Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CONTENTS

Wednesday 19 November 1997

Ministry of Education and Training

Hon David Johnson, minister

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Ms Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister

Ms Pauline Laing, project director, curriculum learning and teaching branch

Mr Peter Wright, director, education finance branch

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel

Ms Alison Drummond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1549 in committee room 1.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Vice-Chair (Mr Rick Bartolucci): Can we call the meeting to order, please. Just a few details about the procedure. The government side has six minutes left. Then we will begin 30-minute rotations with the official opposition, the third party and then finally the government. At that point in time, we'll divide the remaining time so that at approximately a quarter to 6 we will vote, then adjourn because of the vote we have to go back to the House for. Agreement? Agreed. Then we have six minutes left. Mr Grimmett.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Welcome back to the committee, Minister. I wanted to mention that when I meet with people in my riding to discuss Bill 160, there seem to be some myths that arise in the conversation and I've tried as best I can to deal with them.

One of the issues that's been brought up quite frequently is the perception that somehow Bill 160 is going to centralize the whole education system in Queen's Park. I think there is a misunderstanding that the bill will effectively bring an end to the role of school boards, and perhaps there isn't an appreciation of the role that school councils are going to play in the future. I wonder if you could elaborate on that, please, Minister.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm just leafing through the submission I may have referred to in the House with regard to the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association. That may carry even more weight than me saying it at this point in time. I'm just looking at that very issue on page 6 of the submission which says, "Is it true that through Bill 160 the Minister of Education and Training effectively takes over the running of school boards and that trustees no longer have any real power?"

Their response is: "Part VI of the present Education Act outlines the duties and powers of boards particularly in sections 170 and 171. These powers of boards are many and include such diverse powers as budget setting, the purchase, expropriation or sale of real property, the levying of taxes" -- which will change -- "appointing teachers and other educational officials, the provision of accommodation and instruction, and so on for a number of pages in the act."

The submission goes on to say that these authorities are carried on through the present bill and that in fact the school boards retain almost all -- they do not retain the taxation power, but they say, "will retain practically all of these same powers and duties given to boards." I guess one reason they don't say "totally" is taxation. But their exact quote here is, "The new 'district school boards' or 'school authorities' will retain practically all of these same powers and duties given to 'boards' and 'isolate boards' in the present Education Act."

There may be an unwillingness to believe the government or it may be a desire to exaggerate, but here is a third party, who has no reason to do anything but tell it the way they see it, saying that --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): That's the way the third party always does.

Hon David Johnson: The present third party, I guess, to give you credit -- saying that the district school boards retain practically all of the same powers and duties that they do at the present time.

Mr Grimmett: Perhaps you could, in the few minutes remaining, comment on the perceived role that's being taken away from school boards and how that might be dealt with through school councils as far as getting representation, and the opportunity for parents and other members of the community to participate in decision-making at the local level.

Hon David Johnson: The Education Improvement Commission is looking at the roles of the school councils at the present time vis-à-vis the roles of the school boards. I think for many years people have felt, probably forever but maybe increasingly so in present years, that parents and local communities should play a very strong role in terms of the education system within their communities. It's only healthy to have that kind of input into the system.

The Education Improvement Commission is looking at that at the present time. I believe that because we've mandated through Bill 160, for example, there should be school councils -- indeed about 95% of the school councils are in place, but they'll all have school councils -- this will guarantee strong involvement for parents and for the community in the school system and that will indeed result in a greater accountability and a greater quality within the education system. I look forward to the EIC review and how they might recommend that we can even strengthen that.

The Vice-Chair: You have another minute to go.

Mr Grimmett: The current councils, as I understand it, are called parent councils. The words that you as the minister have been using are "school councils." Can you maybe comment on the difference?

Hon David Johnson: There will be parents, I'm sure, on the councils. There will be other representatives from the community on the councils. I guess the word "advisory" has been one that is of concern to some people. The current memorandum governing the councils specifies the role of the councils as of an advisory nature, but the EIC is looking at the whole jurisdiction. I want to leave the EIC with the latitude to come forward with any sort of recommendation around the role. The main thing is to strengthen the involvement of the parents and of the community through these councils and to strengthen the school system.

The Vice-Chair: We'll now move to the official opposition, and we have 30 minutes.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): If I may begin, I want to follow up on yesterday's discussion around the taxation issue and just say that the bill says that the minister may set different tax rates on businesses. What this does is, if the minister can set whatever tax rate he or she wants on any business, it says that he may prescribe different tax rates for different municipalities, for different parts of municipalities, for different classes of property, for different portions of a property's assessment, for different geographic areas, for different parts of a municipality, by decree, behind closed doors, with no public input.

I say this carefully. I don't think there's any tinpot dictator who would give himself or herself these powers to set taxes on businesses that would be different by municipality, within a municipality, different by property class. It is an unfettered right by decree to set property taxes.

For my business community, over half of their property taxes will be set not with any public debate, never an opportunity for them to have any input into it, and it may be that just because they were in a different part of Metro, they'll have to pay a different rate, just because the minister decided this class of property will be taxed at one rate and that class of property at another rate. The minister can do that. As I say, it is unfettered.

Yesterday you said something very interesting to us, that your personal belief is that a matter this fundamental -- taxing people, businesses -- shouldn't be something done behind closed doors by a select few at a cabinet table with no debate.

Minister, will you at least agree that that part of the bill will be changed and that starting immediately, in 1998, when my business community is assessed -- what you told us yesterday is that it will be, I gather, roughly $3.6 billion of taxes -- when you put a rate on them, that will be done with a vote, where the elected people will have an opportunity to approve that before it's implemented? Will you undertake to do that today?

Hon David Johnson: What I will undertake is exactly what we've indicated: that the rate will not go up next year; that the rate will be frozen. This will be a great relief to those very business owners within your community who for years have experienced property tax increase after property tax increase.

Mr Phillips: Can I just get a clarification then? Where is that in the bill?

Hon David Johnson: That is a commitment this government has made.

Mr Phillips: Is it in the bill?

Hon David Johnson: That is a commitment that this government has made, just like this government made a commitment to cut provincial property taxes. Was that in the bill? Does the government's commitment to cut provincial property taxes appear in the bill?

1600

Mr Phillips: So you will not put it in the bill.

Hon David Johnson: The government's promise to reduce property taxes was a promise made by this government and indeed is well under way to being fulfilled. We're halfway --

Mr Phillips: Can I just get the commitment you just made? You're telling the business community that across Ontario, if I paid a certain rate in 1997, I will pay the same rate in 1998. Is that the commitment?

Hon David Johnson: I'm going to ask Peter Wright to step in and clarify.

The Vice-Chair: Peter, could you identify yourself for Hansard.

Mr Peter Wright: Peter Wright, director of the education finance branch, Ministry of Education and Training. In the bill the commitment is made in terms of a uniform tax rate for residential property --

Mr Phillips: I'm talking business.

Mr Wright: Yes, I'll get to that -- the government has announced that would be cut in half, as the minister has said. On the business taxes, the Minister of Finance has not yet made a decision in terms of where the business taxes are going to be set.

Mr Phillips: Well, what are you talking about?

Mr Wright: The general principle, we understand from the Ministry of Finance, is, as the minister has announced, that it will not be a greater source of revenue than it has been in the past.

Mr Phillips: So it won't be frozen then.

Mr Wright: The point is, we don't know yet.

Mr Phillips: Well, the minister said it will be frozen and it won't be frozen. My apologies to the bureaucracy but, Minister, you are not correct on this.

Mr Wright: Can I finish the explanation? The difficulty is that the assessment is going to change, and when the assessment changes, the rates will, by the very definition, change in order to come to a common amount of revenue. So it is impossible at this stage, on the commercial-industrial side, to commit to a specific rate.

Mr Phillips: Let me just be clear on that. Are you saying the rates will be frozen in 1998 or not frozen?

Mr Wright: The government has announced that the residential rates will be frozen.

Mr Phillips: We're talking business. Will the business rates be frozen?

Mr Wright: I cannot commit the Ministry of Finance to that.

Mr Phillips: That's right, because there has been no such commitment made. The minister is incorrect on that and I think the record should be corrected. You wonder why we get so angry. You're asking us to get the taxpayers to raise $3.6 billion and you don't know the answer to it.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): My business community hasn't had any response from --

Mr Phillips: I'll send that to the chamber.

The Vice-Chair: You can yell and scream across, because I've stopped the clock until Peter goes back, so that we're not wasting time. Peter, are you ready?

Mr Wright: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, the clock will start.

Mr Wright: I'll repeat what I said. The amount of revenue that is going to be raised is going to remain the same. What we don't know is what the rates will be because the assessment is going to change as a result of the new --

Interjection: The mill rate will change.

Mr Wright: The rate will have to change as a result of the assessment changing in order to get the revenue the same.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Then it's fair to say, Peter, that the minister's statement about the rates being frozen is not accurate. It's simple, it rings true, but it's not an accurate reflection of what will happen to rates.

