ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
CONTENTS
Wednesday 13 December 1995
Election of acting Chair
Ministry of Education and Training
Hon John Snobelen, minister
Ms Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister, open learning and training
Mr Peter Wright, team leader, strategic funding team
Ms Mariette Carrier-Fraser, assistant deputy minister, elementary, secondary, post-secondary operations
and French-language education
Ms Marjorie Mercer, acting director, corporate policy and leadership team
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair / Président: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)
Acting Chairs / Présidents suppléants: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L);
Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC)
*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 Cordiano
Pupatello, Sandra (Timiskaming L); Miclash, Frank (Kenora 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 1556 in committee room 2.
ELECTION OF ACTING CHAIR
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): Ladies and gentlemen, I must inform you that Mr Joe Cordiano will not be here today, so I'll call upon you to elect an acting Chair for today.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I move Mike Brown as the acting Chair.
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Cleary moves that Mr Mike Brown now take the chair. Any further nominations?
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I move the nominations close.
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Brown, do take the chair.
ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The Acting Chair (Mr Michael A. Brown): Good afternoon, Minister. I think we'll start.
The normal procedure at this point in the committee session in estimates is to divide the time evenly among the three caucuses, if that is suitable to the committee members. I would make the suggestion that if we divide it into 20-minute parcels, each party would have equal opportunity this afternoon. If that is acceptable to the committee, that's what we shall do. We will start therefore with the official opposition and recognize Mr Patten.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to start off today asking a question overall about the transfer payments in this year when the ministry has realized $60 million in transfer cuts. I know there were some cuts that had already taken place in the 1993-94 budget. I wonder if I could get a sense of a breakdown of that.
Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Certainly, Mr Patten, as I'm sure you're aware, there were some in-year cuts to transfers. To get the specifics of that, I'll refer you to the lady beside me, who is Joan Andrew. She is an assistant deputy minister and someone whom I'm sure this committee will be pleased to hear from.
Ms Joan Andrew: There was an in-year cut to the operating grants of 1% for colleges, universities and school boards announced in July. Peter Wright, who's just there, has more details if you want them, but I think that added up to the $60 million.
The Acting Chair: Mr Wright, would you just identify yourself and your position for Hansard?
Mr Peter Wright: My name is Peter Wright. I'm the team leader of strategic funding in the Ministry of Education and Training. The cuts that were made were $32 million to the school boards, which was approximately 1% of the general legislative grant; $6.8 million to the colleges, which was 1% of the general purpose operating grant; and $16.8 million to the universities, which was again 1% of the general purpose operating grant.
Mr Patten: And the school boards, colleges and universities would take that -- that was from administration, was it, or did they have the latitude to take it from wherever?
Mr Wright: They were directed to endeavour to take it from sources other than the classroom. The information, what little we have at this point, suggests that the classroom has not been significantly impacted by this.
Mr Patten: Minister, this is an ongoing theme, but at this point has the ministry come up with or have you come up with a definition of "administrative spending"?
Hon Mr Snobelen: The Minister of Finance, in his statement on the 29th, indicated that the amount of expenditures in the education system in Ontario that were outside of the classroom were at least 30% of the just shy of $14-billion total budget. That number will be elaborated on by the task force on education finance reform that's due to report in the first few weeks of January. That's one of the specific tasks of that task force, and my understanding is that the Sweeney commission, when it reports, will also have paid some attention to the amount of expenditures outside of the classroom. So we'll be able to better define that spending, I believe, when those two reports are submitted.
Mr Patten: Where would such services in terms of elementary or secondary fall as costs related to, for example, speech pathologists for special needs students, or guidance counsellors, or translators or social workers in schools? Where would they fall? Would they fall in the administrative area or would they fall in classroom spending?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I can get the numbers on what those expenditures are, and I'll refer to Peter to get those in a moment. But first let me say again that we'll have a better understanding of where the task force on education finance reform believes those expenditures should fall, whether it'll be in the classroom or out of the classroom, when that task force reports to us. We have been asked by the boards recently to look at some of the expenditures that are clearly not classroom expenditures. Some of those have been identified to us, and in round numbers they are the $600 million or so that we spend across the province relating to student transportation.
There are some different estimates of how much time is spent outside of the classroom by teachers, but recently the boards have addressed us about $560 million worth of teacher preparation time. I understand there are other organizations that would estimate that amount to be significantly higher than $560 million. And there's a little over $1.2 billion spent on janitorial services in schools.
So we've had boards represent to us that there can be significant savings made in those areas without affecting the quality of those services and certainly without affecting classroom education. I'd ask Peter for the more specific numbers. Mr Wright?
Mr Wright: In the information that we have collected so far in the ed finance reform, the kind of staff that you were referring to, Mr Patten, are in a category that we call "other instructional supports." What we have done is to identify the teacher in the classroom and the material in the classroom as the centre part and then conceptually, as you move out, there are different people who come in who may assist the classroom -- in some cases the students are moved out -- so that they are in fact support services to the classroom. That is the categorization that we're working on right now.
In terms of the kinds of costs for that group, at the moment the numbers we're holding are about $120 million for all of those kinds of services. As the minister has indicated, the other expenses are indeed over $1 billion for the janitorial kinds of costs -- that would include heating and so on -- and about $500 million for administration in school boards -- all the secretaries, clerks and so on. We can go on through the detail if you wish, but I think the $600 million for transportation is another example.
Mr Patten: Okay, it's still to be defined.
You made reference to the Finance minister's economic statement in which he identified at least a 30% factor as non-classroom costs. Then in his report, and I don't have it here, but if my memory serves me correctly he used savings from the expenditures for junior kindergarten as an example of non-classroom spending. Now why would he do that?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Well, I don't have a copy of that at hand. I can tell you that we have, of course, made very, very clear commitments on junior kindergarten. Those commitments I think were spelled out both in the Common Sense Revolution document that went out to over two million people prior to the election, and it was released over a year before the election.
In that document we committed to doing two very specific things with junior kindergarten and we reaffirmed those commitments in the throne speech. One of those was to review the junior kindergarten program -- and we are engaged in the preliminary part of that review -- and the second was to create junior kindergarten as a local option.
After Minister Eves's statement, we notified the boards with our intentions regarding the grants. I can get Mr Wright to give you very specific information on that, but basically in lieu of the fact that junior kindergarten is now a local option, our intention is to fund it in a similar way to other education programs across the province. In my view, there is no real clear way to estimate what that cost might be next year, given that the local option for school boards means school boards may or may not offer junior kindergarten.
I assume representing the best interests of the parents and students and taxpayers in the local area, and of course the Ministry of Education's grant cost, if you will, for the next year will depend on which boards offer junior kindergarten and which boards don't. I believe that we'll have to wait and see next year to get the exact numbers on how much junior kindergarten will cost in terms of the grant program, but we are going to fund junior kindergarten, the same way the province contributes to other educational programs.
Mr Patten: Here's the picture I see. Let's assume that all the school boards that ran junior kindergarten this year will run it next year, although I don't think that's going to happen. By changing the category under which junior kindergarten will be funded -- I think perhaps this is what Ernie Eves was trying to get at -- you'll actually be spending less money, providing less money for the school boards to run that program, because they've changed categories, and because they've changed categories, there will be less money that will be going to the program. It would also change the ratios of the number of students that will determine the ceilings for grants for school boards.
So my question is, does this not mean less money, even if all things stayed the same, for support of junior kindergarten?
Hon Mr Snobelen: If I can reiterate, I agree with you that it probably is not safe to assume or speculate on the number of boards that will offer junior kindergarten. Again, I believe that will be predicated on the boards examining the needs of the students and the parents and the taxpayers in their local community, which is why we have suggested that this program should be optional, so that those boards can have a look at what their local needs are.
We have extended funding to junior kindergarten under the normal rate of grant, and Mr Wright will elaborate on that, so that it is a true local option, so that the local contribution to junior kindergarten will be representative of the local taxpayer contribution to other educational programs throughout the school system. I'm sure Mr Wright could edify us as to exactly what that grant formula is.
Mr Wright: Essentially, the way the system works -- and you first have to understand how the GLG works, if I can sort of walk you through the explanation of how it actually happens -- you have to start with what a school board is entitled to, which essentially is the number of students it enrols times the ceiling.
Mr Patten: I know that process. My question was really, all things being the same, the same number of kids in junior kindergarten under the new formula, will less money go to support junior kindergarten than before? My assumption is that it does because it will put it in a new category.
Mr Wright: Less provincial money will go to support junior kindergarten, yes.
Mr Patten: That's right. Thank you very much.
If I can address the changes -- and I found this interesting in the last couple of days, some of the comments that have been made regarding the cessation of grade 13 and what this might mean for grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 -- I wouldn't want to be a grade 9 teacher, I don't think, in this province. They must have gone through a lot of difficult times, with streaming, destreaming and now another form of streaming, presumably.
Minister, you talked about an external advisory committee which will work with you and the ministry on the changes to the secondary school system. I would be interested if you could elaborate somewhat on that, the authority it would have. Is it truly an advisory committee to you? It says "external advisory committee." Does that mean it will have a public reporting accountability as well or at least share information on some of its findings?
