Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Tuesday 1 October 1996

Ministry of Education and Training

Ms Joan Andrew

Mr James Mackay

Mr Drew Nameth

Mr Peter Wright

Ms Carol Lawson

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

*Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)

Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Mr JimBrown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)

*Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

*Mr TonyClement (Brampton South / -Sud PC)

Mr JosephCordiano (Lawrence L)

*Mr AlvinCurling (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

*Mr MorleyKells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)

Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

*Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)

*Mr WayneWettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

*In attendance /présents

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr FrankMiclash (Kenora L) for Mr Cordiano

Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND) for Mr Kormos

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre PC) for Mr Rollins

Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington Ind) for Mrs Ross

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Mr ToniSkarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)

Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Todd Decker

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Mr Tom Prins

Staff / Personnel: Mr Steve Poelking, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1535 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): I call the committee to order. We have an hour and 52 minutes left of estimates for the ministry. Last time, I mentioned the minister would not be here. The parliamentary assistant is in place and has said he's quite prepared to answer any questions you may put forward to him. If the government side would like to start off, it's a 20-minute rotation.

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I'll start, if my colleagues would like to give me that opportunity. I'd like to welcome the parliamentary assistant here to our standing committee on estimates. You've been ably represented by the minister over the past little while at this committee and we've been able to get into a lot of the forward-thinking details of the ministry and how it's going to protect education for the future.

I thought since you are here, I'd allow you the opportunity to talk a little bit about secondary reform, because I know -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that not only are we going out in terms of a public review of some of the proposals there, but I think you're very much involved in that process as the parliamentary assistant. So I was wondering whether you could elucidate for the committee what your role is going to be, how you see secondary reform going and what you see as the major issues that we'll be tackling in that process.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I'm chairing the committee hearings that will take place in Ontario in the next two months, in October and November. Probably in November we'll be going throughout Ontario to hear from educators, students, teachers, parents, anyone involved or who has an interest in education, as to how they think secondary school programs should be delivered.

There is a discussion paper that has been prepared and I think there are two million copies that will be distributed. That discussion paper came as a result of discussions between Conservative MPPs and bureaucrats within the ministry. Eventually that document was prepared, and it's a starting point.

I agreed to chair the committee hearings on the basis that this was genuine input. I think many people are concerned -- all governments, whether it be ours, the Liberals or NDP -- that decisions are made ahead of time and there isn't real input. I've been assured by the minister and by the people involved that this is genuine input, that we are looking for real input as to how we should proceed. We all have an interest, regardless of political stripe, to have this reform take place and to have it done right, because it's our children's futures that are at stake.

That's basically what's happening, and we'll proceed over the next two months.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Charter schools are a major source of discussion in some of the circles I'm in. Do you have any plans for charter schools, and if so, what might they be?

Mr Skarica: To the best of my knowledge, we don't have any plans at the present time. I think the ministry's going to observe what's happening in Alberta. There are charter schools opening up there. There are charter schools in about 17 states in the United States, I think. At the present time, I think we're having a monitoring situation.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Mr Skarica, a number of weeks ago I had a presentation in my constituency by the private schools association. They are the ones whose members are the business colleges. They do not have the authority to issue diplomas, to offer diploma courses, yet they presented statistics indicating that 47% of their students are actually graduates from a university or a community college. I was wondering if we have any intention or any thoughts on allowing them to offer diploma courses.

Mr Skarica: I'm going to defer to Ms Andrew, who can give you better information.

Ms Joan Andrew: The role of accreditation in the post-secondary system is one of the issues that the post-secondary education panel will be reviewing. At the moment, private vocational schools can issue diplomas of their own recognition. It's not that they can't issue diplomas; they issue different diplomas than the community colleges in Ontario. There is an accreditation system with the private vocationals.

Mr Wettlaufer: But it is under review?

Ms Andrew: Yes, as part of the post-secondary review. The issue of appropriate levels of sharing of responsibility for post-secondary education among the private sector, government and students is part of that review.

Mr Clement: I'm quite conscious that this is the standing committee on estimates, so I always like to come back to numbers and money at some point during the presentation. I don't know, call me crazy.

I wanted in particular to ask a very general question but it's related to post-secondary as well. Have you done any internal departmental reviews of the funds that are accorded to the post-secondary sector from a zero-based budget approach, and if so, what's the methodology you use to test whether the dollar spent on behalf of the taxpayer is actually getting to what we have designated it be spent on versus somehow being used in a wayward capacity, if I can put it that way?

Mr Skarica: We're going to palm off that simple question to someone else.

Mr James Mackay: James Mackay, director, universities branch, post-secondary division.

The simple answer to your question is no, we don't have any particular methodology or studies in the ministry that are based on a zero-budget approach. The allocation to colleges and universities in recent years has really been more of an ad hoc determination on, how much can we afford to give them in a particular year or not? What are their actual costs out there? We do have some studies on the college side in terms of the cost of offering a particular program, but we don't have anything like that on the university side.

Mr Clement: At some point, because we have scarce dollars -- we're all living in that world -- one has to start looking at, I suppose, or make a policy determination that one would want to look at what sorts of courses are being offered by what institutions and whether those courses are being duplicated or whether they are being done as an A-plus job by one institution and as a B-minus job by another institution or what have you. Is there any thought, given the era of scarce dollars in which we now live, that we would want to target some of the moneys to programs that are being done well versus programs that perhaps do not meet any criteria that the ministry has? Is that in the offing at all?

Mr Mackay: I think generally speaking that would be something that is now under study by the advisory panel on post-secondary education. They've really been given a pretty broad mandate to look at how we're delivering post-secondary education in the province, how we're sharing costs between students and the public and private sectors. Those kinds of questions regarding efficiency and effectiveness -- I'm sure we'll hear from the panel in that regard.

Mr Skarica: An accurate prediction. I think Ms Andrew wants to add something to that.

Ms Andrew: A specific issue the panel has been asked to address is also interinstitutional collaboration and cooperation and the rationalization of programs in the system. It is a specific issue the minister asked them to address.

Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Mackay, I'd like to follow up something. Did you say that we have no costs per student for university education?

Mr Mackay: We know what we pay them. We can tell you on a particular program of study at a particular institution what the grant works out to for that student. We can tell you the fee revenue that the institution collects. What hasn't been done in almost 30 years in the university system is what we call a cost study, going back and examining for each program at each institution what its actual costs are.

The view in recent years has been that we may be providing a little more funding to one program than its actual costs would warrant but we are providing less in some other cases. The net result of the distribution formula is what's been called rough justice, that the institutions are getting approximately what they should get overall as opposed to the right amount for each particular program. What's important to note is that the formula is a method for deciding how much of a block grant each institution gets. It's a way of splitting up the available resource we have rather than funding whatever costs are incurred by the institution.

Mr Wettlaufer: So what we do is guess by gosh and by golly what they should get and we take a figure out of the air instead of doing a proper assessment.

Mr Mackay: The original formula allocation way back when it was first established did indeed look at the actual costs of delivering programs at a particular institution and then that was used as a basis for coming up with the original program weights.

Mr Wettlaufer: But that was 30 years ago.

Mr Mackay: That was almost 30 years ago, and one would expect that there would be some changes in that.

Mr Wettlaufer: I would hope that we'll make those changes this year, Mr Parliamentary Assistant.

Ms Andrew: As part of that, though, it is fair to say that Ontario has the most efficient post-secondary system. We educate more students per tax dollar, both per student and per taxpayer, than any other province in Canada.

Mr Wettlaufer: But as a person who is dedicated to numbers, I'd like proof of that, and when you don't have a proper assessment procedure in place, I don't know how the heck we can make a statement like that.

Mr Mackay: I think Joan was referring to the fact that we have the lowest funding per student in the country. We are paying less overall to educate our university students than any other province.

Mr Wettlaufer: But we don't know what we're getting for it.

Mr Mackay: We certainly know what we're getting in terms of enrolled students. We do have audited enrollment reports. We know that the students we're flowing funding for are in fact there. We can establish how many students graduate from a program. We can look at placement rates for particular programs. However, measuring the quality of a university program in particular obviously can be controversial in terms of how you go about doing it.

