, as we've been told by many presenters, the vast majority, is that it is unaccountable. It is not the same as a select committee with elected MPPs who are accountable to their constituents and to the people of Ontario. The Education Improvement Commission, as set forward in Bill 104, is accountable only to the minister and can't even have its decisions tested in a court.

This is a complete denial of democracy, which is what the motion is proposing: a democratic process, an open process, where everyone involved in education in the province has input, and then elected members of the Legislature make recommendations that will benefit the students of Ontario. The Education Improvement Commission is the denial of that whole process and it doesn't answer the proposal that is made in the motion.

Mrs McLeod: I'm more than a little bit surprised by the parliamentary assistant's response. If in fact this government was acting on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Learning report, we would not need a select committee on education to go across the province once again. But if the royal commission's recommendations had been accepted, none of us would be here today and Bill 104 would not be before us.

A very fundamental recommendation of the royal commission -- and we had Gerald Caplan here earlier in our committee hearings -- was that there not be school board amalgamations because there was no cost-effectiveness that could be demonstrated in any studies that had ever been done, there was clearly no benefit to students in a classroom of school board amalgamation, and school board amalgamations would create such a process of confusion and disorientation and disruption that the resources and energies of school boards and all involved in education would be directed away from meeting the needs of students in the classroom.

I only wish that what Mr Skarica had indicated was in fact this government's direction. I feel very strongly, as Mr Wildman has expressed, that the Education Improvement Commission is not a substitute for a committee of the Legislature. There is nobody elected on that commission. There is no indication of any process which will allow anybody who is elected to have any part of the process or the decisions that are ultimately made by that commission.

Mr Skarica: Just in response, there was also another commission, and that was the Sweeney commission that travelled the province for approximately two years to deal with the advisability of these amalgamations --

Mr Wildman: Not these amalgamations.

The Chair: One at a time, please.

Mr Skarica: Mr Sweeney was appointed by an NDP government and was a Liberal cabinet minister. Dealing with cherry-picking, I recall that when the government proceeded with the College of Teachers legislation there was substantial opposition from the opposition parties regarding implementation of that legislation even though it had been recommended by the Royal Commission on Learning.

Mrs McLeod: I regret the fact that we're using up our very brief break today to debate this, but if Mr Skarica is so determined, first of all, in terms of the College of Teachers, and I don't particularly care to get into that debate, the specific recommendations of the Royal Commission on Learning were debated, as to whether or not that was what was brought forward. In terms of the Sweeney report, there have been numerous presentations to this committee that if the Sweeney recommendations could be referred to by the government, it would be infinitely preferable to the proposals for amalgamation that this government has brought forward. So one way or the other, give us the royal commission, give us Sweeney, give us something that's better than Bill 104.

Mr Duncan: Not only that, but the government just doesn't seem to get it. We want to talk about curriculum. We want to talk about standards. We want to talk about things that are important in the classroom. This bill doesn't do it. To suggest somehow that this is going to improve education or improve our students' ability to be educated, we've had presentation after presentation that says not only will it not do that, but it robs fundamental democratic principles.

If you're truly interested in improving education, you'll let us address curriculum, you'll let us address standards and accountability, and you'll let us talk about future direction, because so far we haven't done that and it just appears that all these hearings are nothing but a sham. If you really want to deal with education, you'll vote in favour of this motion.

Mr Wildman: I won't repeat what was said, but just to indicate that the problem with the process that we're involved in now, or one of the major problems, is that it's backwards. We shouldn't be doing these administrative changes before we know what the funding formula is. We shouldn't be doing these things before we know how curriculum changes are going to be done and how they're going to be implemented. We shouldn't be doing this in the absence of knowing what the government is proposing with collective bargaining.

The advantage of the motion is that it wants to look at the whole education system and the changes that are being proposed and what the impacts might be rather than doing it piecemeal, the way the government is doing it. They're doing it, in my view, ass-backwards. Excuse my language.

The Chair: Seeing no further debate, we'll put it to a vote. All in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

If we could move now to the second deferred item, Mr Wildman, you've already spoken to this issue. Perhaps you'd like to simply summarize.

Mr Wildman: I've already raised it and I've tabled the document. I'd like to have it confirmed that this is a memo from Bill Jock, who is in the regional office of the Ministry of Education and Training. It's on their letterhead from London.

If that is confirmed, then frankly I'd like to have a serious explanation of this March 26 deadline, because it seems to me that if this memo is genuine, what it means is that the Ministry of Education and Training is proceeding as if the legislation were already in place, and that makes this whole process a sham and a farce and it means this government intends to proceed. It doesn't matter; we might as well not have the clause-by-clause hearings on Wednesday. There are no real changes that are going to take place, at least not with the Education Improvement Commission, because it's already operating and started and it's arranging its meetings so that it can implement Bill 104 as is, it appears.

1610

The Chair: Mr Wildman has asked for clarification.

Mr Skarica: I find the wording of the document unfortunate myself. As you know, Mr Cooke and Ann Vanstone have been travelling the province already on a consultant basis, speaking to a variety of school boards and education officials throughout the province. For example, we heard on March 18 that they had been in your area, Mr Wildman, in northern Ontario, and had similar-type meetings as proposed in this document with the school boards in northern Ontario.

In fact as a result of those meetings, on February 18, 1997, the school board members and directors of education of the proposed district school board 6 gave the directors the direction to prepare a proposal considering other options in relation to the proposed district school board. They in fact did so, and as a result we heard that, after meetings, their proposal was -- and I'll read from their submission to us:

"3.1 In the spirit of cooperation, efficiency and local governance, the Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac and Area Board of Education, the Lake Superior Board of Education, the Lakehead Board of Education and the Nipigon-Red Rock Board of Education propose the formation of district school board number 6A and 6B."

Similarly, we heard as well from the Dryden Board of Education, the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education and the Kenora Board of Education, again on March 18, which had similar meetings after meeting with Ms Vanstone and Mr Cooke. As well, they met in anticipation of the proposed legislation and they made a recommendation as follows:

"The government change the boundaries of proposed district school board number 5 to create at least two boards. The two-board structure would have the Kenora Board of Education, Dryden Board of Education and Red Lake Board of Education together as one board, and the Fort Frances-Rainy River and Atikokan boards of education as the other new board. All five boards have unanimously agreed to this proposal."

Not only was it appropriate for them to meet, it was helpful to us, because as a result of those submissions and those meetings in anticipation of the legislation, this committee moved as follows:

"That the standing committee on social development urge the minister to advise the Education Improvement Commission to review the submissions this committee has received regarding proposed district school board boundaries in northern Ontario, particularly regarding the challenges of distance and technology infrastructure."

We've heard from those boards and they felt it was prudent, in anticipation of the legislation, to come up with their own recommendations. In fact they're not the only boards. We heard in Sudbury as well that they're now moving in anticipation of the legislation after meeting with Mr Cooke and Ms Vanstone.

The position of the government is that it's unfortunate the wording is as it is. That's not the intent of it. Mr Cooke and Ms Vanstone have been having similar meetings in northern Ontario for some time, and you're aware of them. In fact they've been helpful to the committee.

As well, it's interesting to note on the second attachment the parties who are going to be consulted and give submissions and direction "to ascertain and clarify concerns and issues," as is put in the memo. You have trustees, the chairs of the boards, a student trustee, directors, supervisory officers, presidents of the local teacher affiliates, presidents of local bargaining units, representatives of boards and two French-language representatives per board. It seems to me that we've been asked repeatedly in virtually every submission that the government do consult with the stakeholders, and that is exactly what's occurring and has been occurring for some time now in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I don't think any of us are surprised that the so-called consultants who, if this legislation passes, will become the co-chairs of the EIC are going to be coming to Windsor. Mr Skarica is right: We know very well that they have been in other communities. We have been raising at this committee repeatedly the kinds of things that are being said by the consultants who indeed are fashioning themselves as commissioners and are proceeding to work on the implementation of legislation which has not yet passed.

In Sudbury, I think you fail to mention that after the commissioners came in, the Sudbury board thought it was appropriate to go ahead and appoint its own local education improvement committee so that they would perhaps get a jump on everyone else.

The consultants -- they're not yet called commissioners -- have also been making statements to these groups, apparently on behalf of the government, which we've been asking Mr Skarica to clarify. For example, when Mr Cooke says that existing contracts will be protected under the new boards, are we going to see that incorporated in the legislation as of Wednesday on the basis of what Mr Cooke has told various people he's been presenting with?

When he was in Sudbury, the commissioners -- not yet commissioners -- apparently told the Sudbury board that the local education improvement committees would indeed be elected. We've asked for clarification of whether or not that in fact is going to be the process, and if so, how will those elections take place?

None of that takes away from the fact that what we're going through here is a sham if that group is continuing to carry out its own consultations and is not paying any attention to the kinds of submissions that are being made to the very committee that has been set up by the Legislature to have hearings on Bill 104. That's why I have already asked that if this bill does become law, we have a public meeting of this committee with the EIC to determine just what they have heard of the submissions that have been made to this committee.

I would further draw your attention to a part of this act which I don't understand. I'm almost afraid to draw attention to it in case it disappears as the only government amendment on Wednesday, but it says very clearly --

Mr Skarica: Which section?

Mrs McLeod: It's subsection 7(8): "A person who establishes a geographic area under a regulation made under subclause (3)(d)(ii)," -- which establishes new boards -- "shall have regard to any relevant submissions made by any person."

I would just suggest that there have been a great many very relevant submissions made by a great many people with regard to geographic boundaries, and I trust that the EIC, if it becomes a reality, is paying attention to every one of those.

Mrs Boyd: I'm quite amazed at Mr Skarica's comments. Are the people of Windsor to take it from what he said that in fact when this meeting happens on April 9, they can decide they don't want the boundaries that have been suggested in terms of the act? That seemed to be what he was suggesting, that this is an opportunity for people to talk to these so-called consultants at this point and make recommendations which he seems to be making some suggestion might be taken into account.

If that's the case -- and he suggests it is for northern Ontario -- and his own motion suggests that northern Ontario should be treated differently, what about the southwest? We heard that the Oxford County Board of Education has expressed similar concerns around community of interest and so on. So I am quite amazed at his comment.

I would say it's very clear from this memorandum, which is written obviously by a senior official of the Ministry of Education in southwest region -- let's look at this first item.

"The purpose of the meeting is twofold:

"(1) To obtain information about what stage boards are at in the implementation process -- how far along are they?"

How far along? Before this bill even becomes law and these people are here presenting to this committee as though what they have to say is actually being listened to? This is contempt. This government has consistently displayed contempt of the legislative process. This is a very good and continuing example of the kind of contempt this government has for the whole legislative process.

Mrs Pupatello: My question is for Mr Skarica: Would you please answer the question that was initially put forward with the launching of this copy of the memo? The question was: Why are we here, wasting our time as an entire committee, spending much of your taxpayers' money to travel across Ontario, when the commission, which has no right of appeal for anyone who is unduly harmed by its outcome, is already on the road and making determinations that even Mr Skarica, as the assistant to the Minister of Education, cannot change?

Please answer the question of why you are spending taxpayers' money with this supposed budget-conscious Conservative government? Why not just scrap the whole public hearing process, because the commission is already a step ahead of you, and you're the assistant to the Minister of Education?

1620

Mr Skarica: I just want you to remember those words, "right to appeal," because there are amendments coming and you will then see that we have listened to people.

Mrs Pupatello: That was not my question. You have to answer my question, please. Why are we here?

Mr Skarica: We are here to hear submissions on this legislation.

Mrs Pupatello: But the commission has already heard them.

The Chair: Please, Mrs Pupatello.

Mr Skarica: No. And it's not a commission. They are, at this point, officially consultants, whether you like that or not. They have been travelling the province and they have been listening to other boards. In fact, it's helped our committee in that we did pass this motion. Had Mr Cooke and Ms Vanstone not gone out in northern Ontario, it would have been, in the way it's turned out, a disservice to this committee, because they've helped us already by doing that.

Mrs Pupatello: Just as a supplementary, they don't care what this committee passes or not because they don't need this committee. That commission has more power than you as the assistant to the Minister of Education. So it doesn't matter a whit that you've brought forward a motion to look at changes, because that commission is going to be responsible for boundary changes regardless of the outcome of this committee. So let's call a spade a spade. Why is this budget-conscious Conservative government spending valuable taxpayers' money that could easily be spent on an educational assistant to a disabled child in our system, and you're traipsing around Ontario with this sham?

Mr Wildman: I've listened to the debate on this matter and the explantation, and I must say with due respect, I don't accept that this is just unfortunate wording. It's unfortunate all right, but it's not just the wording. It's unfortunate because it means that we're already involved in the implementation process before the legislation has even been passed, which is what my colleague and others have said in fact amounts to contempt.

So with that in mind, Chair, I would move a motion.

The Chair: That would be very helpful, Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: I move that the standing committee on social development invite Mr Bill Jock of the London regional office of the Ministry of Education and Training to appear before the committee at the committee meeting in Brantford tomorrow to explain the "implementation" process described in the memorandum I tabled in the committee today, and that the committee add 10 minutes at the beginning of our meeting in Brantford to hear Mr Jock.

The Chair: Any debate on the motion?

Mr Crozier: I certainly hope that the representatives of the Liberal caucus consider supporting that motion, notwithstanding the fact that there are a couple of us who aren't official members of this committee and can't vote on it, but if I were, I would.

The Chair: You can certainly speak to it.

Mr Crozier: Thank you. I want to clarify for those present who have stuck with us throughout the day that when Mr Cooke and Ms Vanstone are called consultants, to give you some indication of the way this government handles issues like this and handles the opposition and handles free speech and input, originally these two individuals were appointed as a commission. That was prior even to second reading of this bill.

When the government was called on that -- why would you put a commission into effect when it really didn't have the authority to be the commission because the bill hadn't received second reading? -- they'd already hired them, as of February 1. Mr Cooke, in fact, had already resigned as a member of the provincial Parliament. So they had to find quickly: "What are we going to do with these folks? Well, we'll call them consultants, because everybody hires consultants."

I support what has been discussed today. It's like being locked up in a room when budgets are being presented or when bills are being presented. It's like having debate closed on important issues. That's just simply the way this government treats the opposition, and I think to a great extent public input.

Mr Skarica: I'd just like to say that the government's given its explanation as to what occurred. I don't think it's necessary to have this individual brought in. If you're suspicious of the explanation, then I'm sure you can speak to him personally and we can deal with it at that time.

Mr Wildman: With respect, Mr Jock has been criticized for his unfortunate wording.

Mrs Boyd: It was his wording.

Mr Wildman: I think it's only fair that he have the right to come and make his own explanation and to defend himself.

Mrs Boyd: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Seeing no further debate, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Ms McLeod, is this a new point?

Mrs McLeod: Yes, it's a new point. It's not continuing the old debate, although it does flow from it. Since Mr Skarica was not prepared to answer the question of why we are here, I continue to believe that we're here because it's important to hear public submissions and that we're determined to make those public voices heard.

I did have some hope at the end of last week that some of the government members were hearing some of the concerns that were presented and that's what was behind Mr Skarica's motion last week, asking the commission, not yet appointed, to review the board boundaries based on the representations made in northern Ontario.

If Mr Skarica and the Conservative members of this committee believe that this committee's input may have some effect, I would then ask if Mr Skarica would present a motion today to expand his previous motion so that it deals not just with the submissions of northern Ontario but the submissions of all those concerned about the board boundaries.

Mr Skarica: You will find on Wednesday whether or not we listened to the various presentations, and you will find by our amendments that we did.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Skarica, is there any reason not to expand your motion? Why would we deal only with northern Ontario in your motion?

Mr Skarica: Because at that time we were in northern Ontario and had heard the submissions. We're only halfway through here. We heard submissions at that time that we thought were particularly compelling and that's why we --

Mrs McLeod: You're telling me that tomorrow we may hear and have a further motion then?

The Chair: The questions have been asked and Mr Skarica has responded. We are now going to recess until 5 o'clock. I would remind members that lunch is being served in the lounge, which is through the restaurant on your right.

The committee recessed from 1628 to 1708.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, MIDDLESEX DISTRICT

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back. We are going to start with the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Middlesex District, Mr LeFeuvre. We welcome you. Thank you very much for being here and for coming on so early as well while we wait for other presenters. We appreciate it.

Mr John LeFeuvre: I was given the agenda this afternoon. I'm a stand-in for Steve Wanamaker. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's somebody who comes in to make a presentation and reads what they have in front of them, but unfortunately that's what you're going to get.

The Middlesex District of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation represents some 200 male and female elementary teachers working in the employ of the Middlesex County Board of Education. As their representative, I am pleased to be here today to address the serious issues raised by sections of Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, in particular those aspects of the act which concern our members because of their apparent undemocratic nature.

Middlesex OPSTF is not opposed to amalgamation where the reasons are credible and clearly stated, where there are to be clearly defined and supportable cost savings for ratepayers and where the quality of education and program delivery for any children in the amalgamated boards will not suffer. We do not oppose amalgamation where existing collective agreements are recognized, staff successor rights are protected and the principles of fair collective bargaining with locally elected representatives who have control of the revenue to be raised by the school board are recognized. Such was true in 1969, when the Conservative government of the day enacted the last major round of school board consolidations. However, we do not believe this to be the case today.

We question the government's perceived rationale for proposing the reduction of some 129 elected school boards to a total of 66. By its own studies, which are in some refute by many local school boards, the government suggests that savings of some $150 million can be achieved through this consolidation. However, we question whether the massive upheaval that will be generated by such a change is worth what at best can be judged as a minimal financial return.

We also question the potentially unmanageable size of some of the proposed district school boards and the number of children to be served over such a broad area. With reference to the Elgin-London-Middlesex-Oxford consolidation, which goes well beyond the recommendations of the government study, we question how the interests of children in a mainly rural geographic area will be better served by creating the third-largest district school board in Ontario, a board whose estimated student population of 90,000 will surpass that of many Canadian provinces and territories.

The elementary teachers of Middlesex are no strangers to the issues which arise when school boards consider amalgamation. We also know that the potential for cost increases far outweighs any potential savings which may be generated by the so-called economy of scale. In 1993, when the Middlesex and London boards were deeply involved in amalgamation deliberations, the impact was felt throughout the system as board administrators, already reduced in number, were forced to assume additional duties which took away from their administration time allocated for system and classroom needs.

It was learned in 1993 that the merger of school boards was much more complex than in 1969. The political cultures and educational programs of boards are much more clearly delineated and entrenched now than they were in the past, and the time to ameliorate differences requires thousands of person-hours which take administrators, principals and teachers away from their classroom and program activities. The blending of such items as staffing policies, staff transfers, transportation routes, school boundaries, secretarial time, release time and trigger figures for principals and vice-principals, and program delivery models for such areas as library services, junior and senior kindergarten, special education and music, just to name a few, will take an inordinate amount of time, energy and dollars.

In the London-Middlesex example we learned that the computerized information systems, both hardware and software, were incompatible and that the cost of merging systems just to create one set of employee records to meet payroll requirements would cost at least $2 million. The blending of collective agreements is another case in point. In 1969, most agreements were one or two pages in length. Today agreements with fewer than 50 pages are the exception.