1610
Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to share with you certainly some empathy for the teachers of grade 9, who obviously will be going through, and teachers of secondary school will be going through, a curriculum development, but I'm told that's an ongoing part of teaching. Something that a lot of teachers look forward to is improvements in the curriculum so that they can make a better contribution to their students. So I'm sure they look forward to that and look forward to the resources that the ministry will be providing and the boards will be providing to help them do their job as professionals.
As to the exact nature of the committee, I turn this to Joan Andrew, who has that information.
Ms Andrew: The external advisory committee to the minister will be made up of people external to the ministry, but their advice will be to ministry staff and to the minister as we develop the policy for secondary school reform. The commitment has been made, though, that the draft policy for the new secondary school requirements will be out to school boards this spring for their feedback by the summer so that the final policy can be in place next fall. So boards have a year for implementation, between the fall of 1996 and the fall of 1997, when the implementation would take place.
The external advisory committee has representation from parents' groups, trustees, teachers, superintendents, directors of education, principals, the community college system, the university system and the business community. It's to look at the overall framework for high school and have input to the draft policies that will then go out for consultation. Then there will be a year for implementation so we can work with school boards and teachers in preparation for it. I think we've allowed enough time frame that we can help teachers get prepared for the new system.
Mr Patten: So they'll have a year.
Ms Andrew: They'll have a year after the final policy is announced, yes.
Failure of sound system.
Mr Patten: Minister, on November 2 you announced that at the end of this month the ministry will help school boards in three regions begin phasing in a new school-to-work program called Bridges. I'm wondering how that has gone and whether the three regions have been identified. If they have, who are they, and what programs might this replace, or where is the money coming from?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm glad that subject has come forward so early in this process, because I believe the school-to-work programs and the transition programs that we offer students across the province on a pilot basis, or, as we change curriculum hopefully on an across-the-province basis, will help those students who are not going to go to college or university immediately after they graduate. I'm told that some 70% of students in the province currently do not go directly to university from high school; they instead go to a training program or they go directly to work. I believe we need to concentrate some of our efforts on those students. I obviously have some personal empathy for those young people and I think this is an important part of that. I'd ask Joan Andrew to give detailed information on this.
Ms Andrew: The Bridges program will be part of pilots we're testing as we implement secondary school reform. It's part of the overall policy framework for secondary school reform to try and address the needs of students who are not university destined, as well as we have -- the school system has -- been addressing those. The final decision on the communities hasn't been made; it should be made shortly and any announcements will be --
Mr Patten: Next week.
Ms Andrew: Well, before too long.
Mr Patten: Likewise with the co-op program that you announced during this particular school year, indeed to the end of March 31, the approximately 25 innovative initiatives you talked about. I think these are worthwhile programs, by the way, and I've always felt we should be strengthening these sorts of programs and projects.
Can you tell me the status of the initiatives on the co-op program? Is it the same thing? Are they part of the same package of?
Hon Mr Snobelen: They are part of the same package and I share with you the importance of the co-op programs. I'm told there are some 60,000 students engaged in some form of co-op program across the province and that the programs vary somewhat. I had a chance earlier this week in the Ottawa area to have a look and talk to some students who are involved in co-op programs. From their enthusiasm for the work, I think it's something that needs to be shared with all the students who want to participate in the province. I don't know if Joan can perhaps elaborate on where we are with those initiatives.
Ms Andrew: We're hoping to have all of the announcements made relative to secondary school reform between the next --
Mr Patten: Where's the funding coming from?
Ms Andrew: The funding comes from the ministry's budget.
The Acting Chair: I think we'll move on to the New Democratic caucus and Mr Martin. Just for people's information, the Chair never attempts to divide up time between caucus members; caucus should do that themselves. I'll give you 20 minutes. Mr Martin.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have no problem with that.
Interjection: Divide by one; no problem.
Mr Martin: We can work this out real quick.
I wanted to go back to yesterday for a few minutes, Mr Minister, because you made some comments -- one anyway, and a couple that left me some concern and left me to think about before I got to sleep last night. It's some of the assumptions upon which a lot of your decisions are being made.
I don't think there's anybody in the system who doesn't agree that there are some changes required. The world is changing, the economy is changing, the need for training is changing and the population that needs to be educated is changing, but it's a question of what you base some of your very fundamental assumptions on as to how you approach that.
Going back to the issue of doing too much and doing it too quickly and not having at hand the kind of information that I would expect a government would have in making the kind of major decisions that are being made that will impact the lives of just literally millions of people across this province in significant ways -- you have shown yourself to be a person who is not beyond, you know, creating a crisis. Yesterday you talked about gloom and doom and how dark it was out there and how these major and significant changes had to happen because of the terrible job that the Liberals and we had done when we were in government and all of that kind of thing. You didn't speak much at all to the fact that we have some very committed and hardworking individuals out there in communities struggling to do the best they can in a system that is, at the best of times, strained at the seams.
Yesterday you made the statement that the economy has in fact gotten worse since 1992 and that's why you feel you have to do what you're proposing to do by way of the dramatic, drastic expenditure cut that you're going to impose on the school system at whatever level in this province. All the indicators that we're looking at and that we can see paint a different picture, tell us something different. I can't but pick up the paper or listen to a radio program these days but hear from an economist who is saying that in fact things are getting better. Since 1992, there's been more investment in Ontario than there has been historically previously in that short a period of time, and when you hear of particularly the major corporations and the banks, when they put out their financial statements, they're making record profits.
1620
Why are we doing this? Why are we causing this kind of trauma to the system? Why are we going so deep when we really don't have to do that? I guess the question I have for you is, what indicators are you looking at? What studies are you looking at when you make the statement that the economy has gotten worse since 1992 and we're headed for hell in a handbasket here unless we do the kind of expenditure cuts that you're proposing we need to do in this province?
Hon Mr Snobelen: One of the references we might use is the public accounts of the province of Ontario, but let me address first the doom-and-gloom sort of predictions, because I find that observation just a touch startling.
I in fact believe that we do have some very significant problems in terms of the public accounts of the province of Ontario. I think we have a very big challenge and I think we share that challenge with our partners in education. They certainly have related to me and to others in the ministry that there are some challenges in front of the education system in the province and that we need to take them on.
I believe we need to take them on, as I said yesterday, to return vitality, opportunity and possibility to this province, to create a province in which the children who are currently enrolled in school, including my nephew and soon my niece -- we need to create a future for them that's worthy of them where they can engage in the kinds of careers and challenging opportunities that I believe they deserve without the public debt that currently hangs over their shoulders.
I'm committed to and I know my government is committed to and I'm sure all the people in this House are committed to making sure they have a very prosperous future. So I would reject the gloom and doom. I think it's a function of looking at where we are really, taking on the problems that we have really, and creating that vitality and possibility and opportunity that our young people should enjoy.
There are some significant changes I talked about yesterday from 1991-92, and we discussed education in our publication. One of those significant changes is that the public debt of the province of Ontario has grown significantly, and with it has grown the interest cost of that debt. That interest cost now represents something in the order of $9 billion. I think also we would all agree that the public is paying a rate of taxes such that the public certainly feels disinclined to contributing more to government.
Therefore, that has exasperated the effect of that increasing public debt and the interest payment on that debt, and it seriously threatens the social programs of this province. That's another reason why we believe it's time to take on those very serious issues and why there have been changes from 1991 or 1992; it's the growth of the public debt in this province.
I do concur with you that there are changes required in education. One doesn't have to look any further than the most recent royal commission on education, which spent volumes addressing what it felt were deficiencies and problems within the education system, making recommendations as to how those might be addressed. Some of those recommendations I concur with and some of them I would have some difficulty with. None the less, it found reason to comment on a variety of different challenges and problems that face education.
The rate of change socially has been commented on by a great number of people. I believe there are any number of studies that would indicate that we are in a significant change period socially, certainly in the western world. Again, there are a number of books and studies that have been published recently on that by virtually every author who works within the economy and within the business and other cycles.
There are those who would suggest -- I believe Drucker would be one of those -- that we are in the largest change period ever known to mankind. I can't substantiate that here today, but that's certainly the position put forward by people like Drucker who have studied the situation, and there are people like Rothschild who say that this is because the cost of information has declined by a million per cent over the last 20 years. Again I cannot substantiate that, but certainly serious people who have studied the economy make those sorts of assertions.
In that time of change, we clearly need to make changes on the public side, some of the same changes the private sector has already gone through. We need to do that to create a better value for taxpayers and, on the education side, to parents and to our students. If we are going to take on those three areas I talked about yesterday -- accountability, affordability and quality -- and if we're going to assure the young people that they have a vibrant future, and if we're going to make sure they don't carry the public debt that currently hangs over the head of the province of Ontario, we need to take some very dramatic actions right now.
Mr Martin: You've done very well again what you have succeeded in doing over the last two or three months in the Legislature, and that's to run around the questions we ask you and not answer the specific question we put to you. You have this mantra you trot out every time there's a tough or difficult question that comes at you.
I want to know on what you are basing the doom-and-gloom scenario you painted yesterday and that you talk about again today re the economy of this province and what you believe to be its inability to overcome the difficulty we were into in the early 1990s that created the debt we have, why it isn't able to pull itself out of there.
The answer you give reminds me a little of the fact that many, many years ago when somebody got sick, one of the ways we treated them was that we bled them. Nobody knew why, nobody knew if it was helpful, but it just seemed like a good thing to do and every now and again somebody get better when that happened, so we assumed it was a good way to deal with things. If we bleed the province for a while, bleed them long enough and hard enough, they're bound to get better.
