June 4, 1996                                                       SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE


Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Perry Canning, M.H.A., Labrador West substitutes for Mary Hodder, M.H.A., Burin - Placentia West.

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m.

CHAIR (Mr. Mercer): Order, please!

To get started, I would like to welcome everyone to the last meeting of the Social Services Committee of the House. Today we have the Minister of the Department of Education, last but not least, Mr. Minister. Perhaps, to begin, we will ask the members of the Committee to identify themselves.

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

MR. G. REID: Gerry Reid, Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. CANNING: Perry Canning, Labrador West. I am replacing Mary Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, Waterford Valley.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: John Ottenheimer, St. John's East.

CHAIR: Bob Mercer, your Chairman, from Humber East.

Mr. Minister, the procedure that we have been following is that the minister can take up to fifteen minutes to make an introductory statement. Of course, he is not obligated to take fifteen, five would be nice. We will proceed from there to have the Vice-Chair respond and the questioning then in turn. I would ask you, if you would, to identify your officials and to remind the officials when they are responding to a question, if they could state their names for the purpose of Hansard.

Mr. Minister.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say, it is a pleasure for us to be here and I hope that we are able to bring your deliberations, for you and the Committee, to a successful conclusion. I understand that you have all worked very hard over the past couple of weeks and that you, like some others, will probably be pleased to see an end to this part of the process so it can get back to the Committee of the Whole in the House and have a more wide-ranging debate on all the issues covered in the Budget.

If I might just introduce the group, Mr. Chairman, that are here with me from the department. On my left is our deputy minister, Ms Deborah Fry, whose move to the department coincided with my appointment this time as the minister. So I guess we are both relatively new on the job in this particular portfolio. I am sure that the Vice-Chairman, when he makes his remarks, will indicate that that is obvious from what has been happening in the public over the last little while but I am sure he will be kinder than that to us in our continuing efforts on behalf of the young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

On my right is Florence Delaney who is an Assistant Deputy Minister with respect to Finance and Administration. She has been with the department for several years now, having moved from Treasury Board a few years before that, and she has had extensive involvement in the public service of the Province.

Behind me are back-up rows, the fellows in the gallery - like with the Muppets, I guess, the two fellows up in the back that are supposed to nod and make the sage comments at the appropriate time.

At the far left is Dr. Frank Marsh. Dr. Marsh is responsible for the advanced studies of post-secondary education, the college system, the University, the private training institutions, apprenticeship and other types of areas. Dr. Wayne Oakley, who is our Assistant Deputy Minister, with responsibility for the primary, elementary and secondary branch of schooling in the Province.

So that is the group that is there. It also shows, Mr. Chairman, the divisions that are here in the new Department of Education. Just by way of making the official name change, we are still using - for purposes of economy and efficiency and proper use of government materials and so on - the letterhead of the former Department of Education and Training. So the functions are the same but the official name of the department, in the latest rearrangement, is the Department of Education with all of the same functions encompassed. We continue to use letterhead and so on until it expires rather that incur the cost of throwing out very usable paper, letterhead and so on and ordering new stuff. We will do that at a later date and I am sure that we will be applauded for that effort by all members of the Committee as we get into the details of the session this morning.

Just a couple of comments, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and as everybody here gathered in the Committee would know, I always try to get right to the point if I can at all and give the maximum amount of information in the shortest possible time. The estimates that we are going to look at this morning will reflect the view that in the budgetary process this time, it is a fact, I guess, as all the Committee members have seen in their preliminary look at the estimates, that we have, in fact, a departmental budget that is smaller in real dollars than it was in previous years. Just to put it in context in the budgetary decisions taken by the government with respect to the Department of Education, we felt quite clearly as a government that in a system that basically is going through decline in terms of the number of students that we service, K to XII, and also decline in terms of the number of students from the K to XII system that go into the post-secondary system. But the post-secondary system, of and by itself, is not into decline the same way because there is another shift occurring where there are a lot of adults learners coming back into the post-secondary level for many other reasons. So there is a different dynamic occurring there. But with decline in the K to XII system, projecting that from some years ago we built the school system in the Province actually to accommodate almost 170,000 students, K to XII, there is just over 100,000 students in the system now. And the projections, Mr. Chairman, for the Committee are that in six or seven years will be serving about 90,000 in the K to XII system.

So we have a system that is in decline in terms of the numbers of bodies that we are geared up to serve. We are basically over-built at this point in our history in terms of the facilities we have in the Province, because they were built to handle almost as twice as any students as are now in the schools in the Province today. And with the decline we felt that that continuing trend in the next five or six years there was a department obviously that could reorganize itself at that level and could probably get by with a little less money in its budget without impairing the services to the students. So that is reflected and that is one of the driving principles behind the government's decisions in looking at some actual dollar reductions in education.

The other thing as well, Mr. Chairman, for the Committee's thought as we go through the estimates is that there are two major restructuring occurring in the Department of Education and in the education system. One again, in the K to XII system, the whole issue of going from twenty-seven school boards to ten and the education reform agenda that is continuing on as we know from the debate in the Parliament of Canada yesterday and last night. It has moved another step further and there are another couple of steps to go before we reach the conclusion. But because we are reorganizing, we also again felt that with the decline in the student population, and with the administrative reorganization that we could certainly offer the same level of service in the K to XII system with less money, and that we would not have to in any way seriously impair course offerings for students or the educational opportunity in the K to XII system while making those reductions. It is also clear I think, Mr. Chairman, to the Committee from things that have been in the public realm in the last little while, since the Budget and a couple of weeks before, that there is a significant reorganization of the college system that is imminent that is going on as we speak. It is only a matter of, I guess, days, if not weeks at the most that we will see the final outcome of a reorganization of the five community colleges in the Province presently located with Cabot, the Eastern Community College system, the Central Newfoundland Regional College, the West Viking system on the West Coast and the Labrador Regional College system going into a single college system with a single board of director instead of five boards of directors and with a single headquarters instead of five separate headquarters providing administrative services to the student who are in the college system at the post-secondary level.

So with that significant reorganization and the potential for real savings, again it was felt in the Budget process that the Department of Education could sustain a reduction in real dollar funding without reducing the level of services in any drastic way to the students at the post-secondary level in the college system. And those kinds of particular decisions have been communicated and debated publicly. There were some impacts in terms of campus closures and discontinuation of programs have been part of the public debate, but we have felt again, by and large, that on balance it was not a serious impairment of the educational opportunity for students in the Province at that level.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear in the Budget that because of the changes with the federal transfers where there were established programs financed funding before directed at post-secondary education, which is now in the Canadian Health and Social Transfer envelope of money, that in looking at our grant in aid to the University, we worked out an arrangement with Memorial, whereby instead of passing along the complete reduction that would have been earmarked for the University in one year, we have come to a three-year arrangement whereby we will reduce some grant in aid to the University.

They will be announcing in the not-too-distant future, Mr. Chairman, what their plans are to accommodate and offset the reduction in funding from the government so that they again try to keep the negative impacts on the students at the University to a minimum. There will be some, I think, which we will acknowledge and probably discuss further as the Committee deliberates this morning.

We have dealt with those issues on that basis that we have a system K to XII that is in decline and projected to continue to decline for at least another decade. We have major reorganizations occurring both in the K to XII administrative structure of twenty-seven school boards to ten, and a major reorganization occurring at the college system, going from five colleges, five boards, five headquarters, down to one. As a result, we feel that it is quite justified and that the education budget, while reduced in real dollar terms, would not negatively and seriously impact upon the student educational choices in the Province for the coming year, and years into the future.

It is with that kind of approach that I introduce our estimates and welcome the comments from the Vice-Chair, Mr. Chairman, and also will participate in trying to answer the questions. Being new to the department, I hope I will be forgiven if the members find that some of the officials are answering the questions instead of myself. Because I try to learn as I go, but like all of us, I guess, we have some limitations. You can expect that probably the officials might answer most of the questions.

The other reason is that it is early in the morning. I'm used to doing these things in the evening when I'm in more of a talkative mood. I'm probably not that talkative this early in the morning, but get some officials to give you some real answers which the Committee is really looking for. I appreciate the opportunity to make those few comments, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: (Inaudible) introductory comments. Perhaps the Clerk could call the first head.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Mr. Vice-Chair.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister and his officials. I thank the minister for his introductory comments.

I suppose, if there is a particular department which has received certainly public attention and has been a main agenda item over the past several months in the Province it would be the Department of Education, largely as a result of the very restructuring that the minister has referred to in his introductory comments.

What we have done in the past, Mr. Chairman, and I assume we can continue this procedure this morning, is that both - well, I know Mr. Hodder and I, and indeed all of the Committee members, we have asked questions certainly in a random fashion in terms of going from area to area and division to division within the department. I particularly have questioned some specifics and also some more general issues. With the Chair's consent, perhaps if we could begin just with a couple of general areas for discussion.

I would like to begin with perhaps what has been one of the more contentious decisions by the department, and that is the elimination of public exams in this Province. We saw last week some several thousand students voice their opposition to, I guess, the lateness of such a decision. Clearly time speaks for itself. With respect to that issue, the decision for this year is made and I would think has to be made, because we are now in the early part of June. My question for the minister, though, is in terms of the long term, and I'm thinking of next year.

We have heard educators talk about standards and the need of standardized testing and the importance of it. We have seen even some government documentation which tends to support that view. I'm wondering what plan the department has to give some reconsideration to the whole issue of standardized testing and the return of public examinations, clearly not this year, because of the lateness, but for the teaching year of 1996-1997.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I might just offer a response. The issue with respect to public examinations again, maybe just to briefly retrace the history. There is no question that in terms of in the previous fiscal year, which ended on March 31, all of the plans had been in place to run a set of public examinations again in eighteen subjects out of the eighty at Level III for this year. Of course, the cost had been incurred because the planning for these things is quite extensive and there was no thought at that point that we would cancel this year because of the very points, I think, that the Vice-Chairman makes and that the students themselves have made because of the timing.

The thought was clearly that we could have the teachers participate with us and mark the examinations during the regular school year rather than to come into the capital city region after school closed and mark them in the first three weeks or so of the normal summer vacation period. That having not been agreed - and, by the way, I might put the record straight in this Committee hearing that while the President of the NLTA repeatedly talked about lack of consultation, and while there was no formal consultation, for the record, with the NLTA, in meetings prior to the Budget, the NLTA executive and the president directly was told that this was one of the things that was being contemplated by government and would likely be a final budget decision, and that they should prepare themselves and their membership for that, and that we were asking for their co-operation.

I would expect that conversation would have been had with the NLTA at least a week or ten days before the Budget, because it was at that point that we were reaching these kinds of decisions. So while we were not in a position to officially say that to the NLTA and therefore we could not have a public dialogue about it, because it was a budget decision that we were contemplating and finalizing, they were certainly aware that it was likely to occur. That is why, in my opinion, for example, that they were as prepared to make a statement on the very afternoon of the Budget, without themselves consulting with their own members, that they would recommend that they not mark the examinations. That was not something that the NLTA decided three or four days after the Budget. They made that announcement in the lobby of the Confederation Building the very afternoon that the Budget was read.

Because of the fact that we had done them the courtesy of letting them know a week or ten days before that, that that was a likely outcome in the Budget and they should prepare themselves to respond to it and react to it, we are disappointed, and still disappointed, in the response because we though it was totally reasonable for the NLTA to ask its members to co-operate with government in a very small matter of marking the examinations themselves rather than insisting that we put in place a public examination marking board as had been the tradition for a number of years.

