EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION
MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
METROPOLITAN TORONTO SCHOOL BOARD
CONTENTS
Monday 6 May 1996
Education Amendment Act, 1996, Bill 34, Mr Snobelen / Loi de 1996 modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation, projet de loi 34, M. Snobelen
Minister of Education and Training
Hon John Snobelen
Coalition for Adult Students
Wanda Gould, student representative
Metropolitan Toronto School Board
Ann Vanstone, chair
Don McVicar, director
Ontario Teachers' Federation / Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario ;
Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation
Ronald Robert, president, OTF
Susan Langley, secretary-treasurer, OTF
Ruth Baumann, executive assistant, OTF
Reg Ferland, president, OPSTF
Vivian McCaffrey, government relations officer, OPSTF
David Lennox, general secretary, OPSTF
Taxpayers Coalition of Peel
Blaine Mitton, chair, education committee
Norm Calder, chair, regional and provincial initiatives
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Gerretsen, John
(Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
*Agostino, Dominic (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC)
Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
*Johns, Helen (Huron PC)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
*Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC)
*Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
O'Toole, John (Durham East / -Est PC) for Mrs Ecker
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr Gerretsen
Skarica, Toni (Wentworth North / -Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Clerk / Greffière: Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1530 in room 151.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation.
The Acting Chair (Mr Dominic Agostino): As we start, I'd like to first of all apologize to the first presentation, which is scheduled for 3:30. We're going to be running a bit behind as we have a five-minute presentation by the minister followed by five-minute responses by the critics for the two opposition parties. We'll try to move things along as quickly as we can and stick as close as we can to our time line. We'll stick very closely to the time allocated to the speakers in the first session as well as the rest of the presentations today. I call upon the minister, the Honourable John Snobelen, to open up with a five-minute presentation on the overview on the bill.
MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to open our discussion of Bill 34 this afternoon. This legislation enacts key elements of the education savings strategy I announced on March 6. It represents an important step towards our province's goal of an education system that is based on excellence, accountability and affordability. Our goal is to help schools bring education spending under control and achieve savings of $400 million in 1996-97.
First, I want to point out that the $400 million in savings, which will be found through changes in operating as well as capital grants, represents only 3% of the total $14 billion being spent each year on education in Ontario. Once the savings from the capital moratorium are included, the reductions to operating budgets average only 1.8%.
We need to maintain and improve quality education programming in Ontario while bringing our spending into line with other provinces. Ontario spends close to $1 billion more, or about $500 more per child, on education than the average of the other provinces without any difference in academic results.
Allow me to share another perspective: The Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force, which was commissioned by the previous government, has indicated in its recent public report that 47%, or roughly $6.7 billion, of our education dollars are directed towards items which it defined as being outside the classroom. That's money spent on items such as school board administration, transportation and maintenance. Currently, Ontario's school boards annually spend approximately $890 million on board administration, $600 million on transportation and $1.2 billion on maintenance services.
Few can argue that significant savings outside the classroom are not possible. For several months I have met with parents, students and taxpayers, as well as school trustees, school board officials and teachers, to get their views on how to accomplish the necessary savings. I heard three very clear messages: First, people told me they believe that education savings can indeed be achieved without compromising education quality; secondly, they said there must be an opportunity to develop cost-saving solutions locally; and, third, they emphasized that while these matters need to be urgently addressed, we must allow time to ensure that we maintain quality programming for our students.
Bill 34 gives local school boards the flexibility they need to achieve these goals. It also sets the stage for further restructuring of the system through a focus on investing resources in student learning while cutting administration and bureaucracies.
Ontarians recognize the need to find significant savings within our education system. The challenge is to achieve reductions that will move education spending to sustainable levels while protecting the quality of classroom education as measured by student achievement. Bill 34 answers this challenge. It points us towards an environment where our important investment in education is a sustainable investment.
This bill also respects and embodies the important principle that the province shares responsibility for education with local communities. The government has heard a clear message from parents, students and taxpayers, as well as school board trustees, officials and teachers. That message is that there must be an opportunity to find savings through solutions developed at the local level.
We have already, through the general legislative grants, encouraged boards to reduce expenditures on transportation, central administration, instructional supervision and custodial and maintenance services. We have placed a one-year moratorium on new construction of school facilities, a step that will provide greater flexibility to boards in terms of how they deploy their resources.
Bill 34 also promotes local decision-making and local accountability. The government has clearly stated that classroom funding should be protected and that local taxes should not be increased as a result of these measures. Greater cooperation between school boards and other public sector agencies is one important way to achieve these goals. This bill gives boards a clear mandate to make cooperative agreements and it provides a mechanism to make boards publicly accountable for their actions in this area.
If you look at other measures in this bill you will find that we have, where necessary, structured each measure to allow boards to make decisions that will best serve their local communities while protecting educational opportunities.
With respect to junior kindergarten, for example, we are with Bill 34 fulfilling our commitment to restore junior kindergarten as a local option. We will pay the province's fair share of funding for JK for those school boards that choose to offer the program.
If you look at the specifics of the measures we have taken with respect to adult education, you will find provisions to ensure that some categories of adult pupils may continue to be served through the regular day school program.
Bill 34 is necessary, fair and reasonable. It will help Ontario's school boards take positive and proactive steps towards controlling education spending. It will encourage financial restructuring in education so that our schools can do better for less.
I look forward to this committee's hearings and full discussion as an opportunity to ensure the best possible legislation is passed. The final result will be an even better education system that meets the needs of the people it serves: all the students in our schools and all the taxpayers of Ontario.
The Acting Chair: If I can now turn to the official opposition, Mr Patten will open up. We have five minutes for responses to the minister's statement.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Thank you for the opportunity to reply to some of the comments the minister made today. I am likewise pleased that as a committee we have the opportunity to hear directly from the public on the impact the cuts will have on Ontario's education system in the name of fiscal restraint.
I'd like to state at the outset that I believe that these cuts and the manner in which they have been implemented are misguided. Everything this government says in relation to funding education in Ontario is couched in the terminology of fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility. Why is that? Because the government's cuts to education are driven not by its concern for the quality and the accessibility of education; they are driven by a promise to deliver a 30% reduction in the provincial tax rate -- so it's essentially an economic question we're looking at -- a reduction which will disproportionately benefit those who need it the least. I'm talking in terms of the application of the provincial tax rate reduction. The singleminded determination of this government to provide this tax break is resulting in the extraction of money right out of the education system. This money will leave the system completely, and this is what Bill 34 is mainly all about.
The proposed changes to the Education Act will have a negative impact on the quality of education in Ontario. These cuts to education are a direct result of this government's promise to deliver the 30% tax break.
Under the Conservative government, education is being attacked on a number of fronts. In the case of Bill 34, young children and those returning to complete their education will be negatively impacted. The government's restoring of the local option does not mean restoring the program. On the contrary; for many boards it means no option at all. It means that the funding changes to junior kindergarten -- and, I might add, to adult education -- increase the local contribution, lessen the province's contribution and make the programs unaffordable for probably half the school boards throughout the province. The Conservatives are undermining the provision of early childhood education. The cancellation of junior kindergarten programs in the province will result in the loss of those teachers who are most capable of teaching young people.
1540
Charles Pascal, former Deputy Minister of Education in the province of Ontario -- no longer the deputy minister, obviously, or he wouldn't be making these kinds of statements -- in response to, "We must put our fiscal house in order, for the sake of our children's children," by the Premier, recently said in a local paper:
"Hey, I agree. We need to ensure that we deliberately, steadily and intelligently move towards balanced budgets and a reduced debt load. And, indeed, we need to do it for our children's children and their opportunities.
"But, holy doubletalk, look who is using the `children's children' chant to draw cheers from the government's backbenchers.
"This is the same government that is ripping into an already fragile but important child care system; that seems to be disinterested in high and consistent child care standards and more interested in imposing a 1950s Ozzie and Harriet view of the world. This is the same government that is gutting junior kindergarten by making it optional at the board level; the same folks who were musing about making junior kindergarten available for `full-fee payers' only."
He goes along to identify other points related to early childhood education.
It seems that the government thinks it can cut a little at both ends of the education cycle without impacting on the product in between. I believe they are wrong, and we'll hear what people have to say as we go through these hearings.
Prior to and during the election, the Conservatives promised that their cuts to education funding would not impact on the classroom. The cuts in Bill 34 not only impact on the classroom, but for many thousands of children and adults Bill 34 eliminates the classroom entirely. Not impacting the classroom with this level of cuts is not possible. Likewise, I have spoken to a lot of parents, spoken to a lot of boards, spoken to a lot of teachers; must be a different group of teachers, because they're saying the classroom indeed is impacted.
The system has been saying this for months, and now educators and school boards are experiencing it at first hand. Thousands of teachers have received layoff notices. We know that many will be back, because that's what happens at this time of the year, but many will not.
Billed as a toolkit that would give school boards the ability to cut $400 million from education, Bill 34 has very few tools. In fact, it has none at all other than windows for the government to reach in and pull out money totally from education.
I hope that through these hearings the committee will be able to demonstrate to the government that its approach to education reform in Ontario is disabling what has been built up so painstakingly over many years.
The Acting Chair: I go to the NDP for their five minutes.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'm very pleased the committee has been given the mandate to hear from people across Ontario on the possible impacts of Bill 34 and I look forward to the information we glean from the presentations that will be made before the committee during our hearings.
I listened very carefully to what the minister had to say with regard to schools doing better with less, and I can only conclude that the minister still hasn't heard what has been said so often over the last few weeks and months by teachers, students even, parents, administrators, trustees and so on. The fact is that in many important ways schools will be doing less with less as a result of the cuts. Perhaps they should be, but let's be honest about it if that's what's happening. I don't know if they should be.
It has been oft repeated by the government and by the minister that the reductions that will be made, and must be made in his view, will be made outside of the classroom and that classroom education will remain exempt from the cuts, as was promised by the Conservative Party in the election campaign. Of course, this all depends on how one defines "out of classroom." The minister is wont to point to Mr Sweeney's report and to say that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40% of expenditures occur outside the classroom. When one includes teacher preparation as an outside-of-the-classroom activity, then one can come up with figures like 40%, I suppose.
Hon Mr Snobelen: It's 47% actually.
Mr Wildman: Almost 50% then, but it is really just plain nonsense -- not common sense, nonsense. To suggest that what teachers do in preparing for classes for students is not related to and is not part of classroom education, I think, is an indication of what is wrong with the definitions that are being used.
The minister referred to the $400-million cut in grants as being only 3% of the total expenditures in education, and yet in the debate on his ministry's estimates he admitted that, annualized, that works out to about $1 billion. I recognize there have been some deferrals of capital expenditures to take up part of that, but that just means we're deferring needed expenditures till next year, I suppose, or the year after.
The fact is it is substantially more than 3%. In our view, you're tearing the heart and soul out of education by trying to get this amount of money in one year, and it's certainly impossible to do it without affecting classroom education.
We've seen the effects in junior kindergarten and in adult education programs. Already, 20 junior kindergarten programs have been cancelled by boards in the province. The minister says the government is committed to fulfilling the promise to restore junior kindergarten programs as an option. All that means is moving away from the fact that it will be compulsory and the money would be there, to a situation where if the boards can come up with their share and want to provide the program, then the government is prepared to participate, keeping in mind that the board still must take this amount of money -- overall, about $800 million to $1 billion -- out in one year.
That really is not an option. That's like saying to a child, "Yes, you can have an ice cream cone if you've got the money," when the kid asks for an ice cream cone. If the kid has the money, I suppose they'll get the ice cream cone, but if you're telling them at the same time, "I'm cutting your allowance," they're not likely to get the ice cream cone.
