MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

CONTENTS

Tuesday 10 October 2000

Ministry of Education

Hon Janet Ecker, Minister of Education
Mr Norbert Hartmann, assistant deputy minister, elementary and secondary
business and finance division

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James ND)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London L)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim
Ms Susan Sourial

Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer,
Research and Information Services

The committee met at 1603 in room 151.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

The Acting Chair (Mr Steve Peters): Welcome, Minister, members. We'll call the meeting to order. Right now, it is with the NDP. Mr Marchese, you have 15 minutes from now.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Minister, it was really cold in this room, I've got to tell you.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Between the three of us, I think we'll heat it up.

Mr Marchese: We'll warm it up. Yes, that's good. It takes a bit of time, though. It's so hard in a cold room just to heat up.

Let me pursue the idea of the playgrounds again. You must have thought about it a little bit after I'd asked you that question about playgrounds. I'm worried and parents are worried. They don't know quite what to do, and many of them are tired of fundraising. They are tired of fundraising because they've had to do more of that in the last four or five years than ever before, we argue to make up for your cuts, but you argue who knows what. That's what they've been doing, and some of the parents are saying, "We're sick and tired of doing that. We don't want to do it because we have other things that we should be doing, and governments ought to be there to responsibly look after those particular problems such as the playgrounds." Many parents really are not looking to blame, and even if they want to blame someone, at the end of the day they are saying, "We still have a problem on our hands. We don't have the playgrounds that our children deserve and ought to have."

If the board isn't able or isn't finding the money for those playgrounds, those kids are without playgrounds. Then I, as a politician, come to you and say, "Are you concerned about that and are you willing to do anything to fix this particular problem?" I'm looking to you to find a way to mediate or to be helpful in fixing this problem, and I want to know what you're doing about that, por favor.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I'm extremely concerned about what happened in Toronto. School board trustees have a very significant responsibility. A lot of responsibilities and decisions, quite rightly, are on their plate. One hopes that in all circumstances they will exercise as much care and judgment as you or I in our provincial role, or as our federal colleagues would in their role.

Sometimes, and in this case obviously, there have been some decisions made that are creating problems for the community. We have provided additional monies to this school board in a number of different capacities. I find it extremely difficult. We're either going to say that we have school board trustees who are elected to make decisions and to be accountable for those decisions or we don't. What is of concern to me is that, on the one hand, some on your side of the House and some in other sectors say we are not allowing trustees to exercise their authority, and yet on the other hand, when they make a decision, which some parents agree with and some parents don't agree with, it's, "Oh, well, now we have to come and overrule them. Now we have to come and fix it."

It's certainly a difficult position for everyone, but I don't think it's appropriate for us to come in and provide, as I said earlier, special treatment for this board where other school boards are managing issues in varying degrees. As you know, one of the things we said we would lay out in our student-focused funding was that there would be equitable monies, clear criteria and accountability for all boards that would be transparent. I can't now walk in and cherry-pick: "Oh, well, we like this board; therefore we'll give them extra," or, "This trustee made a dumb decision; therefore we'll move in and give them extra." We have provided this board with flexibility.

Mr Marchese: Yes, I hear you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The boards are coming forward this fall with their recommendations for funding for the next school year. We're looking at that. I can't prejudge whether that might be of assistance, but they do know very clearly the process for funding for their accommodation and equipment.

Mr Marchese: OK, thank you. I think you've answered it. Frankly, my worry-I know you don't want to intervene on the basis that they have a responsibility and ought to be accountable for the decisions they have made. They are elected people, so they should do whatever is right on the basis of what you give them and on the basis of what they're elected to do.

They made a decision about the playgrounds, and what we now have are schoolyards without playgrounds. What I hear you saying is, "We can't intervene. Certainly you don't want us to intervene, on the basis that you don't want us to intrude on their powers." In the meantime, those kids are without playgrounds, and, "It's sad. What can we do?" So kids don't have a playground, and it's too bad.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I think the school board and the community are taking steps to try and remedy the situation. It's unfortunate to see, if I can believe media accounts, that at the same time the community is expressing concerns about this, there were still schools where equipment was being torn down. The board said they found $3 million in a surplus. That was news to the ministry, which has been hearing a very different kind of message from the school board for quite some time, and the word "surplus" certainly wasn't in it. But there are steps they are trying to take to remedy this situation.

One of the other things school boards said to us is that they want predictable, stable funding, clear criteria, transparent rules, that it happens on a regular basis so they know that and can plan. We had done that. To come back and now all of a sudden say, "We're going to do"-I understand the frustration that is there.

1610

Mr Marchese: This is the frustration: boards are saying they have less money than ever before. You claim differently. I'm not going to get into the debate you had with Mr Kennedy about that, because I think it's a very elusive discussion, certainly very murky to get into, because we make one claim, you make the other. That's why I said to you that ultimately I have faith in the electorate to know the level of funding they're getting or not. Rather than debating that-they're saying they don't have the money. Yes, they did find $3 million, they argue, and they're $9 million short. If we're lucky, maybe next year they'll find more money. Maybe they'll have less money. In the meantime, they'll be without playgrounds. That's all I wanted you to remember-and those watching, all I want them to remember-that the kids are without playgrounds.

My argument is, somebody has made a decision. You're all interconnected with those decisions. You're saying at your level, "They made it." Maybe next year, who knows? Hopefully the board and communities are talking about it to solve it. Your answer is, "Well, we give them the money." God bless. In spite of what you say, I hear boards have gotten millions and millions less. By the time this support from the government ends in a couple of years, it'll be, in my view, a disaster.

So I don't have much confidence in the arguments you make. You took the financial power of boards to be able to have the flexibility that they required. I think it was foolhardy. It's contrary to your own ideological Conservative inclinations, yours and the party's, in terms of less government and more power to the lower levels. In this particular instance, as it relates to the board, you effectively took all the power away from the boards, to the extent that they have no more flexibility any longer.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, they made this decision. There's no issue here of flexibility or anything like this. This was their judgment call. As I said, some parents agree and some parents don't. As you and I and all of us in elected office understand, that's not a unique circumstance. They made that judgment.

Mr Marchese: I heard you answer. I agree. They made that judgment, and now the kids are going to be punished. You will not be a help toward resolving it is the argument I'm making. I'm also making another argument now in terms of accountability, and that is that they don't have any fiscal powers any longer, other than being accountable to you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Do you think it's any fairer for them? In the old regime, if they had done this, the way they would have gotten themselves out of it would be to go out and raise the property tax on, for example, a senior citizen living on a fixed income on a property down the street. Is that fair to her or him in terms of that circumstance? There is no wonderful never-never land where everything was solved.

As you know, I've been involved in political things for many years, not as an elected official, and I've asked this question. I've never yet heard of a school board that said, "Thank you very much, we have enough money." That has always been a pressure in the system.

Mr Marchese: There is pressure in the system. The scenario you paint is interesting because under the old system trustees would have had the flexibility and the power to correct a wrong if a wrong was made.

Hon Mrs Ecker: They have flexibility now to correct things.

Mr Marchese: No, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Otherwise they never would have found this money from this surplus they seem to have.

Mr Marchese: But, Minister, I'm arguing with you that you have taken financial powers away. There is no flexibility left, is what I'm saying, other than finding dollars from one pocket to possibly put into another, which means somebody else will be hurt in order to deal with a-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Marchese, what pocket would you like them to pick? There is no pot that is no one's pocket. There is always somebody's pocket.

Mr Marchese: OK, for the sake of the argument-

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are people out there, the taxpayers, who fund that in every school board. That's the pocket.

Mr Marchese: I hear you. You were worried about the seniors, weren't you, you just said a moment ago?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Well, I used that as one example.

Mr Marchese: But it's a good example.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I think someone who's perhaps on a disability pension may well be another one.

Mr Marchese: Perfect example. You're quite right.

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are many people who are paying property taxes out there and one of the things our government said, based on many reports and recommendations, much feedback from many people out there who paid property tax, from municipal councillors, who wrestled with their municipal budget to make sure the property tax increase was minimal-

Mr Marchese: Yes, I hear you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -overall and they watched school boards who didn't have that kind of discipline in some communities.

Mr Marchese: OK, let's get into the subject as quickly as we possibly can.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): You have one minute to get into it.

Mr Marchese: I beg your pardon?

The Vice-Chair: You have one minute to do all of that.

Mr Marchese: You're kidding.

The Vice-Chair: Yes. No, I'm not kidding.

Mr Marchese: Are we in the wrong-

The Vice-Chair: I'd love to give you half an hour more, but you've got a minute.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Welcome back, Mr Chair.

Mr Marchese: We couldn't have spent that much time chatting here.

The Vice-Chair: Your discourse was very interesting. You've got 30 seconds now.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Curling. Madam Minister, no problem. We need more time. We'll come back to it. We have another turn. Thank you, Mr Chair. Welcome back.

The Vice-Chair: Well, thank you very much.

Mr Gilchrist? The member has 20 minutes. It'll make my job much easier if when I cut people off they could stop too.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I won't be taking anywhere near the full 20 minutes, Mr Chair. I'd like to follow up just as a preamble to the question that I did have for the minister on some of the things Mr Marchese was asking you, because I find it quite incredible that he, just in his addressing the question to you, is prepared to gloss over this $5-million to $8-million surplus they've discovered. Astounding. That's 200 teachers we're talking about, Mr Marchese, and yet all year we've heard nothing from this board except how shy they are when it comes to resources, how desperate times are, how any cut had to be blamed exclusively on our level of government.

The other thing I'd reflect on is that even here in Toronto I don't recall reading any news reports about the Catholic board savaging their playgrounds. Surely their staff are just as adroit at looking at the publications that come from the CSA. Surely the staff at 70 other school boards all across Ontario care just as much about the safety of their kids. But if you were following the aftermath to this fateful board decision, you may recall reading a number of trustees saying, "I simply followed the chair. I didn't even read the report." They didn't read the report, and if they had read the report the TDSB staff member who drafted it said that the rules were not to be applied retroactively. There is no playground that should have been destroyed on the basis of these new rules. He pointedly said this is for new construction.

