Ministry of Education
and Training
Hon Dianne Cunningham, Minister of Training, Colleges and
Universities
Ms Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister, training
division,
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
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 Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke L)
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 R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek PC)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale PC)
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London L)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, researcher, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1605 in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Gerard
Kennedy): We have a report from the subcommittee that
everyone is going to receive. If there is no objection, we'll
simply adopt that report, which relates to the circumstances of
changing rooms and sets out a consultation for that in future.
I'll wait till every member gets a chance to read that, and then
we'll simply have the report accepted as written, if that is your
wish.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre): It looks like there's no discussion,
so I move that the report of the subcommittee be adopted.
The Chair:
All in favour? Any opposed? The subcommittee report is
adopted.
We're awaiting the arrival of
the minister to begin our estimates for today. I'll ask the clerk
to find out how long that will be.
For the purpose of the
record, this committee is in recess until the arrival of the
minister.
The committee recessed
from 1607 to 1618.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING / MINISTÈRE
DE L'ÉDUCATION ET DE LA FORMATION
The Chair:
Welcome, Minister.
Hon Dianne Cunningham
(Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities):
Apologies, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
I'll let you get settled, and you'll appreciate we're going to
start as soon as you're settled in.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: What is the process, that later you're going
to ask more-
The Chair:
Yes.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: We can take more time-
The Chair:
Yes, Minister, and we will proceed beginning with the NDP. As we
awaited your arrival, the three parties agreed to share the time
equally. That works out to about 17 and a half minutes per party,
and they will ask questions. Given our limited time and the
limited time for these proceedings, I'll ask both sides to be as
constructive as they can with questions and answers so we can get
the most out of the time we have.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Is there a time when we have to go and
vote?
The Chair:
If there is a vote, we'll be called to that, but we'll try to
proceed as best we can ahead of that.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): If there's a vote, we've got to
go.
The Chair:
Yes. We can't do this when the House is requiring us.
Mr Alvin Curling
(Scarborough-Rouge River): The Conservatives haven't had
a vote in a while. Only we vote.
The Chair:
Madam Minister, I would like to welcome you to the committee, and
I'd like to invite Mr Marchese to start for the NDP.
Mr Marchese:
Madam Minister, the other day in the House I asked you a question
about student debt. I think it continues to be a problem that
plagues many people. It's good to have this opportunity in
committee to get our questions answered by you, hopefully.
I have a big concern about
student debt, and I always use my daughter as an example. I'm a
middle-class parent and I earn a good salary, but I can't afford
to pay the tuition fees for my daughter. Very soon, next year,
I'll have another daughter in university, either U of T or
Ryerson Polytechnic University. It concerns me because my
daughter works anywhere from 15 to 23 hours a week in order to
make ends meet, in order of her to be able to pay as much as she
possibly can for her tuition fees. She works all the summer,
naturally, to raise the money and during the year to make up the
rest. She's the daughter of a middle-class person.
We have children of
middle-class parents who are having a hard time. They don't have
access to grants. My daughter doesn't have access to a loan,
because her parents make sufficient dollars that she doesn't
qualify for a loan. So they're on their own. If they do four
years, it's anywhere from $20,000 to $25,000 in the arts program,
not to talk about specialized programs where, obviously, the fees
are higher. I believe it's an incredible burden to put on that
student. A student who has to work 15 to 25 hours or 20 to 25
hours, whatever that is-and a lot of them do work that-it affects
their studies. I'm not sure whether you have a comment on that
when you get to answer. In my view, it affects their studies. I
don't think they are as efficient, because they have to put in a
lot of hours working.
The debt, at the end of their term, is considerably
high. Some will be able to pay it working in the summer and
during the year, but many will not. Those who are poor and are
able to get a loan will get the loan but will be burdened with
anywhere from $20,000 to $25,000 to $30,000. Then they begin to
pay that loan and, if they have a good job, it might not be so
bad. But most of their resources will end up paying for that
loan, leaving very little left for other things they might do
with those dollars in terms of buying things they might need or
want.
I think the fact that you are
underfunding universities so much is forcing the universities to
make up for that problem by transferring their debts to students.
Naturally, tuition fees have to go up, and they're picking up the
burden of your cuts. I think it's wrong to do that, and I want to
hear how you would answer that.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Let me start by talking to you about funding
for students. This may not be the answer you need for your
daughter, because I can only talk from the government's point of
view that in 1999 OSAP funding is up 30% from 1995-96. When we
talk about the global budget for post-secondary-and I just
finished making a speech on this as well-you should know that the
budget, in fact, was reduced. You're correct to say that.
Our goal, of course, is to
balance the budget over a period of time. That's been the goal of
other governments, including the federal government, which has
been successful. Some of you were very critical about our not
doing it sooner. But in order to do it, we did take out some $400
million. In our view, that was out of administration. That was
the direction. Most of that money has been reinvested in student
assistance. That is because the questions we get are exactly your
own. For people who do qualify, the cost of OSAP has grown from
$401 million in 1995-96 to an expected $522 million in
1999-2000.
You mentioned tuition. The
universities and colleges are now required to set aside 30% of
tuition increases for student aid. So it is a matter of students
contributing probably the same percentage towards the cost of
their education as we did; we're up to some 34% right now. That
would be the same percentage traditionally across the province.
It did go down to some 25%; it's back up again. The question has
been, not only for our government, but for your government and
the Liberal government: What is the right percentage? That's
where we are. We've asked them to pay more tuition, but we've
also set aside 30% of this increase for student aid. This means
that in this year alone there will be an additional $126 million
available to students in 1999-2000.
On the issue of student debt,
we spent approximately $300 million in grants in 1998-99 to
ensure that the maximum annual debt incurred by students does not
exceed $7,000. Think about that. When students were borrowing
money through OSAP, in 1998-99, there were grants-you can call
them what you would like to call them-for any amount over $7,000
so that the students shouldn't be incurring debts larger than
that. When you give your numbers out, I think the deputy will
probably let you know what the debt is for students after they
graduate. We have numbers on this because we're tracking
them.
The good news is that we did
enter into an agreement with the Canada millennium scholarship
fund to provide over $100 million in scholarships to Ontario
students in January 2000. So we signed on with the federal
government and harmonized the federal and provincial student loan
programs for August 2000. This is all hard work that's been going
on on behalf of all governments across the country to provide
student loan borrowers with enhanced interest-relief benefits and
a debt-reduction repayment system.
We've suspended loan payments
for low-income and unemployed student loan borrowers for up to 18
months through the Ontario student loans interest relief program.
We've also provided a tax credit, in co-operation with the
federal government, to help graduates pay the interest on their
student loans.
I particularly am not happy
when we talk about a $25,000 figure, which was estimated by the
federal government and widely quoted by the media and student
groups with regard to the average Ontario student loan debt. It's
considerably lower than that. The reasons I don't like people to
talk about that (1) it isn't correct and (2) it does cause young
people and their parents to kind of give up. I think we have to
give the correct numbers.
I don't think anybody
wouldn't wish we could keep this debt level down. We're working
very hard with the students at our universities and through their
organizations and having discussions with them. They do sit on an
advisory committee which we've just re-established in the last
month.
The average debt for all
students who have completed their studies and last received
Canada and Ontario student loan support in 1997-98 was $12,975.
That is the average debt for all students who completed. On
average, Canada student loans account for about 70% of the
repayable debt on student loans issued in 1998-99, and Ontario
student loans account for the remaining 30%.
For a student with high
financial need, the percentage owed to the federal government may
be higher. For example, a single student graduating in 1998-99
and receiving the maximum loan assistance over four years of
study would owe some 86% of the repayable debt to the federal
government and the balance to the province. This student would be
required to make monthly payments of $294 for the Canada student
loan and $44 for the Ontario student loan. We're looking there at
over $300 a month for a single student who graduated and had
received the maximum loan assistance. That would be approximate.
The average student may be paying a little over $300 a month.
