Transcription du comité 1997-févr-24 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Consideration of Bill 104, An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 104, Loi visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte, l'efficacité et la qualité du système scolaire ontarien en permettant la réduction du nombre des conseils scolaires, en créant la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, chargée d'encadrer la transition vers le nouveau système, en prévoyant certaines questions liées aux élections de 1997 et en apportant d'autres améliorations à la Loi sur l'éducation et à la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales.

ROSEMARY BAYCROFT

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to try to start as promptly as possible this morning. Could I ask Rosemary Baycroft to come forward? Thanks very much for being here bright and early this morning. We have 10 minutes for your presentation, and if there's any time left over, the committee will ask you questions.

Ms Rosemary Baycroft: Do I just barge ahead or do I wait till people sit?

The Chair: Absolutely, just barge ahead.

Ms Baycroft: I'm speaking to you today, those of you who have shown up, as a parent with two children in the Toronto school board system for the past 15 years.

I'd like to speak in favour of the excellence of our education system and, in particular, the teaching staff who for so many years, in spite of overcrowded conditions and children with very differing needs, have managed to build self-esteem and learning skills in students from all walks of life.

I also speak to you as an education worker myself. We're the people who your government has referred to as the "bloated education bureaucracy." I'd like to talk to you about what it is we do. Members of my union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, as it's called, perform services which your government proposes to outsource. CUPE members are the administrative assistant in the school office, bandaging knees, listening to parents' concerns, while running an office with their other hand.

We're the caretakers, cleaners and matrons who keep the school clean and safe, find a lost ball, set up furniture and equipment and displays and still have time to talk to the children. We're the first person the children see when they come into the school to help them find their way to the office. We're also the engineers and the chief caretakers who keep the schools heated and maintain standards of comfort and safety. We do repairs and call in maintenance requests for qualified tradespeople, the electricians, carpenters and plumbers who fix the problems in the schools.

We are the people who purchase the goods, pay the bills, keep the records, process the payrolls, prepare budgets, talk to concerned parents, prepare social work reports, maintain student records, dispense TTC tickets, bursaries and busing information, advise on choice of school, deal with complaints, and arrange meetings, agendas, conferences and workshops. We are the people who prepare curriculum materials, conduct research, select and catalogue books for the school libraries. We provide research materials, printing services, binding, ordering of supplies and equipment. We are the draftspeople who draft the plans for renovations and repairs. We deal with emergencies and emergency repairs and maintain records of these. We provide health and safety materials to our staff and to the students, and we recommend the use of safe chemicals for cleaning in the schools.

We are also the instructors of the ESL continuing education classes. We register participants, provide guidance information, pick up and deliver furniture, equipment and hot lunches. We are the cooks who prepare the nutritious food. We purchase and service computers, install programs, train staff and students and serve as troubleshooters when there are problems.

We're also the school community advisers, helping parents access their school system, providing translations and helping organize meetings. We're in the classrooms as adult instructors in literacy, ESL, heritage languages and seniors' programs. We are also the education assistants helping teachers and students cope with expanding class size and the integration of children with very special needs.

Why would a government want to outsource such excellent services? How will outsourcing benefit the children in the classroom? Will strangers in the school halls doing repairs improve the classroom? Will principals and teachers becoming chief executive officers of a new school enterprise give them more time to spend with our students in the classrooms?

Will class text reading donated by Texaco improve the quality of education? Will plastic food lunches brought to you by Kraft Foods or Pepsi improve concentration in the classroom? How will eliminating education assistants improve quality of instruction for a learning-disabled or gifted student? Why should we be paying user fees for our continuing education programs which we already fund through direct taxation?

You, as the elected representatives of the taxpayers, have to consider whether private business enterprises whose main drive is for profit should control what our students learn, more specifically, American or other foreign businesses. What is in it for us?

Are there under-the-table profits to be made by government officials? Or will the bidders on curriculum modules give jobs to your children or our children or scholarships at American universities? We don't understand what the intent is. Or will our kids have to stay here in Canada, like the young people today, and work for part-time, dead-end jobs for $7 to $10 an hour? We ask you to be careful. If you vote to destroy the education system we have created, your children may pay dearly for it too.

The fabricated crisis in education created by this government and the press has another agenda. The headline in the Sunday Star this weekend said, "Why Our Kids Are at the Bottom of the Class in Science." It quotes a national test conducted by the Council of Ministers of Education, whatever that is, and it says that our children had problems on a science test. This is the headline in the Sunday Star.

However, on February 20 in the Toronto Star business pages, I got an idea of what all this was about. "Torstar Corp, publisher of the Star, said its children's supplementary education division will buy the science core curriculum" kit "from a subsidiary of Encyclopedia Britannica." These are modular-based science kits for all students from kindergarten to grade 6. "The modules were developed at the University of California.... Terms of the deal were not disclosed."

That's the real agenda here. The real problem we see is that this government is proposing to bring American and foreign business into the education business. We believe this is the wrong direction completely for the government to go in.

I have a proposal to alleviate the problem, one of the problems being the lack of democracy in this legislation. Bill 104 proposes taxation without local representation. I have a proposal to eliminate a truly bloated government bureaucracy, to abolish the provincial government and give the 50% tax -- as you're all aware, over the last 20 years our provincial taxation rate has gone from 10% to 50%, with very little substantial improvement in the benefits from this. My proposal would be that the 50% income tax go directly down to the megacities and the municipal boards you are proposing to create. That would give us vast sums of money with which to educate the children of this province.

That way we can save on bloated MPP salaries and perks; we can cut out the $60,000-a-year, for-life pensions, which is like double the salary of any of our workers. Perhaps we could cut out the limos and the heavy administration costs and get rid of the duplication of service such as education, roads, highways, transit, health, hospitals, homes for the aged, garbage and so on that have now been proposed to be passed down to the municipal level of government. Therefore, you could give the money to where the responsibility lies, which would be true taxation with representation.

I'm sure the municipal governments and local school boards, who already know how to effectively administer and provide these services, would benefit greatly from having direct funds.

We could also sell off or lease provincial government buildings. We could eliminate the ivory tower turrets with the goons dressed in riot gear and replace them with open, public school board buildings and city halls where citizens are greeted warmly by their local representatives and can get straight answers to their many questions.

We could remodel the provincial buildings into mega-schools without any interference from business interests or the profit motive and keep profit out of our public services.

I ask the committee to consider the benefit of a truly democratic model of providing the people of Ontario with revitalized education and municipal services in the most democratic and cost-effective manner.

0910

I urge you to shelve Bill 104 and Bill 103, which turn everything on its head like a scene from Alice in Wonderland. Put our tax dollars back where they belong. Eliminate the real bloated bureaucracies and let us provide direct quality services by quality workers.

The Chair: We have one minute for questioning. We ended last time with the official opposition, so Mr Wildman, do you have a very quick question?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I found your presentation thought-provoking. Obviously, some of it is tongue-in-cheek in terms of the elimination of the provincial government. What do you think the real purpose of Bill 104 is? The government basically says, "Everybody is in favour of downsizing and amalgamating boards, so what's the fuss?" Why are you concerned? What do you think the real purpose of this bill is?

Ms Baycroft: I think the real purpose of the bill is a tax grab of provincial property tax, and our government already has tax levying power and doesn't need it. It also would eliminate direct representation at the school board and municipal level for the tax dollars raised at that level.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Thank you for your presentation. You talked at great length about us bringing American and foreign business in to control what our children learn. Could you tell me which section of Bill 104 causes you to think that way?

Ms Baycroft: There's one line that talks about outsourcing of public services, and to me, outsourcing is exactly what I quoted from the Toronto Star business pages. This is obviously the direction: to buy modules of education from private enterprise and allow them to put them in our schools.

We already have indications that some corporations and banks have submitted little tags and said they will produce textbooks for us if we put the tag in that it's provided by them. I'm absolutely appalled, as a parent, at that kind of education. What are we paying tax dollars for if not to educate our children? Not to go into profit-making enterprises: They've got other markets; they can keep selling their cereal. I don't want them involved in the education of my children.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I appreciated you finding the article in the Toronto Star about the purchasing of American curriculum materials. You expressed concern that this might be the direction we're going in the future. I'm wondering whether or not there's going to be any choice.

You may know that when the government looked at the cost savings from amalgamation, one of the areas in which they were going to find some cost savings, presumably, was to reduce the curriculum support provided at the local board level by the educational support people. We know the Ministry of Education and Training has very few people left within the ministry ranks who are able to do the curriculum development, so do you think there's going to be any choice other than to bring in pre-packaged curriculum materials?

Ms Baycroft: Absolutely. We have excellent curriculum staff now at the cheapest possible price. There's no one working at the Toronto Board of Education, including the director, who earns more than $120,000 a year; compare that with the salaries of MPPs or of corporate business magnates who are making millions. Do you really think we're not going to be paying their salaries through our taxes if they are allowed to create a curriculum?

We have excellent people who are teachers, out of the classrooms, who know how to handle curriculum, how to deliver curriculum. They should be kept intact, in my view.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Baycroft, for coming here this morning and making your presentation.

Mr Wildman: Just for the record, an MPP makes $78,000.

Ms Baycroft: Yes, but you've got a lot of other perks.

COLLEEN MORRIS

The Chair: I ask Colleen Morris to come forward. Ms Morris, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Colleen Morris: Last week I spoke without preparation as a member of a parent-staff association. Today I am prepared to speak as an individual about Bill 104.

I would like to show a five-minute video produced by ABC News in 1990 of a great school system. It shows a school system that asked for more than the basics and got more than the basics. It shows dedicated teachers and school children who are putting forth such efforts to become educated, caring, thoughtful and responsible people.

Video presentation.

0920

Ms Morris: As you saw, the great school system ABC News highlighted is here in Ontario. We all have a responsibility to keep nurturing this public treasure. As adults, we have a big responsibility to provide for our children in many ways, including their education.

As members of the provincial Legislature you have an even bigger responsibility, and as members of this committee you have the responsibility to decide if Bill 104 will help improve learning for every child in Ontario.

If you're unsure, don't ask tax reduction experts; ask educators such as Gerald Caplan, who co-chaired the Royal Commission on Learning, or David Moll, who is chair of the Toronto Board of Education.

We need to invest in education, not take money out of it. We need to put back the $400 million that was stripped out of the system this year.

You people can't give a child who went without junior kindergarten that chance again, but you can ensure that four-year-olds in September can attend school. You can't give back the chance to learn in a school library or to learn music or science that a child lost this year, but you can ensure that all Ontario children will have those opportunities in September. You can't improve overcrowded classrooms this year, but you can reduce class sizes by September. Support Bill 110, a private member's bill on this very issue.

As you heard in the ABC News clip, the Americans want to copy our system of education. It's interesting that this year Bill Clinton has decided to put billions of dollars into American schools.

We need to build wisely on our education system, which was begun with a lot of sacrifice in 1841. Quite simply, Bill 104 will destroy what has been built.

I say today to you, go down in history by making the right choice for Ontario's children. Ask our government to withdraw Bill 104. Ask our government to make a thorough plan first of how the cost of each child's education is to be met, taking into account individual, community and regional needs. Finally, ask for proof from the Minister of Education and Training that changing the funding and the governance of education, which is essentially what Bill 104 is, will improve each child's learning in Ontario.

The future of this province depends on your good judgement and your courage in acting wisely on behalf of our 2,070,000 school children. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Morris. Unfortunately, you've used up all your time. Your visual presentation was much appreciated as well.

CHERYL STEWART

The Chair: I ask Cheryl Stewart to come forward. Welcome, Ms Stewart. Thank you for being here this morning. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Ms Cheryl Stewart: Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I would like to clarify at the beginning that I am not a member of a union or a special interest group. I'm here as a parent whose only vested interest in this issue is the quality of education that my children receive in the public education system and the enormous educational property tax burden I've had to bear.

I would like to state that I was disappointed that the Minister of Education and Training has not directed the complete elimination of school boards. I have long been resentful and angry that exorbitant tax increases have been levied on property owners by school boards, yet teachers often have to ask students to share textbooks and, in some cases, to forgo the purchase of textbooks such as spellers because the budget wouldn't allow it. Where have our priorities been?

However, getting to Bill 104, there are a number of issues and recommendations I would like to bring forward for your consideration.

(1) School boards have harboured far too many highly paid bureaucrats who have had very little impact on the actual quality of teaching in the classrooms. With the plan to amalgamate school boards into 66 new school districts must come massive reductions in the size of board bureaucracies. We cannot assume that by reducing the number of school boards, the bureaucracies will be reduced accordingly. This is where the uncontrolled educational spending has occurred in the past.

The Ministry of Education must formulate strict regulations as to the number of non-classroom teaching staff that can be employed by any board. This number could be arrived at by looking at the number of students by grade served by each board.

In conjunction with this, regulations must be formulated that limit the amount of non-classroom spending by any board. Expenditures should be clearly assigned by the ministry as being classroom or non-classroom and a maximum amount of allowable non-classroom expenditures should be legislated. Classroom and custodial funding must be safeguarded. There should no longer be room for creative accounting practices to occur by school boards.

(2) It is absolutely critical that the new curriculum guidelines to be released by the ministry be concise, clear, specific and skill-based. Curriculum outlines should be able to be taken directly from the ministry to the classroom to be implemented easily. The common curriculum has been a wonderful make-work project. Its vague wording and educational jargon have had bureaucrats in boards across the province forming committees to interpret it.

For example, in one board it took the work of a committee of 21 top-level administrators, over a period of two years, to interpret the Common Curriculum into a learning outcomes document for teachers. This document was just 40 pages of more educational jargon and still did not specify what kids will learn, how they will learn it and when they will learn it. My point is that this has been an inexcusable waste of taxpayers' money that could have been directed to the classrooms.

You will not find me asking for increased educational funding. In fact, I feel there is room to reduce overall educational funding without affecting the quality of the teaching going on in the classrooms nor reducing classroom funding.

(3) I would like to request that the use of explicit phonics instruction be included in the language arts curricula for the primary grades. Teachers who do use phonics often use phoney phonics that only includes incidental word-sound relationships and rhyming families. Adequate teacher training in the use of explicit phonics is necessary both in the faculties of education and at professional development workshops. Phonics-based reading programs need to be included on Circular 14. Presently there are none.

All children, with the exception of the lucky ones who seem to be born readers, will benefit tremendously from the inclusion of explicit phonics instruction in their reading programs, and the need for remedial programs will be reduced significantly, as will the cost they incur. Children's grasp of phonics should not be left to chance. The committee might be interested to know that California has recently adopted the ABC law, which legislated the use of explicit phonics and spelling in their schools.

(4) Parent advisory councils. I have great concerns about these councils. If they are going to exist, they must have absolutely clear mandates and they must have true power, ie, the hiring and firing of principals and input into teacher hiring, operating budgets and programs. There must be safeguards in place that give weight to these councils, otherwise they can be easily sidetracked into various projects that really have very little consequence on the educational outcomes of the students. And of course there is the possibility of council members and/or their children incurring the wrath of staff who may not agree with issues being advocated.

(5) I agree with the reduction in the number of school trustees. However, one must realize that the cost incurred by the existence of trustees has not been a significant factor in the skyrocketing cost of education in Ontario. There are many well-intentioned and capable trustees, but it has also been my observation that in some cases trustees go through a metamorphosis of sorts after election and begin to protect the interests and agendas of the board administrators and forget who they were elected to represent and advocate for: parents and taxpayers.

If trustees are effective and truly represent the interests of their constituents, they are a worthwhile investment. However, their jobs must be clearly defined and they must be accountable to the electorate. A final comment here: I feel it is an experiment to see if honest, capable trustees can be attracted to work for a $5,000-a-year honorarium. That test is yet to come.

(6) I applaud the government's commitment to implement testing of grade 3 students across the province. The results of these tests must reflect the progress of student achievement in relation to the provincial curriculum. My fear is that teachers will be asked to teach to the test packages provided and that test results will reflect the teaching of that test package material and not the skill and knowledge gained, or not gained, from the provincial curriculum.

I would like to conclude by saying that true reform of the public education system will never be completely effective until parents are given true choice in how and where their children are educated. I would like to leave open the suggestion for education vouchers or charter schools in Ontario. While the educational establishment would never advocate for such changes, I firmly believe that an element of competition for educational dollars would bring swift and positive changes to the quality of education our children receive in Ontario.

I realize that some of the issues I've raised today might go beyond the scope of Bill 104 and the work of this committee. However, it is rare that parents have an opportunity to publicly express their concerns about their children's education, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

0930

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Stewart. We have about a minute per caucus.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'd like to thank you for your presentation today. I appreciate the fact that you gave us a number of constructive comments about implementation.

There were a number of things I was interested in. I wanted to ask you a little about the ABC law that was being generated in California. I also wanted to talk to you about teachers teaching to testing. Both of those issues have come to me as I've talked to my boards in the last few weeks, and I'm interested. Could you just expand on those for a minute for me, please?

Ms Stewart: First, in terms of the ABC law in California, I don't think it's any secret that California reading and writing test results have been absolutely horrible for the last few years. As California has struggled with how to fix that particular problem -- and of course you have to realize, that whole language was basically started in California and moved eastward. I think administrators and legislators have come to the realization that explicit phonics instruction is the only true, scientifically proven method of ensuring that children learn to read. I have to applaud the government down there for having the courage, because there certainly was a huge backlash by bureaucrats down there. There's no question that it was very difficult to do that. The legislators have to be applauded for that.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. I appreciate that at the beginning you indicated that your sole concern in being here today relates to the quality of education your children would receive. That's the area I'd like to ask you a bit about as a concerned parent, because a number of us are having difficulty seeing how Bill 104 is actually going to improve the quality of education, particularly when it comes to freeing dollars up for the classroom, which is one of the stated intents. You've mentioned that cutting down the number of trustees is not big dollars, and that's certainly true. Cutting down the number of administrators is not huge dollars either, because the total cost of administration is less than 5% of educational spending.

Ms Stewart: I would have to disagree with you there.

Mrs McLeod: This is based on ministry figures. I wanted to tell you what the ministry figures are and then ask if it would concern you. When the Ministry of Education then sat down to come up with its cost savings through the amalgamation in Bill 104, it was able to come up with $150 million of its $14-billion budget. One of the areas in which they had to find dollars to make up even $150 million in savings was $9.9 million for classroom supplies and equipment. Does it concern you that even to find $150 million in savings through this amalgamation, they would have to take more dollars out of direct classroom supplies and equipment?

Ms Stewart: It certainly does. That's why I state in my presentation that classroom spending has to be safeguarded. I would certainly challenge the information you have in terms of the amount of money spent on administration and boards.

Mrs McLeod: These are ministry figures, ma'am.

Ms Stewart: I would suspect, then, that there is some creative accounting going on and that there are certain items included in administration or not included in administrative costs that should or shouldn't be. I've seen that myself in my own board in presentations, where the chair of our board told the public in a meeting that 1% of their expenditures are spent on administration. Anybody knows that can't be true.

Mr Wildman: It's actually about 5% across most boards, not 1% -- that would be a ridiculous figure -- but 5% isn't very much.

I note that you said classroom and custodial funding must be safeguarded. My colleague has pointed out that one of the savings identified by the ministry that would accrue from Bill 104 is cuts to supplies and classrooms. Are you aware that the Minister of Education and Training does not count custodial care as classroom expenditure and believes it could be cut, and actually the bill provides for outsourcing of such services?

Ms Stewart: I'm not aware of that, but I am concerned that custodial costs would not be safeguarded as well. That's why I included that in my presentation.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Stewart, for coming all the way from Bolton in rush-hour traffic. It must have been tough.

AINE SUTTLE

The Chair: I ask Aine Suttle to come forward, please. Welcome. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Ms Aine Suttle: Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this subject. The background I bring to it is that I'm a parent of an 11-year-old son and I work as a part-time assistant to a trustee at the Toronto Board of Education, although I'm not representing the board and the research I did to put this paper together was done completely on my own time.

I give you this information with some trepidation, as I have some fears that you will completely dismiss my opinion knowing that I work for a school board. But let me tell you that I've worked at many different jobs over my 50 years, and only the last two have been spent in a school board setting. My 11 years as a parent have been far more influential.

I could talk for a long time on various aspects of this bill, but I'll stick to the representation issue because it's something I've become familiar with in the last two years.

Having worked for a trustee, I know what a good trustee does. They're elected to represent the people in their ward. Practically speaking, that ends up mostly being students and parents from the ward schools. The Toronto board is very large and therefore complex. It's very difficult for a parent to know which school is best for their child. It's not just a matter of what programs are offered but also what the culture or atmosphere of the school is like.

For example, a mother called lately whose son was extremely unhappy in his elementary school. He was shy, a new immigrant and was having considerable difficulty making friends. He was being picked on by some of the other children, making his life quite miserable. My trustee knew that another school close by, where a large percentage of the children were new immigrants and the principal was from a visible minority, would probably be a lot more suitable. She recommended the school, and within weeks the child was very happy and learning rapidly. It was not that there was anything wrong, necessarily, with the other school; it just didn't suit this particular child.

Trustees develop policies for the board. That involves considerable consultation with all the stakeholders. For example, the Toronto board recently adopted a new policy on anaphylactic shock and how to deal with students suffering from that condition. It took a lot of time working with both parents of children with the condition and staff who would have to deal with the situation. Ultimately, a practical, workable policy was developed which was acceptable to all parties involved. This couldn't have been done by somebody who was working half a day a week, which is basically what the trustees are being cut back to.

Trustees help their school communities. Each ward community has different needs and each part of a ward is different. The northern part of our ward is quite affluent, with parents who are very involved with their children's schooling. The southern part is quite poor, designated inner-city and where the parents have more difficulty getting involved with their children's schooling. The trustee has been very involved in developing a ward council which helps to deal equitably with all the different communities in the ward and the needs. We also have two schools for adults in our area, again a very different community with very different needs.

I have heard the argument that all the work trustees do could be done by other staff in the school board. That may be true, but I think you'll find that those other staff come at a higher price. Trustees are very good value for the money they are paid, so why do you want to get rid of them or at least cut them so much that they'll be unable to fulfil the role they play? I haven't had a decent answer from anybody on this one yet.

When I looked at Bill 104, I really began to wonder if it was designed by somebody who had a grudge against the school system. It would appear as if it's designed to eliminate school boards entirely. The fact that the trustees have been reduced to a level where they will be unable to represent adequately the people who elect them makes me think that you are leaving the position in place so that the electors will do the dirty job. They'll become so dissatisfied with the trustees that they will throw them out in the future.

Although the salary issue of $5,000 a year is not part of the actual bill, I fear you're unlikely to hold hearings on every aspect of the announcement made by John Snobelen on January 13, so I'll deal with it now. At the Toronto board, the trustees are paid $49,683 per year. This, when compared with the rest of Ontario, seems quite high, so I started what turned out to be a long job of sorting out how much trustees are paid across the province and what numbers of students they're dealing with.

I started with the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force final report, commonly known as the Sweeney commission; no indication there how much they were paid. I went to the government bookstore on Bay Street, and there was no information there. I was shocked when I was there to see how little current information was available on just about anything. It seems as if hardly any reports have been written since 1994. All the annual reports seem to have disappeared. It's very strange. Fortunately, there are still some actual people working at the bookstore and one very helpful man told me that the school governance restructuring branch was just next door in the Mowat building. At last, information was available. Here I learned that trustees in most boards are paid under $10,000 a year.

0940

Then I started wondering how many schools and students each board was dealing with, and that was very revealing. When I looked at Nipissing, for instance, in northern Ontario, I discovered the following: It's a board with just over 10,000 students, 27 schools and 17 trustees. When I compared that with Toronto, with over 72,000 students, 149 schools and 18 trustees, things sort of dropped into place. In Nipissing you're talking about a trustee-student ratio of one to 610; in Toronto that's one to 4,008. The ratio of trustees to students is 6.5 times greater in Toronto when compared with Nipissing, but the salary of the Toronto trustees is not 6.5 times. In fact, when you worked out the cost of the trustees in the two boards, based on the number of students, the Nipissing trustees cost more per student than the Toronto trustees -- not much more, but it was quite interesting.

I won't try to present the situation for the north because I don't live there, but it did occur to me that it maybe makes sense in northern Ontario to have a larger number of trustees to cover the large geographic areas up there, but seeing as there are 17 trustees for only 27 schools, they probably don't need to work full time. I emphasize that this is only a supposition on my part based on trying to understand the difference with our board. In Toronto, each trustee is dealing with over 4,000 students in an average of 8.2 schools, so the time demands are much greater.

Then I looked at the future situation and compared the two areas. Nipissing would be amalgamated with east and west Parry Sound to make school board number four with over 16,000 students, 51 schools, and then we have this trustee number of five to 12. Basically, we're in a situation where for 65 of the 66 school boards, we don't know how many trustees they're going to have, and that is crazy. You can't pass legislation where you don't have very basic information. In that area, the trustee ratio could be as high as one trustee for 3,373 students. If that's the case, it's getting close to the Toronto level and I can't see trustees up there being able to deal with that number of students on a part-time basis with the huge geographic areas that they're trying to cover. In the same way, in Metro, one trustee with 13,000 students equally can't manage at half a day a week, which is what it's going to be.

The Chair: Could I ask you to wrap up? You're over your time limit.

Ms Suttle: Okay. The cost savings are not going to be worth the lack of representation. We're just losing control of our school boards.

I added up the total of students in northern Ontario and they totalled almost a third of the number of students in the new Metro board.

I've recorded the trustee representation and the students etc across Ontario, which you'll find attached. You should also notice that the new French boards are mostly going to be created from the northern boards, which currently have a larger proportion of French students, and that will make the northern boards even smaller. There's hardly any information on these French boards. We've no idea how many students there are going to be or if they're going to have their own schools. None of that seems to be available. You need to know that information.

This is my last point. There was one piece in the Sweeney report that I found really interesting. It was appendix C, titled "Summary of Public Responses." Apparently, the Sweeney commission received 19,031 responses, 87% of which were opposed to the recommendations; 7% were supportive and 6% were unknown. That is pretty devastating, and when I look at the Sweeney recommendations, they are not nearly as drastic in terms of cuts as Bill 104, so I can guarantee you that no matter who you hear here, there are more people who are opposed to this than not, many more.

You're barraging us with legislative changes and it's a dreadful mistake. Bill 104 is so totally unacceptable that I urge you to just throw it in the garbage and start over. But start with consultation. Look for facts, not impressions. Bill 104 is sadly lacking in solid facts. I've tried to fill in some of the gaps in information but it's a puny attempt because I'm not employed by you to do so and I could only do what I could in my spare time.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Suttle, and thank you for the thoughtfulness you've put into this presentation.

KATHRYN BLACKETT

The Chair: Could I ask Kathryn Blackett to come forward. Thank you for being here, Ms Blackett. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes within which to make your presentation.

Ms Kathryn Blackett: My name is Kathryn Blackett, obviously. I am a homeowner in the city of Toronto, where I have lived all my life. I am also the mother of three children who are all in the public school system. I have never been involved in such an official political exercise as this and I feel compelled to explain what has propelled me into this room. It is the threat of this government's attack on public education in Ontario.

I have strong misgivings about this process even as I begin. As a member of a parent group, I am aware that across the city, home-and-school associations and PTAs have continually requested the attention of the Minister of Education both to express their concerns about his policy and to hear his answers to their questions. But the minister has not deigned to appear at one of these schools. As far as I know, he has not answered a single letter. He is clearly uninterested in the views or anxieties of Ontario parents and I have no faith that he will hear mine.

When I looked at the list of group speakers which the Conservative Party had nominated, this feeling was amplified. Absent from the list were groups concerned with substantive issues in education. Present on the list were ratepayer groups, the cottage owners' association, the C.D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute -- groups whose fundamental focus is the tax dollar. But Bill 104 is not supposed to be about education funding or tax dollars. Where is the evidence that the Conservative Party is giving serious thought to the educational ramifications of their legislation? Nowhere.

I also know that 1,157 requests to speak before this committee were received by the clerk, the vast majority of those being from concerned individuals -- I suppose the ultimate special interest group, parents. That less than 6% of those people are being granted the opportunity to speak by virtue of knowing the right people is nothing less than a travesty and an abrogation of democratic rights. I hope that committee members do not underestimate the intensity of feeling that these people must have to be willing to come to the Legislature and stand before your committee to declare their concerns about this bill.

Despite my misgivings about this process, I will none the less address what I see as fundamentally wrong in Bill 104.

In regard to the amalgamation of school boards, the Conservatives may have convinced many that this is a great exercise in efficiency and cost saving. Many of us, though, are acutely aware that the increased efficiency and savings are minimal, while the loss to democratic representation is immense. We understand that in Metro, with 22 part-time school trustees responsible for more than 500 schools and 310,000 students, our access to our elected representatives will be virtually nil. It is also not difficult to imagine the calibre of trustee we will attract for $5,000 a year.

We are not deceived. We understand that this bill's mandate is to weaken school boards so that further attacks on the education system and on its employees will be made unopposed. It is also clear to us that the imposition of parent councils is in no way a replacement for lost school trustees. It may give some the illusion of power at the school level, but I believe these councils are a devastatingly bad idea. They have not worked in Great Britain and they have not worked in New Zealand. Few parents have the time or the inclination necessary for such a demanding responsibility, and these councils have only intensified the disparities between schools in poorer and wealthier neighbourhoods. Our school boards now function to ensure that all schools get equitable funding distribution but attempt to accommodate the greater needs of the schools in poorer areas.

0950

The many PTAs I have seen over the years function erratically and idiosyncratically at best, with most parents primarily interested in the needs of their own children. It is wrong to impose responsibility for the functioning of schools, in this era when most parents are working, on an exhausted parent population. Parents do not want to be unpaid school trustees.

My children have asked me what it is that is so upsetting to me about this Bill 104, and I have had to answer them, at the risk of frightening them, that I have not felt my society so threatened since the imposition of the War Measures Act 25 years ago. This is not hyperbole. I could not have predicted -- nor, I suspect, could any other Ontarian -- a piece of legislation creating a body that would be unaccountable to the electorate and unchallengeable in any court of law. I would not have believed that a government in Canada would have produced some of the wording that is in this bill. This is authoritarian legislation, and I find it nothing short of disgusting.

That this same body, the Education Improvement Commission, has omnipotence over the future of our children's education is chilling. I gather that I will have no recourse to complain -- effectively silenced -- should this appointed body decide to cancel the junior kindergarten program which my four-year-old this year has so completely enjoyed and thrived in, or the music program in my daughter's school which has resulted in many awards at the Kiwanis Festival, or the librarian who opens the doors to books and reading otherwise closed to many disadvantaged children, or the ESL programs which give new immigrant children a foothold in the system.

The transparent and evasive accounting methods used by this government to define what is involved in a classroom are a ludicrous ploy to deceive citizens that the Tories are not dangerously eroding the school system. Parents are not deceived. We know that a classroom includes a librarian, custodians, a principal and vice-principal, art and music and physical education, as well as ESL, special education, and psychological support.

When the government takes $600 million out of the education budget, parents are not deceived that these cuts do not affect the classroom. We remember promises made by Mr Harris to the contrary and we are not fooled by ridiculous attempts to redefine what the classroom is. We are enraged when we hear both the Premier and the Minister of Education suggest that there is another $1 billion that can be trimmed from the education budget, because we know that the so-called fat has been trimmed to the bone and that any further cuts are going to directly diminish our children's education.

I think the government is gravely misguided if it feels that it can create a crisis and erode the schools of Ontario to the point where privatization or charter schools become a reasonable option. We are acutely aware of the effects of underfunding education: fewer teachers, larger classes, inadequate supplies and a degenerating education for every school child in the system. Ontarians value highly their public school system, and rightly. It is a superior, award-winning system and it is accessible to all. Do not tamper with it.

The minister has spoken frequently about equalizing funding across the province. The parents I hear are emphatic that funding not be equalized by reducing it to the lowest funding level in the province. They also are aware that Ontario ranks sixth in Canada, behind Quebec and ahead of only the maritime provinces, in per student funding. This is a public shame on the wealthiest province in Canada.

Parents also know that the government has to find money for its tax cut, but parents effectively forced to pay out user fees for what used to be education essentials know this tax cut is a shell game. We will not stand by and watch this government steal money from our children's education funding to pay for their election promise. Likewise, parents will not be enlisted in a campaign against union rights.