I understand the minister's frustration in trying to answer your question. Every one of us is elected with certain specific responsibilities. The only thing that changed with the TDSB is they lost the power to tax. They have all the same powers to spend. I for one am utterly shocked that you would so blithely disregard $8 million in surplus and accept, on the flip side, all of these cries of poverty that have come from a board with a chair who was doing nothing more, I am convinced, than making sure she had lots of headlines in the preamble to her bid for higher office. We'll see if her replacement is as keen to deal with a number of issues that had nothing to do with school boards, but I, for one, think that is not a particularly good issue to find as an example of provincial inappropriate spending-far from it.

My first question to you though, Minister, following up on that: can you tell me what the timing is for the transfer of the bulk of the money to the school boards? We know that the TDSB got $38 million last year. Could you hazard an idea of whether that number will change appreciably this year for the fund that they have to deal with the servicing of capital needs?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, as you quite rightly point out, that's just one piece of the $2 billion-if I'm correct; someone here will correct me-that actually the Toronto public board gets for total funding.

We're in the process this fall of doing the work with boards that will drive the decisions for funding for the next school year. One of the improvements that I was able to make last year, and I certainly hope we can do it again this year, is that we do all of that this fall so that we can do our budget process and whatever that, as you know, we go through in the provincial level of government so I can come out next spring-we were out the first week of March last year and I hope I can be out in a similar kind of time frame this coming year. So that work is being done.

1620

Boards said they wanted a rational, predictable, transparent, regular process of funding instead of the kind of grant process they had before, which actually created more problems than it was trying to solve. We're doing that work this fall, and one of the issues we're looking at has to do with accommodation, school capital. Those are issues that we've asked boards for significant information on so that we can say, "Do we need to make changes in how we fund this for school boards so that it works better for them?" We can point to things that are working extremely well in the accommodation area, but we also know there are boards that have challenges that we may not necessarily be dealing with the way we should. So that work is happening this fall. If we are able to meet the timelines, I hope we're going to have early decisions out of the door next spring.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm encouraged to hear that to some extent we will now be seeing from boards like the TDSB their list of priorities up front so we won't see these sort of ex post facto problems that we've encountered with the playground issue. As an extension of that, I recall, right at the very outset of our reforms, there was built into the legislation a requirement that the school boards would return to you every year an audited statement of how they had in fact spent the money.

I know some of our opposition colleagues continue to suggest that we aren't spending what we're spending. I've never heard any of them suggest the Provincial Auditor is inept or corrupt or a partisan Conservative, so hopefully these financial report cards will give us, once and for all, the definitive statement. I'd like your thoughts on when you expect we're going to see this sort of detail, and what you envision as the consequences if we find that, for example, 70 boards out of 72 are following the funding model and are delivering quality education. If there are only two deviating in spending, for example, too much on administration and not enough in the classroom-in other words, if they're violating the funding model, what will the consequences be to that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Good question, Mr Gilchrist. The first step is going to be what I would describe as a board financial profile, as opposed to the judgment, if you will, or the quality analysis of a report card. So it's sort of a board financial profile. I hope to have those out by the end of this year.

We're taking time because one of the things we want to make sure is that the boards agree that we're comparing apples to apples. We're taking a lot of time to do that work with the boards. So those will be out.

The second piece of this is to have the data so trustees, taxpayers, parents, and teachers can decide when they see-it might well be that a board decides to use money from this pot to address a priority in that other pot and that the community is very supportive of that, that is something locally elected trustees feel is important for their community. They will have the information to be able to judge that, and I think that's an important improvement.

The financial profiles, hopefully in the next couple of months. The report card piece of it, the sort of evaluative piece of it, would be something that would be coming further.

The other thing I should say is we haven't shied away from the use of auditors. For example, one of the things I think the Toronto school board is to be congratulated for is that they did-they have worked with the ministry and brought in a team of auditors, management consultants, to take a look at the money, where it was being spent, how they could manage it better. The Education Improvement Commission also was in to make some recommendations and some of the things the commission recommended that we do in terms of enhancing money that would benefit Toronto, we indeed did. For example, the learning opportunity grant, which deals with boards that have inner city needs for children, the Toronto school board benefits significantly from that funding. It was something EIC said we should increase, and we did indeed increase that.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Minister, I want to talk for a minute about the testing situation. I know that basically every board across the province will be participating in the education quality and accountability testing for grades 3 and 6. Students are being assessed in the areas of reading, writing and mathematics. I understand that this year we'll also be testing grade 9 math and grade 10 literacy, which will be administered for the first time.

I want to comment that last Friday I had three grade 10 students come to my office to do an interview on the very famous Bill 74. One of the students suggested to me that he couldn't understand why he had to be tested in grade 9. He felt that for some of the students who had a failing grade in that test, or somewhat less than it should be, their self-confidence would deteriorate and they would feel very down and many of them might quit and so on and so forth. I suggested to him, "When you leave school and go out and get a job, can you tell me the first thing that employer will probably do for you?" He didn't know. I said, "I'll tell you what he'll do for you. He'll do a test to find out whether you're qualified to get the job, and in your working career he'll test you many times to see how you progress." The concern I have, after chatting with this young fellow, is that there are those in the system who are suggesting they don't need to be tested, because they are confident that what they're learning and being taught is exactly what we need out in the real world. I do have concerns.

Can you tell us basically why the government has chosen to initiate these province-wide standardized tests?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The reason we told the voters, both in 1995 and again in 1999, that standardized testing would be part of our education quality reforms is that if you don't do the testing, you don't know how well the system is working. You may recently have seen a number of media stories expressing concerns about students' literacy skills. There have been national studies looking at how well students are reading and writing. There have been other media reports about concerns that little boys in the earlier grades are not doing as well as they should be. They're not coming out as well as little girls, and perhaps that's going to set them up for failure later.

None of those stories would have existed and none of those parents or the educators and teachers who are working so hard to fix it would have known if standardized testing wasn't going on. So it's an important commitment and an important part of our reforms. That is how you ask the question, "Are we doing the job we should be doing?" If we're not, then we have the information to fix that. That's why those tests are so important. The Education Quality and Accountability Office is the arm's-length, independent organization that is responsible for the testing policy: putting it in place, making sure the process is valid and that we have data that actually means something.

The other thing I think is important to recognize about the testing is that this kind of testing is not done to assess how an individual student is doing. That information is certainly available to that student, that teacher and that parent, so they can use it. But that is not the only way that student is evaluated. There are many other ways a teacher evaluates a student, as there should be. So while the data is available for the student, what is of interest to school boards, principals, the teaching team, parents in general and the government is what those tests are saying about the whole system. For example, we've heard the concerns about how, because it is a more rigorous curriculum-it was designed to be a more rigorous curriculum-we need to take further steps for remediation to help students deal with the new curriculum. The marks in some areas in boards and schools have shown that. So we are indeed taking those steps, and I think we need to take more and are prepared to do that.

The other thing I think is one of the concerns you hear from some critics of testing is that this is going to do something to that young person's self-esteem. I can't think of anything more devastating to anyone's self-esteem than to walk out of high school with that little piece of paper that says it means something, and to walk into your first university course or your first job and discover it's a hoax, that it doesn't mean something. At that stage in their lives, it is very difficult to fix the problem. We need to be fixing that problem before they walk out the door, so that piece of paper does mean something. The grade 10 literacy test that is happening starting tomorrow is another step that will ensure our students are getting what they need when they walk out the door.

1630

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): In the Blueprint, we made a commitment to enhance the parental role in the education system and the role of school councils. I've met with several parents' groups in my riding that represent Wilton Grove public school. In some cases, parents' groups feel they have not been brought into enough decision-making around a particular school. In the spring, I also followed the debate in some high schools where parent councils voted for uniforms, and I thought this was a long time coming, three or four years, that they've had that progress to make decisions on whether there should be uniforms at that school.

Minister, can you explain how the parent councils are working across the province and if there seems to be any benefit as a result of that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The school councils, wherein parents have an opportunity to participate, and clearly participate, in what's happening in their school, are something we have not only instituted and made mandatory from school to school-every school-but are also in the process of actually enshrining that in law. The regulations that will clearly lay out the advisory role of school councils, the guidelines to follow, will be very important in making sure the parents' voice is heard in the decisions around the school.

The role that council plays is important. For example, we were just talking to Mr Stewart about testing results. One of the things we require is that if a school's testing results are very poor, that school put in place a turnaround plan, a school improvement plan: "How are we going to do better? How are we going to help our students do better?" One of the significant roles of the parent council or school council is to participate in the development of that school improvement plan.

Also, the code of conduct, setting policies for safer schools: the province has legislation, the Safe Schools Act, which sets penalties for serious infractions-bringing drugs, alcohol or weapons to school. But there are many other policies that school boards or schools wish to have in place and, again, the school council's feedback is a very important piece in that.

The dress code, the uniforms: as you say, parents will have the authority to make the decision whether they want to have a dress code or a uniform in their school. That's another important role for them.

The selection process for principals and vice-principals: one of the important leadership roles in a school, one of the roles that makes a school a good school is the principal and vice-principal and how good a job they do. So selection criteria are something school councils need to be part of.

The regulations clearly spell that out. They also clearly say when school boards and principals must consult, and they must report back to those councils the result of that consultation.

The other steps we're taking answer the concern that many school council members had about needing more information so they could judge for themselves and so they could do a good job of providing input. We've done that, first of all, by providing much more information, using all the communication tools we have to communicate with school councils. I think it's important for the minister or the ministry or the government to actually be reporting to school councils, because we believe in accountability at all levels. I think we need to be reporting directly to school councils on the status of change and reform in the system, and that's an improvement I'd like to see.