1630
So for most of us, when we're
advising our students-and I should say that in our secondary
schools this year there will be a focus on getting information to
parents of grades 9 and 10 students, discussing with parents the
responsibility they have
in not only supporting their students in their schoolwork and
helping them make the right plans for their future, but they
also-
Mr Marchese:
Minister, I'm going to have to stop you.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Why?
Mr Marchese:
Because otherwise you'll have a monologue for 17 minutes and
it'll be very tough.
Let me try making another
statement, if I can.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Do you know what I was going to say? You are
a parent. You might be interested to know and you should be
looking for this as well-
Mr Marchese:
Try to work it in.
The Chair:
Minister, we've been trying to keep as focused on the questions
as we can, given that we have a very short time and that we will
not be able to complete the education estimates. So I invite your
co-operation, and I'll try to mediate as fairly as I can.
Mr Marchese:
It's a problem otherwise.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: How do you balance answering the
question-
Mr Marchese:
If I ask a question-
The Chair:
By offering you a reasonable time, Minister, and in this case I
think that time has been had. To some extent I think each party
can indicate its preference in terms of questions-
Mr Marchese:
Minister, I was very polite. I let you speak for quite a long
while.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: But I thought you were interested in the
answer. I was very polite in answering your question.
Mr Marchese:
Your answer was the whole briefing profile you have there, and
it's hard-
The Chair:
Minister, I would ask you to answer as briefly as you can so we
can allow as many questions from each of the parties as
possible.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: That was a long question, Mr Chair. But I
understand what you're trying to do.
The Chair: I
understand and I appreciate your understanding on that.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Don't put so many segments in your
question.
The Chair:
Mr Marchese, please be brief.
Mr Marchese:
But I have to, because otherwise I figure you're going to-I
understand, Chair. If I ask a question and you have a monologue
for another 10 minutes, I probably won't be able to speak
again.
The Chair:
You're now on your time, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese:
I realize. That's why I'm going to take all the time I need, so
that the minister can listen to me for a while.
Mr
Wettlaufer: We all want to hear it.
Mr Marchese:
You hold on there, Wayne.
The Chair:
Four minutes, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese:
Thank you.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: I'm going to ask him a question in a minute,
Mr Chair.
Mr Marchese:
Please do that.
The Chair:
I'm afraid that's not in the purview, Minister.
Mr Marchese:
I just want to add a few things. I have a problem with this
government, as you might imagine.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: No, I can't imagine that.
Mr Marchese:
I know you can't. That's why we have such a problem. This is the
wealthiest province in Canada.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Because your daughter is going to get a
job.
Mr Marchese:
Because you're in government. I know, we're so lucky.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: No, your daughter's going to get a job.
Mr Marchese:
My daughter's going to get a job. Yes, all right.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: That's right. Just remember that.
Mr Marchese:
And I love that tax cut. Thanks for that. That's going to create
a lot of jobs.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: That did help.
Mr Marchese:
And she'll be lucky, yes. This is the wealthiest province in
Canada, and yet it's at the bottom in terms of funding for
universities. They receive less funding per capita than any other
province in the country, and it's the wealthiest. Minister, under
your stewardship and your Premier's, we get the least amount of
funding in this country. If we can't restore some of those
dollars in good times, we surely won't be able to do it in bad
times. If we have another recession, as I guarantee we will-I
can't predict the year, but I tell you-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: That's not very positive.
Mr Marchese:
I know, and I want to be positive too. I wish I could will it
away, but you know from history that recessions come every seven
years or so. Whether you like it or not, they will come. We will
face the next recession, in my view, in the next couple of years.
When that happens, we're not going to have the money to restore
the cuts you've made.
We had a recession and there
was no money. Now that you have a good economy, for whatever
reason-let's say it's the tax cut-you're not restoring those
dollars to those essential areas. I am worried about that,
because if we can't restore money in good times, we won't be able
to do it in bad. Things are bad now and, in my view, will get
worse.
I know you have answers about
how your tax cut has created all these wonderful, full-time jobs
for the civil servants you fired who are now self-employed and
probably earning some good money and some not-so-good money. You
say that my daughter will have a job because of your tax cut. I
tell you, you've taken $6 billion out. Every year $6 billion goes
out to people, and we have to make up for those dollars that go
out every year. Some of those dollars we make up by the cuts
you've made to social services and all the other cuts you will
continue to make.
What percentage is right in
terms of what students should be paying? You say 30%. In some
universities they're
paying over 40%. It's an unfair burden to put on students. I
believe governments need to put more money into education so
students don't bear the burden of the costs. What you've done is
continue to shift that load and that problem on to students.
That's the problem they're facing. My middle-class daughter is
facing that problem. Middle-class students, and upper middle
class, I would argue, but middle-class students-and a lot of
people will claim that definition-are suffering because of the
cuts you've made. I don't know what your solution is, but I tell
you the solution is not to put more debt burden on to the
students.
The Chair:
We'll have to find out the minister's solution in the next round.
We have to go now to the government side and Mr O'Toole.
Mr John O'Toole
(Durham): Thank you, Minister, for giving members of all
sides a chance today to air their views, with post-secondary
education and the appropriateness of funding at the heart of the
debate.
I have to give some context
to why it's so vital to me, and to all Ontario, that this portion
of our education and training system is made more accessible for
all students and more accountable.
As the parent of five
children-I have two in graduate school and three in university at
the moment-it's critical for me to feel comfortable with the
deregulation of tuition, an important decision equating tuition
fees to the outcomes of the education, whether it's related to
the income as a professional. For instance, an engineer is going
to make more as a graduate than someone in the field of social
work, justifying of course that both are legitimate choices.
Minister, I appreciate the
time you've given me to bring to your attention the important
contribution that Durham College and university centre has made
for all of Ontario. In the last government we met with the then
minister, Dave Johnson, who listened effectively and allocated an
opportunity for an important partnership between colleges and
universities, and that was the Durham College university funding.
I think it was some five million new dollars to allow that
partnership to evolve and grow and create accessibility for
students to be educated in their own communities.
I know that members on all
sides would say that's the right direction. The cost of
university is made up primarily of student housing issues and
food. If they stay at home, you could argue that we reduce the
cost when we increase accessibility. I think it's important to
look at how this is evolving. Of course you just have to look at
the whole distance learning issue. The opportunities are endless,
and I think there's certainly an opportunity here with our
minister to bring forward new and exciting ways of delivering
education.
I have to put on the record
that the opportunities, when I look at the SuperBuild Growth
Fund-I've read your letter to all the colleges and universities
encouraging them to bring forward new initiatives to address the
issues I've talked about: accessibility, affordability and
accountability. Gary Polonsky, the president of Durham College,
has been an envisioned leader from the very beginning. All
politics aside, I believe he's prepared to work, and is on the
record as working, with this government. I believe he's on the
record as saying we're moving in the right direction to give them
opportunities to create new futures.
The former chair, Sharon
Young, was a person I knew to be intimately familiar with her
community and the various groups and people who are trying to
return to the workforce, to reskill themselves. I was with
Minister Snobelen at the first graduation of the youth
apprenticeship program at Durham College and training centre, and
watched about 17 new graduates of the youth apprenticeship
program that was started, funded and committed to as a new way of
providing mobility and linking education, high school students
going to college to learn important job-related skills.
1640
Terry Hing, the current
chair of the board of governors of the college, has been very
supportive of this new application they have made for funding. I
hope in your response you'll address that. Judith Spring, who's a
professor or lecturer there and also chair of the Lakeridge
Health hospital board, is very supportive of the new ways that
we're putting together partnerships with all the different
community players.
I do want to go back to the
importance of the college role. If you want to refer to an
article in Maclean's magazine from this week, the November 29
issue-no, the issue I'm referring to was in the Post on the
weekend-it said that a survey of the top 400 CEOs said very
clearly that the most important job-related component in the
educational system that has to be addressed is student
opportunities, the work experience and co-op experience.
I'm just wondering, in your
new model for post-secondary education-I know I've covered a lot
of territory here-are you addressing this whole new approach of
integrating and partnering with the private sector for work
experience opportunities and learning opportunities and then
linking that to the lab facilities within our post-secondary
facilities?