In 1993 the overall amalgamation costs were estimated by the two boards, London and Middlesex, to be somewhere in the range of $17 million. What the cost will be to merge the four boards now planned in Bill 104 is anyone's guess. What is significant is that the Minister of Education and Training of the day, David Cooke, now co-chair designate of the EIC, recognized the need to fund a portion of these costs to assist the boards in coming together. On May 13, 1993, he offered the two boards $5 million: $2.7 for amalgamation-related costs -- computer information systems -- plus another $2.3 million for extraordinary costs related to amalgamation. Although the offer was rejected by the two boards, Minister Cooke deemed it a fair and realistic offer.

It is also most ironic that the draft agreement to merge the London and Middlesex boards in 1993 was, unlike the current Bill 104, cognizant of the need to recognize successor rights for the employees of the affected boards. In fact, in a May 15, 1993, article in the London Free Press, then-Minister Cooke stated: "We don't want people to lose their jobs because of amalgamation. Over time, there may be a need for fewer positions, but you try to keep people." Bill 104 should be amended to recognize these needs, and not encourage Dave Cooke, in his new role, to recommend outsourcing and the possible layoff of people who have worked a good portion of their adult lives with local boards.

Weeks later Thomas Wells, Minister of Education from 1972 to 1978, was charged by David Cooke to investigate the possibility of merging school boards in the city of Windsor and the county of Essex. In his 1993 report, School Governance in the Windsor-Essex Area, Mr Wells stated: "Amalgamating boards of education holds appeal for those who see this process reducing staff, trustee and administrative costs, and creating other savings through economies of scale...[yet] the key question to be answered is whether amalgamation will save money and improve the quality of education."

In the "Summary of Conclusions" to his report on school governance, August 1993, Mr. Wells stated:

"(1) In the Windsor-Essex area, precedents, analysis, and forecasts indicate that any significant savings from amalgamation would be doubtful.

"(2) From everything I have studied and heard, I concluded that amalgamation of boards is more likely to increase costs than reduce them.

"(3) There is little if any evidence to show that the amalgamation efforts of 1969 saved money. In fact, they probably added to the overall educational costs in the province.

"(4) Special circumstances and the costs involved in the restructuring of boards in the Windsor-Essex area would outweigh the savings and benefits."

The difficulty in addressing the issues inherent in Bill 104 is the sense of uncertainty and confusion created by its lack of critical information. The changes required to functionally amalgamate large employee groups are potentially massive. Only the superficial aspect of it will be in place. If passed in its current form, it will be in place without adequate preparation in the too-limited time frame for implementation. The unknown funding model may raise further complications. Boards will be meaningless as trustees will be unable to carry out any democratically representative functions. There is too much regulatory power over boards, over representation and over nebulous transitional matters in section 7 of the Bill.

Section 10 of the bill overrides all other acts or regulations. A democratic government cannot allow transitional regulations made under the Fewer School Boards Act to override acts passed as legislation.

One major concern of teachers' groups in this process is their employment status, both current and future. Their current employers will have no taxing powers, hence no meaningful control over local education conditions. The bill fails to make any definitive statements on collective agreements, present or pending. This causes apprehension. Indeed it is unclear as to whether or not district school boards named in Bill 104 are by legal definition considered boards of education as defined in the Education Act. If the negotiations process and status of collective agreements are transitional matters, this will likely lead to a court challenge. This of course could be the government's intent to further delude the public into believing that legislation currently in place, Bill 100, is flawed and needs changing.

Successor rights have previously been guaranteed by various sections of the Education Act. There have been precedents for the protection of employees in annexation and amalgamation circumstances. Bill 104 fails to deal with this in terms of currently existing legislation, but even more significantly, fails to clarify if district school boards would be bound to honour the existing collective agreements of predecessor boards. The School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act has no provisions for any aspect of successor rights. This is unacceptable.

This is further compounded by the confusion in the bill itself. Section 341(1)(e) states that a board shall not enter into any obligation beyond December 31, 1997. You realize, of course, that's in the middle of a contract. Subsection (2)(d) states that this does not apply to the act that currently governs bargaining. Clause (4) gives the Education Improvement Commission full control over any final budget. Clause (5) states that when the commission acts under (4), then (2) does not apply. Where does this leave any of the parties to an agreement? For whom and under what contractual arrangements are we working on January 1, 1998?

The powers conferred to the commission are too arbitrary in their scope. Despite the fact that committees can be established to assist in the process of making recommendations, the lack of respect for the opinions of any stakeholders affected by the actions of this government thus far does not inspire confidence in the process. It raises the fear that responsible boards will have no way of retaining or spending surpluses raised locally on local education. It is not known if those chosen to serve on committees will be representative of the stakeholders in education. It is not known if the references to outsourcing of non-instructional services will have any connection to the reality of educational services or the philosophy of education espoused by the ministry in past decades.

The chaos that the implementation of this bill could create will far outweigh the mythical financial goals it purports to achieve, with no improvements to education. It is too much, too fast, and with no apparent planning beyond the politically cosmetic transparencies of this government.

Recommendations:

That the new funding model for educational finance and accompanying regulations be released prior to third reading of Bill 104;

That Bill 104 be amended to provide successor rights and legal recognition for all board employees affected by the transition;

That Bill 104 be amended to recognize the legal status of teacher collective agreements during the transition period until new collective agreements are negotiated between the new district school boards and their employees;

That Bill 104 be amended to delete section 335(3)(f) and any other sections directing the Education Improvement Commission to "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations" regarding the "outsourcing of non-instructional services";

That Bill 104 be amended to allow time for federation- affiliate organization within the new local district school board boundaries prior to the commencement of bargaining for a new collective agreement;

That section 339 and any other relevant clauses of Bill 104 be amended to require that school board employees be included as members of any local committees established by the Education Improvement Commission;

That Bill 104 be amended to allow for locally raised tax dollars and school board reserves to remain with the community of origin;

That the education finance reform regulations allow district school boards to raise up to an additional 10% of their budget through local revenue sources;

That Bill 104 be amended to provide additional funding for the costs of merging the hardware and software of district school board information systems;

That Bill 104 be amended to provide district school boards with adequate time to merge programs and reconcile disparate operating policies beyond the January 1, 1998, deadline;

That impact studies on the costs of merging board programs be released prior to third reading of Bill 104;

That Bill 104 be amended to remove section 346, and other sections of the bill which grant the Education Improvement Commission immunity from legal suit, with regard to the legal authority vested in unelected provincial officials to amend fundamental budgetary decisions of school boards.

1720

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation. Just so it's absolutely clear for the record, the Sweeney school board reduction task force would have recommended that London-Middlesex be amalgamated and Elgin-Oxford be amalgamated, as opposed to the four-board amalgamation that's proposed.

Mr LeFeuvre: That's correct.

Mrs McLeod: Since reference was made earlier to the studies of Mr Sweeney, I think we should make it clear where they differ from the proposals that are now before us.

I want to refer to the concerns you raise about the whole collective bargaining process, at the top of page 7. The brief, in my view, very accurately portrays the sheer confusion and the contradictory nature of the provisions in this bill as they affect the powers of the EIC and its control over board budgets, and apparently anything except collective bargaining, but if you can't control your budget, how do you have any collective bargaining agreements?

There are two questions I would ask you. Are the contracts fully harmonized from the London-Middlesex amalgamation?

Mr LeFeuvre: No.

Mrs McLeod: If not, what happens to all of that now, and how much more difficult will it be to harmonize contracts when boards presumably will have no local funding flexibility because the ministry is controlling 100% of the funds?

Mr LeFeuvre: What happened in the London-Middlesex situation is that our employees went and took with them, as successor rights, any obligations that were in our collective agreement that were not in London's and then simply became members of London for all other purposes of the collective agreement.

In the current circumstance it would probably take a staffing committee about three years to sort out whether or not Middlesex was going to abandon its specialized music program, by which it delivers its preparation time, versus London's, which is delivered partly through French and partly through rotary phys ed in the larger schools; and Elgin has French delivered down to grade 1, but the other two boards have it to grade 4, and two boards have JK but two don't have JK.

In terms of the entire process, it would take probably two years of some type of staff transition period by which to accommodate all the circumstances that would arise out of putting four boards together with four separate collective agreements.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's very clear and your recommendations are very clear.

One of the real issues is that when unification of the London-Middlesex boards was looked at, and also when Mr Wells looked at Windsor-Essex, the assumption was that you wouldn't go down to the lowest common denominator in terms of working conditions and all other collective agreement things; that if anything, you would regularize up in order to reach the sameness. I think, realistically speaking, the only way this government can hope to save dollars is by going to the lowest common denominator and by destroying the successor rights. Would you agree?

Mr LeFeuvre: I would say that it would be impossible for them to save money in any other manner than to go after the collective agreements of all the teachers in the province, period. I don't think, even if you tried to decide what the lowest common denominator between four boards of education was, the public would allow the dissolution of any one of the services from all the areas. The expectation would be that they would all be provided in all four boards, as opposed to cherry-picking, if you will, if somebody on an EIC thinks they're going to be able to do that. I can't see how this can be sensibly workable at all.

Mrs Boyd: So your assumption is that they'll simply go after collective agreements for all employees of all boards, as well as reducing the number of administrators.

Mr LeFeuvre: Yes.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): John, it's good to see you again. In recommendation 8 you make reference to an additional 10% being allowed to be raised locally. Would it be your viewpoint that this money should be exclusively discretionary or would you recommend that if that was to occur, those moneys be directed to a particular area of the education community?

Mr LeFeuvre: I would think they should be discretionary.

Mr Smith: I know you have a considerable amount of background in the area of statistics generation, hardware and software packages and information systems. In item 9 you recommend that there should be funding to address those areas of concern. Do you have a feel, given your experience from the previous amalgamation and your knowledge of the existing systems, of the time and the estimated costs to bring those systems together?

Mr LeFeuvre: When you look at the package from the two board offices, which you would just more or less call the operating systems of the two, and then you went to look at London's library system, which does not have the computerized setup that Middlesex county had, if I can recall correctly, the cost on that was estimated at somewhere between $5 million and $7 million.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr LeFeuvre, for coming and pinch-hitting for Mr Wanamaker. It's been a pleasure to have you.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, WINDSOR SECONDARY UNIT

The Chair: I call upon the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Ray Moreau. Members, you'll find that at 5:25 on the agenda. Thank you very much also, Mr Moreau, for filling in.

Mr Ray Moreau: I'm Ray Moreau. I'm a teacher in Windsor. Sheila wasn't able to make it and she phoned me to take her place.

I am going to say first off that I hope those of you who are from out of town get a chance to see the city. It's a beautiful city. We're extremely proud of it. You don't get to see all the good sides of it from inside this room.

I'm also aware that you people are just about halfway through your day, so I will try not to be too long. But I think it's really important that you recall that those of us sitting over here aren't politicians. We are here really to serve the community we represent. I represent teachers but I'm also a Catholic ratepayer, and I want to speak to you as a Catholic ratepayer, as a Catholic teacher, and as the president of OECTA secondary here in the city of Windsor.

I want you to know that I teach politics to an adult class. All day today there have been my students in this room observing how this system works, because I want them to understand how democracy works. I want them to know that having committee hearings and travelling across this province is important to the democratic process in this province. Four or five of them are still here; there were 22 of them this morning when you started, but there has never been a moment today when some of my students haven't been here watching you. Tomorrow we're going to discuss this process because they really don't know much about most of it. I think it's really important that they see that this works. I've been a political buff all my life, and if this system doesn't work, we're all in big trouble.

I want to remind the committee as well that contrary to what the minister keeps saying, we have one of the best educational systems in the world, bar none, and you cannot compare apples and oranges. I think that's very important whether it goes to the educational standards or it goes to the expenses in meeting the needs of our students. You can't compare Ontario with everybody else in the world. It isn't the same, and you've heard that before.

For those of you on the government side, may I remind you of one of the grand people of this country, whose vision and compromise created the country we live in: Sir John A. Macdonald, Old Tomorrow, one of the founders of the Tory party. He had a vision that he wanted this country to exist. The BNA Act that he ended up with is not what he started out wanting, but he had the skill and the talent to change it so that it worked.

I'm asking you people to do the same thing with Bill 104, because it has no vision; it doesn't tell us anything. It's a very small piece of a puzzle that's extremely complicated, and you've heard that over and over today. I want you to listen to the visions we've had in the past. There is no vision here except cut, cut, cut.

We're open to change. The educational system in this province is one of the best, because the stakeholders in this province, no matter who's the government, have never been satisfied with the status quo. Change is why Ontario has one of the best educational systems in the world. If you don't believe me, just take a poll around the world and you'll find out, contrary to Mr Snobelen's repeated sayings, that he's not telling the true picture.

1730

Not only is there lack of vision. John A. Macdonald also compromised, and I'm going to ask you people to compromise for the good of the educational system that I represent and that we're all here to better, no matter what our political agendas or sides are. That's what we're here for, I hope.

As a teacher of 30 years, I hear a great deal about what's going on in terms of curriculum. We get all these announcements out of Queen's Park, "We're going to do this." So far it's all been for naught. Secondary school reform so far, basically, as a teacher -- I've been doing it for 30 years and I'm totally concerned about the students I teach. There isn't anything in there that is positive. We're open to change but we're not really being consulted. We're terrified, to be quite honest with you, that the only thing driving the agenda is saving money. We are not convinced, and we want to be convinced, that the agenda is education, not money saving. That's what concerns us as parents, as teachers and as ratepayers.

We're really concerned as well about equity. One of the reasons we have trustees at a local level, with some power -- they don't have any as of January 13 -- is to make sure that the disadvantaged children in our system are all equally treated, that no single group of influential people can take away the necessities from disadvantaged people. Local trustees, with whom I've argued for 15 years, I might add, and have taken teachers on strike against, are key to the successful operation of the educational system in this province, and it's been such for 150 years or more.

We're also concerned about the other equity part of the legislation, and that is this outsourcing. If you go into a school -- and my office is in an elementary school, although I'm a secondary teacher -- the custodian is a part of the staff. When they have a staff luncheon, the custodian goes. So does the secretary. They're all part of the community. You can't take that and sever it. They're part of the community. They know the kids, they care about the kids, and they're committed to the school. There is no price on that. If there is, we're also in big trouble.

The centralization of power at Queen's Park doesn't do anybody any good. Local solutions are the cheapest. My brief goes on and on and on about all the things you've seen across the province where local trustees and local parents and local teachers have come up with solutions in their own areas which nobody, through no fault of their own, can do from the Mowat Block in Toronto. We want local control.

Let me give you an example. If the federal government had the power to take away the taxation right of the provinces and in turn said, "We'll give every provincial government in Canada an equal amount of money per capita," do you think you guys would have any power? I don't think so. When you take away the taxation power from the trustees you basically make them eunuchs. I think that's critically important. Think about that. If you people didn't have the right to tax, what power would you have?

I'm also not convinced, of course, that amalgamation in any way, shape or form is cheaper.

I want you people to know too that unless there are changes to Bill 104 -- and I haven't heard any really outstanding applause for it today. If there aren't real amendments to that bill and this committee doesn't do something to address the concerns of the people who come in front of you, then why shouldn't the rest of us -- and I'm not one of those but I might become one -- be cynical about the political process? If us coming here doesn't mean anything, then for God's sake don't let us come. We come here because we want to make a difference. We want you to hear our concerns.

If it doesn't matter, if Bill 104 is submitted without major amendments, this will all be for naught. I have to convince the students I have, and I'll be using your names tomorrow, very nicely, I might add. If my students don't understand that, why should they believe in the system I want them to be part of? I'm trying to convince them to be part of the system and to run for election and to vote, for God's sake. I don't stress political philosophy or parties. I want them to be involved, but I have to be able to tell them that it means something, so I hope I can.

In my brief, as well -- I'm convinced, by the way, that Bill 104 is unconstitutional. We can go on about this part and that part, but in at least three areas I think it's unconstitutional. You will see a letter I wrote to the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association when they first came out and supported it, and that's fair. Also included is the response from the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association to me. They are the ones that publicized the documents and I think you should have it as well. My concern as a Catholic ratepayer is that no trustee association -- I say this to them and I will say it to you -- can take away my right to have Catholic schools. You can't put my rights in abeyance. They can't do that because they don't have the right to do that. The Scott act gives me the right and I want that right. I don't want anyone taking it from me and I will resist it if anyone does. I can't be more clear than that.

I also mention in my letter about social justice, about the people who will be displaced. The response to that is, "We'll do the best we can." If the local separate school boards don't have any money, how can there be social justice in looking after the people who are already there? Without money, you don't have anything. You can talk about social justice, but you know what? Letting people go -- what social justice is there in that? There's no protection because they won't have the power to tax. I think they should have that power. I've disagreed with trustees, but it's still the best system, and to do away with it is an abrogation, I believe, of constitutional rights.

I think it's unconstitutional because the EIC is above the law. Everybody in Canada is subject to the law, no matter what your position is. We now have a commission that is above the law. Why would you want to do that in the first place? I want you to know that Dave Cooke and Ann Vanstone don't need that kind of protection. They're quite capable of doing their job and making the tough decisions, without taking away basic rights in this country. They're quite capable. You don't have to give them that power, so don't give it to them.

I'm asking you people, when you make your amendments, number one, we want local control. I don't want to have to phone the Mowat Block. I tried that once for a deputy minister and nobody knew who the hell he was and I went through the information system. I don't want that. I want to be able to phone the trustees. And you know what? We've solved our problems here and we've created all kinds of things because, sure, we have our differences, but we sure as heck work together on many things too. We're all part of the same community.

I want to make it perfectly clear that although I have disagreed with OSSTA's position, remember that where we all want to be in the Catholic community is the same. OSSTA just happens to trust the government more than we do. The issue here is trust. You know what? I really want to trust you, but you've got to give me something to trust because there's nothing in this legislation except dictatorialness and taking away local control.

The reduction in the number of trustees, to me, is absurd. If you're talking about democracy, you need representation. In my brief, I also ask you to provide information like: Why is this so important? Why do we have to do it right away?

Last, I ask again, as was asked this morning -- everybody wants you to slow this down. I'm asking you, as a committee, to recommend that Bill 104 be submitted to the Court of Appeal of Ontario so that I, who can't afford the $200,000 it would take to take you there, don't have to. What's the rush? If the government is very clear that it is constitutional, they should. David Peterson did it with the extension of funding. He set the precedent before he went to third reading. I'm asking you people to do the same thing. If you believe in it, let the courts say it's legal.

Personally, and I'm not a lawyer, I don't believe it's legal. Some of you may be lawyers, but I'm not. But I've been involved in the educational community for 30 years. I believe in what I do and I believe in government, and I believe in you as representatives. If I can't believe in that, I'm in big trouble, not only as an individual but as a teacher who teaches politics, by the way.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm open to any questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Moreau. You've used up all your time, unfortunately, but may I say that I, for one, would love to be in your class tomorrow when you have this discussion.

Mr Moreau: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Project Ploughshares: Are they in the room? Is Mark Onda here? Brigden Public School council?

Mr Skarica: Brigden Public School council sent me a letter, Madam Chair, addressed to myself but also to the education committee hearing. If I was cute, I could hold it back because it's critical of the government, but as everyone on the committee would agree, I'm not cute, so I will tender it as a submission.

The Chair: In view of the fact that we have a number of presenters who are not here, I propose to call a recess for about 15 minutes. We'll be back at 6.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Is there anyone here who is on the list?

