Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Tuesday 25 June 1996

Ministry of Education and Training

Hon John Snobelen, minister

Richard Dicerni, deputy minister

Drew Nameth, director, capital and operating grants administration

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

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

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

*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

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

Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

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

*Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

*Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

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

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

*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)

*Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre L) for Mr Michael A. Brown

Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:

Frank Miclash (Kenora L)

Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Clerk pro tem / Greffièr par intérim: Todd Decker

Staff / Personnel: Steve Poelking, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1541 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): Could we begin, please, the estimates on education. I just want to make a quick comment. I will observe that the NDP is not here. I asked the minister if he had a written statement to make, a 30-minute statement, which is normally the procedure. He told me yes, so therefore that could be shared later on and I hope a copy is available for the NDP when they come in.

The process would be the Minister of Education and Training and then there are 30 minutes each for each party to make their response and their comments. They can use it any way they want, whether or not it is a question or a statement. In the seat is the minister himself, Mr Snobelen. You may begin, sir.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you, Mr Chair. I also note that the third party is not represented here and I'm sure their representatives will be disappointed not to be able to be here in person for this statement, but I'll make sure they get copies of it.

I'm pleased to have an opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the accomplishments and initiatives of the Ministry of Education and Training.

In the past year we have taken some major steps in education and training reform, in realizing our goal of achieving an education and training system for Ontario that is characterized by excellence and accountability and geared to job creation and prosperity.

The reforms affect the entire education and training system and are necessary if we are to ensure that the system is geared to the needs of students as we head into a new millennium.

I want to be clear about this. The changes we are bringing to education and training will be real change, not mere tinkering. We will foster and encourage partnerships in the schooling of our children, partnerships that include students, parents, teachers and representatives of the community and business.

We will operate the ministry itself in an economical, efficient and accountable manner. We will ensure that in delivering excellence in the classroom the education system also delivers real value to Ontario taxpayers. To this end, we are working to develop a fair, equitable and efficient way of financing education.

The people of this province are aware that Ontario pays far more to service its enormous debt than it pays out for elementary and secondary education. This is a major threat to the future of our children. It's a threat that we cannot tolerate.

Within the mandate of this government, we are committed to putting in place an education and training system that will serve the next generation well and give hope to our young people for jobs and security. And, by doing so, we will enhance Ontario's future prosperity.

The government is committed to providing Ontario's young people with an elementary and secondary education that will impart the skills, knowledge, habits and disciplines necessary for them to pursue their life goals.

We are committed to developing an education system that represents real value for taxpayers, for the students and the parents of Ontario, a system that by any measure uses its resources -- human, physical and financial -- to the maximum.

To this end, we have passed four pieces of legislation which I will discuss further as I progress in my remarks, but first I want to remind members that the measures the government has taken are measures we said we would do more than two years ago with the public release of the Common Sense Revolution. That document grew out of the discussions we had with thousands of Ontarians over a four-year period.

We heard the people of Ontario talk of their needs, their fears and their hopes for themselves and for their families. Above all, we heard their desire for lasting change in the way Ontario is governed. The government has acted to bring about the kind of real change needed to ensure hope and prosperity for all Ontarians.

Since becoming Minister of Education and Training a year ago, I personally have talked with hundreds of students, parents, teachers, trustees, community and business leaders and ordinary taxpayers. What they told me is that they believe that education savings can be achieved without compromising education quality. They also said there must be opportunities to develop cost-saving solutions locally, and they said that while these matters needed urgent attention, we must also allow time to ensure that we maintain quality programming for our students. Our actions show that we have heard and responded to the needs of students, parents and taxpayers.

To make our vision for education and training a reality, we have established the following goals:

-- To provide Ontario's young people with the best education possible so they will have the necessary skills and knowledge and the competence to achieve their goals and to contribute to Ontario's prosperity.

-- To ensure that qualified applicants have access to post-secondary education.

-- To establish a training system relevant to the needs of workers and employers, one that will help Ontarians find and keep jobs in increasingly competitive global markets.

-- To operate the Ministry of Education and Training in an economical, efficient and accountable way.

The government is clear about the need for a different education and training system, a system characterized by excellence and accountability and geared to job creation and prosperity. Working with our partners in education and training, we will get results for the students, trainees, parents and taxpayers of this province. We can, and we will, do better for less.

Now let me detail some of the specific initiatives the Ministry of Education and Training has undertaken in the areas of elementary, secondary, post-secondary education, and training.

We passed Bill 34, which enacts key elements of the education savings strategy I announced on March 6. It's part of our plans to help school boards bring education spending under control and achieve savings of about $400 million in 1996-97. We have clearly stated that classroom funding should be protected and taxes should not be increased.

Mr Chair, the member of the third party has just walked in. Would you like me to begin these remarks again or should I take it from where I am?

The Chair: No, Go on.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Chair, I apologize. I was in the House to hear the Attorney General's apology to the victims at St Joseph's and St John's, which was eloquently presented.

The Chair: You may proceed, Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Chair.

A number of school boards have in fact heard this message and acted responsibly. For instance, some boards have achieved savings without increasing property taxes or laying off teachers, while retaining programs like junior kindergarten, which is now an option that the ministry funds at the normal per student rate.

Here are just a few examples of school board responsiveness:

The Huron County Board of Education decided to sell its board headquarters building and move into one of its schools.

The Sudbury Board of Education is twinning and sharing principals in 12 schools.

The Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry County Board is renting space at a minimal cost at St Lawrence College to house French-language secondary school programs.

There are many other school boards that have demonstrated innovative thinking and a commitment to control costs and protect classroom spending. Bill 34 gives boards a clear mandate to make cooperative arrangements in order to cut expenditures. It also requires each school board to publish an annual report of the measures it has taken to reduce spending and improve efficiency through cooperation with other boards or public sector institutions.

The school board restructuring task force which was commissioned by the previous government indicated in its recent public report that 47% -- that's roughly $6.7 billion -- of all education dollars spent in Ontario are directed towards items outside of the classroom. That's money spent on items such as school board administration, transportation and custodial maintenance.

The report recommends that non-classroom expenditures made by school boards, and I quote, "be limited to 40% of their total budgets." This in itself would reduce total education expenditures in Ontario by about $1 billion each year. Currently, Ontario school boards annually spend approximately $890 million on board administration, $600 million on transportation and $1.2 billion on maintenance services.

1550

It's clear that a significant saving outside the classroom is possible. The challenge is to achieve reductions that will move education spending to sustainable levels while protecting the quality of classroom education. Bill 34 answers this challenge. It points us toward an environment where our important investment in education is a sustainable investment.

The bill also respects and embodies the principle that the province shares responsibility for education with local communities.

As a step in getting spending under control, we have placed a one-year moratorium on new construction of school facilities. Through the general legislative grants we have encouraged boards to reduce expenditures on transportation, central administration, instructional supervision and maintenance services. Greater cooperation between school boards and between boards and other public sector agencies is one important way to achieve these goals. Bill 34 gives boards a clear mandate to make cooperative agreements and it also provides a mechanism to make boards publicly accountable for their actions in this area.

Other parts of Bill 34 show that we have, where necessary, structured each measure to allow boards to make decisions that will best serve their local communities while protecting educational opportunities.

For instance, we've allowed more flexibility to adapt administrative structures to local needs. We've provided more flexibility to school boards by removing references to the number of sick days to which teachers are entitled.

In addition, I have asked a small working group to investigate and make recommendations by the end of this year on the feasibility of differentiated staffing; that is, having qualified people who do not have an Ontario teacher's certificate perform functions such as library, career counselling and computer-related services.

Bill 30 is an example of this government's commitment to a comprehensive approach to testing, accountability and improvement. With the passage of Bill 30, we established a new office operating at arm's length from government, the Education Quality and Accountability Office or EQAO.

An independent, comprehensive assessment program is key to achieving a responsive and effective education system in which taxpayers can see value for their investment, and Ontario's young people can achieve excellence in their education.

Ontario's assessment program will include testing of all English- and French-language students in grades 3 and 11, with sampling in maths and sciences in grades 6 and 9.

In another area of testing of particular interest to adult students, we have announced the expansion of the general educational development testing services program, normally called GED. The GED tests, which have been successful in Canada for more than 25 years, will help adults earn the equivalent of a secondary school diploma.

The program is aimed at adults 19 years of age and older who have been out of school for at least a year. Through the GED tests they will be able to show that through their life and work experiences they have acquired the knowledge and skills associated with, and comparable to, high school completion. I am pleased that we are expanding this program to make it available to more people and thereby creating greater access to jobs and post-secondary education.

Let me move now to secondary school reform. We are working with our education partners to develop reform of our secondary school program. Members of the external advisory group have been very important to the progress we've made to date.