We're also organizing regional forums for school councils, and developing resources so they can do their work. TVOntario, for example, has a wonderful communications hub, a Web site that has the 4,800 school councils able to communicate with each other, something they really wanted to do.

We're also restructuring the Ontario Parent Council which, as you know, is an advisory body that gives the government and the minister advice from parents. We want to make sure there's regional representation, so that those school councils have a way to communicate more directly with the government through regional representation on the Ontario Parent Council. That will also be a way to make sure the parents' voice is heard in the policy decisions broadly, province-wide, board-wide and school by school.

Mr Mazzilli: If we can go back to testing for a moment-I brought this up the other day.

The Vice-Chair: You only have about a minute.

Mr Mazzilli: Just a minute?

The Vice-Chair: Yes.

Mr Marchese: How much more time do you want?

Mr Mazzilli: I will try to be like Mr Marchese. I will defer my question to Mr-

Interjection: No, keep going.

Mr Mazzilli: OK, in a minute then. With the American election-again what they do is obviously for prosperity and economic growth, and obviously bipartisan. They totally support the idea of testing their children, to ensure they have the proper tools to contribute to their economy, and testing teachers. I wonder why there's such opposition to these things in Ontario. Do you believe the testing of teachers and students will produce a better-educated or more educated workforce-

Mr Marchese: Yes or no.

Mr Mazzilli: -to contribute to our economic prosperity in the future?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, I see it as a non-partisan issue. Student testing and teacher testing-all those assessment processes-are going to enhance student achievement, and we're going to have a better education system because of it.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Madam Minister, I want to check with you again. We've now been a couple of weeks in estimates and a number of things have been referred to. I'm wondering if you're bringing them forward today for all the committee members. Are we going to have any versions of funding reports that show the impact of inflation enrolment or any information your ministry has collected on extracurricular activity?

There was some indication that you are always in touch with the schools and that you would be prepared to share that. The details of the advertising you said you might table with us, and the cost of the six out of eight-it was suggested that with some time that would be forthcoming. I'm just checking now: do we have that information in writing? Could it be distributed to the committee so we could make the best use of the time we have left with you in estimates?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I certainly asked for written material for many of the questions. It's my understanding that it will be tabled either late today or tomorrow.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Minister. It's certainly helpful if we can get them before the estimates are done.

I want to ask you: right about where we left off, I was hoping to get from you on the record whether you see a role for yourself in terms of morale of teachers around the province. It's widely reported, it's evident if you go into a school, a staff room, if you talk to students, if you talk to teachers, that a variety of factors, some of them at least attributed to your government, are making this a bad jurisdiction to teach in for a very large number of teachers. I'm just wondering, do you recognize this? Do you find them acceptable costs? Are there things you are now prepared to do to look at that issue? Has the morale of teachers, their willingness to belong, been looked at by your ministry?

I want to say, perhaps for the benefit of some of your caucus, that other jurisdictions, like California and Florida, are now in feverish pursuit of teachers, because they haven't been able to sustain them. It's not just about how the teachers feel; it's about whether we have enough qualified teachers to teach kids. I'm just wondering, is there a plan on your part? Do you have some apprehension of this problem? Is there some acknowledgement that your government may be responsible for this and may, therefore, be in a position to do something about it?

1640

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are two very important issues. There's morale, and the second issue is supply. They're not necessarily the same. There's no question they can be impacted, but they're not necessarily the same.

Just quickly on supply, like every other profession in the western world, we are seeing a potential shortage down the road with the teaching profession because of demographics. That is why we've already begun to expand spaces in teachers' colleges, because we're seeing that more people want to be teachers, which is a wonderful, positive thing for the profession. We've increased spaces by 6,000. When we're looking at the potential numbers down the road, we think that should be helpful in making sure we don't have shortages. Also, those 6,000 are directed toward some of the key areas; for example, language and technology.

In terms of the morale-

Mr Kennedy: I anticipated that break, and I want to ask you: on the supply side, on the number of teachers, could your ministry furnish us with up-to-date figures on the number of teachers teaching in Ontario? The table you gave us last time omitted those figures for the last three years. Could we know your ministry's understanding of the number of teachers, on a comparable basis, so we can look at the number of teachers who are actually teaching, particularly those in full-time equivalent positions? Again, because we have such large numbers of dollars that we're recommending to be spent here, it would be helpful to know, in as much detail as you may have access to, the number of teachers we have in Ontario, so we can gauge some of that.

I will come back to that question. I'd be happy to hear you on the teacher morale question.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, we certainly can get some numbers to you about that.

On the morale issue, as an individual with leadership in the education sector, I see my role very much as being important to help teachers understand their role in the system, to make clear to teachers that it is a role that is important and that is valued. One of the things I do every public opportunity I have, whether it's in speeches or media interviews or in the Legislature, and I have found opportunities here, is talk about the excellent teachers that are out there, the hard work they do, the dedication you see in so many of them in doing things to help their students. I think that is a message I need to continue to say, and I will continue to say that.

Mr Kennedy: I want to ask you a small thing about what you just said, because I know it's repeated often by some teachers. In fact, in a school that I visited, an award-winning teacher who was one of the teachers of the year last year, by OISE and the Toronto Sun, picked it up. You often say "many of the teachers." For the sake of clarity, do you believe the vast majority of teachers are dedicated, hard-working contributors to a positive learning environment for students in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes.

Mr Kennedy: Because you often seem to qualify-

Hon Mrs Ecker: I was at the Toronto Sun awards ceremony, where I got an opportunity to meet and talk to those teachers. I was at the TVOntario awards for excellence for teachers. I have written and communicated with those teachers, because I think it's important for them to hear that from the Minister of Education. I will continue to say and do that.

Mr Kennedy: As you know, Minister, at the OISE awards, a former Minister of Education-someone I understand you once were in the employ of-looked down his rather venerable glasses and said to you, "Don't do teacher testing."

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, that's not what he said.

Mr Kennedy: I understand you may have-

Hon Mrs Ecker: He and I have had many discussions about this.

Mr Kennedy: I was in the room-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Do not distort his position, please.

Mr Kennedy: I want to tell you that's one of a litany of things. I hear, and have to accept, your good faith in terms of what you intend to be the effect of your praise and encouragement, and some words I understood to be around the definition of role for teachers. But do you understand it's not working? Do you understand there's a level of problem out there with teacher morale that has an impact, right now, on the classroom, on their ability to cope, and that some of the measures you've put in place may have something to do with that? Do you recognize there is a problem, and do you recognize a connection to some of the measures your government has made in the recent past?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The reason we have such a problem is because everything this government does or says is interpreted by our critics of various kinds to be an attack on teachers. Standardized testing is not an attack on teachers. A more rigorous curriculum is not an attack on teachers. Teacher testing is not an attack on teachers. Setting an instructional time standard is not an attack on teachers. But they constantly hear that from some individuals. And when that is the constant refrain they hear, it's not surprising to think that many teachers have some difficulties holding their heads up.

Mr Kennedy: Don't you think that's a 35,000 foot answer? Isn't that something that looks, from your vaunted position at Queen's Park-you're looking out on the land and you want to believe somebody's telling the teachers the wrong goods.

I know you go to a lot of schools. I don't know how much time you get to have one-to-one opportunities with teachers; I assume it's reasonable. But I can tell you, in my somewhat parallel experience, that teachers are thinking for themselves. They are finding that the measures you are taking undermine their ability to provide excellent education. It's not about something they take personally; it's not about something they imagine. You are putting a workload on them; you are putting a new curriculum on them. You have taken away preparation days. You have taken away some of the flexibility they used to have. You have, yes, brought in a new curriculum but not given them sufficient resources, and you have been part of a government that has attacked teachers. In fact, we saw some of the members opposite playing that kind of game today. Minister, do those factors-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, when have I-

Mr Kennedy: Are there any factors-I want to make it clear.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, this is important. When have I ever said or done anything that would attack the hard-working teachers who are out there, the teachers who are doing what kids need? I find that highly objectionable.

Mr Kennedy: Here is your opportunity, Minister. Is there anything your government has done that you would understand as having had that effect, undermining the morale of teachers, and are you prepared to change any of those things-there's a list of those things-to help build a more positive morale for the teachers of this province? Is there anything at all? You gave me a list of what wasn't. Is there anything there is?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, are you interested in my answering the question or not?

Mr Kennedy: Yes, I am.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I said last year that one of the first priorities the teachers' federations said we needed to fix was special-needs funding and the special-needs program. I stood up publicly and said, "I hear you, and that's what we will do." I can go through, again, all the steps we did. I heard from teachers' federations that one of the things we needed to do was have more remediation for students who were struggling with the new curriculum. We are indeed doing that. I heard from teachers' federations-

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I'm sorry, you're not answering my question. I wonder if there is a problem here.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I heard many concerns from the federations in the regular meetings I have with federation leaders and with individual teachers and I am quite prepared to continue to take steps to deal with concerns they have. We've slowed down curriculum implementation. We've put more money out to help teachers on new curriculum. We doubled the size of the summer institutes this year. There's been a list of issues they've given me and I am working my way through that list. You can say it's not fast enough, I understand that, but do not say that we are not hearing those concerns.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I've given you ample opportunity to answer fairly simple questions. Maybe, by implication, there's something in your latest response. But I would ask you to be blunt and clear: are there things-for example, do you understand that the staffing model you adopted is undermining teacher morale? Do you accept that may be one of the consequences, unintended or not? I'm not imputing your motives, Minister. Do you understand that is how it is affecting teachers in Ontario today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: But we don't set a staffing model.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, six out of eight in your Bill 74?

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's not a staffing model.

Mr Kennedy: Let's talk about six out of eight, then. If you want to quibble, Minister, I would appreciate a direct answer to a direct question.

