Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Tuesday 23 November 1999

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Mr Brian Coburn, parliamentary assistant
Mr Michael Fenn, deputy minister

Ministry of Education and Training
Hon Janet Ecker, Minister of Education
Hon Dianne Cunningham, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities
Ms Suzanne Herbert, deputy minister, Ministry of Education
Mr Ross Peebles, assistant deputy minister, corporate management and services
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 Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East / -Est L)
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 1533 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): Ladies and gentlemen, I call you to order. I want to keep on schedule. Mr Coburn, thank you very much for being so prompt.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair: A point of order from the honourable Mr Wettlaufer.

Mr Wettlaufer: The honourable. Thank you, Chair. That doesn't come very often, especially from you.

I want to get something on the record. I was just advised-I believe it was yesterday-that the committee room has been changed this week and I feel it's inappropriate that the committee room be arbitrarily moved midweek.

The Chair: I'm sorry. That's not a point of order, Mr Wettlaufer. I appreciate your opinion on that matter, but it's not a point of order.

Mr Wettlaufer: It's personal privilege then.

The Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, I've ruled-

Mr Wettlaufer: It is a point of privilege.

The Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, I've ruled; it's neither a point of order, nor a point of privilege. The assignment of the room is done on a basis between the chairs and the clerks. We have a different room assignment for tomorrow. We'll come back to this room on Tuesday, if this is the room you're most familiar with. But I've already ruled-

Mr Wettlaufer: Chair, I would like you to take into consideration the wishes of the committee and at least have a meeting of the subcommittee.

The Chair: I am very agreeable to a meeting of the subcommittee, Mr Wettlaufer. We'll contact you for your availability, but for the benefit of the members and the witnesses-

Mr Wettlaufer: I can make myself available.

The Chair: -we are headed for room 151 tomorrow, unless there's some onerous reason why not.

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): Just to correct the record: At the last session there was a statement made with respect to the housing tribunal. I'd just like to point out to the committee that any concerns or anything with tribunal decisions or queries of the tribunal should be directed to the chair of the housing tribunal. Similarly, if anything comes to the ministry or the minister, it is redirected then to the chair of the housing tribunal.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Coburn.

We are resuming the estimates for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We come back to the rotation, so we will move to the government party.

Mr Coburn: Chair, there are two other pieces of information that members had requested.

The Chair: Mr Coburn, what we've done traditionally with that in estimates is that you will have an option to work those in as answers or you can provide them in writing to members of the committee. Normally the time of each of the members of the committee is rationed, so to keep it on track you can work those into your answers or you can provide those and you can note them on the record that they were provided. We'd be very appreciative to have anything you or the ministry would like to provide in writing to all of the committee members. The clerk will be happy to facilitate that.

Mr Coburn: OK. We have that information that we'll file with the clerk.

The Chair: Tremendous. Can I ask the government party to please proceed. You have 20 minutes.

Mr Wettlaufer: I'd like to inquire about social housing in Ontario. There are many ways of approaching the subject, some effective, some not effective. We know what the NDP did. They injected money into bricks and mortar, not people. Their government spent $1 million an hour more than it took in, which is why our government inherited such a massive deficit.

But we don't have to just say, "OK, Wayne Wettlaufer is speaking here; he's partisan." I think we should look at what Dalton McGuinty's chief of staff, Phil Dewan, said, and I quote: "More typically, when people discuss the problem of the homeless, it is often immediately presumed that the answer lies in increased production of `affordable' housing units." "Affordable" he put in quotes.

We all remember just how unaffordable the NDP's non-profit housing program was for Ontario taxpayers. That was in Hansard during the Tenant Protection Act hearings. I don't remember whether it was last summer-not last summer but two or three summers ago.

Housing was supposed to be a top priority for the Liberals. The Liberals' record was just as bad as the NDP's. The Liberal government's inaction was demonstrated in reverse. The Liberals "attempted to appear innovative by announcing several different initiatives with catchy titles," like "assured housing" or "Renterprise," "with little consideration for realistic achievement."

"With time, the Liberal government became famous for its policy announcements, as noted by the Toronto Star:

"`Big announcements. It's a housing recipe the Liberal government has been working on for several years. It involves four simple steps: Do something small, announce it loudly, wait and then repeat the process with another small move.'"

The Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, I don't want to interrupt and it won't be from your time. I appreciate your efforts to be non-partisan. I just want to remind you that we do have the valuable time of Mr Coburn and you're welcome to address him with your questions-

Mr Wettlaufer: I have 20 minutes and I believe I can use it any way I see fit, as you Liberals do from time to time.

The Chair: You may indeed. I'm just reminding you of the opportunity.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you very much, Chair.

"Since taking office in 1985, the Liberals have been adept at announcing at least 30 different housing initiatives, but their track record speaks for itself.

"They have promised hundreds of thousands of new housing units on various occasions, often throwing out numbers without providing cohesive deadlines. Many of their promises overlap and conflict, creating significant confusion as to what was promised when and for whom. The Liberals seem to have chosen to operate in this manner to avoid having to complete a specific number of units or fulfil specific promises within a set deadline.

"In his official announcement of the assured housing policy on December 15, 1985, former Minister of Housing Alvin Curling promised the delivery of some 345,000 new units between 1985 and 1990 .... In 1986, the government committed to an additional 3,000 non-profit units.

"In the 1987 election campaign," then Premier Peterson "indicated that the Liberals are committed to 102,000 housing units by 1990, which the new housing minister, Chaviva Ho_ek, has confirmed a commitment to. Since 1987, the Liberals have announced that they would deliver a variety of units, amounting to at least 60,000."

1540

This quote, by the way, is taken from the Fair Rental Policy Organization's newsletter, and at the Fair Rental Policy Organization, as I think you're aware, Mr Chair, Phil Dewan was the president. He's Dalton McGuinty's chief of staff.

He also said:

"While the promises keep coming, the government has produced only a small fraction of its total commitments. The total number of rental units built to date in the three years the Liberals have been in office is approximately 39,466, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation statistics. This total represents, at best, only a 28% success rate.

"Instead of acting, we see only reactions from the Liberals and knee-jerk announcements, as the government continues to bow to pressure from opposition parties and interest groups."

This is the system our government was forced to inherit, a system that was doomed from the start.

Mr Coburn, I would like to know what our government has done to tackle this very complex issue that was left in such disarray after the last two governments took a shot at it?

Mr Coburn: Thank you for the question. You're absolutely right on one point note, the fact that we did inherit quite a mess, but despite that situation, we are moving forward. We're moving forward, we believe, in the right direction. It's comforting to know that even an individual such as Phil Dewan agrees with the direction we're moving in, and he had stated, "Having rightly cancelled the massive non-profit housing programs of their predecessors, the new PC government knows that it must get private investment to produce the rental housing needed in the future."

Of course he was less optimistic about the state of affairs that we inherited: "The provincial Tories can do nothing about the huge capital costs incurred by the Liberals and the NDP with their program, the social non-profit housing. All the province can do is try to reduce the operating costs of these units. And if and when municipalities take over the responsibility for social housing, they will finally have the incentive to reduce operating expenses appropriately and manage more cost-effectively."

Now, that in fact is working. You're going to read some of the inevitable articles and editorials decrying the downloading to the local municipalities, but when you read them I would ask you to stop and think for a minute about where the information is indeed coming from. Because there's examples on where it is successful; for example, in the city of Windsor. How is it that the city of Windsor boasted last January of making an annual profit of about 6% by billing the province for its management services through the Windsor Housing Co, or the city of Toronto, which despite spending freezes managed to find over $400,000 in the save rent control committee?

This government has actively been seeking and implementing solutions to the social housing situation and the dilemma that we find ourselves in. That is why we have pushed the federal government on a new social housing agreement. It was with great pride-and I can repeat today-that the minister announced last week that the deal has been signed by both levels of government now. This means a great deal to Ontarians.

As promised, the province is committing $50 million in savings, the results from signing the agreement, to provide assistance to approximately 10,000 low-income families and individuals across the province.

In addition, we have also allocated $30 million to address capital needs for federal projects being transferred to the municipalities, as well as $4 million in provincial tax grants, $2.5 million for people with special needs.

This agreement will allow the province to transfer the administration of social housing to the municipalities, putting a community service where it belongs, in the hands of local government, which better understands the needs of their local communities.

The new agreement will allow the province and the municipalities to streamline the administrative arrangements, simplify programs and serve clients more effectively. It will also provide more flexibility to meet community needs and make better use of the existing services and resources.

This government has been investigating many ways to provide incentives to the private sector to build affordable housing. We realize the incentives are necessary and we recognize the effective means, such as PST rebate. Reduction in taxes is one of the most effective tools to combat high development costs, and even the Liberals know that. Or should I say that their chief of staff knows that? It may filter down over time.

Once more, I would like to quote Mr Dewan. He waded into this issue and offered these comments: s"I am referring to property taxes and the unwarranted discrimination against multi-residential tenants, who pay two to four times the tax rate of single family homes and condo dwellers. It is a fact that equalizing property taxes is the single most powerful thing municipalities can do to create affordable housing, by making existing housing cheaper."

In the end, it's about the available resources and how we use them. This government has put forth a great effort to streamline housing delivery. This allows us to serve even more customers with the same dollars. We are getting better value for the $1.5 billion Ontario taxpayers spend every year on subsidizing social housing.

There has been a lot of discussion in the news over the movement of certain social services, but the province's goal has always been to provide a good service by the appropriate level of government and for the best dollar value. One more time, according to Mr Dewan, some municipalities don't agree with that expenditure of their dollars on social housing and that that was the appropriate level of government to deliver the service.

Just to add a little more emphasis to that, Mr Dewan had stated: "Municipalities have been crying the blues over proposed downloading of certain social services from the province. They were happy to spend the money when it wasn't theirs. Now that they have to put their own money where their mouths are, the tune has changed to one of doom and gloom. Nowhere is the hypocrisy more evident than when it comes to social housing."

We are working with municipalities across all of Ontario, to ensure that the service delivery is efficient, effective and provided by the appropriate level of government. Most municipalities experienced declines in their local service realignment costs. These declines totalled approximately $170 million in 1998 alone. Even though 1998 was a year of change, with the province and municipalities each taking on new financial responsibilities, taxes went up in fewer municipalities in 1998 than in the average year between 1985 and 1995.

I think the evidence is starting to come in that this government's plan is working. We're enacting the plan and we are confident the plan will bear considerable fruit as we go down the road. We intend to stay the course and continue working with municipalities and service providers to make this system the best it can be.

1550

The Chair: Any further questions from the government party?

Mr Wettlaufer: How much time do I have, Chair?

The Chair: You have approximately six and a half minutes.

Mr Wettlaufer: I want to use some of my time to further raise the question on which you ruled me out of order before. I realize it's not a point of order, but it's some of my time. I want to get on the record that we feel it's inappropriate that the committee room has been arbitrarily changed in mid-week. We feel it's an unusual practice-

The Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, I'll ask you-

Mr Wettlaufer: It's my time, Chair.