Mr Skarica: If I could just add something to that, what you've hit on is really one of the trouble spots in the entire education area. Mr Wildman was here when we were on the committee on Bill 34. We heard near the end of the hearings that the ministry publishes a document that compares all the administrative expenses and breaks down all the expenses of all the boards into administration and operating and so on and so forth, and we found out that every board has a different definition of what it is. So you have 160 boards basically with different definitions of administrative expense and of operating expense, so we are comparing apples to oranges to bananas. You can't even compare how one board compares to another on a class basis. It was really quite shocking.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I got a rather surprising letter recently, actually on September 26, which I believe has been copied to the minister. It's written by the chair of the North Shore Board of Education.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I received that too.

Mr Michael Brown: Yes, I see that you have a copy here too, Mr Wildman. It's an "Open Letter to John Snobelen, Minister of Education." If I could just beg your indulgence for a few minutes, I think it's worth reading it:

"Having served the North Shore Board of Education for the past 27 years as a trustee, and the past 10 years as chairperson, and even longer as a supporter of the Conservative Party, it is with great sadness to hear and see the many comments and activities emanating from our Minister of Education, John Snobelen.

"Although I am a strong supporter of many Conservative Party policies, I feel the Conservatives are preparing themselves to make their second blunder in this century. Their last time in office saw them introduce Bill 30, which allowed the extension of separate school funding, the only benefit to the province being higher education taxes. Once again, they are travelling down that same road by suggesting the elimination of school boards and the governance of what remains by the local municipalities.

1550

"School boards existed a number of years before municipalities came into being. In fact, after the establishment of municipalities, municipal councils took over boards of education in 1842, for a period of two years. Local municipalities however decided school boards weren't for them, and turned them back to trustees. Does Snobelen really want to turn the clock back 150 years to a time when the same experiment failed?

"The foolishness associated with his comments is doing a great disservice to one of the best education systems in the world, to many of the best teaching professionals in the world, and an equally grave injustice to the parents, but most important the children to whom this education system serves. It doesn't take a genius to note that the quality of our communities and municipalities is a direct result of the leadership that our education system has provided. Canada is the great country it is because of our education system. If we wish to build on today for a better tomorrow, the education minister should get his fingers out of the cookie jar and start working with the leaders in education towards improving the system, not destroying it.

"Snobelen's philosophy of creating chaos in hopes that when the dust settles all will be better, is a dangerous game when it comes to playing with the lives of our children. He has stated that if anyone challenges him on his position in education, it is because it would be self-serving to those people. I disagree with what he is suggesting and seeing the negative impact his comments are creating, it is more important than ever that I get up, stand up and speak up, in an effort to protect a quality education system from degradation.

"As Minister of Education, you have created a state of chaos and frustration amongst the teachers, administrators and the parents in this province. It is time that you settle down, and work with us, in making those positive changes which would enhance our education system in the most cost-effective way. Casually dismissing the million-dollar reports on improving our education system, while introducing your own, which we recognize is solely for the purpose of saving money, is a very dangerous legacy to leave the province of Ontario and the education system that has served it so well."

It is signed by Robert Whitehead, chairperson of the North Shore Board of Education.

I know Mr Whitehead. He is a very dedicated person who has worked a long time in the community and in education and is not one from whom you would expect a letter in this tone. I think Bob is speaking for the members of boards of education, the teachers and parents at least in our area. I know, because with Mr Miclash we toured the northwest and met a number of their school boards and teachers' groups and parents' groups, that this is a frustration that is counterproductive. I was hoping Mr Snobelen would be here today, and I realize that you may have some difficulty in responding to this, but I wonder what I should go back and tell Mr Whitehead.

Mr Skarica: One thing I can tell you is that during the committee hearings we had this spring -- Mr Wildman was there -- one of the few consensus items we all heard, and I think all parties agreed and all the panelists who testified, was that this system desperately needs some type of education finance reform. Everybody who knows anything about the system agrees on that. Even Mr Wildman is nodding his head; thank you very much.

Mr Wildman: I'm not sure I agree with the way you're doing it.

Mr Skarica: That doesn't surprise me.

You can't take a look at education finance reform without looking at governance, and that's what we're doing by setting up the Who Does What education subgroup. That's one of the things they will look at.

There are some concerns I had, and I'm speaking for myself, from going to the committee hearings. One of them is that we spend about $890 million a year on board administration and we see some uneven results; for example, it was really surprising to us to hear during the committee hearings that the unfunded liability for teacher gratuities -- this is something that teachers have negotiated through the boards, and some boards have fully funded that teacher gratuity, I think about three of the 167, but many of them, I think well over half, have nothing in reserve for that. So you're paying $890 million in administration and you're getting huge unfunded liabilities.

We heard from the chair of the Windsor board that the unfunded liability, she felt, wasn't $1 billion, like the ministry says, but closer to $10 billion, which is an astonishing amount.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the consensus of everyone we heard from during the committee hearings was this urgent need for finance reform, and you can't do that without looking at governance as well. There has been no decision made, to my knowledge, on school boards, what to do with them or to do away with them. That is one of the things the Who Does What commission will be considering.

Mr Michael Brown: Mr Whitehead's director of education, Mr Lewis, is terribly concerned that the information that is being used by the ministry is inaccurate. I'll just read his letter. It's shorter:

"The North Shore Board of Education is very concerned that the Ministry of Education published a document this summer, as part of the minister's proof to the taxpayers that there were too many irresponsible boards, which contained false and completely inaccurate tax information.

"In 1995 the North Shore Board of Education levied $8,358,243 from the local taxpayers in the combined municipalities that comprise the jurisdiction of the North Shore Board of Education. In 1996 the levy was $8,299,349, a decrease of $58,894, or 0.7% compared to 1995.

"The North Shore Board is concerned that the minister chose to use inaccurate figures to make his point that many boards were acting irresponsibly toward the local taxpayer. The trustees on this board were dedicated to try to keep the tax increases to zero. In 1996 they were able to do better than that.

"When the ministry personnel called the board office for the tax information they were not interested in the total dollars that were levied. They were interested only in the mill rate. In a jurisdiction which has eight different mill rates and eight different assessment bases upon which those rates are set, an average mill rate does not show an accurate picture." I think you would understand that. "The ministry personnel were told that and they chose to ignore it in order to publish a common document, which in the case of our board does not show accurate information."

I think Mr Lewis is pointing out that we are afraid that the ministry is trying to support the government's case by manufacturing numbers that are at best inaccurate.

Mr Skarica: Perhaps somebody from the ministry could address that, since they're the ones who dealt with those figures.

Mr Drew Nameth: My name is Drew Nameth. I'm the director of the capital and operating grants administration branch.

The survey that was undertaken in the summer was to find out the average increase in mill rates levied by boards across the province. One reason why the ministry chose not to ask for how much was being levied board by board was to ensure that changes in assessment bases weren't impacting decisions made by individual boards.

The question asked of each board was: What was the average increase in mill rates for the whole board? We recognized that a number of boards have different mill rates for different municipalities in their jurisdiction. For simplicity we're simply looking for a single number for each board.

1600

Mr Michael Brown: You would think that if you were really interested in finding out what was going on you would at least have asked for a weighted average. I know these municipalities. One is a relatively large municipality of 14,000 people which, by the way, has lost significantly in assessment in the last while, and the rest of them are relatively small, the largest being maybe 3,000 or 4,000 and most of them being in the 800 or 900 range. A weighted one would have shown a decrease. If you asked for just a plain old average, you're going to get a number that doesn't reflect anything.

Mr Nameth: There may be a difference if one asked for a weighted average or a simple average. I believe the question that was asked of each board was: What is the average increase or the average tax change in your board?

Mr Michael Brown: The point is that it yields irrelevant information. You've got to ask the right question to get at what you want. What was the point of asking what the average mill rate increase was? Why did you ask the question?

Mr Nameth: The point was to find out what was the increase in mill rates, so the changes in mill rates, on average, across the province.

Mr Michael Brown: But you didn't find that out. I think it's spin doctor time and I think the bureaucracy is starting to become politicized. That is my humble impression of this.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I want to go back to June 26, the second day of estimates, where I had suggested that the minister at that time was out of touch with a lot of front-line concerns in northwestern Ontario. At that time I asked the minister to provide me, and he agreed, with a list of the schools he had visited in northwestern Ontario. Is that list coming? I haven't received it as of yet.

