CONTENTS
Tuesday 7 July 1992
Ministry of Education
Hon Tony Silipo, minister
Carol Lawson, manager, financial management and program analysis section
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Bisson, Giles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)
*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
*O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Beer, Charles (York North/-Nord L) for Mr Sorbara
*Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mrs Marland
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Frankford
*In attendance / présents
Clerk/Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
The committee met at 1543 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): I'd like to call to order the standing committee on estimates and welcome back the Minister of Education, as we have eight hours and 27 minutes remaining to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Education. Welcome, Minister. When we adjourned last, you were just completing your summary comments. Then we will ask the committee how it wishes to order up its discussion on the estimates and the votes.
Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): In an effort to just also assist the process of the committee's work, I think I can dispense with any further comments in response. Looking over the notes, I think I touched briefly on the things I wanted to say in response to the statements by Mr Beer and Mrs Cunningham. No doubt the questions that will follow will give me ample opportunity to delve into those issues and others in some more detail.
The Chair: I thank the minister. Some of those opening statements were framed as questions. I know your staff have been present in order to receive them. It is helpful and customary in the course of the estimates that if your staff have written responses to the questions, they notify our clerk when they are available so that they can be distributed during the estimates hearings. They are always very helpful. And/or, Minister, you may wish to call upon the staff to come forward and make specific presentations.
In that regard I would advise the critics that, should you have any written questions that are helpful to the minister and his staff, please table them as quickly as possible. In the process of a large ministry such as Education, if there are specific program areas you wish to examine, notice to the minister through the Chair is helpful so he or his deputy can ensure they are here to respond directly. We certainly aren't getting all the ADMs and senior staff from the ministry participating, but if you have some you specifically wish to discuss, the minister has agreed to make every effort to see they are present.
Any questions about that? If not, what is left for us to decide at this point is how we wish to proceed with the estimates of Education. We have three votes and I'm in the committee's hand if they wish to discuss that for a moment.
Mr Charles Beer (York North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm going to phrase this as a question in terms of how we might proceed. One thought was, looking at our timetable, whether we would like to have a period -- and Mrs Cunningham may want to reflect on this as well -- where we might just ask some general questions of the minister based on his statement and our own and then go on and do the line-by-line.
As I say, I'm open to what other members feel. Sometimes the line-by-line is a bit contrived in terms of what can be discussed under what heading. We might be able to set a certain period of time where we could just do some general questioning on the various programs and policies this afternoon and then move to the specific vote items focusing, of course, on those next week when we complete our hearings. I just throw that out for reflection by others on the government side and by Mrs Cunningham.
The Chair: The committee is speechless.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I find that quite often in this committee we get into the general line of questioning, as Mr Beer has talked about, before we get into the line-by-line. It then allows the critics to take a look at different policy areas without going through it line by line.
Certainly, for a committee member, a backbencher from the government, I find it quite interesting to watch that. It also allows me, as a backbencher, an opportunity to ask the minister some questions and sometimes -- I try not to embarrass them. I ask some questions my constituents pose to me. For a government member, I find that having questions come in the way Charles Beer has talked about -- my colleague the member for York North -- is quite useful.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I think Charles made the point of the line-by-line problems, because we've done it that way before, so I'd rather move into different categories if that would be appropriate. I certainly have some of my questions ready, but I'm happy to go along with whatever the committee wants in this regard, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: I'm getting a sense that you'd like to ask questions. What I don't know is if you'd like to do that in time-allocated rotation. Second, you'd like to stack the votes until the end of the exercise, which the Chair is quite comfortable with.
Mr Beer: Stack them.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Do you want a motion to that effect?
The Chair: I think we're dealing with consensus at this point. That's really the only guidance I would --
Mr Bisson: Just a point of clarification, Mr Chair: What you're saying is that we'll do that under time allocation. Each caucus will get an equal amount of time to do that.
The Chair: If they so choose. The other is that the Chair will coordinate and ensure everybody gets an equal run at it, but some people may wish to bring forward a theme such as special ed and in the process of special ed it is raised three separate times over three different days under that method. What Mr Beer was, I believe, suggesting is that it is possible to deal with subject areas without tying them to a vote and that possibly everybody would have an opportunity to participate in a discussion, say, on special education and integration and legislation. We have done estimates where we haven't been strictly time allocated, but it's been allowed for more meaningful discussion in subject areas. Those are really the only two ways of doing it, and I'm in your hands.
1550
Mr Bisson: I agree with what the Chair was saying initially, that we go under time allocation but that we leave questioning up to the individual asking the questions. If I want to ask one question in a particular policy field and the second in a totally separate policy field, I should have the ability to do so rather than be constricted to just one policy field.
The Chair: Okay. If you want to jump around, you have every right to do that.
Mr Beer: I think that's fine. We'll go by your judgement of an equal amount of time, and leave it to your judgement how a minute here or there sorts itself out.
The Chair: Very good. If that's the case, Mr Beer, and if you're prepared to proceed, we'll begin with you.
Mr Beer: Fine. Thank you.
Mr Bisson: Just before we get started, how many minutes each? I didn't catch it.
The Chair: The Chair's going to work that out as we proceed.
Mr Bisson: As a committee member, I'd like to know how much time so that we have an idea of how long we have.
The Chair: Okay. Well, I thought you just gave me the authority to make sure it's fair. Do you want me to start everything and then we get a bell and then I have to make up the time and it's all on the record?
Mr Bisson: It's to get a sense of how much time per turn. That's all I want to know at this point.
The Chair: Okay. What I normally do is I come to you and advise you of that without taking up a lot of time with clock reading. But if you'll give us a moment, we'll work out an equitable three-way split in the time remaining, provided we don't have a vote and provided we're not called to the House. So just give us a moment, Mr Bisson, if you're uncomfortable.
Mr Bisson: Yes, no problem.
The Chair: Approximately 43 minutes.
Mr Bisson: Thank you.
The Chair: You've just used up three of yours. Proceed, Mr Beer.
Mr Bisson: I see the Chair is very accommodating today.
Mr Beer: Is it possible for me to speak for some of that 43 and then let Mrs Cunningham go and then come back for a few or do you want me to do it all?
The Chair: That was what my hope was, but I sense Mr Bisson's having real difficulty with the clock today.
Mr Bisson: On a point of clarification: I, as a committee member, am entitled to know how much time we have allocated to each caucus. If any caucus wants to take 20 minutes or five minutes at one shot and go on to the other one, that's fine, but as a committee member, I am entitled, and I don't need sarcasm from the Chair, quite frankly.
The Chair: Frankly you're not listening to this committee because that --
Mr Bisson: Frankly you don't listen.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, if you want to challenge the Chair, you have the right to.
Mr Bisson: No, I am not challenging the Chair.
The Chair: My ruling was that this would not be time allocation-specific, that the Chair was entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring there was equitable time. We're not on specific time allocation. That was the decision of the Chair, and you didn't hear that. I'd ask you to check Hansard before you jump to those conclusions. That was the direction I got from Mr Beer. I asked if there was any objection. We'll proceed on that basis. I set out three different options for the committee, and we have proceeded under all three of those in the two years I've been active as Chair.
Mr Bisson: Mr Beer just left.
The Chair: Matters of absence are not an issue for the record of this committee.
Hon Mr Silipo: I think Mrs Cunningham's going to start.
Mrs Cunningham: First of all, can we have an update on the people in the ministry from somebody? The first page says "Organization Chart," and I know there have been a couple of changes. Not everybody, Mr Minister, but maybe there are a couple we ought to know about.
Hon Mr Silipo: The chart that's referred to is dated April 1, 1992, so it is actually outdated. We can make an attempt to put together an up-to-date chart and make that available to the committee. I can give a very brief overview of what we have presently and then perhaps we can provide some more details, either now or at a later point.
Mr Wally Beevor is on secondment to the North York Board of Education for a two-year period. He's part of an exchange with another official who's come into the ministry, but that official is working in one of the other departments, not at the assistant deputy minister level. In the meantime, what we have done is divide up the various responsibilities that reported to that assistant deputy minister position between Carola Lane and Mark Larratt-Smith, in large, although I think some of these positions may have been distributed to other assistant deputy ministers.
Of course, we have also made the decision to add an assistant deputy minister position since that time as well for anti-racism and ethnocultural equity. That's another piece that will need to be added to the chart. The division that assistant deputy minister will be heading is still in the process of being put together in terms of the various pieces that will fit, but it will certainly include some pieces from curriculum as well as some of the other areas. As I say, that's something we are still in the process of sorting out now.
The end result is that we anticipate there will still be the five assistant deputy minister positions that there are presently on the chart.
Mrs Cunningham: Could we move, unless someone would rather we not move so quickly -- I'm looking at page 9. With regard to the salaries and wages budget, the estimates, have you got a number on how many people are employed or how many members of your staff there would be for that kind of money? I'm looking at the $22.5 million.
Hon Mr Silipo: I don't have that at my fingertips. I don't know if we have that information readily available. I'm sure we have it in the ministry. Is that something we can answer now or do we need to come back with it?
Mrs Cunningham: It's fine if you just want to take these questions under advisement. I guess I'm hoping you're going to tell me that the 1992-93 estimates will have a staff of fewer people than the 1991-92. Do these interim actuals still stand, or are they actuals now, the $22.2 million for the 1991-92 year? Is that it as of March 31? I understand this must have been printed the first of April. Do we have actuals yet?
The Chair: Could you please come to the front microphone and identify yourself? It would be helpful to Hansard.
Mrs Carol Lawson: Carol Lawson; I work in the financial services branch. The interim actuals are very close to the final ones. It was taken off our final report. There could be some slight modifications when we do our reconciliations.
