Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

CONTENTS

Tuesday 30 June 1992

Ministry of Education

Tony Silipo, minister

Ray Chénier, acting deputy minister

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)

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

Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)

*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)

*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

*O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

*Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

*Beer, Charles (York North/-Nord L) for Mr Ramsay

*Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mrs Marland

*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Ferguson

*In attendance / présents

Clerk: Greffier: Carrozza, Franco

The committee met at 1541 in committee room 2.

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): I call to order the standing committee on estimates. We'd like to welcome the Minister of Education as we are to commence the estimates to the Ministry of Education. We have been allocated 10 hours and we have three specific votes to complete in the time allotted.

If I might take care of a minor housekeeping matter, I'd inform the committee that I received a response from the government House leader to our letter of June 24 requesting additional sitting time for the standing committee on estimates in either a one- or a two-week period when the House rises. According to Mr Cooke's letter, he indicates, "The House leaders agreed this morning that the standing committee should continue to sit for the consideration of estimates during regularly scheduled times until the House rises."

So by way of information, it would appear that the House leaders have not dealt with the substance of our letter, but it is their opinion that we should be sitting until the House rises and the clerk has been communicating to the ministries affected and to committee members. That is just for information.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

The Chair: Now if I may, I would like to welcome the minister. I'm sure he is aware that he has up to half an hour for any of his opening comments. Then we will recognize the official opposition and the critic, who has up to 30 minutes for his opening commentary, and the third party, with 30 minutes allotted.

I wish to advise the committee that the House leaders have notified the Chair that in all likelihood several education bills will be called before the House soon after 5 o'clock. In accordance with our standing rules, the attendance of most of the members of this committee as well as the minister and his staff will be required in the House. In recognition of that fact, we'd like to get started immediately.

I will ask the minister to commence his comments and introduce any individuals he wishes to welcome as well to assist him. Minister, we're in your hands.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I would like first of all to say I am pleased to be here before the standing committee on estimates. It's nice to be back in a committee room. I hope I'll still be able to say I'm pleased to have been here at the end of this process, but I suspect I will.

All I'm going to do in terms of introduction is to introduce Ray Chénier, acting deputy minister, who's sitting with me. There are a number of other officials from the ministry who are here and can assist us in the process as we go through, but I won't take the time to introduce them now.

As I said, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you and present the 1992-93 estimates for the Ontario Ministry of Education. We have accomplished, I believe, a significant amount in recent years and are charting a course for the future which will reshape and redirect our schools and education system in a fundamental and lasting way.

Economic renewal, as you know, is a top priority of the Ontario government. Jobs, services and controlling the deficit are keys to putting Ontario back to work. Change to our elementary and secondary education system supports this agenda. It supports it in the short term through measures to promote restructuring and flexibility at the school board level; it supports it in the longer term through measures to renew our school system so that it will continue to provide Ontario's young people with an education that prepares them for a prosperous future.

Our mission is to provide leadership in three areas: enabling all learners -- children, youth and adults -- to develop their full potential both as individuals and as contributing members of their communities; ensuring that those who participate in education -- learners, teachers, trustees and administrators -- perform to the best of their ability; and helping build a prosperous, responsible society.

We have diligently pursued this mission and have made significant strides in restructuring Ontario's educational system. Many of you will know that the ministry has initiated a plan for program reform that will change the focus of education at all grade levels. The plan focuses on and sets overall objectives for the following six key areas:

1. In the early years, junior kindergarten and kindergarten, the objective is to provide a quality of access to a balanced education program for four- and five-year-old children.

2. In the formative years, grades 1 to 6, the objective is to give students opportunities to develop basic learning skills, including literacy and numeracy.

3. In the transition years, grades 7 to 9, the objective is to give students more time to discover their talents and interests and to facilitate the transition from elementary to secondary school.

4. In the specialization years, grade 10 through graduation, the objective is to give students opportunities to explore possible career choices and develop their full potential.

5. In the technological education area, the objective is to ensure that students develop the technological skills they will need in our society.

6. We know that in teacher education, an important area, the objective is to ensure that teachers are provided with appropriate pre-service education and ongoing professional development so that they can meet the needs of their students and deliver quality education.

There has been extensive consultation on this plan, highlighted by the publication of consultation papers for the early years, the formative years, the transition years, the specialization years and technological education. I want to acknowledge, of course, that this work was begun even before this government took office and that it is work we are delighted to continue.

While progress has been made, current economic conditions prompted us to set in place a process to accelerate and focus education reform. This was first seen in the most recent throne speech, in which the government recognized the critical importance of education to our society and economy. It is now being reflected in the actions the Ministry of Education is taking. We are concentrating on fast-tracking our efforts in three areas: program reform, education finance reform and education governance.

A key to economic recovery is the restructuring of Ontario's broader public sector to maintain and improve service. For the elementary and secondary education sector, this means we are committed to changing the way in which we carry out the education enterprise in Ontario. "Change" means that school boards must operate in a more cooperative framework with each other, with their employees and with other service agencies in their communities. In these areas, as well as in everything the ministry does from here on, four principles -- excellence, equity, accountability and partnership -- will serve as the foundation for future progress and as benchmarks against which success can be measured.

"Excellence" means a new commitment to the highest possible achievement in literacy and numeracy for all our students. It means a commitment to helping students to develop analytical and critical skills to prepare them for a life of learning, genuine and responsible citizenship and full participation in our society and economy.

"Equity" means a commitment to social justice. It means building a system that is (1) free of barriers raised on the basis of ethno-cultural or racial background, gender or socioeconomic level, and (2) it means building a system that is proactive in its commitment to a relevant curriculum and equity of outcome for students of every social group and background.

"Accountability" means we can show how effectively our school system meets these goals of excellence and equity. It means describing clearly the appropriate levels of achievement for students throughout our school system and demonstrating publicly how well our students do.

"Partnership" means recognizing the shared responsibility for education in Ontario. We fully realize the importance of the role local school boards and schools play in realizing our common commitment to excellence and equity. However, it is only when all the stakeholders -- parents and students, teachers and other school board staff, ministry officials and trustees -- work together with a common understanding and purpose that genuine change can come about.

As I mentioned, we are focusing our attention in the near to medium-term future on program reform, education finance reform and education governance.

First, in regard to program reform, over the coming months we will bring our current program initiatives together in a comprehensive package of reform. Our consultations on the early years, the formative years, the transition years and technological education have been fruitful in working towards an understanding of these areas and in helping us to work out directions we should take. Two other consultations, one on the specialization years, the other on integration of exceptional students into local community classrooms and schools, will soon be completed and their findings will feed into this process.

We are currently developing a more detailed set of principles that will guide the comprehensive education policy. Throughout the summer, a small working group that includes members from the ministry and the education community will work to draft a document that lays out this framework for education reform in Ontario. Our intention is to present a proposed direction this fall.