Education is not all about tax dollars and funding. It informs and shapes our children and our society's future. Bill 104 is part of an attack on our public education system. The anger and the outrage that you hear in this room are just the beginning. The parents of Ontario hold the education system dear, and this government has not been given the mandate to eviscerate it.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Blackett.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who are new to the committee, we don't allow any public outbursts. We are subject to the rules of the Legislature in that regard. It also takes time away from the presenters, and they have very little time as it is.

Thank you very much. You've used all of your time, and we thank you for your presentation.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Chair: There may be many reasons for this, so I'm not trying to be unfair, but I note that there is no representative of the ministry present in the committee. There may be some in the audience, but there is no one here before the committee to whom we can direct questions if we have questions re 104. I'm wondering how we deal with this.

For instance, coming from this very eloquent presentation, I had hoped to ask a representative of the ministry why the government is taking a different approach under Bill 104 from what they took in 1968, when there was a significant amalgamation of school boards. In 1968, the then Conservative government did not appoint a commission like the EIC to run schools and run school budgets for three years or even for a very short time. There was no such commission appointed. I'd like to know the reason for the different approach. Completely separate from whether or not they should be doing what they're doing under Bill 104, I'd like to know why they are approaching it in such a different way from the previous Davis government. Since there's no one here from the ministry, I'm wondering what we do. How do we get these questions answered?

The Chair: Mr Wildman, I understand it's practice that the parliamentary assistant be here, but it's not required. My suggestion would be that we make note of those questions and that we ask him about those questions when he arrives.

Mr Wildman: I understand your difficulty, Chair, but frankly, I consider it an insult to the committee and to all of the people who have come to make presentations that there is nobody here representing the minister to hear what they have to say.

Interjections.

The Chair: Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. I've asked the clerk to inquire about the parliamentary assistant, but as I indicated, it's a practice.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In fact, Madam Chair, there are two parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Education. Surely one of them could be here, and I think the committee should formally make that request. Either Mr Young or Mr Skarica has an obligation, if the minister is not here, for one of them to be here, I believe. Otherwise, what do we need them for? That's a good question in and of itself.

Mrs Johns: It's my understanding that Mr Skarica will be here in the next half-hour, and maybe we could continue this debate when he gets here.

The Chair: If that's acceptable, we'll note the question, Mr Wildman, and ask it of Mr Skarica when he arrives.

PETER SIMONSEN

The Chair: May I ask Peter Simonsen to come forward. Thank you very much for being with us this morning. You have 10 minutes for your presentation, and if time permits, the committee will ask you some questions.

Mr Peter Simonsen: It's going to be very close whether I'll make it or not.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Bill 104 does not go far enough for the following reasons:

There is no assurance that the redundant administrators will not find their way on to the payroll of the remaining boards; on the contrary, one can be almost certain that they will;

There is no indication that the cost of administration of 46% will be cut to 2% or 3%, as one would expect of a well-run operation, public or private;

It does not address the question of returning the responsibility and prerogative of educating children to where it belongs, namely with parents;

It does not address the question of compulsion versus voluntarism; and

It does not address the question of school choice.

Earl Manners has said, "This is not about balancing the budget; it is about redistributing wealth to the upper class." Question: Who is the upper class today? Who is the ruling class? Who is crowding the airports and US 75 during the March break? Who is able to extract outrageous property taxes and 50% of workers' incomes for salaries, benefits, job security and early generous pensions that those who produce the wealth can only dream of?

Answer: It is the public servants generally. The educators control the whole system from their power base in the educational institutions. People with letters after their names control the public personnel offices, and they hire only their own kind for all but manual work and control the latter via the union bosses. They also write the laws in the ministries, which are then enacted by the intelligentsia in the Legislature, who are part of the system of extracting the value of the productive efforts of others. No ruling class in history has extracted such high taxes as the intelligentsia. Kings, priests and feudal lords would have had pitchforks through their bellies at much lower rates.

1000

The Harris government has given the job of cutting to the administrators, so who is being cut? Welfare recipients, nurses and front-line hospital workers, services to the sick and elderly, bottom-rung civil servants; not the outrageously paid administrators, not the groups with powerful unions.

The power of educators is derived from their ability to keep our children captive in a flawed compulsory system. I am sure we have all felt reluctance when we were forced by others to do something, and we have completed the task only to the extent that we felt threatened. We can force our kids to sit on a school bench for 12 years, but it is most difficult to force them to absorb what is being taught if they are not interested. Therefore school is for many an enormous waste of time.

Many of our young people reach the age of 18 without acquiring the literacy and numeracy skills they need to function in society. Furthermore they have not acquired any marketable workplace skills. It is dangerous for a society to simply dismiss a large portion of its youth as simply waste. You are all aware that when the government spends money to create jobs for youth, it goes to the university students and high school graduates. Those who really need a chance get nothing, and yet it is often their parents who get to pay the taxes to support the élite.

On the next page you will find a guest editorial from Investor's Business Daily. The chart describes how much various countries spend and how they fared in reading improvement between ages nine and 14. It would be reasonable to assume that reading skills reflect performance in other subjects. From the experience of working with high school graduates in a Canadian bank for six years around 1960, being an employer for many years, and having two children go through the system, I am of the opinion that Ontario's performance is close to that of the US. I believe we spend about $7,000 to keep a child in school for a year. You will note that the Netherlands performed second-best on the test while spending half as much as Ontario. The Netherlands have a voucher system used by 65% of Dutch kids to attend private, mostly religion-oriented, schools.

Denmark scored highest while spending about $1,500 less than Ontario. Denmark is a high-cost, high-wage country whose GDP per capita is more than 50% higher than Canada's. Denmark has a voucher system used by 25% of Danish kids. Vouchers are used by religious and ethnic groups, but the alternative schools have their roots in a constituency that believes not only in the separation of church and state but also in the separation of school and state. This makes sense to me. After all, would you want Mike Harris or Bob Rae or Earl Manners or Liz Barkley or changing governments to decide who should teach your kids and what they should learn? My answer is, "No thanks." All Danish apprentices receive a voucher they can take to the technical school of their choice.

About 1960 in Ontario, the small rural and village schools were closed by edict from on high, thereby removing one of the essential cornerstones of community. A similar move was afoot in Denmark about the same time, but the farmers and village folks there said, "Wait a minute; we will vote on it." Many of these schools were taken private by parent groups under existing legislation. The alternative schools are called friskoler and are basically outside government influence. The elected boards hire their own teachers, try to hire good ones and then leave them to do their jobs, For the most part these schools will not hire teachers certified for the public system because of philosophical differences. There are teachers' colleges catering to friskoler, but there is no requirement for a teaching certificate.

To start a friskole, a group of parents form a self-owned institution and register it with the Ministry of Education. If there is an existing school, they simply take it over. If not, they must collect one sixth of the cost of building a new one from their members. The government supplies 50% and the remaining third can be borrowed from the banks. Denmark has self-owned trustee banks in most communities. Upon registration, the counties are obligated to turn over to these schools 90% of what it costs to keep a child in the public system. If it costs more to operate the school, the parents pay extra. It should be noted that the parents control the budget.

Education is paid for from income taxes. In fact, property taxes are almost non-existent in Denmark by Ontario standards. A former Minister of Education stated that it was his mission to facilitate learning but not to control it. His children attended a friskole. Eric Malling stated on the CTV program W5 that Denmark's Ministry of Education had only 50 employees. Last I heard, Ontario's ministry had 2,700.

In some ways I feel sorry for Ontario teachers. If I were to teach a class of children well, I would have to use my own initiative and creativity to get the children on side. I would want to teach the small ones in all subjects for several years in order to have a personal relationship with them and provide a continuity in their lives. Indeed, I would hope to love them, as I'm sure the teacher I had in the little red school house in West Jutland loved us all. I would like to have it so that my kids would visit me in my old age as I visited my teacher the last couple of times I was in Denmark.

I could not be a teacher in Ontario because I would have numerous Big Brothers looking over my shoulder, telling me how to do things, and if my salary was worth the price of my soul, I would be trying to put on a performance that I thought my overseers would like. I would have to be obedient to my union bosses, abandon the kids when told to. If it turned out that I was an ineffective teacher, I could not be fired --

Interjections.

The Chair: Can I just interrupt you for a moment. Ladies and gentlemen, the presenter may not be expressing wishes that you particularly endorse, but he has a perfect right to speak. I would ask you to wait your turn to make your points. Please continue.

Mr Simonsen: -- as long as I went along with the system. Why? I might even become an administrator and receive a raise in pay and a pension at 55 in any case.

Where the children fit in is well illustrated in Durham region. The trustees have built a Taj Mahal for its administrators with $1.2 million worth of marble in the foyer, while half the children in the region spend most of their school years in portables.

Do not get the impression that nothing is rotten in Denmark. Its public schools and its society in general suffer from many of the same problems we have here in Ontario. I have been quoted in the papers over there extolling the things we do well here, particularly back in the 1960s.

My recommendations: Abolish all the school boards and fire all the administrators. I would very much resent paying taxes towards a settlement to these people. They have received a lengthy education at taxpayers' expense while I've paid for any schooling I received beyond the of age 14 from my own earnings. Furthermore I have never been paid for not working.

Have an elected, unpaid committee of parents with the power to hire and fire run each school. Schools should be small enough that all the parents can get to know one another. The aim should be to hire a principal in whom they can have faith and leave him to it.

Reduce the Ministry of Education to that of a facilitator with a maximum of 100 employees.

Take away the teacher certificate monopoly. Let school committees hire anyone who is good at teaching and make financial arrangements on a competitive basis.

Provide each child with a certificate for $3,500 per year, which they can take to the school of their choice. This would come from provincial income taxes. For higher education or skills training, supply an equal amount for every young person or nothing. That is only fair.

The Ontario government will not be able to balance its budget and provide meaningful reforms unless it pulls the rug from under union bosses. It can only be done by passing right-to-work legislation.

In the 1960s I used to say that once you can read, it's all in the books and that learning in a school is very inefficient. With computers and the Internet and the speed with which small kids figure these things out, one is tempted to recommend the abolition of schools altogether. Schools may indeed be relics from the industrial age which are being kept alive in order to provide income for a redundant intelligentsia.

We must develop an apprenticeship system such as they have in Germany or Denmark. My two brothers were journeymen earning a journeyman's wage at age 18. It should be accessible to all, particularly those who are at risk of not entering the workforce. The average age of an apprentice in this country is 23, and you need an uncle in the union to be accepted. Any cost could simply come out of the savings in the police department and in the justice system.

1010

I learned English from a correspondence course in my spare time while working six and a half days a week on the farm. In three years I could speak, read and write almost as well as I can today. It cost me $37. I did it on my own volition and I was motivated. If our kids are motivated to learn, we can close the schools because we will not be able to prevent them from learning. Everything in the course was written both in regular English and in phonetics. For what it is worth, I would not have been able to do it without phonetics. My use of English is by no means perfect, but to potential critics I will quote my fellow countryman, Victor Borge: "It's your language. I'm just trying to use it."

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Simonsen. You've used up all your time. We thank you for coming.

Mr Simonsen: Thanks for listening to me.

ERROL YOUNG
CHERYL PRESCOD

The Chair: Could I ask Errol Young to come forward, please. Welcome, Mr Young.

Mr Errol Young: Thank you. I'm bringing a friend with me.

The Chair: All right. You and your friend have 10 minutes.

Mr Young: I'm a trustee from ward 5 in North York, your constituent, and I'd like to introduce another constituent of yours, Cheryl Prescod, who's the chair of the Derrydown parents' council. I'll let her speak.

Ms Cheryl Prescod: Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Cheryl Prescod. I am not only the chair of the parent-teacher council at Derrydown in North York but I'm a concerned parent.

Derrydown Public School has approximately 750 students, from junior kindergarten to grade 5. It offers a regular English program as well as a French immersion program. Children attending Derrydown come from the surrounding community, the nearby York University campus and from 11 other public schools in North York that do not offer French immersion. It has an effective special education and an English-as-a-second-language program. The latter is particularly essential, considering that approximately 43% of Derrydown students speak a language other than English as their first language. In fact, students at Derrydown come from about 36 different countries and many are recent immigrants to Canada. This is not unlike many schools in Metro Toronto, where the rich cultural diversity of the school community must be acknowledged and respected.

The administrators at Derrydown encourage parent and community involvement in the education of our children. They provide open communication with teaching staff and are accountable to all parents at all times. These are only some of the features of North York schools which enable me and all parents to ensure that our children are receiving the quality education they are entitled to.

With this in mind, I'm very concerned about the possible consequences of the Fewer School Boards Act, Bill 104.

First, I'm afraid that parents and the community will have little or no say in the educational programs and services offered at their local schools because our tax dollars no longer fund education. The province has announced that funding will be cut by approximately 25%. These cuts may affect transportation services, which will not only have our children walking longer distances to school but may have an impact on accessibility to programs. It may also force schools to cut programs such as JK, French immersion, ESL, special ed and adult education courses. Another possible consequence of these cuts will be preferred education for those who can afford to pay for the special programs, and the less fortunate will have to settle for whatever is available and may receive a substandard education. I truly hope that this is not what we're moving towards in Canada.

Second, if the province does take over education funding, will Metro schools get their fair share? Will the special needs of Metro students be factored into the formula determining pupil costs? Toronto has a disproportionately large number of high-need students; that is, students from disadvantaged socioeconomic families and a large number of new immigrants. These groups place considerable demands on the school system in Metro, creating additional costs. Under these circumstances we must wonder about the fate of our children and the quality of education under the proposed scheme.

Third, this new educational proposal creates a bureaucracy not unlike some of the federally funded programs that our provincial government objects to. Educating our children should be a team effort, with all levels of government aiming for the same goals. For example, how can we justify putting more money into improving our research facilities in our universities while at the same time increasing tuition fees for post-secondary education and cutting funds to other parts of the education system? If our students are not learning effectively in elementary and high school and cannot afford to pursue post-secondary studies, how can they be expected to occupy these state-of-the-art facilities and compete globally?

It is quite understandable that the introduction of Bill 104 is an attempt to save money by reducing school boards' costs and putting more money into the classroom. However, I fear that the needs of each student will be lost in the mega-boards. What is the cost of putting our children's education at risk, and who will be held accountable?

At this point I'd like to turn it over to my trustee, who is always available to me as a parent in my community. I can pick up the phone and call him at any time and he responds to my needs.

Mr Young: Thank you. I didn't pay for that introduction.

I'm a little disappointed that we're in this room and not in the other one. I understand what's happening, but it does seem symbolic that sewers are getting more attention than education. Sewers are very important, but so are children, and I'm also personally a little miffed that I spent about half an hour figuring out how to get my VCR to tape the other committee.

I want to talk about Bill 104, naturally, in this room. Bill 104 is not about unifying school boards, because it's irrelevant how many school boards you have; you're not going to save any money. It's not about reducing waste in education. It's not about lowering my salary as a trustee. It's not even about lowering the deficit. If that's what you want to do, you're not going to do it through this thing. It's about financially redistributing income, money, services from the poor and middle classes and putting them into the pockets of the rich. That's all it's about. That's what this government has said by its action it's going to do.

It's about getting provincial hands on, for the first time, the coveted cash cow of Metro tax dollars. You're going to do that through this, and it's with glee that you're doing it. It's part of a whole scheme of things about lowering quality of housing, health care, child care, long-term care and naturally education. That's what this bill is about. It's part of that scheme. Only those who can afford to pay for it, as your previous speaker wanted, will get quality services, not the people who are building the wealth in Canada, the workers of this country.

The first stage is clear. You've made it clear. The minister has made it clear. He's going to take one quarter of our budget away from Metro. He's going to take $500 million out, and he says not out of the classroom. That's PR garbage. The new board is going to have to take some action because it won't have the budget. It's going to cut junior kindergarten. You may not value junior kindergarten. Torontonians do. It's going to cut services to English as a second language and special education. It's going to do that. It's going to cut building maintenance and it's got to increase class sizes; it has to. Those are the services we're going to have.

What is the government going to do? The government is going to look at our school systems three or four years from now and say: "They're failing. Public schools are failing. We need another system." They're going to set up charter schools, which is what the previous speaker wanted. The reason they're going to set up charter schools is because the public school is failing. Charter schools will divide Canada and divide Ontario on religious, ethnic and economic lines. The poor shall not learn as well as the rich, shall not get the quality of services that the rich have.

It's an abomination that children with very little or low income could actually be in French immersion. That's what happens in Derrydown. We have an inner-city French immersion school in Derrydown. It's a wonderful thing to see. It's multicultural and it's serving Ontario very well.

Picture downtown, if you will -- I know I only have a few minutes more -- after you're finished with Bill 103, Bill 104 etc. You will have the flight of the business and middle class out of a high property tax area because we're going to cut services down there, but we're also going to raise property taxes. You're going to have the rich, your friends, living in armoured condominiums on the waterfront. They'll have their security guards, they'll have their systems, they'll have their buzzers, they'll have everything. There will be bad services and bad schools for the rest of the people living in downtown Toronto. It will be the Chicago of the north. The government will blame school boards, they will blame single parents, and they will blame immigrants. They will, but the people of Toronto will know who's responsible. The people will remember who voted for 104, and 103. It's a shameful bill. If you vote for it, we will remember. We may not vote directly for you but we will remember. Seeing the Premier shivering in a hockey arena will not convince us that this is good for Toronto; it won't. All your PR doesn't work. We will remember and we will resist.

1020

Last week the government members went out into the community to spread the good word and they couldn't get a word in edgewise. You may think there was an organized band against you; there wasn't. There were just people. That's the most wonderful thing about these bills, Madam Chair. The most wonderful thing is that people from all parties -- I was at a meeting yesterday that you were at -- are coming together against what the government is doing, people from all economic levels are coming together, people from all ethnicities are coming together, uniting in Toronto against this bill.

If you want to pit Toronto against the rest of the province, you've done it, and we will remember. The economic engine of Canada, which is Toronto and the greater Toronto area, will take retribution. The way we'll do it is through the ballot box, naturally, and we'll do it through demonstrations. But just let Vanstone and Cooke, with their educational impediment committee, try to do something against what we're doing and you'll see the reaction here. We will not be responsible for what happens; you will.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please, no outbursts. I want to thank you both for coming, Ms Prescod and Mr Young. You've used up all of your time.

ABBY BUSHBY

The Chair: May I ask Abby Bushby to come forward. Thank you very much for coming.

Could I ask for some quiet, please. I would ask the audience please to allow the presenters to speak without any interference.

Ms Abby Bushby: My name is Abby Bushby. I'm a parent at Howard Public School, a member of ward 2 parents' council, and I've been active in education finance reform in Toronto over the last year and a half. My simple statement is this: I think the case for provincial takeover of education is weak, without a goals-driven purpose or guarantees of standards, and it has lost credibility because of the province's chaotic messages on spending cuts over the last one and a half years. Toronto schools are particularly vulnerable because we spend more than the provincial average on special needs education.

Students, parents, grandparents and teachers of Howard school wrote letters to the Minister of Education in October with our concerns about the lack of vision in education reform. We expressed dismay that the conversation had little to do with what is desirable in quality education befitting Ontario's values and abilities. Unfortunately, the promise to achieve reform without creating adverse impacts on the classroom is not working. Class sizes have grown, enrolment increased without enough new teachers to meet the demand, junior kindergarten has been rendered optional despite its critical importance, and we fear the loss of our valued gym, library and music programs as taught by specialized teachers as would occur with your removal of preparation time. As late as November 1996, we were being told that this was still an option.

We want to see an education reform process that guarantees the maintenance of what is good about public education and provides commitments to improve service where lacking. We ask that the reform process be guided by a set of educational ideals. Proposals for reform should be established in light of the goals, tested for the effects on those goals and altered if they create adverse impacts. We ask the minister to begin any reform process guided by a vision of the essential school. You received a copy of the essential school project with the submission of Kathleen Wynne on February 17. It seeks to include in a basic education essentials that I hope you are familiar with, and I won't go over now for the purposes of time. The minister's response in his letter to us dated in December was one of interest in some, very few, aspects. His new vision for education is "based on a rigorous and demanding curriculum for every grade...including reading, writing, spelling, grammar, mathematics, science, geography and Canadian history." This emphasizes only that which can be measured, omits much and leaves the chance of a well-rounded education just that -- open to chance.

Our own MPP, Derwyn Shea, has advised that the province is to engage in a public process of defining education standards. The process may be one of permitting the restricted school boards to set local goals. Well, I ask, what is it? Is the new education to be of province-led standards or is it to be a system of local options that may trade off basic elements of a decent education? The example we talked of was junior kindergarten. There was quite a bit of solid research on the importance of early education. Why has the province not committed to it, in fact rendered it optional last year, and why has it not committed to other necessary components of a basic education? To permit this local option system is to permit more variation in the provincial system than exists now. So we ask, what is the purpose of provincial takeover if it is not to ensure high standards for all students in the province?

The Toronto Board of Education is quite correct to assert a bill of rights for Toronto public schools. It largely defines the high quality of education which we presently deliver. David Moll delivered copies to you in his submission of February 17. Provincial takeover must do the same or better or leave well enough alone. Our children are not to be subjected to vagueness, instability or, worse, what appears to be a pared-down education.

Our children do not vote. We speak for them. There is unrest across Ontario. I believe the province recognizes this because of the cataclysmic changes in intention that we have witnessed over the past year and a half. At this time last year the province was threatening to take over preparation time. My daughter, who struggles with a mild perceptual learning hurdle, knows how to achieve excellence because of our highly qualified, specialized music teacher. She knows what it means to be first. As a parent, I'm concerned about her self-identity. I'm not worried about that as long as there are other components in the system that will let her achieve until she works out this special education problem.

As late as November, Terence Young was still saying the province was looking to save the entire cost of $1 billion in preparation time. Then a few days before Christmas the minister announced a delay in cuts until after school boards are reorganized. A few days after his January 13 address, we have found that the education envelope will remain the same and then on February 17, before this committee, apparently the minister suggested there may be money put back into the system. Is this a guarantee?

It is not enough to say that the present amount of money in education will remain the same. When the province intends to inject more money into the separate school system, we in the public system expect cuts to be made. Numerous studies have shown that people in Ontario favour one non-denominational board with accommodation for religious training. We need to see leadership on this. Newfoundland is displaying more foresight than Ontario in this matter.

Going from hither to yon, without an overall direction to which people have had direct participation, smacks of an instability that our values in Ontario do not tolerate.

The wisdom of local control has not been met by the province's plans announced to date. Toronto pioneered inner-city programming. We spend more on educating the poor, the marginalized, recent immigrants and students needing special education, all of which are present in Toronto in greater numbers than anywhere in Canada. It's the opposite of what a market-based system will do. Yet we educate Toronto's children to the same or best of large urban standards.

The programs need mentioning because they're so important: higher staff allocations for designated inner-city schools, early childhood education starters, books for supplementary take-home reading, special projects like the Parkdale 2000 music program, secondary school tutoring, targeted student support for alienated youth to return to school. Without adequate funding for these programs, the students of low-income, troubled, single-parent or non-English-speaking families have greater disadvantages to overcome with fewer personal resources. And this is not a service that benefits Torontonians locally only. Well-educated students of diverse backgrounds contribute to a better future for all people of Ontario and Canada.

It is not just students in need that want these programs. Without quality education in public schools, all residents will suffer. In a class of 30 or more if some children are hungry, without guidance, needing special education or ESL, education for all will suffer.

1030

We do not favour much increase in the power of parents to run schools. We in Toronto already have had good input to principal and vice-principal selection, board policies, staffing committees and so on. We already know that the students in more affluent areas with more parent resources get more volunteers and do more fund-raising. For these things, Howard, our school, fares better than other schools in ward 2. We fund-raise about $11,000, $12,000 a year. Parkdale and Queen Vic, inner-core, inner-city schools, fund-raise about $200 or $300 a year. In schools north of Toronto, they fund-raise two to three times the amount of us.

If more powers to influence the school are given to parents, the outlook for inner-city schools is further blackened. What is happening to the public interest? If we are to merely look out for our own kids, what about the disparity between schools? If the Minister of Education is not looking out for the public interest and public education, then who is?

There's one thing I think this government could do to enhance its credibility with parents who are deeply concerned about cuts to education. It's to support the private member's bill, Bill 110, the Smaller Class Sizes Act. Please put it to committee hearings. I'm sure you will hear a lot of response in favour of it.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Bushby, for appearing before us. We have one minute for questioning. We begin with the official opposition. One quick question.

Mrs McLeod: Could you comment for me on -- it's a bit of a leading question, I acknowledge it -- your sense of the appropriateness of Ontario's spending something in excess of 2% above the national average on education? It's not 10%, incidentally, which is the figure that's commonly used to suggest that we are wildly overspending in Ontario education. But would you comment on the appropriateness of having a goal that would take Ontario spending down to the national average or below it?

Ms Bushby: Ontario leads the country in standards in many ways. People come here from all over the country with good resources to share. Some of the best industries, commercial development and so on are here. If we are training students to meet these national standards which are present here in Ontario and in Toronto, then let's not do away with that.

Second, we know that the vast majority of immigrants to Canada come to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. We must spend more. We know that in Metro at present there are more poor children than there are in the Atlantic provinces. We cannot cut education.

Mr Wildman: I suppose you're probably aware that the minister has said there will be further cuts in 1998. There won't be in 1997, but he has said there will be in 1998. I have a short question. You mentioned the bill of rights that Chair Moll of the Toronto board has put forward as the rights of all kids to education. Would you favour an amendment to this bill which would incorporate that bill of rights as part of Bill 104, if Bill 104 is to go forward?

Ms Bushby: Oh, yes. I would see a whole new set of committee hearings on that. There are many people in Toronto who would like to take part in this committee and have not been called yet. I personally know about six people, and they would like to speak directly to that issue.

Mr Wildman: Again, I understand that Mr Skarica is on his way. I would like to ask the ministry if the ministry would entertain such an amendment to Bill 104, the incorporation of the bill of rights, as the right of every kid in Ontario to education under Bill 104.

The Chair: We'll note that for Mr Skarica.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you very much for coming. As we all know, education is a very, very important part of all of our lives in Ontario. Every province of every political stripe has looked at education and, if we look across the province, at reducing school boards. Every government has done it or has looked at it and is looking at it, as I said before.

There have been numerous studies by consultants and consultation. We all know this. All three political parties in Ontario, the Liberals, the NDP and our party, have said that they would reduce school boards. Part of the reason is, and it's understandable, we're all concerned about getting those dollars that are being spent on administration. We have seen reports in the newspapers of the spending that has been done by boards, by different governments, into buildings and so on.

The Chair: Mr Froese, could I ask you to put your question.

Ms Bushby: I think I know what you're getting at.

Mr Froese: Everybody's concerned about the issue. I guess what I'm not hearing, and I'd like to hear it more from the presenters, and we've heard some this morning, is constructive examples and constructive criticism of how we can change things to make it better. You're heavily involved, as your bio says, as a volunteer and being involved with parents and the parents' advisory committee. When we need to change things, such as the parents' involvement in school councils, we're hearing that more parents want to be involved. Could you give any suggestions on how we strengthen the role of the parent in the school system or in our education system?

Ms Bushby: First of all, as a pre-issue on that, I don't believe at this point that the case has been made for taking away the school boards. The Sweeney report was given the task of finding out how to cut without looking at the wisdom of it. The wisdom of cutting was looked at by the Royal Commission on Learning and they found that local boards are doing a good job of the present programs as delivered. That's not to say that it needs to be carved in stone, but if the province wants to take over what school boards do now, you must set a minimum, at least guarantee the standards of the bill of rights.

The Chair: I regret we've gone way beyond the time allotted. Thank you very much for coming.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Just a quick question. Earlier there were comments made about the amount of spending per student in various jurisdictions. I'd like to request from the Ministry of Education their numbers with respect to the dollars spent by Ontario versus other Canadian jurisdictions and other foreign jurisdictions with respect to dollars spent on per pupil education. I recollect seeing those numbers somewhere, but I would appreciate it if we could get them.

The Chair: We'll note that for the ministry.

HEIDI KREINER-LEY

The Chair: Heidi Kreiner-Ley. Thank you for coming. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Ms Heidi Kreiner-Ley: Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Heidi Kreiner-Ley. I am a resident, taxpayer and parent of the Richmond Hill community in York region. My children attend St Mary Immaculate Catholic Elementary School in Richmond Hill and I am the chair of the Catholic school council and PTA president.

I have been involved in education issues in our community for numerous years. I have made many presentations to our school board, to the Royal Commission on Learning and to this province over the last number of years. I have concerns with many of the changes that are occurring in education and wish to put some of these concerns forward to you today.

Bill 104 has many good aspects and if carried out with its best intentions, in many areas will provide a better education system for our children. However, there are some areas that many of us need clarification on and some areas that require revision or additions to satisfy the concerns of the parents and educators of our children today.

One area that concerns me is that of our trustees. The cutting of the number of trustees may satisfy many people in this province, but I believe we still need strong representation at each of our boards. The public should vote these people in as in the past and they should be held accountable. If it is the intention of this province to eventually do away with trustees as we know them today and replace them with school councils, then I believe that the volunteers who have put themselves forward as members of these school councils must be protected legally in the same way as trustees are today.

1040

Liability and commitment issues must be addressed. Today's members of school councils have the opportunity to quit at any time and their commitment to the amount of work and effort is purely volunteer. I know that in many schools it has been difficult to even obtain a good number of people to actually join the school councils. What will happen in school communities such as these?

Another concern pertaining to trustees is the fact that this government has disqualified a number of people from being permitted to run as trustee. Over the years I have witnessed the important input of teacher trustees and trustees who are spouses of teachers. Their positive contribution to decisions made at the board level by far outweighs the few times they have needed to declare a conflict of interest.

With this province taking away many areas of responsibility from the trustees, in particular areas that would have been deemed a conflict, what is the purpose of disqualifying them now? Their knowledge of the classroom demographics and educational concerns is still vitally needed by the board. They can advise their peers how certain decisions will affect the classroom directly.

In this ruling, I believe this province has erred and they should not prohibit teachers and spouses from running as trustees. If it were such a concern to the public, why has one of our trustees in Richmond Hill, who is a teacher, been re-elected for 18 years? He has always done an excellent job representing us.

With respect to the Education Improvement Commission that is explained in Bill 104, I have concerns as well. In many ways I agree with the concept. Across the province we have seen far too much spent on administration and the glorifying of itself and not enough spent directly in the classroom. I applaud this province in its efforts to correct this. Let us hope, however, that we are not just creating another level of expensive administration. Please assure that members of this commission do not receive outlandish salaries with outlandish retirement packages and are provided with an unnecessarily large staff.

I wish to request that this government assure that in its appointment of members to this commission, representatives of the major school boards are appointed. I, in particular, wish to know that a member of the Catholic community is representing us and that our uniqueness is brought to the table at the commission. This must be the case to ensure fairness and equality and that no bias exists within the commission.

Will this new Education Improvement Commission be willing to listen directly to parents and stakeholders in the community, or will they be distanced from the general public who have concerns about education? Will they hold regular public forums to hear from us, or will they only be fed what the board and administration want them to hear? As the commission has extensive controls and power, it is imperative that before they make decisions that will affect communities directly, they obtain input from that community. How will this process take place?

When reading through Bill 104, it refers to strengthening the role of school councils. I, as chair of a current school council, wish to advise you as follows: I believe this is an excellent idea, but four topics spring to mind when this is discussed: caution, liability, accountability and lobby groups or special interest groups.

Caution: This province must move cautiously in handing over responsibility to school councils and it cannot be done overnight. Many school councils are still floundering and do not understand their direction and role. Further in-servicing and hands-on workshops would give us the direction that is needed.

Liability and accountability: I've touched on this briefly before. My concern as a member of a school council is that if we are given more far-reaching responsibilities, as stated in the bill, and we make a decision that adversely affects someone, will we be liable? Can we be sued and held accountable; and to what extent?

I believe this is a serious concern. If the answer cannot be defined and school council members are not certain, you may find that it will be even more difficult to find people in the school or the community interested in putting everything they own on the line for a volunteer position.

As in every political forum, lobby groups and special interest groups are present. These can come in the form of a small group in a school or as the school council itself. Will we witness individual schools vying for favours from our board and how will this be monitored? Will, once again, the squeaky wheels get the grease? How do we mandate that a global vision must be kept by each school council and not only what is best for their school? The best interests of all students within each school district and the province must always be present in major decision-making issues. That will be a difficult sell, if not impossible.

