The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in Room 5083, Confederation Building.

CHAIR (Mr. Mercer): Order, please!

Welcome, Minister; it is nice of you to be with us this morning. Before we get started, just to introduce the members of the Social Services Committee, starting at my far left we have the gentleman from Torngat Mountains. Introduce yourself, Wally.

MR. ANDERSEN: Wally Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains.

MS M. HODDER: Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin - Placentia West.

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

MR. MERCER: Bob Mercer, MHA for Humber East.

MR. SULLIVAN: Loyola Sullivan, MHA for Ferryland.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Sheila Osborne, MHA for St. John's West.

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

CHAIR: Those are the members of the Committee. The procedure will be the same as in previous years. Minister, we will give you up to fifteen minutes to make an opening remark. Try to contain yourself within that time frame. We will then come back to the Chair. The Vice-Chair will ask the first questions and then we will rotate amongst the members until all the questions have expired or, in Harvey's case, until three hours have expired, okay? We will try to do that, and try to make sure that everyone has a chance to ask all the questions they wish to ask.

Having said those very few, brief, introductory remarks, I will also ask, when your officials are speaking, that they identify themselves for the purposes of the gentleman from Hansard, so he can get all of that straight and clear. You are on, Sir.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity, along with some of the officials from the Department of Education, to give further detail to the Social Services Committee with respect to the budget items regarding education for the year 1998-1999.

I understand, having been here before, that a brief introductory comment is usually appreciated. We have so much news this year that I would really like to have about an hour or so of your time, but I will try to shorten it and allow for more questions; noting as well, I am sure, that myself and Mr. Hodder, as the Opposition Education critic, will explore more of these matters in detail in subsequent Question Periods and things of that nature.

There were two or three things. Before I go into them, I will just introduce the staff I have with me today. On my right is Mr. Wayne Green, who is the Deputy Minister. I think many people in this room would know Mr. Green from his many years in the public service, his many different involvements in many different departments. Most recently he has been the Deputy Minister of Government Services and Lands, before moving to Education early in the new year, and had prior service and experience in the Department of Education in a previous administration when there used to be two departments, one for K to XII and one for post-secondary. Mr. Green was in that particular department - I think it was career development and advanced education at the time - (inaudible).

We also have Mr. Bob Young with us, who is our Assistant Deputy Minister for Finance and Administration. Many in the room would again know Mr. Young from some of his experiences - in the last few years in particular when he was with Treasury Board and actually, before he came to Education, had been the Director of Budgeting for the Province in the previous budget exercise we went through a year or so ago. He also had extended involvement with federal government agencies and the private sector as well.

I am joined, as always - the government doesn't like for me to go very far without my Director of Communications because they are always afraid of what I might say, so Mr. Cooper is here to make notes of any comments in case he needs to issue any corrections at a later date on behalf of the government.

WITNESS: A busy man are you, Carl?

WITNESS: What a job he has, hey? The transcript (inaudible) is going to look some nice in Hansard.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) would be from note taking and careful observation for Mr. Cooper to make sure we do not make any mistakes or errors in trying to provide information and answers for the Committee. I will give whatever limited knowledge... I know, in most cases, I will likely have to defer to the deputy and the assistant deputy minister to give you the details I know you will want and desire.

A couple of things though, if I could, Mr. Chairman, just to highlight the features of the budget that we think are worth focusing upon - and the Committee may or may not deal with it in more detail - this budget is the one that contains, for the first time ever, the $50 million Education Investment Development Fund and the establishment of a new corporation to do that so we can meet the government's commitment to clean air in the classrooms, extensive repairs and renovations, maintenance, extensions and so on, to the existing physical structures that are out there serving our students in K to XII.

Also, there is some flexibility with that corporation for post-secondary use if it is desired or needed or becomes an urgent issue, so it is not exclusive or restricted to K to XII. We certainly expect there are enough needs in the K to XII system to use the full $50 million over the next two years, but if there is an urgent matter in a post-secondary, publicly funded institution that needs to be addressed, this fund is available to these for consideration. As well, of course, the fund has to deal with new construction needs over the next couple of years as well.

The corporation, the committee itself, is headed by Mr. Young. He served with officials from Works, Services and Transportation and from Treasury Board, which help them monitor the actual cash flows and those types of things. They are starting their initial meetings now. We are hoping to be in a position to make some definitive announcements as to how we will start using this fund within the matter of another week or ten days or so.

The committee itself has (inaudible), I understand from Mr. Young, even from the old construction board that was in place just for a short period of time under the previous Schools Act, that we have well in excess of $50 million worth of requests. The challenge, of course, will be to deal with it on a priority basis to see what it is that we need to have done at the earliest opportunity.