The students who came forward were clearly of the view first and foremost that they needed the public examinations. I repeatedly made the argument, and continue to make the argument, that for those students who are borderline with respect to whether or not they will get credit for their courses, those who are borderline in terms of getting 50 per cent, or for those students who are borderline with respect to maintaining an average that would allow them to meet the qualifications to go to a post-secondary institution, or those who are borderline, 60 per cent or 65 per cent, who may not get accepted into the college system, or those who are borderline around the 70 per cent mark, who might not get accepted to university, that those people clearly were looking forward to and needed the opportunity to write a final examination as part of their evaluation, but it didn't need to be a public examination. That is still the point and it is still the case and it is a legitimate point and cannot be argued, in my view. If they are borderline and need some final evaluation tool, it doesn't need to be a public examination, what they need is what the school boards have now done quite sensibly, in my view, is give them an opportunity to write a final examination, which they will. And if they have been as diligent as they suggest they are, we all wish them great success in either getting the credit for the course and meeting graduation requirements or getting a higher mark and meeting the eligibility requirements to go on to post-secondary education to an institution - that it offers that opportunity.

With respect to the standards, Mr. Chairman, there has always been a debate about that and it is clear, in other provinces where there are no public exam mechanisms, that the standards are developed and accepted in terms of what the school boards and the teachers in the schools do. Just as we accept the judgment of the teachers in every other evaluation process from Kindergarten right through to Junior High School, all through the courses of Level I, all through the courses of Level II, and for sixty-two of the eighty courses in Level III, every one of those evaluation decisions is made without question or judgment of standard and the teachers evaluative procedure is accepted. With respect to the students' other concern: would they be acceptable in post-secondary institutions, whoever put that thought in the minds of students that they might not be accepted at post-secondary institutions because of lack of public exams, did them a great disservice and caused great consternation and concern with no basis and for no reason other than to be a bit mischievous, in my view, and that is about as strong a language, Mr. Chairman, as I will use about the issue. There is no question with respect to Memorial University in this Province, the colleges in this Province, and with universities and colleges outside the Province that a mark verified by the Department of Education and a transcript sent out by the Department of Education is acceptable in every post-secondary institution in the country. And it has nothing to do with and nobody ever asks the question as to whether or not the mark was arrived at by a public examination, a school examination, or no examinations, As long as there is an evaluation procedure that is acceptable in the Province and that has been acceptable to the department, then the verification of the final mark has always been acceptable to the post-secondary institutions. Again, I was disappointed that we would find some educators at the school level and at the school board level, and at the university level I saw on one panel where a professor at the university or at least a lecturer at the university, was suggesting that there might be some question as to the acceptability of the mark. And it just isn't so. The marks are verified by the department in every other province and it is the transcript from the department that gets accepted, and there is no footnote anywhere in the country saying that these marks were arrived at with public examinations or not. They are verified, they are acceptable from the Province and they are acceptable in the post-secondary institutions.

So we are going to have a discussion, Mr. Chairman, with the Student Education Alliance. We are trying to arrange a meeting now just before they disperse for the summer. I have indicated again that I don't think it is in their best interest or ours for those students to be in here meeting with the Department of Education. They should be studying for their examinations and making sure that they are successful. But when the examination schedule finishes around the 17 or 18 of June, somewhere between there, and when they disperse for the summer we will meet with them and discuss the students' legitimate concerns about standardization.

We understand that change is difficult and there is a normal resistance to change, in any event, but there should be no concern from the point of view of either standards or the need for public examinations.

We are looking most closely - to answer the final question, and the concept of looking into next year, we are looking most closely at the model that is in New Brunswick, Mr. Chairman, whereby even at the graduating Level III course level where there are public examinations, or there were public examinations here in the past, that they usually spot check from year to year for the purposes of ascertaining standards province-wide, by having a public examination in a subject or two. They might test mathematics, for example, next year at Level III throughout the Province just to see that the marks are consistent, and if they find there are inconsistencies, then through an in-service program, they go back to the teachers and talk to them about getting consistency into their evaluation procedures, rather than instituting public examinations regularly and adjusting the marks based on an examination and those types of issues.

We will continue the discussion, Mr. Chairman. But the view that the public examinations as we have known them in the past will be re-instated in a future year: At this point in time, not likely at all. I wouldn't suggest that is a likely outcome. Might we follow the New Brunswick model where we spot check in a subject or two annually just to deal with that issue of standards? That is a possibility. That seems to be a model that has been discussed in the department and seems to find some favour at this point in time. Again, we might ask whether or not even that is a wise and necessary expenditure of public funds for the purposes of standards when the standards in this Province are quite high, quite acceptable.

We should not miss the fact that we have the best trained, most qualified teaching force in the country. We are the only province that can boast that every one of our full-time teachers is a degreed teacher with considerable experience in most cases, who have done evaluation courses and procedures as part of their basic training. Other provinces can't say that. Really, the public examination system might have been very necessary several years ago when we could not brag of that kind of a teaching force, but we are quite confident of the capabilities of the teaching force of this Province to handle evaluation without question.

If we find wide discrepancies from school to school by doing some standardized testing now which is done at grades III, VII, IX and so on to spot check standards, then through in-service programs people are reminded to get their evaluation procedures back in sync so that there is consistency across the Province.

I am sorry for the lengthy answer, Mr. Chairman, but I thought it was a very important issue and that we should address it.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just a follow-up on this issue before we leave it.

It is certainly my understanding - however, I will be interested in the minister's comments - that in provinces where decisions were made a number of years ago to abolish standardized testing, there is now some consideration being given to in fact re-instate standardized testing. I think one province that comes to mind is Prince Edward Island, where that may be the case.

Therefore, obviously, the question or the concern I have is in other jurisdictions in the country where similar decisions have been made, such as the government is making now here in this Province, if the importance of standardization, or if the issue of standardization, is being questioned in other jurisdictions, why, after we have, I suppose, the experience and the example of what has happened in other provinces, now, that decision being reversed? Why are we now making this decision? Again, to be more specific, I guess, having the other examples in other provinces, how can we now justify the decision when there appears to be a trend to reverse what has been decided earlier?

MR. GRIMES: Thank you. Again, Mr. Chairman, the academic debate about standardization is as old as education itself, I guess. I would suggest to the Vice-Chairman that his colleague on his right and another colleague over here in the benches, and myself and others who have been in the education system for a number of years, have debated this very issue ourselves, to the extent that amongst educators I would suggest it is a split decision at best.

Like many educational development issues and curriculum-related issues, things seem to go in cycles. There is no question that at least one, and maybe more, of the provinces that don't have public examinations is or are looking at the possibility of having one or more, like New Brunswick, for the purposes of standardization. At the same time, it is equally as true to suggest that in provinces where they have public examinations, as we have done, the debate is whether or not they should continue, whether they serve any real purpose or not, and that is a very circular debate. It is almost like certain things become in vogue for a while in education and then move out of style and then move back into style and so on.

It is very much like Language Arts programs and so on where we had a tendency, for the longest time, to concentrate on form and structure in the Language Arts, that you had to write proper paragraphs, indentation, capitalization and punctuation. Then we moved to a period of time where that wasn't deemed to be academically important, the importance was expression. It didn't matter if you ever knew how to spell a word or if you knew how to write a sentence or write a paragraph, as long as you put something down on the paper about your thoughts and ideas that was encouraged. The pendulum has swung again, we have gone completely around the circle to where the move in education and the academic argument again is that we had better learn how to spell again. We had better learn how to write proper paragraphs again. We had better learn how to do indentation, punctuation and capitalization, because there needs to be structure in writing. So that debate has gone completely around the circle in about fifteen years.

The same thing happens, I would contend to you, Mr. Chairman, with respect to standardization and examination. The public exam is an example of it but more importantly, the debate usually hinges around the whole idea of standard curriculum. In this Province we have a provincially-based curriculum in which, at the high school level in particular, Level III in particular, at these graduating level courses - every student is doing the same course from largely the same text materials, with the same teaching syllabus and guides, with the same parameters and concepts outlined for each of the teachers, with teachers who are on a common wavelength as to what it is the students are supposed to master in the subject area and with teachers who all have equal skills in terms of being able to evaluate and assess whether or not the students have met the objectives of the course.

The issue around standardization, generally in the country, is much more around, `Should we have a standard curriculum in a province rather than do you need a public examination?' So there are public examinations - is one part of the issue and that debate swings back and forth - but the idea that in a Province, particularly where you have a prescribed standard curriculum as we do, then the view is that you probably don't need a public examination at all. You probably need much more of a public examination in areas where there are some swings and some latitude in terms of what the people are actually studying, because you don't have a real idea as to whether or not they are even at the same level when they are at Level III, and in other provinces they are and would be here.

So it is an academic debate that goes on forever. There is no end to the debate. I am sure that there will be somebody sitting here maybe discussing that kind of issue in fifty years time about standardization in graduating levels and so on. The key to it normally in education circles has been whether or not you have qualified teachers who have the skills to evaluate the components of a program offering a standardized curriculum. We have those components in Newfoundland and Labrador and don't really need a public examination system at all. That was the position we were looking at debating more fully and on a more timely basis for next year. But because of the refusal of the NLTA to have its members co-operate with us at this point - I guess, because we did not have the option, in our view, of reinstating the money in the budget - then clearly, we moved to the other position. And rather than put any student in a position of writing an examination that was already prepared, knowing that the NLTA had said quite clearly that their plan was to put them in a box and send them back to the Minister of Education and to insist that no teacher in that organization marked one of those examinations; rather than have that occur and put students through the process of writing an exam that would not be marked, we cancelled the examinations a year in advance of when we were actually going to take the time to lay out the public debate on the issues that we are discussing here today.

There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that there will be a continuing debate, and there is a continuing debate in the country. And you will see shifts from time to time. You are likely to see at any point in time the country probably just about split on the issue, with the five that are in and the five that are out probably switching back and forth. I doubt very much if we will see a point in time in the history of the country where all ten provinces and the territories will either be writing public exams, or all ten provinces and the territories will not be writing public examinations. Because there is always a debate to be held, and it depends on how the debate has progressed in that Province or territory, what the history of it has been, and where they have been, and where they are going next. At some point they are in, then they are out, then they are in, then they are out.

It is just like many other things in education. There are always differences of opinion as to what is academically best for the students, because that is supposed to be the driving force always behind the decisions. The standardization issue is one that will be debated as long as there is an education system.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Minister, what are the true savings to government? We hear, and we have certainly seen, some reports that obviously there are administrative costs that have already been built in, and certain expenditures with respect to exam preparation and so on. But this decision at this stage, what are the actual savings to government to have abolished exams at this time for this year?

MR. GRIMES: The latest update in terms of the numbers and the continuing commitments that we will have to carry on with respect to marking and making provision for marking the language exams, for example, that were completed in December and January at the end of the first semester, scholarship examination that we had not intended to run because we were going to base the scholarships on the public examination, and other functions, will take the projected savings from the $650,000 down into the range of $540,000.

If we were to go ahead and proceed as had been suggested in some quarters, with the marking board, and continue on with the examinations, we would have had to spend $540,000 more out of this budget than is in the budget and projected. The estimates, if we had been able to get the NLTA to co-operate with us and mark the examinations, we could have actually reduced expenditures by $650,000 rather than $540,000. We now have a difficulty because of the decision by the teachers, and quite clearly their decision to make, that they not co-operate, that the NLTA suggest to its members that they not co-operate and mark the examinations.

We now already this early in the budget year have a difficulty in the range of $110,000 that was not budgeted for and that we will have to try to find somewhere else in our budget as we go through the remaining eight or nine months to make sure that we accommodate that. Because none of us is going to be in a position, I guess, to over expend anything other than what is provided for in our estimates. But $540,000 will be the amount of money that will be spent, less than would have been spent had we proceeded with the public examinations and the marking board. That is the latest we have.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. G. REID: Let me ask just one question on that, Minister. Page 216, 2.2.05.09, under Public Examinations and Scholarships. What is that Allowances and Assistance, $244,900?