With respect to the auditing role of the Education Improvement Commission, it is my belief they must extend some leniency to each board. Each community has its special needs, as you have heard today, be it based on location, percentage of special students, ethnic population etc.

In our board it is junior kindergarten, and the stakeholders in our region have spoken loudly over the past number of years to our board not to cut this crucial program. Our communities have even been willing to endure minor tax increases to help assist in maintaining this important educational program. I believe the commission should permit a certain percentage of the budget to be discretionary for each board, provided that the discretionary amount is spent for the benefit of their students' education.

Another concern also refers to the Education Improvement Commission. Are we, the everyday, busy, concerned parent and citizen, going to be sucked into a quagmire of bureaucracy and approvals? Having anything done at the school level today takes months, even years, and reams of paperwork. Will this new commission create another hurdle for our schools? Will parents and school administrators become more disillusioned with the lack of action? How can we be certain the audit authority given to the commission will not tie things up even longer?

What avenue do parents have if the commission has all-encompassing powers and cannot even be questioned or reviewed in a court of law? What happens if a decision made by the Education Improvement Commission, a group that is separated from the communities, affects a community in an adverse way? Who will answer to that community? Will their only alternative be at the polls years down the road?

There is one last concern I wish this committee to hear. It is regarding the non-teaching staff in our schools. I've been notified that this province wishes to contract out many of these positions. Please look at what you're doing again. Many things cannot be decided strictly for their financial savings.

For example, our secretarial staff in our schools are much more than secretaries. I am a firsthand witness to that. These strong, dedicated people are surrogate moms, guidance counsellors, nurses, psychologists, babysitters, school community safety overseers. They know every child in our school, all 812 of them, by name and protect them to the very best of their ability in a very busy and very overcrowded school.

If these jobs were contracted out, there would be no consistency guarantees for our students. Their health and safety would be at risk, and especially in the elementary level their dedication to each and every student could be lost. They are more than just secretaries; they are part of a school family. Each and every teaching and non-teaching staff person is not just an employee in our school, they are a member of a school family. Your plans would destroy that family. I'm requesting that you reconsider your position on this matter. Any savings you think you could realize would be lost in many other ways.

I wish to thank you for providing me this opportunity to speak to you. My sincere hope is that this government is truly listening to the information and presentations, and not just marching forward with their mandate while at the same time making the public feel like they are doing this wonderful thing by allowing us to speak. This has been the way past governments have acted. You have said things are different now. Prove it to us.

The Chair: Ms Kreiner-Ley, thank you very much for your time. You've used it up very effectively.

1050

Mr Wildman: On a point of privilege, Madam Chair: I've noticed that the members of the party supporting the government on the committee have blue pamphlets on their desks which appear to be profiles of each witness, indicating who they are, where they come from and other details about them. I would like to know where these came from. Were they provided by the ministry or were they provided by some other source? I'd also like to know what they say and why they are here, and if they are available to one party, why they are not available to the whole committee and to the public?

The Chair: Mr Wildman, I allowed you to complete your statement, but it's not a point of privilege.

Mrs Caplan: How about courtesy?

The Chair: Out of courtesy, but if the --

Interjections.

DEBBIE FIELD

The Chair: Could I ask Debbie Field to come forward. Ms Field, thank you for coming. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Wildman: Is anybody going to answer?

The Chair: It's not a point of privilege.

Ms Debbie Field: Can I ask a question? What does the blue paper say about me?

The Chair: You have 10 minutes to make your presentation, Ms Field.

Ms Field: I'd like to ask the committee what the blue paper says about me. I was curious actually why I was picked to make a presentation when so many people have asked. I know so many parents in my neighbourhood; I was curious why I was picked. It was a great honour, but I'm just curious.

Mr Wildman: I've no idea what it says.

Ms Field: Okay. My name is Debbie Field. I'll return to that question. Perhaps somebody would provide me and others with an answer to that question. I think it's my public right, my charter right to know what it says.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I witnessed a representative of the Ministry of Education distributing those blue packets this morning. I would assume that information that's made available to the government would be made available to the official opposition and to the third party, and I think before we proceed, we ought to have access to that.

Mr Wildman: Hear, hear. I agree with that completely.

The Chair: In the absence of the parliamentary assistant -- this is certainly something we can put to him when he comes. I appreciate the concerns of the opposition with respect to that and perhaps the government will want to share that with the opposition. We will wait until Mr Skarica arrives to be able to address this issue.

Mr Wildman: I want to know frankly if this was prepared with taxpayers' funds. If it was prepared with taxpayers' funds, it should be available to all of the members of the committee and to the members of the public.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. Ms McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: On the point of order my colleague Mr Duncan has raised in terms of material that is prepared by the Ministry of Education and distributed, it should be available to all members of the committee. There's also an understandable concern on the part of many of the people who are here who are aware that at at least one public forum government representatives had in their possession sheets which outlined the personal background of a number of the individuals who were going to be present and making representation at that forum.

They're concerned about being on a hit list, quite frankly, and if it is something much more innocent than that, I think their fears should be put to rest.

The Chair: I understand the point that you've made and that Mr Duncan has raised and Mr Wildman. In the absence of Mr Skarica, there is very little the Chair can do, but we will refer it to Mr Skarica at the earliest possibility.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Chair: There's a very simple approach here. We have members of the government party who have these in their possession. They can simply make them available to everybody else. Why do we have to wait for Mr Skarica?

The Chair: I've heard your point. We expect the parliamentary assistant to be here momentarily. I would like --

Mrs McLeod: I think we should have the presentation because we're concerned not to have enough time for presenters. In any event we are going to do so because of our commitment to hearing the presenters. If the opposition members were to leave at this moment, there would not be a quorum to hear the presentations. We think it's important to hear the members of the public who are here, so we should proceed.

The Chair: I thank you very much. We will take this up once Mr Skarica comes.

Mr Wildman: What have they got to hide? If there's nothing in them that's a problem, give them to us.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, you know we're on a very limited time. Ms Field.

Ms Field: My name is Debbie Field. I am here in three capacities: as a parent of two children who attend a school in the west end of Toronto, as a founder of something called the Coalition for Student Nutrition and as executive director of FoodShare Metro Toronto. I will be presenting in all three capacities and speaking to issues on all three parts.

I'm going to start off with the most important part, which is my role as a parent. I have two children who are nine and 12. They attend a school in the west end of Toronto, as I've said: Fern Avenue Public School. Originally my husband, David Kraft, was going to be sitting here with me but he couldn't make it and I'll be speaking on his behalf, as well as Molly and Joe's.

I asked Molly and Joe what they wanted to convey to your committee. Joe, who has been reading the newspaper very carefully, has been very distressed to hear that in your calculations the government includes in non-classroom items such things as music, principals, vice-principals, secretarial staff, electricity. Gerry Caplan will be here later and he will be able to do a much better job than I in showing you all the places in which you have done that.

When Joe has been reading in this newspaper, he wanted me to convey to you that to him his music program is incredibly important and that he has done a research project on it which shows that children who are taught music, as well as math, do better on math tests than children who have not had music.

He wanted you to think very clearly as a government, if you are really interested in saving money, and I'm coming here to MPP Froese's question around saving -- I, as a parent, have not asked you to save money by cancelling the music program in my children's school. I, as a parent and a taxpayer, have not asked you to save money by eliminating secretarial staff in my children's office so that when my daughter, Molly, is sick, there is somebody there who knows her and is friendly, as the last speaker talked about. I, as a taxpayer, have not asked you to take what are absolutely fantastic world-class schools and wreck them.

One of the things before you as a government is to really think very seriously about how you want to be remembered by the people of Ontario. We have an absolutely fantastic school system. Here in the inner-city in Toronto, I live in a multiclass, multicultural neighbourhood in which it would be very easy to have lots of problems, and we don't. We have a great school because the Polish kids who are coming, the new immigrants who are coming from China and all over the world, have English-as-a-second-language programs. They need a budget which is bigger. Our school needs a budget which is bigger than a school perhaps that my sister-in-law attends in Burlington, where some of the issues are not quite as complex.

You can't have a cookie cutter that's going to work for the school in south Parkdale that's going to make the kids of south Parkdale productive citizens and have racial harmony that's going to be one, single budget across the province. You have to figure out a way to fund programs that are needed which will make everyone equal, and if you don't, what we'll have unfortunately are schools like the schools I grew up with. I grew up in New York City and I can remember watching the exact same process and how it happened. You know as well as I do what happened in that city.

What a lot of us are so mad about is that we feel you're rushing at such a break-neck pace to break something which is totally unbroken. What my husband was going to say when he presented was that our school in the west end of Toronto is a far safer school than the school he grew up with in suburban Burlington in the 1950s. There's less violence. There's less fighting. We have peacemaker programs. We have an incredible number of programs, which cost, again, more money.

These things cost more money but they have proven their value. From a business point of view, the trend you are moving in, which is to imagine you can cut administration and somehow make companies productive, is being disproven all across North America. You need a certain amount of administration to manage things appropriately. If you don't, you have things that don't work.

On behalf of Joe and Molly, I urge you not to be remembered as the government that wrecked the school system of the kids of Ontario. I would urge you to reconsider, that you can't both have cost cutting at a school level and continue to have the quality.

I want to move on and talk about the Coalition for Student Nutrition and education and I have a question first. I was going to ask this question of Minister Snobelen or somebody who's been involved in drafting the legislation. Is there anybody in the room who has been involved in drafting the legislation? Is there anybody who has worked on the legislation who could answer a question about Bill 104?

The Chair: We are awaiting the arrival of the parliamentary assistant. There are ministry officials to answer your questions.

Ms Field: My question is, in your deliberations in creating the legislation, what have you done around the issue of student nutrition?

The Chair: Do you want to put that directly to the minister?

Ms Field: I didn't want to waste my time talking if I didn't know what you've talked about. I haven't seen it, so I'm just curious; maybe there was something I hadn't seen. Is it mentioned? No. Okay.

Mrs McLeod: Guaranteed, it's not.

Ms Field:I have submitted as my presentation two pieces to you. Sorry, there aren't copies for everybody, but if you want extra copies we could get them. One is the proceedings of an annual conference called NutriAction, which I've been involved in organizing a couple of years in a row. In it there is an open letter to Mike Harris from a couple of years ago when we were asking him what he was planning to do about his Common Sense commitment to expanding student nutrition, and the second piece is an outline of a request for a community-based child nutrition program.

1100

In this is a submission that the group, the Coalition for Student Nutrition, made last year to the province around this issue. There is a specific request under section 2, which is called "Remove Legislative Barriers," if you could look at the bottom of the page and then turn it to the top, and it goes like this: "We therefore request that the Education Act be amended to promote school nutrition programs, school feeding programs, and the creation of positive venues for eating inside schools."

I'll take a minute to explain why this is important. We have an anomaly in Ontario. We are, in Canada and Ontario, among the only countries in the world that do not have a commitment to student nutrition. For some reason, we are way behind the United States on this, way behind every country in Europe, and we're way behind most of the countries in the developing world. In most countries in the world, there's an understanding that if people don't eat, they can't learn. There is a tremendous amount of research which proves this, yet for some reason that none of us can quite figure out, Canada has been behind every country in the world on this.

So in the 1980s a group of us formed the Coalition for Student Nutrition. Our commitment was to see if we could change the education system so that it provided venues for children to eat healthy meals during their school day. That's how the Coalition for Student Nutrition was born, a movement which has had quite a big impact, I think, all across the province. We have seen commitment from the previous NDP government and also the current Conservative government to do something about child nutrition.

The problem, however, is that we still have an Education Act which says, for example, by its silence that it is not possible to spend education dollars on food. All of us who organize at the grass-roots level face principals all across the province on a constant basis who say to us: "Come back after the Education Act has been amended. Until the Education Act has been amended, we will not consider programs a viable component of the day-to-day school." For example, we build whole schools and we don't even build appropriate cafeterias or facilities where meals could be prepared.

Our movement has been sort of on the sidelines. We have started with breakfast. Most of us believe it is a universal snack and universal lunch which is where we want to go, because that's the only way you can reach all children. We have been moving along and we've made tremendous advances in some of our municipalities, primarily because of the trustees and the local school boards. Right now in the city of Toronto, where we have the most advanced programs of anywhere in Ontario, we have 42 programs existing.

We have a concern about what's going to happen to those programs if Bill 104 is adopted. We believe there's a role for the provincial education ministry to play in ensuring a certain bottom line all across the province. We also are very concerned, since you have not addressed it in any way, what you are planning on this and hope you will be able to address those concerns at some point.

The other thing is that, even though Mike Harris is a personal supporter of student nutrition, because of his past as a trustee, and even though it is mentioned in both the Common Sense Revolution and was mentioned in the throne speech last year, we are not pleased with what your government has done so far. You made a commitment in both the throne speech and in the Common Sense Revolution that you would do something for all kids connected to education -- the allusion was very clear in the words I've given you -- but what you did in fact was give a private charitable foundation, the Canadian Living Foundation, $5 million and told them they should spend it in one year, which was not a very useful thing to do, and have not committed to ongoing funding.

In here as well we are asking that you look at ongoing, continuous funding. Student nutrition isn't a question of feeding a bunch of poor kids in a church basement one year and then it goes away, but all of our children eating appropriately healthy meals for the rest of their lives during their school day. I'd like to table this as a proposal from the Coalition for Student Nutrition.

Then I'd like to take a minute about my concern as executive director of FoodShare. In a couple of hours, myself and Sue Cox and Loren Freid and many of us who work with people who are using food banks are going to be doing a press conference in this building about our concerns with Bills 103 and 104 and downloading. Even though many of the government representatives I've talked to about this keep saying these are three separate things -- Joe Spina was in a meeting with Derwyn Shea where Derwyn Shea admitted that he has a lot of problems with downloading, yet we should look at amalgamation and education separately. Many of us believe it is a package and we believe what is about to happen in terms of downloading is very, very serious, and it is connected to what you're deliberating about in terms of education.

One of the few things I'm in favour of in what you are doing is putting education off the municipal tax base and on to the income tax base. That's something that all parties in this room and anybody who has studied the issue has always agreed has to happen. But the same logic has to be equal for welfare. You can't take a position which says that education, as something that is done for the whole society, should be off the property tax base and somehow welfare should be on the property tax base at 50%, which is what you're suggesting. We think there has to be a rethink here in terms of what you're suggesting around welfare.

My own view around the way you could make right what you're doing on the education would be to slow down, look at a provision whereby funding can occur through the provincial tax base, which is a far fairer system than through the municipal base, but you still have boards of education which can do the fine-tuning and the community-based needs assessment that I talked about that exists at my kids' school.

In all these things, in 103 and 104 and downloading, you are rushing at an unbelievable pace. You are creating a crisis that doesn't exist. I can only say over and over again, slow down, take your time; otherwise, you really will destroy not only the education system but many other important institutions in the province.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Field. You've used up all of your time; unfortunately, there won't be any time for questions.

Ms Field: May I have a response around student nutrition and some idea about when you might be able to respond to that?

The Chair: You raised the question. We can certainly put it to the ministry for you.

Ms Field: Could you get back to us? If you find out, can you contact the Coalition for Student Nutrition?

Mrs Caplan: We could request a written response.

The Chair: We certainly can request a written response from the minister regarding that, and that becomes public.

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I'm becoming increasingly infuriated by the way in which the government is dealing with the hearings in this committee. We have seen that in open forums, in public forums, they are arriving with lists that outline the background of people who are not supportive of their position.

We now have the presentation of material that apparently is sufficiently secretive that we still haven't got a copy of it, even to glance at to reassure us that it's a purely innocent document that just provides some background information to government members. I don't understand why this document can't simply be sent across the table or sent to the Chair so that all the questions that are in people's minds can be put to rest.

We're through almost a full morning on hearings, and we have nobody present who is responsible for carriage of this legislation. I just think the government is making very blatant the sham they intended these hearings to be from the beginning. It's difficult to continue to participate.

The Chair: Mrs McLeod, I appreciate your concerns. I don't want to take time from the presenters. My suggestion would be to take up this matter immediately after the presenters have concluded their presentations and we can have a full discussion with Mr Skarica also present.

Mr Wildman: Chair, I understand your position and the difficulty you have because of the large number who haven't been able to present and the large number we want to hear, who are only a small percentage of the total. But what is the purpose of making presentations if the government members don't say anything and we don't hear anything from the ministry and the ministry doesn't hear what anybody says?

The Chair: Mr Wildman, I understand, and your point has been made. I thank you for it. My advice is that we will deal with it after the presenters, with Mr Skarica, so we can have a full hearing about it.

Interjection.

The Chair: Please, with respect, Ms Field, your presentation is over and I really would prefer not to have interruptions.

Mr Wildman: Mr Spina has something to say.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Just a point, Madam Chair: I understand the situation and the frustration they may feel. In lieu of Mr Skarica being here, there is a research officer here. When questions are being posed, we might consider referring those questions to the research officer and then the response can come back to the committee via the research officer. That is an alternative the committee can --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Spina. I think everyone is well aware that there are representatives from the ministry here. I don't believe that's the issue.

Mr Wildman: I thought Mr Spina was about to tell us what it says about Debbie Field on that paper.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, please.

Mrs McLeod: I serve as whip of the official opposition on this committee, and before the committee can proceed very much further we need to have some understanding as to exactly why we're here.

The reason the committee holds hearings on government legislation is presumably to have input to the government so their legislation, which I assume they put forward with good intent, in the interests of good government in Ontario, might be able to be made better after hearing the concerns people bring forward. It's even possible that they may not have the best legislation -- it may not be in the interests of education and good government -- and that the concerns people present could persuade them to withdraw it. I'm not hopeful, but potentially that's the effect of having public hearings. That's why we fight so hard to get public hearings.

1110

Last week, one of the witnesses called by the government had clearly been coached by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education. That he'd been coached was evidenced by the fact that he'd included in his written presentation the notes of the points that Mr Skarica particularly wanted him to emphasize.

Madam Chair, I think that in itself is evidence that these committee hearings are not about hearing from the public, not about hearing concerns, not about examining the legislation as to whether it's good, bad or indifferent in terms of good governance and the future of education in the province. If the government simply intends to go through with it exactly as they have presented, perhaps we should just go to an open forum in a town hall and let people vent, because having the government listen is going to serve no purpose at all.

Interruption.

The Chair: Order, please. Ladies and gentlemen, if we can't have some cooperation, I will be forced to clear the room. I really do not wish to do that, but under the rules of the Legislature I would have to do that. We have a very limited time frame. We want to hear from as many people as possible.

Interruption.

The Chair: Madam, you must cooperate, please. I understand this is an important issue. I want to deal with it at the earliest opportunity. I want to hear everyone out. We will do this immediately after the presentations. Please, in deference to the people who have come here and who want to present, let's hear them out. There will be a discussion of this issue.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Chair: If we do not have a member of the government; of the ministry -- that is, the minister or one of the parliamentary assistants -- this afternoon, I will be moving that the committee recess until they are available.

The Chair: You are free to make that motion, Mr Wildman.

Mrs Johns: Chair, I'd like to point out that there are members of the government here. There are five of us sitting here, and there have been seven here this morning.

We are here to hear presentations. They only have 10 minutes. Questions should be held until the time frame in the middle so we can move forward. There are lots of people here. It's important to hear the presenters. I'd like to move forward. Questions you have we will be prepared to answer during the time frame in the middle.

Interjection.

The Chair: Ms Field, I'm sorry. I ask the next presenter to come forward, Barb Willitts.

Ms Field: May I ask my questions again?

The Chair: Your questions are on the record, Ms Field.

Ms Field: No, I have not been told when I will get the answers to my two questions. I am the executive director of FoodShare; in that capacity I've met with Mike Harris and many MPPs. I have had good answers to questions around child nutrition. You have created a process here where Helen Johns or any of the MPPs who are here will not answer my question. You have legislation. I'd like to know, what does it say in the legislation around student nutrition? Second --

The Chair: Ms Field, your questions have been recorded. They are noted.

Ms Field: You have not said you will get back to me tomorrow. You've not told me you'll get back to me next week. You've not told me --

The Chair: We're not in a position to be able to do that.

Ms Field: I am not leaving until I get an answer to those two questions.

The Chair: With respect, Ms Field, it is Ms Willitts's turn. I would ask Barb Willitts to come forward.

Ms Fields: Perhaps all of the speakers would feel more comfortable if they did not proceed until we saw what was on the blue sheets.

The Chair: I would like Barb Willitts to come forward, please.

Ms Field: I think we should disband until you give us some information. Give us the blue sheets. Also, find out -- a logical question; you're a big government and you've got a lot of researchers -- what does it say in the legislation around student nutrition?

The Chair: Ms Field, we will provide that information as soon as the parliamentary assistant comes. I would ask your indulgence in not disrupting the proceedings. If we do not continue with the hearings, people will be disadvantaged. People have come here to present. May I ask you to please leave your seat. Thank you for your cooperation, Ms Field.

BARBARA WILLITTS

The Chair: Will Ms Willitts please come forward. Thank you. Ms Willitts, you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Ms Barbara Willitts: Do you know what? I'm going to say exactly what Debbie Field said. I want to know what you know about me. I know a little bit about some of you because I was here last week, but I don't know what's on your sheets. I'm offended. I feel like I'm in the United States of America and you guys are the FBI. This is outrageous. Please, may I know what they say about me? Mrs Johns, would you please read to me what is said about me, if there is anything there about me in specific?

Mrs Johns: There is nothing said about you. All these are are documents that tell us who might be presenting and that kind of question. They ask what questions we might have. There is nothing for you --

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, I would like to know why that paper --

The Chair: Excuse me, Mrs McLeod. We're going to have some order.

Interjections.

Mrs Johns: -- prepared by the PC caucus.

The Chair: Excuse me, we're going to have some order. Mrs McLeod, you had a point of order?

Mrs McLeod: It's my understanding, Madam Chair, that those were distributed by a member of the Ministry of Education. I think it is appalling enough that the government should be in possession of profiles on anybody presenting who may be in opposition. It is even more appalling that the parliamentary assistant is coaching witnesses called by the government. I'd like some assurance that that's not why he's not present at the committee hearings this morning, and I would like to know whether it was Ministry of Education personnel who did distribute these documents.

Mr Wildman: Madam Chair, I move that the Conservative caucus table the document in question.

The Chair: Debate?

Mrs Johns: I think it's time for us to move forward to hear the people here. It's important for people to be here and to be heard. What's going to happen is that they're not going to be able to be heard.

The Chair: Mrs Johns, in fairness --

Mrs Johns: I am debating the motion.

The Chair: All right. It sounded like another motion.

Mrs Johns: I would like to move forward to be able to hear the people who are here. At 1:30 we are going to be moving away from this and moving to the House and these people deserve to be heard this morning. We're all here to listen to these people. We would like to hear what they have to say. We would like to move forward to hear what individual people have to say. This bill is very important to the government and to the people and to myself, who has children in the education system. We want to hear what you have to say. Let us move forward.

The Chair: Any further debate?

Mr Duncan: If the government is truly interested in hearing what people have to say, extend the hearings and table your enemies list. Let the public see it. It's an absolute scandal that you would not let that document out. The person I witnessed distributing it was the young woman in the front row with the glasses who last week I was given to understand is with the Ministry of Education. If that was prepared by PC caucus, why is a public servant being forced to distribute partisan political material? That would be the other question.

I would say, table the document. If you're afraid to table it, you must be hiding something. It's likely your enemies list, and you ought to be ashamed if that's what you have.

The Chair: Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman: I would remind the committee that I moved a motion last week that the committee request the government to extend the hearings so we could hear more people. If Mrs Johns and her colleagues are so concerned about wanting to hear people, why did they vote against that motion?

I would ask you to vote in favour of this motion and to table the document so we can get on with the hearings.

The Chair: Further debate? All right, I'll call for a vote on the motion. All those in favour?

Mr Wildman: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Caplan, Duncan, McLeod, Wildman.

The Chair: Opposed to the motion?

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen.

Mrs McLeod: I am sorry, Madam Chair; the committee cannot proceed under these circumstances.

The Chair: With respect, Mrs McLeod, we have a motion on the floor and it has to be voted on.

Nays

Chudleigh, Danford, Froese, Johns, Spina.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

Ladies and gentlemen, there being no quorum, we would normally recess, but the subcommittee had agreed to continue without quorum. Unfortunately, we will have to continue with the presentation in the absence of the opposition. Ms Willitts?

Ms Willitts: Ms Castrilli, I would like to ask to be the first one called when quorum has been resumed because I've spent a lot of time on this and I'm speaking to a third of the room.

1120

The Chair: Let me repeat for the opposition, you may recall that the subcommittee presented a report that was adopted by this committee that said that we could continue without a quorum. We now have a quorum, Ms Willitts. Will you continue, please.

Ms Willitts: This isn't scripted. Do you have an idea of why parents are so frustrated? Do you have any idea whatsoever? We have been going through this for over a year now. It's unbelievable. You're treating us like less than children. It's shameful. You are all to be ashamed for how you're behaving. I don't see this in my kid's grade 1 class. It's shameful. Okay, I've used up two minutes, I'm sure, venting.

I'd like to thank you for being allowed to speak here today. Many parents I know would love to be here and watch this and participate in this and they haven't been able to, so thanks very much.

I'm going to deal with just three issues today that bother me about Bill 104. There are countless issues. There is a lot in the process that bothers me, but I'm only going to deal with three, and those are volunteerism, funding and guiding principles.

I'm a parent volunteer at my children's school. I'm co-chair of the Howard home and school association and I'm on the fund-raising committee; I'm on the staffing committee and I'm a representative to the ward 2 parents' council, a very active group in the Parkdale area. I'm a busy lady. The standard was set by Abby Bushby, who preceded me here today. She did all this work on her own at our school.

I'm just one of 40 people on our home and school executive. We are a very fortunate school. We all work very hard for our kids. We do it on our various committees and we try to create a better school environment for our children. It's called enlightened self-interest. It's good for our kids; it's good for our communities.

We've just recently had to start a food bank at our school because we knew that the classmates of some of our children were coming to school hungry -- they didn't have lunch -- or that the parents went hungry when the cheque ran out before the end of the month. We wanted a better environment for our kids, so we started the food bank.

We function very well. However, no one I have spoken to in my school or in my community is interested in spending any more time in the school. They're in the classrooms on a regular basis. They pitch in whenever we put out the call. However, we feel we have adequate input right now at Howard school, that problems can be resolved through our committees or in consultation with our principal and that we have more than enough responsibility. We are not interested in doing any more.

This government wants to increase the amount of parent involvement in the school system, and that's fine. We don't need it. I understand that other schools may and that's fine. Work with those schools; assist them to develop an active parent body. Forty parents involved in a home and school association on a regular basis doesn't happen overnight. They have to be nurtured. Volunteerism needs to be encouraged but it cannot be legislated.

We have an articulate, energetic and active trustee who works on our behalf and who is always available at some point during her day to get back to us to respond to questions or to guide us. She is worth every penny of the full-time salary she receives. You have to pay for work and you have to pay a fair amount for that work, especially when that person is expected to respond to parents' requests in a timely fashion, expected to be involved with each school in the ward and know how each of those schools functions, and act as an advocate for the students and the parents in the ward.

Some of the other schools in ward 2 -- it encompasses Parkdale -- do not have the active parent body we have at Howard. They require more assistance from the trustee. They require more guidance than we do. Parents there have to work full-time outside of the home. They don't have the energy or the desire to sit on a committee after work, especially if there are a couple of children who require assistance with their homework at home.

Those schools also have a much higher percentage of children who come from immigrant families, single-parent families, families who are doing everything they can to keep their heads above water, parents who are trying to adapt and survive in this new country. They have enough on their plates. They don't need anything else. They're having to learn the language and earn enough money to feed and clothe themselves. They don't have the time to help and their children are doing all they can in a foreign environment.

Our current system in Toronto supports those families and those children. They get counselling to aid in the transition from their old life to the new one. They get ESL courses to help them learn English and to fit into their community so that their future will be as bright as the future of the kids who were born here. They get additional funding in their inner-city schools, and they should get it; they need it. We need for them to get it because we all live in the same neighbourhood, and if those kids are disadvantaged, my family will be affected by that sooner rather than later. We need to bring everyone up to the highest level rather than meet them on the way to the bottom.

That's another thing that makes me so angry about what this government is up to. Funding for our inner-city schools, for our disadvantaged students and for the schools in rural areas is up in the air, and I don't believe that the government doesn't know what those funding levels should be or what you plan to provide in the future. I think we're going to find out after our trustees and our boards are gone and no longer able to advise us.

Parents I speak with on a daily basis are as frustrated and angry as I am that they don't know what the base amount is that the government will fund for their children's education, what the extras are going to cost and whether or not their kids are going to get those extras. This is unbelievable. You must know what your funding levels are, and if you don't, you should have done your homework and you shouldn't come to us, the public, until you know and you can tell us. It's irresponsible to come to us and light fires without having answers.

The needs of the children in the various school boards in this province are different and they require different approaches and different funding, but they require adequate funding none the less. I'm not happy that the schools of Huron county, Bruce county or wherever are not receiving an adequate amount to provide the services they need for their students. I think that's unacceptable and that those schools should be supported fully.

However, in supporting those schools, our public schools in the city shouldn't be decimated. In the same way that we wish to help our less fortunate schools here in the city, we should do the same for those in the province, not by meeting them halfway on the way to the bottom but by helping them to join us up here. Efficiencies should be made in the education system. I heartily encourage that. But at the end of the day, we parents must know that our tax dollars are going towards our children's education and not to a tax break.

Mr Snobelen gave an assurance to 30 parents at Annette school in January that the money obtained by achieving efficiencies in the system would be plowed back into education and no money would be taken from the system, that the total envelope of spending, $13.7-odd billion, would not be reduced. In fact, he said that if more was needed, he would put it in. I received that assurance from him that night. Mr Derwyn Shea, my MPP, and a roomful of parents heard it. I expect Mr Snobelen to stand behind his word.

Finally, the issue of guiding principles: I've put my thoughts on them at the end of this presentation because I have a sense that is what the government has done as well. I just want to highlight how totally backward that is.

It's a vision thing, and I don't believe that the government has one yet. Mr Snobelen and Mr Shea both admitted that they're working on this, that they're consulting and trying to get a handle on what's important. I'd say it's backward to start at that point when you've already decided to do something and you go forward without already having made a first pass at deciding what's to be accomplished and why without having some goals established based on sound principles.

Our school sent our MPP and Mr Snobelen a copy of the Essential Schools document. It spells out what we as parents feel to be essential for our children's education. I don't have a sense that anyone in the government has spent much time reading that document yet.

I was here last week when Mr Moll presented the bill of rights for children in Toronto schools. We in our school fully support that bill of rights, and I expect my elected representatives to do the same.

Finally, I understand there's a new bill, Bill 110, the School Class Sizes Act. It apparently has gone to second reading. Both of these pieces of information are worthy. If the government wants to improve education in the province, I can't think of a better place to start than to support this bill wholeheartedly and make sure Mr Moll's bill of rights for children is somehow brought into Bill 104. We parents are in our children's classrooms on a daily basis and we know what education is like when there are 29 or 31 children in a senior kindergarten or grade 1 class. It's mayhem, it's hellish and it's exhausting, not just for the teacher but for the parents who are in there and for the kids who have to endure six hours of that.

1130

I have a slew of other difficulties with this legislation, one of which being the absurd classification of in-class and out-of-classroom expenditures. That's just one of the many, but I don't have the time to deal with them and I leave that to other parents. I can tell you that my colleagues at our home and school are watching and that parents are watching and that we're not afraid of change, that we embrace change as long as it's done thoughtfully, carefully and with the objective of improving our education system and not pillaging it. Thank you.

The Chair: You've used up all your time. Thank you very much for being here.

Mr Wildman: Chair, since Mr Skarica has arrived, is it now possible for me to get answers to the questions I raised?

The Chair: I think the two questions you raised have been noted. I don't know whether Mr Skarica has been given those questions. If you'd like to repeat them again, you may.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have them. First of all, let me apologize for not being here. My scheduler phoned me on Friday afternoon saying that I didn't have to be here this morning. It was a mistake. I apologize to all concerned. I undertake to read Hansard. Anybody on this side and that side knows I've never missed a hearing before. I scheduled a press conference instead at 9 this morning, otherwise I would have been here earlier, and I'm very apologetic. I'm sorry, it will not happen again.