The Vice-Chair: Order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'm trying to give you a direct answer.

The Vice-Chair: Minister, could you give me a minute, please.

Mr Kennedy: It's not working well, Minister, and I was trying to help you.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy, give me a minute, please. I just want to hear one person speaking at a time. Mr Kennedy, if you want the minister to answer, let me know that too, or if you just want to ask the questions, because sometimes I get a response from the minister and then I'm hearing two voices at the same time. May we proceed now and just hear one voice at a time? Otherwise I may have to ask you to direct all your questions and answers or your statements or comments to the Chair.

You may proceed.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Mr Chair.

I'm not sure, Minister, and I'll leave it up to you in your next response, if there's something specific that you acknowledge in your role in undermining morale. I think it makes it hard for you to be the agent of fixing things if you don't recognize the basic list, not of complaints but of real difficulty that teachers find with your agenda. A large number of teachers would like to reconcile that. But unless you're prepared, in this public forum, on the record to say what those things are, I think it's very disheartening to teachers to know that somehow you're avoiding the things they seem to find central to their inability to do their work.

I'd like to ask you specifically again about the funding.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Obviously you didn't want an answer to that, but that's OK.

Mr Kennedy: I've tried a number of times, and if there's something direct, I'd be happy to hear from you. Is there a direct answer to that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I didn't talk about complaints; I talked about issues and problems the federations identified that we have been moving to fix. So I don't think it is fair for you to somehow say that we are ignoring problems.

Mr Kennedy: I asked you a direct question, Minister: six out of eight. I asked that question.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'm not setting a staffing model. It is up to the local union and the board, because some have semester systems and some don't.

Mr Kennedy: Right. But you know what I mean. Why play games?

The Vice-Chair: Order. Through me, please.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Just a second. Mr Chair, we do not set how the teacher's day is allocated. We set a board-wide average for instructional time in the classroom based on the national average. How that gets interpreted is something between the union and the board in terms of how they can do that. It's their responsibility to implement that within that framework.

1650

Mr Kennedy: If I may, there's not a lot of syncronicity with what you've just said and what's happening in the real world. But again, I guess that's the point of this line of questioning.

I want to ask you about the funding because I think it is fairly fundamental. You talk about having concerns for what's happening out there. When the member opposite tried to talk about a surplus in the Toronto board, I guess that meant by implication he was approving of the $1,345 cut you've effected to students in Scarborough, in fact that you approve the $662-per-student cut to the boards in Durham when enrolment and inflation are factored in. In other words, that by itself is a productivity aspect you're asking of teachers that you don't even acknowledge. I assume, when they table them, that we'll substantially agree with those figures, but in the absence of them I'll ask you to accept them.

I just wonder, again-I asked this once before but I think maybe there's a better prospect in this conversation: if it comes down to funds being needed to help bring peace to the schools out there, to help the students receive their extracurricular activities, to help get at some of the chaos of some of the new staffing model, however derived from your Bill 74, that has come about in many of the boards, is it possible that you will add funding to the funds that are already available to boards in schools this year? This is on behalf of parents. Parents have asked me to ask you this question.

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the things the honourable member seems to like to ignore is that based on the consultation meetings I had last fall that identified a series of problems with funding, we did indeed put in significantly more monies to address those. We heard concerns about class size, we heard concerns about fewer teachers, we heard concerns about special needs, we heard concerns about pay raises and we heard concerns about remediation. All those things have been dealt with through policy, regulation or legislation and more money. But I categorically reject, while resources are very important, the honourable member saying that the only thing that predicts how well a teacher does in the classroom is how many bucks are around. I value a teacher's contribution more than that because a good teacher teaching is more important for the quality of education than the bucks the accountants like to kick around.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, if you were able to sit there and agree, claim credit for your government and say, "I cut $918 per student and I don't think it's affecting students," at least then I think there could be some respect conferred on your office. But instead you dodge around it. You try to say you gave money back. You've given nothing back compared to what you took away.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We didn't give money back. We gave new money, Mr Kennedy.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, with your funding formula, you took money away.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No. That's not fair. That's not accurate. We can have this debate again, if you want it.

Mr Kennedy: You cut money from boards.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): On a point of order, Mr Chair.

The Vice-Chair: Order. We're getting those two voices again. Mr Kennedy, direct your statements to me, then.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Chair, I'm always happy to engage you in-

The Vice-Chair: First, it makes me feel very important, as I'm presiding. Next, it will bring some order to the whole thing.

Mr Tascona: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm getting very tired of Mr Kennedy in his line of questioning. At least Mr Marchese has respect for the minister.

The Vice-Chair: That's not a point of order.

Mr Tascona: The point of order is this: I have a right to hear an answer when a question is being put out. I cannot hear any responses by the minister because Mr Kennedy is interrupting.

The Vice-Chair: That's not a point of order.

Mr Tascona: It is a point of order. I have a right to hear the question answered.

The Vice-Chair: If the answer is not to your satisfaction, I can't help you.

Mr Tascona: I can't hear the answer.

The Vice-Chair: The answers are there. May we proceed?

Mr Tascona: I can't hear the answer.

The Vice-Chair: It's not a point of order.

Mr Tascona: What are we here for if I can't hear the answer?

The Vice-Chair: You may not have the right answer. May we proceed?

Mr Kennedy: I'd like to proceed to one area around funding to garner the minister's true intention. I raised in the House the other day this document, which basically summarizes the results of the review that the government undertakes of every single application for special needs: ISA, funding 2 and 3. What it shows, Minister, is a very large discrepancy headed for the school boards. When we look at the rules that you circulate to the boards, you've told them in your so-called legislative grants for this year that their special-needs funding is going to be determined by this review. That review comes up with amounts varying board by board, but it's $174 million less than what you've come up with this year. So, Minister, I have two questions for you.

The Vice-Chair: She has to respond within a minute.

Mr Kennedy: They're very succinct answers, I hope. Will you scrap your review model that is wasting so much time out there? The principals have already identified some 20% of the time, which would be $60 million to $80 million worth of teachers' time, that should be spent on the most vulnerable kids. Will you scrap it, given the huge discrepancy between what you think you're prepared to fund and what the review comes up with as the allocated dollars? Second, will you guarantee here today to these boards that they will receive the same money they received this year for next year; this review model, whatever it is and however it came up with these results, and the huge amount of energy and effort spent and perhaps wasted. Will you guarantee that they will be the same as this year? So those two questions, Minister: will you scrap the review and will you guarantee the funding?

The Vice-Chair: Madam Minister, I think you should take those under consideration and when it comes back around you can respond.

Mr Marchese: Madam Minister, just to go back to some of the questions I raised earlier about playgrounds and trustees making a mistake, I just have a couple of questions and then we'll move on to this other topic here.

My point is that if the trustees had the financial responsibilities and power, they would have been able to correct a wrong and/or a mistake that may have been made. As a result of your financial central control at Queen's Park, they can't remedy that because they don't have any powers to raise money. You were quite rightly concerned that if they were trying to correct a wrong, they would have to raise property taxes, and then what would happen to poor seniors if they can't afford it and what would happen to poor people with disabilities? Quite rightly I agree with that.

My question to you is, if you're worried about seniors and worried about people with disabilities, why haven't you removed completely the load of the property tax burden from those groups?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As you will recall, we had attempted to remove the entire cost of education from the property tax. The municipalities did not agree with the only way that could be done. So in the interests of the consultation we compromised on that based on the feedback we had from municipalities. Half of it comes off the property tax and half of it does not. We've also brought down property taxes in this province and we still have, if I recall our campaign commitment, another step or two to take in bringing property taxes down further.

Mr Marchese: If you remove the education portion completely, that would be a relief for property taxpayers, particularly those who have disabilities and seniors. But you haven't done that. What you've done is to essentially download other social responsibilities onto the municipalities, what you've called the zero sum gain, where you take out education but you download other responsibilities. So the same load remains on the property taxpayer. How does that help them again?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, as I said, when we said we would look at local service realignment, there was no ability for the province to assume more than a $5-billion liability on its own hook and at the same time keep the lid on provincial taxes. So what we did with the municipalities was to reallocate the responsibilities they have and we have and the funding responsibilities. They have had significant opportunities for savings. For example, municipalities have saved literally hundreds of millions of dollars across this province with the reduction in the welfare caseload.

Mr Marchese: OK. Thanks, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: So we are very concerned about the impact on property taxpayers. That's why we've made the changes; that's why we've put in place reductions in property taxes, because we are concerned about any increase in taxes.

Mr Marchese: Thank you. I'll make a statement and then move on to the other questions.

The fact of the matter is, you make the claim that you're worried about seniors and people with disabilities. The fact is, it's not backed up by any substance and/or law. The point is, as a statement-I don't want your reaction because I have other questions for you-you haven't helped people with disabilities; you haven't helped seniors. You're not really concerned about them because the load for them remains the same.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No. We've brought down property taxes, Mr Marchese.

1700

Mr Marchese: The load remains the same. It may be that, because of Mel Lastman's claim not to raise property taxes, taxes have remained relatively stable for the last couple of years, except your changes have increased them somewhat. But in the next election you'll see property taxes going up, because the download isn't entirely even, the cities say, so they're going to be loaded with other responsibilities that will cost property owners more-seniors, people with disabilities, young people who are buying a home and so on. You can think of incorporating whatever you want to say into other questions I might have of you, but that's the reality. I wanted to put it out. I just wanted to hear how you would deal with the fact that you care so much about people with disabilities and seniors, and that would be the reason you've stripped the trustees of their responsibility to raise money.

Hon Mrs Ecker: There was another reason too.

Mr Marchese: I know.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That was because-

Mr Marchese: I didn't ask you a question.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -it was two-tier education, Mr Marchese, which I know you don't support.

Mr Marchese: But I didn't ask the question yet. Chair?

The Vice-Chair: That's the problem when you start speaking that way and put your comments and thoughts to me.