For the last point I just
read, all members would have received the current Q&As for
the University of Toronto. On the second page, Robert Prichard,
the president, in his opening remarks, said very clearly that for
10 years there has been neglect of the infrastructure of our
post-secondary facilities. He supports that this government and
its strategic investments are the right decisions for the new
economies of the future.
Minister, I've given you a
number of opportunities to address not just Durham College and
its excellence but I am sure every member here-Mr Wettlaufer and
others have spoken to me about the important work their colleges
are doing in partnerships with their communities. Perhaps that
gives you enough latitude to respond in a general sense. I'm
proud of Durham College. How can I say it any more bluntly?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: One of the great things about coming to this
committee is that I do get to see some of my colleagues and hear them talk about what
they are proud of. Durham is a great leader. It has shown many of
us here in Ontario and Canada and around the world what can be
done when communities work together. I think that's one of the
challenges we do have.
It actually goes back to Mr
Marchese's question. That has to do with where we fit. The
accusation we get is that we're 10th and last, but as a matter of
fact when we take into consideration the province's share of the
funding for supporting our students who go on to post-secondary,
and we take into consideration the partnerships the universities
have with the private sector, in Canada we're fifth. There is an
old formula that's used for people who want the government, the
people, the taxpayers-including your daughter some day-to pay up.
In Ontario and in many parts of North America there is a
different kind of a definition. That has to do with, the students
pay their share; the government will pay their share. Where is
the private sector?
The end result actually is,
what is the role of the private sector? The private sector gets
the recipients of our colleges and universities. In Ontario we
asked them to help us, because we know tomorrow's jobs will
demand even more specialized skills and knowledge, and the demand
for post-secondary education will continue to grow rapidly
because we live in an environment where students know they will
have better and more opportunities if they continue on in their
schooling, whether it be at a college or a university-which we
have better data on than some of our other training
opportunities, like apprenticeship training, where we know we
have very highly skilled, well-paid jobs. We're encouraging that.
You mentioned the Ontario youth apprenticeship program. We know
we have to partner in order to get the support we need from those
people who are telling us they need young people in areas where
they will get the jobs.
One of the programs where
we decided to do that was called ATOP. You mentioned it just for
a moment, the access to opportunities program. There's so much I
could answer in your question here, but more students than ever
before-parents are thinking this and students are thinking
it-will be enrolling in high-tech programs at Ontario's colleges
and universities. We can thank this program called ATOP, which
will accommodate up to about 23,000 additional students in these
programs. This is very important to meet the needs of all sectors
in filling jobs where our students and our workers, and therefore
Ontario and the country, can be competitive. The government's
total investment in the access to opportunities program will
reach up to $228 million over the first three years of the
program. All 17 universities and 25 colleges have responded
enthusiastically to the program.
In 1998-99 they created
opportunities for about 7,000 additional students, and the growth
is going to double in 1999. They have been very successful in
forming these partnerships with the private sector. When combined
with private sector contributions-and I hope some of you will use
the Hansard here and send it out to the public, because this is
good information that's very difficult to get out in the general
media because it's good news. There are a lot of doomers and
gloomers around who don't want to talk about good stuff.
When we get both together,
which could reach $136 million-this is the private sector-the
total ATOP contributions by the end of 2000-01 could reach $364
million. That's money that has been contributed by the private
sector and matched by the people of Ontario, because it is their
money. This is causing a lot of excitement in all our
universities. I look at my colleague who knows the exciting
things that are happening at McMaster University-and Loyalist, I
might add. What is your university, Mr Marchese?
Mr
Marchese: We've got quite a number of universities-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: No, no. This is an opportunity. York is
yours.
Mr
Marchese: In terms of Toronto, you mean, as opposed
to-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes, York is yours. That's a great example
of a university that is partnering with many colleges, because
we're asking our universities and colleges to work together. York
has taken a lead role there.
In the Ottawa area, there
are two colleges and two universities that formed a consortium
with the regional government. Together-and I went to the
announcement of this program-the colleges and universities in the
Ottawa area raised $55 million in pledges from organizations in
that region by working together.
Other examples from the
private sector: This morning I and one of my colleagues, Sean
Morley, met with representatives from Georgian College. They have
a partnership with IBM and announced a $2.8-million donation to
create some 40, I guess the word would be "work stations" or
"seats" with AS/400 midframe computers. One of the great
challenges we have is to keep our colleges and universities
current.
1650
I tried to say to my
colleague that, yes, there was a reduction in funding, but
there's been a reinvestment. The reinvestment over the last three
years has been to support students who need assistance. We call
it student assistance because there are many ways we've done it;
it hasn't just been through OSAP. It's been with the students
themselves and the 30% set aside and also through the student
opportunity trust fund, which was a program where the
universities raised money with the private sector for student
assistance and the government matched it. So there's lots of
reinvestment in private sector partnerships, which takes us to
the $3.5-billion budget, which is higher than when we began
reducing, and this year is over $400 million. That's partially
because with the additional new number of students that we're
planning for-this is a huge challenge right across the country,
in North America, but what an exciting time, because in the
history of post-secondary education in Ontario, the first growth
period was after the Second World War, when the soldiers came back and the
University of Toronto and a couple of others grew, and we grew
our university system. The second great growth period was in the
mid-1960s, some 30 years ago, when John Robarts, the Premier of
the day and my predecessor in London North, along with his
colleague Bill Davis, began the development of our college
system.
This is the third growth
period, in which we will face the same challenges, but what an
exciting time for young people. Some 88,000 students, we've been
advised through the work we do across the country with Stats
Canada and with our own double cohort, our students who are now
in grades 9 and 10, will be looking at a growth period in our
colleges and our universities beginning in the year 2003.
The Chair:
We now turn to the official opposition. Mrs Bountrogianni.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Good afternoon,
Minister. Thank you for answering these questions.
I'll just quickly respond
to a couple of things I heard before I start asking my questions.
You mentioned the ATOP scholarships, basically for science and
engineering. They are needed and very well appreciated by the
students and their professors. One of the problems, however, is
that our infrastructure is not supporting the increased number of
students that are entering these programs. So it's a Catch-22;
it's a double-edged sword for these students and for the
institutions that house them. I'll get more specific when I ask
you questions about the SuperBuild fund.
Another comment in response
to the private sector: Private money is always welcome, however,
I'll give you the Apotex example as one example of how we can't
depend on private money for future planning. You can't hire
tenured professors based on private money. It's always welcome,
it's needed, but it's not guaranteed; it can be cut at any time.
Apotex is a great example. They were mad at the federal
government so they took away their gift of $20 million to U of T,
which really was more like $60 million, with all the other
matched funds. So I think we have to be careful and not over-rely
on private money.
Minister, I will be very
focused in my questions, which will enable you to be very focused
in your answers, given the shortness of time.
Is any of the funding in
the estimates directly or indirectly targeted for an initiative
by this government to introduce private universities?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: In the estimates? The answer to that is
no.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Will the Minister be making a decision
about privatization in the near future?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Depending on your definition of "near
future," I would hope that would be considered as part of the
charter with regard to our colleges.
As you know, through public
discussions in the last year, the Ontario Jobs and Investment
Board spoke to partners within communities across the province
and made reports back to the government, which were published in
what we refer to as the OJIB report. One of the challenges that
our advisers, who could be any citizens who showed up at those
meetings, told us is that in order for our economy to be
competitive and for our young people on graduation, we hope, to
get jobs, we were going to have to take a look at flexibility
within the college system and within the university system.
One of the recommendations
for the college system, which I've already talked about, when it
was first developed, was its ability to effectively and
efficiently train the students. They needed to have different
options. So I'm not certain yet, but in our own discussions, as
we look at our best advisers, in my case including yourself,
where do we go in being more competitive and what does a charter
really mean? Three issues have been brought to my attention, more
so than some of the others.
One is the recommendation
that we look seriously at applied degrees, which is a necessity
for the colleges and universities to work together in favour of
our students, and students having choices and opportunities and,
in the end, having the quality and also that piece of paper that
is recognized all over the world. It isn't good enough just to
graduate. It's important that the qualifications and standards
our students end up with can be competitive all over the
world.