Mrs Cunningham: So for the purpose of our estimates now, we'll just assume we've got pretty close to the actuals. If that's not so, then I can be advised? Therefore, I don't want to make any assumption, but I'd like to know how the staff is changed.
The other question I'd like to ask is, how can we find out the breakdown of these employees with regard to who is working in the offices here in Queen's Park, the minister's offices, and who is working in regional offices? There must have been some kind of picture put together to get the $22 million. Would this be regional office budget plus the central office here at Queen's Park? Is that all that goes into that, or what is it that makes up the salaries and wages?
1600
Hon Mr Silipo: I believe it's both, and I think we can get you the breakdown of those, the central ministry and the regional offices.
Mrs Cunningham: Is there anything more that makes up that number?
Mrs Lawson: In ministry administration it's primarily the people in the Mowat Block area. The regional office staff are located under liaison and review activity, which is under vote 2 in the estimates.
Mrs Cunningham: What about any of the subactivities on the adjoining page, which is page 8? Is that all part of the main office work?
Mrs Lawson: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: I saw some agencies. I guess it was earlier, but it had the employee relations commission and the French-language commission. I can't remember what page I saw that on. It should have been before page 9.
Mrs Lawson: The agencies are located on page 36. They're in the liaison and review activity.
Mrs Cunningham: And is that part of this $22 million?
Mrs Lawson: No.
Mrs Cunningham: It's over and above?
Mrs Lawson: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Where do I find that?
Mrs Lawson: On page 33. In that activity it includes branches such as our learning assessment branch, the agencies, boards and commissions, regional offices --
Mrs Cunningham: That's what I was wondering. So we can add to salaries and wages another $18 million there?
Mrs Lawson: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Could I have the same kind of breakdown for that, if that would be appropriate? My assumption as I take a look at the regional offices -- are there then two budgets for regional offices? Is there one with regard to liaison and review activity and one with regard to program ministry administration? Is that how the regional office budgets work, part of them on page 9 and another part on page 33?
Mrs Lawson: On page 8, basically in main office you have the ADM's office, which is the ADM of regional services, the old ADM learning programs office, minister's office, deputy minister's office. Only the ADM's portion of regional services division is located in program ministry admin.
Mrs Cunningham: I guess I'm really trying to find out what the budget is for the six regional offices and the other different agencies; you may not call them agencies, but there are eight on page 32. I know some of those budgets, but they may already be broken down in here and I couldn't find them separate.
Mrs Lawson: No, they're shown at the activity level. The budgets aren't broken down in the book itself, but we can provide that information.
Mrs Cunningham: That's what I need a clarification of in order to take a look at any changes. It won't be any good for me just to have the 1992-93; I'll need the actuals as well. I just wanted to start out with the bigger picture here, Mr Beer, so if you would like to go back to the beginning, that's fine by me.
Mr Beer: It's always good to get the bigger picture.
One question emerges directly out of what Mrs Cunningham was just asking about. I can recall going to a Christmas party with the Planning and Implementation Commission that everyone thought was the last Christmas party it would ever have. I was just curious. It is one of the most interesting commissions under any government. Just a brief question; I don't need a long answer. I'm just curious about what they are still doing. I'm sure they're doing good things.
Hon Mr Silipo: They are still doing some good things. They're not doing a lot of work, but what they are doing is good. In fact we are putting that commission through a sunset review to determine whether it needs to continue.
Mr Beer: On the whole reform of financing, there is a series of structures in place looking at it: the Fair Tax Commission, your internal review, the advisory committee or advisory group and then I guess, to a certain extent, the disentanglement exercise, which is not directly under your purview. You've touched on some of this in your opening remarks, Minister, but I'd like to be a little more specific on what in particular in terms of educational financing the tax commission is doing, the internal group and then the advisory committee. I believe what you said the other day was that by the fall there will be a paper and that it is your hope that at the beginning of 1993 there would be proposals ready to go, or at least become public. Can you describe what is going on within each of those, how they link and where the public input will come in terms of boards and others between now and January 1993?
Hon Mr Silipo: I'm glad to have the chance to talk a little about this. First of all, I can deal with the part that I think is easier. You're right, Mr Beer, in identifying all the various groups that have touched in some way on this, but the one piece that touches the least is the disentanglement process.
I sit as one of six ministers representing the government on that body with six municipal councillors. We've made it very clear in that process that that process will not discuss education financing in any way, because if it were to discuss education financing, then the representation that we feel should be there isn't there. We've been very clear about that and there's been agreement on the municipal side on that.
Now, there may be things that come out of that process that obviously have an impact on school boards, and if and when that arises, we also have an understanding that we will obviously want and need to discuss those issues with the education community. We will deal with those issues as they arise, but to this point we don't foresee any problems developing.
The main issue in terms of the reform process is one in which we share that responsibility between the ministry and the property tax working group of the Fair Tax Commission. Essentially, as we've divided up the work, the Fair Tax Commission, through the property tax working group, is looking essentially at the issue of how funds are raised for education, how funds should be raised, looking therefore at that part of the puzzle. We will be looking primarily through the advisory council and the process we will be deriving from the ministry at the other side of that equation, which is how money is distributed to school boards and therefore looking at all the issues around the costs of educating students.
Mr Beer: May I just stop you there? I really want to make sure I understand the flow here. The property tax working group is looking at what the sources for funding are; your advisory council is going to be looking at how we disburse dollars, how we organize their expenditure among boards or whatever. Is there any joint overlap of appointment there?
Hon Mr Silipo: I don't believe there are in terms of the trustees or -- I'm trying to think of the OTF representation. I don't think so, in terms of people who sit.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Silipo: There are staff members; not in terms of the actual representatives on the advisory council, but obviously the associations are involved in the property tax working group. I should also say that that is basically how the process has started and is proceeding. But because of the time lines we're working on, we also anticipate having for our consideration, and inevitably for some discussion within the advisory council, the results of the work being done by the property tax working group. We expect they will be issuing a report in September, I believe. That's obviously something we will have available to us, as will it be available publicly, because that's what they will be doing, I gather, issuing that publicly, as the other working groups of the Fair Tax Commission have done. Then we will inevitably talk within the advisory council about that issue of how money is raised as well as how money should be distributed.
You mentioned something, Mr Beer, about a paper being out in the fall. I hope I haven't said anything to mislead you or anybody else in that respect. What I'm anticipating will happen is that we will have recommendations to take to cabinet in early 1993 for the beginning of implementation, we hope, in September 1993.
1610
Mr Beer: But the Fair Tax Commission will have a paper out on property tax.
Hon Mr Silipo: That's right.
Mr Beer: Okay. I was confused.
Hon Mr Silipo: I believe in September or some time thereabouts.
Whether we do anything in terms of putting out anything publicly before then is something we haven't yet discussed at the advisory council. I should just say with respect to the advisory council that we've had one meeting. We have a second meeting this Friday. The sense as a result of the first meeting, I think, was fairly good all around in terms of grappling with some of the issues. Just to remind people, that group is made up of representatives from the various trustee associations as well as representation from the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the support staff unions.
Mr Beer: So in January it would be your intention to take proposals to cabinet with a view to having those implemented for the next fiscal year? Is there any particular sense of that? I'm just trying to see what's driving that date.
Hon Mr Silipo: My hope would be to look at what we could do with respect to the 1993 year, realizing that because of the time lines we may not be able to do a great deal in that first year in terms of implementation, but I would like to do what we can to start some of the changes.
We also are now talking about -- and this is an issue we'll be discussing with the advisory council as well -- looking at the issue of the change in the fiscal year of school boards. I've given out very clear indications, in response to requests that I've heard throughout the province, that this is something we should be looking at seriously in terms of changing. We are looking now to determine the viability of making that change happen beginning in September 1993. That's a possibility as well in terms of their beginning to link it also to some of the changes in the financing structures.
Mr Beer: Is any consideration being given to some public discussion of the proposals that would emerge? If I understand what you've said, the property tax working group would come out with some sort of a document in the fall to which Education may or may not respond. Obviously the proposals going to cabinet would, at least in the first instance, be confidential, unless there were lots of plain brown wrappers around. Then, if you were trying to get something into the budgetary process, that doesn't leave a great deal of time. Clearly, when we're talking about what I suspect will be fairly fundamental change, that's going to be important and I just wonder how you are considering handling that.
Hon Mr Silipo: We haven't come to any conclusions on that, but I think we will have to look at what we do. Obviously there will be lots of discussion, just because of the structure of the council. We will have an opportunity to hear and involve people from the various trustee associations and others directly in those discussions.
In terms of any kind of broader public discussion, that's something we haven't, again, made any decisions on, but I think it's something that inevitably we will have to address through the advisory council. I expect that people there would want to be able to take some ideas and proposals back and at least have some kind of public discussions with people. Obviously, beyond the trustee associations, there is an interest that you and others would have and that the public in general would have. I think that's part of what we are going to have to try to grapple with as we look at this over the summer in the meetings we have scheduled with the advisory council.
Mr Beer: Without putting words in your mouth, is it fair to say that in this exercise you are quite prepared to look at a totally different way of funding the system? Have you set out some parameters, some guidelines, beyond which you've indicated you wouldn't want to go? For example, are you looking at, or would you look at, a system that might not entail the use of the property tax for educational funding? I just want to get a sense of it.
Hon Mr Silipo: I have very purposely not ruled out any possibilities, I think, particularly on the question of how education dollars should be raised, because I'm really going to be interested in seeing what the property tax working group comes up with. I gather they are looking at a whole range of possibilities and options. I think it's useful for us to sort of let them lead off on that piece and see what they can come up with.
