Transcription du comité 1997-mars-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. This is our last day of hearings on Bill 104 and we'd like to start very promptly so that we can hear everyone's views in a timely fashion. We start with the Welland County Roman Catholic School Board, Mr Di Ianni.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Madam Chair, I am going to delay our beginning for just a few moments because I want to deal with the issue of the responses that were tabled for us yesterday, the responses to the questions that we have been raising at committee. I'm not going to take issue with the nature of the responses, although I would dearly love to, because many of the responses are non-responses and in fact are political drafts in order to support some of the statements that have been made by the government in the past.

I recognize that it's absolutely futile to raise my concerns in those areas, although it's tempting today because of the front-page story in the Globe and Mail that suggests the opposition was wrong in thinking there would be $1 billion taken out of education in the funding formula, that it's actually going to be $1.5 billion. It is rather tempting to want to challenge answers that suggest, as this one does, that we're going to refocus resources on students and teachers in the classroom, but I will leave that in the interests of time and getting on with our hearings.

There are two or three areas, though, in which the answer to the question begs the question and I do want to ensure that I can get the information I had requested. One of those is the answer to question 36, and it has to do with the transfer of responsibility for school construction, maintenance and busing to the municipalities. I have a bit of a dissertation in the answer as to whether they might consider doing this, but what I really had asked for in that question was the board-by-board costs of those particular functions, including the five-year capital forecasts.

The Chair: Mr Skarica, would you like to respond?

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I will do my best to obtain that. Is the ministry person here? If you could see what you can do, thank you.

The Chair: Bearing in mind that we start clause-by-clause tomorrow, I wonder if I can impose on the answer being here by the end of today.

Mrs McLeod: I am still hoping, Madam Chair, that our committee will have an opportunity to meet with the EIC, should this legislation be passed, and that kind of information may still be relevant at that time.

My second question is that in answer to the question I had raised about the range of salaries paid to trustees across the province, I appreciate the answer that was given and the breakdown in terms of the range and how many boards are at a particular level of salaries, but I notice that the total remuneration costs for trustees of major school boards across Ontario are about $19 million. If memory serves me correctly, and I do not have the report with me, the Ernst and Young report done for the ministry suggested that you could save $23 million on trustees' salaries through the amalgamation. That may not be accurate, but I would like to have the total remuneration figure of $19 million compared to the savings estimates that were in the Ernst and Young report.

Mr Skarica: Likewise -- maybe just obtain the Ernst and Young report.

Mrs McLeod: My third area of concern was on question 12 of the ones that I had tabled. The question was worded, "What approaches will be taken to manage the harmonization in the human resources area?" The answer that was given was essentially that the EIC would be working with local groups to look at harmonization issues.

The question that I had really wanted answered was, what financial resources is the ministry putting into both the harmonization of services and personnel? That would include estimates of severance costs and a building into the budget of severance costs.

I am debating whether I should ask for -- I'm not sure I will ask for it, given the fact that this is the last day of our hearings, but I am dismayed that in asking, as one of my colleagues did, for the grant reductions and the tax increases board by board, what we have been given is not the percentage grant reduction of every board, but the grant reduction as a percentage of its operating expenditure. Obviously the ministry has been asked to very carefully calculate on a board-by-board basis the minister's way of presenting the grant figures, but that was not what we had asked for.

The Chair: Did you want to resubmit the question in a clarified form?

Mrs McLeod: I'm assuming the ministry has that information because that's normally how the information is presented. In fact, I think some of us saw initial information like that when the grants were originally announced. I don't need it for tomorrow but I would still like the information: the grant reduction as a percentage of the total grant the previous year.

The other two things I will just note for the record.

The Chair: Could I ask Mr Skarica to respond.

Mr Skarica: If that information is available, I'll attempt to get it to you. I will get it to you if it's available.

Mrs McLeod: That's fine. There are two things that I would simply like to note for the record because I know they will be a subject of debate in clause-by-clause and I'm sure will be a subject of ongoing concern if these areas are not amended tomorrow.

The first is that in response to a question I raised about why the Education Improvement Commission continues to exist for four years when the new amalgamated boards are supposed to be in place for January 1, 1998, one of the answers I've been given is that the commission would stay in place to monitor the next trustee election process in November of the year 2000. I cannot believe that any government would put in place an arm's-length body which is going to stay in place to monitor a democratic process of elections three years after these new boards are supposedly in place and functioning.

1110

The second answer that I want to note for the record is in relationship to the guarantees of governance for separate school ratepayers, the concern that the separate school trustees' association raised in relationship to the change from the current act to what is in Bill 104 and the fact that it's significantly different in that the new bill simply provides the protection that the charter would provide. The answer from the ministry makes it very clear that the new subsection would no longer apply to statutory rights of separate school supporters. I believe that's a very important issue for separate school supporters and should be the focus of debate tomorrow.

The Chair: Are you just putting those on the record?

Mrs McLeod: Yes.

The Chair: Very well. Mr Wildman.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have three areas of concern that I would like to raise. The one is sort of overarching, but the other two are important.

First, in regard to the answers to the questions that were provided yesterday, in question 4 I asked if Mr Skarica could clarify whether it was possible under the terms of Bill 104 to increase the total number of boards being proposed. In other words, could the committee amend in such a way as to actually increase the number of boards from the 66 that is proposed? This was particularly as a result of what we heard in eastern Ontario and northern Ontario, where a number of boards and other presenters made it clear that they thought the areas were too large and that it would be better to follow the Sweeney report, which in a number of cases had proposed that there be more boards.

The answer that was tabled yesterday goes on for almost three pages but it doesn't really say anything until the last sentence, which says the ultimate decision about whether the number of school boards can be changed, or whether the school board boundaries can be changed, rests with the government.

I don't know why you went on for three pages, but my question is -- and obviously on this committee there is a majority representing the government party. I guess my question really was, does this committee have a mandate to amend the bill, if necessary, in a way that will respond to the concerns of presenters about the size of the new board jurisdictions? The answer, which says the ultimate decision rests with government, still needs to be clarified. Does that mean it rests with the minister and cabinet, or can this committee make recommendations or amendments that will be accepted by the government?

The Chair: Are you submitting a new question, Mr Wildman?

Mr Wildman: I'm asking for clarification on that.

Mr Skarica: It's my understanding that after Mr Cooke investigates the board situations, including what we hear in this committee hearing, he will make recommendations to the minister and then there will be a decision made by the government; that means cabinet.

Mr Wildman: All right.

The Chair: Is there a second area?

Mr Wildman: In question 21, I asked of Mr Skarica whether businesses would be able to direct their taxes to the education system of their choice, since the commercial-industrial assessment and taxation will still help to fund education. The answer is that the support which businesses will continue to provide to education will be reviewed by a panel of business representatives to be announced shortly.

I guess that tells us they're reviewing it but they don't have the answer. I find this interesting when we look at the story on the front page of today's paper quoting sources from the Ministry of Education and Training, which says that Ontario intends to alter the school funding formula so that it can take $1.5 billion out of the education system. Up to now, I've been quoting Mr Snobelen as saying he wanted to take $1 billion out of the school system, and on occasion that's been questioned by members of this committee saying, "Well, Mr Snobelen never said that." Now we have a source in the Ministry of Education that obviously has been working on the project on funding which says the ministry intends to take $1.5 billion out of education. So I guess they were right when they said Mr Snobelen didn't say $1 billion; he really meant $1.5 billion.

I really need to have this clarified and I honestly believe we need to know where the government is going on funding before we can decide in a rational way what our position is with regard to the passage of Bill 104.

Mr Skarica: I can tell you I've never heard that $1.5 billion figure before this morning's paper and that the funding model is not being developed with a cost savings target in mind. So where that $1.5 billion came from I have no idea. I've never, ever heard that number before today's paper. It's complete speculation.

Mr Wildman: Just one supplementary question to that, and then my main issue. Can we be assured that if the government intends to take education off the residential property tax, $5.4 billion, the total $5.4 billion will be returned to education in grants under the new funding formula?

Mr Skarica: It's my understanding that for the first year that's the case. I can't speak beyond that.

Mr Wildman: Mr Snobelen has said there will be further cuts in 1998.

Mr Skarica: I can only say that my knowledge is that for the first year that's not going to occur.

Mr Wildman: The overall question, Chair, is essentially: What are we doing here today? Here we are in Brantford to hear presentations from interested parties about Bill 104, and according to the time allocation motion that the government introduced, which constrains the time that the Legislature has to consider this legislation, we have to deal with clause-by-clause and all amendments that might be proposed tomorrow. That means we have to have the amendments tabled with the committee by 9 am tomorrow. That means all of us who are considering amendments based on our position and the position put forward by presenters have already prepared our amendments and they are being completed today. So that essentially means the people here are completely disfranchised. Their proposals, their presentations, will make no difference one way or the other in what amendments might be proposed in the committee tomorrow, since the work is already being done. So it's a hoax on these people that we're having hearings here in Brantford today.

Mr Skarica: That's not true, Mr Wildman. I report to the minister's office every day after the hearings, and that will be done today as well.

The Chair: Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I will not delay long.

The Chair: Thank you. I would appreciate that.

Mrs McLeod: I do want to suggest to Mr Skarica, though, that I think his legal training is standing him in good stead today, because he knows full well that the funding formula does not apply in this first year, when there are to be no cuts, and that the cuts could well be incorporated in the funding formula that the ministry is to bring out for next year.

I want to share with the people who are here that Mr Wildman and I are both extremely concerned about the time allocation formula that forces us into clause-by-clause amendments tomorrow and leaves us with only the period of 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock to debate all of the changes and concerns that have been proposed to us in the course of these committee hearings. Having said that, however, I know we can still make last-minute amendments this evening and are prepared to do that before we submit them at 9 o'clock tomorrow. It doesn't take away the farce of having four hours to deal with the concerns that we've heard in the committee hearings.

But the question I want to raise -- and I was remiss, Madam Chair, in saying one of the issues I raised I didn't want to table a question on. I do want for tomorrow to know specifically what statutory rights the ministry considers itself to have rescinded with the change in the wording of the protection in Bill 104.

Mr Skarica: I'm not sure I understand the question.

Mrs McLeod: The ministry's answer to my question about the change in the protection of separate school governance rights indicates that it no longer applies to statutory rights. I want to determine what statutory rights are therefore lost.

The Chair: I'd like to wrap up this session by noting that there are three questions that were tabled this morning and there are three as yet unanswered. I would refer the ministry to questions 14 and 15 of March 17 and 20, and there's question 9 which was submitted before. In the interests of fairness, in order for the committee to be able to do its job, all answers really should be here by the end of our hearings today so at least you have the opportunity as committee members to review them and be in a position to go to clause-by-clause tomorrow fully prepared. I would impress that upon the parliamentary assistant and on the ministry, to be able to do that.

1120

Mr Skarica: I consider that to be a reasonable request and I'll do my best.

The Chair: I would also just bring to the notice of the committee that there was a response tabled that you have from the research officers with respect to the collective bargaining for non-teaching staff which was asked yesterday.

One final thing: You also have in front of you a package of all the written exhibits that were submitted prior to our deadline for written submissions, which was March 20, for your perusal today and overnight.

With that, I beg the indulgence of the audience and --

Mr Wildman: We'll read them tonight and prepare amendments.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wildman. Perhaps you'll prepare an executive summary.

WELLAND COUNTY ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL BOARD

The Chair: I call upon the Welland County Roman Catholic School Board, Mr Angelo Di Ianni.

As Mr Di Ianni comes forward, I want to say just one brief word to the audience and the committee members. There will be positions taken during the course of the hearings that not everybody around the table and in the audience will agree with. In the interests of fairness and participatory democracy we allow everyone to have their say without interruption and without harassment. I ask for your cooperation in this in order that everyone can have a full hearing.

Mr Angelo Di Ianni: Before I begin, I would like to describe for the members here the process that led us to this presentation. This is a document that's been approved by our board. As you know, boards are made up of a variety of people with a variety of ideas. I will also tell you that during our discussion we certainly took into consideration Mr Wildman's assertions and fears that indeed our presentations would fall on deaf ears or minds that would be made up. We hope that's not the case, but certainly that was a concern of the board.

The other issue that leads me to make a comment right now is the comments made by Lyn McLeod that certainly were part of our consideration in supporting Bill 104. Our intention of support was linked to the preservation of all rights, including statutory rights, so that certainly will be a matter for discussion at our next meeting, which is soon.

In any case, you have copies, and I hate to read what is already in front of you, but I understand that's the process.

Mr Wildman: You don't have to.

Mr Di Ianni: I don't have to? Great. If I don't have to, I will read certain highlights and then skip, because I'm sure it would be appreciated by all.

As you can see, the first section on page 1 --

The Chair: I'm not sure where the copies are. Do you have a copy?

Mr Wildman: I have a copy.

The Chair: Thank you. Copies are being made. Unfortunately, the photocopier is a little slow, so the clerk is doing the best she can to get us copies. I would ask you to share in the interim, or pay very close attention to Mr Di Ianni.

Mr Di Ianni: It has been noticed that I don't look like an Arlene Atherton. Our chair could not be here for family emergency reasons. I apologize for that.

Page 1 has to do with funding. You will notice that by and large we are in support of Bill 104, with certain understandings: that the funding model will ensure equal education opportunity; that designation of taxes must continue through the process of enumeration. We also talk about employees and a fairness to people who have made a career and a mission in working with our school systems and all of a sudden find themselves not part of the future. We're very concerned about social justice.

We also support the issue that Catholic school boards must continue to be represented by Catholic teachers' federations, and we emphasize the distinctive educational mission that these groups have. We also emphasize local autonomy as much as possible. It must allow for flexibility and discretionary spending by Catholic school boards to allow them to maintain, foster and develop the specific and distinctive education offered by Catholic schools.

Under "Constitutional Rights" we make the claims that are very familiar to you, and I would add as well that the issue of statutory rights once again will be of concern to us as it becomes clarified. The position of our board could shift drastically if that is the case.

School board amalgamations: You should know that our board, together with the Lincoln board that has been designated to amalgamate, has studied amalgamation voluntarily over a period of time. We have integrated many of the services. We certainly welcome that amalgamation. We did not support the proposed amalgamation by the Sweeney report, which linked us to Brant county -- Brantford, for example. We didn't think that was reasonable. However, we do emphasize that, as you can see, affinities created by economics, culture, history, faith and religious denomination should also be factors that should be respected.

Again, we also support French-language education.

We move on to trustee honoraria. Our trustees pride themselves in saying that they've worked without an honorarium for many years. They believe that quality trustees would also come forward without an honorarium and they challenge the government and you people to examine that if the honorarium is the issue, the small amount of money that can be saved with the trustees not be done at the expense of not having enough trustees to represent the various jurisdictions.

When we get to electoral issues, we focus on that. We need an adequate number of trustees, and I ask you to look at the appendix that describes all the municipalities that would come together under the new district board. You will notice that if we apply the existing formula, we would have eight trustees; St Catharines would have two trustees; Niagara Falls, two; Thorold, one; Welland, one; and the rest of the municipalities would have no representation. So the issue is, if you wish to save money or at least fix the amount that can be spent on trustees, then allow the local boards to determine the number of trustees with that fixed amount in mind so that no one, no section of the jurisdiction, would feel underrepresented.

As far as the Education Improvement Commission, we further suggest that such representation be extended to other bodies dealing with governance. In other words, we're talking about fairness in membership on the soon-to-be-approved -- at least it's thought so -- Education Improvement Commission. Catholics need to be represented, francophones need to be represented etc.

As far as the powers of the commission, again I would like to pick up on the comments that were made during our board meetings as to the need for the commission to continue to exist once the new boards are in power. That is something we would like you to consider.

Our board supports the position of the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association that cabinet be given the power to make regulations imposing fair and non-discriminatory criteria on the exercise of the commission's approving and amending jurisdiction over school board budgets. It's such an open-ended issue for our board that we're saying, "Sure we can see it working, but let's have some regulations that would guarantee us certain responsibilities and powers at the local level."

The timing issue: We're getting fairly close to an election in the fall of this year. Our trustees basically are saying, "Let's not do things improperly by having a haste that indeed is politically expedient but not necessarily good for our organizations." We're asking that if we're not ready to implement, let's delay. There's no real issue with us. We can certainly continue to work together with our adjacent board, Lincoln separate, in integrating services, as we've done in the past, and we would be better ready to implement if a year delay were granted.

1130

In conclusion, while the Welland County Roman Catholic School Board is supportive of much of the overall education program, we cannot overemphasize the importance of respect for the constitutional rights of Catholic schools, for equity of funding, and for social justice principles.

On behalf of the Welland County Roman Catholic School Board, we express our thanks and appreciation to you for hearing the presentation of our concerns this morning.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Di Ianni. We have two minutes per caucus for questions.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your noting of a number of concerns, including the adequacy of the number of trustees for the area and the concern about governance which, as you say, I had raised earlier. You've also noted the concern for the designation of commercial taxes, and as you may have heard from the response that Mr Wildman was noting, there are no guarantees in this legislation that that is going to continue.

The question I'd like to ask you is in another area of concern which is not in the bill but is very much related to it in terms of the ministry taking over 100% funding and in return for that having to find something they can give back to the municipal property tax base. As you know, the current discussion is that school construction, maintenance and school busing would all be transferred as a responsibility to the municipalities. I understand the separate school trustees' association has expressed some very great concern about that and I wonder if you would comment on that in terms of what the impact of that would be on school governance and school management in your system.

Mr Di Ianni: As far as we are concerned, that move would be ill advised, and we lack faith in our municipal brothers and sisters to administer any better than we do those issues. As far as governance is concerned, we would be very much concerned in a separate school system where we suddenly don't have as many buildings, as much capital, as the public school system. Then we would have one more hurdle to overcome in achieving fair housing for our students.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I guess I have a two-barrelled question. I agree with your comments, by the way, on timing. I don't know what the rush is other than I guess they want to get the money out next year. But my question is really about the preservation of statutory rights and the sort of wait-and-see attitude that the separate school boards have taken, holding in abeyance, as it were, your constitutional rights. I note you say the designation of taxes must continue through the process of enumeration. We asked a question on that and, as Mrs McLeod said, we don't have any confirmation of how that's to be done.

I'm not a lawyer, but aren't you concerned about the holding in abeyance of your constitutionally protected rights to a school system of conscience?

Mr Di Ianni: We're certainly very worried, very concerned. We are taking, as you know, a wait-and-see attitude towards that particular issue and we're watching very carefully as it unfolds.

However, we have this problem, and the problem is one of chronic underfunding. In our jurisdiction, just to give you some specifics about Welland county, we are able to spend approximately $900 less per student at the secondary level than our coterminous public school board. We're able to spend approximately $300 less per student at the elementary level than our coterminous public school board. It doesn't take a calculator to figure out the millions of dollars that we are not able to dedicate to instruction as a result of that uneven funding in our area, and it's reflected right across Ontario.

Therefore, in the hope that the new formula will provide the equity that the minister has been talking about across the province, we are saying that is a primary target for us and we will reserve judgement on the other issues, but certainly that's one of the motivating factors at this point. We're definitely very concerned about constitutional rights and we will be increasingly concerned if indeed it comes to pass that the announcements that would be made by government would also touch statutory rights.

Mr Skarica: Sir, I want to refer to page 3. You made a unique submission there that perhaps the $5,000 honorarium should be reduced. We've heard on a number of occasions that it should be lifted, and the argument has been that you'll discourage quality people from being a trustee if the honorarium is too low. I might note that trustees in boards representing 75% of the boards make under $10,000 at the present time. So my question simply is, if the honorarium was under $5,000, would that discourage people from running and perhaps disqualify quality people from being trustees?

Mr Di Ianni: Mr Skarica, in reflecting the various opinions of the board I will tell you that there are a few trustees who believe that, but the majority of trustees clearly agreed that it would not be an issue in their minds. If Arlene Atherton had been here, and Mike Parent, our past chair, they would tell you that they were trustees who received no honoraria and it would not be an issue for them.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Di Ianni. It's been a pleasure to see you again. As always, you're direct and forthright.

LONDON COUNCIL OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS

The Chair: May I call upon the London Council of Home and School Associations: Janet Andruchon, Marguerite Fortune and Sharon Watson. Good morning and welcome to our committee. We're delighted to have you here.

Mrs Marguerite Fortune: Good morning. I am Marguerite Fortune, and with me is Sharon Watson. We are the co-presidents of the London Council of Home and School Associations. We appreciate this opportunity to share our thoughts and recommendations with you on Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act.

We had hoped that everybody who wished to was given the opportunity to present to this committee. As advocates for public input, it was dismaying to realize that we were on a lottery system to speak today. We have brought a formal brief that we hope you will take time to read, although I understand it could be a challenge that you have it read by tomorrow. This is the first time in a long time that we, as home-and-schoolers, have had to paraphrase our remarks to remain within the allotted time.

Our criterion for our response has always been: Is it the best for each student? We were at the London Board of Education's overview of Bill 104 and it was stated that the bill in itself does not have hard-hitting points to which we can openly object. But Bill 104 is the doorway for many changes to the educational system. We are compelled to ask: What are the changes that will be forthcoming as a result of this bill? What will the benefits be for our students, children and teachers?

Bill 104 does not address the planned changes to the funding process, nor does the bill specify how the transition is to be accomplished.

We believe that educational finance reform and educational programming must occur simultaneously with the reform on education governance. How do we support the proposed changes with only half the picture?

Without the funding model, we do not perceive that equity will be achieved. Uniqueness must be appreciated and there must be allowances for the different needs of the student populations. Will there be adequate funding for ESL, adult education, junior kindergarten, special education, safety issues and so on?

We recommend that the Ministry of Education and Training propose now those programs that will be core. The public needs to know what funding will be available for programs. The stability of our students' education demands it. The quality of our students' programs must not suffer. Will the government allocate funding? Without the option of raising money in the community, how do communities support the programs that are important to them? For example, London's Beal art and fashion program is world-renowned. It should be a program that is celebrated. However, how do you support equity in a program that may not be accessible to all the students in our new board?

Although the Fewer School Boards Act does not deal with the issue, it is the policy of the OFHSA that there should be one publicly funded school system in the province of Ontario. We do not understand the government's hesitation to implement one publicly funded school system. We believe that one system can address the uniqueness of religion, language and culture.

1140

We question the size of the proposed new district school boards: 33 public district school boards for 1.5 million students, 33 separate district school boards for only 0.5 million students.

Yes, change can be beneficial and more efficient, but we are not convinced that the proposed changes are the most responsible way of doing things. It appears unfeasible that adequate coverage both in personnel and trustees can be provided for the proposed Middlesex, London, Oxford, Elgin district school board. We have yet to pick a shorter name for it, so we're going with the whole thing. Will there actually be a saving or will the expense of doing business go sky-high? How do we as involved parents manage to contact our board administrations or trustees? Will there be a 1-800 number?

Mr Wildman: 1-800-TRUSTEE.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Think of the fund-raising that would mean.

Mrs Fortune: We recommend that the Ministry of Education and Training reconsider the alignment of the district school boards.

The three proposed district school boards -- Toronto, Peel, and Middlesex, London, Oxford, Elgin -- would serve the same population as 57 boards in the province of Alberta. LCHSA recommends that the alignment of district school boards be more conducive to adequate representation.

What will Ontarians lose by minimizing the role of the school board trustee? Will school boards become ministry branch offices, little more than complaint bureaus for the provincial government? If trustees' roles are to continue to represent the public interest and to act as advocates for students, parents and other community members, they must continue to be empowered to make decisions for effective delivery of education services.

We question whether the best volunteers will stand for election by the placing of an unrealistic ceiling on the trustee honorarium. We believe a trustee whose jurisdiction is excessively large will be less able to participate in local education decision-making.

LCHSA does understand and appreciates the proposals in Bill 104 for qualifications for trustees to reduce potential conflicts of interest. Potential conflicts of interest, particularly personnel issues, have always caused an imbalance of workloads for trustees. We want those trustees who are dedicated to the education of our students and capable of fulfilling their duties. However, we do question whether there will be a similar provision for those candidates for a municipally elected office.

LCHSA recommends reconsideration of the honorarium for trustees and that qualifications for elected school board trustees be parallel and equal to municipal elected office.

Mrs Sharon Watson: As Londoners we are very proud of the employees of the board of education; as home-and-schoolers the relationship we have with our schools is exceptional. Bill 104 states that the Education Improvement Commission will "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." Will this serve our students better?

Every elementary student in a school knows the school custodian by name; every student and many parents know the secretary. These are the friendly faces that our students trust. They are the eyes and ears of our schools. How will a school board ensure the safety of our students if these were to be outsourced? Will a profit-driven company research and be accountable for their employees?

We are assuming that the rationale for creating district school boards is to eliminate duplication of services. As partners with the London Board of Education we question whether there will in fact be duplication. During the past few years the London Board of Education has downsized to the point that we believe all personnel are now vital to our students. In fact we question whether school board administrations can continue to function and fulfil the expectations of the provincial government and the public.

The background information on the release of Bill 104 states that parents will have more say. The OFHSA throughout its 81-year history has advocated parental involvement. That is what home-and-school is all about. In our opinion, every school should have a home-and-school. As members of the largest home and school council in Ontario, we are insulted that this provincial government would see fit to recreate a wheel that was not broken. Is it the government's agenda to alienate parents who have been involved in education for years? How can you legislate parental involvement? We've been dealing with that issue for 81 years. Our experience shows that parents become involved if they so choose. However, a rigid format, such as proposed by Memorandum 122, does not allow much flexibility or work ability. It could become difficult to maintain the representation as proposed.

London council recommends that school councils be advisory in nature only and that the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations be involved in the proposed legislation regarding school councils.

Bill 104 proposes an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition of school boards to district school boards. This commission is autocratic, not democratic. We are outraged that the government felt the necessity to make retroactive the powers of this commission. In London we actively monitor the board of education. We know what the board is doing. We have public input. We do not believe that the London Board of Education will abuse its powers and need a watchdog.

Are you not proposing one bureaucracy for another? Bill 104 states that there will be an Education Improvement Commission, a local education improvement commission, an education improvement committee with all the necessary perks to function. In addition, the EIC will have the ability to hire or appoint those who are required to oversee its mandate. Who will pay for this? To add insult to injury, this commission has unlimited powers. "The decisions of the Education Improvement Commission are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court." Where are the checks and balances to this? Where is democracy? Where is our voice? These are not persons we have elected but persons appointed by the provincial government.

The Minister of Education and Training announced the establishment of the Ontario Parent Council on September 7, 1993, to provide advice on education-related issues. With three existing parent groups and school councils in every school, is this group not now redundant? Home and school has always advised the Ministry of Education and Training. We are a democratically operated organization.

London Council of Home and School Associations recommends that the budget moneys allocated to the OPC be evenly distributed to the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, the Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario and the Fédération des associations de parents francophones de l'Ontario.

Life is always changing. If we did not change, we would become stagnant. However, we caution that the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater. Bill 104 is staggering. Can you prove to us that this will be in the best interests of our children? It is not clear that fewer school boards is the best for each student.

We do not want an education system where parent volunteers will be expected to do a considerable amount of work without compensation, where elected trustees are left powerless and where the province controls many decisions which were made at the community level. We do want equal education for all students. We do want to be involved. If you want to see how parents can be involved, look at the relationship between the London Council of Home and School Associations and the London Board of Education. Let us be part of the solution. Public education is for all students. In summary, we are not able to support Bill 104 because there is insufficient information to form a positive response. Without the full picture, we must remain opposed to this bill.

1150

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've raised a lot of issues like the increased bureaucracy and the lack of local accountability, involvement of parents and so on, but I think you've really touched on the central question, and that is the funding process and the funding formula. Without that we don't know where we're going, and you are suggesting it should be done simultaneously.

I don't know whether you're aware, but there's a report in the press this morning that Ontario is going to alter the school funding formula. A source in the Ministry of Education and Training says the government intends, starting in 1998, I guess, to take another $1.5 billion out of the education system in Ontario. If that is in fact accurate, what effect do you think it will have on the ability of the school system in your region to meet the needs of students?

Mrs Watson: Our board would definitely have to start looking at programs. I don't think we would be able to meet the needs of our students, to tell you the truth.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, ladies. We heard from a trustee last night in Windsor who believes that the new model of school governance will save millions of dollars and will provide equity across the province. He wasn't surprised himself about the hysteria with which these reforms have been greeted by some of the bureaucrats and that the Ontario Public School Board's Association, to all intents and purposes, is concerned not so much with the quality of education but with preserving the positions of hundreds of unnecessary trustees. Also, he went on to say that the local accountability argument that we've heard so much on this tour is really a joke, that the trustees are only accountable when they want to be, that there's a lot of things that go on behind closed doors. How would you respond to that argument which was brought forward by an actual school trustee?

Mrs Watson: I think the other side of that coin is that people who have the ability to run as a trustee may not have the chance to. We monitor our board meetings pretty closely and we see a lot that's going on. I can't speak for other boards, but I can speak for our board and know that we can see what's going on there.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. I'm still sort of staggered by the question that was just asked, given the concerns that are being expressed about the government saying that this legislation is about dollars being freed up to go back to the classrooms to provide for more equitable funding for students' needs.

Let me share with you, first of all, that the government's best estimate of how much could be saved through the process of amalgamation was $150 million on a $14-billion budget, and to get that they had to take $9.9 million right out of classroom supplies and equipment. So right off the bat we don't see that there were dollars going to the classroom. We've always said there was probably going to be $1 billion taken out of education; now today we see it may be as much as $1.5 billion. The government says this will lead to more equitable funding to meet the needs of every student. Do you think there is any way, if they take $1.5 billion out of education, that there can be equitable or fair funding that meets students' needs?

Mrs Fortune: In London I don't know where they would start to make any more cuts. I guess the problem is that not all boards in the province have been as responsible as the London board and some other boards have been. That's probably where things should start, by looking at the boards that haven't been responsible, because not everybody is in the same boat, and that's what's happening. We're all being lumped together where we don't all fit. Our trustees don't make $35,000 or $40,000. The problem is that we're being lumped with all the other boards. It's not just London; there are many other boards that have been responsible all the way down the line.

The Chair: Mrs Fortune and Mrs Watson, thanks so much for coming here and taking the time to be with us to present your views.

OXFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: Next is the Oxford County Board of Education, Graham Hart.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, for the record, from the answers that have been tabled for us today, I think the last presenters would be interested in knowing that in 61 boards in the province the trustees make less than $5,000, and in another 63 they make from $5,000 to $10,000. There are in fact only five boards where they make more than $25,000.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Welcome, Mr Hart. We're happy to have you here.

Mr Graham Hart: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are pleased to be here. I hope the members of the committee have copies of the report that we're giving to you today.

As chair of the Oxford County Board of Education, I should just mention first of all the process by which we have come to our proposal today. We had submissions from school councils and from interested members of the community that made presentations to us, and as a result of that we tried to check and see that most of those concerns were being brought forward through the Ontario Public School Boards' Association or through home and school associations.

As a result, we decided to concentrate and focus today on two particular issues. We had a student last night at our board meeting who asked a very significant question: What is there in Bill 104 for students? I think that's the fundamental question here today. So we're going to deal with two issues; first, who the Oxford County Board of Education should be partnered with, and second, the issue of trustee representation.

The first page of our report deals with some of the issues of the Oxford County Board of Education. We think it has been unfortunate that the minister has made comments surrounding the bill about the so-called crisis in education. We've laid out here quite clearly that the Oxford County Board of Education is in good shape. We have been downsizing since 1990 in response to community and parent concerns about concentrating expenditures in the classroom. By the ministry's own calculation of expenditures, you'll note there that the Oxford board spent 61% of our expenditure in the classroom and the ministry's criterion or goal was 60%, so we're already surpassing that.

In addition, we launched a public awareness campaign concerning the discrepancy in per pupil expenditures across the province last fall, and we're pleased to see that hopefully Bill 104 addresses some of those issues. But we have the concern that the funding model is not clear and that there isn't a clear idea as to actually what is meant by equity.

We're using the Sweeney report as some of the justification for our submission that Oxford be paired in a different combination. The Sweeney report concluded that the greatest operational efficiencies were found in school boards that were in the area of 5,000 to 55,000 students. As a result of Bill 104, Oxford has been paired with Elgin, Middlesex and London, resulting in a school board of almost 90,000 students. It would become the third largest in the province, and we don't feel there's good rationale for this.

The Sweeney report went on to point out that newly created boards should not exceed 55,000 students, that geographic distances should be kept reasonable so that people could relate to their board offices and trustees and that boards with similar interests should be partnered.

What are some of our concerns? First of all, there's no apparent rationale for some of these amalgamations. There has not been a good explanation provided as to why London, Middlesex, Oxford and Elgin should be joined together.

Second, there's no proof of savings. A $150-million figure has been mentioned. Again the Sweeney report points out that beyond a certain number of students or size of organization, there are no further savings. Once you get to a certain size of adminstration, those costs are then straightlined. We're concerned that once you go beyond 55,000 students there will not be savings and indeed there may be costs.

Bringing together four partners is an extremely complex process which could result in higher operating costs due to the sheer size of the board and the number of students who must be served. We've already had several meetings with the ELMO district school board and it's a very complex process because on every issue you have at least five positions on the table. You have each board's present position plus a fifth position, and it's a very difficult and very complicated process.

Reduced influence of trustees: The needs and interests of rural students, parents and communities could easily be lost in a partnership dominated by a significantly larger urban partner. This gets again directly to the issue of the number of trustees. If we work the numbers on the formula, we might only end up with eight trustees for just over 80,000 students, which would likely mean that Oxford, presently with 15,000, might only end up with one trustee or at the very most two. We think that's inappropriate.

I'll also mention that there are no details on the funding model, and we really feel that going into these kinds of significant changes we should have that kind of information. Promises are one thing; reality is another. To adapt a phrase of the 1990s, "Show us the money." If the government does not yet have this part of the plan ready, perhaps the entire educational restructuring proposal should be delayed until we have that information.

1200

To go into our alternatives then -- and we've dealt with two here -- first of all is to have the Oxford County Board of Education paired with the Brant County Board of Education, which is a board of similar size and makeup. In the chart of the numbers of students we have, you can see that as a result of that the Brant-Oxford board would have 31,000 students, which we feel would be an appropriate size.

Let me point out that in the bill most of the amalgamations are twinnings. Huron is joined with Perth, Kent with Lambton, Essex with Kent and so on. Again, we could support a twinning as an amalgamation that is fairly inexpensive. Possibly there would be some savings to that kind of amalgamation. But we feel that once you go to the larger, four-board conglomeration, there may not be those savings and in fact there are going to be very significant costs.

Let me just point out that we're concerned that 17 boards across the province have not been changed, have not been altered by this bill. They then are not experiencing the costs of amalgamation. The costs of amalgamation are being borne by the taxpayers, the rest of us, and by our students. We think that's unfortunate and unfair.

Our second proposal is to partner Oxford with Haldimand, Norfolk and Brant, which results in a new district school board of four partners but with 48,000 students as opposed to the current proposal, which is over 82,000 students. In the chart you can see the coterminous board in this particular case would result in a student body of 11,000.

We feel that those boards are all of equal size, an equal kind of distribution. They're a nice mix of urban or small town and rural and don't have a large urban partner which is obviously going to dominate the educational scene. Our rationale, again, for these proposals is back to the Sweeney report, which concluded that medium-sized boards offer the best combination of efficiency, effectiveness and closeness to the local community. There is also the political reality that the interests and needs of our students and communities will be better represented in a partnership that would not be dominated by a large, urban partner.

Let me move then just briefly to the issue of trustee representation and try and leave a few minutes for questions. In a four-board amalgamation, in order to represent the diverse urban and rural interests of each of the former boards, we feel each needs to be represented by a minimum of at least four trustees.

There are 30 years of history in each of these boards. There are significant reasons why you have each of the programs you do. In order to represent that at the table, we feel there has to be a minimum number of trustees. In a pairing situation, I can see where you're going to end up with an equal number of trustees anyway, when you're just joining boards like Huron and Perth together, but if you're getting into a situation of a four-board amalgamation, we feel there has to be a minimum number of trustees.

Also, due to the complexities of combining the four boards into a new district school board, we feel at least 16 trustees would be appropriate. We object to the ceiling that Bill 104 puts on the number of trustees. I think it actually mentions 12, but in fact our calculations would indicate that none of the areas has significant population that they would actually even end up with 12 trustees. A slightly larger trustee representation would provide a stronger voice for parents and students across a very large geographical area.

We respectfully request that the standing committee give serious consideration to our proposals.We've tried to focus on a couple of issues that we feel can be changed within the bill, realizing there are many members of the public who would like to see the bill maybe even thrown out and changed like that, but we're trying to work with the issue of amalgamation, so we've made these submissions for you today. Thank you.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you very much, Mr Hart, for your presentation this morning. It's certainly refreshing to have some alternatives posed in the context of the concerns that you might have with the proposals in Bill 104 in general. As well, I think it's important to congratulate you and the other boards for your efforts over the past few weeks in terms of the meetings you've had to deal with transitional issues. Given the observations and challenges that I suspect you've dealt with, in your opinion what would be a realistic time frame for implementation of any proposed amalgamations, given the scale of proposal we have here?

Mr Hart: The easy answer to that is to come back with a question, and that is, when are we going to get the information such as the funding model? If we had some of that kind of information, then we could work along with the fast timetable. That's the difficulty here, that we have too many questions and not enough answers. Certainly in our senior administration we have people who could move quickly along on the timetable if we had more information and more facts as to what's proposed and what's going to happen.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much, Graham. One of the additional complications of the four-board amalgamation that I don't think you mentioned was that London and Middlesex have already been going through a process of amalgamation and it's not fully worked out yet, so we have that complication as well.

You've referenced Sweeney a number of times, and the Sweeney recommendations would have had three two-board pairings: Haldimand-Norfolk, London-Middlesex and Elgin-Oxford. I'm wondering whether you've proposed a different alternative because you weren't comfortable with the Sweeney recommendations or whether you think that would be just one more board than this government is prepared to consider.

Mr Hart: No. We had discussions with Elgin, and it was a question of what was most appropriate. The difficulty geographically with the Oxford-Elgin combination is that we only share 10 kilometres of border. Elgin is a very long, narrow county. For geographical reasons, it was a problem to join them together. What really happened, when you look at the map, is that they tend to start in Windsor and Toronto and they move towards the middle and they end up with what's left over, and that happens to be the Oxford area. I think that's what happened with ELMO, unfortunately, that they got down to the last and they didn't know what to do with who was left over. We feel the way they've tried to solve that problem is just inappropriate.

Mr Hampton: I want to focus in on the part of your brief where you point out, "Show us the money." This is a copy of today's Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail says, "Ontario to Alter School Funding," and then it sets out very clearly that the government is looking at, through this new formula, taking out a further $1.5 billion. What you should note is that the actor who just won the Academy Award won it for the role of saying, "Show me the money." It's pretty clear the Globe and Mail is saying, "Show us the money." What do you think will happen in your schools if another $1.5 billion is removed from the system, spread across Ontario?

Mr Hart: We were seriously hurt last year. The cuts last year were very significant. We've had to drop the junior kindergarten program, which we certainly did not want to, but we had to because of the costing situation. We are very concerned that if there are any further cuts it would affect things directly in the classroom. Already we feel that we're at a maximum class size that's appropriate for our students. Any further cuts are really not acceptable.

In the proposal, the four-board amalgamation, the difficulty is that, again, we have one partner that's spending significantly more per student, at least $800 or $900 per student, has programs like junior kindergarten, had an ERIP payment to 386 employees last year, whereas the Oxford county board downsized by giving pink slips and so on to teachers and custodians and making those kinds of changes. The system is tight and strained right now and I don't think can accept any more cuts.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Chairman Hart. We appreciate the time you took to come to our committee.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Perhaps we can discuss this at the end of the day, but I would move that the standing committee on social development ask the Ministry of Education to respond specifically to the alternative proposals that have been put forward by the delegation that just spoke, the Oxford County Board of Education.

The Chair: You mean with respect to --

Mr Duncan: -- to the geographic boundaries.

The Chair: The different amalgamation of them. If you would like to give us that motion in writing, we'll defer it to just before our break.

1210

WENTWORTH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: Could I call upon the Wentworth County Board of Education to come forward, Allan Greenleaf. Welcome, Mr Greenleaf.

Mr Bruce Wallace: I'm not Mr Greenleaf. I am Bruce Wallace. I am chair of the Wentworth County Board of Education and I'm making the presentation on behalf of the Wentworth County Board of Education. You have copies of our presentation before you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wallace. I apologize. Our agenda had Mr Greenleaf on it. We're delighted to have your here in his stead.

Mr Wallace: Every day the Globe and Mail is published, the excerpt from the writings of Junius appears just below the banner on the editorial page, as illustrated in your copy, and I will read it. "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." Although most readers probably skim right by without even reflecting on the significance of that statement, the admonition remains as pertinent today as it was when first penned by the author.

The introduction of Bill 104, along with several companion pieces of similar legislative import, has pushed Ontario's publicly funded school system into a condition of near-paralysis, because the "revolution" from which they have emerged has much less to do with commonsense reforms than with the imposition of arbitrary measures.