Mr Wright: My understanding is that what the minister talked about was the amount of revenue.

Mrs McLeod: That's not what he said, though.

Mr Phillips: Can I just follow up on my other question? I have interpreted this correctly, I assume, that the minister may, by regulation, set different taxes for different municipalities, within municipalities, for different parts of municipalities; he may set different rates for different classes of property and different portions of a property's assessment. In other words, there is essentially unfettered authority behind closed doors by minister's regulation to have a variety of tax rates on businesses around this province.

Mr Wright: What this legislation provides is a power; it does not say that power is exercised. The minister indicated yesterday that it is the intent of the government to move to a legislative process in terms of setting these rates. What is here is options for the government to choose. It doesn't say it will choose any or all of them.

Mrs McLeod: The power is unfettered.

Mr Wright: The power is there until the government comes to a decision in terms of what it's doing in the longer term.

Mrs McLeod: Unfettered and unlimited.

Mr Wright: This is not unfettered because they are actually prescribed.

Mr Phillips: Minister, yesterday you said something sensible, I think, and that is that this setting of taxes for the people of Ontario should be done in the open and debated by elected people, people who have been selected by the population and delegated to make that decision. Why in the world will you not today agree that this bill has to be amended so that that decision in 1998 is made by the elected people, not by the minister?

Hon David Johnson: I think I said a number of things which were sensible yesterday. We can pick around the edges here, but the reality is that we have said that what will come out of the business community in terms of taxes for 1998 is frozen. Right? What will come out of the residential -- first of all, the residential taxation will be cut in half and frozen at that level when it comes down to revenues.

Mr Phillips: Is there anywhere in the bill it says that?

Mr Wright: The tax dealing with the current half of the tax rate will be frozen.

Mr Phillips: The rate, not the revenue.

Mr Wright: No, the rate.

Hon David Johnson: The tax rate will be frozen at the residential level. The tax revenues will be frozen at the business level.

Mr Phillips: The rate will be frozen or the revenue?

Mr Wright: The minister is speaking quite properly. What he's saying is that the amount of revenue will be cut in half in the residential, and then the rate that is needed to generate that will be frozen.

Mr Phillips: But the revenue will grow.

Mr Wright: The revenue may grow if the assessment grows. If the assessment goes down, the revenue goes down.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Thank you, Mel Lastman.

Mr Phillips: But the mill rates are capped and cannot go up.

Mr Wright: The tax rate is frozen.

Mr Phillips: Can you just tell him where in the bill that is?

Hon David Johnson: Just to finish, the rate is frozen on the residential side and the revenues are frozen on the business side. I think most people in Ontario would say: "Hallelujah. We've been waiting for this for years." They would say that all this stuff going on here in this committee is nonsense.

Mr Phillips: If you put that in the bill -- and you said yesterday this should be out in the open -- then people will say "Hallelujah."

Hon David Johnson: The business community has been asking for years, "Do something about the property taxes; they're killing us."

Mr Phillips: No tinpot dictator would ask for this power.

Hon David Johnson: I think the member from Scarborough would know that the board of trade, a few years ago, put out a document called Killing the Golden Goose. I'll wager you know that document inside out.

Mr Phillips: The board of trade just this Monday said, "You better fix this."

Hon David Johnson: What was the number one concern they expressed in Killing the Golden Goose? Killing the Golden Goose, by the way, was a concern about the golden goose being business, and the assessment in Metropolitan Toronto, and the fact that businesses were having a hard time surviving in Metropolitan Toronto because of the immense property taxes. That was the number one concern they expressed in this document: the immense property taxes on education. Education is the most significant component, being over half.

Mr Phillips: Why will you not put in the bill that this decision be made by democratically elected people?

Hon David Johnson: The end of my answer is, if you really want to know what people are going to say, they are going to say, "Finally a government that's had the nerve to come forward and put a halt to increasing taxes on education."

Mr Phillips: I'm sorry, David, but why will you not put in the bill what you said yesterday? Surely to God, every one of us believes fundamentally that this decision has to be made by elected people, not by some cabinet. Why will you not put that in the bill? Just give me a simple answer for that.

Hon David Johnson: What I indicated earlier today I'll indicate here again now. The bill provides for the regulation because we believe in the first instance that to ensure that this matter works properly, works smoothly, the regulatory power is needed. It's been there all along to deal with that. Once we're satisfied that the process is properly working --

Mr Phillips: Then democracy can come back.

Hon David Johnson: -- then it's the intention to go to a legislative process. We did not put the provincial income tax cut in any sort of a bill.

Mr Phillips: Yes, you did.

Hon David Johnson: In the first instance, it was a promise.

Mr Phillips: You did put it in a bill.

Hon David Johnson: It was a promise and then we executed it.

Mrs McLeod: You never did it by regulation; you did it by legislation.

Mr Phillips: You put it in a bill. That's incorrect.

Hon David Johnson: It was a promise. The people of Ontario said, "Promise us what you're going to do during the election," and we said, "We promise to cut the provincial personal income tax."

Mrs McLeod: You did it by legislation, David.

Mr Phillips: That's an incorrect statement, David.

Hon David Johnson: At that point in time, it wasn't in any bill; it was a promise.

Mrs McLeod: Of course it was a bill.

Hon David Johnson: It was a promise that was executed and it's a promise that we're living up to. We live up to our promises.

Mr Phillips: But you're factually incorrect. You put it in a bill.

Hon David Johnson: In the first instance, how could there be a bill? We were in opposition. How can an opposition party -- it was a promise.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, that's not so. You are the government.

Hon David Johnson: It was a promise. It was a commitment that we would do it. This is a commitment that at the appropriate time, the legislative process will take effect.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you are the government now. We know your commitment, we heard your commitment, but you also have a bill, a piece of legislation, and the piece of legislation for the first time in the history of this province gives your Minster of Finance the ability to set taxation through regulation. You have never, nor has any other government, set any kind of taxation without legislation.

Let me ask you what you are worried about. You say you need this. You said you wanted to be able to freeze tax rates, and my colleague has pulled out the inaccuracy of that term, but let's talk about freezing taxes and your statement today in the House that you can only do that by having this power and that's why you need the power during the transition period. What are you worried about? You have a majority government. Are you worried that the members of your caucus -- are you ready, Minister, for the question? -- are going to force you to bring in increased revenue through taxation, that they won't support you in freezing the taxation that you get from business taxes?

That's not what I would have expected from the Tory back bench. I would have thought they would support you on a piece of legislation that froze the dollars you are receiving from business tax across the province. We'll debate the rate issue later. Why are you worried about bringing in a tax bill when you've got a majority government that presumably would support your desire to fulfil your commitment to freeze taxes?

1610

Hon David Johnson: The worry in our caucus is that this is an issue that might not have been tackled save and except that this government made a commitment to tackle it --

Mrs McLeod: No, Minister, you've got the government.

Hon David Johnson: -- and to freeze and ensure that property taxes do not carry on increasing as they've increased over the past 10 or a dozen years.

Mrs McLeod: But, Minister, that's not my question.

Hon David Johnson: That's the only worry in the caucus.

Mrs McLeod: My question is why you --

Hon David Johnson: The caucus is concerned for the taxpayer.

Mrs McLeod: No, Minister -- of course they are.

Hon David Johnson: The caucus wants to see the taxes frozen.

Mrs McLeod: So they would support your legislation.

Hon David Johnson: They don't want to continue to see the rates escalating.

Mrs McLeod: Right. So you don't need to give that power to freeze the taxes, if that's your commitment, exclusively to the Minister of Finance. You could trust your caucus to support you on that in a piece of legislation. Why do you not think you could pass a tax bill through the House that achieved your commitment?

Hon David Johnson: I've indicated, and I can only say once again, that this government and this caucus share the concerns of the taxpayer that over the past many years taxes associated with the education system have gone up and up, that taxpayers all across this province have registered concern year after year. This government has taken an approach to tackle that issue --

Mrs McLeod: That's not the issue, Minister.

Hon David Johnson: -- and to freeze through various means the amounts of money involved so the taxpayers don't get hit any more. The approach that's used for the first year is through regulation in the first instance. I'm confident that the legislative process will be in effect in the future, perhaps even as early as next year, but in the first instance the Ministry of Finance felt that the regulatory process was the appropriate way to go. That will achieve results that I think will be extremely satisfactory to the taxpayers of the province.

Mrs McLeod: Maybe I should ask your colleagues on the other side if they could --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Phillips.