1550

In regard to education finance reform, as I'm sure you know, I have established a minister's advisory committee which I chair, which includes representatives of each of the four school board trustee organizations in Ontario, the Ontario Teachers' Federation and school support staff unions. We are working in step with the ministry's finance reform secretariat and the government's Fair Tax Commission. Our objective is to put together recommendations that will go to cabinet in early 1993 with a view to begin implementation of finance reform in September 1993.

Everyone here I think understands that a new approach to school funding is a critical component of change in the education sector. The current education funding system was designed in the late 1960s. It no longer meets the educational needs of students. It can no longer support the kinds of education programs and services that we need in the fast-changing world of the 1990s. We need a system that is fair to taxpayers and fair to students.

In regard to education governance, the government is committed to the autonomy and rights of Roman Catholic separate school boards, to the initiatives under way for first nations communities and to French-language education governance in Ontario. At the same time the financial pressures on boards clearly show that it is time to begin discussions about what school boards must do on their own and what activities school boards can share in order to reduce duplication of overhead and other costs.

The Ministry of Education has begun an internal review of our relationship with school boards. We are examining whether the present levels of shared responsibility will continue to serve the needs of an education system that is being reshaped and revitalized both in its programs and in its finances. We want to know what changes could be made so that together the ministry and school boards can deliver a more equitable, more accountable education system that is rooted in excellence.

In each of the three areas, program, finance and governance, I am pleased to report that considerable progress reflecting our principles has been made and will continue in 1992-93. Much of what we will accomplish will advance the agenda for equity, which is certainly a key issue for the future of education in Ontario. This government sees greater equity in Ontario's economic and social structure as a matter of fundamental justice, and as such, a key to the partnerships needed to build economic renewal. Equity is there for an important strategic objective in education.

A major consultation process was initiated during the year, concerning the integration of students with special needs into local classrooms and schools. Integration is an issue of fundamental equity and therefore a priority of the Ministry of Education. Our integration consultation paper, which was released in January, is giving us the input from school boards, special interest groups and individuals that will allow us to move quickly towards greater integration. Our objective is to make the integration of exceptional pupils into regular classrooms the preferred option for a student's education wherever possible, when it meets the student's needs and when it is the parents' choice. As a result, all school boards in the province will be required to take their first steps towards greater integration by September of next year. Some boards have already taken these steps.

Equity is also a primary concern as we make significant progress on program reform in Ontario schools. Junior kindergarten programs will be available through all school boards by 1994. This reflects our belief that children in this province should have access to education as early as reasonably possible.

I recently sent school boards details of our plan to begin reform of education programs from junior kindergarten to grade 9. We're starting with grades 7, 8 and 9. The plan calls for school boards to introduce new programs for these grades in September 1993 and to achieve full implementation of these programs within three years. These programs will bring new emphasis to the results of education. They will be based on a clear definition of what we expect students in these grades to learn: the essential knowledge, concepts and skills that they should acquire. Curriculum documents that identify these core learning outcomes for all levels, up to and including grade 9, will be released in the fall of this year.

The development of the provincial Benchmarks Project will play an important role in this new emphasis on results. Benchmarks will provide parents and teachers with detailed but clear descriptions of our expectations. The destreaming of grade 9, eliminating the separation of students into basic, general or advanced classes, is another vital component of this emphasis on results. It will also enable us to phase out dead-end programs that do not lead to decent jobs or later learning, to stop labelling students and lowering hopes and expectations for them, and to demonstrate a further commitment to the pursuit of equity and excellence together.

Destreaming and the broader program of reform will also support the action we are taking on a number of fronts to address issues of anti-racism and ethnocultural equity in our school system. As the Stephen Lewis Report on Race Relations in Ontario noted, curriculum reform and destreaming are issues of vital importance to minority students.

We will continue to demonstrate our commitment to literacy and basic skills training in 1992-93. In 1991-92 the ministry provided $15.3 million for literacy programs and services for adults throughout the province and to help workers who needed to improve communication, reading, writing, basic numeracy signs and basic computer skills.

To date in 1992-93 the ministry has already announced $28.4 million in funding for Ontario basic skills programs which provide a broad range of basic skills training in reading, writing, mathematics and science to grade 12 equivalency, as well as computer literacy, life skills and work adjustment skills.

The ministry, in cooperation with our education partners in communities, will move forward on a number of fronts to address issues of anti-racism and ethnocultural equity in our school system. As you know, Bill 21 will require all school boards to develop and submit for ministry approval policies on anti-racism and ethnocultural equity.

Also, a new assistant deputy minister position responsible for anti-racism and ethnocultural equity has been established within the Ministry of Education. This senior staff person will provide leadership in the Ministry of Education to ensure the development and implementation of a truly anti-racist curriculum throughout Ontario schools; the development, implementation and monitoring of school boards and ministry corporate policies on anti-racism, ethnocultural and employment equity; and effective in-house ministry training for anti-racism and ethnocultural equity.

Together with the Ontario women's directorate, we launched a series of pilot projects designed to assist students who witness family violence. This is unfortunately a growing phenomenon in Ontario. Affected children suffer in a number of ways, from poor performance and behaviour in school to psychological adjustment problems generally, to the risk of being assaulted themselves.

Social workers in eight school board areas are now developing programs focusing on family violence in general and wife assault and the effects on children in particular. Some of the programs already being provided include family violence prevention activities, individual group counselling and/or referral and liaising with various agencies to create a school agency support network.

We've introduced three new initiatives to mark a significant strengthening of the province's commitment to native education: a new native-language policy requiring school boards, as of this September, to offer native languages programs when the parents or guardians of 15 or more students request instruction in a native language and a qualified native-language teacher is available; a new native studies guideline, intermediate division, which outlines a program of native studies for grades 7 and 8 which explores community organizations, social change and social conflict in the Canadian context from a native perspective; and a computer software program for the Cree language -- which is now available -- that not only displays a syllabic text but also speaks to the user so that he or she can learn both visually and orally. The program utilizes both Eastern Cree and Western Ojibway Cree syllabic texts. We also provided funding of $1.15 million for demonstration projects in aboriginal education.

As I'm sure members know, a one-person commission appointed by the ministry was able to provide the framework for an agreement that can ultimately resolve the serious school accommodation problems in Ottawa. As a result, we released $20.21 million in capital grants for 1994-95 which had been frozen pending recommendation of the commissioner to the Carleton Board of Education and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

Following the release of the results of provincial reviews of student achievement and teaching practices in mathematics at the grade 8, grade 10 general and grade 12 advanced levels, the ministry announced three initiatives. The review results showed that on average our students perform well enough on basic skills but are clearly having trouble applying these basic skills to more complex mathematical tasks and situations that call for creative problem-solving. Initiatives are the preparation of action plans for English-language and French-language schools that can be implemented by the next school year. The development of these plans include a review of curriculum guidelines, resources for mathematics instruction and teacher education practices. School boards, teachers and universities are playing key roles, and we are reviewing mathematics programs in schools and boards that have better-than-average results.

Second, priority is being given to the development of mathematics benchmarks for grades 3, 6 and 9. The benchmarks will clearly define critical learning outcomes that most students can reasonably be expected to achieve at key points in their education. They will serve as standard reference points for the province, boards, schools and the public.