Mr Wildman: I specifically asked that an explanation be provided as to why the government feels they have to establish a commission with extraordinary powers that are not appealable even to a court to achieve the amalgamation of boards at this time under Bill 104, when in 1968 there was a significantly larger amalgamation of boards carried out in Ontario by a previous Conservative government and no such commission and no such extraordinary powers were established at that time. I wanted to know the reason for the difference.

Mr Skarica: I tried to get you that explanation the other day, but I undertake to do further research and provide you with an answer as best I can.

Mr Wildman: The other question was about what work has been done on a nutrition program for the schools and how that relates to Bill 104.

Mr Skarica: Again, I don't have that information with me, but I'll do my best to obtain it.

Mr Wildman: The other question I had was whether or not the blue paper would be tabled.

The Chair: We had a motion with respect to that and it was defeated, but if Mr Skarica wants to add something to that --

Mr Skarica: Yes. The blue papers have been at all the other committee hearings, Mr Wildman, and they're basically just a brief description, a profile of the presenters. There's nothing contentious here, just some suggested questions.

Interruption.

The Chair: Please let Mr Skarica finish.

Mr Skarica: There's nothing like that at all. I can read one out just random:

"Colleen Morris."

"Ms Colleen Morris has requested to make a presentation at the Bill 104 hearings.

"Position: Not stated."

Then there's a question: "If Bill 104 is passed, what opportunities do you feel exist for boards to achieve efficiencies while continuing to provide quality education in your community?"

There's nothing scandalous, nothing improper. I just picked that one out at random.

Mr Wildman: If that's the case, I don't know why it wouldn't be tabled.

Mr Skarica: Because it's not normally done on any committee hearing, to my knowledge.

The Chair: There has been a motion and it was defeated.

Mr Duncan: Who prepared the blue sheets?

Mr Skarica: My understanding is that they're prepared by officials within the Ministry of Education.

Mr Duncan: Ms Johns indicated they were prepared by your caucus services.

Mr Skarica: That's not my information, but again I can make further inquiries. That's to the best of my knowledge.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order then, Madam Chair: Would it not be appropriate that documentation prepared by the ministry with respect to these hearings ought to be made available to the official opposition and the third party as well as the government members?

Mr Wildman: It's not a partisan document.

Mr Duncan: It's not a partisan document.

The Chair: I appreciate that, Mr Duncan. You have a point of order with respect to that.

Mr Skarica: I understand it has already been voted on, and it's not the normal procedure. These documents were provided to us on all the other committee hearings we've had and not provided to the opposition, and my understanding is that it's the normal procedure.

Mr Duncan: On my point of order, I would have thought that such a document would be part of the compendium to the bill and part of the documentation that's been distributed to us in order to facilitate complete and full debate on the issues that are before us. I wonder why the government would withhold certain information while at the same time providing other information. Would it not be in the interests of fair and full hearings to have that information, which you have described as innocuous, being distributed, in the interest that we all have the same access to the information you're using to further enhance debate?

Mrs McLeod: I can't emphasize enough my belief that what is happening here, although it might not seem offensive to Mr Skarica, is offensive to the entire way in which this committee is operating and to the very intent of the committee hearing. It is the purpose of this committee to review a piece of legislation that has huge consequences for education in this province. It is not the function of this committee to have the government well briefed by the Ministry of Education using Ministry of Education resources on how to challenge those who want to bring their concerns forward. I believe that this is a totally inappropriate use of the resources of a ministry. As well, it is a total abuse of the role of this committee.

Mr Wildman: With respect --

The Chair: I will allow one final point, Mr Wildman. We really have to move on.

Mr Wildman: The suggestion that this is normal procedure and that it has been in the past does not conform with my experience, and I've been around here a little while, 22 years in the House. If it is normal procedure and there's nothing of concern or controversy in the document, then I fail to understand why it would not be tabled and provided to not only the opposition but to all the members of the public. Surely it's in the interests of everyone to have all the information and as much information as possible.

The Chair: Thank you all for your comments. We did have a motion on the subject and the motion was defeated. It remains, however, to determine whether this was documentation prepared by the ministry with ministry funds. In that event, even though the motion may have been defeated, I would urge the government to reconsider and table that information for everyone here.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Speaker, on a further point of order: I'm prepared, since the government was not prepared to, to table what we have. It is a document that was acquired at a previous open forum. I don't know whether or not it is identical to the profiles the government has now, since it deals with other presenters who are not presenting today. The government may have updated profiles, but I would like this tabled for all members of the committee.

The Chair: Very well, we will have that distributed to members of the committee.

Mr Wildman: I don't have any profile.

The Chair: If I may, I'd like to continue, in the interests of those who have been waiting for some time to appear.

EVE PETERSEN

The Chair: Ms Petersen, thank you for your understanding. You have 10 minutes.

Mrs Eve Petersen: My name is Eve Petersen and I'm here today as a home-educating parent. I am here with three other parents, Donna, Colleen and Kelly. Kelly's husband was here briefly with our children outside, but because we're so behind time, he's had to leave and the children have joined him.

To give you my profile, I live in Scarborough and I am a professional librarian with a master's degree in library science from the University of British Columbia. I am here to speak in support, generally, of the purpose of Bill 104 and, Ms McLeod, I have not been coached by anyone.

After many years of working in college, university and public libraries and a number of years volunteering in the libraries at the public schools that my two sons used to attend, I, together with my husband, have chosen to educate our children at home.

The Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents, which I belong to, knows of approximately 3,000 families in Ontario who have chosen home-based education or, as it is popularly known, home schooling. As most of us have more than one child and many are large, child-oriented families, we're probably talking about 10,000 children. I have a newspaper clipping here about a home-educating family with 13 children. The eldest has just won a scholarship to study engineering at Princeton University.

1140

With regard to Bill 104, first, I'd like to briefly comment on the reduction in the number of school boards. When my husband and I first enrolled our children in the Toronto school board and more recently in the adjacent Scarborough school board, we observed large, duplicated bureaucracies that were largely irrelevant to our sons' experiences in the classroom. Now that our family's education is home-based; the school board bureaucracies are completely irrelevant to us.

Second, I'd like to endorse the establishment of an Education Improvement Commission. In particular, I welcome the section in the bill which states that the commission shall research and make recommendations to the minister on the feasibility of increasing parent involvement in education governance.

The Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents is certainly a group of involved parents. We are a voluntary organization of families who have chosen home-based education. We and our children are a keen, enthusiastic, dedicated group working directly to improve the education that the children receive.

I urge the committee members present today and the incoming Education Improvement Commission to feel free to call any of us to find out why home-based education is so effective and growing in popularity.

The executive members of the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents are all willing to consult with you and the commissioners. The secretary, Kelly Green, is here today.

I personally welcome an improved Ministry of Education that is more informed and knowledgeable about home-based education. I did not find the Ministry of Education well informed when I first telephoned the ministry a year ago to inquire about removing my children from public school. But I did get good information from my cousin-in-law in British Columbia, who is home-educating her five children.

I recently heard an interview on CBC Radio with a woman from British Columbia. She and her husband had taken their three children out of public school for six years to sail around the world. The BC Ministry of Education had provided them with a complete set of curriculum materials. When I phoned the ministry, I was told there was no such a program available from the Ministry of Education. I'm not sure if that was accurate or not, but certainly we did subsequently get excellent home-based education materials from other sources.

I welcome any questions that the members present of this committee have about home-based education, and I've distributed one page about the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents that I urge you to read.

Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. Have you received curriculum materials from the Ministry of Education and Training in Ontario now?

Mrs Petersen: No. I find I don't need them because I'm using the curriculum that I got from other parents.

Mr Wildman: The Ministry of Education and Training in Ontario has only four people for developing curriculum for the whole province, for all the students in the province, mainly because that has been done, I suppose improperly, but it has mainly been done by boards up to now, in recent years. They just don't have the staff to do the work. Perhaps they should and that's something we should be looking at.

Mrs Petersen: It would certainly be more efficient than having each individual board make up their own policy.

Mr Wildman: They do guidelines. The ministry does guidelines but the boards actually develop the curriculum and the teaching materials.

Mrs Petersen: When I asked our board for a recommendation for, say, a math textbook, they said, "Get any one."

Mr Wildman: The other question I have is since you're a librarian, I'm wondering if you might comment on the view that has been put forward by the government that libraries are not part of students' classroom education. Would you agree with that?

Mrs Petersen: It depends. At the school my children attended, there was not a professional librarian in charge of the library, and I thought that detracted from the education they received because the children were reading sort of Goosebumps type books. I did object to the teacher who was in charge because I don't think this was a good way to spend taxpayers' money.

But I do see some duplication with the schools because the school libraries are only there for eight months of the year and there's a perfectly good public library in the same block. I think there could be better utilization of public library resources and it depends on how the money is used. Our board in Scarborough said they spend $7,000 per student per year. There were 30 students in my son's grade 3 class. Thirty times $7,000 is $200,000, and that's not counting the teacher and the teaching assistant.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you for your presentation this morning. You mentioned in your comments the concerns you had with respect to efficiency and duplication within the Scarborough board experience. Recognizing the comments you made to Mr Wildman about opportunities for greater utilization of school libraries, what other observations have you made with respect to opportunities for increased efficiencies or areas of duplication that have caused you enough concern to remove your child from the public school system?

Mrs Petersen: I'd like to see fewer students per teacher in the classroom, but at the same time I go out to the Scarborough school board and there's a huge three-storey building filled with education bureaucrats. When we lived in Toronto, there was the same thing in Toronto. I haven't looked at it line by line, but it seems to me that there must be. Then if you go out to boards farther out, everywhere you go there's another school board and it doesn't always have anything to do with what's happening in the classroom. As I said, now that our children are home it has no relevance to us.

Mr Duncan: I just wonder if the government is asking the prepared questions that they have made up for them or if they're asking questions resulting from the presentations by the delegations.

Mr Smith: I'm asking questions from the submission.

Mr Duncan: Oh, okay. So you're ignoring these questions that have been prepared for you.

The Chair: Was that your question?

Mr Duncan: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: I'd like to bring the questions to Bill 104 specifically and try to get a sense of how Bill 104 might affect the alternatives of home schooling as you've experienced them under the current education system. I need to just get a little bit more of a sense of that.

I assume you would agree that there would be a concern to keep some measure of control. I appreciate the fact that you have found it frustrating that there isn't a better understanding by either the province or school boards as to the role of alternative schools and home schooling, but that you still needed some measure of control: There has to be a standard in terms of curriculum, there has to be some supervision by the Ministry of Education of the home schooling and there has to be some concern about whether the children are going to get an adequate education through the home-schooling process.

I'm wondering if school boards become as huge as they will be under this bill, if they disappear altogether, which is certainly a decided possibility as a result of this bill -- and I also have to put it in the context that there are virtually no regional offices of the Ministry of Education left -- wouldn't it be very difficult for home-schooling parents to try to deal directly with the Queen's Park-based Ministry of Education to get their concerns and essentially their ability to provide home schooling addressed?

Mrs Petersen: Because of the broad range of philosophies that home school has come from and because of the broad range of different experiences they get dealing with different school boards, I think many of us would prefer to deal directly with ministry policy so we know what we're dealing with province-wide.

Mrs McLeod: I come from northern Ontario so it's a bit difficult for parents in my part of the province to deal directly with the Ministry of Education in Queen's Park or for me to feel comfortable that children in my area could possibly be adequately supervised by a very reduced ministry working out of Queen's Park. I guess I'm concerned about what happens to the children if parents really can't provide adequate home schooling.

Mrs Petersen: We're probably more concerned about public schools that are not providing adequate education for children, and that's sometimes why parents pull their children out of the school. I have a cousin who home-schools up in Marathon in the far north of Ontario and to her, the local school board is irrelevant to their home-based education. She gets her curriculum materials from a Christian home-schooling supply company and for many of us, as I said, the school boards have no role to play.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Petersen, for coming here with your group and thank you, particularly, to the children for coming today.

1150

TAM GOOSSEN

The Chair: Could I ask Tam Goossen to come forward. Thank you very much for coming.

Ms Tam Goossen: Ladies and gentlemen, that was certainly very entertaining this morning. I'm glad I came.

First of all, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here in front of you about Bill 104. I would like to begin by telling you a little bit about myself, to add to the confidential profile that you have of me.

I have been an elected representative on the Toronto Board of Education for close to nine years. Before becoming a trustee, I was an active mother in my children's school -- so you can see trustees are just ordinary people -- getting my feet wet, so to speak, in school politics, like many of our parents are doing right now. The issue at the time was the introduction of the heritage languages program and that was at the time when it was being introduced in various Toronto schools and hearings were held in individual schools. That's how all the parents got into the act, debating about the pros and cons of the issue.

Since arriving in Toronto in 1970 as an immigrant, I have been living at pretty much the same spot in downtown Toronto, at College and Bathurst, first as a university student and then as a mother with two children attending our local public school. As I became more involved with the school, I also became very much aware of the obstacles confronting immigrant parents with little or no knowledge of why or how their children were being taught the way they were. They felt frustrated that they couldn't really communicate with their children's teachers because they only spoke Chinese or Portuguese.

Indeed, one parent commented to me that he felt that he totally lost control of his son when he went into the school system. Why? Because as the son learned more English, his ability to speak Chinese diminished. Moreover, as he became more Canadianized, he seemed further alienated from his own home environment and the school didn't seem to be able to do much to help. One of the things that motivated me to run for trustee was to help immigrant parents like him.

I faced the voters three times, and after that experience I can assure you -- they were all very much hotly contested elections, not just sleepy-time cakewalks like you read in the media -- I can be confident in saying that I have been able to help. The Toronto board has a good system in place to help immigrant parents, like the Chinese gentleman I talked about, feel welcomed and valued in our schools.

Not only that, as you have heard from our parents before, all our parents have a final say in interviews to hire principals and vice-principals for their own schools. As a major public institution, particularly in this province, we have very good employment and promotion policies. Without these policies, our women or visible minority educators would not have had the chance to work side by side with their white male colleagues in positions of responsibility. You should see the change in the administrators in our system. It's just marvellous to see right now.

As the city of Toronto has welcomed immigrants from all parts of the globe for over 100 years, the Toronto Board of Education has developed many good community-based programs to help new Canadians settle and flourish in this new environment. These include ESL programs; international, formerly known as heritage, languages programs; parenting centres; school-based child care centres; and inner-city support programs, just to name a few. Without these, many of our immigrant families, who have contributed so much towards the economic growth and wellbeing of this city, would have been largely alienated from our schools.

I wish we trustees could claim all the credit for these good initiatives at the Toronto board. In truth, however, we have been building on the good work done by a lot of our predecessors who considered policies on public education vitally important in the building of a just and democratic society. They took the job of trustee very seriously -- as an aside, I'm sorry to hear that maybe Mr Harris had a bad experience as a trustee, but that certainly is not the experience at the Toronto board. They challenged the administration every way they could. They listened to the various communities very carefully and painstakingly put in place policies and practices that were of lasting significance. I am very proud to be part of that tradition and to have been able to make my own mark on it.

What does Bill 104 mean to me? As a trustee, I'm frankly very puzzled by the minister's statement that he wants to restore trustees to their traditional role. What tradition is he referring to? Back when Ontario was made up of mainly rural communities where students were taught by one teacher in a one-room school house? Why then propose a mega-size school board with 300,000 students from the most diverse backgrounds imaginable? How can he even suggest that an elected trustee, accountable to over 100,000 citizens, should be paid $5,000, but the people appointed by him, and answerable only to him, to oversee the so-called Education Improvement Commission should be paid $90,000 each? Please explain to me what kind of democracy that is.

After working so intimately with the various communities in the city and the board bureaucracy for so long, I know for a fact that the success of these Toronto programs and policies has not come easily. Rather it is the result of the dynamic interplay of political will and administrative knowledge. In the minister's proposed scenario under Bill 104, however, every school will have to fight for its survival in a monolithic mega-board bureaucracy where political opposition has been silenced. I fear for all students and their families, especially those who are not English-speaking, who are recent immigrants or refugees and, frankly, who are poor.

My colleague Mr David Moll was here last week urging you to support a bill of rights guaranteeing a basic minimum standard for the Toronto system. David and I have had our share of differences over the years on many, many issues, but I have always respected his commitment to public education and his sense of fair play. l absolutely agree with him when he said, "Our city has avoided the problems of large American cities for one main reason: strong neighbourhoods and strong neighbourhood schools."

A system that has allowed people like Mr Moll, a long-time Tory member from the east end of the city, and myself, an immigrant from Hong Kong and an NDPer living downtown right in the middle of Kensington Market, to work together for the good of all our varied and diverse communities can't be that bad. I therefore join Mr Moll in urging you to repeal Bill 104, or at least delay it until the minister can give our parents and students a straightforward answer about the future of Toronto schools. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Goossen.

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, please, we must have some order.

Mr Skarica: Ms Goossen, you indicated that you felt that it was appropriate to have a minimum bill of rights for students in Toronto. Why wouldn't you think that should apply throughout the province?

Mr Wildman: In your absence, I suggested we amend the bill to include it for everybody.

Ms Goossen: I think it's absolutely true. Those are very good programs. I don't know if you have a copy of Mr Moll's deputation because he listed all the things in there and I think those are programs that could benefit all students in Ontario -- absolutely.

Mr Skarica: Your position then is if there was going to be a bill of rights, it should apply to all the students of Ontario as opposed to Toronto or a section of the province. Is that fair to say?

Ms Goossen: No, no. I wouldn't say that you ram things down people's throats and force them to accept particular programs, but these are the -- what we tried to do in that bill of rights is have an essential good school as developed by our parents, and if the individual communities would like to look at that as a reference, they can certainly do that. I couldn't recommend it as a mandatory essential school program for everybody. I wouldn't suggest that.

1200

Mrs McLeod: Just as a point of clarification, could I ask the parliamentary assistant if he was referring to -- did I hear a "minimal" bill of rights?

Mr Skarica: No. I just asked her if she felt the bill of rights should apply --

Mrs McLeod: Yes, but I thought I heard you say a "minimum" bill of rights and I just hope that if we could ever get around to talking about a bill of rights for children, we would be talking about something much more than a minimum.

I wanted to just pursue your sense that after Bill 104, every school will have to fight for its survival. Do you feel that those school boards will essentially disappear, become unworkable, exist in name only, and that's why essentially you'll have one school versus another? Is that your concern?

Ms Goossen: That's my absolute fear, because you can see the way it's set up now, it's almost like -- as I said, you are setting up a huge, remote, centralized structure and then you have parents at each school trying to fight for their own school. There's nothing really in between. The kind of individual board structures that we have now will disappear.

One of the reasons why parents come out to the school meetings, first of all, is really to fight for their own kids, and if they have time they might think about other kids in the school. I mean, it's legitimate for parents to do so, and when you have such a remote bureaucracy out there, what choice do they have if they don't fight for their own kids and individual schools? Nothing. So it just really makes that situation worse and the conflict will be, I think, very difficult to handle. I'd hate to be the principal of that school.

Mr Wildman: Ms Goossen, as you may know, I have some particular interest in the experience of your community because I have a little girl who is from Yangzhou, China, near Nanjing, and she's about to celebrate her third birthday. I'm hoping next year that she'll be going to a junior kindergarten, but I'm afraid she may not be able to.

In particular, your concern about the role of trustees and Mr Snobelen's comments: Mr Snobelen I think said -- I'm paraphrasing, but I'm very close to what he said -- "The trustees should return to be the guardians of quality education, not the managers of the schools." Does that help you any in understanding what he wants for trustees?

Ms Goossen: No. We have a good quality of education. I'd never consider myself a manager of the school, not at all.

Mr Wildman: He seems to think because you have a full-time position that you are hands-on managers in running the schools for which you are responsible as a trustee. Is that an accurate assessment of the role of a trustee for the Toronto board?

Ms Goossen: No, not at all. That's not my experience, and I've been a trustee for close to nine years.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Goossen. There's never enough time for these presentations.

GORDON FLETT

The Chair: Could I ask Gordon Flett to come forward. Thank you very much, Dr Flett, for being with us. You have 10 minutes.

Dr Gordon Flett: Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee. My name is Gordon Flett. I am a psychology professor at York University and I'm also the chair of the accommodation committee at Middlebury Public School in Mississauga. I'm going to focus on Bill 104 in terms of its negative implications for school construction and how it has already led to great unhappiness in our community.

As a social scientist, I agree with the general principle that there should be equity throughout the province in terms of the amount of funding per student. However, I feel that this bill appears to define the concept of equity in a very narrow manner. There is no indication in Bill 104 that this government is at all concerned about equity of opportunity in terms of equitable access to appropriate school facilities. If anything, Bill 104 has already made a bad situation with respect to accommodation even worse.

Recall that last March the government imposed a one-year moratorium on school construction. The moratorium was lifted last month, in theory at least. Unfortunately, the introduction of Bill 104 in effect reinstated the moratorium. Why?

Bill 104 stipulates that expenditures of $50,000 or more must be approved by the EIC, the Education Improvement Commission. School boards can't purchase property unless they have the EIC's permission, but permission is impossible to obtain because the EIC does not exist at present. School boards throughout this province want to proceed with the planning and construction of new schools, but they cannot. Construction companies throughout this province want to get on with their work, but they cannot. And unemployed construction workers must be wondering why they can't get a job when the government has announced $650 million worth of new schools.

Real architects are on hold while the architect of educational reform, Mr Snobelen, creates his crisis. Recently, when asked by Mr Wildman about the school construction crisis that still exists, Mr Snobelen characterized the government's record on school construction as "exemplary." Unfortunately, nothing can be farther from the truth. Instead of meeting the needs of students, the current government has implemented a moratorium and appears to have done everything possible to slow down the construction of schools through the provisions outlined in Bill 104.

I would like to now focus on our specific situation at Middlebury to illustrate the dangers inherent in Bill 104. Middlebury was built for 500 students four years ago and it currently has 700 students and 10 portables. Note that Middlebury is the only elementary school in central Erin Mills, which is one of the fastest growing communities in Ontario and in Canada. There are no separate schools in our community, and there is no senior public school. Still, the new houses keep coming and coming. If no new school is built, it is estimated that Middlebury will have 1,062 students by 1999 and approximately 25 portables.

Note that the school we need is not a moratorium project. In fact, the school we need in our area has never been allocated money by the Ministry of Education and Training. Why? Our school has never been approved because the Harris government has never issued a call for new school projects. They have simply unfrozen projects and then refrozen those projects approved by the former NDP government.

A solution to our problem was provided last December, but it now appears to have been taken away. On December 17, the Peel board trustees voted to build our school. They are willing to build the school with the board's own funds if necessary, in recognition of the problem. By taking this step, our trustees recognized their duty to provide appropriate accommodation as outlined in the Education Act. I've actually appended a letter to the back written by the education minister. It outlines their duties and it's in the appendix for you.

The new school that we require would alleviate overcrowding at Middlebury and allow our senior students to stay in our community. However, all work on our new school has now been stopped because of the retroactive clause in Bill 104. Right now we have no school, and all we are left with are a lot of questions. These questions include the following:

First, will the EIC give permission for our new school? If so, when? Or will they deny permission and make us wait for the new funding model for school construction that is supposed to come in the spring? Note that every day that goes by makes it less likely that our new school will be available in September 1998, which was the original goal of the Peel board.

Second, how can proposed legislation be made retroactive and suspend current school board decisions? These decisions have been made in our children's best interests by our democratically elected officials. What about the current rights of our children as outlined in the existing Education Act? Our trustees seem to be the only people who have been sticking up for our kids, and their powers have been usurped by Bill 104. Does this mean that the rights of our children are also in abeyance?

Finally, perhaps the biggest question is, when will our own MPP, Education Minister John Snobelen, start representing the best interests of his own constituents? I have written to Mr Snobelen and asked him to intervene in this situation, and I've appended that letter and related materials as well. To my knowledge, my written request has gone unanswered, as has our request for a meeting. Mr Snobelen has either ignored or refused all of our requests for a meeting with him over the past year, about five or six in total. I can only surmise that our MPP is avoiding us because he does not want to have to explain why he implemented a school construction moratorium after promising us 13 months ago that this would never happen because at the time he said, "It would be political suicide in my riding."

I derive no comfort from the fact that our situation is not unique, as indicated in today's Toronto Star article titled "Pending Laws Make Schools Afraid to Start New Buildings." I have been in contact with Linda Sinclair, who is the parent leading the fight for a school to replace the Nottawa school in Collingwood. She has informed me that her MPP, Jim Wilson, has also asked Mr Snobelen to intervene on their behalf, but no meaningful solution has been provided. I guess when a school is 91 years old and has needed to be replaced for several years and is in fact falling apart, as is the case with the Nottawa school, it's okay to let the students wait a little bit longer.

Where does this leave us? I've heard a lot of platitudes and promises from this government, but I've seen no real solutions. This government says things like, "We will help Ontario students take their place at the head of the class." If you want us to believe that you are sincerely trying to improve the education system, then demonstrate this. Here are some basic things you can do:

First, put in an amendment or reach an all-party agreement that will allow our school and all the other schools to go forward. Eliminate the retroactive clause of Bill 104 and eliminate or modify the clause that prohibits purchases of $50,000 or more.

Second, recognize that the costs of accommodation are part of the classroom. Acknowledge the province's responsibility in ensuring that students have equitable access to appropriate school facilities and that failure to address this infringes on their right to a quality education.

Finally, do not offload school construction and associated costs to municipalities. At least two of the government members, Mr O'Toole and Mr Snobelen, have told me personally that this government plans to get out of the school construction business as part of their master plan. If the province wants to control education, then surely it must assume the responsibility for school accommodation, since experts agree that the quality of a school's program is directly affected by the learning environment that is provided.

1210

The bottom line here is that this is not about partisan politics; this is about the education and welfare of our children. Parents throughout this province will simply not tolerate any mistreatment of their children: Do not underestimate the resolve of parents. Already we have seen province-wide protests by parents. These protests are unprecedented in the history of this province and they may be just the beginning.

Most members of this committee are parents, so I know you understand how important education is and just how far parents are willing to go on behalf of their children. If you do not address the school construction problem and it turns out that Bill 104 is simply a smokescreen for more cuts, then the voice of parents will certainly be heard, if not now, then at election time. Given that there are over two million students in this province, I suspect that the noise created by their parents will be deafening and unforgettable. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Flett. You've used up your time and we thank you very much for being with us today.

Mrs McLeod: A short 10 minutes.

The Chair: Yes. It flies by, I'm afraid.

Dr Flett: The documents speak for themselves, I think. You will see the attachments there.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

DAVID HOGG

The Chair: I would call David Hogg. You have 10 minutes, Mr Hogg.

Mr David Hogg: I regret that I'm 55 minutes late. I had my time to use as well, so I would appreciate that the committee in future will consider our needs as well as their own.

My name is Dave Hogg, a trustee with the Metropolitan Separate School Board and actively engaged in the education reform movement which supports quality teaching and quality learning for all Ontario students to their maximum capacity: no short change for any.

I was accepted as an individual to make this presentation. Since registering, I have listened to the directors of the Organization for Quality Education, OQE, and spoken to one of the co-chairs of the Coalition for Education Reform, CER. There is general support in both these organizations for the direction taken in Bill 104. There is particular support for significant administrative reduction to achieve an increase of funding in the classrooms. Any move to free teachers from administrative shackles would be viewed positively.

The parents and teachers in both organizations would dearly like to see teachers able to freely exercise their professionalism in delivering quality teaching and promoting quality learning in their classrooms. For too long, teachers have been terrorized -- I do not think the word is too strong -- into toeing the ideological line: child-centred learning, as if good teachers did not always have this focus, where pupils -- six years old in one MSSB document -- are responsible for their own learning and teachers become facilitators, whatever that might mean to a six-year-old; whole language -- more of this later; a grossly deficient spiral curriculum from which students were supposed to learn math but did not, etc. I could go on for a long time, but will spare you of some of it.

In July 1994, a small group went to the Ministry of Education to challenge Circular 14, the ministry document which defined acceptable texts. The ministry's self-proclaimed experts claimed a balanced approach to reading was supported in Circular 14, whole language "with some phonics." A teacher in the group had thought to take the texts in and challenged the expert to find the phonics. To my observation, he failed. It would be damned funny if the consequences for Ontario's students were not so disastrous. You will know that the Globe and Mail reported last week definitive research which confirmed that pure phonics is the most effective method of teaching learning to read, something education reformers have known for many years.

I have gone into this detail to impress on you the woeful effect strong administrations replete with consultants can have on Ontario's education. The offset to the trustee-school board system, which has neither protected the quality of education nor the public purse, is strong school councils, a direction we hope you will take. We have all heard the dire predictions that strong school councils will be taken over by special interest groups, and that of course will be disastrous.

Can I take you back to my earlier remarks about child- centred learning, about whole language and about spiral math curriculum etc? The whole system has been labouring under pedagogical dictatorship this last many years. So what if some schools do succumb to special interest groups? Perhaps some of these special interest groups will be interested in special learning and we will have at least a few more decent schools in the province.

On a personal note, I spent many hours yesterday going through the official Roman Catholic church documents reading about the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents. I would like to suggest you would be hard put to find stronger advocacy anywhere for the move to parent-powered school councils respecting denominational rights. Please allow me the luxury of two quotes. The first is from a Vatican II document, Gravissimum educationis:

"3. Since parents have conferred life on their children, they have a most solemn obligation to educate their offspring. Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it. For it devolves on parents to create a family atmosphere so animated with love and reverence for God and men that a well-rounded personal and social development will be fostered among the children. Hence, the family is the first school of those social virtues which every society needs."

The second is from the current Pope's 1981 document The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World, Familiaris Consortio:

"The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with the regard to the educational role of others, on account of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

That is pretty strong language for those administrators in the education system who disparage parents and shunt parents aside because these administrators consider themselves "experts." Humility might suggest to these experts that there could be some pretty smart people -- parents -- who are employed outside the educational system.

To fully inform school councils, you will need to revert to warts-and-all results from quality tests to each council. I am far from sure that is current practice.

After supporting the move to fewer school boards, fewer trustees and far less administration, for follow-up legislation I would recommend that per pupil funding is essential and that it should be directed in the major part to the schools. Some top level school board financial and facility/fabric expertise could be beneficial with some large school/small school financial balancing, but that is all.

I am open for questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hogg. We have about five minutes. We begin with the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much, Mr Hogg. I want to get a sense of your feeling about the consequences of Bill 104 over the longer term. Do you see the role of school trustee as having any particular relevance or meaning under Bill 104, given the fact that there is no funding flexibility, with 100% control of educational funding as the companion piece to this bill?

Mr Hogg: I see a much diminished role and a different role, a role with a different focus. Unfortunately, the trustees have become communicators. They convey messages from the community to the administration, get some sort of resolution and carry it back again. That makes them pretty high-priced messengers, and I don't think that's where their function lies. I think the trustees have misread their function. They should be acting as a board of directors. The move, which was an NDP initiative, to school councils is certainly a move in the right direction so that the decisions that need to be made will be made where they should be made, in the schools, and not by some remote organization or remote body like the trustees.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: Oh, five minutes in total?

The Chair: Yes, in total; he only has 10. Mr Wildman for the third party.

Mr Wildman: Mr Hogg, I've heard a presentation by you previously to another committee on education.

Mr Hogg: Equity in funding, I believe it was.

1220

Mr Wildman: Yes. I'm aware, I think, of some of your views. Could you explain or give some of your understanding as to why it is, when all of us agree -- everyone in this room I think agrees that we want to have parents as involved as is possible in the education of their children and in the operation of their local school -- that the minister, I understand, and I and I guess my colleague, are getting so many letters from parent councils, parents who are really interested in their kids' education, saying that they don't want to be trustees, that they don't want to take on the role of trustees, that they want to operate and be involved in their kids' education but they don't want to make the kinds of decisions that up to now trustees have been elected to do?

Mr Hogg: Since I haven't seen their letters it's somewhat difficult for me to comment on it, but I would like to suggest to you that there may be some proactive anxiety here. How did the trustees pick up their expertise? If you've watched trustees like I've watched trustees, you'll know that a lot of them come into the job with very little expertise, very little educational expertise and even less financial expertise.