Mr Phillips: I can only assume from your answers that the Minister of Finance wants to give himself the power -- he may not exercise it in every case -- to set different rates in different municipalities, to set different rates in different parts of municipalities, to set different rates on different subclasses of business property, to set different rates on different portions of a property's assessment, to set different rates in different geographic areas and to set different rates in different parts of a municipality; that the reason they're there is that he wants to have the authority to be able to do that. He hasn't decided which of those he is going to do, but he wants the authority to do all those things. He hasn't ruled any of those things out yet. Do you really think we, the Legislature, should be giving any Minister of Finance that degree of latitude to set these broad, sweeping levels of taxation without any reference to the Legislature?

Hon David Johnson: Peter, do you want to say anything from the technical side?

Mr Wright: From a technical standpoint, these were options which were provided to the Minister of Finance in order to set taxes. My concern right now is that we're almost dealing with Bill 160 here and I thought that was dealt with through another forum.

Mr Wildman: It's still before the Legislature.

Mr Wright: But in terms of the options, the Minister of Finance is really the one who should be talking to these issues. This section is quite specific that it is the Minister of Finance who is setting these rates. It is in this legislation because the Ministry of Education act has traditionally --

Mr Phillips: Aren't we talking about education here? Isn't this where half of the education funding is coming from? Where the heck else can we ask these questions? Isn't this fundamental to education? This is what education is all about.

Mr Wright: This is one of the sources of funding education, yes.

Mrs McLeod: Let me ask the minister and Mr Wright -- because I think my colleague is absolutely right and I believe there is one reason, and one reason only, why the government insists on having this regulatory power and cannot trust the Legislature even with a large majority to pass a tax bill. It is because they know that when they start looking at differential rates in different communities, they are going to have problems with some of their own members when they see what the impact of the business tax rate will be. With that in mind, I am going to ask whether or not you have you have any figures yet from the Ministry of Finance on your different alternatives for setting the business tax rate for education that show impact studies, community by community, of the alternatives.

Mr Wright: I do not have such figures.

Mrs McLeod: The clock is ticking. We are six weeks away. Does the Ministry of Finance have those impact studies community by community?

Mr Wright: I honestly can't answer that question. I don't know.

Mrs McLeod: Is it possible to get an answer? I think it's a legitimate question.

Mr Wright: I could try reaching finance. I have not seen such numbers.

Mrs McLeod: I would appreciate any information we can get on impact studies of the alternatives that are being considered by the Ministry of Finance for differential tax rates on businesses. I'd like to move to some questions. I'm looking for commitments in some other areas and I know that our clock is ticking as well. With that in mind, Minister, I'm going to fire a series of fairly rapid questions and I know that Mr Wright has these figures at his fingertips, so I'm basically going to look for confirmation of figures that I believe are accurate. I don't want to take a lot of time on them because I want to get to the minister's commitment.

On page 27 of the estimates book it looks as though there is an interesting change, a positive change in transfer payments from 1996-97 to 1997-98. I want to make it very clear that the $1-billion increase in funding on transfer payments is accounted for, more than accounted for, by the change in the Who Does What and reality. In fact, the Who Does What changes and the changes in residential property tax account for $1.4 billion, which is $300 million in excess of the change you are showing. That, I believe, if I can direct the question to Mr Wright, is the $300 million in additional cuts in transfer payments in this year's budget. Is that correct?

Mr Wright: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: So the total cut now, over that period, annualized, is a $533-million cut? Can I once and for all have that confirmation?

Mr Wright: There is a $533-million reduction showing in the estimates. At the moment the government has not made all of that reduction. The reduction is roughly a shade over $400 million at the moment.

Mrs McLeod: And your estimates allow for it to be $533 million annually.

Mr Wright: Allow for it, but in effect the government hasn't done it.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you. It is page 36 I want to deal with, which is the general legislative grants, and again there is a figure that shows the grant here as being somewhere in the vicinity of $5 billion. What I want to establish here, leading toward the commitment I'm looking for from the minister, is the total amount of spending by school boards on education. Based on figures we've had previously from the ministry, I believe these are accurate reflections of 1997-98: $3.9 billion in operating grants -- because I know the $5.2 billion gets us into some of the differences -- $3.2 billion in commercial-industrial assessment and $5.4 billion in residential tax; and that, exclusive of capital and pensions, would be $12.5 billion, which would be the spending on elementary and secondary school education by school boards. Is that accurate?

Mr Wright: In terms of operating spending?

Mrs McLeod: Yes.

Mr Wright: I have $12.3 billion, but with $12.5 we're certainly in the same ballpark figure.

Mrs McLeod: All right. Then the guarantee I'm looking for, Minister, because we are moving into a period of time where you are going to be funding 100% of educational costs, and I want it clear, beyond the spending on elementary and secondary education by school boards now, that there will be no decrease in that figure of $12.5 billion. That's exclusive of capital. That's exclusive of teacher pensions. That is money now spent through grants and taxation on elementary and secondary education. Will that figure remain the same when you take over 100%?

1620

Hon David Johnson: First of all, the $12.5-billion figure is one number, but the actual total spending --

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I know the total spending and I'll get into that.

Hon David Johnson: -- that goes into the classroom, including all sources, is over $14 billion. That includes all compensation items. Does that include the capital as well? Yes.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, that's why I presented the figures.

Hon David Johnson: So that includes it. You have your figures, but the real spending --

Mrs McLeod: No, these are Mr Wright's figures.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, but Mr Wright's figures also, in terms of 1997, in terms of the real total spending that has to come out of the taxpayers' pocket, out of taxpayers' dollars, either local or provincial, would be about $14.4 billion, so we should --

Mrs McLeod: David, I'm asking you a specific question.

Hon David Johnson: So we should understand that.

Mrs McLeod: I understand that. I've got the figures on capital.

Hon David Johnson: The specific question has to be in the context of the real number, and the real number is $14.4 billion.

Mrs McLeod: Believe me, if I get time I will ask you about your capital spending. I am asking you about the operating spending on students in elementary and secondary school. You won't make the commitment. I knew you wouldn't, but I want it firmly established that the current figure is $12.5 billion and anything less than that is going to be a cut.

That takes me to my next question, which is where the Deputy Minister of Education was to find $667 million in the next round. You made a statement in the House today that you felt it would be possible, for the taxpayers' sake, to find a figure of that amount by simply looking at the waste. I would ask you to tell me exactly where you see the waste in that operating figure and where the $667 million can be found for next year's estimates.

Hon David Johnson: I indicated in the House at one point today that it was deemed that may be an achievable number, that out of a total spending of $14.4 billion, it was thought at one time that a figure of $670 million might be achievable over a period of time.

Mrs McLeod: Can you give me one example?

Hon David Johnson: One example is that if the school boards are amalgamated and there are a number of amalgamations of school boards which --

Mr Wildman: That's $150 million.

Hon David Johnson: The member from the third party says $150 million. If that's $150 million, if he says so, then -- or maybe more.

Mr Wildman: That's what Mr Snobelen said.

Hon David Johnson: Maybe more, maybe less.

Mrs McLeod: Please, Mr Chairman, this is my time, not the third party's time.

Hon David Johnson: But you're asking me for one. There is it is.

Mrs McLeod: All right. That leads me to the next series of questions I have. It's hard to know where to start with the few minutes we have left.

Do you have as yet an estimate of the savings you expect in the 1998-99 school year from the prep time changes you made in Bill 160 yesterday?

Hon David Johnson: In terms of instructional time, because the government has mandated 1,250 minutes per week at the secondary level and 1,300 minutes at the primary level, my guess is that when school boards look at that at the primary level, they will reckon that very few, if any, changes have to take place as a result of that.

When they look at the 1,250 minutes at the secondary level, boards will have to make their individual decisions. Obviously it's up to the boards to deal with it. What they will determine in terms of how many teachers they will need to fit within that context will be up to them. I really can't speculate on how many teachers may or may not be affected.

Mrs McLeod: You have not taken that into account, nor will you be, in your funding formula, so that's not one of the areas in which there will be accountability from the minister, I assume.

Adult education savings, and I particularly want to address the issue of Metropolitan Toronto: In your budget cuts of $533 million, which obviously did not affect Metropolitan Toronto or Ottawa, you anticipated that some $150 million of those would be savings through adult education cuts in 1997 because the funding for adult education was reduced. How much would you expect to be saving in adult education in Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa if you're funding them at the same level you fund adult education outside of those two cities?

Hon David Johnson: I'd ask the acting deputy to respond.

Mr Wright: I don't think we have a number at the moment. We could get back to the member with it.

Mrs McLeod: I'd appreciate that figure because I know it's of great concern to adult education students in both Metro Toronto and Ottawa.

Another area, and you may not again have the answer: Junior kindergarten savings out of that $533 million were anticipated to be, I believe, also $145 million in 1997. How much of that did you save in these estimates?

Mr Wright: Essentially, the total of those savings, as I've indicated, was about $410 million that we have achieved so far.

Mrs McLeod: In junior kindergarten savings?

Mr Wright: Of the total $533, we had built in about $145 million for JK, so if you prorate down the ratio it would about four fifths of it that we had saved out of JK.