The other thing as well, once we take care of the physical plans for K to XII, if I could continue on with my comments for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, is the notion that this is the budget as well in which we added back some 200 teaching units above and beyond what normally would have been taken from the system because of student decline. That was a system that had been in place some twenty years. My recollection, actually, is that Ms Verge was the Minister of Education in the early 1980s when we moved to the current allocation formulas, and the practice had been - because decline had already started in the system - that every year since then there have been some teacher lay-offs; because every year since then there has, in fact, been a decline in the number of students. For a period of time, how many lay-offs were determined by a clause in the teachers' collective agreement that said, regardless of the decline, no more than 2 per cent of the existing teaching force could be laid off in any one year; but there were lay-offs every year for almost twenty years now.

This year, following the same kinds of formulas that were in place, there were some 450-or-so lay-offs that were scheduled. We reinstated 200 of those units and also made another significant move that is playing itself out for the first time in the Province. We moved to establish what were called small necessarily existing schools.

I know that the Opposition Education critic, a member of your Committee, has, on behalf of parents in certain areas, questioned how it is playing out in some regions of the Province; because it is a new experience for us in terms of establishing small necessarily existing schools where we establish a minimum number of teachers that are needed to provide the minimum program that must be available in every school in Newfoundland and Labrador. Those schools - there are eighty-four of them - are basically done outside of the regular teacher allocation formulas. There is an assessment made of how many teachers are required, regardless of the student population in the school, to ensure that at least the provincial minimum program can be delivered in those schools. It was on that basis that a discussion occurred, and that is playing itself out for the first time in the Province. They will be in existence for the first time in our history when schools open in September.

This is the budget as well, Mr. Chairman, in which we make the first steps towards implementing the recommendations of the Special Matters report by Dr. Patricia Canning. Altogether, in three or four different subheads of this budget, we have a total package of initiatives that equates to just about $5 million worth of things that are being done to try to respond to some of the recommendations in Dr. Canning's report - so, a very important first step for us.

The biggest feature, of course, is that there are up to seventy additional special education, special needs, units available to school boards. How many go into any one school board are determined by how many assessed students with special needs are in any particular area of the Province.

The history in the last little while is that the numbers of these special needs students are increasing in and around the metropolitan St. John's area, not because there is any disproportionate representation in the population for any reason other than our research and follow-up show that families that have mobility, capability, in the Province, and have children with severe special needs - learning disabilities, severe physical disabilities and others - are choosing to move in and around St. John's because the other support services they need from the health care system and so on are also available in this region. If they can find a way to move into the city itself, to move into Conception Bay South, into the Goulds area, into the Northeast Avalon, families with special needs children are making conscious decisions to do that, so that kind of population has become over-represented in this particular area, in this particular board, compared to other parts of the Province.

There is a representation and a cross-section of them throughout the Province, but there has been a shift noticed in the last several years whereby these types of families are gravitating towards a city for access to a whole range of services, not only those that are provided in the schools. So we would not be at all surprised if both of those units end up being required in the schools that are administered by the board in Avalon East, and that a few others might be disbursed elsewhere in the Province, because that is where the students are. This is driven strictly by student assessment and need rather than by any (inaudible) allocation of so many per board, and those types of things.

This budget also, Mr. Chairman, shows a small but continuing increase in the budget for student assistants. We might all cast our minds back and recall the opening of school last September when I was expressing, on behalf of government, some surprise that we were having difficulties, even to the point of parents keeping their special needs students out of school because they felt that the level of service was decreasing.

My surprise was based on the fact that this is the one budget heading that through all the years of restraint, even in the last decade, this budget head has increased every single year so that the resources made available in schools for student assistants, as one of the tools that help deal with special needs students, is the one area where there has been constant growth ever since the program was introduced, and there is a slight increase anticipated again this year.

That package of measures, along with some pilot projects, some special materials for special needs students, some special equipment, some piloting on some preschool initiatives, some literacy initiatives, and those types of things that will be helpful for these students - the increase in units and the increase in the student assistant hours that are available - we believe that the school boards are better equipped in September of 1998 to offer a range of services to special needs students than they have ever been in the past. There is a great need. This won't meet all of it, but it is certainly, again, a move in the right direction.

I think the school board representatives have already indicated that they think they will have, clearly, a better capability. They know that they will still have certain parents and certain children who would suggest that they need a greater range of services and a level of services than what we have provided to them, but they should be able to provide a better level in September of 1998 than they did any year previous to that.