Mr Wildman: Sometimes they say that about ministers.

Mr Hogg: It's a hazard of the political job, I'm sure. But they pick it up, and I personally believe that's what will happen with school councils.

Mr Skarica: They say it about parliamentary assistants as well, sir. Regarding the reduced role of trustees as outlined in Bill 104, we've heard a number of presentations from trustees that they feel it will have a disastrous effect on the quality of education on students. You obviously disagree. Could you indicate why you disagree with those statements?

Mr Hogg: You just look at what has happened. The quality of education has gone down significantly in Ontario over the last little while. If you don't believe me, the tests are there: the provincial tests of reading and math in 1988 and IP1 in 1988, IP2 in 1991, the latest TIMSS, there's the latest SIMSS, SAIP and so on and so forth. Clearly they haven't protected the quality of education and that likely is because they don't know education. They haven't been in the classroom. They don't understand the concepts of education.

Interruption.

Mr Hogg: Maybe if you'd spend 10 years in the classroom, those people who decide would understand a little bit more of what needs to be done in order to improve the quality of education in classrooms.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hogg, for being here today. I would caution the audience again not to interject. Mr Hogg has the right to express his views.

Mr Hogg: Madam Chair, they may have noticed that I didn't interject with them, but they may --

The Chair: Everyone who comes before the committee has the right to express his or her views unobstructed. Thank you very much.

THOMAS CIANCONE, SOFIA WARSME, YUK MAK, BATULA WELI, CONSTANCIO JAYOMA

The Chair: Next is a group of presenters: Thomas Ciancone, Sofia Warsme, Yuk Mak, Batula Weli, Constancio Jayoma. I hope I got those more or less correct. If I could ask you to all be seated.

Interruption.

The Chair: May I ask you to continue your debate outside the hearing room. We would like to listen to the next group. You may feel free to step outside and speak to any of the presenters, as you wish.

Welcome. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Thomas Ciancone: I'd like to thank you for the opportunity, Madam Chair and committee members, to address the government of Ontario regarding Bill 104. My first word of advice is, please be slow. Allow time for input from the people in the education system. We have a lot of valuable experience to give to you.

My name is Tom Ciancone. I live in the city of Toronto and work for the Toronto Board of Education as an adult numeracy instructor. When I submitted my name to speak to Bill 104, I was concerned about continued access to basic skills programs for adults, but I thought it better that the students speak for themselves and not just me. I'd like to share my 10 minutes with English-as-a-second-language learners from Toronto ESL literacy and beginners' ESL class. If time permits, I'll contribute my own words in closing.

The classes are actually seated in the audience here. On Friday they discussed together the value of the English classes and they chose four representatives to speak on their behalf, to share their ideas and concerns. Perhaps I'll have each one of you say your names and you can speak.

Ms Sofia Warsme: Hi, everyone. I'm Sofia Warsme. I wish to be a nurse. I have two children. I think for me English is very important. School is very important for the future for me and my children. Without school I think it's like a wall and you can't see behind the wall.

My dream is to be a nurse. I think without school my dream is finished. I'm only 24 years old and I have two children. I think it's very important for me to go to school, not only to stay at home and not do anything for the future. Thank you very much.

Ms Batula Weli: My name is Batula. I am a grandmother. My children need to speak English for jobs and future. I like English because no speak English: no doctor, no hospital. No understand English: eyes closed, ears closed, mouth closed. At school we learn English step by step: school close, step by step close.

Ms Yuk Mak: Hi. I am Yuk Mak. I am building English because people say, "Hello, Yuk Mak, good morning," in English. I am not talking because I no understand English. I come to school. Good. Teacher talking English as you. So now I can say, "I am fine." Thank you very much.

Mr Constancio Jayoma: My name is Constancio Jayoma. I come from the Philippines. I speak a little English. I speak about government in Canada because in Canada very good, very nice in Canada because even an old man can go to school, for example, like me. In my country, if you're over age, no come to school, but here in Canada it's very good because over age come to school. Very nice government in Canada. Thank you.

Mr Ciancone: Those of you who have a copy of this paper, on the other side are other things that the class contributed. It would be great if all of them could be here but we have very good representatives here.

You have heard from the students, and they have many roles in society. They're the parents, they're the grandparents, the caregivers, the neighbours of the children in our school. Under the direction of Minister Snobelen, the parent councils are to be integral parts of the school system. The voices of these students must be heard on these parent councils. They must be involved in their children's education.

Why do we have concerns with Bill 104? Let me make three points: One is about access to decision-making, another about funding and then about education priorities.

Access to decision-making: With a Metro mega-board the adult learners will be lost in the shuffle. Did the government think of them when deciding about the parent councils and what role they would play in running schools? What role would adult literacy and ESL classes play in local schools? Half of our classes are co-sponsored with the community. Do community-based programs fit into the vision of a school? What about seniors and adults with physical and developmental handicaps or disabilities? My own students where I teach are learning basic mathematics skills, and those students are developmentally challenged adults. Who will speak for them in the new Metro school board?

1230

About funding: Over the last three years when the Metro school boards have been faced with declining municipal revenue, the first place they cut was in continuing education. Seniors' programs were cut in half. Adult literacy and ESL classes in the city of Toronto decreased from 1,200 in 1992 to just over 700 this year. With the changes in funding, we fear these programs face total elimination. What is the government's funding commitment to basic skills and language programs for adults?

Priorities: The mandate of the so-called Education Improvement Commission is to outsource non-instructional services. We know by Minister Snobelen's definition of classroom instruction that adult learners do not fit. Putting these notions together, the future education system would totally absolve itself of the responsibility for these adult learners. If the programs exist, they will be divorced from the school system. The standards of curriculum and integration of adult education with that of their children, which we have developed over the last years, will be lost.

I personally have worked on some of this curriculum. In fact, I've worked on numeracy books for adult learners and I'm not sure what will happen if these kind of curriculum materials are then outsourced.

If this is all lost -- we hope not, we hope you're listening -- how then is this government going to reinforce this integration and the quality of the instruction that we have at the moment? How will this government make sure that there is access for adults in our education system?

In conclusion, I'd like to say that language instruction to new immigrants and basic literacy training are necessary for many adults to begin a process of retraining in our rapidly changing society. Adult education programs are essential for the support of children's education since parents with strong literacy and English-language skills can better support their children's learning at home and at school. These programs are not luxuries; they're crucial to the lives of individuals, to our families and to our communities.

The Chair: I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of the committee, to thank all of your presenters and indeed all of your students for coming here today.

Mrs McLeod: I have two questions that I'd like to place on the record for response by the ministry. The first is in direct relationship to the presentation that's just been made. Recognizing the fact that the cuts of some 50% to adult education have meant the loss of as much as 80% of adult education programs outside the Toronto area, I would like some understanding from the ministry that in a new funding formula the adult education funding will be restored to its full level and that full funding will be extended to those areas not currently receiving adult education grant support.

Mr Wildman: I would just add that we're talking here about day school, not just continuing education for adults.

Mr Skarica: Perhaps when we have our meeting today, that's something you could address to the minister.

Mrs McLeod: As you know, Mr Skarica, although I'm going to attend if there's any meeting, I have requested written responses to all of the questions that have been placed on the record and I continue to want written responses.

The second area of questioning has a relationship to a presentation that we heard earlier from Dr Flett, but it's also a question that I was asked to place on the record by people from the Prescott-Russell, Ottawa-Carleton area that I met with last week, and it relates to capital expenditures. Given the fact that the EIC has total control over board budgets this year, and also that boards can't enter into contracts of more than $50,000 for the current year, can you debenture before you start building? Under the current rules, you cannot raise any dollars, borrow any dollars for school construction costs until you're actually ready to start building. The second question is whether or not boards can enter into debenture repayment plans, borrowing and repayment plans, that extend past December 31, 1997.

Mr Skarica: You want a written response from the minister, correct?

Mrs McLeod: Thank you.

GERALD CAPLAN

The Chair: Could I ask Mr Gerald Caplan to come forward. Welcome, Mr Caplan. It's a pleasure to have you here with us to share your thoughts.

Mr Gerald Caplan: I'm sorry I couldn't come to Ottawa to accommodate you.

The Chair: We're happy to have you anywhere you can come.

Mr Caplan: Thank you. I want to talk about amalgamation and parent councils. I want to tell you that the Royal Commission on Learning, which I co-chaired -- a majority of us walked into that commission having no preconceived views on either of these issues, probably didn't know a heck of a lot about either of them, had no partisan view about them, and what we ended up deciding was based entirely on the facts as we found them. It's only that I want to share with the committee today. I want to try to eschew all ideology, all partisanship and indeed bias as such. I haven't come here to defend boards. They are complicated, curious creatures and work has to be done with them. This I think is not the way to do it.

Let me tell you what we learned. We learned first that David Cooke was hooked on amalgamation and the first thing we discovered was that he had appointed two consultants, Tom Wells, who was, as you all know, a former Conservative Minister of Education under Bill Davis, and Brian Bourns, a former NDP activist turned business consultant in Ottawa, to look into amalgamation, Tom Wells in Windsor-Essex, Brian Bourns in Ottawa-Carleton.

There was no question that Dave Cooke expected, as did Tom Wells and Brian Bourns, that they would come out in a few months with a recommendation for how amalgamation would take place in those two cities. I know it's true because they all told me it was true. You may never have heard of their reports. What in fact both of them recommended, separately and independently with no consultation between them, was that it wasn't worth the candle, even in those two jurisdictions.

They discovered that more cooperation, more sharing of resources, would make much more sense in both those jurisdictions than what they described as the chaos, the disruption, the bitter feelings, the diversion of energies and the possible increased costs of amalgamating those two jurisdictions, even though on paper they seem to everybody so simple, because one would end up levelling up costs rather than levelling them down. Those were serious recommendations in the life of my commission as we came to study amalgamation. I'm sorry they influenced Dave Cooke hardly at all.

Our overview of boards gave us a great deal of surprise because we had been led to believe many of the myths that had been circulating. The number of boards: As you know, they've been grossly exaggerated for several years. Not until I wrote a column for the Toronto Star several weeks ago did people stop referring to the 170 boards in Ontario. There are not 170 real boards in Ontario; there are 128. People have distorted it for years.

Payment of trustees: There are not a whole bunch of $50,000 trustees. There is one board that pays its trustees $50,000. There are seven boards that pay up to $30,000. There are only 17 boards in the entire province that pay more than $15,000. Ninety-five percent of trustees in Ontario are paid below, often well below, $20,000, and half of all trustees in Ontario make less than $10,000. That's how much money is going to be saved.

Are there too many boards? To our own astonishment, given all the rhetoric about excess number of boards, we found that there were far fewer boards in Ontario than in any other province of Canada, by a long shot. Since then -- I went back and did the research last week in preparing for this presentation -- boards have been downsized in British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I'm sure you all know they've been eliminated in New Brunswick.

The result after that downsizing of all those boards is that there are still far fewer boards per student in Ontario than anywhere in Canada, except Nova Scotia. There are far fewer boards in Ontario at the moment than there are in Alberta after it downsized under Premier Klein. Let us have a perspective on how many boards there are.

Are there too many boards? By what standard? What benchmark -- to use a word that the education world loves throwing around -- should we use to decide what the right number of boards per student is? I want to tell you that there is no piece of research in the entire world that will give you that evidence. If you're looking for accountability, if you're looking for responsibility, if you're looking for democracy, there is no magic formula that says a certain number of boards is best for a certain number of students. It exists not. It is an entirely arbitrary construct, whether you're talking about 128 boards, 170 boards or 68 boards.

1240

Until this bill, the Metropolitan Separate School Board in Ontario, with 100,000 students, was far and away Canada's largest. You have heard 100 -- you haven't heard 100 times; you haven't heard 100 witnesses. You have heard from many witnesses that the new amalgamated school board for Metro will have 310,000 students. It will have one trustee for every 14,000 students, for every 25 schools. The government members have to demonstrate that it is possible for accountability to exist in that magnitude of board.

Learning: Learning became for us, because of all the complications in studying education, the final touchstone of all decisions and all priorities. There is no evidence anywhere in the massive literature that exists on the subject that student achievement is affected by the number of boards one way or another, period. Not one of those kids who didn't do well enough in science who was featured in yesterday's Toronto Star is going to do one mark better in science because there are going to be fewer school boards in Ontario.

Costs: There is no substantial evidence that costs will decrease in any great way in any way more than they would if the government pushed, as I believe it should push, boards to share more services and to cooperate more. Most of the functions that boards do now have to be picked up by someone. Don't be deluded. If boards don't do it, someone else will have to and be paid for it.

There is, however, substantial dramatic evidence everywhere in the world that positive reform, reform that helps my kids and yours in the classroom, needs all the energy of all the stakeholders involved in the education system mobilized for classroom achievement. Amalgamation, as you have already seen, whatever you want it to be, will be messy, will be disruptive, will be divisive, will be chaotic and will divert the energies of all trustees, all administrators, all educators and almost all teachers away from the classroom where we need them to do their best for us. It will divide them and has already started dividing them against each other rather than for the common benefit of our kids.

We therefore concluded that if we want to change the classrooms to help our kids, amalgamation of boards is not a priority. I told that to Dave Cooke, who didn't pay attention, and I'm telling it to you, who may not pay attention.

We found nowhere on earth a demonstrably superior model that we thought it made sense for Ontario to emulate. We looked at Chicago and we looked at New Zealand and we looked at New Brunswick and we looked everywhere in the world, and nowhere is there a political structure for boards that is not controversial, that does not have as many critics as it has supporters and that does not have as many negatives as it does pros. Therefore, we decided, like good conservatives, that in the absence of a thoughtful, responsible alternative, it made no sense to destroy the existing system.

To summarize on amalgamation, if amalgamation doesn't enhance learning, if it doesn't foster accountability, if it may not save more money than sharing among boards and if it diverts energy from our kids in the classroom, people are entitled to ask, I say to the members of this government, why are you doing it?

Let me turn to parent councils. I do this with great care because there are so many wonderful parents in this room and whom you've already heard who throw their hearts into working with their schools and I don't want to denigrate their contribution whatsoever. Our report has been distorted repeatedly on these issues.

Let me make it clear as briefly as I can: The top priority for every parent in the province is not to get involved in parent councils but is to get involved personally in their kids' schooling at home. If you had 10 people on every parent council -- there are 5,000 schools in Ontario -- you'd have 50,000 parents involved. There are two million kids in our schools; there are three million or more parents. Even if every council had 50,000 wonderful parents on it, you wouldn't be speaking to the overwhelming majority of parents in this province who would have no role at all and have no role at all under the present system.

We talked about school community councils, not these limited, narrow parent councils, whose major function would be to mobilize community resources on behalf of the individual school. That is not talked about at all.

There is no evidence -- and we looked at the evidence for all of these things; if we were going to introduce or recommend changes, we wanted to know why -- that student achievement anywhere is consistently improved by a small number of parents involved in advising or telling principals how to run the school. There's not a jot of evidence to justify that.

Finally, as they are now envisioned in the bill and in what I've understood from the minister, parent councils are not, nor can they ever be, accountable or democratic. Let me do it as briefly as possible. If you're parents you know and if you're not parents, let me tell you.

The way it happens is this: The principal will send a note home with the kids, most of whom won't bring it home. Some parents will read it and some won't. Most parents will not know why they're suddenly being invited to nominate themselves to something called a parent council that they've never heard of before. In the end, you will find, as it's already been found, that a large number, perhaps a majority of parent councils, don't have an election because not enough parents nominate themselves.

If they have an election, the principal sends another note home, which most parents are never going to see, or if they see, they can ignore because they always ignore kids' papers. They're going to be invited to an election meeting where for the first time in their lives they're going to meet 10 or 12 people standing for eight or 10 positions, each of whom is going to get two minutes to stand up and announce their educational philosophy. They will never see those people again because there is no mechanism for keeping in touch. They don't have money for stamps, they don't have enough people to phone us all.

I met this year for the first time, after two years in my kid's school, the people who are on his parents council. I didn't know they existed. I don't know what they do. I know they work very hard, but they never talk to anyone else and they can't talk to anyone else because they have no capacity to do so. They therefore cannot be and will not be accountable. They will not be representative; they cannot be democratic.

Unless you change that whole concept to have, as one of your speakers talked about today, 40 parents involved rather than the eight or 10 sitting on these little councils, unless you get them involved in a large way, you are building in an unaccountable, undemocratic system, and however wonderful some of those parents are, they don't represent me, they don't represent you, they don't represent anyone but themselves and their own family. They cannot. Giving them more power makes no sense whatsoever under those circumstances.

I want to say to you that if you care about quality education, which your government consistently says it does, and if you want to improve classroom achievement, as you consistently claim you do, you will withdraw the entire bill because every part of it diverts and distracts attention from all the important ways that we can make our kids' schooling better.

Applause.

The Chair: Order, please. Mr Caplan, I'm sure that all three caucuses would have been delighted to ask you questions. It's my unhappy task to tell you that you've exceeded your time allotment and I regret that.

Mr Caplan: Madam Chair, I appreciate that. I want to tell you that I'm available to all three caucuses at their disposal. I doubt I will hear from all of them.

The Chair: We thank you for the offer.

Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, could I ask please that the two reports that were referred to by Mr Caplan, the Wells report on the Windsor-Essex school board amalgamation study and the Bourns report on the Ottawa-Carleton study, be tabled for members of the committee.

The Chair: Very well.

PAT SERAFINO

The Chair: Our last presenter for the morning is Pat Serafino. Mr Serafino, I know that you had to reschedule to accommodate one of the other presenters and we thank you very much.

Mr Pat Serafino: Thank you for the accommodation. It's been great. Boy, trying to follow a speaker like that is going to be hard to do, but I'll try my best.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pat Serafino. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 104. I'm a parent in the York region separate school system and I have a child in the system. I never would have realized that three years into the system I would have been down here speaking to a committee regarding changes or amendments to the Education Act. It's been interesting.

A brief history about our board is that historically it has been grant-reliant and assessment-poor. We've been spending less per pupil than our coterminous boards and actually spend less than the provincial average. I'm happy to say one of the goods that has come out from the ministry announcements is that the equitable funding of our kids is a welcome relief, which will mean that each kid across the province will be funded equitably. One question I do have though is, at what level will they be funded?

1250

With Bill 104 there are some concerns and one of them is the reduction in the number of trustees. This may or may not reduce expenses but I feel and I have a concern that the number of trustees will not be as accessible to the public because of the larger area they will represent.

The Education Improvement Commission I imagine will help maintain the expenditures that each board will prepare. How will the EIC, as we're supposed to name it, recognize the needs of local areas? For example, where I live, it's a high-growth area with young families and young children; ie, there's a need for early childhood education, primarily junior kindergarten. Will the EIC recognize these local needs or solely determine the budgets on economics?

With school councils, it's a great idea to have parental involvement, but as the previous speaker mentioned, what is the responsibility? We need clarification. I'm a member of the parent council and I still see myself as a glorified PTA. Are we going to be given more powers? Are we taking powers away from the trustees? We need clarification on that.

On the outsourcing of information, a few questions regarding that are: How will the loss of special services help to improve education of children in Ontario; how will confidentiality be maintained when there's more than one contractor bidding for services; how will our children be safe when we always have a revolving-door policy, when caretakers are changed, secretaries are changed? Our kids like familiarity. With outsourcing, they won't know who the secretary is or who that caretaker is. Who will be accountable when they're no longer school board employees? Which services now offered will be cut?

Those are the few points that I brought forward. I guess I commend the government for some of the changes that it has done but some of the concerns I have are that you're moving too fast and that you should look back at some of these implementations and don't solely look at it as an economic solution because ultimately our common goal is to educate our kids properly. That's it.

Mr Wildman: You've raised a lot of very important questions that I hope will be answered before the bill goes to clause-by-clause so that we can perhaps, if it's going to go through, amend it so that it responds to some of those concerns.

I think the central one you've raised, though, as a Catholic school ratepayer and parent is, at what level will you be funded? Right now the funding formula, we understand, will be developed and will be released for consultation in April and May, after the government's schedule for this bill. It means that this bill will already be law. Do you think that's the right way to do go about it? Wouldn't it make sense to know something about the funding formula before we pass this legislation that affects all the boards in the province?

Mr Serafino: Obviously. Boards have to set their budgets, I believe, so it's like putting the cart before the horse, I would imagine. It would be important to have the funding model before that. Then you know how much you have to allocate.

Mr Wildman: I doubt very much that the $5.4 billion that have been removed from the residential property tax is going to be covered completely, keeping in mind that the minister says he needs to take another $1 billion out of the system.

Mr Serafino: As a parent, I look forward to more cuts.

Mr Skarica: We've heard a number of presentations about parent councils and we've heard from a number of witnesses that people on parent councils don't want more powers and that type of thing and don't want more say in the schools and so on and so forth. How do you envision parent councils working? What would you like to see your role be?

Mr Serafino: Right now we're an advisory committee and we can suggest to the principal or to the board what we need changed. It's a twofold problem. We don't have enough involvement at the beginning because of the liabilities, the responsibilities that go with making decisions that maybe an elected body right now like the trustees have. People go out, put their vote in and they know that's the person to contact. We can't get a hold of all the parents, that's obvious.

Do I want more responsibilities? I don't think so. Do I want as an adviser to let you know what the day-to-day needs of the school are? Yes, I think that's important. But to give us full rein of what we need in there, I think that's crazy. You open it up for special interest groups. Who knows what the Pandora's box will be? But I think if it remains an advisory capacity, it will function a lot better.

Mrs McLeod: I want to ask you a little bit about the relationship between the role of the parents and the role of school boards and whether or not it would be more difficult for you as a parent to advocate for the concerns of the children in your school if the school boards ceased to exist altogether.

Mr Serafino: Repeat that again. I'm sorry.

Mrs McLeod: One of my concerns is that the school boards become essentially unworkable under Bill 104. Some of them are going to be absolutely huge, they're going to have a lot fewer trustees and they're going to have absolutely no flexibility for funding. The funding decisions will all be made by the ministry. The trustees are in a rather thankless role. Somebody called it centralized decision-making and decentralized blame. I think there will be some real questions raised about whether school boards even continue to exist. Would it be difficult for you as a parent to have to go directly to the Ministry of Education and fight for fair funding for your kids?

Mr Serafino: Yes, it would be difficult. You're going to be opening it up to every single parent. At least right now there's a graspable devil there, which is the trustee. God knows, we've used them as sounding boards with problems that maybe didn't arise from there but came from the ministry level. It would be a lot more difficult, I would imagine, to try to contact a ministry official. If they could set something up that meets local needs, so that we could talk to them about it, that might help. But then that just replaces the name "trustee" with something different.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Serafino, for being with us this afternoon and sharing your views with us.

We are recessed until 3:30 this afternoon.

The committee recessed from 1257 to 1539.

SID BRUYN

The Chair: In view of the time, I'd like to get started with Sid Bruyn. We've just finished question period in the House and members will be coming here momentarily. You shouldn't worry that there aren't a lot of members here at the moment. Everything you say goes on the record and will be examined and taken note of. Thank you very much for coming. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Sid Bruyn: I don't know if it'll be shorter than 10, but I'll try.

The Chair: If that's the case, then the committee will ask you some questions.

Mr Bruyn: Or I get to ask you questions.

The Chair: That would be fine.

Mr Bruyn: My name is Sid Bruyn and I have two children here in the Toronto school board. I am personally in favour of a very strong, well-funded public education system. That's my starting point for everything. But I am strongly opposed and question the efficacy of the concept of having school trustees in Toronto serve up to 50,000 people.

If we're going to go to the riding system, it won't work. The school trustee for me is the only person I can get to on the phone. He's my elected representative whom I can speak to. Rather than an MPP who'll return my phone calls after a week or two, a school trustee will usually return my phone calls the next day. I am concerned that if a school trustee has to serve 10 times more parents than he's doing now, it won't work. The efficacy doesn't work.

I'm also opposed to having school trustees receive only a small stipend for serving as a trustee. This will allow only special interest groups to run candidates to do their bidding, and this especially includes corporations that wish to further their influence and expand their markets targeted at student bodies -- or unions or what have you. If you only pay a trustee $5,000 maximum, there will be a problem; only special interest groups will run candidates or will be able to afford to put up a candidate.

I want to quote Honourable John Snobelen right now, "Ontarians have watched as other jurisdictions around the world have reformed their education systems to manage the costs of education by reducing duplication and waste and streamlining administration and bureaucracy."

That's all well and good, but I'd like to quote another person. Lucy Annetta is a parent from Australia. She's currently living in Toronto for a year. Australia is one of the countries that have revamped their school system in a matter that Mr Snobelen finds commendable.

Here's what she says in a newsletter about what actually happened to their children's schools:

"Classroom numbers rose. Specialist programs such as ESL, remedial literacy and numeracy were severely cut back. Classroom assistants were cut. Hundreds of schools closed. Discouraged, some of the best teachers abandoned the state (public) education system. Schools now have to self-fund `extras.' This means that the school community have never-ending fund-raising activities. So-called `free education' has all but disappeared. Schools in more affluent areas are able to raise funds more readily so they have better equipment and resources.

"As the cuts gripped, morale sank and the community lost confidence in the public school system and there has been a steady drift of students to private schools. Second- and third- class" -- or third-rate -- "private schools have done very well out of the conservative government's cuts -- which suits the government" down there "as it is in favour of privatization."

I'm afraid that same thing will happen to our school systems once you start cutting from our public systems. People are doing to dwindle and slowly go away. You're going to have a problem there. Schools in richer areas are going to have better resources. This is not what a public education system is. A public education system is where it's for all.

To quote Mr Snobelen again, January 13, 1997, "We will give parents a greater direct voice in education by entrenching into law the principle that every school must have an advisory school council."

Again, this all sounds well and good, but thinking it through is another question. What exactly will the Minister of Education do if there are schools where no parents feel able to take on the added responsibility of being on school councils? Will he press-gang them? Will he legally sanction them? Will he withdraw the funding for the schools?

In England, local school councils are mandated. They're given a per pupil budget and they're responsible for hiring and paying staff and setting and ensuring standards for the school.

Marketing the school is one of the most important functions of the school council because each new student increases the grants from the local education authority. Again, very onerous, very questionable.

How well do school councils work? A Manchester teacher whom I know, Dominic Bowler, said:

"At the school where I teach, it's very hard to find parents to serve on the council. Most of them are struggling to find work and about half of them are new immigrants.

"In my daughter's school, which is in a more affluent neighbourhood, school councils work better. They know how to market the schools and can raise more money to get computers and things that the LEA budget doesn't cover. But even there, many parents don't feel well enough informed to take on the commitment of being on the council."

As I said before, I have two children in the public education system here in Toronto. They both were at one inner-city school for about four years and then my son hit what's called the boredom wall and started falling out of his desk and not paying attention to the teacher properly. We went into a different way of looking at things: How can we improve his education? He is now in what's called an alternative school within the Toronto system and so is my daughter.

What's remarkable, and this is the scary thought about Mr Snobelen's concept of school councils, is that at the alternative school I go to we have, on our school council, lawyers, we have the writer who did the Avro Arrow, we have a famous actress and we have other professionals. We have fairly well-educated, fairly affluent parents.

At the inner-city school we went to before, we had mostly new immigrants and being a new immigrant myself, being a child of immigrants, I know new immigrants don't come in front of PTAs. They're afraid because they have English as a second language, they don't feel comfortable to speak and, historically, they believe that schools take care of the children; it's not their responsibility. For us now to imbue in them, to say, "No, you have to be responsible for this," is not fair.

The PTA at the school we used to go to is not representative at all of the student body. There are two or three parents who are involved; for most of the student body, their parents are not reflected at all because either both parents are working, don't have time, don't feel comfortable, don't speak the language properly or feel embarrassed. I think the whole idea of school councils has to be thought through or looked at again, and that's why I'm in general opposition to Bill 104. There are many things in it which haven't been well thought through yet and need further discussion and further detailing.

I found it very telling that the day the committee hearings were to start, Mr Snobelen's reaction was: "The time for talk is over. It's time for action." We've just supposedly started these committee hearings for that very reason, to speak about these things. So it seems he has his mind set on a plan which doesn't seem to be going anywhere or doesn't seem to be well thought through at all.

Mr Skarica: Sir, I have some questions for you. Australia, as well, had a debt problem and got involved in education cutbacks and so on and so forth, and obviously we have a deficit problem. Could you perhaps give us some ideas or some opinions you may have on how we could streamline the system without affecting the classroom, ie, making it more efficient?

Mr Bruyn: There have to be efficiencies, of course. We can't just kind of pour money into a system. How I would personally do it? If you paid me $50,000 a year to do a study, I could tell you. I don't mean to sound flippant, but I think there must be ways with your purchasing departments, with certain departments.

Also, I hate to bring up the constitutional flaw that happened in 1867 when we designed a system for two separate systems. That has to be looked at too. I think we have to look at that. Quebec is looking at that. Manitoba has looked at that. Newfoundland has looked at that. There's a cost-cutting way. If we have two separate systems, of course you're going to have two administrations. That is something that has to be talked about, that has to be broached. It would take a lot of political will to broach that, I understand, and a lot of political courage. That's one of the ways.

Yes, there must be other ways where moneys can be saved, but I don't think it should be done on the back of the students. I believe in a well-funded education system. If you're increasing class sizes, that's not the best way to go. There must be ways. We have to find them.

I don't blame it all on administration. I don't think school trustees cost us that much money. I think in Toronto they make $40,000 a year; a teacher makes far more than that. We have many more teachers and we're not saying, "Cut the teachers out of the system." I think trustees do a job and do a job well and are representative for us.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bruyn, for coming here. We're going to have to recess for a few minutes because we have a vote in the House. With your indulgence, we'll go and vote on the next piece of legislation and resume after that. It shouldn't be longer than about 10 minutes.

The committee recessed from 1549 to 1605.

LINDA MACNAUGHTON

The Chair: I ask Linda MacNaughton to come forward. As she does, let me apologize again to everyone in the room. We were called away for a series of votes and the hearings recessed for that purpose.

Ms MacNaughton, welcome. Thank you very much for being here. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mrs Linda MacNaughton: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. As a parent of three children, grades 5, 10 and 12, in the Durham Board of Education, I have many concerns regarding Bill 104. I am not here to defend the status quo and every decision made by the trustees and school boards of Ontario, but I am here to defend public education and the democratic process. As a citizen of Ontario, I am very discouraged by the idea that the system has to be declared broken and so much division has to be created in the name of improvement.

I believe in educators, including classroom teachers, school boards, parents and governments working together to bring about positive change. It is unfortunate that many of the dedicated people working in education have been painted with the same brush and called self-serving and part of the waste and duplication in the system.

When I went to my Conservative MPP last November, I was disappointed when the letter I received as a follow-up to our meeting stated, "When even a former Liberal cabinet minister says that 47 cents of every education dollar in Ontario is spent outside the classroom, you know there's a problem." Upon reading the Sweeney report, I soon realized that the "classroom" had been redefined. This January the Ernst and Young study made us realize that once again so many of the necessary supports for students and teachers were considered outside-classroom expenses. When the Common Sense Revolution only promised to guarantee education spending in the classroom, it is understandable why many parents are concerned about further cuts.

The Durham board only spends 2.03% on central administration, and the system cannot run on empty. Our board is at a 40% grant rate, so last year's cuts have already had an impact in our classrooms. We must make sure that class sizes do not increase. The grade 7 at our local school has 38 students. It's hard to believe they'll be prepared for the new streamlined high school program.

The Durham board has the lowest per pupil funding of any public board in the GTA. I believe that to make student funding more equitable, a new per pupil funding formula is necessary, but do we sacrifice the programs in one area to improve those of another? If the same amount of money stays in the system, it may mean that a large portion of funding will be shifted from the public system to the separate school system. As a supporter of a system that is all-inclusive, I have some concerns about this.

Ontario has the largest, most complex education system in Canada. The proposed 100% centralized funding system will not allow for local flexibility. Professor Stephen Lawton of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education believes that school boards should be allowed to raise at least 5% to 10% in their communities because there are many things you can't see centrally. Our school boards will simply become complaint departments for Queen's Park.

As elected provincial governments come and go -- we've had three in the last decade -- the school boards have provided a level of relative consistency in the system. We will be losing all control of a local dedicated education tax that would protect the system from a provincial government that may be listening to groups such as the Taxpayers Coalition of Peel, who would like to see the average per pupil funding lowered by an additional $1,682 annually. This would indeed be a guarantee that all children in the publicly funded system would be second-class.

