Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

ELECTION OF ACTING CHAIR

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Tuesday 12 December 1995

Election of acting Chair

Subcommittee report

Ministry of Education and Training

Hon John Snobelen, minister

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Brown, Jim (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)

Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

*Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC)

*Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

*Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

*Rollins, E. J. Douglas (Quinte PC)

*Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)

*Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L) for Mr Michael Brown

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Curling

Clerk pro tem / Greffièr par intérim: Carrozza, Franco

Staff / Personnel:

Poelking, Steve, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1547 in committee room 2.

ELECTION OF ACTING CHAIR

Clerk Pro Tem (Mr Franco Carrozza): Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Cordiano is not available today. It is my duty to call upon you to elect an acting Chair for today. Mr Clement.

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Mr Clerk, pursuant to that requirement, I would like to nominate Mr Ramsay to be pro tem Chair for today.

Clerk Pro Tem: Thank you. Any other nominations? Seconded by Mr Cleary. There being no other nomination, I declare Mr Ramsay elected Chair pro tem for today.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Acting Chair (Mr David Ramsay): Now seeing a quorum, we will begin estimates. But our first order of the day is the presentation and adoption of the report of the subcommittee. Is there a mover for the subcommittee?

Mr Clement: I would so move. Do you want to discuss it first or have people read it?

Clerk Pro Tem: The copy was given to all the members two weeks ago. If you wish to move it into the record, please, Mr Clement.

Mr Clement: I would so move.

The Acting Chair: Everyone in favour of the subcommittee report? Carried.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Acting Chair: Then we'll move into estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training and we go to votes 1101 to 1103. We would like to welcome the minister to the committee today.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you, Mr Chair, members of the estimates committee. I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Ministry of Education and Training and its commitment to developing an education system that's based on excellence in student achievement and accountability to all Ontario taxpayers and to developing a training system that is geared to Ontario's needs for economic renewal.

In short, I'm talking about affordability, accountability and quality in the public education and training system. We want a system that is transparent, that will let the public clearly see what we're doing, how we're doing it and what results we're getting.

As my colleague Mr Eves pointed out in his economic statement, Ontario taxpayers have told us what they want. They want a secure and prosperous future for their children and they want schools where children actually learn.

At the Ministry of Education and Training, our priorities should be as much about preparing our young people for the future as they are about preparing the future for our young people.

We are in the knowledge age. By the end of the century, our province will need very different types of workers than it does today and it's up to our education system to prepare our youth for that future.

But just as important as preparing our children for the future, we must not burden them with a mortgaged future. The system must be reformed, but this must be done within the fiscal realities which have been forced upon us by a decade of overspending.

And so I want to talk for a few minutes about accountability. In plain language, we're talking about being responsible for what we do and being answerable to the citizens of Ontario who carry the load and pay the freight.

For too long, Ontario has been spending beyond its means. Mr Eves spelled out the harsh realities of our situation. In the last 10 years, government spending has almost doubled while accumulated debt has almost tripled. We are spending enormous amounts of money just carrying the debt. In fact, right now, Ontario's interest bill translates into almost $800 a year for every man, woman and child in Ontario. As a result of the fiscal situation it inherited, this government spends $1 million an hour more than it receives in revenues.

That enormous debt is unfair to our young people who would be burdened with paying it off. It is unfair because, if not reduced, in 10 or 15 years that huge debt would force the government of the day to eliminate many of the social programs that we enjoy today. So the younger generation would be betrayed on two counts.

Except that we're not going to allow that to happen. The government's first priority, therefore, is to get the province back on track financially. We must reduce Ontario's crushing debt so that we can improve the climate for job creation. It is only with a healthy economy that we can achieve the growth necessary to protect essential services.

Education is an essential service. But there is still money to be saved in the way we deliver it, and we will save that money.

In his economic statement, Mr Eves announced a reduction of $400 million to school boards for 1996-97, which means they will receive $4.04 billion. This reduction represents 3% of the total cost of operating Ontario's schools.

In 1996-97, transfers to universities will be approximately $1.5 billion, a reduction of $280 million. Transfers to colleges for the same period will be $689 million, a reduction of some $120 million.

We believe that we can protect the quality of classroom-based education while reducing the overall cost of the education system. And we are happy to note that we are not alone in this opinion. In a November 30 news release, the president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association was quoted as saying, and I quote, "Extracting $400 million from the elementary and secondary education system is a formidable challenge, but school boards must meet that challenge and continue their work in providing quality programs for our children at the best price for the property taxpayer."

The president of OPSBA then emphasized the importance of collaboration by saying, and I quote: "We have an obligation to our children to ensure the best quality education but to also work responsibly with the provincial government to ensure they do not inherit an overwhelming debt. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association will continue to work in partnership with its partners and the government to find cost-saving measures."

These are very encouraging sentiments, considering how urgently we need to reduce our spending on education. My ministry spends $9.174 billion a year to support education operating and capital requirements in this province.

You will note this figure is different than the printed estimates. The reason for the difference is the number has been updated to exclude the July 21 reductions and include the ministry's loan-based capital for schools, universities and colleges. As this capital was loan-based at the beginning of the year, it was not included in my ministry's estimates.

Of that $9.174 billion, 98.2% is paid out in transfer payments. Those operating and capital transfer payments amount to $9.009 billion.

Let me point out a few more financial facts. From 1985 to 1995, enrolment in Ontario schools increased by 16.5%. For the same period, the general legislative grants from the government to the boards increased by 39.2%. But school board operating costs increased by 82.3%.

Or how about these figures? In 1994-95, Ontario spent $600 more per student than the average of all the other provinces. With more than two million students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools, that adds up to $1.3 billion annually that Ontario spends above that per-student average. Furthermore, there's a wide variance among school boards in Ontario in their spending on administration.

We support investing money in student learning but we must insist that money spent on administration and bureaucracies be cut to what's needed to support student learning, and no more.

We intend to make the education system more accountable. And we must make sure the resources we have are well deployed and efficiently used.

As you know, the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force, headed by John Sweeney, is currently in the process of examining the structure of our school board system to determine if we can achieve cost savings through the amalgamation of boards. Mr Sweeney will provide a final report to me by the end of the year.

Whatever the report indicates, let me be clear that we will bring about savings by working with trustees so that boards share resources and use those resources wisely and prudently with a view to achieving savings for the taxpayers in this province.

We must also seriously consider the number of, and compensation for, school board trustees. The Sweeney report will give us guidance in this regard.

Although some cooperation is under way now -- and we applaud the efforts of those boards that are working to reduce duplication -- we know there is far more that can be done by school boards in this province.

The taxpaying public has told us that they want better value for their tax dollars, and the education system can certainly improve in this area. The public, however, is not willing to settle for a second-best system. They want to know that we are providing a first-class education to our young people. They want a highly educated and well-trained workforce that is ready to meet the challenges of the new economy.

That will mean updating technology in our schools and closing the gap between students who are exposed to technology outside the classroom and those who are not.

The taxpaying public has told us they want clear accountability through testing and public reporting of results. They want to be assured that our teachers get the best possible professional development throughout their careers. I will have more to say about this later when I outline our plans for a self-funded Ontario College of Teachers.

We are going to deliver on these needs expressed by the public. And we believe we can do it with a leaner, more efficient education system.

The people of Ontario have told us that they want an end to political turf battles. They've told us they want government at all levels to act more like partners than political adversaries. We are prepared to do so because we believe it's the only way we can pull the province out of the financial mess it's currently in.

We believe spending reductions must be resolved by the school boards and the ministry working together. We know that many people involved with education have already given some thought to how things could work in the future, and my parliamentary assistants and I have heard some very creative ideas.

We are particularly encouraged by the fact that groups such as the Metro Toronto school boards, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and the Secondary School Teachers' Federation have outlined ways that major savings could be made.

In its report Removing the Barriers to Cost-Effective Education, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association has suggested things like allowing school boards to use other professionals in the schools in such areas as recreation or school libraries, allowing school boards to determine the timing of the school day in accordance with community needs, and phasing out retirement gratuities.

We should work together with boards, associations and employee groups to review all possible avenues for administrative cost savings.

We also want to work closely with my ministry's education partners to make sure they have the tools they need to implement the necessary reductions. With regard to school boards, we hope to make an announcement in January about final decisions for expenditure reductions. This will give us time to hear a variety of views and ideas from across the province.

We are deeply committed to an education system that delivers excellence.

We said in the Common Sense Revolution that, "Education reform is essential if Ontario's next generation is to find high-paying, productive jobs in increasingly competitive world markets." We believe this is true now more than ever.

In response to this need, my ministry is making progress. I would like to briefly touch on some of the reforms we have under way, reforms that have at their core accountability, affordability and quality.

1600

Recently, we announced major reforms to our secondary school program that will make it more relevant to the needs of students and of the businesses that will hire them when they have completed their education.

As we promised in the Common Sense Revolution and as supported by the previous government, we will bring our secondary school graduation requirements in line with other school systems throughout Canada and the rest of the world so that students can complete high school in four years. This will be implemented beginning with students entering grade 9 in 1997.