Clearly what I would say is that whatever systems we put in place in terms of how we raise money for education, I would hope they would have much more relevance to people's ability to pay than the property tax system does now or the present system does now. I think that would be one key consideration I would certainly encourage the government to look at and consider in any changes.
With respect to the issue of how the grant system or anything else that might replace it should be set up, I think there are a number of issues we need to address there, part of which, again, comes back to a number of issues around the relative responsibilities of the ministry and school boards and some issues around how you best calculate, sort of, the basic costs of educating a child throughout the province and how you then make some allowances for the various needs that exist in the different parts of the province, whether or not you do that through the change in the grant system. Obviously the present grant system has been an attempt to try to deal with various pieces of it by adding to what began as an initial system. Then other pieces got added on as new issues emerged and concerns were expressed about funding.
One of the things we also have to do is try to return to some sense of simplicity around the system in terms of people being able to look at the funding scheme and understand how it works and what it does. I think that's no small task. As I said, I can look at each one of the lines in the grant formula and understand why it's there, but certainly one of the things people out there need is a greater sense of understanding and simplicity about how this whole system works. So that will be something.
The other thing I would say, despite all the things I say and continue to say and believe in around the kinds of things school boards can do to diminish some costs and look at the question of duplication of services, is that I also think we need to take note of the fact that a vast majority of boards are spending more than the per-pupil grant ceilings we provide. That tells us something in terms of the ministry formulas not having kept up over the years with the reality of what it costs to educate students out there. That's something we have to be prepared to grapple with as well.
Mr Beer: I have one further question on this, and then if others want to jump in on this particular topic, please feel free to do so.
Are you also going to deal with the level of provincial versus local funding and try to establish some kind of clear benchmark? I think we noted the other day how at different times all three parties have faced the problem of the proverbial 60%, but is there a view you have that one can establish some kind of percentage, or do you see something that is more of a floating ratio?
1620
Hon Mr Silipo: I think we could have a percentage, or at least a target, on a province-wide basis that we should work towards. I think I've said on numerous occasions that I still believe in the 60% notion. We talked last time about what that meant, but I think we know, despite the peculiarities of that figure, that what it essentially means is that, first, there should be a greater percentage of the cost of education paid for provincially, through provincial coffers, and second, there has to be some greater sense of equity around how that's done.
Again I don't have any answers to offer at this point, nor do I believe we can reach that magical figure in a one- or two-year period -- I want to be very clear about that as well -- but I think what we can do is set an objective and a bit of a game plan, a bit of a process in motion, that shows people how we can get there.
Within that there will have to be some redefinition of what we are talking about when we talk about the kinds of responsibilities we ought to have for funding education at the provincial level, and what ingredients that means we should be paying for, what things we believe, as a ministry and a government, are important for all school boards to be offering, and therefore where there is more of an onus on us to provide funding for those programs, and to allow some sense of local, not optionality, but at least flexibility in terms of some additional areas that reflect particular needs in any given community of the province, and again some flexibility at the local level for dealing with the funding of those issues as well.
Mrs Cunningham: On the same topic, I'm surprised to hear this 60% number. I'm proud to sit here and say I never use it. I think what you have to do in education is take a look at what you think should be happening in the school systems and talk about what education ought to be doing. We certainly know that it's a larger proportion of the programs in Ontario than we've ever seen before. We're obviously doing a lot of programs in social services and health and that's growing. It's been happening since the 1970s, as I like to remind the minister, given all our backgrounds here.
But if we're honestly looking at a new way of funding education and we're taking a look at the present property tax system and other systems, we probably shouldn't have any criteria. We should be looking clearly at what we can do instead. It's nice to say the province ought to be paying more. I think the bigger question on behalf of school boards is probably: "Don't ask us to do things we don't want to do. Maybe ask us what we think we could do in the community better than is being done by other ministries." That might be a good question. I could certainly help you out on that one.
Getting on to this discussion Mr Beer started, one of the great questions, the ongoing question we get when we're out there -- and I'm sure you have it, Mr Minister -- is this question about the school year, the fiscal year. I'm wondering if there's been any serious discussion in the ministry with regard to that within the last six months.
Hon Mr Silipo: Yes, there's been some very serious discussion. In fact we are looking at some proposals on that now, I can tell you. It's one of the things we will be discussing with the advisory council. It's something I haven't heard anybody put an argument to as to why it shouldn't happen -- the change that is. It's a question at this point, in my view, not so much of whether we're going to do it but a question of how best to do it and when best to do it, and so we're looking at a couple of options with respect to that. In some ways the most logical one is trying to tie it in to September 1993, if we're able to get some of the changes in place in the financing structure for it to be effective then as well.
Mrs Cunningham: I guess the question that would follow would be, are we going to wait until we have strong recommendations or a new policy with regard to the change in the funding of education with regard to the Fair Tax Commission's recommendations, or are we at least going to move on that sector for 1993? I assume the other is going to take a long period of time even if we have a plan we want to follow. To implement something like that would be a major change.
Hon Mr Silipo: Again I'm very frank with you in saying that as I sit here, my preference is to try to do it sooner rather than later. But there are some concerns that have been expressed to me about why it might make more sense to look at it as part of the finance reform and therefore not to separate it out and do it earlier. I guess part of the consideration we have to give is around the legislation that would be required to do that, but again I'm anticipating that this is not a major issue in terms of things we would have to do.
The other issue is that of course the primary reason people have given for our wanting to make the change and why people have urged us to make the change in the fiscal year has been the ability for school boards to know and to plan ahead. The idea would certainly be that if we change the fiscal year, we would still announce the grants in the spring that would become effective in September, so the boards would have that lead time, knowing what they were going into in funding as opposed to the situation that exists now.
In the present context that's less of an issue, given that we have given a three-year announcement in terms of the funding. In that context, I think what we would have to do, if we didn't proceed with the fiscal year change for next year, is to indicate fairly early what the funding level would be for next year. Essentially the issue we'd have to do there is to just simply tell people how the 2% would be spread out. I can tell you, without sort of being 100% committed to this, that my sense around it is that we ought to make as few changes as possible in this interim period until we get the rest of the changes put together on the finance front. That would be my inclination at this point.
The issue of the fiscal year may not be as crucial an issue to have to resolve now, although as I said, I am still of the mindset that it's probably just as well to resolve it and get it done.
Mrs Cunningham: I guess the last question, if we're on the subject of finance here, is that we all know the large portion both of local board budgets, and obviously budgets in the agencies and in the minister's office, is salary. I was shocked to hear, I think it was this morning or yesterday, that the city of Toronto is not able to collect taxes; people just can't pay their taxes. That's certainly going to make a difference. They're talking about meeting their payroll, so you can imagine what school boards are up against.
Regardless, on three-year projections I think nobody would have guessed we'd be in this situation where the city of Toronto is going to be borrowing; I think the number was like $60 million but I may be wrong. If school boards are going to find themselves not getting transfer payments even from their local municipal governments, we really have a serious problem not unlike the Toronto Symphony. People took cuts in pay so that people could retain their jobs. If we're going to look at moving from a property tax to a personal income tax -- which may or may not be part of the discussion; I'm not close to it -- obviously we want people working or nobody's going to pay for education.
I guess my question is: This is a people budget, and we know the best settlements are coming in at 2.5%, meaning a 1% settlement costing 2.5%; boards are getting 1%. I was the one who listened to others talk about moving more towards the province paying more money, so what kinds of plans have you got with this kind of scenario?
1630
Hon Mr Silipo: We know there are some boards in the province having problems, particularly as a result of the loss of property tax dollars they would have traditionally been able to rely on. We are trying to get a better handle on to just what extent that's a problem. We know there are a couple of places in the province where that's caused some severe problems and we've made some provisions to assist there, but the broader issue, I guess, is one that we think needs to continue to be addressed between school boards and the respective teachers' federations and unions, which is why we put as much emphasis as we did, in the transition fund criteria, around that issue.
At the end the summer we will have received the initial proposals from school boards, but they're really only an initial indication of the kinds of things they are looking at, although some have already fleshed them out in some detail. We will be looking, towards the end of the summer, as people submit the final proposals, to what we can do with respect to that $50 million that's still to be allocated.
That will hopefully be of some assistance to some boards, but again in terms of the issue itself, the erosion of property tax dollars, I don't know that we have a full picture at this point of just how seriously that might affect all school boards throughout the province.
Mrs Cunningham: Just in conclusion, I think the minister knows how I feel about the transition fund. I've certainly mentioned it on a couple of occasions. It's a very small amount of money and I think a lot of energy is going into getting what little bits and pieces individual boards are able to get.
As a matter of fact, one of my great criticisms of the whole system, as we're trying to streamline it and make it more efficient, is that I'm not in favour of these little pockets. I'd rather see people put their time into teaching kids in the front line than scurrying about trying to find a couple of hundred thousand dollars or $500,000 on budgets that probably exceed a couple of hundred million dollars. I don't know; I'm not in favour of that but the minister knows my views.
I think that's just one little bit that this government feels can be helpful, but I'm just putting the ministry officials on guard to know that -- I mean, all of us here represent the public. We have a very big challenge ahead of us and we are definitely going to need the support of the teachers to solve our problems. There's no doubt in my mind. If we don't get it, we're looking to you, Mr Minister, for that kind of example. It's that serious.