When implemented, the reforms will result in a new four-year secondary school program with high graduation standards for all students. There will be clear course requirements for students planning to go to university, college or the workplace. There will be expanded cooperative education and work experience programs, and improved guidance and career counselling policies and programs.

Today's new information-based economy puts a greater premium on learning than at any other time in our history. In an increasingly competitive world, high-paying, productive jobs will be available to people with the necessary knowledge and skills. With this in mind, we announced in May a major funding increase to expand the use of leading-edge computer technology in our schools. The program is the technology incentive partnership program, or TIPP. It's a partnership with the ministry, the private sector and the school system to bring the latest technology to Ontario classrooms.

Last year, the government committed $20 million to educational technology and had a great response. We have doubled that to $40 million. This government's commitment, coupled with the commitment from the private sector and the schools, will result in a total investment of about $80 million. This clearly indicates not only the tremendous support for the project, but also that the private-public partnerships can truly benefit taxpayers.

Another piece of legislation we have passed is Bill 31. It established the Ontario College of Teachers, which will be a self-funded professional body through which teachers of this province will regulate their own profession.

The Ontario Teachers' Federation and its affiliates will, of course, continue to provide collective bargaining and other protective and professional development services for their members. The college will strengthen teaching, increase public confidence in education and ensure public accountability.

By giving teachers the power to regulate their own profession, we are putting the responsibility for excellent teaching in the hands of those who are best qualified to know what a teacher should and must be, today and in the future.

High-quality education must have high standards and a curriculum that clearly outlines what students are expected to know and when they're expected to know it. The ministry will develop a province-wide curriculum so that all students will have access to programs of consistent quality and relevance. This approach will reduce costs and wasteful duplication. At the same time, students will be well prepared to meet the challenges and to achieve success.

The ministry will finalize provincial standards so that students will have a solid foundation in the key areas of language and mathematics. We will also develop standards in other important subject areas such as science and technology to maintain the quality and relevance of learning in Ontario. In a related area, we are also making progress in developing a uniform report card. A provincial report card will be field-tested in over 300 schools across the province in the 1996-97 school year.

In addition to the changes in the elementary and secondary education system, we are also looking for change in the post-secondary system. In order to achieve the kind of university and college system we want for Ontario, we will consult with our post-secondary partners to develop a new policy framework for the post-secondary system. We will soon be releasing a discussion paper to facilitate the consultation.

Our objectives are excellence, access to post-secondary education for qualified students, programs and institutions that meet students' varying needs, accountability to users of the system and taxpayers in general, and an ability to respond to changing economic and societal needs.

I'd like to take a moment to congratulate the post-secondary sector for a job well done and the cooperation to date.

I believe Bill 45, which integrates the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education into the University of Toronto, addresses these very goals. It's an excellent example of how eliminating duplication of services can save money and lead to greater efficiencies in our education system, and will save Ontario taxpayers $10 million over the next 10 years.

In our training system, workers and employers will benefit from a more focused and cost-efficient training system. We will reform the apprenticeship system to make it more flexible and relevant to the needs of employees and employers. We will continue to establish occupational standards to provide certification to ensure high-quality training and to make it easier for workers to move from one job to another.

In addition, we will explore options for apprenticeship programs taking advantage of modern technology for program delivery. We will make it easier for young people to participate in apprenticeship programs. Apprenticeship training will be expanded to include occupations emerging in the new economy. Through the colleges of applied arts and technology, a more effective training consulting service will support the training needs of local businesses. To provide better and more accessible service, we will combine a number of separate employment preparation programs into a single, cohesive program which will eliminate duplication of services and give people the basic skills they need to participate in the workforce.

The integration of the programs, services and staff from the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board into the ministry will make for more efficient use of taxpayers' dollars.

The ministry will work with the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism to provide provincial government leadership in ensuring that the system operates efficiently to serve both workers and employers.

1600

I want to go back to something I touched on at the beginning of my remarks: government accountability.

The government has taken a bold step by producing business plans for all ministries, including of course the Ministry of Education and Training. This innovation does two things: First, it identifies and establishes the core functions of each ministry -- the things we do well and will continue to do; second, it brings to bear actual performance measures by which taxpayers, stakeholders and the public can gage how well those core businesses are being delivered. That's accountability.

The business plan for the Ministry of Education and Training outlines the strategic directions for the ministry and defines new priorities for the future of education and training in Ontario. It shows how we will shape our organization and systems and allocate our resources to create an education and training system that is second to none.

We developed this plan after a thorough review of our current activities. Every program and service was put to the test: Was it relevant to the needs of students, parents, educators and the public? Was it relevant to Ontario's agenda for more accountable, innovative and effective government?

What we have determined is that the ministry must evolve from providing direct services to developing strategic policies for education and training, with the proviso that if a clear business case can be made for direct delivery of a service, we will provide it.

By sharing resources and expertise, the ministry will eliminate duplication of services, and the savings will be reinvested into areas where students will benefit directly.

The Ministry of Education and Training's core activities will include establishing policy, legislation and standards for education and training; supporting an excellent, equitable and cost-effective education and training system; ensuring accountability to the students and trainees of Ontario, to our partners in education and training, including of course parents and taxpayers.

Only an excellent education and training system can deliver the world-class knowledge and skills we need to compete in the new economy. Only when we can measure results and report them publicly can we know that the students and trainees of this province are achieving results. And only through prudent spending can we preserve the future for all Ontarians.

That then, Mr Chair and members of the estimates committee, is my presentation. I think it's clear that the ministry is moving ahead with real and needed change to the education and training system in Ontario. At the heart of this change is quality, accountability and real value.

Finally, it's clear that this change is being brought about through partnerships. In the face of all the challenges ahead for our education system, the one constant I have discovered in conversations with hundreds of individuals and groups across this province has been the value and necessity of working in partnership. We need to work together, and increasingly we are working together.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Minister. These are seven-and-a-half-hour estimates and the rotation will go with Mr Patten from the Liberals -- 30 minutes.

Mr Patten: I will not take 30 minutes. I'd like to make a few comments on the minister's speech and then I will pass it along to my colleague in the NDP.

First of all, I have no prepared text as I didn't think I would need one. As critic, I can follow and make a few comments on what the minister has talked about.

The first thing is that I recall not too many months back when excellence, accountability, affordability and accessibility were part of the terms that were used to describe our system. Now we don't hear very often the term "accessibility." It's clear to me why that term is not used any more, because there are areas in our education system now where accessibility has been truly lost. I think you well know that, I think your staff know that and I think the ministry officials -- we have about 22 officials here today. That's a lot of money in one room in one afternoon, going through the motions.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Would you like to suspend the estimates process? We could put that to a vote if you'd like.

Mr Patten: We have less accessibility today at both ends of primary and secondary schooling, with the local option of junior kindergarten and with the option of adult education. I point that out because it's an area that historically Ontario has had a fair degree of pride in, and that is the accessibility of students in our system.

I would like to also point out that you address and acknowledge that the people of Ontario are aware of the enormous debt you inherited, and I want to address that. I think, as you know, all parties agree with you that this is something to be addressed, but nowhere in here do you address the pressures on education for the funding of the tax rebate. We have to come back to that again and again because you stop at half the equation. It's not incorrect what you say, it's just not complete.

You say, "We need to have these savings to be more efficient and we need to have these savings because, overall, we have this big problem of our debt." Now if you had said, "We have a debt and we have to address that and we made a commitment" -- a $5-billion commitment, by the way, which is a heck of a lot more than what's coming out of education, but still impinges highly significantly on education.

If you had said that, then I would have more respect for your arguments because that would be the truth, that it is the deficit, but you have to acknowledge that the money Ernie is asking out of education -- because that's what's happening, $400 million for this year. That will be more than $800 million for next year, and when you take that with the social contract and other factors, it's more than $1 billion.

I think you should expand your argument and be honest with the people and let them know that this is to pay for a tax break that is not truly in the spirit of Progressive Conservatives. It's in the spirit of right-wing politics, because the richer you are, the more you get back. But it isn't progressive. Progressive would mean that those who are in greatest need would get some kind of benefit and those who do not need or whose needs are not particularly great would not be the greatest benefactors of something.

I spent some time on this because so much -- when we get to Bill 34, when you take a look at that bill, for example, the whole bill is really a money bill. It's not an education bill, it's a money bill because it's all the little windows, JK and adult education, cooperative ventures, equalization payments -- I don't see any reference to that, Minister, in your speech -- all of these areas are really windows you open up, you reach in and you pull out money and the money goes completely out of education.

