The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Mr. Hutchings): Good morning everybody. Welcome to the Social Services Estimates Committee. This morning we will be hearing the Estimates of the Department of Education.

Just a few items before we get started, if I could. For the benefit of everybody, I would like for the Committee, if they could introduce themselves.

First of all, my name is Keith Hutchings, MHA for the District of Ferryland. I Chair the Estimates Committee on Social Services.

If I go to my right, maybe the Committee members could introduce themselves.

MR. YOUNG: Wallace Young, St. Barbe.

MR. RIDGLEY: Bob Ridgley, St. John's North.

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, Port au Port.

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Kevin Parsons, Cape St. Francis.

MR. DEAN: Marshall Dean, The Straits & White Bay North.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much.

Minister, if I could ask your staff to introduce themselves and also remind them that each time they speak if they could identify themselves before they speak, just for the benefit of Hansard.

MR. KING: Sure.

MR. HAYWARD: Rick Hayward, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Education.

MR. KING: Darin King, MHA for Grand Bank, Minister.

MR. PIKE: Darrin Pike, Deputy Minister.

MS COLE: Ramona Cole, Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services.

MR. DALLEY: Derrick Dalley, MHA for The Isles of Notre Dame and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education.

MS FUSHELL: Marian Fushell, Assistant Deputy Minister for Primary, Elementary, Secondary.

MS STAMP: Tracy Stamp, Manager of Budgeting.

MR. REID: Derick Reid, Executive Assistant to Minister King.

MS POWER: Tara Power, Director of Communications.

CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much.

After we call the first head, minister, you will be free to make any comments if you wish, or we can go right to Committee. Then we will sort of rotate approximately fifteen minutes each for Committee members in terms of asking questions. Okay?

So, if we could call the first head.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. - to you, minister.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to everyone.

I do not have a lot to say other than to welcome everybody. We will certainly do our best to answer your questions. It is a big budget, big department, so if there is a drilling down with details that I cannot get here I certainly will provide it for you later on but I will do my best to take you through the process.

CHAIR: Okay.

Thank you, minister.

Mr. Dean.

MR. DEAN: Thank you.

Thank you, minister, and your staff for coming this morning, first of all, and the opportunity to go through, as you said, a big department, a big budget and some things that we obviously have interest in and so on.

Starting on page 190, 2.1.01., just to look at Administrative Support for a moment; on line 01. on Salaries, probably if you could speak to -

CHAIR: Mr. Dean, just one second please, if you could?

MR. DEAN: Sure.

MR. KING: I am sorry about that. I am having a little difficulty hearing.

MR. DEAN: Yes, that is why I (inaudible) it is easier.

MR. KING: Yes, I am sorry about that. I did not mean to interrupt you.

MR. DEAN: On page 190, item 2.1.01. Administrative Support; probably you could just share some detail around the increase last year. You were a little over the budget but not much, looking at, I guess, an increase again this year. So we are adding some bodies, I assume?

MR. KING: We are referring to the salary section?

MR. DEAN: Line 01., sorry, yes.

MR. KING: Yes. The salary section there is an increase of four departmental positions. They are actually four teacher payroll clerks. It is an increase in the budget but it is not an actual increase in bodies. It is a movement from another section of the budget where we carried those positions last year.

MR. DEAN: Okay. The same, I guess, for the benefits – the next line, on line 02., you had $66,000 last year and your estimate for this year is the same, although the actual, the Revised for the year was almost double of what the estimate was in the budget.

MR. KING: Yes, the increase over the budgeted last year was for a couple of Workers' Compensation claims. We are anticipating that they will not be there this year. So the budget is reflected back to the original.

MR. DEAN: Okay, good.

Just a little further down the same page, item 2.1.02. Assistance to Educational Agencies; probably if you could share with us a little bit about the Grants and Subsidies that went out to the different support groups and give us some detail around who they might have been, if you have that kind of detail, and the difference from last year's budget again, to this year's.

MR. KING: Yes, sure.

Well, first of all, I will just take you through the three sections. The increase in the budget was for an announcement we made to further support the Government Hiring Apprentices Program. That would have been the increase from the Budget to the Revised. The decrease would be a result of funding that we brought forward for things like the Skilled Trades High School Program and the Healthy Students Healthy Schools program initiatives, where there was some planned reduction in funding when they were brought in over the three-year period.

An example of some of the groups that have been supported through the Grants and Subsidies would include funding to the Federation of School Councils; the membership in the Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation, our Cultural Connections Strategy, the T.I. Murphy Centre. We provide some funding support to school districts for the Encounters with Canada program for students; there is almost $300,000 for the Licensed Practical Nursing Program; membership in the Council of Ministers of Education Canada, CMEC; Atlantic Provinces Community College Consortium; Learning Disabilities Association of Newfoundland and Labrador; the Canadian Education Association; some further funding for the healthy schools initiative; and our membership in the Pan-Canadian Assessment through the Council of Ministers.

MR. DEAN: So why would we go from the $5.5 million, or the $6 million Revised, down to $3.5 million this year. What would be the change?

MR. KING: The change would reflect expenditures that we would have incurred over the last couple of years for mainly capital equipment on the skilled trades side, and on the healthy schools side we put a significant investment in physical education equipment, treadmills, weight stations, gymnasium equipment, and those kinds of things. One-time capital costs. The remaining budget that is there would reflect the schools left to be serviced, if you will.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: The reduction reflects the fact that most schools in the Province now would have had the upgrades required.

MR. DEAN: Okay, good.

CHAIR: Excuse me, one second.

Ms Michael, you had -

MS MICHAEL: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to come in and ask: I wonder, minister, could we have that list for the record? Not so much for the record, for our own records, because we track this kind of thing.

MR. KING: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Sorry, Marshall.

CHAIR: Mr. Dean.

MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you.

Item 2.2.01.Community Access Program, if you could speak to the Revenue-Federal and I guess the extras that we received this year over the budget and we are kind of back to a similar budget for the next year. So if you could give us some idea, some reasons for that I guess.

MR. KING: 2.2.01., you are referencing the salary portion?

MR. DEAN: No, the federal revenue.

MR. KING: Sorry, the overall revenue?

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: That reflects - some of the 2008-2009 Revenue was actually not received until the 2009-2010 Budget year. So it is just a case that the federal government revenue provided to us did not come in before the budget was finalized.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Over in section 3.1.04., School Supplies, page 193, under 04.Supplies, if you could just give us some idea of - I guess we had extra last year, or spent extra, and this year we have our budget down again. Is something special being done there as well?

MR. KING: No, that is a result of a fire that we had in Mount Pearl. The increase in revenue and expenses would be a result of what combination of expenses was to buy new resources. The revenue would have been an insurance settlement.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

I would like to just ask a couple of questions. I do not want to take all the line items from Ms Michael. I will give her a chance to speak to some of them because I am sure some of them are the same, but some of the pre-budget consultation that took place with NLTA. I know one of the things that they were looking for was an increase to family leave for teachers and so on. I do not believe there is any increase in the budget for that, you can correct me if I am wrong. Where is that issue, I guess, in terms of being addressed? Is it something that we can see down the road do you think?

MR. KING: Well, I guess there are two pieces to the issue. One is the actual budgetary allocation of leave days to the school board. The other would be a collective bargaining issue around the family leave itself. Right now the family leave is a ‘may' clause. So teachers can apply and boards may or may not grant it. It is their discretion. The NLTA position, as I understand it publicly at least, has been that it should become a ‘shall' clause. Government's position would be that that is a collective bargaining issue, the same as in any other numbers of issues they have and we have, and it will be addressed through the bargaining process. The one with respect to the budget of the substitute teacher days, we have not decreased the budget. As a matter of fact, there have been slight increases over the past three or four years in the substitute teacher budget.

