MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
CONTENTS
Wednesday 26 June 1996
Ministry of Education and Training
Hon John Snobelen, minister
Richard Dicerni, deputy minister
Drew Nameth, director, capital and operating grants administration
Mariette Carrier-Fraser, assistant deputy minister, elementary, secondary, post-secondary operations
and French language education division
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair / Président: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)
*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
*Brown, Jim (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)
Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC)
Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)
*Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*Rollins, E.J. Douglas (Quinte PC)
*Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)
*Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Castrilli, Annamarie (Downsview L) for Mr Michael A. Brown
Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre PC) for Mr Clement
Hudak, Tim (Niagara South / -Sud PC) for Mr Sheehan
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West / -Ouest PC)
Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND)
Clerk pro tem / Greffièr par intérim: Todd Decker
Staff / Personnel: Steve Poelking, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1630 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): Yesterday, we had completed the government's questions. Now we'll turn it around to the official opposition. Ms Annamarie Castrilli, you have 15 minutes.
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): We're going to start with my colleague John Cleary and I'll take up the balance of the time.
The Chair: I stand to be corrected any time.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Research done in my part of Ontario, in S-D-G and the Cornwall riding, has revealed that about 73% of the general welfare recipients are unskilled and do not have a grade 12 diploma. With the cutbacks in adult education, some programs have been eliminated and some schools catering to the adult population are closing their doors. Where will unskilled and unemployed people, many of whom are francophones, go to obtain the training they need to become contributing members of our community?
Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you for the question. We were pleased to announce just recently that we would be expanding the GED -- general educational development -- program across the province of Ontario, which some 26,000 in Canada used last year to obtain the high school equivalency. We believe that'll help some of the folks who have through the course of their life, through their life skills, obtained really the equivalent of a high school diploma and would like to be recognized for that. That's one of the things that's very encouraging for people who don't have high school accreditation.
We also understand that boards will be providing a variety of adult education programs across the province, recognizing the fact that adults are different from adolescents, have different needs than adolescents, and that the school system has a different responsibility for adults than adolescents. Also, the province, as I'm sure you're aware, has a considerable training program. We are working on focusing that training program to meet the needs of those social assistance recipients who want to get into the workforce, who want to make a contribution.
We have made well known to the federal government our position that we believe it's time for Ontario, which has 35% or so of the unemployed, to receive something more than 28% of the funds available for training. We believe that in a province where $8 billion is contributed by employees and employers to the UI fund and $4 billion is received in benefits, that $4-billion gap, that $4-billion penalty that employees pay in Ontario does a lot to keep out investment and job growth and training opportunities for the people of Ontario. We are working very diligently with the federal government to make sure that gap is closed, to make sure our training programs are focused on people who are social assistance recipients and are making sure the programs that are offered by our school system are those that are relevant to and designed for adult learners.
Mr Cleary: In a March 12 memorandum, Mariette Carrier-Fraser announced that to help school boards adapt to a new policy of adult education financing, a special subsidy would be given to boards where students aged 21 and over represent more than 10% of the board's total secondary population. This is a non-renewable subsidy of $1,400 per student over the 10% threshold and will be given in the following manner: $560 per student in 1996; $840 in 1997. School boards whose adult population does not exceed 10% of the total secondary school population will not obtain this special subsidy. Why would a smaller school board, already struggling because of lower numbers and therefore a smaller grant, be further penalized?
Hon Mr Snobelen: As we said yesterday, this government's committed to changing the funding of education. We believe there are inequities in the funding system. This minister and our government are not apologists for the GLG system. I personally regret that previous governments haven't taken on the funding system and altered it so that all our students have an equal opportunity for an education. In an attempt to mitigate the effects of the reductions we believe can be obtained in focusing adult education on the needs of the adult learner and being responsible for the different circumstances of adults in making sure the school boards have an opportunity to bridge, we have provided a bridging formula mechanism for boards that have an unusually high adult education population, because we recognize and understand the fact that they will require more time to adjust their programs to the needs of their communities. I believe we've done that. It's an attempt at fairness for all the boards concerned. But I do not now and have never represented the GLG process as being one that's horribly fair. It's one we attempt to make fair.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): And that's why you lowered them?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We can get to that in about another 12 minutes, I suspect.
Mr Cleary: The Roman Catholic separate school board applied for a special grant of $2.2 million under regulation 307. The board was denied the special grant by a letter from you on May 27 because there are more than 10,000 students. We tried to get several meetings with you and you finally agreed to meet after many cancellations. At that meeting of June 12 with you and capital and operating grant director Drew Nameth, we indicated that the board would consider applying for an undue burden. The minister said he would look into the board's status and provide a written response to the S-D-G board within a week and share a copy with me. To date, this has not happened. I would like to know what the status is.
Also at that same meeting, you verbally agreed to meet with representation from that board, possibly after question period some day for about 20 minutes. So far, several phone calls have been made back and forth and nothing concrete has been offered. We'd like to know when you're available and what you're going to do about that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I note with some interest that I was available and that we did have a meeting, I hope a meeting that was satisfactory to you. I meet with a variety of boards across the province, have made myself available to do that. Regrettably, we can't do that on a daily basis. There are 160-odd boards across the province, and if you calculate the time that's involved, it does take some time to schedule meetings. We'd like to stay in touch with all boards and we will be doing that.
There is an undue burden grant available in the province for very particular and specific circumstances, as I explained to you that day and I thought explained rather clearly. It is the board that must apply for an undue burden grant. We would respond very quickly and we have suggested that we'd respond very quickly if we received that sort of application. My understanding is that this is not a terribly unusual process, that over the course of the last decade in over 60 cases undue burden grants have been used to rectify unforeseen funding changes which happen from time to time with the GLG system the way it is. Again, it's regrettable that previous governments haven't attacked and changed the funding system in education and made it easier, made it fairer, given a better opportunity for every student in the province. I regret that; I'm sure everyone who comes in contact with our funding system does.
It's interesting to note that we have responded very quickly to boards that have given us notice of an undue burden. We've been able to respond to them and work cooperatively with them. It's in everyone's interest to make sure these unforeseen reductions in funding don't adversely affect students. Our reductions to funding where we're asking school boards to look for savings outside of the classroom represent about 1.8% of the operating costs in the next year. However, due to agreements that were made with previous governments, some boards are facing more significant reductions because of assessment changes and population changes. Once again, the funding model does not always do a very good job of being fair and equitable with all students. We're trying to address that under the current structure and we're looking at changing the structure so that it can be more fair to students.
Mr Cleary: I could discuss it further, but due to the length of time I'm going to turn it over to my colleague.