The Chair: No, Mr Wettlaufer, your time is not to be used to challenge the decisions of the committee. I have made a ruling on your point.

Mr Wettlaufer: I'm not challenging the Chair.

The Chair: I would direct you to the important subject-and I'm sure that, by and large, we're here and committed to see the estimates of municipal affairs and housing reviewed. I've already agreed to a subcommittee meeting that would address, hopefully at least, some of your concern, but I have ruled and I cannot allow you to continue in a vein that has already been ruled on by the Chair of this committee.

Mr Wettlaufer, please continue.

Mr Wettlaufer: OK, Chair. Mr Coburn, last week, during the course of the committee hearings, I believe it was Mr Caplan who referred to a report-I could be mistaken, Mr Caplan, maybe it wasn't you-indicating the average percentage return that apartment owners were obtaining.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): That was me.

Mr Wettlaufer: Oh, it was Mr Marchese. Thank you.

Mr Marchese travelled with me during the Tenant Protection Act committee hearings, over two summers. We read into the record at the time-however, it's possible that Mr Marchese may have forgotten-and I certainly would like to read into the record again, the fact that the authors of that report suggested that the numbers of apartment owners surveyed were so small that the report itself was invalid for the purposes it was being used for in the committee hearings. In actual fact, the return was not 10%; the return was more like, if I recall, 2.5% or 3%, on average.

I would like to give the remaining time to my colleague Mr O'Toole.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to see the parliamentary assistants actually earning their keep.

I've sat through and listened, and I recognize the important initiative of the government with its Tenant Protection Act. The initiative there was to change the conditions so that the private sector would come forward with a solution to the shortage of affordable housing. There was the sincere intention of the minister, Leach at the time-and I know many in the House on all sides were supportive of the intention, that's for sure-to create more affordable housing. I would like to give you a chance, Mr Coburn, to outline the benefits for the tenant and the landlords in the context of the Tenant Protection Act, if you could, for the committee. I think it's important to get it on the record. As we've all talked around the circle of having affordable housing, dealing with the social housing issue, perhaps it will give you enough leverage or opening there to respond to the intended benefits to the tenants and landlords under the Tenant Protection Act.

Mr Marchese: I can read the answer for you.

Mr O'Toole: No doubt you should read that.

Mr Coburn: The Tenant Protection Act: It is a huge challenge to provide a piece of legislation that does try to solve the huge inequities that were put in place before our government came to power. It is a tough piece of legislation that does protect the tenants' rights, and at the same time it balances the needs of both the landlords and the tenants. We have received positive feedback from people, and they have been saying our policies are working.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Who has been saying that?

Mr Coburn: And others have agreed, including Mr Dewan, who is formerly of the Fair Rental Policy Organization. Just let me repeat what he had said: "With the proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act on June 17, one could say that a milestone has been achieved on the road to sound housing policy in Ontario." He used the word "milestone" deliberately, he goes on, "because it does mark the end of the NDP era of punitive legislation which had such a negative impact on the preservation of rental housing stock in the province."

In the new legislation, we have maintained rent controls under the Tenant Protection Act, which has been great news for tenants. Under both previous governments, annual allowable rent increase guidelines have been set very high, consuming low-income families' wages. Under both the Liberals and the NDP, annual allowable rent increase guidelines were an average of 4.8%. Actually, the Liberal government went as high as 5.2% and the NDP were even worse at a whopping 6%.

Under the Tenant Protection Act that the Harris government has brought in, it has maintained an average allowable rent increase guideline of 2.8%. More importantly, for the year 2000 it was the lowest allowable guideline increase in the history of rent control in Ontario, at 2.6% for the year 2000. That's quite a New Year's resolution, which we intend to keep.

We actually had no choice but to act, it was in such a terrible state. Tenants were in desperate need of legislation that protected them. Again, even Mr Dewan recognized that-

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): What did Mr Caplan say?

Mr Coburn: Let me tell you exactly what he said. He once wrote: "Though some Liberal Party literature took this line of attack," meaning that the Tenant Protection Act removed rent controls, "they should have recognized their own vulnerability. In 1986, Liberal legislation in the Residential Rent Regulation Act placed no limit on increases for sitting tenants as a result of capital improvements."

Actually, our friend Mr Dewan had quite a bit to say about the Tenant Protection Act. He was questioned about this, which he declared was absolutely false.

"Repairs and renovations must be bona fide and approved by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal under the same rules and schedule of amortization as in the Liberal legislation.

"The question to be put to a successful Liberal candidate, for example, Michael Bryant, who spread this line during the campaign, is simple: `Were you ignorant of the facts or did you purposely distort them?'"

To repeat another quote: "Of course, this whole issue of preserving legal maximum rent is of relevance only because the government has chosen to retain rent controls."

I do hope that over the next couple of days Mr Dewan and Mr McGuinty come to grips with this issue, because Mr McGuinty-

The Chair: Time for the government party has expired. We now turn to the opposition party. You have 20 minutes, Mr Caplan.

Mr Caplan: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have many questions for the parliamentary assistant, but let me just say that I'm disappointed the minister himself is not here. I know that as late as yesterday afternoon, we were-

Mr Marchese: But very ably represented.

Mr Caplan: No doubt. My question for the parliamentary assistant is that your ministry has identified that you are going to have the download onto the municipalities in place by January 2000. Is that timetable still in effect?

Mr Coburn: No. We are still working with municipalities to provide a smooth transition.

Mr Caplan: When will that take place?

Mr Coburn: There may be some staff here who may be able to give us some idea.

Mr Caplan: The timeline that you identified to municipalities was January 2000. You're telling me that is no longer the case? Is that what you're telling me, that it's no longer the case?

Mr Coburn: I'm not telling you that.

Mr Caplan: We've got to ask somebody here.

The Chair: Will those addressing the committee identify themselves for the purposes of Hansard, please.

Mr Michael Fenn: I'm Michael Fenn, deputy minister of the ministry.

Mr Caplan: I'll ask the question, Mr Fenn. It had been identified to municipalities and in fact to the House that completion of the transfer to municipalities would be in place by January 2000. My question is, will that happen? And if it won't, when will that take place? When can we expect to see the legislative framework and the legislation which will enable that?

Mr Fenn: I think the answer to that has two parts. First of all, the timetable that was originally set out, I believe, for the House was premised on, at least in the area that we're primarily responsible for, the conclusion of a federal-provincial agreement on social housing on a timely basis. Members will be aware that during the course of those negotiations, the federal party withdrew from the negotiations for a considerable period of time and resumed those negotiations again this year. Clearly, that affects our timetable, because we need to work with our municipal partners to effect the transfer.

1600

Mr Caplan: I appreciate that. What is the timetable?

Mr Fenn: I think the timetable is unchanged in terms of our assumptions about where we would go from the time of the devolution. In the agreement, there is a time frame for reviewing the stock and completing that process and signing off. There's also a process that has to be carried through in terms of the review of the stock by our municipal partners. That timetable is unchanged, but the effective date from which it was initiated is altered by the fact that we had some difficulty concluding an agreement with the federal government.

Mr Caplan: So, you had a January 2000 date; you don't have a date now. In your release here on the federal agreement, you said, "The province can introduce the necessary legislation for devolution in the spring for approval by the Legislature." Is that now your timetable?

Mr Fenn: Subject to the will of the Legislature always.

Mr Caplan: Of course.

Mr Fenn: That's our intent.

Mr Caplan: That is the timetable, and I appreciate that. As a part of the legislative framework, you will be downloading the responsibility, the management, everything to the municipalities. Is that what's going to happen, that the municipalities will be responsible for everything when it comes to social housing?

Mr Fenn: As the member is aware, that's a more complex issue than the question would seem to suggest. Some of the programs require some program review to streamline them and put them in a position so that they can be taken on by our municipal partners in a way that they can administer most efficiently within their own communities. There are elements of the programs, particularly the federal programs, that were not under our jurisdiction before that will take some additional time.

There are elements of the transition that involve labour transition. We have to be fair to our people in terms of the transfer of responsibilities and transfer of the jobs that go along with those responsibilities. So there are various components and elements. With respect to the legislation, my understanding is that the proposal is that the legislation certainly will be introduced on the timetable that was indicated. But whether there would be follow-up pieces of legislation that the Legislature may decide are appropriate, that would be all part of that ongoing plan. It's not a toggle-switch affair; it's a sequential process involving people, money, legal agreements, relationships with providers and so on.

Mr Caplan: The parliamentary assistant made it sound as though this was all on course and everything was running quite smoothly. Apparently, that's not the case.

I have a specific question. Perhaps a direct answer could be provided. The risk component of the housing that is currently in place, will that be transferred to municipalities or will the province retain all of the risks associated with housing? Whose responsibility will that be, municipalities or the province? It's a very straightforward question.

Mr Fenn: With respect, the way the question was framed, it was very straightforward; the answer, however, reflects the complexity of the issue. The risk associated with some elements of the program will inevitably remain with the province. There needs to be adequate provision for that risk for the taxpayers of Ontario. The primary responsibility for social housing, the ongoing management of the portfolio and the administration of the funding on the existing agreements, will in fact be transferred to municipalities. The plan has not changed. What really has changed was that the timetable was interrupted by the withdrawal of the federal party from the negotiations. Our timetable, as the parliamentary assistant-

Mr Caplan: I didn't ask about the timetable; I asked whose responsibility was going to be what.

That takes me to my second question, following that. The parliamentary assistant identified some $58 million that was transferred from the federal to the provincial government for the provision of risk. The parliamentary assistant referenced in his comments that $30 million of that risk money, and I take it from the Deputy Minister's comments that, yes, indeed, the municipalities will be responsible, if not for all-and we'll see in the legislation-at least for a part.

More than half of monies that were devoted to the risk, mortgage default or whatever, is now going to be allocated towards capital need. My question to the parliamentary assistant is, why are you taking the municipalities' money? If they're going to assume the risk, why aren't they receiving the money to do that? Why are you spending it on other areas, and is that, in the opinion of the parliamentary assistant, a prudent thing to do?

Mr Coburn: Because of the complexity of this, I'll defer that to the deputy minister so that you get the accurate answer.

Mr Caplan: We haven't had one yet.

The Chair: For the purposes of discussion, we obviously accept the veracity of all answers that are provided in committee. Deputy, please proceed.

Mr Fenn: Mr Chairman, I'll endeavour to be more precise in my response. The answer is of course that there are elements of risk that include operating risk. Some of the projects run into difficulty, and that's a class of risk. There's a risk associated with the quality of the stock we were assuming, both the federal stock and the programs we currently administer. There is a capital risk that the parliamentary assistant has indicated is addressed by the proposal to retain $30 million to deal with that element of the risk.