The issue of how the budget is handled is a school board issue. As you are probably familiar, we provide block funding to school boards, both for teacher allocations and for the substitute teacher allocations. Then the boards in turn administer it as they see fit and as best they can. As I understand it, there has been a surplus in the school board budget over the last number of years; whether that is because of prudent management or other issues, I really cannot speak to, it would be a board issue but that is where it will be from our perspective.

MR. DEAN: Okay. Basically, you expect it to be negotiated at some point if that is where negotiations take you, I guess, with NLTA?

MR. KING: Yes. The family leave, with all due respect to the NLTA, if we engage in those kinds of discussions outside of the collective bargaining process it opens the door for government then to seek changes on other issues. In fairness to them, I suspect their answer will be: bring it to the table as part of a package. Our position will be the same. Until we get to the bargaining table and they present a package, I am certain that will probably be one of the issues that they will want to try and gain upon. We will have issues on behalf of the Province that we would like to gain upon. As you are aware of, through the bargaining process at some point in time we may or may not end up finding a resolution on that one as we do with other items.

MR. DEAN: Yes, okay. Let me ask you about teacher allocations for the coming year. Where is that and how many schools are going to be losing units, if any?

MR. KING: Teacher allocations are out to the districts, first of all. Probably by way of, I will not say an education but way of background. Perhaps you are totally familiar with it, I am not sure. Essentially, what happens is school boards will do a proposal to the department based on their programming requirements for the school for the coming year. They will factor in the core programs that are mandated by the Province; they factor in other optional kinds of programs.

There are some schools in the Province that do very good programs that are not part of the core but we support and will continue to support; also, of course, factoring in student enrolment. In some cases, in some parts of the Province we are seeing an increase in student enrolment which obviously would factor into their challenges; in other cases we are seeing a decrease. They do submissions through the school board who in turn come to us and we allocate back. When we put teachers back to the boards we do it in block. In Eastern's case it might be 2,500, or 3,000, or 4,000 teachers and then they reallocate back to their schools.

We have done our allocations for the year to the boards. The boards have done their allocations to schools. The normal process - and I can speak for my former life I suppose. The normal process is that boards would be in discussions with schools now to ensure, to the best of their ability, that the challenges schools are encountering are being addressed. Sometimes there is fine tuning of the allocation between now and September for lots of reasons. Sometimes there is just an oversight in the challenges, sometimes enrolment can increase. I remember one year while I was with the board, we had an increase of almost twenty-five students in one school from June to September. We try to support their ability to respond to that.

That is where the process is now. The net gain of teachers over and above the previous allocation process will be about eighty. Student enrolment this year, there is a net loss of twenty-five teachers in the system this year from last year. The net loss of students would be a ballpark number that I can get for you if you want it, but it is in the 2,000-plus range.

We are confident that, in the most part, we can address the challenges that have been identified. Notwithstanding that comment, there are always going to be issues that will arise, as I just said a few moments ago, but we continue to work with the boards and they are working with schools, and things are moving forward. As far as we can see now, for the most part, things are going well and looking good for September.

MR. DEAN: Okay, good.

Ms Michael, would you like to –

MS MICHAEL: Sure. Thank you.

I would just like to come back a little bit to 2.1.02., actually on the Grants and Subsidies, just to get a bit more information, Minister, with regard to the skilled trades initiative. So this is the final year of that, is it? You indicated that is one of the reasons why the money has gone down in the Grants and Subsidies.

MR. KING: Yes, not the final year of the initiative, it is the final year of the capital costs.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, okay. That is why was concerned about.

MR. KING: The significant costs, as you would appreciate, that we incurred would have been the renovation of facilities, and then the provision of the equipment: the table saws, the band saws, the lathes, the ventilation and things like that.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: So those were heavy costs, but they were up-front costs. This would be the final year, hopefully, where all schools would now have received the renovations and the appropriate equipment. So the budget for that would be significantly down, and the same, if I am following your train of thought, the same thing is with the active living, physical education piece.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KING: The investment in the high price tag items like treadmills and fitness equipment and weights and so on. So it is not the final year of the initiative, it is the final year of the up-front capital costs.

MS MICHAEL: The up-front capital costs, right. I may have been distracted, but I did not get perfectly clear that it was that. So thank you very much for being patient with me.

MR. KING: You are welcome.

MS MICHAEL: So I will just move on a little bit then to 3.1.01., appropriations for regular teachers' salaries. I am just curious as to why - where it is teacher salaries, and it is pretty easy to determine that - there was a $2.5 million difference between the Budget and the revision last year.

MR. KING: There were a couple of issues there. One was the decrease in cost as a result of the devolution of the Innu federal agreement, and the second one was that we incurred substantially lower severance costs than we had anticipated from the previous year through retirements.

MS MICHAEL: Is that loss of the federal money that you just referred to – there is no more federal money? I am looking at 01. Revenue – Federal now. This year there is no more federal money coming in?

MR. KING: I am sorry; I missed part of what you said. Are you moving to the revised budget for this year or is it –

MS MICHAEL: No, I have actually skipped without telling you what my skip was. I went down to the Revenue section under 10. Grants and Subsidies. This year there is no federal money. You just made reference to the loss of federal money, so I clicked into that and said: Is that the reason why we have no federal money coming in this year?

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: It is that program?

MR. KING: That is right. The revenue we would have received now is going to go directly to the Innu.

MS MICHAEL: Yes. Thank you very much. Sorry for the skip; my mind does that sometimes.

MR. KING: That is okay.

MS MICHAEL: Coming over to 3.1.02., which is the School Board Operations – maybe it is the same answer. Under 01. Revenue and 02. Revenue – both the federal and provincial revenue is zero for this year.

MR. KING: Same answer.

MS MICHAEL: Same thing. Okay, great. Thank you.

I think that was asked; I will not repeat anything that has been asked.

3.1.07. School Facilities – New Construction. Just because of the amount of money I think I might know the answer, but just for it to be the on record. The Budget last year was $6.9 million and under spent by $2.7 million. So my question is I guess something did not get started that perhaps was going to be started. It could be the Virginia Park school.

MR. KING: I thought you might go there.

MS MICHAEL: 3.1.07.05., Professional Services, an under spending of $2.7 million.

MR. KING: Yes, you are right. There are a number of projects that we had projected that just did not move as far along as we had hoped they would. Yours could be one of them.

MS MICHAEL: It could be one of them and next year I am hoping that line will not indicate that. I am feeling positive about that one.

MR. KING: We are moving forward on that one for sure.

MS MICHAEL: Yes. Thank you.

Under 06. Purchased Services, it might be related, but there was an under expenditure last year of $5.5 million. Again, that is probably because of projects not going ahead.

MR. KING: The same thing, yes. They are both connected.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Under that, last year $300,000 came in from the federal government and $1.8 million from the provincial government, what were those two revenues for?

MR. KING: The $300,000 was revenue from the federal government for the new francophone school that we did not include in the Estimates the year before. The $1.8 million was the commitment from Vale Inco for the new school in Placentia, over and above government's commitment.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you.

3.2.01., Curriculum Development, looking at line 05. Professional Services. There is a huge drop in that line this year, a drop of $275,000. Can you give us an explanation of that?

MR. KING: It might be easiest for me to address that by saying to you that all of the changes for the most part in that section, other than the base budget where you will see we came in slightly under and we are projecting a similar overall budget for next year, all of those changes, there are no reductions or increases, it is movement around in the category.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: There was money being spent in certain categories that was better reflected in others, including some salary positions. So what we have done, as part of our own budget process, is we moved the money around to more appropriately sit where it ought to sit in the category.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Just an off comment - there must have been some direction because a lot of the departments are reporting the same thing: reallocation for clearer reporting.