The interesting thing is that when we travelled around Ontario -- this is so divisive -- there were boards that were biting the heels of other boards and saying, "If we have to pay some kind of statement to the government or accept a reduction in our grants, then those other boards should too," failing to realize that what they're really saying is, "Because we got hit, these other boards should get hit too." They thought somehow they would lose if the other boards didn't make their payments, which of course is not the case. It's everybody has to fulfil Ernie's requirement of $400 million this year, and of course $800 million plus next year.

I point that out because I'm sure, Minister, you would want me to do so. I know you would want me to complete your argument and fill out the completion on this.

When you talk about the commitment the government has made, I won't dwell on this because you refer to doing what you said you would do. Again, yes, you're doing what you said you would do when you said, "We will provide and reintroduce junior kindergarten as a local option," but I don't recall in the literature, and I read it carefully, where it said, "Not only that, we will reduce the funding by 50%."

1610

When you put those two together, the local option, for some boards, as you well know -- and all members of all parties will know this because they will have this experience in their riding depending on the nature of their board -- is that some boards can afford it and some can't and therein lies the accessibility to -- in my mind, the most powerful testimony that I heard in those hearings was the significance of the early years, of early childhood education and the impact this has and how this can set the course for a youngster and help develop the positive attitudes and some basic skills and some basic perceptions and responses to the classroom and the educational system that are absolutely crucial, and life-long learning hopefully as a basis for moving ahead, and certainly impacts that are life-long. Some of the longitudinal studies that were alluded to and referred to in those hearings time and again demonstrated that fact.

Of course, the minister is reviewing this or has a study under way or research or whatever it is on the real strength of junior kindergarten, and one of these days I will be delighted to see the results of such an area.

I said I wouldn't take long. You see how easy it is to kind of get into doing a critique. When you talk about protecting the classroom spending, it seems to me that it would be fair to say you've redefined what a classroom is because you took off a very important piece at both ends and said, "Well, now that's the classroom."

It's a very clever tool; I must admit, you have some very clever communicators in your office and in your government who will say, "Well look, rather than be vulnerable, what we'll do is provide a redefinition of what a classroom is and then we can continue to say we're not affecting the classroom."

Of course, the junior kindergartens that I saw, and I visited a number, were in the classroom.

Mr Wildman: I noticed that.

Mr Patten: Did you notice that? I noticed that they were actually in a classroom and when I visited the adult education centre in Ottawa, and I visited more than that one adult education centre, they were in classrooms and they had computers and they had domestic arts and they had all kinds of things that were going on. Some may say some of those were only laboratories -- maybe that's a fine point -- but it seems to me they were learning in a school and many of these were classrooms.

When you drop those and say, "See, there's no impact on the classroom" -- how can you say that when literally tens of thousands of people -- and in the face of the testimony and the research for junior kindergarten and the testimony that we had for adult education, which I won't elaborate on right now, the evidence does not warrant the decision, especially the rationale that the ministry or the minister is giving as to why adult education can just be disbanded and adults can simply take random continuing education courses. The evidence does not warrant that; it's absolutely, totally overwhelmingly convincing.

I'm sure the ministry staff and officials will know the importance of junior kindergarten. When almost every major industrial nation is moving towards increasing an earlier and earlier opportunity for youngsters, we're moving the other way. I feel I must point that out.

In terms of spending controls -- it says spending controls. You know, Minister, I had the pleasure -- and I was sorry that you weren't there that evening -- to be in your riding one evening and I met some fascinating people; you have some wonderful residents and constituents. We had a chair there for you, but unfortunately, you were preoccupied.

They were very concerned about this freeze on new construction of schools because, as you know, the Peel county board is under incredible pressure for new schools. I think it was something in the neighbourhood of 27 new schools that they needed and, of course, they weren't to the point where if you look at the impact of that on classroom because the pressure -- even the little school that I was in, I think it was Middlebury school, a beautiful little elementary school, quite different from when I was in kindergarten, started off with 280 students three or four years ago. Then it was up to 500 and now they're facing something in the neighbourhood of 700 kids in that school.

That board would be very pleased to tell you -- I'm sure they have already communicated the impact of this, but that has a tremendous impact on that whole system. The trustees and the parents and some teachers we spoke to were saying, "Listen, there will be increases in our classroom size and there will be more pressure on our arrangements and there will be, obviously, less of a conducive physical environment for our kids."

Minister, those constituents of yours were none too happy with the pressure of that. I know you say there's no impact on the classroom. There's tremendous impact on the classroom.

I said I'd be short, so I'm just going to make two other comments and pass it along.

You didn't mention the equalization payments in Bill 34. Of course, those are the payments in the bill that -- how can I word this? -- enable school boards that are in a negative grant position to make -- and there was an amendment -- no longer to the treasury or to the Minister of Finance but now to the Ministry of Education and Training.

While it's a move at least in the right direction in terms of those resources being addressed to the Ministry of Education and Training, there are questions related to concerns that taxpayers have. I will save the questions until later, but I want to flag the concern that just because it says, "These payments will now be made to the Ministry of Education" does not necessarily satisfy the worries and the concerns of taxpayers.

In terms of the secondary school reform, you refer to two very short paragraphs. I know that when we asked you about the draft that was distributed prematurely, presumably, you said, "This is just a draft and it's not our commitment at this particular stage." But in here you identify areas of cooperative education, work experience programs, which I'm sure most people will agree with, but in terms of the draft report that had come out, the extent to which these programs would be implemented, especially when you look at it being implemented across the board in northern small communities, it's extremely difficult. These are programs that you can't just say, "All right, company, pull up at the table and we'll send our kids over to you." It doesn't work that way, as you know.

The College of Teachers: That legislation has received third reading and I would like to reiterate why our caucus didn't support it. One was because we still feel that the classroom teacher is not in the majority. No matter how you cut it, they're not in the majority and it sends a poor message to classroom teachers that, "We don't trust you," and I think that's unfortunate.

The second part was, and I think this is kind of a sad thing, that there was an opportunity with the College of Teachers to show some respect to our aboriginal brothers and sisters who had to come, cap in hand, to the province for certification because the federal government -- although the federal government pays for the schools on reserves and they're not even part of the provincial system -- requires that teachers in aboriginal schools be certified by the provinces.

Here we have once again our first peoples being left out. I truly marvel at their patience in coming before committees time and time again and making the same pitch. I can't believe how calmly we can make decisions that essentially say, "No, we will not respect the differences," because, as you well know, their system of education is totally different from the majority culture and the majority process.

1620

We had a chance to show some respect there and we didn't and in, my opinion, the numerous groups and leaders and people who are working in aboriginal education today felt that they got a smack in the face. I feel somewhat ashamed about that. I think some of the members did too. We're too rigid, you know. We don't show flexibility. Somehow we get all caught up with our regulations and lawyers and all sorts of ways of doing things and it's one size fits all. We don't demonstrate. The government is anaemic, it's endemic to government, not having flexibility, not showing that you can trust. You've got to build in every single factor so somebody can't move, when we look at legislation and somehow we have to get beyond that.

I'm going to stop there because I said I would be short. I have some other comments to make, but I'll save them by way of my period for questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I wouldn't like to see when you really get along then. The member of the third party, 30 minutes.

Mr Wildman: I won't go through a long leadoff. After all, we did have a discussion of last year's estimates last fall, although the discussion was really about this year's. I won't reiterate comments I made at that time.

I want to deal with some things that have been happening as a result of the changes the government has brought forward in the interim and point out some concerns I have. Hopefully we will have time to discuss them and debate them, as we go through the line-by-line items in the estimates.

As the minister indicated, the $400-million cut to public education means on an annualized basis $800 million to $1 billion to be taken out of the education system all at once. In his comments he went through a discussion of how this is possible and at the same time, how it is possible that the government will maintain the commitment that the Conservative Party made in the election campaign, that classroom education would be exempt from cuts.

The minister pointed out that the task force led by Mr Sweeney in its final report said that 47% or $6.7 billion are spent "outside the classroom." As my colleague from Ottawa Centre indicated, this is a neat little attempt to redefine the argument after the discussion is over and to say, "Okay, we've maintained our commitment simply because we have redefined what is a classroom.

If you include in out-of-classroom expenditures things like adult education, teacher preparation, the salaries for all vice-principals, principals, special education teachers, assistants and so on, sure, you can come up with a number. Whether it really has anything to do with education and pedagogy is another question.

The fact is that we all recognize, whether the minister and his colleagues want to admit it, that it is impossible to take as much as $1 billion out of education in one year and not adversely affect classroom education, the students. It's just impossible. We have the arguments that have been raised, both in the House and outside, by the minister, but even more so by some of his colleagues in the Conservative Party, that if there are adverse effects on classroom education, it's not the provincial government's fault, it's really the boards' fault; that the boards just aren't with the program, they don't get it somehow and they aren't cutting properly; that they're just being irresponsible and harming kids.