Ms Andrew: I don't believe we have it. We can make efforts to get it to you in the next day or two.

Mr Miclash: Okay. That was a commitment made to me back on June 26.

I indicated to the minister at that time as well that I was hearing a good amount of concern from first nations groups in northwestern Ontario and I asked him for, and he committed to give me, some information regarding any discussions he had had with first nations groups. I'd be interested if that is here or forthcoming or on its way.

The Chair: Does that get an answer? I don't know.

Ms Andrew: It will be forthcoming. I'm sorry -- the list of aboriginal groups the minister had met with?

Mr Miclash: Exactly. As I indicated, I'm hearing a good amount from them stating that he has not shown any concern or feeling for some issues they're facing in education when it comes to provincial jurisdiction. That was the main reason I was asking and possibly encouraging the minister at that time to be in touch with some of these groups.

During my travels through the riding and through northwestern Ontario, and as Mr Brown indicated, he accompanied me on some of those tours only in the past couple of weeks, we heard a good amount from teachers regarding some comments the minister has been making. I wonder if the minister ever discusses with you any comments and how these comments are affecting the morale of teachers in the classroom. Before you answer that, I must say that as a former educator, going back into the classroom this September would have been very difficult after hearing some of the comments that have been directed to teachers in this province. Does the minister ever discuss these with you, sir?

Mr Skarica: The honest answer is no, we haven't had that discussion. I've recently met with Earl Manners, president of the OSSTF, and Mr Martin, president of the OTF, on television shows, and they expressed that very same concern to me. I intend to have that conversation with the minister.

Mr Miclash: Thank you. In your travels you must visit your schools as well. Do you hear those comments?

Mr Skarica: I have heard those comments. I think there's frustration by teachers, and a large part of it is because of the cuts, and they feel salary frustrations. The other major complaint I get is that regardless of what party is in power, they feel every time there's a new government there are a lot of changes and they find that frustrating and difficult to cope with, that the system is being re-engineered every few years, and by the time they have a handle on it, it starts again. I can see that frustration, being a professional myself.

Mr Miclash: I was in the classroom for 10 years. I go back into the same schools; I revisit those schools. I tell you, sir, the morale is not the same as it was 10 years ago when I left those particular schools. Do you think that lack of morale, that frustration being experienced by teachers is having any effect on the classroom education of the children?

Mr Skarica: I don't know. I can tell you one thing I find particularly disturbing is that I've had complaints the other way from parents and students, that they feel that the schools are becoming more and more politicized all the time and that teachers are, rightly or wrongly, expressing their political views in the classroom. In my opinion, that shouldn't be there, regardless of what's going on. The teachers are there to teach the students the curriculum. I've been in one school where the announcements were highly political and I was quite surprised that was taking place in the morning announcements. I didn't feel it was proper.

Mr Miclash: I was quite surprised to read in the Red Lake District News, a newspaper in my riding, that it was the ministry's intention to have municipalities assume more of a role in the operation of Ontario school boards. Can you explain what was meant by that statement?

Mr Skarica: A lot of that would have to depend on what changes took place in governance and finance reform, quite frankly.

Mr Miclash: Going on to another location in my riding, Sioux Lookout, the students attending that particular area's school, the Queen Elizabeth District High School, were told by their board at the beginning of the year that there would definitely be deep cuts to their sports program and that, in essence, their program would be cut almost in half. To compete in a riding such as mine, where you have many small communities quite a distance apart, we have students on the road up to maybe two, three, four hours sometimes, to travel to compete. When you tell them that half of the funds are going to be taken out of their sports program, what you're telling them is that maybe they can compete among themselves within the school but that when it comes to such things as competing against other teams from other schools that's pretty well taken away. Do you not agree that this is actually penalizing students of the north in terms of allowing them to compete in various sports?

Mr Skarica: I've heard similar complaints from the south, so I don't think it's anything unique to the north. It brings it back to some of the disappointments we've had as a government. We've had other boards behave quite differently. For example, in my area the Roman Catholic board administrators, teachers -- anyone involved with that board -- decided to take a 2% benefit cut and save either $1 million or $2 million, which was about half of what they needed to save, and the rest they saved through attrition, so no programs were cut and it didn't impact the students at all. I've been to some of those schools. That board is in the lower range of cost per student -- I think it's somewhere just under $5,000 per student and the school I went to was fabulously equipped. It's an uneven response from the boards. Some have been able to manage the cuts without impacting the classroom at all and some quite frankly haven't.

Mr Miclash: I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make here. I indicated that in northern Ontario sometimes they travel up to four hours to get to a sporting activity, to compete against another team of the same calibre; a grade 7 or 8 basketball team, say, would compete in Red Lake, four hours away, with a grade 7 or 8 team there. Here they get on the subway and go down to the next school; they can get public transit. Do you not see the difference in allowing students of northern Ontario to be able to compete compared to those who can use public transportation to get from one school to another for those competitions? Don't you think the students of northern Ontario are being penalized when it comes to cuts in this area?

Mr Skarica: My same answer to you is, does it need to be that way? It's really hard to know. Everybody you talk to says, "We've already cut to the bone," yet in my travels throughout the province I've seen some pretty rich boards that have said they've cut to the bone.

Interjection.

Mr Skarica: I'm not going to do that. Some others legitimately have already cut to the bone. All I can say is that there's been an uneven response. The Sweeney report indicated that 47% -- you've heard that figure before. You're groaning, but the Sweeney report --

Mr Michael Brown: You told us you couldn't define administration.

Mr Skarica: But he did.

Mr Michael Brown: So you'll take his numbers.

1610

Mr Wildman: With the indulgence of the committee, I would like to raise a very serious and delicate issue that affects students and parents in Sault Ste Marie and part of Algoma district. I want to assure members that I'm not in any way blindsiding my friend the parliamentary assistant; I've given him notice I would be raising this matter.

Mr Skarica: A fellow politician speaking fairly; you get very suspicious.

Mr Wildman: This is a serious matter. My colleague the MPP for Sault Ste Marie, Tony Martin, is here with me too because of his concern. The parliamentary assistant will know that Mr Martin tabled in the House yesterday or read into the record a petition signed by over 10,000 residents of Sault Ste Marie and area that dealt with a very serious situation, a situation that unfortunately is affecting children in a general sense not only in our area but other areas as well. I'd like to raise the specifics with this.

There are over 10,000 people who have specifically petitioned to request that the Ministry of Education institute an "independent public commission of inquiry into the treatment of reports or complaints of abuse of students by Kenneth Gino Deluca, a former teacher and now convicted child abuser, and the handling of such reports or complaints by the Sault Ste Marie and district Roman Catholic separate school board between the years 1972 and 1993."

Mr Deluca was recently convicted after pleading guilty to a number of charges of abuse that occurred over a period of a little more than 20 years during his employ by the Sault Ste Marie separate school board and he is currently serving 40 months in prison in Millhaven Penitentiary.

The reason the petitioners want to have an inquiry is that they are very concerned that this situation could drag on for so long that a teacher, a person in a position of trust, could carry on this kind of abuse repeatedly over a period of 20 years, abuse to which he has pleaded guilty, and that he would be apparently moved from one school to another when suspicions were raised. This is a very important issue, and I know that members will agree with me and my colleague that it is indeed very important. The importance is certainly demonstrated by the number of people who have signed this petition from our area.

All of us I think would agree that it's the first responsibility of all of us, and certainly the first responsibility of teachers and school board officials, to protect our children. For that reason, I'm formally requesting that the Ministry of Education agree to institute a commission of inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act into the Deluca affair.

Mr Skarica: My response is that the minister is not going to appoint a commission of inquiry at this time because of the outstanding civil proceedings. The minister doesn't wish to interfere or appear to interfere with the legal process.

On a general point, Mr Wildman, you were present during the hearings when we had a similar situation with the Toronto teacher who was making racist comments that were very public. The teachers' union interfered in that case and protected him by providing him with counsel and so on and, eventually, I don't recall anything ever being done to him. That was of course a complaint by the parents who were involved.

I think we're ad idem, your party and our party. We're hopeful that the College of Teachers will alleviate these types of problems, because it will then be able to look into this matter and hopefully deal with the situations where for whatever reasons there are legitimate complaints and teachers are moved as opposed to being disciplined. I think other teachers will feel frustrated at that as well, because it hurts them generally as a profession.