The Chair: I've called everyone right to 6:20, Mr Johnson, so I think we'd best recess until 6 and trust that they will be here by then.

The committee recessed from 1743 to 1800.

WINDSOR AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL, SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE

The Chair: We took a brief recess. We're ready to start. I know that Mr Hertel is in the audience. Mr Hertel, Windsor and District Labour Council, would you be prepared to present? I know you've been waiting. This might be a good time for you to do that. Thank you very much for being here.

To the members, the Windsor and District Labour Council's brief was handed out earlier, so you have it among the papers which are in front of you.

Mr Bert Johnson: What time is this?

The Chair: Mr Hertel is a substitute presenter, but the brief of the Windsor and District Labour Council was distributed earlier today.

Mr Bert Johnson: I didn't see it on the list.

The Chair: No, that's why.

Mrs McLeod: He's substituting.

The Chair: Yes, he's a substitute presenter.

Mr Bert Johnson: Who's he substituting for?

The Chair: We have two or three who have not shown.

Mr Paul Hertel: I thank the committee for its indulgence. I didn't realize this would be so controversial. On behalf of the Windsor and District Labour Council I'm trying to represent one of our committees called the schools and education committee, which represents educational workers and teachers in elementary, secondary and post-secondary organizations and unions which are affiliated with the council.

Our committee at the current time is finding its way into the broad mandate of community concerns in Windsor and Essex county and I wanted to share with you some of our concerns, and they are as follows.

First of all, I've heard already today and I will repeat, our committee is opposed in principle to some of the major components of this bill, especially with regard to school board amalgamations because of the loss of accountability and local democracy, which have been articulated already today, and specifically in our region because of the very informative report of Thomas Wells several years ago.

We also are concerned about the loss of meeting local needs by the fact that the tax power arrangements for local boards have been changed in this bill. From a labour perspective, the content that has been articulated by the CUPE representative today and the SEIU representative today in front of you is reinforced by my presentation. We speak for their concerns in this brief presentation. We believe that this law, if it is passed as is, will affect working conditions under both the Teaching Profession Act and the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

In effect, it guts long and hard-fought-for bargaining rights in this province and we believe it can lead to loss of work, specifically through the concept of outsourcing or privatization. The list of bargaining rights and issues related to bargaining is articulated on page 2 of the handout I gave you, and I just wanted to show you in that list some of the complexities of bargaining rights and issues related to that.

With respect to seniority provisions and staffing transfers, there's an awful lot of complicated stuff, and the member representing the Middlesex elementary teachers quickly pointed that out in the previous presentation. We are concerned about some of the impacts of collective bargaining in terms of some of the large school board French-language areas that are being proposed. There's a whole area there that is just mind-boggling.

With respect to OLRA members, you've heard through the CUPE and SEIU people some of the proposals they have for amendments to the law as it's currently out, in section 335 and so on, that area. Clearly, successor rights tops the list of our OLRA members, and I wanted to share that with you.

Very specifically, our schools and education committee is asking for the bill, as amended, if it does become amended, to certainly contain provisions to guarantee collective bargaining rights in Ontario. We also support the recommendation for legal definition or advice with respect to some kind of referral process, and that has been articulated by a number of previous speakers as well.

That, in summary, was the brief presentation I wanted to make on behalf of the local district labour council and this particular committee of council. Thank you very much.

Mr Wildman: I'm pleased that you were able to present at short notice. You mentioned Mr Wells, a well-respected former Minister of Education, and his position, in which he said that "in Windsor-Essex, precedence analysis and forecasts indicate that any significant savings from amalgamation would be doubtful," and then he goes on to say that "amalgamation of boards is more likely to increase costs than reduce them" and "special circumstances and costs involved in the restructuring of boards in the Windsor-Essex area would outweigh the savings and benefits."

Considering the opinions of Mr Wells, a very competent and respected politician -- I mean that sincerely; I served with him in the Legislature when he was minister -- do you have any idea why the government would be proceeding in this way, ignoring the advice of someone with the expertise of Mr Wells?

Mr Hertel: I can't speculate on the government's rationale. I think it would be worth their while to re-read those sections and if there are areas for exemption, then indeed they might want to consider the contents of that report for exemptions from the current legislation.

I think I'm speaking on behalf of all of the schools and all of the community buildings that are representing the people of this area when I can say honestly we're here to promote effective education in all of the schools of our community. I think Wells was on to something. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Hertel. You are chair of the schools and education committee?

Mr Hertel: Yes, it's a new committee.

Mr Carroll: I noticed in your brief that you talk exclusively about the workers. You made no reference to anything to do with the quality of education or the students or any of those kinds of things. Are we to take from that that your perspective is solely one of protecting the rights of the workers, as opposed to the benefits of the system for the children?

Mr Hertel: Absolutely not. We believe that education is a critical component in our community. This particular argument is advanced in my brief because it is something which I wasn't sure would be addressed in some of the concerns that were presented by parent councils and so forth. It is part of the larger debate. It is not an exclusive item.

Mr Carroll: In what ways do you think Bill 104 will have a negative impact on the quality of education as it pertains to the students?

Mr Hertel: We've heard a litany of arguments in that area, everything from the question of outsourcing, which could lead to a lowering standard of education in the broad sense. That's a start.

1810

Mr Skarica: Sir, Mr Wells's recommendations encourage the ministry to change the Education Act and empower boards to reduce the number of trustees and reinstate legislated salary limits for trustees. In fact, that's what this legislation does, but the government is being attacked for doing it. People have indicated that's an attack on democracy. What's your feeling on that recommendation?

Mr Hertel: On which one?

Mr Skarica: The recommendation to reduce trustees and reinstate salary limits.

Mr Hertel: We believe local democracy does work if you have an adequate number of trustees and at the current time we have been satisfied with the representation in this particular area in all of our school boards.

Mr Duncan: Maybe you could tell us a little bit about this new committee of the district labour council and share with us some of the labour council's activities on behalf of young people in this community over the course of the last 50 years.

Mr Hertel: I would say in a very broad way the labour community of Windsor supports athletics. It supports academic excellence throughout the broad community. It speaks out on behalf of a variety of community interests that we associate with the United Way programming. Those are but a few of the ways in which we try to represent the full community.

Mr Duncan: I think specifically of the tens of thousands of dollars you contribute to amateur sport, the tens of thousands of dollars you contribute to education. You built the student centre at the University of Windsor in conjunction with the CAW. I just thought that needed to be put on the record.

Mrs Pupatello: Very quickly, your comments regarding the outsourcing, specifically of custodial services in schools, for example: Many of the parents feel very comfortable because the custodian is such an integral part of the school that they actually act as a safety measure for kids, in particular very young children who get to know these individuals on a personal basis. Custodians know when certain kids are expected to arrive, and also look for people who are lingering the hallways who don't belong there.

I wonder if you could give me the reaction of how parents will feel when that work is outsourced and it's really up to a completely private company as to who shows up at St Pius that day to do the cleaning, and what kind of attachment they could possibly form to the students in that school when there's no control by the principal of that school as to who should show up that day.

Mr Hertel: Parents in this particular community and region are very sensitive to the role of organized labour contributing to the full educational process and I'm sure they would be very concerned if outsourcing led to changes that would depersonalize their neighbourhood and community schools. I'm convinced of that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hertel, in particular for jumping into the breach and presenting your brief on such very short notice. The committee is very grateful to you.

Mr Hertel: Thank you for this opportunity.

ROBERT CARBONARO

The Chair: Robert Carbonaro. Thanks very much for coming. Welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes to present your brief -- I'm sorry, 10 minutes. My apologies. You are an individual.

Mr Robert Carbonaro: You scared me there for a second -- 15 minutes. I'm a little out of breath because I had to run here from class to make it here.

The Chair: Well, good for you. Just catch your breath. We'll wait.

Mr Carbonaro: I just want to introduce myself. My name is Robert Carbonaro and I'm a fourth-year political science student at the University of Windsor. I've been following the changes in the educational system with some great concern over the years and I just took it upon myself to make a presentation here today and to do some background research into what exactly Bill 104 involves.

I'd like to start by saying that in order to improve the education system a refocusing of resources must take place where they are most needed, that being the individual student and teacher in the classroom, and not the inefficient existing system which currently plagues our education system. That refocusing includes the restructuring of our school boards to make them more cost-effective and accountable to parents, schools and students. That is why I agree that the number of school boards should be reduced from 129 to 66.

Bill 104 is the type of legislation that this province needs in order to put Ontario at the head of the class, a place it deserves and can clearly accomplish if it restructures the system. Reducing the number of school boards is based upon the same premise as reducing the number of MPPs, which will help eliminate unnecessary costs to our education system.

When I was researching this bill and its background information I was shocked to discover that of every $1 spent on the classroom, 80 cents is spent outside the classroom in some school boards. The 80 cents that is being spent outside the classroom is being spent to help support a school board system that clearly needs change. The status quo is not acceptable.

Bill 104 is a brave and accurate attempt that helps to remedy the challenges Ontario faces from a federal government which, in an effort to reduce its own deficit, has cost billions of dollars in transfer payments which would have helped to fund education in this province.

Upon further research I've discovered that in some cases, particularly in 1996, school board budgets were decreased by just under 2%, yet many school boards increased property taxes by over 3%, which has placed a strain on our communities. Where is the accountability?

Being from Toronto, I have seen where some of the resources which would have been applied to our education and classroom funding have gone. To my disappointment, these resources have previously been wasted upon glamorous buildings which have housed much of the administrative red tape this bill wishes to reduce.

There are many trustees who earn in excess of $49,000. I have friends who are trustees and I know how hard they work. They do work very hard, but in my opinion reducing this amount to a standard $5,000 will help to discover who really wants to help out the education standards in the communities by eliminating the huge salary incentive.

I think this bill clearly addresses the fact that our education system really needs change and it needs to be restructured to help address the needs of students, parents and school boards. I think reducing the number will make them more efficient and it also clearly addresses the concerns of both English- and French-language school boards. That is why I'd like to just submit my proposal that this bill will help to address the concerns that I think are very prominent in the education system, from a student who is reaching the climax in his educational career and who has younger siblings who will be facing the new challenges that this province clearly has to address.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carbonaro. We appreciate having a student. It must be intimidating to come before a committee, and we do appreciate your being here. We have about 10 minutes left for questioning -- sorry, about three minutes per caucus, three and a half.

Mr Crozier: He only had 10 minutes to start with.

The Chair: I'm sorry. It's been a very long day. You're quite right. We have five minutes left for questioning in total. With that in mind, Mr Smith.

Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned that you have a number of friends who are school board trustees. During the course of the submissions this committee has received we've had a great deal of concern expressed that the $5,000 salary cap will effectively reduce the quality of trustee that one might contemplate would be necessary for education. Given your association with trustees, do you feel that would deter qualified candidates coming forward to serve as trustees?

Mr Carbonaro: No, I don't think it will. There are some students at the University of Windsor who currently serve as trustees. These are people who are involved in the education system right now who are very capable and are hard workers. Their legitimate concerns are in the school system because they wish to serve the school. They are not in it for the amount of money that in some cases school boards pay their trustees. I feel by having a cap at $5,000 there will be a lot of people who are genuinely concerned about the school system who will come forward because they're clearly aware that it's not a career salary that you could making a living wage on. I think those people who do come forward are legitimately concerned about the school system and those are the types of trustees I would like representing myself and the people in the school system.

1820

Mrs Pupatello: I'll just be very brief. Do you consider it a necessity for children in a school to have heating during the winter months in their classroom?

Mr Carbonaro: Yes, of course I do.

Mrs Pupatello: And do you consider it a requirement, in particular early in the morning and later on in the evening, to have light in the classroom in order to teach?

Mr Carbonaro: If you're trying to patronize me, then I would have to agree --

Mrs Pupatello: No, I'm being very serious.

Mr Carbonaro: Then yes, I do.

Mrs Pupatello: Unfortunately, this government has seen fit to call that a non-classroom expense, so I just wanted to show you how ridiculous the definition was. My very quick question before I turn over to the leader: Are you still affiliated with the young PC Party on campus at the university?

Mr Carbonaro: Yes, I am, but what I --

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you.

Mr Carbonaro: What I want to know is, the fact that I am affiliated with the young PCs, does that take away from my right as a student and a citizen to present here?

Mr Wildman: No, not at all.

Mr Duncan: It just explains a lot.

Mrs Pupatello: It just tells me where you got your research.

Mr Carbonaro: The source of my research is the fact that I'm a student and have access to the library.

Interjections.

The Chair: Can you let the young man please respond.

Mr Skarica: On a point of order, Madam Chair: This deputant has given his 10-minute deputation with people talking, committee members talking and then people in the crowd laughing. I just think that's inappropriate. It's intimidating being here. He has his point of view. He has a right to it. I don't think anybody should be disparaged for it.

Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. It is a fact that the government does not count heat and light as classroom expenditures.

Just in terms of your view that passage of the bill and the changes in the numbers of trustees and their remuneration may in fact put funding back into the classroom, I thought I could give you some of the government's figures. Mr Snobelen estimates, and it's been confirmed elsewhere, that $13.5 billion is spent annually on elementary and secondary education in Ontario. Mr Snobelen says that this bill, if it is passed, will save $150 million. Now $150 million is a lot of money, but in comparison to $13.5 billion it's a little over 1%. So it may be a start, but it's not going to put very much into the classroom. The question is whether or not we should have the disruption that the bill may produce in the education system for the sake of saving a little over 1%.

Mr Carbonaro: Just looking at the general picture of this province, I have to say that whatever can be done to help eliminate the debt that I will inherit, and not the older generation, because I will be paying for it, any effort made to eliminate some of the deficit and debt which I will be forced to pay back I think is a good start for me and for the younger generation.

Mr Wildman: Even if it hurts their education today?

Mr Carbonaro: In my opinion, it does not hurt the education system right now.

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

I would like to say to the audience and to the members of the committee that we've had a policy, almost even a tradition with this committee, of hearing everybody out, regardless of their points of view, and I hope that we can continue in that vein for the rest of the hearings.

ST PIUS X PARENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Chair: May I call upon St Pius X Parent Advisory Committee, Kathy Stevenson. Welcome, Ms Stevenson. Thank you for being here. I notice you have some co-presenters. I would ask you to identify them for the record.

Mrs Kathy Stevenson: For the record, the secretary is Beth Kennette, the vice-chairperson is Denise Dumont and our treasurer is Barb Sakal. I'm the chairperson, Kathy Stevenson.

I am speaking on behalf of the St Pius X Parent Advisory Committee from the town of Tecumseh. I would like to make it clear that we represent no political party; we represent no union. We are here for the matter at hand and that is the children of this province.

Our current student enrolment is 890 children, and we represent 550 families. Our PAC has been active in our school for about 10 years. We started, as many others, by providing hot lunches for our children. In the last four to five years, because of various circumstances, we have been thrown into what our local paper described as "school yard politics."

Mr Cooke has already met us on several occasions, as we were fortunate to have had him as our MPP. It is our opinion that the Education Improvement Commission is now the fortunate one to have him as co-chair. We wish him and the committee luck in their new endeavour.

We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you regarding the future of education in our province under the changes to the Education Act.

Bill 104 will be strengthening the role of parent councils in Ontario. We recognize the importance of parental involvement in our schools and we appreciate that what we have been doing for years will now be legislated by this bill. However, if it is the intention of Bill 104 to replace trustees with parent councils, we caution you. No one has been more discouraged with trustees than us. We have seen trustees in meetings who never say a word and never ask a question. We have sat through three-hour meetings and never heard the word "children" mentioned once.

Our Christian faith has taught us to think of others before ourselves. It is our concern that there will be schools that do not have the parent volunteers to form a council. St Pius and other schools will always have parents who are willing to take on this responsibility. That is the ideal situation, but we know the real world is not always ideal. The real world is full of schools where parents are unaware of what is going on, let alone willing to sit on a council.

The education system in Ontario will become an élitist society, where powerful parent councils will dictate what is best for their schools and other schools will be completely ignored. We fear for the children of those schools, for who will be their voice if there are no trustees.

Reducing the number of trustees is a step in the right direction in cutting costs. But the children of Ontario need a non-partisan voice at the school board level. Not all trustees are as we stated earlier; some are truly committed to improving the quality of education in the classroom. It is our duty as voters to be aware of electoral candidates for school boards and to use our voting power to elect trustees who truly represent all children.

The short title for Bill 104 is the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997. The purpose in reducing the number of school boards in Ontario is to save money at the administration level. We support the reduction only if there will be realized savings, and those savings must remain in the education ministry to be directed back into the classroom.

The pupil-teacher ratio in Ontario is alarmingly high. We address this issue in support of what the teachers have been saying for years because it is the major concern of parents regarding education in our schools today. I recently spoke with a grade 7 elementary teacher and our discussion was about mathematics. She informed me that in her class she has a child who is at a grade 10 level in math and she has another child who is at the primary level. In a classroom of 30 children, the child who excels is not being challenged and the child who has fallen behind will never catch up because the 28 students in between must be taught to ensure progression at their level.

In each classroom you have students at either end of the spectrum: those who are advanced and those who need extra help. The larger the class size gets, the more difficult it is for teachers to address the needs of the children at each end of this spectrum.

Our PAC obtained bingo licences and started to run bingos to raise funds for our school about five years ago. It was our intention as parents to use this money to buy extras for our children. With our bingo money, we converted a field of weeds into a physical and recreational area for the students, including all the requirements of a track and athletic field.

1830

The days of purchasing perks for our children are long gone. We now work bingos to the early hours of the morning to provide our children with the most basic necessities, such as classroom textbooks and resource materials. Fifteen years ago, I was preparing for the birth of my first child, and if you had told me then that as a parent I would be working all-night bingos to provide a history book for my child, I would have thought you were crazy. But that is exactly what I and many other parents in this province are doing today.

In the last two years, the parents of St Pius have put more money into our classrooms than our school board did. The reason? We are a Catholic school in a rural district -- an assessment-poor board. The proposed restructuring of how school boards are funded must be done for the purpose of providing all children in Ontario with an equal opportunity for education. English, French, separate and public boards must all have resources equal to each other. A child in Tecumseh or Timmins must be given the same educational tools as those children in Ottawa or Toronto. The wealth of their municipalities should not be a factor in who gets books and who doesn't.

Chances are that a child growing up on a dairy farm in Norwood will not remain there as a adult. If his goal is to be a financial adviser on Bay Street, it is your responsibility to give him the opportunity to achieve his dream. It is not up to which PAC can get the best bingo dates and times. We are all aging baby-boomers and those 2 am bingos are starting to hurt.

The main goal of any education system is to prepare children to function as optimally as possible as adults. Children today have a wide range of needs. This includes exceptional children, children with special needs, children from dysfunctional families, children with attention deficit disorder, and all these children come from a vast array of socioeconomic backgrounds. Your decisions have far-reaching implications for all these children.

To quote John Snobelen, "As part of our commitment to move students to the head of the class, we will focus our resources where they belong -- on the individual student and teacher in the classroom." The St Pius Parent Advisory Committee endorses this commitment, with expectations that you use your wisdom and integrity to make this a reality. The children you represent are all Ontarians and their success will be the future success of this province.

Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. I guess the only question I have revolves around notionally, you were saying, the idea of a student in Timmins or Tecumseh having access to a comparable education. Do you believe that if we centralize funding, people in this part of the province can truly rely on the government of Ontario, and I mean political persuasions aside -- are you comfortable leaving those decisions to a body in Toronto versus local decision-making?