Ms Castrilli: Minister, I regret we really don't have a great deal of time to talk about the post-secondary education sector, which I know you feel is as critical as I do. Certainly, there are no greater resources than our people, and the way we educate them is important to our economy, our wellbeing, our prosperity. I can only imagine what we could achieve with one generation of well-fed, well-educated students.
1640
Since time does not allow me to ask all of the questions I have, what I would like to do is focus on one issue and table the remaining questions to allow the ministry to have time to respond, because I think some of them require a detailed answer.
I would like to ask you about the white paper that has been promised on post-secondary education. As you know, the sector is quite apprehensive. There have been cuts which have been very difficult for colleges and universities to deal with because of the timing and because of the inability to plan for the absorption of the cuts. There have been staggering increases in tuition. There has certainly been very little done in terms of restructuring loan programs and ICLRPs -- income-contingent loan repayment programs -- and OSAP and what will happen with respect to the child care benefit for married students and single parents. I just wonder if you could tell us, since you've been promising this white paper for some time, when we can expect it, what process you will follow, what consultation will take place and what the format is.
Hon Mr Snobelen: First of all, I wouldn't agree with part of your statement. I find little apprehension in the post-secondary system. We are in regular contact with folks in both the colleges and the universities. I don't think they're apprehensive at all. I think those people I've talked to in the university sector and the college sector are looking forward to the future, to making the changes we need to have to maintain an excellent post-secondary system in the province.
I also don't find them very shocked about the announcements we made in our budget this year. We did exactly what we said we would do in the Common Sense Revolution; we withdrew $400 million from that sector and asked them to find those savings in the sector. The post-secondary people were most prepared for that. There were several petitions from that sector asking us to do what was in the CSR to the letter. I also have not found any shock there that we followed our commitments to the people of Ontario.
As far as tuition is concerned, as I said yesterday, our students in the province are paying about the average of tuition paid across the country. It certainly represents an enormous value, considering the excellence of the programs that are available in Ontario, and if you look on a more global scale, I think you'll find it's an extremely good value.
We also have tremendous student support programs in the province, which we look to enhance as we change those programs. Of course, the announcements of the Minister of Finance most recently, where we will have a student trust fund and help to lever money donated by individuals and organizations to support the most-in-need students is a step forward in student assistance, as is the program we've designed to help those who have cooperative education programs with colleges and universities.
We are moving forward on helping students, on increasing student aid, on making sure the system is more accessible. We've also said that we will have a discussion paper, that we will discuss with the sector issues of accessibility, issues of how the colleges and universities relate. We think it's time for a public discussion paper on post-secondary education. There hasn't been one done in the province of Ontario. We think it's important, so we will be doing that in the very near future.
Ms Castrilli: If I could just have one more moment, obviously the minister and I disagree on the fears and the apprehensions of the sector. I'm in contact with colleges and universities and all the various constituencies within those, and what I hear is different. But that wasn't my question.
My question was, when can we expect the white paper? We've been hearing for some months that it's in the near future. I think it would certainly help to dispel some of the apprehension if there were something specific to discuss. What is the process? What consultation are you planning? What time lines do you have in mind?
Hon Mr Snobelen: When we release the discussion paper, we will also release the process for the discussion. Again, we think it's time we had a public discussion on post-secondary education in the province. Perhaps it would have been more useful for the sector if this discussion had taken place not two or three months ago but in fact two or three or four or five or six years ago. So we believe that accessibility and the relationship between the institutions is an important public discussion. We will be doing that very soon. When we release the discussion paper, we will obviously also release the process for that discussion, for that consultation, and time lines, and we'll be doing that as soon as we are ready to do it.
Ms Castrilli: Will you wait until September when school starts again?
Hon Mr Snobelen: When we release the discussion paper, we will do so publicly, and when we do that publicly, we will announce the process for the discussion.
Mr Wildman: I'd just like to follow up on a couple of things I raised yesterday. Just briefly, I raised yesterday the proposal made by OSSTF to assist with the development of the secondary curriculum in line with the minister's announcement of a commitment to work-related credits.
I called to clarify after I raised it yesterday and was informed by OSSTF that the offer was made by Earl Manners, the president, to Louise Verity, policy assistant in Mr Snobelen's office. OSSTF confirmed that as yet they have received no response.
Mr Richard Dicerni: Could you advise when that offer was made?
Mr Wildman: I don't have the date. I could certainly find out and get back to you.
Mr Dicerni: We would always welcome that, but as I said, I did meet with Mr Buchanan last week or 10 days ago, and unless that communication has taken place subsequent --
Mr Wildman: It was verbal. There was no letter.
Mr Dicerni: What I'm saying is that we had a fairly good discussion with Mr Buchanan and the other general secretaries of the teachers' federation and said we would welcome their contribution.
Mr Wildman: Obviously there's some problem with communication, because it was last night that I spoke to OSSTF.
Mr Dicerni: We work closely with the minister's office, and in that sense, my communication with Mr Buchanan would probably have dealt with that. That's why Louise wouldn't have followed up.
Mr Wildman: I'm sure there's no problem with communication. We'll get that clarified.
Could you tell me how much money, since we're dealing with estimates, is spent by the Ministry of Education and Training to meet its obligation as a government to provide for the constitutional rights of francophones in Ontario to education in French?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd ask the deputy to bring forward a staff member who might be able to elaborate on the exact numbers.
Mr Dicerni: I can ask Mariette Carrier-Fraser to perhaps provide specifics. We do not, as far as I know, tabulate numbers in regard to the salary dollars of francophones whom we have in the francophone division, how much is spent in terms of capital construction, how much is spent in different -- I can let the member know that, for example, in the recent ministry reorganization as well as downsizing, the full staff of the branch dedicated to francophone education remained totally intact.
Mr Wildman: I know the deputy's other hat would lead him to have particular interest in this, as well as his own particular background.
The Chair: Could you just state your name and position, please.
Ms Mariette Carrier-Fraser: My name is Mariette Carrier-Fraser. I am assistant deputy minister responsible for elementary and secondary operations in French-language education.
As far as the exact number, I'd have to look in various areas of the ministry, because we'd have to look at staffing, as the deputy has mentioned, the capital. There are special grants that we provide for French-language instruction too. For French-language materials within the GLG, for instance, we've provided over the last two years probably between $10 and $12 million for what we call aménagement linguistique, which is really to help students who have a right to a French-language education, to be educated in French, but don't have any French-language skills because they've been raised in an anglophone milieu.
1650
Mr Wildman: Could I get those figures, please?