I'm not sure many trustees would support that view, but what we're seeing is that school boards, in order to prevent adverse effects in the classroom, are increasing taxes. We have seen tax increases by many, many boards in the province, and I'd just quickly like to review:

Atikokan; Brant; Bruce; Carleton; Dryden; Durham; East Parry Sound; East York; Elgin, a 5% increase; Essex; Etobicoke; Fort Frances-Rainy River; Frontenac; Geraldton; Grey, 4.8%; Haldimand, 3.5%; Haliburton; Halton; Hamilton, 3.16%; Hastings; Hornepayne, 10.3% increase; Kenora; Kent; Kirkland Lake; Lambton; Lanark, Leeds and Grenville; Lennox and Addington; Lincoln; London; Manitoulin, 5.75%; Michipicoten; Middlesex; Moosonee, 5%; Moose Factory, 5%; Muskoka; Niagara South; Norfolk; North York; Northumberland-Clarington; Oxford; Peel; Perth, 3.97%; Peterborough; Prescott-Russell, Prince Edward; Red Lake; Renfrew; Sault Ste Marie, 4.3%; Scarborough; Sudbury, 5.6%; Timiskaming, 4.23%; Toronto; Victoria; Waterloo; Wellington; Wentworth; West Parry Sound; Windsor; the city of York; and York Region -- all tax increases.

Those are just the public boards. I haven't dealt with the separate boards that have increased mill rates. Sixty-four public boards have reported mill rate increases for 1996. I don't see how we can get around the fact that these mill rate increases are directly related to the 16% cut in general legislative grants by the provincial government. We've seen, as I said, some significant increases. The mill rate increases have ranged from less than 1% to as much as over 10%. The average mill rate increase, which doesn't include some others that may be considering rate increases -- the Huron, Espanola and North Shore boards -- is a little over 2%.

It is true that there are 12 school boards which have reported no increase in their mill rate, but we see over 60 boards -- as many as 64 public boards -- that have seen mill rate increases, and, as I said, I haven't dealt with the separate school board.

1630

On page 5 of the Common Sense Revolution document it says, under the heading "Only One Taxpayer," "Historically, municipalities have responded to provincial funding limits by simply increasing local property taxes." This is talking about municipalities, but I'm sure the authors of this historic document would have included boards of education in that as well.

It goes on to say, "There may be numerous levels of government in this province, but there is only one level of taxpayer -- you." Then it says in bold print, "We" -- meaning the Conservative Party if it won government, and as it has, then, the government -- "will work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions we take will not result in increases to local property taxes."

I would like to know what the Ministry of Education and Training is doing to ensure that the actions the government has taken in cutting the general legislative grants are not resulting in any property tax increases.

I read this carefully. It didn't say in here, "We will do our best" or "We hope our actions will not result in increases to local property taxes." It didn't say that. It said, "We will work closely...to ensure that any actions we take will not result in increases to local property taxes."

I'm sure the authors of this document knew the tools the provincial government has to ensure that locally elected authorities would not exercise their right to raise taxes, so I'd like to know how you're doing it. I'm sure that when this was authored, the people who wrote it wanted to make certain they would not be in any way misleading the one taxpayer in the province. I know that no one would want, in an election, to try and mislead the public.

I find this statement which I just read out of this document most interesting when one considers the experience of the isolate boards. For those of you from southern Ontario who do not know what an isolate board is, I perhaps should indicate that an isolate board is a board of education in a very, very small, isolated northern community that only has one school within its jurisdiction. That's the definition of an isolate board. I've never quite understood why it's called an isolate board instead of an isolated board, but that's what it's called.

These isolate boards, because of the fact that they are in such very small communities a long way from any other board, with very few resources in most cases, get a very high percentage of their budget from the provincial government. They also get a great deal of assistance from the provincial government in terms of supervision, curriculum development, professional development, all those kinds of things, from the regional offices of the Ministry of Education, for as long I guess as those offices continue to exist, and that may not be for long.

These boards are under a great deal of influence from the Ministry of Education and Training, and most of them really appreciate the assistance they get from the ministry because they have a difficult time providing the opportunity for good education for the students who attend their schools.

I know the minister in his remarks repeated the fact that the provincial government, the Conservative Party, had committed to make junior kindergarten optional for boards. We've had the argument over whether making it an option and denying the money at the same time really makes it an option. I won't go into that again, but what I'm finding that is most disturbing is what has happened with regard to the isolate boards. Some of those boards, through very serious consideration of their budgets, came to the conclusion that they might be able to continue junior kindergarten, that they might exercise the option to maintain junior kindergarten for their students without a tax increase. I suppose some would argue that the reason some of these boards might be able to do that is because they get so much assistance already in grants from the provincial government.

Anyway, they exercise their option; they decide to maintain junior kindergarten for their students. Then they receive a directive from the ministry saying -- I've got a letter here from the Connell and Ponsford district board in northwestern Ontario. It's written to the minister. It says:

"The...board would like you to reconsider the 5% local education tax increase regarding the junior kindergarten program in isolate school boards.

"The Ministry of Education and Training has imposed a 5% local education tax increase to the taxpayers of our community if this board decides to offer a junior kindergarten program. We would like you, Mr Minister, to reconsider your decision."

It goes on and says, "We would like to ask you to listen to our concerns and provide us with the freedom of offering the junior kindergarten program within the means of our budgets."

I don't understand this. You said it was an option. A board exercises the option and then the ministry comes in with a hammer and says, "If you're going to exercise the option, you have to increase taxes," even if they don't need to increase taxes in order to provide the option. It looks to me like what the ministry really wants is for boards not to provide junior kindergarten. It looks to me like you're telling this board, "We don't want you to provide junior kindergarten, and if you insist on it, you're going to have to charge your local taxpayers for it." I'd like an explanation.

In terms of other boards in the province, we've seen 26 boards cancel junior kindergarten programs. I understand the Windsor board has just recently reinstated the program, so that leaves 25 boards that have cancelled it: Brant, Carleton, Dufferin, Durham, Grey, Haldimand, Haliburton, Halton, Hastings, Hornepayne -- again, these are just public boards I'm referring to here -- Kenora, Lincoln, Middlesex, Niagara South, Norfolk, Oxford, Peel, Perth, Prince Edward, Simcoe, Victoria, Waterloo, Wellington, Wentworth, York Region.

We've seen the exercise of the option with those boards. It means that the advantages of early childhood education as was provided through the junior kindergarten program in the past are lost for the students in those boards. Again, this doesn't include the separate boards. I'm sorry; I don't have the full list of the separate boards that have exercised that option, if you want to call it an option.

In order to deal with the funding cut, it is true that the minister decided, in consultation with the boards, that one way to alleviate the problem was to include a freeze or a moratorium on capital expenditures which could be counted towards savings. This has helped some boards manage through a very difficult situation, but it also has meant very serious problems in other boards. I'm not quite certain how this is supposed to work. Just to give you an example of a situation where a separate school board, the Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, had made a decision that it was going to expand a school to build a gymnasium, the school was without a gymnasium and it was going to build a gymnasium, and also a library and two classrooms for this school. The school is called Our Lady of Grace school. The school is next door to the parish church.

The decision was made to proceed with this and they got approval to proceed, a $1.3-million expansion. The approval was given under the previous government after a lot of lobbying by the parents in the community who wanted to get these facilities expanded. So they went ahead; they had approval. There wasn't room on the property to put the expanded building on the property without removing the church, so this parish decided that it would in fact tear down the church to make room for the expansion of the school. They proceeded on the basis that they had approval. They tore down their parish church.

1640

Then this government comes in with a moratorium and tells them that even though they had approval, they couldn't proceed. So we have this parish now left with no church and no expanded school, just a hole in the ground and a hole in their parish. They have no indication from this government that it is going to take into account that they were acting in good faith. I suppose that word might be used in both senses of the word.

I really think it's important that the government, in making its decisions, take into account the local circumstances and consider very seriously what it has done to this parish community. It's just one example. I could point to others, but I won't, because of my commitment not to take a lot of time.

I want to know where the government is at with regard to charter schools. We've heard a lot of discussion about that and I really think that it needs to be clarified. Are we going to see, essentially, the development of private schools at public expense in this province?

In regard to testing, I must reiterate that I'm happy that the Education Quality and Accountability Office legislation has been passed, but I'm disappointed that the government is only going to have sample testing in mathematics and science in grades 6 and 9. Testing in grade 3 and then testing in grade 11, with only sample testing in between, leaves an awfully long gap in a group of students' progress. We may find at testing grade 11 there have been difficulties in meeting our mandates, and yet we might have been able to find that if we'd had a more extensive testing program in the grades 6 and 9 levels.