Mr Wildman: I won't prolong it except to say that, recognizing that the parliamentary assistant is providing a response based on the advice he's been given, my colleague will present this petition to Mr Snobelen in the Legislature when Mr Snobelen returns. I would hope that the minister and the ministry will consider very carefully the fact that people in Sault Ste Marie and area want to know how this happened and why, because they don't want it ever to happen again. I think it's important for the whole of the province. I'll just leave it at that.

Mr Skarica: I don't think anybody disagrees with those comments.

Mr Wildman: If I could proceed, I'd like to return to a very different matter that was raised by my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin with regard to the North Shore Board of Education. Just in passing, has the parliamentary assistant seen a movie called Mr Holland's Opus?

Mr Skarica: No, I haven't.

Mr Wildman: I certainly would advise you to see that movie. Besides the fact that it's important for those of us who are interested in education, it's a very good movie -- good acting and so on. I think you'd agree.

Mr Skarica: Is it an old movie, Mr Wildman?

Mr Wildman: It's a small American town, but essentially what happens is the board is faced with budget cuts. Mr Holland is a music teacher who has taught for many years. His program is cut, as is the drama program in the school. I think it really is apropos when we consider the kinds of things happening in Ontario today. I would hope that we don't reach the same pass, where these kinds of programs are eliminated in the name of efficiency and saving money.

The thing that bothers me is that whenever we see these kinds of programs being eliminated, and we have seen a number of music programs, particularly at the elementary level, being eliminated over the last year, or at least cut back substantially, the pat response by Mr Snobelen and the government is: "These are decisions that are made by the boards. If the boards have made bad choices, people should complain to their trustees. It's not the government's role to be involved in these matters." Frankly, in my view, that's an abdication of responsibility. If you are going to state that you are going to make major cuts in transfer payments to boards, then you can't then shrug off the impacts of those cuts and say, "That's the board's fault."

My question is specific. What was the percentage cut last year -- because like Mr Clement I want to deal with numbers -- in the GLGs, the general legislative grants, to boards?

Mr Skarica: I believe it's 1.8%.

Mr Wildman: No, it isn't 1.8%. What is the cut to the GLGs?

Mr Skarica: I think we'll ask Peter Wright, the director of education finance.

Mr Peter Wright: The operating grant cut is what you're after?

Mr Wildman: Yes.

Mr Wright: It was $233 million on a grant of approximately $4.4 billion, which is 5.3%.

1620

Mr Wildman: Okay. How is it then that the government keeps going around saying it's 1.8%?

Mr Wright: The 1.8% is $233 million as a percentage of the total operating expenditure of the boards.

Mr Wildman: So that means how much the boards raise and expend.

Mr Wright: A combination of the government grants and the boards' locally raised taxes.

Mr Wildman: Oh, I see.

Mr Wright: It's the percentage of the cut in expenditure.

Mr Wildman: The other side of the coin is, how is it the boards are saying that it's 8%, since you're saying now, and it's just quick calculation, that it's 5.3%?

Mr Wright: The original 8%, or I think sometimes it was referred to as 9%, was taking the whole $400 million on the $4.4 billion, but that's not fair because the $4.4 billion is only the operating grant side.

Mr Wildman: In other words, that's unfair just as the government's figure of 1.8% is unfair.

Mr Wright: With respect, all you're doing is describing different bases for calculating the numbers.

Mr Wildman: So the true figure is 5.3%. Okay.

Mr Wright: No, with respect, the figure as a percentage of the grant cut is 5.3%; as a percentage of expenditure, which is how the government characterizes it, the 1.8% is correct.

Mr Wildman: That's exactly the right term, "characterizes it."

Mr Wettlaufer: How do you characterize it?

Mr Wildman: I characterize it as 5.3%. I'm taking Mr Wright's figures -- so 5.3%.

I'd like to deal with the letters that my friend from Algoma-Manitoulin read into the record from the North Shore Board of Education. In answer, Mr Nameth said that they wanted an average. I think Mr Brown would agree with me that this area was one of the areas that has undergone major economic downturn over the last few years, which has resulted in a significant decline in assessment base. So to simply ask them for an average change in mill rate and then to say, "They gave us this average figure," of whatever percentage increase in mill rate, "That therefore indicates that the board simply made up the cuts it faced from the province by increasing taxes," is quite unfair, because it didn't increase taxes.

Mr Wright: In some cases, they increased the mill rate. Whether they increased the revenue as a result is quite a different issue.

Mr Wildman: Exactly.

Mr Wright: What the ministry had published was the mill rate increases.

In terms of the north, there were, as you know, some efforts made to offset the impact on small boards this year with the GLGs, so efforts were taken to assist some boards in that case.

Mr Wildman: I understand that and it's interesting that some of the boards that were the most frugal did not benefit from that because the percentage changes were not sufficient because they were so frugal in the first place.

Mr Wright: Or the reductions were not that significant.

Mr Wildman: Yes. Okay, now, the fact is that this particular board actually levied almost $59,000 less in taxes last year, yet the ministry, because of the questions it asked, published it as if it had in fact increased taxes by saying that it had increased the mill rate.

Mr Wright: The ministry said, to be fair, they increased the mill rate, and that was all the ministry said.

Mr Wildman: That's right, and the ministry therefore was not telling the whole truth. My mother, when I was a child, used to say it's as bad as telling a lie when you only tell a half-truth.

Mr Wright: The difficulty in part is if you're going to talk about the total expenditure or the total revenue, you're getting into a whole series of issues around enrolment, assessment base change --

Mr Wildman: Exactly.

Mr Wright: -- and that, as you can appreciate, is quite a complicated discussion.

Mr Wildman: It is a complicated discussion, and it's one that should be engaged in. As Mr Skarica pointed out, as long as we're going to deal with these numbers, it's better to deal with apples and apples, not apples, oranges and bananas.

Mr Wright: That is in part why the ministry is out now trying to discuss with boards their unique needs and special local circumstances.

Mr Wildman: I would like to pursue another matter in regard to user fees that boards are imposing as a result of changes in funding, keeping in mind that the minister has made it clear to boards that if they are getting lower grants, they should not increase their local taxes.

I have notification here from a woman from Niagara Falls who has two children in high school there. Her children have been informed for the first time this year, in September, last month, that they will now have to pay $35 per month for a bus pass. The reason for this apparently is that they are not attending their neighbourhood school. They are in an enrichment program, a gifted program, because they qualify, and the school in their own neighbourhood doesn't have courses that would provide them with the enrichment program. The board has made a new policy that if any student is not attending the neighbourhood school and thus has to have transportation to another school in the board's jurisdiction, the student will have to pay for a bus pass.

This also applies to students taking co-op courses, who have to go for the co-op experience. I know Mr Snobelen has touted co-op courses as the way to go. I'm not sure that he is aware that this entails paying extra costs, at least in the Niagara Falls board.

Does this constitute an adverse effect on the education of these kids as a result of decisions made by a board directly related to cuts in funding?

Mr Skarica: Quite frankly, I can't really answer that question. I wasn't aware of that particular situation. The best I can do, Mr Wildman, is to look into -- I don't know how many students that affects.

Mr Wildman: I don't know the answer to that either.

Mr Skarica: If that's just unique or if that board is using this as a revenue source, I don't know, or if that was just designed for those few students. I'll look into it for you.

Mr Wildman: No. The information I have is that it affects these two kids but it's not just for these two students. It's other students in the same situation who aren't attending neighbourhood schools.

Mr Skarica: Which board is that?

Mr Wildman: Niagara Falls. Would such a fee for a bus pass be properly called a user fee?

Mr Skarica: If they're using the bus and they're paying for it, I think you can characterize it that way, to use your terminology.

Mr Wildman: The Premier when he was in opposition called user fees taxes.

Mr Skarica: As I indicated earlier, Mr Wildman, it was our hope that the schools would be able to administer these cuts. If I go back to our figure of 1.8%, that's their overall budget, and in times of downsizing, many institutions have downsized a lot more than 2% without affecting their service delivery.