The minister also refers, again, to his oft-repeated remarks about the expenditures in this province being so much higher than the average in Canada, spending $1 billion more, he says, or $500 more per student. Again, that ignores the evidence presented from StatsCan that indicates that in fact we aren't that much higher than the average in Canada, particularly if Ontario is included in that average. It also ignores the fact that in coming up with those calculations --
The Acting Chair: May I ask you to wrap up, please.
Mr Wildman: -- 100,000 junior kindergarten students were included in the expenditures but not in determining the cost per pupil.
I'll just wrap up by saying we have major issues here with regard to negative grant boards and their contributions that are going to be allowed under this legislation; what this means for the property taxpayers in these areas, particularly when the minister has said he doesn't want any property tax increases; and also the questions arising about the announcement on small boards, the 27 listed, that will get a portion of the $14.5 million.
We've seen 10,000 layoffs of teachers in 32 boards in the province. This is a direct result of taking $1 billion out of education. It is hitting the classroom. These teachers are from the classroom. I hope the presentations over the next couple of weeks will convince the minister and his colleagues from the Conservative Party that they should rethink what is out-of-classroom expenditures and how they should meet their commitment not to affect the classroom in Ontario.
1550
COALITION FOR ADULT STUDENTS
The Acting Chair: I now turn it over to our first presentation, on behalf of the Coalition for Adult Students, Wanda Gould. Welcome to the committee. As you know, we have a total of half an hour, and that would include any time you choose to allow for questions and points to be made on a rotation basis by the members of the three parties here today. I'll turn it over to you.
Ms Wanda Gould: I don't feel I'll take quite that long. Let me first start off by saying I'm talking in regard to the amendments to the Education Act about adult education.
I'll start off by introducing myself. My name is Wanda Gould, and I'm 22 years of age. I'm currently attending my final semester at Burnhamthorpe Collegiate in Etobicoke. I am a representative on the Metro adult school coalition. This coalition is a group of adult students who convened together in March of this year to discuss our fears about the cuts to adult education. We are just starting out, and we are currently still trying to figure out our roles in adult schools.
I would like to thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. I'd also like to thank you for amending the Education Act in such a way that it reflects what we already know; that is, education is a lifelong process and without it you cannot go far. Of course, many adults are aware of this now too, and this is why we have seen an increase in the number of adults returning to school.
Let me begin telling you my own story and how adult education has helped me save my future. I was always considered a bright but average student. I wasn't highly motivated, but I still maintained average marks, and I was never considered a discipline problem. Some of this changed when I entered grade 7. I began to fake illnesses with my parents so I wouldn't have to go to school. Eventually, however, my parents caught on, but my lack of attendance in class still continued. It became a habit which I could not break, regardless of all the counselling and disciplinary action I received. It was this habit I carried with me through high school. I averaged 20 absences in each class, and it was here that I finally saw the effect it had on my marks. It was my first year of high school and, due to poor attendance, I only received four out of eight credits.
It was around this time that people had given up on me and trying to straighten out my attendance problem and decided it was best if I learned on my own. Only a year and a half after I entered high school, with only six credits to my name, I dropped out. It wasn't really a surprise to anyone, and I justified my leaving school by promising myself and others that I'd return next semester. I did return and I actually stayed for a full semester, and earned only another two credits for it. I was now up to eight credits. I decided that school wasn't really for me, and I left again.
I began working full-time as a cashier at a gas station at the age of 17. It was here that I tried to educate myself with correspondence provided by the Independent Learning Centre in Toronto. Of course it didn't work, because I was not an independent learner and had inconsistent motivation. It was while working that I discovered that the completion of my OSSD should be my priority.
I returned to school in the fall of 1992 and, though my attendance problems continued to hinder my progress, I stayed in. It was a very long time, but I started slowly earning credits, but eventually this caught up to me. I started becoming older and more mature and found that my fellow classmates were not entirely mature. But what did I expect? They were three to four years younger than I was.
I was no longer comfortable in a regular learning environment simply because of the age difference, and I left school again. I was 20 years old and felt I had no alternative way to earn my OSSD. I decided to enter college preparatory courses at that point. But this didn't work either, because it was all based on independent learning, and I had not yet learned the skills for this.
I sat at home for a few months, feeling very depressed. I had no future, or so I thought. It was then that I found Burnhamthorpe Collegiate. I had heard all about this adult school before and had preconceived notions about it. I thought it was a basic adult learning centre and there was no real place for me there. I soon found out that the courses were the very same offered in regular secondary school.
However, there were differences. I had teachers who knew how to treat me as an adult student and fellow students who were highly motivated and very helpful. Most important was the structure. Admissions helped make me feel more at ease at my new school, and guidance helped me decide which courses and post-secondary institution was best for me. I always knew that if I should need help in a subject, peer tutoring and teachers were ready and willing to give up their spare time if I was willing to contribute the effort. It is these things that contribute to the productive atmosphere that is present at my school.
Most of all, I didn't have to learn on my own. It was here that I was finally taught the skills necessary to become an independent learner. The learning process will never stop in my life, because of this.
It's true that adult students who attend day school are very motivated. However, most of them lack the skills that would allow them to learn independently. This prevents them from learning from alternative means, such as correspondence and night school. Day school provides an opportunity for those students who wish to improve their futures more quickly. The average adult student spends no more than two semesters attending day school to achieve their goals. If this were to be done at night school, it would take much longer.
Adult students fear the cuts in adult education. They are afraid that if the structure of the program that works for them is affected too much, it may no longer be useful to them or others.
If it were not for Burnhamthorpe, I would not be looking forward to graduating this June. I will be the first in my family to graduate, and my only problem right now is how I fit all my family into the auditorium for my commencement. It is also because of BCI that I will no longer see "Poor attendance hinders progress" on my report cards. I am focused and motivated now. I have goals. One of them is to attend college this fall and to complete my education at university later on in life.
I have to say that part of my motivation comes from the death of a close friend who died at the age of 21 of diabetes, without receiving his OSSD. It was because of his death that I learned that life was too short. It was a tragic but necessary lesson that I needed to learn.
You have all listened to my story, and I thank you for it, but please keep in mind that my story is one out of a thousand, and I can only hope that I have given fair representation to all of the adult students I represent here today. I have provided a profile of the average student at my school, and I think it's representative of all the adult students I know in Metro.
Thank you once again for this opportunity, for allowing me to speak to you, and I'd like to thank the Etobicoke Board of Education for providing me the opportunity to attend such a wonderful school. I thank you on behalf of all adult learners for allowing representation of adult students in the amendments to the Education Act.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Miss Gould. We have about six minutes per caucus. I'll turn it over to the government first. Mr Skarica.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I'd like to congratulate you for your presentation and the fact that you've persevered and continue to go to school. How familiar are you with the amendments in the proposed bill here?
Ms Gould: I've read the amendments briefly, not very well. I was really only concerned with the adult students. I understand we're finally recognized, and that was one of our main concerns, that we were not guaranteed an education.
Mr Skarica: Right. As I understand it, the proposed amendments will provide for adults to receive adult education, but they'll be referred to continuing education programs, both in the daytime and the evening. What impact would that have had on you if that regime had been in effect at the time you wanted to go back?
Ms Gould: I'm not in continuing ed right now. If I was, I wouldn't have stayed, because it doesn't provide the structure necessary. I'm sure the majority of my fellow students would not have stayed at that school, because it's the structure that provides the atmosphere that leads all the students in there to be very productive.
Mr Skarica: What was the structure that was so advantageous to you?
Ms Gould: You receive a lot of encouragement from your teachers. They're always willing to help you out during their spares. Admissions was always there if you had a problem. Guidance is always there if you have a question about a course or about college or anything.
It's very much like a regular secondary school, except there's a lot more activity -- a lot more. The cafeteria, the library, the study hall are always filled with people studying. You have to get there early to get a seat. People compete for marks and people get upset because they've missed classes, something I didn't see in my high school days.
Mr Skarica: It seemed to me, just from your evidence, that you went to adult education initially and dropped out but then went back later.
Ms Gould: I returned to regular high school, my old high school, three times. I don't blame the high school at all for my problems. I simply got too old. I no longer got along with 15-year-olds. I was 20 years old, couldn't handle the discipline problems or anything like that.
1600
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Thank you for the presentation and for the self-discovery journey there. In the adult learning situation, was there a lot more one-on-one, you and your instructor?
Ms Gould: Yes, if you went after school. I'm all in advanced courses so it's mainly lectures, but if I go after school or on their spares they're always going to help me out.
Mr O'Toole: As you mentioned previously, is there, in your opinion, more of a unique skill for the teacher in adult learning?
Ms Gould: Yes, there is. They have to be more patient and more understanding, more interested --
Mr O'Toole: Is that age-sensitive?
Ms Gould: Yes, I think it's more age sensitive, but they also have to be very encouraging. As adult students we've already been beaten down once, and it's so easy to get discouraged.
Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the background information. Is there a job linkage accounting?
Ms Gould: We have co-op offered at our school. I understand it's a very busy program and that employers like our students.
Mr O'Toole: What do you think about work experience as being a valuable part of learning?
Ms Gould: I think it's very, very important. There's the classroom on the inside, and then the average student usually gets a pretty good shock on the outside.
Mr O'Toole: Yes. So you think work experience helped to mature you as well?
Ms Gould: Yes, it did.
The Acting Chair: We now go to the opposition.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I want to thank you for your presentation. You've actually put forth a case that, as a former educator, I've seen many times. I liked your point that you've been taught skills to become an independent learner. In a great many areas we forget that people do want to become independent learners.
What I'm looking for here is where you are now and where you think you will be in the future, where this program will allow you to lead your future to?
Ms Gould: This program leads me to my OSSD, which is necessary for my post-secondary education. I'd much rather go that way than the mature student route simply because I want to know more when I go in; I need to know. My interests are in science right now. I have applied for chemical technology courses at colleges. I hope to obtain full-time employment after my graduation from college and to attend university at night school for my bachelor of science degree.
Mr Miclash: You mentioned the co-op program. Are you involved in the co-op program presently?
Ms Gould: No. I wish I was, but it didn't fit into my course schedule.
Mr Patten: Likewise, thank you for being here today. I wonder if you could elaborate a little. The legislation as proposed is changing the financial status of the program, which means it affects whether it will be operated universally. Some school boards may have to drop it; others will keep it. We don't know yet where that will be. The alternative is that people who want these courses can take these under the continuing education mode, which is course by course. Based on your testimony, you talked about being part of a class and the attention of the teachers. Could you give us other examples of the difference between taking something course by course and being part of something in a relationship with other students plus the teacher?
Ms Gould: Sure. Any courses that I have been in so far, mainly sciences, we've been focusing a lot on group work and teamwork and how to work together on developing roles of leadership and team players. A lot of my teachers stress that the most with us. Also, in the cafeteria we offer peer tutoring for our math and physics program. One on one, you get to know the teachers better and they get to know you better. They're not off in a rush. If they are busy and they can't help you, they will always provide you time. They'll talk to you about your future, about what you plan to do, and they encourage you to do a lot. I've had teachers encourage me to go straight to university, but I don't feel ready for it quite yet.
Mr Patten: How would you judge your fellow students and sister students in terms of dropout rate? Is it low? Is it high? In other words, do they see the program through?
Ms Gould: I've seen students drop out but come back and complete it. I've been there three semesters. Students have left, and they do come back. Of course, with every school you're going to have a dropout rate. I wouldn't say it was particularly high. I don't really notice that much difference.
Mr Patten: And your hope is to go on to college or university?
Ms Gould: My hope is to go on to college and then to university, at night school.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Just to feed into what Mr Patten was saying, I'm also concerned about the impact. There's a very impressive enrolment at BCI in terms of numbers. Has it been well communicated to those students what this bill and the amendments to this bill could mean?
Ms Gould: It's been tried. Most of the students understand what's going on, but there is a lot of fear and rumours running around, as always. There are fears and rumours. I don't think they fully understand, but I am very sure that if they wanted to know, there are people there to tell them. They understand that we're losing 16 teachers this year. That really hurts people, but they understand it.