The answer is that the challenge that faces us is to try to match up the allocation of risk with the allocation of the federal funds and with the transfer of the responsibilities. I guess it will be a matter for the Legislature to determine whether or not we have that right.

Mr Caplan: The $50 million, for that matter, is not found in the estimates book. Can you please direct me to which page I would find that on, say in future years? Because obviously it's not accounted for here, I assume some supplementary estimates will have to be issued. Can you relate the provision of dollars to the current year's estimates book so I can track where those dollars are going next year?

Mr Fenn: As the member indicates, it is not in the current estimates because we obviously have to provide for money we know we have as opposed to money prospectively we might anticipate receiving. We knew we were engaged in some negotiations that would continue on through the current fiscal year. So the member's correct: It is not addressed in the book. We will certainly undertake to indicate to members where they can identify that expenditure in future years and it will be part of the business plan.

Mr Caplan: Thank you very much. The deputy also mentioned that technical audits have to take place by the municipalities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Provincial Auditor highlighted to the ministry that the ministry ought to execute those audits. You haven't done that, so you don't even really know what the entire capital need is.

The region of Peel recently did perform technical audits and did a detailed analysis. I know that ministry staff have asked and requested this information, so I would expect that the deputy or the parliamentary assistant would be able to speak to it. The region of Peel estimates-by the way, the member from Peel is here and would know-that 14,400 people are currently on waiting lists to access affordable housing, social housing, in Peel.

The region of Peel estimates $1 billion provincially, and in the direct case of Peel, over $57 million is required to operate and manage its buildings at the same level as it has in the past. This is no addition; this is strictly to keep them where they are, is what is required from the provincial government. They've done the audit; you haven't.

My question is, is the ministry and is the provincial government going to meet the requirements of the region of Peel and the rest of the province with the capital needs that have been identified?

Mr Fenn: I guess the answer to that is that in any kind of process of transfer-certainly we engage in this process in negotiating with the federal government-people open from a negotiating position that reflects a very generous interpretation of what they think their obligations might be. We haven't had an opportunity to work with individual municipalities to talk about the quality of the stock or the provisions for future obligations associated with that. We expect that process to be ongoing.

I think the somewhat ambitious numbers that are being cited by the member that have been prepared by the municipality are perhaps an understandable opening position for the municipality, but the situation we find ourselves in, in terms of reviewing the stock-while it is fair to say that the auditor felt we should be doing more, certainly the work our staff do on an ongoing basis indicates to us that the obligations are considerably less grand than are being proposed.

Notwithstanding that, I think it's fair to say that's one of the reasons the government has decided to set aside an allocation dealing with capital and dealing with some of the provisions that might be implied in the federal transfer. That's one of the reasons we're undertaking an ongoing review through to the end of next March, to ensure that the obligations we're taking on do in fact reflect something that is manageable within the terms of the agreement.

1610

Mr Caplan: Yes. In fact, $30 million where a $1-billion need is identified by somebody who has done a technical audit is quite astounding.

I have one final question and then I will turn it over to my colleague Mr Curling. That relates to a release that went out recently, November 19, from the ministry regarding the provincial homelessness strategy. Part of it says that they're going to allow "municipalities to redirect a portion of the funding they receive for hostel services to preventive programs designed to help people find and keep housing." In the municipal download, where the province used to pay 100% of the cost, the province changed it to an 80-20 sharing arrangement. According to the city of Toronto, because of a cap which has been placed, it is now much closer to a 70-30 sharing arrangement, with property taxpayers in the city of Toronto picking up 30% of the costs. My question for the parliamentary assistant is, why, when we already have a hostel system which is bulging at the seams, are you going to redirect portions of this to other program areas? Then, after this, my colleague will be asking some questions.

Mr Coburn: I'm going to defer that question to the deputy, Mr Chair.

Mr Caplan: Why is the parliamentary assistant here?

Mr Fenn: I think there are two elements to that response. First, with the indulgence of the committee, I think committee members will be aware that the responsibility for that program, the funding for that program falls under the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and the amount that's allowed for people in shelters on a per capita basis has been a matter of some considerable debate among municipal providers. The member is correct about that, but we're really not in a position to respond to the appropriateness of that number.

The related programs that we have considered are some of the programs involving finding accommodation for people who have particular challenges in finding accommodation. Those programs are often run by local agents on behalf of municipalities. They've been quite successful and we have provided the funding that's necessary as part of that strategy to continue that good work in housing help centres and things of that kind.

Mr Curling: Mr Coburn, I just wanted to say that coming into this thing so new, I think you've handled yourself very well. Actually you have a quite capable ministry staff there who will assist you, and I know of their ability. So with that, I'm just going to ask the ministry overall, yourself or any other deputy, if they could respond to any of the situations that your government has done, the fact of cutting welfare support and what impact this has with housing, cutting the support to those who are on welfare, to the cancellation of rent control, increased tuition fees, forcing individuals who are on welfare to work without giving the adequate support of daycare and making that great impact that makes it more difficult for individuals.

Is there any study or do you have anything in the ministry that would indicate what pressure this has borne on people who are seeking access to affordable housing and if this has in any way increased the homelessness that we see so evident in many of the cities across Ontario?

Mr Coburn: Thank you for the question. I'll attempt to give my answer, and if there's other information, then maybe some members of our very capable staff will be able to assist me.

Overall, the programs that we've initiated have tried to address the problem of housing, and I think some of the programs we have implemented are headed in the right direction. We have, for example, as I had mentioned in my earlier comments, the rent guidelines for this year at 2.6%. That's the lowest it's ever been in terms of tenants. That is a big improvement in a short period of time over what we had in the late 1980s and the early 1990s.

Our goal in this government was to provide jobs, for people to go out and find gainful employment and create a climate where there's more employment, and we've done that. The numbers are pointing towards that.

Mr Curling: I hate to interrupt you in all this, but I have a very short time. In the limited time I've got, I just want to find out, with all of these cuts, with all these policies the government has put in place, what pressures have come to bear on those people? Have you seen evidence that it has caused hardship on these people? Have all these cuts improved their well-being, the cut to welfare, the fees and all that? I'm just wondering if the ministry has any figures or any study to say that doing all this has really improved the lot of the people who are seeking affordable housing, or has it caused it to be worse? I don't know. I just wonder if the ministry has done any study on this.

Mr Coburn: I'm not aware of anything-and if there is a study, then please come forward-but I think the evidence is there that we're putting more money back into the pockets of Ontarians. I haven't seen any evidence that-in fact, I've seen evidence that it's working to improve the situation.

Mr Curling: Let me ask a specific question. Have the waiting lists for affordable housing decreased or increased? Also, has the time to get access to affordable housing or to Ontario Housing increased or decreased?

Mr Coburn: Just bear with me. I'll just go over what we've committed, Mr Curling.

The Chair: Mr Coburn, I wonder if I could ask you to be as succinct as you can. There's about 30 seconds or so remaining in this segment of the discussion.

Mr Coburn: We recognize the need that is out there, and as a result of recognizing that, we've put more than $100 million of commitments to the provincial homelessness strategy: $50 million for rent supplement units for low-income-

Mr Caplan: It's all federal money.

Mr Coburn: -$45 million to develop housing. That's to the credit of all three parties, municipal, provincial and feds, that we're trying to sort this out so that there are savings so that we can put more money into the housing initiative. There's $10 million annually for a provincial homelessness initiatives fund, an increase of $6 million over the previous level; $2 million to increase the community start-up benefit to help families establish permanent residences; $2.5 million to house up to 400 people with special needs; $1 million to divert ex-offenders from the hostel system.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Coburn.

Mr Coburn: Quite clearly, the job is not done; it's constant. It's not like you flip the switch and say it's-

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Coburn. Your job is not done yet today, and perhaps you'll get a chance to elaborate more on that point when Mr Marchese directs questions your way. Mr Marchese, you have 20 minutes.

Mr Marchese: Mr Coburn, I've got a few questions for you. We won't need the deputy for some of these questions.

You and some of your members-Mr O'Toole and others; Wettlaufer as well-have been repeating that rental buildings pay four times more than condominiums, so there's a big differential. We agree with that. It's a big problem.

Mr Wettlaufer: In property taxes.

Mr Marchese: Property taxes.

Mr Coburn: Yes, property taxes.

Mr Marchese: You were very magnanimous. You gave the power to municipalities fix that. Do you think it's easy?

Mr Coburn: Actually if it was easy, everybody would be doing it. No, nothing's easy. It's always a constant challenge to try and improve the lot for our residents and our taxpayers.

Mr Marchese: I find some of your folks very arrogant in terms of how they say that: "We've given them the power to do that." It's really unfair to these poor tenants. They now have the power to fix that problem. You folks are saying: "You should go after those city politicians. They should fix it." Is it true to say that you people say that?

Mr Coburn: I think what we've done is work in partnership with municipalities, which are closest to the residents in our community, to try and resolve some of these challenges that are in front of us.

Mr Marchese: Yes, I understand. If the city of Toronto, as one example of a city that would like to do that, does do that, is it fair to assume that they would have to make up that difference somehow? If they equalize taxes, is it fair to say that there is a loss of income for the city?

Mr Coburn: Not necessarily. Through improved efficiencies, the goal of our government has been to reduce taxes and do things more efficiently. That same logic falls into the municipal-

1620

Mr Marchese: Oh no, you guys are great. We can't match your skill. That's quite obvious. I understand that.

But I've asked you a specific question. If they equalize that differential at the city level, what I heard you just say is that they could find savings somewhere. Is that correct, more or less? Yes?

Mr Coburn: What we're asking, to repeat one more time, is that all levels of government, and the municipalities are partners, review their operations to find things more efficient. In this whole housing program, there are indications that there are savings. We've shown that over the last few years.

Mr Marchese: Of course you've shown that. We'll try to get to that if we can.

I'm suggesting to you, because you're either not answering or unwilling to answer or you don't know the answer, that it's a serious problem to equalize that differential. I'm suggesting to you that I'm not sure even the deputy would know what loss it would be to the city if they equalized that differential. If they bring down the rate of rental buildings to the rate where condominiums are, it would be-probably incalculable but some people might have done their homework-a huge economic loss to the city. Maybe the deputy can answer, I'm not sure. Do you have an answer?

Mr Fenn: I would make the observation that the important part of that whole enterprise is to make a start. Certainly, to use the example the member mentioned, the city of Toronto, it is true, as the member indicated, that it's a bit of a zero-sum game, that there is a rebalancing, but as the parliamentary assistant indicated, municipalities have had some considerable success. In part, because of our reducing the costs of the local services realignment costs year over year, they have additional revenues that are available and that can be used to equalize.

If I might, there is one other observation I would make, which is that the city of Toronto, for example, has made a start in this area. The new housing stock in the rental area that they are promoting-

The Chair: I don't want to interrupt Mr Marchese's line of questioning, but I'm not sure if that was directly responsive.