The Common Sense Revolution, the Progressive Conservative Party source document on which this flawed legislation is based, boldly proclaims on page 7: "We want to provide efficient government service. That means setting priorities, cutting out fat and waste, and putting people first." Yet putting people first is precisely what hasn't happened as the process leading to Bill 104 has unfolded. Instead, we are experiencing the kind of unrelenting and demoralizing destabilization which comes from putting ideology first, a long way ahead of the people this government was elected to serve.

Undoubtedly, as you've conducted these hearings, you will have heard a lot about how democracy should work. Indeed, most Ontario governments in the last years, regardless of their party affinity, have understood that they govern with the consent of the electorate. However, when that consent is taken to mean freedom to act in any manner the party in power sees fit, dismantling or radically reshaping our societal institutions to comply with party ideology may seem an easy enterprise to undertake. Under majority government, scant attention needs to be paid to what anybody else would like to see happen.

Certainly the government has the legislative authority to act unilaterally, but it loses the moral authority to impose its will when it chooses to rule by sheer political force rather than governing with the wisdom derived from full consultation with the electorate. Clearly it was our board's hope that the Common Sense Revolution would proceed in the spirit of common sense rather than as a revolution.

With acknowledgement to Stephen Covey, it's crucial to the maintenance of our society's confidence in government for our political leaders to recognize, "There's no need to rip public education out by the roots to see if it's growing."

In our brief responding to the Interim Report of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force, which is appendix A, we made five very specific recommendations which would have ensured the wise practice of governance. For ease of reference, they are incorporated into the text of this presentation as follows:

That no amalgamation of school boards occur unless the ratepayers of the municipalities affected have the opportunity, through local referendum in each municipality, to determine whether or not the proposed merger should proceed as proposed.

That any school boards proposed for merger be required to establish a joint task force for reviewing and determining the organizational requirements of the new board structure and reporting its recommendations to the Minister of Education and Training accordingly.

That no amalgamation of school boards be legislated without the full and complete public review of the joint task force's report to the Minister of Education and Training of the benefits and drawbacks of such a merger from fiscal, human, political and educational perspectives.

That no amalgamation initiatives be undertaken until educational finance reforms have been introduced and fully implemented to ensure that appropriate cost comparisons are being used as the basis for any decisions made.

That, should the Minister of Education and Training determine to proceed with the amalgamation of school boards, the government of Ontario assume direct responsibility for absorbing any and all costs attributable to the mergers legislated.

When this government's term of office started out, the Common Sense Revolution was about reducing the cost of government. Part of the rationale for reducing the number of school boards was that, "Bureaucratic barriers stand in the way of more cost-efficient methods of operation."

While the possibility exists that some boards may have scorned working with their counterparts, our board has a long history of collaborative endeavour in this regard. In the few instances where we have chosen not to do so, it has been because of negative financial repercussions to Wentworth's ratepayers had we proceeded.

Indeed, so concerned have we been about the fiscal impact of the merger proposed by the Sweeney task force's report that we commissioned the Doane Raymond chartered accounting firm to conduct an independent analysis of the statistical framework used to recommend the merger of the Wentworth and Hamilton boards of education. That's enclosed as appendix B. Although copies of that analysis were sent to various government ministers and to the Premier, Bill 104 still emerged with the same recommendation to merge the two boards as had been included with the Sweeney report.

Despite the fact that we believe the Doane Raymond document clearly outlines the financial folly of proceeding with this particular school board merger, we're left with the inescapable conclusion that the issue isn't really about cost reduction at all, because if it was, the government could not possibly pursue the merger route with such ardour, a route which has repeatedly proven to be significantly more costly wherever public sector amalgamation has occurred, given the levelling-out ramifications involved.

Instead, what appears to be at the centre of the turmoil being caused by Bill 104, and the other pieces of restructuring legislation being put forward under the disentanglement deregulation banner, is nothing more or less than an ideological desire for the consolidation of political power at the provincial level. It's a winner-take-all approach to governance, which is particularly offensive to ratepayers who just want common sense to prevail, not ideological conviction. If this whole situation is really about money, why not prove it by simply reducing transfer payments accordingly while leaving the existing boards intact?

That said, the Common Sense Revolution cannot possibly be considered to reflect the will of the electorate at all if the government is unwilling to subject its plans for such massive restructuring to the kind of careful and inclusive review we recommended earlier. Why not ask, through the broader school council network, what Ontarians want to see happen? Then at least you'd know what the people already designated to be responsible for providing advice actually think about their particular school boards and local trustees before our school board structures and trustee representation patterns are altered beyond recognition. That way, the choice to proceed with mergers or to maintain existing structures can be left to the communities affected and be based on local preference rather than provincial directive on a one-size-fits-all basis.

1220

It may be argued by some that we've asked to appear before you today for desperate and self-serving reasons. To a limited extent, we'd have to acknowledge that no organization which prides itself on its accomplishments willingly volunteers for dismemberment, and we're no exception. However, we'd like to close by referring to two unsolicited testimonials, including the following letter apparently sent to the editors of the Toronto Star and the Hamilton Spectator respectively as a tribute to the effectiveness of our local school board trustees. It's interesting that the article appeared in the Hamilton Spectator today entitled "Public Education Provides Good Value." Although it is specifically directed to the contributions of two particular individuals, many other such letters commending our board for actions it has taken could be drawn to your attention. You have a copy there, and I will read it:

"To the Editor:

"In defence of our devoted trustees!

"We would like to clarify some points made by the Minister of Education John Snobelen, in his announcement of education restructuring. The points were made in an attempt to justify his plan to reduce the number of school board trustees throughout the province.

"The Wentworth County Board of Education trustees earn around $11,000 per year, not $40,000. Their office is not decorated with a waterfall or terrazzo flooring. It is a slightly renovated old school, at least a mile from the nearest golf course. When assessing Minister Snobelen's statements about trustees, clearly his exposure has been very limited and certainly not extended into Wentworth county. Our trustees attend countless evening meetings, serve on numerous committees, and spend time returning endless phone calls to the concerned parents throughout their district. They take on responsibilities that consume hours of their personal time.

"Specifically, trustees Heather Bullock and Alaina Muhlstock have well represented the parents and students in Dundas for several years. We can speak knowingly of their routine. They have taken time to become part of our lives through their dedication to maintaining the quality in our children's education. Ms Bullock and Ms Muhlstock faithfully attend our monthly parent association meetings. They provide educational information and patiently answer our questions. When their professional point of view differs from ours, they provide the situational background to allow us to respect the decisions they make at the board table."

The Chair: Mr Wallace, could I ask you to wrap up, please.

Mr Wallace: Thank you. I will not continue with the rest of the letter, and I will not refer to the other letter; it's in the appendix. I'll come to the conclusion.

What's at stake for our ratepayers in Wentworth isn't as much the concern about present cost as it is about the future cost of a blended board. We're already one of the low-cost boards in this province, and we can demonstrate very readily why a merged school board will produce a significantly more expensive school system for Hamilton-Wentworth. Rather, what the parents' letters reveal is the desire for the continuation of strong and effective representation at the local level, a quality which will be lost immediately for Wentworth's ratepayers if the proposed merger proceeds. This may not matter to the provincial government, but it does matter to Wentworth residents.

Even if it were only common-law applications under consideration, school boards of this province have been recognized and accepted as a legitimate form of governance for well over a century. It is not just the quantity of trustee representation at the local level which has been so significantly reduced with the introduction of Bill 104, but also the quality of trusteeship which will be left at the local level after its imposition.

The inability of local trustees to levy taxes and to direct their expenditures effectively reduces trustees to little more than rubber-stamp status for predetermined ministry initiatives. How, in a democratic country, can you even consider passing legislation designating an appointed body, namely the Education Improvement Commission, to supervise the decisions of the legally elected school board officials? Such an approach is not democracy at all, but despotism at its most blatant level.

Under these circumstances, it is not even clear that Bill 104 will withstand the constitutional challenges which will inevitably spring to life with its passage, constitutional challenges no less serious than might be expected from the separate school system if the really high-cost issue was addressed; that is to say, the duplication of administrative costs caused by the parallel operation of the public and separate school systems in this province.

What we're really asking you to do in your deliberations, therefore, is to look at the facts of our existence without ideological bias and answer the concerns we have raised about Bill 104. Where we live and how we live transcends political rhetoric, and as a legislative body, the responsibility you collectively bear must also transcend party affiliations. Please don't lose Ontario, or Wentworth, for the rest of us. Why not ask before you act? Then at least you'll know what the people of Ontario think about their school boards before they are altered beyond recognition. We all have to live in the future that you create.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Chairman Wallace, for coming here and sharing your view. I regret there's never enough time, but we do appreciate the effort that you made.

PEEL BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: The Peel Board of Education, Mrs Beryl Ford. Welcome, Madam Chair. We're very happy to have you here.

Mrs Beryl Ford: Thank you very much. My name is Beryl Ford, and I chair the Peel Board of Education. With me are our director, Harold Brathwaite, and vice-chair of the board, Janet McDougald.

Good afternoon. The Peel Board of Education appreciates the opportunity to present our brief here today. We are presently the largest public school board in Canada, with 100,000 students and 177 schools. Our presentation reflects the opinions of trustees, staff and school councils.

I would start by saying we see nothing in Bill 104 that will assist school boards to be any more effective in helping students achieve. We know that $987 million has already been removed from education. We hasten to point out that if Ontario reduced its funding by 20% to all programs, the province of Ontario would be in a surplus position today.

We are not opposed to change. If the changes in Bill 104 improved education for children, we would support them. However, we cannot see any advantage for students. Our goal is to continue to focus on student success and how we can serve them better.

In the opening of the hearings, the minister spoke of developing schools where excellence is the norm for all. There is a fallacy embedded in the mission of the Education Improvement Commission that all we need for student success is a teacher and a classroom and that we should cut or outsource everyone and everything else. In fact, every single person in a school system contributes to the bottom line of student achievement. We agree there is a need to reduce costs, but we must not lose sight of what enhances student learning. The government says boards spend 53% to 71% of budgets in the classroom. I would point out that the Peel Board of Education spends 95% of our budget in the classroom.

We're proud of the teachers in our system and the work they do with students, but those teachers are not alone in supporting student success. They need the help of teaching assistants, psychologists, guidance counsellors, librarians, school social workers and more. Students also deserve a school that is clean and safe thanks to their custodian, a school that has heat and light, a principal and a vice-principal to run the equivalent of a large business operation, and a secretary to answer parent calls in the community. Centrally, our support staff provide payroll, benefits, purchasing, computer technology and curriculum, to name a few.

A function of the EIC will be to promote and facilitate outsourcing of non-instructional services, and the new brochure on education reform speaks about taking money from non-classroom areas. Perhaps the intent is to make parents feel good about the changes. Quite the contrary. It is our experience that parents, those people in the community who know the schools best, are very concerned about the proposed changes.

There is a myth about parent dissatisfaction with schools. It is referred to many times in the brochure on education reform in very general terms such as, "Parents are concerned about their children and how their children are doing," and in the opening remarks to these hearings as "people's concerns that the education system is not delivering the quality of education that our students need."

The facts tell a very different story. For example, a 1996 Environics survey showed 70% of parents are satisfied with public education. Closer to home, 12,000 parents were asked how Peel schools rank. Some 81% agreed we are successful in assessing student progress, 77% are satisfied with our focus on curriculum and instruction, and 75% were satisfied with the high expectations for our students.

We met recently with hundreds of members of our school councils. We are very supportive of parent involvement and the role of the school councils. We asked the school council members to complete a survey about their opinions on the government restructuring, and we committed to share their comments as part of my remarks today. A summary of the comments is appended for your information.

Some 90% of those surveyed said the government is moving too quickly in restructuring education. They were evenly split on legislating school councils and slightly in favour of increasing the mandate of school councils. They also believe that the bottom line on restructuring is all about money and not about students.

1230

Here are a few of their comments:

"Overall, I believe our kids are being put at risk. The teachers and trustees are doing a great job."

"This will not improve education, but is merely a means of getting the funds to support election promises of tax cuts. Don't steal from our children's future and the future of this province and country."

"How can the government claim they will spend what is needed for our education system when they have already cut almost $1 billion and the focus of all their reforms point towards savings or more budget cuts?"

This is only a small sampling of the many comments we received. The message is clear, and as a board we agree with parents that the focus of education restructuring must be about helping students achieve. As committee members, you must ask yourselves, what is in this bill that will help children?

Now we want to look at some specifics of the bill. Amalgamation is not a direct issue for the Peel Board of Education, but as a point of interest, our school councils are opposed to the reduction of school boards.

However, we will feel the impact of the reduction in trustee numbers and honoraria. Two thirds of our school councils are opposed to the reduction in the number of Peel trustees. This reaction is consistent with the findings of the final report of the Sweeney commission. Once again, it's appended for your information. Their comments reflected their concerns about the loss of community representation, the quality of trustees after the cuts and their concern about the loss of control.

Recurring parent questions were: Are school councils to become unpaid trustees? How will Bill 104 improve the quality of education for our kids? How can the government talk about allowing for local decisions, yet severely limit the power of trustees?

Parents fear that the government has already decided school councils should have a larger role, including responsibilities normally carried out by trustees. They questioned the number of hours the government expects volunteer council members to work. They also said, "Nobody has asked us if we want our roles expanded."

As a board, we have a great concern about Bill 104. We have a concern whether we will be able to adequately represent the interests of students, parents and taxpayers. We ask, what is the rationale for reducing the number of trustees and their honoraria when the total reduction in Ontario won't buy one elementary school?

In the original opening remarks to the hearing, the rationale is in fact vague. There is a mention of recalling school boards and trustees to their traditional role as accountable and effective guardians of the quality of education. In other places it is discussed as a way to save money.

Perhaps as a board we are missing something. How can a 64% reduction in the number of trustees help to make us more accountable and effective? We could suggest other ways to save money without reducing local representation. For example, if the government would change the regulations under the Education Act to allow school boards to borrow like a business, school boards could save millions of dollars. If boards were allowed to pay teachers every two weeks instead of the present method, the Peel board could save over $1 million a year. In fact, the Peel board did negotiate a volunteer agreement with our teachers to achieve some savings.

We also have the issue of who can run for trustee. There is suddenly a new set of rules just for trustees, rules that do not apply to other elected officials such as municipal councillors or even MPPs.

Another issue, perhaps the one that most concerns our board and our school councils, is the creation of the EIC. We don't think anyone has difficulties with the notion of a commission to assist in the transition. The real issue is that a non-elected, appointed commission will supersede democratically elected representatives of the public, and this is totally unacceptable. Over 70% of our school councils disagreed with the creation of the commission and 93% opposed the restrictions this commission would place on school boards. School councils made the following comments:

"Why do we need bureaucrats to override our elected representatives?"

"I'm concerned about the Big Brother image of the EIC. I strongly oppose not being able to elect members of the EIC."

"How much funding will be given to the EIC?"

"I would like to know how a commission can tell a board if they agree or not regarding budget when the present board knows what we need. To me, it seems that they want to cut, but spend money wastefully on a commission."

I don't think there is much to add. The parents have spoken more forcefully than we as trustees ever could. It's simply irrational to have a government-appointed body supersede duly elected public officials and to be able to do it retroactively. It's an insult not just to trustees, but to those who voted in an open, democratic process. We ask your reaction as MPPs: If the Prime Minister of Canada decided to change the way things worked in this province and appointed a body to override the Legislature, you would probably be incensed, and so you should be.

Mr Wildman: It's the Premier's office.

Mrs Ford: We're talking about the Prime Minister of Canada right now.

Mr Wildman: The Premier's office overrides the Legislature.

Mrs Ford: I won't debate that.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): You're talking about the social contract.

The Chair: Please let Mrs Ford finish.

Mrs Ford: Yet that is exactly what is occurring in education, and once again, it's totally unacceptable.

Beyond the lack of accountability and the lack of respect for democracy, there is one other key area of concern for our board: the promotion of outsourcing. The EIC has a mandate to promote outsourcing of non-classroom functions as a solution. There is no rationale or research, to our knowledge, to support this action.

Outsourcing may have a role to play in some areas. However, as a board we've already explored outsourcing of many services. With custodial services, for example, we've invited proposals from large organizations, but our own custodial staff made a proposal that saved far more money than outsourcing ever would. Our cost to clean a square foot of our buildings is not only lower than comparable schools boards in the province, but lower than the private sector. In fact, our costs are lower than those of the province.

In the past we have explored other ideas, such as design, build, or lease schools. Let the government show us figures that make this a better financial or management decision. We've asked, but we haven't received a reply.

Bill 104 has created a sense of fear among our staff that their jobs are in jeopardy and that they are no longer valued. Undue stress, through this bill, has been placed on thousands of individuals, having a direct effect on families and children in this province.

Our presentation does not mean we are unwilling to change. In fact, an appropriately structured EIC could look at innovations now taking place across the province and identify ways to share those ideas. In Peel, for example, our joint busing system with the separate school board saves over $1 million a year. It's only one of the many cooperative ventures with public sector partners. We are also part of the new Ontario Member School Boards Corp, a non-profit, arm's-length corporation of 15 or so school boards that have come together to look at new ways to save money and generate revenue.

To conclude, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of my colleagues on the Peel Board of Education, our staff, the school councils and the taxpayers of Peel. I sincerely hope that our presentation today has refocused the attention to where it belongs, back to the needs and the interests of students. Thank you.

1240

The Chair: Chair Ford, we're very grateful to you and your colleagues for being here today. You've used up all your time, very well, may I add, and very eloquently. Thank you on behalf of the committee.

Mrs Ford: Thank you very much. If I may, with your permission, I've been asked to bring today a petition with 75 signatures from Corsair school council and 115 signed letters from school councils within the Peel board.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Is that the board that has the waterfall and the terrazzo flooring that the minister keeps talking about?

The Chair: That is out of order.

Mrs Janet McDougald: I would respectfully request to respond to that.

The Chair: If you can make it very, very brief.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, if I may, I think it is appropriate because it has been used as an example by Tory members for our entire hearings.

The Chair: Mrs McLeod, I've heard you. I'm going to allow a very quick response.

Mrs McDougald: I'll allow our chair to respond.

Mrs Ford: Thank you, Mr Wildman. We do not own, operate or plan on building a golf course. Also, we --

Mr Young: Are you a partner in a golf course?

Mrs Ford: We are not a partner in the golf course. Trustee McDougald was chair of the task force. We've been asked to look at innovative ways to raise revenue. This is following the direction of this province, with business people coming in and helping generate revenue. We'd be happy to share with you all the information we have. The minister is very well aware of it. It's been shared and discussed with him.

On the waterfall: We do not have a waterfall. The building we're in won an award when it was built for efficiency in the province of Ontario, in fact in Canada. We have an air conditioning unit which is run by water. It's turned off in the winter. It's been off since the air conditioning goes off. It comes back on in the summer. It's very efficient. It's very effective. It's very much energy-saving.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Chair Ford.

Applause.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please, time is very tight.

Also, I would please ask members not to ask bogus points of order after a witness's time has elapsed. There is plenty of time for questioning. We'll have to address it in some other fashion to allow everyone to be able to speak.

Mr Wildman: My point of order may have been bogus, but so were the minister's comments.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, it really doesn't warrant a response.

ARTHUR DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL AND PARENT COUNCIL

The Chair: I call upon Deborah Bokor, from the Arthur District High School Parent Council. Thank you very much for being here. I notice you have a co-presenter. Could I ask you to introduce your co-presenter?

Mr Ross Candlish: Thank you, Madam Chair. Deb is here to speak on behalf of the student and the school councils. The points really represent our feelings in rural Ontario.

Ms Deborah Bokor: Will Mr Skarica be joining us?

The Chair: He should be here shortly. He generally is.

Could I ask you to introduce your co-presenter for the record? I'm not sure Hansard caught it.

Ms Bokor: I'd like to introduce Ross Candlish. He's the chair of the Arthur District High School council in Arthur, Ontario.

The Chair: To answer your question, Mr Young is the other parliamentary assistant to the minister and will stand in for Mr Skarica until he returns.

Ms Bokor: I'd like to thank you for the opportunity and would request your undivided attention in addressing the issues of concern which the parents of Wellington county have described to me regarding Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act.

With the introduction of the act, it is our opinion that the Minister of Education has begun dismantling the education system in Ontario to the detriment of its students. The changes are widespread and far-reaching and particularly affect the quality of education for students in rural Ontario. We have concerns about the potential impact on funding; representation; the democratic process; equality between public and separate school systems; volunteers and the school council mandate; and local values, beliefs, and well-made existing plans for our children's future.

We fear that the proposed changes have few benefits and many weaknesses that will severely impact the system, which is claimed by many to be second to none in the world.

On the issue of funding, this government is proposing that school funding will no longer come from residential property taxes but from grants for education generated from provincial income tax revenue. In addition, we understand that commercial and industrial taxes for education will continue to be collected at the municipal level and pooled for distribution across the province to both the public and separate school systems, based solely on a per pupil formula. We are concerned that regional and community-specific needs will not be adequately met through this equalization process.

On the issue of representation: Under the Queen's Park proposal, adequate representation in public education and access to the decision-making process by members of the community will be severely curtailed. Part-time trustees and parent councils will have little power to influence arbitrary and centralized decision-making by the provincial government. Early signs indicate that these changes, including setting up a restructuring commission and committees across the province, will not only negatively impact representation levels and access, but also will create new bureaucratic layers and cost millions of additional dollars.

On the issue of democratic process, even though it has been said that nothing can be done to reverse this legislation, we know democracy does not work in the way it is being proposed. The Education Improvement Commission will take over school board functions. This all-powerful, provincially appointed body, accountable only to the minister, will be able to dictate which programs we can run locally, the people we can hire locally, and the services we have to fund locally. This is provincial policy dictating local delivery. Where's the democracy?

The democracy of the new system is apparently not in the governance of education, it does not appear to be in the new funding mechanism, and it is not immediately evident in the proposed system of accountability. I wonder if it can be manifested in a newly formed Education Improvement Commission, whose decisions will be autocratic, final and unable to be questioned through the legal system. The people of Ontario are more than willing to do things differently if the ultimate impact is improved education for our students. A truly democratic system will help to ensure a strong public school system, which is essential in the continuation and preservation of a productive and humanitarian society.

On the issue of equality between public and separate school systems, it appears that this government is planning to strip away public school boards' rights to collect taxes while allowing Roman Catholic separate school boards to continue to tax. As a public school parent, I am offended that separate school trustees will be able to choose to pay for extra programs for their students but my board won't be able to provide anything but basic programs for our children.

The minister keeps talking about equality, but I see no equal treatment here. We have already seen boards of education, educational workers, school councils, support staff and others in the community pitted against each other for months in an attempt to meet the reduced budgets of our public education system. What will happen in future when these two systems collide and community members perceive that one is for the rich and the other for those who are not as well-off?

On the issue of impact on local volunteers, in England local school councils, which are mandated, encounter a host of difficulties imposed by the government's policy. As is being proposed in Ontario, they are given a per pupil budget and they are responsible for hiring and paying staff, and setting and ensuring standards for the school. Marketing the school has become one of the most important functions of the council because each new student increases the grant given by the local education authority. In Ontario, will school councils work towards the same goal?

1250

In England also it is agreed that parents who will serve on school councils are scarce. In affluent neighbourhoods, councils appear to be more effective than in less well-to-do areas. School essentials like computers and books for programs can be found in the rich-family sector, where it is easier to raise funds that the education authority budget doesn't cover.

But even in the affluent areas of England, parents conclude that they don't yet feel well enough informed to take on the commitment required of a school council member. The reasons are varied, but lack of communication and access to the policymakers are two key concerns. What exactly does the Minister of Education plan to do if there are schools where no parents feel able to take on similar additional responsibilities? Legal sanctions? Withdraw funding? Provincial appointments to local councils?

The issue of local values and planning: "Ontarians have watched as other jurisdictions around the world have reformed their education systems to manage the costs of education, reducing duplication and waste, and streamlining administration and bureaucracy." This is a direct quote from Minister Snobelen on January 13, 1997. Lucy Annetts is a parent from Australia, currently living in our province. Australia is one of the countries that has revamped its school system in a manner that Mr Snobelen finds commendable. Here is what she has to say about what actually happened in her students' schools:

Classroom numbers rose.

Specialist programs such as ESL and remedial literacy and numeracy were severely cut back.

The number of classroom assistants was cut.

Hundreds of schools closed. Discouraged, some of the best teachers abandoned the state or public education system.

Schools now must self-fund extras. This means that the school community has never-ending fund-raising activities.

So-called free education has all but disappeared. Schools in more affluent areas are again able to raise funds more readily, so they have better equipment and other resources.

Teacher morale dropped and the community lost confidence in the public school system, resulting in a steady drift of students to private schools. In turn, these began to classify themselves according to tuition fees and quality of programming. Publicly funded private charter schools, which seem in this province to suit our government's privatization agenda, have not done very well.

The model for public education in Ontario must include essential programs and services necessary to all of our students. Beyond the essential components, every school must provide those services and programs which meet the particular social and emotional needs of students who come to school disadvantaged and unprepared to learn. Our schools must be provided with additional resources to address those needs. For example, the provision of transportation for students who participate in specialized programs or who live some distance from school, as in many rural communities, is a critical component of the model. The model also affirms that knowledgeable, creative and caring teachers, combined with supportive and accountable leadership by the administrators and trustees, are vital contributors to the achievement of successful outcomes for our students.

To the contrary, the province's proposed education changes seem to pave the way for a market-driven education system consisting of vouchers, charter schools and other privatization measures. Students of different backgrounds, abilities and means would end up in different schools and universal access to education in Ontario would be lost.

The choices and options are not clear: Totally eliminating school boards? Having larger boards or smaller boards? Having schools run by the province or by the municipality or by school councils? All the changes are confusing to many of us and, I suspect, to many of you. Is there anyone here with a clear picture of where Ontario education is going? Where are the savings? Where is the proven logic? Effective change requires a sense of purpose and a plan. All students may suffer if massive changes are introduced in so many key areas at the same time.

Mr Snobelen keeps saying that once he has total control of funding he will make sure the needs of students are met. But he has been very careful to avoid saying how he'll do that and at the same time chop the billion dollars out of education that this government needs to deliver the final phase of its promised tax cut. We are somewhat reluctant as parents to take his word on meeting the needs of our students without being given many of the details, financial or otherwise.

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

Ms Bokor: In conclusion, to ensure that this government is making wise choices with regard to Bill 104, the implications and impact need to be reviewed. It seems that four days of hearings totalling 36 hours of deliberation is limited at best. We need to demand a clear explanation from Mr Snobelen as to his plans and their ability to improve the quality of education in the province. So far, this government's promises focus on saving education dollars while producing a better product. When it comes to education and the future of our children, it is imperative that we make wise decisions, not just choices which appear to focus only on economic benefits.

I ask this committee again, do you know exactly what Mr Snobelen is planning? Does Mr Snobelen know? All of us must work together and insist that he clearly and carefully explain how the education system is now broken and how it can be fixed through his vision. Talk is cheap. Poor planning and decision-making will not be cheap.

As my own Wellington County Board of Education's plan reflects the values that we as community members hold, my hope is that the new provincial plan will value equal access to quality education for all our children. Anything else will clearly cost this province, to the very extent of costing it our future.

On behalf of the parents and students in the province of Ontario, I charge this committee here today and the provincial government to give parents and students the assurance that Bill 104 will be reconsidered and that straightforward answers about the future of our schools will be given before the entire public education system is dismantled.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Bokor, for presenting to us, and thanks to Mr Candlish for being here as well. Time is just never enough. We are operating under strict guidelines, as you know. I do want to tell you that this is our 10th day of hearings. While it may still not be long enough, it's not the four days that you indicated.

JOE MISKOKOMON

The Chair: I call upon the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Chief Joe Miskokomon and Ms Gina McGahey. Welcome. It's a pleasure to have you here. We're looking forward to your presentation.

Chief Joe Miskokomon: First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us to participate in these very important hearings. I'd like to introduce our director of education, Ms Gina McGahey from Chippewas of the Thames First Nation. My Indian name is Nee Gon Quoum. I'm a member of the Anishinabek. My given name is Joe Miskokomon. The Department of Indian Affairs knows me as band number 917 from Indian reserve 42.

Historically, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada held the responsibility of providing educational services on behalf of the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation and Onyota'A:Ka First Nation. A new era has begun, whereby first nations have taken the initial footsteps towards first nations self-government by assuming the authority of education in their own communities. This was well supported in the consultation process with first nations which stated, from the Ministry of Education's For the Love of Learning report:

"Aboriginal communities made clear to us the great store they place in education. They believe that unless they themselves govern the education of their children, they won't have control over the preservation of their languages and cultures."

1300

Since 1993, the Chippewas of the Thames and the Onyota'A:Ka First Nation have been active participants in a senior elementary-secondary tuition agreement with the London Board of Education. Due to the recent release of Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act has created an impact on the relationship between the new school board and first nations regarding master tuition agreements and special services agreement. In this presentation, we will list the areas of concerns as well as recommendations on behalf of our first nation and others that need to be addressed.

Relationship with the Ministry of Education and Training:

(a) definition and parallel relationship;

(b) representation on the commission and subcommittees;

(d) recognition and resourcing of native language programs.

Relationship with the new school board:

(a) native representation to school board;

(b) first nation authority on native-specific programs.

Recognition and distribution of first nations' existing capital assets to the new school board.

Commitment of existing tuition agreements with the new school board.

Accountability on secondary student dropouts and graduates.

Relationship with the Ministry of Education and Training and first nations:

(a) Definition and parallel relationship: Historically, the Education Act has referred to first nations as "bands" in relation to tuition agreements with the school board and classification of first nation schools as "private schools." Due to many changes in the transfer of education responsibilities to first nations, there needs to be a definition for first nation education authorities in determining the relationship between the Ministry of Education and Training and the new school board. This definition must be developed by first nations and should not be determined by a classification from the ministry.

Recommendation 1: Recognition and definition of the first nation education authorities within the Fewer School Boards Act. A definition that includes a parallel relationship between the Ministry of Education and Training, the new school board and the first nation education authorities.

(b) Representation on the commission and subcommittees: At this time we are not aware of any native representation to the commission and subcommittees. We need to address first nation educational issues to a subcommittee. Some issues to be addressed are native representation, teachers' accreditation and the Education Quality and Accountability Office, EQAO, etc.

Recommendation 2: That the Ministry of Education and Training establish an education improvement commission and sub-committees on native issues with equitable representation from the first nations to identify common interests between the Ministry of Education and Training and first nations.

(c) Accreditation to a community-based secondary program: One of our major obstacles is the awarding of secondary credits. Previous discussion with the ministry indicated that a program requires a joint relationship with an area school board. By doing so, it gives the school board the authority over the curriculum and staffing. If the French component has the right to develop their own curriculum, should this principle not also apply to first nations? Who would best know the needs of the students but first nation people? Finally, by not allowing direct accreditation to a community-based secondary program it will continue to interfere with the first nation's self-government initiatives.

Recommendation 3: That the Ministry of Education and Training provide initiative for funding and accreditation for a first nation community-based secondary program similar to the French-speaking program.

Recognition of native language programs: Bill 104 currently provides a wide recognition for the French-language program but does not provide the same recognition for first nation languages. In southern Ontario we have experienced many barriers in securing a native language teacher. Our major barrier is the increasing extinction of the speakers in this area. Secondly, any fluent speakers are required to have accreditation and training in order to teach in provincial schools. Any fluent speakers we do have are elders which require relocation away from the community for training. Language courses offered to the students do not justify a full-time position, therefore cultural component courses should be offered as well. Currently, curriculum resources are underdeveloped and funding is very limited. Initiatives need to be taken to revitalize the native language before it is lost forever.

Recommendation 4: That the Ministry of Education and Training provide recognition and resourcing for first nations' languages as for any other language component. Furthermore, the ministry and federal government increase their participation and funding to assist in the revitalization of the native languages.

Relationship with the new school boards:

(a) Native representation to school boards: According to the Education Act, it indicates that one native trustee be appointed for every 100 students. Also that at the discretion of the board an additional trustee may be appointed pending the percentage of first nation population. Within the London area, there are two distinct first nations Iroquois and Ojibway, who have a very distinct culture and language. Currently we are required to share one trustee.

Recommendation 5: That the Ministry of Education and Training and new school boards allow for native representation from each first nation community to be part of the new school board, appointed by first nations or their designate organization.

(b) First nations' authority on school board's native-specific program: According to our existing tuition agreement, the school board has the total responsibility over curriculum and staffing of native-specific programs. This has created difficulty in allowing first nations input into evaluating programming and staff. We question the cultural relevance of the curriculum currently being presented to first nations students.

Recommendation 6: That the Ministry of Education and Training and the fewer school boards guarantee first nations communities equal and equitable representation and participation on issues relating to native-specific curriculum and staffing.

Recognition and distribution of first nations' existing capital assets to the new school boards: Over the past 25 years the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation and many other first nations in Ontario have made a significant capital investment in existing school boards. In particular, the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation have made a capital agreement with the Middlesex county school board as well as paying for student accommodation fees to both London and Middlesex boards. Our estimated calculation over that period is $400,000. Our concern is what happens to that capital investment when the new school boards come into existence.

Recommendation 7: That the Ministry of Education and Training provide an assessment of first nation capital assets with the current school boards and provide recognition and transfer of those assets to new school boards or back to us.

Ongoing commitment on existing tuition agreements with new school boards: Our first nation has negotiated with the London board on a tuition agreement as well as special service agreements for our first nation schools. Also the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation hold a tuition agreement with the Middlesex board for secondary schools and some of the parents of that community have grandfathering agreements for their elementary school students. Will our existing agreements continue to be honoured with their expiry dates?

Recommendation 8: That the Ministry of Education and Training and the new school boards continue to recognize the existing tuition agreements held by Chippewas and Onyota'A:Ka until the expiry date of the agreements.

Recommendation 9: That the Ministry of Education and Training and the new school boards continue to recognize the Middlesex board's grandfather clause held by the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation's parents until the phase-out of their students.

Accountability on secondary school dropouts and graduates: First nations are directly involved in tuition agreements and payment of fees. There is an increase of accountability to find out if we are getting what we paid for. Currently, we are investing half a million dollars a year for the Chippewas of the Thames students and we have limited accountability on students in high-cost programs or success rates. According to our statistics, only one third of our students entering grade 9 in a given year will graduate five years later. This is a very poor accountability record which has a wide range of circumstances contributing to it. Therefore, there is a need for a database so that we can continue to address issues that pertain to our students.

Recommendation 10: That the new school board provide a statistical database for accountability to first nations on secondary students who are early school leavers and graduates.

1310

In summary, with Bill 104 coming into existence, we need to ensure and clarify the outcome it will have for our first nations. First nations and the provincial government must begin to meet to understand and resolve issues that affect our people, as stated in the recommendations, in assuring representation to the new school board by becoming actively involved in the implementation of Bill 104. Our goal is to provide a quality and a cultural-valued education program for our children to help them to survive in both societies.

Finally, it is the firm belief of our people that we must plan for the next seven generations. We have now begun the process of self-government for our future and we must have accountability to our future. It is with our footsteps that we begin the path for a stronger nation. Meegwetch.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your very thoughtful and very thorough brief. I'll take you back, I think it was to the first recommendation, and your concern about the arbitrary classification terminology of the ministry. There is only one reference in Bill 104 and it is indeed a reference to "bands." My very quick question would be: Can you recommend an amendment that would satisfy the first recommendation that you make?

Chief Miskokomon: As you well know, "bands" has been something of an archaic term that has gone by the wayside through the Department of Indian Affairs for quite some time. Unfortunately, it has only been through the Indian Act that the terminology continues to exist. We believe if there is a new act then they should start recognizing Indian self-government and place first nations in that act.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much, Joe. It's nice seeing you again. I want to pursue this. We've had questions raised about representation on the new boards. You mention in here that Oneida, which is Iroquoian, and the Chippewas of the Thames, which is Ojibway culture, only have one representative. You have to share a representative. Obviously, with new amalgamated boards there are going to be more bands, more first nations involved and there is going to be this problem again if there is only representative. You're suggesting one representative from each first nation. If you don't get proper representation, what other options are available to the first nations in terms of serving their students?

Chief Miskokomon: We believe that, first of all, it would only be wise to have representation from each first nation, primarily because the board gets very confused. In our circumstances, we have Iroquoian society on one side of the table. Every two years they change representation. We have Ojibways come in or have Chippewas come in and we have a set of preferences based on them and it becomes very confusing for the school board. I think it would be fundamentally correct to have both cultures represented on the school board.

The second issue is what happens if that does not happen. We are very actively involved in discussions with the London school board at this point in terms of retaining our own children back into our community. That means there is a significant amount of funding that is being lost to the London Board of Education. We understand that, but if we have to simply follow along behind provincial government rules and standards that do not address self-government initiatives within first nations, then in fact what you're asking us to do is to become separate from, and those are the steps that we believe would be necessary to disentangle ourselves from the province of Ontario.

Mr Smith: Just as a brief comment to both Gina and Joe, it's certainly a pleasure to see you both here today. I think the presentation is very reflective of some obvious practical observations that need to be assessed as part of this process, and I guess to you, Joe, certainly reflective, I know, of the strong commitment you bring to educational opportunities for first nations people in the London-Middlesex area. Thank you very much for your comments. As Mr Wildman has suggested, they're not inconsistent with some of the comments and concerns that we've heard from other first nations people over the course of the committee hearings, so thank you very much.

The Chair: Chief, we do appreciate the fact that you came here and shared your views with us, and thank you too to Ms McGahey for being here.

PERTH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: The Perth County Board of Education, Wendy Anderson. Welcome, Madam Chair. We're pleased to have you here.

Mrs Wendy Anderson: Thank you. We're pleased to be here as well.

The Chair: I notice you have a co-presenter. I gather that's from the Huron County Board of Education.

Mrs Anderson: No, this is our director from the Perth County Board of Education, Mr Paul Sherrat.

Before I begin, I thought I'd just give you a little geography lesson of where Perth county is. We are located north of Oxford, a speaker from which you have heard this morning. Stratford is the largest urban area in our county and while it contributes greatly to our economy, a great proportion of our income, and in fact more of our income in Perth county, derives from agriculture than from tourism.

Our board is a forward-thinking board, I would like to say. At the last election, more than half of the new board that was elected were parents with children in the system, and I think we think similarly to the government in that way, that we like to have parents involved in making decisions.

I am pleased to present on behalf of the Perth County Board of Education and thank you for the opportunity to address your hearings into Bill 104. We invited our proposed amalgamation partners in Huron county to lend their support to our submission, which they have done by co-signing it, if you notice, at the back.

Since the first draft of the Fewer School Boards Act was read in the Legislature on January 13 of this year, many questions and concerns have been raised at our board. You will see them outlined in our written submission. It is not my intention to read that submission to you but to expand on some of the items contained within it. In doing so, I will speak specifically about Perth county circumstances but can assure you that the Huron County Board of Education shares our concerns.

You have already been addressed by the president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association on the first day of your hearings. On this the last day of the process, please understand that we fully support the objections raised in that submission, namely, the loss of constitutional rights to raise taxes locally and the lack of accountability to local ratepayers in the creation of an all-powerful Education Improvement Commission.

Many others who have appeared before you today and in days previous have discussed the philosophical difficulties that they have with the proposed legislation. Today I will bring forward some practical considerations as befitting a presentation from a predominantly rural constituency.

It is clear from our preliminary discussions with our neighbours in Huron county that amalgamation will be of no obvious benefit to taxpayers, students or staff presently served by the Perth County Board of Education. We have been a model of efficiency for the province in our methods of education delivery.

Our budgets have decreased each and every year since 1992, with our 1996 budget being $900,000 less than 1992. In 1994, we had the second-lowest cost per pupil of all the public school boards in Ontario. In the figures supplied to the Ministry of Education and Training for the Report on School Board Spending that was prepared by the Ernst and Young folks, our board spending pattern was very favourable compared to the provincial median. We spend $50 more per student on direct classroom expenditures, $213 less on classroom support and $217 less on supervision and administration.

In fact, even though we spend more than the provincial median on direct classroom expenditures, our total spending including capital costs, transportation and continuing education was $496 less per full-time-equivalent student than the median spending level in the province. To reach the spending levels of the provincial median, our budget would have to be increased by $5.5 million. We suggested to the Minister of Education in our meeting with him that we could give lessons to other boards on the economical delivery of education, and he did not disagree.

How have these economies been achieved? As our provincial funding has been decreased, we have restructured and restructured again so that at present our staff levels fall well below those recommended in the Sweeney report. We have sought out partnerships with our coterminous boards and other community groups to ensure delivery of services at the most economical price. We contract out many of our custodial duties and all of our transportation services. We belong to a consortium that purchases natural gas. In partnership with our municipal counterparts, we have sought out shared arrangements for telephone and banking services. Our staff members are all well aware of the significant funding difficulties we face and have worked hard to keep our actual spending well below the budgeted figures, year after year.