Before I get to the post-secondary white paper, I want to talk about the proposed changes as reiterated in the minister's comments about secondary school reform, where he says: "We are working with our education partners to develop reform of our secondary school program. Members of the external advisory group have been very important to the progress that we've made." I'd like to get some idea of what progress has been made and what kind of partnerships you've been involved in. I understand that after initial significant opposition, the OSSTF approached the ministry with an offer to work with the ministry in developing a curriculum for credits related to the workplace and their offer was rebuffed by the ministry. The ministry said, "Thanks but no thanks."

I really don't understand why that would be the case when a professional group, people who are directly involved in educating secondary school students, offers to participate in the development of a curriculum. Why on earth would the ministry not accept? I would think you would welcome that rather than outright opposition, which was the initial reaction, I think, from OSSTF.

You make a commitment to the development of a province-wide curriculum for all students which will be consistent with quality and relevance. Here is an offer by a group that knows something about education and about teaching kids and about curriculum development, and I'm sorry that, for some reason, the government has chosen not to accept the offer.

In terms of post-secondary school education, the white paper, for six months we've been told it's coming. Where is it?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Soon, very soon.

Mr Wildman: Soon. Well, we've seen many iterations of this. I think I have here number 18 or 19 and I think it may have gotten to as high as 21 or 22 now.

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: If I leaked it, somebody must have leaked it to me. I'd really like to know where it's at.

I want to say that if you're going to have a proper consultation about the future of post-secondary education, you want to involve as many people as possible. I understand you're having some trouble coming up with a panel that might conduct this consultation. I'm not sure whether Bill Davis is available or wants to be involved. I wonder where it's at.

I hope that when you do have a consultation, it is full and it does come soon. I hope the consultation is not going to be just in July and August when most of the post-secondary students in the province are otherwise occupied. I hope it'll be next fall and that it'll be full and --

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): You see, he wants us to speed up.

Mr Wildman: No. I want the paper released now. I want the consultation in the fall when people can be involved.

I also understand from the iterations I've seen of this paper that there's almost none, if any, discussion of research and the role of research in the post-secondary education system. I'm told that research is a big enough subject that it could be a whole consultation on its own and the funding for research and the role of the province, as well as the federal government, in the funding of research, but I don't see how you can have a discussion on post-secondary education in the province without discussing research and the role of it in the university system.

I hope that we also can get some idea of where we're at with the proposal of Bette Stephenson and others for a private university in Ontario. I would hope that we're not going to see the development of a two-tiered system as we have in the United States. Already the suggestions for deregulating tuition fees could be leading us in that direction and I would regret it very much.

Taking over $400 million out of the post-secondary system in one year has had a devastating effect. It seems to me that your discussion paper, as I've seen it, is already paving the way for private university institutions. In this way, we would be ensuring that the wealthiest in the province would have a much greater opportunity than others. This is a question of access and equality of opportunity and it is my view private universities will be ensuring one level of education for the wealthy and another for those less well off.

1650

In terms of increases to tuition fees and the income-contingent plan, I don't understand how you can continue to talk about the income-contingent plan as a way of helping students to have access because of the tuition increases when you know that it'll be at least two years before we have an income-contingent plan, if you're dependent on negotiating one with the federal government. What happens in the interim to those students who are going to have to pay the higher tuition? Is the government considering going it alone on income contingency, keeping in mind that even with an income contingency plan, all you're doing is increasing the debt of students and extending over a longer period of time their payback? But I'd like to know whether you're prepared to move to do this.

Also, I want to say in passing, I sincerely regret the decision of the government to say to students who are eligible for OSAP that if they have been up to now collecting social assistance, they won't be eligible for social assistance. This is to say to very low-income people, people this government and all of us -- but particularly this government -- want to get the skills in order to be able to compete and to provide for themselves and be productive, "Forget it," because the vast majority of them will not go for a debt situation when they have almost no income already.

The Acting Chair (Mr Jim Brown): Mr Wildman, I think your time is up.

Mr Wildman: I just was about to finish, Mr Chair, and to say that my concern on the college system is that we're facing significant chaos in that area and the universities will also face it if they see another year of cuts, as they have this year. I'm looking forward to the discussion of the estimates and I would hope that we will get into these issues a little more deeply and get some answers from the provincial government.

The Acting Chair: We can have a reply from the minister, 30 minutes.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I understand that we're allowed 30 minutes for reply, but I won't take that length of time. Like my colleague from Ottawa Centre, I'm not long-winded at this sort of thing, and nowhere near as eloquent as my colleague from Algoma. I also understand that some members might make good use of a short recess, and I am one of those members, so I'll keep my remarks short.

The member for Algoma makes some interesting points. I will not address all of them. I do hope that they come up in the course of our conversation and the questions over the next few days. There is some comment, of course, about the Sweeney commission and what was included in out-of-classroom expenditures. This is obviously a very delicate issue, but different people come up with different areas.

I know the commission was established by the member's government, the previous government, and while the findings may be controversial, there is no question from the basis of that and other studies that there are areas where savings can be found in our school system outside of the classroom. I think that's obvious to all the observers who've looked at the system.

In terms of the GLGs and the effect on isolate boards, the method of funding isolate boards, which I'm sure my colleague will know is a very exasperating process, going through how different boards are funded, particularly isolate boards, if the question comes up as we go through this process, I believe staff will be more than happy to go through the minutiae of how those boards are funded. But I think that everyone in this room knows that a significant amount of the cost of education in isolate boards is contributed by the province. Because they don't have a very large tax base, for the most part, those boards do not surcharge the minimum rate that is prescribed by the province because there's little point in doing so because it provides such little revenue, relatively speaking.

One of the problems we have with the GLG is it does not provide equity in terms of student opportunity, nor equity in terms of the amount of effort that's required by the community to provide education for students. This government is committed to changing that funding system. We are not happy with it. When my colleague points to the inadequacies of the GLGs, I can only say that I agree that the GLG system does not allow us as a government, nor has it allowed previous governments, to express what we believe would be a fair and equitable system of education in the province, and we will change it.

The point is well taken that there are communities -- I think the parish used in the example that has been looking forward to building a new school -- the member for Ottawa Centre was kind enough to come out to my riding and help some folks along with that process of examining the capital projects.

The member for Algoma has pointed out that good faith -- well, let me see if I can add or shed at least a little light on this subject of capital, because I also am not pleased with the way capital projects have been completed in the province and I too regret the necessity of a moratorium. However, I believe it allows us an opportunity to change how we do capital, and that's the most important part of this transition.

The situation the member for Ottawa Centre found in my riding didn't happen last year. The undercapitalized system didn't occur in the last 11 months. There have been schools begging to be built in that area for a decade or longer, as there are in other fast-growing areas of Ontario. There are schools that have needed major renovations in Ontario that have needed them over the last decade.

What is the answer to that? Is it to announce capital projects when there is no funding available? What's the definition of "good faith" that falls under?

I look forward to questions on the capital side and what we might do on the capital side, and particularly on the history of funding of school construction in this province over, say, the last decade, because I believe that anyone who examines our record of announcements of the provision of capital for school building will find that we dramatically need to change the way we build schools and how we fund schools. That's what this government's committed to doing and I look forward to questions in that area.

I note -- I will be brief, Mr Chair, because the need for the recess grows as I talk -- that the member for Ottawa Centre pointed out that it had been some time since he left kindergarten and some things have changed in that decade or perhaps just a tad longer since that happened and he's made some interesting points in his remarks.

The junior kindergarten issue I hope is one we get a chance to discuss a little further as we go through this process because I think it's part of a commitment that we've made to the people of Ontario and that we've fulfilled on.

I note with some interest that as of a week or so ago the boards that were prepared to offer junior kindergarten with the kind of funding we provide for other programs were 119; the boards that had chosen not to were 28 by the last count I have. A significant number of boards have decided, in consultation, I suspect, with their community, that the offering of junior kindergarten was something they wanted to do next year; again, a vast majority of the boards that have reported, at least the last time we tracked it.

The College of Teachers: I was disappointed personally that we couldn't get all-party support. I understand the rationale, I think. I don't necessarily agree with it and I'm sure you're not surprised by that. The member for Ottawa Centre has suggested that the message to teachers is, "We don't trust you." I believe the message of the College of Teachers to teachers is, "You hold a public trust." I believe that's a message that's made very clear by the College of Teachers and I believe it's a trust that most teachers across the province understand and appreciate and can support.

The whole issue of affordability: The member for Ottawa Centre rapped that in some way, and I hope he didn't hurt anything doing it, into returning tax dollars to the public. I first of all don't find returning tax dollars to their owners all that awful a situation. However, that's not the driving point in a more affordable system. In my view, the driving for more affordability in the school system is driven by providing value for taxpayers, value for tax dollars. That means doing more with less. I believe that by any measure, the people of Ontario are not getting as big a bang for their education dollar as people in other jurisdictions are, and there is simply no excuse for that. I believe value is not simply cost, but it's cost over quality, and the only quality measure that matters in the school system is student achievement.