Mr Wildman: I'd certainly like to find out what is the basis for this change in Niagara Falls and I'd also be interested in finding out how many other boards have instituted user fees. I've had information about students for athletic programs within the school now having to pay a significantly higher amount than they've ever had to pay before for their athletic cards.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): They paid before.

Mr Wildman: They paid before, but suddenly there's an enormous increase this year, which basically means that poor kids probably will have a more difficult time participating in extracurricular activities than well-off kids. The question is whether or not we want this in our public education system.

Mr Wright: It has been policy in many boards for many years that students who choose not to go to their neighbourhood school are in fact charged for transportation. That in and of itself is not new.

Mr Wildman: It is in Niagara Falls, apparently.

Mr Wright: Whether the extent of it is new -- whether these children previously went to their local school and therefore did not pay --

Mr Wildman: No, they didn't. They went to the other one.

1630

Mr Wright: I have not seen that letter, but as a general rule, school boards have had that policy for quite some number of years, just so that's on the record.

Mr Wildman: Is it a good policy?

Mr Wright: Is it a good policy? Well, it's their policy.

The Chair: It's time for the Conservative Party. No questions?

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes. This is more a comment than a question, following up what Mr Wildman said. In our own area there were a number of schools that thought they might like to charge for athletic permits or library services or what have you, and I always understood that it was the role of the MPP to act as a mediator between the schools and the board and the students. I took it on myself to jump all over those schools and those fees were subsequently cancelled. I believe any other MPP could do likewise.

The Chair: It's a new role for me. I'll take it up. Any other comments?

Mr Clement: I'll defer to Mr Young first.

Mr Young: I just want to comment for the record that I was in high school a long time ago and we had user fees then, if that's what you want to call them. I remember every year you had to go and get your phys ed uniform. It was not optional. You had to have your socks and your T-shirt and your whole uniform. If you took music, you had to buy your own mouthpiece or your reed. If you were studying another language, usually you had to buy your own French-English dictionary etc. So this is nothing new. The opposition is picturing every little thing that happens as part of some terrible hardship. It's nothing new. Parents expect to pay.

My three children went off to school this September and they went over with their mother to Business Depot and bought three-ring binders and coloured pencils. We used to buy them, when I was in school, Laurentian colour pencils at the corner store. So some things have never changed, and I think it's inaccurate to depict these things as new.

Mr Clement: I hate to be really boring, Mr Chair, but I actually want to ask some questions about the estimates, if that's all right.

The Chair: Go right ahead, you have all the time now.

Mr Clement: Page 25 of the estimates, which is vote item 1002-1, seems to have a number of explanatory notes regarding the operating expenditures of the Ministry of Education and Training. I was wondering whether I could ask the parliamentary assistant or his assistants just to elucidate what exactly some of these things are and what the impact of these items are to the education system. One of the items has "Transfer to GLG" -- which I presume is general legislative grants; that's the eighth bullet -- "to transport provincial schools students." It doesn't have a number beside it, but what's that all about?

Ms Andrew: The provincial schools students are deaf and deaf-blind students who attend schools in the provincially run schools, and the ministry, through the GLGs, supports their transportation home to their home communities on weekends and holidays so that we're not providing residential care over long periods of time. I can doublecheck the numbers, if that's what you're asking, but that's the cost the local school boards have to provide the transportation for their students. Mr Wright can give you more details.

Mr Wright: Until 1995, the money for transporting these students was in the direct operating expenditure of the ministry, and when the school boards assumed their responsibility for the transportation of these students, the money was transferred out of the ministry's own budget and put into the GLG.

Mr Clement: It doesn't have a number beside it, so I'm just wondering what that means, what the significance of not having a number beside it means.

Mr Wright: I thought it was $537,000.

Mr Clement: Is that what it is? Oh, you're right. I'm looking at it askew. I apologize.

The line immediately above that has "university student residences" and then it has $200,000 in brackets. I'm just wondering what that is. Were we funding university student residences out of operating for a while and then we just discontinued that, or how did that work?

Ms Carol Lawson: I'm Carol Lawson, director, corporate planning. There was an amount in the university operating grant, and it was decreasing, for the funding of student residence. It went down by $200,000 per year and this is the reduction for 1996-97. There's a subsequent one in 1997-98.

Mr Clement: I hate to play musical chairs, Mr Chair, but I have two more questions.

The fourth line from the bottom on that page says, "Increase in grants in lieu of municipal taxation, $856,400."

Ms Lawson: That relates to the payments in lieu on behalf of the colleges and universities. We pay $75 per enrolment to the municipalities in lieu of the colleges and universities paying to the municipalities.

Mr Clement: So there's a transfer from the Ministry of Education and Training to the municipalities in lieu of the post-secondary institutions being taxed.

Ms Lawson: Yes.

Mr Clement: When we talk about all the grants we give to the PSIs, the post-secondary institutions, is that number included when we talk about the global grants or is that an extra number?

Ms Lawson: It's a separate grant item in the Ministry of Education and Training's estimates. It's called payments in lieu and it's about $27 million in the printed estimates.

Mr Clement: Twenty-seven million in total in payments in lieu. Okay. The second-last one has "social contract/productivity savings target credits," $5 million and change.

Ms Lawson: What happened is that over the social contract period the reductions were taken out of the ministry in advance, subject to the savings actually maturing, so this is just the amount going back in. We took the money out and then it goes back in once the savings have accrued.

Mr Clement: How does it go back in? Is this paying people for the days they --

Ms Lawson: No, it's not paying them. What happened was that there was a reduction and then, once we had effected savings within the ministry which were equal to the social contract, they put the amount back in so it wasn't double-accounted, because at one time they doubled up on us.

Mr Clement: Can you just expand on that a little bit so I understand what happened?

Ms Lawson: What happened was that at the beginning of the social contract they reduced the ministry's allocation for a social contract target.

Mr Clement: You had a target of 5% or whatever.

Ms Lawson: That's right. It was taken directly out of the ministry's allocation. Once we had effected savings to replace that target, they added the money back in.

Mr Clement: Added what back in?

Ms Lawson: Added the initial reduction back in.

Interjection: They calculated it twice.

Ms Lawson: It was done twice.

Mr Clement: So can one draw the conclusion that the savings on the social contract in this particular case were less than originally advertised?

Ms Lawson: No, they were equal to.

Mr Clement: They were equal to, but now you've got to include it in your line item --

Ms Lawson: Yes. It's an explanation of why the allocation went back up.

Mr Clement: And that's just a line item for this year. You won't have to do that in subsequent years?

Ms Lawson: No.

Ms Andrew: In effect, the amount was taken out of the ministry's budget twice. This is an accounting adjustment to return something that was taken out twice.

The Chair: Any other questions or comments or directions from the Conservative side? There seem to be no other comments. We can go to the Liberals.

1640

Mr Miclash: Just to follow up on what the previous questioner was asking, we've been made aware of the Jules Léger Centre in Ottawa. It's a centre for children with learning disabilities and a centre to which many children travel from northern Ontario. At one point the children were housed in the Bronson residence which is attached to the centre, but under a new policy, apparently students, some as young as 12 years old, are being asked to return to their homes for weekends. This is creating a number of problems. I want to read into the record a letter that was sent to the parent committee of the school in Ottawa from North Cochrane District Family Services:

"It has come to my attention that a number of parents in our district have raised serious concerns regarding the closing of the residence attached to the Jules Léger Centre in Ottawa during weekends. Apparently, this closing means that children at the centre who reside in Cochrane North are travelling each weekend between Ottawa and their homes. I am further told that even though we are not yet in the winter months, there have been two occasions where children potentially could have been stranded in Toronto and Timmins. On one occasion, children who left Ottawa in the early afternoon only arrived home after midnight. I understand that the children, some of whom are under 12 years of age, are making the trip without escorts.

"Cochrane North is n area where services for special children are scarce. Families of this area have relied on the Jules Léger Centre for a number of years to provide specialized help for their children and are appreciative of that help. It is undoubtedly very difficult as a parent to have your relatively young children leave home to live hundreds of miles away and then have the added concern regarding weekend transportation and the potential for your child to be stranded somewhere along the trip home.

"Having lived in this area for a number of years I know that in the winter, when I leave by plane I literally never know when I will arrive at my destination, nor when I might return. Twice I have left Toronto to fly to Kapuskasing and have ended up back in Toronto hours later after flying all over the north and through Ottawa for refuelling.