Mr Gravelle: Your story is impressive and I applaud you for it. Would you say a fair percentage of the students enrolled in BCI probably have similar stories in terms of why things didn't work out for them when they were younger, which of course speaks to the value of this particular place?
Ms Gould: Yes, many people I know are the exact same way, and then I know people who were considered geniuses at school and were in special learning programs for gifted students but who weren't treated very nice at school and ended up dropping out due to emotional problems and have come back. It'd be a real shame if they didn't have that opportunity to come back to school, because the world would miss out on that intelligence.
The Acting Chair: Now to the NDP.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm looking at the profile you've tabled with the committee. It's interesting that in your description of the learners served at Burnhamthorpe you say approximately 60% depend on social assistance and just less than half have one or more dependent children. The breakdown in the student population is 60% female, 40% male.
As I'm sure you're aware, the public school boards of Metropolitan Toronto do not receive grants from the provincial government, so changes made in this bill related to adult ed won't directly affect adult education here; indirectly it will because there are other parts of this bill that affect the Metro Toronto board. Let's put it this way. Other boards in the province do get grants from the provincial government that provide similar programs to what you're taking at Burnhamthorpe. They will now receive less for adult education. They will be funded at the level of continuing ed. You said you didn't think you would have continued if you'd been dependent only on continuing ed courses.
Ms Gould: No, I wouldn't have continued.
Mr Wildman: Why is that? Obviously, you're a very motivated person now. You've matured, you're an adult, you've got goals in mind. If you were at this stage in life now -- or maybe you think you wouldn't have got to this stage; I don't know. If you were at this stage in life now, why couldn't you have taken a correspondence course or a night class or whatever?
Ms Gould: Simply because I wasn't an independent learner then. It's taken me three semesters, but I'm finally learning how to learn on my own and to discipline myself to learn on my own. That's what con ed didn't provide. It doesn't provide you that opportunity to learn on your own. You're usually in a classroom filled with students, and you share no common bond. You're in a classroom for three to four hours, you listen to your teacher, you do your work and you don't have very much time to get along with people. You don't have very much time to snag the teacher, because he or she is doing so many things at once. I didn't know how to be an independent learner.
That's what the students I know are stuck in. That's why correspondence didn't work for them, that's why night school doesn't work for them, that's why continuing education altogether doesn't work for them.
1610
Mr Wildman: Basically, it appears to me you're saying that at the day school program, you feel a part of a community, a community of students and teachers who are working together to ensure that everyone gets to achieve the goals they've set for themselves. There isn't that kind of community in a night class that you might be taking?
Ms Gould: Not that I've noticed, no.
Mr Wildman: You said that at Burnhamthorpe you're going to have fewer teachers next year, you've been informed.
Ms Gould: Yes.
Mr Wildman: How many fewer teachers?
Ms Gould: Sixteen out of I believe close to 80. Our enrolment cap is down. You see 1,200 students here. Apparently our enrolment cap is going to be just over 950.
Mr Wildman: So they're cutting back even the number of students, and that therefore means fewer teachers will be required for the program.
Ms Gould: Yes.
Mr Wildman: Are there any indications of what effect this might have for class size at this point, do you know?
Ms Gould: I believe class sizes will probably very much increase. We've also had to cut courses. As far as I understand it, next year they've cut out the music department, simply because it didn't reflect the needs any more. Something had to go, so we've lost the music department. Classroom size is going to be a little bigger, but I'm not sure what kind of impact that's going to have quite yet.
Mr Wildman: Your courses do occur within classroom walls?
Ms Gould: Oh, yes.
Mr Wildman: I see. This government said it wasn't going to affect classroom education.
The Acting Chair: I'd like to thank you for the presentation, Ms Gould. We appreciate your being here today.
METROPOLITAN TORONTO SCHOOL BOARD
The Acting Chair: I ask our next presenters to come forward, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. We have Ms Ann Vanstone, the chair, and Don McVicar, the director and secretary-treasurer of the board. Please introduce yourselves for the record and begin.
Ms Ann Vanstone: This is Don McVicar, the director of the Metro school board, and Don Higgins, the superintendent of finance, in case you have any financial questions I can't answer.
We're here today to express our concerns regarding Bill 34 and the impact it will have on the delivery of education in Metropolitan Toronto. I'll attempt to address all five of the pertinent issues comprising Bill 34, but I would like to do so in a different order than they appear in the bill.
I will concentrate in the beginning on section 4, dealing with local property taxes being submitted to the provincial government, as it is this issue which causes us the greatest concern. Should time considerations prevent me from commenting on the other sections, please note that they are addressed in the written statement I will be submitting to the standing committee.
To put it bluntly, section 4 of Bill 34 is a bill on pooling. The exact wording may be open to interpretation, but the intent of section 4 is unmistakeable: It is designed to allow the transfer of local property taxes collected for local education purposes into general provincial revenues. Not only is this practice unconscionable, we believe it is unconstitutional.
Let me set out very clearly the conundrum facing the public boards of Metropolitan Toronto on this issue. As the law stands now, if we were to turn over any portion of local property taxes to the province, we could be sued by our ratepayers. On the other hand, if the provincial government makes such a transfer mandatory, we would have no choice but to sue the province.
Although we believe pooling is unconstitutional, we are certainly prepared to discuss potential solutions with the government, to reduce costs while avoiding pooling and the constitutional implications that come with it. However, if the current conundrum is to be resolved, it must be in the best interests of Metropolitan Toronto ratepayers. Any agreement between the provincial government and the Metro school board must be in place before legislation is introduced to implement the specific transfer.
I want to go into some detail about why we consider provincial pooling to be so detrimental to education in Metro, and we believe public opinion in Metro supports our position.
As you know, Metro's public school boards are financed entirely by education property taxes. We receive no provincial grants. Indeed, the mathematical calculation used by the province to determine what grant a school board is eligible to receive produces, in the case of Metro Toronto, a negative number, generally referred to as a negative grant.
This number changes from year to year because of enrolment changes, assessment increases and decreases, and an equalization factor determined by the province which compares Metro's tax base to the tax bases of all boards in the province, adjusted by market value factors. For example, in 1996 our Metro tax base reduced dramatically because of successful tax appeals. This would have made us eligible for grants in 1996 had the general legislative grant regulations not been changed regarding junior kindergarten and adult education. As a result of those changes, we will once again be grant-negative.
Section 4 of the proposed new amendments to the Education Act states that non-grantable boards, presently Metro and the Ottawa board, may give the finance minister, for use by the province, an amount of money not greater than the negative grant amount. This would essentially open the door for the province to access the property tax base for its own use. This practice is currently illegal; for us to voluntarily allow it to happen would open us up to potential litigation from our ratepayers.
More than just a legal issue, this is also a fundamental education issue. Education dollars raised from property taxes should not be used for the purposes of general provincial revenue. It should be noted that taxation of property to finance public education is the earliest form of taxation in Ontario and certainly pre-dates any ability of the provincial or federal government to impose and collect taxes.
According to the Golden commission studying reform of the greater Toronto area, some $2,300 from each and every household in the GTA is already being used to subsidize services in the rest of the province. This latest proposal would exacerbate the situation.
The key principle here is that property taxes have until now been expendable only by locally elected representatives, either municipal councillors or school trustees. It is our steadfast belief that opening this area of taxation to another level of government, which has its own very broad powers of taxation, is unacceptable and would require us to seek a court decision.
Let me reiterate: If the legislation reads the way it currently does and the Metro board transmitted property taxes to the province, it could leave us open to a lawsuit by a ratepayer, and I've certainly had a good number of phone calls threatening to sue us if we dare take their property taxes and give it to another level of government. If the legislation was changed so that it is not permissive, we would have to seek court clarification ourselves.
You may not be aware that there's a potential precedent for this case: A court decision rendered in Alberta last November will certainly end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. My understanding of constitutional law is that a decision in that case would impact on all provinces and would prohibit pooling of property taxes.
Beyond the legal ramifications, provincial pooling would have a devastating impact on revenues and tax rates across the province. It is our understanding that impact studies have not been conducted by the province. We have, however, undertaken our own analysis based on data supplied directly by the province, and the results are startling, to say the least. I will hand you out a small schedule when we're finished this.
1620
Our analysis shows that the first part is certainly true. Under the pooling proposals in the Sweeney report, there would be a net export of $236 million out of Metro, but the idea that other boards wouldn't be hit is a fallacy. Our calculations show that $11 million would be exported out of Muskoka and almost $8 million out of west Parry Sound, to name but two examples. Moreover, pooling would cause a major tax shift. Our analysis indicates that provincial pooling could result in a residential property tax increase of 20% in Metro, while commercial taxes in Peel would go up by 24%, Muskoka would face a commercial tax hike of 144%, and I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, west Parry Sound would receive a commercial tax hike of 122% plus a residential tax hike.
The Premier has stated that the status quo is not an option for education in Ontario, and we understand that position. But we must caution that it is not just education finance that needs to be addressed; a whole host of other issues, such as student performance standards, tax assessment and governance issues must also be looked at. Indeed we need to take the appropriate time to focus on these key issues in overall education reform, but we cannot get to them because we seem to spend all our time focusing on finance. The public school boards of Metropolitan Toronto are willing and prepared to work with the provincial government to explore our options for education reform to resolve all the education issues that impact us. We will not, however, passively accept financial measures that we believe will have disastrous ramifications for the ratepayers and students of Metropolitan Toronto. Again, we are willing to work with the province to find solutions to education reform issues.
I want to take a moment now to discuss the fundamental reform required in Metro before any other issues can be properly addressed: assessment reform. In analysing our expenditures, it is clear that because of successful assessment appeals, the public boards in Metro had their per-pupil costs inflated by $241 a student in 1994 and by similar amounts in 1995 and 1996. The former provincial government refused to act on a request by Metro Toronto council to implement reassessment in Metro. As a result, although we have cut some $200 million in expenditures from our school system at a time of steeply increasing enrolment, the crumbling assessment base has caused us to impose an increase in property taxes. A stable base would have allowed a significant decrease in the mill rate.
Many boards in Ontario have asked for and received "undue burden" grants when faced with such hardship, though I believe the devastated assessment base in Metro is without precedent in Ontario. We are not asking for an undue burden grant. However, we believe that the savings MTSB can achieve in the current cost reduction process should be returned to Metro ratepayers. We will not ask the province to bail us out as we struggle with the fiscal challenges. Likewise, we are adamantly opposed to being forced to bail out the provincial government at the expense of Metro ratepayers.
Let me turn now to the other components of Bill 34 and offer our positions on these issues.
Section 1, junior kindergarten: Bill 34 means it will be no longer mandatory for boards to operate junior kindergartens. Since the public schools in Metro have offered universal junior kindergartens for 25 years, they will most likely continue to do so. For the past few years, JK has been funded 100% by the province, but as the Metro boards do not receive any funding from the province, this is not of immediate consequence to us. As well, we do not have the difficulties that other boards have in transporting children to junior kindergarten, and we do not have the significant problems of a half-day program nor the cost of transportation.
When other boards continue to operate junior kindergartens, they will be funded at the individual board's rate of provincial grant. Our major concern is that, by and large across the province, the effect of this will be that many public school boards operating at a low rate of grant, compounded by transportation problems, will cancel JK, while separate school boards, who normally have a high rate of grant, may be more likely to continue to operate them.
Again the legislative changes proposed in Bill 34 will have little impact on Metro's public school boards. We have provided this service, funded by our own local ratepayers, for a quarter of a century, and we expect to continue to do so.
Adult education: Until now, school boards in Ontario have been able to, subject to certain restrictions, include students over 21 years of age in their regular school programs. While many provinces have had restrictions on attendance of students over 21, Ontario's restrictions were connected to the number of years a student had attended secondary school. This number was limited to seven years, with no reference to age. The proposed amendment will introduce an age restriction, and students over 21 will be eligible for grants at half the rate for students under 21 years of age.