I thought that was underlined this morning and I have to commend the chair of the finance committee at the city of Toronto for the interview he did this morning, because he was warning all of us that we have seen nothing yet. It's pretty scary, but I hope that our children's education isn't being jeopardized and that we aren't going to be looking at people losing jobs out there in the school systems, because that's what's going to happen if people don't cooperate to a greater extent around remuneration. It's as simple as that.
On that happy note, Mr Bisson is waiting to ask questions. I'd sure appreciate his point of view in this regard.
The Chair: And he'll continue to wait, because I'm going to recognize Mr Martin.
Mrs Cunningham: Pulling rank, eh, Tony?
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): That's right. Is that a rank thing to do?
I wanted to actually follow up a bit on some of the comments of Mrs Cunningham, because I think certainly if there's an area of concern, it's this one. I've been close to the Ministry of Education now for just about two years. For a number of reasons, primarily because of the difficult financial situation the province finds itself in, there are a whole lot of things we wanted to do that we couldn't do, and yet in spite of that there are some things we did do.
I would like to say, contrary perhaps to your feeling, that any amount of money, even $50 million, is a lot of money in my mind, and used creatively can relieve some pressure. I know the two school boards in my area are working very diligently to find ways to use that money to assist the learner in the classroom. If we can save one position or in some way enhance the program in the schools of my community, certainly that's good news as far as I'm concerned. We're actually looking forward to some announcement in the not-too-distant future around just where the money is going. I think it was a good move in light of some difficult decisions you had to make, a sign of good leadership in difficult times, to be able to make those kinds of decisions and to invite people in to participate.
I guess it's that point I want to focus on a little bit. I think any of us who have been involved in the process of trying to govern from either side of the table understand that there are no magic answers, that there's nobody with all the answers. Even if we had tons of money, there would still be things that needed to be done re the education system in Ontario.
The Fair Tax Commission that's going on will, I think, be revealing. It's certainly an opportunity for us as a government to have a really good look at the bigger picture. Within the Ministry of Education the refinancing council that you've established, Mr Minister, and that I sit on, holds out some great possibility for partnership and the possibility of change through partnership to the system that will allow us to do better that which we want to do -- maybe not, now in these difficult times, with the kind of resources we were used to getting over the years by way of increase.
That may enhance the system in ways that, had we not had this difficult challenge in front of us, it perhaps would not have done. There's always a silver lining to every dark cloud and I keep looking for it. Certainly, in this instance in the Ministry of Education, perhaps the difficult financial situation we find ourselves in is forcing us to look at some things we might not otherwise have looked at.
Maybe you could comment further for us on your hopes for the refinancing council that's happening now, and talk a little bit about the makeup and where you see it heading.
Hon Mr Silipo: I guess I'd start by saying that despite the despair that's out there and despite the fact we are living through some very difficult times, I do see some real opportunity, out of that despair, to change things in significant ways. Obviously one of them, and one that's been a real thorn historically, as Mr Beer was saying earlier, which all governments have tried to deal with, has been the financing of education.
I believe that is something we not only should do something about but can do something about. Even if we are not able to resolve all those problems over the short term, we can lay out a course of action that, if followed, will get us to some serious changes in the way our schools are financed above and beyond any of the issues we need to look at as far as rationalizing in a better way how our education dollars are spent is concerned, and in looking at all sorts of ways in which school boards can and should cooperate more with each other in areas of expenditure, which again is something we've been putting an emphasis on.
We'll continue to look at ways in which we can be encouraging -- I hope not having to mandate but encouraging -- that kind of behaviour to happen. Within that, the overall sense that we need to be looking, provincially, at taking on a greater share of the responsibility for financing education throughout the province is something that I believe in as fervently today as I did when I was a school trustee.
1640
If I can come back to something I think Mrs Cunningham said earlier, one of the basic issues from the school boards' perspective is not wanting to be told by the ministry or the minister what they should do, I think part of what gets us and gets any government into trouble around issues like that is when we do that within a context that has the local property tax base paying for 60% of the cost of education. If you want to look at it in a shareholder kind of corporate view, you've got the minority shareholder in terms of funding dictating to the majority shareholders what should be happening in education. That's not the only reason why the change should happen, but it's one of the reasons.
I think it's quite appropriate that there is, and in fact needs to continue to be, some very clear direction given through the Ministry of Education to school boards and schools about the kind of education system we want to see developed in the province, and within that the sense that there is that responsibility at the provincial level for setting that direction while continuing to respect the role that's played at the local level by school boards, and indeed at the local school level by parents, teachers and students, in the whole decision-making process. Part of that legitimacy comes from having the province take on the majority of expenditure and revenues with respect to education. I think that is one of the reasons why that change has to happen.
The process we have in place, as you know, and I think I've talked a little about that as well, is such that I think it will involve the key players in working with us directly, as we have in the advisory council, in supporting and advising us in terms of how we should be proceeding. We have of course a small group of officials at the ministry who form the secretariat that's providing the staff support to that council and pulling in also people from the school boards who have some expertise in some of those areas.
Mr Martin: Again, it's good for me as part of the government to see that you, as Minister of Education, have not been paralysed by what I think is an awesome responsibility, given the recessionary situation we're in, but in fact have been reflecting on some of the realities Mrs Cunningham referred to re the city of Toronto and its difficulties.
In spite of those difficulties, you have been able to put a mark on education in your short tenure that also reflects some of what attracts me to government as a member of the New Democratic Party in Ontario. Some of those are certainly issues of justice and trying to meet the needs of some of the minority groups in our province. You might want to expand for us ever so briefly on some of the initiatives that you've brought forth re native education and perhaps the anti-racism bill that has been introduced.
Hon Mr Silipo: I talked a bit in my opening comments about some of the things we're doing with respect to native education. What I didn't touch on that I would like to is some of the process and discussions we have under way. We know there are a number of concerns that leaders of the various native groups have brought to our attention, which range from the whole question of trustee representation on school boards to the kinds of programs taking place in school boards and the kind of relationship that exists between bands and school boards throughout the province.
We have a process, which my predecessor had set up actually, of meetings between the minister and the leaders of the various native organizations throughout the province. Out of that some further discussions have taken place which I hope not only will result in some changes and some improvements to the quality of education for native students but also will look at the issue of how we can be improving the relationship even between the ministry school boards on the one hand and the native peoples on the other.
There are a number of things we continue to do in the meantime but we try to frame those within the context of these discussions needing to continue on a government-to-government basis through the statement of political relationships that we've established. In the meantime we are looking at a number of things we can do to improve the quality of programming, not just in the classroom as we have done with a number of initiatives but also in terms of some of the things that support that improvement of quality: for example, the group homes and other kinds of initiatives that we've done in association with other ministries in various parts of the province where we are assisting with some of the native students who have to travel to various parts of the province even to get high school education. There are some things we can do that have been helpful in that respect.
With respect to anti-racism, again I'm delighted to be able to pursue that issue with the kind of vigour that we are trying to show, because I think it's at the heart of some of the equity considerations we keep talking about as are the initiatives with respect to native education. I think that through the establishment of the new assistant deputy minister position and the division that person will head, we will try to pull together some very concerted efforts which will be backed up by the legislation obviously -- and I'm happy to see there's cooperation by the three parties in getting that through the House, hopefully very soon -- and then looking at that division as being the place where we begin to provide some real assistance to school boards in our expectation that they develop policies with respect to anti-racism and ethnocultural equity issues.
I would like to see us use this issue as one of the ways in which we, through example, show the kinds of changes in the relationship between ministry and school boards that can happen and can bring about some real improvements, because, to go back to some of the concerns that were expressed earlier about the ministry making decisions about things that school boards should do and then providing little or no funds or inadequate funds to carry those through, one of the things I'd like to see is how we can be, through the ministry, providing much greater assistance to school boards as they develop those policies and as they then begin to implement those policies.
We know that throughout the province there are already school boards that have done a great deal of work in this area, and one of the things I would like to see us do a great deal more of within the ministry is to start to pull together some of those initiatives and to try to provide some coordination through the ministry in terms of sharing some of those experiences and expertise that exists in various parts of the province. I think that's a role that we perhaps have not played up as much as we can within the ministry. That's certainly something I want us to do.
The other is that I look at the whole question of anti- racism and ethnocultural equity very much in a kind of a global way. I would like to see us tackle this issue both through the ministry and at the local school board level in that way. There is in my view not only no inconsistency, but a very logical sequence that goes from anti-racism, which is taking a very strong position and a very strong advocacy role against racism throughout the school system in this case, as we should do throughout society, right through to all the issues that affect culture, race and language. In fact I would like to see us try to pull some of those approaches and initiatives together, because I think it's in that spirit that we can be doing a lot of the integration that I think is crucial to the kind of education that our young people deserve.
1650
The Chair: Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Minister.
The Chair: I'm just the Chairman, but please proceed.
Mr Bisson: I just wanted to follow up a little bit on what our colleagues here were talking about in regard to the situation of the boards having to find ways of working, maybe like they never have before, in utilizing their resources, and that's the people within their boards, and trying to find ways of becoming more effective.
Before getting into my question, I have a document here that would be of interest. It's one of the local boards in my riding in Timmins that has put together an employee-employer restructuring plan basically bringing together all the people from the various unions. They had been grouped into what I guess we'd call sort of a central committee of some type to take a look at ways and means by which it can achieve savings in order to operate their boards more effectively.
I know last year -- actually earlier this year, some time in February or March I would imagine -- the board went through that initial process and found some $680,000 worth of savings it was able to accrue to the board through that process. Now what they've done is sat down and really started to look at some of the projects they're able to do to try to bring the cost down in order to minimize the losses in regard to where some of the issues may be that Mrs Cunningham talked about, or others.