MR. KING: Yes. Some of it is just a reflection of history.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: Things have sat in a certain spot or you do some new things and you start it somewhere. Everybody looks at it differently, but from my perspective, some of the things needed to be sort of fine-tuned so that at least it sits in the appropriate category.

MS MICHAEL: Right. In that same section that I will not ask you around - that is good to get the overall explanation. Under Grants and Subsidies, which it seems to be new having that money show up under Grants and Subsidies, what would Grants and Subsidies here be about?

MR. KING: The Grants and Subsidies – we are still in 3.2.01., correct?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, still there.

MR. KING: That is still part of our funding for the skilled trades program, funding supported directly to schools that is reallocated from another section. It also includes our interprovincial travel program, $20,600 that was previously housed in another division that more appropriately should be in here under Program Development. The combined two would give you the $90,600, but it is not new money again, it is just moving it around.

MS MICHAEL: That interprovincial travel is the money that schools can apply for, for students going different places in the Province?

MR. KING: Yes, predominantly rural schools who, for the most part, come to St. John's and they do a cultural trip and they visit government, and those kinds of things.

MS MICHAEL: Great. Thank you very much.

Let me see if I have any questions up to them - broader questions under either of those sections. Just because I have passed 3.1.02., a general question with regard to school buses. There were some things that the Federation of School Councils recommended because of some incidents that have happened. I am just wondering: Has there been any action taken to provide emergency first aid training for drivers and trained bus monitors on some routes? Where are things with those issues?

MR. KING: We have initiated a number of directions under the school busing. As you are probably aware, the busing regulations and the governance piece sits with us. However, predominantly in the Province we have two ways in which buses operate. One is through contractor busing of which, obviously, the contractors are responsible for not only the vehicle and providing the service but also for their driver education. The second alternative, of course, is we have some what we call board owned busing that are run by the school boards, one is in Burin and there is another in Gander.

We have, over the last year or so, put a lot of time and effort in working with the districts around bus driver safety manuals, training in first aid and other emergency kinds of response measures that may be required should an accident or some other event of that nature happen.

MS MICHAEL: Are there any subsidies, especially for the majority of them which are not under school boards, for providing training?

MR. KING: No.

MS MICHAEL: There is not. It is up to the operators?

MR. KING: It is up to the operators. What we do is we will go to public tender, which is a policy of the Province we have to follow. What we will do in the tender is we will outline the specifications that we would expect, which would include the training and competence of drivers. It would include the state of the vehicle and the standards, the manual standards that they are expected to follow, which would be the D250 safety standards and any other items that we would require as part of their providing a service to us. It is then their responsibility, when they bid, to ensure to us that they can meet those requirements.

MS MICHAEL: Would those items at this moment include emergency first aid training for drivers, for example?

MR. KING: The tender package, as I understand it - and if I am wrong I think somebody will nudge me - would include basically giving them sole responsibility for employing the drivers, ensuring their drivers are qualified and trained and able to respond to situations that may arise in driving a bus. It would also include the actual buses themselves and making sure that they meet the standards that we require and that government requires being on the road transporting students.

MS MICHAEL: So when inspections are done and when monitoring is done, does the department monitor to see if the level of training would cover emergency first aid, for example?

MR. KING: First of all the Department of Government Services would do the inspection, the physical piece if you will, the D250 standards.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KING: Any other interaction with the drivers and contractors typically is not with us, it is with the school boards. We have resources in the department to provide support to boards, and we do that. The school boards themselves are responsible for the operational activities, so they would be the ones who actually would be engaged with the contractors, the contractors would deal with the busing department of the school board on those kinds of issues.

I cannot give you a lot of detail beyond that because it is not something that we are responsible for at the department. If it is of interest to you, I can certainly attempt to get that information.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I would be interested in getting it to know if the department communicates with school boards to see if school boards look at this issue. I think that is what parents would want to know, so I would be interested in getting some information on it.

MR. KING: Sure. I can give you that because that is a different question. Yes, we do communicate with school boards. We do have expectations that they monitor their tenders. We do have very high safety requirements ensuring that they are communicating with contractors and they are ensuring that not only the buses but the drivers operating the buses on the roads are well trained and well equipped to deal with not only handling the machine but dealing with students on the bus as well.

So yes, the answer to that question is we do that. The level of engagement boards have with the contractors would be something I would have to speculate on.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I guess the same question though that I am asking is the same question with the specifics around emergency first aid training, would the boards be that specific with the operators to find out if that training is in place for the drivers.

MR. KING: I would think yes, but I am going to get that information for you if that is okay.

MS MICHAEL: I would like to know that, yes.

MR. KING: It is a very specific question.

MS MICHAEL: It is.

MR. KING: It would be my understanding that the answer would be yes, but rather than for the record say yes, if it is okay, I will get that for you.

MS MICHAEL: I do not mind at all. Getting that information would be great.

MR. KING: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: I will pass it back to Marshall now for a bit, Mr. Chair (inaudible).

CHAIR: That is fine, yes.

Mr. Dean.

MR. DEAN: Thank you.

We can go back to some line items for a moment when you are ready, minister.

MR. KING: Yes, okay.

MR. DEAN: Section 3.1.06. – no, I am sorry, you already covered that one I believe, I had my ear piece out for a while. I know Lorraine was asking the question, I think you might have covered that one.

3.2.01. Curriculum Development, again, the Professional Service line, line 05. The estimate last year was pretty much the revised and this year it has changed fairly significantly. Is there any reason for that? I guess with the curriculum development that has been done or what –

MR. KING: Yes, the reason for that, as I said a few moments ago - if I could take a bit of liberty here with you for a second. If you looked at going from $342,000 to $67,000 and look at the other lines, you will see there are some significant increases. For example, line 03., $85,000 to $218,000; line 06. from $96,000 to $121,000. It is a redistribution of the funding that we had allocated for the skilled trades program in particular to better reflect which category that the expense ought to be in.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: As I said a few moments ago, the bottom line budget has not changed significantly in there. It is just a shifting around so that the expenses that we are incurring are where they ought to be. We had not done a good job of that up to this point.

MR. DEAN: Okay. It is detailed in a better fashion.

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Down in the next section, 3.2.02. Language Programs, again, under Salaries. It seems like we were off our target for this year and I guess we are expecting to be back where we were in terms of our Revised on line 01. We were $657,000, we came in at $446,000 and we are back to $644,000. Is there something that - a piece taken out of there?

MR. KING: No, in the first instance we budget for consultant positions, the $657,000; the decreases is that we received federal funding support for two positions. When the budget was revised it reflects the actual expenditure. The projected estimate for next year, again, is based on the assumption we are not getting those positions. Now, it is likely we will but at the time the document is produced we have no confirmation.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: The budget needs to reflect the full complement of staff.

MR. DEAN: Okay, yes.

In section 3.3.01., Student Support Services, our Professional Fees, line 05. We spent half of what we budgeted last year and this year we are almost tripling our budget.

MR. KING: Yes, two pieces to that – first of all, the decrease under the Professional Services was the result of a number of vacant positions. The staff complement are the ones who would spend that budget, as I am sure you are aware. So the fact that we had reduced the staff complement meant we expended less of the budget.

The increase to $350,000 is a result of funding that we have included there under a reconnecting disengaged and at-risk youth strategy. We are going to do some research this year to try and determine some of the issues and some of the answers around why some of our youth are either dropping out of school or disengaged and disconnected. So the increase there, the actual increase probably would be from $120,000 to $350,000, skipping the actual $62,000, because that was an anomaly because of the lack of staff. We have gone from $120,000 to $350,000, which reflects the cost of that project.

MR. DEAN: Okay. That will be run out of one location, or how will that work?

MR. KING: Yes, well we will play the lead role, as the Department of Education. We will have a number of individuals who will be engaged in research and survey work and things like that. That will take in people across the Province, but it will actually be co-ordinated through the department.