Mr Marchese: I was looking for a political answer. I'm surprised the deputy is willing to help out in that way. It's interesting. I don't think you know.

Mr Deputy, I disagree with you very strongly. It's interesting that you raise these political matters, saying that these people have got a lot of money or that they've been given an equal amount of money as a result of taking education away and the downloading of responsibilities. I'm going to get to that. They're profoundly short. I am interested in your opinion, but not right now. As much as I'm interested, I'm surprised. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised at the deputy.

Parliamentary assistant, if they equalize, they have a serious problem. They have to make up that shortage somehow. They have to get it from somewhere else. You either pass it on to business or to the homeowner. Those are the only two options you've got, unless you two folks have another magical option about finding some savings somewhere else. They aren't any other savings. To make up for that difference, they have to go to the business sector or the homeowner. They're the only two that I can see.

Would you recommend to the city that they pass that on, shift that property tax base to the business sector or the homeowner sector to be able to reduce the apartment tenant's property tax load?

Mr Coburn: I guess that's where we have a fundamental disagreement on how the problem is addressed. Certainly at the provincial level we couldn't continue to throw money at the problem. It was totally unaffordable. We had to find more efficient ways to provide service.

Mr Marchese: I'm not talking about that right now.

Mr Coburn: Just let me finish.

Mr Marchese: That's got nothing to do with what I'm raising with you. I'm saying you have empowered the city to be able to deal with the inequality that exists in terms of property taxes between the rental buildings and the condominiums. There's a differential and you have, through law, permitted the city now to correct that. That's all I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the other, which I will get to as soon as we finish this.

Mr Coburn: Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. When we did the transfer of responsibilities, there was $570-odd million left in tax room for municipalities to work towards these problems. There is all kinds of evidence on how we are achieving more efficient and effective ways of delivering service. That is the challenge to all of us at all levels of government, to find more efficient ways to deal with some of these problems. We simply can't continue to pay, pay, pay.

Mr Marchese: No. I'll make the statement, because you can't answer the question.

They can't pass on this problem by fixing that problem that you have given them the power to fix. They cannot fix it by passing on the property tax burden to homeowners, who feel overburdened already. That's why Mel Lastman, your buddy, who usually is a conservative individual, said, "No property tax increases."

Because there are no property tax increases, he can't pass this problem on to the property tax payer, not for this election at least; maybe for the next one. So at the moment he's in a box. The other box he's in, however, speaking to the fact that you and your ministry have given them all these wonderful millions of dollars, is that these people are in debt beyond their ability to deal with it. They want to sell off Toronto Hydro, as a suggestion, in order to deal with the debt.

You folks have given them $250 million, as a loan, to deal with some of their problems, and even with this, they're in a serious financial problem. They won't pay back your loan because they don't have the money to pay you back. There is no money to pay you back. That loan only makes up for the losses they have incurred as a result of your transference of those responsibilities to them. I don't know if you realize the tremendous burden that has put on this city of Toronto in terms of general services.

People are complaining that roads are not being fixed. People are complaining that garbage is a problem in Toronto. The people are not picking up litter in the city of Toronto. It just didn't happen because they don't want to. They've got a financial problem. They don't know what to do.

I'm sure through your Tory plan, because you guys are so efficient, that you would have been able to deal with it much faster than they. Obviously there's so much fat in the city of Toronto, they could probably continue to cut some more. But I'm sure you've got some good suggestions for them in terms of the sensibility to deal with that.

Let me get to another political question: shelter allowances. In 1990, your government had a plan to bring in shelter allowances. It was a promise, in fact; it was part of the Common Sense Revolution. Do you have a sense of where that issue is at?

Mr Coburn: We are working towards that $50 million for rent supplement for low-income people. To repeat it one more time, government is not good in the bricks-and-mortar business. We really believe that the development community is better able to achieve the efficiencies to provide the housing that our residents require, and that is part of the plan that we are implementing. Therefore, by reducing costs, reducing taxes, providing some incentives to develop a much better climate for the developers to build these units, to get a return on investment, we believe that is the answer.

Mr Marchese: In terms of the shelter allowance, it's 50 million bucks that's coming from the deal that you guys negotiated with the feds, basically, is that it?

Mr Coburn: That was part of the overall agreement. That is correct.

Mr Marchese: Is there more to come through a shelter allowance kind of strategy?

Mr Coburn: There's a portion of that which will go to shelter allowance this year.

Mr Marchese: So that was the promise you guys made in 1990, and this is how you're dealing with it, more or less?

Mr Coburn: No. Actually, our overall commitment is to create a better climate for all Ontarians. I mean, the goal at the end of the day is that everybody has a place to live. That's the ultimate goal, isn't it?

Mr Marchese: In terms of the point you made about governments not being good at bricks and mortar, you and the minister have repeated this many times, not to my surprise, although I've got to tell you I get so tired of the repetition, and Mr Wettlaufer raised this and Mr O'Toole raised this. Would you guys say that you introduced the Rental Housing Protection Act to help the private sector get involved?

Mr Coburn: Yes, there's a portion in there addressed to that.

Mr Marchese: Do you know a reason why they're not getting involved now?

Mr Coburn: They are. There are indications that the climate is becoming more-lends itself to that type of development. It seems to me that the member seems to think this is a problem that can be fixed just with a snap of your fingers.

Mr Marchese: It will come with time, I suppose.

Mr Coburn: It would be nice if we had more of that money; then we could do that.

Mr Marchese: But they will be involved, you say, at some point, because you've helped to create a better climate somehow.

Mr Coburn: Yes. We have worked towards creating a better climate through incentives to the development community to build these units.

1630

Mr Marchese: We don't see that. We don't see that any of the efforts you have made have gotten the private sector in. If they haven't gotten involved in construction of housing now, they won't be able to do it in the next couple of years, I guarantee it, unless you are able to do something different.

Mr Coburn, last week I asked your minister-the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp said that we will need 80,000 units by 2001 and that we will have created only 6,000 units by 2001. Do you think it's a problem?

Mr Coburn: Certainly we take that very seriously. We've implemented some of these plans that we believe will lead to very productive co-operation between the development community and the need we're trying to address. But it also takes the co-operation of all levels of government.

Mr Marchese: I quite agree.

Mr Coburn: There's an issue right across this country with respect to this.

Mr Marchese: I agree with you. Have you set up something to talk to the federal Liberal government about how you could do this together?

Mr Coburn: I have not. I would have to ask that question of the minister.

Mr Marchese: Do you think the deputy knows?

Mr Fenn: Certainly the minister and the federal minister spoke on the occasion of the signing of the social housing agreement. There was a reference to the Lampert study and the Toronto Star article about the Lampert study. It has been a fairly consistent position of the government that the gap that stands in the way of significant investment in rental housing is in large part to do with the unfair treatment of GST and CMHC insurance premiums and insurance policies that adversely affect the attractiveness of investment in affordable housing.

I think it's quite clear that our minister has been advocating with his federal colleague on the need to look at those kinds of obstacles that stand in the way of investment in affordable rental housing.

Mr Marchese: Yes. Lampert identified those three and about eight or nine other things in terms of what you and other levels of government needed to do to get the private sector in. I suspect even with all the land it might not be enough.

So there are no meetings you're aware of in terms of your minister actually sitting down or calling the federal minister to say: "We've got a problem here; we've got to solve it somehow."

Mr Coburn: I wouldn't take my comment so lightly. I don't know whether any meetings are happening next week or the next week.

Mr Marchese: Don't you think there should be?

Mr Coburn: Certainly. There's ongoing dialogue and discussion on a problem like this. It is serious, and we do take it very seriously, and there are ongoing discussions between our government and the federal government on how we can come up with solutions between the two so that we can address the problem in a more effective manner.

Mr Marchese: Right. So you're agreeing with me that perhaps the minister should make a call to the federal minister and sit down and talk specifically about what strategy we need to put in place to get the construction going.

Mr Coburn: I think this is just not something that the Minister of Housing is-

Mr Marchese: Sure it is.

Mr Coburn: Not entirely. There's the Minister of Finance. There are other ministries involved in this as well. Certainly there's financial impact involved in this. That's the challenge in how we're going to address this problem: the financial capability to deal with it.

Mr Marchese: I was the minister of culture for a period of time. I never had to go and ask Rae or Floyd Laughren if I could meet with my minister of culture because there might have been some financial issues involved. It didn't prevent me from meeting with my federal counterpart. Surely you would agree with that.

Mr Coburn: I'm surprised at the interpretation of my response. I didn't say there was a problem with the meeting; I just said it took more than the one party. If you're going to sit down and have a meeting, you'd like to have all the players there, and I'm sure they've got other initiatives that-

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: For sure, yes. Mr Spina, I couldn't quite understand your reaction. Are you indicating that perhaps-

Mr Coburn: I speak with an Ottawa Valley accent. Maybe that's why the member is having difficulty.

Mr Marchese: I beg your pardon?

Mr Coburn: I'm from the Ottawa Valley. Maybe you don't understand my dialect or something. I don't know.

Mr Marchese: No, it's got nothing to do with the misunderstanding of the dialect. I just think if the Minister of Housing believes this is a serious matter, he should sit down with the minister at the federal level.

If you think we need to get Mr Ernie Eves, the finance minister, to sit down, that would be a good idea, Mr Spina. That's a good idea maybe. Maybe we should get both of these guys together and say, "Let's go to the federal counterparts and sit down and discuss the strategy." I was just trying to understand why you were laughing before, as a way of understanding how to deal with that.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I'm not in order.

Mr Marchese: Maybe we could get Mr Ernie Eves as part of this discussion, do you think?

Mr Coburn: I think we are looking at all avenues on how to pursue this and resolve it with our partners.

Mr Marchese: Your avenue is to leave this to the private sector. That's your avenue. I am telling you that I don't see any effort whatsoever at the moment by the private sector or by your government that is going to get us dealing with the problem of shortage of housing. The reason I pointed out CHMC is a way of saying to you that we have a crisis, that there's a housing shortage. If I simply say that, without using that as an authority, you might dismiss it as simply an opinion.

I'm saying we've got a problem, backed up by that study done by CMHC, and I am not seeing any effort by your ministry, your minister or this government to deal with it, other than the fact that you say, "We recognize it's a problem, and we're doing something." I don't know what that something is.

The Chair: One minute, Mr Marchese.

Mr Coburn: I can go over some of the incentives again that we talked about that the member may have not taken note of.

Mr Marchese: Please help me. Yes, I must have missed them.

Mr Coburn: It takes partnership from all levels of government, again. The federal government has a role to play in this, a very serious and large role, in terms of housing requirements across this country, not just in Ontario. I guess you have to question sometimes the resolve at the senior level of government in this country when you've got CMHC doubling the insurance rates on some of their housing.