I suggest it's not an approach that will prove to be successful in the long run, and what concerns me is that in the meantime a lot of people are going to be damaged. A lot of students are not going to be educated in the way they could be, had we made the changes suggested in the royal commission and some of the other studies that have been done, with the resources they needed to make those changes.
You may say that you're not dealing in gloom and doom, that the story you're putting out there is one of hope and prosperity, but it's not. I didn't talk very much yesterday about the post-secondary system, the college and university system, but today I had a chat in my office with some students who are really concerned about the increase in tuition fees. As a matter of fact, they brought this in for you; they didn't let me show it in the House today. There's a banner here that a couple of students from Humber brought in on behalf of the students at Humber. There are about 100 signatures on here of students who are very concerned. What it says, Minister, is: "Your cuts to education weren't on our wish list. Hopefully, our votes won't be on yours."
You want to consider that when you trot out your agenda, and consider the fact that students out there are traumatized. They're traumatized already by the fees they have to pay, and they're looking at an increase of 10% and 15% and maybe even more, because colleges and universities now have been given the right to increase their fees again by another 10%. They don't know where they're going to come up with that money. They told me that already at Humber over 90% of the kids are dependent on OSAP. Where was your reference to OSAP in the statement that came out two weeks ago Wednesday in terms of some relief for students? I don't know where that is.
I talked to some of the people working in the college system in my area and in other areas and they're traumatized. They don't know how they're going to deal with this.
1630
Getting back to the students, you spoke yesterday of lifelong learning and the changing face of students. More and more of the students in college and university today are adults, adults who have been displaced because of the changing workplace who are now going back to school to get education. They have families, they have responsibilities, they have mortgages, all kinds of worries and concerns. How are they going to be able to afford education? How are they going to be able to afford to take advantage of the new opportunities that are going to come at us as the economy changes if they can't afford to go to colleges and universities? And how are colleges and universities going to deal with the cuts by way of the statement you put out two weeks ago? How do we put all this together? How do we deal with this obviously very difficult situation you've created and are going to impose upon the folks out there who want to do education, both those who deliver it and those who want to receive it, in these kinds of circumstances?
I'm sure the two students back here will be very interested in what advice you could give or what answer you can give to that question.
Hon Mr Snobelen: First, let me correct something. I want to thank you for your observations regarding my answers, which I assume you meant as a compliment, and I'd like to correct just one thing in your statement or your question that was perhaps a little erroneous. You made reference to a situation I had created. Sir, I'd like to refer you to the last five years of governing.
Mr Martin: This is just another of your pat responses to a serious question.
The Acting Chair: Perhaps you would permit the minister to respond to your question.
Mr Martin: We have students here, Mr Chair, who want the answer to the question I asked, and now we're going to have a history lesson of what we did over the last -- you're the government now. It's in your hands.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I've got lots of time. How much time have you got, sir?
Mr Martin: I've got all kinds of time too.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Then just keep talking. I've got lots of time.
Mr Martin: Go ahead.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Oh, really? Is it okay now? Are you fine? Are you happy? Have you finished saying what you'd like to say? I don't want to interrupt you.
The Acting Chair: Let's address the questions and answers through the Chair and perhaps we'll get along a little better here.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Again I want to correct. "The situation I have created," I believe is an erroneous statement. I think you talked earlier about specific numbers. I'll give you a few.
Our total spending in the province per capita publicly in 1974-75 was $1,018; in 1980-81 it was $1,709; in 1984-85 it was $2,818; and in 1994-95 it will be $5,049 -- an incredible record of spending. Yet you have just indicated that somehow or other, despite that dramatic increase in spending, the life and times of students and other people across the province seems more dismal, by your account.
Let me tell you what that's done, though. Despite that kind of spending, despite something like over 60 tax increases in the last decade, let me tell you what's happened to our deficit per capita. It's gone from $67 in 1974 to $905 in 1994.
The actions of previous governments have done this to students across the province: It's left them with a higher debt; it's left them with the legacy of a province where they have a little less opportunity than the people in my generation had a very few years ago, because as you know I was a student a very few years ago.
As to the questions regarding mature students, that is not a new phenomenon, although it is a growing phenomenon across the province as mature people return to university. I believe that's a trend. I have some personal experience of mature students, and while I can't relate personally with their circumstances, I can certainly relate personally with the circumstances of their children. In fact, my dad attended university at a later stage in life, so I have some sense of what that is like for the family and certainly for the student.
There are very serious issues that face post-secondary education in the province of Ontario, issues of accessibility, issues of relationships between institutions. Those, we believe, need to be discussed; they need to be discussed publicly. That's why in the minister's statement on the 29th he announced that we would be, in the very near term, bringing out a discussion paper on just those issues, so we can speak with students, with concerned taxpayers and most certainly with the universities and colleges to have a full airing of and to design some answers for those very significant questions. This government is taking those on, I believe, in a very responsible manner.
Mr Martin: It seems to me that what you've done is that first you punch them in the head, then you kick them in the belly, and then you say to them, "Now let's have a conversation about how we get well together here, how we grow as a community and change the system." I suggest to you that that is not a good way to start.
Yes, indeed the expenditure on education has increased over the last number of years because previous governments, both our own and the Liberals', realized how important education is and was going to be in a changing economy. For you to now be pulling money out of that system at a time when it really needs it more than ever before is rather immoral, to say the least.
You gave us a little history lesson. Let me give you a little history lesson, another view of what happened over the last four or five years. As I said last night, they were four or five years where we had a difficult economy to deal with, where expenditure went up, particularly in the education system, as people who in the early 1990s lost their jobs returned to school. We needed to make sure there were the resources in place to allow them to do that.
You're going to increase tuition in the colleges by 15%. This kind of increase is sure to have an effect on enrolment. In order to deal with this level of cut and declining enrolment, colleges will be forced to look at their programs. They won't be able to offer the kind of opportunity to people that you suggest they need to.
The Acting Chair: Mr Martin, if you're hoping for a response, there's about a minute left.
Mr Martin: I'm just going to make a couple of statements here and then we can move on.
The cuts to the college system threaten the training system we have all worked so hard to build and reform over the last number of years.
Almost 30 years ago, Ontario's Minister of Education, Bill Davis, created the community college system. Ontario's college system has been a real success. In 1989, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, Lyn McLeod, commissioned the Vision 2000 report to create a renewed mandate for the college system.
The changes in the community college system in the five years since that report was completed demonstrate how responsive, flexible and cost-efficient the community college system is. Between 1990 and 1995, as recommended by Vision 2000, the government made many important changes:
(a) A system of prior learning assessment was introduced to ensure that students received full credit for their academic and non-academic experiences --
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Mr Martin: All of these are under threat.
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Martin, your time's expired.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I'll begin where I left off yesterday. I have two daughters, one in university and one in secondary school. I have many questions to ask, but so do all of my colleagues, so I'll just start at JK, the beginning.
I met with some OSSTF teachers, plus the OTF, about two weeks ago and I also met with some early childhood educators. One of the suggestions brought forward to me as a way of reducing costs in delivering the service of junior kindergarten services was that we allow early childhood educators to take on the responsibility for junior kindergarten. I wondered what the ministry thought of that proposal, or has there been any thought into that, and is there anything we can do to help local boards provide that service?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you for the question. I believe there are probably some in the room who would be interested in my answer to the previous question, and I'll be very brief so as not to use up your time, Mrs Ross.
Mr Martin, I want to assure you that I don't believe it's moral to leave the children of this province the kind of debt we've left them with, and that's one of the reasons we want to address that.
Mr Martin: Don't take away their future, though, and make it impossible for them to go to school.
The Acting Chair: Order.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Secondly, I just want to comment on your courage in questioning the tuition fee increases that we have regrettably had to put forward in the system, that may come forward in the system, given that the previous government raised tuitions over 50% over the last five years. I admire your courage in bringing that up in this room.
Now if I can, I'd like to address the question on junior kindergarten. We have looked at a variety of different methods of providing those services to young people across the province and we have begun to address in our review some of the things you've raised today.
My understanding is that school boards are restricted currently in some of the ways they might offer those programs under the Education Act and that some of the services that are provided for young children across the province under the Day Nurseries Act cannot be provided under the Education Act by boards. I'd ask Joan Andrew to elaborate on the legal side of that, if she can.
1640
Ms Andrew: I'm going to have to pass on the legal side of it but the act does limit at present who can teach in a school board, but I know there have been discussions within the stakeholder community as to what would be an appropriate mix of teaching staff. There are ministry people and Mariette Carrier-Fraser could address it in more detail.
Ms Mariette Carrier-Fraser: I'm assistant deputy minister, and I won't give the title. As far as qualifications for teachers are concerned, it's basically a requirement of the regulations that have been established within the Ministry of Education and Training that teachers in junior kindergarten have to have a teacher's certificate valid in Ontario.
Mrs Ross: But can anything be done to help the school boards? Can regulations be changed such that --
Ms Carrier-Fraser: Definitely, and that's a dimension that's being explored as we're looking at reductions that have been announced. We're working presently with school boards to see what would be possible about using diversified staffing for JK, such as early educators, to offer the program. But then we'd have to define the program itself for junior kindergarten to make sure that the quality is still there.
Mrs Ross: Do we have any idea when you might come forth with some sort of proposal?