MR. DEAN: Okay. Any idea of the time frame? Will that be just one year for it to be done, or will it take –

MR. KING: Yes, one year will be my best guess. Beyond that, from my personal perspective, if you go beyond a year then your data starts to get dated a little bit.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: So it is budgeted as a one-year item at this point in time. Hopefully we will have some results in before the next budget so that if there are action items that we need to look at, we will have information to drive the budgetary process.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

I know with my involvement in school boards, I had the pleasure of serving on the school board as chair in Labrador for a few years when the realignment of boards took place. The North Coast, in particular, was quite a challenge, as you are quite aware. Will this program hopefully bring some benefit to that? Is that the idea?

MR. KING: Yes, I think it will. Through the initiative we are going to try a number of – well, besides the research – a number of pilot initiatives targeting certain areas. Your area is one. I have certain pockets in my own district that are like that as well, and I think they are spread throughout the Province. The challenge for all of us, not just the department but school boards as well, is trying to figure out the answer to the age-old question of why are youth disengaged? What is it that is drawing them away from school or encouraging them to lose interest? If we had the answers to that, us here in the room today, we would be doing well.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: It is a couple of things. One is the research, hopefully, which will engage the disengaged youth, to try and figure out from their perspective what they are doing. The other is, as I said, built into this there are a couple of pilot initiatives that we are hoping to try in a couple of parts of the Province, based on advice and recommendations from people in the field, things we are going to try and see if it will actually reverse the disengagement.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

A question on Distance Education; obviously, for the most part, not totally, but for the most part Distance Education is something that students in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are taking advantage of. One of the issues in, I guess a lot of rural Newfoundland, I know certainly in my district in particular, is the access to high-speed Internet, or the lack of access I should say I guess, and the problems that it can create for those who are trying to take advantage of this. Where do you see improvements for that happening? I realize that the high-speed Internet is not your department, I understand that, but it affects education. It is probably one of the more important issues for us in terms of either having it or not having it, I guess. How do you see dealing with that, or where is that as an issue?

MR. KING: First of all, I guess, I will start by saying that there are no schools in the Province that are on dial-up connectivity any more.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: All of our schools are either on a combination. The majority are on high-speed Internet connectivity. Those that are not would be on satellite connectivity, but there are no schools on dial-up any more.

Outside of the piece that you mentioned that is not our responsibility, we continue to work with partners on that. I had the good fortune not long ago, before I got elected, to be a part of a great initiative in a couple of parts of the Province where boards and the department partnered up with EastLink and brought Internet connectivity improvements to schools. So, we continue to explore those options in spite of the fact that – I guess there are two pieces. One, obviously, as you said, it is important to schools and therefore we have a role into it, but secondly, we really do not have a role in terms of connectivity in rural parts of the Province. We are certainly confident and pleased with where we are relative to where we could be with Internet connectivity. The fact that, for example, many communities in the Province are still on dial-up, no schools are on dial-up. They have significantly higher speed than that. It is a real plus.

MR. DEAN: I guess from the student perspective, would they – because I do not really know the answer to that but it is something that people ask – be more used to spending their time in the school in terms of the Internet, or would it be more convenient at home, or is there a combination of that?

MR. KING: I think, in a general sense - I just think about my own children, they spend lots of time on the computer at home; there is no question about that.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: Personally, I certainly would support trying to get the connectivity for homes improved. My own district is – as I am sure you probably experience - there are a lot of communities in my own district that do not have it, and it is a challenge as an MHA to try and help people when it is out of your control.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: The actual expectation for the delivery of curriculum through distance learning, the opportunities that students need and require for that are all provided on site at the school. There is time provided throughout the school day to interact with the teacher, interact with their peers through the Distance Education medium and time provided after school as the students need it.

There is certainly, from my perspective, no reason to believe that we do not provide enough time in school for students to adequately cover the content of their courses and have interaction with the instructor through the use of the higher speed Internet.

MR. DEAN: Yes. How is that affected by weather, especially in Northern communities, and I guess Labrador in particular probably more so than the rest of the Province? How is that – I guess the accessibility to that affects their on-line - say they are out of school. I think last year there was one time they were out for a week or something in part of Labrador. How is that affecting the grading and things for the examinations and so on?

MR. KING: Obviously, if they are out of school a week it has an effect. I do not think it would be a fair characterization to say that being out of school for a week affects their distance learning. It affects all their learning.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: So that if they are out of school for a week it is really not a concern around Distance Education. My concern would be around their entire education. With the distance learning, like any classroom teaching, if a student is out for a week teachers will endeavour to make the time up and to help the student catch up. The same thing would apply through the distance learning.

The only difference between the distance learning, if I could simplify it, I know there are lot of differences but the significant difference is that they are doing it through technology. Other than that, the teacher is still there to communicate with the student to provide, through the technology, face-to-face instruction. There is opportunity through telephone tutorial services; on-site tutorial services with the support of other teachers in school. Other than the way the curriculum component is delivered, my concern around student absenteeism would be the same for distance or non-distance courses that they need to make the time up. I certainly have every confidence, based on my experiences in the system, that teachers, for the most part, do that. They are there to help students. They adjust their teaching to help those who miss time to catch up and they provide extra support, whatever is required, to make sure they cover the outcomes for the course.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will just go back to some line items. 3.3.03.01. Salaries, I notice that the revision was upward of $100,000 more or less, but in this year it is back down to, more or less, what the estimate was. What was the $100,000 about?

MR. KING: The increase of $100,000 would reflect an increased need for tutorial services. Many of the students now who attend - or I should say, who are on the list for the School for the Deaf are actually, through their own choosing, attending school sites, such as Gonzaga, and attending regular classroom. When they do that, we ensure that there is a tutorial service that goes along with them.

The second item there, the decrease reflects a couple of retirements at the School for the Deaf that will not be replaced because these students are now choosing to go into the regular system.

MS MICHAEL: You do not expect the tutorial cost to come up as much, or because of the retirement of the teachers the tutorial costs are going to be subsumed under what would have gone to the retired teachers?

MR. KING: Correct.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

I will not have the discussion here with you because it is policy, but I have indicated at different times I would like to sit down with you. This is one of the things I would like to talk to you about, is the children who are deaf or hearing impaired.

MR. KING: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: As I said, I will not do it here but I will continue to look at when I might be able to get together with you.

MR. KING: Sure, just let me know. We will find the time.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

The next one, 3.4.01. Student Testing and Evaluation, again, line 01. There was an under expenditure last year of $265,000. Why was that?

MR. KING: That is a delay in the recruitment process of filling a couple of research positions in the department.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Then, continuing on under that section, under 06. Purchased Services, last year there was an over expenditure of $195,000. Could I have an explanation of that, please?

MR. KING: Yes. The explanation I give you is going to be the same one you are going to hear next year until we get it fixed.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. We will make a note of that and we will not ask next year.

MR. KING: I have already given a direction to staff to get this fixed, but we cannot do it this year. We traditionally go over budget there all the time. It is the printing of the CRT exam booklets, the public exams and those kinds of things. As I am told, for the last number of years it has always been an over expenditure and we have just never taken the opportunity to adjust that budget to reflect what we spend. So the budget is maintained at $145,000 and we are likely to spend $300,000 again next year, but in next year's budget I have directed that we make it reflect the expenditure, because the printing costs are not going down for the CRTs in 3, 6 and 9. So that is the over expenditure there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

It is not a lot of money, I am just curious though under line 10. Grants and Subsidies, what that $20,600 was about, because it is not in this year's estimate.

MR. KING: That is the one I referenced a couple of moments ago, the interprovincial travel. We have now moved it.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, that is where it came from. Okay.

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: That was a logical move, it was.

MR. KING: Yes, it was sitting here in Testing and Evaluation. The Curriculum Division is the one that deals regularly with school day-to-day operations.