Ms Carrier-Fraser: I'm sure we could provide you some figures as far as the amount of money spent. It wouldn't be all-encompassing, but it would be --
Mr Wildman: Well, for each of the ones you delineated.
Ms Carrier-Fraser: Yes, we could do that quite easily.
Mr Wildman: Okay. I'm glad to hear that. Now, could I deal just very briefly with capital in this regard. How much was allocated last year, in 1995, before the moratorium on capital expenditures, for the construction of schools and/or classrooms, facilities that would provide for French-language instruction in Ontario?
Ms Carrier-Fraser: I don't have the exact number at my fingertips, but we do have a list of all the projects for which money had been allocated, definitely, and that's fairly easy to come up with.
Mr Wildman: If I could then lead to one of particular interest, the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, which on behalf of its French-language section applied for judicial review of the Minister of Education and Training's decision to place a moratorium on capital construction, particularly as it relates to the école secondaire Sainte-Famille project, which dates back to 1987, I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the court has ruled and has stated that the moratorium should not apply to French schools because of the constitutional injunction and that the court has suggested it is in the best interests of the province not to appeal the court's decision.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe that would be inaccurate.
Mr Wildman: That's inaccurate? Well, then, what was the court's decision?
Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding of the court's decision -- and it was an oral decision given this morning; the written rationale and the reasoning will be given next week some time and we look forward to reading that -- was that the decision was much more focused than your statement would reference. It was focused on the one school alone, Sainte-Famille.
Mr Wildman: Don't misunderstand me. I was referring to école secondaire Sainte-Famille.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sorry, then; I misunderstood you. I thought it was more broad than that.
It is a very narrow decision on this one particular project, and again we haven't had a chance to look at, because they had not been released, the reasons behind the justices' decision. We'll have a look at those and have some response to that when we've had a chance to examine them.
Mr Wildman: When does the court indicate that the written decision and reasons would be available?
Hon Mr Snobelen: My understanding is next week. I don't know that I have any better date than that.
Mr Wildman: I would like to get that information. I would like to also have some information as to how the operating dollars for materials and instruction have changed last year to this year in French-language education.
How much time do I have left?
The Chair: You have about six minutes left.
Mr Wildman: The other thing I would like to raise is the discussions about reorganization within the ministry. Could the minister indicate whether or not, or when, a decision will be made with regard to the regional office in northeastern Ontario of the ministry? Will this office in Sudbury be continued, or will it be downsized and will there no longer be an office in Sudbury?
Hon Mr Snobelen: As I'm sure the member knows, the ministry has been through a number of reorganizations over the course of the last decade and there have been several different attempts at and changes in providing ministry services in the various regions of the province. We have had a look in our business plan at how we can meet the needs of schools in various regions and we are taking steps now to provide I think a better service and a better organization to meet those needs. I'll ask the deputy to make some comments on the current state of the reorganization.
Mr Dicerni: In terms of the regional offices, no final decisions have been made regarding where those offices will be located. I should correct myself: where the district offices will be located.
Secondly, we have received some suggestions, comments, inputs from a number of boards that we are reviewing. Mariette Carrier-Fraser has recently been in contact with a number of those directors of education and has sought their input on a number of matters. We hope to be able to finalize that in the not-too-distant future.
Mr Wildman: A lot of things seem to happen in the not-too-distant future. It says right here in a letter dated June 18 from the Hornepayne Board of Education chair to the deputy minister:
"Our board has recently heard that the ministry will be undertaking the reorganization of regional offices throughout the province and that as a result the Sudbury regional office may be closed while new ones" -- they're referring to district-type offices, I guess -- "will be opened elsewhere in southern and eastern Ontario." It goes on to explain why they are opposed to this and it says, "It seems inconceivable that the largest geographic area of the province would be served by only two ministry offices."
Mr Dicerni: I would make two points. The first one is that regional offices of the Ministry of Education and Training over the years have fairly significantly evolved towards being downsized from what they may have been four or five years ago. Upon, I believe, assuming my present portfolio as deputy minister, I noted that on average regional offices were down to about 25 or 26 persons from over the past X number of years, where they would have been up to cumulatively maybe 75, 80, sometimes 100 persons. So it achieved a level of critical mass which was no longer sustainable in terms of being able to deliver. That's a comment in terms of, broadly speaking, regional delivery of services.
Again, in regard to where the offices are located, no final decision has been made. We are trying to look at a number of factors in determining where those offices should be, including number of schools, number of students and distance.
Mr Wildman: So it's unlikely there would be any political, partisan reasons for deciding to put an office in North Bay rather than having an office in Sudbury?
Mr Dicerni: No final decisions have been made regarding where the district offices should be located, and we have sought the input of people in the north to give us advice on this.
Mr Wildman: I have before me a ministry briefing note dated June 17, which I guess was prepared by the northeastern Ontario regional staff. "Issue: Should a reorganization of field services in the Ministry of Education and Training entail the closure of the mid-northern office operating out of Sudbury? Answer: No." It goes on to say: "Arguments: Reorganization of the MET field offices would reduce the number of regional offices in the north as well as in the south of the province. That could be defended. However, a reorganization which would eliminate an office in the north and add field presence in the east and in the south is inequitable and unacceptable to northerners."
It goes on further to point out that the Peat, Marwick, Stevenson and Kellogg report of January 1991, which has been made available through freedom of information, recommended against this but recommended a combination of the offices of North Bay and Sudbury with one director.
It goes on to say in the final paragraph of this briefing note, which if course is provided by civil servants who have no political axe to grind, "The closure by MET senior officials of the mid-northern office in Sudbury to the benefit of the northeastern office in North Bay could embarrass Premier Mike Harris, as he will be accused of politically favouring his home-town constituency to the detriment of an area where no Progressive Conservatives were elected in the June 1995 election." I was aghast that anyone would suggest that. That's why I asked the question I did. I'm glad to have received your reassurance that there will not be any partisan political decisions related to the location of the office.
1700
Mr Dicerni: I don't know who specifically Mariette spoke to, even as recently as last week, to seek the input in terms of where those offices should be, but those requests for information were genuine. Mariette could perhaps share with the member which directors of education she has been in contact with, the types of questions she has asked and the types of criteria that we will be using. I would add that if we are prepared to engage in a public discussion with public officials, such as directors of boards of education, on the criteria and so forth, it is obvious that we are prepared to stand by it in terms of making the determination as to where those would be.