As well, there is the other continuing feature in this budget with respect to K to XII. Then I will stop at that, Mr. Chairman, and make just a few brief comments with respect to post-secondary. The other continuing feature in this budget that positions the school boards to be in a position so that they can probably have a better year in 1998 and 1999 than they have had in the recent past is the continuation of the policy that says on the operational side of their budgets, that if they effect any efficiencies and any savings, the government does not recover them. They keep them. So that even with our operational grants on a per pupil basis, we already know that the projected enrolments last year through kindergarten enrolments that are already in place, versus the number of graduates who are expected to leave the system, that there will be in the range of 4,000 fewer students in our schools in September than there are today. There is a grant in place for each one of those students.

What happens is that operational grant funding stays in place next year even though the students leave. So the money for those 4,000 students stays in the system and the school boards actually, on a per pupil basis, get an increased grant on a per pupil basis for operational matters, for instructional materials, for assistance in the schools. Also, the school boards that are contemplating now and have even announced some school closures and some school consolidations, the money that is in their operational base for running those schools - the heat, the light, snow clearing, all those issues -, they keep that money and they use that to make improvements in the remaining parts of the system.

That was a commitment we had made last year that on the operational side the operational budgets would be frozen for three years, and any efficiencies that are there because of decisions that boards make with respect to facilities they operate, and the decline of the population, that extra money would stay with the boards so that they will have increased funding to apply to the remaining portion of their system they are operating on behalf of the students.

In total we think that there is a very good package of initiatives in this particular budget for K to XII. There are still some issues of course that arise from time to time. It is always extremely contentious when any one school in any one area is being slated for closure by a school board for any reason. Parents and students get attached to the school they have been attending, they want it to stay open, and it is always a difficult issue. Some of those will play out and so on. I think the funding initiatives that are driven by this particular budget, in our view, position the boards better than they have been for any number of years in terms of being able to deal with the pressures that are on them.

At the post-secondary level, I have just three or four little comments. I think people in the Province are well aware of the $4 million scholarship fund that has been established to help the students with the greatest indebtedness at this point in time. It is intended to be a bridge to the Millennium Scholarship announced by the federal government. The federal government has been encouraging the provinces to try and harmonize our efforts with respect to reducing student debt and student indebtedness. We felt that with the limited resources available to us one of the best things that we could do would be to put in place a scholarship fund with basically the same criteria as the Millennium fund that will be available to our students two years in advance of the federal scholarship fund coming on stream.

We recognize that it is inadequate in terms of the need being maybe double or triple this, but with the resources that we have the students have indicated that they are pleased with this as a good start and hope that it is a signal to government to be able to do more of this in future budgets if money and circumstance allow.

The other thing that did not get as much attention publicly is that in the student loan program, in one of the issues of getting access to loans in the first instance, we did extend the definition of a term with respect to entitlement of student loans to increase the length of a term at the University from sixteen weeks to seventeen weeks. The effect of it actually is that for each semester in University, students get access to borrow an extra $275 per semester: $110 of it from us and $165 from Canada Student Loan. They like the feature that it puts more money in their pockets, but of course all of us know, and they know, that at the end of the piece all it does is increase their indebtedness at the end of the day.

It is a two-edged sword. They do get a bit more money to meet their expenses on the way through, but at the end of their total borrowing period they will be in debt by a bit more than they would have if we had not added the extra week. On balance it solves the shorter term problem for them. They hope to work with us to make sure that there are other measures in place by the time they get to the end of their borrowing period of four or five years to help them eliminate the accumulated debt.

We still have the student loan remission program in place in our Province which caps the debt for those that meet the criteria. The stories you hear of $40,000 and $45,000 worth of debt in borrowing under normal circumstances cannot exist in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because our program says that if you complete your period of study on a timely basis, which means the projected period plus a year - so if you are doing a four year degree program, if you complete it within five years your total indebtedness is capped at a maximum of $22,000. You may have borrowed $40,000, but at the end of the piece what that means is that the government and the taxpayers, on behalf of the student, immediately pay cash for the difference above $22,000 and they are left with a debt of $22,000. It is really only ourselves and British Columbia, at this point in time, that have a well defined remission program in place.

We were hoping, and there was a big representation made by us and the Canadian Federation of Students, as well as our own bodies here, to the federal government, that that feature would be a part of those things announced by the federal government in the last Budget. It was not. They took other initiatives with respect to easing debt and burden, but our remission program is still in place. The first year where it became fully operational was in the last budget year. We did not have as much uptake as we had anticipated and that is reflected in some of the numbers in our budget, but we fully expect that as students become more aware of the program - and of course they are obviously very much in need of it - the uptake on that particular program would increase in this year and in coming years as students qualify for remission.