In Metro, we operate a very large adult education program. To date, most of our adults did not fall into the provincial restriction of seven years in secondary school because most of our adults had not attended school in Ontario or Canada. Through the recession years, our adult population increased as people attempted to upgrade or acquire new job skills.
Our collective agreements with our teachers have not treated adults differently as far as working conditions, teacher-student ratios etc are concerned, so changes must be negotiated in our collective agreements. We believe this section of Bill 34 will enable us to develop models of program delivery that could benefit the adults in our education system, and we are looking very seriously at graduation equivalency diplomas or degrees or whatever it's going to be called.
Cooperative services: In 1992, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board Task Force on the Funding of Public Education recommended that the boards in Metro enter into cooperative services in six different areas in the operation of our school systems to effect cost reductions. Subsequent to those recommendations, a task force was established in Metro by the Ministry of Education and the Metro public and separate school boards to further pursue cooperative initiatives.
To date, the Metro public boards have succeeded in implementing a cooperative assessment review office, which has contributed to an increase in tax revenues of $4 million, as well as allowing the area boards to eliminate that operation and thereby save significant amounts of money; a cooperative direct gas purchasing arrangement; and a cooperative purchasing and warehousing structure which will reduce staff in the area boards from about 260 to 60 in the co-op and will allow us to consolidate six warehouses into one.
Rather than the proposal before us in Bill 34, we would prefer that this section of the legislation mandate cooperative services since, in many cases across the province, public and separate school boards have been unwilling to enter into such cost-saving agreements.
We would like to have significant discussion with the ministry to offer our advice and experience before such mandatory legislation is developed.
Sick leave entitlement: This part of Bill 34 repeals the section of the Education Act that deals with sick leave entitlement, though in reality this is again a board-by-board issue. Most teacher collective bargaining agreements contain clauses dealing with sick leave and the accumulation of sick days. These issues will have to be dealt with through collective bargaining.
In closing, let me summarize our position on the crucial issue of provincial pooling as it applies to section 4 of this legislation.
We recognize that a process of change in Ontario's education system is under way and we are willing to work cooperatively to achieve efficiencies, but we will not accept provincial pooling of education tax dollars as an approach to meeting the government's overall fiscal objectives.
If we voluntarily give up education dollars to the province, our ratepayers may sue us. If we are forced by legislation to hand over education dollars, we will sue the province on constitutional grounds.
We are willing to work with the province to explore alternative solutions, not just regarding financial matters but on a whole host of education issues.
We must be satisfied that the best interests of the ratepayers of Metropolitan Toronto are being maintained before we enter into any agreement with the province.
Our school board has always been willing to work with whatever is the government of the day to resolve issues affecting education in Ontario and Metro. We would very much appreciate that opportunity now to meet with the government to explore options before the legislation in Bill 34 is sent for third reading. We believe this legislation, if implemented as it stands now, will be detrimental to parents, students and ratepayers in Metro Toronto and indeed across the province.
We'd be pleased to elaborate on any of the issues discussed in this statement, and we will pass you around -- there are just a few selected boards there but we can provide the information board by board across the province.
1630
Mr Patten: Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. Good to see you again. It's too bad we only have two minutes because we could talk for a long time. I like your documentation here. I think it's fairly sound. I have a board in my home town that is facing a similar situation in terms of the request to return money to the so-called equalization payment, which of course is a payment that leaves education totally, as you know. I am intrigued by your suggestion that if savings were identified along the lines of being a good citizen, of gathering resources, you would be prepared to return to the Metro taxpayers that portion of the money, which sounds to me like a very good strategy.
The government says it wants to see taxes reduced. Here is an example of it. Have you had any discussions with the ministry or the minister's office regarding that particular option?
Ms Vanstone: In any situation like this, we would of course prefer to return the taxes to our taxpayers and we think we're in a very unusual situation in Metro because of the devastation to the tax base.
Our position right along has been that we don't expect to be treated any differently than any other board in the province. If there are cuts that have to be done, we know we have to do them and we certainly did that during the social contract with an arrangement with the government of the day. We would prefer to turn them over to the Metro taxpayers. That hasn't been a serious discussion between us and the province. It wasn't something the former government contemplated during the social contract, nor was it contemplated by this government in our discussions with them in the late fall and early winter.
Our position is very clear. We feel in grave jeopardy if we raise up property tax dollars and send a cheque to Queen's Park. There are mechanisms that can be used so that this is avoided.
Mr Patten: Ms Vanstone, in terms of the last question, because of time, in terms of the general agreement you had, which I gather is no longer in effect, what was it about the memorandum of settlement that was not satisfying to you?
Ms Vanstone: We had two clear conditions. One was that we needed to have the tools to take the money to reduce our expenditures. Those tools of course weren't forthcoming. You will recall that in the social contract we had the Rae day tools, those kinds of things. The second was that we needed mandatory legislation because of this voluntary thing. We needed mandatory legislation that was designed for this specific purpose, and when we saw Bill 34 -- we didn't see it until the day after it was presented in the Legislature -- that just did not meet our requirements in any way.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): The briefing notes we have, or the explanatory notes from the ministry, reiterate of course this point that the minister has been making, that the provisions around transferring property tax dollars from Metro and Ottawa to the province is just an enabling provision, that there's no requirement. But then they go on to say that in their fiscal plan they have assumed that the recovery will take place. In fact, they've calculated almost $47 million from Metro Toronto and almost $5 million from Ottawa and say that if that doesn't happen -- that's the share of the $400 million -- then other boards are going to have to pick up those amounts and somehow that creates a great inequity.
You're being very clear in what you're saying here, that the way the legislation is written now is going to cause a problem either way. Is it a fair conclusion from what you're saying, that really what should be done with this portion of this bill is just for it not to proceed until and unless you've managed to come to some agreement with the ministry about how this issue should be handled?
Ms Vanstone: We have to look very closely at the kind of legislation we need. We certainly don't want, nor I guess does anybody, to be spending public money all the time hiring lawyers -- the only people who seem to win then are the lawyers -- but we're in a tough spot on this one. Our original agreement with the minister was that we had 15% of the enrolment in the province of Ontario, that we would assume our share of any reduction, were it to go into the provincial pot, would be 15%. My understanding is that the total amount now, since capital is out because of a capital freeze, is around $230 million, so our share of that would be more like $30-odd million.
I think, however -- I was going to call you Trustee Silipo --
The Acting Chair: Good old days.
Interjection: Now he's just trusted.
Ms Vanstone: We would assume our share would be something like that. We really do want to have some discussions about this assessment reform. That's why I say that we really need to talk about everything -- assessment reform. If we continue to take this kind of hit every year, this tax base, there is not very much defence of the tax rolls in Metropolitan Toronto and the crumbling is quite dramatic. Oddly enough, I gather it's beginning in Ottawa too. Something has to be done about that. We think that all the issues need to be discussed. To answer your first question clearly, however, this portion of the bill would have to --
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Vanstone, if I can turn it to the government and Mr Pettit.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Mr Chair, I've opted to defer to the member for Scarborough Centre.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Thank you fellow member. My question is: Does pooling exist within the Metropolitan Toronto School Board right now?
Ms Vanstone: Yes.
Mr Newman: It does.
Ms Vanstone: The pooling that exists within the Metropolitan Toronto School Board was introduced by legislation in 1954. The pooled taxes remained under the control of the locally elected people.
Mr Newman: What you're saying is there are some areas that receive more than what they put in within Metropolitan Toronto?
Ms Vanstone: A lot. The question here clearly is, who maintains control of the property tax base? Is it the province that has control or locally elected people?
Mr Newman: Sure, but what do the ratepayers say in the assessment-rich areas within Metropolitan Toronto, knowing that part of the money that is collected in their municipality goes to other parts of Metro?
Ms Vanstone: I feel I've been around almost forever, but I wasn't around when this legislation was introduced. My understanding of the ratepayers at the time was that they were not very happy with it and there was significant quarrelling and resistance to it, and there is still some significant anxiety in certain boards around that. The so-called "have" boards are sometimes not very happy about that, and neither are the ratepayers, but the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act created a situation that gave the authority to locally elected people, and that's where I think the difference is.
1640
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): When we look at education reform, I think the most important issue to look at is the student. In this particular case, I come from a board that's a very poor board and we spend $4,500 to $5,000 dollars on our students, and you spend approximately $9,000, maybe $8,000 per student. Tell me how you can rationalize that inequity in the funding of our children in Ontario.
Ms Vanstone: One of the things we've been about in Metro in the last four months, coming out of the ed finance reform task force, is to identify our per-pupil cost, tear apart the numbers, and examine why our costs are higher and what they're being spent on. I will be certainly happy to send this document to all of you. There are three major areas that we identified in Metro. For the purposes of the Golden commission, this is in general a comparison between the Metro boards and the GTA boards: York region, Durham, Halton and Peel, and the boards within Metro. In general, the three areas that we've discovered, $241 per pupil was the assessment base; English as a second language, which is a tremendous overrepresentation in Metro, is another approximately $400. That's $641. Compensatory education, Metro compared to the GTA boards, is approximately $300. The area we have identified that is significant for us, and we have to examine it and find out why it's so significant, is custodial -- what do you call it?
Mr Don McVicar: Custodial building maintenance.
Ms Vanstone: Custodial and maintenance of our buildings is exceptionally high, and that's going to be a major area we examine.
Mrs Johns: But $4,000 worth per student?
Ms Vanstone: What I've identified between Metropolitan Toronto and the GTA boards is a little over $1,000 in difference, but our study has been for the GTA boards. We'd be happy -- I don't think any of the other boards have been analysed.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for the presentation. Before we go to the next presentation, Mr Wildman has a question of the research officer.
Mr Wildman: I would like to get some information from research: what the effects would be if the government were to require the Metro Toronto boards only to spend what the Huron county boards spend, which I think is what Ms Johns was proposing. The other question I have for research is, the pooling that occurs within Metro, can we get assurance that money is both controlled locally by locally elected people and goes to education rather than hospitals, social services or roads, where this money may go since it's going into the general revenue fund?
Mr Ted Glenn: Could you rephrase the question just one more time, please?
The Acting Chair: Could you rephrase the second question, Mr Wildman, please?
Mr Wildman: I just want to have assurance that the pooling Mr Newman was referring to in Metropolitan Toronto of education dollars raised from the local tax base actually goes to education -- say from Etobicoke to Scarborough -- as opposed to this proposal in Bill 34, which would allow it to go into the provincial general revenue fund and then it could be used, not just for education but for roads, social services, health care, whatever.
Mr Glenn: All right.
ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION / FÉDÉRATION
DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Acting Chair: We'll move to our next presentation. There's a one-hour allotment and there are two groups. The Ontario Teachers' Federation, please come forward. Welcome to the committee, and perhaps you could advise us how much time your presentation will take so we'll know how much we have left for the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, which is sharing your time, so we'll know how to allocate it.
Mr Ronald Robert: Maybe we could go on for the first 40 minutes.
The Acting Chair: So about 40 minutes for this one, which will also include time for questions if you choose to allow that. Please go ahead and introduce yourself and the other members here with you.
M. Robert : Il me fait plaisir de vous présenter, avec moi aujourd'hui, les deux personnes de la Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario : Mme Susan Langley, secrétaire-trésorière de la Fédération, ainsi que Mme Ruth Baumann, adjointe administrative à la FEO. Mon nom est Ronald Robert. Je suis le président de la Fédération. Je vais commencer avec une introduction.
La Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario représente plus de 530 000 membres oeuvrant dans les écoles publiques et séparées de langue française et de langue anglaise de la province. Nos commentaires portant sur le projet de loi 34 ont l'appui des cinq filiales de la Fédération : l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.