Mr Wildman: I appreciate that. All I'm attempting to do is to gain assurance that the recommendation made in this briefing note by the ministry staff will be followed, and that recommendation is that the mid-northern office operating out of Sudbury should not be closed.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman -- unless you want to consider the response part of your time. I just want to make indication that the minister had asked to step out for 10 minutes or so and questions will be asked of the staff in the meantime.
Mr Wildman: I'd be happy to hear from the ministry staff person if that's acceptable, but if the Conservative members would rather ask questions, that's up to them.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Wasn't his time up?
The Chair: I've said his time is up, and I'm saying that if you want the response, that may be beneficial to all.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, we'd rather ask questions.
The Chair: Is that what he said? You don't want the response.
Mr Wildman: It doesn't matter to me. I can ask it again, perhaps even raise it in the House.
Mr Dicerni: I would ask Mariette to retain the information and communicate it later.
Mr Stockwell: You understand what he said; don't forget.
The Chair: Thank you, deputy.
Ms Carrier-Fraser: I never forget.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a question for staff. I'd like to call Drew Nameth up if we could, please. Welcome, Mr Nameth. I have a question regarding the operational grants, the cutbacks that were made in the transfer payments.
In my own region, in my riding, we have two school boards that had significant cutbacks in the grants. The Waterloo county public board had a cutback of $4.4 million, give or take, and the Waterloo region separate school board had a cutback of $7.7 million, give or take. The regional separate school board has a majority of the school population in my riding. I believe it's 53%, but don't quote me on that one. The figures that I have seen indicate that their cost to educate a student is about $1,000 less than the public board, and of course the cost to educate the secondary school students is also lower, to the tune of about $700 per student.
The separate school board does not receive of course the kind of commercial and industrial assessment that the public board does. I guess what I am interested in knowing is, why is the difference in cutbacks so significant? Obviously the separate school board in my area is very concerned about the future of education within the board.
Mr Drew Nameth: I don't have with me the details of the boards' financial estimates for 1996. One factor that may come into play, however, is the introduction of what we refer to as pooling of commercial and industrial assessment; 1996 is the first year of that change whereby a component -- I forget the exact percentage -- of the commercial and industrial assessment is being reallocated from the public board to the separate board. So the separate board's assessment base effectively is growing as a result of that change in pooling. The revenue that would be generated from local taxes is therefore higher. The basic per pupil operating grants that are provided to the school boards are effectively equalization payments to make up the difference between what can be raised locally from the assessment base to a recognized level of expenditure. By virtue of the fact that there is a larger assessment base for the separate school board, the need for provincial funding to make up the difference is reduced.
Mr Wettlaufer: But that being the case, if they are receiving, according to the pooling formula, more of the commercial and industrial assessment than they were before, why does it appear, then, that their remuneration is still considerably lower than what it was a year earlier?
Mr Nameth: I'm sorry, are you talking about the grant dollars or total revenue?
Mr Wettlaufer: Total revenue is considerably more than the $3.3-million difference in the operational grant cutback.
Mr Nameth: I'm sorry, I would have to take a look at the financial estimates to be able to answer your question more fully. I could do so and get back to you.
Mr Wettlaufer: I have no other questions of staff. Does anybody else have questions of staff?
Mr Stockwell: I'll take mine to staff if they're here. I have a question on the capital renovation program. Where are you on that program right now?
Mr Nameth: I'm not sure if you're referring to our facilities renewal program or --
Mr Stockwell: Where you fix schools.
Mr Nameth: We do have a facilities renewal program that was introduced this year. Boards were allocated a portion of $45 million distributed on a formula basis for renovation, rehabilitation programs, for projects according to their own priorities. The administration of that program has been, I believe, greatly streamlined compared to the administration previously. Boards identify how they plan to use those allocations --
Mr Stockwell: The $45 million, is it actually in the school boards' hands right now?
Mr Nameth: Most of it is being flowed as we speak. The boards that have identified to us how they intend to use those funds, and provided they meet the criteria, have been notified that everything meets our approval. The funds are being flowed to them over a five-month period beginning in June.
Mr Stockwell: What was the budget last year?
Mr Nameth: It's a new program this year.
Mr Stockwell: What was your capital expenditure on renovation programs last year?
Mr Nameth: It was done on a project-by-project basis in 1995 and I would have to --
Mr Stockwell: Was it less or more than $45 million?
Mr Nameth: I believe it was less.
Mr Stockwell: So we're spending more money on capital programs this administration, in 1996?
Mr Nameth: I would have to confirm the figures from 1995, but the facilities renewal program is $45 million in 1996.
Mr Stockwell: When I go back to Etobicoke, I have a couple of separate schools that have concerns; St Gregory's is one of them, for example. They're going to say, "Gee, how'd we do down there," and I'm going to say, "The money's flowing out in the not-too-distant future and it's going to be up to your boards whether or not you get the funds."
Mr Nameth: The board determines how the funds are used within the board, which school projects, which renovation projects, which repair projects are undertaken. It's the board's priorities.
1710
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Can I follow up on that? The facilities renewal program: Is it the board that applies to this program, or is it the ministry that sets out who -- how do you figure out who's getting the money?
Mr Nameth: It's a formula basis which is based on the number of students in the board, on the facilities owned by the board, the age of the facilities in the board and yielding a share of the $45 million available to the board, if you would like, on a line of credit that they may use for rehabilitation projects, for renovation projects, according to their own priorities. Every enlarged board in the province receives a portion of that $45 million.
Mrs Ross: So every board gets a portion of that money based on all of those criteria that you said. Chris has another question, so we're going to go back and forth here.
Mr Stockwell: Your words "line of credit" kind of struck me.
Mr Nameth: My wording.
Mr Stockwell: Yes. This money isn't in any way expected to come back to the province?
Mr Nameth: Oh, no. No. It's there for the purpose of rehabilitation and renovation projects solely.
Mr Stockwell: Do you remember how much money Metropolitan Toronto got, the separate school board?
Mr Nameth: I don't have it off the top of my head. I can find that out for you.
Mr Stockwell: They got some funding though?
Mr Nameth: I believe they did.
Mr Stockwell: And the public school board?
Mr Nameth: There was an allocation for the public school board as well, yes.
Mr Stockwell: You say you have to qualify.
Mr Nameth: The boards are to identify which projects they plan to utilize the funds for. Provided they are rehabilitation-renovation projects, that's not a problem.
Mr Stockwell: Let me be more direct here. I have a whack of schools with a whole bunch of portables. Do they qualify?
Mr Nameth: For what purpose here?
Mr Stockwell: To renovate so they don't have any portables any more.
Mr Wildman: You can renovate the portables.
Mr Stockwell: How are we doing on the expansion budget?