Third, there is collaboration with local French-language school boards and sections to make improvement of math and science programs a priority of the French-language consultative service which the ministry provides to school boards.

Ontario, as members know, is also taking part in a national school achievement indicators program, which we initially declined to join. This decision to participate resulted from an agreement by the Council of Ministers of Education -- Canada, to make significant changes in the programs, goals and design. The changes reflected Ontario's position on three major issues: The program will be based on each province's curriculum requirements; it will allow provinces to choose samples that reflect each province's demographic makeup, and provinces will be able to consult with educators, school boards and parents about the content of the tests.

We will further our partnerships with school boards to enable them to operate more effectively. For example, we are making a total of $50.2 million available to support structural change in Ontario's school system. These funds will be used to support initiatives and partnerships developed through employer-employee cooperation.

1600

Three main project categories are eligible for funding: labour adjustment initiatives to make the collective bargaining process more flexible and to preserve jobs and programs; employer-employee plans to restructure school board operations to achieve cost savings, and administrative cooperation involving school boards and other agencies such as municipalities, hospitals and social service agencies and organizations. A portion of the funds are available for boards in the same area to obtain computer hardware and software to help plan the sharing of school bus routes.

I also participated in extensive consultation with representatives of local educational communities following the January announcement of the 1%, 2% and 2% increases in school board transfer payments for 1992-93 and the following two years. We sought the insights and opinions of students, parents, teachers, trustees and school board staff on how we could be deal with this difficult financial situation.

A number of positive outcomes resulted from these meetings. Grant ceilings were increased to lessen the impact of the reduced transfer payments on less affluent school boards; we are giving active consideration to adjusting the school board fiscal year beginning in September 1993 so that it would coincide with the school year and also coincide with the beginning of the education finance reform that I referred to earlier, and as I explained early in this presentation, education finance reform is being fast-tracked.

This essentially completes my overview in support of the Ministry of Education's estimates for the 1992-93 fiscal year. There are a number of areas I've touched on and indeed a number of areas I haven't gone into any detail on, and I look forward, in the exchange that will follow in the days to come, to sharing in more detail some observations and, obviously, to hearing from members their comments and criticisms of what we are doing.

I'm sure you will agree with me that our strategic direction makes sense, given economic and social conditions -- or you may not agree with that and that will obviously be part of the discussion we will have. But I believe we are well on our way to an equitable, accountable education system which continues and needs to continue to be rooted in excellence. Thank you for listening.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. I would like to recognize Mr Beer now, who will present the opening statements on behalf of the official opposition.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I'm not sure when the last time was that the Ministry of Education's estimates were presented before committee. It has been a while because of the change in the system.

The Chair: Three years ago.

Mr Beer: Is it three years ago? I know one of our colleagues, in a paper on parliamentary reform, suggested that Education should be a permanent committee. The Chair will recall that between 1987 and 1990 we had a select committee on education, which I think was a very useful vehicle for exploring a number of issues. This is perhaps one area where having an ongoing committee particularly to deal with some of the broader issues -- if one goes back today and looks at the four reports the select committee did, there may be some elements where one may say that perhaps we might have gone in a slightly different direction. But I think the ability to bring before a legislative committee a number of the main players in the educational field and to give more members of the Legislature a better sense of what the issues are and where we are going is a good one, so I simply make that announcement, plug, whatever, as we begin.

In starting, if I think only of the issues you noted in your opening remarks, Minister -- funding, accountability, destreaming, junior kindergarten, special education, teacher training, literacy, anti-racism and the list goes on -- I am really struck by the role the education system is meant to play in our society; that, if you like, is one of the problems that system faces.

I want to comment on a number of specific things, but I want to begin with the whole question around children's services. I do that because I think one of the documents that has come out in recent years, the Children First report, is of direct interest to this ministry as well as to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. In particular, when one talks with teachers and school trustees, one of the real problems facing the system is how it can in effect deal with virtually every societal issue or problem we have and the concern, if you sit down with a principal of a school and look at her day and the kinds of things being dealt with, that our education system needs some help from other components of the system.

We've all wrestled with this, but I think it is critically important that we really try to find ways in which the health system, the social services system and the recreational system can play a greater role in supporting children's lives. Clearly the school, the actual building, is one place where everybody comes together. I think the needs out there really require that other sectors of society become involved and take off some of that pressure.

If, as the minister says, we are trying to meet those fundamental goals of excellence, accountability, equity and partnership -- particularly excellence -- I think we have to be very conscious of the teacher in the classroom and what we can do that is going to assist the teacher in being able to focus his or her time fundamentally on instruction, on education and not having to be concerned in a direct way with a whole series of health and social problems, which any good teachers are going to be aware of, but where they should be able to call upon other parts of society to help.

My reason for raising this at the outset is that I think that particular report, while one doesn't have to agree with every line or every recommendation, was one of the first attempts to look at the whole provision of services to children in a much more comprehensive way.

I might put in another note, that the standing committee on social development is hoping to take a more specific look, this summer and in the fall, at the provision of children's services and how all those systems would come together.

The second point I want to make, Minister, is around the whole question of accountability. You made reference to a series of programs that you are undertaking with respect to maths and sciences and the Benchmarks Project and the fact that when you became minister you determined that Ontario should participate in national testing program of the Council of Ministers of Education -- Canada, something which we and the third party had argued for quite strongly.

I think we need to underline at the outset, with respect to accountability and how parents can have a better sense of how their children are progressing in the school system, that nobody is talking about going back to the old grade 13 departmental style of exam. I'm one of those who went through that. It was a grim experience and I don't know that my learning was assisted by doing that.

At the same time, I think there is an equal concern among many parents that they don't understand just what skills are being developed within our current system, what the goals and objectives are of particular programs and courses. Often one finds at the end of a meet-the-teacher night in the fall parents looking at documentation they've been provided that's to tell them how Johnny or Susie is going to be evaluated and not being able to relate to it.

1610

I think we have to take that very seriously, because if we don't, we all know there are groups out there that are concerned, some of which I think are raising very legitimate questions around wanting to see somewhat more structure in our academic programs. Others perhaps are in another time and seek to take us back in a way I don't think we would want to go, but if we leave that issue and don't really try to come to grips and work with what really is a variety of parental organizations and teacher groups around the kind of education we're providing, if we don't reach out and include them in this process, I think we could see a much more severe reaction, not only against school boards but against a kind of system that would be equitable, accountable and depending on new partnerships.

I think at the root of that is that as we go about developing benchmarks, as we go about developing new evaluation models, techniques, testing or however you want to call it, we do that in a way that can be readily explained to parents, where they can have a sense of what it is that at the end of grade 3 or grade 6 they ought to be able to expect that their son or daughter can do; again, not to penalize the teacher or the board if that hasn't been met, but really to assist in determining what's missing. Is there a learning problem that perhaps the pupil has? Is there a question or a problem of resources within that particular school system? What is it? How do we deal with that? How do we then have a system where more parents can feel there is an accountability both between them and the teacher and between them and the school trustee?