Ms Carrier-Fraser: Basically, we outlined the expectations when our minister sent the letter out to school boards advising them of the reductions after the economic statement. We indicated in there that we'd be working with school boards and stakeholders to address those issues. We're working with them, as a matter of fact, right now, both school trustees, the teachers' federation, the supervisory officers' association, to look at a concrete proposal. It's one that's been put on the table by several members.
The Acting Chair: Mr Brown, Scarborough West. I've been waiting for two Parliaments to be able to say that, Mr Brown.
Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My wife is a secondary school teacher and every other night I go home, I get a question about the College of Teachers. She keeps asking me how this is going to help her.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Just every other night, Mr Brown? It's seems inordinately infrequent.
The College of Teachers: Let's have a look at some of the history. It's been recommended by a number of people who have studied the current environment that teachers work in, last and not least, the most recent royal commission, which made an observation and a suggestion.
The observation was that it was difficult, if not impossible, for an organization designed as a bargaining unit to both protect the rights of its members as a bargaining unit, as a union, and to represent those same people as a professional organization. The royal commission pointed out several areas where those two completely different approaches would be in conflict. So it recommended that teachers be represented on the professional side by a College of Teachers and that that College of Teachers be responsible for the pre-service and in-service training and professional development of teachers and that it be responsible for discipline of teachers.
The previous government set up an implementation committee for the College of Teachers and we have acted on or suggested that we will act on the recommendations of that implementation committee after we've reviewed those recommendations with the stakeholders in this area, including the Ontario Teachers' Federation, to review those recommendations and come forward with the legislation that will establish a College of Teachers. I believe it'll help by clearing up those two very distinct roles and by making sure that those two organizations will be working in the best interests of their members, one professionally and the other as a bargaining unit.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): In your document -- and I realize it's not your document; it kind of covers two years -- is the philosophy of child-centred learning going to be pursued or are we going to get away from that?
Hon Mr Snobelen: It's interesting. When I arrived at the Ministry of Education, I must tell you that there were a variety of acronyms to learn and there were a variety of statements that I found couldn't be defined by their opposite. I'm interested in what is the opposite of child-centred learning. If it means that the child is at the centre of the effort of everyone involved in education, then I think that's an obvious thing. Obviously, students are what the education system is there for. So I don't believe the term is very definitive and it's not a term I use because it's not very definitive. I think it's an obvious statement of the intention of educators.
Mr Sheehan: I think we've had 20 years of it. Child-centred learning says the child will develop at its own speed and its own time and their biggest problem is to create for that child a sense of self-worth, that it'll be wonderful and marvellous and everybody will be appreciated, except it's been graduating people who can't add, subtract, read, write or think. Is it the ministry's policy to get to a point where we're going to be able to test objectively the progress of students on standardized curricula and standardized tests?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We've recently made some announcements that I think take us further along the path of certainly having a more accountable education system. One of those is the establishment of the Education Quality and Accountability Office, which will have the responsibility of testing students across the province. I think parents and taxpayers will be reassured that students are being tested by an agency that's been set up outside the Ministry of Education and Training.
I believe we obviously have some parts of education for young people that are quantifiable and some parts that aren't. It seems to me that because some things aren't quantifiable -- some of the self-worth issues that you've brought up are not quantifiable -- does not mean that we shouldn't report on and test and regularly assess those things that are quantifiable, things like literacy, numeracy and the kinds of skills that young people need to be productive and to be valuable and to have that self-worth. I think we should test it on a regular basis and assure parents that their children are receiving an education that provides them with what represents literacy in this society.
Mr Sheehan: I'm thinking about the concept of garbage-in and garbage-out, in the computer vernacular. If you are not addressing what is in the curriculum and if the curriculum is not designed specifically, then you're going to be testing something that has a specious history.
Hon Mr Snobelen: To get into the specifics of what we are now examining curriculum-wise, I'd ask Joan Andrew to give you some little better information on where we're currently at.
Ms Andrew: Marjorie Mercer is the acting director of curriculum.
Ms Marjorie Mercer: I think it's very important that we look not only at assessment -- the minister has pointed out the importance of that strategy -- but we need to combine the work that we're doing in assessment with setting high standards and being much clearer about what we expect children to learn at the end of all grades.
First of all, the strategy that is being looked at for the comprehensive testing program will be looking at grades 3, 6, 9 and 11, which I think are key years for students as they move through the system. It's very important to look early in the system and then to look later as our children and young people progress so that we have an ongoing way of looking at how individual students progress, but also overall at the successfulness of the system.
We then can take these results and look for ways of improving. I think it's very critical that be connected directly back to the kind of curriculum that is in the schools. Right now, and the secondary school reform was referenced earlier, there will be a major look at curriculum in the secondary programming. It will be very key as we move to a four-year program that there is a strong curriculum component in grades 10, 11 and 12. We've earlier referenced grade 9 and the resulting changes there. But I think it's important to note that we will need to then look back to the curriculum from the early years up to grade 8 to ensure the demanding core curriculum that we would like to see there.
1650
Mr Sheehan: So the short answer is that we're going to start testing where we're at and get around to changing what's going in?
Ms Mercer: Right, testing for improvement.
Mr Rollins: The question I am a little bit interested in is that if 70% of our students are not going to go on to university, that means a goodly number of those students are going to be going into the field of trade. When we establish those trade barriers or requirements to let these people in, we must be a little bit more connected with industry, particularly in the trade fields of mechanics, electricians, carpenters and things like that. We have to somehow or other establish our education time in the classroom at a time when it's convenient for those people to be able to go to school rather than at a time when it's convenient to be taught. There's a big demand there.
Taking a carpenter off in the summertime to show him bookwork and things of that nature is absolutely ludicrous; the same as it is trying to teach a mechanic something about starting cars in the cold winter. Those are the times when those people should not be in the classroom, and yet under our present system that's when you're trying to teach them. We've got to get a better grasp on that. I wonder whether you've got some thoughts on that, on putting those tradespeople at a learning time when it works well for their systems.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to point out that my jacket didn't suddenly develop a wrinkle; it was Joan Andrew pulling on my shirtsleeve because she is very involved in the training aspects and the vocational aspects of education in Ontario.
I'd like to first comment, though, that I concur with your observations and that I believe our transition programs need to be matched by having programs that meet the needs of people, both young people and mature students who need to come back and upgrade some of their skills. I'm very familiar with that and very familiar with some of the apprenticeship programs across the province that need to have some change. With that, I'll give you Joan Andrew.
Ms Andrew: As we look at both secondary school reform, which we mentioned earlier, and look at options for students who are destined to the world of work straight after high school, both the Bridges program, which I referenced earlier, the co-op ed reforms, and the secondary school workplace apprenticeship program are aiming at trying to make a closer transition between the school system and the world of work and that training.
In addition, in the traditional apprenticeship system, we are, as part of our review of the training system, looking at a reform of the apprenticeship system that would move more from what I think has traditionally been called "block release" to day release, the kinds of things that other jurisdictions have undertaken which make it easier for both the apprentice and the employer to release people for their theoretical learning side.
There are other options that technology will allow us to look at in terms of people doing some of that theoretical work on their own through a computer, because so many apprentices are mature people with families and homes, and relocating them from northern Ontario to southern Ontario for a classroom may not make sense. We may have other options around technology and distance education that would help make that theoretical learning a more integrated part of their work.
Mr Rollins: One thing I think we should take in -- and I won't take too much time, to let the rest of them have their time -- is that some places in some other countries have put in where they work a week and go to school a week and rotate in that kind of fashion. I think that does help and should be maybe be considered, time rotating.
Ms Andrew: Some jurisdictions have looked at one day a week too.
Mr Rollins: Yes, that's right.
Ms Andrew: So they work four days --
Mr Rollins: To rotate, right.
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): A question to the minister with respect to the reform of education finances: Yesterday you addressed the principle of a fairer tax burden, an equality of tax burden on local ratepayers.
This is a real concern in my riding with property owners and farmers. In spite of the tax rebate there is still an uneasiness around this, the funding of children's education through property taxes. To this end, you've established a working group of trustees, teacher unions and board staff.
My question is, are you also receiving input from farmers and property owners who are footing most of the bill through their property taxes for education of our children in certainly the elementary and secondary school levels?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Certainly I want to point out that there are three reports we're waiting on that will in some way address the equitable funding of education across the province. One of those is the task force on education and finance reform. The others are of course the Sweeney commission that's been talked about and the report of the Golden commission. All of those, I believe, will have some comments that will be useful in how this system might be revised.
We will be seeking input once those reports are in. If I believe that we haven't had a representation from a segment, including those in the rural areas and people on farms, then I perhaps can go out and get some.
Candidly, I believe that I speak a couple or three times a week to a farmer, who's my mother, and she has brought up the subject of farm taxes in the past and I'm sure will bring them up in the future. So it's something that's not far from the front of my mind.
But we do need to have a better system, I believe a more equitable system so that all of the children, all the young people across the province have the same opportunity to an education and we need to raise that tax revenue in a way that makes the most sense.
There are several different examples of how that's done across Canada and we'll be looking at those other jurisdictions in Canada, how they fund education and to be instructive to us as to what might be the best model for Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. In rotation, Ms Pupatello.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a few questions for the minister. Specifically regarding junior kindergarten, how are you proposing that the school boards implement junior kindergarten with half of the funding being cut?