As the Royal Commission on Learning pointed out, there is no evidence to suggest that an extra year of high school results in better student achievement. Current graduation requirements will be revised to reflect the move to a four-year system.

We will maintain our standards for university-bound students, but will put more emphasis on meeting the needs of the 70% of students who are not going on to university. We will develop clear course requirements for those students who choose to go to college or to go directly to work.

We will expand co-op and work experience programs to give students more insight into possible career choices. We will introduce a formal transition-to-work training program in partnership with local employers.

We will also make changes and improvements to our guidance counselling system so that students will have the best career and education information available to enable them to make informed choices about their careers and futures.

My ministry will work with an external advisory committee to implement these changes in the secondary school system. Members will include parents, educators and representatives from colleges, universities, businesses and the broader community.

There are a number of other education reform initiatives which I will touch on briefly.

The Ontario College of Teachers, which we announced two weeks ago, will oversee and ensure the continued professional development of our teachers. The establishment of a college of teachers is designed for teachers, but it will also be valuable to our taxpayers and students. It is yet another way of making our education system more accountable and professional.

All partners in our system have the knowledge that there are supports in place so that educators can continue to be as current as possible in the classrooms and in leadership roles in education. Teachers have told me that they need and want this for their own self-development.

Through the college, students, parents and taxpayers will know what standards of performance to expect from teachers and how teachers are conducting their own professional development. The college will go a long way in contributing to excellence in teaching, which is one of the most basic requirements for overall excellence in education.

We are delivering on a concept that has been recommended by the Royal Commission on Learning and the Hall-Dennis report of some 25 years ago, as well as being recognized by the previous government as an important initiative.

It will be an independent, self-funding, professional college of teachers that will ensure excellence in teaching and improve accountability as well as confidence in the public education system. It will set out clear standards of practice and a framework of career-long professional learning for teachers.

The proposed structure and mandate of the college are consistent with other professional, self-regulating bodies, such as those for nurses, doctors, lawyers and chartered accountants.

Accountability will be enhanced by the requirement for public representation on the college's governing council and all committees, as well as by regular reporting to the minister and college members.

My government also announced in November that we will introduce comprehensive testing through an independent agency, the Education Quality and Accountability Office, which is a first for Canada. As recommended by the Royal Commission on Learning, this will be an arm's-length agency whose sole responsibility will be to monitor and report to the public on the performance of the education system.

It will create tests and manage the testing of students to monitor the progress of our children in the education system. It will report publicly on how our children are doing. The first task will be to test all grade 3 students in reading, writing and mathematics, starting next school year. We will also test all students in grade 11 and take samples in grades 6 and 9. In addition, the agency will manage the provinces's participation in national and international tests.

This testing will give us valuable, accurate and credible information on the state of learning in Ontario schools. The agency will be a catalyst for making improvements to the education system.

It will do these things at a much lower cost to the taxpayer than was originally proposed by the former government. The funding for this agency will come from the ministry's allocation.

Technology is key to improving efficiency in the delivery of education, in ensuring equitable access to education across the province and in helping students achieve high standards. The effective use of information technology can help lower administrative costs and foster a greater sharing of resources between schools and between school boards. Savings realized will allow for the shifting of education resources towards the classroom.

We are committed to updating the level of technology in all schools and school boards across the province. We will do this through a variety of approaches, not the least of which includes building partnerships to encourage private sector contributions. Business support and collaboration are essential to providing the technology we need without increasing the cost to taxpayers.

These kinds of partnerships are also necessary to help us close the gap between those kids who are exposed to technology outside of school and those who are not. Through partnerships with business we can give every child in this province the same opportunity to learn with information technology.

Computers are only part of information technology. Educators throughout the province are moving now from using computers as merely tools to teach computer skills, to using information technology to teach children to access and distribute knowledge. That's the exciting part of information technology.

My government is committed to establishing a demanding, province-wide core curriculum and high standards for student achievement. Parents and the public are demanding clear information on what students are expected to learn in all grades.

We are working on a province-wide curriculum that will make students' programs more consistent throughout the province and will cut the immense duplication of effort that has been rampant in the system. In addition, we will be finalizing province-wide standards for language and mathematics for grades 3, 6 and 9.

We recognize, however, that more is needed. We will be moving ahead with the development of standardized report cards for the province. This will bring greater clarity and consistency to reporting to parents and to the public, meeting our goal of greater accountability.

The ministry is also moving forward on the issue of school councils. We believe school councils help schools and school boards forge strong links with their community partners, including parents, business, labour, social and health service providers.

Parents don't want to run the schools, but they don't want to blindly trust schools absolutely. They want transparency in the operation of schools. They want to see clearly how they are being run and how their children are being taught.

We are supporting the implementation of school councils through training sessions for principals, which are now under way, and for school board facilitators, which will happen in the spring of 1996. We also expect to release a school council handbook next month which will help guide the operation of school councils.

These, then, are the education reform initiatives that are on track for implementation. Now let me turn to some other activities we have undertaken to ensure that our education and training system is accountable, affordable and of high quality.

In the area of education finance reform, we continue to work towards developing a new way of funding, one that meets the needs of an education system that is much more complex than when the current model was developed almost 20 years ago.

We need a new funding model that better addresses two critical principles: equality of educational opportunity for all students in Ontario and equality of tax burden on local ratepayers. Our goal is to achieve a system that is fairer, more equitable and focused on the classroom.

A working group, with representatives of school trustee organizations, school business officials, teacher and support staff unions, my ministry and the Ministry of Finance, will submit a report to me next month with their recommendations.

Clearly, there will be need to be links between the work of this group and that of the Sweeney task force and of the Greater Toronto Area Task Force, known as the Golden task force.

As promised in the Common Sense Revolution and the throne speech, we will make the provision of junior kindergarten optional so that local school boards can make decisions based on local needs.

Under the previous governments, junior kindergarten was mandatory and funded at 100% of grant. Now junior kindergarten will be a local option and we will share the cost with local school boards that decide to offer the program. Boards offering junior kindergarten will be funded at the same rate as they are for other programs of that board.

Another area where local needs may be met is in programs for adult students. Effective September 1996, adult students 21 years of age and over who are currently enrolled in regular day school programs will be funded under continuing education programs.

1610

Adult education will continue to be important to the long-term economic health of Ontario for the foreseeable future. This change in funding will offer boards the same kind of flexibility in staffing for all adult programming as they currently have in their evening continuing education programs.

We also want to promote cooperation among local boards. We believe that levels of service can be maintained or even improved by getting people to cooperate in ways they haven't done in the past. For example, approximately $1 billion is spent annually on transportation, purchasing and other administrative services. By working together, boards could make important savings in this area.

The Ontario Public School Boards' Association, in its recent report, has identified some $1 billion that could be saved. I call that a very good start. We are currently reviewing a number of proposals from boards, associations and employee groups that identify how we can achieve significant savings in ways that don't have a major effect on the classroom. We hope to have all of these by the end of this year.

In the post-secondary sector, it is clear that the future fiscal environment is going to be quite different from what it has been. Our colleges and universities, like all others that receive transfer payments from the government, will be faced with the challenge of a new fiscal era.

In 1996-97, colleges and universities will still be receiving more than $2 billion, but the college sector will receive $120 million less than previously and the universities will receive $280 million less. These reductions are necessitated by Ontario's need to reduce expenditures and by the fact that the federal government is cutting its transfer payments to Ontario.

Government can no longer afford to fund all of the things it has in the past. We are going to have to focus our funding on those things that are most important. At the same time, we recognize the need for the availability of more post-secondary education to provide people with the necessary skills to compete in the global workplace.

Cuts to the transfer payments will be partially mitigated by increases to tuition fees. These increases won't offset the entire amount of the cuts, but students will be paying a fairer share of the costs of the education they receive. This has been the trend over the past decade.

It also follows that students should have a say in how their money is being spent and their education is being managed. We intend to make sure that students are included in discussions around changes to post-secondary education.

College tuition fees will rise by 15% in 1996-97, to $1,275. For universities, basic tuition fees for 1996-97 will increase by 10%. As a result, basic tuition fees for undergrad arts and science students will be $2,386. University tuition will be partially deregulated, which means that universities will be able to increase tuition fees by a further 10%, at their discretion. Both colleges and universities will be asked to direct 10% of any new revenues from tuition increases for local student aid. The Ministry of Education and Training will work with both colleges and universities to deregulate foreign student fees as quickly as possible. At the same time, care will be taken to ensure that there are sufficient places for domestic students.

The government is now looking at making changes to OSAP to give students a better opportunity to manage the debt loads they may incur. An announcement on this issue will be made later on.

We will also be looking at allowing the public institutions more freedom to become entrepreneurial by removing some of the restrictions we now place on them.