I've found over the last five years, since I've been here and since I sat initially on several of the select committee reports, that you hear those concerns more and more. If you then talk about a particular teacher, often parents will say, "Look, I really like Ms Jones or Mr Smith," but there is an overall sense sometimes that they're just not sure what they as parents should be expecting of their children at certain stages. I think we need to do a lot more work around that, particularly when we look at the kinds of changes that are going on elsewhere and at that new sort of world we're told is emerging in terms of everything being much more competitive. We're really doing a disservice to our own kids if we don't try to make sure that school system is as excellent as it can be.

We'll have an opportunity in the more specific line-by-line discussions to look then at issues like remediation. For example, it seems to me that when we talk about the dropout rate and the dropout problem at the secondary level, by the time young people are at secondary -- in a sense, it's not that they can't be retrieved, but really it is too late. We need to look at the kinds of remedial programs we're bringing in at the elementary level to help kids who have problems, to identify what those problems are and to get that support in so that they can overcome whatever the learning difficulty is. I think there are a number of strategies like this that we need to focus on. But in my view that issue of accountability is a major one out there and one I think we have a real responsibility to come to grips with.

The third issue I want to underline at the outset is, again, one you mentioned, Minister, and that is the question of governance. I suspect that if anything this issue will loom larger in the 1990s. You mentioned, and I think it's important to underline, some principles that ought to guide us in looking at this question of governance, and two in particular: the principle of confessionality and the principle of language. I think we have to be very straightforward with people that within our Constitution there are protections around confessionality and around language. As we deal with governance we have to make sure that those principles are respected.

By the same token, I don't think that means that we are then caught in a particular system. I don't have the answer. I don't think anybody has really worked out a complete answer to how we will deal with this, but there have been some tentative things happening in some cases, particularly examples of where boards have been working together. I'm thinking of transportation, which is perhaps the most obvious one and, after the issue of salaries and wages, the largest single item, and a number of suggestions around perhaps boards creating one transportation body. There is some question, for example, in terms of the purchase of goods and services. I believe it's in Essex where not only are the two boards working together but the community college is involved, and there is even some question as to the university, where together, they would form a body that would deal with that. I think anything we can do that brings the boards together on a voluntary basis is something we need to do, and any incentive to bring them together to do that.

We need, though, to be very clear that because of the funding problems and because of the number of different governing structures we do have to look at fundamental aspects of how the system is governed. Again, if we don't, there are, increasingly, people out there, I think, who are looking at us and saying, "Well, if you people won't do it, then in effect we'll move you out of the way and we'll find other ways of dealing with this issue." I would simply say again that if we can come to grips with this now -- and I believe there is interest among all of the players in this -- I think we can find some solutions.

The next issue that I wanted to note was in the area of francophone education and, in particular, to raise some concerns on two issues: first of all, the Cousineau report, which has been out for consultation and which, as the minister will recall, sets out a framework for school board governance for the francophone community. I have always thought, in dealing with this issue, that in a way -- and I think we've all been guilty of this -- it's had a bit of a misnomer, in that the proposal is not simply to create new French-language school boards or units but in effect it is a restructuring of school boards, because clearly if you go into the north and you talk about providing, on a regional basis, for a French-language school board, you're also talking about making changes to English-language governance. In terms of the separate system, any change on the francophone side would obviously have direct and real implications on the anglophone side, and I think those are questions that we need to think through very carefully.

The experience with Ottawa-Carleton has shown us some of the pitfalls in dealing with this issue, and I say that as somebody who was involved with what was then called Bill 109, which set up the school boards and, as parliamentary assistant, was involved with some of the funding issues there which are still with us. I think there is an obligation in terms of article 23 of the Constitution that we move to deal with that question and ensure, in effect, that francophones have control over the governance of their school programs.

The other issue that I think comes up under the question of francophone education today is just where we are going, Minister, with respect to the French-language public board in Ottawa. I know that you have had a lot of correspondence on this, as have those of us in opposition. I think we understand the reasons why the ministry moved when it did to place the board in trusteeship, but I think you would also agree that at this point in time, the longer that situation goes on, it is creating a variety of problems, some real perhaps and some imagined, but none the less there are real problems. I think it is important that we find a way to return that board to its duly elected trustees, at the same time protecting the problems around funding. But I sense in terms of talking with parents and teachers in that board that they have reached a point where they're just finding the governance is causing real problems and I think we have to find a way out of that as soon as possible.

1620

Behind and, I guess, over all this lies the issue of funding. We have all, Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat, been beaten over the head with this old saw around 60%. I guess if I were honest I would say I wish no one had ever used that figure of 60%, because when you go back to find out why the province should provide 60% of the funding of education you realize that this figure came from a particular year when there were caps on what could be spent so it took on a kind of magical resonance. I don't know whether the province ought to be spending 60% or 65% or 58.3% or what it might be, but we have all suffered, each political party, I think, from our continuing promises to say that it shall be 60%.

I think the fundamental question that has to be asked is, first of all, what is it we want that system, the elementary and secondary system, to do? What are the goals and objectives? What are the programs? What program is it that we want to be sure every child in this province, whether in Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Toronto or Mount Albert, will receive? What is that going to cost, and then how do we apportion that cost?

I for one would be very concerned if the local level, the school board, did not have some access to its own funding, in that I think the accountability of the board is dependent to a great extent on the fact that it does set a mill rate and has tax dollars collected.

Clearly, in terms of the property tax, the question right now is the level, because on a province-wide basis we're looking I guess at something in the order of 40% which comes from the province and 60% which comes from the local level. I appreciate that it varies greatly from one area to another, but we need to come to some determination, and probably it will mean having some level that will be funded out of that local tax base. I don't favour looking at opening up any part of the income tax system or other uses there; I think what we want to do is to say, if there is a role for the property tax in terms of local services, what the limit is. If we don't like the idea in any way, shape or form of having the property tax locally fund education, as I say, we have to find some mechanism, because when I look at what's happened in Quebec, I think it has lost a great deal in the accountability at the local level because of the centralization that has gone on in that system.

I know, Minister, you've told us that in terms of the educational financial reform you hope to have a paper to cabinet by early 1993 and implementation in September of 1993. I would issue a caution there that that leaves frankly not a great deal of time for consultation once that document comes from cabinet. I recognize that you're hoping that what will flow from the Fair Tax Commission, your own internal working group and your advisory group will meet with universal acclaim and support -- would that politics were always like that -- but I suspect that there will still be a pretty vigorous debate and I think it is awfully important we make sure that debate takes place -- perhaps another reason to recreate the select committee, Mr Chair -- but I think there are some very fundamental issues there where some people are now involved in that discussion but a much broader part of the population really won't be seized of it until that document comes forward in the fall and people have a sense of what's being proposed.