Mrs McLeod: Is that actual savings at this point or is that anticipated?

Mr Wright: It is the amount by which the grants have been reduced.

Mrs McLeod: Because you still have to pay grants if boards offer junior kindergarten; your savings are greater if they've cancelled it.

Mr Wright: Again, if you go back into the issue of have the expenditures actually come down, the answer is that the expenditures have not come down by that amount. The reduction in grants were offset by increases in property tax, so board spending has not come down by that amount.

Mrs McLeod: I guess when you're looking for your grant --

Hon David Johnson: In fact, total board spending is up. The total spending is up.

Mrs McLeod: That's not the question. I'm sorry, the question was whether or not you had achieved the $145 million that you anticipated saving in provincial grants to junior kindergarten.

Mr Wright: We have achieved about four fifths of that.

Mrs McLeod: About four fifths of the $145 million?

Mr Wright: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: Okay, thank you. I wanted to ask whether you have any figures --

The Vice-Chair: Last question, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: Oh, I have to choose. I am very interested in knowing what the JK cuts will be in Metro Toronto, but instead of that I'm going to ask about the harmonization costs.

The example you used, Minister, of where you expected to find some waste was in the amalgamation of school boards. I know the figure that you've used, that the study of your predecessor used, suggested $150 million. Public school boards came to our committee and suggested the actual costs, not the savings but the costs, of harmonization would be $300 million to $500 million.

In previous sessions there was some question about whether or not there would be any accommodation, any recognition of the harmonization costs in this year's estimates. My question is, how much of the $300 million to $500 million in increased costs for school board amalgamations have you included in this year's estimates?

Hon David Johnson: Obviously the purpose of amalgamating the school boards -- one of the purposes, at any rate; there may be other purposes that can be achieved -- is to recognize efficiency. I don't have any doubt that as a result of school boards amalgamating, there will indeed be efficiencies. There will be administrative reductions.

The government remains committed to directing the funds into the classroom, but when school boards amalgamate there will be reductions in administration and those amalgamations will result in reductions.

Mrs McLeod: So there is no money for the increased costs of harmonization?

Hon David Johnson: There was. It is expected that there will be reductions.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. We will now turn to the third party. Mr Wildman, you have 30 minutes.

Mr Wildman: I will be raising some questions along the lines of my friend from Fort William in a few moments, but I want to return to the questions related to Bill 160. I will preface my remarks and questions with the observation that in this particular case the government of Ontario doesn't represent the majority view in the province with regard to quality education and Bill 160. It may have had majority support initially when it got into the changes it was proposing. That in itself is questionable. But now the indications are that the vast majority of parents, teachers, students and taxpayers are very concerned about the government's position and are opposed to it.

With that in mind, let's turn to the questions related to the property tax and what the changes are under Bill 160 that the government is proposing with regard to property taxation. I listened very carefully to the comments of the minister a few moments ago when he said that the Conservative Party has a commitment to freeze taxes on property.

I would just observe that I suppose that's worth about as much as their commitment not to affect classroom education with their cuts. We all know that classroom education, special ed, many, many programs have been adversely affected and have been cut back because of the cuts they've made up to now. If that's just a commitment of the same sort, then we're headed for serious trouble.

The other thing I'd like to observe, and some of my colleagues who have been in this place around the same length of time I have would I think agree with me: When a government gives itself power through legislation, it's because the government intends to use the power. They don't idly and frivolously change legislation and change the way power is exercised or can be exercised in legislation unless the government intends to use it. To say that yes, Bill 160 gives the government regulatory power over property tax, but it doesn't necessarily mean the government will use it, I think is in itself a little frivolous. If the government didn't intend to use its power, it wouldn't put it in legislation in the first place.

1630

The legislation provides for regulation, the Minister of Finance being able to set property tax rates. The commitment, the minister says, is that the government will freeze property tax for educational purposes, keeping in mind this is the first time a provincial government has ever intervened on property tax in the history of this province. The minister says that the government intends to freeze it for up to two years and then perhaps move to a legislative process as early as next year.

I guess what we're to understand by this is that the government intends to suspend democracy for a while, maybe a year or two, during which time the Minister of Finance will be able to exercise arbitrary power over taxation on property for educational purposes. As long as he can get his cabinet colleagues by order in council to agree with him, he can do whatever the hell he likes with regard to property tax, without reference to the Legislature, without elected representatives of the people of this province having any say over it, approval or rejection.

It is possible that the Minister of Finance may use that power to freeze property taxes, as the minister has suggested he might do. My question is very simple: If that is the commitment and that is the desire of the government, why doesn't the government bring in legislation now -- not wait for a year or two -- freezing property taxes for educational purposes, and have it debated in the Legislature, debated by representatives of the people of this province, and passed? The government has the majority in the House.

Hon David Johnson: First of all, there was a comment made that this was the first time the government has ever intervened on the property tax. I suspect that's true, but there is a little bit of history there that I'm sure the House leader for the NDP will remember. The government had a different formula in terms of the transfer of property tax and provincial tax to clarify the municipal-provincial situation, but the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and many of its representatives felt it was inappropriate and came forward with the proposal essentially as it states today, that half the education tax come off the residential property tax and that other transfers be made accordingly at the municipal level.

What you see today in terms of the sharing part of it is largely at the recommendation of a committee of AMO. It was not the government's first approach to this whole matter.

I can only reiterate on his general question that this government has a history of not putting taxes up; this government has a history, albeit since June 1995, of living up to its commitment in terms of taxes, in terms of reducing the provincial tax -- in terms of looking at the WCB payment and the health payments to small businesses are two other examples I can give you of commitments that were made and commitments that were kept.

The commitment we're giving in this case is that on the residential side there will be the reduction. The taxes will be frozen, as outlined for next year, on the business side. The Ministry of Finance feels this is best accomplished through regulations at this point in time in the first year because it is an important change.

Mr Wildman: The Minister of Finance I'm sure finds it convenient to do it this way.

Hon David Johnson: As time goes on and as the system is in place, then the legislative process will be involved.

Mr Wildman: I'm sure the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Finance and Mr Eves would consider it far more convenient to do it this way. As my colleague has said, it's kind of messy to have to actually go to the people and talk to them and ask them what they think of something, and actually have to persuade members of the Legislature to support it and actually vote for it. It's far easier to just sit down in your boardroom and say, "What will we set the rate at? Let's look at some numbers here and set the rate and say, 'That's it.'" It's a lot more convenient.

I didn't realize Mr Eves wanted to have this kind of arbitrary power, but obviously, according to Mr Johnson's explanation -- that's the only explanation he has -- Mr Eves and the bureaucrats in his ministry think this is a good way to do it.

This reminds me of Yes, Minister. Sir Humphrey is working for Ernie Eves: "We've found an easy way of doing things here." Why bother having to deal with the legislative process?

Mr Phillips: The public don't have to waste time getting involved in it, either.

Mr Wildman: Full speed ahead; all aboard.

I'd also like to clarify again that the assessment will change because of the changes that have been made in that area, the reassessment that's going on. So the commitment to a freeze does not necessarily mean a freeze in an individual's taxes, because the assessment will change.

Mr Wright: If an individual's assessment goes up and the tax rate remains the same -- we're talking residential.

Mr Wildman: Yes.

Mr Wright: Then the tax will go up because the assessment has gone up.

Mr Wildman: Yes, that's right. So this is essentially the Mel Lastman commitment.

Hon David Johnson: If the assessment goes down --

Mr Wildman: Yes, it's possible the assessment could go down, but in essence when you say a freeze, keep in mind that a very significant number of people in this area particularly will see an increase in taxation.

Mr Wright: It depends who you define by "this area" --

Mr Wildman: Toronto.

Mr Wright: -- but what you have to realize is that in the current education finance system, the one we're working on right now, there are things called equalization factors built in which are an attempt to compensate or recognize market value in this area even though the actual local assessment base doesn't. So the total amount of tax that is levied or assigned to this area attempts to incorporate an estimate of market value. It's not as though they're going from the 1940 rate to the current.

Mr Wildman: Yes, but we also know that Toronto isn't dependent now on any grants. The boards in Toronto and Ottawa have been raising all their own revenue for expenditures through property tax themselves, so the equalization factors you've just mentioned don't really make any difference to them.

Mr Wright: No, but the comparison you were making was the change in tax they will have to bear, and equalization factors have made it as a proxy of market value for Metro and Ottawa now, so going to the new fair market value system is not a change from the 1940s level to the fair market value.

Mr Wildman: I understand what you're saying, and I would say this is a proxy of a commitment.

I'd like to deal with the reinvestment that has been advised by the Education Improvement Commission. They've said that in terms of restructuring education and the amalgamation of boards, all savings should be reinvested in education. That is one of the suggestions of the EIC that this government has refused to accept, apparently.