It is unfortunate and regrettable that we do not do a better job of tracking student achievement so that we might be able to provide the taxpayers some sense of value, the value they are achieving for their tax dollars in education. While others may disagree with me, I do not think a government can responsibly tax people, collect taxes, spend them in the name of education without being able to be held to account for student achievement, and that is currently the situation. We are looking for affordability in the system so as to provide a better value to the taxpayers of Ontario, and that's something I look forward to discussing more fulsomely as this session carries on.

Mr Chair, that will complete my remarks.

The Acting Chair: Thankfully, we can have a recess.

The committee recessed from 1703 to 1711.

The Chair: Now we reach the rotation part of this committee. Could I get agreement for 15-minute rotations? Agreed.

We'll start with the opposition, Mr Patten.

Mr Patten: Fifteen minutes goes by very quickly, as I noticed listening to my friend from Algoma, so I will proceed rapidly. My first question, Minister, is something we asked you in the House. I guess estimates is kind of like the committee of second chance. You ask a question in the House and you don't really get a full answer, but you do get a second chance at committee. I need to ask you the question, which is, you will recall the ministry's poll that your ministry conducted on the attitudes towards teachers, and you had said you would be sharing that poll with the House and it would be tabled. I'm wondering the status of that and whether that is something you have with you today that you would like to share with us.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't believe I brought it with me, but it will be something we do intend to table. I don't know the timing of that release. I'll make an inquiry for you and let you know that.

Mr Patten: Okay, good. I'd be pleased to know before we finish estimates.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Sure.

Mr Patten: You made the GLGs known and then there was a corollary for certain boards that had been hit particularly hard by the cuts, and to remedy that you brought in a program to minimize the cuts to the cuts, which cost the ministry $14 million. Where is the ministry going to find $14 million?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll ask one of our staff. I believe Peter would probably be the appropriate -- is Peter in the room? Perhaps Drew might do that. Just before Drew gives you a response to that, as has been pointed out many times before, the average effect of reduction that we were talking about on the operating side in our education system is less than 1.8%. However, as I'm sure you'll know, in the GLGs, when you have changes in assessment, for some of those by agreement with previous governments, the reductions in funding available to a board can be significant; most of those, just for the record, not caused by the savings we're looking for in the education system, but by the anomalies of the GLG program or by previous agreements made by previous governments.

The effect, particularly on small boards, from year to year can be large, can be burdensome. A variety of devices have been used by previous governments to mitigate those circumstances, particularly in the case of small boards, so this is nothing unusual and again points to the need for change in the way we do funding of education in the province. But I'll ask Drew to respond more directly.

Mr Drew Nameth: My name is Drew Nameth. I'm the director of capital and operating grants, administration branch, in the Ministry of Education and Training.

With respect to the question where the funds will come from to provide additional assistance for small boards, those funds will come from the general legislative grant allocation. The members will understand that at the beginning of the year when the GLG regulations are determined, they're based on preliminary figures shared by boards. The parameters are determined based on those preliminary estimates. In the past number of years there has been a small surplus in the GLG at the end of the year. It varies from year to year, but those funds, the expenditures --

Mr Patten: Can you carry those over from year to year?

Mr Nameth: No.

Mr Patten: So given your estimate from last year, it's still within the global figure. Is that what you're saying?

Mr Nameth: Yes.

Mr Patten: You can still manage it?

Mr Nameth: Yes.

Mr Patten: Thank you.

Minister, I'd like to ask you about special education. Your colleagues who were on that committee that toured the province heard several times -- more than several; numerous times -- not only the impact on junior kindergarten and adult education but on special education, where I believe there are now 18 boards, and other boards are in the midst of consideration of having to cut severely and in some cases drop totally the special education program they have at the moment. Some are pulling their hair out to wonder what they're going to do and whether they'll have to transfer children to another board that can afford it or will be affording it or what the problem is. But there are 18 boards that have cut their special education programming, so there's a third area of the classroom that is severely affected.

We had some very passionate testimony by some parents who came in and provided very, very vivid witness to what they were facing, so I wonder what your response is to the impact on special education.

Hon Mr Snobelen: First of all, I was pleased that we were able to announce just recently that our government is investing an additional $10 million this year and going to $20 million annually in future years to enhance our capacity to treat young children with speech and language disorders before they enter school. I think we've shown a commitment to the young people who require special assistance and our special-needs children in that announcement and other announcements.

As you know, the boards are responsible for providing education to those who have special needs. Again, the savings that we're looking for in our system are less than 2% on the operating side. I do not believe and I have not seen any evidence for a need to withdraw or change services for special education of children in meeting those savings targets. There is no necessity to do that, and in fact many boards, I would suspect the majority of boards, would not consider it.

I do believe, however, it points out once again that our funding models that have been developed over the last few years in the province, over certainly the last decade and perhaps a little longer, do not meet the needs and do not allow the province to directly meet the needs of the most needy children in the province. So when we look at and when we examine changing the funding system, I frankly and candidly think the funding system should have been changed many years ago. I do not think we should have tolerated for this long a funding system that would allow special education children to be held to ransom.

I believe we should have a funding system that provides for the same opportunity as much as is possible for all students in the province, and that is what this government has taken on and is doing now. There is absolutely no reason for special education to suffer by any action of this government.

1720

Mr Patten: If you find that is suffering -- one question is, how will you know whether it is or it isn't, other than the feedback from the boards? Will you ask your ministry to do a quick random survey on the implications directly related to special ed? Because I think those kids, as you know, obviously by its definition are children with special needs. But this came by way of Bill 34 and we heard almost in every community that the prognosis was dim in terms of the programs they had, and in some cases, as I mentioned, schools were going to be dropping these programs.

You say there may be a program coming, but would you make a commitment to us, the ministry, to do a -- maybe it's not every school board necessarily, but the associations or some of the boards, on the impacts especially of that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll ask the deputy to respond because I believe we have an intention to track that.

Mr Richard Dicerni: Yes.

Mr Patten: Mr Dicerni, you're so articulate. Yes, you would? Okay, thank you. So that's good. He's changed from his federal days.

Interjection: And then some.

Mr Patten: Because I only have a little bit of time, in reference, Minister, to the isolate boards related to JK, I can see where there perhaps is a different funding mechanism and I will grant you that perhaps it's different -- I don't know; I'll take your word for it -- but I find it difficult to mandate a board that if they take up this program, they must charge their taxpayers even though they don't need to. I find that really weird, because the message is we're going to penalize you or we're going to fine you if you implement this program, and again I say the message is that the ministry is not committed to JK. It just isn't. We're finding ways of saving in here, and there are all kinds of ways in which you can save. One way is that a message is being sent that you're not committed to JK.

I want to ask also where you are in your study or your review, where you said if it turned out that JK was as strong a program as some might indicate, you'd be prepared to reconsider its full implementation on the basis on which it was operated before.

Hon Mr Snobelen: That's two in one. Well done.

As far as the isolate boards are concerned, there is a real attempt here. I don't believe the message is that this government is not committed to junior kindergarten. This government is committed to keeping its promises to the people of Ontario that we put forward over two years ago.

There is difficulty in trying to provide an equitable funding system under the current GLGs. It's the reason our government is committed to changing that process and making sure the same effort, or about the same effort, is required in each community to provide a school program. Clearly that's difficult with isolate boards because there is a very small tax base and a very small contribution. Because of that, isolate boards tend not to charge any surcharge over the very bare floor of mill rate prescribed by the ministry. Therefore it's difficult to try to balance the effort required by the community to provide schooling between an isolate board and coterminous boards. That's the purpose in adjusting the mill rate -- not, certainly, to discourage junior kindergarten, but to make sure there is some equal sense of contribution by various communities, particularly coterminous communities.

I would recognize that it's not the instrument we would like it to be. I would recognize that it's certainly awkward. The GLGs are awkward at best, and we believe this requires a fundamental change and are committed to making that change.

As far as junior kindergarten is concerned, my colleague Janet Ecker in Comsoc is reviewing right now our child support services, our support for young children in the province. I think we've had several announcements over the past few months about increasing our level of support for young people in the province and, by extension, their families. I have had several discussions with my colleague and will in the future. We have reviewed the documents and the data available to us on junior kindergarten. I certainly have reviewed the cases that you mentioned earlier which compare, or would like to compare, a Head Start program in that United States, in the middle of an urban city blight, those young people most at risk in those circumstances, compare the results of the Head Start program and try to map over on to that a junior kindergarten program in Ontario, which I would submit to you is considerably different.