I don't disagree with the member. It is a huge challenge. But it takes the meeting of all minds, and it can't just rest on one doorstep. We have taken initiatives with this government to try to address the problem within our purview, and that is just a start. You threw out a guarantee a while ago, and I am quite confident that you'll see a marked improvement in terms of the housing stock as we head into the next construction season.

The Chair: Maybe we'll conclude on that. Mr Coburn, thank you.

It's now time to consider the estimates of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Thank you, Mr Marchese. I will put to you the questions.

Shall vote 1901 carry?

All in favour, please say "aye." Raise your hands.

All opposed, please say "nay."

I declare the vote carried.

Shall vote 1902 carry?

Just indicate with your hands, please. All those in favour, please raise your hands.

All those opposed?

The vote is carried.

Shall vote 1903 carry?

Those opposed?

Vote 1904?

Mr Wettlaufer: Carried.

The Chair: Shall we combine the votes?

Mr Wettlaufer: Please.

The Chair: Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing carry?

All those in favour, please signify.

All those opposed?

We'll just note that 1904 through 1906 were all in favour.

Shall I report the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to the House? OK. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Coburn. Thank you, Deputy.

We now resume with the Ministry of Education immediately after.

1640

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Vice-Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): Maybe we should start the estimates for both the ministries of education and of training, colleges and universities. It's a great opportunity to have two ministers in one now. I understand there is an agreement to split it at 15 minutes each. In a very democratic way we've agreed that Minister Ecker will go first and Minister Cunningham will go after, 15 minutes each, and then there's a response. We will start with the Minister of Education.

Mr Marchese: Who's got seniority?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): You don't want to know the answer to that question.

To members of the estimates committee, I appreciate the opportunity to give a brief overview of some of our education reforms.

I've spent the last few months since my appointment listening and working with educators, administrators, parents, students in order to move forward with our very important changes. I must say, the learning curve has been very steep, but we are carrying forth the work of the ministry actively and, dare I say, energetically.

I want to begin by saying that I am very proud of our public education system and what it's accomplishing. Our schools provide children with rigorous province-wide standards of education. Our education system offers stable education funding, better career planning and stronger links with the job market.

Nonetheless, a top-quality education system requires a continuous investment of human and financial resources. We must look constantly for ways to do things better and remember that we have the obligation to provide a meaningful and relevant education to students who are growing up in a rapidly changing world.

Our vision is to ensure that Ontarians receive the best education in Canada. We are taking bold steps on many fronts to ensure that students from kindergarten through to the end of high school receive top-quality education. We are committed to providing students with a safe environment characterized by the highest standards, clear expectations and frequent straightforward evaluation.

The Ontario government is deeply committed to the principles of responsibility and accountability. Accordingly, a good place to start would be to briefly review the responsibilities of the ministry.

We established the framework for education in the elementary and high school systems. We developed curriculum policy, determined provincial standards for student achievement, set high school diploma requirements, evaluated and improved learning materials for use in the schools, distributed funds equitably to school boards so they can operate schools, offered distance learning courses through our independent learning centres, made regulations that govern the school year, school calendar, set the organization of schools and school boards and defined the duties of teachers and school board officials.

We operate provincial schools for students who are deaf, blind or deaf-blind. We list private schools and inspect private secondary schools to ensure that they are meeting the standards of instruction.

Overall our elementary and secondary education program aims to achieve three important outcomes: excellence in student achievement; preparation of all students for success in further education, work and community life; and the improvement of Ontarians' ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace.

Earlier this year the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board released a major report, A Roadmap to Prosperity. Among other things the report noted:

"A highly skilled, well-educated workforce is currently one of Ontario's key economic advantages and will be even more crucial in the future. The knowledge and skills Ontarians bring to their work can help create the strong and diversified economy we have today. The challenge for the new millennium is to enhance our ability and confidence to adapt to a changing work environment and maximize our opportunities as individuals and as a province."

For this ministry, it means meeting the current educational needs of students and at the same time anticipating what they will need in order to realize their full potential in the rapidly changing world of tomorrow, a world that we know will be a wired world of instant information, e-mails, the Internet, new technologies. We know that our economy in this country will be more technology based, more knowledge dependent. We expect that work and employment patterns will keep changing and that today's students will be graduating into jobs that don't even exist today.

How do we make sure that public education helps prepare students for that tomorrow? We start with four key building blocks.

The first consists of excellent teachers, backed by resources focused in the classroom. Teachers indeed are the backbone of the system. We rely on them to motivate students, to excite them intellectually, to encourage their curiosity, creativity and critical thinking.

We all know and appreciate what a profound difference a good teacher can make in the life of a young person. Good teaching requires many skills and much knowledge, but most important is the ability to reach out to young people and awaken them to the world in which we live.

I have great respect for the commitment and dedication of our teachers. We support them in many ways, including professional resources, ongoing school-based teacher training, summer institutes. We want to ensure that our teachers are the best qualified and most highly skilled in the country.

1650

That is why our government intends to also develop a teacher testing program, in consultation with teachers and other stakeholders in the education system. We will consult broadly on this point and look for best practices in other jurisdictions and in other professions to ensure that we can get it right and achieve our goals.

I know to some teacher testing may sound threatening, but that is certainly not the intent. We want to ensure that teachers stay as up to date as possible so they can meet the challenging needs of our young people. Remaining on the cutting edge of one's profession is not a challenge that is unique to teaching. Many professionals have to upgrade their skills over the course of their careers. Paying close attention to ongoing professional development is a question of quality assurance and accountability.

The second building block in making our education system the best it can be consists of forging productive relationships with all of the stakeholders. This includes teachers, of course, as well as students, parents and taxpayers. There will always be different points of view about how to build a quality education system, but as long as we keep the lines of communication open, these differences can be healthy. As minister, I am committed to working with these groups to indeed achieve our goals.

One example I'd like to raise with you is that it's widely acknowledged that there is a need to find more employers interested and willing to give students meaningful work experiences before they leave school in order to assist them in making the transition from school to work. Some of Ontario's top business and community leaders have joined forces with the ministry to make advances in this area.

Earlier this month, my colleague Dianne Cunningham and I announced that the province has launched a new campaign to encourage employers to do this. Known as the Passport to Prosperity, this initiative is helping school boards offer interested students the opportunity to learn through hands-on training or experience. This initiative builds on the work we began last April with the Provincial Partnership Council. Their aim is to recruit employers to create more school-to-work opportunities. Members include employers from across the province and CEOs from the private and public sectors. The new council is committed to working with schools and community organizations so that students will gain this valuable experience. The newly formed Ontario Learning Partnership Group-local industry councils and training boards-will support the work of the council.

The third building block is the investment that we make in the system. We want our education system to help children develop the skills and motivation to think, to learn, to adapt and to grow, and we want to equip our young people with the skills they need to do this. We know that a high-quality public education system is one of the most important social investments that any government can make.

Some of the concrete examples of how we're investing in the system include education funding that is increased by more than $100 million this fiscal year. In this school year also we will spend at least $1.2 billion on special education. That amounts to $32.5 million more than in the previous year and more than ever before in the history of this province.

Last year, we provided school boards with dedicated full funding for half-day junior kindergarten and this year 69 of 72 boards offer JK. We provide funding to the remaining boards for alternative early learning programs.

We had a special, one-time, top-up investment of $100 million to buy new textbooks for elementary school students. We will provide an additional $30 million this year for grade 9 books and another $30 million next year for grade 10 textbooks.

To support students and teachers in making the transition to a new four-year high school system, we will provide a total of $150 million this year and next for textbooks, teacher training, professional resources and extra support for students.

Funding for new schools will grow to $188 million this school year. This funding will support the construction of new school facilities, and we are making significant investments in classroom construction. Sixty-one new schools or additions to existing schools will open just in this school year alone.

We've allocated $50 million of the SuperBuild Growth Fund to help school boards manage pressing capital needs related to health and safety.

I've been describing the building blocks of a good education system, and the fourth, and final, block has to do with accountability. It applies to students, teachers, trustees, school board officials, as well as the government itself. Each of us must be responsible for our actions and open to public scrutiny.

To improve public accountability in our system, we've taken a number of steps: We've reduced the number of boards from 129 to 72, thus cutting down on bureaucracy; reduced the number of school board politicians by two thirds; limited trustee allowances, and we began the process of focusing education dollars directly on students and teachers in the classroom.

The old system of funding involved 34 different types of grants and formulas and allocations. It was overly complex, obscure to parents and taxpayers, and quite frankly it did not work as well as it should. We brought in a new student focus funding system that is simpler and fairer. Now each school board receives the same base level of per pupil funding. Parents and taxpayers can clearly see how boards are spending those dollars. Funding is based on enrolment and the needs of students, not on the tax base of the local community.

We also included a $1.2-billion class-size protection fund to limit average class sizes on a board-wide basis to 22 students at the secondary level and 25 at the elementary level. As a result, average class size has declined. Only a handful of boards exceeded the average last year and we don't expect any to be above the standard this year. School boards will have to report on how they've used the money we've provided, and these financial report cards will be published for the first time next year.

But there are other aspects of a high-quality education system which we are moving forward on. More than a year ago, we asked Dr Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain to advise us on how to prepare Ontario's young people for success in school, at work and in life in general. The Premier released their report this spring and the study confirms that brain development in the first six years of a child's life sets the foundation for future learning behaviour and health. The study presents a long-term strategy for improving outcomes for our children and reminds us that all sectors of society have a role to play in supporting early childhood development.

We've responded in a number of ways to these recommendations: by fully funding half-day JK, as I indicated; by creating community-based demonstration projects to evaluate different approaches to early learning; by setting up an early years task group which will develop a framework for community-based early childhood development and parenting programs. Once the framework is established, we will have an early years challenge fund to match dollar for dollar private and voluntary sector contributions to the early years programs

Our commitment to increasing the quality of education in schools begins with our youngest children and continues through elementary and high school. We've developed and begun implementing a new curriculum for elementary students. The new curriculum sets out clear expectations of what children should learn. It establishes new grade-by-grade standards in all subjects and sets higher academic standards and expectations. It's brought the first wholesale change in the elementary science program in 30 years and for the first time elementary students are studying technology in every grade.

This fall, we began phasing in our new high school program and curriculum for students entering grade 9. The program has a stronger emphasis on math, language, sciences, and more focus on co-operative education and school-to-work programs.

Finally, to carry through on our commitment to greater accountability we've introduced standard province-wide tests in math and language in grades 3 and 6, and this will be expanding. The testing, I should note, doesn't replace teacher evaluation, but measures achievement and helps us compare ourselves to each other and to other jurisdictions.

We've also introduced a standard elementary school report card with clear, concise information about each student's progress. This year, we are extending this initiative to secondary schools, starting with grade 9.

We've made many strides in reforming Ontario's education system in the past four years, but more needs to be done. The Premier announced earlier this year the creation of a Charter of Education Rights and Responsibilities to clearly identify what students, teachers and parents need to do to produce excellence in education.