MR. GRIMES: Let me find that page.

MR. G. REID: Page 216.

MR. GRIMES: The number you were looking at is $244,900?

MR. G. REID: 2.2.05.09. Yes - I'm sorry, yes.

MR. GRIMES: Two hundred and forty-four thousand nine hundred dollars is the amount of money, yes. Mr. Chairman, that amount of money is budgeted under this heading. That is where we put in the money for the scholarships that are paid to graduates from the high school system. Because each year we pay out electoral scholarships for the top scholar in each of the forty-eight electoral districts, it used to fifty-two up to last year. Then there were also centenary of Responsible Government scholarships that are paid to the rest of the scholars as now identified by a scholarship examination in high school graduates to assist them in terms of going on to their post-secondary education. So I am very pleased to see that the numbers stayed consistent from last year and that there is almost $250,000-worth of assistance to scholarly students leaving the high school system in helping them to go on to their post-secondary studies. That is where that appears in the budget, it is under Public Examinations and Scholarships and that number itself is for the scholarships.

MR. G. REID: Thank you.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Minister, if we could go to page 210, under Royal Commission Implementation. We have seen a significant drop from $667,400 to $105,400. What changes have you made in the department, and certainly, we hope this is not indicative of the department's changing of the way and decreasing the emphasis on the implementation of the Royal Commission program. I am wondering what changes you have made within the department and what programs you are going to keep in terms of the Royal Commission Implementation?

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted that the question was asked because that is a very important issue, I think, for all of us. A couple of years ago, maybe three years ago now in 1993, the decision was made to establish a separate stand-alone implementation group in the Department of Education to assist government in trying to work through putting the 212 - is it?- recommendations in the Williams Commission Report.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: Two Hundred and Twelve, Two Hundred and Twenty-two, the number escapes me now. But it is in excess of 200 recommendations from the Royal Commission report that we were trying to move forward as best we possibly could. A number of them, as we know, have to deal with these governance issues that are now still before the Parliament of Canada, having passed the House of Commons last night, and are moving on now to the Senate. There are a number of others, as the hon. member has pointed out many times in the Legislature, particularly when he was the education critic, things that we could move forward with anyway, that didn't require the consent of denominations or anybody else; they were issues of general agreement in education that were for the betterment of educational opportunity to students that we should proceed with. There was a separate committee and a separate implementation group budgeted for and set up, and as you can see in past years the budget was in the $500,000 to $600,000 range. A lot of that, you can look as well at the subheads in .05. You can see that the bulk of that money was with respect to Professional Services. This is where a number of the recommendations in the Royal Commission Report talked about doing further detailed work, for example, on the whole issue of special needs students. Dr. Patricia Canning had been brought in on a special assignment and contract to do some work along with the NLTA and the school boards and the public generally as how we meet the needs of special needs students in the system, because that was a very general recommendation in the Williams Commission Report. It could not give any specifics and someone had to try to put the flesh to the bone in terms of a general recommendation, and what did we really have to do and what should we be doing in the Province, to meet the needs of special need students in the whole continuum into the future? So those kinds of studies were done. A lot of preparatory work was done. Dr. Crocker had been heading up the implementation secretariat and had done a lot of work with respect to working with the Justice people on the draft legislation that will be coming before the House next Fall, the changes to the Schools Act, the changes to the Education Act, and it was understood that would be a two-year project. When the end of the two years came, a year ago, it was decided to extend it for another year because it was obvious that we had not made the progress, particularly with the churches, that we had expected in terms of moving ahead on the basic governance model, and that there was more work yet to be done.

It was, I guess, a more complex and more complicated issue than anybody had actually contemplated at the beginning. We thought we would move forward with agreement more readily on some of the major issues. So, this year when the new department was put in place and it was clear from the mandate given to the new government in the election, and as attested here in the Legislature just a week or so ago with a unanimous vote in the House, that we proceed with the implementation of the basic, fundamental, governance changes for education reform, knowing that we had been given a mandate to do that, it was felt quite clearly that we had most of the background work that was necessary already completed by Dr. Crocker and his group, and that we could now go ahead, proceed with the passage, hopefully the successful passage, of Term 17 in Ottawa.

The legislation drafted was released, I believe, January 3. I believe you may still have been education critic at the time, before the election, when former Premier Wells and Minister Decker had released the changes to the Schools Act, the Education Act, the viability criteria and all of those types of things that were in the public domain at that time. So all of that preliminary work had been completed, a great job done by the implementation secretariat, and we felt that now we were at a stage where we could take it back into the normal functioning of the department.

Dr. Crocker is finishing his final work and writing a report for us on his efforts. That is just about completed. Dr. Oakley now, as the ADM responsible for the K-XII system, has taken over direct responsibility again for the final implementation stages of the reform agenda and the Williams Commission recommendations, so we felt that it was the appropriate time now for us to draw it back into the normal functioning of the department, that the great bulk of the work that needed this extra attention has been completed, and we are very well positioned now to move ahead with a public consultation in the Fall with respect to the new draft Schools Act, the new draft Education Act, that we are hoping, with the co-operation of the members of the Legislature, to have the fundamental changes that are required to legalize the ten interdenominational boards and the construction board passed even before we recess for the Summer, so that they can have legal constitutional base by July 1, and that the other detailed issues in terms of the rest of the reform agenda, parental choice, how that is exercised, which schools remain interdenominational, which become uni-denominational, all of those issues are in the legislation which will go through a public process in the early Fall and go through full debate in this Legislature hopefully for passage before we adjourn for Christmas.

That is why we basically show in 1.2.08 that the actual separate implementation secretariat that has been there has been wound down. There is some money in the salaries part to allow for several months of salary for Dr. Crocker and some of his staff who are winding up now but will not be there for the full year. And there is still some money in Professional Services and Purchased Services to finish up a bit of the work on which Dr. Canning and her group are now in the stages of submitting their final reports. They didn't get them finished at year-end so there is a little bit of carryover.

By and large it shows that the detailed extra work necessary to position the government so that we could proceed with the implementation of the Williams commission report has been done. Now we feel confident that the normal complement of staff in the department, under the direction of the Deputy Minister and Dr. Oakley, can complete the implementation agenda over the next year or so.

MR. H. HODDER: What provisions have you made and what proportion of the recommendations in the Williams Royal Commission that relate to collective bargaining matters - the length of the school day, the length of the school year, the commitment to professional development programs - are these matters now matters that have been referred by your department to the collective bargaining processes? What is the status of that particular strategy in terms of the Royal Commission recommendations and the implementation of them?

MR. GRIMES: I think, Mr. Chairman, there was a very clear signal given by Premier Tobin during and immediately after the election when he met with groups like the NLTA. The indication that we are following up on completely and thoroughly is that matters respecting the working life and the workload and the collective agreement of teachers, in this instance, would not be dealt with through legislation except as an absolutely extreme last resort. It isn't the intention of government to use legislation at all. Those matters are properly within the realm of collective bargaining and would be referred there.

The examples, for example, that you give with respect to length of day and length of year: In the discussion that I've had with the NLTA both privately and in an address I gave to its annual general meeting this year, we indicated those matters would be referred to collective bargaining in the government's opening position. Because in the Royal Commission study through 1991 and 1992 before the report was submitted in March 1992, one of the major issues - in my own review of it I would rate it as the second major issue that came forward after the whole government's model as to how much control should the denominations still have in terms of where to put schools and those types of issues; I think that was the primary one.

The second most repeated issue that came forward in all the public consultation was the notion that in the 190-day school year, parents were convinced that students weren't getting the maximum instruction time. I guess the phrase that educators have always used is time on task. There have been too many interruptions of various sorts and natures, and that of 185 instructional days in a 190-day year, I think Dr. Williams' study and commission itself suggested that in certain areas of the school system, as few as 135 or 140 of them were actually used for teaching, in terms of normal standard teaching. Others were tied up with examination schedules that were very lengthy at the high school level, all kinds of other educational experiences that some people question the value of.

I happen to be a firm believer, I think as you probably are, that there is a lot more to education and teaching than sitting in a classroom and having a teacher and a student interact in that one environment. There are a lot of other very positive educational experiences that occur outside the normal classroom setting. But it draws attention, and it drew attention in the Williams commission report, it drew attention in the public hearings, to the point that they were so concerned about the perceived lack of time on task that they made two specific recommendations as to how to very visibly address it.

One of them was that the school year should be lengthened. And I believe the recommendation was that it should be lengthened to 200 days from the current 190 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: - that fifteen of those days should be for other things, but 185 should be for pure in-school instruction, and that the other fifteen could be used for assorted other reasons. Secondly, was that the school day itself, as defined in the current legislation, should be increased by basically, I guess, half an hour or so for both primary/elementary and for high school students so that you would have additional time available for instruction. So you would have a longer day and a longer year. The other one related to that, the notion of full-time Kindergarten was also addressed, that we would have a full-day Kindergarten rather than half-day, which the government looked at and for fiscal reasons again, a couple of years ago, decided not to implement because of the fact that it was a fairly costly item.

So the whole notion that we indicated to the teachers is that there has been an issue raised which is concerned about time on task. So far, there has been one recommended solution, which is a longer day and a longer year, and that we would present that one recommended solution as the government's opening position in collective bargaining. So they fully expect that. The challenge I indicated to the representatives of the NLTA and to their membership at their annual general meeting is that, I guess I used the phrase 'that we' if it is going to be the government and the NLTA through the Department of Education and the NLTA, the government represented by the department, we would have to convince the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at the end of a collective bargaining process that we have addressed the time on task issue to their satisfaction, because they have raised it repeatedly in the public hearings. They did not think we were getting the best value in terms of time for instruction during the school year. And I indicated to them that unless the teachers can show us through a round of bargaining better and different solutions rather than lengthening the day or lengthening the year, at the end of the process we will either have to lengthen the day and/or lengthen the year or we will have to go out together and say we are doing these other things instead that we have agreed to that will, in fact, take care of and should alleviate the concerns of the parents on behalf of the students that they were not getting enough time on task. They were not getting enough quality instructional time during the school year.

So that is the challenge that has been squarely put before the NLTA. The opening positions and the opening packages have not been exchanged yet for collective bargaining. But they are fully expecting that the government's opening position through the President of Treasury Board and our bargaining committee will contain references to a longer school year and a longer school day in trying to deal with that issue of increasing time on task for instructional purposes.

MR. H. HODDER: In a supplementary to the same topic - we were discussing the Royal Commission implementation, particularly with reference to the focus of Dr. Crocker and his emphasis on math and science and English programs, and his de-emphasis on some of the life skills programs, music, physical education, and some of the industrial arts types of programs and art itself. Has the department revisited that particular philosophical tendency of Dr. Crocker? And there has been some considerable dialogue and discussion with the teachers, with school boards, with parents and some concerns raised by many of the parents about the narrow focus of the implementation program when it comes to curriculum, and concerns raised that there was more to a child than math, science and English, that particular combination. Although all educators and all parents want to have quality programs in these, there was great concern about the narrow focus that was evolving in the department and that we were placing at risk some of the programs that are found to be of value, particularly in terms of life-long skills and music. I know in some cases, some schools were cancelling physical education programs at the high school level; they were not being offered at all. Even though the goals of education in Newfoundland state that it is a mandatory program, some boards were dropping everything from guidance programs, to art, to a whole variety of programs, and that wasn't just at the high school level, it was also within the primary and elementary divisions. It came to be supporting, on the one hand, going back to the basics, but many people have great concerns that that was at risk to the under-educating of the total child.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I could, I think it might be useful if I made a very brief comment and the Committee might like to hear a little further detail on that issue from Dr. Oakley.