Mr Nameth: Sorry?
Mr Stockwell: How are we doing on the expansion budget?
Mr Nameth: There is a moratorium on capital projects.
Mr Stockwell: That's what I was driving at. I was on the wrong page, wasn't I? Okay. When do you figure this moratorium's going to come off, because my schools are getting fuller and these portables are getting many more. I literally have schools where I think the place base for the number of students is down to three square feet. Kids run around. Three square feet's not a lot of room. How is this moratorium doing? When are we going to deal with that?
Mr Nameth: The announcement was that the moratorium would be in effect for one year.
Mr Stockwell: For one year. So that's it. There's just no money going out for expansion.
Mr Nameth: There is money going out for projects that were under construction on March 6.
Mr Stockwell: That's just a nice way of saying there's no money going out for expansion. I've got to go back to them and say there's no funding. What happens after a year? Are there any decisions made? Or you people may say, "Hey, we're going to have another moratorium; this is working wonderful."
Mr Nameth: We are in the process of reviewing capital financing. We have hired a consulting firm to examine alternatives, how capital projects might be funded --
Mr Stockwell: Have you seen that report they've sent out to the schools? Your consulting firm.
Mr Nameth: I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Mr Stockwell: They've sent a report out to the schools that are looking for expansions, this consulting firm you hired. I saw the report. I'm asking, did you see that?
Mr Nameth: I have not seen it.
Mr Stockwell: I've got to tell you, I saw it. I can't believe there's a question in there that you people don't have the answer for. Is this going to be one of those consultation processes that simply gets established just to buy you more time so you don't have to spend any money to expand schools?
Mr Nameth: No, the --
Hon Mr Snobelen: That's a question more appropriately asked of the minister, and if I can respond, no.
Mr Stockwell: So what's it doing then, John? Are we simply saying this moratorium's on? Can you give me your undertaking that a year after you've put this moratorium in place it's going to come off and the money's going to start flowing again?
Hon Mr Snobelen: You certainly have our undertaking that our intention is not to return to the same capital programs that caused the portable cities throughout my riding, and I know throughout your riding and many other ridings in the province, particularly in the high-growth areas where, because of the funding methodologies that have been used in the past for capital, we haven't been able to keep up with the needs of building schools. One of the past approaches has been, by governments in the past, to announce $1.6-billion worth of capital projects but have no money to pay for them when the projects actually came forward. So what we are committed --
Mr Stockwell: I appreciate that, but the question is, is the moratorium staying on or is it coming off?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We announced the moratorium for a year. We said that at the end of that year we would come out with a program for capital that made more sense and got more schools built in the province of Ontario. That's our intention.
Mr Stockwell: So I can go back to my constituents and tell them after that year the moratorium's off; money will start flowing for expansions again?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Certainly it's our intention not to flow money the same way for capital that it was flowed in the past, because we'd like to have a more effective program. But you can certainly tell your constituents it's our intention after this year to have a program where more schools can be built in the province of Ontario and where we can meet the needs of students better.
The Chair: This is a difficult time for me, because your questions are so relevant to Scarborough North, but I have to go to the Liberal side to put their questions.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Just to follow up on what Mr Stockwell was saying, Minister, is there a list of all the projects by board which have been impacted by the one-year moratorium?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Certainly there is, yes.
Mr Miclash: That list is available, I would assume.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Certainly.
Mr Miclash: Can it be tabled with the committee possibly?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Sure.
Mr Miclash: Minister, I gave you some correspondence earlier on when you came in from the Red Lake Board of Education. The correspondence I gave you was a letter directed to you, dated March 27, and signed by the board chair, Rick Smit. As well, I gave you a letter to Mr Drew Nameth, signed by the superintendent of business, Dan McNeill. The question the Red Lake Board of Education is asking is why they are being impacted in terms of their transportation grants.
On March 6, you sent out a memorandum which stated that individual board grants would be determined in a way that recognized efficiencies achieved in the past few years. They recognized a number of efficiencies that they had proven to you and had shown to you that they had achieved over the past number of years, but they're feeling penalized. They indicated to you in the letters that they had operated their transportation services in a much more efficient, effective way and they had showed a permanent savings to the treasury of some $227,000. Yet over the same period, their grants had been reduced by some 16.9%, or $120,000. They're looking for an answer as to why they have shown you their savings but yet have been penalized.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Our approach to transportation -- and by the way, we believe, as verified by a number of studies that have been done on transportation in the school sector and as comparisons between our jurisdictions and other jurisdictions in North America on transportation issues indicate, that there are more efficient, more effective ways of providing student transportation. Our request for savings in this area, again based on a variety of studies, was specifically designed to take into account the savings that efficient boards have made over the course of the last few years, which is why we've changed to a bulk grant system. I can have someone from the ministry elaborate on that if you'd like. Drew?
Mr Nameth: The process used to determine the transportation grants for 1996 was to take an average of transportation grants over the past four years and to reduce that by a certain percentage. In boards that have achieved savings over the past four years, that average will be lower and the reduction or the impact of the change in the funding would be less than a board that had not taken any measures to increase efficiencies over the past several years. That was taken into account in determining the grant for Red Lake. I don't have the exact numbers, but in dollar terms I believe the impact on transportation grants for Red Lake was relatively small compared to some of the other boards of the same size.
Mr Miclash: Okay. I guess I get back to my main point. You recognized the efficiencies. What they're saying is that they showed you efficiencies over the number of years of $227,000, but yet their grants were reduced by $120,000. How is that recognizing their efficiencies? This is what they don't understand.
Mr Nameth: Had they not made those changes, their grants would have been reduced by an even bigger amount this year than they were.
1720
Mr Miclash: Minister, you might remember that I brought up the fact in the House at one point that there were many students in the Kenora, Dryden and Sioux Lookout areas who had walked out of their classrooms and were quite upset by the board's decisions to cut back on a number of program areas. I requested you to possibly visit a number of those schools when you were in the area -- you were in Thunder Bay. What comes to mind right now is that you've indicated a number of times that you spend about 25% of your time visiting schools. Have any of those schools been in the northwest, in the northern regions of the province?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I can get someone to provide, although we don't have it readily available, a listing of the schools I have attended. I have visited schools I think in virtually every section of the province. There are some areas where I'd like to -- I have yet to go to an isolate school and I would like to do that. I have not yet done that.
Mr Wildman: Hornepayne is an isolate board.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I would like to get into some of the more different situations, but I have spent about 25% of my time in schools. We have tried to take the opportunity to have a look at different circumstances -- rural circumstances, urban circumstances -- across the province. Obviously, there are some very different needs from the large urban areas to the rural areas and I will continue to do that.