In terms of the future, we will be releasing a discussion paper in the new year. The paper will address issues such as student and provincial shares of post-secondary funding, including differentiation of fees for professional and graduate programs, accessibility, program rationalization within each sector and cooperation between the college and university sectors.

The ministry will be undertaking a four- to six-month consultation process about the discussion paper. We believe it's important to get the views of those who are running the system and those who are using it. These are the people who have close knowledge of what works and what doesn't work, and we want to hear what they have to say. We want to know how they think the fiscal challenges can best be met.

In the post-secondary francophone system, we will support efficiency through the Franco-Ontarian Distance Education Network. This is a collaborative project of the three French-language colleges and the four bilingual universities using videoconferencing and other distance education technology to increase access to education by sharing human and financial resources.

In the area of training, the ministry is winding down the Jobs Ontario Training program but honouring commitments already made.

We are reviewing our directions for Ontario's training system with a view to developing a training strategy and structure that will reflect the government's social and economic objectives. Certainly, the business community will figure very prominently in our plans.

OTAB's programs and services are being reviewed. In the interim, its governance structure has been streamlined.

We will continue with the establishment of local boards, with changes to reduce the anticipated costs.

My ministry is working with the Council of Ontario Universities and the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario to establish the Advanced Training Consortium. This consortium will facilitate, promote and coordinate joint education and training ventures between colleges and universities. It will foster student mobility and credit transfers between institutions.

We will consult with other ministries, including Health and Economic Development and Trade, to confirm what advanced training priorities are key to Ontario's economic renewal.

These initiatives are being carried out with the understanding that we must rationalize the money we spend so that we are getting the best value for our tax dollars, so we are providing the best education and training system we can afford.

We believe we can improve the education and training system in Ontario while reducing overall spending.

The government is making real spending reductions that signify real change, because failure to do so would demonstrate appalling indifference to the needs of every individual in this province. It would be immoral not to take this responsibility very seriously.

There will be tough choices to be made today because they were not made yesterday. No one likes to say no, but because governments over the past decade never said no, we now have an absolute responsibility to prepare the future for our children.

This government will spend less, but spend smarter. And we are and will be asking our transfer payment partners to do the same. It will not be easy for any of us, but it can be done and it must be done. In the end, we'll have a better education system that meets the needs of the people it serves: children getting an education and the taxpayers of Ontario.

We are committed to getting spending under control and getting the cost of the debt off the backs of Ontarians, and off the backs of future generations. This is the only way to stop the treadmill of continuing recession and unemployment.

The people of Ontario have told us what they want, and we have promised to honour their trust in us.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Joseph Cordiano): Thank you, Minister. The statement from the official opposition critic, Mr Patten.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to attend the proceedings here today and to hear the comments as well from the minister, and I look forward to the opportunity to engage in further exploration of the details of the estimates. I've had the opportunity to engage the minister on a number of occasions in the Legislature, and I look forward to a more in-depth review of how these programs, ideas and concepts translate themselves into estimates, being dollars and resources.

It's an extremely significant period for the educational system in Ontario. We all know that. We're all concerned about the quality of education which is available to our children. Since my appointment as my party's critic for Education and Training, I have met numerous individuals and associations involved in our educational system. There is, without question, considerable frustration out there: frustration about the needs for improvement, but more importantly, frustration that is caused by a high degree of alienation.

All of these individuals want to be part of the process. They want to be part of the process to bring about improvements. They have valuable experience, they have valuable knowledge of the system, its failings, its weakness, its successes and its strengths. They are also willing to play a participatory role and have already provided valuable suggestions about how education can be delivered more effectively. The minister made some reference to some of those suggestions by the various associations. If we are to succeed and to actually move forward, we must build partnerships that are of substance.

1620

I would like to quickly pick up on a portion of the overview statement on page 1 of the estimates book, where it states:

"A primary objective for the ministry is to support and develop a lifelong learning culture in the province. Lifelong learning is integral to Ontario's economic development and to the wellbeing of its citizens."

To me, this is probably the most important statement made anywhere in the document, for it sets out what should be the driving force not only of the minister but also of our total educational system. Learning is a lifelong pursuit. Learning is a fundamental process in our society, which must be nurtured at every opportunity. Learning begins with the first experiences of a newborn child and continues throughout our lives in everything we do. We never stop learning.

It is from this reference point that I approach my role as the critic for Education and Training. Over the course of this review, I will be interested to see what resources the government is allocating to this very important ministry. I will also be interested to see how the ministry is using the resources allocated in order to accomplish its objectives.

I take, however, a guarded approach to these estimates, because the ministry cannot truly claim ownership to them. They are based on the priorities and the assumptions of the previous government. However, the cuts announced by this government shortly after it took office in July are reflected as revisions in these estimates and I believe provide a telling sign of this government's intentions.

Our education system is seen by most as the path to a brighter future. I say by most because for some it is not. My colleagues and I in the Liberal caucus believe that change is needed in our school system if students are going to be competing in the new global economy. The educational system is a complex one, and change will perhaps be even more complex. Our vision of education as we enter the 21st century includes a school system with a core curriculum, standardized teaching, standardized testing, enhanced teacher education, more community involvement in local schools and the relationships with the multitude of workplaces.

The educational sector has been very busy of late. There has been considerable debate about the kind of schools that we want and how we go about achieving our goals.

We have had the report of the royal commission, a truly wonderful piece of work, and it should be applauded. It represented a worthwhile and effective expenditure of educational dollars. I acknowledge also the role played by the previous government in regard to this commission, and it would seem to me that the current government would be wise and do well to utilize the wisdom that is in that report.

We have also had the report of the Ontario College of Teachers Implementation Committee, which is called really The Privilege of Professionalism, and the interim report of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force. I look forward to the final report of that task force. We will also have the report of the Education Finance Work Group, an issue of considerable debate throughout Ontario.

As I said, I look forward to participating in the debate which has come about as a result of these reports, and I look forward to discussing their content with many interested individuals in the educational system as well.

As we can see, there has been considerable activity, change and adjustment in the system and a considerable amount of good information that has been placed before us and is in the works at the moment.

But regardless of the outcome of all the studies that are there or under way at the moment, it seems to me that the important results have to be the quality of learning for our children and our young people in our schools, the quality of resources to teachers, the learning tools, the pupil-teacher ratio in the classroom, the programs inside and outside of the classroom: not just extracurricular activities but indeed the whole learning experience that takes place while our young people are in school.

One of the key elements of all these reports is the role played by ordinary citizens. The level of interest they have shown in developing an educational system that is inclusive, accessible and effective is truly remarkable. The minister is often heard uttering the word "affordability," that the programs delivered by the educational system must be affordable, that we cannot spend 10 cents more than we need to. I would put the question of affordability after the three attributes I have just mentioned -- inclusiveness, accessibility and effectiveness -- and the balance between all of these.

While spending more wisely and more effectively of course is our focus, and we would have to agree with that objective, it wold seem to me that we cannot lose sight of the fact that excesses in the system are met by priority areas that do not receive adequate funding. These are needs within the system towards which any excessive expenditures in one area should be redirected. Schools are faced with conflicting priorities and a limited number of dollars, and even less after recent happenings.

I personally do not support the actions of this government to withdraw funding from the education of children in our elementary and secondary schools without first finding out whether they might be redirected to other areas. It would seem to me that this is shortsighted and that it is an example of putting the cart before the horse. I believe that the education of our children is a socialization process. If we treat it as such, then we will develop, truly, a lifelong learning culture in Ontario.

It is within this framework of reference that I disagree with what I believe this government is doing to junior kindergarten. They have gone beyond making it a local option. They have sent out a very dangerous signal and have biased the funding structure against junior kindergarten, no matter how important a local board might consider it. On page 53 of the economic statement, the Honourable Ernie Eves used making junior kindergarten a local option as an example of how this government was reducing non-classroom costs, reducing overspending. I think this sends a tragic signal to school boards, which have been told that there will be $400 million removed from their budgets in 1996-97 and that further cuts will come in 1997-98 for at least as much. And where are they to find these cuts? By reducing non-classroom spending or, using the government's own example, junior kindergarten. Which ones get them?

Numerous studies have shown that early childhood education gives children a head start and improves their rate of success throughout their education, and indeed into the workplace.

The minister is apt to respond that they won an election which gave them a mandate to implement their policy on junior kindergarten. However, I would remind the minister that a clear signal of the public support for junior kindergarten is demonstrated daily by parents of the over 100,000 children who were enrolled in junior kindergarten this past September, after the election.

The action taken by the minister last week has implications beyond the issue of the local option. His changes have an additional impact on the level of funding available for the provision of junior kindergarten and other programs funded outside of category 1. It is the cut that keeps cutting.

Educational reforms should be educational reforms, not simply, nor solely, economic ones. They should be driven by a desire to improve our "love of learning," to borrow a phrase, not by an economic agenda that is based on the bottom line.