Mr Marchese: I like to look at you when I need to-

The Vice-Chair: Maybe you like looking at me, but I am the Chair.

Mr Marchese: Thank you. Do you see how it works? It's so simple. I'm with you, Chair.

So that's the point: we've taken away the responsibilities of trustees, they have no more power, they're powerless.

In terms of your compliance Bill 74-I don't want to get into that now-it used to be that you as minister had the power to appoint an investigator and enforce compliance as it relates to deficits boards might have had. So boards couldn't have a deficit, otherwise-

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's the same authority you had when you were in power, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: No problem. You're quite right. Then you decided that wasn't good enough, and so you included other areas of compliance. So those poor trustees have no financial responsibility any more.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's not accurate, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Hold on. Let me ask a question.

Hon Mrs Ecker: You do them a disservice when you say that.

Mr Marchese: No. I was a trustee for eight years; I do them no disservice. But let me move on.

By the way, I was a full-time trustee. I quit as a teacher to do that full time. That's why we had more time to read documents. Now they have no time, because they're part time, very part time.

Compliance now includes not just deficits, but compliance on curriculum, co-instructional activities, class size, instructional time, trustee honorariums, expenses and violations of the funding formula.

Hon Mrs Ecker: So you think it's OK for a school board to take special-needs money and spend it on something else, and we should sit back and say, "Sorry"? Do you think that's OK? Is that your policy?

Mr Marchese: No.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I don't agree with that.

Mr Marchese: I'm just wondering-

Hon Mrs Ecker: If you think it's OK for a school board to take money designed for smaller classes and spend it on something else when teachers and parents are saying, "We need more for smaller classes," I don't agree with that and I don't think parents do.

Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I thank her for those questions. I'm going to ask a few of my own now.

The Vice-Chair: Go right ahead.

Mr Marchese: It seems that sometimes you want them to be responsible, and sometimes you don't want them to be responsible; sometimes you want to make them accountable, and sometimes you don't. Now you're saying to me, "You think it's all right for them to have the flexibility to move around, and it's not. As a result, we had to centralize not just education financing but literally control of the entire educational system because we don't trust trustees."

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, that's not our policy.

Mr Marchese: Normally you say to me, in answer to other questions, "Don't we trust trustees?" Here you're putting forth an argument that says, "Do you think it's OK for trustees to move money around?" I happen to think that, yes, trustees ought to have certain powers to be flexible, to make decisions according to what they think is correct for their communities, because they got elected. But now your compliance under Bill 74 says they will comply not just to issues of deficits, but to issues of all those other areas, which essentially includes everything.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, Mr Marchese, actually it does not. They still have considerable authority and responsibility, as they should. But in 1995, and again in 1999, we said we would set certain key province-wide standards for education quality in this province, and that is indeed what we have done. We set those standards province-wide because we believe they are important for enhancing student achievement. I'm sure you would agree that we need to ensure those commitments are kept.

Mr Marchese: OK. I asked a question, and I got an answer. It's the way it works. You ask questions and you get answers, and we might not like them. Right, Frank? You're right.

All I'm arguing, by raising that question, is that obviously you don't trust the trustees to make decisions, because in Bill 74 you make compliance a matter to cover all sorts of issues, which includes everything, and then you said, "No, that's not quite right."

Hon Mrs Ecker: Well, Mr Marchese, one example of the very important issues is class size. We have some teachers and parents who say they don't think their school board is using the money they've been given for class size appropriately. Don't you think there should be an ability for a provincial government that hands out that cheque to know if it's being used appropriately and, if it's not, to be able, after due process, to take appropriate steps?

Mr Marchese: You're quite right. I don't disagree. But I'm just asking you a question as to what powers they have left, and your way to answer my question is not to answer but rather to ask me a question: "Don't you think class size is important?" Yes, it is.

I'm asking, do you think trustees ought to have certain flexible powers to make certain decisions, because they are elected? You say yes-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, I do, and they do.

Mr Marchese: And I'm telling you they have no more powers left, because under Bill 74 they're compliant to everything in terms of compliance.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No.

Mr Marchese: What powers do they have left?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Marchese, there are certain key quality indicators which we think are important to the sector. That's what we expect. Trustees make decisions about accommodation. They make long-term plans on accommodation. They make policies around safe schools. They make all the policies about curriculum implementation. There is a whole list of things that trustees have responsibility for.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Minister. I'll make a point and then move on to another question. You passed a whole heap of laws in the last four years, and in the coming years in your second term, and trustees are simply instruments of your policies and your will, because you've centralized everything. I don't need a response, because I've already got it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I don't agree with your comment.

Mr Marchese: Obviously. It's quite obvious from your answers that you don't agree. I just want to let the good public know, the ones who might be watching. The trustees are powerless now. They don't have any financial control now. You've passed laws to which they need to abide. In Bill 74-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Marchese, you and I as provincial members have laws from the federal government that we have to abide by, so there's no difference.

Mr Marchese: Hold on, I've got a question for you.

You're quite right, except I'm saying to the few people watching that trustees have no flexibility any longer and that they're almost puppets of your will because they don't have any decision-making power any more, and you're saying, for the benefit of the few watching, "Yes, they do." That's great. We're having this dialogue, and we're going to give the electorate watching us the ability to say, "We have two points of view here."

On the issue of extracurricular activities, I find it astonishing, because you said this to me the last time, and I find it interesting that you say this is not a staffing model to teach 6.67 courses. It's interesting how you could define that. It used to be that teachers were obliged to teach 1,250 minutes per week, and boards negotiated that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No.

Mr Marchese: Yes, they did.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Well, no, that's our standard, 1,250.

Mr Marchese: Well, you redefined instructional time to 6.67 eligible courses. You changed the definition.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Because we were asked to be clearer.

Mr Marchese: Yes, of course. So it's staffing model, and they have to teach more than before. I don't know how you define that, but teachers in the field-I used to be one-and other teachers I know, including a brother who happens to be there, are telling me they're teaching the extra course. I don't know how you and your staff-

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's interesting, because some say it's an extra course and some say it's half a course.

Mr Marchese: Well, is it or isn't it?

Hon Mrs Ecker: It depends on the board and the union. We've said, and the legislation is very clear, that we're talking a board-wide average. Yes, the workload standard that was set two years ago is more classroom time than was set before; it works out to 20 to 25 minutes-there was no standard for instructional time in Ontario. So more classroom time is required because, as you know, we fund boards based on a whole range of standards. That's one of them. They have flexibility within that standard as to how they allocate staffing. It doesn't mean every teacher has to do 6.67 or four hours and 10.

1710

Frankly, the other thing is that we heard the concern that the previous definition had meant, for some teachers, that they ended up doing seven out of eight. They said that was too much. So we modified significantly to try and make it easier for boards to implement. That meant more money, so more taxpayers' money went out to indeed do that.

Mr Marchese: It's fascinating to hear your answers. The answer from teachers is that they're teaching more, and parents know it. However you define it, I don't know, but they're teaching more as a result-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, but, Mr Marchese, the instructional time standard is 20 to 25 minutes more.

The Vice-Chair: Order. Mr Marchese, you're not really being helpful to me at all. If you direct your questions or comments to me it's much easier. I'd ask the minister too to direct her response to me. I'm getting these two voices and I'm not hearing anything. None of the people outside, who we are all trying to impress, are understanding it.

Mr Marchese: I agree with you. I'm just asking the questions, and when I ask questions I expect an answer. If not, I'm speaking, right?

The Vice-Chair: But also give some time, if you expect an answer, for comments.

Mr Marchese: I'm trying.

What I'm getting, Mr Chair, from the teachers I'm talking to is that they're teaching longer than ever before. They're all teaching longer, as a result of Bill 74. It's nothing magical. I think I heard the minister say at one of these meetings where she met with teachers, "Get on with the job," as if Bill 74 didn't affect them somehow.

She passed Bill 74. Teachers are affected by an extra load in addition to the clause that says, "If you don't do the extracurricular activities we're going to force you to do it." The trustees are now having to comply with all sorts of things that weren't there before. These are the three elements that, first of all, infuriated trustees, and secondly have upset a lot of teachers because the workload is a bit more than they can bear. So a lot of them are deciding to make a choice: to teach more and not do the extracurricular activities.

So we establish a connection between Bill 74 and the effect it has on teachers. I'm fascinated to hear your answer saying Bill 74 hasn't had that effect or ought not to have had that effect and teachers should just move on. Is that correct?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Marchese, the instructional time standard, 20 minutes' difference, was set two years ago, based on the national average. We made significant changes this year, in answer to the concern that it was difficult to implement. That included more money and a different-for example, we included, in the definition of "instructional time," remediation work, which many teachers were saying they were doing, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. We included the teacher adviser program, which again was something teachers said they were doing.

No one is trying to duck the fact that that is an increase in high school. For some elementary teachers, the standard that was set has actually meant a decrease, depending on what their local agreement was.

Mr Marchese: Thank you. Again, a statement, not a question, Mr Chair. The teachers and the unions that the minister speaks of, quite often derogatorily, used to have the flexibility to move around the various boards in a way that I thought was respectful of their situations. Now, through the new definition of the instructional time that teachers did not request, they have an extra load. That's what I want to say to the good public that's watching, through you.

You talk about teacher testing as a positive, as if somehow people asked for it. The reason teachers-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Your government did, actually. The Royal Commission on Learning, teacher recertification-your party supported it.

Mr Marchese: Sorry. The fact that we did the royal commission doesn't say we did it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: You supported it.

Mr Marchese: The fact that the royal commission-

Hon Mrs Ecker: You said the initiative was needed. We agreed. We're implementing it.

Mr Marchese: That's nice of you to say that the NDP is all implicated, whether we like it or not, because we did the royal commission.