Hon Mr Snobelen: To reiterate what has been said, we have lived up to our commitment to the people of Ontario. As we announced in the throne speech, we will have junior kindergarten be optional for boards across the province next year. So boards can work within representing their local taxpayers, their local parents, their local students and addressing the local needs, decide whether to offer a junior kindergarten program.
If in fact they do decide to offer a junior kindergarten program, the ministry will fund that program in a like and similar manner to the way it funds other grades. Part of the cost, depending on what board and what area of the province, depending on their municipal base, the province will fund as they would in another part of the education program. So it will not in fact be 50% in some areas. Obviously the province does not contribute directly. In some areas the province contributes a much more significant amount than 50%, so that figure is not accurate.
Mrs Pupatello: If all of the school boards then come back to you, once they've determined whether their local communities require it and wish to offer it, if all of them were to come back to you and say, "Yes, we'd like to keep JK," then will you fund all those that are requesting that?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We will fund junior kindergarten on the per-pupil grant. The formula will be the same as other educational services across the province.
Mrs Pupatello: So half of the funding then is gone.
Hon Mr Snobelen: No, that's not accurate to say that half of the funding would be gone. That would do two things. That statement would be inaccurate from two points of view: One, you would have to predetermine in fact what boards would choose to offer junior kindergarten in light of the needs of their local community and you would have to make some assumptions around that that have not yet been made in order to say 50%. In any event, it would not be 50%, it would change from board to board. We would fund under the same sort of formula we fund for other grades in the school. I believe that Mr Wright has already given us that information. If you'd like to have that information read back into the record, Mr Wright, would you like to --
Mrs Pupatello: No. We have to make a deal. I'll make my questions short if you make your answers short.
1700
Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps my responses would be a little bit briefer if your questions are a little more accurate.
Mrs Pupatello: Okay. We're going to keep this on the up and up. Do you agree overall in principle with the importance of early childhood education? You said so again today in the House.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the start of the question.
Mrs Pupatello: Do you agree in principle with the importance of early childhood education and its impact and success rate on pupils when they start going through early childhood education, the eventual impact as a success marker for children?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't dispute and I have not heard anyone connected with my party dispute, and I believe we made clear in 1992, that we believe there is certainly a component of education or an educational component to early childhood experiences.
Mrs Pupatello: I guess I'm asking you to reconcile for me that one ministry, not yours, would go through some exercises to look at changing the regulations to the Day Nurseries Act as it applies to early childhood education, child care centres etc, and everyone who would fall under that act.
How can one ministry be -- and this is confirmed by that ministry -- specifically looking at the level of education required for those supervising the children and the ratios? They're actually looking at downscaling the quality of the supervision that the children would have. One ministry is doing that while Education and all of the programs that your colleges offer are promoting the need for quality in early childhood education? In fact, you have many programs within colleges across Ontario that offer tremendous early childhood education certificates.
How do you reconcile within your cabinet that you, within your own colleges, are promoting early childhood education, pushing students through the system to work in the field, while one other ministry is looking at changing the act which regulates how those people will eventually work in the workforce?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I can't obviously speak to what another ministry may or may not be looking at.
Mrs Pupatello: I would point out the principle; the principle of it, it just doesn't jibe.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I can relate to you, and perhaps this is an interesting observation -- again, I can't speak on behalf of what another minister may or may not be thinking or another ministry may or may not be doing. However, I was, as I said earlier, in the Ottawa area earlier this week and I had a chance to be in a vocational school that was teaching special-needs children.
One of the comments from one of the teachers I thought was rather instructive. She asked me how it is that her graduates, predominantly female young people involved in a program where they learned nursery skills -- in fact, they had a nursery in the school and they brought very young children in a couple or three times a week and they taught these special-needs kids how to look after young people. Obviously they would, in the working world, need some supervision, and they had a school-to-work program set up for these young people. I visited another similar program in Peel three or four weeks ago, and in both cases the teachers told me that there was a barrier to these special-needs young people in becoming involved, in becoming a useful and productive member of our society because the Day Nurseries Act prevented them, as it currently exists, from taking a useful role in a nursery school after they had training.
Mrs Pupatello: So would you be prepared, then, to speak to your colleague in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, that because your very programs espouse the importance of early childhood education and what that means to children in terms of their successes and their futures, that those items that would change the Day Nurseries Act, that offer less quality as the outcome for those who would be eventually supervising in child care situations -- would you be prepared to make that kind of presentation?
Hon Mr Snobelen: My colleague at Community and Social Services I know is very aware of and concerned about young people across the province, and so am I. We have worked cooperatively in the past and we'll be talking again in the future about how we might best do that, and particularly how we might best meet the needs of those who are most disadvantaged.
Mrs Pupatello: In the area of nutrition in the schools, your leader, the Premier, spoke for several years about the importance of nutrition in schools specifically. He often described what actually are feeding programs and didn't make the distinction, but as we go through I guess we were all talking about nutrition programs. There currently is funding, I think, somewhere, for emergency food being available. Is that right? Emergency food for schools.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm not aware of an emergency food program. I am aware of a program, about a $1-million program, that was started by the previous government that we have continued that provides a beginning for pilot projects dealing with breakfast programs for children.
Mrs Pupatello: Is that in your ministry.
Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding is that in fact there are several of those programs in the Windsor area. I'm sure Joan Andrew can --
Mrs Pupatello: Sorry, Minister. Is that in your ministry you're speaking of?
Hon Mr Snobelen: No, it's in Community and Social Services.
Mrs Pupatello: Is there any funding in your ministry for nutrition programs currently, anywhere?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Not that I'm aware of. Again, I can ask Joan Andrew if she has any --
Mrs Pupatello: Okay. If I may, if there were changes being suggested to you in the Education Act that didn't include additional resources that did allow other ministries, for example, to enter into the education system, specifically to provide nutrition programs, would you be receptive to that if it didn't include additional resources on the part of your ministry?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I would certainly entertain any program that I believe would be beneficial. I understand that there is a person -- one of my colleagues is now responsible for investigating different ways of providing breakfast programs. In fact, I attended a meeting on that subject last week and I can tell you that that individual's working hard in that area.
Mrs Pupatello: I have to tell you that I met as well with that colleague and, to date, they had yet to see one breakfast program that had actually been to any school anywhere. I was very disappointed with where it was to date, and so I hope that when you are offered that opportunity to make that change in the act that allows the Ministry of Health who does have the mandate for nutrition in the communities that you would consider that and allow that kind of change because again it won't mean additional resources.
I'm going to change my time. Thank you.
The Acting Chair (Mr Wayne Wettlaufer): If you're in rotation, Mr Miclash.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Minister, I come to speak of my favourite bugaboo here in terms of a northern concern, and of course that being school board amalgamation. If you can maybe just update us as to what will happen come December 31 with the report that I understand is going to be presented to you.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't know that that is the exact date. It certainly was scheduled for the end of December, and I wouldn't be surprised if the report did not come forward until a week or two after that. I haven't got an update on when the report will be in, but it'll be some time towards the end of this month.
The interim report, of course, has generated, as it was intended, I assume, some considerable amount of public input and I assume that public input is now being considered by the commissioners.
When it is received, it will be received about the same time that we receive the other two reports that I have mentioned here earlier. We will consider, and I will certainly consider, all three of those reports as they relate to how education might be funded more equitably across the province and what the proper governance structure is. I believe both of those issues need to be looked at.
Mr Miclash: Minister, what was the saving that was provided in terms of not doing the public hearings across Ontario? What kind of a saving was realized through that?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sorry, I don't have that. Perhaps someone here might identify it. The reason why I don't have a specific number -- and I can bring it the next time we meet; I will make sure that we bring the exact number. The reason why I don't know is because that decision wasn't financially driven or at least primarily financially driven. It was driven by a belief that we could use some of the modern technologies to have people be in touch with the commission, including the Internet, including the 800 number and of course the mail-in.
So we believe that we gave the people of Ontario a better chance to respond to the commission's interim report. I believe over two million copies of the report went out so that at least as many as possible of the people across Ontario could have a chance to have a look at that interim report and make comment on it.
1710
Mr Miclash: Minister, are there any analyses or studies that have been done to show the cost savings that will come about through amalgamation of boards in the province?
Hon Mr Snobelen: The interim report was not costed, and I'm led to believe that the final report will be so there'll be some identification in the report of what savings will be made available by implementing that commission's final recommendations.
There are a variety of different approaches to school boards across the country. I know Nova Scotia has recently gone through a rather dramatic downsizing of boards and is now contemplating even a further downsizing. They have some very real evidence that it produced some savings for that province.
Mr Miclash: Minister, you talk about communications and modern technology, and what I'm hearing in northern Ontario is that they would like to have an opportunity to have you visit the particular boards and note the distances between the boards. For example, if you go to Kenora, Red Lake, on a good day of driving, with proper maintenance, you're talking a good three-, three-and-a-half-hour drive. I'm just wondering if we could get a commitment for you to visit northern Ontario some time between now and when you make that final decision to understand the differences between boards in northern Ontario and those that you are probably more familiar with here in southern Ontario. Would you make that commitment?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm scheduled to visit a variety of school boards and schools across Ontario in early January. I don't know the exact locations. I don't have those exact locations here. I assume that they're across the province geographically, and so I intend very much to visit the north and look at the different circumstances facing different boards.