The other two things that we did do in this budget is we have provided stable funding for the College of the North Atlantic - actually, the figures show a slight increase of $1 million or so - because we have gone through the major reorganization, going from five colleges to one. Most of the money that were reduced from provincial sources, almost all of it was reduced because we had streamlined the administration. Just as we did with school boards, we had other (inaudible) pressures that were at bear and other needs for the money. We did not leave the administrative savings in the system. When we eliminated the headquarters that had been in Grand Falls-Windsor, Clarenville, here in St. John's, and in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the monies for those administrative structures were not left in the system, they were used for other fiscal priorities for the government. The programming monies from the provincial sources have basically stayed the same and have been increased in the budget reflecting this year by $1 million or so.

The other aspect of it of course is that the college itself has always been in the process of re-evaluating its program offerings in trying to make sure that it is offering the programs that are tied to labour market research that shows the greatest prospects for jobs and career opportunities for the students. That is a constant ongoing annual operation of adjusting programming.

At Memorial University the budget reflects the third year of the three-year plan. The expected decrease in funding is there. They made their plans for that three years ago. There are no surprises at the University with respect to that. Our contribution of matching their Opportunity Fund is also reflected. They have been very successful, by the way, with the Opportunity Fund. They are closing in on their target of $50 million over five years that they will use to build the new student centre, and also to put about half of the money into scholarships, bursaries and award programs so that they can help their students relieve some indebtedness through money that the University has itself to disburse to its qualifying students.

The last feature that is here with respect to post-secondary is that there is a budget increase that provides the opportunity for the Province to reinstate and go back to more active monitoring of the private training institutions in the Province. We had a more active monitoring program several years ago. It was largely funded by money that had come from Human Resources Development Canada as a result of the large influx of displaced fishery workers into the private schools, and into the College of the North Atlantic as well. Some of that money disappeared a couple of years ago.

The monitors were released, and we moved to a system of going to schools basically on a need basis rather than doing spot checking and regular monitoring. We will now revert back to the old program of having designated monitors in three areas of the Province whose total job will be to visit the schools, unscheduled, unannounced, on a regular basis as the monitors see fit to do compliance audits to make sure that the private training institutions are, on a daily basis, living into the terms and conditions of the licence that they are granted to operate in the Province.

Those are the features, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to highlight. There are others and I could go on for some time, but I know that the best and most productive use of the Committee is for us to provide the information that the Committee members require. There are issues that I am sure are near and dear to your hearts that I may not have thought of, or may not have highlighted or featured here, that you would like more detail or more information on, we are here to serve and provide the information if we can. As you know, from our experience in the Legislature, I may not know many of the answers, but we have people we can get them from and hopefully they are in the room with us today.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

Before we move to the Vice-Chair to start his questioning, I will just remind you that there is coffee at the back of the room, for the Committee members who have been asking repeatedly for coffee to be available.

I will ask the Clerk to call the first head and we will start debate and discussions under that particular head for the entire Budget.

CLERK (J. Noel): Subhead 1.1.01, the Minister's Office.

CHAIR: Loyola, and then we will go to Gerry Reid.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have just a couple of things initially, and then I will follow in sequence. I am glad to hear the minister say that he now sees a need to monitor private colleges; that is certainly a positive indication.

With reference to a remission program on student loans, what dollar value is budgeted this year and what was expended last year under the remission? Is the length of time to complete your post-secondary still the same? Has there been any alteration? I understand there probably has not been. Has there been a change in that?

One thing I find is that a lot of people, because of financial reasons, are forced to take a semester off, or try to get a little bit of part-time work in here and there, and therefore it lengthens out the semester. Obviously there are other reasons which I am sure the minister is well aware of also - maternity, probably. For example, child care and other concerns, family concerns that increase the length of time to be able to get a degree or a post-secondary diploma, or whatever the case may be. Is there any consideration to changing that length of time? How much has been expended and projected for this year, too?

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The issue raised is actually on page 192 in our Estimates. That is where I can probably direct you, to give you an explanation as to the answer. As always, I will attempt to provide the answer as I know it. The officials will interrupt because they will make sure I don't give any misinformation, Mr. Chairman, to the Committee. If they think I am saying something that is not quite correct, they will interrupt me and make sure you have the right information.

As I understand it, in the heading 3.4.03 - and I think Mr. Young will either nod or give me a dig if I am referring to the wrong issue - in this section last year, in 1997-1998, we had budgeted $10,981,100. That covers two things. That is the amount that is budgeted to cover the fact that the government has an obligation to the remission program and also that the government, in student loans, pays the ongoing interest on loans. That is what we do for that, at some period first when they start and so on; government pays the interest while the loan is active and up to when the student actually starts paying, so we have an ongoing obligation.