MS MICHAEL: Right, thank you.

3.4.02. Professional Development, Grants and Subsidies; it has gone down slightly this year, $246,000 down. Where does that money go? Who actually gets those subsidies? That is the teachers themselves?

MR. KING: The decrease in the Grants and Subsidies there, first of all, is a result of the ISSP initiative, you will probably recall, from a couple of years ago.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KING: We had a three-year plan and some of the changes were relative to documentation change and printing. They are not capital costs but they are those kinds of costs that, as we have made the systemic changes, it has reduced the commitment government has needed to require - the department has needed to put in there. So the decrease is a result of that.

The overall budget there reflects a combination of things including, besides the ISSP and a couple of other initiatives, teacher professional development. We established, for example, priorities throughout the Province with school boards around leadership development, for example, and numeracy initiatives and literacy initiatives and those kinds of things. Those are the kind of professional development activities that will be included there. No, it is not money directly to teachers.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, right. It is to the school boards for doing the training.

MR. KING: Yes, and there is a combination there. Some of it would include choices boards would make on the allocation. Some of it is what we call provincial priorities that we have developed through the department in co-operation with the districts. As I said, just a couple of examples would be - we do leadership development in all districts in the Province. That is a program where we are trying to train people and entice people, to give them better skills to become principals and assistant principals in the system.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: So we invest substitute teacher time, we invest physical resources, we rent space and we bring people together several times throughout the year. Those are the kinds of activities that would be covered under the Professional Development.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. That is good to hear, actually, about a couple of the priorities, especially the leadership development, a bit different from when I was an administrator many years ago in the system. The department did not set those kinds of goals at that time for training. I am glad to hear that.

Since you mentioned the ISSP, could you just give us an update on how that is going?

MR. KING: Yes. As I said a few moments ago on the budget piece of the ISSP, the decrease was substantially because there were some one-time costs that we had to incur, but the actual implementation of the recommendations, all of them that we accepted are being actioned, some are completed, some are in process. We announced just this past year a number of initiatives. The revised public examination policy is one you might recall, providing for accommodations for students.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I do.

MR. KING: We have brought in the referral tracking system that I think might have been questioned last year at some point in time. That is now in place throughout the Province. We have seen significant improvements in our investment in assistive technology for students like the hard of hearing and others who have impairments to learning. We have done a pilot this past year with thirty schools on inclusive education and we are adding thirty-five more for September 2010, a pilot focusing on how we can better serve all students within the same kind of learning environment versus the traditional pulling out of a student because they have a certain learning disability and, if I could use the word loosely, perhaps segregating them in a classroom by themselves. We are continuing to try to progress.

The other thing, I guess, I should add is lots of what we are doing in special services is above and beyond the ISSP recommendations as well. Sometimes there is a misconception that all we are focused on is the report. The report just told us how we can improve certain things that we are doing. We still continue to do lots of other good things in supporting schools throughout the Province with itinerant services, for example, for behavioural support for teachers who have students who are behaviourally challenged, learning disabled, inclusive education – I just mentioned a few minutes ago – gifted education. All sorts of good things are happening outside of the ISSP process.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

You mentioned that you are full speed ahead on the recommendations that you have accepted. Could you provide to us the information on the recommendations you did not accept, please?

MR. KING: I do not have it here.

MS MICHAEL: No, I did not think you would have that here, so if we could receive that.

MR. KING: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Just some line item stuff – actually, I think that probably was all explained to Mr. Dean. No, I have a couple.

Under 3.4.03., the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation, line item 05. Professional Services. There was a big revision downwards last year and this year's budget is more or less in that range under $100,000. Is this a reallocation issue or what?

MR. KING: Yes, we have done a reallocation there. It has to do with teachers hired at MUN for CDLI purposes. We reallocated it under Grants and Subsidies.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so that goes down to Grants and Subsidies?

MR. KING: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, I will not ask about that then.

Spending is down also under Purchased Services. It went down in the revision and down further in the estimate for this year.

MR. KING: Yes, most of that decrease would be related to decreased courier costs. As we are getting more equipment in schools, the need for courier costs for extra equipment is decreasing.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: Our schools are becoming better stocked and therefore less of a need. Initially, as we were rolling out the distance learning, as you would understand, between computers and all kinds of other things there was a need on a regular basis and a lot associated with getting things out there. As more schools now are on CDLI and they are actually on an annual basis just perhaps expanding their programming, there is no new need necessarily for new equipment. So the cost of courier services is what is reflected there, or the decreased I should say.

MS MICHAEL: Right, makes sense.

Under line 07. Property, Furnishings and Equipment, last year there was a major over expenditure of $351,000?

MR. KING: Yes, while it is an over expenditure I suppose I would call it a good news thing. It is an increased cost for Computers for Schools that we had not anticipated.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: The result of it is that we have more through the Computers for Schools program, more equipment out into some of our smaller schools.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you very much.

Under 3.4.05., Early Childhood Learning, I am just wondering under line 10. Grants and Subsidies, where does that money go? If there is a list, I would be happy to have a list provided after.

MR. KING: Early Childhood, line 10. Grants -

MS MICHAEL: The Grants and Subsidies, $250,000 is a consistent figure across the board.

MR. KING: I will endeavour to get that for you in a few moments. I do not have it right here, but I may have it in my binder, if that is okay.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, fine.

Well, could you give us some sense then of your expectations with the work that is going to be done this year with regard to developing the framework for early childhood learning?

MR. KING: Sure. Our plan this year - we are on a fairly aggressive timeline. We have laid out a flow chart of timelines. Our expectation this year is that we will consult across government and throughout the Province to get some public input into what people feel our early childhood learning program ought to look like. We have done a fair piece of research on it, pan-Canadian; we have a great idea of what is happening across the country, and in other parts of the world I might add.

My expectation is that within the next ten to twelve months, we are going to be able to lay out a framework for what the early childhood learning will look like for us in this Province. Whether, for example, that may mean a model similar to health care where public health nurses meet with parents and newborns at six months of age and then from that on there is fairly regular contact. My sense, for example, is that is where we need to be. The parents need to hear from trained educators. Not necessarily teachers, it could be early childhood educators, but parents need more contact at an earlier time, an earlier stage in the child's life, for lots of reasons. Not all parents are equipped with the skills and the knowledge they need to know what to do with their children. There are lots of things they can do starting at birth with a child to acquaint them to learning and start preparing the brain, whether it is reading to them or lots of things I am sure you are familiar with.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KING: So, our intent is that we would come up with a framework that we would be able to lay out to the Province that will provide enhanced services to parents.

My thinking is that we need to look at a combination of what I just mentioned to you as perhaps a formalized but a little less formal, if you follow me on that, and then a component of providing some regular contact time.

Right now, what we do in this Province is pre-Kindergarten, as I am sure you are all familiar with –

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KING: - which is a program where, at four years of age, they come in for a small number of hours per year to prepare them for Kindergarten.

I would hope that we are going to move to a more formalized program before they get to four years of age, where parents can come into an early learning setting and the children can get more exposure, more direct interaction with other children. The research, I think, is very clear, as most of us would acknowledge, the earlier in the age that you are able to work with the children and help in the brain development the better they are going to be prepared for school by the time they actually reach Kindergarten and Grade 1.

So, it is a formal program that we are going to try to lay out there once we talk to people throughout the Province and get some feedback on what people think we ought to be doing in the Province.

MS MICHAEL: While I know - I know you will take it in the right way - that a formal child care program in not under the Department of Education, I think that one of the things that I would be looking for, personally, as this develops is to see an understanding that early childhood learning includes child care.