Unfortunately, as I've found, there are two months out of the year when school tours don't work, and we're about to enter those two months, but in the fall I'll be taking that back up again.
Mr Miclash: As a previous educator in the system, I think one of the largest differences you'll find in the northwest is of course the distances between the schools. For activities to take place, such as sporting activities, the teams have to travel. As I say, those distances are quite great and I hope that you as minister will recognize this so that these students can be told that these programs will remain intact.
On to another subject: Would you consider junior kindergarten a classroom?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We have made several commitments to the people of Ontario that we've fulfilled. We made those in the Common Sense Revolution, a document we released over two years ago and sent many millions of copies out to the people of Ontario. I think these are the commitments that are well-known, well-recognized before the last election. We committed to restoring junior kindergarten to an optional status in the province. We have reified that commitment and we are funding junior kindergarten level at the same level we fund other education programs in the province. We have taken it from an exceptionality to restoring it as a local option because we recognize the fact that different communities require different services, and we have continued funding by the province at the rate we fund other programs.
Mr Miclash: What about isolate boards? You've indicated to isolate boards that in order to fund their junior kindergarten programs, they should increase their taxation by 5%. What is the difference there between the isolate boards and school boards throughout the province?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We've had an opportunity to address this question on several occasions. The isolate boards, as I'm sure you're aware, are funded by quite a different mechanism than other boards are. Isolate boards tend to raise very little as a percentage basis of their education costs from the local community because there simply is not a large tax base. By the way, we said yesterday and said again today that there certainly is much to be improved in our funding mechanism. Regrettably, the funding mechanisms have persisted over the years and are awkward at best. One of the best examples of that is isolate boards.
Our attempts over this last year have been to make sure that the communities that isolate boards serve are making the same sort of efforts that other coterminous boards or boards in the local area are making in order to provide programming. Isolate boards tend not to charge a surcharge on the prescribed mill rate because it generates very little revenue. There is very little revenue generated from their mill rates, so we have attempted to be fair not just with those boards but with the coterminous boards and with the people in other communities.
Mr Miclash: In my colleague's opening comments, he talked a little bit about Bill 31 and the refusal to include native groups in the formation of the College of Teachers. I think there becomes a growing concern among the first nations in my riding that this government is really not interested in a lot of their activities. Minister, I just want to know what groups you've met with and what issues you've discussed in terms of first nation education in this province.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I've had several discussions with representatives from first nations groups in the province on the school system but also on our training programs, on the college-level programs and on the university programs that are offered to first nations peoples in Ontario. There is a concern, I think a long-standing concern, by members of the first nations over having appropriate training programs available. There have been some great strides made over the last few years to ensure that people from those communities have access to meaningful training programs and to good, solid college and university programs.
As you may be aware, we are coming to the end now of a five-year program designed to create a sensitivity, if you will, with our college and university system to the very unique needs of first nations peoples, and we'll be reviewing those projects in the near term to make sure we continue to adapt our programming and make sure that programs are available to those people.
Mr Miclash: Your cuts to education in the province, you indicated, would not have an impact on the classroom. What I'm hearing from the Kenora Board of Education is that it can no longer provide speech pathology services in the classrooms, it no longer has junior kindergarten and it has in many cases larger class sizes. Do you not think any of this will have an impact on education in the classroom?
Hon Mr Snobelen: We have recently announced a commitment of this government to increase the amount of funding available for preschool children who have speech problems or speech issues. That's a significant program and I believe one that'll make a difference to young people across the province.
As far as junior kindergarten is concerned, we have, if memory serves me correctly, at last count 119 boards which will be offering that service to their communities next year, and some 28 that have decided not to. I believe that was the last count. If that's inaccurate, I hope someone corrects me, but that's the last number I saw. We have a situation where boards are responding differently, I assume reflecting their communities' needs and wishes. I assume, as elected representatives, they are doing that. The boards' association certainly represented to us late last year that there were considerable savings available in the system.
I believe they pointed to several inequities and inefficiencies in the systems that could be adjusted to create a better value for taxpayers without affecting the classroom. That included the spending of some $1.2 billion on janitorial issues, the spending of $600 million on transportation -- and again, a variety of studies have indicated that can be done much more efficiently -- and the amount of time that teachers spend in the classroom. Those issues were brought before us by the boards. I assume they are responding to those cost areas and making reductions in those cost areas. Clearly, there are reductions that are available.
1730
Mr Miclash: During the election campaign your party released a document that was called A Voice for the North. It was an election document. On page 7, your leader indicated that parents feel that the province's Ministry of Education is out of touch and remote from northern communities. What I want to do is go back to a question asked by Mr Wildman regarding the reduction of educational regional offices in the north. I ask you if you're going to pay attention and possibly respect that commitment made by your leader at that time.
Hon Mr Snobelen: The deputy answered the question a few moments ago and has said that we are consulting with the directors in that area to find out how we can better serve the north and how we can provide a better and more efficient service.
Mr Miclash: There was a panel actually made up by who does what in government. I wonder whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs had any consultations with you, as Minister of Education and Training, as to who would be represented on that panel.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I serve on the cabinet subcommittee that those panels report to under the chairmanship of Minister Leach, and we've had several conversations about the composition and the nature of those discussions.
Mr Miclash: Was any consideration given to northern representation on that panel?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe there was consideration given to the type and quality of persons who are represented. The 11 people who were initially appointed to that committee have had some experience in the province and will be examining reports that have been done in the past. I believe that geography was one consideration, but not the sole consideration.
Mr Miclash: Don't you find it strange that there's nobody from northern Ontario on that panel? Yes or no?
Mr Wildman: I find it passing strange not only that there's no one from northern Ontario on that panel but nobody from the education sector.
Mr Miclash: That too.
Mr Wildman: There was a member of the ministry staff who was going to give some information, but the Conservatives didn't want to hear from her before.
Interjection.
Mr Wildman: It doesn't matter. I'll go on with something else. Can you give me the total? I guess it was $230 million in proposed capital expenditures that were subject to the moratorium. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Snobelen: It was something in that area.
Mr Wildman: Okay.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Just for accuracy, I believe it was around $170 million or $167 million, off the top of my head.
Mr Wildman: Okay. Could we get some indication as to how those numbers break down by board?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Certainly.
Mr Wildman: I'd appreciate that. Specifically, I'd like to deal with an editorial in the June 7 edition of the Midland Free Press, which is a periodical with which I'm sure the minister is intimately familiar.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I may have missed that particular edition.