I don't know, and if Mr. Young has the details he can tell us, what the actual split is in those particular numbers. The reason the $10,981,100 came in at an actual of $8,240,500 - which is the issue I think the Vice-Chairman has raised - that is not because the interest was less than we expected; it was because the take-up on the remission was less than we had expected. That is why the number is now back up to $11,322,000, because we do expect increased activity in the remission program in this fiscal year, above and beyond what was there last year.

There is no doubt, and one of the officials (inaudible). The last comment I would make is that there is no doubt, because the student officials... There is a committee that works with student aid that has representatives of the CSU, representatives of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students, and people from the office of the Director of Student Aid. They have been trying to find some other way to give people entitlement to the remission rather than under current rules, because the issue... There is no denying the issue that you have raised. The university, through its administration - I checked this with Dr. May, and he has done some research and passed it along to us as well. We are very interested in it and would like to find - this is intended to benefit the students, and it is not much point in having it here if it is not going to be a direct benefit to the students.

The difficulty has been that they are finding that less than 60 per cent of their students are completing on time - on time meaning the year plus one - because of those types of things that you mentioned in your question and commentary: that they find it necessary, because of debt and so on, to leave university for a semester sometimes, and sometimes for a full year, to seek out some money, to get some work, to even pay down some existing debt. Because the other thing that I think has been known in the Province, and in the country, is that the level of student loan that you can borrow has not changed in over ten years, but in the whole country tuition costs have increased, the cost of living has increased. So, even if you borrow the maximum student loans, students and families are having to get other monies elsewhere to pay the cost of their post-secondary training. Because of that, you would find an increasing number of students who are not able to go through their training period uninterrupted.

The remission program does provide for an appeals process and provides for forgiveness if there is an understandable absence from the university. Then that period gets added on to your five years for a four-year program, but so far very few people have been able to convince the committee that their absence was (inaudible). Usually it is for some circumstance of crisis in the family where you had to leave; it may have been a death or a serious illness that caused a student to leave. At this point they have not considered leaving to get work as being one of those eligible criteria, so we are discussing it. The committee members are -

MR. H. HODDER: Is pregnancy included?

MR. GRIMES: I am not sure. We can get an answer for you at a later date. I expect that it would be and should be, but I do not know of examples where it has come forward. We can check it for you. Again, if you want the details, either Mr. Green or Mr. Young can give you a split as to how much of (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am interested. Actually, I am interested in knowing know how much of that amount was for remission as opposed to paying interest, on the breakdown on $8.2 million.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Young will introduce himself, as per the instructions of the Chair. That is for the record of Hansard, for the Committee. They all know who you are, Bob, but the machine needs to know.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

The original budget of about approximately $11 million - I will just give you some rough splits on the $11 million. We can confirm those more precisely after the Committee's deliberations, but the rough splits are for the loan remission program. The budget was approximately $3 million, and for the interest subsidy portion which the minister talked about there was $4.5 million.

There is another program there that is called the risk premium, and that is to ensure the banks, in case of default of loans and so on, it alleviates the banks from having to pay out all the possible defaults that may occur (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: It covers a percent of the total pot, basically, the same as government guaranteed loans in other areas.

WITNESS: That is correct. That is approximately $2 million, but those are the substantive issues. There are a couple of other items in here like interest relief for specific purposes and so on, apart from the interest subsidy, but the expenditures against those... On the loan remission program, our expenditures last year were approximately a million dollars against the $3 million budget; and our expenditure on interest subsidy was $3.5 million as opposed to $4.5 million. The interest rates were not as great as we had anticipated. On the risk premium, we did budget and pay out the $2 million. Those are rough numbers.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. That is basically the question I asked. We really only spent $1 million when we anticipated spending $2 million.

WITNESS: Three.

MR. SULLIVAN: We anticipated spending three, sorry, and we only spent one on loan remission.

My other part of the question was: What do we anticipate spending again? We are back roughly to the same amount projected this year, so is our forecast now changed on remission? Is it roughly still $3 million in the Budget or have we changed that, revised that, in light of only spending a million?

WITNESS: No, we anticipate this year to spend, in fact, the $3 million. The loan remission program really cut in in 1998-1999 because the program was introduced in 1994-1995 and the first (inaudible) people coming through would have been 1998-1999, having completed their four years of university. It really cut in, in effect, in 1998-1999, and the take-up was not as great in 1998-1999 for reasons we are still trying to investigate. For example: Are students aware of the program? Did they not complete their course on a timely basis and so on? Are they going the extra year? Did they move off to graduate school? Did they move off to another post-secondary type of training and whatnot, so that they are still in the system?