"I have had my staff speak to the local separate school board and I understand there are four children from Kapuskasing who attend Jules Léger and I am aware of at least two children from Hearst who also attend."

Surely the economics of the situation are such that it cannot save any dollars to have these six children fly home on weekends rather than keep a home open for them. Would the parliamentary assistant like to comment on that situation or have somebody comment on it?

Mr Skarica: I'm going to refer it to Mr Nameth.

Mr Nameth: The decision was taken some time ago, I believe in 1995, to close the residences for the provincial schools on the weekends so that children could return home and be with their families on the weekends.

I'm aware of the situation of the children in Cochrane and the situation where it took an inordinate amount of time for them to get home. There have been a number of conversations with the parents of the children involved and we are looking at ways we can ensure that the safety of the children is upheld.

Mr Miclash: Sir, would you not agree that one of the solutions, maybe the only possible solution, would be the reopening of this residence, noting the circumstances I've mentioned in the letter?

Mr Nameth: That is a possible solution. I don't know that I would describe it as the only possible solution. That is a solution.

Mr Miclash: What is the time frame on coming up with a solution to this problem, which is quite obvious?

Mr Nameth: I think it would be within the next couple of weeks.

Mr Miclash: I have some figures that I wouldn't mind getting on the record. We understand that it costs $3,300 per year per student, $60,000 per year to keep 18 students in the residence. The figures we have are that to transport the students it costs $20,000 annually per student, or $360,000 to transport 18 students. So what is the motivation behind closing the residence? The parents are actually looking for an answer to that question.

Mr Nameth: The motivation is that the children can benefit quite significantly from being with their families and their friends. They're being separated from their families and friends during the week while they're attending school. This gives them an opportunity to be home with their families and friends on the weekends.

Mr Miclash: Have the parents suggested that's what they want for their children, to travel back and forth rather than the children staying in the residence? Is that something that's been discussed with the parents, requested by the parents? How did that come about?

Mr Nameth: I believe that is the case, that there were a number of discussions with parents, parent groups, to provide an opportunity to have the children home with them on the weekends.

Mr Miclash: On to another subject and to the parliamentary assistant. I have to continue to go back to this subject because it's one that bothers me a great deal. As I indicated to you, I was in education at one time and it's just not the same, going back into the classroom. I'm referring now to an article that was in the Sioux Lookout Bulletin on Wednesday, August 21. Let me read some of that to you and get your response to it:

"While Sioux Lookout students and teachers will be heading back to school next week, parents and community members are wondering just what they will be going back to in the wake of last spring's cuts by the Dryden Board of Education.

"According to the latest tally, 17 elementary and six secondary school teachers have been eliminated from the rosters, newly appointed board director Murray McFayden confirmed Monday. Among those axed were four special education teachers."

There's another quote here from the Dryden District Women Teachers' Association president, Shelley Jones, which says: "It's going to be very difficult (in Sioux Lookout). We have one of the largest per capita layoffs in the province."

I ask the parliamentary assistant if he can actually disagree with me that this is going to have an impact on the classroom education that the students of Sioux Lookout would be facing this year.

Mr Skarica: If those facts are true, it would be hard to argue that they wouldn't. Let me compare the experience in my riding as to what's happened. The boards that I deal with, the Wentworth County Board of Education and the Roman Catholic board for Hamilton-Wentworth, are relatively low-cost boards and trimmed administration long before we gained power. There are no layoffs there at all; they were cut in the same manner that the other boards were cut and there were no teacher layoffs there at all. They were able to implement the cuts in ways that didn't affect programs or teacher layoffs. There's the uneven response that I've alluded to earlier.

Mr Miclash: Let's go on to another subject that the minister often refers to: second-class students. He often talks about the redistribution of property tax dollars throughout the province to eliminate what he claims are second-class students, students maybe not getting the same education. I often say that a student in the riding of Kenora would have to compete for a university or a college spot with a student from downtown Toronto, and it's quite often the case that that happens. I'm just wondering if you're aware of what the minister may have in mind in terms of redistribution of the property tax dollars throughout the province.

Mr Skarica: That would be something for the Who Does What commission to look into. I indicated earlier in our committee hearings that we heard from everyone, and it was an agreement that there was a desperate need, an urgent need, for finance reform. You really see that when you see the cost per student. You see some boards spending as low as $4,000 per student, some in southern Ontario and some in the north, and then some who are spending $9,000 per student. That's a huge variation, and I don't know whether the boards spending $9,000 per student are delivering better education than those spending $4,000 per student or why those differences exist. When you try to get into, "Is that value for money?" you can't even compare it because of the definitions. You've got basically 157 boards that have different accounting methods.

Mr Miclash: I want to go on to another subject which a lot of teachers have approached me on, the report that was done in looking at teachers' salaries in Ontario. The teachers feel there were some discrepancies in the figures. There was nothing said about the higher cost of living, Toronto being one of the cities where the cost of living is much higher than in the rest of the country, as well as the province having a higher cost of living in how it compares to other provinces. I'm just wondering, when the minister read that report, did he take a look at why that might be? Did he take a look at any way to maybe justify that teachers' salaries were higher than those in other provinces?

1650

Mr Skarica: I don't know if the cost of living really gives you any answers. I was asked that question last week, and as far as cost of living is concerned, I think even within the province it's higher. The cost of living is higher in Toronto, for example, than it would be in my area; I know that for certain. It's probably higher in the north than it would be, again, where I live. As far as our having the highest cost of living is concerned, I somehow doubt that, quite frankly. For example, if you were buying a house, in Montreal you'd pay half of what you'd pay in Toronto. But if you go to Vancouver, you're paying twice what you're paying in Toronto.

Mr Miclash: Thank you, sir. I think Mr Brown might have a couple of wrap-up questions.

Mr Skarica: Earlier there were some questions you wanted answered, and we do have those answers, if I could table that.

Mr Miclash: Maybe just a question of procedure here, to the parliamentary assistant. In terms of procedure, when I asked for that information, why would it not be delivered to my office? I'm feeling that somebody has maybe wanted to sidestep. Or is this normal procedure, that the information would be tabled? If I had not come back here and asked for that information today, would it have been tabled or sent to my office? I'm confused here. We're going back to June 26, so I'm a little bit confused because I really expected that information before I did my tour so I could talk to the educators and let them know.

Mr Skarica: I saw it for the first time yesterday myself. I don't know the answer to that question, what the normal procedure is.

Mr Miclash: Could we maybe find out the answer to that question? Because that information was important to me and it would have been valuable to me two weeks ago, not today.

The Chair: Mr Miclash, is this the report you asked for earlier on?

Mr Miclash: Yes, it is, June 26.

The Chair: I'm quite surprised that the ministry didn't have an idea about this, and now they present it. Is there anybody who can maybe comment on this now?

Mr Miclash: Again, I feel that if I'd not asked for the information again today, I may not have seen it.

Ms Andrew: I'll apologize for that. I'm sorry. The ministry had prepared the answers to the questions submitted by you and Ms Castrilli in June and we had understood, maybe incorrectly, that we were to table it back with the committee, so we brought it today. I didn't realize the two specific questions about school boards and the aboriginal were contained in the package. That's my error and I apologize for that. The two specific questions you asked are answered in the package. I can give you a spare copy if you want now.

The Chair: I just hope in the future --

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are the questions that I raised in June going to be answered?

Ms Andrew: Yes, they are. They're in here too, Mr Wildman. Excuse me.

Mr Miclash: You have to ask for the answers, Mr Wildman, or you don't get them. Somehow they're shelved.

Mr Michael Brown: On the same point of order, when questions are asked, are they not made available to all the committee members? Sometimes a member asks a question that another member has a great interest in.

Mr Skarica: That's why we've tabled it.

Mr Michael Brown: Oh, so it's tabled.

The Chair: This will be available to all the members of the committee, but I would just like to tell the ministry that if questions are being asked in estimates, it would be quite helpful, if they have the answer, to present it even before the estimate is over, so that if there is any information that could be asked, it could be helpful.

Mr Wildman: Actually, if they were tabled immediately, at the beginning of the resumption of the estimates, it would be helpful because then we could ask questions on the answers.