1320

While none of these specific issues is addressed directly in Bill 104, my point in raising them is to show you that savings have been and can be achieved by seeking out alliances that are natural and logical for the community in which we live. The enforced and enlarged educational jurisdictions created by Bill 104 will not contribute to cost savings within Perth and Huron counties. The short-term costs of amalgamation created by the necessity of aligning collective agreements, the possibility of buying out contracts for those employees declared redundant at the administrative level, the pay equity provisions and the installation of technology to connect the two systems are a hurdle that will take significant funds away from our classrooms.

We have been told repeatedly that the costs of amalgamation are to be borne by the school boards involved. On this point we must make our most strong objection. The new district school board boundaries defy logic. Clearly, little or no consideration has been given to the studies that discuss optimum size and optimum efficiency. There is no consistency that I can see in geographical size, number of students, or electoral populations. Some boards, such as the one in the minister's own riding, have been left untouched, even though their spending habits were decried by the minister on January 13.

If some boards are not involved in a transition and therefore have no related costs, should the rest of us who will face these costs assume that this is a punitive measure on the part of the Conservative government? If so, what are we being punished for? We cannot bear these costs. If we are truly responsible to the ratepayers who elected us in Perth county, we should simply refuse to continue with the process that will take money out of the classroom in our home county. There has been a fund set up to assist municipalities with their transition costs. This provision must be extended to school boards as well.

Similarly, we must address the issue of access to reserve funds in the preparation of our 1997 budgets. It is a notion shared by many in Perth county, both inside and outside the educational community and supported by our MLA, that the moneys in our reserve funds must be used to benefit the Perth county ratepayers who contributed to them in the first place. From the outset, the current board has identified the task of implementing technology for the use of our students as a priority. Each year we have used funds from our reserves to get the job done and still keep the mill rate increases to a minimum. Perth county ratepayers have been very willing to accept minimal increases so long as the money is spent on computer equipment for our schools. We can complete the plan in 1997 so that Perth county schools will all be equitably equipped. Ratepayers and students alike are expecting the schools at the end of the list to receive their fair share after all these years of waiting. We must be allowed to use our reserve funds for this purpose.

The task of amalgamation is a gargantuan undertaking that will require the efforts of many staff members who are already going well above and beyond the call of duty in fulfilling the many routine daily assignments required of them. I have heard of boards where one day a week is already being devoted to meetings to discuss amalgamation matters. If it becomes necessary for our staff to spend 20% of their time on this task, losses within the system cannot be avoided. Students and staff will not receive the support they need in a timely manner. Parents and ratepayers may not have the answers to questions they may have about things like our budget process or the amalgamation process, to name just two examples. Reports required by the Ministry of Education and Training and by the Education Improvement Commission may not be completed within the required time lines.

While the geographical realities that we face are small in light of the impossible boundaries set in northern Ontario, there are still considerable difficulties arising from them. First, it will be difficult for our students, parents and ratepayers to have access to board meetings because of the considerable distances involved in travelling from one end of the district to the other. On many occasions it has been our practice at our board to entertain delegations when an issue of concern has been brought to our attention. Similarly, we have sought out public opinion at community meetings on subjects as diverse as budget, school council implementation, and graduation expectations. It is difficult now to give equal access to each area of our one county. Doubling the land area will result in increased costs for staff attending these meetings as resource people. It will also mean that ratepayers will be less likely to take part in the process.

Second, if the number of trustees we have assigned to our district is as small as we expect from the as yet undisclosed formula, there will be communities that are not represented. Members of the public have always had the option of attending our meetings or contacting their local trustees to bring their viewpoint forward, and this option will be lost to them.

You will see in our written submission that we have suggested that our new district school board be made up of 11 trustees, based on representation by population. In making this suggestion we have looked carefully at the proposed amalgamation within the municipalities of Perth county and would try to align the trustee distribution with these new areas. There are presently 31 trustees serving in the combined Perth and Huron boards of education. Having 11 trustees would meet the required two-thirds reduction in trustee numbers that Mr Snobelen targeted in introducing Bill 104. It would still give us significantly less representation than our coterminous separate school board. Our coterminous board will be serving just over 5,000 students and will likely have five trustees, making one trustee for 1,000 students. The new district public school board will contain over 20,000 students, making for one trustee for 2,000 students.

Since January 13 we have been waiting for the guidelines to assist us with the task. It is now almost three months later and still nothing is forthcoming. The long-promised and, I assure you, eagerly awaited new funding model is still cloaked in secrecy. The proposed amendments to Bill 100 and the response to the Paroian report have not been made public. Along with a reasonable time line, these three items are all necessary to a successful implementation plan. Is it possible that this whole process has been planned to fail so that the province can justify the elimination of school boards altogether?

The Perth County Board of Education urges this committee to seriously consider the practical implications of this legislation for our board and boards of similar size across this province. A speaker I heard recently, at a session we had for our teachers in dealing with change, said that change is mandatory but improvement is optional. You have the power to make improvements to Bill 104. Please use your option.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Dwight Duncan): Thank you, Mrs Anderson. Unfortunately, there's no time left for questions. Thank you very much.

FRENCH IMMERSION PARENTS' ASSOCIATION OF GUELPH
CANADIAN PARENTS FOR FRENCH, WELLINGTON COUNTY

The Vice-Chair: The next delegation is Arthur District High School Parent Council.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): We've heard them already.

Ms Bokor: There has been a slight change to the agenda. I'd like to introduce Mary Mitchell, a parent from Wellington county, speaking on behalf of French immersion of Guelph; she is also the president of Canadian Parents for French in Wellington county.

The Vice-Chair: May I just ask where the Arthur District High School Parent Council is?

Ms Bokor: I spoke on its behalf at 12:15. It was confirmed by Ms Grannum's office.

The Vice-Chair: You were here on behalf of the home and school association and the Arthur District High School?

Ms Bokor: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: I will recognize this delegation to speak, then. You have 15 minutes.

Mrs Mary Mitchell: Thank you. My name is Mary Mitchell and I am a parent from Wellington county. I'm with the French Immersion Parents' Association and Canadian Parents for French in Wellington county.

Mr Young: Is this the Arthur District High School group or not?

Mr Wildman: They apparently were part of 12:15.

The Vice-Chair: The previous delegation indicated they were part. No one else responded to the call of that delegation. I'll recognize this delegation. It's been indicated that it was approved by the clerk's office, although she has indicated to me she's not aware of it. This is highly unusual. I will, however, recognize the delegation and give you the 15 minutes.

Mrs Mitchell: Thank you. By way of introduction, I'm a parent of three students in grades 4, 7 and 10. I have been involved in my children's education from the beginning. I have been in the classroom as a volunteer, as a lunch supervisor, as a Pizza Day helper, as a volunteer art teacher, and as a field trip volunteer. I have been a member on PTOs, parent activity councils and school council. I have attended Wellington county board public meetings on a monthly basis for several years and have served on various board committees, including the board's five-year strategic plan review team.

1330

I am active in the French Immersion Parents' Association of Guelph and Canadian Parents for French in Wellington county, and I meet parents throughout the area and at provincial seminars. I attend information nights for parents who send their children to kindergarten in the fall, where I help to answer questions and concerns. People phone me with comments on education. In short, I feel I am an involved parent who listens to and talks to students, teachers, administrators and parents. I am also a taxpayer.

What is my reaction to Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act? Frankly, I am overwhelmed. This is, along with other proposed changes like secondary school reform, a massive upheaval to education as we know it. Change can be difficult but bearable if there is some hope for something better. I have no hope here.

Amalgamation of school boards is a top-down decision; this is not a response to grass-roots concerns. Amalgamation is largely a two-for-one sale in educational resources, collapsing two or more previously independent boards, each with their own vision, into one unit despite resulting confusion. How will this amalgamation be achieved? What will the effects be? No one knows, as the rules for that game have not been written yet. The Education Improvement Commission will do that. Like divine rulers, they will impose conditions and restrictions. Their decisions are final and cannot be reviewed or questioned. They are not bound by all existing laws. Boards, trustees and staff must cooperate with them, whereas the commission members themselves are protected from liability.

Where in all of this does it show that money will be saved because of fewer school boards? When our board did an analysis of the proposed amalgamation they could find no savings but more costs, largely associated with staffing changes. This leads me to suspect that Bill 104 really means major changes to existing labour laws in order to achieve financial goals. This is the only way that amalgamation will achieve these goals. The responsibilities of the Education Improvement Commission include investigating how to promote and facilitate outsourcing of non-instructional services, which implies that the present non-teaching staff will be gone.

Another point is the feasibility of strengthening the role of school councils. This implies that the great resource of parents, who are inexpensive, will be relied on further, possibly to take over work from those who are outsourced. Parents want to be involved, but to place too much reliance on parent volunteers will further distinguish the have schools from the have-not schools. Some schools will have an enthusiastic parent base; others will not have this. The resources of the schools will show that difference.

The current government feels that Ontario's workers in education are too expensive and must be displaced and replaced by cheaper labour, regardless of the effects on students and their education. Is this an improvement in education? No, but it is better for Ontario's balance sheet. I understand that the province needs to trim its spending. I question the overall plan and the speed of the decision-making.

The government wishes to be seen as more businesslike. A business wishing to reduce its spending would draw up a business plan, with proposed changes evaluated for their effect on the final result. The plan would be considered and proposed changes analysed to ensure that the desired result is still realized, not destroyed in the new process. The education plan of the Conservative government is to meet financial goals by drastically chopping spending. The priority-setting will be done by lobby groups fighting over what is left of the budget pie. Those who are heard by politicians will have their interests considered.

In October, I attended a regional Ministry of Education meeting. Other parents, mostly as new members of the new school councils, were there also. We were invited less than a week before the meeting. Some found out only the day before. The meeting was during the day, so many parents could not attend; others took time off work.

We were asked to state which provincial education grants we felt were important to our respective schools and why. Most parents know little about grants or how they work. This is not our area of involvement in the schools. Parents became very frustrated and expressed some of this to the facilitators, much to their dismay. But what did they expect? We wanted to voice concerns about issues, but, "No," we were told, "this is about money and grants." Any further comments had to be received in writing within a few days. I came away feeling that a report recommending changes had already been prepared and now somebody would merely add that the public had been consulted but could not come to any effective decision.

I felt used at that meeting. Also, what would become of any grants that were not spoken up for? Would they be cancelled for lack of a lobby group? Given this level of consultation with the ministry, people worry about what will be left in education after the changes. What effect will amalgamating with a board that does not offer French immersion have on our programs? Will we carry on as before, or expand, or close down?

Of all the proposed amalgamations in Ontario, only one joins boards with a similar approach to French immersion. All the other boards joined have different approaches. French immersion has been an effective program for more than 20 years. We have more than 2,000 students enrolled in French immersion in Wellington county and there are approximately 155,000 French immersion students in Ontario across 91 boards. These students and their families are anxious that French immersion programs continue.

How will they be affected by amalgamation? How will any provision of services outside of the usual be offered? Not all boards offer special education or behavioural programs in the same way. How will amalgamation change these programs? When students ask, "What will it be like next year?" what do we answer? If the provision and funding of such programs is handled at Queen's Park rather than at the local level, what stability is assured? Any component of the educational system will be in political hands in Toronto, not accessible to distant concerns throughout the province.

Good business practice says that you should plan for the future. How can any board realize a three- or five-year plan when the funding of such a plan will be out of their control? Local trustees may receive public input and delegations may present at local boards of education, but how often will these officials shake their heads and say: "We hear your concerns, but we have no control over our budget. That's a Queen's Park decision"?

What do the students see in the current changes? That current education is too expensive, that somehow huge sums of money can be cut from education but the quality of education will be raised. Here it is March, and we do not know what the grants are for next year. We therefore do not have a budget for education. As we have no budget, we do not know what services and programs can be offered in September, yet students are choosing courses and others are registering for kindergarten. Assumptions have to be, at this point, that next year will be the same as this year, yet last year there were changes, again with programs being curtailed or removed and a flurry of activity to fulfil the Common Curriculum.

Does a student feel valued in this process, wonder what other changes are coming? Why the secrecy about these changes? Why the rush? If we need change, let's have a plan. How and when will these changes be evaluated and will the public see any of this evaluation? Thank you.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. I'll come back with a question afterwards on the issue of frustration over consultation because I think it's a very legitimate one. But I'd like to specifically take advantage of the fact that you have a background in French immersion programs. I'm going to have to do two questions in one or I won't get them both in.

I make an assumption that French immersion students in your county are currently being bused and that's the way they access French immersion programs. If that is the case, I wonder what you think the effect on French immersion programs will be if the responsibility for school busing is transferred to the municipalities.

Mrs Mitchell: If busing is not allowed to all immersion students, certainly in our county you will have fewer students choosing it and it might become the élitist program it is sometimes claimed to be.

1340

Mr Wildman: Earlier today a couple of the presenters basically were saying: "Where is the money? Show me the money," as Cuba Gooding Jr said in the movie. Even without major cuts beginning again in 1998, are you concerned that your French immersion programs may be threatened just by the amalgamations? If that's the case, then if there are further cuts, isn't it almost certain that they may be changed substantially and perhaps eliminated?

Mrs Mitchell: Wellington county is being amalgamated in the proposal with Dufferin county, which has no French immersion. So my question is, along with other programs, what's going to happen here? Who makes these decisions, and how? So yes, if there are further cuts or if transportation is cut or something, that will effectively kill the program.

Mr Skarica: I just want to ask you a question about parent councils. We've heard in the committee hearings over the last 10 days or so that some of the parents on school councils don't wish any more authority because they can't handle any more authority. Do you have a parent council in Wellington county, and what would your position be?

Mrs Mitchell: I am a member on the school council in one of my children's schools. I think at the moment this is the first year we've had a school council and we're all kind of floundering with where we are and what our purpose is. That does not seem clear. It doesn't help that we keep reading, "Oh, next year you'll be doing this, this, this and this as added duties." I can't speak for all parents, but I think it would be much easier if we knew before we had accepted the position what our actual expectations would be.

The Chair: Mrs Mitchell, thank you very much for coming before us and expressing the concerns of the French immersion parents.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS' GROUP

The Chair: The Independent Contractors' Group: Harry Pelissero, Phil Besseling and John Bridges, please.

Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. The last presenter's concern about the consultation process with parents brings me to one of the questions I have on the written responses from the ministry. It is on page 2. It has to do with the ministry's explanation of how the proposals for the board amalgamations were developed, and it indicates, "We consulted through MPPs."

I am aware that following the aborting of the consultation process on the Sweeney task force report, MPPs were asked to carry out some form of consultation for government. But apart from that farcical request, I'm not aware of any consultation through MPPs, certainly not on the proposals for school board amalgamation that have been presented when Bill 104 was presented. I would like to know what consultation on these school board boundaries, or indeed on any part of Bill 104, took place with what MPPs.

The Chair: Mr Skarica, do you have an answer or do you wish to report at a later date?

Mr Skarica: We have a caucus committee of Conservative MPPs and we had input into the proposed legislation.

Mrs McLeod: So there was a consultation selectively carried out with Conservative MPPs.

Mr Skarica: We have a committee of Conservative MPPs that deals with education issues.

Mrs McLeod: But the answer to the question of "We consulted through MPPs" is that it was a selective consultation exclusively with Conservative MPPs?

Mr Skarica: I know what you want me to say, but it was a --

Mrs McLeod: Well, you're saying it. I'm just confirming it and reiterating it because I'm appalled by it.

The Chair: I think the question has been answered. Mr Wildman.

Mr Skarica: I'm told, by the way, that it was all MPPs who were asked, but that's --

Mr Wildman: All MPPs were asked. That's true.

Mrs McLeod: On Sweeney.

Mr Wildman: On Sweeney.

Mr Skarica: Following Sweeney.

Mrs McLeod: On Sweeney. Not on Bill 104.

The Chair: Mr Wildman.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Madam Chair, I'd like to make the note that only four Liberals responded, and only four NDPs --

The Chair: Mr Wildman has the floor at the moment, Mr Froese.

Mr Wildman: I have a question that I actually meant to raise earlier resulting from the Perth county presentation. Can the parliamentary assistant confirm whether or not board reserve funds, which will be assets that have to be distributed when the boards amalgamate -- whether the province will consider reserve funds to be provincial assets or whether they will be local board assets?

Mr Skarica: Under section 68 of the current Education Act, as you know, Mr Wildman, assets and liabilities of the boards merge when they merge, so they would still be the property of the boards. I imagine that's one of the aspects that the Education Improvement Commission will look at. But under the current legislation, which is unaffected by the bill as I see it, it would still belong to the boards.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for your patience. Mr Pelissero, it's good to see you again.

Mr Harry Pelissero: I'll assume that won't be deducted from our 15 minutes. They're deducted from the members' break, which is rapidly becoming very short rapidly.

Mr Pelissero: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Harry Pelissero. I'm executive vice-president of the Independent Contractors' Group. With me today on my right is Phil Besseling. He's president and owner of Besseling Mechanical, which is a unionized mechanical contracting company. On my left is Mr John Bridges. He's president of Summit Restoration, an open shop masonry company.

I'm going to turn over the presentation to Phil Besseling. He's also president of the Independent Contractors' Group, and I can assure you we've left lots of time for questions and answers.

Mr Phil Besseling: Madam Chair, committee members, first of all I would like to thank you for allowing us to make representation to the committee.

I'm here today on behalf of the Independent Contractors' Group. The ICG is an organization of open shop and unionized construction employers who work to ensure the tendering process in public sector contracts is open to all to bid and to perform work.

We have been following with interest the issue of amalgamation of public sector agencies such as municipalities and school boards. The concern of the Independent Contractors' Group relating to Bill 104 is what would happen to those school boards that have an open bidding process for taxpayer-funded projects which merge with a school board that does not have an open bidding process.

The following is taken from our brief, Freedom of Choice, which is attached for your information.

The board of education for the city of Windsor, General Conditions, June 1990, reads:

"All electrical installation work so specified and described with the specifications and on the working drawings for this project will be performed only by electrical contractors who are current members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers."

Toronto Board of Education call for tenders, February 12 and November 21, 1991, reads:

"Contractors, in order to qualify for the above work, must be in contractual relations with the Toronto-Central...Building and Construction Trades Council and/or its affiliated unions."

When our members and their employees pay taxes, they are not identified as to union or open shop. It should not matter when bidding on taxpayer-funded projects. We do not want to see the expansion of restrictive clauses as a result of amalgamation. Our goal is to ensure there is an open bidding process.

Think of the messages these restrictive clauses send to those employees who freely choose not to belong to a union, and to other taxpayers. The messages are:

"We have set up an arbitrary barrier which gives a monopoly to international unions."

"We are prepared to take your tax dollars, but we are not prepared to allow you to work on publicly funded projects."

Imagine the unions crying "foul" or "unfair" if those same public sector agencies had a clause which allowed only open shop contractors to bid and work. They would want, and rightly so, to demand fairness. What we are asking for is fairness in the public sector tendering process.

In closing, we would ask the committee to bring forward the necessary amendments to Bill 104 to ensure there is an open bidding process for taxpayer-funded projects in all the school boards.

Thank you for allowing us to share our concerns with you. We're prepared to answer questions.

The Chair: Thanks very much. We have ample time for questions, as you said. We have three and a half minutes per caucus.

Mr Wildman: Are you aware that one of the provisions of Bill 104 is that the so-called Education Improvement Commission is to encourage and promote outsourcing by school boards?

Mr Pelissero: I wasn't aware that this was one of their mandates. Our sole purpose for coming before the committee today is to identify a concern of our membership with respect to a tendering process.

Members, whether it's the union that Phil's employees belong to or the open shop employees John's workers choose to be represented by, feel like second-class citizens with respect to being able to bid on not just school board tendering projects but also any other public sector agencies that have restrictive clauses.

I'm not sure what the mandate of the implementation commission will be. We're just here to talk about making sure the tendering process is open for all, regardless of employee affiliation. We think it would be just as unfair if the school boards we use as an example here or any other public sector agency said the only way you could bid was to be non-union; that would be unfair as well.

1350

Mr Wildman: Just for the record, could you tell us what union represents your employees?

Mr Besseling: My employees are represented by the Christian Labour Association of Canada, Local 6, headquartered in the Niagara Peninsula.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I've been listening to your presentation, gentlemen, and I've had a chance to review your brief. The focus of this committee is on Bill 104, and I wanted to ask you about that. You may be aware that the general approach and thrust of the bill is to find savings and to find efficiencies in the governance and administration of education by reducing the number of school boards and reducing the number of trustees. Do you have any comments on the wisdom of that approach?

Mr Pelissero: Not in particular. That's one of the reasons we're here, because Bill 104 is silent as to what happens, as we identify, when school boards that have an open tendering process are amalgamated with school boards that don't. That's something the committee, I hope, would take into consideration not only in terms of the proposed amendments to the legislation, but we know, and it's been expressed by other individuals, that there could be possible legal challenges.

Basically it's successor rights that we're talking about in public sector agencies. When you amalgamate two public sector agencies, which agreement, if there's an agreement in place between two public sector agencies, is going to take precedence, in this case, where you have school boards that don't have a restrictive clause merge with school boards that do?

Our point here today is to raise and flag that as an issue, hopefully, that the committee will deal with.

Mr Pettit: Thank you, gentlemen. If the tendering were to go to the totally open bidding route, what are the chances that there may be some savings to the school boards? Are we going to see lower bids? Second, why would a union company hook up with the independents -- I'm a little confused on that -- from your point of view?

Mr Besseling: First of all the question is not of saving money. Our sole concern here is fairness.

Mr Pettit: Is there a chance that because it went totally open, there may be savings --

Mr Besseling: In some instances perhaps; in some instances perhaps not. One doesn't know. It's a bidding process, so you can't make that determination. The important thing here that I want to raise is that I currently work for all the school boards within my area. If in the amalgamation process, for instance, say the Halton Board of Education gets amalgamated with the Metro Toronto School Board. Will I be precluded from working there? I've worked for the Halton school board for over 25 years and all of a sudden, because they have this restrictive clause, I'm not allowed to work for them, work on a relationship with Halton board employees whom we have a good relationship with. I think that's totally unfair.

That is what we're trying to address and that is what we're trying to make this committee aware of, that in this shuffling we don't want to be lost in the process, and that's what we're afraid will happen. The concern is on the boards amalgamating, but what about those of us who work with boards? How will we be treated? All of a sudden we're cut off, and that's my concern.

Mr Pelissero: To answer Mr Pettit's question directly, why would a unionized firm or set of employees belong to the Independent Contractors' Group? Our membership covers the whole spectrum. We have companies that are AFL-CIO-organized, we have the Christian Labour Association of Canada and we have open shop. More particularly, if you as a group of employees decide that the Christian Labour Association of Canada will best represent your interests and you still have a restrictive clause that said unless you are a member of an international union, you can't bid and perform work, you still feel like a second-class citizen. They just happen to "belong" to the wrong union.

I thought that in Communism, when you belonged to the right party, you got the work. I thought that went down when the Berlin Wall came down. We still see that. To a degree, we have a Berlin Wall with respect to tendering processes within Ontario.

Mr Duncan: Harry, we've met before and you've explained this situation, so I apologize if I've missed part of your point here. When a contractor or a subcontractor goes to bid on a job, are there not situations where independents hire through a union hall and therefore these independents can still bid on a job with union help?

Mr Pelissero: No.

Mr Besseling: If my employees choose to belong to -- and that is their right, to do so -- whichever union they would like and my employees choose to join CLAC, then why can't I bid on these jobs that are international? They have the right to choose.

Mr Duncan: I understand that. Especially in some of the skilled trades, I was under the impression that you could hire through a union hall an independent contractor.

Mr Pelissero: No.

Mr Besseling: Because my employees are represented by CLAC and they choose to do so, I am not allowed to hire anyone from another union group. I have a contractual relationship with CLAC, as the international has with its contractors, so we're both in the same boat. We are restricted by law.

Mr Pelissero: We've come up with a couple of ways to try and solve the problem. One is that the previous Minister of Labour, Mr Mackenzie, really detailed his or someone's interpretation within the Ministry of Labour that at the beginning of a job, if the public sector agency deemed it was going to be the owner versus the employer, and this comes under the construction section of the Labour Relations Act, there are different duties and responsibilities with respect to what an employer's rights and responsibilities are versus an owner's. His interpretation was that if the public sector agency deems itself to be an owner, then it's free to accept bids. That hasn't been challenged yet before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Another piece of legislation under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is the Discriminatory Business Practices Act, and one of the components in being able not to discriminate is based on geography. We successfully argued before the Durham Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, where they wanted to put in basically a local preference clause, that we felt that was going to be contrary to that particular act. The Ministry of Education agreed. We think that if you wanted to amend that particular act to include employee affiliation being a practice you can't discriminate against, it might be one way to get around the problem.

The Chair: Thank you, President Besseling, Mr Pelissero and Mr Bridges. We appreciate very much your bringing your unique points to our committee.

Mr Skarica: On a point of further clarification on your question, Mrs McLeod, your submissions were after Sweeney and before Bill 104. That's the same time frame that we gave our --

Mrs McLeod: So you didn't have access to the information about the new proposals on board boundaries.

Mr Skarica: That's correct. There were four of your members who responded, four NDPs and there was our caucus committee of about 10 or 12 members.

Mrs McLeod: A very important distinction, because in one case we were consulting on something where at least we knew what was happening and in the other case there was no consultation.

Mr Skarica: You were in the same board we were in.

OXFORD COUNTY COUNCIL OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS

The Chair: The Oxford County Council of Home and School Associations, Lesley Schuurs. Welcome, Mrs Schuurs. We're very happy to have you here. I wonder if for the record you might introduce your co-presenter.

Mrs Lesley Schuurs: My name is Lesley Schuurs and I'm president of the Oxford County Council of Home and School Associations. I have with me today Mr Brian Peat, who is our executive vice-president.

As members of the Oxford County Council of Home and School Associations, we will address the concerns as parents on behalf of the children in our schools in Oxford county regarding Bill 104. It is very difficult to respond to Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, as all the information is not available. We have no idea what the funding model will look like, nor do we know how the implementation of this bill will come into being.

Our criterion for responding is the Home and School mission statement, "The Best for Each Student." After studying Bill 104, listening to our political leaders and trying to envision an education system in Ontario that would evolve from this bill, we still have more questions than answers.

We cannot question the suggestion of equality in education across the province since Home and School have been advocates of equal educational opportunities throughout Ontario and Canada since 1964, but we have comments and recommendations pertaining to the bill.

In Oxford county, our board of education has been fiscally responsible, accountable and approachable to the students, parents, staff and taxpayers. We question that as parents in Oxford, would our concerns be as readily dealt with by a mega-board? The answer to this, ladies and gentlemen, is a resounding: "Thank you for expressing your concern. We'll look into this matter and get back to you." That answer is not good enough when the questions and concerns will pertain to our children.

It is the recommendation of the Oxford County Council of Home and School Associations that the Oxford County Board of Education be allowed to continue operating as an individual board of education.

1400

In looking at the distribution of the school districts, we find that the public and separate school districts will have the same number: 33. With the separate school districts representing approximately 0.5 million students and the public school districts representing approximately 1.5 million students, we ask, where is the equality?

Oxford County Council of Home and School Associations recommends a fairer distribution of numbers of school districts, taking into account that the majority of students in Ontario are in the public system and 70% of the taxpayers are public school supporters.

We would also like to know why the boards of Oxford, London, Middlesex and Elgin were amalgamated, generating a student population base of approximately 90,000 students, making this school district the third-largest in Ontario when other school districts in southwestern Ontario have a student population base of approximately 50,000. Our other question related to this is why three very distinct rural boards were placed with one very urban board. We believe that the uniqueness of the four boards in this school district will pose many obstacles in becoming one school district, one unified voice for the students of these boards.

It is the recommendation of our council that the school districts reflect the individual diversity of each school board, keeping student population levels reasonable.

We also recommend that there be one publicly funded education system in Ontario. As Home and School, we realize that the bill does not address this issue and we understand the hesitation on the part of the government to implement such a system. But we believe the concerns of religion, culture and language could be addressed with major savings to the ministry and ultimately the taxpayers.

The Oxford County Council of Home and School Associations would also recommend that each board, when and if amalgamated, have equal representation by trustees. Without equal representation by trustees elected by the taxpayers of our county, how will the students, parents, staff and schools of Oxford county fare in the mega-board?

As parents and taxpayers of this province, we have grave concerns about the proposed Education Improvement Commission. We feel very strongly that no appointed body should be able to make decisions that affect Ontario's most precious resource -- our children -- without having to answer to us, the parents and taxpayers of Oxford county and the province of Ontario.

It is our recommendation that the Education Improvement Commission not be implemented with the non-accountable authority that Bill 104 gives it.

Realizing that Bill 104 does not elaborate on the role of school councils and no legislation has been passed to date, we believe that Home and School, having been partners in the Ontario education system for the past 81 years, has the experience to best serve the needs of the education community and the students. We are very aware that mandating volunteers to pay a membership fee is not the norm, but precedence has been set by the Ministry of Agriculture in Ontario. All farmers in Ontario must register by paying a set fee to the two farm federations recognized by the government. By implementing a similar system in education, using the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, the Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario and Fédération des associations de parents francophones de l'Ontario, we would not be reinventing the wheel and spending unnecessary tax dollars.

The Oxford County Council of Home and School Associations recommends that there be a home and school association in every public school in Ontario.

With all due respect to this committee, with all the wide, sweeping changes that this bill would enact, it is the recommendation of the Oxford County Council of Home and School Associations that at this time we cannot support the implementation of Bill 104 and would recommend that Bill 104 be delayed until such time that proper public debate has taken place and all questions regarding funding and implementation are answered.

We believe that with our suggested recommendations implemented, the students in Oxford county, as well as Ontario, would benefit.

Mr Froese: Thank you for coming. We've heard across the province and I've heard in my riding complaints and concerns from the parents, the teachers and the principals that they have no control over their own environment. As a matter of fact, we heard a number of days ago a principal describing that it took up to two weeks to get approval to put up a chalkboard when he had it all there; it just took so long because of the bureaucracy, primarily boards. I'm really trying to understand. We've heard your concerns and we've heard other concerns that reducing the boards and reducing the number of trustees is such a terrible thing, but parents, teachers and principals say, "We want control of what we're doing in our own school."

Could you tell me what your position on that is? Why would it be difficult? In the bill, it mentions looking at the feasibility of enhancing or giving more authority to school councils. Clearly, from what we've heard, school councils aren't ready to do this; I understand that. But if we had the teachers, the parents and the school councils working together to do what they need to do in their own school rather than having this body over here, the board, or even our own ministry or the minister determining what should be happening in that school, if you have the parameters set, what would be so bad about that?

Mrs Schuurs: I can only speak for the Oxford County Board of Education and the schools my children are in. We don't seem to have as great a difficulty with that time span. Being Home and School, we know the rules, we know how to approach the board. Our principals don't seem to have those kinds of complaints, not that I have heard, in the schools that Home and School represents in Oxford county.

As far as parents wanting to have control, I as a parent do not want that responsibility of an elected official.

Mr Duncan: I would have thought too that if you create larger school boards it would become more cumbersome and more difficult to get simple approvals.

Mrs Schuurs: Exactly.

Mr Duncan: Wouldn't that make a lot of sense to you, that if you have a much larger school board that's further removed from local communities -- which is what this is doing; it's taking away local governance, local authority. When we look at the so-called ELMO board in this region, my goodness, how is a much larger bureaucracy going to function better, unless of course the government's true agenda is to do away with school boards, in which case --

Mr Young: When you ran for the leadership, didn't you say you were going to --

The Chair: Mr Young, you don't have the floor.

Mr Duncan: According to the Sweeney report, we said we would, absolutely.

Wouldn't it make sense to you, since the government is arguing that these processes would go more quickly, that if you create boards this large the process would in fact probably be slowed down?

Mrs Schuurs: Mr Duncan, in my report I'm recommending that the Oxford county board stay the Oxford county board. Our board has been feasible; it has cut back. As you heard the chair of our board say, 61% of the dollars spent in Oxford go back into the classroom. We can't argue against our board that way.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate your presentation. I agree with your view that the central question is funding, and until we know what the new funding formula is, questions about administrative structures --

Mrs Schuurs: We can't answer.

Mr Wildman: -- can't really be answered, exactly. Would you support an amendment to the bill that would mean it would not be implemented until after the funding formula has been published and consulted about across the province?

Mrs Schuurs: Definitely.

Mr Wildman: I hope the government will accept such an amendment.

Mrs Schuurs: So do I.

The Chair: President Schuurs, thank you very much for being here with your colleague to present your views.

1410

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCALS 1477, 3615, 1146, 2512

The Chair: Our next presenter is CUPE Locals 2512, 3615, 1477, 1146, Duncan Haslam. While Mr Haslam is coming to the table, I remind members that when you're given two minutes per caucus, it includes the response, and we should try to give as much time to the presenters to give their views. It wasn't directed to anyone in particular, just a general comment that we're here to listen.

Welcome, Mr Haslam. We're very pleased to have you here with your colleague; perhaps you'll introduce her. You'll have 15 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Duncan Haslam: It will be my pleasure to introduce to you Marie O'Brien, who is the vice-president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 2512, which represents the office, clerical and technical employees of the Waterloo Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I would like to read my brief because there are many things happening with Bill 104 that I think have to be put on the record, and as I understand Hansard, the only way it can be put on the record is if I read it.

As a CUPE national representative, I am here today to express the concerns of education employees from the Perth, Huron-Perth, Oxford and Waterloo boards of education, specifically dealing with the proposed language under section 335(3)(f) giving the Education Improvement Commission the function to "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on how to promote and facilitate" -- make easy to achieve -- "the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards."

I have taken the liberty of inserting the Oxford Dictionary meaning of "facilitate" into your proposed language to eliminate any confusion regarding what section 335(3)(f) says and really means. The proposed language in the Fewer School Boards Act is a clear indication that the government intends to contract out, or outsource if you prefer, to the greatest extent possible the work performed by non-teaching employees. It does not state that it will contemplate outsourcing or contracting out but rather how it will do this.

Since the government has already appointed some members of the Education Improvement Commission, and in particular Dave Cooke, who has stated that he finds it is absolutely necessary to fire union members, and Premier Mike Harris has admitted that there will be fewer CUPE members, education employees have every right to be concerned for their jobs.

We have to wonder if the government considers contracting out as job creation or maintaining the status quo, versus our point of view that this is a loss of jobs. The jobs will still be there in the school system, but they will be offered to the lowest bidder, who cannot and will not pay decent wages or employee benefits such as pension, dental or medical coverage and still make a profit.

Non-instructional union members from these boards total 52 weeks of employment as full-time and 41 weeks as part-time employees. The yearly payroll expenditures cost an average of between $1.2 million and $5 million annually. This represents approximately 4% of the average total annual school board budget; see appendices A through D.

If current employees are lucky enough to obtain one of these positions with the new employer, how are they going to maintain a standard of living when they are already the working poor? The average non-instructional school board employee working full-time makes between $21,000 and $30,000 annually. I will point out to you that when we had the social contract, the vast majority of these people were not affected by that; they were all considered LICO employees. After the school board employee drops even lower in wages, how will they be able to contribute to the economy, since they won't be able to afford even the basic necessities that every human being is entitled to, let alone a few luxuries that keep the economy running?

We believe a job is something that provides people with enough income to support their family. It allows buying of shelter, clothing, food and transportation. This new type of job is not a real job but a fast-food job. Where will the government find revenue to run the province once many former taxpayers' income levels are reduced and they can't afford to support the businesses that depend on their money?

A further problem to address is the value and stability our support workers bring to the education system. As much as taxpayers wish to see better use of their tax dollars, we don't believe this means at the expense of our children's needs. Will the children feel as safe, nurtured and content to be in an environment conducive to learning if the support staff is constantly changing and there are new faces to be found throughout their school? It is a known fact that children need consistency. Will consistency be a part of the school community when an employee is working for $7 an hour? I doubt it. I am sure they are looking for a better-paying job from their first day at the school.

Students deserve and taxpayers expect our schools to supply reliable and well-trained staff and services, with studies showing that students do better in clean and comfortable learning environments. Will these services be maintained after restructuring or, as experience and time have shown, will our schools suffer because privatization costs are equal to or more than what is already spent on running the education system?

Some statistics gathered regarding careers in the school system and supplied by boards of education are referenced below:

The Perth County Board of Education has an average length of service for secretarial and clerical employees of 14.5 years and 9 years for technical employees. The Huron-Perth board has an average length of service of 6.85 years. Oxford County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has an average length of service of 6 years. Waterloo Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board averages 10 years for secretarial, clerical and technical and 9 years for educational assistants.

Children know the secretary, educational assistant and custodian in their schools. They go to them for help and assistance, and support staff are considered friends as well as figures of authority.

I'd like to refer you back to a brief we heard this morning from the London Council of Home and School Associations. It says, "Every elementary student in a school knows the school custodian by name; every student and many parents know the secretary." As examples of non-instructional staff, they are vital components of any school. "These are the friendly faces that our students trust. They are the eyes and ears of our schools. How will a school board ensure the safety of our students if these were to be outsourced? Will a profit-driven company research and be accountable for their employees?" Will there be pride in our schools?

A high percentage of non-instructional staff live in and around the neighbourhoods of the schools they work in. These jobs, although not highly paid, are considered great positions because it allows people to work within the vicinity of their home and children. Due to the fact that 90% of these positions are filled by female employees, the bonus of working for school boards allows women the opportunity of working outside the home in valuable and satisfying careers but still being available when their children need them.

Not by any stretch of the imagination can you consider in today's economy that women are still bringing home that little extra cash for the cookie jar. With 50% of parents being divorced and the high rate of single parents, these career positions are critical. Once again, women will take the brunt of government cutbacks and be penalized for their nurturing and caring personalities, which attract them to careers working with children.

My members want an explanation of why the definition of classroom costs encompasses only the teacher and the classroom supplies. What about the educational assistants who assist the junior kindergarten and kindergarten teachers in their classrooms who have an average of 25 to 30 students enrolled? Can 4- or 5-year-old children be stimulated when there is a ratio of 1 to 28 in a classroom and the teacher hasn't the time to answer a question or give individual attention to help a child? What about the challenged child who needs some assistance in class but has to either stay at home or be institutionalized because there is no educational assistant to keep him or her in the classroom? Are these not legitimate classroom expenses, or do the very young and challenged not merit the effort of our government to supply the knowledge and tools to become productive citizens?

Do we dare mention the library technician in the school without acknowledging that rural schools are the public libraries and that access to a well-stocked city library is not readily available in rural areas? But I'm sure students will be more than pleased when there is no reference material available to complete projects.

We would be remiss if we forgot to mention the private sector computer companies that are rubbing their hands in glee in anticipation of the service agreements with the underlying fine print for extras instead of calling the one or two technicians on staff for computer breakdowns and software training.

There are so many important services that are critical to children it is hard to list them all. We need the speech pathologists and guidance counsellors, who fall outside the definition of classroom essentials. Many families could not afford these services. In cases where children require the assistance of guidance counsellors, if they aren't there when needed, what happens then?

1420

I would like to recap some statistics.

The Perth County Board of Education has a total of 68 CUPE employees on staff, of which 51 are part-time, for an average salary of $23,400, with the remaining 17 full-time employees averaging $25,877 and the technical group averaging $34,050.

For Huron-Perth, it is 40 educational assistants averaging $17,353, eight full-time secretaries at $30,615 and 19 part-time at $21,330.

Oxford County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has 48 CUPE employees with 45 part-time averaging $10,447 annually and a total yearly payroll of just over $500,000.

Waterloo Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board has 400 employees, of which 314 are part-time with the average of the secretarial-clerical-technical being $22,928 and an educational assistant's average being $17,282.

Those averages include, by the way, their benefits and pension contribution.

Many of our members have written to their local MPPs, particularly the Conservative ones -- which is turning into a waste of time -- seeking clarification of the government's intentions. To date they have not received answers to their clearly stated questions; however, they have received replies that do nothing to allay their concerns. See the attached.

Perhaps today a member of the government caucus would respond to their concerns. Is it your government's intent to amend the Labour Relations Act by deleting successor rights? Is it your government's intention to pass legislation or regulations which will restrict our ability to bargain collectively? Is it your government's intention to pass legislation which would override current provisions in our collective agreements?

The statistics I have mentioned are attached to the brief for your future consideration.

In closing, I bring to this committee from the 533 CUPE education members who are referred to throughout the brief and whom I am proud to represent the following recommendations to amend the Fewer School Boards Act:

Protect collective agreements and bargaining by removing Section 335(3)(f) and not allow the outsourcing of non-instructional positions. The members of the Education Improvement Commission should be held accountable for their decisions and not be placed above the rule of law, as they are.

Thank you for your attention. I'll answer any questions if you have time.

Mr Duncan: Thank you, Mr Haslam. Very briefly, I see that you're a national representative of CUPE. How do the collective agreements, particularly in rural school boards in Ontario, compare with other collective agreements, not necessarily in the education sector, for similar-type jobs?

Mr Haslam: For female jobs?

Mr Duncan: Yes.

Mr Haslam: Ours would be ahead. The rate of pay and the benefits would be better in the public sector than they would be in the private sector. The private sector is largely unorganized.

Mr Duncan: No, I mean in other organized settings.