La partie I du projet de loi 34 propose une série d'amendements à la Loi sur l'éducation. Pour plus de clarté, nous avons réorganisé par thème la présentation des amendements déposés par le ministre de l'Éducation et de la Formation.
Le comité trouvera cette réorganisation par thème dans la première colonne de notre mémoire. La colonne du centre fournit le texte des amendements proposés et/ou le texte des sections de la Loi sur l'éducation qui sont affectées par les amendements. Dans la partie I du projet de loi 34, les amendements proposés ainsi que les commentaires de la FEO portent sur les thèmes suivants : (a) les mesures de coopération ; (b) la maternelle ; (c) l'éducation des adultes ; (d) les congés de maladie ; (e) les paiements de péréquation.
Les parties II et III du projet de loi 34 sont très brèves et ne sont pas directement reliées à la Loi sur l'éducation. La FEO ne fera pas de commentaires sur ces deux parties.
Bill 34 will have a significant impact on the lives of teachers in the publicly funded education system in Ontario. OTF is compelled to state that it is troubled and concerned that the federation and its affiliates have been given little time to present their views on this important piece of legislation. The Ontario Teachers' Federation cannot begin the present brief in response to Bill 34 without expressing its concern about the method of consultation afforded to the teachers' organizations.
Bill 34 has issues of major significance to the 130,000 members of OTF. It has been the past practice of the Legislature that OTF and the affiliates each are given time to present their views and issues during committee hearings. This has not been the case for Bill 34. We believe the decision to give OTF and the affiliates one hour in total for response to Bill 34 is unacceptable. We further request that the representatives of all three parties meet with OTF to discuss ways to ensure that the time given in future is fair and adequate.
No member of OTF or of this committee can deny the importance of quality education for each and every citizen of this province and for this province as a community. Ontario and its citizens have the right to and deserve an education system which is of the highest quality. Affordability of education in Ontario is a worthy objective, but it must not be achieved at the expense of its quality. OTF believes that little thought or analysis has been given to the negative impact that many of the proposed amendments in Bill 34 will have on the quality of education in Ontario.
1650
OTF is confident that a high quality education system for Ontario is a priority for every member of this committee. For that reason, we urge each and every member of the committee to give serious consideration to the comments of OTF presented here today and/or contained in this presentation.
Part A, page 1: The Ontario Teachers' Federation conditionally endorses the amendments of Bill 34 enabling school boards to enter into cooperative agreements with other school boards and/or other public institutions. Such agreements would permit a more rational sharing of facilities, equipment, transportation and a number of other support services, no doubt resulting in important reductions in education expenditures.
The potential of various employee groups being affected by cooperative agreements clearly exists. OTF believes it is incumbent upon school boards considering cooperative agreements to involve at the outset their various employee groups in the development of such agreements. OTF also believes the following principles must guide the development of cooperative agreements:
(a) The respect of the legal and contractual rights and obligations of all parties involved, including those rights and obligations that have been vested over time.
(b) The priority of people over economics; for example:
(i) Attrition should be the prime vehicle for downsizing,
(ii) The private sector should not be favoured over the public sector for the provision of services; quality and efficient services can be provided by the public sector without the necessity of using public funds to produce a profit for a private employer.
Part B, page 11, junior kindergarten: The Bill 34 amendments related to junior kindergarten will eliminate the requirement for school boards to operate junior kindergarten programs, therefore making the provision of such programs optional. Furthermore, the reductions in the funding of junior kindergarten programs do not leave an option for many school boards, a number of which have already made the decision to discontinue the program. The funding changes are a radical departure from the ministry policy of the past 30 years, which recognizes junior kindergarten students in the same way as all other elementary students.
OTF finds it inconceivable that the government in this day and age would still question the importance and value of early childhood education and ignore the number of national and international studies and reports that clearly indicate that early childhood education programs such as junior kindergarten provide every child with a level playing field of opportunity and experience irrespective of his or her background or abilities.
Based on the evidence from the various studies and reports, OTF believes that Ontario must not allow even a small number of its younger citizens to be undereducated at a time in their lives when the die is cast for their intellectual, emotional and societal development. The work of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, headed by Dr Fraser Mustard, in the area of human development makes very clear the importance of early intervention and early support to an individual's life prospects. OTF cannot believe that Ontario would refuse to understand that junior kindergarten programs are important and crucial to the province's societal and economic future.
Governments from Ontario's three political parties have supported the provision of junior kindergarten programs. In 1983, Dr Bette Stephenson, Minister of Education in the PC government of Bill Davis, established the early primary education project, which recommended in 1985 that school boards be required to provide junior kindergarten programs. In 1989, the Liberal government of David Peterson announced that school boards would be mandated to provide junior kindergarten programs. And the existing provisions in the Education Act were established by the New Democratic Party government in 1993.
OTF believes the Bill 34 amendments related to junior kindergarten will negatively affect the lives of Ontario's children. Therefore, OTF requests that this committee urge the government to maintain in the Education Act the requirement for school boards to operate junior kindergarten programs and to maintain, at the least, the existing level of funding for such programs.
I will now call upon Susan to continue with the other parts of the presentation.
Ms Susan Langley: If you would turn to page 14, section C, adult education: Bill 34 amendments pertaining to adult education will have a negative impact on the availability of, access to and quality of the adult education programs being offered to meet the needs of over 80,000 daytime students aged 21 and over.
The need for and success of adult education programs in Ontario is very well established. OTF believes the success of these programs is due to the fact that the publicly funded secondary schools best meet the needs of the adult students in these programs.
Some of the amendments in Bill 34 reduce the funding available for adult education programs and cause their elimination by some school boards. Other amendments will allow school boards to prevent adult students from attending regular day school. This will result in large numbers of young adult citizens, including single parents on family benefits, immigrants who need upgrading, and the many who need a second chance to become fulfilled and productive citizens, being denied access to quality programs that meet their needs and that are offered by trained and qualified professional staff.
OTF believes it is critical and important to Ontario's societal and economic future to maintain and adequately fund the adult education programs being provided in this province's publicly funded secondary schools. Adult education has been and must continue to be an important component of a high quality education system in Ontario. For that reason, OTF requests that this committee urge the government to remove from Bill 34 all those sections that have the effect of lowering adult education funding and that allow school boards to prevent adult students from attending regular day school.
Page 18, section D, sick leave: OTF strongly opposes the Bill 34 amendments which pertain to sick leave. These proposed amendments will delete the statutory entitlement of teachers to any sick leave with pay without offering any replacement. Sick leave is a particularly important entitlement for teachers because every day they work in an environment which exposes them to sources of infection, illness or disease.
Sick leave plans are not unique to education. Large numbers of employees in other professions, in community and health services and in industry, benefit from comparable sick leave plans. Clearly this set of Bill 34 amendments is perceived by teachers as a vindictive action by the government against a particular group. It does nothing either to achieve savings or to create the healthy climate necessary for the delivery of quality education in Ontario. OTF therefore requests that this committee urge the government to withdraw the Bill 34 amendments on sick leave provisions.
Page 21, section E, equalization payments: OTF is aware that on this issue its affiliates have varying and at times differing opinions. As the umbrella organization, OFT will not be commenting on this part of Bill 34.
1700
Mr Robert: Page 23: The federation is confident that the committee will give serious consideration to the comments of this presentation. OTF concludes by restating its belief that the affordability of education is a worthy objective but that it must not be achieved at the expense of its quality, for the sake of Ontario's children and adults and for the future of this province.
Avant de passer aux questions, j'aimerais porter un autre chapeau, à titre de président sortant de l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, où je vais vous parler de deux problèmes particuliers que nous avons, comme francophones, avec le présent projet de loi.
Notre problème majeur avec les maternelles n'est pas avec la partie du projet de loi qui rend facultative la prestation du programme de maternelle. En effet, 99 % de nos écoles francophones avaient des maternelles avant qu'elles ne soient obligatoires. Notre préoccupation tient au fait que les réductions de subventions rendent leur métier précaire, non seulement à cause de la réduction qui affecte tous les conseils, mais aussi parce que les conseils scolaires de langue française sont particulièrement pauvres au niveau du pouvoir de taxation locale.
Nous soutenons que ce programme est important pour les francophones car il ajoute une année d'apprentissage linguistique et culturel en français. Sinon, nous perdons une année, ce qui rendra encore plus difficile l'apprentissage de la langue française en milieu minoritaire.
Les francophones de l'Ontario furent permis les premiers à instituer les maternelles justement à cause de leur importance culturelle et linguistique. L'utilité des maternelles pour les minorités linguistiques est d'une importance capitale pour assurer le meilleur départ possible à l'apprentissage. Nous craignons que les chances de succès des jeunes francophones seront diminuées avec la réduction du financement et l'abolition éventuelle des maternelles. Déjà, les résultats aux tests provinciaux démontrent que les jeunes francophones ont une bonne cote à remonter. Ce projet de loi n'offre aucun espoir aux francophones de notre province.
L'éducation des adultes : Lors de notre présentation devant la Commission royale de l'Ontario, l'AEFO affirmait les points suivants :
On doit également se féliciter des progrès réalisés en ce qui concerne la formation des adultes. Grâce en grande partie à l'accueil et à l'appui reçus au cours d'éducation permanente, des adultes de tout âge ont vu leur rêve se réaliser en se présentant à leur propre remise de diplôme.
Plusieurs femmes ont pu également se recycler et contempler un retour dans le monde du travail. Ces succès ne doivent pas être passés sous silence. Au contraire, on doit élargir les possibilités d'éducation aux adultes pour la rendre plus facilement accessible et diversifiée.
Devant le rapport Accords qui fait état du taux élevé d'analphabétisme chez les francophones en Ontario, un nombre accru de cours d'alphabétisation doit également être offert en français dans tous les coins de la province. Ceci accéléra l'objectif d'alphabétisation globale qui permettra à toutes nos citoyennes et à tous nos citoyens de s'épanouir pleinement.
Encore une fois, ce projet de loi rendrait la tâche plus difficile pour les adultes francophones. Tous les programmes pour les adultes francophones sont en voie d'être fermés. La récente création d'écoles secondaires francophones a contribué grandement à réduire le taux d'analphabétisme chez les francophones. Cependant, un bon nombre d'adultes qui ne les avaient pas fréquentées et des jeunes en raccrochage utilisaient le programme subventionné pour se recycler vers le marché du travail. L'abolition des subventions à ce programme coûtera autant, sinon d'avantage, à la province en frais de bien-être social et autres coûts sociaux. Une population qui n'est pas suffisamment éduquée coûte chère et ne rapporte pas de dividendes au trésor provincial.
Le projet de loi 34, tel qu'il est présenté, réduira de façon significative les occasions pour se prendre en main. L'AEFO vous demande de ne pas faire une décision aveugle en ce qui concerne ces deux programmes. La question francophone mérite une attention particulière, et c'est avec cet empressement que nous vous demandons de le faire.
Mr Wildman: I'd just like to concentrate on the two major issues, as they relate to students, of teachers in this province, that is the effects of this legislation on early childhood education and adult education.
The minister in his leadoff said this legislation was to help schools do better with less. He said there would be reductions outside the classroom and not in the classroom, that 47% of spending by boards takes place outside the classroom. Since he's not here, I want to put this forward so you know what he had to say. He also said the strategy is for excellence, accountability and affordability in education.
Having said that, how do you respond to his comments about reductions being outside the classroom, doing better with less, as it relates to early childhood education and junior kindergarten, both for anglophones and francophones in this province?
Mr Robert: I think junior kindergarten is the class-room and the fact that the minister is putting these ideas forward is fine, but as we said in our brief, we have to want to maintain the quality of education and to make sure we are doing the sound decisions. I would say right now that the minister is running after the dollar, the bottom line, rather than the quality of education and the negative impact it will have on students. It is clear in Ontario, not only the francophone students but also the young anglophone students, that we need a level playing field and junior kindergarten provides that. By abolishing the financing, it's clear what's going to happen across the province. We've got an example that there are already 24 boards that have decided to cancel.