MR. H. HODDER: And I apologize, in a few moments I have to leave for a caucus meeting, and then I shall return after a short while. But when you have a relatively small caucus, it is necessary, when you are a House Leader for the Opposition, to try to put a number of hats on sometimes at the same time.

WITNESS: This is one-quarter of it, actually.

MR. GRIMES: You are going to leave and go in and plan your savage attack on the government for today.

MR. H. HODDER: A savage attack upon the government today. We are just letting you have a little bit of warning. But with the three questions you have answered thus far within an hour, you are doing pretty good.

MR. GRIMES: So I am not going to get asked a question in Question Period today for sure?

MR. H. HODDER: Not a chance.

MR. GRIMES: Now, with respect to the issue, the only comment I wanted to make - because it is an important, educational, academic debate again about the whole idea of the basics versus the broader education. I believe that it would be unfair - and I know that you certainly did not intend in any way to associate the direction strictly with Dr. Crocker, a public servant doing work on behalf of government. When that view came in it wasn't that it was Dr. Crocker's view, it was the view of the Department of Education and the government being espoused by Dr. Crocker. I think it was clear that the executive of the Department of Education would normally debate and discuss these issues and, as you would know, there is a debate to be had, clearly that once that was articulated it seemed that a certain point of view was winning the day at the time and the question is, are we still headed in that direction? Is the debate still open and so on? I think it would be more instructive if Dr. Oakley gave a few comments with respect to where the whole issue is in terms of the broader curriculum debate.

MR. H. HODDER: Before Dr. Oakley begins, I don't want to leave the impression that this was Dr. Crocker's sole initiative or that he, in fact, was the only proponent. In the dialogue that took place in the public forums, whether it was dialogue with teachers or whether it was dialogue with his professional colleagues, certainly there were two things that happened. One was that he communicated as being the direction that the department was heading but also, of course, from our knowledge of Dr. Crocker, and from my own experience of him, I just happen to know that he happened to believe very firmly in what he was espousing. Therefore, I don't think it is any secret that this particular direction was a direction that Dr. Crocker shared personally, as well as a direction that he espoused on behalf of the department. Whether that was correct or incorrect is something the government has to decide. Obviously, if they hired Dr. Crocker to do the implementation, they must have been satisfied with some of the recommendations that he was making.

MR. GRIMES: Fair enough.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask Dr. Oakley to address this in more detail.

DR. OAKLEY: Thank you, Minister.

I think it is fair to say that the Royal Commission Secretariat was really taking its direction from the -

CHAIR: Dr. Oakley, could you just mention your name for the purpose of the record.

DR. OAKLEY: Yes, it is Wayne Oakley, Assistant Deputy Minister, K-XII.

CHAIR: Thank you.

DR. OAKLEY: As I was indicating, the Royal Commission Secretariat was taking its direction from the Royal Commission with respect to what was considered to be core areas of the curriculum. Unfortunately, once you mention that something is core, it means often, in people's minds, that other things are peripheral, and that is furthest from the truth.

The Royal Commission indicated that at least 50 per cent of the curriculum should focus in the areas of math, science, language arts, and basically that is not far off where the curriculum presently is, if you were to do an analysis of the time spent at the various grade levels and at the senior high level, depending on the program that students follow at the senior high level.

Over the course of the past two to three years, I think it is fair to say, and with Dr. Williams as deputy minister subsequent to the Royal Commission, the area of social studies has much more become part of the core as well, so that that is much more in line with what was considered core by the vast majority of people, and I think a great deal of debate that we heard over the course of the two years had to do with basically the whole of the social studies being omitted from that particular area.

We have certainly attempted within the department over the years, as a previous director of curriculum, to be very cognizant of the fact that many students should be exposed to a broad program. That is the commitment, and I believe will continue to be the commitment. There has been a tremendous amount of effort expended. As you know, the department has been working on developing intended learning outcomes which is another word, I guess, for objectives of the past. It is just a more refined way of stating these so that students would know, and be able to demonstrate that they know, certain aspects of whatever it is they are studying. So the department has been focusing on these intended learning outcomes, not only for the core areas of the curriculum that you have mentioned, but also in all of these areas, and they are in the process of being published for public consultation.

A tremendous amount of effort, as the minister indicated earlier this morning, has gone into the development of these learning outcomes, particularly for at the end of Grades III, VI and IX. In addition to the revision to a senior high school report that was done, that has been circulated to the public, we have received reaction from the public and are in the process of finalizing what the revised senior high school program will be. That will be made public sometime during the Fall in preparation for implementation, we hope, in 1997.

So I guess, to summarize, there is concern that the focus would swing in one direction and, I think, those of us who are educators, and I think many in the general population, believe that there is tremendous value in a number of areas other than the three that were listed.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hodder.

Mr. Canning.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would just like to say for all those present, with respect to public exams, when we went to school in Labrador City, we didn't have public exams. There were no public exams when I graduated from high school in Labrador City. I think the record will show that not all of us - it can be argued that some of us didn't achieve great things, but some that I graduated with did. It wasn't the result of the exams that they had written, it was a result of the overall education program they had received.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CANNING: Exactly, that is the point I am trying to make. But I just say that because whether or not there is a public exam, in my own view, doesn't make the student in the final analysis. But I want to ask a question with respect to the Apprenticeship Board and the Industrial Training and Certification Board. I think there is some transition being undertaken now and we are trying to get a handle on how it is we should certify people within the workplace to make sure they have the skills that the workplace is calling for. I would just like to get a sense of the time lines for this transition period. I think Dr. Marsh may be able to respond to that.

DR. FRANK MARSH: Dr. Frank Marsh, ADM, Advanced Studies.

I think as the member knows, as a former member of the Apprenticeship Board, there have been a number of changes that, I guess, occurred as a result of changes in the workplace and so on throughout the Province and the ability of workplaces to accommodate a broad range of learnings in an apprenticeship program, because apprenticeship is a workplace training program that is supplemented by periods back in school. The Apprenticeship Board did a report for the department through consultations with industry and employee apprentices, journey persons and so on throughout the Province. Two years ago that report was presented to the department, about a year ago, in fact, in the Fall. And as a result there have been, I guess, a number of changes that have occurred. We are in the process of doing a number of pilot projects where, in fact, training would be done by the industry. The Apprenticeship Board would move to an Accreditation Board, so that it would accredit institutions or industries for the provision of training, and the other is to ensure that the standards in Newfoundland Apprenticeship, and the journey person while they do write common examinations in the designated trades, you know, forty-three of them to ensure that the standards of instruction, the standards of equipment that people use, and so on, are similar in Newfoundland to that in other cases where the apprenticeship board would take on an accreditation role for institutions.

I can tell the member that in fact in line with the report and the recommendations of the report they are being put in place. The department has hired a consultant to work with the implementation of five pilot projects. The director and the board are working through that and we have made some recommendations for additions to the board to replace the member.

MR. CANNING: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this is a good story. Because I recall we had meetings with people from around the country. People from around the country suggested this Province was in fact on the cutting edge, in terms of setting up new certification boards, for the whole of the country, and it was done after very wide consultation. Because I recall I was a labour rep on that thing. There were employers and union reps alike. That board travelled around the whole of the Province. I would like to commend Dr. Marsh, the department and the minister for their continuing efforts in this particular area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chair?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 212 of the Estimates, specifically heading 2.1.05, there is reference to the Denominational Education Councils. My question is general in nature, and it ties in, of course, Mr. Minister, with the whole debate on education reform. You mentioned earlier in response to a question that, I believe, in the context of public consultation obviously there will be legislation and debate dealing with the whole issue of the implementation of specific reforms as to how they relate to the boards, and interdenominational schools and uni-denominational schools and so on.

Really, I have two questions. One is: What do you foresee the role in the near future of denominational education councils to be? Two, how do you envisage these public consultations? Will they be Province-wide? Will there be a committee set or struck to deal with that? How do you envisage these public discussions to take place? I guess, specifically, the denominational education councils, how do you see them co-existing, even on a temporary basis, with changes which are to take place in our system?

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A couple of points with respect to that. I think it is clear from the budget that there has been a significant reduction in terms of the operating grant that the department will provide to the denominational education councils for this year. It has been done again on a consistent basis that the money that is provided under this heading is for the fundamental operations of the councils which have the Pentecostal Education Council, the Integrated Education Council and the Catholic Education Council, housed in their offices across the city. This provides for everything from the rent of their offices to the payment for their staff to their travel budgets, their transportation-communication budgets, phone calls, meetings and various functions.

In the department itself, and in just about all the departments of government, what we tried to do this year in meeting some of our fiscal restraint targets was to reduce the operational accounts in the range of 30 per cent to 35 per cent. Where there was discretionary spending for things like travel we would make some very serious and deliberate inroads in reducing those amounts of money this year. And that consistent principle, Mr. Chairman, was applied to the operational funding for the denomination educational councils, and in fact, I think it reflects a 35 per cent reduction in the operational funding to the councils.

In the short term, they have a continuing role to play. There is no question of that legislatively and until there is a new schools Act or a new education Act that redefines the role in the lines of what was contemplated in the Williams Commission Report. They have legislative mandate. They are necessarily existent. They have to continue to exist, by law, to the extent, Mr. Chairman, that even in bringing forward the proposals, even with Term 17 past, and let us all assume for purpose of discussion that it passes the Senate fairly quickly as well in a matter of a few days or so, and that it has full approval of the Parliament of Canada - even then with the changed legislation with respect to education in the Province, one of the mandates clearly spelled out is that we have to have the new legislation made available to, and I guess, vetted in some form by the denomination educational councils. Because we run a denomination system and they are the appointed representatives of the churches with respect to education matters.

So when we bring forward a piece of legislation, for example, we are compelled by law to make sure the DECs have seen that legislation first, have been provided an opportunity for comment and know the direction in which the government is intending to move, so that they can give input on behalf of the churches that have rights under the Constitution as to whether or not they agree or disagree with the proposed changes. So we will go through that process.

In the near-term, it is clear that the government's intent, as will be spelled out in the Legislature over the next week or ten days or so, is to move to the ten interdenominational boards and to do it on the basis of appointment rather than run an election. We looked at the option of whether we would elect the boards immediately because the current twenty-seven boards have been in place for seven years now, just about seven years because there was no election held.

At the last municipal election, we thought, we were going to have reform accomplished shortly after that, but it is taking a little longer. So the role for them clearly, on behalf of the respective denominations that have rights, Mr. Chairman, under the Constitution and continue to have rights under the new Term 17, is that when we look for denominational representatives on school boards, which is spelled out in the new Term 17 that two-thirds of the members will represent the denominations that had rights at the time of Confederation, when Term 17 was first put in place, and will continue to have rights. In selecting, for example, the Roman Catholic representatives, the Pentecostal representatives and the Integrated representatives to the board, and the rest will be at large, we are duty bound to contact those people who speak for the churches on those matters, and they are the Denominational Education Council's representatives. So there is a role for them in terms of suggesting to us. The Minister makes the appointment, but we certainly have to at least let them make some recommendations and suggestions to us as to who their representatives on the interim boards should be, if we are appointing them. Once it goes to an election process, of course, that role is no longer required. There is no longer an input role for the DECs. Any person who would want to run as a member of the Roman Catholic class of persons, for example, on a school board would declare themselves as such and say that is what they want to run for and their name would be placed on the ballot, as a person seeking a seat as a Roman Catholic. Those issues will be there, and there is no vetting role or anything contemplated for the DECs or the church authorities in any way with respect to the election that would occur in November of 1997.