Contrary to what the minister has stated in the past, our provincial educational system is not a business. Students are not clients, parents are not consumers and teachers are not solely service deliverers. We must ensure that student achievement is paramount in our pursuit of reform. The key, it would seem to me, is to find innovative methods for saving money that does not negatively affect classroom teaching and programs. Education must be viewed not as an economic expense, although that's a factor; it should be seen for what it is, which is an investment in our society through our children and young people.

I would also like to touch on the area of training. This area must be treated as part of the lifelong learning continuum. The rapid technological changes in our society do not wait for those who are unable to keep pace.

1630

An area which I am concerned about in light of the cuts announced by the current government last July is in the area of training. What is of particular concern is the lack of new initiatives to fill the vacuum created by the cessation of Jobs Ontario. The people who rely on training initiatives can't simply wait while the world passes them, nor can the government simply cut adrift talented individuals who for one reason or another find themselves outside of the employment rolls. In many cases they can play a productive role in the economy if they have access to retraining.

I believe that the government has a role to play in economic mobility, a role to play as a facilitator between the business community, the voluntary sector and trainees. I will be interested to see what the government is doing in this regard and what steps are being taken to address the training needs of people in Ontario. In today's environment of intense international competition and rapid technological change, it is crucial that Ontario maintain a highly trained and adaptable workforce.

What is the most troubling about the unemployment situation in this province is our young people. Youth employment rates are officially at 16% or 17%, but in all fairness, the real numbers are somewhere in the area of 25% to 30%. This is a very serious problem and one which will not simply go away, so I will have some questions for the minister in this regard.

Mr Chairman, thank you for this particular portion. I have a few comments. How's my time?

The Vice-Chair: You have plenty of time.

Mr Patten: I have a few comments related to Colleges and Universities. I must tell you that my colleague Annamarie Castrilli, who is the critic for Colleges and Universities, is ill today. She will hopefully join us perhaps tomorrow and will make some comments and participate in raising some questions, but I would like to share a few general comments, particularly in light of the minister's comments.

It's obvious to everyone that colleges and universities play a pivotal role in providing the economy with a skilled workforce that contributes directly to the province's and the nation's ability to compete internationally. I think we're all together on that point. Liberals believe it's necessary to ensure that our post-secondary education sector remains accessible, competitive and innovative.

The world has undergone radical change in the past couple of decades. Advances in telecommunications and transportation have broken down the geological -- geographical and linguistic barriers. Did I say "geological"? I meant geographical, but maybe it applies.

We are moving towards a modern, globalized economy. In order for Canada and Ontario to take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by our changing world, our post-secondary educational system must be able to meet the challenges.

Last month our party held an opposition day on tuition fees and educational costs and we were sorry that the members of the government party did not see fit to vote with us in objecting to the massive tuition fee increases.

In volume 2 of New Directions the government stated the Progressive Conservative post-secondary education commitment: "Post-secondary education has never been more important for the future of Ontario's young people." Later, the Conservative Education critic stated, "Without the resources to produce a highly skilled workforce and advanced research facilities, Ontario will be unable to compete in today's global markets." We agree.

New Directions also acknowledges that Ontario's colleges and universities are in jeopardy due to lack of funding. In fact, the document actually says: "The need for increased funding for Ontario's post-secondary institutions is obvious." It seems to me that it's too bad that this government is suffering from a bad case of "What was then is not now." All of this government's past promises about post-secondary education as the centrepiece of the economy, it would seem, may be washed away. This government seems to have forgotten that.

In terms of the economic cuts to post-secondary education, the November economic statement was a double whammy for colleges and universities. Not only did this government slash $400 million from this province's post-secondary institutions, it also gave universities and colleges the right to raise tuition fees up to 20% and 15% respectively.

These cuts will drastically alter the face of our post-secondary institutions. Colleges and universities are being told to deal with their 15% spending cuts by forcing students to pay more. Students paying an average tuition rate of $2,000 will have to pay up to an additional $400 per year, perhaps more. This will put education out of reach for many young people, which poses the question that we all seem to be concerned about, and that is accessibility.

Mr Chairman, I will cease my remarks at this particular point. I look forward to the opportunity to engage in following through with the votes and posing questions at that time. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: There are 10 minutes remaining in your time, Mr Patten, so we will move on to the third party critic. Mr Martin?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I say at the outset that I sit here today in place of my colleague Bud Wildman, who is the member for Algoma and the critic for Education and Training for our caucus. He is not able to be with us today. He just returned from China where he brought home a little girl who is going to be a new member of their family. Everybody's fitting in and adjusting nicely and they're all looking forward to Christmas. I spoke to him this morning for a time over the phone and told him that I would be appearing here today. After a few false starts at getting estimates going and getting geared up for today, we have finally arrived.

It's good that the minister has come and made the presentation that he has. I've appreciated hearing what he has to say and listening to the plan that he has laid in front of us and some of his thoughts on where we should be going regarding education and training in this province, because I don't think any of us around the table don't agree that education and training, and the condition of the institution that delivers them, and the viability of all of those who work in that particular piece of business in this province are vital to any future that we will have as a province, and indeed as one of the most important provinces within the Confederation of Canada.

I want to say at the outset that I'm not one of those who goes out with great criticism of the system that we have in place now. I think that we have a lot of fine people in this province working in the interests of education, working on behalf of education for all of the children and students, and indeed in this day and age all of the adults who are involved in upgrading themselves in learning, in preparing themselves to participate more fully in the life of the community in which they live and in the economy which we all know is ever-changing out there and that requires of all of us that we be adaptable and flexible in front of that.

I was happy today to hear the minister say that this government continues to be, as we were in government, committed to the idea of lifelong learning and making sure that everybody who's in the system, however young or however old, has adequate opportunity to participate and to get all the skills they need and that we were going to be focusing on them. It's interesting to note as well his comment regarding the 70% of students who do not go on to university but who do go on to learn other things, who go on to become well versed in trades and all kinds of very valuable areas of work that require a high degree of commitment by the people themselves, that require a very high degree of opportunity and resource from the system if they're going to be the best that they can be and if they're going to be able to contribute in the way that we know they want to, and that indeed we and the taxpayers of this province want them to as well.

It was interesting to note in the minister's remarks that he is going to continue to foster and promote and work on a lot of the initiatives that we had begun near the end of our time in government -- we had taken very seriously a lot of the recommendations that were made in the royal commission and indeed had looked at a lot of the studies and commissions that have been done over a period of time, both as they spoke to the need for change in the elementary and secondary panel as well as in the college and university panel -- and that he is going to be encouraging his staff and indeed the stakeholders out there in the education community to continue to work with those initiatives to make sure that they become part of the future of education for the children and for all people in the province.

1640

In saying that, I feel very strongly that the system is indeed working, and working well, and that the people in it -- the teachers, the trustees, the students even, and the parents of students who support them in it -- are doing the very best that they can in sometimes very difficult and trying circumstances because of the changing economy that we're in, as I said before, and because of the changing demand that's out there and the changing and very difficult fiscal situation that we found ourselves in as a government and that this government finds itself challenged by.

Having said that, however, I'm not one to stick my head in the sand and suggest for a minute that we don't need to make change, that we don't need to be always challenging each other and looking at ways that we might improve the system and come to terms with some of the logistical problems, particularly, that all of us have recognized, whether before we came here we were trustees or members of municipal councils or simply -- I shouldn't say "simply" -- parents of students or taxpayers in communities.

We know that there were difficulties. There are inequities in the system that need to be addressed, both on a geographic level and on a level of how much you give, for example, to the student on one end who is very, very bright and what opportunity you present for him or her and then, on the other end, what resource you give and put into the system for those who are struggling with learning disabilities perhaps or other challenges that they face.

There have always been, there are now and probably will always be challenges that all of us will have to face as we struggle with trying to make the education system in Ontario the very best that it can be in the time that we're in and try to project ahead a bit so that the decisions that we make today are intelligent in front of what we perceive or expect the challenges will be 10 or 20 or 30 years down the line.

Certainly we agree that we need to move towards excellence in student achievement. Again, I premise that with the fact that we have out there in the world today many fine examples of excellence, students who have come through the small neighbourhood schools and school boards in the communities that we represent who are the best in their field.

I don't have to look any further myself than Sault Ste Marie, the home of Roberta Bondar, one of the first astronauts that this country has produced, the first female that this country has produced, who is a doctor in her own right and doing research that is going to be important and valuable, not just for Ontario and for Canada, but for the rest of the world.

So in Ontario we have achieved a level of excellence. It doesn't mean that we can't achieve more and that we shouldn't be focusing on making sure that in fact we are doing that, and we should be making changes that reflect that.

Having said all that, I have a number of concerns of a contextual nature. We'll get into the specifics of what you're proposing and we'll have lots of questions for you and your staff around the very important day-to-day implications of decisions you're making and try to flesh out some of your thinking and thoughts around how that will play out in places like Toronto, Moosonee and Thunder Bay, and across the province.