I'm interested in your comments about teacher testing, because you make it appear like "I don't know why anybody should be upset, except somebody's stirring that pot." Teachers certainly aren't upset, you're saying.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, that's not what I said.

Mr Marchese: Oh. What did you say?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I said there are critics who turn everything this government does-for example, teacher testing-into an attack on teachers. It is not an attack on teachers.

Mr Marchese: Let me tell you why it is.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Well, it's not. I understand they disagree.

Mr Marchese: Let me tell you why teachers think it is.

The Vice-Chair: If you do that, do it through me. Also, you have about a minute and a half.

Mr Marchese: OK, through you, the reason teachers are opposed to teacher testing and the reason they don't like what you're doing is because teacher testing hasn't worked anywhere in the world that I as a former teacher am aware of.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's not accurate.

Mr Marchese: There was a thick study done that shows that teacher testing hasn't worked anywhere in the universe that I'm aware of. The reason teachers are upset at you is because they say, "If it hasn't worked anywhere and these people want to introduce something that hasn't worked, then it's an attack on teachers." You haven't shown anything to me, or anyone, that says, "Yes, we have a testing model that works."

Hon Mrs Ecker: You don't think there should be an internship for new teachers? You don't think there should be professional development for teachers?

Mr Marchese: Is that teacher testing? Is internship-

Hon Mrs Ecker: You don't think there should be qualifying tests when a teacher leaves teachers' college?

Mr Marchese: She's asking the some questions? I'm saying to her that internship-

The Vice-Chair: That's what happens when you start speaking crossways like that.

Mr Marchese: But she asked me a question about internship. That's not teacher testing.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, it's part of our teacher testing program. We've announced it. We're working on implementing it.

Mr Marchese: But it's not testing a teacher; it is helping a teacher. Internship is a helpful thing. It isn't called teacher testing.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Now you're upset because our program is going to help teachers?

Mr Marchese: No. I'm angry at you, and let me tell you why. To teachers you say, "We're not doing teacher testing," and to the public you say, "Yes, we are," so you can have it both ways.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, Mr Marchese, I have said-

Mr Marchese: So when we're talking to teachers, we are saying-

Hon Mrs Ecker: I have said consistently-

The Vice-Chair: Minister-

Hon Mrs Ecker: -that we are going to have a comprehensive teacher testing program to measure, assess and tabulate knowledge, skills and ability-

The Vice-Chair: Order, please.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -publicly, privately, and that's our understanding.

The Vice-Chair: Order. Thank you. Mr Marchese for 30 seconds.

Mr Marchese: That's the problem I have with all this. It is an attack on teachers, because it hasn't worked anywhere. The attack is on teachers, because to teachers you say, "We're not testing you," and to somebody else you're saying this, and to the parents you're saying, "Yes, we are testing, because they need to be tested." I'm saying it's pure politics, Minister. Obviously it's worked with some, but I'm happy to report it's not working with many of them.

The Chair: Mr Tascona.

Mr Tascona: Talking about pure politics, I think I just heard it across the way. Anything to assist teachers is considered an attack. I guess we can resolve that.

Minister, the opposition consistently makes improper allegations that the government has cut special education funding since it came to office. The member from Parkdale-High Park has thrown out several misleading numbers that are simply inaccurate. I know this government has been working to improve special education in this province. Could you please let us know the facts with respect to special education funding and how you are working to improve special education across the province?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As I said earlier, special-needs funding was one of the first priorities our education partners asked me to work on when I had a series of consultation meetings last fall. We have indeed been doing that, first of all on the resource issue, by increasing the funding province-wide by 12%-it's the third year in a row that that money has been increased-also by setting better program standards so that school boards know what the best practices are. They can share that. They can make sure all those programs, all the steps that are being taken, are meeting quality standards, quality programming that's required for special-needs students, and that parents know what to expect. We're in the first year of a three-year process, and I must say we've had significant input, which we are responding to, to make sure we all can do a much better job with our special needs students, both at the school board level and at the ministry level.

The other thing I should say is that when we were putting together the special-needs funding mechanism, we sought a lot of advice to do that. When we were looking at where we started dollar-wise, we went to school boards and said to them, "What are you spending on special-needs funding?" That's where we started, where the school boards said, "This is what we're spending on special needs-special education." We heard concerns that it wasn't enough, so we topped it up in the first year, we topped it up in the second year and we've topped it up again for the third year in a row, on top of what they originally said they were spending, at the same time as making sure that money is being allocated in a better fashion for all those students.

1720

Mr Tascona: I think you've answered the question that the government has not cut special education funding and is looking for greater accountability. Province-wide standards and additional funding for special education are key parts of the quality special education approach.

With respect to our new student-focussed funding formula and enhanced special education, can you comment on what the government is contemplating with respect to further enhancements?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Further?

Mr Tascona: Special education grant.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's the work we're doing this fall with our education partners. We heard two things. We heard they wanted a funding mechanism that was flexible, that allowed them to use monies as they saw fit within the special-needs envelope. At the same time we heard feedback that we needed a special process for high-needs students, which we indeed have. We heard, on one hand, that they wanted funding to reflect that need; in effect, to be flexible, to go up or down. If they had more students, they had more money; if they had fewer students, they had less money. But we also heard concerns about predictability and stability. That's why we have the guarantees in there, if you will, so they have some predictability in terms of monies and how to plan for that.

If you'd like, we could have staff here go through what this means for some boards. We could walk you through last year and this year, in terms of the increases some boards have had, if you'd like.

Mr Tascona: That would be helpful.

Hon Mrs Ecker: This is Norbert Hartmann, one of our assistant ministers, who can describe for you the information that's being tabled.

The Acting Chair: Could you state your name and your position when you start speaking?

Mr Norbert Hartmann: I'm Norbert Hartmann, assistant deputy minister, business and finance, for the Ministry of Education.

The information you have in front of you provides an overview of the funding that has been allocated to special education in the year 2000-01, and compares that allocation to the 1999-2000 allocation that was produced by the combination of SEPA grants and the ISA validation process.

If you turn to the bottom of the table, you will see that in 1999-2000, the ministry allocated roughly $1.2 billion of funding to special education throughout the province. That varied by board, depending on enrolment. You can see that it ranged from a high of $213 million for the Toronto board of education to a low of around $472,000 for the smallest board in the province, based on enrolment and ISA.

In the year 2000-01, the total allocation was $1.352 billion, again produced by a combination of the SEPPA grants and the ISA grants. As you see in the final column, we then report on the variance between the two figures in 1999-2000 and 2000-01. That shows an additional $146,986,000 allocated to special education. It also shows that for every board in the province there was an increase in total special education funding between 1999 and 2000.

Mr Tascona: The document we're dealing with here is special education allocation. In the riding I represent, I notice the amount for the Simcoe County District School Board has increased by $6 million-plus and for the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board it has increased by over $2.2 million in terms of special education allocations between 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Is that correct?

Mr Hartmann: That's correct.

Mr Tascona: Is there anything else you want the deputy minister to expand on with respect to that document?

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, Mr Tascona. I think that answers your question.

Mr Tascona: I certainly think it confirms that the member from Parkdale-High Park has his figures wrong and, in fact, that the government has been working to improve special education significantly. It reinforces my view on this matter and should lend comfort to my constituents and to parents across the province.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Mazzilli.

Mr Mazzilli: Minister, my question is in relation to the infrastructure formula. Certainly that was not an issue in the 10 lost years of the Liberal and NDP governments, because there was no infrastructure improvement in Ontario. Since the Mike Harris government came to power, as you know, over 700,000 new jobs have been created and over 550,000 people are now not collecting welfare and have the dignity of having a job. In essence, what that's done is brought people back to Ontario with many young children, and many of those children are in portables. What are you and your ministry doing to correct that problem?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If there's one area where funding changes have helped school boards in high-growth communities, it is certainly around the issue of portables and new school construction. The problem with the old way it was done was that need had to build up and then the school board had to apply for a grant for the whole school. They had to join the queue. Maybe they got it that year and maybe they didn't, depending on the will of the government of the day. It could be selective; it could be arbitrary. It was not a predictable or transparent process.

What we have done, by giving school boards financial incentives to do long-range planning and financial support to do that, is that they are looking down the road at what's happening in their communities and putting in place long-term plans for the expansion of schools and classrooms, and they don't need to wait until there's this pent-up demand. What we're starting to see, as this funding has taken effect in the last two years, is that we're starting to catch up on that incredible backlog. In some communities in my region, for example, we had more portables than classrooms in some schools, an absolutely unacceptable position. In the last two years, we have seen 1,250 fewer portables. That's about a 9% reduction in the number of portables. We've seen the construction of 214 new schools and 193 new school additions and expansions. I think we're probably going to see that pace pick up even more in high-growth communities. It's one of the biggest expansions of school construction we've seen in many years in this province. Frankly, for some communities it's long overdue, and the new funding helps make that possible.

Mr Mazzilli: Some people want to go back to the old way, where school boards have the authority to do direct taxation through mill rates. I brought out in estimates committee that in the Thames Valley District School Board, the superintendent in charge of their business operation said he would have had to ask for a double-digit rate increase to get essentially what they got directly from the ministry, and we've heard about the roles of school trustees and so on. In your view, wouldn't trustees now have time on their hands to dedicate to education issues as opposed to what rate they have to increase taxes by?

1730

Hon Mrs Ecker: There's no question that school board trustees now do not have to handle decisions around setting mill rates or increasing property taxes. One of the reasons we changed the funding and took away the ability to raise property taxes, if I may phrase it like that-you can see it when you look at how Bill 160 actually ensures that can be done in a legal fashion. What it does is eliminate two-tier education. Frankly, one of the things I always find slightly ironic is that some of our critics like to accuse us of trying to have two-tier education. Yet it was our funding change that actually removed that, because it was a problem. If you were in a community that had a very rich tax base or a school board that was reckless in terms of their tax increases, there was lots of money to spend. If you were in a school board that did not have that tax base, there wasn't the money to spend. A student's education should not have to rely on the luck of where that student was born. So the formula is transparent, and it is equitable for all school boards and for students wherever they are in the province.