My final comment is on the question of destreaming and the support services and transfer payments that go with it. I've used destreaming as an example because I believe, and did at the time I was on the select committee, that as a concept it was important, and we recommended that grade 9 be destreamed.

In talking with teachers and trustees throughout this province, they have two major concerns: One is that there be appropriate resources available for the classroom teachers in implementing any destreaming initiative, and the second is that there be appropriate time provided for teacher in-service. What I hear from teachers and trustees is, "Those resources are simply not there." The minister will be aware that in one school doing one of the pilot projects in Northumberland the teachers said, in effect, "Look, without that we cannot do this."

I know you've said you believe those resources are there. I think we risk seeing this initiative fail because of a lack of support from the ministry, which is caused by the 1% transfer payment. You just can't do all the things we're asking boards to do with that level of funding, and I think the kinds of steps that boards have had to take have had a negative impact on the quality of education in this province. We simply cannot ask boards to undertake tasks where the dollars don't flow.

Again, I quite admit that previous governments, including my own, have been guilty in that regard, but I think we recognize today that we're in a different situation. If the destreaming initiative and all the other program initiatives that go with it are to succeed, we've got to make sure they're properly resourced and that there is appropriate teacher in-service.

With those opening comments, Mr Chair, I will cease, and I look forward to the questioning next week.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Beer. Perhaps now I might recognize Mrs Cunningham for her comments.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's a pleasure to be here in this environment with the minister. I wonder if he's going to be able to be with us next week, because it would change what I'm going to do now.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs Cunningham: So that's on Tuesday?

The Chair: It's my understanding that we will reconvene next Tuesday and that the Chair has been advised there are some scheduling difficulties and we may not be sitting next Wednesday.

Mrs Cunningham: I see. So if I make some introductory comments today, there will be an opportunity to question the minister with regard to his remarks this afternoon?

The Chair: Yes. I believe we may be called to the House at around 5 o'clock, leaving you half an hour for your comments. Perhaps the minister might entertain a brief response when we begin next Tuesday and we proceed directly into questions to assist moving into the question period next Tuesday. In all probability we'll not sit on Wednesday.

Mrs Cunningham: Okay. Then I think what I'll do is to stay with my prepared remarks and speak. I'll leave your text today, Mr Minister, and ask you some specific questions later, although they'll probably relate to each other.

I think the minister is well aware, from our discussions and my questions in the Legislature, that I strongly believe Ontario must renew its commitment to basic education and skills training or risk losing ground in an increasingly competitive global market.

I know, perhaps because of my portfolios, which are obviously education, colleges and universities and skills training, that sometimes it may sound as if one is only interested in one area of governance in Ontario. That's not so, but I happen to believe that young people are a priority and that the opportunities we enjoyed as we grew up in this province ought to be theirs.

I also think we have an extremely complicated environment in which to raise families these days. Many of us will have different opinions and attitudes as to why there seem to be so many challenges to young people, and certainly stresses on the quality of family life, which I think have greatly influenced many children's opportunities, as the minister would say himself, for equality. I think so many of our young people today aren't starting with the equal opportunity we had ourselves in a less complicated world.

It takes me back to the time I spent in Ann Arbor, Michigan, when I first became involved with early childhood education, after having gone through the Ontario school system and teachers college here, in what they called Operation Headstart, which was the idea that if you got children at an earlier age and exposed them to other children and to educational and social opportunities, they would make significant gains. I think some of the research done there over a decade proved that, but now I see the challenges we have as educators and as parents as being much greater than even -- basically I hate to admit it -- in the mid 1960s.

I think our young people are now looking to us for greater leadership than we've ever had to give before and schools are basically being asked to do the job of the family for many reasons, not just because of the lower socioeconomic groups that we're not supposed to label -- but they exist and if we don't face it, then we'll never be able to solve the problem -- but also because of the challenges families with normal resources face every day. I think there are many reasons for it.

1630

We also know that, at the same time we face these challenges within our own homes and within this province, our young people are going to be asked to be there for us in a very competitive global economy. At that same time, they're thinking about their lives. We're all facing the recessionary pressures and rapid technological change that forces us to consistently and constantly ask ourselves what we should be doing differently and how fast we can move.

I believe, Mr Minister, that as a nation we have shown leadership in Canada, in Ontario. I think we're going to have to do it again and we're going to have to pay more attention to increasing the skills levels we have forgotten. If one goes back to the Oxford dictionary, which I still use -- maybe it's not as relevant in this global economy, but it's held many of us in great stead -- education means knowledge and training. I think over the years -- and I don't know where we got off not making training as important but I don't believe it is now. I believe some of the things we laughed at as being inappropriate in the old -- I forget what we called it -- home economics and those kinds of things we now call family life skills or whatever, they're still learning at a very early age; skills many of us should know about. We should be able to do them ourselves and we've forgotten that it's important.

We take it for granted that because teachers and people like ourselves have been blessed with either energy or ability, many young people get those opportunities in their own homes. I believe many of them just do not and it's a shame. In Ontario we have the opportunity now, if we do it right.

I know we're a democracy. We set up a government and an opposition, but I think this particular ministry is probably -- maybe because of the people there. I think we have an opportunity to do things together that maybe others don't. We have an opportunity to unify and co-opt the business community, the unions, government agencies, certainly the educators from all three levels of education, and special interest groups, not because they're especially interested in themselves, but because they're especially interested in the people they represent and want to help.

Today we heard from the Ontario Head Injury Association. They were very upset about what they perceive to be a bureaucratic nightmare. We can deal with those kinds of people by getting defensive and telling them they're wrong, or we can listen to them and communicate and get them on side. I think every issue is exactly the same. We tend more to get defensive and it just doesn't work. Who loses? The families do, because with the lack of confidence that they have in us to begin with -- and it's significant out there -- by the time they're finished dealing with us they have even less, and then they give up. When parents give up, I think children give up.

I think all of these groups have to be encouraged to work with you, Mr Minister, in providing effective training programs in Ontario. I don't say this lightly. As a member of a school board in 1973 and a member of the old advisory vocational committee -- at that time it was important enough to be regulated. It was part of the Education Act that school boards have advisory vocational committees and that members of the community went around and checked out the equipment we had. Yes, they became outdated because that's all they were asked to do. But it was important enough to make certain that young people were trained in vocational ways.

I think now more than ever we have to, in order to meet our own needs -- I hope our needs are rather great because that means there will be many interesting things for young people to do and that more people will be working and more of our industry, especially our private sector operators and businesses and workforce, will be out there competing, not only across our own borders from province to province, but in North America, Central America and certainly the Middle East, Europe and the Far East. These are places the young people in our secondary schools have visited. Those of us who sit here on this committee can only go back to our own neighbourhoods and ask them what it's like, because many of us haven't.

I was speaking in a school in Dorchester a couple of weeks ago and I was encouraging a grade 10 class to get involved in the community and to get involved in its political life. I told them I wasn't a particularly wonderful example of somebody who had been involved in politics, because I'd never been able -- and you'll appreciate this, Mr Minister, because it was such a surprise to you -- to get in government after all these years, but you just keep on trying.