Mr Haslam: They'd be comparable.

Mr Duncan: So they're not out of line with other organized settings.

Mr Haslam: As long as they're organized. If they're non-union, there's a big difference.

Mr Wildman: I looked at your appendices and I see appendix G, February 28, 1997, a letter to Mrs Diane Binyon of Kitchener from Wayne Wettlaufer, MPP for Kitchener. If you look at page 2, it relates specifically to the section you were highlighting. It says:

"Section 335(3)(f) -- Bill 104 would not require outsourcing by school boards. The commission's mandate would be to conduct research and make recommendations to the minister on how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional service.

"If you had read the above in Bill 104, you could not possibly have worried one bit about what Sid Ryan has to say as he seems to be adding his own interpretation to this bill."

"Yours truly,

"Wayne."

So what's the problem?

Mr Haslam: Mr Wettlaufer obviously reads Webster's Dictionary. I don't. I prefer the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English. Mr Wettlaufer has a problem with the English language obviously, and obviously the bill was written by a lawyer and lawyers like to use words that can hide the real meaning. That's been my experience with them.

Mr Wildman: But you interpret "promote and facilitate" to mean they intend to do it.

Mr Haslam: No question about it, and if they didn't intend to do it, why didn't they answer our questions? The questions that we referred to the members are not hard but they haven't answered them yet. They've given us replies, but I could have got a better answer from my dog, to be honest with you.

The Chair: I feel I should apologize for all lawyers, being one, but I'll pass on to the Conservative caucus.

Mr Froese: Thank you very much for sharing your concerns. I have sympathy for your argument and I understand your concern. I also believe, though, in the best possible price for the best possible service for the best deal for the taxpayer. I know your recommendation is to get rid of that section and that's possibly not going to happen. If the bill gets third reading and royal assent, if you could have any part of that section changed, other than taking it right out, what would you be comfortable with?

Mr Haslam: I suppose you could clearly define what "non-instructional staff" means, because we think we know what it means and you may have a different meaning. Clearly, if you look at the figures, there's no money to save if you outsource the office clerk. To be honest with you, it's peanuts. We're dealing with peanuts here. In the whole scheme of a board that may have a budget of $30 million, our portion of it may be $4 million. There's no money to save. Most of these school boards -- and you heard from two of them this morning. In 1992 the Perth board turned 12-month jobs into 10-month jobs, and in 1996 the Waterloo regional Catholic board just dumped 66 people on to the street from 12-month jobs to 41-week jobs. That's a loss of income.

The school boards, with all due respect to them -- and they're my opponents on most occasions -- are cheap out here. They're frugal. They don't throw tax dollars and money around. If you're looking to save money, you won't find it out in rural Ontario, because they are -- and I'm not insulting them; that's the way they are -- very frugal people. If I can paraphrase Leo Cahill, they throw nickels around like Ralph Sazio throws around manhole covers. They are guardians of the tax dollar, and like them or not, that's what they do and they do it well.

The Chair: Mr Haslam and Ms O'Brien, let me express the appreciation of the committee for your attendance here today and your presentation.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, WATERLOO UNIT

The Chair: May I call upon the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Waterloo Unit: Patricia Cannon, Richard Costello and Wayne Buchholtz. Welcome, Madam President. We're delighted to have you with us today.

Ms Patricia Cannon: First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce my colleagues. Mr Richard Costello is our CEO of the secondary branch affiliate of OECTA, and Wayne Buchholtz is the CEO of our elementary branch affiliate. As president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Waterloo Unit, I am pleased to be able to make this presentation here today.

I'd like to preface my remarks by stating first that I am deeply concerned about the vast and all-encompassing nature of the changes the government is making in education. My second concern is the extreme speed at which these changes are being implemented. There has been insufficient time allowed for people in general to develop an understanding and awareness of the ramifications of so many radical changes.

I wish to state at this time that the education system, at least in our opinion, is not broken as Mr. Snobelen is so fond of saying. Is it in need of change? Yes, of course. Any viable, growing system can only continue to be such by encouraging appropriate appraisal review and change. This is something schools and teachers are good at and something that has been ongoing throughout Ontario's history.

Changes made, however, have always been made based on sound research and direction. Where is the research that indicates why these drastic changes are necessary? Where is the appraisal-review documentation that shows how this new system will produce better results and enhance student achievement? Where is even an outline of this new improved curriculum that has been promised?

1430

The parents in this province are only now beginning to see the truly destructive nature of these changes and how they will negatively impact on their children's education and their very future. Before they have time to react, the changes will all be in place.

Bill 104 appears to provide the instrument or tools needed to allow the government to take control of education governance. Additional announcements regarding funding changes allow them to complete the process. These measures will enable the government to continue its extraction of hundreds of millions of dollars that it needs to cover its election promise of a 30% tax cut.

The number of boards in the province has been cut in half, and although Waterloo region has been affected in only a minor way through the loss of three schools to the new French district board, there are several other areas of concern to us within this document.

The creation of the Education Improvement Commission is perhaps one of our greatest concerns. Currently, trustees are voted into office by taxpayers and have powers to manage the local system. Under the new structure the EIC will have control over the management of each board by virtue of powers some of which include approval of board budgets, review all board business, appointment of auditors as it sees fit and making recommendations regarding financial accountability of the existing boards.

The local autonomy will gradually be eroded as new trustees for January 1998 will be limited in number, and under the new restrictions will no longer have the right to make financial decisions without EIC approval. They can no longer use local taxes to make accommodation for the special needs unique to their particular region. Because of this lack of control, many current special programs could be vastly curtailed, changed or lost due to the inability to raise funds for those areas. In Waterloo region, we have already made great changes to our JK and K programs by combining the two classes into larger groups because of previous funding cuts.

This year, if we want to keep the program, other major changes in how the program is delivered may also have to be made, such as changing from a half-day, every day delivery to a full-day, alternate day method. If we do not make the savings there, then some other program will have to be cut. What else can we afford to lose? In Waterloo there's not much left to cut.

Can we give up our speech and language teachers? Those were gone 10 years ago. Can we give up art and music consultants and programs? We lost those back in 1990. Can we give up special classes for the hearing-impaired? That class closed in 1993. Can we give up social workers and psychologists? We've reduced our complement by 20% in 1995. Can we give up teacher-librarians and chaplains as teachers? We lost those in 1996. We have had reductions as well in religion, special ed, guidance and outdoor education consultants over the past several years.

Curriculum coordinators, consultants and specialized staff such as language and speech pathologists and teachers of the deaf and blind all help students with special needs in our schools. It will prove almost impossible to service those needs, because most school budgets will no longer be able to fund for those programs. If they in some way do exist in some areas, those resources will be stretched beyond limit in the new extended boards.

Because trustees no longer have control of some funding through local taxes it will be much more difficult to plan for any programs or projects unique to their particular area. This lack of funding control also then begs the question, who would teachers, or any other employee group for that matter, bargain with? The board trustees appear to have no significant control over any moneys within the board and therefore could not offer any type of financial settlement to an employee group. Would this then lead to regional or perhaps province-wide bargaining? Nothing has been said.

We have also been promised a new and vigorous curriculum that will be standard across the province. This would obviously mean great changes in textbooks and resource materials for many boards. To replace just one textbook at an average cost of $28, I've been informed, for one subject, in one grade across the province would cost millions of dollars, somewhere between $4 million and $5 million to replace one textbook. Imagine how expensive a total change would be. Will the costs now come out of the designated budget or will there be additional funds to cover this?

Many decision-making powers guaranteed to Catholics under the Canadian Constitution are now going to a government-appointed commission. This infringement of rights does not sit well with many separate school supporters. The fact that the decisions of the commission are binding and cannot be reviewed or questioned by a court should not sit well with any Ontario residents.

Bill 104 will allow the EIC 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."

First, we must ask who falls into this non-instructional category, bearing in mind the address Mr. Snobelen made on January 13 when, introducing these changes, he stated, "We are going to focus resources where they should be, in the classroom." We could not agree more. However, special ed, librarians, guidance counsellors, principals and VPs, music, art, phys-ed teachers and the like, in our opinion, are all part of that classroom. They are part of the resources needed to have an effective classroom. They represent the diverse nature of a well-rounded education that Ontario students need to succeed.

Looking at the second issue, secretarial, custodial, maintenance and other non-teaching personnel, OECTA is of the view that it is socially unjust to restructure our educational system at the cost of making workers economically vulnerable or disadvantaged. By having other employers provide workers to the school system at reduced wages, working conditions and less job security, we encourage a downward spiral that has a significant impact on the security and quality of life that these workers are able to provide for their families.

It is also extremely important to consider that these secretaries, custodians and TAs are now permanent staff members who have developed an attachment, a loyalty to their school. Some work many extra hours, unpaid, to get particular jobs done within a school, to be part of the team. Some coach teams or work on school clubs. They are part of the school team.

It's unlikely this kind of commitment would develop in an outsource agency employee. So again I might ask, how would these changes "enhance the performance of our students" or "ensure a high quality of education that meets all students' individual needs," as Mr Snobelen stated on January 13? What these changes do provide is another way to cut costs within the system by allowing boards the opportunity to replace qualified certified teachers with non-certified people and to allow the replacement of secretarial and custodial services with cheaper outsource alternative employees. Not only is it wrong; it simply makes no sense.

There are many other areas of concern within this document, all of which have been addressed by our provincial brief prepared and delivered by our president, Marilies Rettig, our first vice-president, Marshall Jarvis, and Claire Ross, our general secretary, all of which we are in agreement with. I would like to, though, re-emphasize and reiterate a few of the recommendations that were outlined in the provincial document:

First of all, separate school boards should have access to funds outside the control of the provincial government in order to maintain their constitutional right to manage their local schools.

The amalgamation process should be slowed down to allow more consultation and reaction from the general public and allow more consideration for implementation guidelines to be put into place.

The EIC should be allowed to function only after it has been legally legislated to do so and that its authority should be limited to settling amalgamation disputes unrelated to personnel and collective agreement issues.

Bill 104 should guarantee successor rights for branch affiliates which represent teachers under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act and for the occasional teachers under the Labour Relations Act.

Bill 104 should guarantee all rights that are currently covered by collective agreements.

Non-instructional services should be explained in a way that reflects the reality of true classroom expenses.

Outsourcing should be rejected as a means of lowering wages and negatively altering employment conditions for working people.

Further, additional funds -- $1 billion is suggested -- should be available to all involved in the amalgamation procedure and/or the implementation of new government curriculum and reporting procedures.

I thank you for this opportunity.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've used up all of your available time. We're very grateful to you and your colleagues for being here.

1440

MIDDLESEX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: I call upon the Middlesex County Board of Education, Ted Anderson and Bob Harvey. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you very much for being here this afternoon.

Mr Bob Harvey: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Bob Harvey, the trustee involved, and welcome as well Ted Anderson, our director, who, if we have an opportunity to have questions, will be very helpful to me, I'm sure, in answering any of them.

I am pleased to extend a sincere thank you on behalf of the trustees and the staff of the Middlesex County Board of Education for this opportunity to speak before you on the board's position on the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997.

While we are sure you have heard this message on countless occasions, we must be on record as indicating that the Middlesex County Board of Education is opposed to amalgamation. We are confident that there is no information or evidence that amalgamation will serve the needs of students more effectively or economically, and the government's economic interests are being placed ahead of the educational needs of students. However, prior to commenting further on the reasons why the board is opposed to the current proposed legislation, it is necessary to express concerns related to the minister's wide-sweeping remarks regarding the rationale for such significant changes in the structure of education in the province.

A major part of the government and ministry rationale is evident in the statement the minister made when introducing the legislation. He stated: "School boards have shown little accountability in their spending habits. While total enrolment rose by 16% between 1985 and 1995, school board spending increased by 82% and property taxes shot up by more than 120%."

We believe that we are just one of many boards of education that can prove that the minister's statement is a clear exaggeration of the situation and a denial of provincial responsibility for a good portion of the increases that are evident in board of education budgets. Attached in the appendices to this report are clear indications of the actual increases in the budget over the past 10 years for the Middlesex County Board of Education, indicating both increases in the provincial mill rate and increases brought about by the board of trustees, who have been quite responsible.

The appendices will show that over the period from 1985 to 1995 the Middlesex County Board of Education increased its budget by 50.69%, not 82%. Property taxes have increased by 60.77% over this period, not 120%. However, because of increases in the provincial mill rate, the province is directly responsible for 35.7% of the 60.77%, or over half of the increase. The Middlesex County Board of Education is therefore responsible for the 25.07% remainder, or about 2.5% per year on average. Clearly, if one partner in an enterprise is able to download expenses to another and then point the finger, it seems that any rationale suggesting culpability is rather suspect.

While the charts show that provincial downloading through the adjustment of the provincial mill rate is the greatest factor for increases in our local board's budget, we are moved to suggest that an even more dramatic factor in the process is the actual downloading of the costs of mandated programs that form part of that 2.5% average annual increase. These increases have been the result of increases in federal and provincially mandated programs being imposed on local boards. They include such things as Canada pension, unemployment insurance premiums, the goods and services tax, the provincial sales tax, workers' compensation increases, pay equity, health and safety, the extension of early education programs etc.

It must be understood that these programs certainly have merit and that the boards of education have been prepared to accept their responsibilities for delivering the programs. One such initiative of considerable merit, and perhaps the most significant example, has been the mandated changes in special education programming. Following the passage of Bill 82 in the early 1980s, many provincial programs were turned over to local boards. The administrators, teachers, educational assistants and other support staff of these provincial institutions became part of the expanded special education services in local boards, with profound effect on local boards' budgets. Specifically in Middlesex county our educational assistant costs alone have risen from $50,000 to over $1.2 million in those 10 years. While boards readily accept these significantly increased responsibilities and costs, anyone has to wonder why the minister, who downloaded these programs, then points to the imposed cost increases to criticize board budgeting and charge irresponsible spending.

Once all of these changes are factored into our education budget, it actually shows that board-related increases have been lower than those of the Ontario consumer price index. It is our opinion that the minister has not made any case for amalgamation by substantiating irresponsible spending on the part of Middlesex trustees. Similarly, the fact that $150 million might be saved by such massive changes in the delivery of education is not a rationale respected by local trustees and officials either.

In this regard, it's important to note that the government, in its usual show of fanfare regarding any of its programs, outlined how all ministries would be required to establish business plans that would include a thorough review of current activities. Every program and service must be put to the test. Are they relevant to the needs of students, parents, educators and the public? Clearly there are no impact studies that justify the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997. It would seem then that the concept of business plans is one dedicated more to political rhetoric than to the substance of well-researched decision-making.

In conclusion, the minister's rationale for the huge downsizing in the number of school boards is not based on facts or studies and demonstrates little regard for the real needs of students and the vision of public education.

Returning to the concerns the trustees of our board have with regard to the proposed amalgamation of Elgin, Middlesex and Oxford county boards and the Board of Education for the City of London, we wish to indicate that the creation of a board of close to 90,000 students is not in keeping with our vision for grass-roots government and community-based education systems.

While a case may be made that there are other boards in the province of over 100,000 students, one must concede that these boards have gradually grown into such large units, and these boards are often based in significant urban population densities and within more confined geographical areas that readily justify their existence. However, to create a board of education of such size from boards of 10,000 to 15,000 students seems to be a total disregard for the effective educational programming done by these boards in their respective jurisdictions.

The assumption that the school advisory councils will effectively replace the local jurisdiction is one that is open to challenge. Our experience with school advisory councils indicates that for every person who sees this as a chance to run a school, there are many others who have no desire to take on such a role and others who clearly indicate they do not have the time to accumulate the background knowledge necessary to make responsible decisions.

This is in no way a reflection on the quality of people who for many years have assisted our board through home and school associations, individual parent associations and other volunteer activities. This support has characteristically involved many of the areas given over to school advisory councils and goes well beyond the perceived hot dog day, meet-the-teacher venues and fund-raising. Since there will be approximately 193 school advisory councils in our proposed amalgamated board, it would seem unlikely that they will have the same relationship with the fewer trustees and senior administrators of the new board. In essence, there will be an estimated 10 trustees instead of 64. Instead of 4,200 people attempting to access one trustee, there will be 50,000 people.

These realities will undoubtedly lead to frustration on the part of school advisory council representatives. One must question how long it will take to re-establish the existing networks as a way of maintaining consistency and direction within families of schools; how long before, in fact, families of schools establish networks that will address centres of interest within former county areas and look strangely like a structure reminiscent of our board of education. This is a real possibility as many county people will see it, and do see it, as a way to preserve community schools and to provide a consistent voice within the larger district boards.

1450

We must reiterate that the trustees have always been most impressed by the excellent rapport evident between parents and the schools of our county. In essence, Bill 104 is a move away from all those human elements that are involved in education and panders to the notion of "bigger is better" and the trendy criticism by the business world. It would seem that many business people and ratepayers simply support the government's initiative to provide tax reductions.

To those who demand that education be run like an industry, educators and trustees are forced to counter that they are not talking about widgets or products here and that students, who are the raw materials, cannot be treated as they might be in business or industry. If the raw material in industry does not measure up, the owner goes to a new supplier. School opportunities, however, must be available to all students no matter their limitations. Businesses conclude mergers overnight with limited thought to the people involved. The same could be done in education, it might be said, but if one considers the human element involved in this most human of enterprises, there must be a change in time lines for the transition to fewer school boards.

Trustees and administrators are getting increasingly frustrated by the announced short time line of January 1, 1998, and the absence of concrete guiding principles to work from. The officials of our boards have met with our proposed partners over several weeks and are fully prepared to try to resolve certain issues as they arise. However, with the proposed powerful local education improvement committees, there is a reluctance to proceed too far because of the possibility of being overruled by government-appointed officials. For example, as evident even in a recent memorandum, the early announcement of capital building project allocations was tempered by correspondence from the ministry that left everyone in great confusion regarding the acceptability of moving forward on the projects and whether or not there was a process by which boards of education would be able to finance their portion of capital projects.

With revenue reserves of over $3 million, money raised within Middlesex county, trustees believe they should have the freedom to use these funds for the much-needed capital project and program renewals that our county truly needs, but we are prevented from doing so by the unfair dictates of Bill 104.

Similarly, the legislation will not be finalized, it appears, until most boards of education have already completed their budget process for 1997. This leaves boards feeling that they are expected to go on the field and play the game and not get the rules until the game is over. This is hardly a responsible process with which to force boards to make decisions.

In addition, there is already evidence of significant costs being incurred by boards in the negotiation process for the creation of the district boards. Yet there continues a clear indication that there will be no provincial assistance for these additional costs, which will be expenditures beyond the classroom, of course, and we all know how they're looked upon.

Parents also have reason to question whether economics will be the major part of the decision-making process. Such concerns as the forced closure of small community schools that have been rejected under local county boards may become a reality under the economic philosophy of the current government.

Without a confirmation of succession rights for our employee groups, we must stand by helplessly and hear the rhetoric around outsourcing and downsizing. The whole culture of boards is being changed as people see their jobs in jeopardy and acknowledge the absence of the rewards that go with faithful service and the expectations that years of working together have produced.

It must be clarified that the Middlesex County Board of Education is a disparate county system with no major anchor cities or towns, necessitating the busing of 80% of its students. This government declares that transportation is a non-classroom item that must be limited. It is our understanding that you have to get the kids to school under safe and reasonable conditions before you can educate them. Because our transportation costs are over $7 million and 11% of our board's budget, in spite of the board having for years exercised cost reduction through double busing and sharing with the Catholic system, you have many people -- trustees, administration, parents and students -- looking for guidelines from the province that will ensure that there is some social justice in the so-called commonsense initiatives being put forward.

These serve only as a few examples of how the concerns of the stakeholders of the Middlesex board are greatly increased by a short time line and the absence of really clear rules to the process.

In conclusion we must indicate that in spite of an atmosphere of great turmoil and opposition to the basic elements of amalgamation, the trustees of the Middlesex County Board of Education and their staff are prepared to do all that is necessary within the legislation to realize the greatest possible benefit to the students of the county.

The Chair: Regrettably, we have no time for questions, but I want to thank you and Mr Anderson, on behalf of the committee, for being here.

Mr Duncan: I have a question for the government.

The Chair: I guess Mr Young can take it.

Mr Duncan: Question 16, which I have placed per the distribution of last night, asked the government or the PA for information contrasting mill rate increases in each board with increases in the consumer price index. The response I was given was, "See attached document entitled Report on School Board Taxes, 1996." A careful read of that shows quite clearly that they have not responded to the question. They have provided the document that contrasts the provincial grant change with the school board tax change and have ignored the mill rate question, and they've ignored the consumer price index.

To be specific again, I will re-place the question, because here we see for the first time a very clear indication that the statistics the minister and the government have been using with respect to the rise in education mill rates over the last 10 years, compared to consumer price index and compared to provincially mandated programs, are clearly distorted.

I would ask again, and I place the question formally: For the last 10 years, would the government provide to us a comparison, on a school-board-by-school-board basis, of education mill rate increases compared to the consumer price index for each of those years. The minister has publicly given us the cumulative total that they have, which in our view is obviously distorted. Therefore I would assume that information is readily available on a board-by-board basis. I will pose that question to legislative research as well to ensure that we can get accurate information.

Mr Young: We will endeavour to get that information.

The Chair: I've expressed before that I would like the answers to all questions before the end of the session today so that we can be in a position to be informed before clause-by-clause. If it's at all possible, the Chair would appreciate that information being given today.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, NIAGARA SOUTH

The Chair: The Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Dale Ford. Welcome. Thank you very much for being here. I would ask you to introduce yourselves for the record.

Mr Dale Ford: On behalf of the members of the Niagara South Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the standing committee on social development to present our views and concerns regarding Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act. I'd also like to introduce Alice Russell, the communications officer from the Niagara South Board of Education, to this committee.

I'm the president of this local, a teacher and an adjunct instructor for Drake University in Iowa. I am here today because I believe in parliamentary democracy and because part of the task of our profession is to educate the children and youth of Ontario about its values and process. With Bill 104, the government is moving too far, too fast and with too little open debate. We cannot accept this as a legitimate way to do the government's business.

Last year Ontarians were presented with the infamous omnibus bill, trampling on rights and responsibilities of the citizens and municipalities and giving the provincial government extraordinary powers to disregard the rule of law at its whim. With Bill 103, the government attempts to usurp the powers of duly elected city councillors and hands over the control of Toronto to a board of unelected trustees and a transition team selected by the government.

1500

Now comes Bill 104, which establishes an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the complex job of reducing the number of school boards from 129 to 66, cut trustees from 1,900 to 700 and cap their annual pay at $5,000. The worst, most arbitrary and authoritarian aspects of the omnibus bill and Bill 103 are incorporated into the powers of the EIC. The role of democratically elected trustees has been superseded by the unelected commission and its sweeping mandate with unknown criteria to review and amend budgets any way it considers appropriate. This commission is not accountable to parents, employees, taxpayers or trustees and its decisions cannot be reviewed by the courts.

By taking over education funding by removing it from the local property tax, it's clear the province will control the purse-strings, asking people to have blind faith that these major changes will not hurt classrooms. While Queen's Park would like people to believe that with the amalgamation of school boards $1 billion can be cut from the education budget without harming students, we believe this is not true. John Sweeney of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force concluded that merging boards will save $150 million. Our primary concern is that if Queen's Park takes control of education funding, communities will be helpless to protect students from funding cuts that are clearly being contemplated by the provincial government.

We worry that policing, fire protection, child care, welfare, housing, transportation and health care will have to be downloaded on to homeowners to compensate for the province's $5.4 billion in education costs, which now will come from general revenues. Are we to believe that these exchanges of responsibilities will be revenue-neutral? Property taxes and rents will have to go up a great deal to pay for these services. In the Niagara region, this may mean fewer services for seniors, cuts to fire protection, user pay for ambulances, lower-quality day care, higher fares for Niagara Transit, overcrowded classrooms, and in a recession more welfare, more taxes, more poverty, more crime.

The government doesn't seem to have a shred of evidence that the system it's about to impose on us will work any better. In fact, it may be a lot worse: less democratic, less accountable, more remote and more bureaucratic than the one it replaces.

Queen's Park wants to eliminate community decision-making in education and seize what seems to be total control. For more than 150 years, communities have worked with provincial governments to provide an accountable and efficient public education system. Boards are an integral part of democratic government and civil society. With the province's assault on democracy, we are experiencing at first hand a lesson in Ontario civics in 1997. Not only does this legislation transfer power from a community institution to centralized provincial bureaucrats; Bill 104 and the government's insistence on limited public consultation and debate, where committee members were provided with materials profiling the individuals making presentations, including political and employment histories, demonstrates a disdain for the citizens of the province and may be an infringement of privacy.

Thomas Hobbes, in his work Leviathan in 1668, theorized "that the Commonwealth arises when all citizens transfer the right to be ruled to a government in order to avoid the state of nature where everyone has a natural claim to everything and where everyone's life is nasty, brutish, and short." We fear that there's a very real possibility that the government's potential for downloading or offloading will return us to that nasty and brutish life and will drain the lifeblood from the community -- and turn the province an uncompromising blue. Libraries, recreational facilities, basic social services are all more needed by the poor than the rich, yet they seem to be seen as a burden. Our seniors, the chronically ill, our health care workers, day care and the educational sector must not get lost in the shuffle.

Cutbacks are the result of decisions made by politicians. We fear that Bill 104 and the latest cuts being imposed by our provincial government are not about debt and deficit; they're about keeping the promise of the Common Sense Revolution. In that document, the Tories said they would cut the provincial share of income tax by 30%. To meet this commitment, we fear that amalgamation is a red herring to take another $600 million to $1 billion out of education. These cuts will seriously reduce support for every child's education, his or her future prosperity, and the future of Ontario.

We're worried that the current pace and sweep of change will create long-term problems in its wake. I understand the province is in a fiscal crisis that you're trying to fix, but I'm disturbed by the legislating of a tool that allows unnecessary, broad and invasive powers that could be misused. Rather than giving the people a sense of government in charge, there's widespread anxiety that the government's strategy will take money and jobs out of communities such as the Niagara region.

We recommend:

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

That Bill 104 be amended to set forth the obligation of the new boards to accept liability for the salary and benefits of employees transferring to the new legal entity;

That Bill 104 be amended to provide legislative protection regarding the maximum distance for any involuntary transfer of school board employees;

That Bill 104 be amended to remove any role for the Education Improvement Commission related to the promotion of outsourcing of non-instructional services;

Finally, that section 339 of Bill 104 be amended to specify that school board employees be included as full partners in local advisory committees established by the Education Improvement Commission.

We can make a difference and we must all shoulder the responsibility of defending our way of life in Ontario. If we are so confident that this revolution that the government proposes is a matter of common sense, why don't you trust that you're able, through consultation, deliberation, argument and persuasion, to take along others in this vision? Thank you.

Mrs Johns: I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I appreciate also that you think we're moving too quickly and that we should move more slowly. One of the concerns I have with the amalgamation is that I want to ensure that every taxpayer and every person and every parent and every child in the province -- that their funds, which fund all of our education and everything this government does, of course, are protected.

I understand that when they did this in other times that there was some concern that all dollars be spent in the areas where they should have been spent, as opposed to just spending some dollars because they're there and they may not be there tomorrow. How would you move forward if you didn't choose an education improvement committee to monitor those dollars, I suppose? Can you tell me what you would suggest? You seem like a learned person and maybe you could give us some other suggestion on that.

Mr Ford: First of all, the formulas that have been in place for transferring funds have worked well in most instances, and rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I think we could fine-tune that system rather than starting from scratch.

In my local community the town of Fort Erie is geographically lucky enough to be close to Buffalo. The town of Fort Erie has many bingo halls. The town of Fort Erie raises all sorts of money for the local community schools. I teach in Niagara Falls and we also teach in Welland, in Port Colborne, where we are not so lucky. In the same instance, we're not bold enough to perceive that we deserve part of their funds for the rest of our board as well.

I'm not giving you a solution. I just think that what worked before will continue to work until there has been more research done on a more equitable way of transferring those funds. I don't think that by amalgamating the boards you're going to necessarily resolve that issue.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your taking the time to get into some of the broader social concerns and consequences of the shift back to the municipalities of the province having taken over education funding as well as addressing the concern with educational funding itself. But I should tell you that as of today, those of us who have been concerned about the $1 billion being cut from education appear to have been misguided. The Globe and Mail says it may be $1.5 billion that's going to be cut.

1510

I also particularly appreciate your emphasis on the whole issue of the democratic process, and that's where I choose to ask you my question. You've talked about the powers of the Education Improvement Commission. One of the things I've just learned today in responses from the ministry to a question I asked is that this commission will not only continue to exist for four years, even though the new boards are supposed to come into place for next year, but it will be given the power to supervise and monitor the election process in the year 2000. I know that's a new idea, but can you conceive of any reason why in a democratic society we should have an arm's-length body supervising our elections four years from now?

Mr Ford: In response, I certainly would have to take issue with that particular stance. Going out in that type of mandate certainly is not a democracy that we're used to. We have elected trustees who represent people in our area. With the amalgamated boards they'll be that much further remote, and for some other body to supervise elections, other those that are already in place, would seem inappropriate.

Mr Wildman: In regard to the story that was in the Globe and Mail, I'll show you this. This actually is not Mr Snobelen grabbing the money. It is Cuba Gooding Jr getting his Oscar last night. But you know in the movie he said, "Show me the money," and the story right beside it says that a source in the ministry says: "[T]hey've come up with something that takes $1.5 billion out of the system with the grant allocation. This is the other shoe that's dropping." What effect do you think taking that magnitude out starting with 1998 would have for the education system?

Mr Ford: I think it would be disastrous. The $400 million that has been taken out prior to this has certainly led in the Niagara area to a lack of resources and replacement of things that have worn out just through natural processes, and the elimination of our junior kindergarten because we weren't able to fund that program.

If we continue to take money out of the system, like some of the previous speakers have said, I really believe you're going to drain everything except for a basic core, allowing no flexibility for local boards to deal with local issues or local educational mandates they might have from the citizens who do pay taxes.

The Chair: Thank you very much, President Ford and Ms Russell, for being here. We appreciate your input.

NORFOLK COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL COMMUNITY ADVISORY COUNCILS

The Chair: I call the Norfolk County Public School Community Advisory Councils, Andrea Stillwell. Welcome, Ms Stillwell. We're pleased to have you here.

Ms Andrea Stillwell: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. I'm Andrea Stillwell, the spokesperson for the Norfolk County Public School Community Advisory Councils. I'm the parent of a grade 1 child and a grade 9 child.

The Norfolk County Public School Community Advisory Councils is a group which consists of the chairpersons of each school's council and the principals of each school. There are 21 elementary schools and five high schools spread over a rural area with small towns. Before I came here today, we also met as a group with representatives of the separate school community advisory councils. Toby Barrett represents us in the Ontario Legislature.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to express our concerns about the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997.

I'd like to start by saying: "Major changes cannot be expected to happen swiftly. Thorough preparation and planning is crucial. The involvement of all concerned stakeholders is imperative. The enthusiastic cooperation of the classroom teacher is absolutely critical." Gerald Caplan, co-chair of the Royal Commission on Learning, is the person I'm quoting.

We are stakeholders in the education process. We are the parents of the children who will be affected and we are interested in the best possible education for our children. This bill does not describe or delineate how accountability will be improved by reducing school boards.

There are no reports to show us how money will be saved. Where is the thorough preparation and planning? In the past, when an overhaul has been planned, and there have been others, everything was on the table. In 1969 we had legislation, we had reports and we had costing. Where is the preparation and planning?

Norfolk county has approximately 10,000 students in both the public and separate boards. We have been frugal. We are a rural board and our board spends very little on administration. Last year $3.5 million was cut from a $60-million budget at the Norfolk Board of Education. What did we lose? We have less central support for curriculum. We have fewer teacher positions. We now have more split grades. There have been cutbacks in special programs, family studies, and design and technology. There are fewer substitute teachers, we share principals and we share buses. Our supply and service budget has not increased for three years.

Where does this lead? It leads to providing the children with the things that they need, but who will decide what our children need as opposed to what is a frill? Will it be the district 23 amalgamated school board that will decide? Will it be the Ministry of Education and Training or will it be the school advisory council at each individual school? How will the money be distributed?

The new system says that parents will have more input on major decisions affecting their children's education, such as:

(1) Programs the schools offer. Picked from what? Where will these programs come from? On whose say-so?

(2) We'll have more input on ways of reporting student academic progress. What, from school to school we'll have a different report card?

(3) We'll have more input on student discipline. How?

Where is the thorough planning and preparation? How will more input at the school level provide a clear and consistent standard for what students should be learning and when they should be learning it?

Parents and the advisory councils are expected to fill the vacuum left by the dwindling number of school board trustees. The democratic process is narrowed. Rather than the whole community electing and participating in the elections, only the school's parents and staff will elect, and historically we know that this tends to attract a small turnout and dedicated volunteers. It's a small power base. Parent councils will have no institutional memory. When the child leaves the school, the parent is ineligible and the parent leaves with their expertise and commitment. In our rural area, we move from school to school. My child goes to a school from grades 1 to 6, then 7 and 8, and then 9 to whatever year we're going to end high school eventually. Representation on the district board is reduced by this act. This definitely limits accessibility for parental input.

The Fewer School Boards Act creates the Education Improvement Commission. There's no term for the Education Improvement Commission in the legislation. I understand that regulations have given it a deadline of December 31, 2000. What guarantee do we have that it will disappear at that moment?

History books remind us that when the personal income tax was introduced in Canada, it was promoted as a temporary measure to raise funds. We're all paying income tax; it's 1997.

1520

Mr Wildman: In 1917.

Ms Stillwell: That's right. Thank you. The democratic process is seriously undermined by the appointment, not election, of representatives to the Education Improvement Commission. It's unacceptable when input from students, parents and staff is essential to recommending and implementing only those changes that will improve education. There is a maximum of seven people on the Education Improvement Commission who will oversee the transition, and they do not have to answer to the public. They cannot be challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction. Why do they need these powers?

This commission has the power to appoint committees under sections 338 and 335. How will these committees interact with the advisory councils and the school boards and what power will they have? What part does the advisory council have in this system? The commission has the power to appoint a two-to-three-person committee under section 339 before any power is delegated by the commission. What place will they have in the hierarchy?

We are not opposed to fine-tuning the system in place, but the revamping proposed is too drastic for a system that already works in spite of its drawbacks.

What people will be able to serve on the district boards? Limit the trustee honorarium, but don't take it away by making it negligible. There may have been abuses, but why is everyone punished?

Statistics have been misrepresented to the public. In the last six years, provincially determined property taxes have increased. They've increased almost 50%. Provincial grants have decreased 3.5% and locally determined property taxes, under the sole control of school boards, have decreased over the province by 14.3%. Per pupil spending in Ontario is less than five other province and territories and more than six provinces and territories. We have no details of what kind of money the new boards can expect to get. Where is the preparation and planning? There is no commitment to maintain the present level of spending, a commitment that has been made by the government in health care, but we don't know what the level of spending will be for education.

"For every dollar school boards spend in the classroom more than 80 cents is spent elsewhere," according to Minister Snobelen. On what? Heat, light, teacher preparation -- this isn't the classroom, teacher preparation? -- constructing and maintaining classrooms, libraries, librarians, psychologists, guidance, transportation, principals, who are teachers and team leaders. The entire school is the classroom. We need support, and who decides what a frill is and what a need is?

This act is to improve accountability and community involvement in the education system. We believe we're losing accountability, losing accessibility and losing local decision-making. How does this save money? How does this improve our children's education?

In conclusion, we urge legislators to vote against this bill until such time as costing is done and evidence is available as to how these changes will improve education for our children, for my children.

We have grave concerns that this act and the proposed legislation that flows from it will prove to be the government of Ontario's way of dismantling our excellent public school system to the detriment of our children and this province's future. Thank you for your time and attention.

Mr Skarica: We've heard from trustees in Windsor, Sudbury and Thunder Bay during these proceedings that they're in favour of the legislation and feel that there are cost savings available by streamlining the bureaucracies and not having two or three superintendents but having one. How would you address that road, their view of it?

Ms Stillwell: You're talking about an extremely large area. District 23 will be Haldimand, Norfolk and Brant. You're talking about very different needs. Norfolk county is essentially a rural area with small towns, Brant is a much larger town and the school board in Haldimand tends to be rural as well. What you're losing is the ability to respond to the small community and the small town and the rural needs by amalgamating.

Mrs McLeod: I'll have to check the record to see exactly what Mr Skarica's comment was. I notice he touched on Thunder Bay, and I can assure you that there were no official representatives of school boards in Thunder Bay who were supportive of these particular amalgamations. One of the things we heard consistently was what you've said today, which is we've only got one piece of the puzzle. They want to know what the funding looks like. They want to know what the impact's going to be. There is a great concern, as you've said, that unlike 1968-69 there are no cost impact studies, nothing to show that there's actually going to be dollars saved, in fact a lot of concern that it's going to cost more.

We also have today's story which seems to confirm an anxiety a lot of us have had that there are going to be major cuts. We thought maybe $1 billion; it now looks like it could be as much as $1.5 billion out of education. Just what would that do to the chance for an equal access to quality education for the kids in Norfolk county?

Ms Stillwell: We're already cut to the bone. Our administration is already a very small percentage of what is spent in the area. Our costs are getting the children to the school, moving them from school to school, having programs at different schools so that they have to travel from place to place. If we're going to cut costs even more, we're going to have less ability to offer programs which are already not in every school, as they travel around from place to place trying to get the programs that others take for granted.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's been argued that this is part of a larger package and that in taking the cost of education off the residential property tax, providing the total amount through grants, rural areas like yours should benefit, that there will be more equity in the system. What's your reaction to that? That's been one of the arguments in favour of these changes.

Ms Stillwell: Show me.

Mr Wildman: "Show me the money."

Ms Stillwell: That's right. I don't have anything to tell me. I'm a parent with children at the local schools. I have no idea what the benefits are or what could be accomplished because no one has told me. They have told me that fewer school boards will give me a cost saving which will enhance my child's education.

Mr Wildman: It's $150 million.

Ms Stillwell: How does this enhance my child's education?

Mr Wildman: It doesn't if they take $1.5 billion out.

The Chair: Ms Stillwell, thank you on behalf of the committee for coming here today and for presenting to the committee. We really appreciate it.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are recessed until 4.

The committee recessed from 1529 to 1603.

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. We have a couple of matters to deal with before we begin the formal presentation. First, the researcher has a response to Mr Duncan's question.

Mr Ted Glenn: Unfortunately, Mr Duncan, the information you requested is only available from two sources. One is the ministry; the other is the boards themselves. Given the time constraints, we can't conduct independent research into the boards themselves, so the information will have to be forthcoming from the ministry. I'll just let them deal with the question, rather than --

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you very much.

The Chair: The second matter is the motion we deferred from this morning. Mr Duncan, would you like to speak to the motion?

Mr Duncan: In its presentation, the Oxford County Board of Education outlined a number of alternatives. One of the government members at the time asked, I thought, some thoughtful questions around it and I think it would be useful to have the ministry respond specifically to those alternative proposals so they can be given due consideration by this committee and then by the Legislature. I felt they merit a response from the government.

The Chair: Further debate?

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I'll be speaking against the motion for one primary reason, Madam Chair. I'd like at the appropriate time to table another motion which would be somewhat more comprehensive and would cover not only the boards of education that presented here today but boards of education across the province, but with the same object in mind.

The Chair: Would you be kind enough to give us the gist of the motion, and then we can deal with it afterwards.

Mr Young: I would move that the standing committee on social development urge the Minister of Education and Training to advise the proposed Education Improvement Commission to review the submissions this committee has received regarding proposed district school board boundaries in Ontario.

That would include all submissions and all school board boundaries.

The Chair: You're not actually making the motion; you're just informing Mr Duncan --

Mr Young: If this is the appropriate time, I will make the motion.

The Chair: No, we're still discussing the first motion. But that would be the nature of the motion you would make?

Mr Young: Yes.

The Chair: Further debate on Mr Duncan's motion?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Madam Chair, I just suggest that I don't think the two motions are in any way inconsistent or incompatible. I think it should be a given, in fact, that the education commission, if it is to advise the Minister of Education on the board boundaries in any way, is looking at all the submissions that have been made to this committee; otherwise, it is indeed, as we have been saying, a complete and total sham to have been going through these hearings.

What Mr Duncan's motion has suggested is that where boards have presented a specific alternative -- he's not suggesting that every submission receive a specific response from the ministry, but where there has been an alternative suggested, in this case the Oxford board, it does merit a specific response.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This reminds me a little of what happened with the motion I put with regard to Hornepayne and the subsequent motion put by Mr Skarica. I think it would be appropriate to respond to the specific recommendations made by the Oxford County Board of Education; then, if the government members wish to move a motion to deal with the wider issues related to other boards, we can do that. As has been indicated, the two motions don't appear to be contradictory.

Mr Duncan: I'm not suggesting that the committee endorse what the Oxford board has recommended or that what the ministry had proposed is entirely bad. I'm simply suggesting that we had, I thought, particularly in the case of this amalgamation, which has generated considerable attention not only locally here but across the province -- I think it's in order that the minister respond to the alternative proposals, as to why they might be useful or why they're not useful. I don't think it precludes or is any way opposite of what you're suggesting elsewhere.