Mr Wildman: In regard to that, the minister was very careful to point out that the Conservative government is only carrying out the Tory commitment in the election campaign to make junior kindergarten optional. The term he used was "to restore" the junior kindergarten program as an optional program. How is it that 24 boards, most of whom have had long-standing junior kindergarten programs, are not taking up the option to continue that program?
Mr Robert: I'll let Ruth handle that.
Ms Ruth Baumann: If I can go back to the earlier part of your question and get to the latter part in doing so, I think part of what's happening with this legislation is that junior kindergarten and programs for adults are being redefined as outside of the classroom. That's part of what we see happening, because in fact --
Mr Wildman: They take place in a school yard?
Ms Baumann: Junior kindergarten students have been recognized for funding purposes in all of the time of optionality in the same way as full-time equivalent students, half-time, if it's a half-time program, as grade 3 students or grade 4 students or grade 5 students. In the last few years there has been an incentive program for junior kindergarten, but the historic funding of JK programs, going back at least 30 years and as far as we've been able to figure out, we think all the way back to the Second World War, when junior kindergarten programs first began to appear in the province, was that if a board offered junior kindergarten, those students counted as full-time equivalent students. They are now defined outside of that full-time equivalent student base on which the funding is done.
The same thing is being done with the adults over 21 who were previously counted if they were enrolled full-time or part-time, as full-time or full-time equivalent students for the board's overall funding, and now will be hived off into a completely separate category and treated to a separate rate of grant.
Mr Wildman: Finally, the adult education --
The Acting Chair: Time. If we can now move to the government members for their four minutes.
Mr Pettit: Thank you very much for your presentation. I take it you're aware of the current fiscal situation of this government, in terms of $100-billion debt and $10-billion deficit. I assume you're aware of that.
Mr Robert: Yes, and I take it you're aware that we did not realize this deficit overnight; it was done over a 40-year period.
1710
Mr Pettit: Given the fact that health care and interest to service the debt take up roughly 50% of the government's budget, it would seem to me that education is obviously the next place, if not the first place, we have to look at to make cuts. Would you agree with that?
Mr Robert: I would say you have to be very careful how you're going to go about making the cuts and that you just can't use the shotgun approach, and I think that's what we've done in this case.
Mr Pettit: But would you agree that we do have to look at education, given that the two I first mentioned are fixed costs for the government?
Mr Robert: I say yes, they are, but we also have to be careful how we go about doing it.
Mr Pettit: Given that, I'm just wondering what the OTF is prepared to do, if anything, to be part of the solution.
Mr Wildman: You're the problem, in other words.
Mr Pettit: No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just asking, what are you prepared to do? What would you do specifically, then, to make the necessary reductions?
Mr Robert: To answer the beginning of your question, I'd first of all start by saying you cannot go about doing the business you want to go about doing without trying to establish a climate in the province of Ontario to see what can come out of discussions; right now you have not. The government's approach has been, "Let's get on the steamroller and let's roll, because we made a promise and we want to be elected the next time." That's the direction this government has taken right now.
What advantage do we have, can you give us right now to say, "Yes, it's worthwhile for us to sit down and talk with you; yes, we're going to try to do some things differently but better"? Right now, you're not giving us even that option, you're just saying, "We've got to meet the deadline, and we're moving on." The sick leave provision is a clear example.
Mr Skarica: I just want to address the lack of meetings that you allege. You'll recall I met with you on short notice just before the College of Teachers amendments were considered. I wanted to tell you that many of the amendments that were made were as a result of meetings and recommendations that you made, and I personally found them very helpful. I'm going to encourage you to get together with us more often, because the door is always open. For me, I have to tell you that it was a matter of personal disappointment that the first meeting with the minister was only 10 minutes and there was another one cancelled due to the protest days. I think it's to all our benefits to open up the lines of communication.
But I do take issue with the fact that you blame it on us, because I suggest that some of the blame has to rest with you as well. As I've indicated, when we have met with you, and myself personally with the College of Teachers, I've found the meetings very helpful. Many of the amendments came as a result of the materials and discussions that we had.
Mr Robert: I'll let Ruth give an answer to that because she's been the political adviser for OTF for quite a few years, and so she's got a better background of some of this information.
Ms Baumann: Actually, it's a combination of Mr Skarica's question and Mr Pettit's question I want to get at. We met with representatives of the ministry quite early in the fall around the question, for instance, of junior kindergarten. We were not consulted similarly around the adult education question. Our answer was very clear about junior kindergarten. We knew cuts were coming, and we knew there would be cuts. We don't have to be happy about them. We said clearly to the government at the time, to the representatives of the ministry, that we did not think the junior kindergarten program should be singled out. Would we suggest, for instance, cancelling grade 5? No. Or grade 10 English? Nobody has it any more.
I think there's a valid comparison to be made there, both with the provision of programs for JK and the provision of programs for adult learners. What has happened in this legislation that we're here before you on today is major changes for both of those groups of learners that are not dissimilar to what it would be like to decide tomorrow that we didn't need school for 10-year-olds for that year any more, thank you very much.
Mr Miclash: I want to go back to page 2 of your presentation, where you say, "The priority of people over economics...attrition should be the prime vehicle for downsizing." I have to say this has been a major issue in a community in my riding where 55 separate school board teachers were advised by letter earlier, two weeks ago -- 55 out of 87 -- that they would be redundant. This has really put a wrench into the system in Kenora, where they're suggesting that 55 of those teachers will not have jobs come September. Is there a better way of doing this?
Mr Robert: The question is not an easy one, and I don't think there's one suitable answer for all of the areas of the province, because everywhere it's a little different, and so we have to be careful when we go about doing this.
We've been in a downsizing mode for three years in Ontario. We've lost 7,000 teachers in the last three years, through the social contract. Now we're going through another phase and people seem to be duffing it off as though boards are overdoing it, but I'm going to say this right now: We've never seen, never in the province of Ontario, so many pink slips being handed out. It's a normal process, yes, but not the numbers we're seeing now, and to simply say boards are doing it on purpose and everything will fall into place -- it won't just fall into place. We'll see in September. We know it won't be the same.
Mr Miclash: In terms of the loss of teachers over the next two school years, what is your estimate in terms of the additional loss of teachers? You mentioned 7,000 through the social contract. How many more are we going to see?
Mr Robert: This year we'd estimate in between 4,000 to 7,000 maybe in the first year and then depending what's going to happen after that, but the other thing we have to look at -- this is where it becomes important for us to stop and look before we make the next step -- is, what's the impact on different localities. I know there are teachers in my area who are teaching with 35, 36 kids in the classroom, and these are kids with integration. In other words, where we had special-ed classes for these students who were identified, they are now in the regular classroom. The services to help these children and to help the teacher are no longer there, and that's a reality.
You're saying, "Oh, yes, but then we're going to do this and do this," but the teacher cannot. When you have 35 kids and there are kids who have -- I think if you take time to read Fraser Mustard, The Importance of an Early Beginning, it becomes more important for us to make sure we maintain junior kindergarten programs and early childhood education to help the child out. As teachers, the morale has never been any lower, and I don't think it's going to get any better.
Mr Miclash: I thank you for those comments then. You mentioned the morale of -- excuse me. Popcorn.
Mr Robert: It's a choking issue all right.
Mr Miclash: Yes, it's a choking issue. I shouldn't have had popcorn for lunch.
I'd just like to thank you for your comments and note that it's not been necessarily an issue just for teachers alone, but I attended two schools last Thursday where the students had left the school, of course, to protest what they know is coming in terms of the cuts, as well, to their system.
The Acting Chair: The next part of the presentation is the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation. Please come forward. We have about 20 minutes for your part of the presentation, which will include, of course, any time that you may leave for questions or comments by members of the committee, so if you can please introduce the members there with you and begin the presentation.
Mr Reg Ferland: Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity of presenting our thoughts and comments before you. With me today to my immediate left is the secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Dave Lennox; and to his left is Vivian McCaffrey, our government relations officer, and I'm Reg Ferland, the president of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation.
You have a copy of the brief and the history of the federation before you, so I will not take any of my time to review that. It is there before you for your perusal.
Bill 34 cannot be discussed without also examining the impact of the $400-million cut in the 1996 transfer payments to school boards. The $400-million reduction in transfer payments will actually amount to an $800-million reduction in school board budgets over the 1996-97 school year, and this amount cannot be extracted without seriously affecting the classroom, no matter how you define it or try to circumvent it.
1720
I would like to point out that this round of school board cuts is coming following four years of downsizing and cuts to programs. Boards began seriously cutting not just administrative budgets but also staffing and programs in 1992 when they received less than inflation increases in transfer payments. Then followed the social contract and the expenditure control program.
It is irresponsible of the provincial government to continue to mislead the public about the so-called fat in the system and to publicly promote teachers' compensation and working conditions for further cuts. The federation has reports from 35 public school boards to date, which indicate that 2,988 elementary teachers have received layoff notices. While a few boards have rescinded these notices and others will ultimately be rescinded once boards confirm the numbers of retiring teachers, these data forbode an unprecedented reduction in school staffing which will mean larger class sizes and a reduction in programs -- clearly no choice.
Preliminary data regarding school board budgets indicate that cuts in elementary teachers will be the result of eliminating junior kindergarten, reducing teacher librarians, curriculum consultants, speech teachers, English-as-a-second-language teachers, and special education teachers and consultants. Cuts to elementary programs include the elimination of elementary music, design and technology, outdoor education and swimming programs.
Boards are also eliminating noon-hour supervisors and drastically reducing the numbers of teaching assistants, educational support personnel, occasional teacher use, staff development budgets, and custodial and secretarial positions. The loss of these positions and programs will mean significant additional responsibilities and stress for classroom teachers and, as important, in many cases, a reduction in program and professional support for students.
The federation is also alarmed at the number of school boards which are moving to twin schools or to assign responsibility for two schools to one principal in order to reduce the number of principals. School safety will be compromised as fewer adults are available to provide appropriate supervision, and teachers lose the backup which the on-site administrator has provided in the past.
School boards are faced with difficult choices, and a number of the boards have been forced to pass on the cuts in provincial funding to local ratepayers. Page 4 of our brief provides a preliminary look at public boards which have passed 1996 budgets which include a mill rate increase.
Of particular concern to OPSTF is the government decision to cut $110 million from the junior kindergarten budget and to make the program optional. The change in funding for JK, as well as the overall cut in transfer payments, is making the so-called option a limited one indeed. The government has proceeded with this policy in spite of acknowledging the value of early childhood education programs.
Appendix A of our brief outlines the status of JK among public boards, of which the federation is aware as we speak. The fact that as many boards as are listed have in fact decided to keep JK is a testimony to the importance attributed to the program by parents and by educators. Many boards which have decided to continue JK have only been able to do so by digging into financial reserves, cutting other programs, raising student-teacher ratios and/or raising local taxes.
Bill 34 also repeals the provision of the Education Act which establishes that teachers shall have 20 days of sick leave annually. This provision is an example of the government's blatant targeting of teacher benefits in order to divert public attention from the impact of the government's funding cuts. Teachers are an easy target for a government desperately seeking ways to reduce public expenditures.
We have in our brief a chart which identifies other professions and their sick leave days, and also we make reference to the percentages of days used by teachers across this province and one will quickly see that it is a very minor number.
Leading up to the toolkit announcement, the government did its best to get public support in its attack on teachers' salaries, teacher preparation time and sick leave benefits. In addition to manipulative opinion polling and focus group testing, the Minister of Education and Training has adopted the strategy of organizing set-up questions in the Legislature to provide him with a platform to publicly attack teacher seniority, retirement benefits and the teachers' pension plan.
Mr Wildman: Surely not.
Mr Miclash: They wouldn't do that.
Mr Ferland: That's the way I see it on TV.