I believe, from the knowledge that I have and also research that has been done in a lot of places, that when you get looking at the three-year-old or the two-year-old what you are talking about is not going to happen with an awful lot of parents. One, because they are working outside of the home or because they do not have the abilities themselves, even if they are at home, to do what needs to be done. Having a formal child care program deals with that need for the children before they are dealing with the educational system - I personally believe it all should be under the Department of Education. Maybe I will make a presentation in the context of the consultations that are going on.

MR. KING: If I might -

MS MICHAEL: Yes, sure.

MR. KING: - let me just say that, not to get into the child care piece, but to say to you that the intent of the work we are doing is that this will be universal and accessible for everybody.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: The challenge, as part of the process we are going through now, is what that will look like, for example, in Lamaline or the Coast of Labrador versus St. John's. There are lots of logistical things to work out but the intent is not that we are going to come out with a nice thing that if people want to try it they can but in certain areas you cannot get it. The intent is that this will be a universal program that will be provided to all parents and all children in the Province.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: I just wanted to make sure you understood that piece.

MS MICHAEL: I am glad to hear that. Thank you.

Do you have any personal goals yourself with regard to the program when you would like to see it up and running, or are you waiting until you go through this process before you put your own personal goals out there?

MR. KING: I certainly do not want to prejudge the process but from me, personally, I would like to be in a position in the next budget year to be able to share with people where we are. I think, personally, I will be very disappointed if we do not make significant progress and get our consultations done –

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: - and be able to come back here within ten or twelve months and be able to say to people here is what you have said, here is our research, so here is how it is going to look. I will be disappointed if we do not make movement on that.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. I will be looking forward to it.

I will ask a couple of more then I will turn back to Mr. Dean if he would like to take over.

Under 4.1.01., Program Analysis and Evaluation - which is for the administration of the provincial apprenticeship system, et cetera - line 09. Allowances and Assistance, I am just curious, it is a very small amount of money, so I am just curious as to where that goes - $25,000.

MR. KING: I am sorry. Am in the right -

MS MICHAEL: 4.1.01.09.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: What?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: Okay, thank you.

I was going to give you the wrong one; sorry. That is scholarships that we provide in the school system -

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KING: - for those moving into post-secondary.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Under line 10. Grants and Subsidies, could we have a breakdown of that money, please?

MR. KING: Sure. The funding there goes to the following groups: Aboriginals in apprenticeship, $200,000; women in apprenticeship, $400,000; our industry co-ordinating committee for the skilled trades task force, $100,000; distance delivery of apprenticeship, $95,000; and increased apprenticeship employer supports, $200,000.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

4.1.03., Offshore Training Initiatives, could we have a breakdown of the Grants and Subsidies there as well, please?

MR. KING: I am just double checking. There is no list available for that. That is a block of funding that goes to the university and they use it to attract females.

MS MICHAEL: Great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, if Mr. Dean wants to take over for the moment, I am happy.

CHAIR: Sure.

Mr. Dean.

MR. DEAN: Thank you.

I will take you back just a little bit in terms of line items, when you are ready.

MR. KING: Yes, give me the number.

MR. DEAN: 3.4.04. - I know we spoke of section 3.4.03., but I am just curious, I do not think that Ms Michael asked about 3.4.04. There is a revenue piece there from the federal government of $500,000 that looks like it was not budgeted and we are not expecting it this year or not budgeting it, if we could –

MR. KING: It was revenue late arriving similar to when I mentioned earlier from the federal government for a number of initiatives that we have been engaged with on a partnership basis.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: It was actually from the previous year. We did not budget for it initially because we thought we would have it. We did not, so (inaudible) updated.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Line item 4.1.01.06. Purchased Services. I know we spoke to line 09., I do not think we spoke to line 06. Our Budget was $287,000, our Revised was $195,000 and next year our Estimate was $434,000.

MR. KING: There are two answers for you there. The first one, the Budget decrease is a result of lower than projected site visits as part of our divisional site visits for accreditation purposes.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: The increase would be a result of two things: one, is that we would hope that those will go back to where we had projected this year; and secondly, we have had to incur leasing costs for two off-site offices, one in Corner Brook and one in Grand Falls-Windsor that were previously housed in government buildings.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: We are now incurring leasing costs, so those are factored into that increase.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Line item 4.1.04.05. Grants and Subsidies again, just some bouncing around of numbers, I guess, not significant, but if you could give us some idea as to where our budget went from $575,000 to $709,000 this year.

MR. KING: Were you referring to line 10. there?

MR. DEAN: Line 10., I am sorry.

MR. KING: First of all you are asking about the first increase and then the second increase. Am I correct?

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: The budgeted versus the estimated and the revised.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: Okay, in the first instance from the $575,000 to the $666,000 there was a reallocation of funding there to assist our Adult Basic Education sites throughout the Province; it was a reallocation from another category.

The second from $666,000 to $709,000 is an increase to support year three of a pan-Canadian innovation project that we are engaged with. It is the third year of a three-year contract. That is through the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.

MR. DEAN: Yes, thank you.

On the subject of Adult Basic Education, there is money in the budget, obviously, for adult literacy and that is good, but we have had, I know of one or two calls at least of people who have been trying to get funding for ABE and cost subsidized programs and things, basically, they not able to get in. I wonder, do we have an idea currently of how many people are on the waiting list or whatever, to try and get in an ABE program across the Province, waiting for subsidies?

MR. KING: To my knowledge, and if you have some names you want some help with let me know, but to my knowledge there are very few on the waitlist for ABE.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: That is one of the areas that we have made significant investment in over the last couple of years. We have expanded sites. As a matter of fact, it was only this past year we have done a couple of pilot distance delivery sites off the Avalon Peninsula to make it available. Typically, the waitlist that I am aware of would be for the trades and other post-secondary. ABE, traditionally - like I said, if you have some information that you can share with me it would be great, but traditionally we have not had big waitlists there. There has usually been ample funding available to support those who qualify now, of course. We can chat after, if you would like, about specifics, but –

MR. DEAN: Yes. I will get the detail on them now and if it is legit or whatever then we will chat on it, sure.

MR. KING: Sure, okay.

MR. DEAN: Yes, but I know there have been at least a couple of callers who expressed concern about not being able to get the funding for their program. That is all I really know right now, to be honest.

MR. KING: Sure.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Looking at the Advanced Studies section, section 4.2.01. MUN Operations; again, not significant increases but an increase of about $22 million over the budget from last year and about $16 million from the revised budget from last year, in line 10. Grants and Subsidies.

MR. KING: The first increase from the Budget to the Revised would reflect a number of things. We made some investments in the autonomy for Grenfell College in that budget year that were not projected. We made some investments in the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. We assisted MUN with some pension deficit that they incurred. We put extra funding in the entrance scholarships that was a challenge that they – plus, the other big one was there were salary increases that were not initially projected for the collective agreement at Memorial. So that would be the first one.

The increase for this year, from $254 million to $270 million, a big piece of that will include salary and step increases for the bargaining unit employees at Memorial. As well, there is funding there, $3 million for Sir Wilfred Grenfell autonomy. In the budget we announced funding for the clinical psychology program at Memorial. There is $5 million to continue the tuition freeze that we announced. There is funding for the Centre for Environmental Education, for operational funding for them. There is also funding for growing health care program.

MR. DEAN: Okay, and just below that in section 4.2.02. Physical Plant and Equipment, line 10. Grants and Subsidies, it looks like we are making a significant increase there. Can you give us some detail on that?

MR. KING: 4.2.02?

MR. DEAN: 4.2.02.10., yes.

MR. KING: Your question is from the Revised $29,000,000 up to $58,000,000?