The Chair: The questions can be asked before. Presumably you have to ask the question before we get the answer. You still have a matter of six minutes.

Mr Michael Brown: Thank you, Mr Chair. We've used three minutes on points of order?

Just to set some background, I obviously represent one of the more rural northern ridings. One of the things that the Manitoulin Board of Education, which is in probably almost a unique situation in the province -- well, there will probably be some other examples. But it actually is the only board of education on Manitoulin Island; there is no separate school board. They had a dramatic mill rate increase this year just to cover their expenditures. This is a school board that has a director of education, a superintendent of business and a couple of secretaries, and that is the administration.

They are involved in a cooperative with a number of other school boards, including the North Shore separate, which lowers substantially their operating costs. This year they had a large increase, as I said, in the mill rate to their taxpayers. At the same time, they had to cut programming to students and their class sizes are increasing.

For example, the junior kindergarten on Manitoulin Island only exists now because the parents are selling raffle tickets and seeking donations to help fund it. The school board, as my friend from Kenora has mentioned, has cut back on transportation services so that children and students are having a great deal of difficulty, for example, participating after school at the high school, because the late bus program has been reduced.

If there's a school board that's lean and mean, this one is in terms of there isn't a lot of fat. They can't share facilities with anybody. That is ludicrous if you know the geography. Islands have their own peculiar problems in terms of getting places.

If the Manitoulin board has increased its mill rate substantially, has already made a great number of cuts, what should I be telling the chair of the board of education and the trustees about how they are to cope next year with funding cuts from the government, which I understand are on their way, without impacting the classroom?

Mr Skarica: I can give you an example of the two boards I deal with. The Roman Catholic board in Hamilton is one of the, can I say, poor boards, and I would think Manitoulin would fit the bill from what you've told me. What they did basically is that everyone involved in the school board -- the teachers, the administration and so on -- took what I consider to be a pretty small cut -- we took a bigger cut -- of 2% in benefits. That allowed them to make the savings so that there was no impact on the classroom at all.

Mr Michael Brown: So that's where you believe there could be savings, if they renegotiate with their federations and other people?

Mr Skarica: That's what occurred in my riding.

Mr Michael Brown: It's an interesting suggestion, but I look at the Espanola Board of Education and the North Shore Board of Education, which are already sharing a director, they're sharing a business administrator, they're sharing many of their costs, and they are actually doing better, I think, in the cooperative than could reasonably be expected. They're going to be in the same situation this coming year as the Manitoulin board. They have already pooled their buses. Their buses pick up students from all systems, so that's all their transportation options. Would the same advice be that they should renegotiate their labour, that that's the problem, that the boards have been bad negotiators?

Mr Skarica: No, I didn't say that. You're putting words in my mouth. The teachers' unions basically have told me personally that they don't want the tax cut. It's not something they want. But they are also saying at the same time that they haven't had a raise. The teachers do benefit from the tax cut, as we all do, and so on and so forth. You took a 5% pay cut this year, so a small 2% -- as I say, that's all that was required for the Roman Catholic board. Everybody involved in the board took a 2% cut to their benefits, not even to their salaries, and it allowed them to achieve the savings that were required so there would be no impact in the classrooms. I just use that as an example of what could be done. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. I don't know the particular circumstances of your board.

Mr Michael Brown: It's an interesting suggestion.

The Chair: You've only got about half a minute.

Mr Michael Brown: I only have half a minute. I wanted to explore post-secondary tuitions for a second. I wonder if it's the government's policy that they expect these tuitions to continue to increase at the rate they are increasing now and if the government has any view at all of requiring the universities to live within certain bounds of what kind of fees are -- I have a little self-interest here. I have two girls who are presently at university and a third one going next year. I've noticed a huge increase in fees -- not just tuition fees but other fees associated with the schools -- over the past couple of years. Is it the government's view that students have a lot more money than I believe them to have?

Mr Skarica: No, I don't think so, but I don't deal with that sector. Perhaps we could have somebody who deals with the university sector address that.

The Chair: Your time is kind of up now.

Mr Michael Brown: Mr Wildman would like to have the answer too.

1700

Mr Wildman: I have three sons in post-secondary education. Have the ancillary fees been frozen or not, effectively?

Mr Wright: There are two kinds of ancillary fees. The compulsory have not been frozen, but what has happened to them is that a process was developed whereby the institution and the student bodies would negotiate a protocol whereby the levels of those fees would be mutually agreed upon, so the students would have an opportunity, if there was an increase, to negotiate something for that increase. That process has been in place now for several years. On non-compulsory fees -- in other words, where a student is able to avoid the fee if the student wishes -- there are no limits at the moment.

Mr Wildman: I have a question that follows on from the questioning by my friend from Kenora with regard to the provincial schools. Is it the intention of the ministry to transfer the operation of these schools to local boards of education?

Ms Andrew: To the best of my understanding, that is not under consideration by the ministry at this time.

Mr Wildman: Okay, fine. That's all I wanted to know.

Mr Clement: Are you making a recommendation there, Bud?

Mr Wildman: No, I'm not. It's just that I've received some correspondence from parents of students who are going to a school for the hearing-impaired and they were concerned that there might be a proposal to transfer the school to the local board of education. That's why I asked the question.

I have before me the Ontario Public School Boards' Association's report which deals with the minister's comments in his recent musings. It points out that Mr Snobelen has said there might be a further $600 million to $900 million taken out of the system in 1997. Earlier in these estimates, Mr Snobelen denied that he'd ever said that, so I guess that matter is moot now and we will not see the $600 million removed from the system this year.

Ms Andrew: I don't know what the targets are for reductions in the system. The minister did say he had not used the figure $600 million to $900 million.

Mr Wildman: So it might be greater?

Ms Andrew: I have no idea.

Mr Wettlaufer: A fearmongering question.

Mr Wildman: No, no, I'm just trying to find out. If he didn't say that, I'd like to know what he did say. He told us what he didn't say; I'd like to know what he said.

The Chair: You'll have to ask the minister that.

Mr Wildman: Okay. Then it goes on to talk about Mr Snobelen's comments re eliminating school boards and turning over their functions to municipalities. In our area of northern Ontario, where you don't have upper-tier governments, this is a very interesting question. To use the example my friend from Manitoulin had earlier of the North Shore Board of Education, this is a board of education that covers how many municipalities?

Mr Michael Brown: Eight.

Mr Wildman: Eight municipalities. Could I find out which of these eight municipalities would then operate the North Shore Board of Education schools?

Mr Skarica: We're not at that point yet, Mr Wildman. You know that. The Who Does What commission is going to look into that whole question of school boards and so on and so forth.

Mr Wildman: You can amalgamate the municipalities.

Interjections.

Mr Michael Brown: You say that jokingly.

Mr Wildman: It quotes Mr Snobelen from the Toronto Sun:

"People don't feel attached to their local boards. They don't feel their opinions are being heard and school boards, for whatever reason, have been a critical part of the status quo that got us where we are: a very expensive system that produces very mediocre results."

I'm sure Mr Snobelen wasn't talking about the Durham board, which of course has received an international award, when he talks about mediocre results. I think what's interesting here is that it says, "Lynn Peterson, president of the OPSBA, said Mr Snobelen's remarks are `ridiculous' and that he has `absolutely no supporting evidence for his claims.'"

Could the parliamentary assistant help us here? What is the evidence Mr Snobelen had, if he had any, for his assertions that people aren't attached to their boards and that the school boards are a problem, that they're advocates of the status quo which produces mediocre results?

Mr Skarica: You've heard that yourself, Mr Wildman. We heard that testimony at some of the committee hearings on Bill 34. You'll recall that we had some evidence along that line from people in Mississauga and other places, but I just remember some people complaining about that from Mississauga.

Mr Wildman: I've heard many complaints on this matter, but since the minister has access to studies and analyses that all of us don't have, I'd like to know if he or the ministry would table with the committee the evidence he has that we have mediocre results and that it's the fault of the boards which are only interested in the status quo.

Mr Skarica: Again we heard that type of evidence at the committee hearings. You could just refer to some of the testimony and documents we received at that time. I met with the people from the Durham board yesterday, and since I don't want you to trust me, I have their documents here. What they're doing is very impressive. We heard through the committee hearings a number of people expressing those views. All he's saying there is that he's heard those complaints from people, and you heard them yourself during those committee hearings.