The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.

Mr Young: I'd like to move that the standing committee on social development urge the Minister of Education and Training to advise the proposed Education Improvement Commission to review the submissions this committee has received regarding proposed district school board boundaries in Ontario.

The Chair: Debate on the motion?

Mr Wildman: I would like to move an amendment, to add to the end "with a view to making alternative recommendations for school board boundaries."

The Chair: Discussion of the amendment?

Mr Young: I'd like to speak against the amendment. The amendment would change the meaning of the motion; it would be directing the Education Improvement Commission or directing the minister, as opposed to what we're attempting to do here, which is urging the minister to advise the Education Improvement Commission. One of the main purposes of the act is to empower the Education Improvement Commission to review the findings.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, I was looking for the motion that was originally moved by Mr Skarica coming out of northern Ontario. I think this motion differs significantly from that first motion. If I recall correctly, the original motion he moved in relationship to the northern Ontario boards was to go directly to the Education Improvement Commission and that it was "to look at" the board boundaries in light of the presentations that had been made by northern Ontario boards. I'm not sure whether this new motion changes the first one, whether it means there's a difference in their response to southern Ontario boards than there was to northern Ontario boards, or whether somebody in the ministry just told Mr Skarica that he was a little bit too responsive to the submissions we'd heard.

1610

The Chair: You're speaking to the motion. We are still speaking to the amendment.

Mrs McLeod: I think it's relevant to the amendment too, because it's specifically related to the change of board boundaries, which in my understanding was included in the original motion Mr Skarica placed in relationship to other boards.

The Chair: You are in favour of the amendment.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, I am, because I think it might make this motion somewhat more consistent with the first one.

Mr Wildman: For the information of the committee, I have the motion that was passed unanimously by the committee. It was moved by Mr Skarica with regard to northern boards, and it was, "That the standing committee on social development urge the minister to advise the Education Improvement Commission" -- actually it should say "proposed 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."

That is quite specific, and it actually refers to the submissions that had been made by presenters in the committee. I think the amendment I put is in the spirit of the motion that has been passed with regard to northern Ontario boards.

The Chair: Any further debate on the amendment?

Mr Young: I wasn't here at the time, but I think the meaning of that motion is clearly to address concerns relative to distance in the north and weather and the possibilities of technology improving education etc, whereas this motion is much more comprehensive and goes beyond where we wanted to go.

The Chair: Further debate on the amendment? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

We'll now vote on the motion. All in favour -- oh, I'm sorry. Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I will vote for it, but it really is offensive to me as a member of this committee that this motion should be here. This motion says, "We urge the minister to advise the proposed commission to review the submissions this committee has received." We've been arguing this. To those who have been around with us for the last 10 days, we've been questioning the relevance of what we've been doing from the time this committee started. The only thing that could possibly have made it relevant is if there are amendments tomorrow to the act as a result of the submissions or if indeed the commission, should it be established after this is passed, has been paying attention to the submissions we've been receiving.

We've been concerned that the commission is out doing consultations before the act is passed, that it's doing it at the same time we are supposedly doing the consultation with affected groups on the legislation. This motion, in my mind, really confirms that everything we've been going through here is a sham.

Mr Wildman: Frankly, I'm a little troubled by this, and I'll explain why. I'm wondering on the one hand how this will respond to the concerns, for instance, of the submitters with regard to the Lanark, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the Prescott and Russell and the Leeds and Grenville boards, where they specifically asked not to be all combined into one but that there be two boards if there were amalgamations. On the one hand I'm worried about that.

On the other hand I'm worried about what the passing of this motion will mean for the motion that has already been passed that deals specifically with the north. Are the concerns that have been raised in northwestern Ontario, for instance, about having one board the size of France west of Thunder Bay, somehow lost in this? Does this supersede that other motion? If it does, are we simply asking the commission to look at all the submissions, which I hope they would do anyway, and not home in on the specific ones we heard about from presenters where they had alternatives? I'm concerned that this just means we're saying as a committee to the commission, "Look at all the submissions," and they may not then give the weight that I think they should to the submission in eastern Ontario, for one, and to the motion that was passed previously by the committee with regard to northern Ontario.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I really don't understand the opposition's concern, because we're addressing exactly what their concern has been all the way along, and that's the boundaries. In the previous motion, we specifically dealt with the north in that particular situation. All this does is put some more emphasis on making sure the commission deals with school board boundaries across the province. That is what their concern has been right from the beginning; that's been the concern of the presenters. All we're saying is, let's ask the commission, emphasizing the commission to look at it again.

Mr Duncan: All this motion says is it advises the commission to review the submissions to the committee -- a commission that reports to no one, is responsible to no one, is not compelled to respond. That's part of our concern, that there's nothing that compels a response. "Sure, we reviewed it. That's great. Now who are we accountable to?" Nobody. So all of the thoughtful presentations, including that which was done by Oxford, which I thought was very thoughtful, a compelling case; including Hornepayne; including the eastern Ontario example that was cited earlier -- in my view, all this does is it just passes the buck and there's no guarantee that any kind of review will result in any meaningful changes.

What the amendment would have done, in my view, had we passed the amendment, is said unequivocally that this committee believes action should be taken on some, not all, of them. So I regret that we're leaving it to this unaccountable body really without any kind of force, just to advise that it review them. I don't think that puts enough weight on the significance of the problems that have been identified by a number of boards and other individuals throughout the province.

The Chair: Further debate?

Mr Young: I'd really like to get to the presenters, so I'd like to move we put the question.

The Chair: Absolutely. All in favour?

Mr Wildman: Madam Chair, we have to vote on whether we put the question.

The Chair: That's what we're voting on, whether we're putting the question, Mr Wildman. All in favour? Sorry, you wanted to speak to that, to whether we're putting this to --

Mr Smith: Yes, I want to speak to the motion, if I may.

The Chair: All right, but first we're voting on whether to put it to a vote because Mr Young has asked that we put this to a vote. All in favour of putting this to a vote? Against? Very well, so we go to the vote.

All in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is passed.

Mr Duncan: I have a question. I'd like to ask the Ministry of Education to respond to the alternative proposals that have been put by the Oxford board of education with respect to alternative boundaries so that we can have that response for tomorrow, please.

The Chair: Very well. Are you asking that of the researcher?

Mr Duncan: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education.

Mr Young: We'll endeavour to get that information. I hope there's time by tomorrow.

Mrs McLeod: There would have been more time lines had the motion passed.

I have two questions that have become more urgent in my mind since the motion was just passed. One is whether it is now a requirement that we pass motions on all submissions that have been received by this committee in order to ensure that the minister will urge the EIC to consider all submissions and not just those related to school board boundaries.

Mr Young: No, it's not necessary. I made this motion in response to Mr Duncan's concern with regard to one specific school board. I felt it held merit and because it held merit it would be appropriate to propose it for all the boundaries. There's no question in my mind that the Education Improvement Commission, once active, would review all the responses and every Hansard record from this committee hearing. Some people might view it as redundant but I think it was helpful to get it on the record and give them that direction.

1620

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the fact that you weren't present yesterday, Mr Young. Mr Skarica had served notice that he would be bringing in a motion similar to the one you presented. I have a standing question -- and I hope Mr Skarica would be responding; I expect a response today -- and that is whether, should this act become law and the commission be established, this committee would have the opportunity to meet with the Education Improvement Commission to determine just which of the submissions they have heard and are considering.

Mr Young: I would speak against that.

The Chair: It wasn't a question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Skarica said he would take it back and consider it favourably.

Mr Young: Okay, so your request is to take it back to the ministry for consideration?

Mrs McLeod: Yes, and Mr Skarica was to return with a response.

The Chair: The issue is, when can we get a response to the question that was put by Mrs McLeod to Mr Skarica?

Mr Young: I will get your response by the end of the day.

LORNA COSTANTINI
KATHY BURTNIK

The Chair: We can proceed to our first presenter, Lorna Costantini. Welcome, Ms Costantini. We're happy to have you here.

Mrs Lorna Costantini: I'd like to introduce Kathy Burtnik.

The Chair: Nice to meet you. Thank you for being here. You have 10 minutes for your presentation and you can use it as you wish.

Mrs Costantini: Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. We are privileged and honoured to bring our thoughts to you. We appreciate having the opportunity to express our opinions to you.

Kathy and I come as parents of students in Lincoln County Catholic school board. We also have the privilege and honour myself as being the chairperson of that board and Kathy as chairperson of the English-language section. Between the two of us, we have nine children, ranging from three to 22, quite a wide spectrum. Kathy is serving her first term as a trustee and myself the second. Kathy's youngest is about to start her eduction career and my oldest has given up on the education community.

We come to you today with a variety of experiences and insights, but what we want to stress to you is that we come as parents and that's the perspective that colours most of our comments. Unfortunately, we can't get rid of the trustee part of us, but we are trustees because we are parents and, despite some of the opinions to the contrary, we are no less parents today than on the day we were elected.

We have provided a written summation of all our thoughts to you. We won't be able to give it to you all, but we want to talk about what we think this bill is about, and that's to effect savings and increase accountability. To do that, four things have been proposed: reduce the number of trusteves; create new district school boards; prevent employees and their spouses from holding office as trustee; and the establishment of the EIC.

We support in principle the direction that the Ministry of Education and Training is taking on these actions and we also congratulate them on the establishment of the EQAO, the College of Teachers and, most importantly, the introduction of reform in education finance, which will ensure equality in funding for all students in Ontario. But if there's one message that we want to leave with you today, it's this: Take the time and do it right.

The education of the children of Ontario must be the most important thing in your mind when the decisions are being made. The changes proposed in this bill must improve the education system, not diminish it. We appreciate the difficulties of trying to effect such wide changes and not having everybody agree with you. However, if it's done properly, with no hidden agenda, and those who are entrusted with the education of our children are made more accountable, and the students receive the highest quality of education that is currently being offered in the province, who could argue with that? So take the time and do it right.

Mrs Kathy Burtnik: To achieve the savings and increase accountability, it is essential that a plan of implementation be developed first and then communicated to the partners in education. We are not suggesting that the proposed legislation be shelved, but we see several issues that are going to be problematic in a hasty implementation of this bill.

If you accept the premise that boards should amalgamate, then it only makes sense to ensure that the process is as smooth as possible with the least amount of impact on the numerous people, and especially the students that will be affected. Probably in our 10 minutes we're going to say to you 20 times: Take the time and do it right.

The reduction in the number of trustees: In the province of Ontario and in our board, trustee honoraria are but a small portion of the huge amount of dollars that are spent on education. There are other costs over and above the honoraria. There's the staff time spent with trustees. There's mileage to and from meetings, which is going to increase with larger district school boards; copying and distribution of documents -- and it goes on and on.

Our board has, and this is our trustee hat at this point, in the past taken a number of actions which we believe are responsible. Last year we reduced our honoraria without being given direction from the ministry to do so. We were at $6,600; we are currently at $5,940; $5,000 is in sight.

We have tightened up our policies. The issue to be made here is that the trustee envelope specific to our board is very small but we recognize that every dollar counts and every dollar that can be, should be devoted to the classroom. In isolation they may seem insignificant, but what is important here is the priority that drives our decision-making: children's needs first. We hope this government uses the same priority in making their decisions.

We support a reduction in the number of trustees. In our opinion, our amalgamated board would have 33 trustees, a very large number -- not required. However, if a reduction in the number of trustees is to be done, you can't have a set number for each jurisdiction of each board dependent on the number of electors. There are communities that need to be considered.

With the reduction in trustee allocation, it is imperative that open lines of communication be maximized with today's technologies. E-mail and the equipment to support it must become commonplace in future boards and financially supported in the new funding model being designed by the ministry. Therein lies another hidden cost that will diminish the savings of amalgamation.

There's been considerable dialogue about the role of the trustee and that by removing the responsibility for raising taxes this will leave more time for trustees to devote their attention to their main mandate: to develop and oversee policy. Our concern lies in the new district boards' abilities to blend current policies. It is the responsibility of trustees to set clear guidelines and policies so that staff can move in the direction that has been set by the trustees.

With the new district school boards there is a real possibility that administration will be the continuum and they will be the ones making political decisions. That is a concern. Our parents are already expressing their concerns about the blending of board policies. They want to be assured we have a process in place that asks for their input. Their input is considered very seriously when we develop a policy. They want to know that this process we have in our board is going to be the process that continues.

Mrs Costantini: Take the time and do it right.

Next we're going to talk about the actual amalgamation of the boards. I guess the achievement of this whole process is to cut administrators, change the board facilities, get at the costs that are inherent in those things. But the question we really want to see validated here is, how are you going to ensure those savings are directly put into the classroom? What safeguards are you going to have that they don't go into a provincial coffer and not actually get to the children?

In 1994 our board initiated a study of this whole entity of amalgamation. We did it with the ministry staff assistance and we suspect that the findings were really an initiative towards Bill 104. I've included in the package the issues that were raised in this study for your information.

Take the time and do it right, because the issues that came out were things like delivery of program. Whose programs are you going to use if they're delivered differently? Do you assume that in our situation, while we have reduced staff, we are going to take the staff from the other board and make them the program consultants? I ask you -- they are delivering one model here and we're here with another one -- who decides when and where? It's a problem.

1630

Then you have employee contracts, the biggest problem. How do you blend them? They're at different rates. Do you automatically give the teachers with a lower salary more money? Who's going to answer that question? We also have a special case here that our education assistants are represented by two different union affiliates. Which one will it be? Who's going to answer the questions?

These are the things we're asking. That's why we're saying to you that you've got to solve these problems ahead of time, because it's going to create chaos, in our opinion, for our children. I didn't say don't do it; I'm saying to you, take the time, solve the problems and do it right. The biggest concern for myself as a parent is I do not want to see labour unrest jeopardize my child's education, and that's a real possibility if we don't solve the problems ahead of time.

When the study at our two boards was finished, after having identified the issues, it came out that the funding model is crucial to making this successful. Everybody knows that, but I don't know the funding model. I'm not sure that we know it, except here it came with the paper. I don't know it as the chair of the board. I'm a little upset about that, if it's true.

Mrs Burtnik: I'll jump in with, "Show me the money."

Mrs Costantini: It has to be that before you take the steps to amalgamate, make sure that funding model actually does work; develop an effective, equitable method for redistribution of the funds before you remove the ability of schools to raise their own funds; create a reporting mechanism to ensure that funds are directed to the classroom.

The Chair: Mrs Costantini, can I ask you to wrap up, please.

Mrs Costantini: I've got so much to tell you, but one of the big issues you have to deal with is that parents have not shared their responsibility as parents in education. I'm sure that happens because every one of us here has created a dimension where educators have had to fulfil parents' mandates. I ask you, how can you effect the changes to 75% of our budget, and that's contracts and staff, if you don't deal with the social issue of teachers having become surrogate parents for children?

There is more in here. I would like longer to get to you. Please take the time to go through, because we have realistic viewpoints from two different viewpoints, as trustees and parents. Take the time and do it right.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Costantini and Mrs Burtnik. We do appreciate that you took the time to come here and have prepared this brief. Let me assure you that the full text will form part of the record of the committee.

Mrs Costantini: I just want to express a personal concern. It should be identified that individuals are only afforded 10 minutes when we asked for the opportunity to present. That was never made clear -- just for the future.

The Chair: We'll note it, and thank you. I didn't realize that was the case.

ROBERT VAUGHAN

The Chair: May I call upon Robert Vaughan, please. Thank you very much, Mr Vaughan, for being here. We look forward to your presentation.

Mr Robert Vaughan: Madam Chair and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. I am a trustee with the London board of education and a parent of a child in public school. My comments and suggestions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the London board of education.

I understand that your committee has received many criticisms over the proposed Bill 104. I too have a concern, but it is quite different from those already put forward. My concern is that the government has not gone far enough in its attempt to reorganize school boards.

For all of the changes contemplated and suggested by the government thus far, none has reflected the desire of Ontarians for greater choice in education. To put it succinctly, the government should eliminate all school boards, empower school councils, bring in charter school legislation and allow taxpayers to direct their taxes to the schools of their choice, whether they be separate, public or private. However, since we now have Bill 104 in front of us, I'll attempt to make the best of it and hope that some of my suggestions may be of use to you in your deliberations.

You will find my presentation, my written presentation especially, candid. I am making it only after careful consideration and consultation with other like-minded trustees and friends.

Much of the rationale behind Bill 104 stems from a perception by the public and the provincial government that school boards are administration-heavy and trustees are not making decisions in the best interests of parents or taxpayers. Critics often cite the enormous pay increases trustees have given themselves and the continuing property tax increases levied in the face of declining enrolments. As a school board trustee for the past two and a half years, I would attest that the concerns of the public and the government are correct.

In general, and in my opinion, school board trustees no longer act in the best interests of the electorate. Instead, they act as advocates for the public education system and as spokesmen for public school administrators. I have included some of my own observations on the matter in the appendix of my written proposal in front of you.

Most of my observations can be condensed into a single theme: that trustees develop an unprofessionally close and friendly relationship with school board administration and staff and it is this unprofessional relationship which prevents most trustees from speaking against the administration or making decisions which could upset the status quo at a school board. For example, many cost-cutting decisions, restructuring decisions or program changes could mean the laying off of friends, so these decisions are routinely avoided.

How does Bill 104 address this situation? Quite frankly, it doesn't. While the bill does reduce the number of trustees and administrators, this will only concentrate power into fewer hands and does nothing to affect this buddy-buddy relationship.

What must happen to keep administration out of governing and trustees out of administering is nothing short of a complete divorce between school board governance and school board administration. I am suggesting that a separate school board governing body be created. For the sake of argument I will call it a district education council. Such a body would be composed of publicly elected trustees whose responsibilities would be much as they are today: approve the budget of the school board, or not approve, as the case may be; negotiate with staff on a district-wide basis; establish educational policies in concert with school councils; and act as advocates for parents and taxpayers who may have grievances with school boards.

In many respects a district education council would have many of the same powers as your proposed Education Improvement Commission. It would act as a watchdog over the activities of school boards. I have expanded on a few details on just how a district education council would work in appendix 2.

School councils: Bill 104 proposes a decrease in the number of trustees. I would suggest a corresponding increase in the powers of school councils. With or without my suggested district education council, school councils should be empowered to take over some of the duties of trustees. In particular, I believe that school councils should take on many of the parent advocacy roles trustees are often called upon to perform. Councils could act as front-line ombudsmen, resolving disputes between parents and school staff with the board of trustees or district education council ready to handle appeals only. With such added responsibility, I would recommend that staff members of school councils no longer have a vote on council but act in an advisory capacity only.

School councils have expressed to me their frustration in trying to get things done with absolutely no power to do anything. Many council meetings have turned into propaganda sessions with the principal and staff taking control and using the meeting to educate community members about the way things are done at that school. As one school council chair put it, "When you are on the council you come to the reality that the unions and boards dictate everything and truthfully are not interested in any person's opinions other than their own." I've included that full letter with the permission of that person in appendix 3.

I have a few other recommendations for the committee to consider, but for the sake of brevity I have listed them at the end of my presentation. Just to highlight one of them, I would strongly urge you to empower school councils. With the reduction in trustees, which, by the way, I agree with, we must take up the slack with school councils.

Once again, I would like to sincerely thank the committee for its time and attention. Your task is a heavy one and the lives of many people will be altered greatly by your decisions, whatever they may be. I wish you good judgement. Thank you.

1640

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Vaughan. We have time for one brief question per caucus.

Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. One of the points that has been made by a number of delegations both for and against this bill is the notion that parental involvement in education has to become greater, and one of the things I've done just as a result of all these presentations is go and find out what the literature says about it. The literature doesn't talk about administration. It talks about parental involvement in terms of children learning; that is, "Spend an hour reading to your child, spend an hour doing mathematics with your child, and don't worry about school board budgets."

I guess my question to you is twofold: One, shouldn't we be encouraging parents to take time to do studies, with their younger children especially; and two, wouldn't you be afraid of the same kind of cosy relationships developing between parent councils and principals that you allege occur today between trustees and school board administrators?

Mr Vaughan: To answer your first question, yes, I would encourage parents to get involved in the education of their children. However, I don't believe that reading to a child is going to teach them how to read. It gives them an enjoyment of reading, but only learning how to read --

Mr Duncan: With all due respect, the literature is completely different --

The Chair: Mr Duncan, if you could let Mr Vaughan respond.

Mr Vaughan: Actually, I've read a lot of literature on whole language and the philosophy surrounding it. Again, my sitting here reading to a child is not going to teach that child how to read. However, I think we can disagree on that.

The second part of your question was, would there be a cosy relationship between parents and teachers if parents had more say in school councils, for example? Trustees are the people who hire, fire and discipline staff of school boards. These are the people who govern school boards in that respect. They negotiate the contracts. Parents do not. So in that respect, an unprofessionally close relationship is detrimental to that governance. I do not see the same kind of relationship at a parent-teacher level being detrimental to that kind of relationship.

Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. I just was looking at your recommendations at the end. In number 4, you say: "Set all Ontario trustee allowances at $15,000. Anything less will financially prevent many good people from seeking the office." You know that in Bill 104, it sets remuneration at $5,000.

Mr Vaughan: Correct.

Mr Wildman: The maximum.

Mr Froese: Where does it say that?

Mr Wildman: It doesn't say that. That was what the minister said he was going to do. Sorry.

My question is, why do you think in many cases what you're proposing is going up rather than down? One of the savings that Mr Snobelen has identified is cutting the remuneration as well as cutting the number of trustees.

Mr Vaughan: I would agree with cutting the number of trustees. However, being a trustee, I know full well the amount of time and effort that's put into it as a job. As a matter of fact, running for any elected office requires a lot of time and a lot of money, and to make the remuneration $5,000, you are going to effectively shut out a lot of people who cannot afford to run and a lot of people who could afford to run but cannot afford, then, to take the time away from their well-paying job for a busy trustee job.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you for your presentation, Robert. I think certainly it was very evident throughout your strong views with respect to separating school board administration from governance and in doing so proposing a district education council.

Some have argued that the proposals under Bill 104 will lead to ballooning administration. Do you perceive, either under your proposal or under Bill 104, that there is going to be the challenge of a growing administration as a result of this particular legislation?

Mr Vaughan: I'm sorry. I missed the preamble to your question.

Mr Smith: Are you concerned at all that either through the proposals of this bill or the concept that you're advancing in terms of a district education council there will be a proliferation in the size of administration centred around education?

Mr Vaughan: I guess that's always a danger. The thing is that if you have, for example, in the city of London 50,000-odd students to provide schooling for, you're going to need technically a number of administrators to do the job, to administrate. It's almost like it's a given: You have so many children, so many schools, and you're going to need so many administrators, one would think. So reducing school boards, while it would streamline -- and I am in favour of it -- administration and governance, I really don't think the government is going to save a lot of money at this. It will save money, which hopefully would go into classrooms. However, I don't think creating another level of governance is going to create more administrators, and I don't think necessarily creating one central or larger board will create more administrators either. I don't think many of the changes in 104 regarding this amalgamating are going to save a lot of money. They will save money and therefore they should be done, but a lot of it? I don't think so.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Vaughan, for appearing before us today and giving us your thoughts.

DON WRIGHT

The Chair: I call upon Don Wright, please. Mr Wright, thank you very much for being with us today. Welcome to the committee. We look forward to your views.

Mr Don Wright: Thank you, Chairperson and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here. I have a very short presentation to make today. I'd like to say in advance of that that I'm a retired teacher, that I live in London, that I have five grandchildren who are in Ontario schools, and I have some concerns, and I'd like to share those with you today.

Because of the complexity of the bill and the short time we have together, I don't want to run through the bill with you, but what I'd like to do is comment on a couple of aspects of the atmosphere of that bill and then focus on the commission.

As the Common Sense Revolution restructures Ontario,

we are seeing an unprecedented wave of legislation which changes both the face and the foundations of our institutions and our services. It is too much. It is being done too fast, to too many people. Citizens lack adequate opportunities to participate in the process. This is wrong. What we're doing here is wrong.

The restructuring of education is taking place within this broad restructuring of Ontario. It again is too much, it's being done too fast, it's being done to too many people, and that's wrong.

Minister of Education John Snobelen's need to invent a crisis in education was both intellectually and morally wrong. It not only created a false focus for discussion, but it alienated educational stakeholders and it soured the atmosphere necessary for a positive, collaborative, creative discussion of educational issues and constructive change.

The minister's artificial split focus on items inside the classroom versus matters outside the classroom in their costing is equally wrong, both intellectually and morally. John Snobelen understands that removing the classroom support resources from the classroom makes no more sense than removing the ground support resources from passenger aircraft. The security, health and safety concerns of parents for their children as they move forward in our classrooms are no less than those we all feel for aircraft passengers. The split vision approach to our classrooms is misleading, it is simplistic, and it is wrong.

1650

I want to focus now for the balance of the time on the Education Improvement Commission. The conscious decision to limit presenters to 10 minutes really precludes any possibility of going through the bill in detail, so let's look for a moment if we can at several aspects of the implementation commission.

Because of the astounding powers of the commission, it would be more appropriate for the bill to be renamed The War (on Education) Measures Act. Unless the trustees and chief financial officers of our school boards have become secret members of unlawful motorcycle gangs, or unless they have become smugglers of illegal weapons, or perhaps organized terrorists who secretly plan the violent overthrow of the Ontario Ministry of Education, the draconian powers of the commission are not necessary.

No authority within a democratic government except its parliamentary body should have the power to take arbitrary action with respect to the finances of elected democratic agencies -- for example duly elected school boards; to suspend the right of due process in Ontario; to abrogate the right of a citizen to counsel and the right of a citizen to appeal to the courts; or to usurp the judicial function in Ontario. We have a court system. We don't need to duplicate it in a commission which is made up of political appointees.

So I want to recommend that the passage of Bill 104 be delayed until such time as citizens have been given a fair opportunity to present their concerns; that Bill 104 be amended to restore due process of law; and that citizens impacted by Bill 104 be allowed their democratic right to counsel and appeal to the courts. I think if we look at aspects of the bill, it's fairly clear, at least to me, how seriously it impacts on those rights.

We are told in section 336, for example, that the commission may file an order in the Ontario Court (General Division) and it becomes enforceable as if it were a court order, and that under section 337(b) any member or any officer or any employee or any other person is subject to this. They would be required to give oath, for example. This commission can consider any matter referred to it, and it may follow any guideline.

I have concerns about those, and so I make the recommendations to you today that we slow this process down and we take another look at it. I would like to recommend that in fact the commission be abolished. I don't think that's very likely. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wright. We have time for one minute per caucus. We'll start with the third party, Ms Boyd. We've said before this includes the answer as well.

Mrs Boyd: Sure. Thank you very much, Don, for coming. Basically you're saying it's not worth talking about all the details of this; you really want it slowed down so that people can take their time.

Mr Wright: I think it's worth talking about the details, but in fact that's not possible.

Mrs Boyd: I mean in this process.

Mr Wright: But for today I say, what more can a citizen ask for, except slow it down until we have a chance -- yes, exactly that.

Mr Young: Mr Wright, can I ask you, who is the school system there for?

Mr Wright: The school system is there for the students and their parents and other citizens and employers and the owners of large corporations and persons who don't choose to go to school.

Mr Young: Our focus, as you know, is on children. You may have been teaching last time the school boards were reduced from over 1,400 school boards in Ontario down to the current number, and I believe education was improved.

I don't know if you're aware of where the inside-the-classroom and outside-the-classroom definition originally came from, but it was the Sweeney report. He identified areas where we shouldn't look for savings, which were 53% inside the classroom, and areas which he said were at least partially outside the classroom, even if they supported the classroom, at 47%. He said that's where we should look for savings, and this bill is an attempt to put us in a position to do that. People think it's coming from this government; it came from a former government's appointee.

The Chair: Your question?

Mr Young: We had a chair of a public board in here this morning who said that 70% of parents approved, were satisfied with the education system. When I was a student that was C. They tell me it's a B now. Do you think that's a satisfactory mark for the school system?

Mr Wright: I think there is an amazing amount of data out there. I think that we pick and choose the data in terms of whether we approve or disapprove of the school system. I spent my professional life in the school system. I believe it is a good one. I spent a full year of my life looking at schools in New York state and in Pennsylvania and in Tennessee and in Florida. I want to say to you, sir, that I am proud to have served in the public school system in Ontario, and regardless of how you pick the data, if you spend time in our secondary schools or elementary schools I think you would agree with me they're doing a very good job.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Young, the parliamentary assistant, had indicated earlier today that there was an opportunity to consult on the Sweeney recommendations on school board amalgamation, and to a limited extent there was. But it's not the Sweeney recommendations that we have before us; it is a totally different set of proposals. I think we have to keep stating that, since the government, at least the parliamentary assistant, attempts to confuse the two.

It's also true that in 1968 -- because I was one of the ones who was around, and other presenters today have said they did take the time to do it right then. There were cost impact studies, there were protections provided for employees and there was no need for an Education Improvement Commission. I share your concerns about the draconian powers, but even under the War Measures Act the response would have been temporary for the emergency that was defined at the time. This commission goes on for four years and it apparently is going to be overseeing and monitoring the electoral process in the year 2000. Do you find that as amazing and unprecedented as I do?

Mr Wright: I just can't fathom how a government would suggest such a body in a democracy when we don't have a state of insurrection at all. My experience with trustees and financial officers of school boards is that they might have a parking ticket that's overdue, but they may represent as good citizens as we have in this province. I can't believe a government would need to use these measures to bring about change among them. They may be the most reasonable people we have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wright. We do appreciate you being with us this afternoon and presenting your views.

May I call upon Peter Bogema. Is Mr Bogema here?

Mr Froese: He didn't come.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS, REGION G

The Chair: The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, region G, Alison Buffett and Sandy Mattis. Welcome. Thank you very much for being here.

Interjection: Peter Bogema --

The Chair: We just called his name and he didn't answer, so we've moved on to the next one. But thank you for your solicitousness, making sure that the Chair is on the ball.

You have 15 minutes for your presentation. You may use the time as you wish.

Mrs Alison Buffett: Hello. I'm Alison Buffett and this is Sandy Mattis. We're co-chairs of region G, which is part of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. We represent approximately 2,000 members in region G of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, which is informally called Home and School. We're delighted to be able to be here today to respond to Bill 104. We've both taken time off work to be here because we think it's really important, so it's nice to be invited. We acknowledge and recognize that often parents are not able to attend hearings, not only because of commitments and family and work but because they do not feel intimately involved enough to respond. The ideas expressed here are representative of some of the region G members' concerns, while also reflecting the OFHSA policy.

The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations is the only provincially organized parent group in the Ontario public school system and includes over 20,000 members across Ontario. For the past 80 years, members of OFHSA have supported public education in Ontario and are proud that it is recognized as one of the best systems in the world.

OFHSA is a province-wide network of dedicated members who are committed to informed and proactive involvement in our homes, schools and communities to obtain the best for each student.

We'd like to congratulate each one of you who is here. Obviously, by your presence we know too that you're interested in working towards the best for each student in Ontario. We believe that each of you knows that parent involvement in education leads to higher grades and test scores, greater long-term academic achievement with fewer school dropouts, more positive attitudes and behaviour, more successful programs and more effective schools. Effective schools are defined as schools in which all children achieve, regardless of their social and economic factors. We believe public schools in Ontario provide equal opportunity for all children.

1700

Mrs Sandy Mattis: Equity in education across Ontario has been stated as one of the reasons for the announced changes. Members of region G have expressed concern that Bill 104 may lead to ghetto schools. They want to know how the disparity between boards in the areas of finance, program and contractual agreements will be addressed. They are concerned that the planned changes to the funding process may result in school communities needing to fund-raise in order to maintain programming. An example is the Hamilton and Wentworth scenario. The Hamilton board offers French immersion and junior kindergarten, while Wentworth does not. Wentworth, however, has been able to maintain family studies and design technology in the grade 7 and 8 level and Hamilton has not. Who will decide which programs will continue to be funded, and where?

With the massive size of district school boards, it must be recognized that needs vary within their borders. Some schools will have informed, active supporters who will work towards getting the programs they want for their students while other communities will have many barriers to that same kind of support.

Public schools must continue to provide equal opportunities for all children. We must stand united in support of public education and teach our children creative problem-solving if they are not getting what they need in the public school system. We must not fall into the trap of passing off our parenting responsibilities and paying another system to educate our children. It becomes a vicious cycle when we allow students to begin to leave the public school system instead of working towards improving it.

Administrators, teachers, custodians and secretaries work together as dedicated and committed staff in Ontario schools. Parents have expressed concern that large numbers of staff will be moved around with the advent of district school boards. They are concerned about how this will erode the safe and comfortable learning environment our children enjoy. Please consider the impact this will have on children in the schools during any transition to district school boards.

Also, with the massive size of district boards, is there a limit to how far our children will be bused to alleviate overcrowding in one community and school closures in another?

OFHSA supports the policy that there be one publicly funded school system in Ontario. It is interesting to note that 33 public district boards will serve 1.5 million students and 33 separate district school boards will serve only 500,000 students. Seventy per cent of ratepayers in Ontario support the public system. This does not appear to show an improvement in equity.

Mrs Buffett: Improving the accountability of our educational system has also been the intent of Bill 104. Members of region G have expressed grave concerns that Bill 104 will actually result in less accountability. It is the policy of OFHSA that locally elected school boards remain a necessary part of the education structure.

OFHSA policy supports locally elected boards of education who are accountable and accessible to their ratepayers and are aware of the concerns and needs of their community. It is recognized that remuneration to trustees varies greatly throughout the province. However, the majority of dedicated trustees work long hours for little pay. Members of school councils in their advisory capacity are not accountable to the community at large, only to the school in which they serve. Decision-making further from the community it impacts leads to less accountability.

Already, less accountability on the part of our trustees has occurred during discussion regarding municipal restructuring. Since school boards command the larger percentage of municipal taxes presently, not only should trustees have been invited to participate in the process, they should have been obligated to in order to represent their constituents.

Although the changes in education funding are not addressed in Bill 104, it is difficult to separate funding from accountability. Reform in education finance, programming and governance cannot each be done in isolation. Who will be accountable for the dollars spent in education? Will it be our MPP whom we call when we have concerns at our local school? What if our MPP is not a member of the governing party?

Accountability in education occurs when people feel responsibility for what takes place within their school system. We need to get as many people as possible involved in different ways to ensure that our public school system continues to be the great equalizer it has been. While on the surface it seems that the legislation of school councils is an attempt to do so, members of OFHSA have concerns that school councils have in fact limited involvement.

PPM 122 states that school councils should not replace existing parent groups. However, boards of education have begun passing policy which restricts to members of school councils the input they request. This fragments involvement and will lead to the limited number of school council members having far too much to do. Members of OFHSA who are representative and accountable to a democratic organization must also have the opportunity to be heard.

In order to improve accountability, we recommend that OFHSA be involved in the proposed legislation regarding school councils and that a member appointed by OFHSA be part of the Education Improvement Commission if it comes to pass. Our members' concerns regarding the commission are: Whom are they accountable to? Who will appoint members? How many committees will be formed and at what cost?

Mrs Mattis: It is important to recognize that OFHSA members have taken ownership and responsibility for their network and financially support schools. Mandated school councils have taken dollars from local board and school budgets.

In order to reap the benefits of parental involvement in education that we mentioned earlier, all parents must be encouraged to be partners in education. Five different roles have been identified as roles for parents: communicators, supporters, learners, teachers and decision-makers. The first four roles listed here identify the greatest role for parents, which is having a home where learning is valued, a home where parents are interested in homework and school activities. These are the roles that have the greatest impact on student achievement and attitudes. Any attempted reform of our education system should not be based on the dollar alone but have significant focus towards improved student achievement.

Each family situation is unique, with the level of skills and understanding of how parents can help their children being unique as well. Parents helping parents because they come from the same viewpoint is what Home and School is all about.

With limited parental involvement and limited resources both on the school side and the home side, we need to make the connections quicker, save time, energy and money and limit the level of frustration by sharing information, ideas and responsibilities. This is Home and School: an organized community group that communicates with others in its school community, at board level, provincially and nationally.

There are concerns among OFHSA members that some school councils have set up constitutions to suit individual councils that are self-serving and with no accountability. To be effective contributors to the education process, school councils will need members who are informed about education issues and the realities of today's educational, community and business environment. With declining resources, schools should not be expected to provide this professional development for parents.

We have the knowledge, structure and resources in place. We have over 80 years of experience with parents in Ontario. Through our provincial network we organize and participate in workshops, meetings, seminars, training sessions and an annual conference. We believe that mandating parental involvement will not guarantee parent commitment or participation.

We share with you an excerpt from the constitution of OFHSA written in 1933, when OFHSA was incorporated. It is one of the purposes and objectives for which our federation was formed: "To support boards of school trustees and the Ministry of Education in progressive measures and to help make public opinion favourable to reform and advancement."

It is interesting that at the time the above statement was written, there was no question that supporting trustees and the ministry went hand in hand. We urge you to recognize the potential of a team approach. We invite you to have the courage to renew the spirit of cooperation among all the stakeholders in public education. Only then will the suggested changes be the best for each student in Ontario, and not just another cycle of reform.

As you continue on your journey of trying to balance the demands of ratepayers with the needs of students, may we leave you with an anonymous quote: "Education will never become as expensive as ignorance."

1710

Mr Young: Thank you very much for your presentation. I haven't sat in on every day of the committee hearings, but the days that I have sat and from the reading I've done on it -- for instance, we heard from the chair of the Perth board of education this morning that there would be so many challenges around making these changes, it made it sound like that was the justification for the status quo. Of course, we can't keep doing things the same way we have in the past. We want to establish benchmarks and look to improve education. No board has come before the committee and said: "We could have been more efficient. We're probably spending too much." In fact, they've said the opposite: "We are the most economic board in the province." They all say that. Logic would dictate that they can't all be the most economic. Would you care to comment on that?

Mrs Mattis: I live in Dundas, so my board is the Wentworth board. I think they really have been a hallmark for being a board that has been fiscally responsible. Those boards really should be recognized for that. I think they can be separated out, boards that have not and boards that have been, and I would like to see them be recognized. I think you hear from the tone of our response that we are acknowledging that changes are going to be taking place and that we must work together to make those changes, as we said, not just another cycle of reform but working together.

Mr Duncan: I just want to point out that a number of school board delegations have indicated that there's always room for improvement and they're prepared to do that over time, while they've outlined changes they've made already.

In any event, I was fascinated by the five points you made about parental involvement and the five roles parents take. I guess you would not concur with the gentleman who spoke earlier that a parent's involvement in learning isn't important; that parents should in fact be involved very actively in teaching at home and reading to kids at night. Those are the kinds of things that are really going to make our education system better.

Mrs Mattis: Absolutely. That is one of the biggest barriers in public education: to be able to reach out to those parents who don't have the time, the power, the structure and the family support behind them to come and make a presentation like that.

Mr Wildman: I really enjoyed your presentation. Your last paragraph really sums up the whole thing, where you talk about your constitution and that at one time it was assumed that cooperation between trustees and the ministry was the way it was going to be.

Don't you think one of the problems we have right now is that we have a government and a minister who have been criticizing the very people who would have to implement their reforms, the trustees, the school administrators and the teachers, and have been indicating that they aren't doing a good job and won't do a good job? Isn't that just a recipe for disaster? If the very people who have to implement the reforms are demoralized and angry, they're not going to do a very good job at implementing the reforms, are they?

Mrs Buffett: I agree.

Mrs Mattis: Absolutely. I feel like we were cheerleaders on the side here saying, "Let's get this act together, and let's work together with this stuff," because in the end what matters is the kids in our schools, all our kids, and the benefit of society.

The Chair: Mrs Buffett and Mrs Mattis, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to be with us this afternoon and making your presentation to the committee.

The separate school trustees, ward 3, Hamilton-Wentworth, Paula Randazzo. Not here?

TAXPAYERS COALITION NIAGARA

The Chair: Is Ian Fielding here? Mr Fielding, welcome to our committee. We're very happy to have you here. We look forward to your presentation. I notice you have a co-presenter; I hope you'll introduce him for the record. You may begin.

Mr Ian Fielding: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to present Mr Charlie Atkinson, who is the president of the Niagara Taxpayers of Niagara Falls.

This is a bit of a novelty for the taxpayers. As I say here, usually the only recognition we receive is to pay up, keep quiet and do what we're told.

As responsible citizens and in many cases knowledgeable business people, we find the attitude on the part of education boards and miscellaneous pressure groups to be most frustrating. We have endured many spending cuts in our private lives to cope with reduced income, and yet we find that school boards have continued to spend. It has almost been a case of, "Let's ride this one out, and then it's back to business as usual," and that has been very much the case at our local board.

First of all we applaud the efforts of the government to reduce education costs. We recognize the far-reaching effects this will have on costs across the province. However, we insist that the total effect of all changes proposed by the government will be, at worst, revenue-neutral. Preferably, we hope for some measure of tax relief.