Just to give you an idea of some of the things they're talking about, then the question -- because I'm obviously going to have a question in regard to money after -- some of the things they're talking about are pretty interesting. Some of this is in French and some of it's in English, so you'll have to bear with me. I'll bounce from one to the other. The recommendations, I would just note, are signed by members of the board, including people who worked there from the various unions etc.
One of the things they talked about was, for example, they want to look at ways they can find ways of making the workplace a lot safer and hence saving money on Workers' Compensation Board and lost time. Like any other place, that is a concern, so they're looking at what kinds of things they can do cooperatively in order to get employees to understand better the work practices so they can have savings along that end -- not really a cost item, but something they can save in the long run.
There was another one here that I thought was of interest. En français, it was: «Programme de formation en informatique afin d'assurer l'acquisition des connaissances en matière d'opération». What they're basically saying here is that they presently have a computer system within the board that sometimes not everybody's familiar with and because of that they're losing a lot of time in being able to access information. One of the things they want to do is better train the staff there in order to be able to access that information a little bit better, and also to do some networking so they're able to share a lot better through the electronic medium some of the information.
They have another one here. I'll just read it in French first and translate it. Oh yes, one of the things they're looking at, for example, is trying to do something around their pension issues in regard to some of the older workers being able to retire a little bit earlier, having some sort of bridge to get over so the younger workers are able to stay on if it ever comes down to that.
They talked about here, for example, one suggestion that came from the maintenance department, of moving over to a more energy-efficient system of lighting and heating within some of their schools. They've got some numbers here attached to that. Just in the cost of hydro in one year, if this was to work, they're quoting here about $248,000, obviously an investment on their part, and this is where the question comes.
In those questions, because it's a transitional issue, what kind of leeway does the ministry have in order to assist some of these projects, because some of them actually will cost money. You'd have to spend a couple of dollars and invest to be able to get to the point of doing any kind of savings. In applications such as this, where clearly there's been a demonstrated effort on the part of both the board and the people working within the board itself to find ways of saving, what kind of leeway does the ministry really have to assist some of these programs financially in regard to transitional funding?
Hon Mr Silipo: Mr Bisson, from the document you were referring to, it sounds to me like it's an application to the transition fund.
Mr Bisson: Yes.
Hon Mr Silipo: Okay. From the descriptions you've given, there certainly are some interesting ideas the school board has put together that obviously we will look at in terms of whether we can provide funding for some of those initiatives through the transition funds. My sense from some of the things you referred to would be that they seem to fit some of the criteria we've established.
The question of transition is obviously -- I mean, that's a one-time fund, so that's clearly the case, unless issues are raised in some of these submissions -- and I expect there will be; there may even be in some of the points you've raised -- that there are some things we ought to be looking at in terms of not necessarily ongoing funding but changes to what we fund and don't fund from the ministry and whether there are implications that way. Obviously if we pick up on any of those, we will want to pursue them as part of the education finance reform process. But specifically on the initiatives, we will certainly look at those as part of the transition fund criteria and hopefully be able to make some decisions once the deadline of September 30 is passed.
Mr Bisson: On that line, generally from what I've seen with boards in the riding, some boards are able to deal with the transition a lot easier than others because of the history within the board, the players and a number of other reasons. Other than the money end of the support, what kinds of things can the ministry or the government overall do to assist those boards really trying to find ways of working more cooperatively with the people there? Because in some places it's very difficult. I won't get into names, but you get some places where it's difficult because there's been a history, I would say, of non-cooperation on a number of issues.
At times the boards and the workers would come to me as a member -- I'm sure you've had the same thing in other ridings -- and say that what we need is some sort of group or something that can work with these groups to get them off the ground, organize them and give them the assistance they need to work together. Quite frankly, in some cases that hasn't been done. People have suggested that type of stuff should be legislated, but I don't know if we want to get into that.
Hon Mr Silipo: I was just checking to see if I remembered correctly, but I think that even within the transition funds we've actually made provision for some of that help to be provided if we have the sense it will help. We've been leery about not putting a lot of money out of the transition funds into hiring people to help school boards, teachers' federations or other employee groups talk to each other; they ought to be able to do that without having a third party in there. But we're quite happy to work with any board or indeed any federation or union that says it's having some difficulties around those issues. We have people in the regional offices who can be of assistance in some cases. Depending on the nature of the issue, we can also look at whether there is some assistance through the broader public sector labour relations secretariat.
The other thing is that we have staged our application process. The submission you were reading from would have come to us already in the ministry before June 30. One of the things we'll be looking at between June 30 and the end of the summer is an analysis of the indications we will have received from school boards around the kinds of issues they have put forward, where they are saying they would put proposals and would need some assistance on. In looking at that, I think we can see what additional work we need to do to assist people even over the summer and before September 30 around that issue. That's something we'll be interested in doing.
Mr Bisson: Another issue, somewhat unrelated but one I would be remiss in not raising, is the question of deaf education. As you know, two members on this committee chaired deaf education committees. There are two issues really, and I guess there's a bit of uncertainty within the community. The first issue is the whole question of the recognition of American sign language and langue des signes québécois, very much sought after by the people within the deaf community. I know there was some discussion earlier about trying to get that done in terms of putting the necessary legislation in place. Can you give some indication as to what's happening there? Is that something we're fairly close to doing?
Obviously the second part of that -- it's probably really a question for Colleges and Universities -- is the whole question of the funding to put together the necessary training programs for the LSQ and the ASL interpreters. I am just wondering if you can give any indication on that.
1700
Hon Mr Silipo: Actually, on both of those issues I'll be looking forward to the recommendations and the assistance of the committees you and Mr Martin are involved in. On the training aspect, it's clear to me that's an issue we need to be pursuing with the faculties in a fairly aggressive way. It would be my intent to do that as part of some other discussions we also need to have with them around training with respect to visible minorities, for example, and the whole issue of teacher education, which I think is a major issue for us to tackle and part of the program reform initiative.
It is sort of the last and in some ways most significant chunk that has to be addressed, not just in terms of the kinds of ongoing professional development activities we provide our teachers but also some of the basic training we provide in the beginning within that context, looking at how to better meet the needs of the various constituencies and people throughout the province, knowing that students who are deaf are one key group of people that right now do not have all of those support services in place, because among other things all the training facilities aren't there to the extent they should be.
With respect more specifically to the recognition of ASL and LSQ, I think we've given an indication of our intent to pursue that and proceed in that direction. I think it's a question of how we best do that at this point and how we look at the role, on the one hand, the provincial schools can play in that process vis-à-vis the kinds of services we should be encouraging to be provided through local neighbourhood schools and where we draw that line. Again, that's an issue on which I'll be getting the advice of the two committees we have.
Mr Bisson: I want to underline something. It's somewhat related to that, but falls in the area of literacy. A number of programs in the province, some funded by your ministry, some funded by other ministries, deal with the whole question of adult education and of literacy and numeracy training. Having been involved in that particular area for a number of years as a coordinator for a literacy program in northeastern Ontario, sometimes I get the impression -- and maybe the impression is wrong and maybe you can clarify it if I'm coming at this the other way -- that if we're really going to make an impact over the long term on the question of really dealing with the question of literacy, there needs to be more of a concerted effort to have a policy that fits the two or three different models out there when we do the training.
What I'm getting at is that in some cases we deliver literacy training through the community-based groups, which fill a need nobody else is able to fill and do it quite well. On the other hand, you have other groups offering literacy within the workplace, something that was actually started under the previous government and had quite an impact on the whole movement. Part of the difficulty I saw when I was involved is that because there's not any one ministry that really is responsible for the overall situation -- Colleges and Universities, Skills Development, maybe OTAB and the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, are responsible for funding various sections under that -- sometimes you think there is a bit of a lack of direction or a very clear policy of how to deal with the whole question.
If I'm a literacy trainer working in a community group and somebody contacts me and says, "I want to do some one-on-one because I'm very embarrassed" -- whatever the situation is -- "to deal with this out in the open," he has that option, but when he is ready to make the transition and says, "I want to go into a group setting," or "I want to go into a workplace setting," whatever it might be, the left hand should know what the right hand's doing.
It's not really a question about funding, because I think the dollars are being put there that need to be put there, to a large extent. It's more a question of overall policy. Maybe you can comment on that very quickly.
Hon Mr Silipo: It's a fascinating issue you raise, because it's one of at least two or three good examples one could give of areas where we have a lot of interest and involvement by various ministries, as you've identified, and one in which, as I preach to school boards and others about the need for addressing duplication of services locally, I keep thinking about --
Mr Bisson: I was trying to be polite.
Hon Mr Silipo: -- in terms of some things we need to do here back at the ranch about some of those issues. We have an interministerial committee now looking at this which is headed by one of our assistant deputy ministers, Carola Lane, and looking at a number of these issues.
One of the things we are trying to do through that group is both to develop a longer-term vision or statement of direction that will hopefully assist us with respect to a much closer liaison, if not a complete integration, of the delivery of these services between various ministries, and in the short term to also look at a couple of examples of things, real programs that are being run, and try to look at how we can take those and show how they could be better rationalized in terms of, if nothing else, the way in which people out there have to deal with the government and not necessarily have to run around to four different ministries. That's a big challenge.
I have to confess that we've been looking primarily at areas that involve more our ministry with the ministries of Community and Social Services and Health. But literacy and adult education is an issue that also is on the burner as one that needs to continue to be looked at. Obviously there's another chunk of this that comes into it beyond the ministries you've mentioned, which is the OTAB piece and where that line gets drawn as well. That's also something we're looking at.