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: Okay, yes. There are a number of significant initiatives there that you would probably remember. One is the announcement of the new residences for MUN and Corner Brook. There is more than $16 million alone in there. There is close to $9 million for the academic building that we announced for Grenfell College. There is almost $2 million for lab repairs for Memorial. There is $1.5 million or so for deferred maintenance that was, I think, also announced in the Budget. As well, there is the transfer of a simulator for the Marine Institute. The federal government is transferring that to us, as they have done in other provinces. We will assume ownership and responsibility. There is an investment that we had to make as a government to the Marine Institute for the transfer and for continued operational costs.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: We have also made an investment in Northwest River. So when you add all of those up I think you should get the difference there. As I said, there are a couple of very big projects there. The residences and the academic building alone are significant investments.

MR. DEAN: Okay. I guess a similar question to 4.3.02., which is line 10. Grants and Subsidies, we see a significant shift there in the College of the North Atlantic from our Revised to our estimate. Can you tell us what is going to take place there this year?

MR. KING: Yes, the bulk of - the answer is really the same for you. The reason for the decrease and then the reason for the increase was investment in a couple of projects. The college in Lab West, the College of the North Atlantic Campus in Lab West and a couple of projects that we engaged in, in partnership with the federal government, the Prince Philip Drive renovation and the Seal Cove Campus. The reason for the decrease is that the funding did not come through as we had budgeted initially and the reason for the increase now is that we are projecting that it will come in this year's budget.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

On the same page, 4.4.01.03.Transportation and Communications, is that just juggling the figures somewhere again? We budgeted $119,000 and we came in at $55,000 and our budget goes to $113,000.

MR. KING: Remind me, line item 03. did you say?

MR. DEAN: Line item 03. yes, 4.4.01.

MR. KING: Okay. Yes, there are a couple of issues there. First of all, the budget is very similar to this year because we are anticipating next year that we will be where we thought we would be this year.

The reason for the decrease was that we had delays in recruitment of client services positions, therefore a savings on the Transportation and Communications budget that they would have expended. We also had a director who was off on sick leave for five months, thereby a vacancy. So the budget that those individuals would have incurred did not get used.

MR. DEAN: Yes. In the same section, line 10. Grants and Subsidies, we did not have a budget and we spent $424,000 and we have a budget of $1 million going forward.

MR. KING: Yes. That reflects a partnership we are into with the federal government, a Transition Grant Program. We did not budget for it because it was not projected at the time. The $424,000 is what we would have received last year and the $1 million is what we are predicting to receive next year.

MR. DEAN: Okay. What program is that again?

MR. KING: It is called a Transition Grant Program. It is a follow-up to the Millennium Scholarship program. You might recall, the federal government introduced several years ago – more than several years ago now. Several years ago the government did away with the program but the Transition Grant Program was brought in to assist students who were part of the Millennium program and still had time left on their contracts, if you will. So it was a way not to leave students hanging who were perhaps in the first year of a three-year commitment of a Millennium Scholarship. It is a federal program that we are administering, totally funded by them, for those students who are still remaining on the Millennium program.

MR. DEAN: Okay. So the income would be down a couple of lines from there, obviously?

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. DEAN: Okay, a couple of general questions, I guess. The report done by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed the literacy rate of a fifteen-year-old; basically, they determined that has direct determinations for their future health and their involvement with the justice system and so on. We scored lower than the Canadian average, about 64 per cent on the - above Level III literacy. The Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training launched a Literacy Action Plan. Can you tell us how that strategy will roll out, or is it something that we will see soon?

MR. KING: Yes. First, I will speak in a general context to the issue itself that you have raised. We are certainly well aware, as a department, of the impact that literacy rates have on a people's ability to achieve. Ultimately, in the global thinking, the future of the Province and our ability to succeed is going to be dependent on our ability to have an educated population and a literate population.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: The report that we released by Atlantic Ministers was very broad in nature and it created what we felt were common goals that all of us could strive to achieve for. Probably, to speak to the issue for the Province you need to look more specifically at some of the things that we have been doing, and to tie one back to our previous discussion on the early learning piece because there is a direct correlation in our interest and want to move that initiative forward because we know that is going to impact the literacy rates. I am certain as you are, that that is going to be a long-term project. It is not going to be a short-term fix.

We have also done a number of other initiatives at the K-12 level, one of which is to try and enhance the kind of curriculum that we are offering in schools. We have a number of internal things going on right now looking at the language arts curriculum that we offer, for example, and not only the curriculum itself but the manner in which it is delivered. We continue to provide very focused and targeted professional development for teachers on language arts and literacy instruction and on the learning styles of students. That continues to evolve. It really does, because so many students have so many different learning styles. I guess, I will probably come back to your question in the broader sense. The intent of the Atlantic Canada plan is we have laid out goals for ourselves as a Province that is in concert with the other Atlantic Provinces.

As a department, we will have broken those down into more specific strategies on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that we would like to see followed for literacy improvement. The Strategic Adult Literacy Plan, it is certainly no coincidence that we released that. That is a big initiative that we partnered with a number of groups and agencies across the Province on. Our expectation of course is that school districts then as well will take the big plan, take our plan and then they will develop a strategic plan for specific school boards on how they can target literacy rates.

MR. DEAN: Okay. There are some good infrastructure improvements on the go, and that is good to see. I know the tractors are moving across the ground in St. Anthony again, and that is great.

Can you just give us a list of whatever the projects that are out there now that are being done?

MR. KING: Our capital projects? .

MR. DEAN: Yes. It is always a good news thing right?

MR. KING: Yes, it is a good news thing indeed. I will just run through them quickly. We can provide this to you after if you want.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: On the K-12, we have opening soon the new francophone school in Labrador. We are building a new school in Baie Verte; a new school in L'Anse-au-Loup; two new schools in Paradise, Paradise one and Paradise two. We are building a new school in Placentia, which I referenced a few moments ago. The good news there of course is we, through the community, picked up $1.8 million in partnership money from Vale Inco. The budget that we put in there is a budget that normally would go with a new school and they have $1.8 million of enhancements. So, it is great news for the area.

Port Hope Simpson a new school; Port Saunders a new school; Torbay a new school; Flower's Cove and Canon Richards there a redevelopment. We are doing extensions and renovations in Wesleyville. Balbo Elementary is going to have an extension, and there is going to be a redesign of the Clarenville system to go in partnership with that.

As mentioned in previous conversations with Lorraine, in Virginia Park there will be a new school and we are full steam ahead on that one. We have extension and renovations almost complete now in Witless Bay. We have an extension in Kelligrews, St. Edward's School. St. Peter's Junior High in Mount Pearl is getting renovations. Beachy Cove Elementary, we are into Phase II of extension out there because of growth in population.

We have a new school for St. Theresa's Elementary in St. John's. Carbonear, Davis Elementary is going to be replaced. We are doing extension to Upper Gullies Elementary because of population growth. Roncalli in Airport Heights is going to have a major extension announced in the Budget this year. In your own district of course, a great new K-12 school there.

We have announced a new west end high school for St. John's. We are doing an extension on St. Paul's in Gander. Again, that is a capacity issue, or a combination of capacity and the new skilled trades program. New World Island Academy, as well, capacity and program issue. We are going to do a redevelopment of Exploits Valley High School in Grand Falls-Windsor. Those are some of the K-12 initiatives that are ongoing and announced at this point in time.

The College of the North Atlantic, we are doing - of course, as we mentioned a few moments ago, the Labrador West campus. We are doing significant upgrades, roofing and ventilation to the campus here behind us on Prince Phillip Drive. There are upgrades being done as a result of the KIP project we partnered with the federal government on, Seal Cove campus as well. That is the college piece. We are doing the new residences for Memorial and for Grenfell in Corner Brook. They were announced in the Budget; the academic building for Grenfell. We are investing in lab science safety equipment. No, that is moving away a bit from infrastructure. Anyway, that kind of gives you a snapshot of some of the infrastructure projects we are involved with.

MR. DEAN: Yes, good.