The second recommendation,
or at least the part of the recommendation I should refer to in
responding to the question, is the need for the colleges and
universities to be more flexible. In the instance of the college
system, we're looking at their ability to compete. They may need
to have mechanisms whereby they can create some public-private
sector partnerships to deliver some of the programs they are
being asked to deliver beyond their capabilities now. So there
will be public discussion around that.
In the context of those two
issues, there's been a question, and that is: Even with the
Superbuild Growth Fund-and I absolutely agree actually with your
observation that there's a need for updating of buildings and
maintenance that has been ignored for a period of time, so part
of that fund will be for maintenance and upgrading of facilities.
It's very important. As a matter of fact, part of the-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Minister, I don't mean to be rude, but I
have lots of questions. You've answered my question: You will be
considering it, and you will be getting input in the context of
being competitive.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: In the context of the need for spaces and
the roles of the colleges and universities now, and where the
gaps are.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I hope you would move with caution on
this, because eventually public money may dribble into these
private institutions, either through OSAP or through federal
grants, private grants, private contracts which, in my opinion,
would lower the equality of the public institutions, and we just
don't have the same amount of scholarships that the Americans
have. Harvard has three times the amount of scholarships of all
the Canadian
universities put together. So we can't compare ourselves with
that. I hope we're not going down that road. I've been honest
with you in my opinion on that, and I appreciate your
honesty.
The estimates report
indicates on page 88 that $630 million has been set aside for
capital spending after the special warrants have been taken out
of the $750 million. This is the SuperBuild Growth Fund, I
assume. To date, what is the total amount of requests submitted
under the funding guidelines by individual institutions? I
understand you won't have the partnered institutions because the
deadline is December 15. But do you or your staff have the number
of individual institutions applying for this money with private
matched proposals, and who has applied?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: On November 15 the applications came in for
universities or colleges separate from each other. On December 15
the applications will come in for the partnership piece. I'm not
trying to avoid the question, but I have not asked for the answer
and there's a reason for that.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Could I get the answer at some point?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes, at some point.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: OK, that's fine. We haven't got that
answer now. In a University of Western Ontario article you were
quoted as saying that the SuperBuild fund is not a share issue
and that the competition will drive your decisions. I understand
that from the philosophical framework of your government.
However, what about schools that are either smaller or for
whatever reason cannot be as competitive in attracting private
matching for these buildings; in other words, schools that have
the need but don't have the competitive edge? Is there anything
in the estimates to address those needs?
1700
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Not in the estimates. I can only say that
we're as concerned as anyone about the upgrading, viability and
competitiveness of each and every one of our institutions. But
this SuperBuild is meant to meet the needs of some 88,000
students, although it will not meet the needs of 88,000. That's
not our intent. I think we can do it other ways than with just
building. So there's a balance, which we can talk about.
It's going to be
competitive, because most of the funding to our colleges and
universities is based on a per-student-you know the corridor
funding yourself. This is more about what are the goals of those
universities, what do they feel their needs might be, do they
feel that there will be an increased enrolment, do they want to
take on the responsibility for increased enrolment?
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Will there be an avenue for them to
apply?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes. Some of them may choose to respond in a
different way. So really, this is going to be their community;
it's going to be their choice as to what they ask us for.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: The SuperBuild Growth Fund does not
address-and I'm not trying to be gloomy here; I'm just
representing reality-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: These are great questions.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: -does not address the need for student
residences. We have a housing problem, as you know, and we have a
huge student housing problem. We will have an even greater
problem once the double cohort hits, and even before that with
the echo boom. What funding is in the estimates to deal with this
urgent need, given the enrolment growth?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: I'm going to speak off the top, and then I'm
going to let my deputy correct me because I have no pride about
making mistakes and then being corrected.
It's been my understanding,
having worked with the colleges and universities over a period of
time, that there hasn't been public money going into student
residences. I'm probably about to be corrected, but so be it.
The SuperBuild is not for
student residences. That's another issue. Universities have
access to private funding, and they've been very successful in
having long-term plans about how they accommodate their students,
and so have student councils. Last week I gave a speech at
Laurier. The student council owns the housing. It's amazing how
well these student councils are doing. They are in business. They
own this building, and the students rent it and pay down the
mortgage. Within the building you won't be a bit surprised to
know they have a pub. Every time you go somewhere, people are
trying to do things in a different way, and even the students are
in business.
How did I do in answering
that question? You'll want me to be corrected if I'm
incorrect.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: That's fine, Minister, because I don't
think there is anything in there.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: There's not. Thank you.
In a recent report from the
Council of Ontario Universities it was noted that deferred
maintenance needs-there is a lot of need for-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Ninety per cent of your SuperBuild fund
is for new buildings. Is that correct?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: And 10% is for maintenance. My contacts
within the universities have said that while they appreciate the
money and the opportunity to apply for new buildings, it would
have been better if they had just been trusted to have the money
and decide themselves whether it's a new building or an addition
or if it's maintenance of an existing building, because with
existing buildings there are mice, there are rats. This is from
people who are non-partisan, and I believe that when they speak
to me they are non-partisan.
Is there anything in the
estimates now or in future plans to address the need for
maintenance costs of aging buildings?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: One of the
great shocks I experienced when I became the minister, when we
became the government, was the amount of money that had been the
debt of the universities-I shouldn't use the word "debt"-that had
been the challenge of the universities for their own maintenance.
As far as I'm concerned, there aren't too many people who can
build buildings and not set aside a certain amount of money to
pay taxes and to maintain their own buildings like we have to do
in our own homes. There hasn't clearly been a policy of former
governments to work with the colleges and universities to have a
good business plan in this regard.
In our SuperBuild Growth
Fund there is $62.2 million for the facilities renewal program.
This is actually a greater proportion than has normally been set
aside. I could give you those numbers. I've actually looked at
them for the last 10 years, and this is a fair amount. But what
we have done in setting out the rules for the colleges and
universities in applying for SuperBuild this time is that they
must indeed file with us a plan for their facilities renewal. I
think it's totally unacceptable that we've gone on this
way-together, I might add-in the province of Ontario without a
facilities renewal program, and I know you would agree with me in
this regard. Unfortunately, I think that was something like $900
million.
Interjection: There have been
various estimates but that's-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: It was a huge number. So we've got a 10-year
plan which may or may not be changed, because we're flexible if
we can get some good ideas, but part of the SuperBuild-we're not
expecting people to apply for capital without showing us what
their facility renewal program will be, and-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you, Minister. Chair, do I have any
more time?
The Chair:
You have two minutes.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: OK. You talked about the millennium
scholarship fund in your notes and in your response to Mr
Marchese. This money was meant to supplement the Ontario portion.
In the leaked document, it was stated that perhaps you are
thinking or the government is thinking of rejecting or reneging
on that; in other words, not reinvesting the savings from the
federal millennium fund. Can you comment on that?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: We in fact plan to keep our promise, as I
answered in the House, actually, and reinvest.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: So you will reinvest approximately $60
million, I believe, $50 million of savings. That $50 million will
be invested?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: And it will be invested in scholarships
or in loans?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Some of it will be reinvested in direct
student assistance. Part of it will be reinvested in the Aiming
for the Top program, which is a $35-million fund for secondary
school students upon graduation. We have actually spent the last,
I'd like to say few weeks, but few months trying to design that
fund so that every secondary school will have students that-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I'm sorry for interrupting. You said the
ATOP fund, so are you going to put that in that fund? Is that
part of that $35 million or on top of that?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: No, there are two funds: there's the access
to opportunities program, which is the one that I've already
described, and then the student assistance program is called
Aiming for the Top. That's the $35 million, 10,000 scholarships
over a three-year period for students who have needs in our
secondary schools upon graduation.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: And that's $35 million.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes.
The Chair:
We now move on to the NDP for its next session of questions. And
perhaps, Mr Weir, if you are called upon to speak in response to
questions, I could ask you to read your name into the record and
introduce yourself for the assistance of Hansard.