Mr Bisson: Just a comment you don't need to respond to: We get into a lot of problems in the field, because what happens is that you may have a really good community group somewhere -- let's say in London -- developing fantastic material I would be able to utilize in another setting, but because there isn't a relationship between how the funding is actually funnelled through and the reporting mechanisms within the ministry, you don't find out about these things, so I go out and reinvent the wheel a second or a third time, not knowing that something else has been done. We could really make an impact if we were to go that way. It's much the same in a lot of other areas.
I take it that Mr Ferguson had some questions.
The Chair: I'd like to recognize Mr Beer next and put Mr Ferguson on the list. The Vice-Chair's job isn't open, Mr Bisson, at the moment.
Mr Beer: There are a great number of issues that we want to explore and get into. Obviously we're limited by the time, but I'd like to ask if we could get one thing in terms of information on the school boards and financing. Is there a list of those boards in deficit situations? Could we have that list of those having that problem provided to the committee?
Hon Mr Silipo: Yes, we have some lists. I know we have some information, and we'll put that together.
Mr Beer: Thank you. I'd like to turn to the question of accountability and particularly the question of evaluation, of testing, assessment; however we want to describe it. If there is an issue, particularly over the last couple of years, that comes up increasingly in communities from parents, it is parents who are wrestling with trying to understand how the system evaluates them. I'm not getting into whether it's the teachers' fault, the trustees' fault, the government's fault, the opposition's fault; it's simply that there is a problem here.
What I would like to know, Minister, is this: Could you tell us a bit more about what you would hope to achieve with the program the Council of Ministers of Education is pursuing right now? In addition, what specific other things are you doing -- and I guess I already see this around one of the principles you set out in your opening remarks around excellence -- in working with boards to try to ensure that we have an ability to evaluate outcomes and in effect to know these are our goals and that we can play back? Are we reaching those goals? If we aren't, what sorts of things do we need to do? That would be the second part.
The third one, and in some ways perhaps the most important, is how then do we communicate that to parents? I think all of us have had experiences where we have been given forms that have been brought home which supposedly are telling the parents how well their child is doing and where some of it is quite difficult to decipher. I'm being kind in terms of some of the things I've seen. I think we ignore that problem at our peril. One only has to look at the Globe and Mail articles every Friday on the back page in terms of the questioning that is going on of the system, looking at the approach to maths and sciences. Most recently there is the discussion going on in British Columbia, where I gather a number of the teachers are saying to the government, "No, we don't want to shift the way in which we're both teaching and evaluating."
I'd like to hear from you, Minister, just what it is that we're going to learn from the council of ministers, what other initiatives you're taking and how you're trying to recognize that problem at the local level of the parents who are trying to have a sense of just how well their child is doing.
1710
Hon Mr Silipo: First of all, while I was happy to see that we managed to get agreement through the Council of Ministers of Education on the changes that we wanted to the national indicators, which allowed us to then agree to participate, as important an initiative as that is, I don't think that in and of itself is going to fix all the problems we have -- nor, I believe, does anybody else. I think it will give us a useful indication of some things we're doing well and things we may not be doing as well in the province.
But I think what is important with the indicators is the way in which we will be going about measuring student achievement, which is not by going back to a standardized testing format, but by looking at a combination of evaluation tools that will tell us, both through some of the traditional testing and through observation by teachers of student work, the kinds of things that students are doing, and sized up against the provincial curriculum.
I think we need to come back to that basic premise as we look at the question of accountability to have some clear sense, first of all, about what it is that our schools should be teaching our young people. We should not be afraid to try to distil some of those things into some clear objectives and some clear statements, which I think could go as far as saying, "Here are the kinds of things we believe a young person at the end of grade 3, at the end of grade 6, at the end of grade 8, at the end of high school, should be able to have mastered." I think we can do that in a much clearer fashion than we've done so far, and I think that part of the Benchmarks process we've got under way is an attempt to get us there.
Having done that -- first of all, the process of doing that is obviously cumbersome, much more cumbersome than I would prefer it to be, but I think we could all appreciate that in order to get the kind of buy-in that we need from teachers and parents and others, we need to be doing it in a kind of slower fashion than some of us would like. We none the less need to be quite clear in terms of saying, "Here are the kinds of objectives that we have, here are the kinds of expectations that we have and here are some indications of what a child at various stages of his or her school life should be able to achieve in the traditional basics of reading, writing and arithmetic," and also in defining and redefining some of those basics in terms of some of the other skills I think we can take as basic skills that students will need in this day and age, things like the ability to get information and analyse information and to deal with some of those thinking skills.
I think we therefore need to put more and more of a focus -- and as I say, the Benchmarks process is one of the ways in which we are trying to do that. The kinds of statements we try to pull together out of the program reform initiatives will also be another way in which we will try to do that, that is, to set out very clearly some of the directions and some of the objectives we think our schools should deliver on and then also try to look at how we can communicate that to parents, not just through the ministry but through local school boards.
I think that's going to involve school boards looking -- again, I know from my own background that boards continue to grapple with this in terms of a simple, yet not simplistic, way of telling parents how well or how not so well their children are doing in school. It has to be something we continue to drive hard at, because one of the things I'm unhappy about as I see the discussion that has evolved around teaching methodologies over the years, the argument about the back to the basics approach on the one hand with the sort of more open or more holistic kind of approach on the other hand, is I think what people have lost track of in this discussion, that the objectives haven't changed and they shouldn't have changed.
If they have changed, then we're really in trouble. The objectives of the kinds of things we want our young people to acquire and the kinds of skills we want them to acquire through school haven't changed. There may be some argument and some debate going on about how best to do that. That's what this whole discussion around teaching methodologies is about. But I think there has been perhaps an unfortunate kind of equating of some of the more recent teaching methodologies with a sort of abandonment, or perception about an abandonment, of standards or objectives, which I don't buy. I think we can have some very clear standards and objectives set out for our school system and still not have to resort to a very rigid kind of teaching methodology to deliver it.
The question is how we ensure we're quite clear with people that this is the case, not just with parents and the general public but also with the people who are called upon to deliver that in the end, our teachers. I think some of those things have got a little fudged over the last number of years. There's a responsibility on us to try to focus a little bit on that and say we, as a ministry, believe there should be some clear standards and expectations set out for our schools. Then we do the work we need to do to support our teachers in being able to deliver on that.
Mr Beer: I have an article here in front of me, and one could pick up an article from any given week. One of the big issues is around teaching reading and this wonderful term, "whole language," which I think some of us discover once our kids start going to school, versus phonics. Indeed, should it be versus anything but a rather more holistic approach? I think one of the problems, if I can use that as the example -- and we can talk about maths and sciences in a similar context -- is the ability of parents to understand what the standards are and how the young people are evaluated.
Are you suggesting that you would see perhaps the evolution then of a kind of clear provincial statement -- I don't mean simply of goals and objectives -- with more detail, so that whether I live in Thunder Bay or Ottawa or Toronto or wherever, as my child moves and as we move, as a parent I'm going to be able to have a better sense of just how well that child is doing? I think, quite frankly, that where I find the greatest frustration in talking with parents is that most of the time parents come either because they think their child should be challenged more or because they feel there's some learning problem and they can't seem to get through the system. Are you looking at ultimately then setting out a document that would set those out in a much clearer fashion?
Hon Mr Silipo: Yes, and again, I have to say I'm not sure at this point about how far along that continuum we can go. But I would like to challenge us in the ministry and push us to go as far along as we can, because I think the bottom line from the provincial end remains that we should be setting those expectations, objectives and standards. It doesn't matter if a young person is being educated in Toronto or Thunder Bay or Moosonee, a young person in grade 3, to pick an example, should be able to achieve, generally speaking, the same kinds of levels, and that's something over which I don't think there should be any hesitation in us stating what those should be on a province-wide basis.
1720
Then again, I think part of the process of implementing or the process of education within that still can leave and should leave a lot of flexibility in the teachers' hands in terms of the particular methodologies that are used. One of the things I think we also know is that not every child learns in the same way and by the use of the same kind of approach, that a particular approach, to go back to the example of whole language with respect to reading, is something I would say that I find to be very sensible and that I think works well, if done well.
But I also know that there certainly are instances where in fact, for some students, that isn't necessarily the most appropriate way. I think a good teacher with the ability to sort of move and try different kinds of teaching techniques is really in the best position to determine what kind of approach makes most sense for the group of students he or she is dealing with and I think there has to be some flexibility around that. What I think we have to be firmer on are the objectives we want to be reached in every classroom. I think there is an onus on us to be a little bit blunter about that.
Mr Beer: Mr Chair, I'll let someone else ask a question. I'd just make the final observation that I think there is going to be a need somehow to allow a greater part of the public to participate in that debate. I think that's where some of the frustration lies.
Mrs Cunningham: Not only in that debate, but in the debate on early childhood education, and I underline it.
I'd like to go back to a couple of issues that were discussed before that I would certainly put on the agenda, if others hadn't. I'm going to ask the minister a fairly direct question. It has to do with racism in our schools. The reason I ask is that I was, I think, somewhat heavily involved in developing a policy in London, probably six or seven years ago now, before we were in the interests of prevention, before we saw some real problems in our classrooms.
But the reason we worked so hard on that, it was an issue that was brought to us as a concern by our teachers and a sensitive one that many parents weren't aware of the potential of. Now we find ourselves looking at a report that I actually looked at last evening again. I'm wondering if you in fact agree with the author of the most recent report when he talks about racism in our schools by teachers.
Hon Mr Silipo: I'm not sure which report you're referring to.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm talking about the Lewis report.
Hon Mr Silipo: Okay.
Mrs Cunningham: I was really shocked to read that.