Regarding the education system itself, we think there is a dire need to revamp the system, as you see from some of the data we have that was produced in the report Social Security in Canada, published by Human Resources Development Canada. I quote from page 38: "Canada has one of the highest levels of public spending on education as a percentage of GDP among the OECD countries." Its spending is second only to Norway. "At a time when jobs that pay well require higher skills levels," and this is again from their figures, "almost 3 million Canadians have very limited reading skills, while another 4 million have some difficulty with everyday reading tasks." That means 7 million people, or 23% of the Canadian population, are functionally illiterate, while we have the second-highest education expenditure of all OECD countries.

According to the Economic Council of Canada, if the present results continue in our school system, it will produce over one million new functionally illiterate people in the next 10 years. That's quite a frightening statistic.

The question we would like to ask the education people is: What have you been doing with all the money? Why are you so incompetent in managing this vast amount of money?

In 1991, education spending in Canada was $36.6 billion, an increase of 436% since 1961, or an average annual increase of 14.5%. Ontario government data show that annual increases since 1991 have been in the range of 5% to 10% with possible further decreases in educational attainment. This is an atrocious record and a national disgrace. It is incredible that the entrenched educators, who are supposed to be among our most intelligent people, are putting up so much resistance to the current attempt by the Ontario government to correct this appalling situation.

Being a very interested taxpayer and coming from a production-business background, I've taken the time to attend virtually all of the finance meetings of our local school board. I can state with some authority that the proposals of Bill 104 are a step in the right direction towards an efficient, accountable education system. However, Bill 104 stops short in a number of instances, which I will try to illustrate.

First, the need for improvement in the education system is a given and should not be very difficult to accomplish.

Second, there is already plenty of money in the system, but it is being grossly mismanaged.

1720

Based upon these two statements of fact derived from the report cited above, I wish to comment on the Bill 104 proposals as follows:

To cut the number of school boards, we agree.

To cut the number of trustees, we agree.

To cap honoraria at $5,000 per annum is fine.

To create school advisory panels, yes.

Regulations concerning the eligibility of trustees must also be modified to remove those with an inherent conflict of interest. This would remove eligibility from teachers, ex-teachers, other board employees or ex-employees and the immediate family members of those groups. In our school board we find that when it comes time for voting, 75% would have conflicts of interest if they would declare them.

Further, the school advisory panels must have proper representation from taxpayers. Representation from teachers, ex-teachers, board employees, ex-board employees and all others with a strong conflict of interest regarding school management must be severely limited to a minority, at most, or eliminated completely. Presumably the school advisory panel will meet with school board representatives and there is therefore no need for such representation on the panel itself.

Moreover, the same conflict-of-interest laws and regulations which apply to municipalities must be enforced for the advisory panels. This is something we've run into time and time again, that the conflict-of-interest laws are just ignored.

Further, no individual school board should be allowed to negotiate with any employee union, because experience has shown that boards tend to be fumbling amateurs in this respect. The present system pits amateur, well-intentioned, half-hearted board negotiators against the province's shrewdest and most powerful union negotiators, with the predictable result that unions, and consequently board management and administrators, have gained salaries, benefits and work conditions which are far superior to those experienced by the working taxpayers who are funding these privileged educators. We would like to see that the unions are met with at the provincial level and negotiations carried out provincially, because we feel it's not a good idea to do it board by board.

I'd just like to make the following additional points.

Total educational spending must be curbed and school boards constrained to prevent the building of extravagant empires and edifices which are an insult to the taxpayer.

There is an unnecessary proliferation of courses available to students. These have been introduced over the years with little thought to cost during the period of lavish funding to all activities labelled as education. The bewildering variety of courses now available include many that are sparsely attended and can be deemed to be superfluous. These courses divert students and resources from the core educational needs. All school programs must be examined in detail to cut out such unnecessary courses.

Outside agencies must be brought in to clear out the present incompetent management and install efficient, accountable systems. We have unearthed one situation in our area where the students going to one school are costing the taxpayer approximately five times what it is at a neighbouring high school. This is just an example of the way the management is getting out of hand.

The present education system allows boards to operate without effective management information systems and cost control mechanisms. The educational system and the school boards must be restructured and simplified. It is essential to build in modern management systems which quantify and segregate costs to be the basis for an efficient, responsible and accountable education system.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Fielding, to you and your colleague for coming in today. You've used up all of your time, right down to the wire, We appreciate your coming.

I call upon the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Brant, Cheryl Hasler.

Mr Duncan: May I ask a question for legislative research?

The Chair: Mr Duncan.

Mr Duncan: I'd like to ask legislative research if they could provide to us or get for us a copy of the 1994 document Social Security in Canada so that we may peruse the statistics that are quoted in this presentation tomorrow.

Mr Glenn: When did you want that by?

Mr Duncan: If we could get it from the library tomorrow. I believe it's there.

Mr Glenn: For 1 o'clock tomorrow at the hearings.

Mr Wildman: I would like to request that the ministry assist this group that is having to deal with such a horrendous situation in the school system and give them the information of how they can take advantage of the conflict-of-interest act. If there is indeed a situation where there's a school board that has 75% of its members in conflict, they should be taken to the courts.

Mr Young: I'll take it under advisement.

Mr Wildman: Thank you.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, BRANT UNIT

The Chair: Welcome, President Hasler. We're looking forward to your presentation.

Ms Cheryl Hasler: Thank you very much. The Brant unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association appreciates having been afforded the opportunity to address the many concerns we have with the Fewer School Boards Act. All of us know only too well that Bill 104 is but one piece of a larger plan the Harris government has devised for publicly funded education in Ontario. Part one of that plan was to create a crisis in education. Though we may not like it, few of us in this room can disagree that that goal has been achieved.

This destabilization has been accomplished by continually criticizing local school boards, teachers and administrators; eliminating programs and services; slashing the province's financial support of education to levels not seen since 1990; and introducing radical changes at a rate that makes effective implementation of them impossible. This government has succeeded in undermining the public's confidence in an education system that the Premier is only too happy to boast about when he is outside the country. With this manufactured "crisis" now in place, the government has laid the foundation which it is hoping will permit the remainder of its education plan to unfold without resistance.

The government has been challenged on numerous occasions to reveal its real agenda for education so that the plan can be studied and evaluated in its entirety. The fact that it refuses to do so causes us grave concern about where its next reforms are going to lead us. The piecemeal approach to educational reform that has been adopted by the Conservatives is one which leads us to conclude that the government recognizes that its real plan would never be accepted by the public if it were to be fully disclosed. We believe it's a plan that will result in further funding cuts, increased privatization of services, reduced opportunities for students, vouchers, charter schools, and ultimately in the decimation of our publicly funded system of education.

The government's refusal to reveal its whole plan is especially disconcerting in light of Bill 104 and the establishment of the EIC. This is the first piece of legislation that the Conservatives have introduced which addresses educational governance and it effectively ends local representation by usurping powers that have been held by local school boards and trustees for more than 150 years. Is it any wonder, then, that it has led to such fear about what might be coming next?

The fact that this appointed body has been given such arbitrary powers is even more alarming after learning that section 344 states: "The decisions of the Education Improvement Commission are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court." The commission will be able to act with impunity and without fear of reprisal from an electorate. It will be in no way accountable to the public and it will be completely inaccessible to those in the communities where its decisions are going to have an impact. It's inappropriate that the EIC be given powers which would allow it to override provisions of collective agreements that were negotiated in good faith under Bill 100.

Although the details have not yet been provided, the Minister of Education has announced that the province will assume the full cost of education in exchange for offloading many social, health and related program costs to municipalities. The funding partnership for education between the province and local school boards that has existed in Ontario since the 1840s will end with the passage of Bill 104. When the province assumes the responsibility for entirely funding education, the change will result in a loss of local control and the end of local governance structures in education.

By removing all control of board finances from elected trustees and by arming the Education Improvement Commission with all of the most important and critical powers that boards once held, the government has ensured that district school boards will be prevented from acting as effective decision-making bodies. By the year 2001, public confidence in these once vital community institutions will have been so badly eroded that legislation which will eliminate any form of locally elected school boards will be almost unnecessary.

1730

The restrictions that Bill 104 places on candidates will only serve to prevent those members of the community who might actually have some real understanding about what goes on in schools and who might wish to become involved as trustees from running for such office.

The minister has stated that he intends to cut educational spending by a further, apparently, $1.5 billion. By taking over education funding, redefining classroom costs, and by effectively removing all power from local school boards, he will be able to impose the next round of cuts almost at will. There will be no avenue of appeal and trustees will no longer have the ability to raise additional funds locally in order to protect their students from the arbitrary decisions of the provincial government.

It's when examining the impact of Bill 104 on the right of Roman Catholics in Ontario to have a publicly funded separate denominational school system that Catholic teachers become extremely worried. Section 93 of the Constitution act guarantees Roman Catholic Ontarians the right to a separate school system and Bill 104 clearly violates that right. The extent and the nature of the powers that the EIC has been given under this piece of legislation and the inability of local boards to levy education taxes in the future may well mean the end of publicly funded Roman Catholic education in this province.

In their rush to welcome with open arms the yet-to-be-defined government pledge of equal funding, separate school trustees may have underestimated the real cost of that promise. Bringing larger, better-funded school boards down to the desperately low levels of assessment-poor ones has never been the goal of Catholic educators.

With the passage of Bill 104, the right of local Catholic ratepayers to elect representative Roman Catholic trustees to manage and control the separate school system will come to an end. If the separate school system is to continue to exist, it must be controlled by and be responsive to the wishes of the local denominational minority which it is there to serve.

The Constitution guarantees that provincial legislation relating to education must not jeopardize the right to denominational education for the Roman Catholic minority. But there can be no doubt that the denominational rights of that minority will be infringed upon by a commission whose members are not accountable to or elected by separate school supporters.

In the government's haste to turn more power over to school councils, it has forgotten to consult with the very people that it proposes to saddle with the additional work and responsibilities. We've heard today repeatedly from parents who have told us that. Bill 104 directs the EIC to make recommendations about strengthening the role of councils and increasing parental involvement in educational governance. At this point, it remains unclear how the councils will be composed. Will there be minimum qualifications that must be met in order to serve? Who will be eligible to sit on them? Will the representatives be elected?

In many schools it has been next to impossible to find parents who are able to make the commitment necessary to sit on the school councils of today. When the powers and role of the councils are enhanced, it is presumed that the level of responsibility and time commitment will be even greater. Who will take on this role of school council representative then?

Contrary to what the government would have us believe, most parents do not want to manage the school system. They have neither the time nor the resources to do so. They cannot adequately replace democratically elected and accountable trustees, nor do most of them want to. Parents should, however, continue to have a real voice in determining how our schools function. Bill 104 and its move to strengthen the role of school councils appears to lend credence to the widely held belief that the government is moving ever closer to introducing charter schools.

Granting the EIC the power to transfer existing board staff and the power to assign teachers to specific positions is in direct contravention of collective agreement provisions related to staffing, which have been bargained in good faith under Bill 100. It's important that the EIC, in exercising its powers, not interfere in any way with the rights that are presently covered by the collective agreements or that are conferred on teachers and school boards by virtue of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

The move by the government to openly promote outsourcing of non-instructional school services is one that carries with it two significant areas of concern for OECTA and its members. Librarians, guidance counsellors, special education and music teachers are all teachers, and every one of them is critical to the success of our students. The constant threat by this government to eliminate these valuable program specialists and replace them with non-teachers is demoralizing and discouraging to all members of our school communities.

Equally disturbing is the expressed view of the government that education dollars can be saved through the outsourcing of the work presently being done by non-teaching personnel. Carrying out educational restructuring on the backs of educational workers in order to fund a tax cut which will benefit well-off Ontarians is unconscionable. Such an approach flies in the face of the gospel values and the principles of social justice which our separate schools purport to instill in our students. Custodial, clerical and education assistants who perform their duties are valuable members of our school communities and any move to eliminate their jobs or to reduce their wages and working conditions will be vehemently opposed by OECTA.

When existing local school boards are amalgamated to form the much larger district ones as proposed in Bill 104, many difficulties will become apparent. The very size and nature of the new boards will hinder their ability to respond to the concerns of the local citizens whose children are serviced by the new entities. Until an adequate period of time and an appropriate opportunity for public consultation about the boundaries of new district school boards have been provided, the amalgamation process should be put on hold. Once again, the Conservatives are moving ahead too quickly with massive reforms and restructuring which will have significant implications for our education system. We plead with the government to slow down and to provide more opportunity for public consultation. The overwhelming number of people and organizations who were denied the chance to make presentations to this committee speaks volumes about the level of concern that exists about Bill 104.

With the proposed amalgamation of the Brant and the Haldimand-Norfolk separate boards, the government has combined two small have-nots to create one big have-not. Neither of our boards are presently able to provide many of the programs and services that are offered elsewhere in the province. We seriously question how the creation of a new board will in any way improve the quality of education that we're able to deliver to our students.

Its decision to mandate the amalgamation of these two boards causes us to wonder if the ministry has made the effort to examine the record of the Brant separate board in terms of its administrative costs and its efforts to control spending. There is a long-standing history of cooperation and shared services between the coterminous school boards of Brant county which results in significant annual savings to both boards, and I've included that for your reference.

What credit does our existing board get then for having been so frugal and fiscally responsible? We find that we'll be amalgamated with another poor board. The restructuring will mean reduced accessibility to those actually making decisions about the education of the children in Brant county. The real power will rest with the cabinet-appointed EIC, not with the democratically elected trustees who are entrusted with the stewardship of the Roman Catholic system of Brant county.

Several studies have proven that amalgamations will actually increase the costs of education in Ontario. Even the minister's own very generous estimates project a savings of perhaps $150 million as a result of amalgamation, hardly sufficient to warrant the massive overhaul of education that Bill 104 is going to cause.

Local autonomy and democratic accountability have always been the cornerstones of educational governance in Ontario, but for the next four years our school boards will have little autonomy to govern the school system. When the Fewer School Boards Act is passed, non-elected government appointees are going to take control of our school boards and consequently of education in this province.

The bill creates district school boards which are prevented from being effective and, as a result, public confidence in these institutions will be eroded. It's our expectation that school boards will become the vehicles which allow the government to implement its policy decisions and that the bill begins the process of eliminating locally elected and accountable school boards altogether.

Finally, when one carefully examines Bill 104, they are left with many questions. How is our publicly funded education system going to be improved by the centralization of power that will result when it comes into effect? How is this going to benefit our students? Improving their educational opportunities should be the only reason to even consider implementing changes of the magnitude contemplated by this bill. There is no proof that there will be any significant benefit to taxpayers as a result of the bill. However, the erosion of the powers of the democratically elected trustees which Bill 104 seems to ensure will make it quite easy for the minister to arbitrarily cut spending on education in the future. By that time, there will be no elected representatives with the power or the credibility to stop him.

I've appended to the back a list of recommendations which I'm sure you're familiar with. Thank you for your time.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you for a very thorough presentation. I share some of your concerns about the long-term consequences of this. One of the more immediate possibilities is that the responsibility for managing school maintenance, construction and busing would be transferred to the municipalities. Maybe you'd just comment on what that means to a Catholic school community.

Ms Hasler: In every aspect of our system we try to bring the catholicity forward and it's an integral part of what makes our system work. When that's downloaded on to the municipalities or if we're looking at the outsourcing, we have no guarantee that the people who are there now, who are performing those roles, who are part of the community and who hold the same values we do are going to be the same people there in the future.

Mrs Boyd: I must say, this is a very well presented brief and very succinct. Thank you for doing that. I share your concerns. If people accuse you once in a while of having a paranoid fantasy about what the end result is going to be, please be assured that everyone doesn't believe it's a paranoid fantasy. We think indeed you are right on the money, and thank you for doing so in such an eloquent way.

1740

Mr Pettit: Thank you for your presentation. Is it the belief of your association that the constitutional taxing rights of the Catholic school system will be extinguished under this bill?

Ms Hasler: I believe it's our understanding that it's sort of put in abeyance for now, but certainly our fear is that anything that's not used will not be there in the future when it's needed.

Mr Pettit: We heard that yesterday in Windsor, and I read from a letter from Patrick Slack, who is the executive director of your association, who said --

Ms Hasler: Sorry, no, he's not with us. I'm a Catholic teacher; he has a very different point of view.

Mr Pettit: I should say the OSSTA. He said that it's not true and also that they're convinced there will be equitable funding for the education of the Catholic children without the loss of any constitutionally protected rights.

Mr Wildman: It is a system based on faith.

Ms Hasler: Perhaps I should direct you, although I don't have it with me, to a letter from the president of our association, who very much takes issue with that position.

Mr Pettit: I just wanted to point out the opposing views of what I would consider to be two relatively close associations.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here, President Hasler, and making your presentation.

Mr Duncan: I have a question for the government. Mr Young wouldn't be aware of this. Yesterday I placed a motion asking the government to refer this bill to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The motion was defeated. The reason I did that was because of the nature of disagreements about the constitutional provisions of the bill. I would ask, if the ministry has a legal position with respect to these issues that have been raised, would they be prepared to table it?

Mr Young: I will endeavour to get you an answer.

LONDON WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Could I ask for the London Women Teachers' Association, please, Ingrid Clark and Barbara Cole. Thank you very much for being here. We very much look forward to your views.

Mrs Ingrid Clark: It's a privilege to be here. I'm Ingrid Clark and this is Barb Cole, and we're going to do a tag-team presentation, where I'll speak and then she'll speak.

My colleague and I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to your committee as classroom teachers, first, and as members of the London Women Teachers' Association, second. I teach a grade 7 class, with all its complexities. My partner teaches English as a second language to children in three different schools. As professionals, neither of us is a stranger to change. In the last 30 years I have been asked to teach reading from the Ontario grey book of curriculum, if you can go back that far; used the nine square reading plan; hand-prompt with the distar method of reading; used language experience that required entire forests of paper for charts and, finally, mastery learning, which was very exciting. Now we have entered the whole language and Common Curriculum phase. There has been old math, new math and also a myriad of different kinds of reporting systems.

Seldom were teachers consulted, but rather told to throw out the old and bring in the new. We are often left to be the ones who are accountable and criticized. Teachers welcome change if it is for the better and it can be historically proven as beneficial for all. That is why we are here to speak to you about our deep concerns with Bill 104 in its present form.

I have to put my glasses on because the print gets smaller.

The Chair: You're quite right. I've noticed that myself.

Mrs Clark: There is tremendous anxiety and uncertainty in our classrooms about the future of our schools. What happens as Bill 104 and the related issues unfold will have a profound effect on the lives of the children and adults who learn and on those who teach in our schools. The bundle of announcements from the week of January 13, 1997, will affect school programs, finance, staffing, administration and basic operations. The powers and accountability of the local decision-makers are yet to be determined.

What has been determined is this government's intention to continue with its 30% income tax cut. One has to ask if there is a direct link between this intention and the province assuming full responsibility for education funding. We also have to ask this question in light of the minister's public statements about cutting an additional $1 billion from elementary and secondary education.

Part of the finance reform package the minister has proposed will be a transfer of financial responsibility to the municipalities of certain functions, welfare etc, in return for which the province would finance education from a combination of business and commercial taxes and direct grants. In justification he indicates the fact that school boards have increased the amount they require from residential tax by approximately 50% over the past 10 years. He naturally fails to point out that the major drain on residential property can be attributed to normal cost increases over the 10-year period. The CPI rose 35.6% over the same period and there was a large reduction in the level of funding provided by the provincial government.

Total control seems to be the basic, underlying agenda of the exercise. It will be achieved by this move. Without the ability to tax, school boards will become mere ciphers for the provincial government. School boards will be unable to develop programs to meet local needs as identified by parents, unable to negotiate with their employees effectively, unable to respond to community needs, unable to address educational needs identified in the local area which may be unique and not reflected in the educational funding formula. Now I'll turn it over to Barbara.

Mrs Barbara Cole: The Minister of Education and Training has stated on numerous occasions that we need to cut costs in order to improve our education system. While there is no logic to this statement, he has also overstated the costs of the system and redefined the classroom to exclude many essential aspects of education. This bill must be seen in this context of confusion, misleading statements and a government intent on cutting costs of many important services in order to provide a tax cut that will only benefit a very few well-off people. Providing a high-quality, democratic, accessible education system for a diverse and large population requires the investment of money and resources. You can't deny that.

No proof has ever been offered that amalgamating school boards will save money; none was provided during the time that the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force was working and none has been provided since. Indeed there is much evidence to the contrary. The Minister of Education and Training has alluded to overspending by the Ontario education system. The evidence is lacking in detail and accuracy. Despite this, the minister maintains that reducing the number of school boards by half will somehow magically free up enough money to improve our education system, yet he has made no guarantees that the current funding level will be maintained.

In education we find ourselves fighting various myths. A currently popular one is that education cuts outside the classroom do not hurt students' education. In January 1997 the Minister of Education and Training released a document on spending in Ontario schools. Expenditures are divided into three categories: direct classroom, classroom support and instructional supervision and in-school administration. In talking with the media about this document, the minister stated that for every dollar spent in the classroom, 80 cents is spent outside the classroom. The implication is that cuts can be made outside the classroom without affecting the education that our children are receiving.

The reality shows a different picture. The education system is an integrated whole. A cut in one area directly affects other areas. For example, research has shown that music education improves children's ability in reading and mathematics.

1750

As every teacher knows, a classroom does not stand alone. Library, guidance, preparation time, psychologists, principals, vice-principals, consultants, lunch-room supervisors, art, music, support and custodial staff and transportation are all vital features of our education system. They all support and enhance the education of children of this province.

Library programs have been cut in a large number of school boards. Some of these cuts have been to staff, some have been to resources. These cuts, coupled with cuts to municipal library programs, will mean there are fewer opportunities for children, especially from disadvantaged homes, to use books. Will this affect literacy? We know that the best way to ensure a literate, knowledgeable populace is to have children fall in love with books early in their life.

The cuts this government has already made are jeopardizing all of our children's chances. Cuts to such things as field trips and extracurricular sports activities cannot be dismissed as having little effect on our students' education. These are the programs and activities that give life and spirit to the curriculum, giving children the self-confidence they need to pursue learning. Without adequate school resources, many home and school associations are dividing their energies between fund-raising for these programs and trying to pick up the slack for some basic supplies, including textbooks. This means that schools in more affluent neighbourhoods will be better able to provide their children with an adequate and rich education. They'll be better able to do that than schools in poorer neighbourhoods, and this flies in the face of the minister's stated goal of providing equity.

Mrs Clark: In listening this afternoon, I found that the same points were being made by many of the presenters, so obviously they are very important to the hundreds and, in our case, thousands of people who are going to be affected by Bill 104. The Lieutenant Governor in Council, or the cabinet, is given very sweeping powers. This means the decisions can be done behind closed doors, with no provision for discussion or input by those affected. Could the Lieutenant Governor in Council impose collective agreements as part of a transitional matter considered advisable? Is there nothing to suggest that this is something we need not worry about?

This government has not given us any reason to suspect that it intends to honour the current collective agreements or the collective bargaining process. The teachers of this province have been living with rumours for over a year and a half that they will lose their preparation time and retirement gratuities, or indeed their right to strike. We are of course absolutely opposed to such changes, but they must not come in the form of regulations billed as a transition matter. That is very undemocratic.

In 1995 the federation, in its submission to the Ontario School Board Restructuring Task Force, enunciated a set of principles drawn from the Ontario experience of amalgamations and transfers of responsibility over the past 30 years. These principles are as follows:

(1) That current teachers be guaranteed job protection;

(2) That teachers be entitled to the form of contract to which they would have been entitled if there had been no school board reduction or amalgamation;

(3) That there be full recognition of accrued seniority;

(4) That there be full recognition of vested benefits -- for example, sick leave credits and service and sick leave gratuities;

(5) That there be full recognition regarding category placement and experience;

(6) That previous collective agreements remain in place until a new agreement is negotiated;

(7) That there be protection regarding maximum distance for involuntary transfer;

(8) That any saving accruing from amalgamation be directed to improved learning conditions.

Those of us who will be affected will be part of a new board, the ELMO board, as we are nicknaming it, which I'm sure you've all heard of. It will become the third-largest board in Ontario. Those of us who will be in this new board or district are adamant that these principles be adhered to.

If teachers and other school employees are concerned for the future of their employment in the face of amalgamation, this will affect their performance in the classroom. The legislation introduced by a former Progressive Conservative government in 1968 to manage the process of amalgamation to the present configuration of school boards clearly stated that all contracts, debts, agreements, liabilities and assets of the predecessor entities were transferred to the successors. It made clear as well that this transfer included the transfer of the employment contracts and rights of teachers. Bill 104 offers no such assurance.

The Chair: Excuse me. I'm not quite sure how long the brief is, but I'm wondering if I might ask you to sum up.

Mrs Cole: A reduction in the number of school boards undertaken by our government, perceived to be hostile to the very concepts of local control and shared decision-making in a framework essentially void of any basic principles other than fewer school boards, less money and outsourcing, sounds alarm bells throughout the community. Major transitions of governance and restructuring require an environment of mutual respect, confidence and trust in order to succeed in the face of many organizational and technical barriers.

In conclusion, we urge this committee to recommend that the government reconsider the massive reorganization of the school boards of Ontario. We urge this committee to recommend changes to this bill to clarify the issues we have raised. We urge this committee to recommend that the government deal with all of its proposals for education restructuring at one time instead of piecemeal, and we strongly urge this committee to recommend that the government slow its place, that it slow down to allow full and complete consultation on all the issues. The government has stated that it is setting up a system that it expects to be in place for years to come. There's no need to rush into something that will not work and that will not improve the education opportunities for the children of our Ontario.

The Chair: Ms Clark, Ms Cole, I want to express the appreciation of the committee for your attending here today and sharing with us the views of your association.

Mrs Cole: Thank you for the opportunity.

MICHAEL BODNAR

The Chair: Michael Bodnar. Mr Bodnar, thanks very much for being here. We're looking forward to your views.

Mr Michael Bodnar: Madam Chair, members of the hearing committee, I speak to you today as a parent of two students attending separate schools in Brantford, Brant county. I speak to you also as a taxpayer. I'm not here as a member of a special interest group.

In 1996 approximately 40% of my city tax dollars went to cover education. Speaking for the Roman Catholic separate school board, approximately $35 million is projected for the 1996 budget. Of that, 2% will be spent on administration and 1% will be spent on trustees' salaries, if that. Currently the taxpayer pays $5,700 annually for each one of the 14 trustees on the separate school board.

What has the separate school board done for us lately? The separate elementary schools went through a seven-day strike in January of this year. In the end the teachers basically got what they asked for. To date these seven lost school days have yet to be made up. The taxpayer lost; the parents lost.

As a taxpayer I want improved accountability of trustees to parents and taxpayers. I want cost savings to be passed on to the classroom, not the boardroom. I want less bureaucracy, less salaries paid to trustees, and I also encourage a sharing of resources such as transportation, payroll and other administrative costs. I also want strengthened advisory roles for parents on school councils. School councils should not be glorified PTAs. I support the Harris government in its efforts to reduce education costs through Bill 104.

One final note regarding trustees: I understand that through the present legislation recommendation, trustees' salaries will be now capped at $5,000 annually. I would suggest that if trustees are so concerned about saving tax dollars, preserving educational quality, and dedication to public service, they should be willing to serve for a lot less, with reasonable expenses reimbursed. I serve on a city committee voluntarily. Surely trustees can learn to lower their expectations as well.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

1800

Mr Wildman: I have two things I'd like to raise coming from your comments. First, the total expenditure in Ontario on education per annum is about $13.5 billion, according to the minister. Bill 104 will save, according to the minister, $150 million because of the fewer number of trustees and cuts in their remuneration, which is a lot of money but it works out to a little more than 1%. I guess my question is, do you think this 1% will significantly assist in ensuring additional resources for the classroom?

The other question I have coming out of your comments is, if there is a disruption of services in a dispute between teachers and a board, do you think the time should have to be made up subsequently for the students? Because if that happens, the teachers would have to be paid for the time made up, would they not?

Mr Bodnar: You raise a very interesting question, Mr Wildman. Lost time through strikes does cost the private sector quite a bit. I know because I work for the private sector. It certainly does cost the public sector a bit too. I would encourage, if at all possible, for this time to be made up, yes. I'm not necessarily saying that there shouldn't be a compromise, but the time certainly should be made up.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Mr Bodnar, you indicated that you were a parent.

Mr Bodnar: Yes, I am a parent.

Mr Grimmett: Are your children in school now?

Mr Bodnar: I am a parent of a child in St Leo's school and I'm a parent of a child in St John's College.

Mr Grimmett: Do you have any comment on the suggestion in the legislation and also the comments of the minister that perhaps school councils take on more responsibility? Do you have any ideas around that?

Mr Bodnar: I am in favour certainly of giving school councils more teeth. I know as a parent and from talking to other parents that they are a little hesitant to get involved in school councils because they feel it's just a glorified PTA. I certainly would like to see the advisory role of parents strengthened and I certainly would like to see school councils have more teeth.

Mr Duncan: I think we all would agree that better use of resources under any circumstances is an agreeable objective. Do you think this bill will make for better decisions, or would you not be afraid of a bigger bureaucracy and more centralized control being counterproductive in terms of better use of education dollars?

Mr Bodnar: That all depends on what you mean by bureaucracy. Are you talking about the administrative staff or are you talking about the number of trustees?

Mr Duncan: We're talking about much larger school boards, both geographically and in terms of a centralized bureaucracy. I see bureaucrats running wild, no trustees, broken-up parent councils. I see this as a recipe for an absolutely wild education bureaucracy. I think we all agree we'd like to see more resources dedicated to the classroom, and we all want to see our resources used efficiently. I think the question becomes, does this achieve that, and if so, how do bigger school boards with an all-powerful group of five people in Toronto, likely none of whom will be from this immediate area -- how does a bigger centralized bureaucracy provide for more efficient education?

Mr Bodnar: Let me respond in this way: Let's say you didn't reduce the number of trustees -- and I'm going to speak only for Brant county, because that's my area of knowledge right now. I can't speak for Toronto. Let's say you kept the number of trustees but drastically reduced their salaries. You could basically have the same total cost for trustees, you could have the same number of trustees as you have now, and you could still save money.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bodnar. We do appreciate your coming forward as an individual to share your views.

Mr Duncan: Could I ask a question? Could we have for tomorrow from the ministry, excluding Metropolitan Toronto, the average trustee's salary versus the average salary of a director of education in Ontario?

Mr Young: I'll get you whatever information we have on trustees' salaries.

Mr Duncan: And directors of education.

Mr Young: Whatever's available, because sometimes this information is not forthcoming.

Mr Duncan: It's all available under your confidential report.

The Chair: All right, and have that by tomorrow at 1.

BOB CLARK

The Chair: Can I call Bob Clark. Thank you very much for being here. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Bob Clark: My name is Bob Clark and I'm a teacher-librarian at Laura Secord Secondary School in St Catharines, which is in the Lincoln County Board of Education. I also have a 12-year-old daughter in grade 7 at a public elementary school and a 14-year-old daughter in grade 9 at the public secondary school, so I speak both as a teacher and as a parent.

Bill 104 states that this is "An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards...." If the government were honest, Bill 104 would say "imposing" a reduction in the number of school boards. It also drastically reduces the numbers of trustees so that instead of being able to discuss the needs of students with a locally and democratically elected person, real power and therefore unaccountability will rest with a few bureaucrats hidden behind walls in some grey government building at Queen's Park.

How is it reducing the number of school boards? By creating larger geographical units and perpetuating an extremely expensive system of four different types of school boards. Why not combine the public board, the Catholic board and the two French boards into one administrative board? Each entity would still elect its own trustees who would be solely responsible for the unique educational differences of its students, but all would come together to deal with common expenses such as supplies, transportation, school maintenance etc. Money would not be lost to increased costs of transportation and communication resulting from larger geographical units.

The funding of two major school systems introduced by William Davis in 1984 was one of the most costly mistakes the Conservatives ever made.

"Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger municipalities": Mike Harris's campaign speech, Fergus, Ontario, 1994. So why combine school boards into bigger units?

Bill 104 also has inaccuracies, such as referring to section 93 of the Constitution act, 1982. The Constitution act only has 60 sections. If it errs on something as simple as this, how can we trust its approach to the complex issues of education?

I entered teaching shortly after the introduction of the Hall-Dennis report in the 1960s. It forced a major change in education, introducing the student-centred classroom. Rote learning was replaced by thinking, and this aspect of it was good. But the Hall-Dennis report, like Bill 104, had a fatal flaw: It removed the teaching of grammar. It theorized that students could learn to write correctly by increasing their reading of literature. The teaching of grammar was eliminated by the Ministry of Education over the protests of teachers. Predictably, within five years the complaints about the falling level of writing skills began to increase. For the theory to work, students had to read more, more than could be provided in the classroom environment.

Teachers did not make these changes. School boards did not make these changes. If the system is broke, as Mr Snobelen says, it began with the Hall-Dennis report and it began with the provincial government. It began with ministers of education.

Throughout my teaching career, I have watched as teachers have been systematically left out of the shaping of education and then blamed for the results. If the school councils that are being set up had a long-term memory, they would most certainly work better. But they will not. When the student graduates, the school council loses the parent, his knowledge and his expertise.

The parental base for these councils has eroded. More students in the school system are from family breakups. Less parental support and guidance are being given. Parents of the students who are at risk of failure are the least likely to come to parent-teacher interviews. More and more students have part-time jobs, and sometimes those jobs are needed to put food on the table as a result of cutbacks to social programs by this same government. Often those jobs mean that homework does not get done, assignments are missed or school is skipped altogether.

An act to improve accountability -- to whom? Certainly not to the education of the student. Certainly not to the parents who do care and who do offer support and encouragement, because it will become increasingly difficult to talk with the few trustees who are left. Certainly not to the teachers who have struggled for years with so many politically motivated changes to education, changes that every Minister of Education felt he had to introduce to make a name for himself. Mr Snobelen is no different from virtually all the education ministers since William Davis who have preceded him.

1810

How does the Premier, Mr Harris, attempt to gain support for Bill 104? He does it with expensive ads that expose the shortcomings of a system that successive governments have created. Then Mr Harris insults all of the parents, the professionals, the citizens of this province who have served long hours, who have submitted to the democratic process and been elected as trustees and tried their best. These are the people on whom our Premier heaps verbal abuse. He was quoted by Southam News as saying that, "School hoards have done their best to ruin Ontario's education system." "We think the decisions they have made over the last two years with a very, very minimal funding reduction have been abysmal, have been wrong, and we are not going to accept that."

Minimal funding reduction? The $400 million the Tories cut from the education system in the last four months of 1996 will become only another $600 million this year, since further cuts were put on hold. This is in addition to the $525 million that is continuing to come out each and every year as a result of the social contract. That means local school boards will get over $1.1 billion less per year than before the social contract. The cost of books and educational materials, the cost of the programs for the personal computers that Mr Snobelen is pushing and the escalating cost of servicing the computers that he mandated in the system and did not properly fund will place enormous pressure on boards' budgets, and combining school boards will not save a cent in these areas.

What has happened to the provincial share of the education bill? It has gone from 60% to around 30%. The whole reason Mr Snobelen gave for taking over education funding for Bill 104 was to get costs under control, but they are the direct result of the policies of the provincial government.

The Lincoln county board spent $23 million less in the past year than it did in 1992 and has made exactly the cuts the provincial government suggested it do. Abysmal?

"`We are not going to accept school boards increasing class size, we are not going to accept them compromising the classroom education, we are not going to accept compromising quality of education,' said Harris." This statement, the desperate words of a snake oil salesman, completely discredits any reasons for justifying the very bill it tries to promote. Again, Harris is blaming the school boards for increasing class size, when the social contract mandated the boards had to cut staff by 4.75%. Either Mr Harris is being deliberately dishonest, or at the very best he failed math throughout school. You can't take 5% of the teachers out of the classroom, as the previous government did, and not see class sizes increase. The whole basis given by this government for Bill 104 is a lie.

Mr Harris and Mr Snobelen have found it necessary to verbally abuse teachers and locally elected trustees publicly to justify a downloading of programs that will go up in cost so they can, through Bill 104, make cuts to education and lower theirs. They are resorting to despicable name-calling and childish finger-pointing to cover up the years of misdirection of education by the provincial politicians who have mandated the changes that have made education what it is today. If anyone deserves to be blamed for having done their best to ruin Ontario's education system, if anyone deserves to be blamed for an abysmal record, it is the various ministers of education of the provincial government. Mr Harris and Mr Snobelen are way off base for using tactics of hatred and mistrust of education workers to ram through their ill-conceived Bill 104.

Mr Snobelen, as education minister, wants to engineer the greatest overhaul in the history of public education, and Bill 104 offers us changes in structure but absolutely no figures on financial details. He says, "Trust me," while misleading the public and the Legislature by calling the trustees irresponsible for increasing residential taxes by an average of 5% in each of the last 10 years. Virtually all of that increase can be attributed to the provincial government. How can we trust an education minister who so blatantly misrepresents the school boards?

Bill 104 also creates an Education Improvement Commission which does nothing to improve education at all. It is totally undemocratic and unaccountable, being appointed to run a system that we have elected local representatives to do. While the commission can advise or recommend certain things to the government as to their feasibility, it must "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards." It cannot even recommend that the government keep these services, even if that's what it finds is best.

Custodial services are to be outsourced, and if the comments of Mr Snobelen are true, so are the services of guidance counsellors and teacher-librarians. The teacher-librarians have become critical partners with classroom teachers in planning and assisting students with independent research projects. You have a separate submission by them. As for the elimination of guidance counsellors, who is going to teach the guidance and career education component that the minister is introducing into the new graduation diploma requirements?

As for custodial services, are we sacrificing caring support staff for mere cleaners who will have no stake in the buildings they clean? The custodial support staff have provided a form of security system for the schools they tend. Do we now have to hire security guards as well?

How many classroom teachers, the very people who best know the system and would be best able to reform the system, are part of this process? None. Would you not call a doctor in to help solve a medical problem?

I challenge Mr Harris and Mr Snobelen to prove that what I have said today is not true, and if they can't, then no one in this government can justify doing anything but scrapping Bill 104.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Clark. We appreciate your presentation. We thank you also for the submission of the Lincoln County Teacher-Librarians Association.

ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, LONDON-MIDDLESEX UNIT

The Chair: The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Catholic Central High School, Tony Huys. Thank you all very much for being here. We welcome you to the committee. I wonder if you might introduce yourself for the record.

Mr Tony Huys: On my left is Sheila Brescia. She's an elementary teacher and the president of the London-Middlesex OECTA unit. On my right is John Mombourquette, a fellow teacher at Catholic Central High School and, I might add, a candidate for a doctorate at UWO.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to present. We have a number of very serious concerns with some of the implications of Bill 104. We feel there are three problems, really: (1) We feel the bill goes too far; (2) we feel that it goes too fast; and (3) we feel the degree to which powers vested in the Education Improvement Commission -- and I have difficulty with that term -- is unprecedented and cynical.

The government's professed agenda here in Bill 104 is to reduce administrative costs. Given the expensive advice the government itself has received over the past number of years around the implications of reducing school boards and the relationship to cost, it seems a rather silly notion. The Sweeney report produced no analysis that reducing school boards will indeed reduce costs. The royal commission concluded that the number of boards does not relate one way or another to the quality of learning and the savings so generated don't appear to be huge. It considered it a non-starter.

The three studies available in Ontario -- London-Middlesex, the Wells report in Windsor-Essex and the Ottawa-Carleton study -- all indicate that there are very substantial initial costs in any amalgamation, and as a result nothing happened in those areas.

The preconceived notion that fewer boards will somehow translate into efficiencies is further discredited in a recent study by Professor Andrew Sancton of the University of Western Ontario. Professor Sancton studied the implications of municipal consolidations in the United States, in Britain and in Canada and he concludes that "there is no academic evidence to suggest that consolidation produces savings." He notes that even Margaret Thatcher, a noted -- well, we all know Margaret Thatcher's reputation -- concluded that amalgamation was not the way to save money, and she didn't do it.

Interjection: I love her.

Mr Huys: A lot of people do, I think.

Mr Wildman: She hopes to meet with Prime Minister Blair soon.

Mr Huys: She knighted Sir Roger Douglas.

This government has pledged to address the inequities that exist in education and we find that laudable, but we can't help but be struck by the fact that -- my brief says there have been persistent reports of a $1-billion cut to education; the Globe and Mail corrects that today: a $1.5-billion cut to education. In our view, equity at the level of the lowest common denominator is not progress.

1820

We really don't know what the government plans to do with educational finance. We haven't seen the roadmap, so we're not sure where we're going, and a corollary to this lack of detail is the little information we have about how contracting out on successor rights for non-educational service providers will be guaranteed. We don't believe in the business of condemning workers to an ever-lowering rung on the wage ladder simply to squeeze a few bucks out of the system. We don't think that makes much economic sense, and we don't believe it's good Catholic social teaching.

Bill 104 and all the concomitant and surrounding changes that we are facing in education have thrown so many balls up in the air that we don't think all of them can survive. It's inevitable that the minister is going to drop some of these and he's going to break some of these. Some people consider that a skill, but we don't share that view.