Mr Bisson. We have 15
minutes approximately.
M. Gilles Bisson
(Timmins-Baie James) : Merci beaucoup, monsieur le
Président.
J'ai une couple de
questions faisant affaire avec le système collégial et
le système universitaire dans le nord de l'Ontario. Je vais
vous donner une chance, madame la ministre, de vous brancher.
Comme vous le savez, il y a
eu des rumeurs, et on s'est parlés de ça justement il y
a une couple de semaines à l'Assemblée, faisant affaire
avec les rumeurs des changements-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Could you just wait a minute, Gilles? I
haven't got the French translation here at all. What channel?
1710
Interjection: Number one.
M. Bisson
: Les Français sont toujours numéro un,
madame.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: I still don't have it. I'll need another
headset. Technology, huh?
M. Bisson
: OK, c'est mieux ? On a tous une traduction
là ?
Comme j'ai dit, madame la
ministre, vous savez que ça fait une semaine ou deux que
nous nous sommes parlés à l'Assemblée concernant
certaines rumeurs dans le système collégial, le
système universitaire, qu'il était pour avoir des
changements. Vous savez qu'il y a des discussions
présentement dans le système pour regarder à faire
des fusionnements d'universités. Il y a eu certaines
suggestions de fusionnements entre des collèges et des
universités.
J'aimerais
premièrement pour le record, pour essayer de mettre un peu
de clarification à cette situation, savoir quelles sont les
intentions du ministère, à la lumière de ces
rumeurs-là qu'il était pour avoir une certaine fusion
entre des collèges du nord et des universités. Toute
l'assignation était que certains de ces systèmes ne
sont pas assez grands et que peut-être il y aurait des
économies à faire en les mettant ensemble entre les
collèges et universités. J'aimerais clarifier que ce
n'est pas l'intention du gouvernement d'aller dans cette
direction.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Well, not unlike my response to what Marie
Bountrogianni asked with regard to what she read in the
newspaper, I can only say to you that there are some colleges and
universities that may be looking at different ways of doing
business. Their presidents may from time to time have discussions
with us about this, but I haven't heard from everybody. It may be
on their agenda with regard to the, I think, direction in many
ways of the government to have partnerships for students. We
talked a little bit about it, how we've got these partnerships
around programs. Many of us know the nursing programs; there are
many others. Sheridan College built a building on the campus of
York. I can't keep up with all of the ideas that the colleges and
universities have.
So in your community there
may be some of those ideas. I'm not aware of them now, although I
am aware of some of the joint programming. What you're talking
about, I'm not aware of.
M. Bisson
: La réponse que je cherche-il n'y a pas des
intentions de la part du gouvernement provincial de faire le
fusionnement entre certains collèges et universités,
d'en faire une administration ?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: No.
M. Bisson
: OK.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: If they want to come to us and talk about
that, that's up to them.
M. Bisson
: Ils ne sont pas intéressés. Ils ne veulent
pas aller dans cette direction. Je voulais juste clarifier que
c'étaient des rumeurs qui étaient non fondées et
qu'il n'y a pas des intentions-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Well, there are a few that I'm not about to
talk about today, because I talk to people confidentially as we
look at the new ways of serving students, that may indeed be
talking about merging. But again, it's up to them to talk to
me.
M. Bisson
: OK. C'est leur décision à eux autres de
s'organiser s'ils veulent, mais vous n'avez pas l'intention de
forcer le processus ?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: No.
M. Bisson
: La réponse est non ?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: The answer is no.
M. Bisson
: OK. Merci.
La deuxième
question-puis mon collègue a beaucoup de questions-a trait
à la situation qu'on trouve avec les universités dans
le nord.
Comme vous le savez, le
nord de l'Ontario fait environ 8 % à 9 % de la
population provinciale. C'est plus dispendieux, si on regarde les
coûts par étudiant, d'opérer certaines
institutions dans le nord parce qu'on a moins d'étudiants
dans nos institutions. Le coût par étudiant, des fois,
est plus élevé. Mais on se trouve dans une situation
où pour nous dans le nord c'est important de nous assurer
que les jeunes le plus souvent possible ont l'opportunité de
continuer leur éducation post-secondaire dans le nord. Comme
vous le savez, si les jeunes partent, beaucoup de fois ils ne
reviennent pas, puis c'est négatif pour nous dans le nord
dans le sens de garder notre population et de développer
notre économie.
Vous savez que, par
exemple, l'Université de Hearst avait déjà
soulevé la question, comment organiser des formules de
financement, comment s'éloigner de la base qu'on a
présentement qui dit que c'est seulement par étudiants,
comment regarder un peu différemment le nord pour faire
sûr que ces institutions ont les fonds nécessaires pour
offrir des programmes pour être capables d'attirer et de
garder les étudiants dans le nord.
J'aimerais savoir si la
ministre s'interesse, dans son ministère, à regarder
cette situation pour voir s'il n'y a pas une manière de
changer les formules de financement jusqu'à un certain
point, pour ne pas seulement regarder combien d'étudiants
pour déterminer le financement mais aussi pour s'assurer que
ces collèges et universités ont l'argent
nécessaire pour offrir des programmes pleins aux
étudiants, ce qui est nécessaire pour les garder et les
attirer dans le nord.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Let me first of all state to you the view of
our government and governments before us. There will be a place
in our colleges and universities for every student that is
qualified, and I like to use the word "motivated" but some people
might use a different word. There has been I think a very focused
plan in Ontario to provide colleges, especially colleges, and
some universities in parts of Ontario where there aren't as many
students, and you live in one of those parts.
I hope that you would agree
with me that students going to post-secondary education should
have reasonable accessibility and that we have to do our very
best to keep it.
Having said that, I think
your question was, "How do we help them with the funding?" In
fact, the funding system that's in place right now, at least for
our universities, they like it. It's called the corridor system.
When others have looked to change it-in fact your government-they
weren't very pleased about this. So I think we learned from the
effort-
M. Bisson
: Dépendant de quelle institution.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: You could be right in that regard, but the
vast majority was very unhappy about the effort.
I think what you're saying
is, "What do we do to help these universities?" That's an ongoing
discussion, and the funding formula is the formula that we
operate with now. As we look at a new charter for the colleges
with flexibility, if we take a look at the focus of the
government, it is to provide accessibility and quality education
to students. I'm sure these questions will be part of some public
discussion. This year the universities advised us that they
needed some assistance with operating dollars, but that was
across the board and we did in fact provide another $23 million
over and above the formula for accessibility to students in the
operating grants to come forward.
M. Bisson
: Je veux juste faire le point rapidement parce que mon
collègue a d'autres questions. Dans la situation du
collège universitaire de Hearst-
Interjection.
M. Bisson
: OK. Dans la situation du collège universitaire de
Hearst, le problème qu'on a c'est, parce que eux n'ont pas
les étudiants pour être capables d'avoir les gros
budgets des autres universités, qu'il est plus difficile
pour eux d'offrir tous les programmes qu'ils voudraient offrir
pour avoir une croissance dans ce système, pour garder les
jeunes dans notre région. Il est très important qu'on
regarde comment on peut trouver des manières
intéressantes pour financer ce collège universitaire
pour donner la chance de faire la croissance nécessaire pour
les étudiants de notre région.
Mr
Marchese: Minister, I just wanted to quickly get back to
the earlier point about Ontario's ranking as number 10. Your
deputy said that when you add our portion of funding, yours, and
the private sector, it's number five. What portion of that
private sector funding constitutes the greater portion of the
two, between yours and it, that brings it to a number five
ranking?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Are you asking what proportion we pay?
Mr
Marchese: I've argued we're number 10. Your deputy said,
"Oh, no. In the ranking, we're number five." Or was it you?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Actually, I said that.
Mr
Marchese: It was you. Between the portion you add as a
government and the portion that comes from the private sector,
we're number five. That's what you said. My question is: What
portion does the private sector funding take that brings us to
ranking number five? Without it, what would we be ranking?