There is a contextual challenge that I think we face here today, particularly as we reflect on some of the decisions you've made as a government in your first six months at the helm here in Ontario. In your statement, particularly in the opening segment, you talked about the fact that we as a province have a debt, and indeed we do. It was caused by a number of things, not the least among them that in the early 1990s particularly, we were into a recession in this province that was probably one of the most difficult we've seen or felt since the Great Depression.

We are coming through some very difficult times and yes, as a government, we spent some money that we had to borrow to maintain the system that was in place and to keep it at a level that was producing excellence and that would not see us drop as an economy below the water level to a point where there may not have been potential for the kind of recovery that I suggest we are now beginning to see and that is being proven out by some of the reports you read from time to time when you pick up the paper as one corporation or another in Ontario declares that in the last quarter it made not only a profit, but in many instances record profits.

What I'm saying is yes, we have a debt, and yes, we have a deficit and we need to be concerned about it and doing things that bring it into some balance. It gives us some hope as we look forward. On the other hand, though, I don't share, nor does by colleague Bud, nor my colleagues in the NDP caucus share your, I think, very negative view of the ability of this province to overcome, through incentives to business and working with business in the ways we did in the time we had.

I can't help but look back at my own community, at the restructuring we achieved with Algoma Steel and St Marys Paper and the ACR and Lajambe lumber and the new investment that has come into our community, which says to me that this province isn't as badly off as some would maintain it is, and that it does have the ability to get up on its feet again and begin to hit on all its cylinders, and with the strength of that economy begin to produce the kind of revenue for this government that will allow it to maintain the level of service and some of the institutions we have.

Today we're focusing on education and the education system so that we don't have to do the kind of damage that I suggest will be done if you, Minister, and your government continue on the track that you are of major cuts to government that will not only reduce this province's ability to deliver first-class education at whatever level, but that as you pull money out the economies of communities and as you reduce the workforce in communities, will dampen any recovery that is happening in the economy and make it more difficult for us to recover and get on with the business actually of improving the institutions we already have in place.

1650

I suggest to you that we have some difficulties there and that what you're doing as a government by way of the context within which education must happen in this province is going to have a negative effect and you're not going to achieve the excellence that I think you genuinely want to achieve and that you lay out in the statement you made today.

The other thing I want to put on the record today too is that nowhere in any of the statements that your government has made, or even in the statement that you've made today, is there any recognition given to the fact that we, however maligned over the fact that we contributed to the deficit this province now faces, made some significant decisions ourselves that saw a downsizing of the amount of money being spent in the name of government on things like education and training in the province, but we did it with some very basic underlying principles.

One of those principles was that we would try, as much as we possibly could in any decisions that we made around that, to maintain services, to maintain the integrity and the level of service, for example, that's there today in the education and training system in the province. We didn't see anything to be gained by tearing down and hacking off pieces of a system that was serving us well, and yet, yes, in need of some change.

We also tried very valiantly to save jobs because we had done studies and we laid out some of the figures that we were able to generate and look at in front of anybody who wanted to look at them, to show the impact that taking 50 or 100 or 1,000 jobs out of a community like Sault Ste Marie would have economically on that community and on the tax base of that community as it tried to maintain the education system that was in place, and to make it, as we all, I think, aspire, the best that is possible.

We also tried in all the decisions we made to make sure that we protected the most vulnerable, those who were at the bottom end of all the various institutions and organizations that were part of the institutions we worked with to try and find some savings.

As I look at the decisions you're making around how you will manage the deficit that's there now and how you will deal with that very difficult challenge and some of the impacts it will have on my community and indeed your own communities, I can't help but think it is driven primarily and sometimes, in the statements that are made, almost solely by this quest you have to give a tax break to the richest among us, and that concerns me. We don't hear much about that, nor do we see that quantified in any of the statements you're making.

The other thing that concerns me is that the federal government is now getting into the act by way of reduction in transfer payments. They will be causing you some tremendous difficulty in the next year and two years. I guess we'll get into that a little bit in the questions and answers that will happen after this, as to how you see that affecting your ability to deliver excellence in education as you roll out your plan for the future.

The other thing that concerns me by way of a context within which we will have this discussion is the question of what you're doing out there to those among us who are the most vulnerable and the poorest.

Last July, you took out of the pockets of the poor some of the money they need to feed their children. Anybody who has studied the effects of poverty and food on children and their ability to learn knows there's a direct correlation, so I have a concern.

Before I got to this job, one of the things I did was run a soup kitchen in my community. I did that out of concern that evolved out of the recession of the early 1980s. In running that soup kitchen I had a chance to sit down and talk with groups of people -- parents, groups of parents, groups of educators -- who said to me very clearly that they could tell when a child came into a classroom who hadn't had breakfast that morning by the way they were able to focus and participate, by their behaviour in the classroom.

In July you took money out of their pockets. Just two weeks ago tomorrow you have taken away a lot of the services they depend on for their health. Soon, down the road, you'll be cutting jobs in the public sector, so you'll be taking away some of the supports they have out there by way of people who counsel and hand-hold and help in the many very important and valuable ways that a lot of the folk who work for this government do in communities across the province.

I have a concern around these children who are now going to be impoverished, who are not going to have the support they've had up to now in their quest to deal with a lot of the challenges they face, whether it's mental health or abuse or so many of the things that families today have to deal with and that the children have to deal with, and how they will in fact learn and how in not reaching their potential, because they're not coming to school well fed and nourished and healthy, what cost that will accrue to them and to us in the long term.

Another thing concerns me, and I'm not sure how many people make the connection, but I know there are a number of people out there who do because I'm talking to them. As I talk to them and as we have conversations over coffee and at meetings in my office and other places, both in my own community and across the province, people are beginning to realize that for a long time schools have acted sort of as the clearinghouse for every problem society came up against. A kid has a learning disability and the school takes care of it. The kid has a mental difficulty or a health problem and it ends up at the door of the school. He's abused at home and it ends up at the door of the school.

Over a number of years, and particularly in the last few years, we've put in place a number of services across the province that have begun to work hand in hand with schools to make sure that some of our more challenged and difficult-to-deal-with students have some support services so that when they get into the school they are, at least to some degree, ready to learn, because really that's what schools are about.

Schools are about teaching and learning. The more you turn them into something else, settings for social work, settings for things that should happen in hospitals, settings for things that perhaps should happen at home with support from different agencies and professionals who are now present and working hard, and even within the system that's there now, many of them are stretched to the limit and not able to provide the kind of service that they would like to, or know that they could if they had more assistance and some more resources and some more help. That's not going to be there any more.

1700

When schools face a problem that they know is outside of their expertise or their realm of understanding or ability to cope, they can phone another agency or organization in the community. Some of those agencies are going to disappear because of the decisions that this government is making re its expenditure reduction based on, I think, some very questionable principles, not considering at all the impact that it will have on human beings in a community, because ultimately all of this is interconnective. You can't take away one without affecting the other.

It will create some tremendous challenges for the school system; challenges that are already there now, that they're not able to meet, in some instances, in a very successful and helpful way; that are even going to get worse as you pull resources away from agencies that, as I say, are now struggling to try to do the best that they can.

Having said all that, I guess I wanted to just wind up with -- how much time do I have?

The Vice-Chair: Five minutes, Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Five minutes? Okay. I wanted to wind up by sharing with you a couple of things that people out there are telling me, because I think you should know them. They're probably telling you the same thing, if you're listening, if you're taking that phone call when it comes through from a constituent when you're home on Friday or over the weekend when they call you at home or if you're sitting down and talking with the groups that we sometimes so lightly push aside because they represent some interest or other.

What they're telling me, what neighbours are telling me, what my family is telling me, what people in my community are telling me, is that you're doing too much, too soon; that you're causing trauma in the system simply by the speed at which you're moving. People can't cope, can't grasp, can't get their heads around all of the changes that you're making.

You are, I guess, in very crass terms, scaring the hell out of them. Because you're scaring them and because they're anxious and nervous and afraid and all of the emotions that come with not knowing what's down the line a month or three months or a year re their ability to continue to contribute in the way that they have -- whether they're going to be able to build on the investment that they've made over a number of years to become the best that they can be as teachers or counsellors or librarians -- the concern that they have now that they're carrying around with them, the anxiety that's there, is taking away in a very significant way, their ability to be the best that they can be in the circumstance that they find themselves in, and that bothers me.

As I go into some schools and talk with some professionals -- and it's not just in the education system, but across the board -- I hear that some of our best professionals, whether they be teachers or social workers or health professionals, are beginning to look elsewhere. They're not feeling that sense of being valued that they had when they first got into the business any more. They're looking for a place where they will be valued and they're looking for a place where there's a little bit of security, because they all have family that depends on them and they want to have in place some plan for themselves and for those who are dependent on them as they look down the future.

The best among those who work for government or indirectly for government are beginning to look other places. And the new people whom we have always attracted to government, because government was a good place to work, government was a good place to invest one's energy and one's training and one's excitement about life, it's not that attractive any more. So some of the best and the brightest who used to come to the education system to work are no longer seeing it as a place that holds any hope for them to be able to use the abilities that they have, the skills that they have, and to be able to contribute to society in a meaningful way. So what you have left are a group of people in the middle of those two groups who are valiantly trying to do the best that they can in a situation that they have absolutely no control over and about which they hold very little hope.