While the Harris government would like us to believe we have the costliest system in Canada and almost anywhere in North America, Statistics Canada in 1995 said we are sixth in Canada in per pupil spending, and a recent study verified by lnformetrica says that Ontario has dropped to 46th in per pupil spending among 63 Canadian and US jurisdictions in the 1995 school year.

There is a lot of money to be made in privatizing parts of the education system, but I believe governments at all levels and school boards must be guardians of society. A profit-driven business agenda is not part of my view of a democratic society that tries to provide equal opportunity for all children through a quality, publicly funded education system.

Why is Bill 104 so extreme? It has gone way beyond the Sweeney report, and I read it from cover to cover. Our board is not being amalgamated for now. However, a precedent is being set with the amalgamation of the Metro Toronto public school boards. While some amalgamation may be beneficial, why create a mega-board of 300,000 students, over half the size of the Alberta education system that has 66 school boards? Is an outer GTA board next?

According to the Canadian School Board Association, Ontario has an average of 13,547 students per school board as compared to the Canadian average of only 8,557. In a January 30 conversation I had with Stephen Lawton from OISE, he said that there are diseconomies of scale once school boards exceed 60,000. He believes amalgamations are very costly in the short term and will save little money in the future. He also said that the amalgamation will further complicate trying to bring any real improvements into the system. I certainly feel badly for those separate school trustees in northern Ontario who will have to drive nine hours to meet together.

The Sweeney report also recommended a cap of $15,000 for trustees' salaries. Our trustees in Durham make $12,920, and most people I speak to do not feel they are overpaid. A cap of $5,000, as proposed by Bill 104, will result in the less affluent not being able to afford to run as a trustee in many areas. I also think it will result in the acclamation of more people with special interest agendas, and a far less democratic choice.

The drastically reduced number of trustees will lead to far less accountability. It's impossible to envision one trustee for almost 14,000 students in the Toronto board. In our own board we are concerned in the township of Brock that we will no longer have trustee representation. Ours is the most rural of all the municipalities in Durham region and we are very concerned that our unique needs will no longer have a voice.

Will the diminished role of school boards and an increased mandate for school community councils lead to even more inequity and inconsistency in the system? Will members of SCCs be willing and able to take on expanded roles? They have been given very little time to evolve and many have remarked that it's a steep learning curve. Those of us who volunteer in our communities are finding it increasingly more difficult to do it all, and I know a lot of people who do not want to become surrogate trustees.

I have concerns after a recent conversation I had with one of the co-chairs of the Coalition for Education Reform, a group that has been lobbying for charter schools. She believes this government is receptive to creating legislation that will introduce charter schools to this province. Many parents I've talked to think this could be a very divisive step that would lead to further erosion of the public education system. Will the voucher system and more private schools be next?

While standardized testing has some merits, such as finding more effective ways of teaching and helping parents gauge their children's progress, we must also be very careful about how the results are used. These test scores should never be used for political purposes, as they recently have been, or to create a shop-for-schools scenario.

As an Ontarian who respects democracy, the creation in Bill 104 of the Education Improvement Commission is deeply troubling. This new level of unaccountable and probably expensive bureaucracy is undermining the rights of our democratically elected trustees. They are not accountable to any of the stakeholders in education, and their decisions are final and cannot be appealed. They are also supposed to facilitate and promote the outsourcing of support staff, such as educational assistants, secretaries and custodians. As a parent, I'm concerned that by privatizing these jobs, we will not be assured of the same level of consistency and quality of staff. Some of these staff members have been at the same schools for decades and are a valuable part of our school community.

As we live in a rural community, our children are bused to school. We must be sure our children's safety is never compromised for the bottom line. In most cases you get what you pay for, and while we all agree money must be spent very wisely, especially due to the fiscal reality of a deficit, you reach a point where you can't do more for less. As parents we want to know that this government sees education as an investment for the future of our province and not just as an expense getting in the way of a promised income tax cut. We want undistorted and accurate information and more than lip-service consultation. We certainly don't want to be lulled into passivity by one-sided press conferences and expensive, simplistic and partisan television commercials.

We don't just want common sense from our elected governments; we want to see uncommon wisdom -- that's a phrase we're all speaking now -- when creating changes that will affect the children of this province for years to come. We don't want the vision of the 1994 Royal Commission on Learning to be lost. An improved curriculum is important, but it must be supported by giving enough time and resources to those who must deliver it. While we all want to see improved student achievement, I believe this can only be accomplished by building on the strengths of the present system.

When Premier Harris made his comments in London, England, last September about the Durham Board of Education winning the Carl Bertelsmann Award of Excellence, it was to encourage businesses to invest in Ontario due to our quality of life and our fine education system.

I'm sure the majority of educators and trustees are willing to bring about positive change, but creating a crisis and demoralizing the system is not conducive to a productive teaching and learning environment. As parents, our bottom line is, will these reforms equip our children for the 21st century and give them a lifelong love of learning?

That's the level of accountability I want from this government. Please amend Bill 104. It does not need to be this extreme.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs MacNaughton.

Mrs MacNaughton: I've used up my 10 minutes.

The Chair: You have indeed; you've used it fully. Thank you very much for appearing before us.

Mr Wildman: Madam Chair, on a point of privilege: I understand from the exchange in the House that the Speaker has basically said that the Chair of the committee can rule -- it's my understanding that you have not yet ruled -- on the point I raised with regard to the so-called presenter profiles government members have on their desks on the blue paper. I wonder if you could rule as to whether these documents should be shared with members of the committee, since they apparently were prepared by ministry staff, thus using taxpayers' money, so that all members of the committee will know what's in them and members of the public will know what's in them.

As I understand it, the parliamentary assistant and his colleagues have said there's nothing seriously controversial in them, that they're quite innocuous. In that case, I would think the government members would be quite happy to have them tabled.

The Chair: I'd like to recap the events of this morning. When the issue was first raised, it was raised as a point of order, and I ruled that it was not a point of order. After the point of order, I was still prepared to entertain discussion following the presentations of the people who were here this morning. However, there was a motion put forward by you, Mr Wildman, and that motion was defeated and there was no need to discuss the point any further.

You are now raising it as a point of privilege. I understand that to be a point of privilege and I think it's a valid point of privilege.

My understanding of the particular documentation in question, from Mr Skarica's intervention this morning, is that it was prepared with ministry staff, and presumably ministry funds, and distributed only to the government caucus members by ministry staff. Is that still the case, Mr Skarica?

Mr Skarica: Yes. It hasn't changed in the last couple of hours.

The Chair: Well, you weren't sure. That's why I wanted to be absolutely clear. In my view, given the fact that it is public moneys that were used and civil service staff who prepared it --

Mr Skarica: Excuse me on a point of privilege: Before you rule, I'd just like to respond. It may be too late.

The Chair: If you wish. I looked around to see if there would be any comments.

Mr Skarica: My point this morning was that apparently this has been used on our committee hearings previously and this request has never been made. I understand the previous government had it prepared in a similar fashion, so it's nothing unusual. I might point out that the information in there is gleaned basically from newspaper clippings, as I understand, so it's all public information.

In my opinion, from a procedural point of view, if you rule that it be provided now, you would be in effect overruling the vote we had this morning where you ruled on a point of order and we voted on it and the motion was defeated.

The Chair: The motion this morning was not a point of order. It was a separate motion. We did not deal with the point of privilege which Mr Wildman has raised this afternoon. While it may be the same substance, it's been correctly termed as a point of privilege and I recognize it as a point of privilege. Does anyone else want to add anything?

1620

Mrs Caplan: If the information is as Mr Skarica says it is, I don't understand why he or the government would have an objection to releasing the document. I would call on him to do that so you don't have to rule, Madam Chair, on something which quite clearly, I believe, should be in the public domain.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I also want to comment on one of the comments the parliamentary assistant made. I served for about five years as a member of various and sundry committees when our party was government and we didn't have that kind of research on people. We had research done on the issues. There was substantial research, but we didn't put together dossiers on people who came before committees. That wasn't part of what we saw as appropriate research, so we didn't do it. To say that other governments or other people have done this is, in my experience, not the case.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): There's a very simple way out of this. The parliamentary assistant has admitted that this information is being gathered and collated at the public expense. I would suggest it's very simple: If it's public expense, it's public domain, and you shouldn't have to rule. The parliamentary assistant should make it available to us. If he doesn't make it available to us, I think there's only one ruling that must take place.

The perception for the people sitting there is that they're being targeted because in a democratic society they choose to put their point of view forward. Because of that, there's a description of them called, "Description," "Position" and "Questions to ask." I don't think that is the perception any government would want the people they supposedly represent to have. I suggest the only right thing to do is to give it to us. That's all. Give it to them. It's no big deal; it shouldn't be a big deal.

This government has a tendency to make small things big things. These people want to know, what is the government saying about them? What did the government say about Mrs MacNaughton? I would love to know what the government said about her. Her presentation was excellent. It made an abundant amount of sense. Let's see. It's public information. It's paid for by Mrs MacNaughton. She wants to know what this government is saying about her.

Mr Skarica: I think you're going to be very disappointed when you get it, and I think you will. This is very similar to the same items you are preparing, and the last government did do it. I have been informed that the Ministry of Citizenship provided similar information to the previous government. In any event, it's up to you now to decide this, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: I'm very concerned about the fact that -- do you have a new point of order?

Mrs Caplan: Yes. I believe there is precedent to assist you, Madam Chair. As the parliamentary assistant was speaking, I recalled serving on committee and having a ruling that said that any information made available to government caucus members by the ministry should be made available for all members of committee. If it was something that was prepared by their caucus services -- I recall that there was a precedent to that effect, that this issue had come up once before when information was seen to be distributed to members of the government caucus. I believe the ruling is a precedent that says that when information is visibly given to some members of committee that has been prepared for them by ministry, it should be made available to all members of the committee.

Mr Wildman: I don't want to prolong things -- I honestly don't want to; I'd like to hear the presenters -- but I do want to say that in my view, if the ministry has prepared policy material for the parliamentary assistant or for the minister, that should not necessarily be available to all members of the committee. It's really up to the minister or to the parliamentary assistant to decide whether it should be released to all members of the committee. But to have material apparently gathered about presenters is quite a different matter.

Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what's going on. If it's so innocuous, why the problem about releasing it? The very fact that the government doesn't want to release it makes me suspicious. I just think we could clear this all up by having it released rather than forcing the Chair to make a ruling, but if that's what it comes to, I guess you have to, Chair. If it's so innocuous and it doesn't really contain anything that's controversial, release it and let's get this over with so we can all perhaps use the questions for asking presenters about their views.

The Chair: There being no further comments, the facts are these: that information has been gathered about private citizens coming before this committee; that the information was gathered by ministry officials using public resources and visibly delivered in this committee by a ministry official only to the government caucus. That, I would rule, is not acceptable and that information should be released to all members of the committee under those circumstances.

Mr Skarica: All right. Before I turn it over, Mrs MacNaughton, since she's been specifically referred to, the information on you is as follows:

"Description: Ms Linda MacNaughton has requested to make a presentation at the Bill 104 hearings.

"Position: Not stated.

"Questions" for a government member to ask: "If Bill 104 is passed, what opportunities do you feel exist for boards to achieve efficiencies while continuing to provide the quality education in your community."

That's the dossier on Mrs MacNaughton.

The Chair: With respect, Mr Skarica, I allowed you to finish that because it won't be possible to release it immediately, but the full text will be released to all members.

Mr Wildman: I hope that's an indication that this has been much ado about nothing. If it has been, I don't understand why the government didn't release it in the first place.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now proceed.

Mrs Johns: Another 15 minutes lost.

The Chair: It could have been prevented.

LYNDA BUFFETT

The Chair: Will Ms Lynda Buffett please come to the table. Ms Buffett, thank you very much for being here. I apologize for the delay as we were clearing up that matter. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Ms Lynda Buffett: I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today. I'd like to bring forward some information that I think would be invaluable to the committee simply because of the line of work I'm involved in right now.

I fully support Bill 104. Since I work directly with school boards and teachers' federations, I would like to point out the immediate effect that even the discussion of this bill has had; it has helped to reduce spending across Ontario in recent weeks.

Already there has been a greater focus placed on the issue of accountability by school boards. For example, the cost associated with group benefits, which accounts for one of the largest payroll expenses outside of salaries, is now being reviewed in a far more objective fashion. I know this because this is what I do every day.

Long-standing relationships with employee benefit consulting firms have been cut off in an effort to assess the real cost of administering these plans. Their management and administration costs have been excessive and, as many teachers' federation reps have begun to find out, there are ways to save money in this area.

By making school boards meet strict spending guidelines, as has been discussed with the introduction of this bill, during this next year prior to amalgamation, accountability from school boards during recent contract negotiations has already resulted in significant savings. It has allowed a far more open process to take place.

The new education commission will be able to monitor these same activities more closely, and I'm sure a lot of other areas of expenditure.

This commission will certainly not function as a dictatorship, as many have claimed, but will provide a means to determine if expenditures are realistically being looked at in line with other boards when they do a comparison. Parent councils, teachers and others will have an alternative source to seek out assistance when reviewing and questioning costs of their school boards and their schools.

I have already become involved in work with union groups all over the province in this regard as it relates to reviewing the costs, as I mentioned earlier, associated with benefit plans. The school boards, I'm finding to my relief, are finally starting to provide more information and more disclosure of information than they have in the past.

1630

Once this transition period of this next year is over and the new district boards are formed, this commission, I believe, should be continued in some function or capacity as a watchdog to ensure that accountability remains a priority for school boards; otherwise, the complacency of the past will continue.

For many of the smaller boards, in the more remote areas of the north especially, cost-effective plans are far more difficult to negotiate with school board officials and a great deal of resistance has existed in the past with some of these boards in trying to implement alternative arrangements.

High administrative fees charged for these programs due to a lack of staffing have resulted in wasted tax dollars. Valuable financial resources could have been more wisely spent, yet many school boards chose to increase taxes and place the blame for these increases on cuts to provincial funding, instead of working within the budgets.

With changes to be made to a new funding model for school boards, this will allow trustees and school boards to focus on more important issues, like educating students and preparing them for the challenges that lay ahead in the future.

The Report on School Board Spending 1995-96 confirms what I've already seen, that large discrepancies in boards' spending of their resources, as much as 20%, have taken place. Insured benefits to teaching staff account for a great deal of this discrepancy. However, some of the savings I have found are in the range of 45%.

Teachers, I believe, will be willing to take a more hands-on approach in the decision-making process about benefit costs. This is good news for students in the education system. Students need to be assured that money saved in administrative waste and duplication will be passed on to the classroom. These improvements will bring about these changes to classroom spending.

Further savings generated by the formation of new district boards will allow these savings to go even further. Teachers' federations can now choose to become partners in controlling these spiralling expenses. Up until now, school boards have tried to retain exclusive control of this area of expenditures.

These changes will allow many existing federations to establish their own plans and leave the job of administration of payroll deductions to the new district boards. This would go a long way in simplifying the negotiations of benefits.

The teachers' groups I have discussed this concept with to date and have been working with have been very actively involved in developing better programs with improved packages, at the same time reducing the role of the current boards, and have still managed to save money.

Bill 104, I'm pleased to state, has become a catalyst in providing this new opportunity to teachers. The real impact of this bill will mean a more effective education system and greater opportunities for today's students to perform at their best in an ever-changing work environment.

The issue of fewer boards and trustees is something else I would like to discuss. The political consensus by all three parties was that the system was top-heavy. All three parties supported a reduction in the number of school boards. The reduction to 66 from the current 129 boards is long overdue.

While it may sound extreme, I can give you an example of the current French-language boards and just show you what kind of streamlining has taken place. There are currently 11, plus 59 sections of boards and eight advisory committees. Already discussions have begun that will allow these teachers to coordinate their existing benefits under one program while dealing with other issues together as a group. Northern Ontario will bring together 1,000 French teachers instead of the fragmented groups and numbers across Ontario today. This has been seen as a very positive step. These reforms will bring back accountability to the education system.

Unfortunately, all the fearmongering by local school board trustees in Toronto recently has created concern on the part of parents. I can honestly say that after attending a meeting in my community several weeks ago, I was so outraged by the propaganda that night I felt the need to speak to the issues today in this public hearing process. Unfortunately, the panel discussion that took place that night didn't focus on the real concerns raised by parents and they weren't addressed.

I believe Bill 104 will resolve many of the current funding issues. However, these school board trustees in Toronto appear to have their own agenda. Some of the earlier speakers discussed their concern with the capping of salaries at $5,000. A lot of the trustees I've spoken to outside of the Toronto area don't even earn $5,000 and they've managed to perform the job quite well. Perhaps it's time for some of these individuals to step aside and make way for the parents and other taxpayers who have a genuine interest in future of education.

Bill 104 will bring greater accountability to the education system and with it the needs of local communities will be fairly represented. This, in turn, will bring with it a return of public trust in the education system.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Buffett. You've used your entire 10 minutes. We thank you very much for appearing before the committee today to voice your views.

Mr Duncan: I have a question to pose to the government and the ministry. The minister in the House today said this bill has nothing to do with education finance, yet the delegation spoke about this bill clarifying education finance. Could we have an opinion from the Ministry of Education with respect to whether or not this bill deals with government finance?

Mr Skarica: There are going to be written responses to all your questions.

Mr Duncan: Is she correct that this bill will clarify education finance or is the minister correct?

Mr Skarica: I think it's pretty clear that most of the finance issues will be dealt with later.

Mr Duncan: So she's incorrect when she says this will clear up the financing?

The Chair: You've asked for an opinion and Mr Skarica has agreed to provide it in writing.

MARION ENDICOTT

The Chair: Marion Endicott, welcome to our committee. Thank you for your patience.

Ms Marion Endicott: Thank you for having me. I'm just watching the clock because of course it's that time of day when our kids are coming home and now I'm a bit behind schedule.

The Chair: We apologize for that. Thank you very much.

Ms Endicott: I'm here as a parent. I have three children, one in grade 12, one in grade 8 and one in grade 4. I know that parental involvement is important. It enhances the school when we're involved, it enhances our own children's education when they know we are involved as parents and it enhances our abilities as parents as we learn through the school about education and about how to raise children.

I value the opportunity I've had to be involved in my children's schools over time, and I only wish I had more time to be involved. I would like to say that my involvement in the school system, such as it has been, has given me a deep appreciation for the Ontario school system as it presently is. I am downright proud of it. From that perspective, I come here today with deep, deep concerns about the impact of Bill 104.

As a parent, I see this bill as fundamentally the beginning of the slippery slope to degrading what is right now an internationally recognized excellent education system down to essentially what we see south of the border. In fact, our Premier often -- I don't know how -- mentions the system south of the border as though it is something to be looked to. However, our knowledge of the schools south of the border is that any parent who has a choice in the matter will not choose to send their children to a public school. That is what we do not want to see happen here. Our public schools are something to be proud of and we want to keep them that way.

I would like to comment on four elements of Bill 104 from the perspective of my main concerns.

The first is the reduction to the number of school trustees and the reduction to the pay they will receive. One of the key elements of our successful schools has been the outcome of hard work and dedication of our school trustees. They come to innumerable meetings. They come to science fairs. They come to concerts. They meet with parents whenever they ask and listen to their concerns. I don't know how they do it, quite frankly, but as a result of their activity, they know their schools, they know the teachers, they know the kids, they know their community, they know the issues that need to be dealt with. Through the experience of dealing with a number of schools in this kind of depth, they gain insights and experience that helps them to come up with solutions to problems.

1640

This local knowledge that they gain and, if they're good and get elected year after year, carry forward through the years they then give to the system as a whole so that the entire Ontario school system can be built upon the expert knowledge at the local level given to the higher level.

The drastic reduction of the number of school trustees in Bill 104 will not allow for local knowledge. It will not leave time for the school trustees to know the issues and it will not leave time for them to think imaginatively for solutions to problems.

Even if the territories were not reduced as is being proposed, the $5,000 cap on salaries for these trustees makes us wonder who would, who could, give that kind of dedication, that kind of energy, that kind of commitment to knowing about what our schools need.

Apparently, according to the previous speaker, the people in the rural areas managed to do this. I'm not familiar with the rural areas; I'm familiar with Toronto, and I certainly know in Toronto that those school trustees are working day and night. It would be pretty hard to do it for $5,000 a year, assuming that you're not independently wealthy.

Essentially, the flexibility of our school system and its highly respected sensitivity to local needs will be gone. What we will get, if we reduce the number of school trustees and if we put a cap on their salaries, is a rigid system, a system of one school fits all, and I cannot imagine that this will be a benefit to future Canadians who will guide our society.

The second issue I'd like to address is the disappearance of democracy. I know you've probably heard this a thousand times and maybe you're tired of hearing it, and it doesn't come easy to use the words "dictatorship and the disappearance of democracy," but I find myself forced to say it because that's what I see. The formation of the Education Improvement Commission is an astounding blow to our democratic system of electing trustees who provide an ear to our concerns as parents and as community members.

We are concerned about the education of our children, our children who will have to find their place in our future society, who will guide our society forward as the years go by. We are being denied our voice. We are being denied input into the reorganization of a system that will determine how they do that. It's pretty ironic that this government, which proposes to give more power to parents in the form of parent councils, will not even listen to them in the implementation of such a thing.

What lesson are we giving to our young students in democratic society? What do we hope to teach them by the appointment of such a committee? "If people disagree with you, even if they're in the majority, don't worry about it. Just use your power." That's the lesson being learned by these implementation committees.

We have elected trustees to guide our education system and Bill 104 has taken away our vote. It will take away our vote. It has taken away our vote because of the retroactivity clause in the bill.

I've completely lost track of time, so tell me when I have five minutes left.

Just a word about school councils. I understand that the legislation of school councils is actually not part of Bill 104 per se, but it is integral to the whole scope of Bill 104 through the education implementation council, and the government has indicated its commitment to legislating the necessity of these councils.

As an active parent, as a parent who seeks to find out as much as she can about what's going on, to understand the system, to promote the best possible education, not only for my own children but for society as a whole, I am not and I cannot be informed sufficiently to have the kind of power that a school council would propose to give to me. I can't do it and I don't want to do it. I have a job, I have a family, I have other things I have to do, and I can't take that power. It would be irresponsible.

I don't have years of experience in learning about educational theories. I don't have the years of experience of being elected again and again and going to see different schools, of talking to educators, of talking to principals, of talking to all the people in the system to understand what really happens, and what are the different solutions for problems and what are exciting new, innovative ideas to improve our education system. I don't have that experience.

I read things in the newspaper. I see something on the TV. I know about my own particular school where my kids go. That's what informs me, but that's not enough. I want to be informed, I want to have input, but I do not want power. I want my elected trustees to do that.

I would like to address the question of the funding cut. There was some discussion here about whether Bill 104 has financial implications or not. I'm confused on this issue myself, but as far as I can tell, it does have financial implications.

Bill 104 includes the transfer from the residential tax base to the province in the form of grants. In a non-political world maybe that would have no financial impact, but our understanding is that even though the province promises to top up what the Toronto schools would get under that system, in recognition of the special expenses Toronto has as a result of its immigrant population, its inner-city population etc, the province does not in fact recognize all the needs. The calculations which have been done indicate that by and large Toronto schools will suffer a 20% reduction in funding.

One of the parents who works for a bank did a little calculation about what that would mean for one of the schools my kids go to, Dovercourt. With a 20% cut in funding for Dovercourt, which is what is anticipated if Bill 104 goes through, we would lose 50% of our maintenance money; 20% of our lunch supervision; 20% of our curriculum -- that means field trips, library material, heritage language programs; 50% off the office staff and/or the caretaking staff -- that's in addition to the actual maintenance costs; and the removal of education assistants from the kindergarten or for the special education programs. This is a huge blow and this is not even half of the cuts that would be required for a 20% cut.

The Chair: Ms Endicott, I would ask you to wrap up.

Ms Endicott: Essentially, in order to address the rest of the cuts, we would have to get into actual staffing.

Why is this happening? Why are these cuts happening? It's to have a tax break. I would like to say clearly as a citizen of Ontario that I never asked for a tax break. I don't know anybody who wanted a tax break. This so-called desire for a tax break the government is promoting is costing me more out of my pocket.

I am getting so many pleas through the mail, over the phone while I'm cooking supper every night from charities that have had their funding cut, asking for money from me. More and more street people -- I have to put my hand in my pocket and give them money. My child comes home more and more often with things that have to be sold to raise money for the school for just the basics, computers, the lunch program, whatever.

The sale of these things has the criterion that they aren't to go door to door. So who buys them? I do. I didn't come with a submission today. I don't have a paper, but I came with a different submission. My child came home with his usual things to sell. I couldn't buy them all. I took them to work. My co-workers couldn't buy them because they have their kids and they're buying them all too.

My submission to the government members: They're $2 each. Would you like to support Dovercourt school?

Interruption.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who are new to the committee, we don't allow that kind of outburst. Thank you for your cooperation. Thank you very much, Ms Endicott.

Ms Endicott: I'll be here for 15 minutes.

The Chair: Perhaps you'll be able to collect your money. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mrs Johns: I'd like to comment on a point of personal privilege. In my school, where my children go, we've been selling chocolate bars for a number of years and we buy them in our house too.

Ms Endicott: I'm sure you do.

The Chair: Thank you for that comment. It's not, however, a point of personal privilege.

1650

CHRISTINE TILE

The Chair: Could I ask Christine Tile to come forward. Thank you very much, Ms Tile, for being here this afternoon and thank you too for your patience.

Mrs Christine Tile: I've come before you this afternoon because I have some real concerns about Bill 104. My name is Christine Tile. My husband and I have three children. Two are currently in the public school system and hopefully, if we maintain JK, next year we'll have three.

Our children go to Allenby Public School. They are both in the French immersion system. I work full-time as a mother and am also the co-president of the Allenby Parents' Association. I've come before you as a representative of my school, but primarily I am here for my children, specifically the future of my children's education.

I strongly believe in the public school system. I think it's important for children to attend local schools, to be able to walk to school, make neighbourhood friends, grow up establishing close ties within their community. It teaches them that the world is made up of many different people and it gives them the skills of learning to deal with all these sorts of people.

As president of my children's school association, I get reams and reams of information across my desk and I've been given the opportunity to wade through many documents from all sorts of various groups re Bill 104. Early in the school year the parent body became concerned with the proposed cutbacks. We were then mandated by the parent body to ensure this was one of our priorities. One of our starting points was to contact our local MPP, Bill Saunderson. We met with him, discussed our concerns and priorities and hence invited him to our school for an information-sharing night, a question and answer forum.

He came. He brought a representative from the Ministry of Education. I'm proud that from our school only there were close to 250 parents in attendance out of almost 425. Additionally, all but two teachers showed up. Mr Saunderson gave a prepared speech and was able to answer many questions. Our parents asked sophisticated and informed questions about education reform.

This is how I got to this point where I am now. The best way to start is by saying that there are some things in this bill that I do agree with. Mr Snobelen in his speech of January says these reforms will provide for a better quality of education, reduce duplication and waste by streamlining administration and bureaucracy, focus resources in the classroom and enhance performance of our students, all this while still saving us taxes. What could possibly be wrong with this? I would love to save taxes and I want the best education for my children. What parent doesn't? However, I am not convinced the Fewer School Boards Act, as presented, will achieve this end. I'm afraid for the future of my children's education.

Let me start with the Education Improvement Commission. From all my reading it seems that the EIC will have sweeping powers over education to make decisions about all aspects of Ontario's education system, including budget cuts, curriculum, hiring policies, junior kindergarten, library, special education, etc. They are appointed by the government and they are not accountable to me.

How will I be assured they will be working in my children's best interests when they are appointed, not elected, and their real mandate, I suspect, is to reduce taxes under the guise of education improvement? They will have the power to make all the changes they want with no local control and possibly little insight into local needs.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I am accustomed to reading through government bills. Poring through this bill trying to understand what it means based on how it's been reformed from the Education Act is not an easy task. However, what I do get from this is that the EIC will have power over all assets and liabilities and can hire and fire and transfer at their whim. This is not acceptable.

The bill also states that the decisions of the Education Improvement Commission are final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court. Does this not say then that this body is above the law? Who will they then be accountable to? Is this not unconstitutional? There's no debate, no discussion, no recourse? This sounds very dictatorial to me.

This gives the EIC unprecedented autocratic powers. Should they really be immune to any liability? Are the boards of directors of major companies not liable for their decisions?

I'm afraid of what the bill refers to as "outsourcing of non-instructional services." What is the true definition of this? Does this mean that the maintenance staff will be contracted out? In our school, the children know and trust the custodians, they can ask them questions and often ask them for help. They even know their names. Bringing in outside, contracted maintenance staff poses additional security risks in our schools and to my children. Just another safety concern, and there have been too many of them lately.

The children are taught that if they see a stranger in the school they are to report it to the office immediately. But if that person is wearing the same uniform as the other custodians, is this really a stranger? How does this person fit into my school? The thought process of a child is very interesting. Are we inviting trouble by doing this? The school belongs to the children. It has to be a safe and friendly environment in order for them to learn efficiently and effectively.

Is outsourcing going to include the principal, the gym teacher, the librarian, special education? These are not outlined in the bill. This is what is suggested, but not detailed. These services are of paramount importance to my children. It is one of the reasons we chose the public school system. They would have a qualified phys ed specialist and special education resources. Luckily we have not had to rely on this and hopefully we won't, but many children in the school sincerely benefit from this essential service. We need to provide the basics at an early age to special education children in order to give them self-esteem, self-worth, some quality of life.

The other alternative is that down the road we will be paying for them through social welfare services. I suggest investing in these children now, rather than paying for them later.

We are also lucky enough to have a playground and grassy areas at Allenby to allow for much-needed outside play at recess and at lunchtime, educational assistants who are essential, especially in the French immersion system when children can sometimes get frustrated learning in a different language, and a real librarian to run their resource centre, and what is more important to teach our children but to read? I know you agree with that because you focus on that in your bill: reading, writing, spelling, grammar, math, science, geography, technology and Canadian history.

Let's talk about the definition of the classroom. What is your government's real definition of the classroom? Mike Harris has promised not to make cuts to the classroom. I have concerns that your definition of the classroom may be different than mine. My classroom includes supplies, ed assistants, reading centres, library, phys ed, special education, reading clinics. In my opinion, any cuts will hurt the classroom.

I have information from an Ernst and Young study, the estimate of cost savings resulting from school board government changes produced for your government, which suggests that $9.9 million will be taken out of classroom supplies and equipment. From where I sit this is making cuts directly in the classroom. Who will pick up the slack when my children don't have textbooks to learn from or workbooks to use? The fundamentals you so emphasize cannot be taught without resource materials.

Let's talk about the school council. I am very involved with my parents' association; I am the co-president. I have made a two-year commitment. My motive for becoming involved in their school was that this was public school and I wanted to have a better sense of what was really going on.

There are two issues here. My suspicion is that the government wants the PTAs to have a much bigger role than they currently do.

First, it's very hard to get parents to volunteer, even when they are not accountable for their actions. How will you get them to volunteer when they are directly responsible for specific elements at the school?

Second, are parents really qualified to take on these tasks? Who's going to monitor these actions or whims? What kind of consistency will there be between neighbourhood schools? Who determines the fundamental philosophy of each school?

In summary, my primary concerns are the fine points not outlined in the bill such as the real definition of the classroom. What is really outsourcing? What is defined as a non-instructional service? What is the real reason for wanting more involvement from school councils? Why does the Education Improvement Commission seem to have such sweeping powers and why is it above the law?

Who is accountable to me on a local level? What is the funding model for the classroom? Why are these changes being pushed through the system so quickly? Believe me, I'd love to save money on our taxes but not at the expense of my children's education. Can you assure me that these cuts can be made without hurting my children's education? Slow down. Listen to and answer these concerns. Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Tile. We appreciate your being here. You've used up all your time.

1700

TOM CHARETTE

The Chair: Tom Charette is next. Thank you for coming, Mr Charette.

Mr Tom Charette: I'm a member of the local taxpayers coalition, the Taxpayer Coalition Niagara. I am head of membership recruiting for the Ontario division of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The Taxpayer Coalition Niagara will be making a written submission to you in another week, and Paul Pagnuelo of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has already appeared before this committee.