Mr Beer: Hope springs eternal.

Mrs Cunningham: Hope springs eternal and maybe they'll vote for us next time, and all those things. Isn't that awful? I didn't stress that, but I was stressing the fact that you have to keep working towards things you believe in. I told them they would probably have wonderful opportunities and that some day, in a couple of years, I'd come back and ask them, when they were in grade 12, if they'd had an opportunity to travel. They said, "Why don't you ask us now?" So I did. These were 10th and 11th graders, and I have to tell you that far more than half the class put up their hands. They had travelled outside of Canada, as well as travelling inside Canada.

We have a very different group and they are people who are looking at us and saying, "You're not doing a very good job." The teaching community right now must be absolutely traumatized by the young people who sit out there in front of them not only wanting to do well themselves, but evaluating the quality of the programs they get and the teacher who stands in front of them. They are, I think, particularly disillusioned because of their raised expectations. We have to find a way of getting around that. But I know one thing: People who go into the teaching profession had better be prepared to work hard.

As we learn from many people who worked on the Premier's Council in the past -- they released a report called People and Skills in the New Global Economy. It examined ways in which industry, educators, labour and government can work together to ensure that tomorrow's workforce is equipped with the skills they need to compete, to adapt and to enjoy meaningful working lives. I think that particular report is one we should be particularly proud of, because it's done the kind of research that was necessary, and we need to expand on it to convince us that we have to get on with it.

Many companies interviewed for the survey by the Premier's Council told us they were discouraged that our education system and the colleges are not able to respond to the specific training needs that have been clearly articulated through industrial training advisory boards throughout our province.

I have to add at this point in time that there is some criticism on the kinds of advice we have been getting with regard to our training needs through our industrial training advisory boards.

1640

But I have to say that in my experience -- and I've tried to be hardworking in this regard and to speak to, I guess, some 20 of these industrial training advisory boards, and that's not even half of them, but it's at least an effort in different communities around this province -- many of them have the small business community right up to the larger corporations telling them what they think their training needs are. The great concern that all of us have is that they change from year to year, so I think we should be expanding, Mr Minister, upon the advice that we're getting and where those training councils are working -- and working, by the way, with school boards, we should in fact be asking them to stay there with us and not change them in some big bureaucratic way. You know about my criticism of the way the OTAB hearings have been going. It's not news, I know, to this government.

The strong advocates of increased training are also the business community. You will know better than I about this estimate of about 30% of students dropping out of school before completing grade 12. Many of them of course come back. That's a soft number, but it's one that the business community has chosen to hang on to and it's one that is used both by government officials and school boards as they describe their own work in this province. When we use it, it's with some caution, because I think that there are a lot of explanations that ought to go with that number. But the reality is that no matter how you look at it, too many of our young people are leaving school at the end of grade 10.

I can speak personally with regard to surveys we did in London when I was on that school board for some 15 years. We asked young people why they stayed in school and why they left school, and it was pretty basic. The ones who stayed in school basically did well and had high expectations for their own lives. The ones who left had a couple of criticisms. First of all, they weren't doing very well and didn't think they were getting the kind of help they needed, either from the school system or from within their own family and their peers. They underlined their peers as a tremendous influence on their lives, probably the number one influence on their lives in secondary school. We, as parents, don't like that. We really want to think we're first, but we're not. Peers are first, teachers are second and we're third. Research says that.

If peers are so important, they told us that the reason they did stay in school was the kinds of things they were able to accomplish socially. In a number of research projects in this province in the last decade it's been shown that schools that have strong extra-curricular programs -- and not just sports and music but other programs that are geared towards the special needs of students. Therefore, camera clubs are as important as cooperative work clubs, which are as important as anything. The needs of each school are different. Where you've got a teaching staff who feel they're there not just to teach courses between 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock but to coach and support these special groups of students from early in the morning to late in the afternoon and on weekends, then we have to give those teachers credit, because there are many of them. Those are the schools where students stay in school. If I had to change anything right now, and I've talked to the minister about this, I would talk about changing curriculum so it's more relevant.

I learned that, Mr Minister, having had in our family an unfortunate circumstance of having a child who was injured in a car accident, who was a bright young fellow in grade 8 when it happened, who had great expectations of being an engineer or a teacher or whatever he may have been, and watching him as he went back to secondary school and being appreciative of the fact that he was able to be there with a tutor, whom we paid for because we couldn't access the system but we were fortunate enough to be able to do that and that was our priority. I was therefore able to watch what he was able to do in classes that I hadn't really been exposed to as a parent before. These were special education classes at the secondary school system level. I don't want to be critical of that particular high school, because the courses were important to these students, but the social life in the school and the support of the other students was even more important.

In the long run, if they had had the opportunity to be trained as well as get their education and take the same courses -- I think you're on the right track with regard to the books kids read. In those classes they read about gangs in subways where my other kids were reading The Old Man and The Sea, and I think they should all have read both books. If I had my choice, I would have emphasized The Old Man and The Sea and the value system that young people got from reading that book. I think you can learn Shakespeare, as I've learned with my own young fellow, with comic books in high school, and I think it was more important for the class to go to Stratford than it was to embarrass people who couldn't memorize things.

At the same time, I think it's extremely important. I think one half of the classes that he took should have been in the workplace, should have been in training and should have been away from the school, because other adults in our society are a great support to those kinds of young people. They have to be frustrated, because the curriculum isn't relevant and the teacher doesn't want to be there.

My tangent now will be teacher training. I went to teachers' college in the 1950s. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. I think there are many other young people who consider it nothing less than a joke. What we're really doing is protecting the jobs of faculty members, although they try hard.

Ontario is so different in the way we train our teachers, and if physicians have to be interns, why shouldn't teachers be interns and learn by working alongside other teachers? That's the best training of all, and it probably ought to start in the second year of university, when they're mature enough to get out there, just like the rest of us were. We were no less good teachers because we started teaching school at age 18 and 19, if we were the right person for the job.

We have to change it. For young people to be turned away from teacher's college because they've got 75% or 80% is deplorable, especially when they're the young people who like to read to kids, like to coach teams and like children, and are particularly dedicated to spending long hours in school, because that's what it takes to do a good job.

Getting back to the frustration of the young people because of the content of their curriculum -- that they don't think it's relevant, that is; and they tell us; they never used to tell us, but they do now -- they just quit. The teachers are there because that's the class they had assigned to them because they'd already gotten their first choice, which was phys ed or English or whatever, and for their third option they'll do the special education class or whatever.

If one thinks that we're going to get rid of this kind of attitude because of the changes in streaming and destreaming, I don't think that's a fact; we're not. It's an attitude, and you don't change it by the way you set up schools or classes. Now the question becomes, how do we transform our current, outdated technical education shops -- because we're getting into the real problems -- to the high-tech education centres that will allow young people to acquire adaptable skills?