I guess, Minister, what I'm looking to you for is some idea of how you see what you're doing as a government, supporting your aspiration for excellence and accountability and opportunity in the education and training system unfolding, how that all comes together, how it connects and doesn't connect, and your thoughts on how we implement some of the really exciting and valuable initiatives that we glean from, yes, the Royal Commission on Learning and some of the other reports that were done out there on behalf of education and on behalf of training in the province, how we can put wheels on them, how we can resource them in a way that will actually give them some potential to take root and be successful.

So, having said all that, I want you to know that I look forward to the next few days as we dialogue back and forth about these very important issues to the people of this province. I want you to know that --

The Vice-Chair: I hate to interrupt you, but your time has elapsed.

Mr Martin: Can I just have a minute?

The Vice-Chair: I've given you an extra two minutes. I would be more accommodating but I did give you two extra minutes.

If the minister would take some time to respond, you have 30 minutes. I don't know if you'll use it all but it's up to you.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I suspect I'll have a few minutes left of that 30 minutes.

Let me say I've enjoyed the comments. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to them. Both the honourable members have made some good points, and if I can I'd like to respond in the order that these comments have come to me. So I'll begin with the honourable member who's the critic for the official opposition.

I made note of your comments on the royal commission and I too agree that it was a very good work. It was particularly of use to a new minister, a chance to perhaps come up to speed on the education system in Ontario in a very good work.

I do regret, though, that the royal commission was not mandated to pay attention to the funding issues that are part of the education system in Ontario. Clearly, some of its recommendations would have been focused differently, had it been able to and had it been mandated to have a better look at or a closer look at funding. I have noted the observations they did make on funding. But funding is a critical and very important issue, particularly when we're looking for a more equitable education system in the province. Funding is key to equity.

I believe that the public has a right to expect a real value in education. That means quality and affordability, and I believe that we have to have our focus on both of those issues.

1710

I note that the member called education an investment. But I want to underline that calling it an investment, and in fact it is an investment, but calling it an investment does not excuse the waste of taxpayer dollars. It needs to be a good investment, a wise investment, a prudent investment, and I believe that the steps this government intends to take will have it be a more prudent investment of public dollars.

If we want to do that, we have to be able to emphasize the quality of education, and to do that we have to measure something more than just the dollars; I will agree certainly with that. We have to measure student performance; that's why we've made the announcements that we've made over the last few weeks about measuring carefully student performance across the province.

I think, and this government thinks, that's critically important. We also must measure the professional development of the teachers who are the core of the education system. That's why we believe the Ontario College of Teachers will be a very important group and body to make sure that we have attention on professional development, both pre-service and in-service of teachers across the province.

The member brought up junior kindergarten. I would like to touch on that with two points on the junior kindergarten issue. First of all, of course, we made very clear as a party our commitment to making junior kindergarten a local option so that local boards could make a decision regarding delivering junior kindergarten in a way that made sense for their local circumstances. In maintaining it as a local option, we have recently announced that we will fund it at the same general grant rate in a local community, making it truly a local option. I believe that a variety of boards are looking at different methodologies of delivering junior kindergarten and that we may in fact see an improved junior kindergarten system across the province in the future.

But I want to draw the attention of the member to our second commitment, which was to review junior kindergarten. And you might ask, why would we review it? Well, there are very few junior kindergarten programs in the world. In fact, there are not very many kindergarten programs offered in the world, and there are some jurisdictions in Canada and in North America where kindergarten is not offered.

We agree that early childhood education is in fact very important in the development of young people, but we also note that it's offered in a variety of different systems and ways around the globe, and we think it's important to have a look at what is the best system for Ontario and particularly how we can target the kids who need the most help at the youngest age. That's why we've made a commitment to the people of Ontario to review early childhood education and to work together with other ministries in developing the best possible program.

I'd like to touch just for a moment on training. We are of course reviewing the training initiatives in the province of Ontario, but I want to say that I believe that the most important single element in training is having jobs for people and being part of a vital and prosperous province where there are jobs created by a vibrant private sector, and that in fact is one of the reasons why I ran for office. It is one of the reasons I am proud to serve in this government, because I believe we are committed to a program that will create that vitality and create those very important private sector jobs that will give us a reason to train people. I never want to lose track of the importance of having jobs for people to train for.

We have of course announced a discussion paper for the post-secondary area, and we want to look at particularly the areas of accessibility and the reorganization and restructuring of the post-secondary institutions, which was a subject touched on in your comments. I want to note, though, that there has been in our conversations -- you mentioned conversations with students -- I want to mention that students whom we have been in conversation with have made it very clear to us that they feel an individual responsibility for their own education and they feel a responsibility for the future of this province.

They've made that very clear to people in my ministry and to myself, and I think that's an important thing to remember. Students don't expect a free walk. They just want accessibility to a first-quality education in a province where they can have a career and raise a family and have the kind of vitality and opportunity and possibility they deserve.

Last, I want to point out, "that was then; this is now" is a reference that the member made to a paper that we released in 1992. I will make this comment. Certainly the economic condition of the province has worsened between 1992 and now. No one in this room would question that. We need to make sure that all our programs are responsible both to those economic circumstances and to the changes in technologies that are available to us. I hope we are always at the leading edge of education systems in the province of Ontario.

I would agree with the member of the third party that I too have some regrets over our false starts in this process and I too am glad that we are under way now. I would like to acknowledge at the top the former government's role, particularly the former Education minister's role, in developing some of the current initiatives that this government is going forward with. While we have changed and I hope improved some of those initiatives, they do have their core in the previous government, and I want to acknowledge that at the start.

I believe it's important for a government, when it takes power, to not throw in the trash can all the ideas, all the programs and all the initiatives that were paid for by the public and generated by a previous government. I think that would be irresponsible and I'm glad we haven't taken that road.

The member talked about the context, and the context of excellence in education. I have heard from educators that we have an excellent education system in the province of Ontario, and in some cases they're right, but I'm afraid if we focus on just what's working we'll become content; we will quit measuring ourselves carefully.

In fact, I'm not content with the measurement systems we have for our education system in Ontario. I think we need to measure it much better. I think we need to benchmark it against world standards and I think we need to tolerate nothing less than being the best in the world in our education systems. I believe that the parents, the students and the taxpayers in Ontario want something other than some high level of mediocrity in their education system, and in order to get excellence we really do need to improve our measurement systems.

The member also mentioned the support services for young people. I'd like to reiterate that is why a review of junior kindergarten is so important, so that we can target the kids across Ontario who most need help.

The member has also questioned the tax reduction that our government is committed to in the province and has, I believe, mentioned that we have questionable principles in this regard. I would suggest, sir, that the questionable principles are those of high spending, high debt and spiralling interest payments. I believe that suggesting that legacy is an act of kindness for the young people of Ontario is inaccurate at best.

The member also mentions that there are people who are saying "too much, too soon" in terms of the change, that in fact they're scared. I do have empathy for people who are in the face of changes. However, I believe that the people of the province would certainly be more afraid, more fearful of the future if we didn't act fast now, if we continued to spend $1 million an hour more than we brought in as a government. I believe that, in fact, is a very scary and frightening future, particularly for our young people. That's why we focused our attention not just on preparing our young people for the future but on preparing the future for our young people. I believe that's critically important.

Finally, you've mentioned that there are those who are leaving this province, that there may not be jobs for the best and the brightest, and I concur with you and agree that's an area of great concern. That's why I believe we need to become responsible for the economic circumstances the province is in. That's why I believe we cannot be a province with a $100-billion debt, with spiralling interest costs, why we must get our spending under control and why we cannot become a vibrant place of possibility until we are not one of the highest tax jurisdictions in North America.

We need to lower our tax rate, we need to get our debt under control and we need to control our spending so we can create vitality, opportunity and possibility, particularly for the next generation. So I'll repeat that I believe it's most important that as educators, as an education system and as members of provincial Parliament we keep our attention on preparing the future for our young people.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. We have 35 minutes remaining and we will divide the time equally among the three parties, so why don't we just say 10 minutes for each party and we'll call it a day.

Mr Patten: This is far more civilized than I thought it might be, and maybe that's a good sign. I appreciate the minister's responses and thoughts, and some very thoughtful comments were made. For the purposes of today, I'd like to respond to the minister's response, if I may. There will be more time later on in the week in which we will ask specific questions on dollar values and expenditures or allocations or things of that nature.

Jumping off on your comments related to the royal commission, which it seems to me everyone is universally supportive of in terms of its quality of work: You identified an area where they might have perhaps gone the next step and dealt with solutions to equity. I would venture to say that you will probably have no argument from any party in this House in terms of striving towards the equitable nature of support to children and young people regardless of language, regardless of religion, regardless of which system they may be part of.