Mrs Stevenson: We've seen what the local decision-making has done for our board and we're not very happy with it.

Mr Duncan: Let's take health care and the underfunding of our hospitals, for instance, which is done --

Mrs Stevenson: That's not what we're here to speak about this evening.

Mr Duncan: No, I understand that, but the question is, again, locally you're not satisfied with the decisions that have been made with respect to levels of funding. Are you going to be more comfortable with those decisions being made in Toronto by the Ministry of Education and Training?

Mrs Stevenson: If it works, yes. That is why we are here telling people what will make it work, what we see are the problems. The funding is for you guys to figure out.

Mr Duncan: Again, though, the question is the local boards making decisions with respect to funding. What this bill will do, in effect, is take away all taxation power from the local level and have Toronto make the decisions. That argument's been put and I think it's a very compelling argument. I'm a little bit nervous about that because historically it's been the small rural areas, particularly in this part of the province, that have been overlooked and underfunded in the areas of education and health care. I flag you to that concern because I understand where you're coming from in terms of your own frustration, because those frustrations I think are felt all over the province, but I'm personally very leery about trusting some official at the Mowat Block in Toronto to make those decisions for us.

Mrs Stevenson: If Toronto decides that this is the history book that every child in grade 7 gets, then that's fine with us. What we're saying is that we can't not be getting the same resources as other children in the rest of the province.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation, and I sure feel for you in terms of the bingos. I agree it is a bit much. I think you are like many parents who just never expected that their obligations to their children, which they welcome when they decide to have those children, would entail raising the basic cost of their children's education. I guess our fear is that more and more that is what may happen.

You speak from the position of an assessment-poor board and you talk about what will happen to those children who don't have parents who are able to contribute as you can, and that's my worry too. But I have an additional worry, and that is the assumption, certainly of your trustee association, that the amount of funding for assessment-poor Catholic boards will rise when equality of grants is achieved across the province. There are a couple of problems with that.

Number one, that was a recommendation of the Crombie commission. We haven't had a confirmation that that is what the government is going to do. Number two, we have no commitment that in fact the actual base-per-child funding that happens in your board or any other board is not going to go down as that money gets less and is spread very thinly across the province.

If that were to happen, would you be as enthusiastic about this equity at a much lower level, or are you assuming that equity would bring you up to the higher level that many other boards have enjoyed? You're quite right about that.

Mrs Stevenson: That is what we're assuming, that it will bring us up.

Mrs Boyd: I think you know that they want to take $1 billion out of the schools, out of funding schools. You need to be really aware of that. We believe that having faith that this is going to bring you up to a higher level may be misplaced faith.

Mrs Stevenson: I thought the purpose of this was for us to be able to come and speak and give our ideas and our sides, and not for you to speak back to us about what you feel or throw your opinions on us. This is how we feel.

The Chair: In fairness, Mrs Stevenson, the members can use their time in any way they want once it's turned over to the individual caucuses.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I think you're to be commended for your effort.

You state that you represent about 550 families, so I guess that would be plus or minus 1,100 parents. How many of those would actively participate in the PAC at your school?

Mrs Stevenson: We are very fortunate that we have a large pool obviously to draw children out of.

Ms Denise Dumont: In terms of monthly meetings or people who participate in bingos?

Mr Pettit: Yes; whatever. Would it be 10%, 50%?

Mrs Stevenson: We have an appreciation night at the end of the year for all the parent volunteers, and I think last year there were 125.

Mr Pettit: So about 10%. It's been my experience with my own kids at their school that there's not a great amount of parental involvement. Is this is a sign that they're content or they don't care? Why do you think there's so much apathy from the parents' point of view in terms of whether it be Home and School or PACs?

Mrs Stevenson: I think it's the times. It's the society we live in today. We have a lot of single-parent families that work all day and in the evening they have their other roles. They have laundry to do, they have to supervise the homework and that. Every parent can't volunteer their time. They don't have free time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Stevenson, and all of your colleagues for being here today and presenting your views. We appreciate it.

1840

KAREN SPENCER-GIBBS

The Chair: Karen Spencer-Gibbs. Good evening, Mrs Spencer-Gibbs. Welcome to our committee.

Mrs Karen Spencer-Gibbs: I'd like to welcome everybody to Windsor. I hope you enjoy our great city for the brief period that you will be here. I'd like to thank my MPP, Dwight Duncan, for supplying me with Bill 104, which I couldn't afford to purchase by myself. Excuse me, but I have six kids. I'd suggest that any further bills should be typed on the Ontario legislative channel, along with all ministries, MPPs and how to contact them. What's the big secret anyway?

I tried to contact the Ministry of Education and Training. Once I was through the busy signal, I was put on hold for approximately 22 minutes to speak to a fellow human. This is unacceptable. If I was at work, I would have been using six minutes of my employer's time to speak with the ministry, and I'm sure my employer would not find that very enlightening. If this is a preview to the kind of service for the public once this bill passes, I'm quite upset. To compound matters, a Tory MPP from Bruce-Grey, Mr Murdoch, proposes to eliminate voice mail. No problem, but make sure that you have enough employees to answer that phone so I don't have to wait again.

The Ontario government wants to take over education. Let me give you some insight, because insight is something that I'm going to divulge to you through my experience, as hindsight is 20-20. So we want the insight tonight, just on a few of the issues you'll be dealing with.

Many schools have significant historical value. Question: Will this bill include a guarantee to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act if a community chooses a school to designate?

Many schools are not handicap-accessible. Question: Will this bill guarantee more handicap-accessible schools?

Many schools in the area have low lot grades or have inadequate yard drainage, which results in standing water in school grounds. Question: Is this bill prepared to comply with municipal bylaws? In Windsor, this bylaw is 7373, which is a regulatory bylaw that empowers inspectors to issue orders to fill up and drain grounds, which include school yards and vacant lots. Is this bill prepared to comply with our municipality and others across Ontario?

Some schools have asbestos and lead pipes. Question: Why doesn't this bill address these hazards or other potential hazards? This bill doesn't include a contingency plan for any of these potential hazards and where that particular school's population would be educated while they're handling this; hopefully it would be expedient.

This bill also does not address boards that are debentured up to their eyebrows. Question: How are these debt matters going to be handled, and why is this not stated in this bill? Question: Why is the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations not included in the sections referring to parent councils? Why has this bill shunned some 80 years of experience in educational issues in Ontario? These are the original parent volunteers, yet they're not mentioned in this bill. They've shunned them. Why? Personally, I find this appalling and a slap in the face for these dedicated volunteers.

Home and school association members carry their own insurance for their activities. Question: Why hasn't this bill mandated parent councils to carry insurance for their parent councils and left the general public open to litigation, financial onus?

This bill does not address corporate or private sponsorships, which is the thing to do in schools today, nor guidelines as to what is acceptable or deniable. Why have you not addressed this? This bill doesn't address fund-raising guidelines. A potential for loss in grant money may occur if a group is an avid fund-raiser.

There was recently a case in the media where a teacher went bankrupt twice in one year yet was allowed to hold $22,000 of parents' money to be used for a foreign exchange program. The Ottawa Board of Education had to agree to repay this teacher's mismanagement and will be deducting from the teacher's paycheque over an extended period of time. This teacher is 58 years old. Talk about job security.

Question: Why did this bill not include fund-raising guidelines and expose Ontario taxpayers to such potential financial risk?

My main concern today is special-needs students. I've done a little research and I find that there's an allotted sum to each student. The respective boards pool this money in a general fund and attempt to satisfy the needs of the students in their jurisdiction. But through better prenatal care and hospital methods, a larger percentage of high- and multiple-needs children is surviving, even more so than just 10 or 15 years ago. This relates to higher education costs.

As of October 31, 1996, the Windsor Board of Education has 1,013 identified special-needs children. This number is expected to increase. We have children on the waiting list to be assessed and others who are ready to enter the school system. Special needs should have a divided grant system, which should be addressed in this bill, to cover the cost of individual assessed special needs. If special needs children transfer to another board, so should the grant go with them proportionally. It should have to be proven that special services are being administered through documentation and annual audits. Question: Who will be responsible for the special-needs children and their issues?

With the proposed merging of the boards, costs will go up. Transportation is the first thing that came to my mind because my children are now eligible to go to a county school and vice versa.

Bill 26 has given the municipalities a chance to charge user fees. Public transportation is being proposed to be financed by municipalities. Therefore, the municipalities in turn can charge education for special-needs transportation. How about secondary school kids' bus fees? If we're going to pay for our Transit Windsor, surely you don't think Windsor is going to give the government free haul on the bus systems. The joke of the matter is that the Tory government actually gave us these powers.

If and when Bill 104 is passed, the Ministry of Education and Training will have to get financing and deal with other ministries like social services, health, citizenship, municipal affairs, Attorney General, labour, transportation and finance; if I forgot anybody, I'm sorry. Therefore, if Bill 104 becomes law, the Ontario government must enact the ministry of the child within 30 days. This way Ontario taxpayers would be ensured that their children would not be lost in a paper pyramid of different ministries and delays and finger-pointings and, "This one is not doing his job." The intent of Bill 104 was to save money. Let's ensure it does.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mrs Spencer-Gibbs. You have just about used up your time. We thank you very much for coming and expressing your views so frankly.

1850

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1150

The Chair: CUPE 1150, Judith Callahan. Welcome, Ms Callahan. I would ask you to present your co-presenter for the record.

Ms Judith Callahan: My co-presenter this evening, ladies and gentlemen, is Donna Roden. Donna is the president of Local 1753 with the Middlesex County Board of Education.

My name is Judith Callahan, and I am the president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1150. Members of CUPE Local 1150 are employed by the Board of Education for the City of London as office and clerical staff, library assistants, educational assistants, speech and language assistants and health care assistants. We work not only in the schools but in many administrative support roles throughout our board. My 600 members are extremely proud of the fact that we are the very necessary liaison between the numerous aspects of our school system and our community. We have happily undertaken this role for 30 years.

The proposed language in Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, will seriously impact Ontario's education structure as we know it today. My primary goal this evening is to convince you to make what we strongly believe are very necessary amendments to the extremely intrusive proposed bill prior to its receiving royal assent.

In the packages that you have been provided with, you will find many pieces of information. Let me quickly identify some of them, and I would ask that you review each of them in detail at your convenience. It is the hope of my membership that after listening to my presentation and subsequently reviewing each submission to your committee, you will have been convinced to make amendments to Bill 104 in areas such as the ones we identify.

The first item you will find is a pamphlet entitled Help Us Save Our Schools. This pamphlet identifies the concerns CUPE has with proposed education restructuring and what the possible effects will be. The second item is a pamphlet entitled The Power to Care is in Your Hands. This pamphlet, I'm quite proud to say, was published by my members and distributed throughout London in an attempt to increase the public's awareness of the important role played by us in their children's education. This pamphlet, together with pamphlets and advertisements sponsored by CUPE Locals 190, 982, both of the London board; 1753 and 1170 of the Middlesex board; 1791 and 332 of the Elgin county board; and 3581 of the Oxford county board, was prepared with one key goal in mind. That goal was to inform the public of the extremely valuable services CUPE members provide and how seriously not only we would be affected, but in turn, how the children of the province will be negatively impacted by Bill 104.

It will become evident after reading these inserts that support staff, or, as we have been identified in Bill 104, "non-instructional staff," in our proposed district school board, have already taken great strides towards coordinating efforts. This was not the result of Mr Snobelen's announcement. We are extremely fortunate that the office and clerical staff for all four boards have been organized by CUPE and that CUPE also represents educational assistants in three of those boards. Donna and I have also had previous experience with merging employee groups when schools which formerly fell under the jurisdiction of her board were annexed into the greater London area in 1993. The coordination of the four boards has resulted in our being able to make great gains towards a common goal. The exercise we undertook as the result of the announcements surrounding Bill 104 culminated in a common message from the employees of the proposed amalgamated Elgin county, city of London, Middlesex county and Oxford county boards of education, or as we have been fondly referred to, the ELMO board of education.

Our common message is that the education system currently has the best service providers holding together the education system in Ontario, and might I add that we do so at a very economical rate of pay. The average CUPE members in Ontario support their families on a salary of $24,000 per year. We are definitely not the "fat" which should be cut from education.

Now let's do what we are here for. Let's address Bill 104. We have grave concerns about the language in this bill. Let me acknowledge that as taxpayers we recognize that some, and I emphasize "some," of the concepts identified in this bill are long past overdue, and we absolutely recognize the need for change, but not just change for the sake of change. We embrace change as not only a learning experience but as a fact of life. However, there are a few issues in this proposed legislation that we absolutely cannot accept if they are passed in their current format.

First and foremost, let me share with you our concerns about the Education Improvement Commission as identified in section 334. It is indicated in section 335(2) that "the Education Improvement Commission shall oversee the transition to the new system of education governance in Ontario." We don't disagree with this concept if the new system is a better one. However, we don't believe this will be the case. We have serious doubts. In particular, we are concerned with the magnitude of powers granted to the EIC.

Our concerns arise from the following sections: section 335(3), clauses (e), (f), (g), and (h). The broad powers this commission has been granted under these sections, together with other sections we have not identified, are above and beyond any power ever witnessed in the history of this province. The ridiculous idea that a few appointed individuals, not elected representatives, should be allowed to make decisions which could so drastically affect our education system, and ultimately the quality of education in our province with just the stroke of a pen, has created turmoil and extremely high anxiety levels throughout our communities.

The perception is that the EIC has unlimited powers. Unfortunately, this perception has been confirmed. Actually, it has been guaranteed through the language in section 344(2). You have provided the EIC with the ability to make decisions without any challenge. In fact section 346(1)(a), guarantees them unlimited protection from liability. When did our province become subject to a dictatorship rather than a democracy? Mr Cooke has been quoted as saying that he has accepted his role to "guarantee the protection of the taxpayer." What about protecting the interests of the children of this province? May I remind you that they are the future taxpayers.

The provisions allowing the EIC such unlimited power should be amended immediately. Let me make myself clear, though: We are not suggesting that you place language in Bill 104 that will guarantee this group of appointed individuals the powers that are currently hinted at. We would recommend that the mandate of the EIC be clearly identified, with consideration being given to the many concerns surrounding the structure that have been brought to your attention through the numerous submissions your committee will receive.

As well, when making amendments to these sections of the bill, which I might add are absolutely required, please keep in mind the people you represent and the children who ultimately will be affected. We truly believe that less government may not be better if less government is what has been proposed as the Education Improvement Commission. Actually, we don't see any improvements to education if this commission is put in place.

Specifically under section 335(3)(e), we believe that we should be allowed, as employees, to jointly review our collective agreements with the administration of the proposed district school board and discuss what would be advantageous to all concerned, keeping in mind the key issue: quality service to the students of this province. We are not proposing the sky as the limit, but give us some framework to stay within. Identify which issues we can and cannot negotiate but always keep in mind the current legislation entitled the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

We have been extremely responsible, not only during past contract negotiations with our employer but by participating in review committees, with the goal being the betterment of education for our board. I have included in your package a copy of a submission made by my members to the London board of education during last year's preliminary budget deliberations. Please trust us to continue acting in this responsible manner for the future and allow us to maintain a quality of life that not only benefits ourselves but our community. Many members of CUPE 1150 and many other locals throughout this province give back to their communities and many organizations in very positive ways.

As indicated in section 335(3)(f), it is quite evident that the government believes that outsourcing of our positions will provide advantages to your new education system. We strongly disagree. We provide a pretty good bang for your buck. As Linda Clancy, our national representative, has indicated in her letter, which is also included in your package, "The education of our children is not a cheap commodity that is open to the lowest bidder."

1900

As educational assistants we come to our jobs with practical skills gleaned from many life experiences. We are a diverse group, with high educational qualifications, who provide a very necessary service. We become the second pair of hands and eyes in the classroom, and let me assure you we do not spend our day cutting and pasting and toileting children. Please refer to the letters I have included for you, one from Linda Hardy and one from Virginia Dahms, both members of our local, both educational assistants and both quite proud of that fact. Educational assistants significantly enhance the program set in place by the teachers in many, many ways.

School secretaries provide a vital link between the children we service and the community at large. This cannot become more evident or be more eloquently stated than in the letter written by Morag Watt, a fellow CUPE member. Morag summed it up perfectly. When reading her letter, which is included in this package with her blessing, I hope you will recognize that this service is one of the many non-instructional services you have referred to in this bill. The loss of members performing this role will detrimentally impact education in our province. Stephen Thompson, an appreciative parent, sums up the benefits of service providers such as Morag in three little words: "Thanks, Mrs Watt."

CUPE members are not only secretaries and educational assistants, though. They are the men and women your children know as the custodians who provide a clean school for your children, the highly skilled maintenance workers who keep your children's schools safe and running, the warehouse staff who deliver the many school supplies that allow your children's schools to function efficiently and the dedicated administrative support staff who work in areas such as finance, information services, payroll, printing services, purchasing and many others. Support staff, whether they are located in the schools, the school offices, the classrooms or the administrative buildings, are an integral part of the whole school family. If your children lose any of these support staff, the finely tuned educational machine they are accustomed to could grind to a halt. What future are you offering the children of Ontario?

We strongly believe that outsourcing is definitely not the direction your government should be heading in. Some government representatives suggest that we are paranoid and scaremongering to further our position on the issue of outsourcing. How so, when it is clearly written in section 335(3)(f)? This clause must be immediately eliminated from the proposed bill.

As well, section 340(2)(a) allows the EIC the ability to establish guidelines relating to appointments, hiring and promotion throughout Ontario. Are they able to see all from their Toronto offices when it comes to the staffing elements of each and every district school board? We highly doubt it. Talk about overriding collective agreements. We are disgusted with this suggestion. We have maintained responsible language in our collective agreements and will continue to do so if allowed the opportunity. Remove this clause or identify the parameters that we will be required to stay within during negotiations with our employers, whoever they may happen to be.

With reference to section 335(3), clauses (g) and (h), we agree that school councils could be strengthened and should be strengthened, but only if their mandate is clearly identified. We absolutely disagree, however, with increased parental involvement in education governance. Under these two sections, the most influential and outspoken parents will be guaranteed quality education for their children. The children of the parents who do not have the ability to effectively voice their opinion or the ability to provide financial support to their school community will be left far behind. Are only the privileged and wealthy to have access to quality education? Are parents who volunteer their time capable of making decisions relative to staffing issues, curriculum issues or financial issues? We don't believe so. In actuality, as a parent I would not feel capable of making those types of decisions for the benefit of all students at my children's schools. Don't put legislation in place that will allow for a "have" and "have-not" education structure. We have enough perceived "haves" and "have-nots" in our society without providing language to promote this.

In conclusion, let me provide you with some food for thought by offering some parallels. Would a surgeon perform an operation without the services of an anaesthesiologist? Not very effectively. My members are the anaesthesiologists of the education system that is currently in place. Our concern is that the government has placed a new roof on our house without providing an adequate foundation. Please reconsider the language in Bill 104 and implement a much-needed solid foundation by making the amendments we have suggested this evening.

The education system in Ontario has been built on a strong foundation in the past, and this is what our education system must continue to stand on for the future. The future of our education and the future of our children now lie in your hands. Please don't diminish the quality of education in this province by approving the language currently in place in Bill 104 and subsequently removing the possibility of a promising educational future for the children of Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Callahan and Ms Roden. Unfortunately, there's never enough time for presentation, and we regret that that is the case. Thank you for being here.

La Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne, Gabrielle Larocque. Is Gabrielle Larocque here? Is Steve Bauer here? Amy Elkardri? We called her before and she wasn't here. The Progressive Conservative Youth Association? They're not here.

HARROW JUNIOR SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Chair: I believe the Harrow Junior School Advisory Council is here, June De Vries. Thank you very much for being here. We're delighted to have you here, and in particular Mr Crozier, who has been waiting for you all day.

Mrs June De Vries: I thank you for letting me present. When I first contacted the government, it wasn't to appear before this board. I thought I was just contacting the government to receive a copy of Bill 104.

The calendar on the wall says it's March 24, 1997, but with this Bill 104 and many other changes the government wants to make to education, the calendar should be showing March 24, 1900. I feel that we are moving back in time instead of moving forward with the computer age.

I am a resident of Essex county and live in a community of 2,600-plus parents and children. I am concerned for the youth of our community schools, Harrow Junior, Harrow Senior, Harrow District High and St Anthony separate school.

Before I go any further, there is one thing, and only one thing that I agree with this government on, and that is to put a cap on expenses such as the amount an elected official is allowed to make, but I do feel that this and further governments have to look at themselves first and do something: spring housecleaning.

Let's start at the top of the political ladder and work our way down. Why start at the bottom and work our way up? Does the politician sitting in Toronto or Ottawa really need the government pension for serving six years representing their home town or county? As my three-and-a-half-year-old would say, "I don't think so, mom." I know for a fact you don't. You don't need it at all. You can go back to the jobs you had prior.

Why can't politicians pay into a regular Canada pension plan just like the rest of us working people? By deleting this pension, I am wondering whether or not the federal and provincial governments would be able to save enough money to provide proper funding in Ontario so we could keep preparation time, libraries in our schools, guidance counsellors, professional support staff, custodial and maintenance workers, in-school administration, instructional supervision and support staff, secretaries, who really care about their schools and our schools. I would like to keep the high standard of education where it is so that my children and others can be proud to be a Canadian.

Back to Bill 104. As parents of four children ranging in age from three and a half years to 12, my husband and I feel that unless we have the almighty dollars, our children and others like them in our situation are not going to receive the education they are entitled to. It is my understanding that high school will be four years or you're out. Is this true? If so, what's going to happen to the students who may not be able to get the course credits for their grade 12 diploma in those four years? Will the parents have to pay? It's hard enough to keep money in the bank account so they can attend college and university. Now you're asking us to pay for high school education? No. Not this parent.

I am the chairperson of the Harrow Junior School Advisory Council, and I was appalled that the government spent money on a report by Ernst and Young stating that the classroom consists of a teacher, a supply teacher or teacher assistant and, last but not least, classroom supplies such as textbooks and classroom computers. To me, this sounds like a one-room school house that my brothers and sister attended up until 1964.

1910

I feel the next thing the government is going to tell us is that to save even more money, all classrooms will have to be outfitted with a television and all schools with a satellite dish. Why? So the students may be taught by a teacher in Toronto. Not in my time. Children need role models. Teachers, principals and other support staff of the schools are still these role models for our children of today.

Can you really justify the reasoning behind the government taking education mill rate off the property taxes and saying that the money will come from Toronto? How is this when we keep hearing that there is no money? My conclusion to this statement, or thought, is that the government wants to hold the purse-strings. Why? How can you make decisions in Toronto for towns such as Harrow, Kingsville, Essex and many others in Ontario when you don't even have the foggiest idea of what our local needs are? Our needs in Essex county are not the same as needs in London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Toronto or even Kingston, even though the students' needs are the same.

We have to keep the school dollars at the local level to provide the needs for local students. I get the feeling the Tory government does not trust local school boards with the distribution of funds. All through the bill I am reading, the boards have to submit for the 1997-98 school year a monthly budget; 14 days after the month's end, they have to submit the amount that they actually used or will be using. What's going to happen? Is the government going to say, "You didn't use your full amount that you allotted for the month, so we're only going to bring up the difference of what you have left over for the next month"? This can't happen, because each month is different.

Over the last few months I have been listening to many parents, teachers, principals and students who are very concerned over Bill 104. First of all, the government mandated that all schools must have school advisory councils. Why? We are waiting on the answers.

Then on January 13, 1997, we hear that there will be fewer school boards with fewer trustees. With fewer trustees, who will be taking on the workload of making decisions that school boards and trustees are making now? How are these trustees to carry on a rapport with the parents they represent? In small-town Ontario, the family names don't change very often. In most areas they're working on the fifth or sixth generation of the same family name. When a strange or unfamiliar name comes around, people aren't as willing to open up and talk about their problems with a stranger. Parents and community members are not willing to discuss matters with an individual from another town or community if they don't know anything about this person. Then what? Who will the parents be able to turn to in certain situations?

Why change something that is working? Why stir up trouble, or is this where school advisory councils come into play as a mediator? I'm not one to be a mediator yet.

From students -- high school students mainly, because the younger ones aren't affected yet, but I have a 12-year-old who is concerned about her schooling -- I've been hearing the following: "If there's no funding for our school library, where do we research that history project, that science assignment or Mr Smith's geography project?" I know in rural Ontario we just don't have access to public transportation. You can't hop on the bus or call a taxi, not like in the urban centres. Most families have one vehicle, maybe two, but with both parents working to support the family in most cases, the car isn't there. How does that student, even if they have a licence, get to the local library? It's kind of hard. Most families nowadays have computers, but do they always have the best information at arm's reach? Maybe; maybe not.

If guidance counsellors are classified as outside the classroom, who is going to help students with their educational choices so that they will achieve their goals? These dedicated people help the students make the proper career choice backed up with proper high school courses, but I feel in today's society guidance counsellors should be taken down to the elementary school level. Students, parents, teachers and guidance counsellors should be coming up with a number of career choices so that students can fall back on these, because it's too late in grades 10 and 11 nowadays, unlike when I was in school. It wasn't until grades 10 and 11 that we started making our career choices.

Teachers and principals feel like they're walking on a minefield when it comes to their jobs. With the merger of two or more boards, there's going to be excess staff. Where are these staff members going to go? To the unemployment line? I don't think so. Mike Harris has already said he doesn't want anybody out there without a job. What about the secretaries who are working in the board office on a daily basis now? At least half of these won't be needed with the merger. Where are they going to go? You get the picture? Down into the school to bump another secretary out of her job, and where is she going to go? This is really going to help the workforce out there. What happened to "Create jobs," Mike Harris? All I can say is the Tory government is killing jobs.

As for privatizing custodial and maintenance and secretarial workers, I really feel the person who came up with this idea must have been asleep on the job. As a parent of children in the school system and with the world like it is today, someone will have to do a lot of talking before I jump on this bandwagon. Why? First of all, the safety factors: Can any one of this committee guarantee me that all people who will be working for private companies cleaning my school will have a police check done and will be able to be around my children for the safety of them? Look at all the kidnappings, physical assaults and other incidents that happen to children because of their innocence. No, thanks. Why try to change things that aren't broken? I feel this is Mike Harris's way of breaking the unions in the public sector.

1920

As for the secretaries, I would rather have someone from my own community. Why? Because once again, the safety factor comes into play. Will there be police checks done on these people? Maybe; maybe not. The safety of my children and the children of the school comes first.

Let me give you an example of a dedicated secretary. This story is true. It took place in February. A grade 1 student at our local school told her teacher that she wasn't to take the bus home. At our school, without a note from the parent stating reasons why the child is not to take the bus home, that student has to take the bus.

The parents could not be reached, the family was changing babysitters at the time and the school didn't know this, so the child was sent home. It wasn't until a frantic phone call came to the school secretary, explaining the situation. Then the ball was rolling. The principal received instructions because she doesn't know Harrow or Colchester South, so she received instructions from our secretary on how to get to the child's home.

The principal then drove to the home, picked up the child, delivered the child to the babysitter's, instructions were then changed on the child's records at school and everything worked out fine at the end.

I feel that if there had been a secretary in the school who didn't know the area or didn't care about the child or didn't even have a police check done and we didn't know where she was from, this story would have ended up on a different note. Thank goodness for having local people working in our schools who know the students' families and care about their school.

One again I ask the question: Why change things that aren't broke? One question I do have to ask, and that is: Why can't a politician give a direct answer to a question? Why do politicians answer a question in circles, and why can't everyone receive the same information regarding subjects that deal with the public? School boards, principals, teachers' federations and school advisory councils are all receiving different materials on this Bill 104. Why?

On page 20 of Bill 104, section 338(2), a few of us in Essex county would like to know if it would be possible for school advisory council people to sit on some of these committees. I would like that addressed later.

Could you also elaborate on the roles of school advisory councils: Are we heading in the direction of the United States, that each school or school district will be governing itself, what curriculum it wants to use, supplying the needs outside the classroom, evaluating teachers, principals etc? Is this what we have to look forward to? And if so, why?

We are just parent volunteers who want to make the school a better place for our children to learn. Is this Mike Harris's way of saving money: use volunteers who will not be paid? My children come first. I don't know about yours.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Callahan. We appreciate your presentation. You've used up all your time.

Mrs De Vries: It's De Vries.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mrs De Vries. It is been a very long day. My apologies. It's one of the hazards of changing order in the schedule.

FÉDÉRATION DE LA JEUNESSE FRANCO-ONTARIENNE

La Présidente : La Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne ; Gabrielle Larocque. Bonsoir. Bienvenue à notre comité. C'est un plaisir de vous avoir avec nous.

Mlle Gabrielle Larocque : Bonjour. Je m'appelle Gabrielle Larocque. je suis la présidente de la Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne. Je suis aussi une étudiante au niveau secondaire. Je suis en CPO à l'école secondaire L'Essor ici à Windsor.

La FESFO et la communauté franco-ontarienne se réjouissent vraiment de l'obtention de la gestion scolaire. Ça fait très longtemps, ça fait des années qu'on lutte pour cette cause, donc l'annonce nous a été très bien accueillie. La création de 11 conseils scolaires de langue française assume finalement les obligations de la Charte des droits et des libertés.

Nous, la FESFO, appuyons le projet de loi 104 avec tout l'espoir nécessaire, malgré le territoire vaste que représentreront les sept conseils scolaires de langue française catholiques et les quatre conseils scolaires de langue française publics. Nous sommes prêts à poser tous les gestes nécessaires pour rassurer une bonne transition.

Nous croyons qu'il est très important que les jeunes francophones soient impliqués dans le processus de la gestion scolaire. Évidemment, ce sont les jeunes qui vivent concrètement les changements, et souvent on pense qu'on est juste des jeunes adolescents, qu'on va à l'école, qu'on ne se mêle pas de tous les changements qui se passent dernièrement, mais ce n'est vraiment pas ça à l'école. Je pense qu'on a beaucoup à dire, puis on peut beaucoup s'impliquer. Je sais que juste à la FESFO on a une membreté de 32 000 jeunes dont on consulte très régulièrement, puis on peut acquérir beaucoup d'opinions à ce sujet.

Nous croyons aussi que la création de conseils scolaires de langue française et les mécanismes de transition doivent se faire par les francophones. Les francophones ont une réalité différente en matière d'éducation que les anglophones. Je pense que c'est clair est évident. Donc, nous croyons que la création et les mécanismes de transition doivent se faire par les francophones. Il devrait aussi y avoir à la commission même un personnel francophone qui devrait être embauché pour assurer que la commission pourrait fonctionner en français, et aussi tout simplement pour connaître la réalité de l'Ontario français.

Nous aimerions aussi avoir une représentation adéquate de francophones qui pourrait possiblement inclure un jeune. Je sais que, en tant que présidente cette année, j'ai beaucoup siégé à des comités des conseils au gouvernement pour le ministère de l'Éducation, puis je pense qu'on a beaucoup pu apporter à la table avec des sujets comme ça.

Un sujet qui nous préoccupe beaucoup avec la gestion scolaire, c'est le financement. Nous aimerions avoir un financement adéquat et équitable pour les francophones. C'est évident que la gestion scolaire doit mener à une meilleure qualité d'éducation dans les écoles de langue française.

Le fonctionnement, la structure, l'organisation des conseils scolaires de langue française ne doivent pas être des reflets des anglophones. Ça ne doit pas être des miroirs des anglophones. Souvent c'est ça qu'on essaie de faire : Si c'est comme ça pour les anglophones, ça doit être comme ça pour les francophones. Ce n'est pas ça à l'école ; ce sont des réalités différentes. Puis, je pense qu'on est tous prêts à accepter ça. Alors on doit réaliser ça. On ne doit pas chercher à s'assurer que ce soit le reflet même, l'un de l'autre, puis qu'il va y avoir des différences, et accepter cela.

Aussi, lorsqu'on parle du financement, il est important de prendre en considération les besoins particuliers des francophones, tels que les petites écoles. Il y en a beaucoup. Juste en cette région ici, surtout avec les écoles secondaires de Windsor et de Toronto même, ce sont des écoles très souvent de 400 jeunes et moins. L'école à laquelle je vais à Windsor, on est la plus grande de la région, et c'est 700. On doit aussi prendre ça en considération quand vient le temps de discuter du financement.

Aussi les coûts additionnels de l'enseignement en langue française, et le rattrapage pour la transition : On ne doit pas oublier que nous sommes en train de créer des conseils scolaires de langue française, comparativement aux anglophones, où on est en train d'amalgamer. Alors, c'est vraiment différent, la situation qu'on est en train de produire.

À part ça, toujours dans les financements, on doit aussi prendre en considération le rattrapage pédagogique. Je sais que cela a été mentionné dans le discours avant moi, mais c'est très vrai. C'est aussi vrai pour les francophones. On parle aussi des textes pour nos cours, et des textes des 1970s. Je suis certaine que c'est la même chose dans les écoles anglophones aussi. Ce n'est vraiment pas moderne. Aussi pour nous, quand on parle des textes en français, souvent ça vient du Québec, et ce sont deux langues différentes : le français de l'Ontario et le français du Québec sont souvent différents. Surtout venant de Windsor, le vocabulaire qui est employé est souvent difficile pour les jeunes. C'est quelque chose à prendre en considération.

Aussi avec les bibliothèques, c'est vraiment impossible de faire un projet de recherche en se servant exclusivement des ressources dans la bibliothèque de l'école, parce qu'elles ne sont pas à date, il n'y a pas assez de variété de ressources. Vraiment, il y a un rattrapage qui doit se faire.

Le service d'orientation : Quand je suis rentrée en neuvième année cinq ans passé, c'était vraiment un service complet, où c'était des orienteurs à temps plein. Dans les quelques dernières années, il semble que c'est un service qu'on n'a pas jugé aussi important et ce sont des professeurs qui enseignent comme à demi-temps qui sont orienteurs l'autre demi-temps. Ils ne sont pas là souvent, et pour nous qui allons à l'université l'année prochaine, ou ceux qui vont au collège et ceux qui font les choix de cours pour l'année prochaine, et les huitième année qui rentrent en neuvième, il y a beaucoup de choses qui doivent se faire avec les services de l'orientation, et c'est vraiment un service qu'on a coupé dernièrement. C'est un service primordial dans les écoles secondaires, surtout.

Toujours avec les financements, le gouvernement doit tenir compte des besoins particuliers des petites écoles, surtout en ressources matérielles et humaines. Le transfert des biens des avoirs des conseils scolaires anglophones aux conseils scolaires francophones, nous pensons, devrait se faire par rapport aux besoins des francophones vivant sur les territoires et non basé sur la population étudiante de l'école. Là, ce qui pourrait se produire, c'est évident : les écoles qui n'ont pas une population étudiante si haute vont perdre dans ce cas-là, et c'est souvent le cas. Alors c'est un point qu'on aimerait que vous preniez en note.

La commission -- on aimerait, ou nous trouvons -- devrait inclure une représentation de jeunesse, évidemment francophone dans mon cas, surtout pour ses sous-comités et surtout pour les opinions, les suggestions et les idées que pourraient apporter ces jeunes, et non par le biais d'audiences publiques ou de mémoires. Souvent c'est ça, on pense à ça, ce serait de l'air beau d'avoir un jeune, mais je pense que souvent ce qu'apporte le jeune, c'est la réalité ; c'est vraiment le jeune qui vit les réalités mêmes.

Je pense que c'est important de se souvenir de cela. Si la commission n'a pas un jeune assis au sous-comité, je pense qu'elle va manquer une belle opportunité vraiment de voir, de témoigner des opinions des jeunes qui sont vraiment la clientèle principale des écoles, qui est la raison d'être des écoles.

Comme j'ai aussi mentionné avec la commission, nous aimerions qu'il y ait du personnel francophone pour pouvoir fonctionner en français, aussi comprendre la réalité de l'Ontario français.

Les conseils d'école : Je pense que nous sommes très d'accord que le projet de loi 104 impose vraiment les conseils d'école. Je pense que c'est déjà une loi, mais on devrait commencer à prendre des mesures pour obliger leur création. C'est très important, parce que là ça fait plus qu'un an que c'est sensé être mis sur pied dans les écoles, puis il y a beaucoup d'écoles qui n'en ont pas. Je sais qu'à mon école secondaire, c'est, «On en a un petit peu, mais pas trop,» et puis souvent quand on fait des réunions avec la FESFO, on demande aux jeunes, puis il y en a beaucoup qui n'en ont pas ou ça ne fonctionne pas, ou il y en a un mais ils ne savent pas trop comment les conseils d'école sont sensés fonctionner ou c'est quoi le rôle vraiment.

Le gouvernement doit vraiment donner des mécanismes aux conseils d'école, vraiment clarifier leur rôle, surtout si on a amalgamé des conseils scolaires de langue anglaise, et la création des conseils scolaires de langue française -- si le gouvernement fait ça, il veut attribuer un plus grand rôle aux conseils d'écoles. Je pense qu'il doit mieux définir leur rôle et leur place dans l'école et leur donner des mécanismes afin de réussir ou d'atteindre cela.

1930

Je profiterai de l'occasion aussi -- souvent on essaie de forcer le point qu'il y ait un jeune qui siège au conseil d'école. Je sais qu'il est obligatoire qu'il y en ait un au conseil d'école au niveau secondaire, mais on pousse pour qu'il y en ait plus parce que souvent un jeune, ce n'est pas assez.

On aimerait profiter de cette occasion pour pousser aussi le point d'avoir des jeunes au sein des conseils scolaires : quand vous déterminerez le nombre de postes pour les conseils scolaires, que vous réserviez un poste pour un jeune par conseil scolaire pour, évidemment, avoir des opinions des jeunes qui sont la clientèle principale. C'est ça. Je vous remercie.

Mr Wildman: My question relates to your statements around financing, if I could ask the question in English.

Mlle Larocque : Okay.

The Chair: Just a minute, Mr Wildman. Vous pouvez répondre en français.

Mlle Larocque : Je comprends l'anglais. Ce n'est pas un problème.

Mr Wildman: I note that you are saying, to use a colloquialism, that we shouldn't have a cookie-cutter approach where everybody is the same, that as a minority that is establishing new boards, very large boards, the francophone community should perhaps have additional funding to recognize the special circumstances of the francophone community. Have there been any consultations that you are aware of between ACFO or other representatives of the francophone community with the provincial government that have given an indication of what the level of funding may be, and whether or not you will get the additional funding you need?