1720
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Without it, on the provincial operating
grants per capita, we are number 10; on the provincial operating
grants per student, we're number 9; on the provincial operating
grants plus fees per student, we're number 6; and in the total
operating income per student, we're number 4.
I should tell you that when
your government was in office between 1990 and 1995, we were
ninth, ninth, seventh, seventh and eighth. So my point is, why
didn't you do something about it?
Mr
Marchese: That's a great answer. Just a quick statement
and another comment.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: We are better off, because you were number 7
and number 6 on the total amount.
Mr
Marchese: We had a recession from 1990 into 1995, the
worst in our history in Canada.
Interjections.
Mr
Marchese: Hold on, boys. Let me just finish.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Even on the total-
Mr
Marchese: Minister, I've only got four minutes. We had
the worst recession in our history, literally, next to the
Depression. That means there were no dollars. Except for the
first year we were in government, in 1991-92, our transfer
payments were incredibly high. That may not have been smart, but
we added a lot of money based on the promise that we were making
to the universities and elementary and secondary systems. In a
recession, it may not have been the smartest thing to do, but if
you've got no dollars it makes it tough.
Now you've got the money.
You've had the money in your last six years. You're not pouring
it back in; you're cutting at a time when you do have money. I
find it morally depressing that when you have the money to put
back into the system, you don't do it. How can you justify, in a
good economy, not putting money back into the system?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: The answer to that question is that there's
more money in the post-secondary system now than ever before,
period. There was a reduction, which I politely described to you,
and there was a reinvestment-
Mr
Marchese: Minister, thank you. I've got another
question.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: -that I also politely described to you, and
now there is more money in the system than ever before.
Mr
Marchese: Minister, we're running out of time.
The Chair:
It's Mr Marchese's last minute. I'll just let him make his
point.
Mr
Marchese: We are the wealthiest province, and it's a
shameful thing that we are 10th in ranking, and by your
definition it changes to a different kind of ranking.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: And we were ninth in ranking when you were
in government.
Mr
Marchese: The problem is, because of your underfunding,
the class ratio is the highest we've ever seen in colleges and
universities. We need instructors, and we have fewer instructors.
We need to replace out-of-date equipment, and we need to provide
adequate support, counselling and academic advice for students.
In light of the problems we are experiencing in our college and
university system, with the points that I've just added, how can
you live with that in the kind of economy that you're
experiencing, where you're saying we're doing so well?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: How much time do I have to answer this
question?
The Chair:
You have 30 seconds.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: In 30 seconds I'll say it very simply. You
should ask yourself a question: Why is it that in the proportion
of 18-to-24-year-olds who go on to college and university in the
history of the province, we have the highest ratio of
18-to-24-year-olds who go on to college and university than ever
before? We are the most accessible university system, the most
accessible college system. You're complaining that we're not
spending enough money in operating grants, and they're still
going. Isn't that interesting?
Mr
Marchese: That's great. We're underfunding it, but we've
got students going into the system, so that's great.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: You'd better figure out why they keep going,
because they're there.
Mr
Marchese: Because of the underfunding, I guess.
The Chair: We now have about 15
minutes for the government party. This round is 15 minutes each,
and we'll try to keep on track.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Minister, I'd like to pick up on what you
and M. Marchese were talking about here, and that is the fact
that we do have the highest-educated student force in the G8; I
believe the highest of the provinces as well. Unfortunately, we
have 78% of these undergraduate students in university taking a
general arts program. I'm not going to criticize the general arts
program, because I graduated with one. That's why I'm here.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: You should rethink this statement.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Of course, in my region of Waterloo and just
outside it we have some of the finest universities and colleges
in Canada. The University of Guelph is just outside the region of
Waterloo, but it's my alma mater so I have to include it. It was
rated the number one comprehensive university in all of Canada
this year.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: What about Conestoga?
Mr
Wettlaufer: And Laurier university and the University of
Waterloo, which initiated the co-op program. But I cannot neglect
Conestoga College. Conestoga College is run by John Tibbits, the
president, who is probably the most entrepreneurial of any
president of any post-secondary institution in all of Canada, and
maybe all of North America. He has initiated the partnership
program with private business, encouraging all kinds of
investment by high-tech firms in that college.
This falls into line with
the Canadian Advanced Technology Association. Two years ago they
appeared before the finance committee, and Mr Marchese, I believe
you were there at the time. They said we needed 56,000 graduates
in high tech, and we were only training 14,000 at the time. They
made the point at that time that if those graduates were from the
high-tech program instead of the general arts program, the
debt-to-income ratio would be much lower than it is today.
Mr
Marchese: Get rid of all the arts.
Mr
Wettlaufer: You're having trouble with that, are you, Mr
Marchese?
Mr
Marchese: Get rid of all the arts.
Mr
Wettlaufer: No, it's not a matter of getting rid of all
the arts. My point is that I don't think there are enough jobs
for students graduating in a general arts program; there are lots
of jobs for those graduates of a high-tech program.
I wonder if there is enough
guidance counselling for high school students, to direct them
into the appropriate classification, appropriate programs,
especially when one considers that there is so much
duplication.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: On a point of order, Mr Chair: 96% of
general arts graduates get jobs within two years of
graduating.
The Chair:
That's not a point of order.
Mr
Wettlaufer: That's not a point of order, and it's also
not correct.
Interjections.
The Chair:
There's a minute's time, and I will ask for co-operation from Mr
Wettlaufer.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Thank you, Chair.
Minister, do you have some
figures indicating the success ratios of various universities and
various colleges, insofar as graduates are concerned in obtaining
employment?
Mr
Marchese: Oh, oh, some colleges are going to go.
Mr
Wettlaufer: No, no, that's not what-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Actually I'd like to answer that question. I
think all of us in these estimates reviews should be very proud
of the accomplishments of our students.
One of the demands of the
public, and of the students, is clearly accountability. That is
why we have worked both with our colleges of applied arts and
technology and our universities in looking at the results of some
key performance indicators. The key performance indicator does
talk, by college, with regard to our percentage of employment.
You've mentioned your colleges, and I think some of our
colleagues here might want to hear a little bit about their
own.
If we're looking, for
instance, at employment, in the survey of December 1997 and May
1998 college graduates, employment rate six months after
graduation, out of curiosity, the bottom line for the colleges,
the system total, is 89%. But we do have huge numbers here:
Algonquin, 90%; Boréal, 83%; Cambrian, 78%; Canadore, 86%;
Centennial, 90%; Conestoga-is that the one-
1730
Mr
Wettlaufer: That's the one.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: They were number one, at 94%, and they did
celebrate. We should be all be celebrating. These are all really
great numbers: Confederation, 86%; Durham, 91%; Fanshawe, in my
riding, 92%; George Brown, 89%; Georgian, 90%; Gouinlock, 68%;
Humber, 91%; Lambton, 89%; Loyalist, 89%-we've got these if you
want them-Mohawk, 89%; Niagara, 88%; Northern, 84%-tell my
friend, Mr Bisson-St Clair College, 93%; St Lawrence, 86%; Sault,
76%; Seneca, 88%; Sheridan, 93%-now there's a close one for you;
you've got a contest there, Mr Wettlaufer-Sir Sandford Fleming,
86%.
These college-to-college
comparisons actually could produce misleading results because of
the size, but more because of the local employment opportunities.
I just want to warn people in using these numbers, which are all
so great and we should be proud of them, that there are local
employment conditions-which was the question, of course, from my
colleague, Mr Bisson, which I respect-the program mix, the
demographics for the graduates, and we should consider each one
on its own.
Having said that, and I'm a
great believer that you have to consider each one on its own, we
cannot stop these colleges from having a lot of fun with regard
to how well they did.
Mr
Marchese: We should agree that they shouldn't.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Mr Marchese, you know you have a lot of fun
yourself. Sometimes you have fun when I'm asking questions, and sometimes you have
real fun in the House. I remember when I had fun when you were a
minister as well, so we're even.
Mr
Marchese: I'll try to remember that.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: No, you're looking at a former minister of
culture, correct. We had a lot of good meetings together.