As well, teachers can't teach and students can't learn unless schools guarantee a safe, secure and respectful environment. To achieve this, we've proposed several initiatives. For example, we plan to introduce a province-wide code of conduct for students that would make expulsion automatic for students who bring weapons to school, provide drugs or alcohol to others or who commit criminal assault.

1700

The Vice-Chair: Minister, we are just about running out of time.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, and I'm just about finished, Mr Chair. The timing's not bad.

I'd like to end with one quote from our throne speech:

"The foundation of a better Ontario and a brighter future for our children is an education system that strives for excellence. In addition to learning new concepts and skills, Ontario's young people also must understand the responsibilities of citizenship, and be able to distinguish right from wrong. Your government will continue to improve Ontario's education system by raising standards, investing in children and promoting principles of respect and responsibility."

Thank you very much for your indulgence.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

Minister Cunningham.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today about the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. As you know, the former Ministry of Education and Training was divided in June of this year and out of that division emerged the new Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Since the ministry is new, it would be helpful to begin by giving a brief overview of our mandate: to strive to help create and to continuously invest in a post-secondary education and training system of the highest possible quality. We want to ensure that Ontarians in every part of the province continue to have access to the highest-quality education and training and we're committed to giving parents, students, educators, trainers and taxpayers accurate information about how well the system is working.

Allow me to summarize the ministry's key responsibilities. We have two main areas of interest: training and post-secondary education.

In the area of training, the ministry is responsible for developing policy directions for adult education and labour market training; managing and funding provincial programs to support workplace training and workplace preparation, including apprenticeship, career and employment preparation and adult literacy and basic skills; the Ontario summer jobs program; managing provincial relations with the federal government concerning training programs; setting standards and providing certification for occupational training, particularly for trades under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, as well as for the soon-to-be-proclaimed new legislation, the Apprenticeship and Certification Act; and undertaking labour market research and planning.

In the area of post-secondary education, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities is responsible for developing policy direction for universities and colleges of applied arts and technology; planning and administering policies related to basic and applied research in this sector; developing policies related to the granting of degrees; distributing funds allocated by the provincial Legislature to colleges and universities; providing financial assistance programs for post-secondary students; and registering private vocational schools.

Earlier this year the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board released a special report entitled A Road Map to Prosperity: An Economic Plan for Jobs in the 21st Century, which my colleague referred to. On one hand, the report acknowledged what we all know: that a highly skilled, well-educated workforce is one of Ontario's key economic advantages. On the other hand, the report articulated challenges that we have an obligation to tackle. Allow me to quote a few lines from the report:

"Employers report skill shortages in a number of sectors, notably information technologies and the automotive industry. As well, adult literacy in Ontario is only in the middle of the pack internationally."

The report went on to note that Ontario employers spend less than their international counterparts on formal employee training. Furthermore, it said that one in four Ontarians between the ages of 15 and 24 have never worked. The report also pointed out that colleges and universities face the added challenge of serving an increased number of students expected to seek admission in the year 2003.

The bottom line is quite simple: We have a first-rate system of colleges and universities and our skilled trades people are highly trained, although we have significant challenges in meeting the need across many sectors. The challenge we have together is to ensure that our systems of training, colleges and universities serve students, the market and our economy even more efficiently in the years to come.

I'd like to describe to you initiatives recently or currently underway in the ministry in training. Let me begin with some of the good news.

Earlier this fall the Ontario government announced that our 1999 Ontario summer jobs program had succeeded beyond all expectations and surpassed the 1998 results. I'm proud that my ministry had the lead government role in coordinating this successful initiative. This year, 61,225 students, the most ever, aged 15 and up received assistance to find work or create their own summer jobs. The Ontario summer jobs campaign is a $50.8-million investment that combines programs offered by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities; Management Board Secretariat; the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade; the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Ontario summer jobs is just one of a number of programs aimed at helping Ontarians find jobs and get training that leads to satisfying jobs.

The government's Job Connect program spent $102 million last year to help 102,000 unemployed people, primarily young people no longer attending school, to find jobs, return to school or gain further training. Job Connect is the largest part of the government's $200-million Ontario Youth Opportunities initiative, which includes programs in various ministries.

Last year the Legislature passed the new Apprenticeship and Certification Act, the first comprehensive overhaul of our apprenticeship system since the 1960s. It also happens to be the cornerstone of the government's strategy to streamline and strengthen apprenticeship training. We intend to increase the number of new apprentices entering the system to 19,000 annually from 11,000. When proclaimed, the act will help create a flexible, accountable training system; a strong role for industry, including the recognition that it must drive the training system; greater quality of training and worker mobility; better training standards; and more training opportunities, including expansion into new occupations and trades.

Finally, I should note that the government respects and upholds the established role of apprenticeship training in the construction industry. We have decided that the trades formerly governed by the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act will continue to be governed by that act unless the trade decides otherwise. The ministry will also work with industry committees to clarify the roles that government, the private sector and individual trainers will play in the apprenticeship system.

The ministry will continue to negotiate a fair labour market development agreement with the federal government to achieve a seamless, coordinated, made-in-Ontario employment and training system. Once negotiated, the labour market development agreement will include basic skills upgrading; on-the-job training, including more apprenticeship opportunities; strategic skills; summer jobs for youth; and continued assistance to help students create their own summer jobs.

The federal government has signed a labour market development agreement with every province but Ontario. The Ontario government wants an agreement that will allow this province to create a high-quality set of training and employment programs with a fair share of federally controlled funding from employment insurance premiums. Ottawa has offered 28% of funding for labour market programs. However, Ontarians account for almost 40% of the Canadian labour force and one third of the people unemployed in Canada. As well, Ontarians contribute more than 40% of the country's EI premiums. My question would be, why should the unemployed in Ontario have less access to training opportunities than the unemployed in other provinces? This is a question we've been asking for far too long.

Why would the federal government be satisfied with overlap and duplication of programs that in many instances compete for clients in our own communities who are counting on training programs that are effective and that allow them to re-enter the world of work? The system is inefficient and fractured. Governments should work together. The people want us to do so.

We are working with community colleges to provide alternate delivery formats for classroom training that will meet the needs of our unemployed in isolated communities. For example, Durham College provides training for electricians via the Internet.

We're also working to encourage more women to enter the skilled trades. Over the next three years the ministry will work with the Ontario Women's Directorate to encourage up to 700 women to become apprentices and skilled tradespeople in the automotive industry. The ministry will also work with more than 300 agencies to put in place the renewed literacy and basic skills program to deliver literacy training to more than 55,000 Ontarians this year and many more next year.

Post-secondary education: In the field of post-secondary education, Ontario has one of the world's finest systems of universities and colleges of applied arts and technology. Colleges and universities play a major role in our economic well-being and we take this issue very seriously. Last year, provincial spending on post-secondary education, including operating and capital grants, student support programs and tax credits for students and educational institutions, totalled some $3.5 billion, and this year that figure will grow to more than $4 billion.

1710

As the baby boomers' children age, enrolment will increase at post-secondary institutions. Already first-year university enrolment is up almost 7% over last year, clearly evidence of an accessible system. I want to make absolutely sure that our colleges and universities continue to have places for all willing and qualified students graduating from secondary school. The government's new SuperBuild Growth Fund reflects our commitment to modernizing and expanding Ontario's colleges and universities.

This year alone the SuperBuild fund will invest $742 million to help colleges and universities build and modernize. Of the total amount, $660 million of public funds will go towards new capital projects. Major private sector contributions are also expected. As well, we have announced a $23-million increase in base operating funding to help post-secondary institutions accommodate more students. We are working with colleges and universities to plan for the future.

I also wish to note that we want to help faculties of education address the demand for teachers in certain fields. As a result, the government is providing $3.75 million to add at least 500 new enrolment places to the consecutive teacher education program.

Affordability: Other initiatives are underway to ensure that students will be able to afford post-secondary education. Last fiscal year we spent $535 million through the Ontario student assistance program to help more than 190,000 students with the cost of their education. Average support was more than $7,500 per student.

To meet student needs better and to help limit student debt, federal and provincial student loan programs will be harmonized by August 2000. A recent agreement-very recent-with the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation will give Ontario its fair share of the scholarship funds, with $106 million assisting more than 35,000 students per year.

We are considering ways to introduce, by next fall, Aiming for the Top tuition scholarships for Ontario's top high school graduates in need of financial assistance. When fully implemented, we expect that 10,000 students will receive these scholarships each year.

The Ontario student opportunity grants program will provide an estimated $300 million in grants to limit students' repayable debt.

We are also requiring universities and colleges to do their part to ensure that financial aid is available to students in need. As a result, universities and colleges will provide $126 million directly to students this year by setting aside 30% of tuition fee increases.

We have worked with the colleges and universities to set up Ontario student opportunity trust funds at each institution. As a result, and with contributions from the private sector, nearly $600 million in permanent endowments will provide additional funding for student assistance. These funds will provide assistance for up to 185,000 students over a 10-year period.

Students have asked us to consider allowing them to earn more than the current $600 per academic year while they are studying before their eligibility for OSAP is affected, and we are looking at how this might be achieved.

Quality and relevance: In the spirit of greater accountability, which is visible now in all facets of the government's activities, we last year introduced key performance indicators to measure how well colleges and universities are turning out graduates with skills needed in the marketplace. These key performance indicators measure rates of employment and satisfaction on the part of graduates, employers and students. Recently published results for colleges reported that 89% of college graduates were employed within six months of graduation and that 80% of employers surveyed were satisfied with the preparation that college graduates had received. Ultimately, we will be using such results to determine how we will distribute up to 10% of the provincial colleges operating budget.

We are responding to Ontario's shortage of skilled, high-technology workers through the access to opportunities program. It will provide $228 million over three years to double the number of students who enrol in computer science and high-demand engineering programs at universities. Enrolment in related community college programs and eligible university graduate programs will also increase by 50%. We expect to fund about 23,000 new spaces in these programs.

In closing, I want to report that the ministry is working hard to develop timely, innovative partnerships with educational institutions and the private sector to ensure that we focus our resources as productively and efficiently as possible. We have a great deal at stake, no less indeed than our long-term economic competitiveness and our ability to generate sustaining and satisfying employment for years to come.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. You're just right on time. The response will come from the opposition and they have half an hour to respond. He can take it in whatever direction he wants, either questions or comments. Mr Kennedy.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I'll be directing my questions to the Minister of Education for the next period, just for the convenience of the ministers.

I want to make some very brief comments. I understand, Minister, your comments about an aspiration for the best education system in Canada, and yet you and your government have created an education system with exactly the opposite direction. It's an unholy alliance of something as useful as the Royal Commission on Learning added to a singular objective on the part of your ministry to save money, to deduct money away from programs and in fact to cannibalize programs, to cannibalize schools and to cannibalize school boards to reach objectives elsewhere in the system. That is the source of a huge amount of chaos that isn't reflected completely in the estimates, which show us only the net results.