I think it has been a significant improvement and responds very much to the work and the recommendations. There were many reports done. Previous governments had examined this issue, and the recommendations were there. We said we would do it, and we indeed have done it. As long as I remain in this chair, I have said that every year I want to make it better. We made significant improvements this year. I'm hoping to make significant improvements next year, as we all get more information with boards and the ministry, and we find even better ways to support important quality education initiatives.

Mr Mazzilli: Has Dalton McGuinty been supportive of the present funding formula?

Hon Mrs Ecker: That would be an interesting question to ask him. Some days it is difficult to figure which side he would be on on this. But we've been very clear. We are doing what we said we would do. For example, the Education Improvement Commission examined this issue very carefully-they have done a number of board-by-board reviews and studies-and said that the policy that is driving the funding is indeed accurate and sound.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): First of all I'll make a comment, for Mr Kennedy's interest. I can't remember if Mr Peters was there, but I know one of his representatives was. Minister, I'd like to inform you that the best thing that's ever happened to the Thames Valley school board was the funding formula, and that was stated by one of the directors at the board level at a meeting a couple of months ago.

I'd like to zero in on my own-I'll be somewhat selfish here; I do represent two boards. In the special education allocation you just circulated, I see that even though the Lambton Kent school board has a decreasing population-we closed six or seven schools in my riding last year, and I sympathize with some of the problems they have-they did receive $1.2 million.

I'd like to quote from an article which appeared in a weekly newspaper. It's called the Spirit of Bothwell, and it's the Wednesday, September 20, edition. The title is "Why he's running for school board trustee." If I may quote a paragraph, this individual states, "By closing seven schools, this board supposedly was to save $1.7 million. They said they would be able to balance their budget by doing this. A couple of weeks ago, this board received some additional funding worth almost $3 million. This amount was to be used to reduce classroom sizes, yet no schools were reopened. This amount was just swallowed up."

Minister, we keep hearing this throughout the province. I don't think there's a board across the province that received less money with regard to special education this year as opposed to last year. But we keep hearing that there's no money for special education, there's no money for this.

When the ministry allocates money for special projects, and if the board does not spend that money in those projects, what measure do you take to make sure that money is spent properly to educate the kids, to answer the needs that they may need or the special needs that they may need?

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's a very good question, Mr Beaubien. It's something that both trustees and parents and teachers continually ask for more information to judge how the money's being spent, where the money is being spent. So we are asking boards to do reports to make sure that they are reporting and that the reporting is accurate. There certainly are mechanisms within Bill 74 that if a board were to not use the money appropriately, one, we have the ability to find that found out. Parents, for example, would have an ability to ask for a review of that. We have the ability to find that out, and in the extreme circumstance we would have the ability to issue an order to a board for that to be remedied. We do have that authority now. It's something we didn't have before.

Mr Beaubien: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: You've got about 30 seconds, Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist: I wouldn't presume on the minister-

The Vice-Chair: With you I know it's very difficult, but let's try.

Mr Gilchrist: -to approach something in that brief time, so I'll pass it back to you, Mr Chair.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gilchrist. Such co-operation. I like this. Mr Kennedy.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and in that spirit of co-operation, I just want to make a comment for the record. One of the members opposite, I believe, talking about Thames Valley, gave an unnamed testimonial. I don't see why that testimonial would be jumping for joy at a cut of $651 per student, but obviously Mr Beaubien finds that acceptable and even desirable. Also, Mr Beaubien obviously is not perhaps looking at the interests of Lambton Kent, which has lost $790 per student, but that again perhaps is acceptable to the member opposite. I don't want to infer any motive, but we heard the testimonial and I thought it might be useful to see.

I'd like to ask the staff to circulate for the committee's benefit the rest of the table that was just circulated. The table that was just circulated speaks to special education increases last year to this year. It does not speak to, again, the question that we've put on the table, which is the review. How much money would they get if the government actually followed its own policy? About $174 million less, so I'll return to that question, but I want to make sure everyone has that. And again, Minister, I challenge you-I don't think it's a challenge; I think it's a request that's been made before-to put on the table, so this group of your colleagues and ourselves can see it, how much money was being spent on special education before you took it over, because the boards keep saying they were spending more. You've had many opportunities to do that.

But I wonder if you could come to the two questions I closed out with, because I want to ask you again very clearly: we have a situation where your review comes up with figures for boards. For example, in the instance of Thames Valley, let's say, it would approve $16.7 million in intensive support grants versus the $22 million they got this year. This may be acceptable to Mr Beaubien, but I wonder from your standpoint, Minister, will you guarantee that the people of Thames Valley, the people of London and area, will receive the same money they are getting this year, and secondly, will you scrap this review that is taking so much time away from the kids you purport to be helping with this whole special education arrangement?

So if I could ask the first question first, will you guarantee the same amount of funding next year? This is causing a lot of concern out there in the community.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Well, Mr Kennedy, do you or do you not agree that funding for education should be based on enrolment?

Mr Kennedy: Minister, your own formula is based part on enrolment and part on the intensive support amounts that you are putting forward.

I'm asking you a question, Minister. It's a fair question, and I would ask that you answer it in the spirit in which it's intended. Will you, for the purposes of the parents and the students and the teachers out there involved with these special-needs kids, guarantee they get the same money for next year?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Why would I guarantee a board that needs more money that they're not going to get more money? Why would I issue a guarantee like that? You either believe in enrolment-

Mr Kennedy: Because, Minister, your review-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Chair, he asked me a question. I'm prepared to answer, but there he goes again.

1740

Mr Kennedy: I asked the question. I'm looking for the answer, Mr Chair, because it's fair to ask for the answer.

The Vice-Chair: Here we go again. If you'll direct your questions to me, then, and the response to me, it may be a little bit more orderly. And I'm asking the government side, please let them get their interaction in, you know; it's estimates time. Sometimes I will allow a little interchange because sometimes it's much more refreshing and enlightening.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Chair, I'm sorry. Mr Chair, to you-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Chair, if I could answer?

Mr Kennedy: The minister was asked a question and has declined to answer it. If that's the case, if the minister can't tell us whether she will guarantee the funding next year to these boards as a minimum-I didn't say this is all she can give them; as a minimum. Is she prepared to make that commitment today? I think it would bring a lot of relief to the parents, to the students themselves and the teachers-

The Vice-Chair: I think she heard the question. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

First of all, the reason we are spending the time with school boards now is to inform the decisions for future funding needs. If the honourable member is asking us to make a guess, to just sort of pick a number out of the air, I'm sure we could do that, but I don't think that's an appropriate way to fund special-needs education in this province. When we have done the work with our school board partners, when we have the information, we will make an intelligent and informed decision about funding that is required for next year, as we did this past year.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Chair, with respect-

Hon Mrs Ecker: The second thing he asked, Mr Chair, was whether we would scrap the ISA funding formula. I would like to inform the honourable member through you, Mr Chair, that in all of the meetings I have had with school board representatives, with teacher representatives, with the representatives of the special-needs community, not one of them has said, "Scrap the ISA funding formula."

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Chair, he's interrupting me again. What they have said is that there need to be improvements. We've made improvements this year, we're making improvements next year and over the next two years, but I specifically asked that question: do you want to scrap this and start again? They have all said no.

The third point: he likes to claim that somehow or other we are not living up to what the funding formula says, that we're not following our own policy. He says that because he is deliberately distorting what is being done. Claims are submitted to the ministry. Those claims are judged based on criteria. They are assessed. That is the policy; that is the process. Some of those claims are approved and some of them are not. That is the approved policy, but that does not mean that that individual student does not get educational services, because the school boards know that they are to provide educational services for those students. That's why we have what is called the SEPPA money, which again has increased, so that they have the flexibility to meet the needs of all their students.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Chair, I'm sorry. The minister declined to give the guarantee to those students and also apparently approves of a formula that is out by at least 32% this year, that is a source of huge consternation and takes at least $60 to $80 million worth of teaching time out of the classroom.

I want to move on, Mr Chair-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again, Mr Chair, that's not accurate.

Mr Kennedy: I want to ask a question directly, Minister. I want to bring you down from 35,000 feet, from skirting around issues, and I want to ask you directly what you're going to do for these students here. Students are here from Rockland school. They met with you earlier. They have no extracurricular activities. They're telling you that their teachers are tasked, that they have too much on their plate, that they're not able to get that level of extracurricular activities in their schools. Their school year has been compromised, Minister. There are three students from that school sitting behind you. You know who they are; you met with them earlier.

Minister, I want to know, what are you prepared to do to ensure that they have the full benefit of their educational year? What responsibility are you prepared to take, or are you simply prepared to take out the hammer and cause chaos in the school system?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, are you suggesting we proclaim Bill 74?

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I'm asking you. You're the minister. What are you prepared to do for these kids in terms of the school year? I've asked you already. I've made several suggestions. Are you prepared to be flexible? You've said no. Are you-

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, Mr Kennedy. We have been-

Mr Kennedy: I'd like to raise my question, Mr Chair.

The Vice-Chair: Order. Mr Kennedy, and then the minister's response.

Mr Kennedy: Madam Minister, I have made proposals to you before. I have said, will you be flexible? Will you allow-

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have been.

Mr Kennedy: Will you allow them-Minister, it will behoove you to answer the question, I'm sure.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I've tried.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I've asked you to be flexible; you've said you will not be. You've said you passed Bill 74-

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, I just said we have been, Mr Kennedy-

Mr Kennedy: Secondly, Mr Minister, I asked, having extracted-

Hon Mrs Ecker: -to the tune of significant millions of dollars.

The Vice-Chair: Madam Minister, let him complete. If he wants to take his 20 minutes to do that, that's his prerogative. Let him complete.