I'm giving those numbers
only because they're all very high. If we today could say
anything, we should be thanking the colleges for doing such a
great job. The real satisfaction of being the minister at this
time is that it's actually, for them, not good enough. They
actually want to do better.
One of the questions that
has come my way from the students has been, "You ask us what
we're doing six months after we leave, and we'd probably like to
answer that question more frequently." It would be good for us to
do that, because then we can track them, find out the success
stories, do a little bit more in the first two or three years
after graduation from college or university. These are
challenging times for young people. Some of them will say, "I
didn't get a job where I wanted to get a job," but I think in the
next few years-because of the fabulous description that Mr
Marchese made at the very beginning of the estimates, about the
possibilities of our economy, and I agree with you. This does
mean that your daughter will be working, and that is different
from a whole generation of young people for almost a decade in
time, not just when your government was in government. There have
been some tough times.
But it does take political
will to make change, and the colleges are doing that on their own
and the government is doing that on its own. We did in fact go
out and seek the best advice we could with regard to how we could
in fact get more investment into Ontario so that these young
people could have these jobs. That has happened. You know the job
numbers, over 700,000 new jobs. That means we cannot rest on our
laurels, but it also means that we have to be very careful about
the training that we do. I think that was the basis of Mr
Wettlaufer's questioning regarding the balance with regard to
people getting general BAs and arts degrees.
By the way, for anybody who
questions you in this province, because I know that we do have a
democracy, which has opposition, and that's fine-
Interjections.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Now, Mr Curling, you know how much you like
this part of the job.
The fact is, we're in a
democracy; people are going to argue with us. But I think when we
get the questions, you should feel free to tell the public that
we did this year have our registration in our arts courses, as Dr
Bountrogianni and I have discussed, up some 10%. There may be
somebody who would like to analyze that-I'm not one of them-but
it did happen, and that's good. There is a myth out there that
people aren't flocking towards the arts courses, but in fact they
are.
More importantly, right now
the colleges are, just for the purpose-I mean, when they're
applying for this SuperBuild Growth Fund, which is 742 million
new dollars in our post-secondary for capital, they're having to
think very carefully about what kind of buildings they're
building. One of the other challenges we have, if we want to use
the 88,000 number-and the best thinkers we can get with regard to
advice to the government are suggesting, "That's OK for now;
we've got a bit of time," but they're also suggesting that we
have to be taking advantage of the great challenge of education
in the next millennium, and that is the use of technology. This
will be a century where education as we know it will change
because of the challenges of technology. Do we put our efforts
into distance education, on-line learning? We have a generation
of Canadians who would like to do a lot of their post-secondary
work, whether they're between the ages of 18 and 24 or beyond,
because industry is asking us to respond to the demands of people
who are in the workplace who want to have credits towards
university degrees or towards other kinds of training, especially
related to technology. So it isn't a matter of just buildings,
which we're advised about. It is also a matter of the virtual
classroom, which is on-line learning and which can be the use of
all kinds of technologies while people actually remain in their
homes.
The Chair:
Just a few seconds left.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: How many seconds?
The Chair:
About 20.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Can I have them?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes.
The Chair:
We'll pass on then to the official opposition.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I don't want to take Ernie's time.
Minister, TVO is under your ministry's umbrella now too. There's
been a lot in the paper about more of an educational focus.
Depending on how you define educational foci, Steve Paikin's
programs, Studio 2 and Fourth Reading, may or may not fit. Do you
have any plans for Mr Paikin and his programs?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: If I did, I wouldn't be announcing them in
this meeting.
Interjections.
Mr
Marchese: But we do like him.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: I actually like him a lot. I taught him to
swim once, and he certainly knows how to do that.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Are any decisions made for him and his
job?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: I'm using my sense of humour because you
kind of smiled at me.
Mr
Marchese: You taught him to swim?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes. He's older than you think.
It's an excellent question.
I would hope that no matter what place we play in our roles in
government today, all of us here would put our best mind towards
how we can best utilize a great teaching resource. The fact is
that many of us who have been lucky enough at one time to grow up
in the city of Toronto, like myself, and now others around the
province rely extensively on the education programs, especially for their preschool
children and school-aged children, on TVOntario, fondly referred
to OECA, the Ontario Education Communications Authority-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: OK. I don't want to eat into my
colleague's time. Thank you, Minister.
1740
Mr Ernie Parsons
(Prince Edward-Hastings): Minister, I listened with
great interest last week when you answered a question from one of
your colleagues about negotiating the training agreement with the
federal government. I haven't been here a long time, but I've now
grasped that anything that's not done is blamed on the federal
government. I have some difficulty with that, because I
understand that there's been agreement to negotiate with Mr
Klein. I understand there's been agreement-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: With Mr Who?
Mr
Parsons: Ralph Klein. The Reform Party leader in
Alberta. I understand an agreement has been negotiated between
the federal government and Mr Bouchard; in fact, all the other
nine provinces have an agreement. That perplexes me, that it's
the federal government in the wrong, because surely the other
nine premiers didn't negotiate an agreement they couldn't live
with. I look at that in the context that in a meeting with your
officials in August, they indicated to me that it was you who
broke off negotiations with the federal government.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Who said that?
Mr
Parsons: Your officials did at a briefing session in
August.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: That we broke it off?
Mr
Parsons: Yes. I stand by that, that it was a statement
by your officials at a briefing session.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Did they also say we broke it off because we
were in an election?
Mr
Parsons: Yes, they did.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Good. There was a huge sigh of relief.
Mr
Parsons: The election's over and in fact we're in
December today, so my question to you is, when did you last meet
with the federal minister to restart, or do you have a meeting
set for the near future? If not, why not?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: We actually did meet towards the end of
September-October. Minister Stewart came to London, Ontario. At
that time, she was just a new minister. We're hoping to meet-we
actually did have a meeting planned for this Monday, but
unfortunately I have had to change the date. I recently sent her
a letter, which I'm looking for right now-it was with the speech
I gave earlier, so I don't know where that file went-and we have
asked for another date. I'm hoping we'll be able to do that very
quickly.
Mr
Parsons: Bill 55 has been passed into legislation and
I'm getting quite a number of calls from people wanting the
regulations. When were the regulations passed for Bill 55, and
could you send me some copies?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: I'd be happy to send you the copies of the
regs. On Bill 55, with regard to the changes we have made, we
spent most of the month of October in consultation with all the
sectors that were interested in the regulations to go along with
the bill, and we had very successful discussions with them.
Mr
Parsons: So the regulations are passed?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: They're in the system now and they are
moving forward-
Mr
Parsons: But they're not passed yet?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: -and I would be happy to get you a copy of
those.
Mr
Parsons: They are passed or they're not passed?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: They're not.
Mr
Parsons: OK. That's really the question. I'm going to
try some questions similar to Who Wants to be a Millionaire? that
really require just a yes or a no or a final answer?"
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: The answer is yes.
Mr
Parsons: OK. I will now find a question where that would
fit appropriately.
Individual trades have
suggested to me that they would like to have the flexibility to
increase the minimum grade level required for their trade. Do you
agree with them? You said yes before we started.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes, I do, but you were going to
mention-
Mr
Marchese: Let's call the Minister of Labour.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: No, no, don't do that. The answer to that is
yes.
Mr
Parsons: I'll look for another yes question.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: I answered all the Millionaire questions
with a yes, but carry on.
Mr
Parsons: That's the problem, see: A, B, C or D is the
answer to them.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes.
Mr
Parsons: OK. The Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship
Act provides for certified trades and allows for the trade to be
designated as compulsory. The construction industry would like to
see the criteria for this designation set out in the regulations.
Do you agree that that should be, that the criteria for-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Under the TQAA? Yes.
Mr
Parsons: The construction industry would like to see the
establishment of a sectorial advisory council to address issues
related to apprenticeship and training.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes.
Mr
Parsons: Yes, you're in favour of such a council? Bless
you.
Interjection.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: They came in to see me last week.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Sir, you should cross the floor.
Mr
Parsons: No. The bottom line is I've still got
pride.