There is undeniably, from fairly independent sources-your own supposedly independent Education Improvement Commission has made clear that there are significant flaws in what you are attempting to do in terms of funding both special education and school boards such as Toronto.

We see elsewhere around the province mismanagement of the school reform, which you talked about so glowingly in very many terms, which again comes back to your central proposition about whether or not the money that you purport is there and available is actually reaching children or if this is something of a manufactured state of affairs by your government, an induced crisis, as we've heard so many times before.

We want to look specifically over the course of the estimates at how special education funding has been deducted, at how community schools are being forced to close, how transportation is inadequate, how English as a second language has been turned on its head instead of being retained as a useful program. We want to talk as well about how you now as minister and your government have created, virtually out of whole cloth, a significant problem in terms of teacher morale, in terms of the ability of teachers to aspire to the excellence which you attached your government's goals to in your opening remarks.

I think that there is proof in the figures that come from the College of Teachers and a number of very solid indicators that if you measure your reforms based on how they've motivated and valued and inspired teachers, there's a colossal failure in the making.

We want to look as well at some of the policies that you're funding through the estimates, things like increased commercialization in schools, your lack of response to some of the issues like toxic mould. You mentioned the McCain and Mustard report, and yet it's very clear, even in the funding figures, let alone the broader structure that you've introduced into these discussions, that your commitment to early childhood development is very ephemeral. We'll see that there are child care centres at risk, there are other things happening that you're responsible for.

Minister, I'd like to turn your attention, please, to the overall issue of funding. You have said on occasion in the House that record amounts of funding are being given to schools, and yet in a report from 1995-96 on school board spending produced by your ministry, we see that spending in 1995 was approximately $13.3 billion, that spending went down the next year by some $500 million, continued to go down, and you're claiming that you're bringing it somewhere in the neighbourhood, if you look at your ministry's overall spending, the overall effect of the funding formula, close to $13.3 billion again.

1720

So, Minister, in effect there isn't any new money. There has been less money available, net, to school boards and to children. What I'd like to ask you is how you justify the cuts that your government has made in the education system, not just in this run-up post-funding formula but in the years that it's been in office, and specifically if your ministry would provide us with equivalencies to show the variances in year to year, especially once the funding formula is changed, if those are available. In other words, is your ministry in possession of the facts? Can your ministry really and truly tell the differences in funding-because part of what we're going to try to get at during the estimates is how much money is actually reaching children-or is it just being hidden behind convenient definitions as we look at what the impacts are? So Minister, I wonder if you would specifically tell me whether your ministry can produce for us today or in the next few days comparable amounts of money expended for the time your government has been in office, to show us what the impact has been on school boards and, further, if projections exist out to 2003, which is the funding plan that your government has put forward. Do you have those with you today? Is that something that we can be provided with?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, one of the things we've been very clear about in what we're trying to do with education funding is to take money that was in school board bureaucracy out of there and put it in the classroom, because how much we're spending on education overall is irrelevant if it's being spent in the wrong places. What we clearly saw in previous years, for example, as education property taxes soared by some 120%-and I don't know a teacher in this province who can claim to have had resources in their classroom increased by 120% in the equivalent time. It didn't happen, because much of that increased cost was not going to where it should have gone: to the classroom. We have made a deliberate choice, which we were very public about, to take that money and put it into classrooms. That has been a significant shift.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, one element of what you're saying now relates to my earlier question: Do you agree that the money available for education has been reduced in the various years that your government has been in office?

Hon Mrs Ecker: No I don't agree with that. What I do-

Mr Kennedy: I have in front of me and I just want to-

Hon Mrs Ecker: You've asked me a question, Gerard, and I'd like to answer it.

Mr Kennedy: I only want to elaborate it so that you can give me the fullest response. I have in front of me ministry figures showing expenditures, for example, in 1996 of $12.9 billion; prior year $13.3 billion. We see other sets of figures available to us in the same order.

Minister, I'm happy to defer this if your staff have the figures available, but I would like you to comment directly on it: Has the money available to schools been reduced?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Money available to schools: no. What I was going to say, if I'd been able to finish, was that there are a number of changes in the way we are funding education. As I said, we are shifting money that used to go to school boards, for example, into classrooms, so there are many changes. The entire funding relationship, the funding arrangements, the way money flows to school boards has changed substantially, so there are a great deal of data available which staff would be quite happy to go through. But I would like to-

Mr Kennedy: Has it gone down, is the one question.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would like to caution the honourable member that you cannot make comparisons of apples to oranges as we shift dollars from bureaucracy into classroom. For example, payments to the teachers' pension plan would not be something that is an in-classroom expense, so that has changed significantly with the agreement of teachers.

Mr Kennedy: We're only talking about operating expense here.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That is one reason there has been a considerable shift in where you see the dollars. We'd be quite happy to have staff at the appropriate time walk through those numbers and see if there are numbers that can be comparable or if not. The other thing I would like to put very clearly on the record, Mr Chair, because I think it's quite important, is that special education funding has not been deducted; it has been increased.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Minister. I will refer you then, because I would like to register your answer as incomplete in this respect: There are figures from your ministry that show a reduction in overall funding. You haven't agreed that that has taken place. Then I think it is incumbent on you and your ministry to provide different figures. This is in reference to the book A Report on School Board Spending, 1995-1996. When we're looking for the operating spending to school boards, has it gone down?

We have school boards all across the province reporting that their funding has gone down; we have ministry figures showing it has gone down. Minister, I don't know why you don't admit that. If you think it has been made up in efficiencies and so on, that's fine, but I'm sorry that you won't at least advance the discussion today by telling us that you indeed reduced the funding.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, as I was very clear, Mr Kennedy, spending on overall education, if the money is going to bureaucracy, that is not in the classroom. We also said very clearly that we were not going to maintain spending on useless bureaucracy or duplication or waste. I am sure you would agree that would not be an appropriate step for any government to take.

We said very clearly, first, we were going to find savings in waste, in duplication and in bureaucracy, and in doing things better wherever we could, and that we would take money out of that.

Second, we also said we were going to put more money back into the classroom, and that is indeed what we have been doing.

Mr Kennedy: I understand that is what you often have said and you are on the record. Part of what the greater time allotted for estimates allows us to do is get at whether that is really a true or good reflection of what is happening to the school system. It's your definition of the classroom that allows you to say those kinds of things. It's too bad that you won't address the central question. You seem to be conceding there that you have cut funding to school boards.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, I conceded no such thing.

Mr Kennedy: Then I'll again refer to my earlier request for the figures to come from your ministry. Surely your ministry can provide those figures on whether or not the funding to school boards has been reduced, and by how much for each year you're in office, and also for the years to come.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, we said we were going to reduce spending to bureaucracy. We have indeed done that. That was a stated commitment we made in 1995 and again in 1999.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I appreciate and accept that that is your response and so forth.

I wonder if I could draw your attention to one of the ways that estimates, which cover a slightly different version of the expenses, reflects some of what I think isn't understood by the average member of the public.

On page 29 of the estimates we see a charge, if you like, of $310 million to the cost of the government's end of education, but that simply reflects the amount of money being given in terms of a property tax reduction. That's not new education dollars. I was wondering if you would acknowledge that the detail which is provided in the explanations to the expenditure on page 29 is indeed accurate. The $310 million is effectively an accounting entry and does not represent new education spending; simply that the source of the education spending is now the government's other revenue, other than residential property tax. Is that accurate?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Deputy, if you're prepared to-

Ms Suzanne Herbert: That reflects a funding from the provincial government to the school boards. If it would be helpful-

The Vice-Chair: Could you introduce yourself to the committee?

Ms Herbert: I should have introduced myself. I apologize. I'm Suzanne Herbert. I'm the Deputy Minister of Education. Joining me now is Ross Peebles, who's my chief administrative officer.

Mr Kennedy: Sorry, the answer was?

Ms Herbert: Minister, would you like us to walk through? If we might, Mr Kennedy, it might connect to your earlier question too.

Mr Kennedy: Because the time is scarce today, I really would like just acknowledgement or correction, if it's available: whether the $310 million that is labelled the 1997 residential property tax reduction-the way it appears here is as an increased contribution from the government towards education. But as I understand it, that's simply an accounting change. Is that correct?

Mr Ross Peebles: Yes. Mr Kennedy, your understanding is correct. It's a reduction from the tax-

The Vice-Chair: Could you introduce yourself just for the record?

Mr Peebles: Ross Peebles, the assistant deputy minister, corporate management services.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Mr Peebles. The point I'd like to make with that is that effectively then the spending coming from the government, as represented in the estimates, is virtually the same. What would otherwise look like a 4% increase is really the same $7.47 billion or $7.48 billion. That's just a point I want to make, because there's an accounting entry there that makes the expenditure look a little bit larger and could be confusing to some people otherwise.

I know there's a lot of complexity arising from the property transfers as well as the school year numbers, but I appreciate having that one point clarified.

I'd like to come back to the-

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Kennedy, I think we should have that point clarified by the deputy.

Mr Kennedy: Yes.

Ms Herbert: If I might, we should clarify that because I think there were, between last year's estimates and this year's, many in-year changes that make it difficult to draw the straight-line conclusion you've just drawn that the money is the same. I'd be happy to walk you through the in-year changes and indicate what has been additional money that has been added to our estimates in year, and also what money has, as the minister has also referred to it, altered as the result of an agreement with the teachers around the teacher pension plan.

1730

Mr Kennedy: Ms Herbert, as you know from the page that we're on, I'm only referring to the operating. I'm not actually referring to any of the pension fund.

Ms Herbert: Yes. That's the page I'm on as well.

Mr Kennedy: It's always good to see how different ministries address estimates. This is a little limited in detail compared to some ministries. If there's further detail, I would appreciate receiving that in writing. It would be very helpful to me in my duties, and I'm sure other members of the committee would share that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I was just going to suggest, if I may, that given the fact that the Hansard of this committee is a public record, since Mr Kennedy has raised a very valid question, I think it should be, on the record in terms of what this may well be for the understanding of all the groups that may read this record at some future time.

The Vice-Chair: If the member chooses to ask it in writing-

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I wonder if I could draw your attention to the basic way your funding formula operates. Figures-and your ministry is going to provide some, so maybe we can depend on those for greater certainty-may show that there isn't any large increase in education funding in this province. There have been years of reduction, perhaps-you haven't conceded that-but what you're basically doing is taking money from boards like Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton and giving it to other boards across the province. Isn't that essentially correct? Is that statement something you would agree with?

Hon Mrs Ecker: For example, if there is a board like the Durham board that has been much more cost-effective in terms of their maintenance and administration, we have indeed gone to other boards that have been less cost-effective and said, "Here are boards across the province that are able to do that same good job with less cost." We are encouraging all boards to meet better cost standards in terms of things like maintenance and administration. That has certainly meant a change for some boards.