1640

We have Veronica Lacey's draft, I guess it's called, the performance contract where it says she is to save $667 million in 1998-99 from the secondary and elementary education systems. The minister, in the exchange with my friend, indicated that one of the areas was the amalgamation of school boards. I pointed out that his predecessor said that would be $150 million in savings. That leaves us with $520 million to find. As has been pointed out, the boards have estimated there will be transition costs of $300 million for harmonization.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): It's $350 million to $500 million.

Mr Wildman: I was trying to be conservative here, as it were. Let's say $350 million; I won't take the higher number of $500 million. That takes us up to $970 million that has to be found somewhere if Veronica Lacey is to meet her commitment.

Besides the amalgamations, which are actually going to cost more than they save, according to the finance figures of the various boards, at least in the initial transition period, where are we going to get this money?

Hon David Johnson: I can only say once again that at one point this was a number that was thought to be achievable, but what is actually budgeted year by year, as the House leader of the third party knows, being a former cabinet minister himself, is that when he was a cabinet minister, if I were to ask him in November of one year what his precise budget would be for his ministry the following year, he would say: "Hey, wait a second. Let me go through the budget process. Let me have the opportunity to go through the estimates, to look at each component in my budget," which takes place largely over the January-February time frame, "and then I can give you a better idea." That's exactly what I'm going to say.

In the Ministry of Education we are committed to spending what we have to spend to ensure the kind of quality improvements that we're introducing before Bill 160, through Bill 160, after Bill 160: the curriculum changes, the class sizes etc. There will have to be the moneys put in there to ensure that the quality program is implemented. That's precisely what will happen this year, as it's happened in previous years.

Mr Wildman: Except that in this case you're talking about transfers to other agencies. The boards are going to be stuck with trying to find this money, and the way they're going to be stuck with it is through your funding formula and the rate you set for taxation. The problem the boards have right now in November, going into the beginning of January when the new boards are supposed to established, and that the public has as we consider Bill 160 is that nobody knows yet what the funding formula is.

If the Minister of Finance sets a tax rate at a certain level, and this ministry substantially cuts, finds its savings, the $970 million or whatever, by lowering the grants, mark my words, this money will have to be found, but it will found by cutting programs and cutting the number of teaches. That's where it's going to be found. After all, 70% of the budget is salaries. Where are you going to find it? It's got to come from salaries. The way you get rid of salaries is by lowering the number of staff, and if you lower the number of staff, you're going to lower the number of programs.

Hon David Johnson: I'm not going to speculate in terms of what the precise funding will be for next year. I'm not sure what merit there would be in that. But the member is correct that the funding formula will be created later this year and will guide boards in terms of what they have to spend.

There is a stub year involved, a stub year going until September of next year. There has been stable funding guaranteed for that period of time. Then the formula will click in starting September of next year. Bear in mind that there's a period of time -- we're not talking about the funding formula registering on January 1. Boards will have that funding formula about the end of the year and they will have a period of time to look at it and adjust. I'm sure drafts of various versions of the formula have been out for discussion, indicating that there is an accommodation grant, a per pupil grant, special purpose grants, recognizing all the needs of the students; it will be fair, equitable, and will treat students the same all across the province. There will be recognition of different circumstances: urban boards versus rural boards etc, transportation needs, that sort of thing. We think that at the end of the day it will be a fair formula.

Mr Wildman: The minister mentioned the stub year. We now have the letter from representatives of the education finance staff of various boards in the province saying that the way you're doing the formula, top down, is not going to work, and there's already going to be a significant shortfall. What is it, $200 million? They don't say the number in the letter.

Hon David Johnson: There has been a process that involved various business officials from the boards who were consulted during the summer months, and there were other consultations on the stub year -- I'm just talking about the stub year now -- and the stable funding that has been guaranteed for next year. I'm sure the school officials and others were consulted during the summer. There has been a consultation process going on through the fall. Ministry officials are working with this. There has been a guarantee of stable funding, with no cuts in the grants or the taxes. We welcome this letter. I'm sure the ministry officials will be following up on it. All I can say is that at the end of the day we think it will be a fair situation. When you have the number of boards we do -- we formerly had 129 and we now have 72, I think it is, across the province -- will each and every one of them be 100% satisfied? That would be asking quite a bit.

Mr Wildman: I suggest that most of them are not going to be satisfied. Toronto and Ottawa in particular are going to see and enormous number of cuts.

I would like to turn to something else on this page, the performance contract draft.

The Vice-Chair: You have 10 minutes.

Mr Wildman: Thank you. I'll just place a number of questions on this other matter and hopefully the minister will be able to respond.

A little farther down from where it says elementary and secondary savings of $667 million, it says under "Training" that the target is $10 million in savings in 1997-98. We're talking about apprenticeship and training here. You're going to cut $10 million; that's a third of the provincial funding of $33 million. When you combine that $10 million with the federal cuts, that's $40 million out of a total expenditure now, federal and provincial, of $100 million, so you're talking about a total 40% cut over a number of years. This is at a time when we supposedly are trying to improve education and training in the province and improve the apprenticeship-type programs.

What has the government also done? The government has removed the minimum education level requirement for apprentices and -- this is really odd -- it has removed the minimum age requirement for apprentices, which used to be 16, as I recall, and it has removed the minimum wage requirement for apprentices. It also suggests that there could be something called a self-employed apprentice.

I always thought an apprentice was supposed to learn from the journeymen and the tradesmen; that was what an apprenticeship was about. You worked with experienced people who had their papers, you learned from them, then you took your tests and made your qualifications and became a journeyman, and so on. How on earth does a self-employed apprentice, if he's employing himself, learn from others? It seems rather odd to me.

I'd like to know if the minister can confirm and commit, since he's talking about commitments, that there will no cuts to apprenticeship, that they will not cut $10 million as is set out in this contract and in the leaked document that came out in July; that they will not make these changes and these cuts and that the government will in fact set up a proper consultation with representatives of industry, of labour, a public consultation process to make the proper changes in apprenticeship to improve it, not cut it; and finally, the commitment that the minister will not require apprentices to pay tuition. That's also proposed in this document.

1650

Hon David Johnson: There were a lot of questions there, but the member referred to the federal reduction to training. I guess he was referring to the 1996 decision. At that point some $40 million was being put through the college system, where training was being purchased; they've reduced that to $30 million this year, next year to $25 million, and in 1999 it will be zero.

Mr Wildman: If I were in a federal committee in the House of Commons I'd be raising that, but I'd like to deal with your commitment to cut $10 million.

Hon David Johnson: Okay, but you referenced that, and I think we should have on the record that that's what's happening. I'm going to ask the acting deputy minister to respond.

Ms Joan Andrew: The budget for the training division in the ministry this year is approximately $260 million, so the reference to the $10 million is on a budget of about $260 million, just as a point of clarification. It's not in reference to apprenticeship in particular.

If I could go through the details of the proposed apprenticeship reform, the government issued a consultation document last December, a very public consultation document, distributed about 2,000 copies, held consultations with business and labour until about March of this year, quite publicly, invited all co-chairs of the provincial advisory committees to the meetings and met with key members. We have now subsequently shared the results of those consultations back to all the stakeholders.

On the specific reference to why we have taken the age and minimum wage provisions out of the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, it's because since that act was written apprentices have been covered by the Employment Standards Act. When the original Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act was written, apprentices were exempt from the Employment Standards Act. They're now covered by that act; there's no reason to cover those provisions twice.

Mr Wildman: And you have to be 16 years old?

Ms Andrew: One of the things we heard in the consultation was that the educational requirements for entry to trades varies now, and there was a desire that each provincial advisory committee or trade-specific committee would determine the educational requirements for entry to their trade.

Mr Wildman: So they won't need grade 10?

Ms Andrew: I think most people will probably need more than grade 10. It has been taken out of the legislation so it can be --

Mr Wildman: Increased?

Ms Andrew: -- decided by each trade-specific advisory committee what the specific educational requirement for that trade would be.

On the issue of self-employment, the input from several people in the construction industry is that self-employment is the way a lot of people in the construction industry now work. It's a recognition of a changing labour market in the 1990s.

Mr Wildman: I doubt that that was advice from the building trades council.

Ms Andrew: It was from the construction industry, that people move from job to job and don't always stay working for one employer and they're identified as self-employed, so the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act had to reflect the labour market of the 1990s rather than the 1960s.

Mr Wildman: The final one: On page 3 of this document we leaked, it says, "Apprenticeship: implement revenue-generating initiatives and pilot tuition projects in colleges." And then, "$4.5 million in additional fees achieved by requiring the client to pay a more appropriate share of the cost of service" -- in other words, tuition fees for apprentices. Is that what you intend to do? You're going to charge apprentices tuition fees?

Hon David Johnson: There has been no decision made yet of that nature, but I did indicate the problem we're facing in terms of the federal government's withdrawal of some $40 million over a period of three or four years.

Mr Wildman: And you're prepared to commit that you won't take $10 million out?