Mr Wildman: The editorial is headed "Replace St Marys" -- referring to St Marys School in Victoria Harbour -- which points out that in 1992 an inspection by the Simcoe county health unit listed a number of deficiencies that could contribute to health problems of students: black mould growing on the walls because of humidity, which contributes to respiratory problems; damp carpets from frequent water leaks; structural problems that contributed to the collapse of the floor two years ago; and foundation holes that allow rats and other rodents to enter the building. This was approved, by the previous government, for capital construction to rectify these problems and is now subject to the moratorium.
My question is, was the moratorium simply an across-the-board fiscal decision or were there any considerations given to the urgency of some of the capital projects with regard particularly to the safety and health of students and teachers?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Certainly health and safety were considerations. I believe, as a director recently has said here, the facilities renewal program was designed particularly to address health and safety issues in existing structures. We have maintained the funding in that program so as to address those issues.
Mr Wildman: The editorial concludes: "The province refuses to do its part. It should be ashamed."
I understand that Mr Grimmett, the MPP for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, recently visited the school. The project had been estimated at $2 million, and apparently Mr Grimmett promised to deliver a video which showed the problems to the minister's office. The story says that he offered little hope to parents that a school could be built before the moratorium ends.
I have a letter from a parent who is most concerned because her daughter has extreme emphysema. She has had significant health problems over the last year related to the mould problem in this school. The parent points out in the letter, "There is a very high proportion of students on puffers for respiratory ailments in this school," higher than would be normal. If the program took into account health and safety problems, why is it this program has been subjected to the moratorium?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Maybe I'll ask the deputy to speak about that particular project, but I think our approach to capital is responsible. I think we've said very clearly that we intend to have a better system of building schools, student places in the province than we have had in the past. That's our intention. We're working towards that goal.
I'll leave it to your imagination how people in Ontario view the responsibility of a government that would announce $1.6 billion for the projects without having $1.6 billion in the bank. I think that's led to some false expectations by people across the province, certainly in my riding. When I campaigned in 1990 there were people very concerned about capital projects, and there were people very concerned about it in 1995; when we campaigned in 1995 it was still a big issue. It's up to this government to find a better method of building schools and meeting needs across the province. As to the particular project, I'll let the deputy speak.
Mr Wildman: Just before the deputy responds, since the minister has gotten into a political exchange on this serious problem for St Marys School, I argue that if people were concerned about a government committing to a $1.6-billion expenditure for capital they didn't have, the same people might be interested in why a government would commit to a $5-billion tax expenditure when the government doesn't have it.
Hon Mr Snobelen: I would suggest that since we want to go down this path --
Mr Wildman: You raised it; I didn't. I would really like to find out about St Marys School and why it is subject to the moratorium if you take into account health and safety.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Again the member for Algoma has raised an interesting point. I suspect that the tax reduction's driven by -- we can have a more fulsome conversation about this at some future point -- a desperate need in the province for investment and jobs and finding jobs and creating opportunities for the young people who are in our schools.
Mr Wildman: Some might say the same thing about a capital expenditure program, that the same applies, but let's deal with St Marys.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Good. I think that would be excellent, but I would enjoy having that other conversation with you at some future point.
Mr Dicerni: I don't have the specifics because we were not informed, but I've asked Drew to look specifically into that issue. Our approach was designed to not encompass matters that you have raised. If, for example, it had been communicated to us as a renovation of a school, it would not have jumped out. But I note that the facilities renewal program Drew was talking about is available to all boards. I will look more specifically --
Mr Wildman: To be fair, I think it is a new school. They were going to build a new school to replace this because of the condition of this one. My impression from the story and from the two letters I received was that the conclusion of the board and the people who looked at it, the engineers and so on, was that the school was beyond repair.
Mr Dicerni: In that sense it probably would be fairly well up in terms of criteria, but as the minister has referred to, we are seeking to establish new modalities by which schools could get built to respond to the needs of children and parents.
1740
Mr Wildman: I'd like to get the information about that school. I raised yesterday the issue of another school, where a church had been demolished in order to make room for it, and now they have no church and no expanded school. This I think is even more serious than that since it appears that we have children who are experiencing health problems because of the condition of the school they're attending.
I won't take up time just for the sake of taking up time, but there are a couple of other questions I would like to ask with regard to post-secondary. What's the total amount spent now on post-secondary education by the provincial government in Ontario? These are estimates.
The Chair: Will someone be addressing that from the ministry?
Mr Dicerni: About $2.4 billion. Over and above that is the annual contribution that is made to post-secondary education via the OSAP, as well as capital.
Mr Wildman: What's the capital expenditure for this year?
Mr Dicerni: It would be about $60 million -- Drew? -- this year's capital.
The Chair: Do you want to come to the table so that Hansard can have this recorded?
Mr Nameth: I would think in the neighbourhood of $60 million to $80 million.
Mr Wildman: How does that break down, college and university?
Mr Nameth: There's a facilities renewal program for colleges and universities split one third-two thirds. The remainder is project by project depending on where the projects are. There's a large project to construct a new French-language college in Sudbury, Collège Boréal, and a large project, Queen's biosciences centre. My sense is that it's probably about 50-50 college and university.
Mr Wildman: Give me some indication of what the trend has been. How does the total expenditure this year compare with 1995, capital?
Mr Nameth: The total expenditure this year will be less than in 1995.
Mr Wildman: How much?
Mr Nameth: I don't have those figures with me. I can find them for you.
Mr Wildman: I mean this sincerely -- I don't want to sound like I'm being unreasonable, Mr Chair -- but these are estimates, and it would be nice if when somebody asks a question about funding, we could get an answer rather than somebody saying, "We'll get that information for you." I don't expect everything to be on the tips of the fingers of the staff, and I'm trying to be fair here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that we get some numbers when we ask for them.
The Chair: Does the deputy want to respond to this?
Mr Dicerni: I believe the member is requesting information regarding last year's capital --
Mr Wildman: No, I'm asking what this year's are. We got a round figure of $60 million to $80 million. I asked how does that compare with last year's, and Mr Nameth said it was less. Then I said, "How much less?" and he said he could get it for me.
Mr Dicerni: The allocation for the previous year was $100 million, and when I say approximately $100 million, it refers to the fact that we are somewhat dependent as to when projects get completed, the amount of construction that takes place by different institutions. In regard to this fiscal year, in light of the serious financial situation facing the government, there are still a few large-scale projects being reviewed over which final decisions have not yet been made. That explains why the final number has not been determined. It is related to specific program decisions.