I believe that has to be the long-term goal of equity, and of course our historical decisions have provided some challenging ways in which we address that and reallocate resources and redistribute resources that affect people, whether they have children in the system or not. Our whole financial structure, as you well know, Minister, is being explored probably in the most depth by the Golden report, which by its frames of reference is revealing the whole organization and resource allocation, not really just of education but how the whole region may function. So I would agree with you there.

When you address the issue of waste in the system, again I must agree with you, but it raises the question: What happens with the waste that is in the system? What happens to the resources identified? Of course, that's perhaps where we might differ in terms of our program for dealing with both the deficit and for dealing with education -- and health, I might add. We acknowledge that it was time for a review of big systems, and that will always be the case. We should be reviewing our organizations all the time in search of waste, in search of ways in which we can be more efficient, more effective to the primary goal and the objectives of the system, and in this case it's the learning for our young people.

In this particular case what's being identified leaves the system. It isn't identified to be reallocated. It's pulled out of the system to, so-called, fund the debt. I believe the driving force is combining the goal of addressing the debt -- which all parties agree -- but to fund the tax cut at the same time; and sadly to say, people who will most benefit by that will be the people who are the richest in our society in terms of their income.

That's what, I suppose, is at the root of part of the identification of resources that are taken right out of the system. We believe that wasn't necessary. So when I'm asked by parents, "What is the contribution that we can best make to the educational system?" do you know what I tell them? I tell them to try and persuade Premier Harris not to feel so tied to the commitment he made in terms of the income tax break. If you do that, you release resources that can best be utilized in the educational field and in the health field and in any of the social areas.

In terms of the College of Teachers, the issue of professional development is without question a major cornerstone for the system, and I would certainly agree. You know that all parties, by virtue of their commitments prior to the election, were in support; we still are. However, it seems to me that we still have to listen to some of the teachers.

While on an individual basis some teachers are saying, "We do not see this as a problem," or the public school boards say they're in support of it, the key question was the principle of teachers for teachers in terms of their professional development feeling that they really had a degree of control over that mechanism and are prepared to accept the accountability question; it's still a question for them. My suggestion is that a review -- and I don't think it would take too many but I don't want to speak for the teachers -- an adjustment of a couple of representatives in favour of teacher representation on the council might solve that particular problem when we face it.

In terms of junior kindergarten, I certainly agree that reviewing kindergarten and reviewing junior kindergarten is always of utmost importance. We should be doing that throughout the whole system. But there is, in terms of resources, something that is more than simply identifying junior kindergarten as a local option. The changes to the funding of junior kindergarten have changed, which will mean a net less allocation to the total system. Because they have been taken out of one category and placed into category 3, not only does it affect the general grants to the system, because they are now not counted in that category; but without any changes to the overall financing of education, it essentially says that those richer boards, unless they're prepared to really chop something else, will be the only ones that will be able to support junior kindergarten. Junior kindergarten, to me, is a classroom expense; it is not an administrative expense.

In terms of training, some people might have some judgements about my capacity to assess things, but I must say that probably the most challenging area of trying to get a handle on is our training, which I know is not solely a provincial responsibility; it's also a federal responsibility in the interplay. Frankly, I find it a mess. It's difficult to get a handle on it; it's difficult to get a handle on the integrity of an approach, and I'm sure this is what you will be addressing, but at the moment, I find it extremely difficult.

I've only got two minutes. I enjoyed this comment that you made, Minister, the comment that you had on the feelings of being content, that you wouldn't want to see people feel content and therefore you must forge ahead.

I would like to offer another point of view on that pedagogical assumption, and I call it a pedagogical assumption because my training tells me -- and I know you had a training company and you work in the field of developing people -- that the most effective way of supporting the development of positive action is by building on the strengths and by building on the positive.

In this environment, the teachers in the system are going through tremendously difficult times. They're there to solve all sorts of problems. They're there to solve problems of abuse; they're there beyond the call of duty, without question. They begin to feel that parents, generally speaking, or the media or the government don't appreciate them. I say this with some knowledge.

1730

My wife is a teacher and I have a chance to meet many teachers by virtue of that as well as now by virtue of my role as a critic. Some teachers almost cry when you say, "You know, I think you're doing a goldarn good job." Sure there are changes, but they feel there's a tremendous amount of insecurity in the system. I don't think that brings out the best in the human condition in a large system when people feel they're beat up. I think if they feel that there's a high degree of support, there's some acknowledgement for their professionalism, for the heart that they put into their work, that will provide a much greater openness to respond to new ideas. They want to be part of the process.

I will end my remarks on that particular note and I will send a copy of my remarks to my wife.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Having been a municipal councillor for 15 years before I came here, and at the head of that council for 11 years, I find it very hard in your remarks here on page 1 -- it says, "For too long, Ontario has been spending beyond its means. Mr Eves spelled out the harsh realities of our situation. In the last 10 years...." I cannot believe why you wouldn't go further than 10 years in your remarks, having known the way the former government before that 10 years spent money. I can't understand why you stopped at 10 years.

The Vice-Chair: Is that a question?

Mr Cleary: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: Do you want an answer?

Mr Cleary: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: I just wanted to be sure that you wanted to use up the remaining time you have.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The decade is a very interesting time frame; the previous decade. One of the possible reasons for identifying a decade -- although I don't know spending over our means is limited to a decade. But I can tell you that over that course of time one government, the previous Liberal government, doubled spending and the other government, the NDP government, doubled the debt. So I suspect that might be one of the reasons why we point to that decade as being not a stellar time of fiscal management in the province.

Mr Cleary: If you look back, though, I think --

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, but the time is up.

Mr Cleary: I was just --

The Vice-Chair: I apologize, but we do have to move on.

Mr Martin: I just want to go back and ask you to expand for me a little bit this question of your approach to being responsible re the future and the financial situation that we find ourselves in and the very high level of optimism that you have for the program that you're about to implement. Really, you're putting all of your eggs in the basket of get government out of the business of this province, reduce expenditure and the private sector will move in and everything will be all right in three or four or five years, or 10 years down the road.

You come in with a plan that I believe saw us reducing the deficit in a matter of a couple of years initially, giving a tax break of 30% and improving the way that we deliver services and do business in the province. We know that this approach has been tried in other jurisdictions: in England under Margaret Thatcher, in the States under Ronald Reagan. Just to use Reagan as an example, if your concern really is the deficit and the impact that's having on any future this province might have, particularly for our children, and our ability to invest in such important institutions as education and training, that we need to bring it under control, in fact under Mr Reagan the deficit in that country tripled.

You're talking now, in the statements that we're getting from your government, that we're not going to get to a balanced budget until into your next mandate, if you get one, or somebody else's mandate, whoever has it.

Mr Patten: Ours.

Mr Martin: Your mandate. Okay. That's right. It's your turn next, right? And then it's our turn after that.

The Vice-Chair: Is that the way it works?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Just to clear the record, I believe we have 41 more years and then it's your turn.

Mr Martin: I said earlier that people were saying to me -- and I say this in all sincerity -- out there that you're doing too much too soon and the trauma is going to be too much for the system. They're also saying to me that you really don't have a plan; that they don't see any content to the announcements you're making; that there's nothing to indicate how the very deep cuts you're making are going to impact or play out there, how they're going to affect the lives of people.

For example, in your portfolio, in 1995-96 you're going to take out $77.4 million. In 1996-97, you're going to remove $850 million. What they want is more detail; how is this going to impact. You talk about not affecting classroom education, but you still don't have a definition of exactly what classroom education is, and yet you're going ahead with these cuts. I guess I'm asking if you might expand somewhat for us today and maybe allay some of our fears that you don't have a plan, that it's fly by the seat of your pants, that you've picked up something that was ideologically perhaps enticing, exciting, that Thatcher and Reagan and Mulroney bought into to some degree and that they're doing out in Alberta -- not quite to the extent that you are -- but that you now want to foist on the people of Ontario.

The Vice-Chair: Sure, you can answer him. Would you like an answer?

Mr Martin: Yes.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll try to make the answer brief, because when you ask the question in that context the answer could consume days, I'm sure. But I'll try to keep it brief and focused. I guess really the heart of what you're asking is what works and what confidence do we have and what works in terms of our plan.

Mr Martin: For some detail.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd kind of like to point to what we know, and what we know is what doesn't work. We know that increasing spending at a dramatic rate in terms of public spending in the province doesn't work in creating a better or more vital future for our children. We know that increasing debt doesn't work; in fact has exactly the opposite effect. It causes a lack of investment or a decline in investment in the province and it makes the future darker for our children. We know that increasing the rate of taxation doesn't work because it actually declines revenues for the government. We've seen that in the last four or five tax increases in the province when actually revenues go down.