Then an outline on page 9 of our brief demonstrates that teachers do not abuse sick leave, nor do they have an unreasonable entitlement. In past years boards have failed to adequately fund teachers' retirement benefits, and the government, which has placed school boards in a financial squeeze with funding cuts, is attempting to relieve that pressure by giving the boards the tools to strip teacher benefits.
Finally, I would like to speak to the issue of the provincial tax grab from Metro Toronto in Ottawa. This move is provincial pooling through the back door and is being done without province-wide reform of education finance and without full public debate.
In conclusion, Bill 34 proposes to weaken the three fundamental cornerstones of public education: junior kindergarten, adult education and the autonomy of local taxation. This targeting of two programs at either end of the system is a cynical move designed to anger the fewest number of people and thereby create the least possible political heat. It is shortsighted politics.
Young children will lose the long-term benefits of an early childhood program, and adults will have less opportunity for education and training to ensure a future for themselves where they can make a positive contribution and be a valuable contributing member of this society.
It is an equally cynical move to target the two urban boards in a negative grant situation and to force their ratepayers to fund other school boards in the absence of rational and province-wide education financial reform. The funding cut to education and the provision of Bill 34 represents a significant restructuring of education. It is proceeding too quickly. There has not been adequate analysis of the impact or sufficient public debate.
It is quite apparent that a majority of concerned citizens are quite leery of the reduction of provincial taxes that we are expecting in the next few days if these taxes are taken away from the very foundation of society that they believe in, such as education. Once again, students of this province are being used as pawns.
We urge the government to reconsider Bill 34, to extend the time lines and to remove the punitive aspects to education and the teachers of this province.
At this time, Chair, we will gladly entertain questions.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. The minister in his lead-off remarks said that he was opposed, and the government is opposed, to having local boards make up the differences in cuts through local taxation, and yet on page 4 of your brief you list a preliminary list of boards that have indicated mill rate increases. I see there Hamilton 3.16, Lincoln 2.9, Niagara South 2.8, Sudbury 5.6, and west Parry Sound 3.6. Those are significant tax increases.
Would you, as a representative of a teachers' federation, take the position that boards are being irresponsible in moving in this direction rather than making deeper cuts to children's education?
1730
Mr Ferland: No, I would not take that position; I would take the opposite view, that trustees who were elected on the basis of delivering quality education to their students are now realizing that it is impossible to do so without affecting the quality of education in the classroom. Despite the request of the minister and the government not to go to local taxation, they have turned to their only resource -- since the government is reducing their grants, to continue to provide some programs which are acceptable as a standard they have gone to their tax base -- and that's the taxpayer.
Mr Wildman: So in essence, the income tax cut will be eaten up by property tax increases in many areas.
Mr Ferland: That would be my estimate as well in many of the areas across this province.
Mr Wildman: The only other question I have is in regard to another aspect of the government's position, and the minister reiterated it today. He estimates that 47% of school board expenditures, on average, are outside of the classroom and that these savings -- $400 million, or working out annualized to $800 million or more -- can be made outside of the classroom. Yet you say it will inevitably mean larger class sizes and a number of special-education programs being eliminated. Why is that? He believes it can be done outside the classroom and you're saying it's going to mean larger class sizes and less ability of boards to provide for special needs of students.
Mr Ferland: We use straight math; he uses magical math.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have just a quick couple of questions. In 1993, the province required that junior kindergarten be offered. Are there still boards not offering it in the province as a requirement under the act?
Ms Vivian McCaffrey: There were 22 school boards, public and separate, that were given an extension.
Mr O'Toole: That were still fighting it or resisting it?
Ms McCaffrey: They were phasing them in.
Mr O'Toole: When I was a trustee, it was the biggest issue. They relentlessly resisted implementing junior kindergarten, even though we'd gone through how it was funded. I just want to establish that.
The other thing is, is there today a provincial curriculum, a set of curriculum guidelines for junior kindergarten?
Mr David Lennox: There is the work that had been done in the early years and there is the common curriculum that only goes from grades 1 to 9. There is not a standard curriculum.
Mr O'Toole: That answers my question. Thank you.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): If we left the status quo, if we didn't make any cuts at all, could you please tell me where you think the money would come from to continue this government?
Mr Lennox: My comment to you is that I don't think the status quo is acceptable either. The comment we made was that going this far this fast is not appropriate.
Mr Preston: What do you think of a situation where 400 people are given their pink slips, all but 88 are hired back now and probably the other 88 will be hired back for September? What do you think of that scenario? Did that engender a little bit of malcontent in the teaching profession?
Mr Ferland: Needless to say, it did.
Mr Preston: Yes, it did.
Mr Ferland: It's a scenario that did not have to happen.
Mr Preston: There were 400 layoff notices, all but 88 rehired already and probably the other 88 will be rehired by September.
Mr Ferland: Why did it have to happen?
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): You made the comment that the cut is too fast, too deep, and about not going at this reconstruction in an appropriate way. It seems to me that most of the board's moneys are in salaries, somewhere around 75% to 80%. I wonder what kinds of recommendations you would make to reduce the spending, where expenditure reductions could be made, given that salaries take up most of the budget that school boards work with.
Mr Ferland: I believe that education is a service -- I don't want to use the word "industry"; I just about said that -- to the community, and as such we need individuals to present and deliver that service. As far as I know, not too many people in this world work for nothing. When you go to the grocery store you still need money. We deliver a service and we expect to be paid for that service according to our qualifications and the level of service we provide.
Mr Miclash: I just want to pick up on the question I choked up over during the last presentation: the attrition and the demoralization that goes on in terms of declaring their redundancy. You will know that I was in education and declared redundant during my first three years, three years in a row, and it goes back to Mr Preston's question: Is there a better way?
Mr Lennox: It is a tough question, and there isn't a better way. The problem in the province this time was that because of the timing and shakeout of the announcement, many boards overreacted because they couldn't figure out their budgets. They didn't have the necessary information and as a result -- Mr Preston is correct -- in Oxford I would say several hundred teachers were declared redundant, up to year 12 on the seniority list. Now they're back down to year seven.
The traumatic experience of that is there. There has to be a better way, but the boards have to have more information to work with sooner so that we can find that better way.
Mr Miclash: Is the Ontario Teachers' Federation trying to gather any data on what has happened in education, say, over the last month? I've had throughout my riding maybe four or five schools where students have actually walked out and have missed class time. I made it very clear to the schools I attended last Thursday that there could be consequences for this. Has OTF collected any data or is it going to around the number of students who have missed classes over misinformation, or as you say the lack of information that's come through to the boards?
Mr Ferland: First of all, we are not OTF; we are one of the affiliates of OTF and certainly would make any information we have available to OTF. I believe the issue that you address is more of a secondary nature than an elementary one. Our affiliate deals mainly with the elementary side of it. However, we are aware of the comments you make and of the number of students walking out. If OTF is not behind me here today, we will certainly bring that question to OTF and see if there are some statistics that can be accumulated.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for the presentation.
TAXPAYERS COALITION OF PEEL
The Acting Chair: Our next presentation is the Taxpayers Coalition of Peel. Welcome, gentlemen, and if you can please introduce ourselves. You have a half-hour total, which will include any time you choose to leave for questions or comments on a rotation basis from the three parties. You have the floor.
Mr Blaine Mitton: My name is Blaine Mitton, chair of the education committee for Taxpayers Coalition of Peel.
Mr Norm Calder: My name is Norm Calder, chair of regional and provincial initiatives for the Taxpayers Coalition of Peel.
We want to thank you for the opportunity to appear this evening and to express our opinions as they relate to Bill 34 and any amendments to the Education Act.
Mr Mitton: At the outset, we would like to make it clear that this bill does not even begin to reflect the needs for change in education in Ontario. The document is written in extremely confusing legalese, and for that purpose we will seek our own direction on the subject at hand if you will bear with us. We know that somewhere in our statements we will touch upon the contents of the amendments.
1740
Mr Mitton: Ontario will have a $125-billion debt before we balance the budget.
Mr Calder: Ontario does have a $9.5-billion deficit.
Mr Mitton: Ontario must achieve a minimum $5-billion surplus if we seriously want to pay down the debt.
Mr Calder: This province pays about 2% more for borrowed money than if we were debt-free, compared to Japan, which owes no money outside of its own country. They have literally no natural resources, and Canada, which should in this respect be the wealthiest country in the world, is on the brink of bankruptcy.
Mr Mitton: Canada has the highest personal debt, a record of 90% of disposable income.
Mr Calder: Canada has experienced over 70,000 bankruptcies this past year.
Mr Mitton: Canada has the lowest housing starts in over 30 years.
Mr Calder: Canada has 9.5% unemployment, and the number is climbing.
Mr Mitton: Canada competes with a global market that employs skilled staff making $6 per day. Look at the big-box stores and see where many of the products are made.
Mr Calder: Ontario needs to cut $3.5 billion from education. Upwards to $8,400 to educate one student per year is extreme by world comparison -- $840,000 to educate 100 students annually. Imagine the entrepreneur given the opportunity to rent a building, hire two teachers and have them each teach a class of 50, as they did back in our day. What a terrific windfall. Why, one could even pay each teacher far more than by today's standards and still end up with a pot of gold.
Mr Mitton: We believe that the job can be done for a maximum of $500,000, particularly when the infrastructure is already in place. Why is it not done at this cost? In view of the fact that we elect trustees to manage the fiscal aspect of education, it would appear that they are mismanaging our finances and in our view should be eliminated. Private industry would have made this decision years ago.
Mr Calder: The Fraser Institute indicates that the average income for people between the ages of 20 to 30 years old has fallen to 72% of their counterparts in 1981, as measured in 1993 constant dollars. That is why our housing starts are so low. Should we really think that this group will pay for our unfunded Canada pension plan or pay for this inflated, out-of-control, self-serving system? Give us a break.
Mr Mitton: We have taxed away our ability to create wealth. Our education system is so mediocre that 90% of us never read a good book all year and 1% buys all the worthwhile books. Who do we think is going to work the so-called information society? This may have something to do with our education system. One could believe that more time is spent on the $1.6-billion video industry than is spent, in terms of time, with our education system.
Mr Calder: Our students deserve a better education. We rank eighth in the quality of education when compared to our major competitors, and that is not acceptable.
Mr Mitton: Earl Manners, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, says, "We are totally out of touch with the reality of schools." He is a large part of the problem and far from being part of the solution.
Cut our education costs by $3.5 billion and we will have a far better, more effective and efficient system that will provide our children with a far better education. Discipline and respect can complement our need to reduce costs. There's absolutely no correlation between spending and results.
Mr Calder: The GTA exercise is nothing more than a way for municipal politicians to get around truly dealing with a Metro Toronto assessment problem and our general need to reduce the cost of education to the maximum $5,000 per student from the present high of $8,400.
Mr Mitton: We need to become competitive and develop a work ethic. There is no free lunch, nor should there be. There are only two main problems that need fixing, and we do not have to reorganize government to fix them.
Mr Calder: Number one is to fix the general assessment problem, particularly as it relates to Metro.
Mr Mitton: Number two is to solve the high cost of education. Remember, we pay $840,000 to educate 100 kids. That kind of extravagance borders on fraud to the taxpayers.
Mr Calder: We can solve the first problem by employing market value assessment or actual value assessment, but that can only happen if we solve problem number 2, by cutting the cost of education.
Mr Mitton: Unfortunately, what with all the politicizing and jousting with the Golden report, they did not even address the second problem, which consumes more than 65% of our property taxes. This would indicate that the report is fundamentally flawed, and that being the case, we taxpayers cannot accept this kind of irresponsible action on their part, nor should we ignore it. It matters not what their mandate was. Where was the good judgement and common sense?