Hon Mr Silipo: I think I would have to say yes, but I would also want to hasten to explain my yes, because I think one can get into a very complicated and needless antagonism around this issue of racism in terms of teachers in the context that you raise the question. I don't believe that teachers are racist. I believe, however, that there are elements of racism in our education system, as there are in our society in general. I think we have to look at some of these issues in terms of how we define the word "racism" and what that means. I don't believe there are people out there, teachers or others in our school system, who go out of their way to discriminate against people on the basis of their race, but I think the issue is that there certainly are a number of results we see that show there is less than the kind of sensitivity, the level of sensitivity we would like to see with respect to issues of race and culture. Therefore, I think in that sense there is racism in our school system.
I can go back to some of my own experiences in the Toronto system to see that we would see results expressed in terms of students who would be in basic level programs. We would see that traditionally they would follow a bit of a pattern in terms of having students from some of the more recent immigrant groups and students from lower-income families.
But one of the most common denominators you saw throughout the years, whether you were looking at it in terms of the late 1960s, early 1970s, late 1970s, early 1980s or mid-1980s, was the disproportionate presence of black students in those programs, and that's something that sort of transcended that pattern of students being in there because they tended to be from poor families or from more recent immigrant groups. So that's something that gives us an indication of that.
Some information, although I'm not sure how firm the statistics are on this, quite frankly, around some of the dropout rates, particularly as they apply to black students, is again another concern. So I think there are some examples like that that one could pick to sort of indicate there still is a problem. I think the issue is how can we settle -- I think it's a question more of some systemic issues that need to be addressed, as opposed to individual racism or racism by individuals, which I think is much less of a problem. That's why we need to do a lot of work in terms of sensitizing people to that issue and sensitizing people to the kinds of things they should be doing.
One can define racism also as being the omission from curriculum, not from curriculum documents because it exists in curriculum documents, but from the use of those documents in classrooms and the exposure young people have to the roles of the various races and cultures within Canada in Canadian life and Canadian history.
It's again seeing racism in that kind of broader context that I think can get us away from the kind of defensive positions people might otherwise get into. If people choose to sort of react in that kind of defensive mode, by saying, "My God, what's in this report? I know I'm not a racist" -- as any individual teacher would say and I would understand that -- I think we need to get away from that kind of reaction and process to one that says: "What are the results showing us? If the results are showing us that there are young people who are not getting the kind of experiences and support they need, then we need to look at what we are doing on a system-wide basis in our schools and the kind of things we are exposing or not exposing our young people to.
Mrs Cunningham: Just in response, when one reads those kinds of things at a time in society when young people are looking for support -- probably the best support system they've got is the school system, other than their own families, and I think it's still true that in many parts of this province, sadly, many of our young people go to school looking for attention, food, clothing and the kinds of things we would hope most families would be able to provide -- I think we have to be very careful without proper statistics, and I underline that, proper statistics, to back it up before we make those kinds of statements, because teachers are easy targets and I think one of the downsides of our society today is that we're always trying to point blame elsewhere instead of looking at ourselves.
That's why I raised it. I was obviously disappointed because I expected that if in fact we did have that problem, there would be some kind of a statistical analysis, even if it were an internal report that wasn't public, that would have accompanied that kind of report, and certainly one that Mr Lewis is probably very capable of putting together, even if he had to resource individual school boards.
I say that as someone who was involved with drawing up the proposals, and ultimately a change in legislation, with regard to the reporting of child abuse. To me, racism is a form of child abuse. I'll tell you right now, even with the policy in place across the system in Ontario -- and perhaps some of us as individual politicians; certainly with another hat on for myself in the last four years -- I in my own office in the last year have had a couple of incidents of child abuse where people have been reported and nothing has been done about it. It hasn't been within the school board that I represent. It's been other school boards where people don't listen, even people in superintendents' positions, because there are people who teach kids who think it's okay to squeeze somebody's arm or to insult young people in front of their classmates. We still have difficulty in implementing that policy.
1730
It's not going to be easy, and I don't think this kind of child abuse is going to be easy either, and I support you in your efforts. But I think the tough part is having people in supervisory positions strong enough to simply stop it. I don't think we've got that kind of courage in many of our schools or we wouldn't have these incidents reported to us. There isn't a member in this House that isn't aware of one individual in one school who hasn't been guilty, at least in the eyes of the parent or in the eyes of the student, and sometimes in the eyes of a principal, where he hasn't been supported by his board.
What we need is some kind of accountability around that. I'm not certain what I would specifically recommend, but if we're looking at still having incidents of child abuse in our schools, where they're not being taken to the extent they should be, and that's people charged, I think we have to be aware that it's happening. I agree with you, Mr Minister, when you talk about educating people. All of us, I think, have something to learn when it comes to what constitutes child abuse or racism. All of us have something to learn.
In that regard, I'll ask you another question about the job program that was put in place for the summer. I know it wasn't budgeted for initially but the money was found. Again, the Treasurer likes to point to people like myself and say, "You just want more money." I don't think dollars and cents are the answer but they do help. I certainly think that in the big picture of the Ontario budget, money spent wisely in education is well-spent both in terms of prevention -- and I think this job program is just that -- and in support for education, which I also think is a good thing.
The question I have now is: We've got $20 million in the provincial budget to assist with youth employment -- correct me if I'm wrong here -- but we're also hearing that we've got a number of policies that are being passed in a sense -- I shouldn't say policies; we have legislation -- and who is going to pay for that? You smartly, I think, found money in the provincial budget for job creation for the summer, but what I don't want to see is the local boards now being asked to come up with the money for policies on racism, which I think should be there anyway. It shouldn't be new money. It should have been in place. If it doesn't exist, I don't think any new money should be required. I think that should be one of your prerequisites.
I guess I'm saying, are you now going to ask, through the existing pieces of legislation we are looking at, one on policies on racism and another for employment equity, that local boards find money and dollars from local ratepayers, given everything you said about how the province should be spending more money or have you set money aside in your ministry for the implementation of this new legislation?
Hon Mr Silipo: I can tell you very clearly that we don't have another pot of money sitting around on the side waiting to be opened once we pass the legislation, but as I commented earlier, I think one of the things we need to do and want to do is to take a look at how we can provide a greater degree of assistance to school boards in these new policy initiatives.
The assistant deputy minister for anti-racism and ethnocultural equity is one example of that kind of approach, where, as I say, rather than simply putting out some guidelines that will flow from the legislation and then just saying to school boards, "Here, it's your problem, you do it," one of the things I see is that this person and this division will actually spend a good chunk of time working with school boards in assisting in that process. We may not be putting out money in terms of additional grants, although that's clearly an issue we are going to have to take a look at as well in terms of next year's budget, but I think we can provide assistance in a number of other ways, by looking at the kind of staff support we provide in that area.
With respect to curriculum concerns and those kinds of areas, we do have some funds within the ministry that we have yet to allocate. We'll obviously be looking at making sure those get allocated towards the development of initiatives we are mandating. I guess it's how we find that balance in the most appropriate way between the need for us to continue to say to school boards, "Here are some things we think you need to do," and then expecting that they will in fact rejig their priorities to do that and deliver on those, and at the same time recognizing that we have a responsibility to assist them in that process and that it's not just something we can leave them on their own with.
Again, on each of these issues, we are going to have to take a look at what we can do and the extent to which we can go. Some of those changes we'll be able to bring about in the shorter term. Some of them are ones that are key issues we are discussing in the education finance reform because they go to the heart of that issue of the relationship between the ministry and the school boards.
One of the other things that touches on this as well in terms of this whole relationship is that we are looking -- I alluded to this a little bit in the statement that I made in the House some weeks ago around the question of governance, when I talked then and when I talked, I think, the last time I was here, about the issue of the relationship between the ministry and school boards and my sense that this needs to change in significant ways in some areas.
There's also the question of the role our regional offices play. My own view, although I have to confess it's still too sketchy for my liking in terms of the degree of knowledge I have in this area, is that there can be a greater, stronger tie between the work the regional offices do and the school boards. I think we can look at how we can provide that link in a better way and also recognize that the role of the regional office may have to be different in different parts of the province to account for some of the different needs that we have in the various parts of the province.
As I know you know, when you look at schools and school boards throughout the province we have the whole gamut, from very large urban boards and very sophisticated kinds of programs to one-school school boards. We have a whole range of things we are looking at and a whole range of ways in which we are trying to provide different kinds of assistance. A northern education project is another example of the way in which we are trying to provide some coordination of support services and other things between some boards in the northern part of the province.
There are a number of things I think we are not only doing but that we need to sort of step up our efforts on in trying to deal with this issue of the relationship and the support we provide to school boards in implementing the kinds of policies we are saying to them we want them to implement.
1740
Mrs Cunningham: On the same topic, I think we've seen a couple of steps -- sadly we've witnessed a backward step and that is with the tremendous challenges that the boards have had and with the leeway they have had in using the dollars they've got.
We've seen the cutting back on special education classes. If you take a look at my original question to you, Mr Minister, with regard to racism and pointing fingers and what not, the other side of that coin of course is some of the very special students we have in our schools in these times, not only within the city of Toronto but across the province.
I know many of the special classes -- some of them were called behaviour classes, whether you and I like it or not -- many of these young people have been certainly discovered, or however you want to put it, at a very early age and that's a good thing because one can look at prevention, but those kinds of classes have been cut back across the province because those are the kinds of classes that aren't part of collective agreements, as you well know.