Mr Miclash: Okay, and during that visit I would assume that amalgamation would be one question that you will be looking at for a final --
Hon Mr Snobelen: If the visits I have had in other regions of the province are any indicator, that subject will probably come up.
Mr Miclash: In terms of taxes for northern residents, we talk about assessment-rich boards, assessment-poor boards. Has any consideration been given to the differences among those boards when it does come to amalgamation? Is there anything being looked at in terms of this?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, that's a subject that I believe will be addressed by Mr Sweeney in his final report. I can say that the task force on education finance reform, which is also reporting about that same time, has had a look at the different costs of education across the province, which I think will also be very instructive.
Mr Miclash: I guess what we're mainly looking for in terms of the final decision is on areas that I've indicated in the House where this will be proven to be cost-efficient and at no reduction to services to the children in the classroom, if you would just like to comment on that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I would concur with that. I believe we also have another issue to look at in terms of value -- because we can't be driven completely by costs, we must be driven by value, which is that area of quality -- and that is accountability. I believe we also must make sure that the system, the education system across the province, is accountable both to those who pay for it -- and the local taxpayer currently pays a substantial amount of the education costs -- and to those who use it, the parents and students. That obviously is part of the role of a trustee and we need to keep that accountability in place. So we'll be cognizant of that when we review the committee's report.
Mr Miclash: On to another subject: Since your appointment as minister, what kind of consultation or input have you sought or undertaken through native organizations in the province?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I have met on two occasions with native organizations and I believe we have further consultations scheduled. So we have begun that process. I don't know whether there's someone here who can fill in what is scheduled. We can certainly bring that forward to you tomorrow.
Mr Miclash: Thank you. In terms of the Ontario College of Teachers, I'm just wondering, what is the current role and what will be the role of the program policy support team once the Ontario College of Teachers is established?
Hon Mr Snobelen: This is a matter that's internal to the ministry, and perhaps I'd refer this to Joan Andrew.
Ms Andrew: The reorganization of the ministry in light of the establishment of the College of Teachers will have an implication for a number of ministry staff. I think it's probably best that we can address that in light of the estimates for next year. I don't think final decisions have been made yet.
Mr Miclash: I guess what I have to ask as well is, do you and the minister foresee any additional cost within the fiscal period of these estimates associated with the establishment of the college?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We can get you some very specific information on that. Mr Wright always has very specific information.
Mr Wright: In this case, Mr Wright's going to have to say that I don't have the numbers with me at the moment but we will bring forward to you the costs that are associated with it.
The Acting Chair (Mr Michael A. Brown): You have about a minute, Mr Miclash.
Mr Miclash: Okay, my final question, I guess, will take a look at schedule Q of Bill 26. This amends the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act to require arbitrators to consider specified criteria, including the employer's ability to pay. I guess what I'm looking for is what this amendment is designed to accomplish.
Hon Mr Snobelen: In the case of education, as you know, a matter being sent to arbitration would only happen if in fact the bargaining unit and the board did not reach an agreement and they were directed by the minister to do so through this Parliament. This would request that the arbitrator consider the financial circumstances of the employer -- in this case, in the case of a teacher, the board -- to take that into consideration when making an arbitration award.
Mr Miclash: Thank you, Mr Minister.
Mr Martin: Certainly at another time I will want to follow up on some of the questions the official opposition have presented today, particularly where it concerns junior kindergarten. I'll be interested in some of the information that you've based doing away with day care, or child care, and downsizing junior kindergarten, making it less a priority, what information you base that on. I'll want to talk a bit further at another time about the question of nutrition and poverty and the fact that it makes sense that families be able to feed their kids at home, and with the money that you've now taken away from them, that makes it really, really difficult.
But for now I've got a couple of students here who are interested in another question that I promised them I would ask, a couple of college students, who in looking at what's coming at them and trying to determine what their future will be and trying to get excited about it -- and I'll tell you, they're having a very difficult time doing that. They're part of this very large group that is becoming more and more traumatized as they begin to realize the impact of the expenditure cut that this government is delivering, just to deliver a tax cut to their wealthy friends.
Both of these students are in the social work program at Humber, and they were looking at some jobs out there that they might be able to access not too far down the line. They see you cutting the public service in this province by 10,000 to 20,000 people. Some suggest that if you're going to reduce the amount of money spent by government in this province by $6.6 billion, which is what was in your statement, or six point something, over $6 billion, that in fact that factors out to be closer to 100,000 jobs.
They want to know where they're going to get work. They want some detail on the 725,000 jobs you talked about in the election campaign that you were going to create. They want to know, what are these jobs and where are they going to be and are they in fact in the right course at this point in time or will they have to come back in a year or two and take another course, when you've upped the tuition fees probably again and reduced the amount of money that colleges have to actually in fact offer courses? They're very concerned.
1720
The other question they asked me in my office today was, this 725,000 jobs: Some of them are obviously going to be replacement for the jobs that you're going to be cutting out of the public sector, because the services will have to be delivered. Are they going to be part-time? Are they going to be minimum wage? Are they going to be jobs with no benefits? Is there going to be any future there for them in all this?
I guess I ask you that question: Where are the jobs? What are the jobs going to be for these kids -- and I'm sorry; I used that today too -- for these students? Students aren't necessarily kids any more, and I have to get beyond that. But where are the jobs going to be for these folks who are now in our colleges and universities in the next year or two or three as you significantly reduce the number of jobs in the public sector and say nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about the kind of job that's going to be produced in the private sector that you feel is going to just flow in and take over where government has left off?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe that certainly for students in colleges today -- and again I find it incredible, and I do again want to acknowledge your courage for bringing up the subject of tuition after the former NDP government raised tuitions over 50% in your term of office. I think that shows great courage on your part.
Mr Martin: Get it right. It was 42%.
Mrs Pupatello: It was 42%, just for the record.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Not by the numbers that I have here, but I'll let you add them up. It seems like a substantial amount to me, and I acknowledge why that was done, because I've talked to students across the province and they understand that they need to share responsibility for paying for the education and they understand that they will in fact be doing that in the future. They're very responsible people, the students I've talked to.
Mr Martin: If I might, Mr Chair, my question wasn't about tuition fees, it was about where the jobs are going to be.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Mr Martin, I have difficulty sorting through the preamble for the question sometimes, and I apologize for that. As far as the jobs are concerned, again, our party laid out its platform very clearly to the people of Ontario a year before the election, sent out over 2 million copies of that plan, and we believe that a vibrant private sector is what creates jobs and that in order to create a vibrant private sector that can provide jobs for people now and in the future -- because I'm concerned about this for my nephew and obviously my niece -- we need to do two things.
One of those is get government spending under control, because we believe higher and higher levels of public debt don't lead to a vital private sector that's spinning off the kind of jobs that our young people are going to require and don't attract the kind of investment to this province that we need to have.
Secondly, we believe that the creation of jobs and wealth in the province is not consistent with high levels of taxation, and that's why we proposed and then plan to implement a tax reduction, which we believe will be an economic stimulant in the province of Ontario.
By the way, a tax reduction to people -- my friends in the trucking industry who drive trucks, now, you believe that those people are rich. I don't believe so. I think they're middle-class folks who are trying to put their children through university or college or school, who are trying to pay off their mortgages and who will most certainly enjoy and put to good use the first real income change or increase that they've had in probably the past decade, and that'll be provided by lowering their taxes to a more competitive rate. I believe that'll bring competition, vitality, prosperity to this province and it'll actually increase the number of jobs that are provided: full-time, permanent jobs that are provided through the private sector. I have a profound belief in that.
Mr Martin: I guess I'm going to ask you to be, if you can, a bit more specific about the job that you think is going to be there in the private sector for these students to move into, because I'll tell you, the indication that I have in my community re what the private sector is about and going to do is not very hopeful either.
I don't know about you in Windsor, but just recently in Sault Ste Marie we had three industrial sectors that are looked upon as sort of cutting edge; they're out there. Telecommunications. They're where the work is going to be, apparently, where the private sector is going to invest its dollars, and the taxes that they're going to save they're going to invest in these companies and they're going to develop new opportunities.
But in Sault Ste Marie, Huron Broadcasting, MCTV, Shaw Cable and Bell Telephone, just in the last six months, have laid off a whole whack of people.
This is the sector that's going to pick up the slack, is going to create the jobs, is going to be there for these folks to work at when they're finished school. But they're downsizing; they're all downsizing. There are no jobs there. So you're cutting 10,000 to 20,000, some suggest a whole lot more, in the public sector and expecting that the private sector is going to just move in and pick up the slack there. I just don't know how you put all that together. The reality of the situation doesn't play out that way or isn't playing out that way; not in my community, anyway.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Mr Martin, I'm glad to have a chance to clarify a couple of things. The Conference Board of Canada has talked about the great probability that young people today will have five or six very distinct careers over the course of their lives. There are other reports that would indicate a similar kind of trend for the future.
I can tell you how the private sector creates jobs. Perhaps it's a little clearer to me because I've created a few over the course of my life and I have some personal experience at this. You create them by creating a climate for investment, creating a climate where people can use their knowledge and their skills to create value inside of the province. I believe we're in a very competitive posture and a very competitive position here in the province if only we could get our public spending and public debt under control and if only we could get our taxes below something that's very close to the highest rate of taxation in North America, one of the highest rates of taxation in the world.