What we don't have very much data on, a similar kind of long-tracking data, is the effect of junior kindergarten as it's presented in Ontario in the communities where it's represented in Ontario. So we are in the attempt of doing a review of what are the proper supports: How do we target the most at-risk children in the province of Ontario? How do we support families throughout the development of very young children? I am working along with my colleagues in Comsoc to do that.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I want to thank my colleague Mr Wildman for letting me ask a couple of questions at the beginning of our round.

I just want to say to the minister, following that last comment he made, that if he's interested in some research on junior kindergarten or kindergarten in the Ontario context, he might want to look at some of the research done in the Toronto school system going back to the 1970s and 1980s because that has existed for some time and you don't need to go elsewhere to find it. It actually has shown, in fact very clearly, the benefit of all-day kindergarten programs in inner-city schools, which I think would be beneficial for you and your ministry to take a look at.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions, a couple of areas that I have some major concerns about and ones, quite frankly, at least in the first one that I believe the minister with a clear answer could put not just my mind at ease, but more importantly that of many people who are very concerned about potential change in this. That's with respect to the international languages program. Minister, you'll recall that I asked you a question about this back last October, at which time you indicated that the program was one that you saw as being very important to the people of the province.

I was dismayed, to say the least, to see the recommendation in the report of the Working Group on Education Finance Reform which recommended that it no longer be mandatory for boards to offer the international languages program and that the funding associated with this program of $16.6 million be transferred to the base grant, which is the new base grant that is suggested there that obviously you are familiar with.

I guess I just wanted to hear from you very clearly your rejection of that recommendation. I gather you have made some comments publicly that have indicated that you're not particularly happy with that recommendation, but I haven't heard a clear statement from you that this program is one you want to continue to see funded at the current level under the current rules, which means that school boards are required to provide the program where there is sufficient request to provide the program, and where indeed there is sufficient request and the funding flows from the ministry -- in other words, it's dedicated funding to the program -- not to simply go into a large pot of money for school boards to determine how to spend it. Can you give me that assurance that in fact you are contemplating continuing the funding of that program as it currently stands?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I may need some clarification on this because I was a little confused in the House the other day and I want to make sure I've got this right. You're asking me if I will reject the recommendation of a working group appointed by your government in which you were a Minister of Education. Is that correct?

Mr Silipo: Minister, we can argue about all of that. I don't take any great comfort in who has recommended changes to this program. We can argue about who appointed who.

I'm very troubled by your answer so far because folks walked away the other day, I can tell you, thinking that in fact you did want to maintain the funding as it currently stands. I didn't hear that as clearly as I would like and I guess I'll ask you again: Are you prepared to say that the funding of the international languages program will remain as it currently stands, both in the amount of money but more importantly in terms of the rules around the program, which is that the funding will be provided and the program will continue to be obligatory for school boards to offer where there is sufficient demand by parents and that the money will not be simply folded into a base grant for boards to do what they wish?

Hon Mr Snobelen: First of all, I want to make the point very clearly that we have had a recommendation from the working group. As you represented, that's certainly not an initiative of this government and it's certainly not a recommendation of this government, and to have it represented as that by people certainly would be misleading obviously, and I want to make sure that's very clear both in the minds of everyone here and in the public's mind.

1730

We were also asked by a submission by the Ontario Public School Boards' Association to do a like and similar activity to affect how we fund international language programs and to affect how they are presented in order to reduce funding, and we rejected that suggestion by the public school boards' association last year. We rejected it then. It has now been recommended by the working group on finance reform. I have said I will not respond to that on a piecemeal basis, and I won't today respond to it on a piecemeal basis.

We are committed to changing the funding system in Ontario, but I think our actions over the course of the last year indicate the importance of international languages to this government and I think the people can take comfort in the fact that we have protected those programs to date, but I will not on a piecemeal basis respond to the working group's submissions.

Mr Silipo: When will you then be responding to it, Minister?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We will obviously be responding -- as we look to our funding for the years beyond next year, we will be looking at reforming the funding package and responding after consultations this fall, and we'll make our intentions clearly known to the people of Ontario. But next year, obviously, the international language programs exist and we have not made any announcements for the years beyond that.

Mr Silipo: I'm obviously not happy with your answer, but I'm not going to spend any more time if you're not prepared to give any more definite answer at this point.

I guess I would just add on this point, Minister, I'm sure you're aware that this program, in fact this provision that exists now, is something people have fought long and hard for in terms of ensuring that the requirement that the program be offered where there is sufficient request be there as a way to force those school boards that have over the years been reluctant, notwithstanding strong parental requests for the program. I hope that as you look at this, whatever changes you may want to make hopefully will be ones to improve the quality of the program and not to in effect allow school boards to do away with the program, which I think would be the intent of this recommendation as I see it.

On another issue, I just wanted to ask if you could give us an update on where things are at with respect to your efforts to take property tax dollars out of Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa.

Hon Mr Snobelen: With the recent passage of Bill 34, we now have an ability to realize in discussions with the Metropolitan Toronto board and the Ottawa board the savings that those boards are required to make permanent under the social contract, which I believe you'll recall, and our efforts to make sure that every board and every school system in the province of Ontario attempts to find savings outside of the classroom.

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, the school system in Ontario truly is a system. It requires the participation and cooperation of every party in it and every board in it, and so, as I'm sure your government faced in the social contract, this government will now look at the current funding system and the current system that we have and try to be equitable with it. We will be having, I hope, conversations with those two boards, and if we have an agreement that's reached with either of those boards, we'll certainly make that public. We have not reached an agreement at this point.

Mr Wildman: I would like to turn to the question I raised earlier about the development of a curriculum for the new work experience credits and to ask if the minister could respond to my comment that I understand the federation representing secondary school teachers in the public school system in Ontario has offered to assist in the development of the curriculum and the ministry has said, "No thanks." Is this correct or not? If it is, why?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd like to ask the deputy to address that question but first I will make a quick comment. We obviously would like and want the participation of everyone involved when we make major curriculum changes, major changes as into a four-year program respecting, of course, the findings of two royal commissions, taking Ontario into a four-year, post-grade 8 program, much like every other province in Canada. I want to make sure we have the input of teachers, I want to make sure we have the input of other people involved in the education community, but I also want, and I know my colleagues want, to make sure that we have the input of students and parents so that we don't have the input of just one segment in making these changes. We're actually listening to what's wanted by parents and needed by students. And with that, I'll turn it over to the deputy.

Mr Dicerni: In terms of the OSSTF: Firstly, they do sit on the advisory committee and we welcome their contribution at that place. Secondly, I have met with them separately and sought their contribution. Thirdly, we recently met with all the general secretaries of the OTF and, again, invited them to participate and if they have input we would welcome that, but they do have a full-fledged seat at the advisory committee table and we continue to value their contribution.

Mr Wildman: Then I would suggest you contact Malcolm Buchanan because his president, Earl Manners, told me at a function we happened to see each other at on the weekend, that he was very interested in having their curriculum development people participate in the development of this curriculum directly, not just in an advisory capacity but actually to sit down and work on the curriculum with the ministry.

Mr Dicerni: I believe I had the opportunity of meeting with Mr Buchanan less than two weeks ago and perhaps word hasn't gotten back to President Manners yet.

Mr Wildman: Mr Buchanan was also at the same function. Having said that, I'd like to, if possible, go to the issue of if -- how much time do I have left here?

The Chair: You've got about three minutes.

Mr Wildman: Okay, fine. Then I'll just quickly go to the issue of post-secondary. The information I have is that 1996-1997 funding for universities, the nine-province average per capita is $191; Ontario per capita is $130. Considering that we are 40% of the economy of this country in this province and are, in comparison to, say, the maritime provinces, Atlantic Canada, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, very well-off, how is it we are so far behind the average, the average per capita expenditure for universities in Canada?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I won't make a direct comment on your numbers.

Mr Wildman: I want to point out to the Minister, these are not my numbers, they are the numbers of the Council of Ontario Universities.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sorry. I'll correct that then, the numbers that you have presented. They take a measurement of a percentage of the funding of universities against a population number which I'm not so sure is the relevant statistic. I believe our universities and colleges represent a value to the taxpayers of the province. I think we have to have more fulsome discussions on the share of education costs borne by students and that's part of the intention in our discussion paper.

1740

Let's look at the baseline, if you will, on the costs in the system to the users. You've looked at the taxpayer costs to the students. Tuition next year will be about the average charged by similar institutions across Canada. There are some provinces which offer less, some offer more. Our student assistance package in Ontario and the contribution of the government to that student assistance package in Ontario will be senior, I believe, to every other province.