I'm appearing here today as a private citizen, however, on behalf of my six-month-old and five-year-old grandsons. I want the best possible education for these two children, and I think that Bill 104 is a good first step towards getting it.

I'm a former teacher at Western tech and commerce here in Toronto and at St Clair College in Windsor. Of my six siblings, four are teachers. My parents started one of the first Montessori schools in the province in the early 1970s, a school that exists to this day. I'm kind of steeped in education.

I endorse Bill 104 and what it attempts to do. My personal experience as a member of the local taxpayer coalition is that school boards are generally unresponsive to taxpayer concerns about the quality, cost and content of education. I am sure that in every board there are individual trustees who are exceptions to this statement. There certainly are such exceptions in Niagara. On balance, however, they are captives of the school board bureaucracies and the teachers' unions. They don't know how to approach and get a handle on their operations, analyse them. When they are asked to do it, forced to do it, they don't know what to do with the results. That's been our experience.

You'll be getting a submission from the Taxpayer Coalition Niagara, as I mentioned. It will show that as a result of a request for information by the coalition, the Niagara South board recently discovered that its cost per student was $28,000 a year at Niagara Falls Secondary School and $20,400 a year at Welland High School compared to $7,200 a year at Centennial school. The difference and the problem with the two high-cost schools was simply declining enrolments.

The board was astonished when they got the report. We were there. Their reaction told everything. They simply didn't know what was going on and hadn't asked one of the most basic questions you would think a school board would ask.

If the Niagara South board repeats the recent experience of our Lincoln county board in dealing with the problem of half-full schools, they will spend the next year discussing, reviewing, consulting stakeholders, holding hearings, and in the end they will decide not to make a decision. Pleas for delays are often delays for simple inaction.

I have four specific suggestions re the implementation of Bill 104:

(1) I would urge you to be as understanding of and communicative with individual teachers as you can be. Don't confuse them with their unions and the entrenched school board bureaucracies. There are thousands of dedicated, hardworking teachers in this province.

(2) Be as tough as you have to be with the unions and the school boards.

(3) Make sure that in the process of amalgamating boards, the combined boards don't gravitate towards (a) the highest salaries and benefits; (b) the least efficient work practices; (c) the lowest performance standards; (d) the highest service levels.

(4) Get politics out of the classroom.

At a recent social function I attended, an individual who turned out to be an official with one of the teachers' unions began criticizing corporations for not being willing to pay their fair share of taxes to support education and social programs generally.

I asked him what rate of taxes companies paid and what he would consider a fair rate for them to pay. He said he wouldn't get trapped into discussing numbers. He said corporate profits were too high, there were too many loopholes and generally everyone in Canada knew they were shortchanging the rest of us.

He didn't know, or refused to say, how much money companies made in dollars or how many dollars they paid in taxes. He refused my offer to get him the information which, by the way, I had just obtained off the Internet in the form of a tax fairness document that accompanied last week's federal budget.

I asked him -- and to be candid with you, I was now at this point pulling his chain -- if this wasn't the kind of information Earl Manners had in mind for communicating to students during his proposed teach-in day. He indicated they had all the information students need already.

This individual didn't know the facts, and he didn't want to know the facts. This is the height of irresponsibility, especially when teachers' unions continually attempt to pull the mantle of defenders of the greater good of society over their shoulders. If we are going to allow discussion of these issues in our classrooms, we had better make sure the discussions are based on accurate facts.

Ontario's classrooms are being used for narrow, selfish, political purposes. With all due respect, you good folks better put an end to that before the very idea of a publicly funded education system falls into irreversible disrepute, and we are disturbingly close to that now. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Charette. We have three minutes left, one minute per caucus. I ask you to keep your questions short. We begin with the official opposition.

Mr Duncan: Mr Charette, there's been a lot of research done in the United States by taxpayer-oriented groups that indicates that elected boards on a smaller scale than larger boards are more efficient and pass on not only better education but better administration of public education. How would you reconcile the research done in the United States with what's planned in Bill 104?

Mr Charette: I would generally endorse that if you would allow citizens to vote on mill rates.

Mr Duncan: In most of those jurisdictions, they don't have a vote on the mill rate. What I'm saying is that a number of taxpayer-oriented groups in the United States have openly endorsed smaller boards, not larger boards, with greater local control by an elected body that's accountable. How, in your view, do larger boards, with larger bureaucracies, serving more people -- it's the old argument of diminishing marginal returns. Your brother has spoken eloquently about those and other issues. How do you reconcile those two concepts?

Mr Charette: I'm looking at it strictly from a local taxpayer coalition group's viewpoint. We've got four boards in our area to be concerned with. We've got about 50 sets of ears that are subject to all kinds of special pleading.

Mr Duncan: But back to the question of diminishing marginal returns, how do you reconcile that?

Mr Charette: I would deny that on the scale we're talking about in Niagara there will be any diminishing returns.

Mr Wildman: I found your presentation interesting. I come from a different type of area than the area you're from. I represent Algoma, which up until now has been the fourth-largest constituency in Ontario, geographically. It's going to be doubled after the next election, thanks to these guys, and it will remain one of the largest in Ontario.

What is proposed in this bill for my area is that all of the public boards and all of the separate boards in Algoma district, which is approximately 400 miles from one end to the other, will be amalgamated into two boards, a public board and a separate board. Do you think it's going to be possible, in that kind of a scenario, for local communities to have control over their schools and the education of the students in those schools?

Mr Charette: I simply can't answer that, Mr Wildman. I don't know enough.

Mr Wildman: It may have been an unfair question.

Mr Charette: Yes.

Mr Wildman: We have a concern that it may take approximately four or five hours just to drive to a meeting.

Mr Charette: I can only say this: I have attended, as a taxpayer coalition member, probably 50 school board meetings, and in all honesty, sir, a lot of the discussion that goes on is just not productive.

Mr Wildman: Then is it your view we should do away with boards?

Mr Charette: I'm just saying that there's probably room for less talk and more action. That's as a person who has attended many meetings.

1710

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Thank you, Mr Charette. Good to see you again. I salute the recent work of the taxpayer coalition in investigating the spending of the Niagara South board. As you and I both know, their spending had gone up over 100% in the last 10 years with a zero increase in enrolment, and for most of those years transfers in the province were increasing, but they still hiked the property tax on the backs of seniors.

We've heard today in this committee some concerns that if boards pay $5,000 or less or make their trustees volunteer, that will somehow attract a low-quality individual or somebody who doesn't care about education. What are your feelings on the roles of trustees under the system spelled out in Bill 104?

Mr Charette: I think we may hopefully see a return to the days when it was more of a true quasi volunteer. I don't think those jobs should be careers or should be full-time or near full-time in their payment. When you look at what they do when they meet and the kinds of matters they discuss, I think a quasi volunteer, which I would classify in this day and age as somebody who is getting about $5,000 a year, would be sufficient to attract a committed individual.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Charette, and thank you for coming such a long way to be with us today.

SCHUSTER GINDIN

The Chair: Ms Schuster Gindin. Welcome. Thank you for being here. You have 10 minutes. It will go very quickly.

Ms Schuster Gindin: Apparently so. I come here as a parent of the Toronto public school board, and I have many of the same issues and concerns I've heard other parents address this afternoon. I have two children in the board, and I've been involved since they began day care. Until that time, I had never really been involved in local politics, and I think that's often the case, but as my children become involved. I do through the last 15 years of involvement I have come to appreciate the way that the Toronto board has responded to its communities and constituents' concerns and modelled its way of operating in order to allow the largest amount of local input possible.

I know that the northern boards are very different. There are different issues, of distance, of busing. All I know about that is that it's different, that they should organize themselves in a way that actually suits their constituency. The way Toronto has organized its board and its allowing of parental input depends on full-time trustees who are paid a living wage so they can actually do the work we need them to do.

I was the chair of my kids' day care, and it took me a year or so to learn how to figure out the budget, what sorts of things are of concern to running day cares. Now my kids are older. I don't have any input in day cares any more, and other parents now have to learn the same things over. There's not a transference of skills. I was also a co-chair of the PTA in my kids' elementary school.

Not everyone has the skills, confidence or time to be able to be involved, even though everyone wants the best for their kids and their communities. Without the assistance of trustees who represent parents, who are elected by parents, who actually have to be responsible for their decisions, it takes much longer to become involved, and many people can't ever become involved.

The thing I learned from my experience is how diverse my community is, by being involved in my kids' school. This is where we live, in an incredibly diverse urban environment. This is where my kids grow up and have to learn not just how to get a job, although of course it's important, not just the reading and writing that schools are there for, but how to be citizens, how to get along with each other. That's what parents learn by being involved in their kids' education: how to help that, facilitate that, help teachers help that and have some input into it. What I learned is that my community is much more diverse than I ever imagined and about all the people I don't know and what's of concern to them.

It's important that we have federal or provincial standards of education, what everyone should be expected to be taught, but how they learn it depends on where they come from and where they live. The only way of finding out how to really effectively service those kids, address that curriculum, is by having a dialogue, some input locally. The point of a dialogue about the standards between the people who teach them and the community that can talk about how its children might learn best -- it's a circle, and you don't solve it by cutting out one half of the dialogue. Without those full-time trustees, the number of parents that can be involved will be greatly reduced. You can't depend on volunteers. A lot of people can't volunteer, and $5,000 as a salary is basically asking for volunteers in Toronto.

As a co-chair of a PTA, I know that I was not representative of anybody. Just because I'm a parent and other people also have children doesn't mean we're all the same. We all want the best for our kids, and we might want opposite things. My kids don't need ESL, but they need to be in a classroom with kids who can also communicate. We don't need to be separated.

The real implication of taking away the instrument allowing us all to come together as a community, to benefit from our diversity, taking away full-time trustees, is that it will be completely divisive. Some people will never be able to be involved at all. They'll become invisible. Just because they're not at a meeting doesn't mean their kids' needs don't need to be addressed or that all of us won't suffer the consequences of it.

I don't think we can expect volunteers or people -- it isn't our job to know everything about our community or to have the kind of experience that continues on. It will only be divisive. We can't be expected to represent everybody. That's what elections are about. Elected officials represent people. What concerns me about Bill 104 is that the Toronto system will really suffer. That's the system I'm familiar with. Without full-time, decently paid trustees, we won't get the kind of community input that makes our system the good system it is.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. Obviously you speak with some passion and concern about the education of kids, and your kids in particular. I get the impression that you would consider that your children have had a good opportunity to gain a well-rounded education.

Ms Gindin: Excellent.

Mr Wildman: It has been suggested that the organization of school boards really wouldn't affect that; that is, if you have a larger board, even 310,000 students, which is by far the largest board probably in North America, and with 22 trustees, you're still going to be able to have the involvement in your school and your kids' education and they will be able to get the kind of education you value, that organization isn't that important. How do you react to that?

Ms Gindin: I know that my kids will get a good education no matter what because, first of all, if I had to remove them from the public board, I could probably afford to, although they have never gone to school further than four blocks from their house, which is an important community value that we hold in our family.

Mr Wildman: No, I didn't mean by removing them.

Ms Gindin: I know. Even within the school, I'm really involved, and there are certain programs they will lose, but I think the quality of their education will be diminished because the general quality of education will go down. They can't learn as well in a community where everybody's needs aren't served. I don't think they're individual; it's public.

Mr Carroll: I have just a quick question on the trustee thing. I'm sure you're aware that all of the hospitals in the city of Toronto and in fact everywhere in the province are run with volunteer boards of directors. You, obviously as a person who is very interested in what's happening, volunteered to be on the board of your children's day care centre. Would you run for election to a school board?

Ms Gindin: I wouldn't, because I have other work to do. But the trustees we have serving our board now are people who have developed their skills and interests in that field and who do that as a more-than-full-time job.

Mr Carroll: A board of education has an enormous administrative group of people to do those things. Do you not believe that some part-time board members operating because they want to help, like they have in hospitals and so on, could also serve us very well?

1720

Ms Gindin: Not in Toronto; it's too diverse. I couldn't possibly, in the time. I mean, it's a totally volunteer thing, obviously, $5,000. It would mean spending day and night. There are 50 languages; when we put out, as a PTA, the newsletter for our school, just the translation services, I can't begin to address the needs of those communities without a lot of direct involvement. They don't come to the school. You have to go to them. Not everyone can come. That's a full-time job.

Mr Wildman: I didn't realize you had so much confidence in bureaucrats that you'd like to leave it to the bureaucrats.

The Chair: Mr Wildman, please.

Mr Carroll: I didn't say that, Mr Wildman.

Mr Bartolucci: I only have one question for you, Ms Gindin. I guess you're concerned, as we are, that in comparison with the United States, Ontario ranks in 45th place in class size. I'm just asking for your opinion. If Bill 104 were to come to pass, do you feel that class sizes in Ontario would grow or would they become more manageable and offer more availability for excellence in education because of workable numbers?

Ms Gindin: I think the rhetoric around excellence is because everyone believes in excellence. Who would say, "No, we want mediocre"? If you cut money, you cut -- obviously, I see it already in schools, just in anticipation trying to save money, and there's no place to save it from. If you don't want to pay professional teachers, well, you can save money, but who needs that? If you don't spend more money, you're only going to have less. Anyone who goes shopping or anything else knows that.

Mr Bartolucci: So you see class sizes growing, correct?

Ms Gindin: Of course I do.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Gindin, for coming here today.

Mrs Johns: While the next presenter is coming up, I'd just like to comment that I forgot to pay my $2; it's sitting here. I don't want to be treated like a criminal. I will mail it to Ms Endicott.

The Chair: I've actually been envying the fact that you've been eating a chocolate bar. Some of us didn't get a chance to buy any.

Mrs Johns: I'm not sure some of the members would have sold it to you, Chair.

PAM PETROPOULOS
KELLY ROBINS

The Chair: Pam Petropoulos and Kelly Robins? Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. You have 10 minutes for your presentation. You can use it in any way you wish.

Ms Pam Petropoulos: Good afternoon. My name is Pam Petropoulos, and I'm a teacher at the Scarborough Centre for Alternative Studies, which is the adult education centre in Scarborough. I have 15 years of experience with the Scarborough Board of Education, the last seven years being at the Scarborough Centre for Alternative Studies.

I'm here today as an advocate for adult high school students and for fully funded adult education programs. Adult education programs play an invaluable role in helping unemployed or marginally employed adults who lack a high school diploma and marketable skills obtain a fighting chance in a very competitive global economy. Unfortunately, however, these programs are in serious danger of being curtailed or eliminated altogether as a result of recent and proposed legislation.

Last year Bill 34 reduced the provincial grant level for students over the age of 20 to less than half the provincial grant level for adolescents. Boards outside of Metro, which depend on provincial grants, have seen their adult programs decimated. A study of 15 boards that tried to continue their adult programs with the new grant structure showed an 85% decline in enrolment. Bill 104, which establishes provincial control of funding for education, would create a similar situation for adult education in Metro, where the training needs are much more acute.

Adult education programs serve students who are disadvantaged in numerous ways and face multiple barriers to permanent employment. For example, more than 60% of the students at the Scarborough Centre for Alternative Studies receive social assistance and 73% have incomes of less than $1,500 a month. Many of these individuals are single mothers. Across the province, adult programs see twice the provincial average of students with disabilities, and in Metro, English-language needs parallel the profile in adolescent programs, where one third of students have been in the country for less than four years. Adult programs target students with the greatest needs and they quickly and successfully prepare graduates for work or further training.

At SCAS, more than half our students obtain their high school diplomas in less than a year. A survey of our 1996 graduates shows that six months after graduation 76% were either working or obtaining further training. The best way to demonstrate the value of programs like ours is to meet our students and graduates. I would now like to introduce you to one of our graduates, Kelly Robins.

Ms Kelly Robins: Good evening, honourable members of Parliament. My name is Kelly Robins. June 10, 1997, marks an important milestone in my life. This is the day that I will be graduating from York University with a bachelor of arts degree in psychology and a bachelor of education degree in the primary-junior division, with an emphasis on special education. This has been a long and challenging process for me which began in 1989.

Finding myself newly divorced with two small children made me face the reality that I was on my own and needed to provide for my family. Without a high school diploma, no marketable skills and no prospects for meaningful employment, I began to feel as though I would never break away from social assistance as my only means of support.

I was fortunate enough to be directed to the Scarborough Centre for Alternative Studies, SCAS. Invited to attend the orientation session, I arrived on the doorstep of SCAS with my children in tow. Immediately I was made to feel welcome, as a staff member helped me to the second floor and assured me that it was okay that my three-year-old, who has autism, was screaming. After the session was over, the principal, Ed Moran, personally took me on a tour of the facility and introduced me to the onsite day care staff.

Before I registered for classes, I was provided with individual counselling which took me through the process of determining which requirements I needed to fulfil to obtain my secondary school diploma. The staff member who assisted me with this took the time to help me choose the courses which would benefit my situation most. As it turned out, I would only be required to attend classes for one semester to graduate. This was the ultimate situation: In a short time I would be the proud owner of a high school diploma.

Getting to classes daily proved to be an obstacle in itself, but I found that I wanted to be there and that for the first time in a very long time I was doing something productive with my life. I soon began to realize that the staff at SCAS was genuinely interested in what was happening in my life and made every effort, on their own time, to support me in overcoming the many crises I faced on a daily basis.

I felt safe at SCAS. This was a place where I belonged. If I had to take courses at night or at an adolescent high school, I really don't think I would have persevered because I didn't fit in there. Not only were the staff supportive of me, but other students who were in situations similar to mine provided me with a network of support and encouragement.

The staff at SCAS believed in my abilities even if I didn't. It was here that I finally knew I was smart and that my contributions to class discussions were not only useful but valued. I soon began to realize that I was just as good as anyone else and that I had something to offer, that I wouldn't always be a burden on the social structure.

Part of my curriculum was a career directions course. To be successful, I had to put a career path in place for myself. This proved invaluable because I had no idea about what course of action I would take upon graduation. With the help of many staff members, guidance counsellors and a social worker included, I learned how to set realistic and achievable goals. Interests and abilities were assessed through a series of tests, which set me on a course of action. Also included in this course was the job search process. Valuable résumé-writing and interview skills were learned, which to this day I am still implementing.

It was at this time that I knew becoming a teacher was possible. With the guidance of caring staff members and my self-esteem now intact, this was the direction I was headed. The time line I set to reach this goal was realistic, given my situation, and I must add, I have attained it.

Apart from the academia, SCAS staff were always there for me when I needed them most. There have been many times when I could have just packed it in. Attempting to maintain a somewhat normal life was not, and still isn't, easy. It is because of the committed staff who to this date still provide me with the support and encouragement I need that I am here today speaking to you. Without their help in opening the doors that I had foolishly closed in my teenage years, June 10, 1997, would be just another day to me. Instead, it marks the beginning of a new life not only for myself but also for my children. I am now in a position to be a positive role model for them as well as for the students I will teach in the many years to come. I am extremely proud to be able to refer to the individuals who empowered me as my colleagues. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for being here today. If I may say, Ms Robins, on behalf of the committee, we applaud your determination and wish you all the best in the future. Thank you both very much.

Ms Petropoulos: Is the time up?

The Chair: Yes, I'm sorry. You used your time up very effectively.

1730

SANJAY DHEBAR

The Chair: I ask Sanjay Dhebar to come forward. Mr Dhebar, thank you very much for being here this afternoon. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Sanjay Dhebar: Good evening, members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak here. Everyone seems to focus on the democratic aspect. It's pretty democratic for me.

My name is Sanjay. I'm a full-time student at Ryerson Polytechnic University, and I'm currently an elected member of the board of directors.

I'm here to speak for Bill 104, and I'd like to thank the Conservative government for finally addressing a much-needed reform to education. The Common Sense Revolution clearly indicated its intent to get rid of red tape and intense bureaucracy, and I definitely feel that this is an indication of getting rid of it.

In 1989 I attended a small public school in Prince Edward county, just outside of Belleville. There were only two visible minorities at my school; one was me and the other one was my older brother. We were both very active students and national-calibre athletes at that time, as well as academically honour students and student council members. Both my brother and I were forced to attend another school in another board to finish our schooling. The reason for this was due to the intense racism from the teachers, the principals and the school board itself. We were forced to commute to a school 45 minutes away at our own expense.

I'm not here to complain about this, because eventually we succeeded at our own pace, but I'm here today to say it's about time. Obviously, the local board did not address my problem with racism. I think Bill 104 will help to eliminate local biases existing in my local board by bringing in other perspectives.

One thing I felt was failed at, growing up in the public school system, was emphasizing French and the importance of French, living in this country. Bill 104 clearly states that right now there are only two French boards in Ontario, and although they are reducing the amount of school boards, there will be an increase of two more, to four French boards. I really appreciate that.

I really wish my parents had an opportunity to give their input, as each level of bureaucracy failed, from the teachers to the principals to the board, to address the racism my brother and I had to endure.

According to the Ontario College of Teachers, the average age of teachers in Ontario is 46. Those teachers, principals and the board of education are still in the education system right now, the same individuals that my brother and I had to endure. I feel assured that the Conservative government is taking action against these teachers who are old and set in their ways and unable to change.

Margaret Gee, president of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, brought something to my attention. Margaret Gee said, "With science and technology, the curriculum should be up to date, since it's over 10 years old." She added that she has been waiting for the new science curriculum from the education minister for over 10 years. If I calculate that correctly, in the last 10 years Liberal and NDP governments were in power and failed to present this curriculum to the teachers.

The former Minister of Education, David Cooke, resigned from the NDP to focus on education reform presented by the Conservative government. At this time, I'd like to thank the NDP for allowing us to have Mr Cooke. This much respected, long-standing provincial member of Parliament has a clear understanding of the much-needed change in education, something he obviously was unable to do during his reign as Minister of Education.

Ontario's maximum salary level for teachers is $63,353, 24% above the $51,123 maximum in the other nine provinces. The minimum-experience salary is 11% more than the other nine provinces. Since 1984 Ontario's maximum salary has increased by 9% while the average of the other nine provinces has decreased by 4.2%. I guess in Parliament they'd say "shame" to this kind of situation. I'm a little confused here. Ontario is ranked last as far as education goes, so why the pay raises? I don't understand.

On the weekend I read an article saying how Quebec plans on having a large reform to their education system also. They plan on doing it similarly to the Conservative government in what's going on right now.

One thing I'd like to focus on from my university's perspective, which relates to Bill 104, is that my university board of directors recently started a new program. Although I'm happy to be one of integral parts at the start of this program, I feel shame that it's something that has been going on. It's called Students for Literacy. It's something that's available to all university students who seem to have a problem as far as literacy goes. It was initially started in the fall semester at Ryerson and it's had tremendous success as far as enrolment goes. Although I'm glad to see this occurring, it just makes me demoralized when I think of our education system, to think of the kind of teachers we have who are unable to teach students who get into university proper reading and writing skills.

From the university perspective, when I spoke to my president, Dr Claude Lajeunesse, he said the problem right now with university students is that the high schools are not providing them with literate students. Business is saying the universities are not providing them with literate reading-and-writing-skilled students. I don't know which side to work with, but from both sides it doesn't seem to be balanced.

The unions, which seem to have the highest representation and the largest amount of money to help support this cause, have failed to give any alternative. This disappoints me, because although I'm not highly supportive of unions, I think they sometimes get their point across, and I wish they would do it from an education perspective.

In the end, I'd like to just say that I look forward to the day when my child is in a classroom and is able to learn from a young teacher, preferably an ethnic minority, but who also has a computer by his side to be consistent with the current technology being offered to the students.

Now I wish to listen to some of the questions the members have.

Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. You said at one point that you were confused. I think your presentation may have demonstrated that, but it certainly confused me. I really regret the experience you describe of you and your brother and your family with racism, but I really don't understand, and I've tried to glean from your remarks, how Bill 104 addresses that.

You said it gets at the bureaucracy, but the minister has said that out of a total expenditure of over $13 billion a year on education, the savings from this legislation is $150 million. That's a lot of money, but it's about 1%. The only bureaucracy being eliminated by this bill is cutting the number of trustees from about 1,900 to about 800. I don't understand how the issue of racism is addressed or even how bureaucracy is addressed under this bill.

1740

Mr Dhebar: I still remember when I sat down with the council and I addressed my presentation, it was quite similar to what you said; they said they were confused themselves.

To answer your question, I find the bureaucracy is going to be gotten rid of it by decreasing the amount. To be honest with you, I don't think we need school trustees. Parents, unlike past members who have spoken, are educated enough to give their input, and with having more parents' input, which Bill 104 will allow, therefore a representation from ethnic minorities will be addressed. Therefore, with Bill 104 decreasing the amount of bureaucracy, which I think is decreasing because there are going to be fewer school trustees, and a wider board to address these concerns, that's why I mentioned that.

Mr Hudak: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. Unlike Mr Wildman, I enjoyed your presentation. I didn't think it was confused in any way. In fact, it came from your heart. You took time out of your day, free of charge, to come before this committee and give your opinion on how you think the education system will work -- very well done, and you don't get paid $75,000 a year to be a professional speaker. Maybe it didn't live up to Mr Wildman's expectations, but I thought you did a good job.

Mr Dhebar: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: No, I was just trying to find out how --

The Chair: Order, please. Let's not cut into the presenter's time.

Mr Hudak: Some people we've had before the committee or members opposite have said that we should emulate the States, that we should spend as much money per student as the Americans and somehow that will improve our education system. But your point is that it's not throwing more money at it or more bureaucracy or more trustees or a bigger administration that's going to improve education. In fact, you said that reducing the bureaucracy and getting dollars into the classroom will help that. Is it about money and bureaucracy, or how do you improve the quality of education in Ontario?

Mr Dhebar: One thing I first looked at when it came to the revenue point of view is that in Ontario we spend the most money on our education, yet we have the worst education system in Canada. That's what I read. As far as the financial aspect goes, we're addressing that by saying that we don't need to spend that money. From a bureaucracy point of view, by having more parents' input, which I think the majority of parents are for, it allows for a real-life, from-the-heart point of view, like mine; for parents to be involved and to be part of their education.

Mr Duncan: How much time do I have?

The Chair: We're just about over the time limit, so a quick question.

Mr Duncan: I just wanted to thank you for your presentation; though I don't agree with you, it's certainly a thoughtful presentation. Given that you're the president of the Ryerson Progressive Conservatives, it's certainly consistent with the party's position on this. I just wonder how you feel about your party distributing information with respect to your politics, having dossiers with respect to individuals and their politics who present before committees, prior to their making a presentation.

Mr Skarica: Point of order: It was presented to us in the government caucus, as you well know. It wasn't presented to you until you requested it.

Mr Duncan: Yes, but that's the question.

The Chair: Excuse me. That's really not a point of order.

Mr Duncan: I just wonder how you feel about your government gathering information about a presenter's politics prior to them appearing before a committee.

Mr Dhebar: I'm not sure I understand your question, but I appreciate you asking me that. Although I'm actually the founder of the Progressive Conservative Party on campus, I brought my friend with me who's the president of the Liberal Party on campus. I appreciate you asking me that question.

Mr Bartolucci: Sanjay, just before you leave, I think Mr French here can give you some accurate statistics with regard to educational spending in Ontario and our ability to compete.

The Chair: We don't have any more time. Thank you very much, Mr Dhebar, for appearing before us.

DOUGLAS JOLLIFFE

The Chair: Mr Jolliffe, thank you very much for coming here. Thank you for your patience.

Mr Douglas Jolliffe: That's all right. My submission's been written up and I think it was distributed to you. I'll be reading from it, more or less.

My name is Doug Jolliffe and I'm a history teacher at Western Technical and Commercial School in Toronto, a large school with students from a wide variety of backgrounds. In my time at Western Tech, I have come to two surprising and happy conclusions about secondary school education in Ontario, unlike the previous: (1) The students are not nearly as unteachable as I had been led to believe before I got into high school teaching, and (2) what we are trying to do with public education in Ontario is unprecedented in history. I'm here today because I believe the changes proposed by Bill 104 seriously threaten what is truly remarkable about education in Ontario today.

The aspect of Bill 104 that worries me the most is the centralization of the decision-making process. This will mean education will become dangerously susceptible to the many education plans that are being promoted by private interests around the continent. I believe these plans, all of which dismiss current curriculum and teaching practices as ineffective, are detrimental to public education. My experiences as a high school teacher for the last seven years, which I'll just go over briefly, have convinced me that public education, under threat from these plans, needs the protection provided by the current board structure.

When I made the decision to leave the academic world of Queen's University for high school teaching, many people tried to dissuade me. They said, "High school students these days are not the least bit interested in knowledge or ideas, especially in the field of history." The message at the faculty of education here in Toronto where I attended for a year, although they were more optimistic, did not differ significantly. Students today, we were told, cannot be taught sophisticated ideas and must instead be coached towards other objectives, such as increased self-esteem and a better understanding of so-called relevant issues. Teaching the humanities to students today, I was told, was ultimately pointless.

After beginning work, I tried to implement the strategies I had been taught. While they did not always fail, they did not seem to push the students to any great degree. Gradually, I became what is often called a traditional teacher, in that I would spend more and more time at the front of the classroom explaining history to the class. My students responded by showing me that they not only could grasp the essence of what I was teaching, even the difficult material, but that they wanted to learn more. By teaching material educational specialists said was irrelevant in a manner that they said was ineffective, my students nevertheless seemed to learn more.

The second conclusion I have reached since I began teaching high school is that public education in Ontario is a unique and difficult experiment. We are trying to provide a standard education to a far greater segment of the population than any other society has tried to do, now or in the past. Unlike other provinces, such as some of those we keep getting compared to, and other countries, the emphasis in Ontario is not just on the education but an opportunity for all people to gain a full and varied education, rather than simply dividing up the population at some early age according to perceived capability. In those systems, the good receive a traditional education, the bad get rudimentary skills training and the ugly get expelled.

To try to educate all citizens requires a balance between a strong and rigorous curriculum and intensive and individualized programs to retain the hard-to-teach. This is what public education has been in Ontario: an ongoing attempt to educate all in our society. The attempt so far, and it must be emphasized that it is an ongoing process, has not been without some mistakes, but the effort has been noted around the world. People from as far away as Asia and Europe have visited Ontario's schools in order to emulate what we are doing right.

Over the past few years, I have been making these points to people interested in education. I have pushed for policy that reflects the fact that all students are capable not only of being trained for the economy but also of learning the values of the humanities, sciences and mathematics, values that have more to do with the way one thinks and behaves as a citizen than as an employee. I have talked with parents, students, and education officials about ways to improve the system, such as establishing a balance between job skills courses and the more traditional curriculum.

It has been in the process of these endeavours that I have come to realize the importance of local school board trustees. Too often the educational specialists, speaking from a position far removed from the classroom, have put forward programs that seem valuable in theory but are disastrous in practice. The most common example of these programs is called outcomes-based education, a system that many American states have implemented and then abandoned after considerable costs were incurred. Just three or four years ago, many Toronto board superintendents embraced OBE and were encouraging its establishment in schools here. Some trustees were interested because the system seemed to promise much, yet because of their elected positions the trustees also listened to and were persuaded by others who opposed the system. So far the OBE onslaught has been resisted here.

Without local trustees, it is difficult to see how this could have happened. Their elected status means they must confer before establishing policy. This, in turn, means our schools are better protected from some of the more dubious educational schemes. I have had many disagreements with trustees in the past, yet I have always found them to be approachable and willing to listen. I have been allowed to make deputations to committees and to the board itself, and I have made my opinions heard, as have many others who care about our schools. Trustees in Toronto have made extensive efforts in founding and safeguarding a strong curriculum and other programs that make our schools what they are: places of learning for all students.

1750

It has been said that parent-run school councils established in Bill 104 would take over many of these duties. This is unlikely for a number of reasons. What these councils will lead to is an increasing disparity between schools. Some schools will have a large participation, resulting in that school having protection for its curriculum and programs. Other schools, for a variety of reasons, will have few people willing to take on the responsibility, which means these schools could easily come under the undue and pernicious influence of one or two people.

Public education needs and wants direct parent involvement because parents and citizens are required to protect the public interest. However, public interest is not served when parent involvement is on a piecemeal basis, as it would be when decisions are made only about each individual school. Instead, parent involvement committees at local boards should be given greater authority.