Mlle Larocque : On a très souvent rencontré des agents au ministère, et je pense que c'est un point qu'on a poussé depuis très longtemps, l'ACFO, l'AEFO, FESFO, tous les organismes dans la communauté franco-ontarienne. C'est un point qu'on passe très souvent.

En tant que chiffres, je ne saurais pas, mais il y a des études qui ont déjà été faites pour vraiment voir la différence. C'est surtout avec les financements qui manquent dans la pédagogie, l'enseignement, les ressources matérielles et humaines : c'est vraiment ce que ça prend qui est nécessaire.

C'est quelque chose qu'on pousse ça fait longtemps mais qu'on n'a jamais eu. Quand on nous a présenté la gestion scolaire, on n'a jamais dit «avec un financement équitable ou adéquat», alors on a toujours cette préoccupation-là.

Mr Skarica: Thank you very much for your presentation. I enjoyed it very much. We've heard from a number of boards that they are going to have problems with geography, the larger boards, and obviously that's going to apply to the francophone boards as well. Do you have any ideas as to how you are going to cope with the large geographic distances that are covered by the 11 boards?

Mlle Larocque : Pour nous c'est vrai, comme 11 conseils scolaires, considérant le vaste territoire de l'Ontario, ce n'est pas assez, mais on a quand même très bien accueilli la gestion scolaire avec 11 conseils scolaires. Je pense que la communauté franco-ontarienne est tellement habituée à avoir à se rallier et à se rassembler ensemble qu'on se partage déjà des ressources humaines, matérielles, pédagogiques. Je pense que ça va être difficile, et c'est pour ça qu'on espère avoir un financement pour assurer cette transition-là. Ça va être quand même difficile, surtout quand on parle du nord, où le territoire peut comprendre 12 heures de différence de route.

Je pense que les francophones sont tellement heureux d'avoir la gestion scolaire et d'avoir leurs conseils scolaires de langue française qu'ils sont prêts à accueillir ça.

M. Duncan : Merci pour votre présentation. Je sais que ce projet de loi est très important pour la communauté francophone et pour l'éducation franco-ontarienne. Je veux vous poser seulement une question, et comme le troisième parti, c'est une question de financement.

Vous avez dit dans votre deuxième recommandation que le gouvernement donne un financement équitable et adéquat, mais vous avez expliqué qu'il y a plusieurs autres faits qui sont uniques pour la communauté francophone. Avez-vous peur -- moi, j'ai peur que le gouvernement ne pourra pas prévisionner le financement adéquat pour les écoles secondaires, pour les écoles françaises ici en Ontario.

Pouvez-vous expliquer pour moi encore, avec plus de détails, les facteurs particuliers pour la communauté francophone, et pour les jeunes francophones particulièrement, et comment le gouvernement peut répondre à ces facteurs ?

Mlle Larocque : Premièrement, juste gérer une école de langue française coûte plus cher qu'une école de langue anglaise. Premièrement, juste le personnel enseignant, la formation des enseignants et des enseignantes, est un facteur qui est important. Les ressources pédagogiques ne sont pas aussi disponibles ou vastes que pour les anglophones, alors on doit aller plus loin pour chercher une ressource pédagogique.

Il y a aussi le facteur que les écoles sont souvent plus petites. Il est évident que ça coûte plus cher de gérer une plus petite école, surtout les plus petites écoles ici dans la région ou dans le nord, très nord. C'est ça vraiment, c'est plus cher de ce côté-là.

La Présidente : Merci bien, Mademoiselle Larocque. C'est vraiment un plaisir de vous avoir avec nous. Je dois vous dire que vous avez vraiment fait honneur à la jeunesse francophone. Au revoir.

CHRIS LORETTO

The Chair: The next presenters are Steve Bauer and Chris Loretto. Welcome, gentlemen. Good evening.

Mr Steve Bauer: I was the original person, so I'd like to pass my time on to Chris.

The Chair: That's very generous of you.

Mr Chris Loretto: Thank you very much, Steve. It's a pleasure to be with you tonight, and I'll try to make this as quick as possible so we can all get home and watch the Oscars.

Never before in Ontario's history has quality education been so important. A well-educated, highly skilled workforce is key to Ontario's future success. In order to provide the students of Ontario with the education they need and deserve to compete in the new global economy, we must have a system that uses its resources to the benefit of the students and not to the benefit of its bureaucracy.

Currently, thousands of jobs go unfilled in this country because we are not graduating students with the skills to fill those jobs. Our education system must be student-centred. Ontario students must have access to an education system that will provide them with the skills they need to gain meaningful and well-paying employment.

I do not believe that our current education system is doing enough to prepare students for the 21st century. This belief is not rooted in the view that our education system is short of money. It is rooted in the view that the money that is being spent is not being spent wisely and effectively.

I believe Bill 104 will go a long way in restoring sanity to education spending and will help to provide each and every student with the education they deserve. They deserve nothing short of the best.

1940

I support the government's decision to take education funding off the residential property tax bill. The new funding model proposed by the Minister of Education will go a long way to ensure that money is spent wisely and that every student in Ontario has access to the best quality education. The new funding model is necessary because school boards have proven themselves to be incapable of keeping costs in line. Between 1985 and 1995, total school enrolment only increased by 16%, while school board spending increased by 82% and property taxes went up by 120%. If current spending was to continue, residential taxpayers would be paying $6.2 billion for education by the year 2000. Some have tried to justify this increased taxing and spending by pointing out that our education system faces many new demands, whether it's English as a second language or meal programs etc. But the numbers just do not add up.

The new funding model that will replace the current system will ensure that costs are kept reasonable while ensuring that students' needs are being met. The funding model will be a grant system based on student needs. This is why it will work.

Another benefit of taking education off the property tax is that it corrects the inequities inherent in the current system. The current system has created two different tiers of students in this province, the haves and the have-nots. Today, the wealthier the student's community, the better his or her education will be. Why should a student's educational opportunities be dependent on the wealth of his or her community? Students in northern Ontario have just as much right to quality programming, new books and modern technological equipment as a student in Toronto or Windsor. If Ontario is to succeed in the 21st century, we cannot afford to have two classes of students.

Bill 104 promises to give all students the opportunities they deserve. If a quality education is to be available to all, we must streamline the bureaucracy. I applaud this government's decision to cut the number of school boards from 129 to 66. It still boggles the mind how anyone could defend having four school boards in Essex county alone. Essex county never needed four sets of trustees, never needed four directors of education, never needed all the problems that came along with four bureaucracies. Students, teachers and parents will be much better served by two boards in this community as opposed to four.

The public and students will also be better served with fewer politicians. The school councils the government has committed to raise very exciting possibilities. We need more parental and community involvement in our school. I hope our current and future trustees work to make these parent councils a success. They will be key to a successful education system in the future.

Bill 104 is a step in the right direction. The status quo is no longer serving the needs of students. Our education system must be changed to maintain Ontario's standing in the global economy.

Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation this evening. Certainly the proponents of the bill have described Bill 104, as you have, as a step in the right direction. Interestingly, when we were in Ottawa, I believe it was the chamber that indicated there was demand for some 2,000 high-tech positions which aren't currently being met. What would you suggest to the government of Ontario in terms of providing some positive steps to address the various concerns we've heard in Ottawa and other areas with respect to job demand and our ability to fill them with qualified students?

Mr Loretto: There has to be an emphasis on technological studies. I believe in the government's background paper on high school reform that it released late last year, it was starting to go in the right direction. What we need in Ontario is a computer in every classroom. Right now we don't have a computer in every classroom. I think the new funding model the government is proposing will go a long way in assuring that one day we have a computer in every classroom, whether it be in northern Ontario, Toronto or here in Windsor. I think there needs to be an emphasis on that.

The education system has to be very flexible and has to be able to change as the dynamics of the global economy change, so our students are always right on step with the changes that are going on in the global economy. We can't be two steps behind, like we are now. We have to be right in step. If not in step, we have to be ahead of step so we can predict the future trends. We have to prepare our students better. That's what we have to do.

Mrs McLeod: As a northerner, I appreciate your sympathetic concern for the needs of northern Ontario students and the fact that they should be met. I should tell you, though, that the concern our committee heard right across northern Ontario was that northerners are not terribly confident that Queen's Park is going to understand the needs of northern students or northern school boards.

That leads me to a question about the funding model, because you've put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the funding model in ensuring that the dollars go into the classroom where those dollars are needed. The funding model is being developed. None of us has seen it. Clearly, as you've stated, it has a very important bearing on whether this legislation does what the government says it will do. Would you not agree that we should see the funding model before this legislation is put in place?

Mr Loretto: I think the Minister of Education has been clear on which direction he's going to take the funding model in. It's going to be a per pupil grant. I don't know how much more clear you can be than that. If we have a guarantee from the government that it's going to be a per pupil grant, that at least assures me that a student in Toronto will be getting the same funding as a student in northern Ontario and vice versa.

Mrs McLeod: It's quite confusing, though, because he says he's going to meet every student need but he's also said he's going to take $1.2 billion out of education. We haven't found anybody who believes you can do both.

Mr Loretto: I don't think the minister has said anything about taking a billion or two out of education.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, he has.

Mr Loretto: I do think the minister has said that the last round of the cuts -- he's freezing education levels at what they are right now. To go along with your question, Mrs McLeod, shouldn't we wait till we see if there actually are any spending cuts? I don't think there will be.

Mr Wildman: Thanks very much for your presentation. I found it interesting and stimulating. I would just like to point out, though, that the minister has said that in 1997 the grants will be frozen but there will be further cuts in 1998. He has said that. He has also on occasion said he would like to take $1 billion out of the system. That's not something we've made up.

My question is -- to be fair, maybe I should preface it by asking you if you've read the bill.

Mr Loretto: Yes, I have read the bill.

Mr Wildman: Where in the bill does it talk about the funding model? Where does it tell us what the funding model is going to be, that the grant system will be based on student needs and that it will give students in Ontario equal opportunity? I can't find that in Bill 104.

Mr Loretto: I think the minister has been remarkably clear in saying that this is the first step and that the funding model will be introduced this spring. As for your question about taking $1 billion out of education, when looking at the Royal Commission on Learning report saying that 47% is spent outside of the classroom --

Mr Wildman: The royal commission didn't say that; Mr Sweeney said that.

Mr Loretto: Mr Sweeney said that, who was a former Liberal cabinet minister, I might mention. But if you take that 47% and get it down to the 40% that was recommended, that is about $1 billion. But there has been no commitment on the part of the Minister of Education saying he is definitely going to go through with that. If he does, there's a lot of room outside the classroom to make those spending cuts.

Mr Wildman: Just to be fair, Mr Snobelen has been clear, and I appreciate the fact that he's been clear, that there will be further cuts in 1998 and that he hopes to get $1 billion out of the system. I think he's been very straight with the people of the province and I don't think we should pretend he hasn't been.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here and for your presentation. We appreciate it.

1950

Mr Duncan: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. We've heard it asserted by two delegations now about the percentage of costs that are administrative in nature. One delegation earlier today said 80%, I think. This gentleman indicated 47%. The government passed out a book not too long ago breaking out those costs, and I wonder if they could make that available to us tomorrow at the hearings.

Mr Skarica: The 47% is from the Sweeney report.

Mr Duncan: I recognize that, but we need to define what we're talking about. As I recollect, the numbers in Mr Snobelen's report were significantly different. I know the numbers from the Windsor boards were both in the vicinity of about 18%, according to the document that was distributed by the government. I'd just like to get an accurate handle on these things and how we define them.

Mr Skarica: I think we're talking about the Sweeney report and the Ernst and Young report. It's not 80%; it's for every dollar that's spent in the classroom, 80 cents is spent outside. But I'll get those reports.

The Chair: Mr Duncan, you're requiring some response in writing, is that it?

Mr Duncan: Please.

Mrs McLeod: Did I understand the parliamentary assistant to say that for every dollar spent, 80 cents is spent outside the classroom, or were you reiterating a former percentage statement?

Mr Skarica: No, and I don't recall the exact name of the report, but for every dollar spent inside the classroom, there's 80 cents spent outside the classroom, so that's around 45%.

JIM COOKE

The Chair: I ask Adam Cave to come forward. Welcome. Perhaps you'll identify your co-presenter.

Mr Adam Cave: Good evening. My name is Adam Cave, and at this point in time, I would like to pass my seat to Jim Cooke.

Mr Jim Cooke: Good evening. My name is Jim Cooke. I am a trustee for the Windsor Board of Education in ward 5. I have a very brief presentation to make. I've also been fooling around with my computer and printed it up for you. I'll pass it to Bud and maybe he can pass it around to everybody.

The Chair: We'll pass it to the clerk.

Mr Cooke: I want to first of all thank all the committee members for sitting so long in Windsor to hear the concerns of this community about the future of education. I also want to thank Dwight Duncan for his open house last night about the education reforms. Any consultation is appreciated by this community, and we appreciate the committee coming down here and we certainly appreciate Mr Duncan and his colleagues for holding their forum last night.

The recent announcements, it should be made clear, concern three separate and distinct issues. The first issue, which this committee is dealing with, is education governance, particularly the Fewer School Boards Act. Second, in a separate and distinct issue, which is not before us today, is the education funding model that we should be seeing shortly. Last is the level of funding for public education in Ontario.

I support the Fewer School Boards Act. Bill 104 will enable our school system to operate more efficiently and will eliminate the hundreds of mini-ministries of education which have unnecessarily existed throughout Ontario. By amalgamating school boards and redefining the role of trustees, I am confident that millions of dollars will be saved. Those dollars can be redirected back Into the classroom and help meet the fiscal goals of our government.

The new funding model will end the reliance of school boards on the residential property tax base, and that is a welcome and important reform. By funding education out of the provincial government's general revenue fund, more equity will be achieved throughout Ontario.

No child should receive an inferior education because they live in an so-called assessment-poor region of Ontario. Although I represent an assessment-rich board, I cannot ignore the needs of thousands of children across Ontario which have not been met by reason of the inequitable funding of education through the residential property tax base.

The new model of school governance will save millions of dollars. The new model of school funding will provide equity across the province. Both of these reforms will assist our government in achieving its fiscal goals. The hysteria with which these reforms have been greeted by some education bureaucrats and trustees -- and I must stress the word "some" -- is not surprising. My provincial organization, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, is in my opinion less concerned with the quality of education than in preserving the position of hundreds of unnecessary trustees. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association does not speak for trustees like myself who are concerned with the quality of education across Ontario. They wish only to preserve the status quo and the outdated role of trustees as managers of the education system.

Too often trustees have been involved in the day-to-day affairs of school boards. The absolutely absurd situation in Toronto with full-time trustees earning almost $50,000 a year is simply a glaring example of how the role of the trustee has become muddled and ineffective in the last 20 to 25 years.

The fact is that these reforms for school governance are good for our schools and good for our children. Particularly, they will allow trustees to focus on what is important, ensuring quality education for all our children.

Some trustees today and elsewhere at your hearings have used the so-called accountability argument. Some trustees argue that they are locally accountable for what they do and therefore provide better school governance. This argument is frankly a joke. School boards across Ontario, including my own, choose to be accountable when they want to be.

In Essex county, the separate school board has refused to release the details of a retirement package for its director of education. On my own school board, behind closed doors, our board decided to support a legal challenge to Bill 104 and the new funding model. In doing so, they decided to spend almost $12,000 of taxpayers' money, and did so behind closed doors, behind the backs of taxpayers. These are but two examples of the lack of accountability of trustees across Ontario.

The fact is that the current school governance model is almost 200 years old and is outdated and ill equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. The new district school boards will be efficient and focused. While I agree that there are elements of the Fewer School Boards Act that could be interpreted as being undemocratic, I believe these measures are required to ensure a smooth transition to a more efficient model of school governance. My board, the Windsor Board of Education, has, I believe, acted very responsibly in moving towards an amalgamated school board. However, the actions of our colleagues in Toronto, for instance, by paying themselves a ridiculous severance package, illustrate why tight control during the transition period is required.

Many trustees and school board officials are resisting amalgamation, Their efforts cannot be permitted to derail the transition to a new governing system. I urge the members of this committee and the members of their respective caucuses to move ahead with Bill 104 and get it passed as soon as possible. It is time to move on to the 21st century and move away from the inefficient, antiquated system of the past.

It is time to reduce the number of school boards, reduce the number of trustees, introduce fair funding and focus our resources where they belong, in the classroom and on delivering accountable, quality education. Thank you.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. I find the numbers behind your argument somewhat vague, to say the least. When you use a term like "hundreds of mini-ministries," I assume you are referring to the reduction in the numbers of school boards. But with only 129 to begin with, it's hard to see how hundreds of mini-ministries are about to be reduced.

The issue of millions of dollars is the one I'd like to ask you about. The minister's own calculations, and he used a consultant to verify them, suggest that the most he's looking to save from the amalgamation is $150 million. In fact, to do that he has to go into school supplies and equipment to get $9.9 million; he has to take $1.3 million directly out of educational assistance to support special needs students; he has to take some $13 million out of school busing -- and I stress that's not out of the administration of school busing but out of direct bus routes for kids.

That same consultant report that said if you want to make those assumptions, you could probably save that $150 million on the $14-billion budget, also said, "But we should draw to your attention the concern that under amalgamation, costs could go up, not down, as a result of the harmonization of salaries and services." The ministry's answer, in writing, essentially was, "We will take control of educational finance and we will control those costs."

Clearly, if costs are not to go up -- and whether or not you believe the ministry plans to cut, you've got to believe they don't intend to let the costs go up -- they are going to have to cut services or salaries or both. I assume, then, you agree with that.

Mr Cooke: What we'd have to look at -- and I don't necessarily agree with the leaked consultants' report. I think there is money to be saved. In Windsor alone, between the two out of the four boards, I think we're going to save between $10 million and $20 million. We're going to do that by first of all taking a very hard look at what we do in administration. We're going to have to, and it's a hard fact of life. I've faced unemployment myself and there are going to be other people who will in the school board. That's simply a fact of life. We can't afford to continue to employ the bloated bureaucracies that we have right now.

But as we eliminate senior administration and as we move through the transition of harmonizing our collective agreements, and looking to adopt the efficiencies that exist in a more efficient school board, I think we can save the money. It's going to be a lot of work, but I think we can do better than that consultant's report predicted and better than the minister expects us to do, and we will in Windsor.

Mr Wildman: Thank you, Jim. It's nice to see you again.

Mr Cooke: Nice seeing you, Bud.

2000

Mr Wildman: I would just point out on page 4, while not defending the Toronto board in any way, that the reference to the severance package gives the impression that it was done after Bill 104 was introduced. In fact it was in 1994, before the provincial election.

I'd like to deal with the suggestion that you can save $10 million to $20 million. How do you square that with Mr Tom Wells's findings in 1993, when he looked at Windsor-Essex and he said that significant savings from amalgamation would be doubtful? As a matter of fact, he felt that amalgamation was likely to increase costs rather than reduce them and that the costs in restructuring the boards in Windsor-Essex would outweigh the savings and benefits.