The take-up was not as great as had been anticipated, but we fully anticipate this year - we have done additional advertising and so on of the program; we put out brochures at the university, through the Student Aid Office and so on, to make all students aware of the loan remission effort and so on that is under way. So we fully expect this year, being the fifth year of the program, to spend the full allocation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sixty per cent basically, I think, was referenced, that does not fall into that because of time periods and so on. I understand there are time limits in applying for that remission, too. Would that be correct, that there are time limits in which you have to apply for remission? If there are, and they elapsed last year, there certainly (inaudible) be elapsed even more so this year in those aspects. I know there are new ones coming on stream.

The point I am trying to make here overall is that if we are not utilizing what is budgeted, maybe we should look at changing the qualifying criteria for remission so we can give students the benefit of $3 million, not just the benefit of $1 million, on that particular point. Because, are we going to be coming back next year and looking at the final figures again and saying: Look, we budgeted $3 million but we only spent $1 million. Why can't we get that $2 million in the pockets of the students through the financial institutions, to get some of the burden off the backs of students so they can stay here in this Province and not have to go to greener pastures to try to retire debt.

MR. GRIMES: It is a good point as well, Mr. Chairman. What we did, if you look at that same page, 3.4.03 and then the heading above it in 3.4.02, one of the things that encouraged the government and enabled the government, I guess, to establish the Scholarship Fund - because in the meetings that we had, both myself and the Premier, with the student representatives, it was clear, around Christmas time or so, the last time we met with them, that the take-up on the remission was not going to be as great as expected. The students made that point in their meeting with the Premier. They said: Premier, it looks like there might be $1.5 million or $2 million here that was intended to alleviate student debt that might not get spent.

As you can see here, what we did of course was we took that $2 million and another $2 million - because we do want to alleviate debt - and we put it into the Scholarship Fund in that same fiscal year. So we took the $2 million that was a shortfall and put another $2 million with it from some other shortfalls elsewhere in the government - in terms of expenditures not being what they had been anticipated - and created the $4 million Scholarship Fund.

The students themselves are on the committee, with student aid officials, now finalizing the actual rules for the disbursal of that money, so we were very (inaudible). They made exactly the same point that you made, Mr. Vice-Chair, in terms of the fact that the money was intended to alleviate debt. For whatever reason, it had not gotten into the hands of the students as intended under the remission program, so we have made it available, that and another $2 million, to get into the hands of the most needy students with the greatest debt.

The students themselves are working with us to determine the final criteria as to how that will be disbursed. The issue is that it will likely be disbursed to a slightly different group of students because there are some who probably thought they were going to be eligible for remission but in one way or the other did not qualify. Whether or not they will ever be able to qualify at this point in time, I could not answer that for sure; but it is a continuing issue of discussion. Particularly, it seems to dominate mostly with the representatives of the Council of the Students Union at Memorial where the indebted levels are higher because of the longer length of the program (inaudible). These programs, at this point - and correct me (inaudible) - I don't believe the remission programs are restricted at all, because it depends on what your goal is, but the periods of it will only really apply at the university because of the nature of debt and how it is structured in the first instance.

Maybe it is useful as well, a quick reminder as to where it came from, because what it was, was a switch that was made three-and-a-half or four years ago. We used to have a front-end grant system. You would get a grant at the beginning and then you would borrow if you met the qualifications. What we did was eliminate the grant system, let everybody borrow to the maximum, and then gave remission at the end. A lot of people at that point in time indicated that they thought it was a good change because the grant at the beginning, in many instances, was available to every beginning student. Even those people who, for whatever reason, were not successful, even the Christmas drop-outs, had already accessed the grant. So we were spending a lot of money in grants for students who never, ever completed their training. We felt that the incentive component of this was that if you were successful you would get the equivalent of the grant and more at the end, with remission for your loan.

As you pointed out, the remission program obviously is not working to the extent that all of us had hoped and wished, but we are looking at adjustments. The committee is actively considering it. We have indicated to them that if they can find ways to make it function better and get relief to the students, we would certainly contemplate implementing the changes when we can manage to do that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess overall, when you look at the Budget, there is an increase of over $13 million in the education budget. It was a little higher last year. I know the scholarship fund through special warrants was really paid out of the last fiscal year. That is why, I guess, there is only $140-some thousand reflected in that heading here this year.

There is a reduction of $13 million in spite of an extra pay period. I guess Mr. Young might have just a rough figure. I would assume the extra pay period equates to $20-odd million within the department budget this year. Would you be able to confirm that?

MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. The principal reason for the decline has showed up in the capital budget side, and I think that is the best area to look at. You will see, for example, if you look at our capital budget, which has to do with the corporation the minister just expressed, the $13 million really shows up there as the majority of the reasons for the decline. Just let me get my note.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and the proportion, that might be the dollar value for that extra pay period.