As I said, some boards have been so effective that in the maintenance line they may well have received more money. Other boards are being asked to meet that challenge as their sister or brother boards are doing. But the other thing again, which I think is very important, is that of course we are taking money from bureaucracy and putting it towards classroom spending; for example, special ed.

Mr Kennedy: I understand and appreciate that that is the way you've characterized it. We'll have adequate time, I hope, to address that interpretation of how the funding works. But the fact is that you do cut boards in order to fund other boards and there isn't new money coming from your government. There's no new commitment to education, virtually, if you look at the total amount of funding. This is really just shuffling within education.

I think people out there need to understand that you're cannibalizing some boards. You say you have formulas and you say you can justify it, but what you're really doing is cannibalizing one city or one board in order for other boards to receive slightly more funds.

Similarly, within the formulas, you talk about putting more money into the classroom but in effect you're taking that money from someplace. You're taking it from areas that you don't include in your definition of classroom, like special education.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Special education is part of classroom funding, Mr Kennedy. It always has been.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, there are other important elements of learning opportunities and other things that are not included.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Learning opportunities, teachers, textbooks, supports for kids in the classroom, guidance, library-all of those things are classroom.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, in terms of what you call your foundation grant and your special-needs grant, what you're working with are envelopes that turn into straitjackets for the boards. The point is well taken that it's actually part of what you call the classroom, but those funds have changed. Those funds have started off with your artificial definitions and they have proven extremely problematic for various boards across the community. This shuffling around of money is really all that your government is up to.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I just might like to ask-

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I'm sorry. Our time is very brief today. I will direct numerous questions-

Hon Mrs Ecker: You're asking a lot of questions. I'm trying to answer.

Mr Kennedy: I'll make some assertions. I know they're hard to take but I'll make a few of them myself, as you did in your earlier remarks.

Mr Spina: Can it wait until you're in camera?

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Mr Spina.

I'd like to ask you specifically about the Toronto board. The Education Improvement Commission-and I happened to hear your responses to the media, the discussion you had there. You had recommendations for the board in terms of how they could improve saving money and so on, but the Education Improvement Commission said its single most important recommendation, the one it would like everyone paying attention to the report to take most note of, was that the learning opportunity fund was inadequate, wouldn't function.

I presume and draw the inference from that, and from the way Mr Cooke explained it to staff in a briefing, that that's the case today, that's a problem right now. This rearranging of things within education hasn't adequately provided for urban needs, particularly those of the Toronto board, but we may find the same applies in Ottawa-Carleton and other places that share those kinds of needs.

What I would like to ask you is, how quickly will you respond and do you intend to respond-you, the ministry-to that specific recommendation, the most important one that your Education Improvement Commission could identify from its review this summer of what's going on at the public board in Toronto?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I'd just like to respond to one previous point that the honourable member was making in terms of dollars. Mr Kennedy is saying that the numbers haven't changed, that it's simply the same amount of money just being shuffled around. I hope that would mean that his party would back off of their claim that somehow or other $1 billion had disappeared out of the education sector. I'm glad he's admitting that.

What I would like to say is that the Education Improvement Commission did flag that the learning opportunities grant-not that it didn't function; that wasn't what the EIC concluded. They have actually concluded that the policy that drives the way we fund education now is essentially sound and correct, and many boards and many of the stakeholders I've met do agree that the policy is correct. They do believe, in their view, that the Toronto board must have more money in that particular grant.

As we work with the board through their particular restructuring and transition steps, which are extremely challenging for them, and we acknowledge that, there have been several hundreds of millions of dollars available for transition in this province. The Toronto board has been the biggest recipient of those dollars to help them through. As with the learning opportunities grant and as with the entire grant, we are looking at where we need to change here or there. Perhaps in some cases boards might need more flexibility; in other cases they might need a few more dollars here as opposed to there. So we're looking at those next year in terms of whether there are any changes that we may need to make.

The EIC has made a number of recommendations. They also recommended that the board had a great deal of work yet to do itself in terms of making itself more cost effective. The board certainly acknowledges that and is doing that, and we have been prepared to assist them through the next several years to do that.

Mr Kennedy: I guess I don't understand, Minister. You pay $6 million or $7 million for the Education Improvement Commission. It does a report. It's already a bit dated; it was done in the summertime, and it's only based on board evaluation. It's only looking at what the board itself says it's able to accomplish. It tries to review that and uses, I guess, the best devices at hand, and it identifies and flags a problem, effectively right at the beginning of the school year. What you're saying-and I hope this isn't true for other areas that they're going to report on-is that you won't act on it till next year.

I don't understand. You've got an Education Improvement Commission that goes out there and looks at boards and says this funny arrangement isn't working. It identifies a hazard in terms of particular pressure, and you're saying it'll just wait till next year.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, Mr Kennedy, with due respect. First of all, the EIC did not say it wasn't working. It said that the financial arrangements-

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I'm just trying to get the timetable, not the semantics.

Hon Mrs Ecker: No, no-that the formula on the way we fund does work, but it did flag over the next several years-because if you go back to the EIC, they're not talking about today. They're talking about challenges as we move through the restructuring and the reforms that the Toronto board needs to make. So we're quite aware that we need to continue to work with the board to make sure that the Toronto board is capable of meeting the education goals that they themselves would like to meet and that we would like to see them meet.

For example, last year they got $354 million just for restructuring mitigation to help them go through that, additional money that they have received which they can use for all of these different purposes.

1740

Mr Kennedy: Again, the $354 million became less this year, so they have only approximately, according to your ministry's figures, $317 million this year. You're cutting them and you're on your way to cutting them a further $262 million. Minister, the point here is the timetable. The EIC reports, you say, next year.

I want to ask you directly then on special education, do you also plan to wait till next year? You've had the supervisory officials of this province and you've had the EIC identify problems. You've had, most poignantly, families that used to receive what they termed successful support for children having that support reduced. They've turned to you because that's the interpretation everywhere in the province, not in one or two boards, that you're not being responsive.

I'm wondering, do you plan to be responsive, do you plan to adjust? We don't want to attack the formula or the language that the EIC used, but will you adjust the spending in terms of special education this school year?

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the things that we're working with the boards on is what would be the appropriate changes-policy, dollars or whatever-that may need to be made in special education funding. If there was a simple and easy answer, there would have been a solution some time ago.

One of the challenges that we have is that despite the fact that there is indeed more money in special education-and some boards have never seen so much money in their special education dollars and they have said so-and despite the fact that the policy and the way we fund it is better, we realize that there are challenges here, but it's not simply an issue of dollars.

Mr Kennedy: I know, but it is the estimates committee and we can come back to dollars as we try and understand your overall policies. What the supervisory officials said is that there's $100 million that they're spending above and beyond what you're providing in terms of the grant. What you did last year with the manufacture of these categories is not relevant, it's what was being done two years ago by the school boards.

I just want to ask you a simple question: Are the supervisory officials right or are they wrong when they say there's $100 million more being spent?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, boards have always topped up special education funding. That is not a new thing.

Mr Kennedy: When they controlled the revenue.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, they used to do more and they are very free to do that. You say on the one hand that boards are saying they're in straitjackets, if you will. On the other hand, many boards have been very clear that their special education program may be different than in other communities and some boards are choosing to spend more than we fund. That's not a new thing. They are free to do that. Other boards are spending exactly what is funded. Other boards have actually spent less than what they're being funded in special education.

Mr Kennedy: Your staff has had two or three opportunities to meet with the supervisory officials, the superintendents of this province. On October 13 they said that $100 million has to be cannibalized again from other programs to make up for the difference. Now, Minister, you've had that since October 13, and I want to know, do you believe that's the case. If you don't believe it's the case, what is your best estimate of how much of that top-up, which you've acknowledged is taking place, is out there? They can't take it from anywhere now. You've got them boxed in. Every formula is set by you. Minster, will you answer the-

Hon Mrs Ecker: If they can't take it from anywhere, where is it coming from then? They can take it, they can choose.

Mr Kennedy: It's coming out of things that aren't strictly in keeping with-it's coming out of textbooks, it's coming out of teachers, it's coming out of teacher-assistants. Minister, I want to ask you if you'll answer the question. Where's the $100 million coming from? Is that $100 million actually being spent by the boards or do you simply not believe them?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Staff may well have the answer. I personally don't know whether $100 million is an accurate figure or not. That's the supervisory officers' estimation, and that's not a criticism of them. We have met and discussed and continue to do so with not only supervisory officers but the other groups that are involved in special education funding.

It is not simply a question of how much money is being spent. They have always been able to and want the freedom to top up if they choose to. I repeat, some boards do, some boards don't, some boards spend less. There are choices boards are allowed to make to spend the money that they have. Some of them are taking the extra special education money from administration, from savings they've found on maintenance. Some are taking the extra money for special education on savings they found by doing joint purchasing arrangements with their coterminous boards. That is flexibility that you yourself have acknowledged boards need.

The Vice-Chair: There's a minute left in this exchange, so use it well.

Mr Kennedy: If you're acknowledging their flexibility, Minister, then it's too bad you won't extend them the respect of a serious response to what they've identified to you, because they've told you what's happening. They've prescribed what the solution is. The supervisory officials of this province have called it an amputation. Minister, we're going to come back to it.

Minister, I want to ask you one simple question-

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have said publicly that we are indeed making a change in special education funding-

The Vice-Chair: Let Mr Kennedy ask the question.

Mr Kennedy: -one simple question-

Hon Mrs Ecker: -and that is our commitment and we will abide by that.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, one simple question. You've said before that the Toronto Star doesn't provide your ministry's documents. I know you're familiar with the contents of the story in the Toronto Star. Are any of those cuts going to be made by your ministry in the next two years? Are any of the cuts in the Toronto Star story going to be made by your ministry in the next two years?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I said very clearly that the Toronto Star article is not the government's plan in the Ministry of Education, period, end of story.

Mr Kennedy: You're not going to answer the question?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We've been very clear about our commitment to classroom education.

Mr Kennedy: But there are lots of things in it that weren't classroom.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We want to spend more in the classroom. We are indeed doing that. That is the commitment that we have made-

Mr Kennedy: That's not the question, Minister, with respect.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -and that is the commitment we are speaking of. I'm not going to sit here and speculate on some article that some newspaper claims may or may not be the truth.

The Vice-Chair: The time is up. May I just make an observation now. I think there will be a bell shortly for a vote, in about a couple of minutes. I'm just going to get unanimous consent that we can adjourn these estimates for today and resume tomorrow, or we can continue for the three minutes and wait for the bell. Which one would you prefer?

Mr Marchese: That may be a good idea.

The Vice-Chair: What is a good idea?

Mr Marchese: Tomorrow; otherwise it'll be broken off.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We wouldn't want to interrupt Rosario's train of thought.

The Vice Chair: I presume I got the consent that we'll adjourn until tomorrow at 3:30 or immediately after routine proceedings. Thank you very much.

The committee adjourned at 1746.