I think first of all we have to look to the private sector for its facilities and its dollars, and Mr Minister, I hope at the cabinet table you're not talking about a training tax, because that will just send more away at this point in time. I do think we're going to have to be tough with the business community, and I certainly have some ideas, if you're interested in that down the road. It would take far too long to talk about them now, but there are models in Europe and even in parts of the United States and certainly other parts of Canada where the business community is much more involved than it is here in Ontario. I don't think it's because they don't want to be; I think it's because we haven't set up the system that encourages them to be. If they're not gently encouraged, then we'll find a gentle way of getting them there.

1650

I have to say too at this point in time that I hope the labour groups and members of unions will be part of that. In my experience before I came here, where in my place of work I supervised young people who were in cooperative education programs, I have to tell you that this whole issue was on the negotiating, bargaining position every year. "Is that cooperative education student in the kitchen or that cooperative education student who's working with our maintenance department taking away the job of somebody else?" So it's not just business; it's labour as well.

If it's all right, I'd just like to talk about a couple of other things that are probably extremely important with regard to the dollars it takes to make all this happen. I think it's ironic right now that we're being asked to do so much more in education and yet, as part of the total budget of the province, the percentage has gone down. I think I'm correct in saying that in the last six or seven years it's gone down.

We're looking at historically low transfer payments of 1%, 2% and 2%. You made that announcement in January, Mr Minister. I support that direction to school boards, because I also have the problem of worrying about my children in their whole adult life paying off debt and heavy taxes as opposed to putting their efforts into being more optimistic about the future of our province and our country. Because when we're in debt, we're not in debt to ourselves; we're often in debt to other nations. We borrow money from them federally and we therefore owe them. I think we don't want to be in a position in this country and in this province of doing that to a greater extent than we have in the past, and yet the projections are somewhat worse for our young people. So you had to do this. That means we all have to take less in the way of remuneration.

Mr Minister, the best settlements I've seen in the last couple of months have been 1%, and I'm happy to say the London board was part of that. But even that 1%, as you and I have discussed in the past, means, in real dollars, probably about 2.5%. So that means the local taxpayers are having to spend even more than in the past to support the education of their young people. Those are property taxpayers. They are young people who are trying to get into the housing market and they are older people and people who have chosen not to have families or who don't have young families. Therefore, out there in the real world, education is taking the knocks attitudinally, because they think they are spending money and not getting very much in return.

For that reason, this year I'm glad you are in the government, Mr Minister.

The Chair: You won't have that in your householder, will you, Mrs Cunningham?

Mrs Cunningham: No, I won't. Mr Jackson and I sometimes agree on things, and neither of us has that in our householder. But I think most people here understand my sense of humour. It's hard enough to be in opposition these days. I still have to stand up there on a stage and say, "But I'm not the minister."

Anyway, we're all in this together and we have to solve the problem, and I think one has to put solutions to you. I'm afraid if I had been in your shoes I would not have been worried about winning a popularity contest down the road. Wage controls are something I simply would have done because I'm not happy about the school boards that haven't been able, for whatever reason -- and I've been there at the negotiating table for many years and I know how difficult it is. I was there when we faced wage and price controls in the late 1970s -- 1978, I think. Am I right about that? I stand to be corrected, but we certainly only had a certain amount of money and that was that and we did it.

I think you're going to have to take a stronger stand in that regard. If you don't, we will see some of the programs that we fought long for -- and many of us remember the discussions around Bill 84 in the late 1970s when some school boards didn't think special students needed special programs, and therefore didn't provide them. In fact, many of the students we now have in our school system weren't there a decade ago. They didn't have a school to go to because school boards didn't allow them to go to school, or they made it so impossible, with hour-long bus trips, that they couldn't go to school.

So I'm being pretty strong on this one. The teachers certainly know how I feel. In that regard maybe I'll never be in government, but I think it's my responsibility to take the kind of stand I think is necessary to make things work. I think you've done that yourselves, but we have cut staff, and the staff that's cut is outside the collective agreements. If class size has been negotiated, then that's what school boards have to administer. Therefore we've watched our resource teachers and our special education teachers and special programs disappear, and I think if we could ask the teachers to open their collective agreements, they might even agree to take another child in the class and increase class size by a little bit. I don't know.

At the same time, we talk about mandating junior kindergarten and destreaming. Both of those take a lot of resources, and I hope the minister will be providing the funding from the province if he insists on moving in that direction. I am very unhappy about the mandating of junior kindergarten because I don't believe the school boards are the people who are best qualified to do the education of young people in these times. I think they're qualified, but I think there's a much better way of doing it, and my greatest disappointment with regard to this ministry -- I will speak also about the Liberal ministry -- is that we haven't had a good public discussion around junior kindergarten or early childhood education. We simply have not.

We've had good public discussion, to a point, with the Liberals with regard to child care. The public discussion around child care in schools with this government has been absolutely negligent. We just haven't talked about it, and the child care discussion we have had was not a discussion but an opportunity for the minister to give her own views on what she thought ought to happen and for the government to push a policy where I think you're spending millions of dollars and not creating one new space. My colleague the Chairman of this committee has done a very good job in letting you know how many parents and taxpayers feel about that.

I'm going to wind down now. There are many more things to say, but I think I'll do it in the form of questions later on. I certainly want you to know that I welcome the opportunity to discuss your hopes and your expectations and your plans as you've presented them today during the estimates process, and you know -- I think I can even speak for Mr Beer -- that we hope in our position as critics to be constructive in our criticism and, hopefully, able to say some day that we helped you come around to some of the things we all believe in with regard to the provision of education in Ontario.

Thank you for this opportunity, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Cunningham. I appreciate the tone of all three presentations the committee's been treated to this afternoon. It's always appreciated by the Chair. We have not as yet been called to the House for a vote, and we anticipate that occurring, so with the committee's permission, I'm going to give the minister whatever time the House will permit us in order to make some brief responses to those opening comments.

1700

Hon Mr Silipo: First of all, I found the responses this afternoon -- in fact, the time this afternoon I would categorize as being refreshing. While certainly there isn't agreement among all of us about what we should be doing in education, I think it's clear from the things the three of us have said that there is a significant amount of overlap, not just in how we look at the problems but I would even go as far as saying in terms of how we should be addressing some of those problems. Clearly we know there are some areas in which we have disagreements, and we'll have an opportunity to get into some of those.

I would just say in response that I note, as I think has been said, there are really some very clear expectations out there by the public of us, of the school system, that have probably never been as clear as I think they are in these days: people expecting that our schools do a better job than they are doing.

I guess one of the fascinating things for me as minister is to keep finding that balance between telling all of those people who work in our system, telling our teachers, telling the people who administer the system, that I really sincerely believe we have one of the best school systems in the world. At the same time, that isn't inconsistent with also identifying and putting out very clearly some areas that require some significant change.

It's because I strongly believe in both of those approaches and I believe in the sincerity with which I say that that I find it quite easy to rationalize going forward and talking about some of the changes we need. I think the issue of accountability that Mr Beer talked about is clearly one, therefore, as I've indicated in my comments and I think as Mrs Cunningham also mentioned, that will require a great deal of attention from us.