Mr Cooke: I think Tom's report has a couple of flaws in it; one I think understandably. He became a bit frustrated with the process as he experienced the tremendous resistance to amalgamation that was coming from our counterpart in the county. I'm not being critical of him for opposing amalgamation, but I think it was part of the dynamic that was going on. Part of his assumption was that collective agreements would be bumped up; that is, if one counterpart was making less than another, everybody would be bumped up to the higher level. That's an error to make, and I think he was wrong in doing so.

Second, I think it was a post-haste sort of investigation and it failed to look at other areas where we can eliminate entire departments. For instance, we don't need two program departments now in Essex and Windsor; we can have one. We don't need two directors; we can have one. We can reduce superintendents, I'm convinced, by at least five or six. We also have a tremendous excess capacity in our secondary schools across the county. We don't need to keep every school open now. We can reduce the number of schools we have because we have this excess capacity. I say that not to be hardhearted, but this is where we can save real dollars. I don't think (a) Tom looked at that or had the time to look at it, and (b) I think he realized how difficult, politically, it was going to be to create some sort of voluntary amalgamation. The numbers have changed, and I look more to the Sweeney report as our guide to how we can save money.

Mr Skarica: Sir, on page 4: I want to touch on an area that neither of the other parties has decided to touch on, and that's the $12,000 of taxpayers' money being spent to sue the government. I have two questions regarding it. One is, what consultation took place between the board and the parents, children and taxpayers, and second, where would that money otherwise have been spent?

Mr Cooke: It's been an issue of mine. It's not a lot of money, but the fact is that there was no consultation. We did it behind closed doors in our committee of the whole meeting, and in my view it was an illegal action of the board. I have to say I brought a motion to rescind that action of the board at the very next meeting. The trustees voted not to hear that motion rather than debate the merits of spending a lot of money -- and I'm a lawyer; I'm also here, ironically, to ask you to cut my salary as a trustee in half and I'm also here to say we shouldn't be wasting money on lawyers. That $12,000 may not seem like a lot of money, but to a child in a classroom, and in four separate classrooms, who could have got a top-of-the-line PC or Macintosh computer to learn on, it is a lot of money. Frankly, for most of my constituents in ward 5, $12,000 is a lot of money, and there are a lot of things we could have done for kids with that money.

In principle, the problem with it is that (1) I don't think one level of government should be suing another level of government; and (2) if this is found to be unconstitutional, then we're going to have to face the fact, as people of Ontario, that we're in an absolute straitjacket and there is absolutely nothing we can do to reform our local governance system. To me that would be an absolute disaster.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Cooke, Mr Cave, for being here tonight and presenting to us.

Mr Cooke: I want to thank you all for listening to me and I hope you get Bill 104 passed very quickly.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, I'd just like to suggest that if Mr Skarica is concerned about the cost of constitutional challenges, he bring forward the motion suggesting that the government refer the bill to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration by the committee.

The Chair: Thank you for your suggestion.

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUBS OF ONTARIO
PROVINCIAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN OF ONTARIO

The Chair: Ms Susan Lescinsky. Welcome, Ms Lescinsky. Thank you for being here this evening.

Mrs Susan Lescinsky: Thank you very much for inviting me to make a presentation to you. I'm here on three fronts: I'm here for the business and professional women's club -- I am the vice-president of the provincial board -- I am here on behalf of the provincial council of women -- I am also a vice-president on that board -- and I am here as a parent of two students. I sit on the parent councils both at a high school level and at an elementary school.

I'd just like to explain a little bit about the two organizations that I belong to. Our mandate on both organizations is to seek equality towards the improvement of political, economic and social conditions for women as well as families and communities. Both of these organizations are non-profit, non-partisan organizations which promote the interests of working women in the professions, industry and also in the public sector.

There are a few things, in looking over Bill 104, that we have some concerns about. One of them has to do with the downsizing of the school boards. When the Wells commission was going around in 1993, the business and professional women's club had presented a paper to him and we had agreed with the amalgamation of the school boards here in this area. We had suggested that there be two boards instead of the four that were here. It would also save money. We were concerned with the administration, supplies and the school boards also.

The provincial council of women has a similar state of resolutions that we pass at our provincial council meetings every year. One of those resolutions also urges the government to adopt a policy that will reduce the numbers of school boards in Ontario. It goes on to further urge the ministry to put in place boards that will represent separate geographic regions. By setting up boards in this manner, the responsibility of the members would be for the regional area.

Even though education has to be universal, with standards put in place to ensure that students have basic, rudimentary knowledge, the understanding of different needs in each of the locales can only be met by the individuals who serve that area.

Having to do with the election and appointment of board members, we are very concerned with some of the things that are appointments rather than elections. Appointments mean that nobody has some sort of input into who is going to be in those chairs.

We are very concerned that there be gender equity across the board, that groups in the Abella report are also going to be represented there: people who are disabled, aboriginal peoples and visible minority groups. Those people too are part of our system, they're part of the people they represent in the community, and we want to make sure they are represented on those boards. So both on the local board and the district boards that you are speaking about in Bill 104, it's very important that those people be elected to those positions and that there also be gender equality and that everybody gets representation.

The Education Improvement Commission will oversee the governance of a new system that will make recommendations to parental involvement in the education system. Parents have a very large stake in the way their students are being educated. They pay taxes to the system and they are there to provide children with an education for the future.

But concerns, more or less, of parents also have to do with violence, discrimination, special education programs, apprenticeship and non-core programs that should be viewed from a parent's perspective. Some of these things have been lost as cuts have been taking place in the education system and they are very important.

As a parent with a student or as a mother who has a child with a very minimal learning disability, it's very important to me to make sure that the special education programs that have been in place are kept there. The cuts that have been proposed at times make a very big dent in the type of education that my son gets -- without making sure that the cuts are not going to take place at the special education level. That is very important for very many of us. That also has to do with disablement: making sure that people are on the boards to look after the disabled issues.

Restrictions on the composition of local boards and district councils: So that the councils do not become overwhelmed with one constituency of people and move, possibly, into a charter system, representatives from across the district should be maintained on the board. By allowing local districts the ability to decide distinct curriculum and policy for the schools, a breakdown of the system, and territorial turfs could evolve.

Education is a system of equality for everyone, and standard methods of teaching and curriculum should be the same across the province. With many families moving, job opportunities changing all the time, displacement of children could happen very easily.

2010

The concern with contracting out that is also in Bill 104: Women are the majority of workers in clerical, janitorial and the service industries and they make the lowest pay. We have to make sure that the things that have been fought for for a long time with the unions -- that women get proper pay, proper vacation, proper benefits -- stay in place. These women are from single-parent families. They are also people who have to make a living for themselves so they can keep their children out of poverty and make sure they can provide a good income for their families as it is. You know very well that they are good consumers in the economy, and unless they have money to spend, the economy is not going to go anywhere. You have to make sure, when thinking about it, that it isn't privatized and the wages are going to drop.

In conclusion, the cost-cutting measures through the education system are supported by the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario as well as the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario as long as they ensure that the savings are being transferred to the students. Proper technology, books, education curriculum should reflect any cost savings in the reduction of the school boards or in the amalgamation. However, inside workers should be maintained through a system that is currently in place.

Members of district and local boards should reflect the constituency they serve. Elections for these members should take place in a fair and equitable manner. Gender balance and inclusion of equity groups as well as members from the community should be realized. Unless all the stakeholders at the table speak to the issues, the education and training that are presented to students will be not focused on the realities of their lives.

Education is very important and key to the students' future. Unless the sole purpose of this exercise is to make sure that money is put back into the education system for the benefit of all the students, this will all be lost.

At the back, on the very last two pages there are resolutions from the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario and the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario that have been passed at conferences. The whole province of Ontario, all the women, stand behind these.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think your premise and that of the two groups you represent, that this might not be so bad if we could be sure all the money was going to go back to students, is a good one. But as you probably heard if you were here when some of the other presenters were there, it's quite clear that the government intends to take more money out of the education system and not put it in. What do you say to that?

Mrs Lescinsky: It's still important. That's why I think the hearings are very important: to make sure the party in government knows it is important that the money be put back into the system to help students.

Students are the key to the future of this country. They are also the ones who are going to make the jobs go. They are the ones who are either going to be on social assistance or making jobs for themselves and working and providing for the economy in this province.

It's very important that the education they get is a good one, so it's very important, Mrs Boyd, that we make sure the money is put back into the system, so that they get a good education, so that they can go out and be members of society and pay taxes and do what the rest of us do.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'd like to thank you for your presentation today. There are many things in this presentation that I agree with. I have kids in the elementary school system. I'm very concerned about their education, so I appreciate your comments.

In your conclusions you say there should be elections for the members of the Education Improvement Commission, especially at the local level I think you're saying, and that those elections should happen because it would make the system fair and equitable. But at the same time you say there has to be gender balance and a number of issues.

If you were going to have an election, I don't understand how you would get the gender balance. I can understand how you may get geographic balance, because you may say that two have to come from a specific area, but I don't think you could ever say, "One woman has to be elected out of this." How would you propose that would happen?

Mrs Lescinsky: When putting out the election call, you have to make sure they realize that it has to be equitable. If the government will stand behind the equity process, then we'll make sure the equity process is going to be fair.

I understand that with elections you cannot just say, "Okay, one for this and one for that." But if you're going to make sure there is some sort of equity balance, then make sure that when the election is called there is a cap on spending so that one person does not spend $5,000 to get into a position and the other one doesn't spend $10,000 to get into a position, because obviously the person who's got the most money is going to be able to spend the most on the election to get that position. Make sure you're going out to a broad constituency to look for people to fill those roles. School boards and parents' committees can go out and solicit to find people for those positions.

Mrs McLeod: I'm also extremely concerned about how representative these new amalgamated boards will be, and there are a couple of reasons for my concern. With a smaller number of trustees in a larger geographic area, one of the things we've been told is that it won't be possible for many communities to have even a single trustee under this model. In some areas, particularly in northern Ontario, trustees will have to travel as much as 200 miles to attend a meeting, and clearly that would be particularly difficult for someone who's disabled and for a single parent. I'm wondering whether you think there's any possibility of ensuring a representative-type board under this new model.

Mrs Lescinsky: Many organizations have made provisions for the disabled. You have extra money allotted for them so that they can travel. There's a multitude of ways to work around it. Yes, it's putting more money in the system to make sure that the expenditures are there for people who are disabled, but it's not to say it can't be done.

Just by saying that, you're putting them in a corner and saying they can't go out of their homes because they've got long distances to travel, so you're saying they can't be represented on the board. That's not something that's acceptable to women who in many instances are disabled. They have children and they should be able to serve just as well as anybody else. They have a voice and they should be able to talk for their children too. Have expenditures allotted in the system that are able to pay to get them to these board meetings.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Lescinsky, for coming here tonight and sharing with us your views and those of your organizations.

2020

DENNIS BAILLARGEON

The Chair: Our next presenter was Brendan O'Connor, but he's been substituted by Dennis Baillargeon. Is Mr Baillargeon here today? Yes. Good evening and welcome.

Mr Dennis Baillargeon: My name is Dennis Baillargeon. I do not represent a union or a political party.

My son, Kirk, is fully integrated and has a pupil assistant who's considered to be a non-teaching part of the staff in the county separate school system. Her name is Roberta. Bill 104 clearly states that this position should be outsourced, but to whom? He needs this assistant in class because he is challenged in life, both mentally and physically. He cannot speak and has been learning to use a talk board attached to his wheelchair to communicate his needs and thoughts. Roberta also wipes the drool that is constantly flowing from his mouth and changes his soiled diaper when needed. Kirk has excelled in school beyond my expectation.

The teachers tell me that Kirk also teaches the children a very important lesson that cannot be found in books: the human art of compassion and acceptance. You see, despite Kirk's disabilities, he is by far the happiest member of my family. This, I feel, is a direct result of his acceptance at school among his classmates. When Kirk is leaving for school in the morning, it's sometimes difficult to contain him in his wheelchair because he's so excited. What system of integration will we have with the passing of Bill 104?

In years to come, will people like my son become a larger burden on their communities and society as a whole because they were not able to integrate themselves at their formative and early years? Presently many physically and mentally challenged people work at subsidized jobs throughout our communities. Yes, the taxpayers fund a part of these industries that are growing, but what is the alternative?

Should we segregate these individuals and warehouse them all together? Certainly it would be immediately cost-effective to separate all these people into separate classrooms because they would need fewer assistants, but I appeal to you: What do you with these less fortunate members of society when they grow up with the understanding that they don't belong with the rest of us? I'll answer that question. Many of these people who feel they don't belong end up in our prisons and institutions, sometimes for the rest of their lives. What is the real cost to our communities? I know this for a fact because I've been sponsoring people who come out of the prisons. Although I've never been in one, I've been helping with them since 1982. One thing they have in common is a feeling of not being loved and not belonging to the rest of us.

Another point: Grade 3 testing is going on in our school right now, and I'd like to know how these results are going to be interpreted. Yesterday, on Sunday, March 23, at a forum meeting at Kennedy collegiate for Bill 104, Gerard Charette was speaking on behalf of the Progressive Conservatives in favour of the bill and was using the results of tests to create the perception of a crisis in Ontario schools. Presently these tests are for a completed grade 3 level, yet there is still another term left in the school year. What a shameful practice, using our children to gain a political objective. Thank you.

Mr Skarica: Regarding those tests, sir, they are being administered by the EQAO, which is an arm's-length agency. Ms Green is probably the person you should address for those questions, but she's an arm's-length individual and she's not associated with the government. I just thought you should know that.

Mr Baillargeon: I'd like to answer that. The reason I'm concerned is because the teachers have raised my concern, because I also have a son in grade 3. They're the ones who told me that they haven't even dealt with some of the questions on there in school yet. It's coming up in the future months. How could they possibly know the answers to the questions when they haven't learned that yet?

Mr Skarica: I just wanted to indicate to you that it is an arm's-length agency, and Ms Green is the individual you should contact if you have concerns.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the concerns you're raising as a parent of a special-needs child. I have already mentioned a couple of times today my concern that one of the areas in which the government sees itself saving money with this amalgamation is in taking money away from educational assistants who provide the kind of support you've just described.

I've also seen what's happened with the cuts the government has already made and the numbers of boards that have had to reduce their support for special education, for assessment and integration. The minister, when you raise those concerns now, says, "That's the decision of the local school board; I had nothing to do with it," and I think he will say the same thing even when he's responsible for 100% of the funding.

I wonder whether you feel you'll have much success in advocating directly with the Minister of Education or the bureaucrats in Queen's Park for your child or that other parents of special-needs children will have much success when they control 100% of the funding.

Mr Baillargeon: The slides you were seeing with Rick Macdonald, when he was here putting slides up, many of those pictures were from my son's school. My wife is chair of the bingo committee and I work bingos constantly. We have raised in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for that school. That's why they had all those pictures. Rick does not reflect the parents in that school in any way by endorsing this bill. That's not true. I have not met any parents who support it. I don't know where he got the idea that they endorse the bill. I don't know.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming. I know how difficult it is sometimes to talk from personal experience, and how worried you must be about the educational experience of your special child. We have heard, all of us in our offices, from parents like you who are worried about what has already happened with the cuts in education and the fact that the government supported the court action of the Brant board to not have to care for a special needs child within the public education system. So I share your concern.

What really worries me is that there is no assurance in this bill or in any of the other measures we have seen come forward, like the secondary curriculum study and that sort of thing, that this government really understands how important integration is and how in the long run, as you pointed out so eloquently, it really is going to help us all if we can integrate these children and have them become as productive as they possibly can.

Mr Baillargeon: I don't just say it. I know it; I feel it; I see it. I've been working with people since 1982 who are troubled, and some of them are alcoholics or drug addicts -- generally they have come out of prison -- and my wife has helped me. We do all these things and we don't get paid for them, but they make us feel good. We get rewarded, but not monetarily.

I know there are a lot of Conservative members who are very good people, and I'm not trying to pick on you by talking about Mr Charette, but you have to understand what's happening here. We're going to feel the effects down the road, and man, is it going to hit us like a tidal wave when all these kids who have problems -- if we lose these assistants in schools, sometimes they are more important than the teachers, because it's one on one. They contribute to society down the road if they're working. I know some people personally who have gotten jobs because they were accepted in our community and we helped them along.

The alternative is to shun them. You know what's going to happen. Think about it. They're going to go wacko. They're going to commit crimes and they're going to end up in jails or institutions or things like that. We have to take care of them; we have to look after them. We don't need a fair funding system, because if you give them a dollar and you give me a dollar, it costs $10 for them to get to where I am for a dollar. Does that make sense?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Baillargeon. We appreciate your coming here and telling your story. It's very helpful.

ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS, UNITÉS ESSEX ÉLÉMENTAIRE ET SECONDAIRE, UNITÉS WINDSOR ÉLÉMENTAIRE ET SECONDAIRE

La Présidente : L'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens : Paul Lachance, Marie-France Boulet, Marilyn Laframboise et Nicole Lalonde. Bienvenue. Merci d'être ici.

M. Paul Lachance : Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente. Dans un premier temps j'aimerais très rapidement présenter les membres de l'AEFO qui vous présentent leur mémoire ce soir : M^me Marilyn Laframboise, présidente de l'unité Essex élémentaire, M^me Nicole Lalonde, qui est présidente de l'unité Windsor élémentaire, et M^me Marie-France Boulet, présidente de l'unité Windsor secondaire.

J'aimerais remercier le comité de l'Assemblée législative de cette occasion que vous nous donnez ce soir de présenter quelques réflexions que nous avons au sujet du projet de loi 104. Les unités de l'AEFO représentent quelque 300 enseignantes et enseignants qui oeuvrent dans les écoles élémentaires et secondaires de la région de Windsor et Essex.

J'aimerais vous rappeler que nos quatre unités appuient pleinement la position que notre association provinciale a prise le 6 mars dernier devant ce comité lors des audiences à Ottawa. J'aimerais ajouter aussi que nous appuyons pleinement le projet de loi 104 en ce qui a trait à la création des conseils scolaires de langue française, et plus précisément, la création du Conseil de district des écoles catholiques du sud-ouest.

Comme vous le savez déjà, les francophones de la région réclament depuis très longtemps la gestion de leurs écoles de langue française et nous sentons que c'est une victoire pour les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens. Nous savons que l'éducation en langue française s'améliora d'autant plus de par la gestion et le contrôle de nos écoles que nous aurons maintenant par ce conseil scolaire.

Par contre, nous aimerions soulever ce soir quelques points, parce que le projet de loi est silencieux sur certains points qui sont d'une extrême importance pour nous. Ces quatre points sont la protection des enseignantes et des enseignants ; toute la question de l'impartition des services, c'est-à-dire la sous-traitance ; la question du financement de l'éducation, qui est une préoccupation majeure ; et de cette préoccupation du financement, la question des services en langue française que nous offrons à nos élèves dans nos écoles.

Pour ce premier point, celui de la protection des enseignantes et enseignants, j'inviterais M^me Lalonde à faire le point.

2030

M^me Nicole Lalonde : L'AEFO Windsor et Essex catholique déplore le fait que le projet de loi ne prévoit aucune garantie contractuelle pour le personnel enseignant qu'elle représente. De telles garanties faisaient pourtant partie intégrante de la Loi 30 sur le parachèvement de nos conseils scolaires catholiques.

Nous avons environ 50 % de nos enseignantes et enseignants qui ont moins de 10 ans d'ancienneté et qui, après les mesures injustes du contrat social, craignent d'autres désengagements de la part du présent gouvernement.