I don't believe our philosophy or our plan or ideology was imported from Thatcher or Reagan or Mr Klein or any of the other examples of governments around the world. I believe it has even deeper roots than that. I believe its roots are fundamentally a belief that people are able, that people don't require government to be "Big Brother." I have a quote on my wall from the Tao that goes to the effect of: "When taxes are too high people go hungry; when government is too intrusive people lose their spirit. Act for the people's benefit. Trust them. Leave them alone." So some 2,000 or 2,500 years ago there were people who believed that getting out of other people's way showed them a service.

I believe that when you deceive people --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Snobelen: So noted. I believe that when people have the right information they make the right choices, and I believe that when we hide our financial circumstances, really hide it under debt, then we tax the future. We tax future generations --

Mr Martin: Why aren't you willing then to lay out a plan for us that indicates to us the impact --

1740

Hon Mr Snobelen: If you give me just a moment, I will.

Mr Martin: We've only got 10 minutes.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to give you the foundation piece for this.

The Vice-Chair: If I may, you have three minutes left, Mr Martin.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll be brief. I believe in giving people the correct information, and part of that information is being very clear about the economic circumstances and the consequence of the economic circumstances that they can make the right choices for themselves and for their families. I believe that's important and I believe people will make the right choices.

When you ask about a plan, we have one. It's called the Common Sense Revolution. It's very detailed. It's historically detailed in terms of a plan that we released to over two million people in the province of Ontario before an election, the first time that's ever been done in the history of this province as far as I know. So there's been a very detailed plan that the people of Ontario have had a chance to debate, decide on and vote on.

Mr Martin: The folks who are talking to me, with all respect, Minister, are telling me that it's light on detail, on content and on future impact. There's nothing there to indicate how this massive reduction in resources to the institutions that are so vital to the economic future of all of us in this province is going to play out.

The other question I wanted to ask, or maybe a comment, and maybe we'll get to it another time --

The Vice-Chair: You have one minute. A quick comment.

Mr Martin: -- is the question of poverty, the fact that you're putting so many people into a situation now where they can't afford the basics of life, and how that will impact on their ability to participate in this wonderful world that you're going to create by squeezing the crap out of all of us.

There's no detail. There's no plan. You've done no studies. You can't show us in any significant way how that's going to roll out; how taking away services to the most vulnerable of the students who go to school, who need them in a major way, particularly at a very young age; how not making junior kindergarten mandatory across the province is going to impact on the future potential of these children when so many studies that have been done show that it has tremendous impact.

You're great at laying out what doesn't work. You're great at painting the gloom and doom of what somebody else has tried and perhaps not quite made as excellent as maybe some might expect it to be. But you haven't laid out in any significant way for me or for the folks that I represent, or for a lot of the folks out there that are very troubled by what they see coming at them in such a big hurry -- they'd like to participate. They'd like to be confident about this. They'd like to be part of this. Nobody wants to be out there alone, by themselves.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Contrary to what we might think or feel, we're all part of a community. We all want to work together. We all want to be part of the answer. We can't if we don't have all the information, and you haven't given it to us yet.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Your time has expired. I have Mr Barrett, Mr Wettlaufer and Ms Ross, and it's up to you how you divide that time. I leave it in your hands. I don't want to get in the middle of this one.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): A question, Mr Chairman, and perhaps a supplementary also to the minister. We know $400 million is being taken out of elementary and secondary school budgets in the 1996-97 budget year. A concern is how the ministry will ensure classroom funding in a climate where administrators and superintendents may be prone to perhaps lay off classroom teaching assistants, classroom teachers, before themselves or before finding other savings within the system. Specifically, what mechanism -- where's the control to prevent these kinds of front-line layoffs given the size of the administration now within our school system?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know that concern's been expressed by other people. Of course, the spending on education in the province, particularly at the school level, is administered by boards across the province, by elected people from their local communities who are committed, I'm sure, to the quality of education in their local area. The question is, when we reduce funding, will it be reduced in terms of classroom and quality of education or will it be reduced from overhead costs?

I think we can take some comfort in the professionalism of the boards, when we look at what the boards have suggested to us over the last month or so in terms of the kind of tools they need to make the reductions they want to make: reductions in costs through better logistics in transportation; reductions in costs, perhaps, through making teachers more productive; reductions in costs by applying more rigid maintenance standards to schools. I believe they're looking in the right avenues now to lower the cost and create a better value of education without affecting the quality, and I'm confident that we can be of assistance to school boards in doing just that.

Mr Barrett: I taught high school 25 years ago, and these kinds of superintendent and curriculum development positions did not exist to the extent they do now. I am asked fairly frequently in my riding how this came about, why these kinds of position continue to exist. Comparing it to 25 years ago, or 50 years ago for that matter, what happened? Why does the system require this kind of an approach?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We've had some input from boards that would suggest that some of the administration, direct administration, can be reduced. By the end of this month, we hope to have all the suggestions in from people who want to make education a better value by focusing in the classroom.

I want to point out, though, that teachers and board trustees have pointed out to me that it's important that we have very good services, particularly for young children, with specialists that are required for children in grades 1, 2 and 3, and perhaps grade 4, who require extra services. We want to make sure those are available to young people particularly. We want to make sure that our teachers have a chance to be the kind of professionals and develop the services they can.

I believe that our teachers are professionals, I think they are top quality and I believe we need to let them teach, and that means they may require a little less supervision, if you will, than teachers do in jurisdictions where they're not so highly trained.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Minister, 15 years ago I began talking to boards of education and to teachers, and one of my biggest concerns as a businessman was that kids were graduating from high school, from university, not being able to fill the needs of the company with which I was an executive. I don't see, in spite of all the money that has been thrown at education over the last 15 years, that this has improved. In fact, I was running my own business up until June 8, and when I wanted to hire someone, there was still far too much training that was required, basic training that should have been filled at the educational level. Where are we going to go in that regard? People do not come out prepared to do a job, to get a job.

Hon Mr Snobelen: You pointed to the frustration that I'm sure that lots of people in the business community have shared with me over having students who graduate and can fill their needs. As a matter of fact, I've had businesses tell me that they'd like not just to have them fill the needs of the business, but actually being able to fill out the application form would be useful.

I'm not so sure that this hasn't always been somewhat of a problem, but I believe that there are a couple of approaches that can help us enhance the quality of education, which is what everybody would like in the province of Ontario and so necessary. One of those is by looking at a more standardized core curriculum. We believe that a core curriculum will allow parents to know what's expected of their children at steps along the way and so they'll be able to participate more actively in the education of their own children.

We also believe that standardized testing in grade 3 and grade 11, with testing of the system in grade 6 and grade 9, will go a long way towards providing and ensuring that we have a better quality of education in the province of Ontario. Those are two very critical stages, grade 3 and grade 11, in a young person's development. We're particularly anxious to make sure that we catch children who have a developmental problem or a learning problem at a very young age, when it can be overcome. We want to make sure that our program is very relevant for students so that they will stay in school and continue to learn. I think those are the critical issues for quality in education.

Mr Wettlaufer: Given the core curriculum, teachers with whom I've talked say that they don't have enough input into the establishment of the core curriculum. The concern with the Ontario College of Teachers of some of

the teachers with whom I've talked is that we are emphasizing their professional development at perhaps the expense of the actual emphasis on the student. If the core curriculum is developed by the bureaucrats in Toronto, is that going to assist the teachers? Are you getting where I'm coming from?

Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding is that teachers are keenly involved in the curriculum development currently across the province and that they will be in our restructuring of secondary schools, which we talked about a few weeks ago, into a four-year, post-grade-8 program. We in fact will have an advisory committee that will have representation of teachers involved in the changing of our secondary school system. But my understanding is that teachers are critically involved in that now and have been for some time.

I'm concerned about the length of time it takes us to do curriculum. I'd like to see us have a more centralized curriculum so that we can provide better training for teachers, better materials and a better selection of materials from a central point of view for teachers. We understand there needs to be a certain amount of program delivery that's locally tailored, but we think the more centralized it is, the better resourced it is, the better chance teachers will have of doing a high-quality job with students across the province.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Ross, you have one moment left.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): One moment? Minister, I have so many questions.

Hon Mr Snobelen: And only one moment.

Mrs Ross: I have one moment, so I'll only make a comment. The comment I'll make is that as a newly elected member, I am, as a lot of us are, meeting with a lot of people in a lot of different areas, trying to get a handle on the issues. I met a week ago with OSSTF. We talked about standardized testing. I made the comment to them that my daughter, who is in grade 11, I think, has failed numerous tests and been allowed to rewrite them, time and time and time again. They don't like to fail people.

I am really pleased that we are finally going to have standardized testing. I'm concerned about how we're going to implement that and I'm concerned that it will be across the board -- that when you pass grade 11, you actually pass grade 11. I have a child who is struggling through different courses -- a grade 9 course, a grade 11 course, a grade 12 course. Nobody knows, and she doesn't know, where she is yet. I'm really concerned about where our education is going. In light of the fact that I have 10 seconds left, I'm going to leave it with you. Be prepared, because I do have lots of questions.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Great, I'll look forward to it.

The Vice-Chair: I guess we can call it a day and adjourn until tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1754.