Hon David Johnson: Look, the apprenticeship program is being looked at and revised. I'm not going to make any promises other than that we're looking at the whole apprentice system to make it up-to-date. The last update of the apprenticeship program, as I understand it, was in 1964.

Interjection: The original legislation.

Ms Andrew: The original legislation was 1935; the last update for the legislation was 1964.

Hon David Johnson: So over a period of 30-odd years, one would expect that the situation has changed considerably. There are various options being looked at. It's only a statement of fact that in other post-secondary situations there are fees involved. Whether there will be here or not, I don't know -- we'll have to look at it -- but for sure the apprenticeship system is long overdue to be updated.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Wildman, you have a minute and a half left, if you have a short question.

Mr Wildman: I didn't know I had any time left, so thank you.

Will you commit to a public process before you finalize any decisions with regard to these changes, that there will be a round table type of approach involving labour, industry and academia to ensure that any changes you propose to training and apprenticeship will not be an attempt to simply obtain more money from the clients, as they're referred to, and to cut the provincial commitment in terms of funding?

Hon David Johnson: In my understanding of the situation, the prime objective is to look at a system that for some 30 years hasn't been updated, and the reality is that it's probably well out of date. That's the prime objective, and legislative changes are in all likelihood required for what we need to achieve. As a result, yes, there would very much be a public process to consider those legislative changes.

The Vice-Chair: We now move to the government side. You have 30 minutes.

Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the finance critic of the Liberal Party, the deputy leader of their party, was so concerned about taxes for his business community. I'm wondering what has caused this transformation, because it seems to me that it was his government that brought in a tax system that greatly affected the business community in my riding, in Kitchener. I was in business at that time and saw my taxes increase fairly dramatically. I also saw over the course of the last 10 years that there was less accountability to the business community from the school boards than we thought there should be. In fact, quite recently the Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener-Waterloo was represented on the Roy Green show, a syndicated radio program, and one of the chamber of commerce representatives complained that the school boards had not been accountable to them for many, many years.

That's just a comment. I do have a question, relating to the capping of class sizes. Over the course of the last five or six weeks, I've had a number of teachers and teacher union representatives come into the office and complain about the class size, initially because what they saw was the possibility of class sizes increasing under Bill 160, until we agreed to make the amendment to put right in the bill what we would consider a permissible average cap for elementary and secondary.

I wonder if you could give some information to clarify it that we could use in our ridings, what the reasoning was for capping it at 22 for elementary and 25 for secondary. It's my understanding that class sizes have been negotiated upwards each year for about he last five years. Could you fill us in, please?

1700

Hon David Johnson: What has been happening in the class sizes -- for example, take the elementary system and take 1991 as an example of a start year. The class size at the elementary level was 23.2 across the province. A year later it was 23.4; it had gone up two tenths. A year later it was 23.7 -- up again. A year later it was 24.3 -- up again. A year later we're up to 1995 and it was 24.6, and last year it went up to 24.9. Each and every year since 1991, it's gone up and up and up.

We have actually seen boards and the unions, as part of negotiation, make decisions through the negotiation process which have resulted in higher class sizes. Just as one example, in very recent years there was a resolution -- I don't have it, unfortunately, at present; maybe somebody can dig it up for me -- from the Waterloo county board, close to your neck of the woods, which resulted in higher class sizes. We have a copy of the motion that was passed in that regard.

The average class size across Ontario, as calculated today, at the elementary level is 25 and at the secondary level 22. The position of the Ministry of Education, I believe, and government members and the caucus, is that the average class size should not keep increasing, that people are concerned. People rightfully point out that in many instances the average means nothing, because their child may be in a class of 30, 35 or even more, but you have to start somewhere. We said we did not want to see the average class sizes continuing to increase.

I'm not so sure there are any absolutely, totally definitive studies on what class size means to quality, but it's hard to find anybody who doesn't feel that this is a component of quality, that if a child is in a class with a lower number of students there is a higher quality associated with the education program because of that very fact.

This is one of the quality aspects of Bill 160, to establish the average class size per board. This is based on a board basis, even though the calculation of 22 and 25 is based across Ontario. If this bill passes -- we don't prejudge the House -- it will establish it at a board level, which gives the board some flexibility to deal with particular circumstances. But on the whole, they have to ensure that their class sizes do not go above those amounts; if they are above, they have to bring them down, hopefully as soon as possible. If there are problems doing that overnight, there's some discretion to allow them a little time to do that, but eventually they do have to bring them down.

That not only registers a fairness but there's a certain equity in that across Ontario. If some boards in the past have not had the resources or whatever to deal with the situation and consequently have had larger classes, that matter will be resolved through the fair funding formula; they will have a fair amount of resources now, and consequently their class size should be brought down.

Mr Wettlaufer: Your predecessor and former minister, John Snobelen, came to my riding and visited an inner-city school with me, one that had a fairly high ESL population. We have a number of other schools in our area with similarly high ESL populations. Depending on the school, depending on the area of the city, there could be a greater need for smaller classes than in other areas of the city, because some ethnic populations have greater difficulty learning English or have greater difficulty grasping concepts because of a greater difficulty with the English language; ie, Germans seem to have a little easier grasp of English or perhaps some of the Slavic peoples have an easier grasp of the English language. I'm not saying they definitely do; I'm just saying there's a possibility.

I'm just wondering if the boards will be able to take that into consideration when they are setting the class sizes. For instance, in one inner-city school they might have a class size of, say, six students to one teacher and in another school they might have 20 students to one teacher. Will the boards be able to use those criteria?

Hon David Johnson: Maybe you're getting back to the funding formula. The funding formula, of course, has not been totally established. We're working on it. There has been a lot of consultation over a long period of time. Indeed, my understanding is that the consultation around the funding formula started with the previous government, back in 1995.

Mr Wildman: Actually, before that.

Hon David Johnson: Maybe. Did it go back to the Liberal time? At any rate, the most recent consultations started in the spring of 1995 and have carried on. The structure, as it has been worked today, which is not completely final, shows that there is money for accommodation, which would pay for the cost of heating, lighting, maintaining the physical structure; that's one component. There's another component that deals with a grant for the core education of each student, so it's basically so much money for each student.

Then there's another grant called the special purpose grant, which will be part of the funding formula. It will allow for a language grant to support English, French and native second-language programs. There would probably be a geographic component. All of this isn't totally finalized yet, but these are the kinds of components we're looking at: a learning opportunities grant, perhaps, as a portion of it, to support programs designed for children at greater risk; an adult continuing education proportion; a transportation proportion. I'm sure there will be other aspects of it. I think there will be recognition in there of different needs of different boards.

I don't know if the acting deputy minister wants to say anything more specific about ESL.

Ms Andrew: Boards will have the right to set different class sizes as long as the average does not exceed the average in the legislation. The only exemption to that is that specific special education classes will be exempt from that average. Individual boards or principals could set different class sizes as long as the average was maintained.

Mr Wettlaufer: That was the answer I was looking for, that the boards have the flexibility to make the decisions on their own.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Minister, I have quite a few questions directly from people who've come into my constituency office in the past three weeks, and I would like to ask you some of these. I know there has been a great deal of negotiation with the teachers' unions over the past few weeks since this whole thing started. I wonder if you could tell us if there have been concessions made to the teachers' unions throughout these negotiations in the past few weeks.

1710

Hon David Johnson: The discussions with the teachers' unions actually go way back before my time. The previous minister had discussions; I'm not sure I could characterize them as negotiations. Negotiations are normally associated with bargaining on contract. That obviously was not the situation here; there was no contract.

Mr Doyle: Though people seem to have the idea that this was a contract.

Hon David Johnson: Well, I don't know. These are certainly discussions and consultations, and we value the advice very much. The previous minister was initially involved in this, of course, going way back. At one point, they asked for no limit on the right to strike. That was granted, obviously. As we see through the bill, there is no limitation on the right to strike. The previous minister made that commitment. That was granted.

More recently, they wanted recognition of the provincial union organizations for collective bargaining. Bill 160 as originally constructed would have directed collective bargaining to the local level as opposed to the provincial level. The provincial level is the way it's done today. Flowing from that as well, the union dues would have gone to the provincial level as opposed to the local level. That's the way it is today, and that's what they requested. We accepted both of their requests in that regard. There were amendments, I'm sure, dealt with yesterday that reflected that.

There were demands in terms of no immediate repeal of the teachers' statutory contracts, which involve jury duty, for example, and dismissal dates and quarantine rules and things like that. We have said, yes, we'll accept that. The regulation will make an extension beyond January 1. We haven't picked the precise date yet, but there will be an extension, which is what they asked for. If they have hearings or proceedings before the Education Relations Commission with regard to bad faith, they wanted to make sure those procedures already in place would be carried through, and we've accepted that, to ensure that takes place.

There are a few others, but you said you had a number of questions. I can get you a complete list, but those are a few of the concessions, I guess, if you want to call them that, that we made.