Mr Kennedy: In their particular board, the Upper Canada board, you have extracted from them, from these kids-nowhere else-$836. That's what you say they're worth less than the kids who were being educated five years ago.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Those are your figures, Mr Kennedy.

Mr Kennedy: We've asked for your figures, Minister, and in three weeks you have yet to produce them, so we'll take these figures for now. That's an 11% reduction.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's not accurate, Mr Kennedy.

Mr Kennedy: It's an 11% reduction. Yet you're saying in these proceedings that you're not prepared to put money in. You won't even say how much money it would take to return this school and that board to the situation they had last year, where they successfully had extracurricular, before you passed Bill 74.

Through you, Mr Chair, I put to the minister, not in an indirect question but very specifically, what is the minister prepared to do for these students from Rockland school to make sure they have restored to them the school year they deserve?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, what we have said to our education partners: we made significant investments this year in priorities that teachers said were important. For example, concerns were expressed about job loss. We put in $263 million for smaller classes to make sure we were minimizing any potential job loss, more money for remediation, more money for all kinds of things.

We moderated significantly the workload standard so it would respond to the concerns teachers put forward. In addition, we did not proclaim the section of Bill 74 which said a principal could assign, because teachers said they didn't think that was appropriate.

Thirdly, I had said for many, many months before the introduction of Bill 74 that using extracurricular activities every time there was a fight with a board or with a provincial government-because this is not a new problem; this didn't get invented under a Mike Harris government. These issues have been before other governments as well. I said that using extracurricular was not acceptable. Parents said, "No. Stop it."

I said that if it was not stopped, the government would have to take steps. It was not stopped. The government introduced legislation. A great kerfuffle: the legislation was going to make it mandatory; teachers did not agree. I said OK, and we did not proclaim that section of the legislation. One teacher apparently said to one of the students I met with earlier today, "I want to do extracurricular and I've got time to do extracurricular, but I won't do it if I'm forced." While the legislation is not forcing that teacher to do extracurricular, that teacher is not doing extracurricular.

There are thousands of teachers across this province who care about the kids and do it because they see it as part of the job. Thousands of schools are doing this. We have other schools where teachers are choosing to work to rule. It is catching the students in a way that is unfair to them. It should not be happening to them. We have said we respect the collective agreement process. In communities where those agreements are being reached, we're starting to see a resumption of extracurricular activities. But if it does not resume, we are prepared to take further steps, as we should, to make sure students are not unduly or unfairly penalized because a local union has a fight with a school board or with the provincial government. It is not fair to the students.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I see where you have neglected to take any responsibility for the current state of affairs in Rockland school, where you have said over and over again that you are basically blaming teachers for having made the choice. You're not recognizing that your staffing formula has created a situation where they can't provide the same kind of thing, and where you've created a climate of fear on the part of some people. In the schools I was in, people who are contributing teaching extra classes at noon hour are afraid to do so because they think you're going to make it mandatory.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, you talk about a climate of fear.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Chair, I want to rephrase the question-

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have teachers out there-

The Vice-Chair: Order, order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -who are being threatened by union leadership in some communities. That's the climate of fear, Mr Chair.

The Vice-Chair: I allowed you to respond to Mr Kennedy, and I'd like you to give him the same courtesy.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Mr Chair. All the noise in the world isn't going to change the fact that the minister has yet to put on the table one constructive measure to help these kids or any other kids have a normal school year.

Minister, either you have your head in the sand or you don't recognize what the principals have told you and what a number of separate school boards have told you: that they are unable to provide the same level. You say "thousands and thousands." You haven't put one single piece of paper here, handwritten or otherwise, to show us the status of extracurricular. So you're guessing, Minister. I think that's shameful. But more shameful is that you can't-

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, Mr Kennedy. We are providing you with information that school boards provided to us.

The Vice-Chair: Order, order.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, as you know, we tabled information at this committee that shows that 94% of school were disrupted.

Hon Mrs Ecker: And I told you that figure dealt with public high school. It did not deal with Catholic and it did not deal with elementary. If we're going to use figures, I would caution you to use accurate ones.

1750

The Vice-Chair: Madam Minister, could I have some order, please. Mr Kennedy has the floor. I don't need interruption over here. I think I can handle it all right. There's only one Chairperson here, and that's me. I don't want you all to be chairing it. Mr Kennedy's got the floor.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Chair.

The Vice-Chair: You may not like what he says. Let him continue. Then the minister, if she has time, may comment.

Mr Kennedy: The minister has made reference to several steps she's prepared to take. I would think, Minister, to show some respect for the students here today, that you would outline for us, explicitly, in ways that everybody will understand, what your intent is, what your conditions are, for what you are prepared to do. If you're prepared to take out your 80-pound hammer and cause chaos in the schools by forcing extracurricular, I think you owe it to us to tell us today that that's your preferred option.

Minister, you've mentioned several steps, so my question is, Mr Chair, can the minister tell us specifically what the several steps are that she's prepared to take on behalf of these students to make sure they get their school year?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, we have asked those students, as I did in this meeting-I'm meeting with other student trustees; we have been communicating with boards. We are looking at the options we have available to us-we have many-to restore extracurricular activities in those schools where it is a problem.

Again, I think it's important for the honourable member to recognize, since he deliberately chooses not to, that there are many, many schools-all he has to do is pick up a local newspaper, and see where they're covering school sports, for example, in many communities. So we do know that there are thousands of teachers out there who do provide it because they see it as part of the job. In those schools where collective agreements are not resolving this issue, then we are looking and we will take appropriate steps.

The feedback I've received from students today and from the discussions we continue to have with school boards and parents and students-and I'll be meeting with student trustees again-will inform the decisions we take.

I don't think it's appropriate, given the fact that in some of those communities they are doing collective agreements-I'm assuming the honourable member thinks we should let that process occur, unless he's advocating that somehow or other we should disrupt it. I think that local solution is the best one, if it's available. If it's not, we'll deal with that.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, you're prepared to let local school boards and, I guess, federations choose their poison but are not willing to give them something more palatable to chew on to take all of this tension away. None of this was happening in the school last year.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, that's not correct.

Mr Kennedy: You've brought it on.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's not correct, Mr Kennedy.

Mr Kennedy: If you're not prepared to share with us, I guess that's the message the students have to bring back to their school board, that you don't think it important enough to tell us at this committee what it is you're prepared to do.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's not what I said, Mr Kennedy.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, this is a rural school-

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order. Here we go again. Mr Kennedy has the floor.

Mr Kennedy: I met with the board of the Upper Canada school board, and the board tells me that one of the things they suffer from, and it may be a factor in their, up to now, inability to reach their contractual conclusion, is the way you treat rural schools. For example, in ridings of some of the members opposite-I think Mr Beaubien and I have spoken on this-they receive in the order of $10 per student, on average.

Mr Beaubien: You refuse to debate it publicly. And by the way-

Mr Kennedy: Any day, any time.

The Vice-Chair: Order.

Mr Kennedy: If Mr Beaubien would like to debate this in public, I'm glad he's finally surfacing on the issue. Let me just outline the issue that we can debate.

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair: Order.

Mr Kennedy: Ten dollars per student in his riding. And yet, over in the Premier's riding and the Treasurer's riding-just coincidentally, I'm sure; near-north boards and so on-they're receiving something in the order of $400 per student.

My question to you, Minister, is that you have a designation for rural schools, section 30 of the legislative grants here. In it you basically exclude most of what most people would believe are rural schools in this province. You don't provide the funds to the majority of rural schools, for example, in southern Ontario, in Mr Beaubien's riding and in many ridings across the province.

I invited Mr Beaubien-I think he's going to express agreement when his turn comes-that we should rectify this. This should be fair. This funding model doesn't have regard and respect for the fact that certain schools in rural areas are under certain disadvantages. That should be reflected accurately in the formulas.

I'm wondering-

Interjections.

Mr Beaubien: On a point of order, Mr Chair.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I have an answer for the honourable member. I'd like to share it.

The Vice-Chair: Order. A point of order? Make it quick.

Mr Beaubien: Mr Kennedy has just made a statement with regard to requesting that he meet with me. Mr Kennedy, on two occasions, refused to debate publicly with me.

The Vice-Chair: That's not a point of order.

Mr Beaubien: I want this on the record, Mr Chair.

The Vice-Chair: You may want it on the record, but it's not a point of order. You and he can discuss it quietly outside.

Mr Kennedy, you've got about a minute to wrap up.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you. I'm sure Mr Beaubien and I can clear that up very quickly.

Minister, I'm sure you can anticipate the question, and I understand you have an answer. I'd like to know, are you flexible on this point? Will you reconsider the funding formula for rural schools? Will you make it fairer to include more of the rural schools that find themselves disadvantaged, some of whom find themselves having their doors shut prematurely, as boards in places like Avon Maitland and Lambton Kent tell me, were they able to fairly access the rural funding, which exists in the funding formula but is out of their reach? Minister, are you flexible enough and are you willing to change the rural funding formula? Last fall you said you might look at it. Can you tell us now whether you are looking at it and whether it will change?

The Vice-Chair: The disadvantage you have, Madam Minister, is there's about half a minute to respond.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would like to know where Mr Kennedy has been for the last year. I said we would look at it. We were doing the work to change it, and that's exactly the work we are doing.

First of all, there are literally millions and millions in money that a rural board gets. There are criteria for what a rural board should be. They were clearly established in consultation with the boards. We recognize there needs to be further work on it. We are continuing to work with the boards to see if it needs to be adjusted for the next funding year. I have stated that publicly on more occasions than I could count, and it's wonderful to see that the honourable member has finally listened.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Your time is up, Mr Kennedy.

Madam Minister, just for the record, there's about an hour and a half left.

This committee stands adjourned until tomorrow after routine proceedings.

The committee adjourned at 1757.