MR. YOUNG: The extra pay period does show up, but as I said the majority of it is in the presentation of the Estimates of how the capital corporation funding is treated. You will find in 1997-1998, if you are comparing the two years, there was a budget in there of about $14 million on the capital side and nothing in for 1998-1999, because the money is showing up in a different section, if you want, under the new corporation. I will just find that page for you.

MR. GRIMES: A pay period, in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, is roughly in the $13 or $14 million range for teachers. Anytime there is an extra one we can expect it to go up by $13 or $14 million.

The reference I think Mr. Young is trying to direct you to is on page 182, where the reason you see a difference in the overall budget is in the one-time expenditure in the development of the Investment Corporation. At the bottom of page 182 in section 2.1.09 there was a $25 million one-time infusion at the end of the last year that was not budgeted for. So last year's number is up by $25 million. Therefore you see this one is down. We are going to make the regular contribution this year in capital, which is the $16 million, but that $25 million inflates last year's budget by $25 million beyond what would be expected.

MR. SULLIVAN: The same as the scholarship thing.

MR. GRIMES: The whole notion of it is that in fact our budget, compared to what we had budgeted last year without these additions at year end, actually is up to accommodate the extra pay period. It shows down overall, but the $25 million is just one instance. There is another $4 million for the scholarship fund and so on. There are one-time infusions in what is here that were not contemplated to establish things like the scholarship fund, like the development corporation and so on, that drove last year's Estimates above and beyond what were normally projected. Now they are showing a decline because those one year things are not featured again in this year's budget. There is also an extra pay period, and I believe - Mr. Young can correct me - it is in the range of $13 million for a teachers' payroll for a two-week period.

MR. SULLIVAN: Then there are the departmental and other payrolls too that should bring the total budget in the vicinity, I would assume, of $20-some million. Because most of the education budget is salary overall, whether it goes out to public colleges or wherever it goes.

Just one other topic, and then I will give someone else an opportunity to ask questions. It is about Memorial University. I think three years ago there were three-year figures given on funding to MUN. My understanding, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, is it was supposed to reduce funding to Memorial from a figure of roughly - I think at one point we were up to about $112 or $115 million, and I think it was going to take it down to $102 or $103 million. Now it was my understanding that that was exclusive of the Opportunity Fund. I think last year the figure was roughly $102 or $103 million, including the Opportunity Fund.

Has that been a federal cut-back? Have you used contributions to the Opportunity Fund to reduce, really, the overall funding to MUN? Because it is only showing, I think, $98 million, in 3.2.01, page 190. It is only showing $98 million, total vote $99 million, and we can see it is down somewhat overall. That is a further reduction this year again. I know MUN received a three year - I think that ended the last fiscal year. Would that be correct?

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Chairman. This number, this $98,725,700 is the last (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: This is the third year.

MR. GRIMES: This was the number they were given notice of three years ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, because initially I think in a statement the minister probably made in the House, and certainly it has been the public forum, he said that it was supposed to drop to $102 million at the time, I think that statement showed. Why would it be going down another $3 million or so? Are you are trying to recoup what is given under the Opportunity Fund? The cuts have been more severe than were forecasted for the three-year plan.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Chairman. I think if there was a number of $102 million that looked like that was the end of the piece instead of the $98.7 million, it would have been because the total grant to the University, both in current and capital, might have been in that particular number. What has actually happened, and the University concurs, is that these are the numbers they were fully expecting and aware of, that their operations grant would be the $99,097,900 that is reflected in the bottom line for 3.2.01.

The normal capital grant that (inaudible) at the University every year is $1 million. What the budget for next year, the current year of operating, and these Estimates cover, Mr. Chairman, in 3.2.02, instead of $1 million it is $4 million. Because it is the normal $1 million we give them for capital plus $3 million to match what they have raised for the Opportunity Fund. We have not shortchanged one for the other. This was the expected operating number for the University.

Maybe in some press release someone had lumped the two together to show that at some point in time the total contribution might be $102 million at the end of the piece. They fully expected in the range of $98 million to $99 million for operations, and $1 million or so for capital which has been the government's annual contribution for the past four or five years. Then there is an additional $3 million because we have verified with them that their fund-raising effort has gotten $3 million from private and other sector donors that we are now matching as agreed to in the establishment of the Opportunity Fund.

CHAIR: Gerry, and then we will go on to Harvey.

MR. G. REID: I will ask all mine up front so I don't have to ask any later on. The necessarily existent, isolated or small school. You have a (inaudible) where you allot an extra teacher or so to those schools. How many actually exist in the Province?