Mr Doyle: I appreciate that.

A number of the people I met with believe the bill would allow cabinet, through orders in council, to order the closing of individual schools, not unlike the hospital restructuring commission, I guess. Is this an accurate assessment under Bill 160?

Hon David Johnson: I guess this is another of the -- I'm going to go back to the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association, because whatever I say may appear self-serving or whatever.

Mr Wildman: Never.

Hon David Johnson: I'm glad to hear that. I note you have a smile on your face, though.

The Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association asked that very question: "Does the Minister of Education now have the authority to close any schools he wants?" as a result of Bill 160 is the implication. They say here, "Clearly, it is the responsibility of school boards to provide pupil accommodation." Nothing in these provisions changes with Bill 160. Nothing that's in place today in terms of school boards having authority over pupil accommodation changes with Bill 160. That's another myth that's out there. One wonders how they get life, but they certainly have.

Mr Doyle: Sometimes you get floored by some of the questions you are asked by people who come into your constituency office. I had one individual say to me, "I understand that this act in effect repeals the Education Act." I assured the individual that this was not the case. But these are some of the things that some people -- it has been a difficult time.

It has also been claimed in the last few weeks that test results used by the government to indicate below-average results for Ontario students were used incorrectly. It is claimed that other jurisdictions, for example, sampled only streamed students or selective groups of students, while in Ontario every student was tested. I wonder if you could comment on that and the accuracy or inaccuracy of that kind of statement.

Hon David Johnson: I may ask the acting deputy minister to assist, but I know that in terms of the Education Quality and Accountability Office and the testing they've done, there was not actually a comparator with other jurisdictions. There was simply a testing within Ontario. All grade 3 students were tested and -- was it 10,000 grade 6 students tested?

Ms Andrew: I believe that's what the sample is.

Hon David Johnson: I don't know precisely on some of the other tests, because they are international tests, the TIMSS international test, and a Canadian test in science last year, in 1996; the deputy may comment on that. But in terms of the Ontario test, in mathematics in grade 6, for example, it unfortunately showed that while the expectation level was a 3 or above, barely over 20%, I think 21%, scored in that range at grade 6 in mathematics. The scoring was higher in language and -- was science the other one? They were higher, but they're still not satisfactory. These are tests which in that case didn't compare with other provinces, and there was disappointment. Obviously, there's a need to address that situation and to strengthen the system so our students have the opportunities for learning and do come up to that expected level.

In terms of the other tests, sometimes the statement is made that the curriculum in other provinces happens to overlap more on the tests than the curriculum in Ontario. But what bothers me is that it's test after test after test where we don't seem to come up as high as we would like our students to be, particularly when you consider the amount of money being invested in the system. Over $14 billion of taxpayers' money is being spent today in the system, and test after test shows, for whatever reason -- there may be some reason in each case, I don't know, but it starts to be a bit of a stretch when there is a number of them. We would, as parents and members of the Ontario community, expect that our students would have better opportunities.

Do you have anything to add?

Ms Andrew: There have been a number of tests which compared Ontario results both internationally and then to other provinces, but the EQAO results, where they were talking about the grade 3 and grade 6 sample, were all Ontario schools, and I think the sample was fairly strictly taken.

I know that some people have believed that in the international tests other countries, like Singapore, pre-selected the students who would take the test. I'm not sure we actually have absolutely valid comparisons. I know there's anecdotal information. But when the test results reinforce each other over and over, the exact examples on the international compared to the Ontario ones, I think the significance becomes less. Pauline Laing, the director of curriculum, is here if you want more detailed results.

Mr Doyle: Yes, if we could, please.

Ms Pauline Laing: My name is Pauline Laing. I'm director of the curriculum branch. The international tests of which you speak are administered by organizations which set rules for participation within these tests. You will notice sometimes when the reports are written that there will be an indication of one or more jurisdictions which for some reason did not comply with all the requirements. But usually that's a very small number of jurisdictions, and we simply have to assume, in view of no strict evidence to the contrary, that participating countries followed the rules. We really don't have any investigation where we can say we have exact data that say this or that country did not follow the rules.

Mr Doyle: I see. That was going to be my next question. I was wondering if we know who the ones not following the rules are. I guess we don't.

Ms Laing: In a few cases, where there are specific issues, they will be noted, but generally speaking this is not part of the reporting.

1720

Mr Doyle: Minister, if I might, there's another question that often comes up. I'm wondering about the change in prep time and how it will alter the structure of the day. There's been a great deal of misunderstanding about this as well. I wonder if you could perhaps expand on that.

Hon David Johnson: The amendments which I assume were approved yesterday in the bill -- I don't know; I haven't seen which ones absolutely were and which ones weren't -- would have set the instructional time in the bill at 1,300 minutes at the elementary level and 1,250 minutes per week at the secondary level. Bear in mind that we're dealing with a week of 1,500 minutes, so the remaining time of 200 minutes in elementary would be largely used for preparation time. That's about the same as it is today. The primary teachers, the elementary teachers, would have the same amount of prep time; indeed some, with the leeway here, could bargain a little more prep time than they have today.

In the case of the secondary teachers, today, out of a five-hour day they spend three and three quarter hours in the classroom, and the rest, some 75 minutes, is preparation time. This would up the class time to about four and a quarter hours, so they would then spend less in preparation time. I think it would end up closer to about 50 minutes in terms of preparation time per day that would be available.

There is some latitude with principals in terms of the preparation time, so there's a little bit of latitude there for boards to work with that. But primarily what we've been asking is that our teachers spend the same type of time in the classroom as their colleagues do in other provinces. When you take that approach to it these are the kinds of numbers you get. Certainly they need preparation time. There's no question about that. Preparation time will be available, but the amount of time they spend in the classroom and the amount of preparation time they have will be about the same as their colleagues have in other provinces.

Mr Grimmett: I'd like to ask the minister if he could compare the current costs of operating the minister's office with that of the previous government.

Hon David Johnson: That's a good question. You should have told me you were going to ask that. At Management Board, in the minister's office, I ended up with three political staff. I'm told that the minister before me had 16, I think it was.

Mr Grimmett: I just moved into that ministry and there's no coffee available to the staff, which is quite a change from some of the other ministries.

Hon David Johnson: In general, of course, this government has had considerably fewer political staff. We have fewer ministries, to start with, and fewer political staff. There were well over 100, 100 or 200, fewer political staff right across, basically ministry by ministry. Some of the ministries need more political staff for support.

Mr Grimmett: You're not giving a very good answer here, Minister. You are supposed to know the answer.

Hon David Johnson: Okay. Here it is. I see we had 10 members in John Snobelen's office and the minister before John Snobelen had 17 members of staff. There it is right there; seven fewer for the previous minister, and my staff would be below that again, but we may need the 10. We have essentially cut it in half from the previous government. How's that? Is that better?

Mr Doyle: You didn't answer the question about the coffee yet.

Mr Grimmett: What's your policy going to be at the ministry on whether the ministry provides coffee for staff?

Hon David Johnson: The coffee is not in this, but I see the total expenditure is about $300,000 less, a $300,000 saving for the taxpayers in the political office.

The Vice-Chair: Minister, there's a minute left in your time. Do you want to talk about anything or do you just want to divide it among the three of us?

Hon David Johnson: Divide it among the three parties.

The Vice-Chair: We now have six minutes left for each party before we have to vote. We'll go to the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I have a couple of points before I ask what may be my last question, although maybe I'll get two, with the extra third of a minute.

The first point is that I hope the minister and the ministry, if they are looking at achieving a saving out of the preparation time changes in Bill 160, have taken into consideration that any savings they anticipate could well be eaten up by the additional cost to school boards of providing occasional teachers to cover for sick leave, which is now being covered by 50% of the preparation time our secondary school teachers have. I trust that will be taken into account in any financing expectations the ministry has. It concerns me that such inaccurate representations are made of how much actual preparation time our teachers have when 50% of it is actually on-call coverage for teachers who are away.

The second point: I want to set straight for the record one more time that it is a fact that larger class sizes are the result of the combination of government cuts coming at a time of increased enrolment. That is the bottom line. I can test that out in any board you want to look at. In some boards, larger class sizes are the result of saving junior kindergarten, and I can give you a number of examples of that.

If anybody wants to tell their constituents that the government has capped class size in Bill 160, their constituents are going to come back and say, "Then why are my classes larger than what is an average?" The average is the status quo, and it does not prevent class sizes considerably greater than that average number.

I did appreciate the acting deputy minister's care in saying that specific special education classes would be excluded from the average. As I understand the funding formula framework, that means that any remedial classes or withdrawal for remediation has to come out of that class size average.

Those are some points I wanted to put on the record -- that need for facts -- that concern me greatly.