But in the shorter term when we are looking at interim appointments for the next eighteen months, we would go through the recognized designates of the churches, being the denominational representatives at the DECs, and ask them for their input. The whole notion of the public consultation, we fully expect and I think the Premier outlined the case outside the Legislature yesterday with respect to the continuing role for the churches through their denominational representatives or through the church leaders themselves, if they like. But at this point in time they have designated all contact with the government to their denominational representatives at the DECs. There has not been a direct face-to-face meeting of the heads of the churches, the Archbishop, the Bishop and the rest of the group, with the Premier or with myself. We have dealt with their duly appointed representatives at the DECs in all matters to date. We will certainly meet with the heads of the churches at some point, because that will be, I guess, the proper protocol, and required at a point in time. But the Premier laid out the case that when we bring forward legislation the interim legislation that is required now to give legal status to the ten boards and the construction board and the detailed legislation that will come in the Fall, that the churches will have an opportunity through their denominational representatives to have input just like everybody in the Province will.

The proposal right now, Mr. Chairman, is that we would arrange for a public consultation process similar to what the Minister of Finance arranged for in his pre-Budget dialogue, that we would go out with a short brief statement and some possible draft legislation with the minister himself going around and leading public sessions in twelve, fifteen, eighteen, twenty locations in the Province in early September. We would then come to the Legislature with a piece of legislation and, I guess, the Legislature itself, as usual, would make a determination as to whether or not it is of enough import that we would have a legislative committee follow up with further public meetings. If the draft legislation itself meets with some preliminary approval of all parties in the Legislature, it might go to a quicker passage.

The other commitment that is being given, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier himself has committed to the official Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that before we bring legislation to the House of Assembly with respect to those major reform changes in education, that they would, on behalf of their respective parties, have an opportunity to look at the draft legislation before it ever surfaces in the House of Assembly for debate by all members. So those commitments will be held and kept in terms of a public consultation organized and orchestrated by the department. Also, there will be an opportunity for the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party to have a pretty thorough look at the draft proposed legislation before it ever comes before the Legislature for discussion in the Fall.

So I think it has been clear to all of us that the public generally want an opportunity to have a real say in this reform as it moves forward. And the only clarification again, because I have listened to some of the news reports this morning, and for whatever reason -I am at a complete loss as to why some members of the media today were discussing whether or not it was going to be possible to really reform the system for September coming; when I believe everybody in this Committee understands that that was always impossible and it was never the intent. The intent was to have ten school boards in place in July to let them take over management control of the system. But anybody in education certainly already knows that all of the decisions with respect to which schools will operate next year - there was someone saying that the current twenty-seven school boards are out there hiring teachers. Well, I hope they are. I am surprised they don't have it done already, and I hope they have 99 per cent of it finished. And to think that anybody, particularly a professor at the University, would be suggesting surprise, on a broadcasted interview, that the current boards were actually out there staffing up the schools for next year - well, when does anybody think we are going to do it? There was never a prospect that we would reorganize the actual school system for next September. The view was that we will debate the legislation in this Legislature next Fall and the school boards will then be crying, the new ten school boards will be crying that we are putting a lot of pressure on them by not giving them their new legislative mandate until Christmas, by which they will then have to go out, look at exercising parental choice as to which schools operate on what basis for September of 1997, and also look at the school viability criteria, the new transportation policy, the new teacher allocation formulas and so on. They will be crying then that we are pressuring them for the September after.

So I was really surprised, actually, and a little disappointed again that some people who have been following this issue were in the media today commenting on the passage of Term 17 in the House of Commons yesterday, suggesting that there is no way the minister or the department is going to get reform in place by September coming up. That was never the intent. Anybody in education certainly knows that it was impossible. And anyone who was even thinking that, it would have been pure folly in the first instance to suggest that you could now turn around and redo all of the decisions for September coming up as to which schools will open, whether they will be uni-denominational, whether they will be interdenominational.

We don't even have the draft legislation available yet to the leaders, as was promised by the Premier. There hasn't been a public consultation, which we promised the whole Province. That will happen next Fall, and the phrase I have been using is the reform on the ground in terms of which schools will be which, and which students will go, and whether there will be neighbourhood schools and whether they will be interdenominational. All of those decisions were always contemplated for September of 1997, not September of 1996. And I don't know how many times any of us have to say that before some people suggest that we are not making progress with reform because we are not changing all of the schools into neighbourhood schools next September.

I don't believe that you, as the Opposition critic for education at this point in time - that you yourself would think, as the member, suggested, that could even be contemplated or done in that time frame. The real time frame is for us to put in place the legislative framework that will direct the decisions of the boards so that they can make those kinds of decisions for September of 1997.

As the Leader of the Opposition has rightfully put forward in terms of supporting the amendment in Ottawa, and whether or not those five criteria that were put forward are actually going to be the real test, that is what our legislation is all about. Will our legislation that we will debate publicly and in this Legislature next Fall, be such that the decision-making of the boards will lead to that outcome? That is the whole debate that we are going to have in the Province next Fall. And it is a great surprise to me that some people would be suggesting this morning that there is some potential great failure here because we didn't get that done for this September.

So that's where it is. I know I was a little off the rails there with respect to that, because somebody upset me a bit this morning, listening to that kind of stuff on the radio. But the view in terms of where we are in the near-term -

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't the Opposition who raised that this morning.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) the councils, and where the public consultations are, that it is a very critical public consultation tour of the whole Province to be held next Fall. And I know that everybody in the Legislature is going to take it very seriously because that is going to be the key to what type of reform occurs in the Province, and will be the piece of legislation that we pass here next Fall.

CHAIR: Perhaps before we continue with the questioning, if it is your intent to continue for a great deal longer -

WITNESS: Yes.

CHAIR: In that case we perhaps should break for a coffee.

MR. H. HODDER: We will never finish by noon.

WITNESS: No?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

WITNESS: I have seventy-three questions here.

CHAIR: In that case we shall break for coffee.

Recess

 

CHAIR: Order, please!

We will resume our session, and I call upon Mr. Hodder or Mr. Ottenheimer to continue.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to go to page 211 in the Estimates, Teaching Services. We have Teachers' Salaries and associated employee benefits, exclusive of Teachers' Pensions. Last year we had a revised budget of $320 million and this year we are $327 million. I'm wondering what rationalization we have for that in view of the fact that we will have about 250 or so fewer teachers in the school system.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very briefly, two things. While we do have less teachers allocated in the system because of declining enrolments and in line with the collective agreement, there are always two components that - there is one component annually that then puts cost back up, and that is, that the increment system is still working with the teachers' collective agreement. Like all others, the teachers go through the scale and get their annual increment in any event. That is a small part of it.

The largest part of it this year though, is that there is an additional pay period. Last year we had a year in which there were twenty-five pay periods in the fiscal year for teachers, and it was budgeted as such. This year actually there were slated to be twenty-seven, but we have budgeted for twenty-six with the agreement of the NLTA, because they did co-operate with us, and we are very appreciative of that. There was a twenty-seventh pay period slated for very close to the end of March, somewhere around the last few days of March. They have agreed to have the cheques come out for April 1 for the next fiscal year. Otherwise, this would be increased by almost another $15 million again. We would have gone from twenty-five pay periods to twenty-seven. What we have reflected here is twenty-five pay periods to twenty-six. Each pay period for the teachers in the Province in the K to XII system is about $14.5 million, and with some pension premium things it actually gets right around $15 million per pay period for teachers.

MR. H. HODDER: Are you saying that the teachers who retire, and there will be about probably 250 or so people who will retire - the new teachers who are hired, of course, they would be, for the most part, junior teachers at the entry level in, shall we say, a macro kind of sense - that the increments that are paid in total dollar value, that they still - there is not enough money, shall we say, saved in terms of the difference between paying teachers who were at the grade VI and grade VII level - for the most part that is the teaching level of the teachers who retire - but the savings that would accrue by hiring the younger teachers would be offset by the increments that are still being paid into the system?

MR. GRIMES: Not totally. The increments which apply I think in the teachers scale now at the higher levels with certificate VII, I believe there are still eleven or twelve annual increments in the salary scale. For lower levels of certification there are less numbers, as you know, the grid that is basically shaped that we have worked with for a number of years.

The increments generally in government are costing in the range of 1 per cent or so a year, maybe a little less. Because as you know, again, in teaching, for example, the senior teachers don't get increments. It is those teachers who have twelve years experience and less. In most other sectors of the public service it is less than that. They have less steps than the teachers. They get to the top of their scale more quickly, and then they only get increments if they are reclassified or if they move to another job, and those types of issues. But in teaching it is a little less than 1 per cent a year that is involved in terms of adding to the cost of the teachers salary bill to provide for the increments for those teachers who are still entitled to increments in any event. Then the rest here, though, this time around is because of the extra pay period.

Normally, there would be more than enough, actually, to offset that through retirees and having people at the top of the scale move out and people at the beginning points in the scale move in. That is more than enough, usually, to offset the 1 per cent. So it should stay fairly stable. The difficulty here is that were 239 I believe was our final numbers in terms of teachers that were removed from the system through declining enrolments in line with the collective agreement, and that offset, though, was more than taken up by the fact that $15 million had to be put back in the system to fund the additional pay period. The best news, I guess, in this respect is that the teachers could have been in a position to insist under their agreement and under the normal proposal that another $15 million on top of that would have to be put into budget, but they agreed to defer that to another year. They are looking at the prospect with us of redefining it so that we don't have these ups and downs and that we actually fund twenty-six pay periods every year instead of twenty-five some years and then the potential twenty-seven in some others. So we have appreciated the co-operation with respect to this, but that shows why, even with 239 teachers coming out of the system with retirees at the higher end and with replacements coming in at the beginning parts of the scale, that the total budget is actually up by some $7 million over last year, because half of the offset was taken up and used with respect to that extra pay period.

MR. H. HODDER: If I could move to the next category - 2.1.02 - you have dropped the regular operating grant to the school boards by about 5 per cent or approximately $4.5 million. Have you given any recognition to the fact that this is going to result in schools not being properly cleaned, regular summer maintenance that would be done that will not be done; that the accumulative effect of that decision this year combined with the reduction in maintenance that has occurred in prior years is resulting in our schools, gradually being in a declining state of readiness for September openings and that we are having our physical plants become more dilapidated? That is a strong word, but in some cases it might be appropriate.

MR. GRIMES: It is one of the areas where I think we would quite honestly admit that if we are a little bit nervous about being on the edge in terms of the board's need to operate - because part of that operating grant there is an instructional materials component, but there is also a maintenance grant for the school boards for their regular maintenance that doesn't require major capital. We have made the reductions. As you can see from last year's budget to the revised budget to now, the first reduction was reflected in the 3 per cent exercise and so on that the government went through in December 1995 when we did our $60 million exercise and part of that was reflected in which school boards themselves were asked to make savings in the school year.

I think we were all part of the debate here in the Legislature and so on about whether or not they could accommodate that, and they did, to their credit. But again, some have indicated that in trying to maintain the current component of schools in the current twenty-seven boards, this is very difficult. What is included here though, as well, are some considerations of the fact that we are going from twenty-seven boards to ten for most of this operational budget year. And that while there have been some school closures, there haven't been a lot at this point in time. There have been a couple of dozen or less with respect to September of 1996. And the school boards will have to be very diligent and very efficient in terms of operating the schools that they have remaining, but most of the saving are expected to be reflected again right at the school board office level. Because it is out of these operating grants that they all pay for their office structures, with their support staff as well as their superintendents - assistant superintendents; I think, we have transferred over the funding now to another head for that particular item on salaries. That has been moved to another budget, which is why it shows a bigger reduction here. Because the $96 million and the $92 million last year would have included salary allocations for superintendents and assistant superintendents who are not in the bargaining unit. Those salaries have been moved into another head in terms of Teaching Services, I believe?