We have students who have access to a superior assistance program, pay tuition that's about the average of tuition paid across all the other institutions and other provinces to enter, I think, what are higher quality institutions and higher quality programs and so, that's, to me, the relevant stats on education. It's more accessible in the province of Ontario. It's at least the same quality and I would argue better quality than it is in other provinces and our students pay about the average tuition. By those measures I think we've got a very good value for both students and taxpayers in Ontario.

Mr Wildman: I guess I'm talking about the other end of the high quality institutions and programs that the minister is referring to. If you look at the averages in terms of full-time equivalents, the nine-province average is $7,362. The Ontario dollars FTE is $5,511, almost $2,000 less than the average, not the top but the average. If we are indeed going to maintain our high quality system in comparison to, say, the Nova Scotia system, where you have a very high quality of post-secondary education as well -- it would seem to me very odd that Ontario, in terms of numbers of students, is spending almost $2,000 less than the average.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. Your time is up. Mr Wettlaufer, you've waited patiently.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Minister, we hear constantly, certainly in our constituencies and also from the opposition parties, complaints about the cuts in spending on education. I have a niece who moved to Alberta last year. I believe, although I stand to be corrected, that Alberta's cost per student is lower than Ontario's. They have four years of high school. She went into grade 12 in education and she did not have anywhere near the minimum required for grade 12 in chemistry and math. She needed to obtain the services of a tutor to bring her education up to what was necessary out there in order for her to complete grade 12. We hear often that Ontario and some other jurisdictions don't have any measurable standards of excellence. As a former businessman, I know I had all kinds of problems in training people who came out of high school to do the job. They did not have the minimum required to do the job. Are we going to be developing any measurable standards of excellence?

Hon Mr Snobelen: You point to, I think, one of the key dilemmas in delivering real value to both parents, taxpayers, and students in the province. We also talked -- I believe it's necessary to have standards of achievement in order to do two things: One, measure value, because if you can't measure on a consistent basis student achievement, how do you know whether you're achieving what your goals are and how do you know if you're doing that affordably? Equally and more important perhaps, without standards of student achievement, the accreditation of a high school diploma can mean a number of different things. A high school diploma issued in one area under one board system may in fact have quite a different student achievement than in some other area. That's not acceptable, in my view, to the parents of Ontario, nor to the taxpayers of Ontario; nor should our students accept it.

We've provided at least a first step with EQAO which allows us to have an independent audit of student achievement. I believe that's an important first step, but it's only a first step. As we move to a more common curriculum in our four-year secondary school program, I believe it's necessary for us to make sure that student achievement and student assessment is a key and critical part of that curriculum.

Again I believe that we have to be able to represent to students and to parents that a high school diploma in every jurisdiction in the province means the same; it means the same level of accomplishment. That's necessary obviously for employers. It's also necessary to give students reasonable feedback and so we are taking steps in that direction.

As I said earlier, and I want to reiterate this, the only quality measure that's of any consequence in our school system is student achievement, and we do not currently do a good job of measuring it. We cannot right now tell what the level of competency is of students across Ontario in grade 8, let alone comparing it with student achievement in other jurisdictions. So it makes change in the system very difficult and it makes holding our school system as a whole to accountability very difficult. We are making those changes.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): We know that education expenditures in Ontario can be reduced by $1 billion a year by reducing out-of-classroom expenditures, administration for example, and a number of school boards have heard this message and are acting accordingly. However, I understand that some boards haven't heard this message. I'm thinking of cases where front-line teachers, education assistants have been pink-slipped. I'm thinking of those people in the classroom who help disadvantaged or learning-disabled children.

You've indicated that we should not tolerate an education funding system that would hamper programs for children with special needs. One of my questions would be, has funding designated for in-classroom special education been reduced or is the present funding system in a sense discriminating against children who have some of these disadvantages? What is the problem, that some boards are not able to accommodate them?

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's a good question. One of the difficulties we have with the funding system that we've inherited is that in fact the funding isn't driven by the needs of special-needs kids. It's done on a bulk basis to boards based on an assumption of the individual need.

The ministry and the province do not directly control the spending of large parts of the education dollar and so it's very difficult for the province to be held to account by the taxpayers of Ontario and the parents of Ontario for the provisions of the services that we intend children to have. That's one of the fundamental reasons why we need to change the funding mechanism.

Again, this is a very awkward funding mechanism that doesn't allow the province to do quality control in a great many ways, particularly in those areas where I think all of us want to make sure that young children who have special needs get the same possibility as other children do in our system.

We don't as a province, under our current funding mechanism, have that ability and we believe that we should have that ability in order to be held to account by the taxpayers, parents and the children of Ontario. When we review funding, we will do that. I think it's regrettable that hasn't been done in the past.

1750

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Minister, on tax freedom day, which I think today is, when we start working for our own selves for the rest of the year, how does the Sweeney report on who does what -- how are the education finance reforms going to affect the taxpayer?

Hon Mr Snobelen: My sense of the taxpayers -- and I'm sure everyone in this room talks to a number of taxpayers every week -- but my sense of the request -- I think most taxpayers, if not all, in the province of Ontario accept the fact that we must have a quality education system, that the future of the province depends on it. I think it's something, by and large, most people are very willing to contribute to.

The request of taxpayers I think is to use their money wisely, to make sure that every dollar they invest in the education system makes a difference in student achievement, and we currently can't measure student achievement very accurately and we cannot give them that assurance. By all of the independent measures we can apply to our system, we currently don't offer a premium value to taxpayers.

Who does what, our work on changing the funding model, are all driven by providing better value to taxpayers and being willing to be held to account for that, which I believe governments should. So I think the taxpayers of Ontario are going to get what they're asking for, which is better value for their tax dollar. That's the bottom line in terms of our spending in education.

The member for Algoma brought up the situation in Nova Scotia with their universities where they are now changing their university system considerably in Nova Scotia and looking at very dramatic changes, as other provinces are. The minister in Nova Scotia has said publicly that it's time to quit spending money in the name of education and start spending money on education, and a similar situation exists in most provinces where taxpayers are demanding better value, higher student achievement for a lower investment.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): My favourite subject being how the thing gets administered, firstly, I understand you've got a monster job on your hands tackling the fundamental problems of the educational process, but have you had the time or do you have the resources to address some of the administrative processes that create a lot of aggravation and cause an awful lot of unnecessary expense in the educational establishment?

A couple of examples come to mind: the streamlining of the approvals programs on new courses, for example, or the funding of the courses at the college level. They have approvals processes. There's a deadline, I think it's January 15. If it's not approved by the ministry then it has to go the way it was and changes are marked as pending; or the timing of grants. It seems kind of strange: we agree to fund them but we don't give them the money so boards of education have to go and borrow money. It seems to me we're using borrowed money to pay borrowed money. Why don't we have it so only one pays the interest?

You've got a lot of occupational health and safety regulations that seem to be laid on you maybe from the Ministry of Education that perhaps could be simplified. They specify in grand detail all the things that you must be doing in the hope that your children and their teachers will be safe. Can we not come to some agreement with those people that they would set what the objectives are and then have you file a plan for attaining it? Every time you read one of these things they give you a nightmare, because who gets in to write all the prescriptions?

I guess that's enough examples. Have you had a chance, in the otherwise busy -- the more important thing, I think, getting at the sum and substance, being the quality and the checking of the quality of the educational component, are you addressing these other things that seem to cause so much expense and aggravation and take educators out of the classroom to comply with what I say is dumb regulation or overly prescriptive regulation?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Your comments are well taken. I believe that the overregulation in the system is more a function of a lack of clarity in the roles of all of the participants. We have allowed, I believe, some change in the administration, particularly in schools, under Bill 34, but by and large there is an entanglement of intentions in the school system of the provincial responsibilities and board responsibilities. Sometimes when you have everyone being accountable, no one is, and that seems to be the circumstance in education to a large degree.

I think the answer to how we address that or the order we address that in is -- my observations in that would be consistent with the observations of the Sweeney commission, which in its first recommendation said the funding system must change before the governance system can change. I believe we must change the funding system, address the governance system, make sure we're clear about who is accountable to the taxpayers, parents and students for what, and then go about the process of making sure our regulations are consistent with that so that we don't overburden people in the education system with regulation that's not necessary.

I also, and I think it's fairly well known, am a fan personally of site-based management. I think the closer to the classroom, the closer to the student that decisions are made, the better, particularly on how our curriculum is delivered. We'll be trying to design a system of governance that allows for that. It currently doesn't.

Mr Sheehan: A number of presentations made to us in the red tape were that somebody in education should walk through the school system and find out what it is we're trying to accomplish and then assess whether or not in fact it is being delivered.

The Chair: And with that note, Mr Sheehan --

Mr Sheehan: Just an observation.

The Chair: -- we stand adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30 or immediately after question period.

The committee adjourned at 1757.