Mr Calder: Remember this: We are living today on tomorrow's money. Who is going to be able to afford the costly and overbloated infrastructures of today tomorrow? If we do not handle the debts we have created presently, we will have sacrificed the future of our children. We are all charged with the responsibility to fix today's problems. Who should be held accountable for our collective problems in education?
Mr Mitton: School boards can be held accountable, since they are responsible for the overall management of a dysfunctional system which, in the majority of cases, is truly managed and directed by self-serving bureaucracies. Get rid of the boards. Our motto is the ABCs: Abolish boards completely. Not only have we been historically faced with their increasing demands on the public purse; we will now be faced with the effects of their newest approach to financing their continued existence: education development charges. Wow, how creative. What effect will it have on our stumbling economy?
Mr Calder: It will restrict growth; reduce our ability to create wealth.
Mr Mitton: It will add at least another $2,000 to $3,000 to the cost of a new home when, as we have just explained, housing starts are at a 30-year low and incomes are falling.
Mr Calder: It will restrict our ability to attract new businesses in the world market. It costs over $108,000 in development charges to develop one acre of land. That's in Peel. This does not include the cost of a building.
Mr Mitton: Education development charges are simply another form of tax, a tax that restricts growth and is in contradiction to the present government policy not to increase taxes.
Mr Calder: As stated earlier, we believe the amendments to the Education Act in Bill 34 hardly even scratch the surface of the massive problems that need to be addressed in education reform. It's easy for us to appear here before you to criticize, but that is not why we are here today. We want to be a part of the solution, not the problem. We indicated at the start that we are both members of the Taxpayers Coalition of Peel, but it should be noted that we are unpaid volunteers who achieve their rewards through creating a better community; no vested interests, so let's cut to the chase.
Mr Mitton: What are we going to do?
Mr Calder: Cut the cost of education by $3.5 billion.
Mr Mitton: Fix the assessment problem.
Mr Calder: What will our benefits be?
Mr Mitton: Hundreds of thousands on fixed incomes will be able to retain their homes because property taxes will be more affordable.
Mr Calder: An increase in the number of housing starts beyond any previous records, which in turn will stimulate the overall economy.
Mr Mitton: Demonstrate to the world that we're indeed maîtres chez nous, masters of our own house, and capable of turning potential disaster into success.
Mr Calder: How do we fix education?
Mr Mitton: Abolish boards completely. One system can teach reading, writing and arithmetic to all religious and ethnic backgrounds.
Mr Calder: Direct one system from a central control at the ministry.
Mr Mitton: How will the taxpayer gain?
Mr Calder: Half the cost of transportation.
Mr Mitton: Elimination of two multi-million-dollar layers of bureaucracy.
Mr Calder: Eliminate external libraries. Joe Public should enjoy the use of the more abundant school facilities. More huge savings.
Mr Mitton: Elimination and sale of tremendous real estate holdings. Properties that presently house boards are very valuable.
Mr Calder: Principals will manage their own operations and be more accountable to the public.
Mr Mitton: Ministry to provide a standard curriculum to be taught at each level using a single mythology.
Mr Calder: Class sizes can be expanded. This would eliminate the need for the present housing problem of students and eliminate portables.
Mr Mitton: Children of all ages can be introduced to a computer at each desk.
Mr Calder: Teachers will no longer need to complain of the preparation workload.
1750
Mr Mitton: To illustrate all of the benefits would be a tremendous undertaking. However, we believe you get the picture. Understand that today's education is out of touch with today's world. Our children are not being prepared to compete in the global market because the system is holding them back. We could inspire far more interest in education on behalf of the students. Remember the $1.6-billion video industry? By giving them the tools of today, this great interest would generate more respect and reduce the rate of crime.
Mr Calder: Our aspirations are attainable.
Mr Mitton: How can we make a statement like that? Who are we to say it is all attainable? Why? Because it is already happening. The Calgary Board of Education, notwithstanding a $25-million reduction in its funding last year, produced a $5-million surplus, and its cost per student was $5,030. By the way, they fund education through a provincial pool.
Mr Calder: The funding issue leads us appropriately to the conclusion of our submission. To recap --
Mr Mitton: Fix the assessment problems. Stop doing things bass ackwards.
Mr Calder: Reduce the costs of education by $3.5 billion, a 25% reduction in property taxes.
Mr Mitton: Forget the notion of development charges.
Mr Calder: Abolish boards completely; we call it the ABCs.
Mr Mitton: Direct the system through central control at the ministry.
Mr Calder: It all sounds too simple. But then, on reflection, each of the issues in Bill 34 is solved. There could be room for JK. There would be a centrally controlled cooperative financial system. There could be capacity for adult/continuing education programs, day or night, due to larger class sizes. Equalization payments are no longer a problem.
Mr Mitton: Who knows, the teachers' sick leave problem may be a thing of the past. Schools may become such a fun place to work they won't want to stay home.
Mr Calder: Are there precedents to any of this? Alberta funds education from a provincial pool, New Brunswick funds from general revenues, Manitoba has a single system for all religious and ethnic groups, and the province of Newfoundland, as you're all aware, has recently held a referendum to have one system.
Mr Mitton: Yes, it can be done.
Mr Calder: Thank you for your attention.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have about three minutes per caucus. I'll turn it over to the government members first.
Mr O'Toole: Just very quickly, education development charge: Do you not think that there really is some room, not to discourage the real estate market, but recognizing that if I'm in a municipality and I don't want growth and all the attendant problems with it, to up the development charge and there ends the problem? My point is this: If there's growth, generally it can be fundamentally the cause of capital cost. Who's going to pay? Should the existing residents pay or the new residents -- or the non-residential, the business? Who should pay?
Mr Mitton: It's an investment in the future when you put in these types of new systems for a new community. We think this charge is really significant. In fact, the development charge is higher than the value of property today.
Mr O'Toole: On soft services, I believe once the people get there, you will be able to tax them and pay the wages for the teachers and other people in the school. But for the hard services -- otherwise they can all move east.
Mr Mitton: Hard services are a big problem.
Mr O'Toole: That's what development charges generally are. Our direction is hard services only. Anyway, I want you to think about it.
Mr Calder: The issue is that if we are to encourage businesses within our community, we had better make it affordable, because they'll be going down south of the border or into another province, and I don't think any of us can afford to see that happen.
Mrs Munro: One of my questions was related to that. I guess it's rather difficult to argue to the existing members of a community that they should be paying for the investment of a new school for the people who haven't moved there yet. That's what you're talking about in essence, that the existing residents would --
Mr Mitton: We're taking it to a little more of an extreme than that. We're saying cut $3.5 billion. You can take it and, if you do it properly, there's a half a billion dollars to be invested back into computer systems and into the schools. All we're saying is that it's an overbloated system today. Calgary, which is in Canada, proves the point. I might add to that, if you compare Japan, if you compare half a dozen other countries, as a percentage of GNP, Canada is high up there. The savings across Canada in education costs, if you compared on a competitive basis, could be $9 billion to $12 billion.
Mrs Munro: I was going to ask one other question. When you talk about 50 children in a classroom, have you considered the kinds of problems of children with special needs?
Mr Calder: But don't magnify that as the problem. How many children are there on a percentage basis of the overall student body who have special needs by comparison? It's not significant.
Mr Patten: Can I ask you where you got that cost of some $8,000 per student?
Mr Calder: Metro is $8,400.
Mr Patten: That's not the overall one? There are about 10 different factors for Metro boards as to why it's more costly: having to deal with immigrant students, second-language education, all kinds of different things. Anyway, I won't touch that.
If you took $3.5 billion out of education -- this legislation just deals with secondary and elementary, and the total from the province is $4.1 billion for 1995-96 -- that would leave you with about $600 million. Do you think you could really manage the system with that amount?
Mr Calder: If you add elementary and secondary school numbers together, it comes close to $14 billion. We have the numbers from the Ministry of Education; they come from the ministry. The $3.5 billion is the incremental difference between the $5,000 number and the average of all the others times the number of students.
Mr Patten: If you added the computer -- you're suggesting a computer on the desk of every child, and we have roughly two million students throughout the province -- what would that come out to be? You're saying even if it was $500 per computer, that might do it for you, but that would be hard to attain.
Mr Mitton: Spread over the next four to five years. It's a capital cost and you invest for doing that, but if you don't make the cuts, you can't use some money for investment.
Mr Calder: How long has the computer been around? Why are we this late in implementing this sort of tool in the classroom? Why is this all only happening now?
Mr Patten: You don't want to add to the accumulated debt. You said we have accumulated debt, it's very difficult, but with the $5-billion tax cut, you're going to be adding $20 billion to the accumulated debt. Do you agree with that?
Mr Calder: I have no idea.
Mr Mitton: I didn't quite get your question; I'm sorry.
Mr Patten: To pay for the $5-billion tax rebate that the province is offering, the 30% provincial tax cut, the province will have to borrow money for that and add about $20 billion to accumulated debt over time.
Mr Calder: We don't know that that's a fact.
Mr Mitton: Many of us think the growth may change in the province; I hope that's true.
Mr Wildman: I wasn't intending to raise that, but for your information, in the House today the Premier agreed that over five years it would cost $5 billion to $20 billion for the tax break.
Having said that, I wanted to get clear exactly --
Mrs Johns: He didn't say --
Mr Wildman: He agreed that that was --
The Acting Chair: Order. Mr Wildman has the floor.
Mr Wildman: I don't want to get into an argument; that's what he said.
I want to be clear on your main presentation. You were quite straightforward. You said you wanted a centralized system. You used the term "single mythology" --
Interjection: Methodology.
Mr Wildman: I think you meant "methodology." You're talking about 50 students in a classroom, abolishing all the boards and taking $3.5 billion out of education. You'd do that in one year?
Mr Mitton: We used an illustration of what happened years ago when we used the 50; it doesn't have to be. It should happen very quickly, because we have a $9.5-billion deficit. We can't pay that down unless we make some cuts.
Mr Wildman: So you're not saying 50 students in a classroom?
Mr Mitton: That was an illustration that says that's where we came from; I came from it.
Mr Wildman: I went to a one-room school. I wouldn't suggest that students today should necessarily go to one-room schools.
Mr Calder: It's a good benchmark to aim for. I think the crux of the situation --
Interjection: Are you suggesting we go back to one-room schools?
Mr Wildman: No. I was saying I went to a one-room school, but I wouldn't suggest that people should today. They're saying they went to classes of 50, so perhaps --
Mr Calder: The crux of the thing is this: People are rejecting tax increases all over. This is London. You'll get the same sort of reaction from people all over this province who are fed up to the teeth with the continuing demands of the boards of education. In the region of Peel, two or three weeks ago, the increase --
Mr Wildman: Sorry, you didn't answer my question though. I asked if the $3.5 billion takeout would be in one year.
Mr Calder: No, not necessarily. They're all benchmarks.
Mr Wildman: Over what period of time would you suggest?
Mr Mitton: I would suggest it should be done quickly, in a one- to two-year period. You have to start and it's going to have be done in negotiations and so on. But bear in mind, we are using this as a competitive benchmark on a worldwide system. If we gave you $500,000 and 100 children, I'm sure you'd do a very fine job of educating them, or anybody in this room.
Mr Wildman: Your're right, the total expenditure, local and provincial, for education in Ontario is between $13 billion and $14 billion. You're suggesting that you would cut that to about $10 billion in perhaps two years.
Mr Mitton: Two to three years. I illustrate this in another way: It's done in industry. Stelco cut down from 14,000 employees to 7,000. They produce more steel today at higher quality. We're asking the same thing of the education system.
Mr Wildman: There's no question about that. Are you concerned about the amount of unemployment this might produce?
Mr Mitton: Dislocated people -- and I'm one of them -- get very creative. We find other ways to earn a living and we create wealth by doing so. I would hope that happens.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for the presentation.
Before we wrap up, I remind members of the committee this room will be used for some other meetings for the budget tomorrow morning, so please take your package with you. Don't leave it here or you're going to lose it. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1801.