As we look at how these things shape out we know -- again, as I think we've all touched on in various ways -- that we are going to have to discuss the question of governance in one form or another and what that means in terms of the role of the ministry, the role of school boards, indeed the role of schools. But that has to be looked at from the perspective not of "turf" but of having clearly laid out expectations and objectives for our school systems, which I think need to be clear, whether they apply to schools in Toronto or to schools in the smallest of communities of the province, and at the same time allow for a high degree of involvement by teachers in the shaping of those directions and allow certainly a great degree of involvement by parents in working with teachers and shaping their expectations for the schools and for their children, and that indeed allow young people as they grow to take on more and more of those responsibilities themselves in terms of participating in the life of the school, in the decision-making process of the school. For me, those are all things that are part and parcel of some of the ideas and processes of change that I think we need to be dealing with.

We have, I know, major concerns with respect to the funding situation, ones that I obviously, as members of this committee know, have been very vocal about before coming to this place. I remain as committed today as I was then to the need for change, and the infamous 60% -- it's a good question Mr Beer posed: What's the magic about 60%?

The Chair: The teachers will give us a straight answer, no doubt in the world about that.

Hon Mr Silipo: The teachers will give us a straight answer. I think we all know what the magic is.

Mr Beer: I can even add that it's more magical in opposition that in government.

The Chair: Mystical.

Hon Mr Silipo: Almost mystical, you could say.

As Mr Beer noted, we know that the references back to I believe 1975, when the share between the province and the local boards collectively was --

The Chair: Damned good ones; Tory years, as I recall.

Hon Mr Silipo: Yes. It went downhill from there, even under the Tories and continuing under the Liberals, and then moved up slightly. We're trying to at least hold it where it is until we fix the thing.

As we look at that issue, it seems to me there are a couple of useful principles to keep in mind. One of those is that there needs to be a point in time at which we say that in fact the province should be taking on the greater share of the cost of educating our young people. At the same time, I would certainly agree with the comments Mr Beer made, that that should not in fact preclude local school boards from continuing to have a role in the question of taxation, because I do agree that taxation and accountability in terms of elected bodies are also significant things that we want to continue to exist. As we look at some of those issues, that's something we will try to keep in mind.

The issue that Mrs Cunningham has talked about today and on other occasions, the link between education and training, although I didn't talk at all or very much about it in my opening comments, is one that I also believe in very much. I think what has to happen is that the issue of training has to become more significant -- and I think the government has shown its interest in that happening through the OTAB process and through other initiatives that are being developed and nurtured -- but at the same time we have to also link seriously education and training in a way that moves us away from what we have seen happen historically, which is that education in the traditional concept has been left for students who for one reason or another did well academically and training was what was left over for the rest of the kids. I think there have to be significant changes made to that approach so that most, if not all, of our young people are exposed to both training and education.

In my own upbringing, I can certainly recall how I spent my days as an elementary student in a small village in Italy. It was mornings in school and afternoons at the tailor shop, and that wasn't uncommon as an experience that people went through. I'm not suggesting that's a solution, but I think those are some of the things we are doing and need to expand upon in terms of exposing more and more of our young people, while they're going through high school, to the gamut of jobs and professions that exist out there. That is something we need to continue to build upon much more in a serious way.

I guess the last couple of comments I'd like to make are about how we bring about some of these changes. I suppose it would have been more straightforward for us to deal with the question of the difficulties the 1% and 2% transfer payments would have caused, and have caused, by legislating wage controls. Indeed, as people around this table know, more than one school board has asked me to do that.

I think our resistance to doing that goes beyond simply the unpopularity of something like that. I suspect that in some ways it would actually have been not so much of an unpopular move in terms of feeding into -- if that's what we were interested in doing -- the mood that's out there among the general population. But our unwillingness to do that stems from, first of all, a real belief that at the local level, that sense of partnership and of collaboration that we are saying needs to exist has to be shown and has to be exercised even in the difficult times we are living in. Therefore, the collective bargaining process is the place where school boards and teachers' federations, in this case, need to be looking for some of those answers.

I have been equally critical of boards that have chosen the easy way out, simply cutting programs as a way to deal with the issue, as I have of teachers' federations and other groups which have not seen fit to make their expectations more realistic with the kinds of realities we are living in.

But I don't think you resolve those issues by imposing legislation and curtailing that process. I think you do it by continuing to hammer away at the need for people to be working together at those issues and trying to find solutions.

I think that in the end we can be, and I suspect we will be, directive in some of the things we will do. We will be, in terms of setting expectations and setting out some clear goals and objectives for the system. But we will also have to continue to leave a fair amount of flexibility locally to encourage the kind of working together that we want to see among our teachers and between teachers and parents and others in the school system to bring about some of the changes we're interested in.

I think I'll stop there, Mr Chair. As I said, I look forward to the exchange that will follow next week and in subsequent days.

Mr Beer: Mr Chair, one point the minister made was the fact that he spent the morning in the classroom and the afternoon at the tailor shop. We might wish to bring forward some orders prior to reconvening and see how sartorially resplendent the minister might make us around this table. The Chair: I was going to ask what he did with his evenings, but I think that's an open-ended question.

If Hansard and the committee will bear with me, I have a series of understandings. It was my understanding that the minister's assistant would check with the House leader to give us some sense of whether or not we are holding up the business of the House or if the business of the House is being legitimately delayed. I haven't seen the individual I talked to about that leave the room to check on it. Perhaps if I can be advised, but I'm reluctant, as the Chair, to adjourn this meeting if we're not in fact going to be called to the House. As the Chair I have a responsibility to make the point.

Can someone from the government side please talk to this committee?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Excuse me, Mr Chair. I was consulting with the people on the sidelines. You were saying?

The Chair: What can you share with us?

Mr Bisson: I missed the preamble to what you said. Sorry.

The Chair: Do you have any information about whether or not --

Mr Bisson: My understanding is that we're shortly to be on to bills that will deal with the Ministry of Education. It might be a good idea to adjourn at this point. That would be my recommendation.

The Chair: That wasn't presented as a motion. I'll repeat myself for Mr Bisson's benefit.

Mr Bisson: Very good. I will make a motion --

The Chair: I had made arrangements with a staff member to check directly with the House leaders to determine it, and I am still waiting for someone from the government side to advise me, but I am not anxious to adjourn the committee if for some reason the debate currently going on in the House, which does not require our attendance, may go on for another half-hour or so. I made that abundantly clear. If I have not received any information, I'm going to call a two-minute adjournment until I can get an answer directly myself.

The committee recessed at 1713.

1724

The Chair: This standing committee on estimates has reconvened. Mr Beer wanted to make a comment first, please. No? Then, fine, Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: I make a motion that the committee adjourn until its next meeting time, which will be next Tuesday after routine proceedings.

The Chair: That's a non-debatable motion. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Motion carried. This committee stands adjourned until Tuesday, July 7, immediately following routine proceedings.

The committee adjourned at 1725.