Public education will be put gravely at risk when local boards are eliminated and replaced by an unwieldy Metro board and an appointed Education Improvement Commission. These institutions, especially the part-timers in these institutions, will be so far removed from the realities of the classroom that they will be easy prey for the aforementioned educational plans currently being aggressively peddled. Members of the proposed trustee and commission structure may well have the best intentions but, because they will have neither the time nor perhaps the inclination to listen to all concerned parties, the public education experiment could well be damaged irreparably.

The current Toronto board structure provides the protection public education needs. The scope of responsibilities is large enough to ensure that no one school receives an unfair advantage and is small enough to listen and to learn from all who want to participate in the experiment. The arrangement proposed in Bill 104 offers neither.

Humans are fallible. Yet for the Education Improvement Commission, which Bill 104 states cannot be legally challenged, to work, its members will need to be infallible. This of course is impossible. Mistakes are made, and in public education mistakes are very costly. The adoption of a particular educational fad may mean near- illiteracy for the better part of a generation. A local trustee system is not perfect, but it is still better insurance against such mistakes.

This public education experiment in Ontario is a difficult enterprise, but the payoff is, and should continue to be, enormous. I implore you to please reconsider Bill 104. If it is implemented, all we have achieved in our schools up to now, and these achievements are tremendous, may well be lost and the great Ontario public education experiment will sadly come to an end.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Jolliffe. Regrettably, you used all your time and there won't be any time for questions, but thank you for your thoughts and for being here this evening.

GORDON GARLAND

The Chair: Gordon Garland, welcome to our committee. Thank you for being here.

Mr Gordon Garland: It's a pleasure to be here even if it's 40 minutes late.

The Chair: Our apologies.

Mr Garland: No problem. I'm a businessman, I'm a taxpayer and I'm also a parent. I have three daughters. Linnea is in Wychwood Tiger Daycare Centre and Hillcrest school. Alison is in grade 6 at Hillcrest school. Heather is in grade 10 at Oakwood Collegiate. I think I pretty well cover the whole spectrum of education from the informal to the formal.

I'm a city of York resident. I'm a member of York Fights Back, which is a coalition of community, labour, education and social justice groups and individuals. I'm also the co-chair of York Citizens for Local Democracy. For three years, I was the policy analyst with David Crombie's Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, and prior to that a regional economist and housing analyst with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

I've got to say that I'm appearing here before this committee under protest. Ten minutes is totally inadequate for what I believe is the most massive change in both education and social services contemplated within the last century within Ontario.

What I'd like to do is to set the general context for the changes being proposed, focus a little on the city of York and then conclude by drawing some links. In terms of general context, the issues of governance and property taxation have been dealt with in the Golden report, which was exclusive to the greater Toronto area. They've been dealt with in Libby Burnham's review of the Golden report. They've been dealt with in David Crombie's Who Does What panel review of Libby Burnham and the Golden report. In essence, we have reviewers reviewing the reviewers, and in the end we have a government making decisions that take none of this into account.

I'd like to quote from the submission to the Who Does What panel that was made by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. It may very well provide some insights into why the province wants to take control of education. Here I'm quoting from a study that was done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, no doubt an eminent authority with respect to education. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago states, "Those reform efforts that constrain school funding from local sources while increasing funding from state sources have either lowered overall expenditure levels or slowed the growth in educational expenditures," because schools are "forced to compete with other state-wide programs for funding status."

Here I think we have the explanation of why this government has decided it wants to take control of education. It wants to take control of education to cut education funding. Let's look at what is being proposed here. Again I'm quoting from the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto submission: "Per pupil elementary and secondary education spending in Ontario is $6,297 in 1991. Per pupil elementary and secondary school education spending in Manitoba is $6,120."

The difference between Manitoba and Ontario is only $177 per student, Ontario being $177 higher than Manitoba. Ontario also has a very large new immigrant population, which can account for a significant proportion of that $177 difference.

Ontario also happens to be the richest province in Canada, and people have voted through their school boards to give education a high priority. Education is a means of social advancement. It is the middle-class dream of progress. An attack on education is an attack on the middle class.

Having said that, I think it's useful to look at the ideological underpinnings of what this government is proposing. Essentially, it is that the public and the non-profit sectors are by definition wasteful; the corporate sector is by definition efficient; and voluntarism and charity will fill in the gaps. At this point in our history, the gaps are as wide as the San Andreas fault, and they're increasing. Voluntarism and charity cannot fill gaps that are that wide and have been allowed to grow at that rate.

What is being proposed by this government is, "How do we fund a tax cut?" There are three funding envelopes that you must slash if you are not to have your deficit rise totally out of control. Those three spending envelopes are health, education and social services. Let's take them each in point.

With respect to health, what has this government done? Ontario's current course of closing hospitals and slashing their budgets at the same time is called "a second-rate plan that will cause untold harm to patients," and that's a quote from the head of the Ontario Hospital Association. He went on to note, "Queen's Park's plans to take $1.3 billion out of hospital budgets over a three-year period and the government's current policy towards the restructuring of hospitals and the health system as a whole is flawed and must be fundamentally changed before irreparable damage is done." That is the head of the Ontario Hospital Association, going public for the first time, I might add.

1800

What did Mr Sinclair have to say? He is the government-appointed head of the hospital restructuring commission. He referred to the downloading of social services as "stupid." That's a one-word summary of what is taking place with health care.

If we take a look at the other side of the coin, if we look at social services, what is being proposed through the government's agenda with respect to education is essentially to download social services on to cities. Why? So that taxes will increase dramatically and that, in response, municipalities will be forced to cut social services.

If we look at what's taking place under education, we see that duly elected school boards are being dismantled. The province is taking control of education. In the case of Metro Toronto, we have one mega school board for the six cities in Metro with more students than in six of Canada's provinces, ward boundaries almost tripled in size, and elected school trustees paid no more than $5,000 a year. The result is unresponsive, corporate school trustees.

Let's look at what this government is doing and what its appointees and its recognized experts are saying. David Crombie says, "Wrong in principle, devastating in practice." Mel Lastman says: "It's a double whammy, two bullets to the head. We'll go broke." Hazel McCallion says: "Remember, when a government makes a mess, they don't go bankrupt like a private business; they just up the taxes. A megacity would become a costly mega-mess." Mega school boards will do the exact same thing.

The downloading is not an attempt to untangle bureaucracy or create efficiency or to establish clear lines of accountability. Consider child care, currently funded 80% by the province. The province wants municipalities to pay 50%. Who's accountable?

This government is attacking three sectors: health, education, and social and community services. No impact studies have been done in any of these sectors. The effects are going to be felt for the long term by the population, by the elderly, by children, by parents.

In the process, they are proposing to suspend democracy and to create appointed bodies that can make decisions that are not reviewable even by a court of law. I think as you travel the province you will quickly learn that hell hath no fury like that of parents protecting their children.

I say this to you candidly and without malice: I attended Mr Leach's presentation in Rosedale riding, and as Mr Leach tried to answer questions and got befuddled and mixed up and couldn't remember what the question was, someone ended up saying to him, "Al, you're not wearing any clothes and it's not a pretty sight," and it really wasn't. I was almost waiting for him to plead insanity in terms of his lack of response to questions.

Really, I think your position on these bills is essentially indefensible and that you will learn, as you go around the province, that parents are not going to stand for it. Parents are going to draw a line in the sand. It's them saying: "When you fuck with me, you fuck with my children. Stop it."

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Garland, for your presentation. We can't allow that kind of unparliamentary language, but we do thank you. Unfortunately, we have no time for questions, but we appreciate your coming here and thank you for your patience.

I understand that Terry Tesan is not here. Is that correct?

DOUGLAS HUM

The Chair: Will Doug Hum please come up? Thank you very much, Mr Hum, for being here. Welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Douglas Hum: Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to address the committee on Bill 104. I want to point out that I'm not in receipt of a $75,000-a-year salary, nor am I paid to be here. I'm here voluntarily on my own time and as a parent, out of concern for the wellbeing of my two children who are in the Toronto Board of Education system. I am currently an executive member of the Toronto Chinese Parents Association and a past vice-president of the association, but I'm addressing you as a private individual.

My children are in grades 7 and 9. Both are doing well, one in French immersion and the other in a regular English-language program. My children have benefited greatly from the current school system, and as a parent I would not want to see changes that would diminish the quality of education they will receive. They have benefited from the diversity and choices in the curriculum which is enriching their lives and helping them develop into well-rounded individuals.

The heritage or international language program available to my daughter who is in French immersion provides her with the choice to become trilingual if she so wishes. Skills in various languages will provide us with a future population that can communicate with the world. This is important to our country as a trading nation and particularly with the growing importance of the Pacific Rim nations. We need to be able to communicate to those nations in their various languages.

As a parent, I have greatly appreciated the accessibility of my local school board trustees and the timely manner in which they have responded to concerns regarding the education of my children. This accessibility owes itself to the fact that our Toronto Board of Education trustees are full-time and can thus devote their full attention to concerns raised by their constituents. The remuneration they receive is reasonable for a full-time position. It is critically important to me as a parent, and to many parents I talk to, that this accessibility continue at current levels. By reducing the remuneration of trustees to that of occasional workers we may then wind up with occasional trustees.

Our children's education is too important to be left in the hands of occasional trustees. Setting remuneration at the proposed levels will be a barrier for those of low income to serve as trustees, leaving these positions to those who are financially well-off and who are not financially challenged. The new school board would then become a public body where those who are well-off will be disproportionately represented. The poor and the working poor will lose their voice. I would respectfully request the committee to develop plans to ensure inclusive representation and that the levels of remuneration be reviewed to ensure that it is not a barrier to those of low income.

I am concerned that the reduction in the number of trustees and the replacement of the six elected school boards with one Metro-wide board will further erode accessibility of trustees. I understand that the current levels of representation in the city of Toronto will rise from an average of 33,000 to 104,000 per trustee. Given the proposed level of remuneration, which reflects that of an occasional worker, and the barriers to equality of representation I have outlined, I may lose the accessibility to my trustees that I currently enjoy and greatly appreciate. I would respectfully request that the constituents represented by each trustee be reduced.

I am concerned about the establishment of the Education Improvement Commission. I understand that the commission members will be appointed by and report only to the Minister of Education, the Honourable Mr John Snobelen. The commission will have what I regard as extraordinary powers, including that of approving all expenditures exceeding $50,000, and that decisions of the commission cannot be reviewed by any body, including the courts. This is undemocratic and opens the door for abuse of power and authority.

I support the establishment of local school councils. In fact, I've served on a number of them. However, I fear that, as they are currently proposed, they can become undemocratic bodies representing only a small segment of the school population. The offloading of responsibilities previously held by trustees to unpaid volunteers, no matter how dedicated they may be, may leave parents with problems and issues that may not be addressed.

1810

I see those proposals as laying the foundation for a crisis in our education system. If implemented, they will make the Minister of Education's comments of a crisis self-fulfilling. I do not believe our education is in a crisis. It works reasonably well, and boards in the GTA are acclaimed internationally. I'm a product of that education system. I've come through its public school system, through its secondary school system. I've graduated from York University and from the University of Toronto, from the faculty of social work, with a master's degree in social work.

The education of our children is delicate and critical. Decisions made today will have a bearing on the wellbeing of our children tomorrow. Our education system, although is not without faults, works reasonably well and is not "broken," as the Minister of Education has proclaimed. I would respectfully request the committee to review the plans that have come forward and address the concerns raised by other deputants and reject the bill as it is currently constructed.

Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. You raised concerns with respect to the parent councils, and obviously there is an increased opportunity for the role of parent councils in education. What responsibilities should they have? Where would your comfort level be in terms of the responsibilities that could potentially be granted to them?

Mr Hum: The kinds of workloads that are placed on them -- and I'm very familiar because I've served on them; I'm past president of the Orde school parent council. The day-to-day operations of the school should be left in the hands of the principal, responsibility for the physical plant and the operations, curriculum etc. But the parents council can serve as liaison to other parents and bring concerns of the parents and help direct policy and help in the development of program. You have staff who are professionally trained who should be doing that kind of work, who should be charged with the responsibility of ensuring the quality of education.

Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much for your presentation. When you find out that Ontario ranks, on a per pupil expenditure level, 46th in comparison to American and Canadian jurisdictions, does it make any sense at all to you, common or otherwise, that the government would want to institute two additional levels of bureaucracy, with the introduction of the Education Improvement Commission and the education improvement committees? You know that the two commission chairs are making $88,000 each, and we're not sure what the remuneration will be for the other members. We don't know how many committees there'll be and we don't know what they'll get paid. Does it make any sense to you at all that this kind of money could be spent outside of the classroom as opposed to enhancing heritage language programs, international language programs and the creative arts?

Mr Hum: Certainly I agree with many of the points you raise. We have a current system that works reasonably well. There are adjustments that need to be made. But if you set up these infrastructures, they take very scarce resources away from the classroom situation. I would urge that such resources be directed to the classroom and to critically needed programs.

Mr Martin: I want to thank you as well for coming and making some very good and valid points. I wanted to make a point and then ask a question. What I'm hearing re this bill and as justification for this bill is that somehow we're producing a mediocre product. You and I also obviously are products of the school system in Ontario, and I have four children who are going through it now.

I'm excited when I go home on the weekend and spend time with them, doing their homework and working with them around some of the assignments and projects that they're doing. I certainly don't see what they're doing as mediocre, nor do I see them as mediocre. I see them as having a wonderful future ahead of them and I see them as being able to participate, because of the education system they're in, on an international scale, anywhere, second to nobody.

I was wondering -- you may be out there more than I am -- who is the government referring to when they speak of the system and its product being mediocre? I don't know.

Mr Hum: My view of this is that they're pandering to misconceptions and misperceptions of what our education system is. These kinds of groups fail to recognize the achievements and the accomplishments of our education system. There are children who are coming out of the heritage language program who are doing very well in the third-language instruction courses. I have always lamented the fact that I've come through a system where I've had no access to a heritage language program and I cannot read and write in the Chinese language, where my daughter exceeds me in that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Hum, for being here. There is no more time for questions.

SOO WONG

The Chair: Could I ask Soo Wong to come forward. Welcome, it's nice to have you here.

Ms Soo Wong: Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you. I know you're running late so I'm going to be very quick.

My name is Soo Wong. I'm a public school trustee for the city of Toronto. I represent an area with the most school-aged children in the city of Toronto. Ward 8 has 17 public schools: 13 elementary schools and four secondary schools. With the exception of three elementary schools, every school in ward 8 is considered an inner-city school. As well, I have the most concentrated adult education students in my ward.

The 1995 and 1991 data have shown the following regarding the south end of the ward: 25% in social assistance; 25% low-income families; almost 40% low-income single households; almost 40% of the residents speak neither English nor French; almost 44% of the population are immigrants; almost 22% of youth are unemployed; and lastly, over 13% of the residents are unemployed.

I am here to speak to you about the concerns and issues identified by my constituents regarding education, not Bill 104.

As a young child who was born in Hong Kong and raised in ward 8, I know first hand about education in Toronto. My parents came to Canada because they wanted to give their three young children the best education and health care available in the world. Growing up in Toronto also meant experiencing a lot of pain, anger and frustration, as I was thrown into a learning environment that focused on group learning and play that I had never experienced in Hong Kong.

What was most painful throughout my years in the Toronto Board of Education was the way the system treated non-English-speaking parents. Both my sister and I were asked to translate for our parents, everything from report cards to principals' letters and even parent-teacher interviews. Thankfully, the Toronto Board of Education has changed its policy, so that every parent, regardless of culture, race and religion can participate in his or her child's education.

Education plays a central role in my family. Through education my sister, brother and I became productive members of this community. We were also able to pursue careers that many doubted we could attain. No one could ever guess that three poor children with parents who could neither speak nor write English could be successful. My parents believed that education was the only means for us to go beyond a life of poverty.

For many of my constituents, education is regarded as the only safe way to get ahead. The opportunity of receiving an education inspires hopes and dreams for many new Canadians. Education is also used as an indicator of the health of this community. Research has shown a strong relationship between education and health care of an individual. Hence, education should be a right for every person in our community, so that he or she can better himself or herself.

At this time, we should be talking and working on matters that affect the classroom, not Bill 104. Every Ontario student is being affected by secondary school reform. This reform will have an impact on not only Ontario students but also the thousands of international students studying in Ontario. In 1995 there were over 900 students in Ontario educated in the public school system who are visa students.

In the announcements of last fall, the Minister of Education announced a major overhaul of secondary schools in Ontario. The announcements included: the elimination of the fifth year of high school, a change in course options and credit requirements, revised modes of program delivery, changed roles and responsibilities of teaching staff and improved planning and accountability.

1820

I believe that education reform is long overdue. However, since that announcement we have not heard anything from the ministry on when the secondary school reform will be fully implemented, what the revised curriculum will be and how the ministry will communicate these changes to the community. The delay in the implementation of secondary education reform is putting our students at risk.

Other classroom issues the minister has made announcements about but failed to discuss further include: the future of adult education, the new curriculum for students in junior kindergarten to grade 8 and province-wide testing. Every parent and taxpayer deeply cares about how and what we teach our young children. Reports and royal commissions mean nothing to a young child, but implementing their recommendations does. Hence, one needs to critically ask, what does Bill 104 mean to a young child in Ontario?

I can tell you that in my culturally diverse ward Bill 104 means limited access and limited accountability to the students. How does a young child whose first language is neither English nor French get access to the Education Improvement Commission or the local committee? Who does the young child call when he or she has a problem in his or her special education class?

Accountability is a concept frequently used but rarely realized. Again, what does Bill 104 mean to a young child? How will an appointed commission and its local committee be accountable to a child when the commission reports only to the Minister of Education? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the role and function of the commission will benefit all Ontario students? While the new commission prepares for its new role, what will happen to Ontario students who are caught in the interim? Do our students wait in limbo? How does a young child measure the effectiveness of the commission? What yearly forensic auditing will be done to ensure the commission's educational outcomes will improve the education of all Ontario students?

As you can see, I have a lot of questions for today's hearing. But there is one critical question I have not asked, and I challenge each one of you to answer it. What is the future of school trustees in Ontario? Bill 104 should be called the No School Trustees Act, not the Fewer School Boards Act. There are no functions for school trustees, so why doesn't the government have the courage to abolish them? It is quite clear that this government is looking to reduce expenditures wherever possible, so why is this government prepared to remunerate school trustees for doing nothing?

Education is the strongest bridge that links our communities together. Whatever Queen's Park plans to do, it has to ensure improvements to all current and future Ontario students. This is an opportune time for this government to implement all its initiatives, not leaving any segments on hold. All the education reforms announced to date have an impact on the classroom. Therefore, the Minister of Education should be putting all his energy and efforts into this area rather than on governance issues which only serve to compromise the integrity of the Ontario education system.

Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much, Ms Wong, for your excellent presentation. Certainly you've outlined the fears your constituents have and you've outlined your own fears about doing away with trustees. Does this not do what Bill 104 wants it to do: eliminate trustees, eliminate local input into education? In your community -- but there are communities all over Ontario -- the impact will be enormous. What would happen to the average child in your community if Bill 104 were to be put into practice as it is now? Would it destroy your ability to offer the types of programs that are necessary for your constituents?

Ms Wong: I'm going to answer the question with a scenario that happened last week. Last Tuesday at Danforth and Broadview there was an explosion in my ward. Six schools in total were affected. Four schools were completely closed down. I want to know, from Bill 104, who is the child going to call, who are the parents going to call beside the trustees? None of us can plan for these kinds of local emergencies. The critical question right now is, who are they going to call? When four schools are completely closed down, are they going to call the commission? Are they going to call the local school's education improvement committee to get results?

Right now it is my responsibility, as a trustee, to represent those interests. As I said in my data report to you, over 40% of my constituents in the south end of the ward do not speak English. I do my very best with them. But having said that, I also provide additional translation. Bill 104 was not translated into different languages. I had Bill 104 translated into both Chinese and Vietnamese so that my constituents can understand this bill, because it doesn't matter if the two official languages are English and French. If they cannot understand what the bill means to them, it means nothing to them.

Mr Martin: I'm assuming that when you say they should just get on with it and get rid of trustees altogether you're being facetious?

Ms Wong: It's not being facetious. There is no role for the trustees under Bill 104. I am asking as a constituent and as a local taxpayer, and I speak on behalf of my constituents. I can you tell you right now there is not one single complaint about what we have done in the past two and a half years as trustees. If this act essentially is removing trustees, the role and the function, then the question we have to ask Queen's Park is, why don't they just get rid of them? If there's no role for them, why are you remunerating them $5,000 for doing nothing?

The reality right now is that we do need trustees, not less of them. I said earlier there are 17 schools in my ward. Eventually, by the time of this amalgamation and reconfiguration of the city of Toronto and Metro Toronto, I will probably have 25 school under the belt I'll call city of Toronto schools, which means you will need more trustees, not less trustees. The reality again, as I said earlier, is that Bill 104 is called the Fewer School Boards Act. It also means fewer trustees.

Mr Skarica: I have one answer for you. You asked about the secondary school reform. What happened was that we had an initial cutoff date for submissions on December 1, and we extended that into January. We originally anticipated 6,000 or 7,000 submissions, and we got 23,000. That's going to take to the end of February to analyse, so the report will come out some time in March. That's what's happened to it.

Ms Wong: But sir, we just want to make sure that when we inform our community -- because right now your government is telling us it will be implemented by the fall of 1998 -- if we're going to be implementing in the fall of 1998 -- we are already doing the 1997-98 school year, as well as the staffing model -- how can we implement the secondary school reform without talking about the curriculum from grade 6 to 8? That is the most critical piece for us.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Wong. I for one can attest as to just how active you are in your community. Thank you for coming here this evening.

FRANK GARDINER

The Chair: Our next presenter is Frank Gardiner. Welcome, Mr Gardiner. Thank you for your patience throughout this long afternoon. We look forward to your addressing the committee.

Mr Frank Gardiner: I'm last but not least.

The Chair: Never least.

Mr Gardiner: If you want to stand and have a seventh-inning stretch or something, be my guest. Okay? I'll join you.

The Chair: Mr Gardiner, you have a full 10 minutes just like everyone else.

Mr Gardiner: A procedural question here, Madam Chair: I'd like to make sure as a disgruntled taxpayer that the elected politicians who haven't stayed here till the final bell don't get paid a full day's pay. I think that's pretty important and I'd like it in the record.

The Chair: I think those of us who are here are relieved to hear that.

Mr Gardiner: I'll try and make this fun. It's been a long day. I'll give you a very fast little bit of my background. It's tough to be a 53-year-old rebel. My father was a Huron county school inspector. My mother was a teacher. My brother was a teacher. My wife is a teacher. I'm a private business person.

I've been very fortunate, married to the same lady for 30 years and three kids through the Toronto school system. You might take a lesson from this. They got through it in spite of this system, from our point of view, and I'm not being anti-education. I just think there's tremendous room for improvement. In all the years in north Toronto, I've never met a trustee, let alone found out what they really do, and particularly in the last election, which is why I ran. I was absolutely fed up with the wastage and the posh offices down on College Street and the lack of information that was coming through in this day and age of e-mail, fax and phone. I think it's a travesty, and I think this is changing.

Anyway, in Peter C. Newman's 1995 book, The Canadian Revolution, I finally found a Canadian writer who in a sense spoke for me and my frustrations, and I suspect for a lot of other ordinary people like me and my family.

My eldest child, Jane, is at McGill, in her last year. My middle son is at Wilfrid Laurier, in business. My youngest boy got a hockey scholarship to RPI in Troy, New York. When are Canadians going to find out that maybe this is the route we should be going? Talk about brain drain and athletic drain.

I believe the continuing Canadian revolution described by Mr Newman has forced "the burghers of a once smug country to stage a revolt against the notion of having their personal decisions made for them by self-elected hierarchies dedicated to their own perpetuation. This was true not only of governments but of every aspect of life and work, including businesses, unions, schools, universities" -- I added "churches" -- "and the family."

1830

The Canadians in this new revolution described by Peter Newman -- I agree totally with him -- have a great determination, and I share this determination, to pursue two bedrock objectives: First, that politicians at all levels, of all stripes, of all parties "stop treating them as commodities to be bought with their own money at quadrennial auctions called election campaigns." That's Peter Newman. The second quote is "that some way be found to alleviate the despair of the young, burdened by a shallow, antiquated education system and diminished by a harshly narrowing job market."

In November 1994, a year before Mr Newman's book came out and six months before what I call our Ontario tax revolt -- landslide victory by Mr Harris's Common Sense Revolution -- I ran my own small grass-roots, eight-week campaign in protest at our current education structure, and you have the information there. It's a historical document now, if not hysterical. You know, you just get fed up. It's like the movie. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more. Believe me, it's there.

As a parent of three young Canadians who luckily made it through our current Ontario educational system, I had then, and have now, many concerns as to the enormous wastage and politics within our current educational system, and we're talking rampant Nazi feminism to gay rights to you name it. It's all out there, and I've monitored it, and as a family person I'm very concerned. I'd like to have a bigger choice in this.

My individual campaign then as well as now is simply, "Together let's reduce trustee salaries" -- you're doing that -- "reform tax spending and re-create a stronger, audited and therefore more accountable public educational system." If you care to read my literature, you'll find I believe many concerns that tend to support our current government in the difficult leadership role of fixing our current Ontario educational system.

I want to thank Mr Snobelen. I'm here because last week I saw CTV, and it made me want to puke, because the press is doing a bad hatchet job, and I resent it, because this is my elected government. I'm not rabid Conservative, Liberal or NDP. I'm just damned tired of the media trying to foster this public -- I'm from the media. I was originally in broadcasting.

Thank you, Mr Snobelen, man to man, woman to woman, for moving in the right direction, at last, for the many parents and taxpayers who have children in the public school system and are quite frankly afraid to speak out because of the very powerful teachers' union and the real possibility of reprisals directed towards these children, and I'm not joking about that. My kids, thank God, are out of the system.

Thank you. Most of the media have sadly missed the truth and facts of this extremely important job you and our elected government are now doing. I hope you're doing something more than just reading the menus at the Albany Club, and I thank you for that. Hang in there, and once again, thank you for daring to lead to get things done.

The Chair: We have five minutes for questioning.

Mr Froese: I would like to move that we give him another 10 minutes.

Mr Gardiner: I think at 53 years of age I concur in that.

By the way, Madam Chair, I have never taken one cent of unemployment insurance -- I'm not gloating; I'm just telling you. Thank God that other people have had to do it, but I'm just saying, and I've never been a member of a union. I am just your average Canadian guy who is really, really starting to get fed up. I think you saw it in 1994. On the back of this, you'll see it on Huron County Cottage Associations and what we're trying to do with e-mail. I'd ask you to use e-mail, because it's going to eliminate the hierarchy. It's going to flatten everything. You're going to be accountable directly to me, the taxpayer. E-mail is going to contribute to that.

The Chair: Thank you. We have about two minutes per caucus. In the absence of the NDP, who should be first, I will move to the government caucus. Who wants to go?

Mr Froese: Thank you very much for coming, and I certainly believe that you believe that parents should be more involved in the education of their kids.

Mr Gardiner: Providing their spouse is not on the payroll.

Mr Froese: It's great to hear, but it's hard to believe. You're a trustee and you believe that --

Mr Gardiner: I'm not a trustee. I ran for office.

Mr Froese: You ran for trustee. You should be a trustee, I should say.

If we're trying to strengthen the role of the parents through the school councils, what advice could you give us on that?

Mr Gardiner: First of all, I think it's very important to understand. I ran an eight-week campaign, and I can't believe how the unions and the vested interests will send out documentation immediately. It is scary, and I shared it with the board of trade and the head of the Catholic church. That's how scary it is. You know, I'm pro-family. What's wrong with that? I'm also from Huron county. I'm not a redneck. I care about this province. What's wrong with being a passionate Canadian?

To answer your question, the first thing is, let's work together with the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives. Let's stop the bickering and let's really get parents on side and make sure they're not on the payroll, that they're not snorting at the trough. Get these Bill Gates types of people. I see this in an American university, RPI. This entrepreneurship is a alive and well and it's really doing things. I'd like to see it develop here in Canada, and we can do it. It doesn't matter what party you're from. Get them on the committee. It doesn't have to be $5,000.

Let me tell you something. I wish the media would do an audit of the trustees, because quite frankly, I think it's closer to $95,000 with all perks, fringe benefits and those tremendous golden parachutes they vote themselves. What a travesty.

But anyway, to answer your question, get parents, get the ordinary parents who care, who aren't on the payroll, who are really worried about where their children are going in the education system. Ask me about total immersion French in Ontario. Three of our children have gone through total immersion French. It's not working.

Mr Duncan: Your daughter is at McGill University, in her last year?

Mr Gardiner: Yes, sir.

Mr Duncan: What is she studying?

Mr Gardiner: Well, she took business and she went into psychology. I don't know what that means.

Mr Duncan: Your son is at Wilfrid Laurier?

Mr Gardiner: Business.

Mr Duncan: Your second son is on a hockey scholarship?

Mr Gardiner: That's correct, US$26,000 per year, RPI.

Mr Duncan: What is RPI?

Mr Gardiner: Rensselaer, Troy, just north of Albany. They play Harvard and Yale.

Mr Duncan: So they're all fine post-secondary education institutions?

Mr Gardiner: In spite of the education system, yes.

Mr Duncan: Good-quality education?

Mr Gardiner: Yes, sir.

Mr Duncan: Your children got into them despite the fact that our system is so bad?

Mr Gardiner: I'm not saying it's so bad. I'm saying there's tremendous room for improvement and there's awful wastage.

Mr Duncan: I don't think anybody would disagree that there's room for improvement, but I think that we should bear in mind when we're changing things, maybe we might not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Mr Gardiner: I knew you were going to say that.

Mr Duncan: Your children are an excellent example. My son is in French immersion right now as well and I think the programs work quite well.

Mr Gardiner: Do you speak French?

Mr Duncan: Oui.

Mr Gardiner: That's why it's working.

Mr Duncan: McGill is my alma mater. No, it's working because -- yes, absolutely, parent involvement is key to a child's success, there's no doubt about it. But when you look at the results, and yes, there are some that we can improve on, many of our students do very well internationally, domestically. I think we should, as we're reforming education, as I think most people are advocating, move cautiously and with prudence and be careful, because if we make mistakes with these things, we can't go back and fix them for the kids who are going through the system.

Mr Gardiner: With all due respect, I don't believe that most people are advocating that. We want responsible change, yes, but you can't penetrate the educational system. They're so caught up in their own doctrine and they're controlling the levers of the decision-making process, which I think is undemocratic, and I think there's big bucks from the unions and federations.

Mr Duncan: I don't think that's accurate at all, because I think a number of us would consider ourselves to be people who are involved in the process. I'm not controlled by them, nor do I feel that way. I just feel that if we're going to debate things, we ought to recognize successes like your children, due in part to the school system and due in large part to parental involvement, I agree with you. All the studies say that.

Mr Gardiner: Thank you. As parents, we like to be recognized in that equation.

Mr Duncan: But I think we should also recognize the contribution of educators as well and not just simply trash them all as bureaucrats and uncaring, because they're not. I know a lot of wonderful administrators in the education system and teachers in the education system, many of whom have not gotten wealthy doing what they're doing, many of whom have no interest in getting wealthy, and I think we should just be careful not to lump everybody into the same category.

Mr Gardiner: I appreciate your comments. I didn't come here to be lectured and I appreciate your --

Mr Duncan: Nor did I.

Mr Gardiner: Strangely enough, we have our roles reversed here. I think you're here to listen to me, and this may be part of the problem, this not listening.

The Chair: Mr Duncan, if you don't mind, let Mr Gardiner finish.

Mr Gardiner: Understand something when I saw the news release on TV. I can't afford to be here. I had to come down here at 10 to 6 and wait an hour. I'm not being paid anything. I'm here because I care and I have three kids going through the system. I'm not knocking every teacher in the system, but I get tired of that educational arrogance and that NDP philosophy that just boom, like a rhinoceros, stops everything in progress. I'm talking about the trustees and I'm talking about responsible change. It started here and I want --

Mr Duncan: Do you support getting rid of all trustees?

Mr Gardiner: I certainly support reviewing it dramatically, the way the Conservative government has done that, and that's what I elected them for.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gardiner, for being here and for your patience and for presenting your thoughts in what surely is a dynamic manner.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind you that we meet tomorrow at 3:30 in room 151.

The committee adjourned at 1841.