I want to spend a moment or two on the implications of the Fewer School Boards Act and the constitutional guarantees for Catholic schools. There is little doubt in our minds that that guarantee is under attack. One of the earlier presenters was asked about OSSTA's brief on that, and I would refer to it and quote from it. Even OSSTA says: "We are pleased to note the government's continued commitment to constitutional rights that is reflected in the proposed revision to section 1(4) of the Education Act," and then, at the bottom of that same page asks the government to insert some additional wording. It says specifically to insert the following: "including rights and privileges as they were enjoyed by the separate school boards or their supporters under predecessors of this act as they existed immediately prior to January 13, 1997."

I don't understand why trustees would ask for a guarantee if they feel it's already there, but that is their wish. It's clear to us that even there trustees at least acknowledge implicitly that there is a change going on here.

One final comment on the plan to expand the authority of school councils, to compensate presumably for the reduced local authority of trustees: At a recent staff meeting, the chair of my school council, Catholic Central High School, emphasized that this was not a direction his council was either seeking or desirous of. In fact, he made it very, very clear that they want to remain an advisory body.

There are some other points in my brief, but I'm reluctant to use up all of my time, so I will end my comments here. Thank you.

Mr Froese: Thank you very much. Virtually everywhere we go some of the presentations could have just been handed one to the next to the next. We've heard everything, and it's getting late in the day and it's getting tiring and we hear the same thing. But what I'm trying to do is understand from your perspective as teachers in all the school system.

You're arguing that we shouldn't be doing Bill 104, and I'm trying to find out and understand that if the trustees are reduced -- and we claim what we claim, that reducing administration and streamlining and giving parents more involvement -- you've heard it already. If you reduce the trustees, how does that affect your profession? How does that affect in-the-classroom teaching with the children, where we're trying to get the money in? I'm failing to understand buying the arguments from the teachers' associations that they're standing up and criticizing this government for reducing trustees, when it doesn't affect them one iota. Tell me how it affects your ability to teach the kids on a one-to-one basis in a classroom, when we're trying to get those resources into the classroom?

Mr Huys: Very quickly, every spring we go through a ritual called a budget cycle and we sometimes have dozens, even hundreds, of teachers at board meetings. Clearly, teachers would disagree with your analysis. They feel that their jobs and their lives and their ability to perform in the classroom are very much affected by locally made decisions, made by trustees who understand the local situation.

Let me just give you two simple examples. Last year there was a very heated debate about whether we ought to have kindergarten classes running alternate days or half days. That affected the way education is delivered in the classroom. That was a decision made by local trustees, where we think that decision is properly made.

Mr Froese: So when you reduce the trustees and you have more parent involvement, then that wouldn't be there, would it?

Mr Huys: The second decision had to do with the business of twinning schools and appointing one principal to two schools. These are two simple examples. We think that those are better made by local boards at the local level. Whether the boards have 12 or 15 trustees is perhaps not the critical issue here, but the point remains that they have to have real power to make real decisions. The decision to have junior kindergarten was simply a third one that local trustees made because they had the authority and power to do so.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the frustration Mr Froese is having in understanding why people are concerned with this, because as people kept saying, everybody knows this is one piece of a puzzle, and it's much of the rest of the puzzle and the way the pieces fit together that has people really anxious. On the surface of it, this bill looks like there's not much there, but when you combine an amalgamation of boards, which makes boards less accessible to their local constituents, with the fact that the boards will not have any local funding accountability or flexibility, it creates two problems. One is, what is the funding going to be? That is the concern that you've addressed. The other I think is the concern about whether boards have any role at all.

That's what I'd like to ask you about, because I've heard that concern expressed several times tonight, that this may be the first step towards loss of local governance and in fact the substitution of school boards with charter schools, increased privatization. As we look down that road, and I'm one of the people who believes that's definitely possible, even with the so-called protections of Catholic governance, what does that mean to kids in your school and to equity?

Mr Huys: Let me back up a moment here. Certainly we see this as a slippery slope. We're not sure why, for example, board jurisdictions are now perfectly aligned between Catholic and public school boards, but it does raise some very interesting questions which I have not addressed. Certainly these questions are being asked in the Catholic community.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you, Tony. I think maybe you might have better luck with Mr Froese if you described this as a hostile takeover of a family business, where the employer has had a relationship that has been developed over many years with employees and all of a sudden the employer changes, the circumstances change and in fact you suspect you may be required to produce a new and more timely product. I think really that's part of the problem here, isn't it?

Mr Huys: Yes.

Mrs Boyd: If we put it into that language, then it's no wonder that you're upset and that you see the way in which you've related and the way in which decisions are made changing quite remarkably and by no choice of either your local trustees or your employee groups, or indeed the parents who are involved. So I think maybe that might help.

I think you have been very clear about a lot of your concerns, but you haven't told us what is different between the three boards that are now going to be joined. You've got three boards that have been joined, and I know the decisions that those local trustees have made over the years are very different decisions in terms of what happens in the classroom.

Mr Huys: One of our concerns is the fact that we have absolutely no indication of how the government plans to move in that area, so it's very difficult for us to react until we see the map. That's true of the funding formula; that's certainly true of what, for example, will be the plan for amalgamating collective agreements. Are teachers from Glencoe now going to be transferred to Tillsonburg on June 20 or August 15? This is precisely the kind of issue that creates a ton of anxiety for our members, for the public, and we don't have answers. We can't even begin to address and discuss these issues intelligently because we don't know what the plan is.

But let me tell you this: So long as we're busy worrying about these things, we're going to be distracted from the real business we want to get at, and that is education. So long as we're wondering whether we'll exist or where we'll live next week or what will happen to this provision or that provision, we're being sidetracked from what we really want to do, and that is simply educate kids.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of you for taking the time to come here tonight and present your association's views.

1830

MARSHA SKRYPUCH

The Chair: Marsha Skrypuch. Welcome to the committee.

Mrs Marsha Skrypuch: I'm here as a parent. My son is in grade 7 in public school in Brant county. I've been president of a home and school association for two years in the past, I've volunteered at my son's school intensively over the years and I'm a published author. What I have to say is short, and I'm not a member of a union and I'm not a teacher.

Right now in Ontario we have a good school system, but there are a number of problems.

Interruption.

The Chair: Just a second. When you do that, you cut into the individual's time. There's so little time for people to participate. I would ask you please to refrain.

Mrs Skrypuch: For example, some Ontario students are more equal than others. A Brant county student does not have the same education options as a North York student or a student from Ottawa because currently our education system is paid for through property taxes. This means that wealthier areas with a better property tax base can afford to offer their students much more than rural or smaller areas. This government's plan to change the funding of schools so that each student in the province obtains equal funding is a good one.

Another problem with our current system is the huge cost of administration. Ontario school boards spend a full 47% of their budgets outside the classroom. Currently, there is much duplication in terms of curriculum development, payroll, accounting services, administration, purchasing and human resources. There's also the cost of running each individual board office. The government's plan to cut the number of boards, limit the number of trustees and cap their honorarium will do much to streamline the system. We must refocus our resources where they belong, and that is with individual students and teachers in the classroom, not board offices and administrators.

Perhaps the biggest problem facing our education system is sustainability. We, as taxpayers, must be able to afford our education system. Residential property taxpayers cannot continue to pay the spiralling costs imposed upon them by school boards, which have increased residential property taxes by an average of 5% each year over the last 10 years. Enrolment increased by 16% during that time, but school board spending increased by 82% and property taxes went up by more than 120%. How much longer can Ontario taxpayers sustain these spiralling costs?

I applaud the current government's plan to publish annual reports on education financing so that parents and taxpayers can evaluate their school board's performance and also see exactly where education dollars are being spent.

I am also in favour of the government's plan to establish mandatory parent councils in every school in the province. This parental involvement will go a long way in ensuring that the education agenda is focused in the right place: namely, in the classroom and on the individual student.

Mrs McLeod: I wonder if you'd agree with the statement that was made by the last presenter that equity at the lowest common denominator is not progress.

Mrs Skrypuch: You're speaking to the lowest common denominator when you're speaking about Brantford, because we're not North York, we're not Toronto, we're not Ottawa. Our students don't have the same kind of enrichment opportunities or the same kind of special education opportunities as other students. It's easy for someone coming out of Toronto to say, "Everybody deserves what we have." But first of all, who's going to pay for it? Second of all, I think that if people in Toronto knew what it was like to be here, they might think twice about how property taxes and schooling were funded.

Mrs McLeod: That suggestion was not from Toronto, but I was also reflecting on some of the presenters who have been here today from what would be considered very assessment-poor boards and some of the dilemmas that they feel the new amalgamated boards are going to face. I think of one example that comes to mind where parents were saying one of the boards that's going to be amalgamated has a junior kindergarten program and the other one doesn't. But the other board has, I think this parent said, a home economics program and the other board does not have that.

The question is, which is more likely: that they're both going to end up with junior kindergarten and home ec or that they're both going to end up with neither, since to give both would cost more, and that's not the government's agenda?

Mrs Skrypuch: The thing is that if we can save money in administration, then hopefully both of those programs could be funded.

Mrs McLeod: Except that only $150 million is projected to be saved and the government is looking to cut $1.5 billion.

Mr Wildman: I'd just like to follow up on that, but first, before I do, could you indicate to me the source of your figures in paragraph three, the percentages?

Mrs Skrypuch: I had whole tons of clippings and I've just been following this for a number of weeks. I couldn't even tell you where I got everything.

Mr Wildman: Okay. I'll use figures that have been provided by the minister. The minister says that we spend $13.5 billion on education annually in Ontario. He says that Bill 104 will save $150 million, and he has said he hopes to take another $1 billion out. It's reported in the press today from sources in the ministry that they're going to save --

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: Well, they're saying $1.5 billion, but even if --

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): A no-name source, anonymous source.

The Chair: The government will have its turn. Mr Wildman, please continue.

Mr Wildman: All right. Then I won't go with the $1.5 billion; I'll stick with the $1 billion. If the minister is going to take $1 billion out of the system and he's going to save $150 million, how is that going to help assessment-poor boards like Brantford?

Mrs Skrypuch: You're telling me about this thing that you read in the newspaper today.

Mr Wildman: No, no. I'm sticking with the $1 billion, not the $1.5 billion that's in the paper, the $1 billion which he said.

Mrs Boyd: Snobelen said that.

Mr Wildman: Snobelen said that repeatedly.

Mrs Skrypuch: I think you have to understand, at least I do, that any government that wants to be re-elected is going to do all they can to improve an education system, not make it worse.

There's a tremendous amount of cynicism and distrust. It seems that no matter what this government does, people are bashing them and not even giving them a chance. I like what I've seen so far and I like the direction they're going in. I can't answer what you're saying about the newspaper today, I'm sorry.

Mr Wildman: I'm not quoting the newspaper today.

Mrs Skrypuch: I do like the direction that the government is going in. I know there are a lot of people who have got their pensions to worry about and they've got their job security. But I'm a parent and I'm worried about my child's education. That is what is education is all about: the individual child --

Mr Wildman: Exactly. I agree with you.

Mrs Skrypuch: -- not pensions, not unions.

Mr Wildman: And I'm worried about my child's education. That's why I'm worried about taking --

The Chair: Mr Wildman, you've had your turn.

Mr Wildman: That's why I'm worried about taking $1 billion out of education.

Mr Young: Come on, Bud, show some courtesy.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): Thank you for your presentation.

Mr Wildman: Show some courtesy. They all interrupted me.

Mr Ron Johnson: What we're seeing, I think, and what I've noticed even in the community here in Brantford, and most parents have relayed that to me, what we've already seen, and this is the second parent in a row: The majority of the presenters here are school board associations, school board trustees belonging to a school teacher union, but the parents who are coming here, people who don't have a special interest other than that of their child, are saying very clearly they support this bill. We're hearing that.

1840

Mr Wildman: No, it hasn't.

Mr Ron Johnson: Well, it has.

Mr Wildman: You haven't been there.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, please.

Mr Ron Johnson: I want to bring something up, because Mrs Skrypuch was absolutely correct: Brantford is on the lower end of the funding model. My question is obvious: As a community, how can we stand to lose with the new funding model? We can only stand to gain, Brant county. I ask you your comments on that.

Mrs Skrypuch: I would agree with that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Skrypuch, for coming here and bringing us your views. We appreciate it.

May I say to everyone in this room that people are entitled to bring their views forward. We may not always agree, but they have the absolute right, in a participatory democracy, to express their views, and I would appreciate it if we all would respect that.

Mrs McLeod: Just for the record, I won't attempt to go into the literally thousands of parents who have been represented by the presentations of school councils and home and school associations over the course of the last 10 days --

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: -- but I do want to put on the record today that if we acknowledge individual parents' presentations, as we should, it should not be at the expense of recognizing, at my count, five group presentations.

Mr Young: Chair, please. Are we all going to have a one-minute speech now as well? I would prefer to hear from the presenters.

The Chair: Mr Young, I would appreciate your cooperation in this.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, BRANT DISTRICT
BRANT WOMEN TEACHERS' FEDERATION
NORFOLK WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: I ask the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, Brant region, to come forward: Ginny Chato, Gary Irwin and Shari Faryniuk. Thank you very much for being here. The hour is late, and you can see that passions are inflamed, but we are very much looking forward to your presentation.

Mr Gary Irwin: Thank you; as are our passions strong. Madam Chair, may I clarify that my name is Gary Irwin, president of Brant district OPSTF, which has approximately 200 members, and co-president of the Brant teachers' association of some 700 members.

I'd like to make some opening remarks related to the bill that I feel very strongly about, as do my members. Bill 104's provision of the Education Improvement Commission is perhaps the most draconian -- on the bounds, I might say, of paranoia -- aspect of this proposed legislation. My understanding is that Ontario still calls itself a democracy. How, then, can such a dictatorial piece of legislation be put forward by this government? The sweeping powers of the EIC allow for no questioning of the commission's decisions or appeal process of the same through the courts. The "special" judicial authority given to the EIC places it in special status above and beyond the legal process. This intrusion on the democratic process cannot be allowed to stand.

The members of the Brant district Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation urge you in the strongest terms possible to review the proposed wording and intent as they stand now and replace the same with some form of compromise that can be supported in a contemporary democracy. Have you heard these ideas expressed by others? Perhaps. That is because there is a great deal of legitimate concern by citizens over this aspect of the bill.

The issue of the government's intention to involve itself in outsourcing as a means of providing services needs to be addressed. Young children have a right to be schooled in a safe environment. As well, they will thrive better in an environment that is consistent in its personnel. The caretaker and secretary of a school, by example, are trusted and influential friends in a young child's life. To regularly replace personnel with a host of replacement staff is to undermine the trust and security of children. If the government proposal to move towards outsourcing comes into being, then the Maclean's cover story of February 10, 1997, "Are Your Kids Safe?" has even more credibility.

Must every piece of proposed legislation that emanates from Queen's Park be based on dollars? I urge the Harris government to do something for the protection of our school children. Remove the concept of outsourcing from Bill 104.

I have a concern related to the reserve funds of the Brant County Board of Education which, depending on whom you talk to, run anywhere from $6 million to $10 million or $11 million. I understand that with this bill that money is essentially frozen, and yet through the amalgamation of the boards, the boards we would be amalgamating with don't have nearly that amount of money. What happens to that money? We believe that was raised on the backs of teachers in this county. Will that be shared by the newly amalgamated board or will it stay in Brant county, where it should be?

Finally, I'm not surprised to see that this government continues to legislate with proposals that are long on generalities and very, very short on specifics. In the amalgamation of the boards of Brant, Norfolk and Haldimand, otherwise known as "Baldfolk" or, if you prefer, "Hanobra," how are we to achieve a collective agreement? No process is provided in the legislation. No steps are delineated that would assist the teachers in melding three collective agreements into one. The differences between our present agreements are dramatic. What handles are given to us to meaningfully address the challenge of negotiations? As well, who are the trustees we're going to negotiate with? We urge this government to immediately be forthcoming with some specifics as they relate to the collective bargaining process.

Mrs Ginny Chato: I guess I'm next. I'm Ginny Chato, president of the Brant Women Teachers' Federation.

If the reduction of school boards were motivated for the betterment of education and students in the classroom, we would agree with this legislation. However, we cannot see how having fewer people accountable and as resources at the local level can improve the quality of education. The minister expects us to agree with the proposed legislation and trust him on the other components once the bill has passed. As the government rushes to change education, people are being forced to take positions based on incomplete information, without knowing what the funding structure for education will be.

Removing education from property taxes and reducing the number of boards will give the government the control it needs to reduce overall funding. We have had no evidence from this government so far that it would put principles of sound education ahead of indiscriminate budget cutting.

To improve accountability and community involvement in the education system, Mr Snobelen announced that the government will pass legislation requiring that every school have an advisory council. While we support more parental involvement, we're not sure legislating parents to be more involved is the democratic way to proceed. Parents should not be legislated to pick up major responsibilities in governing education, as they are not accountable. Has your government asked parents if they wish this responsibility, or which responsibilities they feel comfortable with?

When we amalgamate with three counties, will our students receive the lowest common denominator of services? For example, I am aware that Norfolk students have music itinerants and computer teachers in every school. With the amalgamation, does this mean that Norfolk students will lose these programs, or does it mean that the Brant and Haldimand students will gain these programs? Does the province intend to reduce the funding, as it did with JK, and then state that it did not cut the programs, the boards did, as it did at the local level with JK programs?

We have been a frugal board. We educate our students for $500 below the provincial median. Our trustees make $7,865. We feel our board is already efficient. I can't imagine, with the number of meetings that trustees have to attend, that we would get qualified people for $5,000. If we provide mileage for our board members to travel, how will money be saved?

I'm extremely worried that we are heading down the road of some less successful model for education. For example, in Michigan principals and vice-principals were taken out of the bargaining unit, something that, according to this bill, would be encouraged, under clause 335(3)(f). Now Michigan has passed legislation that principals do not have to be educators. Who, then, is going to be the curriculum leader in their building, which is even more important with the downsizing of support personnel?

Gerald Caplan, co-chair of the Ontario Royal Commission on Learning, stated: "Our commission was unable to find any research or experience anywhere that helped establish a better governance system for Ontario schools than the present one. The Harris government has not a jot of evidence that the system it's about to impose on us will work any better. But it may be worse...even less democratic, less accountable, more bureaucratic than the one it will replace."

Ms Shari Faryniuk: My name is Shari Faryniuk. I'm with the Norfolk Women Teachers' Association. I think this actually serves as a very visual reminder to this group that we have already been amalgamated and are seen to be one group, when we are definitely not.

I also would like to begin by stating my deep disappointment that Mr Barrett is not here. It was my understanding at a meeting that was held in Norfolk that Mr Barrett was very proud to have been in the group that interviewed and decided who was on the EIC. I would like to let you know that I intend to share his absence with the constituents in Norfolk.

1850

Bill 104 purports in its opening statement that it is an act "to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system." Also known as the Fewer School Boards Act, a huge leap of faith is required in accepting the unproven premise that bigger is better. In Norfolk, we think smaller is smarter.

Bill 104 requires acceptance of the position that current boards of education have behaved in fiscally irresponsible ways and have been flagrantly overspending. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Changes in education funding were to be offset by downloading. Major responsibility for funding welfare services, social housing, public health programs, child care, elder care, ambulance services and social housing have been downloaded to local governments. These costs are unknowns. It appears that costs will increase. Taxpayers will pay more. Where are the savings? What is the means test for accountability that will be applied?

Norfolk is a board that has long prided itself on fiscal responsibility and academic excellence. Our current MPP, Toby Barrett, is not only a product of our system but once was a deliverer of its services. Before we blur the identify of Norfolk into a larger amalgamation of Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk, let us examine and question what advantages are to be won by the Fewer School Boards Act.

Norfolk is a rural board that meets the diverse needs of a widespread community. Will the concerns and needs of both pupils and parents be better met by a larger board with fewer trustees responsible to and for an even larger constituency?

I'm going to respond here to you, Mr Froese, because you asked how trustees impact on the schools -- and in the classrooms, because the schools are made up of classrooms. In our schools, our trustees go into the classrooms and serve as volunteers and are there with us, walk with us, talk with us and are with our kids and know our needs directly. I think it's going to be a little more difficult for me to get a trustee from Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk and perhaps Oxford to come down and take part in a reading program. I just wanted to respond to that because I heard that question and I felt a need to let you know.

Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk will encompass a large geographical area. Presently, parents who wish to communicate with their trustees can do so with little difficulty. Our trustees in Norfolk know their schools, they know their communities and they welcome contact from staff, students and parents. I have taught in no fewer than nine schools in Norfolk and I know this to be true in every single one of those schools. I have taught in the separate system, I have taught in a secondary school and I have taught in elementary schools. The response, the involvement is the same.

Bill 104 protects decisions that can be made by the Education Improvement Commission. They are final and shall not be reversed or questioned by a court. Why is there such fear? Why the need for such irrevocable control? At present, the Norfolk board is responsible and accountable for its decisions to the electorate. This body includes the parents and community of people who have a direct and vested interest in the schools and the curricula. The students of Norfolk, then, are guaranteed their needs will be met by decisions of local trustees who are accessible, known and trusted, and if they do not perform, it is very obvious to everybody and it's obvious immediately.

Is bigger better? Is bigger more efficient? Mega-boards will have mega-responsibilities. Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk and possibly Oxford will be a vast geographical board. The familiar faces, the binding trust of neighbourhood will not be transferred easily.

In Norfolk, our house is in order. This government considers classroom teachers and classroom supplies as the only legitimate classrooms costs. Supposed administrative costs include building maintenance, secretaries, custodians, principals, vice-principals, teacher-librarians, guidance counsellors, special education support, education assistants, records and finance controls. Make it an analogy to a house or make it an analogy to a government: Costs for running it are all of a piece.

I keep hearing about school councils. I welcome them. I welcome their involvement. But perhaps we need government councils; groups of community citizens who are directly involved and sit and give you advice on an ongoing basis about what you do.

Social services and health care have traditionally -- this is very important -- been underfunded in Norfolk and we have been underserviced in both areas for many years. Schools, teachers, and trustees have long accepted the burden and responsibility of filling these gaps. You just have to look on the boards of women's shelters, hospital boards, health council boards, children's aid society boards, Big Brothers and Big Sisters boards and you will find teachers. They're always there. Will these areas of underfunding be reduced under Bill 104? We maintain gaps will increase.

Students are our future. The economy of the individual, the family, the community and the province are interdependent. Larger school boards and changes in education funding supposedly will have positive outcomes. How and when this will become a reality is an unknown. There are too many unknowns and too few details in Bill 104 to strike confidence in anyone.

The Norfolk Women Teachers' Association believes that Bill 104 will harm structures now in place. We believe that education is too important to be left to political whims of change. The changes Bill 104 purports to make will not achieve substantive improvements, but will only see direct control seized from the hands of locally elected officials. Our students will inherit the legacy of this legislation. We urge you to reconsider Bill 104. The Norfolk Women Teachers' Association will be watching with interest the decisions you make.

The Chair: Thank you all very much for being here tonight and presenting your views. Regrettably, there is no time for questions.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

The Chair: The Hamilton-Wentworth Coalition for Social Justice, Robert Mann. Welcome, Mr Mann. We're pleased to have you here with us at the hearings. I would ask you to present your co-presenter and then you have 15 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Robert Mann: This is Mike Mirza. He's also a member of our coalition for social justice in Hamilton. Before I submit my own brief, I'd like to make everybody aware of the fact that in Hamilton there were shadow hearings conducted this past Saturday because there has been denied to Hamilton the opportunity to have these hearings conducted inside Hamilton. So following the submission of our brief from the social justice coalition, I hope the Chair would accept the submissions from those hearings that were conducted on Saturday.

The Chair: Thank you very much. If you could deposit them with the clerk.

Mr Mann: Members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to address you on the important issue of education governance and finance in Ontario.

We would like to start by calling on you, the committee, to recommend the withdrawal of the bill, and we call on the government to withdraw the bill. In our view, the bill is so thoroughly flawed that it is unamendable.

Creating a crisis: The education minister began his term of office by calling on a team of bureaucrats at Queen's Park to "engineer a useful crisis" in public education as a means to force through radical change. Unfortunately for the government, but fortunately for the public, this seminar led by the minister was captured on videotape. The public knows that there is no inherent crisis in public education, other than that which the government and the minister have set out to create, and that's been known for quite some time.

Democratic governance: The government is proposing the most sweeping changes to the governance of public education in 150 years. The reduction in the number of school boards across Ontario will make many of the new district school boards among the largest in Canada. The new Toronto district school board, with 310,000 students, will be the largest in North America. The new Hamilton-Wentworth district school board will have twice the current enrolment. Both will have substantially lower per pupil grant levels than the current smaller boards, thus ensuring that bigger is meaner, leaner and will be financially able only to provide a poorer-quality public education.

1900

Eliminating hundreds of locally elected and accountable trustees across the province is intended to eliminate, or at least render ineffective, the growing and massive opposition to the attack on universal, quality public education.

Boards in trusteeship: The government's real intent with respect to school boards in Ontario is to eliminate school boards altogether. This is evident in the illegal provincial and local trusteeships imposed on school boards across the province, an illegality established in February when the Ontario Court of Appeal found the same trusteeships in Bi11 103 to be illegal and without force of law. In both bills, the trusteeships are described as transitional. However, in Bill 104 the transition period will extend throughout the remainder of the current term of office of elected school trustees and extend for a further three years, throughout the entire term of the new district school boards.

The powers of the trusteeships are vast, arbitrary and unilateral. The committees of trusteeship are unelected, unaccountable and their directives have the force of law. At the same time, none of those who are appointed to the committees of trusteeship, provincially or locally, can be held individually or legally responsible for their legally binding directives to school boards. They are beyond the law.

It is clear that the new district boards are completely powerless and impotent. They are a shell whose sole purpose is to redirect public attention from the government's real agenda, which is to eliminate school boards altogether in Ontario, as has already been done in New Brunswick.

The other purpose of the new district boards will be to act as a complaints bureau for parents and the public, who will be beating a path to the new district board offices when they find out what the government really meant by cutting administration and funding only the classroom.

Massive funding cuts: Unlike Bill 103, which deals with both governance and finance, Bill 104 gives no clear picture of what "the classroom" and public education will look like once the legislation is passed and implemented.

At present, the per pupil costs of educating a child in Ontario range from a high of about $7,500 in Metro Toronto to as low as $4,500 in some of the poorest boards in the province. Equity, in the view of this government, does not mean providing the needed funding to ensure the highest quality to children and boards across the province. To this government, equity means driving down costs so that every public board is equally poor and every child equally disfranchised, no matter where they attend school.

The proof of this is the government's stated intention to drive down the per pupil costs, and to do it making a further $1-billion cut to education in 1997-98, maybe $1.5 billion. This is in addition to the $400-million cut in the last four months of 1996, which resulted in the elimination of junior kindergarten, the decimation of adult education, the elimination of many important program offerings in schools, the layoff of many teachers and a substantial jump in class size across the province. It is over and above the $300 million that has so far been shaved off the education budget for the first three months of 1997.

A further $1-billion cut later this year will make our schools unrecognizable as public institutions mandated to provide universal standards of quality education, of excellence in education, open, accessible and free to every student in Ontario.

What will our schools look like? The government says that the $1-billion cut will only cut trustees' honoraria and administration, but the honoraria are comparatively small. The average in the province is below $10,000. What, then, is administration? According to the government, administration is virtually everything but the teacher's salary.

"The classroom," which the government says is the only thing it will support, does not include the school building, heat or hydro or school maintenance and caretakers. The classroom doesn't include the library or the librarian. It doesn't include the principal or the vice-principal. It doesn't include the guidance teacher or special education teachers, or special education programs either, for that matter. It doesn't include music, art, physical education or other program frills and extras such as field trips, lunchroom supervision, lunchroom programs. It doesn't include kindergarten, English as a second language or adult education. It doesn't include social workers, speech and language pathologists, curriculum and resource specialists.

The government's definition of the "classroom" it will fund is the one-room schoolhouse of 100 years ago, minus the school.

Its definition of "administration," on the other hand, the administration that it will not fund, is everything that makes public education in Ontario one of the finest systems of public education in the world. It's what has won Ontario the prestigious and internationally recognized Bertelsmann award for excellence in education, which even Premier Harris boasted about when in Europe last winter, convincing investors that Ontario had the highest-quality social infrastructure in the world.

But the government's agenda for public education will result in the destruction of this fine system and is opening the door even now to private schools, a voucher system and charter schools, which are publicly funded private schools. When asked where the government stands on charter schools at a recent meeting, government members were making such comments as, "It's not on our agenda this spring."

In the Saturday, March 22, issue of the Toronto Star, an article on the impact of the government's health care cuts and hospital shutdowns showed how Ontario's citizens will drop from having the highest level of care per capita in North America to having the lowest level of care on the continent.

It appears that the government's intentions with respect to public education are equally sinister, or in any event will have the same devastating impact on our children and on the future of our province and our country.

Massive tax shifts: The relief felt by many when it was announced that education would be lifted from the property tax was short-lived. It will not provide needed relief to overburdened ratepayers and tenants, who could and should have seen their property taxes cut in half with this measure. It is not even revenue-neutral, since the costs of social housing, social welfare, public transit, public health and more are to be shifted on to residential taxes. In many, many areas property taxes will increase substantially, despite the fact that education accounts for more than 50% of the property tax bill.

Meanwhile Bill 106, introducing actual value assessment, otherwise known as market value assessment, into the greater Toronto area will see a huge offloading of approximately $125 million from the commercial-industrial tax on to residential taxes. The elimination of the business occupancy tax, which is a further windfall to corporate interests, will lead to the further offloading from the commercial-industrial tax on to residential property taxes. The alternative is to eliminate desperately needed municipal services or introduce even more user fees at the local level.

1910

The Chair: Mr Mann, I don't know how long your brief is, but I would ask you to start thinking about wrapping up.

Mr Michael Mirza: We've got a whole page there. We came from Hamilton.

The Chair: I appreciate that. A lot of people came from a long distance.

Mr Mirza: And we are mad as hell because our legislative member didn't have the guts to bring it to Hamilton --

The Chair: Mr Mirza, I understand your frustration. A lot of people wanted to present. Mr Mann, could I ask you to wrap up, please.

Mr Mann: Genuine and needed reform would include the following:

(1) Removal of education from the property tax combined with implementation of a progressive provincial tax policy based on ability to pay. The Fair Tax Commission has advanced such a proposal.

(2) Strengthening of local autonomy by increasing provincial expenditures on public education, recognizing the real per pupil costs of delivering quality public education and transferring these to local school boards through statutory, unconditional provincial grants.

(3) Guaranteed province-wide standards for public education by adopting an education bill of rights guaranteeing every child access to a full range of educational instruction programs and services including, but not limited to, the rights to access junior kindergarten, adult education, special education and a full range of art, music and physical education instruction.

(4) Press for the introduction of confederated school boards which will meet constitutional requirements for public and separate school systems and achieve real financial savings.

(5) Press for constitutional recognition of school boards, removing them from their present status as creatures of the provincial government which can be dismissed at will.

Conclusion: The government should withdraw Bill 104, and the related mega-legislation for that matter, while there is still time to save our fine system of universal, quality public education and our equally fine system of local democratic governance and local autonomy.

Public education, like medicare, is a sacred trust to Ontarians of all ages, backgrounds and political stripes. We urge the government to recognize its responsibility to safeguard this sacred public trust by withdrawing the legislation forthwith and by substantially increasing the overall funding for universal public education at once. That's respectfully submitted.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mann. I want to, on behalf of the committee, express our appreciation for your brief and also for the other submissions that you made on behalf of Hamilton.

Interruption.

DAVE HUGMAN

The Chair: Dave Hugman, please.

Applause.

The Chair: Is Dave Hugman in the room? Mr Hugman, you may think this applause is for you if you wish.

Mrs Johns: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Don't you think you should explain how the process works so he understands? That has been the practice.

The Chair: Mr Johnson. One at a time, please, committee members.

Mr Ron Johnson: I'll be very quick. Sensing the frustration of the presenter, it should be known that it's not the government that decides where committee goes. It is the subcommittee that makes that decision, and that should not reflect on the local member for Hamilton.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, I will allow one brief intervention.

Mr Wildman: Mr Johnson is correct. To be fair, the subcommittee did propose where the committee go, keeping in mind that the subcommittee was working within the parameters of a time allocation motion presented by the government that limited the amount of time we could deal with this bill.

Interruption.

The Chair: That's really quite enough. Excuse me, members. I think both sides --

Mr Young: How long were the hearings for the social contract, Bud?

The Chair: Mr Young.

Mr Wildman: Six months with negotiations.

Mr Young: Zero.

The Chair: Can we have some order, please. I think both sides of the issue have been fairly stated. It is now Mr Hugman's turn, and I hope the committee will want to hear what Mr Hugman has to say.

Mr Dave Hugman: Thanks for allowing me the opportunity. It's been a long, hard day on the road. I haven't seen my family. I intend to be as brief and concise as possible with this report. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

My name is Dave Hugman. I'm a resident of Brantford, Ontario. I'm a father of two daughters: Shannon, who's age six and presently in French immersion kindergarten; and Christie, who's age three and enrolled in a pre-school program three mornings a week at Fairview United Church.

My presentation this evening will cover three main points: parents as full partners in education of their children; the merging and rationalization of school boards; and finally, reinvesting in education under the new funding model.

As a parent taking an active role in my children's education, what I like best about Bill 104 is that the new curriculum will be measurable every step of the way due to province-wide testing. I feel it is essential for parents to know how their children measure up, their weaknesses and their strengths. Knowing these weaknesses and strengths will help me maximize the focus and results of my home education program.

Bill 104's province-wide testing will supply us with the statistics that will allow us to recognize regional discrepancies. Districts achieving outstanding results can be used as models for districts that are consistently below standards. In short, Bill 104 will empower parents and allow them to take a more precise role in the home education of their children.

The clearly defined, province-wide curriculum, founded in the basic core subjects of reading, math, science etc, is exactly the academic path I want my children to follow.

My second point, the merging and rationalization of school boards: When I read A Report on School Board Spending, 1995 to 1996, I was absolutely appalled to find that, on average, for every dollar spent in the classroom 80 cents was spent outside the classroom, that some school boards directed as little as 51% of their resources to the class. Equally concerning was that enrolment rose 16% from 1985 to 1995, but the boards' spending rose 82% and taxes increased 120%, and most of all, that we are paying some trustees $49,000 a year to do this to us.

It was clear to me that Bill 104 was on track in reducing the number of Ontario school boards from 129 to 66, and it was necessary to reduce the number of trustees from 1,900 to 700, as well as limiting their annual pay to a $5,000 honorarium.

My third and final point is reinvesting in education under the new funding model. As a parent, I am pleased to see that Bill 104 will give us published annual reports -- parents will now be able to evaluate exactly where their educational dollars are being spent; that revenue contributed by businesses will stay in the community where that money was raised -- I can't help but feel that this will help foster good corporate citizens; that the Minister of Education will reinvest some of the bureaucratic savings realized in Bill 104 back to the classroom.

In conclusion, Bill 104 will make it easier for parents to participate in their children's education. As well, Bill 104 will re-engineer our education system, whereby classroom spending is increased and bureaucratic spending is decreased. With that, I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to express my views.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate your concise and clear approach. I just would ask, though, you are aware that the testing and the funding model are not part of Bill 104?

Mr Hugman: No, the overall general approach to education is what I'm commenting on.

Mr Wildman: You said, "What I like best about Bill 104 is that the new curriculum will be measurable every step of the way due to province-wide testing."

Mr Hugman: Let me clarify that, then, Mr Wildman. What I like best about the policies with respect to education that this government is putting forward is what I said in the points I made. How does that sound?

Mr Wildman: So you're talking about the overall policy, of which Bill 104 is just one piece of the puzzle.

Mr Hugman: Absolutely.

Mr Wildman: We haven't yet seen the funding model.

Mr Hugman: I think we have some very real commitments, from what I've read and heard, about putting dollars back into the classroom, about reinvesting into, for instance, computers, upgrading systems such as that.

Mr Wildman: We don't know what the numbers are.

Mr Hugman: No, but there's a commitment to reinvest. I can't help but feel, no matter whose party you belong to, that you want your kids to have the best education possible.

Mr Wildman: Obviously.

Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you for your presentation. Again I'd like to note for the committee that parents seem supportive. But my question to you is this: As a Brantford resident, do you remember about a year ago when the provincial government came through with some funding reductions to both boards here in Brant county? It seemed to me at the time -- and I want to know if you remember this -- the teachers were jumping up and down, calling the school board trustees every name under the sun because they didn't like the way the trustees dealt with funding reductions. It seems now that the teachers are the very first people to jump to the defence of school boards. I guess I want you to speculate as to why.

1920

Mr Hugman: I have a really hard time with the whole situation and the relationship as it stands right now with school board trustees and teachers. As it stands right now, from what I understand, a teacher's husband could be a trustee. As far as I'm concerned, that's kind of like the fox running the chicken house. The whole situation is nefarious at best. Obviously the teachers are in it for the dollar. They're protecting their interests. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with that -- I'd probably be doing the same thing if I were them -- but it does seem a little ridiculous. When we read all the hard feelings going on here in Brant county with the negotiations, and then to turn around and get on their side so quickly, I think politics is at play there.

Mr Duncan: Just a couple of brief notes. This bill doesn't deal with curriculum; it doesn't deal with the funding model. The proposals on curriculum decrease the number of hours for math and English. Second, the government has placed a number of numbers out and I've asked for responses on them and haven't had them provided. In fact, yes, enrolment has gone up 16%, but no credible authority agrees about the 82% figure that you quoted. I don't know where you got that number. Your numbers are wrong, and if they're not, provide them.

Mr Ron Johnson: Yes, and you had your budget balanced.

The Chair: Mr Johnson, you had your turn to speak, please.

Mr Duncan: Not only have expenditures not gone up 82%, the number is closer to 30%, and taxes have not gone up 120%. In a number of boards they've actually gone down when you account for inflation. If that's not accurate, produce your numbers. We've asked you to do that for two weeks, but you haven't. Why? Because you're lying to the people of Ontario and you know it.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr Duncan: Let me tell you another thing. You want to deal with curriculum? We put a motion to deal with curriculum. They voted it down. You want to deal with funding? We put a motion. They voted it down. They don't want to deal with that. They want to take money from your kids, money out of classrooms, and give it back to a tax cut. The false figures and the misleading information the government has provided are just getting me sick, and everyone in this province should be sick.

The Chair: Mr Hugman, I want to thank you for being here today. There are no more questions.

Mr Hugman: Madam Chair, was that a question?

The Chair: No, it was not, Mr Hugman. It was a comment. I should explain that the members can use their time in whatever way they wish, but we thank you very much for coming forward with your views.

Mr Young: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I'd like to give Mr Duncan an opportunity to withdraw the unparliamentary language.

Mr Duncan: No, I won't. It's not unparliamentary. I'd ask the government to withdraw the misleading statistics and the false campaign it's waging against students and children and parents in this province, and you ought to be ashamed of it.

The Chair: Mr Duncan, I've allowed you a fair bit of latitude --

Mr Young: The leadership is over, Dwight. You lost.

The Chair: Mr Young, that's uncalled for. Ladies and gentlemen, I've allowed a fair bit of latitude. I will not allow it again. If we get into an outburst, I will recess the committee.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CAREER COLLEGES

The Chair: Can we move, please, to the Ontario Association of Career Colleges, Paul Kitchin and Lorna Hillis. Thank you very much for being here and thank you for your patience. I know we're a little bit behind schedule.

Mr Paul Kitchin: Thank you very much. We appreciate the opportunity to address the panel on this subject. My name is Paul Kitchin and I am the executive director with the Ontario Association of Career Colleges. While most of my remarks tonight will be reflecting the views of the membership of our association, many of my comments will reflect my own thoughts as a parent and as a taxpayer.

As a parent, I have three children enrolled in grades 5, 8 and 12 in our education system, and as a parent, my concerns certainly are with the quality of education they are receiving, along with other children, as well as the quality of education they will continue to receive during the balance of the time they are enrolled within the system.

As a taxpayer, as a resident of Brantford and someone who has paid taxes in this province for more than 28 years, I am very concerned about the effective and efficient use of my tax dollars, particularly in terms of education in the province.

As the executive director of the Ontario Association of Career Colleges, I represent the views of private sector, post-secondary education and training institutions in this province. There are currently 340 such institutions, which enrol in excess of 60,000 students into post-secondary programs annually. As educators and trainers at the post-secondary level, our members are quite concerned with the quality of students who are leaving our school system and are enrolling in post-secondary programs each year. As taxpaying organizations, our members are also concerned with the effective and efficient use of tax dollars in terms of our education system.

In evaluating the current system in Ontario, our members have identified some concerns they wish to express. I will spend a few minutes going over the details of some of those concerns and then move on to addressing how Bill 104 addresses those concerns.