This may be difficult to explain in the short time that we have here, but investors tend to invest in places that are competitive, competitive in terms of their interest rates, which are driven in part by their servicing costs on public debt, and competitive in terms of taxes.
I know that your government took a different view of that and in fact raised taxes continually in the hope that we'd have a more competitive environment and raised the public debt repeatedly in the hope that we would have a better competitive environment in the province of Ontario. I would submit to you, sir, that was a folly.
Mr Martin: Well, that's interesting. We certainly do have a different view, and I suppose that's not surprising given the side of the table that we sit on. But it seems to me that in Ontario, if you look at the figures -- and I don't know what figures you're looking at; you're not telling us what figures you're looking at -- investments in this province in 1993 and 1994 have been at record levels. People are seeing Ontario as a good place to invest. You know why? Because we're able to offer them things that other jurisdictions can't: by way of a health care system that takes away from them some of the responsibility they have to provide insurance for their workers; by way of a social safety net that helps them when workers get hurt or get laid off for a period of time while there's a downswing in the economy; we have probably the most competitive energy prices. I know in our area one of the things that we trumpet by way of an attractive piece of industrial infrastructure is the fact that we have very competitive power prices in our area of the province.
So the numbers and the reality don't support the assumptions that you're arriving at and that you're making decisions based on re education and training in this province. I suggest to you that you're doing a number of things. By reducing the amount of money that's going to colleges and universities, you're limiting their ability to be a major player in the economic recovery and revival and future of the province. I don't know what you're going to replace that with.
I talked to professionals in the college and university system and they tell me that they don't know how they're going to deal with the massive cut that you're proposing for them. Then you're telling students -- and you threw at me a couple of times this issue of the tuition fee increase. Yes, we did; we did a lot of things when we were in government that we didn't get much recognition for, by yourselves particularly, by way of trying to manage our finances. We did an expenditure control plan that got us about $4 billion out of the system, and we did a social contract exercise that got us another $2 billion out of the system that, yes, caused some stress and some difficulty.
1730
But we did it. We did it in partnership with the stakeholders and the players out there. It wasn't easy. It wasn't a fun exercise to have gone through. You know, we took a lot of flak over it, but we did it, and because we did it with them, because their fingerprints, to some degree, were on the final product that we produced, they were able to roll with it and work with it. I suggest to you that they won't be able to roll and work with what you're laying on them without ever having consulted them.
And where I started a little statement the last time around, I just want to finish it and then maybe ask you a question.
Hon Mr Snobelen: That would be refreshing.
Mr Martin: Okay. We, in partnership with the stakeholders out there in the college system, set up a system of prior learning assessment to ensure that students received full credit for their academic and non-academic experiences. This is at the same time as we were working with them around expenditure.
We created the College Standards and Accreditation Council so that system-wide standards and outcomes could be guaranteed and we set up a voluntary consortium on advanced training which united colleges and universities for the purpose of providing advanced applied technology.
At the same time as these changes were being initiated, there was an explosion in community college enrolment and a reduction in public funds available to the community college system. We found that there really was no fat in the college system.
I guess my question to you, after all of that, is, outside of cutting the money that's going to go to colleges and the trauma that's going to cause and outside of increasing tuition fees in the way that you are, what other plans do you have for the college and university system?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We have a number. We have a plan to consult with the colleges and universities, as I guess is the basis of your recommendation or critique. That was very clearly spelled out by Minister Eves in his statement of November 29 when he said that we would have a very focused discussion paper that we would be generating over the next few months, that we intend to have a report by next summer, that we would look at the very serious issues facing accessibility and the regulations and other circumstances that are causing colleges and universities to face a great deal of change.
I met recently with the presidents of all the universities collectively and they pointed out, and I think quite rightly, that the kind of changes that universities are encountering at the moment are only partly fiscally driven. They're also driven by changes in the global economy and in changes in the knowledge business, if you will, so they do face challenges from a variety of different fronts. We intend to work with them and to see what public policy should be designed to help them through the next five and 10 years and what part the public should play in that regard.
I might point out to you that recently there was an announcement that Sheridan College had had a look in its programs, and in deciding to offer those programs where they really did provide the best possible quality for their students and in the best interests of their students they are getting out of a couple of areas that they had previously been in and the president of the college indicated a couple of things.
Specifically, she was talking about their nursing program and she indicated that when Sheridan withdrew from that program, it would only leave five nursing programs operating in the GTA and some 22 nursing programs operating across Ontario. She called into question two things: Whether Ontario needs 22 nursing programs and where the graduates of those programs will find jobs, because any indication that she had was that there would not be enough positions to satisfy the number of people who are graduating from nursing programs. In her view, the college did the responsible thing and withdrew from those programs so as to emphasize programs where they had achieved some excellence.
I would suggest to you that there are a great deal of rationalizations that colleges and universities have suggested they can do in order to create a better quality of education for their undergrad and graduate students.
Mr Martin: I guess I have to say, on the positive side, it's refreshing to hear that you are talking with some folks out there and that you are going to do some consultation and putting some things together. I'm still concerned about the two students back here. I don't think, out of today anyway, that they still understand how this new economy that's going to evolve out of simply cutting government and reducing taxes is connected with what is going to happen in the college and university system. I don't know how you're putting that together at this point in time. I think at some point you have to do that.
I failed to mention earlier, and I shouldn't have, that one of the advantages that this province has, as well as all the other things that I listed, is in fact an excellent education system. I suggest that you're tearing it apart, that you're causing trauma to a degree that we're not going to recognize it in a year or two or three years. So all of the studies and work that you're going to do out there to try and put together some new notions and ideas, it's going to be too late. Don't you think it would make more sense to decide first what it is that you want and what this system is going to serve by way of the job that's going to be out there in a year or two or five or 10 years down the road before you make the massive cuts that you announced two weeks ago today? Wouldn't it make more sense to do that?
Hon Mr Snobelen: In fact, if what you're suggesting is that before we begin the process of change in the school system, we should first commission another royal commission, well, perhaps that's the approach that the previous government would have taken. I don't think it's a prudent choice. I believe that we need to work with the boards of education across the province. We have already received recommendations from them and suggestions from them that would amount to as much as $1 billion in savings in the system. I believe the time to take action is now. Perhaps there are those who feel that studies should be done endlessly. I am not one of those people. I don't believe it's time for another Royal Commission on Learning. I think we have one. I think it's now time to take some action, and that is the belief of this government.
We believe it's urgent to take action now for and on behalf of the students of the province of Ontario, because, as I'm sure you're aware, although you don't seem to bear any personal responsibility for this, and perhaps that's true, we spend $1 million an hour more than we bring in. I would like to suggest, sir, that for the average person in the province, for the average man and woman who is paying taxes to this institution, that they know from their own finances at home that you cannot spend more than you bring in endlessly without taxing your future. Sir, what we have put up, it seems to me, in the past -- and I take great offence at those who pretend to be in favour of the youth of today, who pretend to be concerned about their future, but who are willing to mortgage it to the tune of $100 billion. I take personal offence at that, sir.
Mr Martin: Something got to him.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Minister, I'm amused by the constant references, both in the House and in the committee here by the various members who keep referring back to the Davis government and Bill Davis when he was Minister of Education and how that should justify their arguments all the time. Mr Martin referred to the fact that 30 years ago Davis created the community college system. I somehow would like to get my message across to some of these members that if business operated under a plan that existed 30 years ago, most of the businesses wouldn't exist. Mr Martin referred to the fact that there were record investment levels in the last two years. I would remind him that there were also a record number of bankruptcies in the last two years and that part of the reason for that is because companies could not plan because governments weren't providing them with consistency in planning.
Now, I have --
The Acting Chair: You've got 20 minutes.
Mrs Pupatello: This question's for the minister?
Mr Wettlaufer: We have 20 minutes. You rambled on forever, Ms Pupatello; I think I could do the same.
The Acting Chair: Through the Chair would be helpful.
1740
Mr Wettlaufer: The one thing that I would like to know: With the planning that was done by school boards using old technology and old philosophy, we find that many boards have cost-per-pupil ratios which vary greatly from one board to another, in the elementary boards from one area to another, also from the separate to the public areas, and in the high schools. Will that be taken into account when the transfer payments are reduced?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We are going to take into account the circumstances of the different boards across the province of Ontario when we look at the transfers. We are also going to take your observations into consideration when we examine the task force report when it comes forward to the ministry.
You make a very interesting observation, one that's been made by others, I believe, that the spending amount per student in the province varies widely, yet from some of the test material we've seen there is not a corresponding difference in the quality of education as measured by the students' results on tests.
One of the things the task force is examining that I believe will be very instructive is, what are the different costs associated with various communities across the province of Ontario? For instance, in the greater Toronto area there is obviously a cost for educating students who do not have English as a first language that's different than in other regions of the province. They're identifying, what are those very specific educational component costs and how can a more fair grant program be set up across the province?
Mrs Ross: Minister, a couple of weeks ago I sat down with Dr Peter George of McMaster University and the alumni there, and we had quite a discussion. To assist the universities so they can better cope with the restructuring process and assist students so that tuition fees don't continue to rise, a couple of suggestions were made to me.
One was that the reporting requirements for universities need to be reduced. I wondered if anything is being done at looking at the reporting requirements for universities. I think he's talking about the number of staff they need to fill in all the paperwork that has to be submitted on a regular basis.