WITNESS: From Teaching Services.

MR. GRIMES: Or moved from Teaching Services to here. They are now included. They are in this particular heading.

The reductions in the staff themselves, already partly announced in terms of reducing the number of assistant superintendents from forty-three or whatever it was in the past down to only four remaining in the system now, the number of superintendents have gone from twenty-seven down to ten, all being accommodated in this heading. The savings there along with - in the Avalon east area, for example, where we are going to combine the boards in the St. John's metropolitan area and the Southern Shore, where there are four or five school boards operating and partly affected now, with four or five business managers, four or five bus co-ordinators or supervisors, those types of things. Those positions are expected to reduce to one, and their operating costs are reflected here.

We are hopeful and we have had some meetings with them. We will monitor it throughout the year. Again, I think the overall longer range objective of the government is that once we see the real impact of the governance changes as a result of Term 17, and the ten boards in place and functioning, this heading, the operating grants for the ten boards, we would hope that a consistent number in the range of $88 million or so into the future would enable them to operate and do a very good job with respect to the ten boards and the remaining schools that they will have into the future.

We are a little nervous I think, as you are, as pointed out by the question, in this year. They will have to be very diligent this year, there is no question of that, and they have expressed those views to us in the meetings we have had, particularly with the NLSBA on behalf of the School Board Association of the Province. They feel they can do it. The one thing they do appreciate is having the notice up front on a full budget year and hoping that we don't have a December adjustment again. Because that is what really caused the problem for them last year. Because where most of their expenditures happen in the early part of the school year, in the Fall, and they make commitments, it is very difficult to make an adjustment once the school year starts. At least now they have the advantage before the school year starts in September of knowing what their budget is for the full year.

We are also working with them with respect to the allocation of that monies to the ten boards instead of to the twenty-seven existing boards. So the ten boards would get the prorated amounts that would have been in the other boards they are going to consolidate in terms of the downsizing from twenty-seven to ten.

It is an issue that needs to be monitored very carefully through the year. They think, because of the fact that they can plan on a full year basis, they are going to do it. They realize it is going to be a little tight in certain areas, particularly with respect to some maintenance and repair issues that they normally handle out of this budget rather than the capital account, and also a little bit on the materials side, they are nervous. But we have made some decisions about implementation of certain programs that gives them some relief on that side as well.

MR. H. HODDER: Given the connection between capital and current spending, and in some cases it is - accountants have great fun with these things, but in reality it is coming from the same dollar source. Some schools have had difficulties with electrical problems. There are schools that have carbon monoxide problems. We have schools that are desperately in need of repairs. Given the fact the government has indicated they will be moving to a single school construction board - which I think is supported by everybody, and the details, I'm sure, will take more time to work out. But given that, and given the fact that some schools are in great need of repair - some of them are classified as emergency or quasi-emergency - when will the boards know what monies will be available to them for issues, like for example, addressing high levels of carbon monoxide which is a problem in several of our schools throughout the Province?

MR. GRIMES: Very soon, we would expect. The piece of legislation that will come before this Legislature before we leave for the summer will deal with the ten boards and the single construction board with an effective date of July 1, provided we have all of the passages in the Parliament of Canada, including the Senate. The nervousness about that again is that if we wait until then to formally put that single board in place, by the time they get up to speed, get briefed and get comfortable with their mandate, we might miss a very important construction season.

Ms Delaney actually has been working with our DEC counterparts who have agreed in principle to operate in the short term as if the construction board is already in place. So with the $4 million that is in the capital account, on the basis of need rather than per capita denomination split, we would take a look at which are the priorities for capital expenditures. Because of some of those issues with air quality and some major repairs that need to be done, that would normally be funded outside of the regular maintenance grant of the school board itself. We are providing information to the school boards in the next week or so about what their budgets would be, noting that it is being prorated for the twenty-seven and then being given to the ten, in a tentative type of way. But the existing superintendents, for example, will know what kinds of money are available in their normal maintenance and repairs grant for things that they would have done from that account and will work with the DECs to see if we can identify a list of priorities quickly for the $4 million that is in the capital account that normally would have gone out 37 per cent for the Roman Catholics, so much for the integrated and so much for the Pentecostal. But it seems they are going to agree to go through that exercise so that we don't miss a construction season even prior to the passage of the legislation.

MR. H. HODDER: Given the fact that you have $4 million assigned to what we call schools construction account, capital account, has the minister taken into account as well the fact that the DECs themselves have an accumulated fund - which was identified last year in their annual statement of approximately $6 million, which has been accumulating since the early 1970s on interest earned when monies have been transferred and that was identified by the former minister? Is there provision being made, when the single school construction board takes over, to have that money properly spent, where it should be spent, in other words, in school construction and maintenance? What is the status of that reserve account that the DECs have built up over the last twenty-five years?

MR. GRIMES: There is, I think, acknowledgement from the DECs that yes, they do have some money that has basically accrued interest over the years, that sits in accounts that they administer. The full details of that are being provided again now to Ms Delaney for presentation to the government, in terms of exactly what the status of it is. The number of $6 million has been used in the public for a year or so, that number is not completely accurate but then not totally off the mark either; it is a ball park figure more than a real figure. Some of the money is in accounts, banked to pay debt that is coming due over the next three or four years with respect to DREE schools and so on that were to be paid out over a time, and the interest is being used to pay the debt rather than have it come out of the $4 million capital this year, because the debt has to be paid one way or the other.

So there are a number of issues with respect to it. There is a full detailed presentation of it being provided to us by the DECs in the next little while, and they have expressed their concern and their full willingness to see that in the appropriate fashion as long as - I guess the phrase has been, they will pass over the money any time as long as they are sure that the government knows that it is also assuming the debt that the DECs have. Because the DECs, as a separate entity, have accrued and are responsible for some debt. So if we, for example, as per the Williams Commission Report, wind up the DECs in some capacity and change their role and function, somebody has to stand behind the debt that has been accrued and some of the money that is in their accounts is there coming due in certain investments and so on to be available to them to pay the debt as it comes due on an annualized basis, particularly related to some of the DREE schools that were built when there were some federal monies that were available to the Province, and led to building spurt in the late 1960s and 1970s.

So there are a couple of issue there. They are not in any way, shape or form being obstructionist about it. It is just a matter of providing the information, making sure that all of us have it. And we will share the information with everybody in the House, with Mr. Ottenheimer as the education critic on behalf of the Opposition, with Mr. Harris and others. We will make sure that the information is there and everybody understands the full status of the monies, how much it is, and on what basis it will be transferred into the accounts of the school construction board. Because the intent of it is to have the money used for construction, as it was accrued on interest that was provided for capital construction. I think everybody acknowledges and understands that the intent at the end of the day is to have the maximum amount of it used to retire debt associated with prior construction or to be used to assist with the $4 million in construction activity that needs to occur now as we continue to make major capital improvements, maintenance of a major nature. And there is still the issue of construction of new facilities that are needed from time to time in different locations throughout the Province. So it is an issue in which they are dealing with us in a co-operative manner. The details of it will be available sometime in the not-too-distant future. I think all of us will look at it and make our own judgment as to whether or not the denominational education councils are in the right spirit making the money available for capital projects that are badly needed in some instances.

MR. H. HODDER: I am sure the minister would agree that it is hard to rationalize drawing down money on the Term 29 program that is contained in the budget, at the same time realizing that there are $6 million or thereabouts resting in an account of the DECs, and rationalizing that in the perspective of having schools in the Province that have air quality difficulties or have schools lack accessibility ramps and the list goes on and on. I am sure the minister would want to come to grips with that problem that has been accumulating over some time. I didn't want to suggest at all that the DECs are not being co-operative, just that there needs to be closure brought to that particular problem, and that particular situation.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, the intent is to do that. They have agreed with us that the issue needs to be brought to a head and to closure, and to everybody's satisfaction. I think they are as interested as we are in convincing the public of the Province, because it has become a public issue that, in fact, the monies are there; they will be used for positive capital-related projects, that everybody will agree it is what the intent was in the first instance.

In the general sense of the comment about drawing down money in Term 29, and other issues of the government borrowing against itself, or from itself, or from our bankers, when there are pools or pots of money around that sit there not being utilized to its maximum at this point, it is an issue that concerns the government in a number of areas. We have had the same type of example, for example, with respect to some of the rural development associations and the economic zones. Some of those associations have done tremendous jobs and actually have surpluses in their bank accounts. But under the old process, as we move to the new economic zone, the regional boards and so on, they had been in a process of annually still receiving administrative grants from some branch of the government while they sat with surpluses in their bank accounts, and the government was borrowing and raising taxes to give them more money.

The whole notion, I guess, as the member would agree, is one that is always difficult for a government to be out either raising taxes generally, increasing fees to generate revenue for the government, borrowing when we are already into a serious debt situation, to provide money for any kind of organization, whether it be education or anywhere else, when they already have the wherewithal to sustain themselves, and I guess that is the issue here as well. DECs are as interested, I would propose, in bringing closure to the issue as we are, and they would like to be seen to be doing it in the best interest of the students of the Province.

MR. H. HODDER: Going to 2.1.05 on page 212, Denominational Education Councils themselves -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Oh, I am sorry; my colleague mentions that he has already covered the decrease in the funding for the DECs.

If I could mention then, going to the next heading above that, Insurance of School Buildings, since we have an increase here. We pay out $1 million a year in premiums. Is it that the premium rate is directly related to the amount of usage, and that we don't insure each individual school but we have a general program that covers all schools? Does the insurance program cover specific schools, or do we have a comprehensive program that covers all schools and related buildings?

MR. GRIMES: I knew, Mr. Chairman, he asked that question for a reason, so that he could get Ms Delaney to give the answer and give me a break. I will ask Ms Delaney to give the details, because she knows that issue.

MS DELANEY: The insurance policy covers all schools in the Province and it is tendered generally every second or third year, so the amount for 1996-1997 is a tendered price.

MR. H. HODDER: My question was more along the way in which the program is administered, for example, when we had the school burned in Ramea. We had great difficulties there because there was some dialogue that the insurance company was being very difficult to come to recognize the value of the building, and there was some frustration on behalf of the school board operating out of Corner Brook, and probably on the department itself. Because the value that was, I guess, attached to the building at the replacement value level was not sufficient to be able to replace the school itself. Why I ask is that - is the insurance program identified with particular schools? For example, is there an actual value attached to each individual school, and each individual school and building is identified in the insurance program, or is it a program that says, in a general sense, that we are insuring all of the schools in the Province and that our premiums are based on the usage level?

MS DELANEY: The answer to the question is: There is an estimated value for each school in the Province as part of the insurance policy. With respect to Ramea, the insurance company changed at that point in time, and therefore, the insurance company that was responsible for paying out the cost for Ramea no longer had the insurance policy. Therefore, there were some disputes between the board and the insurance company.

The other issue with respect to Ramea was: Which manual would be used to construct a new school, what guidelines we would use. So that, in essence, is the reason, I guess, for the concern with respect to the Ramea school.

MR. H. HODDER: On the issue of School Supplies, the appropriations supplied here, we have a drop of about $800,000. I notice that from time to time when we get the exceptions to public tendering, you know, there are consistent exceptions to public tendering because they have only one supplier. I am wondering if there is some way in which we might be able to use the public tendering process more often than we now do, thereby hopefully making the companies who are producing materials more cognizant of the competition that might be out there. I know there are copyright laws and all that kind of thing, and publishers, but has there ever been a study done of the wisdom of going to public tender more readily than simply saying, okay, you have given us a price and we will take that, and look at the number of copies we want, that kind of thing. Have you done an analysis of how we could better use public tendering?