The class size is a place where the boards do have some leeway. So again we're looking to our employees within our boards to show some leadership with regard to what we want to be able to retain. That's why, and I'll speak directly to Mr Martin in this regard, I'm not against finding more money if in fact that's what this little piece is with regard to the $50 million, but I would certainly have put that right back into those classes in the short term because those are classes we really need.
It's clearly the other side of the coin. Many of these students are students who are behaviour problems, who do in fact get singled out by teachers regardless of their training as being very difficult to teach. That's the reality of our times and it has been for ever thus. The good news is that we take it very seriously and we're trying to teach young people today that we didn't even begin to reach in the 1950s and even the 1960s.
I think that's a tremendous loss to the system wherever we have lost those classes and I say it with specific examples. You know what they are, Mr Minister. We could go through the boards together where we're looking at settlements of over 10% for two years and three years and some of them are even recent and some of them have arbitrators involved. That's what happens.
Another question I think Mr Bisson, and I kind of smiled when he said it, talked about is sharing of resources. I certainly share his view, except that I thought, again staying on this topic of policies with regard to racism or any other special policy that some boards are finding to be most helpful, I used to think there was some coordination or hoped there was in the system. I can remember asking the same question when I was first elected in 1973. It was with specific regard in that year to the regional office and what it was putting together with regard to curriculum and what we already had in London.
I am wondering, and I'm happy that you mention it, Mr Minister, there is so much that's already developed and working, but we shouldn't have to be reinventing the wheel. I would say to some of these people, if they had to go back into the classroom after being out of it for 10 years, they'd notice a real change. That would be a very big challenge. I'm all for putting people in the front lines. That's where I'd put my money.
I think there might have been a follow-up question, and I'm not sure, Mr Chairman, if you had one. I'm finished with regard to that policy, but I thought you might have had a question. I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not.
The Chair: I did, but our time allocation is coming close to an end. Perhaps at the end, if the committee will permit me, I have a couple of quick questions I want to put on the record.
Mr Beer: Go ahead.
Mrs Cunningham: If it's on topic, go now.
The Chair: If I may then, just very briefly, and I'll just share this with the minister, it's my understanding from your deputy that the interviews for the assistant deputy minister on race relations are going to occur in August, so we won't really have someone in place until September.
Hon Mr Silipo: Right.
The Chair: What was the framework for consultation on any resulting guidelines? It's important that the teachers' federation and the trustee associations participate, because when I made an inquiry several years ago about the issue of racism, several boards shared with me the number of teachers who had been dismissed for that reason. That has usually involved a grievance, potential court action, and it's usually a three-year process.
I would suspect, and all members of this committee may suspect, that you may be modifying your proposals with respect to early dismissal of teachers found to be racist in their classrooms. If that were the case, it's imperative that we have a consultation process involving the federation and the school boards as opposed to an arm's-length approach which allows this process to drag through the media.
I'm sure this is part of your considerations, but I wonder if you could share with the committee any structure of a process that you'll be following for the new ADM, because these are rather important issues, especially in light of the way you handled the question from my colleague Mrs Cunningham.
The other point was if there was an anticipated review of circular 14 vis-à-vis inappropriate reading materials and/or if your government, through the ministry, is considering material that exists in school libraries. I know that's a very contentious issue. I have several areas where one would naturally assume that your ministry would be making interventions if it follows the spirit and the words of the Lewis report.
It would be helpful if you could share with the committee more than simply the terms of reference for the ADM, but rather let us get a sense of how you would unfold the consultations with the teachers' federation and the trustee organizations as opposed to simply information and support. You will be laying down some rather stringent guidelines one would assume, and having been a former trustee, I can anticipate several of these areas.
I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to put that on the record. The minister may wish to respond, or at some time before estimates are finished give us a better sense of how your planning is coming. I know it's a subject that's of interest to all members of the House for obvious reasons.
Hon Mr Silipo: I'm quite happy to do it either way, Mr Chair. I can give you some very quick responses, but I think if the committee is interested in pursuing some of the things you raise, we can come back with some more details.
The issue of the ADM's role, and dealing specifically with the questions of expectations of teachers and of professional conduct, is one that I confess we have not given a great deal of thought to in terms of how we're going to tackle that, other than to say it clearly is an issue we will need to tackle and we would not contemplate doing that without some serious discussions with the teachers' federation. When we have the new ADM on board, in setting out his or her workload and marching orders, we will want to look at a whole variety of issues including that one, and obviously looking at the whole gamut of issues on the question of curriculum materials and assistance to school boards as we discussed earlier.
The question of circular 14 is one that obviously continues to come to the fore. As I say, we can come back with a bit more of an answer in terms of the process. We continue to try to look at the materials that get on to that circular. We have processes through the ministry, and people who are involved in reviewing all the materials that get on to that circular for a number of biases, including racism biases, and that's something where we can come back with some processes. But it's one that continues to, I don't mind saying, trouble me in terms of nailing down a process that works. As I say, that's something that we continue to work away at.
1750
Similarly with respect to the link to materials in school libraries, I'm not sure I envision the day when we will be saying that certain materials are inappropriate for libraries. I think there may be some in which we will say that. There is a real gut-wrenching issue about what you do with materials that have traditionally been considered to be literary materials that have elements of racism in them.
My own personal view has always been around those issues that rather than burn the books, you take the approach of using those as material that teachers in an appropriate setting in the classrooms can use as teaching tools. But I also realize the sensitivity around those issues, and some books in particular around that. Again, as I say, it's something we need to continue to look at.
Mr Beer: I know we just have about 10 minutes left. I wonder if I might raise a specific question that perhaps we can handle in that time. It's specifically around the situation facing the French-language public school board in Ottawa-Carleton. Let me say before I ask the question that a lot of concern has been expressed to me, and I'm sure to you and to Mrs Cunningham, by parents around what is going to happen to that situation. I think we've now been over a year, or close to it, where we've had a special trustee dealing with the board.
Leaving aside the question of even whether that should or should not have happened, clearly it is an unusual situation, a unique situation, where I think it is in everybody's interests to change that back to a normal board operation. Is there anything you can share with us at this stage in terms of where you see that situation going and when the public board would be able in effect to resume its normal operation?
Hon Mr Silipo: Mr Beer, I think again I'll give you some brief comments now and come back to that issue in some fuller detail at one of the future sittings of the committee. I can tell you I share the concern you've expressed today and I think in our earlier meeting. What we need to do, despite the background and despite why the board is in the situation that it is, I think we have to move as quickly as we can towards a resumption of the full powers by the school board. That is something we have been working towards.
I know the process that's going on now is causing some problems and being seen by some to be too drastic an exercise. Without getting into those details, I think everyone involved certainly agrees with the sense that the sooner we are able to put together some process by which we get the jurisdiction back into the hands of the boards the better, but I think that also has to happen with some clear understandings and some clear plans in place that will allow the board to deal with the deficit that's there.
Mr Beer: Where do you think we are in getting back to a status of normalcy? Is this something that you see happening within the calendar year? Is that possible? Where are the stumbling blocks? What are the issues that don't permit that to happen?
Hon Mr Silipo: I don't think we're far from that. But again what I'd prefer to do on that is to bring you back a fuller reply when I think we can get into a more useful exchange than we can in the last few minutes we have remaining now.
Mr Beer: Okay. Because there are several areas within the French-language education realm I would like to raise, I think when you come back with that there would also be a sense of where we're going with the Cousineau report.
Hon Mr Silipo: Yes.
Mr Beer: Again, I think as you and Mrs Cunningham would know, there is a tremendous amount of interest out there in the French-speaking community around school governance and what the government's approach will be to the report. Perhaps in the short time we have left, in terms of the consultation, you sent that report out I believe to the various associations and federations and so on. When were you expecting to get responses? Is that over?
Hon Mr Silipo: That period is over, yes. We extended that time line to the end of December at the request of a number of boards. The ball really is now in our court quite clearly in terms of us coming forward now with some decisions and some announcements about what we are going to do to respond to that report.
Mr Beer: If I can maintain that metaphor, is the ball in play? Is it off in the corner? I appreciate there are some difficult issues there, but I also would recognize -- I think you do -- what the Constitution says, what the courts have said, and that expectation out there that in fact the francophone community will have governance over its institutions of learning. I think there is a real sense that this needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
Hon Mr Silipo: I couldn't agree more. I can tell you that we have been dealing with this very aggressively and very seriously for the last couple of months and that the ball is very much in play. We are in fact meeting. We're just about to extend an invitation to some of the presidents of the various organizations in the francophone community to meet with us some time next week to continue the discussions. We've had a couple of those discussions with them already to share with them some further thoughts we're having.
I think the biggest challenge for us is how and where we find the balance between, on the one hand, the need and the wish to expand governance of education by francophones and, on the other hand, the notion that we have to continue to look at ways of avoiding further duplication of services, further duplication of structures if I can go as far as suggesting that, and at the same time keep in mind that there are discussions going on all over the place, as we've had in this committee room as well, around financing issues and other kinds of changes that will inevitably have some impact on governance in a broader sense. Therefore, we want to try to make whatever decisions we make within all of those contexts. That's not an easy thing, to try to find what things we can do.
I think we've clearly identified some things we can do and we should be doing. I may even be in a position to share some of those more publicly in the next couple of times we get together. Clearly there are a number of things around program areas and improvements we can make that we certainly believe we can do and should do, but there are some broader issues we are still grappling with that we want to try to continue to get people's input and advice on before we make some final decisions.
The Chair: Recognizing that it is 6 of the clock, I wish to advise the committee that we have six hours and 10 minutes remaining to complete our estimates. For that reason, this committee stands adjourned until Tuesday, July 14, following routine proceedings.
The committee adjourned at 1800.