The other question was with respect to the approval process for program changes. Apparently there's some uncertainty and delay in getting that approval process changed, and because of that no changes are being made. I wondered if that was also going to be addressed.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I've spoken to Mr George in the past and I know he's very proud of McMaster and especially its well-known, worldwide research efforts. I believe some of the points you've brought up are things we want to address in the discussion paper. Again, I've met with all the presidents of the universities recently and they have some very specific requests in terms of how they might change their reporting to the ministry.
While these are autonomous organizations, they do reflect a high level of public investment, and of course government has a responsibility of making sure that public investment is a wise investment and to account for it to the people. I suspect that somewhere between the universities' requests and the current situation is a place where we can both be accountable to the people of Ontario as a government and provide the universities with the kind of flexibility they need to change.
As to your second point, I'll defer to Joan Andrew, who's very eager to answer.
Mr Wright: Peter Wright. On the issue of program approvals, we are talking to the Ontario Council on University Affairs, which is the body that actually does the program approvals, to see what can be done in terms of streamlining that process.
Mrs Ross: Can you give me some indication as to how long it takes currently to have an approval go through for a program?
Mr Wright: I would expect, if you are going right back to where they're starting to design a program all the way through to approval, you're talking several months, possibly a year. Most of that is not inside the government; most of that is actually at the institutional level. The institutions themselves have a process, run through the Council of Ontario Universities -- this is particularly at the graduate level -- where they have what's called a peer review process where they bring in external advisors to look at the program and to certify and essentially say yes, both that this is needed socially and economically and that it's a quality program.
After all that has been done, it then comes to the Ontario Council on University Affairs, which does a final look at the program, again on some of whether it's needed economically, and there's a series of criteria they have; I don't have them with me but we can get them for you. Then that advice is provided to the ministry. That turnaround normally is relatively quick.
Mrs Ross: But are those criteria put forth by the ministry or are they driven by the university?
Mr Wright: The criteria which the Ontario Council on University Affairs uses are put forward jointly by the ministry and the council itself. The system is aware of them and they in fact have not been changed substantially for several years.
Mr Jim Brown: Being from Scarborough, and being the last school board that -- I think we were actually forced to accept the heritage language program. I don't think I'll be allowed back in this government unless I ask the question, have you considered the heritage language program and the costs thereof?
Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding in round numbers is that the heritage language program represents about a $20-million cost across the province. It has been represented to us by some of the school boards as one of the things in which there might be different approaches that would lower the cost.
We'll be considering those, obviously, but we'll be considering them also in the light of what heritage languages do for the province of Ontario. I think those programs speak highly of our global competitiveness and of one of the key competitive advantages the province of Ontario has, in that it really is a global village here. I think that's quite an opportunity for us and one we don't want to miss or lose. We'll be weighing the requests and the options regarding heritage language programs with the real benefit to the province of Ontario.
Mr Jim Brown: The second part of that is that the school board met with me about two weeks ago, and considering the fact that Metro doesn't get any money, how will the $400 million taken out of the school budget affect Metro?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We're discussing that with Metro at the moment. As was alluded to a little earlier, during the social contract negative grant, boards were able to make a contribution back which was in line with the net contribution required of them. There are different methodologies and avenues that could be explored in this regard, and we're going down those.
I might say that Metropolitan Toronto and the region of Peel and Ottawa-Carleton and other areas do get a substantial amount of money from the taxpayers. They just don't get the money routed through Queen's Park first.
Mr Sheehan: Minister, I have a question about the roundabout way labour negotiations go on. There are several things.
You have an extremely long grid, which seems to be mandated by the process, which causes a fantastic incremental cost if you happen to be starting with a young board. It accelerates the wage condition. You have a situation where directors of education and senior staff are mandated to belong to the union. You have inequities built into Bill 100 which kind of make it a sheltered workshop, I suggest, for the way that the union negotiations go on: You can't lock them out; the boards are fundamentally hamstrung in their negotiations. I'm going to try and put the question with those in mind.
Since school boards protest mightily about their inability to manage because of the inordinate proportion of payroll costs, what would happen if either Bill 100 were amended or teachers were placed in the Labour Relations Act, like every other labouring type, instead of protected by Bill 100? Would there not be a substantial saving since it would force them to bargain more responsibly? Has any study been done to determine the potential saving?
Hon Mr Snobelen: The most recent study I saw was one given me by the media yesterday where they suggested that members of provincial Parliament would be overpaid if they were compensated in the same way that a high school principal in the Toronto area was. I haven't had a chance to study that particular recommendation yet.
1750
I can tell you that we have provinces across Canada where there is collective bargaining done at the provincial level, and that the costs in those provinces are not dissimilar to the costs in Ontario where we have negotiation on a board-by-board basis.
The boards have asked us to have a look at various things inside the Education Act that would allow them more flexibility and, they believe, to make better use of teachers and others in the education system and enhance productivity. They have not, to my knowledge, asked us at this point to assume the responsibilities of bargaining. I believe the boards believe that with some help from the Education Act, with some loosening and some more flexibility, they'll be able to provide representations that are in the best interests of their local taxpayers.
Of course, the ERC has been designed for some time to look after these areas and to provide some help to boards and to the federations. The history has been that when there has not been a successful negotiation between the bargaining unit and the board, and inevitably when a job action occurs -- and I must state here that that happens very rarely in the education sector -- normally, when jeopardy is declared by the ERC, this Legislature orders teachers to go back into the classroom and make sure that school years aren't jeopardized.
There's been a suggestion that we might want to talk to the federations and talk with the boards and see if there isn't a better way of resolving those kinds of differences. I'd be willing to entertain any of those sorts of options, but currently we haven't been asked for one by the boards.
Mr Sheehan: My question wasn't regarding province-wide. I would rather negotiate board by board, quite frankly, but I would like to see the law changed to put the boards on a more equal footing. There's no job actions in the school board business because by the time it gets down to that position, the boards have already been bent over backwards anyway; they can't defend themselves. I suggest if they were able to lock them out, if they were able to take a little more aggressive stance, maybe 60% of the education costs wouldn't be tied up in teachers' salaries and maybe there wouldn't be so much time spent on teacher preparation time and 18 or 20 days holidays or sick time per year.
Have you studied and have you examined the possibilities, have you considered it, have you priced it out, what would happen if you put teachers under the labour standards act or whatever the act is that deals with negotiations? Or, failing that, have you considered ways of amending Bill 100 to make it more representative of what the real world works in?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We've had a look at a variety of things that we've been asked to look at by our board partners, and we are having submissions in terms of suggestions as to how we might drive down the costs in education. We'll be taking those submissions till the end of this month, and there are suggestions still coming in. I assume that some of those will probably be around the Bill 100 area, although I have not yet personally studied one at this point in time.
I can tell you that the boards have suggested to us that if we make some changes in the Education Act that are more permissive, that allow them some more room, particularly in the areas of hours per day, days in the year, those very prescriptive things in the Education Act, they can in fact negotiate with their bargaining units and provide a better value for the taxpayer and a better education system for the young people by making teachers more productive.
Mr Sheehan: My questions are prompted by two lawyers who have done extensive negotiating. It's their opinion, and I will be sharing them with you. I meant to send them along sooner -- I've just been busy -- but you'll get the drift of them.
Mr Rollins: With grade 13 out of the way, it probably won't be quite as effective as it has been, but in the past a lot of high school students took a course a second time so their qualifications going into university will have a higher mark. I know with grade 12 and cutting back, that will put it into grade 12, but the same procedure will be used. Has there been any consideration on a duplicated course, that somebody picks up the bill?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm not prepared to make an announcement at this point, but we are very seriously considering, at the request of colleges and universities, making the transcript of students more clear so that the universities and colleges would have on the transcript of the student's record the number of times they took a course and their marks every time they took course, which we think would do something to dissuade people from that practice.
Mr Barrett: I'm told that many smaller rural boards have been able to hold the line on excessive expenditures. I'm sure many have not been able to do that as well, but there's concern that those that have will be judged as severely in terms of any spending reductions. What are your plans for any kind of funding formula to distribute funding more equitably across boards, not penalizing the ones who have been able to do a good job compared to the spendthrift boards?
Hon Mr Snobelen: This is specifically the area the task force was designed to address. They are going to report to us in less than 60 days, and I'm looking forward to that report. We'll be taking some action on it to make sure we have the kind of equity you're looking for and so that we've identified the different cost components of education in the province and can identify those on a board-by-board, region-by-region basis and acknowledge those in our granting formulas.
Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, given the present tax structure in the province of Ontario whereby separate school boards receive equal funding under the elementary system but businesses' tax moneys automatically go to the public system unless they designate that their moneys go to the separate system, are there any changes contemplated to that?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, the task force is looking at that. I can tell you that there have been representations made to various governments over the last 20 years that would address the various kinds of funding inequities in the system. One of those is that which you mentioned, that the separate school board system tends to be underfunded versus the public school board system in this province, but also between rural areas and urban areas. I come from an area where perhaps we're very close now to being a negative-grant board, and there's a very large commercial assessment that comes into that school system.
Obviously, people have pointed out the inequities both because of the separate school board and public school board differences, and also differences geographically. I think both are very serious and that's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to that task force report.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. The committee will adjourn until the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1758.