The members of the Ontario Association of Career Colleges are interested in the quality of education and believe that the sole objective of any reform dealing with education certainly should look at the improvement of the quality of education. We certainly believe that being able to put more resources back into the system, back into the classroom where they're needed, is important. We feel that any analysis where you're looking at how more resources can be put into the classroom where my children and other children can benefit means you need to take a look basically at three issues: (1) source of funding; (2) the allocation of funds for administrative versus classroom activities; and (3) the ultimate use of dollars that have been earmarked for use in the classroom.

If I start with the source of funds, our members certainly believe, or are concerned at the level of taxation now, how related that is to education. They believe that business and individual taxpayers can no longer absorb continuing increases in costs of taxes related to education.

During the past 10 years the information I am aware of indicates that over that period of time, school-related taxes have increased at least by an average of 5% per year for the 10 years, for a total of a 50% increase. By contrast, the average taxpayer has not had an increase that amounts to 50%. In fact, it would be somewhat lower than that. Small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario have not seen profits that have increased by anywhere close to 50%. In fact, many of those businesses have had to take a look at cutting costs just to be able to stay in business and to be able to keep from laying off taxpaying employees who support the system. There is a limit, we believe, to the amount of tax that businesses and individuals can be expected to pay, or can afford to pay, and we believe we've reached that limit.

1930

On the other side of it, we also understand that Ontario is broke. We understand that if there is any interest in adding new programs into the system, the government is faced with two choices: One is to borrow money, usually from foreign sources; or to raise taxes one more time. We feel that this practice needs to stop and that we need to look at other ways of doing things.

Many of us with families or in businesses have learned over the last 10 years to do more with less. We have had to make some tough decisions, and we feel that the school boards and government are now in that position as well where they need to make some tough decisions.

As with the previous speaker, my understanding is that in the past year 80% of the school boards have raised taxes at a time when government was encouraging them not to, while government was looking at cutting its own costs as well. I think this is very important to the discussion we've got in terms of how far people can be expected to absorb increases in taxes.

The second point I mentioned was the allocation of funds to administrative activities versus classroom activities. Our membership believes that where possible, we should be looking at ways of streamlining our school system so that the administrative costs come down, so that we have an opportunity to put more resources back into the classroom. We think there should certainly be an accountability for the way that money is spent. With an annual budget of something in the neighbourhood of $13 billion, the resources need to be well managed and there needs to be accountability. We would support any moves that would take us in that direction.

Once again, as with the previous speaker, my understanding certainly is that some boards in this province in the last two years have spent as little as 51% of their funds on classroom activities and that on average, for every dollar spent in the classroom, 80 cents is spent outside the classroom. We think that the spending outside the classroom needs to be reduced, and that by doing so, it does give the ability to put more money back into the classroom, back into the hands of the teachers.

We believe there needs to be streamlining of administration. We note that other jurisdictions have already taken steps to eliminate duplication, eliminate waste and bring down the cost of administration. In a province where we have 129 school boards and 1,900 trustees, we feel there's ample room for reduction to take place. It's a hard bullet to swallow, but we're at the point where we need to take a look at that.

As taxpayers, our members have watched in the past as school boards have built elaborate administrative centres and offices that many businesses would not be able to afford to erect, and we feel there needs to be more respect for the tax dollar and the way that it is spent. Much the same as the owner of a business may have to make a hard decision to wait an extra year to buy a delivery van to use in their business, again school boards may have to learn when to say no and when to take a look at delaying some of their spending and spend more effectively.

I understand that again the enrolment in the province has increased by 16% over the last 10 years. I also understand that the spending has gone up. I heard some debate a few minutes ago, and I don't want to get into that again, but certainly the costs have gone up way over the 16% enrolment.

In the time of recession that we've had over the last 10 years, any business that would have operated that way likely would be in a bankruptcy situation right now. We can't afford to have a bankrupt education system. Spending has to come under control.

The third point I raised was in terms of the ultimate use of dollars that have been earmarked for the classroom. The Ontario Association of Career Colleges has some concerns over some recent trends whereby school boards have begun to establish non-profit career training centres or for-profit career training centres or non-profit corporations to provide adult post-secondary vocational training, using the dollars that were earmarked for the classroom to subsidize the fees in these centres, particularly when there is already a delivery system in the private sector that is providing similar kinds of programs.

This seems wasteful and seems like a misdirection of funds to us. An example of this would be the Ontario Member School Board Corp, which I understand has recently recruited as many as 12 or 14 school boards in the province to be involved in these kinds of activities. Our fear is that if this goes unrestricted, there may be even greater diversion of funds away from the classroom, and we don't think this is a positive direction.

There are some questions that we feel need to be asked and answered about this kind of activity. Are school boards permitted, or are they required when they're running these kinds of programs, to charge the public the full cost of the programs? If they are, are the full costs of personnel, plant and equipment being charged to the programs appropriately when the fees are set? And if not, are school boards permitted to divert funds from the classroom to support and subsidize these programs?

In relation to this issue, another consideration is the treatment of the centres or corporations in terms of taxation, in terms of GST and property taxes. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has recently written to the minister of revenue asking for a ruling on the status of these non-profit corporations or for-profit centres. They are concerned that with an eligibility for the centres to get rebates under GST, to not have to pay property taxes, to subsidize these programs with tax dollars that should be in the classroom, they are becoming a threat to the viability of the private training sector that is already there providing those kinds of programs. We don't understand why energies are being put in those directions when they should be centred on what school boards are there for: to train your children and my children.

The Chair: Excuse me. Your brief appears to be a fairly lengthy one. I wonder if you might try and sum up.

Mr Kitchin: What I wanted to touch on then was the effectiveness of Bill 104 to deal with those concerns. Our association's members would support a reduction of the number of school boards. The proposal from 129 to 66 seems reasonable to us. We would certainly need some more data but we would support that direction. We would support the reduction of the number of trustees from 1,900 to 700, as we see this as a way to save some administrative money and put it back into the classroom.

We would support the concept of going to honorariums that are capped at $5,000, as we see that as another way to save some money and put it where it belongs.

We support the concept of the school councils where parents have a greater involvement and can share in some of the accountability around programs and the funding in our schools.

The final point I would make is that we certainly support the concept that when local businesses are taxed, those tax dollars will remain in the community to help support local education.

There was one more point on this: We find that Bill 104 is lacking in its attention to the issue I raised around adult career training centres that are being run by school boards. We would like it if this panel would consider addressing that issue in any amendments to Bill 104.

In summary, we at the Ontario Association of Career Colleges believe that we need to reduce administrative spending, put more resources into the classroom and ease the burden on taxpayers. Thank you very much for your time.

The Chair: Mr Kitchin, thank you very much, on behalf of the committee, for coming here, together with Ms Hillis. We appreciate your views.

1940

Mr Wildman: Madam Chair, you'll recall that in Sudbury we had a presentation from the association of career colleges as well. It raised some similar points to Mr Kitchin's, and in response to that, I asked some questions of the parliamentary assistant. In the questions and answers that were tabled yesterday by the parliamentary assistant, two dealt with the issues of the last point that Mr Kitchin raised, and I'd like to refer briefly to that.

I asked the parliamentary assistant whether the ministry has investigated whether or not the Huron County Board of Education has engaged in adult education training for profit, which is one of the issues that was raised. The answer tabled yesterday was:

"The Huron county board has responded to the needs of adult learners by providing programs for adult clients who can learn in a regular setting as well as for those who are lower-functioning academically. The board is paid by Human Resources Development Canada" -- the federal government -- "to deliver the programs at a rate of $66 per hour, which just covers the costs associated with the program, that is, staffing, consumables, maintenance, equipment repairs, professional development etc."

The other question I raised was in relation to the Peel non-profit corporation that was referred to by Mr Kitchin and in the presentation in Sudbury as well. I asked if the parliamentary assistant would report on the status of the non-profit adult education training centres, using Peel as an example. In the answers that were tabled yesterday, the parliamentary assistant said a response would be tabled tomorrow, which I suspect is today, so I'm wondering where it is.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. There will be some responses tabled by the parliamentary assistant, I'm advised.

Mr Wildman: Thank you.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2512

The Chair: I'd like to advise members that our next presenter was to be CUPE Local 791. Mr Sutherland, its president, could not be here. The subcommittee has decided to substitute CUPE Local 2512, with Marie O'Brien. Thanks very much, Ms O'Brien. It's nice to see you again. Perhaps you'll present your co-presenter.

Ms Marie O'Brien: Thank you. With me is Duncan Haslam, the national Canadian Union of Public Employees representative for Local 2512.

The Chair: Of course.

Mr Duncan Haslam: I have changed. I thought you wouldn't recognize me.

Ms O'Brien: Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to address our concerns regarding Bill 104, and specifically section 335, the outsourcing of non-instructional services. I am representing CUPE Local 2512, which includes secretaries, clerical workers, educational assistants, youth care workers and technicians of the Waterloo Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board. CUPE Local 2512 recommends withdrawal of section 335 because of its intention within Bill 104 to contract out non-instructional services.

The membership that I represent have had their wages frozen since 1992. The average annual salary for the secretaries, clerical and technicians is $22,000, and for the educational assistants $17,000. This is not out-of-control spending. The services these dedicated people provide are worth the cost. The compensation received for the work performed is only part of the successful careers these people have pursued. Educational support workers have been downsized through budget cuts in recent years but are still expected to do more with less. That is exactly what these employees are doing.

We have also identified areas to the trustees and management that can be restructured for cost savings because, as taxpayers, we also want the best and most effective services for our tax dollars.

There are also other considerations above the wages that contribute to the efficient running of the school boards. For example, technical support staff are familiar with the needs and requirements of each school. A great savings to the schools is that technicians are able to purchase any required materials at wholesale cost rather than paying the markup that a contractor would apply. They are also able to identify and solve technical problems as needed. Will the same standard of knowledge and expertise be available if these positions are contracted out?

School boards are not just creating employment opportunities but are providing the necessary services to operate a school. Many of the programs mandated by the ministry require a considerable amount of training that is not available outside the school board. For example, the elementary student system is a computer program only used within schools. With a high turnover rate in contract workers, the necessary training would not be cost-effective and the excellence of program maintenance would be compromised.

Another area of concern is for children with special needs. It is critical for these students to have the consistency of working with an educational assistant and other support workers who are dependable, well trained and committed to providing caring services. For students who do not adapt easily to change, it is important that they have the reassurance and presence of a familiar educational assistant, one with whom they have an ongoing relationship. To have an unstable workforce dealing with these children will be detrimental to the child's development.

School secretaries at both the elementary and secondary levels do more than paperwork. They are often the first contact families have with the schools. They are aware of the family situations, health requirements and other critical needs. Secretaries deal with confidential and sensitive issues in a professional, efficient manner. This is an important and necessary constant for families, teachers and administrators.

Staff at the central board office provide important support and services to the whole system. At this level, people are required to have a thorough knowledge with regard to the Education Act, labour relations and curriculum requirements, for example. Administrators and teachers rely on staff to respond to their inquiries and requests and to have the correct information required.

The average length of service of our membership is 10 years, which confirms that there is a low turnover rate. This is one of many factors required for a stable school setting. Students know and trust their school secretaries, educational assistants and library technicians. Our members are an integral part of the school community that contributes to a safe, nurturing environment for the students. They have a high affiliation to their schools by being involved in fund-raising, being members of the school councils and assisting with many extracurricular activities on their own time. Due to this involvement, non-instructional employees are able to develop beneficial relationships with parents, students, teachers and administrators. This would not be the case if these positions were to be contracted out. If people do not feel the connection to the community that they are serving, they will not be as willing to volunteer their time.

If there are inefficiencies within the system, then they should be correctly identified and dealt with. There must be more equitable solutions available than to destroy the employment base of the vital support service in the education sector. Our greatest concern lies within the social justice issue of outsourcing positions. We feel it is far better to be employed by a not-for-profit employer than to be employed by someone whose primary concern is bottom-line profit.

Furthermore, we believe that people have the fundamental right to earn a living in order to feed, clothe and shelter their families and plan for their future. The most effective anti-poverty remedy today is a secure job. We cannot afford to allow the current damaging level of unemployment to become a permanent feature of Ontario's economy. Privatization will be counterproductive. Do not cut our positions as a result of using narrow-focus criteria. The benefits to our membership, our families and community of having steady employment include being productive individuals in the workplace, in our homes and in our communities. The support our members provide will result in the taxpayers of tomorrow having a promising future.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms O'Brien. We have approximately two minutes per caucus. We begin with the Conservative caucus.

1950

Mr Froese: I asked my question last time.

The Chair: All right. Is the Conservative caucus waiving their question time?

Mr Young: We'll waive our time.

The Chair: The official opposition, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. Among a number of areas that I would like to ask you about, I think I'm going to focus on the educational assistants and your relationship with educational assistants to meeting the needs of special needs students, because I am struck. I knew that the average salary for non-teaching staff tended to be about $24,000. You've indicated that the salary for an educational assistant in the board is $17,000.

I know that in the ministry's assumptions about where they're going to save the $150 million in amalgamation, they need to take -- I can't believe they need to do this, but they've shown that they want to do it -- $1.3 million directly out of educational supports, educational assistants. I guess you can save an awful lot of educational assistants' salaries, if they're only $17,000, by cutting $1.3 million.

I guess I'm concerned about the kind of choices that boards are going to face. The dollars are going to be tight. They're going to be faced with the costs of harmonization of services, and which programs they're going to let go and which they'll keep. If they can cut the educational assistants and put the special needs kids into a segregated class and save that $17,000 salary for that one child, is that the choice you think they're going to make?

Ms O'Brien: I hope not, because I also believe in the integration of children. What happened in our board this year is yes, they did cut back on the educational assistants. Before, we had half-time positions and full-time positions. They have now cut those jobs into little bitty pieces. We have people travelling to up to three schools in a day to put in a full day's work. So that's what happened with us.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation. It certainly very clearly pointed out the view that you have of both the importance of the work that you do within the schools, but also the fact that it's very cost-effective. I think for a lot of people, particularly among the public, the claims of this government that all these positions are what is costing so much money is based on very little information about what the actual wages are and how few people, relatively speaking, are engaged in these kinds of activities for the amount of work to be done in most boards. Would you agree that's the case, that vast numbers of the public, until this whole thing arose, had very little idea of what you did or of what you made?

Ms O'Brien: That's correct. I think they're under the assumption that we have a yearly salary, but the majority of us are only paid 40 or 41 weeks per year, and that's it. It's not 52.

Mrs Boyd: And then you're laid off.

Ms O'Brien: That's correct.

Mrs Boyd: I see. I didn't know that, so that's very interesting. That would be the educational assistants, laid off obviously because school isn't year-round. Then you're not required. That wouldn't be true for some of the other members of your local, I assume, who are caretakers and secretaries, or are they also laid off?

Ms O'Brien: Well, the caretakers aren't part of our local. They do work year-round, but we have maybe less than 15 people who work year-round right now.

Mrs Boyd: Really. I had no idea of that, so you are educating us as well. I know that when the local unions in London did a lot of work in the malls, talking to citizens about what was going on and showing them what their jobs were, there were an awful lot of people -- I've received over 6,000 signatures from one of the locals and about 3,000 from another, pointing out what they actually do. They certainly have the support of the citizens once people understand what the members of your union actually do.

Ms O'Brien: Yes, I've also found that, that it's a matter of educating the public and once they really, truly realize what is involved right now and what it looks like in the future, we've had their support.

Mrs Boyd: We've taken you for granted. I'm sorry about that.

The Chair: Ms O'Brien, Mr Haslam, I want to thank you very much on behalf of the committee for your presentation and for stepping in on such short notice to present it to us.

BRANT COUNTY ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD

The Chair: May I have the Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Larry Kings, Brendan Ryan. Welcome, Chairman Kings, Mr Ryan.

Mr Larry Kings: Good evening, committee members. My name is Larry Kings. I'm the chairperson of the Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. I want to thank you on behalf of the board for providing us with this opportunity to make some comments on Bill 104.

I must say that as a person who was educated in the system and who has children who went through the system, I had mixed feelings when I heard the school boards were going to be amalgamated. However, we must look past our personal preferences and experiences, so at this time, I join with my colleagues in the board in expressing support for the principles behind Bill 104. We still believe the legislation needs some clarification and additions, and at this time I would call on Brendan Ryan, the director of education, to make our presentation to the committee on behalf of the board.

Mr Brendan Ryan: Madam Chair, committee members, we do appreciate the opportunity of coming here. We just got notice on Friday that we were on the list and so we put together something rather quickly. I would say that the green cover has got nothing to do with the name Ryan or the fact we're just a week away from St Patrick's Day. It just happened to be what was available at the time.

We welcome this opportunity to make a presentation to the standing committee on social development on behalf of the Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Bill 104 is perhaps one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the past 50 years in the field of education and its impact and ramifications will be felt in all aspects of education for a considerable time into the future.

Because it is so significant a bill and because it so radically alters the landscape, it is important that the bill should address all of the contentious issues in education. Once this bill becomes law, the impetus for further change will diminish.

When the first talk of restructuring began in the previous government, the board was not in favour of the proposed changes. In taking that position, the board was looking back to a solid record of achievement since county boards were formed in 1969. Since the formation of county boards, the Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board had shown a steady pattern of growth in population. It also had a record of expansion of facilities and an enviable record of cooperation with our coterminous board and with other public bodies.

A good example of this sharing can be seen in the Notre Dame/Branlyn school which was built in 1988 where both boards of education and the city of Brantford got together to ensure that a rapidly growing community had appropriate education and recreation facilities provided to meet its needs all under one roof. It was from this background that the board viewed the proposed changes. Much had been achieved and there was no guarantee that change would improve the situation for the students in Brant county.

Perhaps the one single item that influenced the board into taking a more positive stand towards Bill 104 is the statement by the minister, the Honourable John Snobelen, on the issue of financing. For many years we have seen funding inequities in education throughout Ontario, and certainly separate school boards were very familiar with these inequities. But the discrepancies in funding went beyond separate school boards to public boards with low assessment bases. The proposal that all children would have access to equal funding was a concept that was and remains attractive to the trustees of the Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. We see it as a fundamentally equitable proposal that a child in Moosonee should have the same funding rights that a child in Brampton has and we support a funding model that would enable this to happen.

On several occasions we've heard the minister state that this principle of equity, together with the concept of savings, is what is driving the reform in education. He has said that the government will stand by its promises and, if given a chance, will arrive at this position. We believe him, and so we have come to support the concept behind Bill 104. In doing so, we want to make it clear that we do not agree to any diminution of our constitutional rights and that while the proposed funding model would not envision separate school boards raising taxes, this right is merely being suspended and not vacated. If indeed the proposed financial reform does not bring about equity, separate school boards reserve their rights as they are currently enjoyed.

Bill 104 is a historic document in that it proposes that French-language boards should govern their own education concerns in the province. This is a milestone that the French community in Ontario has sought for many years and we congratulate the government on this step. However, governance without adequate funding is a hollow victory and we'd ask that additional startup funding be made available to French-language boards in order to help them become established. Many of the French-language boards cover large geographic areas and, unlike their English-language counterparts, there is no infrastructure in place to ensure that the needs of diverse communities are met. For these reasons, we believe that additional funds should be made available to allow the boards an opportunity to do the necessary research and planning to successfully launch this new system.

2000

It has been said that it was an accident of history and emigration patterns prior to Confederation that allowed separate school boards to enjoy a particular constitutional recognition. Be that as it may, separate school boards do enjoy this right and have used it well to benefit both the Catholic community and the society in general since Confederation.

The Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, while cherishing its constitutional rights to provide Catholic education, also supports the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association position that consideration be given to other groups to enjoy educational funding and would encourage the government to re-examine this question in light of the major structural changes that are now being implemented.

The reconfiguration of boards across the province has produced some partnerships that have as many differences as they have commonalities. While it is relatively easy to say that we will have elections in November 1997 and the new boards will assume authority on January 1, 1998, it must be recognized that there are many difficulties that the new boards will face. These will include surplus staff in some areas, harmonization of collective agreements, considerable work in bringing policies and practices into line, and ensuring that students throughout the new jurisdictions will have equal access to technology and other programs. In addition, some boards will enter into new partnerships with considerable debt load in debentures for new buildings or liabilities for gratuities, while other boards will be relatively unencumbered.

The potential for friction is considerable in some of these situations, and while we do not propose that the government should assume all of the liabilities or additional costs, it would be prudent to make some financial provisions so that the new boards can embark on their duties with a sense of financial stability and a minimum of concern that collective agreements can be harmonized.

Over the years, the duties and responsibilities of various groups within the education family had become pretty clear. While they may have differed from one jurisdiction to another, each board had worked out a modus vivendi to meet its needs. The substantial reduction in the number of trustees will obviously change the role of the trustee, and the new element in the equation is school councils. Our board is fully supportive of the notion of school councils, but we believe it is important that there be a clear definition of the roles of trustees, administration, school councils and principals in the new organizational structure. A failure to do this will produce a sense of ambiguity and will lead to unnecessary conflicts.

Perhaps one of the most contentious items in the proposed new structure has been the subject of outsourcing. While it is never specifically mentioned, the continual talk of massive savings because of restructuring has created an atmosphere of apprehension in support staff in school boards. The Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has always believed that cooperation between bodies to deliver services at an economical rate is desirable. In fact, we've shared services with a number of organizations to ensure that an affordable level of service could be maintained. We believe that this practice should continue and that new opportunities for partnerships and cooperatives should be explored. By doing this, we believe we will meet the minister's wish that the maximum number of dollars be spent in the classroom.

We would, however, have real concerns if support services to our students were delivered by agencies who pay their workers minimum wage and no benefits. There is dignity in work and employees deserve a just wage. We believe it would be antithetical to the whole concept of Christian education if we were to exploit workers in order to provide services for students. This type of situation would send a strange message to our students regarding the value of work and the dignity of the worker.

Junior kindergarten is a topic that has produced more heat than light in discussion over the past decade. The fact of the matter is that most industrialized countries view education as being an important part of their industrial strategy. Most countries also subscribe to the notion that the early years are the most important in a child's development and that positive experiences in these early years will set a pattern for success in life. We would ask that junior kindergarten be viewed in this light, not as a glorified babysitting experience but as an opportunity to provide a solid foundation for future success. In that sense, the program should be funded to encourage boards to provide this enriching experience for their students and not receive a reduced level of funding which suggests that we're apologizing for offering the program.

If we have learned anything from examining our educational system, it is that the system cannot exist in a vacuum. We must be part of the community; we must use community resources to enrich the education of the students. While not everyone will subscribe to the belief that it takes a village to raise a child, we must be open to the notion that schools cannot exist as discrete enclaves. In past years, the Ministry of Education and Training has provided funds for such projects as co-operative education, ties to business and industry and TIPPs. This board has participated in all of these projects and so has enlarged the canvas of educational opportunity for the students. We would urge that the Ministry of Education and Training allocate funds that can be accessible, on application, for future endeavours. At the moment, our board is involved, as an example, with the Brantford Police Services Board in projects such as a resource officer in our secondary schools, and we're looking for a program in our elementary schools.

These types of programs add materially to the students' experience and we should look to enlarging our contacts with the community in these and other areas. It would be foolish to imagine that other agencies will fund these programs totally, and so boards which are working with innovative programs such as these should have an opportunity to apply for special grants for approved programs.

In closing, the Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board is appreciative of the opportunity to make this presentation. We have a long history of providing Catholic education to our students and we're proud of our successes. We welcome the change if it gives our students the opportunities to enjoy equal access to resources with every other student in the province. Our partnership with Haldimand-Norfolk Roman Catholic Separate School Board is one we look forward to. We regard these as historic times in education and hope that the new structure will permit us to continue our contribution to this community and province.

We rely on the promises of the government to provide this more equitable funding structure. We ask them to seriously consider the points that we've raised and, in return, promise full cooperation as we move into the future. And so, in the interests of our students and students across the province, this board endorses the basic philosophy of Bill 104 of equity for all students in this great province.

The Chair: Chairman Kings, Mr Ryan, thank you on behalf of the committee for your attendance and your presentation here this evening. Unfortunately, there is no time for questions.

BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE CITY OF LONDON

The Chair: Our last presenter, but by no means the least, is the London board of education, John Laughlin, Alex Sutherland, and a few more. Might I ask you to introduce yourselves for the record. You then will have 15 minutes to make your presentation.

Mrs Heather Wice: I'm Heather Wice and I'm chairperson of the board. I'm joined by Alex Sutherland, the vice-chairperson of the board; John Laughlin, the director of education; and Don Scanlon, executive assistant with our board, who has been very helpful in helping us put our presentation together.

First of all, I would like to thank you very sincerely for providing this opportunity for us to speak with you. We were not on the original list and we recognize that it was through some hard work of some people I suspect who are sitting in this room, as well as back in London, that you were able to add us to the list. At the risk of sounding self-serving, we'd like to say that being the last speaker, we appreciate that and we think you have saved the best for last.

I very specifically would like to thank Tonia Grannum and Nicole in your office, because as the support people for your committee, they have been tremendously helpful in answering and responding to our concerns and questions, and I would like to acknowledge them for that.

We're not going to read our presentation to you this evening. You've been here for a long day and a long week. What we would like to do is just highlight our presentation for you.

2010

We believe we are in a somewhat unique position because London-Middlesex in the past had been asked to voluntarily explore the concept of an amalgamation. I believe we may in fact be able to provide you with some information that will prove to be useful in the discussions you are going to have around Bill 104. We are offering to you our experience.

The three of us are going to be presenting some of the different components of our presentation. Mr Laughlin will be presenting some issues around the introduction, Mr Sutherland will be talking to you about some concerns we have around the funding model and then I'll be speaking to you at the end.

I would encourage you to take the opportunity to read through our presentation. We've spent a tremendous amount of time in doing that. We think we do have some things we'd like to suggest and we would encourage you to take the time.

Mr John Laughlin: Again, echoing the chair's comments, it's a pleasure to be here. We appreciate the opportunity to present. I'm just going to make some key points in the introductory section and the historical perspective.

Essentially the first point I'd like to make is that historically the London board of education has embraced the concept of change enthusiastically, particularly when any change is based on exemplary practice and sound research and when the data demonstrate that the contemplated change will positively affect student outcomes. Those are the two key points I want to make in that section.

I want to continue by indicating that the board is fundamentally opposed to many of the principles inherent in Bill 104 and to some of the legislative regulations we expect will quickly follow.

A couple of key points I want to make there are:

One, we're concerned that the bill is intrusive and lacks substance, particularly in terms of an operational plan, a business plan and a human resources plan. While we know many of those plans will in fact follow, we're concerned that we have not seen the entire picture. We're concerned also that it centralizes control and significantly reduces local autonomy and, finally, that it mandates time lines that significantly curtail local impact and limit collaborative implementation.

Having said that, and while we are concerned about the intrusiveness of the bill, we are working towards making it work. We have developed a steering committee among the four boards. We are working both at the director level and at the political level by sharing data. We have collected an inordinate amount of data that demonstrate how we are common and how we are unique. As Heather alluded, we will be the third-largest public board in Ontario and we want to make sure that the innovative program models that presently exist within the county boards and the urban boards continue to be offered in the most cost-efficient manner.

Related to that, let me just share briefly with you some facts and figures. I've heard some of the presentations already tonight and I want to share some facts and figures from a budgetary perspective that are from the minister's office. We would like to present that information and provide the local London flavour.

It's our contention that the Board of Education for the City of London has demonstrated a high degree of fiscal responsibility while continuing to provide a spectrum of program delivery that far exceeds the range offered by other boards. If you look at the chart under 2.0 you can see -- and these are figures released by the minister's office in February -- that the expenditure per pupil in London is $6,571; the provincial average is $6,682.

But I think the next two boxes probably make the point I really want to emphasize. When you look at direct classroom and classroom support -- and we see that as the classroom, the supports that go towards the classroom, and I'm talking about custodial, maintenance, secretarial, in-school administration, library resource centres, special education support, psychologists, psychometrists, speech and language pathologists. Those are the essential supports, not the luxurious supports, that go together to make what we call the classroom. When you look at direct classroom and classroom support, 86.5% of the in excess of $300-million budget in London goes towards direct classroom and classroom support. That again is above the provincial average of 84.8%.

When you look at supervision and administration, we have been fiscally responsible. Only 13.5% of that budget is directed towards supervision and administration, with the provincial average being 15.6%. One last statistic: Of that 13.5%, last year 2.4% was spent on governance and central administration. We expect that figure to be in the 2% range this budget year, again well below the provincial average of approximately 3.3%.

There are a couple of other points that I think have to be made. The 1.8% reduction in provincial grants announced last year, when annualized, results in a $17.1-million reduction for the London board that we must absorb in this year's budgets. Those budgets have to be absorbed while we continue to believe that we need a junior kindergarten program. We have passed a motion that would support junior kindergarten for the next year because we believe in early intervention. We believe that $1 spent now saves $6 or $7 in the future. We believe that adult education is important. We believe in the lifelong learning process.

The second-last point I would like to make is that we also have heard a lot of discussion about transportation. We recently approved a common school calendar, along with additional cooperative savings in 1997, which will result in a combined saving of over $1 million annually for the London and Middlesex public and separate boards of education. Those savings are there. We don't know at this point in time how we can get any more savings from the transportation area given the block funding that we're now living with.

Finally I'd like to make the point again that I have made already: The classroom is an extension of all those supports that I alluded to earlier. We believe that all those individuals work as a unified team and are essential prerequisites to ensure the continued quality education we have come to enjoy in London and all across Ontario.

Mr Alex Sutherland: Realizing that the funding model will be released later this spring, I will only hit on a few items verbally and ask you to refer to section 3 for any additional information.

In that section we say that the service that the public school boards provide for all students must be recognized and acknowledged. Presently this does not occur. Our boards offer a significantly broader range of programs and services than the coterminous board, yet both boards receive the same level of per pupil funding towards special education.

As it relates to funding also, statements made by the Ministry of Education and Training related to expenditures and revenues of boards are not always accurate when applied to local boards. I reference the comments made by our director, Mr Laughlin, as it relates to a 2% cut in education equated to an 11.7% cut for the London board of education.

Focus on students and the impact on the classroom: The present position of the government is contrary to the recommendations contained in the 1995 Report of the Royal Commission on Learning: For the Love of Learning. The province must provide direct financial support to district school boards to ensure the provision of program equity for all students; for example, JK, co-curricular, spec ed, just to mention a few.

I'm going to sum up by suggesting that while we acknowledge the province's desire to maintain its belief in two publicly funded education systems, the province must recognize that trustee representation must reflect ratepayer distribution and support. For example, student enrolment in Ontario is currently 70% public versus 30% separate: 33 boards, 33 boards. I ask you, is that equity?

Mrs Wice: I think it's been mentioned that in the proposed amalgamation of the four area boards, we will be a board that will have almost 90,000 students. That makes us the third-largest in the province. I think it would be interesting for you to note that in the downsized Alberta model of education governance, the three largest boards serve approximately 500,000 students. In Ontario that same 500,000 students will be served by three boards. I think you need to be very aware of the significance in this area. We do, however, believe that trustee representation should be based on electoral representation.

I want to speak to you a little bit about school board roles, responsibilities and representation. While we recognize that it has not been completely announced, other than that I read it this morning in the Globe and Mail, communities are going to lose their opportunity to support local priorities and needs by boards losing their opportunity to tax. We're very concerned about the loss of local input into education revenues and expenditures.

2020

Our concerns remain over the issues of adequate representation and local accountability, and in meeting with our new proposed partners in a steering committee that we've already been very actively working on, I can assure you that for our smaller county partners this is a very significant area of concern. Long-distance availability and community interaction are going to be significantly curtailed, we're concerned, and we think this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

We agree that parental involvement is key to the success of any student, and it's also key for the success of our system. However, it is the role of the trustee to try and act as the person who coordinates what's going on between schools. Appropriately, the role of a school council is to support and expect the best for their students within the school. We see a strong role for both groups in this kind of organization and we're very concerned about the loss of that coordination.

Bill 104, frankly, is most unsettling for what it doesn't say. It's been indicated there's no human resource plan, no operational plan and no transition plan. We believe it's very important that those decisions and some of that information first of all are decided locally, but that some of those things happen fairly quickly.

The Education Improvement Commission has been given sweeping powers. We believe the role of the Education Improvement Commission would be best served by being an overseeing body, a coordinating body, a facilitator for positive change. Accountable only to the government? We don't believe that's appropriate. Trustees are accountable.

In the spirit of time, because it's important for us -- we want to be able to talk with you, not at you -- I just want to indicate that certainly in the area of the local improvement commission we see that's a key. We would like to have the opportunity to make some decisions before January 1. We believe the local improvement committee should be trustees locally, making local decisions. We've already worked on some ways that we can involve our community in that decision-making process.

To sum up, we have some recommendations that we've indicated for you. We question the projected savings that have been indicated around the area of outsourcing. We believe that boards should be given some flexibility, and I would encourage you, in any amendments you make, if the bill is not withdrawn, that flexibility is the key to what you do. Local decision-making should remain, and what we'd like to do is provide some opportunities to discuss things with you.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Chair Wice. We've used up all of your time, quite effectively, may I say. We appreciate the fact that you came and presented to us and I'm sure everyone will read this, and certainly it will form part of our official records. Thanks very much.

Mrs Wice: Thank you very much for the opportunity.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

The Chair: Members, we have some outstanding matters before we conclude our hearings. The first is a motion by Ms McLeod which was deferred from March 19 and March 20, and I wonder if we might move to the debate of that motion.

Mrs McLeod: Why don't I lead off, Madam Chair? Unless Mr Wildman tells me that some miracle has occurred and the House leaders have found some way of deferring the start of clause-by-clause consideration tomorrow, then I think the motion probably doesn't need to be pursued.

Mr Wildman: As I reported on Thursday, my office contacted the offices of the other two House leaders on Thursday to ask about how we might work out a meeting of the subcommittee or an unofficial meeting of the committee. Mr Bradley's staff was agreeable. The government House leader's staff did not reject the idea, but indicated that they would be in touch with the Conservative members on this committee to get some feedback before they got back to us. I checked with my office today and we haven't heard anything back. Unless the Conservative members can tell us what their discussions were with the government House leader, I don't know what's happening.

Mrs McLeod: My further concern is that I understand that with the time allocation motion being in place the House would have to be sitting in order to alter the time allocation motion, and that if we were to defer on an informal agreement, we could risk losing the chance to do formal clause-by-clause because we would not have met the terms of the time allocation motion; that the possibility of retroactively changing the time allocation motion might be a little risky even though there is precedent in this government for retroactive legislation.

Mr Wildman: We could have an unofficial meeting tomorrow morning if the government members are agreeable. I just don't know. We haven't heard anything.

Mr Young: The ministry is offering a briefing for all opposition committee members, and if they wanted to bring staff, to review proposed amendments tomorrow at noon. The minister's office will be in contact with their offices tomorrow to confirm a location if they wish to attend.

The Chair: I thank you for that information, Mr Young, but that doesn't speak to the motion Mrs McLeod has tabled. Mr Wildman has asked whether there has been any communication between the House leader and the Conservative members of the committee. Do you have a response?

Mr Young: None that I know of, no.

Mrs McLeod: That'll make it easy. I will withdraw the motion. But in doing so I will again express my dismay at having been on the road for 10 days, hearing presentations for nine to 10 hours a day, and that we must now table our amendments tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock and have only four hours in which to debate all we have heard in the course of the last 10 days.

Mr Wildman: I won't prolong this but I want to register again, as I did at the beginning of our proceeding today, my frustration at the fact that everything that occurred, all the presentations that were given to us today, meant absolutely nothing because we were already working on our amendments, which have to be tabled by 9:00 tomorrow morning so we could debate them for a very short time tomorrow afternoon.

Mr Young: That's not true; that's not true at all. This bill will be going to committee of the whole House next week and there will be another opportunity to bring forth amendments at that time.

Mr Wildman: According to the government time allocation motion, there is one hour for committee of the whole debate. One hour total.

Mrs McLeod: According to the government's time allocation motion, at 5:00 tomorrow afternoon all amendments will be considered to have been placed and will not be debated; they will be put to a vote. That's the end of the discussions.

The Chair: We are aware of the substance of the time allocation motion. You are withdrawing your motion. That disposes of the matter for the time being.

There are two other items. The parliamentary assistant has some responses to questions that have been raised. Have they been distributed? They are about to be distributed to the members of committee.

Mr Young: I want to table Ministry of Education and Training responses to questions posed here in the committee hearings March 17 to 20; and a second set of answers which has been put together fairly quickly the last day or so which says at the top, "Clarification: Ministry's Responses to Questions," as you requested.

The Chair: We are also going to be distributing at this time a list of the outstanding questions I've asked the researcher to prepare, and he very kindly has done it on very short notice. Bear in mind that this is a draft. There may be some overlap with what the parliamentary assistant has presented, but the fact remains that there are an awful lot of outstanding questions which remain.

Mr Wildman: Most of my questions are outstanding: the ones that haven't been answered.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, if you would let me conclude, please, if you'll let me proceed, I'm particularly concerned about the fact that we have some 11 questions that were posed during this week. There are another 11 that were posed today, but what's even more troubling is that we have three questions that are outstanding as of March 17 and yet another from February 27 which have not been responded to. As I say, there may be some that will have been responded to by the parliamentary assistant, but it doesn't begin to answer what appear to be some 27 outstanding questions.

I must express my extreme consternation: I had asked the ministry to ensure that by the end of the hearings we would have answers to all the questions that were raised, with the few exceptions where we asked for information as of 1 o'clock tomorrow, bearing in mind that the questions were asked very late in the day today. It is quite frustrating, I'm sure, for all committee members to go to clause-by-clause tomorrow without all of the information that was requested. Again I want to express the consternation of the Chair on that point.

Mr Young: Madam Chair, I want to say for the record that there is no effort to filibuster or obfuscate the answering of questions. The staff are working as we speak to answer questions. They are doing the best they can, and as soon as they are available, will make them available to committee members, if not in their office this evening, first thing in the morning.

The Chair: Mr Young, nobody was accusing anybody of filibustering. I was simply expressing for the record that there are some questions that have been outstanding for a very long time and I had asked that the answers be provided by the end of the hearings; they were not. That is an objective fact.

I don't know that we need any further discussion on the point. Is this a different point, Mrs McLeod?

Mrs McLeod: I will not get into a debate about the adequacy of the answers, although they certainly don't address the questions. Nevertheless there is a number and an answer beside the number. But when it comes to the question on adult literacy, adult literacy costs, that was to have been tabled today according to the responses we got yesterday, and I am just wondering if that is here.

The Chair: We've not had an opportunity to cross-check the responses, Mrs McLeod, to answer your question. A cursory glace revealed that it was not, but it may very well be there. We'll just have to review that overnight.

Mrs McLeod: It doesn't appear to be there and it was to have been tabled today.

The Chair: All right.

Mr Wildman: Just for the record, Chair, I appreciate the work that the staff has been doing and how much work they've been doing. I just commiserate with the ministry staff that the government's short time frame makes it imperative for them to do all this work in such a short time. If we had a more reasonable approach to this legislation, they would have had more time to work on this.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair --

The Chair: Mrs McLeod, is this a new point?

Mrs McLeod: Yes, and it's a summation of the last 10 days. The reason there are not answers to a majority of the questions, even when there is something provided in writing, is exactly what the presenters have been saying over and over: There is no plan; it has not been developed. There are no answers because no decisions have been made. All we have is one part of this puzzle.

Mr Young: Madam Chair, I'd like to comment on that.

The Chair: Mr Duncan is next, I believe.

Mr Duncan: In the response to my question that was placed today -- thank you to the ministry -- they indicate that the ministry does not normally collect mill rate data. I am given to understand that in fact you do and that you haven't for 1996; you've acknowledged that. I am given to understand that it's available historically as well, so I would ask the ministry to recheck that tomorrow morning prior to clause-by-clause.

Mr Wildman: The ministry does collect them.

Mr Duncan: They say here they don't.

The Chair: Mr Young, did you want to add anything?

Mr Young: No.

The Chair: All right. It appears from the list of outstanding questions, just for information, that the last one on the first page, and the first and second ones on the second page, and the last one on the last page have been answered by the ministry. The rest are outstanding.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the presenters who have come before us and all those who have tried and have not made it. We have held hearings now for 10 days in a number of cities. For the record, people should know that we have had 1,465 requests from people and organizations that wanted to appear. We have been able to hear about 200 by working very long days and allowing 15 and 10 minutes a stretch. It is not very much, but it was the best we could do. We were working under time constraints. We could not go beyond the 10 days pursuant to a time allocation motion that was brought in by the government.

Let me also express my gratitude --

Mr Young: Cheap shot.

The Chair: No, I'm sorry, that's an objective fact. There was a time allocation motion, Mr Young.

May I also express my gratitude to this facility that hosted us today. They have done a wonderful job and we thank them very much. It's the kind of thing I think we should do more often, being in community centres. It's been a great experience for us.

Finally, I want to thank the ministry staff. I know they've been working very hard, and as has been said here before, they have done all they've been able to do given the time lines they've had to work within.

I also want to thank our clerk, our researcher and our technical staff. They have done a phenomenal job in getting us everywhere, from Toronto to Thunder Bay and back here to Brantford.

We are adjourned for this session. We will meet tomorrow at 1 o'clock for clause-by-clause. Thank you to all of you.

The committee adjourned at 2035.