Mr Wildman: Mr Peterson --

Mr Skarica: Ms Peterson.

Mr Wildman: Ms Peterson, sorry. In northern Ontario many people named Lynn are males. Ms Peterson said, "It would be much more helpful if Mr Snobelen had a vision of what he wants Ontario's education system to look like and if he would articulate it." I couldn't agree more with those remarks.

I close off with a matter that was raised in June before this committee, by myself and I think by my friend the member for Kenora: the Connell and Ponsford District School Area Board regarding junior kindergarten. At that time I brought to the attention of the committee the fact that this board was prepared to continue having junior kindergarten, exercising its "local option." This is an isolate board. This board apparently had gone through its finances and was one of the few in the province that discovered it could continue to provide the junior kindergarten program that the people in the community wanted, in Pickle Lake, without having to raise taxes, partly because as an isolate board they get significant support from the provincial government.

When they made this decision they got an epistle from the ministry telling them that if they were going to continue the junior kindergarten program, they would have to increase their mill rate I think by 5%, even though they didn't need to, to be able to continue the program. In other words, if the program was going to continue, the local taxpayers would have to pay even though the additional funds were not required.

1710

I have another letter addressed to Mr Snobelen and to the Premier from Paulette Gagné, the secretary-treasurer of that board. They point out in this letter that they have decided not to operate the junior kindergarten program because of the demand of the ministry that they increase taxes, particularly because of the minister's admonition that local boards should not raise taxes. Isn't this board facing a double jeopardy? On the one hand they would like to continue a program that the people of Pickle Lake want. They're being told by ministry staff that if they do continue that program, they have to increase local taxes, but the minister has made it clear that he doesn't think local boards should raise taxes, so they decide not to raise taxes and therefore not have the program.

Why would we have, on the one hand, ministry staff sending a letter to this board telling them that if they continue their junior kindergarten program they have to increase their mill rate and, on the other hand, the minister making public statements all around the province that he doesn't think boards of education should be raising taxes.

Mr Nameth: The change in policy regarding junior kindergarten announced last November made junior kindergarten optional for boards and indicated that there would be a local share associated with the provision of junior kindergarten so that boards would be required to make a contribution explicitly for junior kindergarten programming.

Isolate boards are required to levy taxes at the same rate as their coterminous enlarged boards. In the past the basket of goods, the programming, was pretty much the same between the isolate board and the enlarged board. If an enlarged board took a decision not to offer junior kindergarten programming and the isolate board chose to continue to offer that program, the range of programs would differ from board to board, with the enlarged board and the coterminous board levying the same amount of tax, supporting two different programs.

Mr Wildman: I understand what you're saying, but didn't this board face contradictory instructions from the minister and ministry staff? On one hand they were saying, "If you exercise our option, you have to raise local taxes," and on the other hand you had the minister saying, "Don't raise local taxes."

Mr Michael Brown: I think that's a political question.

Mr Wildman: Well, it is.

Mr Skarica: That's a matter I'm going to have to look into.

The Chair: It seems to me that the minister may have to respond to that one directly.

Mr Wildman: Yes. Okay.

Mr Young: Where's the letter from the ministry you're talking about?

Mr Wildman: It's attached on the back.

Mr Skarica: You're right, Mr Wildman. It was always our contention that these savings could be achieved without raising taxes.

Mr Wildman: There was a previous letter, sorry, that is not attached which instructs them to raise taxes. I tabled it in June when I raised it in the committee.

The other question I have is, last year when the grants were announced for boards I think there was an indication that in future years they would get a multi-year schedule for grant levels as the other MUSH sector --

Ms Andrew: I think that was a few years previous.

Mr Wildman: Well, no. Last year, you recall, the other MUSH sector partners such as hospitals and colleges were told what their grants were going to be for two years. The boards of education were told it was for one year but there was an indication that in future years they would get a multi-year projection. Is that not right? Am I wrong? I thought that was the case.

Mr Wright: At the time they were told there would be future years and there was a hope that it could be multi-year. At this point the government hasn't made its decision on what it's doing for 1997-98 or if it's going to be a two-year.

Mr Wildman: So the decision hasn't yet been made. Okay. Can I ask then --

Ms Andrew: Excuse me, Mr Wildman. The allocations for colleges and universities were also one-year allocations. It may have been hospitals and municipalities.

Mr Wildman: It was hospitals and social service agencies and municipalities; that's right.

I think most of us here would welcome a multi-year projection if that's possible. Is it the position that the government is now awaiting the decisions or recommendations of the Who Does What panel and the education finance work that's being done before they make decisions on this year's grants, or will announcements on this year's grants go ahead anyway even if they don't have the results of the work of those panels?

Mr Wright: The transfer payment process to decide on what the allocation will be for each ministry and major program is now under way. No decision has yet been made. On some of them there may be Who Does What panel recommendations in time; for others there may not be. I don't think it's an entirely linked process that nothing will happen on transfers until everything on Who Does What comes in. They will likely try and move them in tandem as much as possible, recognizing there are some linkages, but the transfer payment process will continue none the less.

Mr Wildman: Would it be a fair question to ask if the calculations you're working on now take into account major reductions?

Mr Wright: Is that related to the Who Does What panel's activity? Right now they are not doing that kind of activity.

Mr Wildman: No. You said you were working on the transfer payments now.

Mr Wright: Yes, we're discussing with Treasury. I'm afraid I'm simply not at liberty to talk about that.

Mr Wildman: I thought that might not be a fair question but I thought I'd try it anyway.

I would be interested at some point in finding out who the nefarious individual is who came out with this $600-million figure that the minister says he never used so that we will find out that we are not looking at these serious cuts in transfer payments this year and that the minister is going to meet a commitment to maintain the transfer payments at least at the levels they were last year.

Mr Wright: I don't think that's quite what the minister said. Good try.

Mr Wildman: One further question: What were the total expenditures for the ministry last year? I should have that figure before me and I don't.

Ms Andrew: The ministry itself or including the grants?

Mr Wildman: Everything.

Ms Andrew: Let me just check this. Everything is $7,541,254,900.

Mr Wildman: How much was spent on the main office? These are estimates, after all.

The Chair: Do you have an estimate before you, Mr Wildman?

Mr Wildman: No, but I thought I'd use the last two minutes to get the information.

Mr Clement: I'm sorry, your time's up.

Mr Wildman: I remember a member, Pat Reid, who served for a long time for Rainy River who always used to ask questions about the actual expenditures in estimates and I thought it was good idea.

The Chair: Mr Clement was alert to that fact all the time, but I'm sure that information can be given to you.

Mr Wildman: Really we should know how much was spent on the main office. After all, there are a number of people from there right here.

The Chair: I think what happened -- you threw them off with relevant questions now.

Mr Wildman: My question then is, how much was also spent on the regional offices?

The Chair: In the meantime, while you're pursuing other questions, Mr Wildman, I think time has run out.

Ms Andrew: We can respond. By "main office" do you mean the minister's office?

Mr Wildman: No. The minister's office is usually included in the main office vote.

Ms Andrew: The main office vote and the regional office votes?

Mr Wildman: Yes.

Ms Andrew: Okay. We will get that answer to you.

The Chair: Those will be made available.

Mr Wildman: We'll leave it on the record that as of right now in estimates we haven't been able to get those figures.

The Chair: I think they're trying to understand what the main office was. That in itself brings us to the end of the estimates time for the Ministry of Education and Training. I shall now do the other official procedure of the meeting.

Shall votes 1001 and 1002 carry?

Mr Wildman: Mr Chair -- I'm not trying to be difficult -- could we read out the numbers we're voting?

The Chair: The numbers of what?

Mr Wildman: How much money in each vote.

The Chair: Vote 1001 under operating is $18,898,100. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Vote 1002 under operating is $7,299,590,400. Carried.

Capital on the same vote is $222 million. Carried.

Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training carry? Carried.

Shall I report the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training to the House? Agreed.

Such a cooperative group. Thank you very much. I thank the staff for their perseverance and their intelligence and support.

We stand adjourned until tomorrow, when we shall meet for the Ministry of Health estimates.

The committee adjourned at 1723.