DR. WAYNE OAKLEY: What we do basically for sole source textbooks is negotiate a price with the publisher. We work very closely with the Government Purchasing Agency to ensure that all areas where we need to tender, where it is appropriate to tender, that is done. Areas like novels and support-type materials in the English area, in particular, where there is more than one source, we would go through the Government Purchasing Agency.

What we have done in recent years that has assisted, I believe, with getting the best price for textbooks is to list more than one text. Now, that wasn't the real reason why we went with multiple listing, it was a side effect. If we have a curriculum defined and we list two or three textbooks that can be used by students for that particular curriculum, then the publishers of one know they are in competition with the other for teachers selecting which materials - or school boards, depending on how the board decides to do that. To some degree, that has caused a reduction in price of the materials, but generally speaking, the way the publishers are operating now, they will do a polling of all of the provinces, how many provinces, how many students will be using this particular text. They look at the cost then that they can deliver. We normally get a 10 per cent to 15 per cent reduction off the list price in this Province because we basically have centralized it and do it on behalf of the Province as opposed to many other provinces that allow individual schools to do the ordering directly.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much. If I could move to 2.1.09, on page 213, it deals with Special Payment - Teachers' Pension Fund. I see that last year we didn't budget anything. We had to pay out $1.6 million and there is nothing budgeted this year. What is the rationalization for that?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, this was the issue where in the Budget year of 1994-1995, government with the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Baker, had indicated that we would want people to take a day-and-a-half off without pay or exercise a pension reduction option. Then at the end of the year, because the fiscal position had improved, we reinstated it and anyone who had actually taken the time was given back the money. As a result, because we didn't need to exercise a reduced pension option for teachers, we had to put a one-time payment back into the fund on behalf of the teachers because it was not required.

MR. H. HODDER: On page 214, Transportation of School Children and this is dealing with item 10 there, Grants and Subsidies, at $1.6 million down to $1.8 million. In terms of the changes that have been made, we have known about the St. John's situation that you have taken out of the budget for next year, what other changes have you made that would impact on the dollars that have been saved here?

MR. GRIMES: Well, Mr. Chairman, the savings here don't really reflect the changing in the busing system. This is debt retirement on the capital for - we have two systems in place with respect to school busing in the Province.

MR. H. HODDER: Thirty million dollars here somewhere.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, and I will get to that. It is there and I will answer the question.

In this particular heading, some school boards actually run their own bus service and purchase their own buses. What they do is go out with the permission to borrow and we then contribute towards helping them pay off the debt on their school board-owned buses; and this is where this heading is. Other school boards, of course, contract out to private sector bus operators who carry their own debt in terms of the vehicles that they purchase, but this just carries the amount.

I think the transportation issue is probably back a couple of sections -

MR. H. HODDER: I saw it there earlier but I -

MR. GRIMES: On page 211, Mr. Chairman, School Board Operations, 2.1.02, where we had asked earlier about the reduction and it is the Transportation of School Children, the $27 million to $29 million and back to $27 million. We are budgeting about $1.5 million or so in savings this year with respect to transportation. Largely, it is because we have asked people to enforce two parts of the current regulations that they have been rather lax in, in the past, not that any of the regulations have changed outside of St. John's. St. John's has been dealt with extensively, I think, as a separate issue, and we are continuing our dialogue with representatives of Metrobus and the City of St. John's to see if there are, in fact, any anomalies that need to be taken care of. But in the metropolitan St. John's area, in the boundaries of the city, this is the only community in the Province where there is a public transit system capable of handling the school population during the times when students have to go to and return from school. It doesn't even exist in the City of Mount Pearl. Even though there is a limited Metrobus service in Mount Pearl, it is not extensive enough, and neither is it scheduled regularly enough to provide for the transportation needs of the student body in Mount Pearl. No other city, town or community has any public transit system that could come anywhere close to accommodating the student needs.

If there are a couple of exceptions or anomalies in St. John's itself, that is what we are now discussing with the Metrobus group as to whether or not there needs to be some very limited busing in the capital city region.

With respect to the other areas, there are two other regulations. There was never a provision in the school bus regulations for lunchtime busing other than for the changeover of Kindergarten classes. With half-day Kindergarten, in areas where there were two groups or more, half the group would go home at lunchtime because their day was finished, and the other half would come in for the afternoon session. That was the only provision ever contemplated in the busing regulations for busing at lunchtime. But over the years the system had developed whereby since, I guess, the buses were running back and forth for Kindergarten, then they ran buses for everybody. In fact, there are areas now where there are several additional buses running at lunchtime that were never, ever, provided for in the regulations, and we have asked people to go back to the regulation as it was written in the first instance and intended, that lunchtime busing would be provided for the changeover of Kindergarten classes only.

A number of school boards have dealt with it by polling their parents and suggesting to them that if they want to continue lunchtime busing, then the parents would have to pay for it in terms of they can identify what the cost of that service is, and they have already sent out questionnaires in several areas of the Province asking parents, if they want the service at lunchtime badly enough, here is what it would cost in our area, and are you willing to pay x-number of dollars per month per student to continue with lunchtime busing, because otherwise, they will honour the intent of the regulation and discontinue it for September. They will reach those final decisions within the next couple of weeks before schools close, and notify parents and students as to what the status would be for September.

The other issue that we have asked them to enforce is that the school bus regulations always provided for transportation for students who lived more than one mile, or 1.6 kilometres, from the school, and in a number of areas, even though that was always the written regulation and continues to be the written regulation, the system has, I guess, evolved over the years to the point that everybody who wanted to get on a bus could get on a bus, even if they lived ten feet from the school. So we have asked them to go back to the intent of the original regulations, with the flexibility given again to the boards that if they are in an area where there are a very limited number of students who are more than 1.6 kilometres from the school and you have, through a set of circumstances, a bus that can contain more than those students, that it would be up to the board in the area to decide if they would continue to pick up students until the bus is filled, but that no additional buses should be put on to provide service for people inside that limit. We are having one other look at an extenuating circumstance with respect to that policy in Labrador West because of the severe climatic conditions in that part of the Province which maintain for most of the school year. If there is to be an exception to that rule, it is likely that would probably be the only location in the Province where we would give flexibility with respect to the 1.6 kilometres. We have asked school boards to plan their busing for September to reflect those two changes which would comply with current regulations.

The estimate from the school bus review that was done in detail last year, and the information that the department is working with now, is that just by enforcing those two regulations as they are written, without changing any regulations at all, we could save $1.5 million in the transportation budget, and still provide for adequate transportation for students in all regions of the Province. In the city of St. John's we have brought in the policy of being consistent with respect to students who are residents inside the boundary of the city. We couldn't continue on with a policy that provided for school busing for some residents of the city, who were provided with a Metrobus service, and no school busing for other residents of the city who were also provided with a Metrobus service.

At least, in St. John's, while there is the debate - and I have had correspondence, Mr. Chairman, from the Deputy Mayor with respect to discrimination on the basis of only the residents of St. John's having to pay to get to school when everybody else in all other communities get a free bus ride to school. At least in the city it is consistent now that every resident of the city will avail of Metrobus services and pay for it to go to and from school, or use their own transportation if it is available for them. Outside of the city of St. John's, where there is no public transit system to provide for transportation of students, consistently it will be provided in line with the regulations. I'm now asking them to enforce the lunchtime regulation as well as the 1.6 kilometre pick up distance or walking distance.

MR. H. HODDER: A supplementary on school busing, the issue of the contracts. Last year, contracts were let for a one-year term, because at that point last July and August there was every intention that we may be ready to implement some of the structural changes in education by this September. The contracts that were let were let for a one-year term. Have these contracts been extended and have there been any dollar values added because of inflation or changes in routes or whatever?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed by Ms Delaney that each of those contracts has an option to renew for another year. Because we certainly didn't want to go through the same exercise as last year, where, after a long period of renewal, we decided to go to tender and, of course, the prices went up, and I guess in many instances added to some cost instead of reducing some cost.

The discussion is ongoing now with the school boards that have these private sector contracts as to what is the best option for one more year, whether we renew the contracts or go to tender. Those decisions will be made again very shortly. The full expectation is that everybody will follow the process that keeps the cost at least contained at last year's level for those services rather than risking any increases. We can do that by exercising the renewal options; and that might be the approach taken consistently with them, rather than go through a tender process. Because again, I believe, everybody here in the Committee fully expects that for September 1997, the year after, with a new transportation policy and new busing regulations, there will be a considerable change in terms of that, and we might very well need for those school boards that are contracting out their busing services to go through a tender process.

Because the level of services and the quantity of services provided is expected to be significantly different in September of 1997. But where the school system is going to be largely the same for the next school year as it was for this school year, I think, the renewal option right now is looking to be the most attractive option for one more school year.

MR. H. HODDER: Further to the school busing, there will be some differences within school boards when the ten boards take over, when we amalgamate them all together. Some communities now have their school busing provided by the board-owned school bus system, and within that same board jurisdiction in the future there will be communities which now have contractual arrangements. There was some discussion in the last eighteen months about the cost savings by going to public tender, and having private operators versus having the school boards own their own buses. For example, on the Burin Peninsula, the school boards own their own busing, whereas in, say, the Carbonear area, they are almost exclusively, I think, done by public tender. In the St. John's area it is also done by public tender.

While there are reasons why these school boards went that route at that time, is there any study being done by the Province as to which route the Province will be going in the future or will this topic also be a topic that will have public consultation?

MR. GRIMES: I will ask Ms Delaney again, Mr. Chairman, to elaborate on the whole issue. I am not sure that the whole idea of a board-owned busing versus contracted busing will be a matter of public consultation. The broader issues of the types of schools that are run and the limits and the conditions under which buses will be allowed to run from one area to another area will be part of the public consultation. But it is currently a matter of study and discussion within the department and with the school boards about how we either best run a system of all school board-based busing or all contracted busing or a combination of both.

I ask Ms Delaney to engage in the discussion with you further, because she is leading that discussion on our part.

MR. H. HODDER: If I could just make one comment, Mr. Minister, before that. The reason why I ask that is because almost exclusively, the areas where there are lunch-time busing programs are those areas where the school boards own the buses. Therefore, regardless of whether or not you wish to have a subject for public consultation, it will indeed become a subject of public consultation because when parents comment upon the system they will be concerned with the broader issues, and who owns the school buses will indeed come in because of the historical arrangements that have been made. As I said, almost exclusively, the areas where there are lunch-time busing programs, they have occurred because the school boards said: While we are driving back and forth there anyway it is our buses. We had to pay the operator x number of dollars per day and we might as well go up and pick them up and drop them back after lunch, kind of thing. I wanted to put that in there because while you and I might not think it is appropriate for public consultation, it will be an issue.

MR. GRIMES: A point well taken. I will ask Ms Delaney to talk further about the issue of the school board versus the contracted services.

MS DELANEY: We are currently meeting with school board personnel with respect to efficiencies in busing right across the Province. We are also addressing particularly board-operated systems with the view of identifying efficiencies in those systems. The average price per bus for board-operated systems actually varies right across the Province. An argument could be made that it may be more cost effective to contract that out, but that will have to be addressed on an individual regional basis. Those are items that I am currently discussing with school board business managers and busing supervisors.

I guess, with respect to last year's tender call, the average price per bus on the Avalon Peninsula in particular increased as a result of the tender call. Therefore, if I look at those results, contracted systems are probably getting close to what it would cost to operate board-owned systems on average.