Air quality, we have not heard much about that lately in a negative sense, which is good. It has been a while since we – we should all knock on wood I suppose, I do not know. How are we doing with that? What are the major concerns that are left out there in terms of air quality that we are trying to manage ourselves through? I know we have a lot of old facilities, we are getting new ones, obviously, but there are still a lot of old schools around.

MR. KING: I guess, by way of a general comment, there is never a guarantee that we are not going to come in here tomorrow and have an air quality issue. Predominantly, the air quality issues that are being identified in the last fifteen to eighteen months – predominantly, not all, but most - are a result of us doing maintenance work in schools. We are going in and we are renovating, and when we renovate we are finding issues. Most of it, when we talk about mould in schools, is being discovered in wall cavities. There are lots of instances, and I had them in my previous life, where air quality tests have been done in facilities and they come back fine; when you take the wall out you find mould in the cavity. That is because the mould has been sealed.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: So that is where we are finding most of our air quality issues. I think, generally speaking, between last year and this year we will have an investment of almost $80 million in projects identified by the school boards as being high priority for air quality and life safety reasons. That includes a lot of work around roofs, siding, windows – building-envelop projects we call them. That is where the bulk of air quality issues start. A leaky roof or a leaky window and water gets in and infiltrates the building.

We feel that we are doing great progress, and we - through the school boards, of course, because they do the daily operational piece of that, we are getting through it a piece at a time. As I said, there are still facilities out there that we have not done work with because there are no issues identified, but you never know, tomorrow it could be one of those facilities that a window will break or somebody will break a wall and all of a sudden you become aware of an issue. We will respond to those. We have a contingency fund for emergencies, but we are on a very planned track working with school districts to move through a list of projects that they have identified as – not identified as having air quality problems, but they have identified as potential problems. So, what we are trying to do now is get in and do maintenance work and perhaps try to avoid another case where you and I are in the House debating a school closure because of mould issues.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: We are doing well there. We have also made investments in the department. We have hired an industrial hygienist, which is an individual who is trained and qualified to go out and detect air quality problems, not only to detect the fact that there is an air quality issue but to detect whether there might become an issue. That individual is working with school districts to provide good advice and direction on what needs to be done. Districts then, of course, come to us, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, and they will identify projects. To the best of our ability, we are funding them.

As I can recollect at least we do not have any projects or any issues identified where air quality is an issue that we have not responded to. As I have said, fortunately, we are benefiting enough that we are also doing things that I call preventive maintenance. We are going in and fixing windows, roofs and sidings where to date there has been no problem identified, so hopefully we can avoid that ever happening.

MR. DEAN: Good.

What about the on-line access or whatever to those reports, the air quality reports? I think that was one of the things the AG mentioned in his report I believe, if I am correct, about them being accessible or on the web or whatever?

MR. KING: For me, it is not a priority, to be frank with you. We provide the reports publicly. Every single air quality report that we do is provided to the school council. From our perspective, the school council is the body that duly represents parents and the public. There are teachers on the council. There is provision for students on the council. There are parents and members of the public at large. All of the reports that we have are accessible to the group that we feel they are most important to, and that is the school council.

MR. DEAN: Sure.

MR. KING: Whether or not we will look at it down the road, maybe. I have not personally costed it out. As I said a few moments ago, if the deputy says to me for $2 million we can put these reports on-line or we can do another thirty or forty maintenance projects, my priority would be spend the million or two on maintenance projects at this point in time.

MR. DEAN: So, the information is out there, I guess, to those who would be concerned - not necessarily those who would be concerned but those who will be representing the parents and so on.

MR. KING: Yes.

The advice I would give people - and I did it in my previous life when I was with the school board - is that if a member of the public or you have a concern – well, if you have a concern you can come to us.

MR. DEAN: Sure.

MR. KING: If a member of the public has a concern for their school, they just pick up the phone and call the principal or their school council chair and they will give them a copy. We send copies out the minute we receive reports and have a chance to analyze them so that we are in a position to ask questions. They go directly to the schools.

MR. DEAN: Okay. Good.

There is one thing I wanted to ask you, back to the new infrastructure for a second, that I forgot to ask. It has to do with cafeterias going into schools and that was one of the recommendations of the NLTA, I believe. The new schools, is that kind of inclusive in projects or are they kind of in and out depending on –

MR. KING: Are cafeterias included in new school projects?

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. KING: Yes, they are part of our planning manual.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MR. KING: Most of the challenges we encounter with cafeterias – I think, anyway – two challenges: one is schools that do not have them because they were not planned for in the past; and secondly, there is a number of instances where we put them in but they are not big enough – and it is not that the cafeteria was not big enough for the school, it is that the population has grown.

We have adjusted our planning specifications over the last period of time to reflect that as well as other items, such as the skilled trades we talked about a few moments ago and the physical education initiatives, active and healthy lifestyles, to recognize that we need spaces in schools now to house this equipment and the appropriate facilities. So, our planning manual evolves as our requirements for school programs evolve, but we are factoring in cafeterias.

MR. DEAN: Good. Thank you.

Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: I just have a couple more questions. One has to do with student debt – actually it is the rate of repayment of student debt. I am just wondering – it may be too early for this. I do have the figures for the last few years.

I am just wondering, with the dropping of the payment of provincial interest on student loans, do we see an improvement in the rate of repayment that is going on. It might be too early to get that.

MR. KING: I think it is probably a little too early because we are not long into having eliminated the interest on that. I can follow up on that for you.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: I will check and just see if we have any indication whatsoever.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. I do not know when these figures are put together each year. The last report we have, of course, is for 2008, which was modified in October of 2009. So, it could be way too early to get the 2009 figures.

MR. KING: I will check for you.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

It will be interesting to know if we are seeing a change in the rate.

MR. KING: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Although I notice over those years the rate of payment seems to be improving. Almost each year there seems to be some improvement going on, especially in the private colleges which were really bad.

MR. KING: Without being able to quantify it for you, the feedback that we are getting from the Federation of Students is extremely positive on that particular initiative.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: What they are telling us is all of the feedback they get from students is that their debt load is becoming increasingly more manageable and it is allowing them to make their payments. Those who, perhaps, were challenged before that.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KING: So, anecdotally it is very positive, but I will see if I can get some numbers for you.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

Then my last question has to do with 4.4.03., the Student Loans Program. I am just wondering what the big drop is about. Last year in the Budget it was $29.1 million and went down by $13.9 million. This year it is more or less, not quite the same, but almost the same as last year's revision. So, what was that big difference about, that big drop?

MR. KING: That is a good news story actually. We budget there every year projecting what the interest rates are going to be on corporate loans, the Student Loan Corporation. That savings is a result of lower interest rates that we incurred, and we are projecting in this year's budget with $17 million that the interest rates are going to stay at or about where they are now.

MS MICHAEL: For this year?

MR. KING: Yes, we hope.

MS MICHAEL: That is right. We will see what the Bank of Canada has to say about that. That is great. That is good news. It might be short lived but while it is there -

MR. KING: It is good for a year anyway.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

Thank you very much. They are all my questions.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Are there any more questions from the Committee?

Okay. Thank you.

I will ask the Clerk to call the first head.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK: 1.2.01 to 4.5.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.2.01 to 4.5.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 4.5.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the total carried?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Education carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of Department of Education carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The Committee should have before them the minutes of the Social Services Committee, Department of Municipal Affairs, Fire and Emergency Services, for May 11, 2010.

Could I ask for a motion to adopt the minutes?

MR. YOUNG: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Young.

Thank you.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Minister and staff, I would like to thank you this morning for participating in the Estimates. To the Committee members, I would like to thank you for your participation.

This concludes the Estimates for the Social Services Committee. I certainly extend a thank you to the Committee members on their participation. I do believe that concludes. I will ask for a motion to adjourn.

MR. RIDGLEY: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Ridgley.

Thank you very much. We are adjourned.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.