L'AEFO Windsor et Essex catholique demande que le projet de loi soit modifié comme recommandé dans le mémoire provincial présenté à Ottawa le 17 mars. Nous attirons votre attention sur les principes suivants :

Que l'on garantisse qu'aucune enseignante ni aucun enseignant ne perde son poste à cause de la mise en oeuvre du nouveau conseil scolaire et qu'elles ou qu'ils ne perdent pas leur droit de rappel dans leur famille d'école ;

Que les enseignantes et les enseignants soient protégés contre toute mutation obligatoire à l'extérieur de leur conseil d'origine jusqu'à la signature de la première convention ;

Que toutes les enseignantes et tous les enseignants aient droit à la même forme de contrat ;

Que toutes les enseignantes et tous les enseignants aient droit à la pleine reconnaissance de leur ancienneté ;

Que le nouveau conseil reconnaisse les congés de maladie accumulés et les crédits de services accumulés pour faire une classification ;

Que l'on accorde aux enseignantes et aux enseignants une pleine reconnaissance quant à leur placement à la grille et à leur expérience ;

Qu'aucune enseignante ni aucun enseignant ne subisse de perte de salaire ;

Que les conventions collectives actuelles soient en vigueur jusqu'à la signature de la première convention.

En plus, j'ai ajouté à la dernière minute cet article qui nous tient très à coeur et qui n'est pas dans votre document :

Que l'ensemble du personnel soit des personnes détenant un BEO, un brevet d'enseignant de l'Ontario, incluant les personnes à la direction, enseignantes et enseignants à la maternelle et au jardin et nos bibliothécaires.

De plus, nos membres, contrairement à nos collègues oeuvrant dans les écoles de langue anglaise, se verront quitter leur employeur actuel et se joindre à une nouvelle entité. Cela s'apparente à ce que nous avons vécu lors du parachèvement des écoles catholiques.

Il est nécessaire de bien ordonner la désignation et le transfert du personnel. En conséquence, les unités de l'AEFO de la région de Windsor et Essex recommandent :

Que le projet de loi 104 soit amendé pour inclure les dispositions de l'article 135 de la Loi sur l'éducation réglementant la désignation et le transfert du personnel.

M. Lachance : Sur la question de l'impartition des services, j'invite M^me Framboise à présenter nos réflexions.

M^me Marilyn Laframboise : L'école de langue française est le coeur de la culture franco-ontarienne. L'enfant doit se sentir béni et en sécurité dans cette culture, qui est si riche. Chaque membre du personnel a un rôle essentiel à jouer dans la vie de l'enfant.

L'enfant doit être capable de s'exprimer en français avec chaque membre du personnel. De sa part, chaque personne dans l'école doit servir de modèle pour l'enfant. Un personnel stable d'enseignantes et d'enseignants, d'aides-enseignantes et d'aides-enseignants, de concierges, de secrétaires, de personnel de soutien, toutes ces personnes font partie de la famille pour l'enfant franco-ontarien. Nous savons que les enfants s'épanouissent dans un environnement stable où l'enfant sait à quoi s'attendre, où l'enfant se sent en sécurité, un environnement que l'enfant connaît et surtout où l'enfant aime les adultes autour de lui.

Les jeunes enfants surtout développent un amour profond pour les adultes dans leur environnement, et c'est dans cette atmosphère que l'enfant grandit et développe sa confiance. L'importance d'assurer un personnel stable, engagé et dévoué à la culture et à la langue française ne peut être sous-estimée. Chaque service, chaque personne qui oeuvre dans l'école de langue française est lié à l'enseignement et est lié à l'enfant. C'est pourquoi nous proposons la recommandation 9 devant vous, qui est de radier l'article 335(f).

M. Lachance : Un troisième point, et ce point est relié aussi au quatrième, c'est toute la question du financement de l'éducation. Je suis certain que vous en avez déjà entendu parler à Ottawa et à Sudbury et ailleurs, mais je crois qu'il faut faire le point sur cette question du financement.

On reconnaît que, d'une part, le ministre de l'Éducation nous promet une réforme au niveau du financement pour qu'il soit juste et équitable. On parle de la question d'un «pooling» régional de la taxe commerciale et industrielle. Tout ça, ce sont des gestes dans un bon sens, dans une bonne direction, mais je crois qu'il est important de reconnaître que l'éducation en langue française, tout de même dans les milieux -- bien, partout dans la province -- coûte plus cher quand on pense uniquement à la question de matériel didactique, matériel pédagogique et les livres, pour ne nommer que ce petit domaine du financement.

Il faut reconnaître aussi que nous sommes dans une région très isolée et que nous desservons des élèves dans de petites écoles, et que les coûts du financement de l'éducation en langue française sont beaucoup plus élevés pour être capables d'offrir la même qualité de service et la même quantité de service auxquelles les élèves des écoles de langue anglais ont droit.

En tenant compte de ces éléments-là, vous remarquerez quatre recommandations dans notre mémoire, les recommandations de 3 à 6, qui demandent que, d'une part, des modalités de financement pour assurer un financement juste et équitable soient inclues dans la loi ;

Que le droit de taxation au niveau local, tel qu'il nous est garanti par l'article 23 de la Charte et par l'article 93 de la Loi constitutionnelle du Canada, soit maintenu, parce que si on a besoin d'un peu plus d'argent pour financer les programmes et les services qu'on veut offrir, il faut avoir un moyen d'aller le chercher ;

Et de plus, ce qui est le plus important, je crois, des fonds de démarrage pour la création des nouveaux conseils de langue française. Fort de l'expérience d'Ottawa-Carleton, de Toronto et de Prescott-Russell, on voit l'importance d'avoir un financement de démarrage pour être capable de mettre sur pied et pour commencer du bon pied nos conseils de langue française.

J'invite M^me Boulet et M^me Laframboise de nous parler un peu de l'impact d'un manque de financement quand on pense en termes des services en langue française qu'on doit offrir à nos élèves et à notre population.

2040

M^me Marie-France Boulet : L'école française dans notre région est généralement de petite taille et évolue en milieu minoritaire où le taux d'assimilation est relativement très élevé. La mission de l'école ne saurait être circonscrite à l'intérieur du programme cadre parce que nos étudiants n'ont pas accès en français aux mêmes ressources et à la même qualité de services que les jeunes anglophones de nos communautés.

La plupart de nos élèves vivent à demi dans une autre langue quand ils quittent l'école. Les enseignants sont sensibilisés à la mission particulière de nos services éducatifs ainsi qu'à ces conditions de réalisation. Nous devons promouvoir la langue et la culture auprès des jeunes.

Le budget de nos bibliothèques, que nous nommerons médiathèques, devrait tenir compte du fait que nous sommes isolés de la francophonie et submergés par la culture américaine, que la sélection des documents disponibles en français dans les bibliothèques publiques est très limitée, dans les librairies, inexistante.

La médiathèque devrait pouvoir enrichir le micromilieu de vie française qu'est l'école, permettre aux jeunes de développer et de perfectionner leur capacité à communiquer et leur permettre aussi de découvrir et promouvoir leur identité culturelle. Pour ce faire, les ressources financières dont nous disposons actuellement sont absolument insuffisantes.

En ce qui me concerne, je parle de l'école secondaire pour la suite de la présentation.

L'avenir de la médiathèque devrait être à la fois celui de pilier et de pivot de l'enseignement, de l'apprentissage et de la vie culturelle. Nous vivons à l'ère de l'information. Celle-ci est, selon les chefs d'entreprise, la ressource la plus importante.

Alors que le travail technique peut être informatisé, les universités canadiennes exigent un baccalauréat pour étudier en science de l'information. Nous devons encourager nos enseignants bibliothécaires à devenir des professionnels de l'information.

Les enseignants bibliothécaires devraient être les mieux placés pour priser notre isolement, connaître les programmes cadres, faire l'acquisition et localiser les ressources documentaires nécessaires aux enseignants et aux élèves. Ils devraient aussi transmettre aux jeunes individus que nous formons une formation à la fine pointe de la technologie en recherche documentaire. Cela leur serait utile face aux nombreux choix qu'ils devront faire au cours de leur vie.

Nous offrons un service de travail social pour les jeunes qui ont des problèmes d'ordre personnel : décrochage, problèmes de comportement etc. C'est un service essentiel, difficile d'accès en français dans les communautés. De plus, ce professionnel travaille en coopération avec les professeurs. Il est bien intégré à notre équipe.

La population de la ville de Windsor et de ses environs est composée d'individus d'origine ethnique diversifiée, notamment de gens arrivés d'Afrique francophone et du Liban, qui ne parlent pas d'anglais. L'inscription des ces élèves dans les cours réguliers place ces étudiants en situation d'échec. La mise sur pied, la gestion et l'enseignement de cours de base en anglais est ici nécessaire et doit être assumée par un enseignant.

Nos écoles desservent aussi des gens qui ont des difficultés d'apprentissage particulières. L'enseignant responsable du programme d'enfance en difficulté travaille avec les élèves inscrits au programme, les enseignants en charge des classes que fréquentent ces élèves et leurs parents. Ces tâches sont celles d'un enseignant spécialisé en enfance en difficulté.

Nous desservons aussi des élèves déficients. Ces jeunes sont très peu nombreux, mais nous leur offrons un programme complet qui doit être géré par un enseignant qui, encore une fois, travaille avec les élèves inscrits au programme, leurs aides-enseignants, leurs enseignants et leurs parents. Ces tâches sont celles d'un enseignant spécialisé en enfance en difficulté, si possible aidé d'un psychopédagogue.

Nous croyons que la pastorale est une composante essentielle de l'école catholique et un complément à la formation acquise dans les cours qui doit être animée par une personne qualifiée, dans le but de permettre à l'élève d'exprimer, de vivre et d'expérimenter complètement sa foi.

Les services d'orientation, lien entre l'école secondaire et l'avenir, ont un effet énorme sur toute la vie des élèves. Les orienteurs, qui ont généralement plusieurs années d'expérience en enseignement, ont les compétences nécessaires pour comprendre, aider et conseiller les jeunes qui soient confrontés à des difficultés dans leur apprentissage, détenteurs d'habiletés et de talents particuliers qui n'aiment pas l'école et souhaitent fréquenter l'université. Ces enseignants jouent un rôle de premier plan à des moments importants dans la vie des étudiants, et des services équivalents n'existent pas, dans notre communauté, en français. Merci.

M. Lachance : Je sais que le temps est presque écoulé. M^me Boulet a tout simplement fait un inventaire bien simple de l'ensemble des services qu'on doit offrir, bien souvent à de petits groupes, de petites populations isolées partout dans le sud-ouest. De là l'importance d'un financement adéquat et juste et équitable pour qu'on puisse offrir la même qualité d'éducation et de services à nos élèves.

On a pris le projet de loi dans son sens, dans la mesure où on a la gestion de nos écoles de langue française, mais on recherche, par les recommandations que vous avez dans notre mémoire, des modifications afin de l'améliorer pour assurer pour l'ensemble de nos élèves francophones du sud-ouest une éducation de qualité. Je vous remercie beaucoup de votre attention.

La Présidente : Je regrette qu'il n'y a jamais le temps nécessaire, mais je vous remercie de votre participation et des réflexions que vous avez données ce soir.

GERARD CHARETTE
BETH WARREN
RICK MACDONALD

The Chair: Mr Gerard Charette, welcome. It's good to see you. I know you've been here most of the day. As you start, I hope you'll introduce your co-presenters, whom we've seen before.

Mr Gerard Charette: Thank you. My name is Gerard Charette. As you might anticipate, in the interest of hearing parents who are dramatically involved in education having their say here, with the permission of the Chair, I have the privilege of giving Mr Macdonald and Ms Warren here the chance of finishing their presentation, which in my view was quite a wonderful presentation that was given this morning. I'll just be a few minutes, if I may.

I am generally in support of this government, as people in the community know. I am the parent of a 17-year-old daughter at one of our Roman Catholic high schools, I have two brothers who teach in the separate school system and I have two who teach at universities and colleges. I am a director of Ontario's television education authority, popularly known as TVO, and I have recently had the privilege of being appointed to be a member of the expert panels assembled by the Ministry of Education and Training to help develop a curriculum for high schools. I'm in the midst of spending about seven full days on curriculum development as a volunteer parent from among volunteers drawn from across the province. I spend quite a bit of time on education issues on a volunteer basis.

The committee was initially concerned about the issue of amalgamation. Those concerns were swept away when it became evident to me that the government intended to remove property tax assessments from the purview of local school boards. I was quite concerned initially that larger school boards would tend to outspend themselves even more than they do now, and now I am very much in support of the bill in terms of amalgamation.

I think school boards ought to be returned to their original function, geared towards quality in education. I support the idea of volunteerism. I do not believe that school board trustees should view their work as a paying job. All the time I spend on education is spent as a volunteer. I don't expect to get marks or money for it. I just think it's something we ought to be doing for the good of our community. I am very grateful that the bill seeks to re-emphasize the role of parents as participants in our education system. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Rick and to Ms Warren and let them finish off the allotted time, if I may.

2050

Mrs Beth Warren: As I was about to say --

The Chair: A few hours ago.

Mrs Warren: A few hours ago. That's all right; we understand your time constraints.

The parents of the elementary parent advisory committee of the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board don't know if amalgamation will be good for our kids or not. We don't know if reduction of trustees and the other changes that are being made will be good for our kids or not. We're here today to talk to you about what we do know.

We do know, first of all, that the clause in Bill 104 that states that all provisions of the EIC are final and cannot be reviewed or questioned by a court of law is scaring the heck out of us -- not just out of teachers' unions; it's scaring the heck out of parents too. Maybe down here we have a little more faith in Dave Cooke, I don't know, but we trust Dave Cooke and we would like to trust that the EIC will do its job properly, that it will consult with all the parties involved beforehand and get it right so there won't be any problems after. But we strongly recommend that this clause be removed from the bill. It will only slow down the process of education reform. Our kids can't afford to wait while every decision of the EIC is challenged. Whether you say it can be challenged or not, it will be. That's our first recommendation.

Secondly, we are concerned about the clause in Bill 104 that talks about giving the EIC the ability or the power to discuss how to promote the outsourcing of non-instructional services rather than whether to outsource. Every parent at our last EPAC meeting knows how important every adult, every person who comes into the school, is to our children. We have a lot of very valid concerns about the outsourcing of support staff. We hope that clause in the bill, if it must remain, can at least be changed to "whether to outsource" and please allow the individual boards a little flexibility.

Thirdly, you've probably been listening, not only today but at all the other hearings you've attended, to all the things about this bill that will not work. We tried to take a different approach. We tried to treasure-hunt. We think we've found a pearl in Bill 104. That's everything that has to do with parental involvement. We passionately believe that the EIC should create opportunities for parents or parent representatives to be active partners in developing all board policies which will directly involve or affect their children. Please allow parents to be part of any amalgamation, any education reform. Give us the chance to tell you what we feel passionately about before, rather than saying: "This is the package. Live with it." We can help.

Secondly, we think school councils are great. We represent an area of the province where school councils, whatever you call them, have worked for between 10 and 25 years. We're not just talking about bingos. We want to get out of the bingo parlours. We're talking about all the other constructive, positive things that we have contributed to education in Essex county, to our board. We believe that you have to give parents the tools they need to remain vital partners in the education system. What we are recommending is, please do not stop at school councils. I don't know if you've caught on to what EPAC is all about, but EPAC is a second-tier parent council where a representative from each school in our community has direct access to board administration, trustees, teacher reps and principal reps. We meet once a month. We talk, we help and we share concerns and ideas. To show you how passionately we believe in this second-tier parent council, we have put over 50 hours of preparation time into this presentation. That's why we're back tonight. We want to trust and believe that you will read the report but we know how tired you are and we know that the clock is ticking.

We have to get across to you how valuable parents can be but they have to have the tools, and a second-tier parent council like EPAC would be a very valuable tool in any school board. Granted, in large boards that cover a big territory you may have to get creative with telecommunications. That's not my expertise, but there has to be a way of getting parents to be able to talk to each other from different schools and to their school boards.

Finally, we believe passionately that a permanent position should be created on every newly amalgamated school board or on existing school boards, if that's the way that it's going to stay, so that if you do create this second-tier parent council, and we think it's extremely valuable, there should be a place on every school board for a representative from that second-tier parent council. That person's one and only agenda would be the kids.

We know that trustees have to take into account the concerns of all taxpayers, but we believe the people who are living the challenges that are facing families today are the ones who not only need to have the input, but are the ones in a position to really help bring about effective change.

Mr Rick Macdonald: I brought my stopwatch tonight. I know you folks are definitely at the end. I'm finishing off on the conclusions. One dramatic point is that we are actively involved.

If you take at look at this slide, our school councils in the county, 19 school councils, have invested close to $1 million in the last few years in the basic system: libraries, computers, the stuff that's essential, safety, play equipment, fencing to keep kids from running out on the streets.

The next thing I want you to take a look at: You see these portables here? There are four rows of portables here, roughly four in each row. There are more portables here and this is the school. There are portables on the other side of the school.

When I got involved in school councils, I didn't realize this but this is a school that has been built, this section from here to here, which is the left side of the school -- this is the sign you just saw. This is the front, right over to here. That's where I just finished off. It goes all the way back, which includes two gymnasiums and classrooms. The parents solely built this section of this school, to the tune of $5 million. Not a penny came out of the board coffers of this school to build it. That's the dedication of our parents and of our school councils in this area.

We move on and talk about what we should be as partners in this. Some parents are afraid to say that we should be active partners. We should be active partners. I'm not promoting the deliberate downloading of funding to the school councils. I want to get out of the smoky bingo halls. I'm tired of it. We do it all the time. But should we be forced to be spending this kind of money? Come up with equitable funding. Get us out of the fund-raising. Restructure our educational funding so that our parents can spend less time raising money and can refocus their attention on educational issues and supporting their kids.

The role of parents in school councils should not have to include raising funds to build schools, supply textbooks or stock libraries. We must be allowed to vote our preferences and concerns when it comes to important topics like staff selection, pupil-teacher ratios, curriculum development and student codes of conduct, with the expectation that our ideas will be respected and acted on accordingly. School councils must be entrenched into the legislation as active partners in our educational system.

I appreciate your patience in hearing us for a second time tonight. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Warren and Mr Macdonald, and to you, Mr Charette, for making the time available to them. We appreciate it.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is our last presentation in Windsor. Just a couple of items before we leave. I think Mr Skarica wants to table some --

Mr Skarica: I'm tabling a series of responses to the questions that have been put to the ministry through myself. The questions that haven't been answered have been referred and the responses will be forwarded tomorrow, if I could file those at this time.

The Chair: I'd like some advice from the committee. These answers run some 41 pages. To get them photocopied here at the hotel would be a significant expense. Could I suggest that we make one copy per caucus? Would that be an agreeable solution? All right? We can do the rest on our return to Queen's Park.

Mr Wildman: We can read them on the bus tomorrow morning.

The Chair: We can arrange for recitations if you like.

Mr Duncan: I just want to advise members of the government and the third party that there is a reason why Casino Windsor makes $1 million a day, if anybody's planning to go over there tonight.

The Chair: That's very helpful, Mr Duncan, considering that we're worried about spending $10 per copy for our photocopying.

Thank you all very much. We will meet again tomorrow in Brantford at 11 am. We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 2102.