MR. H. HODDER: My final question on busing. The current regulations regarding safety and the age of busing. As you know, many of the private contractors go to Ontario or Quebec and they purchase buses that are no longer eligible to be used in these provinces because of the age of the buses. Many of the buses used in our Province, particularly in the systems where there are private contractors, indeed are buses that have outlived their utilitarian value in other provinces. Is there any move on the part of this Province to ensure that our regulations regarding the age of buses and the time at which they have to be discarded - in some provinces after eight years the bus is not allowed to be used anymore. I think in Newfoundland it is eleven years?

MS DELANEY: Fourteen.

MR. H. HODDER: Fourteen years. It is worse than I had thought it was by about 25 per cent. Is there any movement to make our busing systems consistent with other provinces as it relates to the age of the buses?

MR. GRIMES: It is an issue, Mr. Chairman, that we would like to be able to address, because the proposition put forward, I think, is pretty accurate in terms of reflecting what does occur. The difficulty always comes from a budget side in terms of - in order to make a move from a fourteen-year life limit or lifespan for a bus to be used in the Province, down to ten, nine, eight or less years, the current inventory, I guess, would - because of the way particularly the private operators, but also some of the school board-based systems have run, you would probably be in the range of 50 per cent or more of the buses having to be replaced almost immediately.

We are looking at, with the consolidation that we expect to occur over the next two or three years, with the changes in the basic transportation policy of busing generically to the nearest school, instead of busing past schools and so on, that by probably seeing fewer buses required in the system, and seeing some stability again return over a couple of years to the Education budget at the levels where we have now reduced to, that we might be able to address that issue over a three-, four- or five-year planning cycle. So that we can in fact give the boards and/or the operators, depending on which route we continue, or whether there is a combination, a planning cycle themselves, where they can make adjustments and make sure that they are meeting any new regulation that we bring in.

So far, while our years of usage and lifespan for the vehicles are a bit higher, again, the safety of the vehicles has not been an issue. In fact, the manufacturers of these types of vehicles indicate that they have a life expectancy, because of the nature of them, of twenty years or more where they could be useful and safe to operate and with proper maintenance, could go even beyond that. So I don't know how our fourteen years compares with right across the rest of the country but it certainly, from the standards for the people that actually - the manufacturers of the buses, it is nowhere close to their outer limit as to how long they feel their vehicles are utilitarian and still safe to be in operation, particularly provided that the owners, whether it be private sector or a school board-based system, have done regular proper maintenance on them.

MR. H. HODDER: I have to remind the minister, of course, that his predecessor last year was going to buy a whole fleet very, very cheaply. He was going to get them for a couple of thousand dollars each at one point in time when there were some negotiations ongoing with some private contractors in the greater Avalon East area. However, I am espousing and asking the minister, in view of the great issues that are involved here, if he would plan to probably reduce the fourteen years by a sequential arrangement probably over a period of time, dropping one year at a time? And then we will let the school boards or the private contractors have more time to be able to allow appropriate funding arrangements in their capital costs.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, I certainly appreciate the presentation of that point, Mr. Chairman, because it certainly makes sense. If we find ourselves in a position to be able to manage that kind of very sensible, phased-in approach, then I think it is something that we will look forward to looking for an opportunity to do over the next few years.

MR. H. HODDER: I have lots more questions but maybe someone else would have questions.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions from any members of the Committee?

Mr. Ottenheimer.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question with respect to the Newfoundland School for the Deaf and it is under Teaching Services, page 211. We see last year budgeted $1,744,500, this year in the Estimates $1,739,600, just a slight reduction. I understand there have been some significant cuts at the School for the Deaf, including at least two teaching positions. I am wondering - in looking at the figures there, I am having some difficulty in rationalizing the difference in last years figures and this years figures with respect to the cuts in teaching specifically at the School for the Deaf.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, this issue again deals just with the issue of teaching services at the School for the Deaf. The point that the hon. member raises with respect to some reductions at the School for the Deaf, they were asked as well as everybody else on the operation side. The actual functioning of the school from their other capacities in terms of running the residences, the dormitories, the services, the transportation for students back and forth, the provision of nursing care and so on, the administration of the whole residence complex as well as the school to effect some savings where possible.

On the teaching side, I think there are very minimal impacts in terms of asking them to look at whether or not they need the full administrative component that they had in terms of principal, vice-principal, that supervisory level instead of just the teachers, and there is very minimal reductions there. But we did ask them to look - I think, there is another head somewhere where we provide money to the School for the Deaf.

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 219.

MR. GRIMES: Page 219, Mr. Chairman, section 2.4.03. In that section it shows again for the other people, the other types of staff that work there, the supervisors in the dormitories, the other attendants that take care of the needs of the students and so on, you can see some reductions that occur in that point. So when Mr. Ottenheimer, as the education critic, gets some commentary and some calls and some inquiries about reductions at the School for the Deaf, it wouldn't be because of the teaching services budget, it would be because of the reductions that are shown here. And they were asked to take a proportionate reduction in terms of 9 or 10 per cent overall from last year to this year to see if they could operate with enough renewed efficiencies in terms of how they handle the students through the full twenty-four hours of the day instead of just in the classroom section of the day when they are actually in instruction. Because they do have to take care of that students population base for the whole period of time that they are in their care. They are working now with us, actually, to identify the specific changes they will make in terms of supervision, provision of attendant care, transportation and so on to effect savings that are reflected here in the Budget.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is there a reduction - are you aware of the actual teachers at the School for the Deaf this year?

MR. GRIMES: In terms of the teaching units. I will go by memory now and I might ask either one of the staff to fill in, but I am pretty certain that they indicated they would indeed remove an administrative unit either at the vice-principal level or whatever. And whether or not there are any other instructors or not, I would have to ask for anyone here that knows the details of the School for the Deaf if they could inform the committee of that.

DR. WAYNE OAKLEY: What we are doing is having more teaching responsibilities for one of the administrators at the School for the Deaf. The other position has been realized, if I remember correctly, through a teacher going on educational leave. So there should not be any actual layoffs at the School for the Deaf, not for this year. So we have achieved it through these mechanisms.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would like to turn to the issue of the francophone population in the Province. We have certainly a French speaking presence in certain regions, particularly in Labrador and the Port au Port Peninsula and in St. John's. There is certainly the Francophone Federation, and I am sure the minister is familiar with that. There had been representations, for example, for a separate francophone school board for the administration of French schools in the Province. I am wondering what direction the department is moving in, in recognition of francophone rights and francophone rights in education?

MR. GRIMES: I appreciate that particular question, Mr. Chairman, because it is an issue that we are trying to resolve at this point. Some probably three, it might even be as long as four years ago, representatives of the francophone community approached government, through the department, looking for an appropriate vehicle to exercise their rights under section 23. Section 23, of course, with respect to minority language rights for purposes of education, is one of the sections that is driven by the trigger `where numbers warrant'. The view of the francophone representatives is that they have enough numbers to warrant a school board of some description. They have never, ever asked for a school board in the normal sense of bricks and mortar, an actual building, and a superintendent and an assistant superintendent, and those types of things, but they talk about the notion of a school board as a governance structure, provincially based so that they can exercise their minority language rights under that section of the charter.

There was a study done with a particular group, and the group actually recommended to the previous administration that there be a school board of some description for the francophone population. The previous Administration, of which I was also a part, did not think that was the appropriate recommendation and felt that if tested in any way, shape or form, that `where numbers warrant' would lead to a conclusion that they didn't have enough to warrant a provincially-based school board with such a small population.

Discussions had centred around the notion, in the four areas where the francophone population actually are involved in separate francophone schools, that they would be offered administrative and governance presences on those school boards in those areas so that they could have a real say over the governance of the schools that they actually operate through the school boards responsible for that general area. They have come forward and indicated that again, in their view, that is not satisfactory; that is not an appropriate exercise of their rights as they see it under section 23.

The Premier, in meeting with them and dealing with the issue, has indicated that he feels rather than have to have a court decide whether or not the numbers warrant, and whether or not they are entitled to a school board under section 23, that the government and the francophone group should be able to come to some agreement between ourselves. We are in that dialogue right now.

Because of the length of time, the francophone representatives have gotten understandably impatient, because it has been three or four years at least. There has been a recommendation to give them a governance structure, namely a board, which hasn't been acted upon, and they have actually filed a Statement of Claim in the court that we have asked for further particulars and we are responding through that particular process. But in the meantime, we have indicated to them again clearly and as recently as last week, in a letter to the representatives from myself, on behalf of the government, that we feel we should be able to resolve this issue through dialogue and through mutual agreement as to what the appropriate provincially-based governance structure should be, that they would be satisfied, give them the rights to exercise their rights under section 23 on a provincially-based system, and also some involvement still in the school boards in which their schools actually operate, if they choose.

We have not reconvened the meetings yet, but that is the intent and that is the discussion that we will have in the not-too-distant future. I guess it will be up to the representatives of the francophone community as to whether or not they still want some presence on the four local boards where they actually run schools, along with some provincially-based governance structure. They may not want to exercise any rights at the local board level, but just have their own board of some description and manage their own schools for their own students through that particular mechanism. So that discussion is slated to continue soon.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It sounds as if they will have some input into what the final outcome of representation will be.

MR. GRIMES: Very much so. Because, of course, the other choice for the government is to not have the discussion and just let the courts settle it, and I don't think anybody thinks it is a productive use of time, effort and/or money for us to go through a fairly lengthy court challenge with the francophone representatives in the Province over that issue. It is a matter of when we can get the dialogue restarted and what level of governance structure they feel.

In the discussions we have had to date in meetings I've already attended with them, they have made it quite clear they are not interested at all in what - when we talk about a school board we talk about a head office and all that. They aren't interested in those kinds of trappings. They want a governance mechanism. They want some tool by which to exercise governance rights for their own group. They don't necessarily want a lot of money spent on it but they want a legalized mechanism.

One of the things, I think, that will be - in the draft schools act, for example, that was put forward on January 3 that was withdrawn just prior to the election, there was a provision giving them an entitlement on a committee basis at the local board level. They have indicated to us that is not what they are really looking for. They are looking for a provincially-based structure. We are going back to that dialogue very soon.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps we could have the Committee adjourn and meet again if there are a number of other questions or any length of time required to answer all the questions that we have. That could be an option we could look at.

CHAIR: What is your wish?

MR. H. HODDER: In view of the fact that we have been meeting for three hours, and in view of the fact that the minister has taken up two hours and forty-five minutes of that, then we find ourselves in the very difficult position of having to give up our rights to ask questions, because we have been successfully compromised by -

AN HON. MEMBER: An option that we have is to adjourn and meet again at another time.

MR. H. HODDER: I'm going to address that in a few moments.

In view of the fact that the minister is always readily available in the House to answer questions on post-secondary education, and that he will give the same lengthy answers there that he gives here, then we on this, for the Official Opposition, would beg the Committee to bring closure to the session on this particular Estimates Committee. We will ask the questions on post-secondary in the House at the appropriate time.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hodder.

Mr. Canning.

MR. CANNING: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

These Minutes that we have on the desk, they are the Minutes of the last meeting?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. CANNING: We should have a motion to accept these minutes.

CHAIR: Yes.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Perhaps the Clerk would now call the heads, please.

CLERK: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Please.

CLERK: 1.1.01 to 4.2.02.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.2.02, carried.

On motion, Department of Education, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. It has been a full three hours. I think when you preface your replies by "Very briefly, Mr. Chairman," we all anticipate the worst. All in jest, of course. Thank you very much for being here, and your staff as well. We now adjourn.

The Committee adjourned.