One issue I've heard much
about over the past few months is the issue of allowing all
construction apprenticeships to be covered within the same
legislation. What's your position on that?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: It wouldn't be
fair for me to answer with a simple yes, because it didn't
happen. So I can't, although I told you I'd say yes to
everything.
Mr
Parsons: What is your position on it?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Right now I think it's more the-
Mr
Parsons: Oh, I got away from the "yes" questions there.
Sorry.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Oh, did you? Good, because that would have
been awkward.
I could still say yes, we
had wanted it under one piece of legislation, but the industry
itself didn't want to be part of Bill 55, so they're under the
old legislation. But in meeting with them last week, they advised
me that they'll put in writing their position with
recommendations. Actually, we had anticipated that we would have
had that by now. So we'll wait and see what they're requesting,
what their solution is, and at this point in time they'll remain
under the old act.
Mr
Parsons: Do you or your officials have any idea as to
the exact number of apprenticeships in each trade in Ontario?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes.
Mr
Parsons: You believe you have an exact number?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Well, we think we know what we have, and we
also are very happy about the fact that we think we will have
very many more young people and persons entering the
apprenticeships of different trades in the province of Ontario
because of the flexibility that was part of the whole initial
reason for having a separate act under Bill 55. You know
yourself, Mr Parsons, from your own work in the area and having
been so involved in our colleges as well, that there is a huge
need for more apprentices, in manufacturing and automotive right
across the system.
Mr
Parsons: I agree, but one of the obstacles right now is
the lack of the training agreement. It's a major obstacle.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Yes, and when you look at me like this it
makes me nervous, because I can tell you right now that we are
totally committed to getting a training agreement. But one of the
challenges would be that when one is offered 28% of the
funding-that's what's on the table right now-and we've got 40% of
our people in-
Mr
Parsons: I understand that-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: You understand that.
Mr
Parsons: But I also understand that you're not at the
table, while at the same time I'm hearing from employers who
can't get people and I'm hearing from people who can't get
trained. For them, they view it as a political game.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Who does, the employers?
Mr
Parsons: The employers and the people who want to be
trained.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: The real issue right now has been, in all
fairness, that when I became the minister, right away my first
phone call was to the former minister, Pierre Pettigrew, and I
did not hear back from him until the end of the summer. Now, I'm
not the kind of person who's going to get annoyed about this,
because I think you and I both know that there was a change going
on there. Now I have Minister Stewart, but since our meeting in
London some seven, eight weeks ago, I have been available for a
meeting. Unfortunately, this Monday I'm having to change that,
and I'm hoping we won't have to wait very much longer than
that.
But in the meantime, it
isn't that people haven't been getting some work done, because I
did at that time leave with Minister Stewart a map which showed
the overlap and duplication of programs delivered both by the
federal government and by the provincial government. I can tell
by the way you're talking today that you understand that, that in
Ontario, like in other provinces, we want a seamless delivery
system. But just because I've asked not to go up on Monday
doesn't mean to say I'm not available Tuesday and every other
day.
Mr
Parsons: And I'm not saying the federal government is
without blame on this. But I do know it has gone from June until
now, and I talk to employers or employers talk to me and say:
"The average age of our employees is 46. We don't have anyone in
their 20s working in our trade." And then I see waiting lists of
600 carpenters who want to be trained but there's no training
dollars, and I see the Olympic committee putting together a bid
and I know the tremendous need that that will generate either by
us not having people to do it or by drawing people from out of
the country, out of the province, out of the area to do it. For
the person waiting to go into apprenticeship and carpentry-a
year's gone by.
1750
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: That's right. I believe too that you would
be interested to note that because of legislation the federal
government put in place in 1986, they cannot flow direct money to
funding programs. So instead of working with us and putting their
energy into change all last spring-or since last January, because
after all, we have had a number of months at the table-they're
now directing money to individuals, which is a new process for
them to, I believe, get around having the kind of discussions
they should be having with us and settling up.
As a result, your own
people who are going to you-I know they are, because they are
coming to me too; they've already been to you. They have reduced
the training to institutions as of July 1 that have everything to
do with training apprentices. They've actually cut that funding.
The community-based trainers who have been applying all fall to
get funding for very important programs and training of the
people you're talking about today have been refused funding.
That's the kind of funding, by their own law, that they're not
supposed to give, but they can forward that funding to the
province of Ontario-I'm trying to keep this simple-and we can
then have one integrated training system.
Mr
Parsons: But the feds are doing a stop-gap measure. My
point is that it was your office that broke it off.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: I've been
sitting here since July 1, and I can tell you right now that I've
been available for discussions. I'm the one who's written the
letter, and the recent letter that I am sending to Jane-it's
probably already in the mail-is that I'm extremely disappointed
about Monday-it happens to be personal, and those things
happen-but I am available Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday
next week and any other day. In fact, we were trying to set up
something for this Friday. I have always been available, Ernie,
and I hope you'll pass that on.
Mr
Parsons: I've got to go back and ask one question about
Bill 55, though. You indicated that you've had consultation and
you're now proceeding to develop the regulations. It begs a
question with me, because the people in the trades affected by
Bill 55 aren't aware of the consultation. They're asking me if
it's ready.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: You'd have to tell me who they are, because
I could tell you who I've met with. That is everybody but two
groups, who in fact were invited to come and meet with us and
didn't. They're not concerned and we have their support.
Mr
Parsons: Was it by invitation only to consult?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Well, yes, we invited them and they let us
know-
Mr
Parsons: It wasn't an open process.
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: Why don't we have this described by Joan
Andrew, the assistant deputy minister, since she conducted the
consultations? Then you'll hear about it and you can go back to
whoever you represent.
The Chair:
For a minute and a half, because the committee has to conduct
some business before the House-
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: That's all right. She can talk faster than I
can.
Ms Joan
Andrew: The invitation included all the chairs and
co-chairs of all the provincial advisory committees, which are
the industry committees advising us, and then, sector by sector,
we invited every member of the industry advisory committees. Then
we had meetings with the Ontario Federation of Labour; the auto
parts; the Big Three; the colleges; aboriginal groups; local
training boards; the CAW; the Labourers' International Union; the
tooling and machining association; the Alliance of Manufacturers
and Exporters; and the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business.
The Chair:
We're going to move to housekeeping. We have 10 minutes before
the vote in the House. Thank you, Mr Parsons; thank you,
Minister.
I would like, if I could,
to get an undertaking, Minister, with you here, from your deputy
to follow up on the various things you've promised to the
committee as information for the benefit of all the committee
members, if that's acceptable, so that this committee will follow
up with the deputy for those various information items that you
kindly offered to the members of the committee.
Mr Peebles, I see that
you're here. I know you have joint ministry responsibilities.
We're here reviewing two ministries that used to be one. I wonder
if I could ask you to take the same message back to the deputy
for education for those matters so that each of the members of
the committee will receive the information that was put forward
previously.
I'd like to now turn to the
vote.
Shall votes 1001 to 1004,
inclusive, carry? All those in favour, please say "aye." All
those opposed, say "nay." I declare the motion carried.
Shall the estimates of the
Ministry of Education and Training carry? All those in favour,
say "aye." All those opposed, say "nay." Carried.
Shall I report the
estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training to the House?
That's carried.
One final piece of business
I just want to remark on for the members of this committee. We
raised the issue at the beginning of our sitting. We will have
accomplished approximately 12 hours and 18 minutes of sitting.
For all members of the committee, you should just know that the
average for the last number of years is approximately 40 hours.
We were artificially limited to these 12 hours and 18 minutes. I
want to thank you for your co-operation during this time, but
that is the only achievement we were able to obtain this time.
After the last election, I'll just remind you, there were 65
hours of sitting by this committee. But thank you for your
co-operation.
One thing before I adjourn:
There's been a request to table some questions. Minister, a
member of the committee, subbing in today, would like to table
some questions for your ministry. Would that be acceptable?
Hon Mrs
Cunningham: That's fine.
The Chair:
OK, so we'll have that done as part of this process. Thank you
again, members, for your co-operation.