Mr Wildman: I do recall that when serving in opposition in the past there was a Liberal colleague, Pat Reid from Rainy River who now is active with the mining association, who used to always throw curves at people in estimates because he actually asked for numbers. I learned from him that it's useful sometimes to treat estimates as estimates. While we often have philosophical and political discussions in here, which are useful, I think, it is important sometimes to return to the estimates.
For that reason, I would like to know, in the post-secondary area how much money total in round figures does the province contribute to what would be called research, pure and practical, in the university sector? I recognize most of it comes from the federal government or from private sources, but how much does the province actually contribute to research programs of all sorts?
Mr Dicerni: May I, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Go ahead. Actually the time is up, but could you respond with a short response?
Mr Dicerni: That is an excellent question. It is one of the reasons for which the ministry has established in the new organizational chart a unit that is dedicated very specifically to tracking research that takes place within the Ontario government, as well as liaising with national research bodies, such as the medical research council, in order that we can establish an area of expertise within the government regarding what takes place in research and, more importantly, how we as a provincial government can support, sustain and enhance research with our university partners.
The Chair: Your time is up, Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mrs Ross: Mr Minister, I'd like to ask you a question pertaining to what some of our local school boards are doing with respect to restructuring and downsizing to look at some of the spending reductions. One of my local school boards has come to me with a proposal that they have sat down with the maintenance union to save an amount of pretty significant dollars.
One of the reasons is because of the spending reductions, but what they're trying to do is, they feel that they have to lay off staff. However, if they lay off staff now, in two years' time they have to hire staff back because they have quite a number who'd be retiring in two years. So they're looking at a program where hopefully 50% of the savings would go to the local school board, 50% would go to the employees in order that it allows them that flexibility that they can maintain the workforce until such time as the two years roll by and people will be retiring. I'd like to get your reaction to a proposal such as that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: The maintenance side of our schools is a significant area of expense at about $1.2 billion a year. It's an area where efficiencies can, I believe, be found and there are studies that would back that assertion up. It sounds to me like your board is taking an approach with their employees that sounds responsible in your presentation of it and not an unusual circumstance.
There are a variety of private sector agreements that have been made over the last 20 years that attempt to make up for a short-term surplus in employees by trying to avert layoffs through a variety of mechanisms. It's not unusual in many professions and many service industries and so it sounds consistent with the approach that's being taken in the private sector.
1750
Mrs Ross: This is a two-part question, and my second part to that question is, one of the questions they asked me was that if they are able to do as they hope to do, and that is not lay off anybody now and survive for two years until such time as retirement takes place, with further funding reductions coming, would they be penalized in fact if they found reductions now? I tried to reassure them that I believe our government would look at those organizations that had already done some restructuring more favourably than those that had not. I'd just like to get your comments on that.
Hon Mr Snobelen: Our ability to reflect accurately the savings that different boards have found and the efficiencies that different boards have found under our current GLG structure is not as good as it should be, in my view. We recently had a report by the working group on ed finance reform that has suggested that we have a more rational model of expenditure on a per student basis, recognizing the different expenditure components across the system. It has recommended to us that we go to a more standard reporting mechanism of those costs. I believe that's a key in making sure that we find the savings on an equitable basis and accurately reflect the efficiencies of school boards across the province.
With the funding model that currently exists, that's not possible to do in a fair and equitable way. What I think you can tell your school boards is that we are committed to changing that funding mechanism to one that does allow us to reflect the efficiencies of different systems on a per student basis on a sophisticated model of expenditures. It's regrettable that's not the funding system we have now in the province. It's our intention to move to that.
Mrs Ross: Can I ask one more? I know Toby has a question, so I'll be very brief here.
In my area, we have a university and a college, and I know that faculty staff have quite significant savings with respect to tuition fees for their families going to that university. I'd like to know if we have any statistics on the dollars it costs to educate faculty staff.
Hon Mr Snobelen: This is a number we do not have available because universities are autonomous organizations, and under the current structure, when they provide that sort of incentive to faculty, it's not necessary for them to advise the ministry of that. Again, they have some autonomy in how they conduct their business.
I am aware of the fact that there are persons in the university system who receive either a substantial reduction in tuition fees for immediate family members or in fact free tuition to their institution, and that's something that's been brought to our attention by a variety of people. However, under the current structure, those organizations are autonomous.
This is something that we think we should discuss with the universities and see if they will recognize the fact that there needs to be some autonomy for the university sector, for the post-secondary sector as a whole. However, these institutions are also significantly publicly funded, and I believe the public has a right to have that kind of information available. We've taken some steps with that with our sunlight provisions last year. I think the public, by and large, felt well served by being able to know what the executive salaries were in those and other publicly funded institutions, and I believe that those institutions have a responsibility to the public to make the other conditions known, and so we will be encouraging them to do so.
Mrs Ross: I just want to say that I agree with that, because I think there are many students out there having difficulty going to university, and it would be interesting to know what those statistics are.
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Mr Minister, the Sweeney report made recommendations with respect to reducing the number of school boards, even to the point of recommending new boundaries, and I know there will be additional input arising from the who-does-what panel. However, if the boundaries are to be redrawn for school boards, if we go on that option, would neighbouring boards have options to negotiate mergers among themselves or is any of this thought on the part of school boards premature right now, given that they're taking a hard look at property taxes and assessment and the whole nature of education governance and municipal governance and how it relates to the provincial level?
Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe that the first recommendation of the Sweeney commission was to address the very serious inequities in the funding system before changing the governance system, so while we look at the funding system and engage in a serious review of that, we have to keep in mind what is a governance system that would support the schools in the next millennium.
I would personally like to see, and I believe it's consistent with our government's approach, a funding system that provides true equity for students and similar opportunities or the same opportunities for students across the province, and we will design a funding system that does that.
On the governance side, I am personally in favour of -- I think I've made it well-known publicly -- as much involvement of parents as is possible in our governance structure. I think that, by and large, parents have something to say about the education of their children and want to feel that their voice is heard. So when we look at the governance structure, we'll look to make sure that we have an ability for parents to have their voice heard in the system.
The Sweeney commission was directed to reduce the number of school boards. That was the purpose in the exercise, and Mr Sweeney and his committee came back and met the requirements they were directed to do. Whether in fact their recommendations fit with a system that provides more equity in funding, that provides more parental involvement and that will take us into the next millennium is a question we have to resolve.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Being 6 o'clock, that ends the time for the estimates. This also leaves about three hours and 51 minutes remaining in the estimates for education and training. That will be resumed, I presume, on the third Monday in September, when the House comes back.
The committee adjourned at 1757.