The question I have, though, comes back to an issue that I know is dear to your heart, Minister, because in every advertisement and every statement made by the government and indeed in the title of Bill 160, you want to talk about accountability and you want to talk about testing. The office that has been established to provide that accountability through testing is the EQAO. The budget for that office, when it was announced originally, was to be $15 million. I see that you have it at $11 million. It is expected to be essentially up to full operation within this budget year. I want to know what will be cut to take the budget of EQAO from the originally planned $15 million down to $11 million. What testing will not be done because of this cut?

Hon David Johnson: I'm not so sure there is a cut, but I guess the acting deputy minister --

Ms Andrew: My understanding is that the cuts are more related to how the testing is done than specifically what testing is being done, but we'll have to get back to you with the details. I don't have the details of exactly how the EQAO manages its budget.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that, but it's a question which I place quite seriously. I am concerned. Particularly from a government which places such emphasis on the importance of testing and accountability, it was a surprising area to see the cut.

Hon David Johnson: We're just glad to see the testing start. I'm sure parents are looking forward to --

Mrs McLeod: Indeed, and the previous government can be complimented for having put that office in place. I'd like to see the funding for it maintained.

1730

Hon David Johnson: We need to know where our children stand.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, and that's why I'd like to see the funding maintained.

If there is time for a further question, I would be interested in the expectation of savings in Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa by the reduced funding for junior kindergarten. As you will know, the funding is at the regular rate of grant; it's not full funding. That $145 million was anticipated outside of Toronto and Ottawa. I'd like to know what the funding savings expectations are. I recognize that some of the $667 million in savings may well come from adult education and junior kindergarten in Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa. If that's a fact, I'd like to know exactly how much it's going to be.

Last, because I will run out of time, I'd be very interested in any comments you might have, Minister, on progress or lack of progress or plans you have for early retirement packages for teachers.

Hon David Johnson: First of all, the member opposite keeps talking about the $667 million as if I'm going to make something add up to the $667 million. She's going to be disappointed time after time, because I'm not going to --

Mrs McLeod: I have never expected the Conservative numbers to add up, Minister, so I won't be looking for that.

Hon David Johnson: In terms of whether anything is going to add up to some number that might have been deemed achievable at one point in time, clearly the only one that counts is the budgetary process in terms of how moneys are allocated to all the different programs, whether it be apprenticeship or junior kindergarten or you name it.

Mrs McLeod: I would like to see the funding formula.

Hon David Johnson: That's the process that I'm sure she'll keep her eye on, and the funding formula will be the most important. Having said that --

Mrs McLeod: Early retirement.

Hon David Johnson: First of all, there is a natural attrition within the system. The expectation is that some 4,000 teachers will leave each year over the next two years, for some 8,000 teachers. If school boards come to the conclusion, perhaps as a result of the instructional time requirement now of 1,250 minutes, that fewer teachers are needed at some point in time -- is that your concern? If it is, as a result of the natural attrition I think there will be a certain match there. It may not be 100%; I don't know. But certainly the government is prepared to enter into discussions around the early retirement.

The previous minister put forward a suggestion. I must say it wasn't greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm at that point by the teaches' unions. It involved the pension fund and maybe a reduced factor from 90 down to some other factor. When one gets to making suggestions about the pension fund, one is walking on thin ice, because there can be accusations of raiding the plan or something of that nature. I waited for an initiative from the teachers, and there was no initiative given to me in that regard during the recent discussions. But we're still here to talk about this matter and I'm prepared to talk about this matter.

Mrs McLeod: But there's no government money on the table to fund any proposals.

Hon David Johnson: There was an amount put on --

Ms Andrew: The budget: $250 million, I believe.

Mrs McLeod: That's not new money, though. I believe that $250 million would come out of existing pension fund contributions.

Hon David Johnson: Peter may assist.

The Vice-Chair: The time is up anyway, unless Mr Wildman wants to pursue it.

Mr Wildman: Is that money out of the pension fund, the $250 million?

Mr Wright: Under the current accounting rules the government has, it has to register any early retirement initiative which is a benefit improvement on its own books. So although the money comes out of the pension plan, the $250 million, we have to record on our books an expenditure of $250 million, which the government did in the last budget.

Hon David Johnson: A proposal of that nature was put forward and polled three times, and three times it was rejected. If there is some other proposal we can talk about, I'm more than willing to talk.

Mr Wildman: I checked my addition; I said $970 million in my earlier comments, but it actually was $870 million, if you use the Conservative figure, that needs to be saved.

I want to put on the record, very briefly in the few minutes, something I raised in our debate on Bill 160 in the other committee yesterday. Since you're not talking about maximum class sizes but about capping an average across boards, in my area we have the largest geographic board in Ontario thanks to the stupidity of this government. By putting Hornepayne into district school board number 2, when nobody thought it was a good idea to do that -- in Hornepayne they have a very small high school. There are very, very small classes; a total of 84 students in that school. The closest place in one direction is about 80 miles to Hearst, and in the other direction the closest place with a high school is 120 miles. If you're going to have average class sizes across that board, the days are numbered for that high school and those kids are going to have to boarded out somewhere. That's the effect of what you're doing.

Mrs McLeod: With the lost prep time.

Mr Wildman: Along with the lost prep time, exactly. That's what the effect is, the practical, real effect it's going to have, thanks to what you're doing.

Hon David Johnson: Well --

Mr Wildman: I don't want an answer to that, because we don't have time.

Hon David Johnson: You don't want an answer?

Mr Wildman: No. I've already told you what's going to happen to Hornepayne because of the stupidity of this government.

Mr Wright: That's not what's going to happen.

Mr Wildman: With respect, I don't have much time and I want to raise one other matter. Will your average prep time and contact time for teachers work in a semestered system? If you have four blocks of 50 minutes or an hour or 70 minutes -- not an eight-period day -- and you have half an hour less, how is it going to work? It doesn't work. You either teach four out of four in one semester -- in other words, have no prep time and have all your prep time in the second semester -- or you don't have a semestered system.

Ms Andrew: I believe you can allocate them across the week in a semestered system. We're working on those details. You don't teach the same subject every day. The way it works, for instance, in British Columbia is that people get a period off every other day in a semestered system. We're working through those options right now as to how it would work. With the right of principals to allocate and make adjustments, we're looking at those options too.

Mrs McLeod: So much for subject specialists.

Mr Wildman: So much for subject specialists, as my colleague says. In essence, what it will probably mean in the long run is the end of the semestered system, which may be a good thing. There may be those who think the semestered system is not a good idea. That's going to be the end result. You will not have the opportunity for local boards or local schools to go that route at the secondary level even if they feel it's desirable, just because they can't accommodate the timetabling administratively.

Hon David Johnson: Since there is a minute left --

Mr Wildman: You want to say something about Hornepayne? If you can guarantee me that a new board is going to put up with classes of two kids in Hornepayne and work out an average so that in other schools in that system they'll have enormous class sizes to make up for it, I'll accept your explanation.

Mr Wright: Clearly I can't guarantee any class size in Hornepayne, but what the formula is doing -- let's start with what we're setting. It's a maximum average class size, which says a board can't be above it. There are provisions in the funding model now, which will be continued in the new funding model, that provide for small schools in a number of situations, which Hornepayne currently benefits from.

Mr Wildman: But you know that the provision in that formula now doesn't meet the needs of Hornepayne.

Mr Wright: But the provision in that formula now allows you to have the lower class sizes that you're talking about. With all that money provincially being available, recognition will still be made of small schools in those kind of situations.

Mr Wildman: I understand; if the board accepts it.

The Vice-Chair: Time's up. Bill, your time.

Mr Grimmett: We were going to allow Mr Wright to continue in that vein. Do you have any further comments, Mr Wright, on those issues?

Mr Wright: I think Mr Wildman has made an interesting point, that it will depend in part on what the board decides it's going to do, but you have to place your faith that within the parameters the government has set and the funding it will provide, the board will make reasonable decisions for those communities.

Mr Wildman: That's why the Hornepayne school authority shouldn't be part of district school board number 2.

The Vice-Chair: It's the government's time, please, Mr Wildman.

Mr Grimmett: I wonder, since the hour is drawing near, if we should start the voting procedure now, Mr Chair, since the bells will start to ring soon.

The Vice-Chair: Actually, we have a couple of minutes left, but if we get all-party concurrence, let's wrap it up. Okay? Then with all-party concurrence, it's time to move to the vote.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, could I just express an apology to the ministry staff? I'm sure there are post-secondary education people here. We didn't touch it in these estimates, and I really regret that.

The Vice-Chair: Somehow, I think they're probably a little happy.

Let's go to the vote. We're voting on the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training.

Shall votes 1001 to 1004, inclusive, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Shall I report the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Training to the House? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

This ends the estimates. Before we adjourn, I would like to thank the minister and his staff for appearing before us. I would like to thank very much the committee clerk and the committee research officer and the people from Hansard, who have done an excellent job. The minister is offering you some cookies. He's not offering me cookies. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1741.