MR. GRIMES: There are eighty-four, I believe, if I am not mistaken. There was a consultation process engaged in. Mr Young was personally involved in most of it, along with our director of school services. They visited with each of the school boards. Because of the kind of thing I think that is in the news these days, with respect to a school or two in the Province, particularly on the Northern Peninsula where people are now suggesting that they would like to have the issue revisited.

Everything that is done with respect to planning, whether it is small necessarily existent schools, the allocation of teachers and so on - and it has always been to the advantage of the system -, it is done based on current year enrolments. We have estimates for the next year. Of course, if we project it ahead, then we know there are people leaving, and if we start taking out teachers and so on then we would have fewer resources in the system. School boards and so on have always been extremely pleased that the government allows them to plan for next year based on this year's numbers because that gives them additional resources to work with.

When we looked at the small necessarily existent schools issues with each of the school boards, we dealt with this year's enrolments, this year's schools, and didn't contemplate that they were closing any or anything else. Because they were in a position at that point in time to tell us whether they were or they weren't. If they did, of course, they had other resources they could put back into the system.

There were eighty-four of them. I think there were incidents in several of them where the assessment done by the officials and the officials at the school board indicated that current teacher allocations in those schools were inadequate. Maybe half a unit or a full unit in some cases were added, because it was felt that to have the proper minimum programs in place - they were actually, in some cases, fearful that students were being shortchanged. The act requires that every school that is opened can only open if it can guarantee that the minimum requirements within the act, with respect to programming, are available to those students. In some instances the officials came to the conclusion that they weren't 100 per cent, that it was borderline, so they assigned additional units to those schools. Not in all cases. In some cases they were satisfied that the minimum program at least was already doing that, and current year allocations.

I think there was only one or two of the eighty-four where there was agreement at the end of the piece that a teacher or two could be removed from the schools. Because school boards, for certain reasons - I guess peculiarities would be the best way to describe it - had shown that even in the same school board, schools of exactly the same configuration - meaning K-12, K-6, whatever they were, and the same size in terms of student population - had very different teacher allocations.

Of course, school boards have always had the right to decide where the teachers went. I guess they had their own local reasons as to why they had placed fifteen teachers in this school and only twelve in the other when they were the same size and the same grades. When they were challenged by the departmental officials - because we have to have some consistency in the Province - they agreed to a number that would guarantee the delivery of programs in the schools.

There are eighty-four of them. It is a new initiative. There are some strange things happening, as I see it. There are some parent groups now which are suggesting that they only really want to count the teachers that are actually what they would call classroom teachers. Where there are six or seven units in the school, they are out actually making public statements that we only have four teachers. This is a brand new phenomena that I have never heard of before in my life, people to actually be out suggesting that there are fewer teachers in the schools then there really are. They are out making public statements that there are fewer teachers than the school board has already told them they have for the next year. Because they have some view in their mind that a principal does not teach at all.

The real circumstance in our small schools in Newfoundland and Labrador - as a number of former educators and people who have been involved with school boards in this room would know - is that it is a rare circumstance where administrators in our Province don't do a considerable amount of teaching. Parents are trying to build a case suggesting that: We cannot count that person who is actually in our building because they are the principal. Except for about a dozen or so very large schools in the Province, very large in our definition being very small in other jurisdictions, these people have always had some teaching duties. I guess in order to make a case at this point in time they are suggesting there may be other things that are necessary.

We still have some points of interaction between the government and the board. The board still has complete flexibility to assign teachers in the other schools, but in the ones that have been designated small necessarily existing schools there has already been a full dialogue between government and the school boards. There has already been a determination of how many teachers, how many teaching units, are going to be in those schools. That is determined now, gazetted by law, and in place. That system gets reviewed on an annual basis in terms of whether or not circumstances have changed so that the designation of a small necessarily existing school should be altered in any way, shape or form.

MR. G. REID: The reason I ask is because I would assume most of the schools in Coastal Labrador are included (inaudible), are they?

MR. GRIMES: In the southern Straits most of them are, because of the nature of students. On the north coast, in Torngat Mountains, the area served by Mr. Andersen, as the member would be aware, because we visited the schools a year or so ago, they get the same consideration. Not necessarily through designation of small necessarily existing schools, but because they have a native component in their schools. There is another feature of the teacher allocations, some of it supported by native agreement provisions, but also provided by a section of teacher allocations that provides additional units for native education.

Because in most of the schools in Torngat, for example, there is a two-stream, much like in other parts of the Province. People might relate to schools where there is French Immersion, where there is a French stream and an English stream in the same school. In most of the schools on the Coast of Labrador there is an opportunity, to some degree, for a Native stream along with the English stream that is required. They get extra teachers and extra allocations under a native allocation formula.

It was agreed with the Labrador Board that for those particular schools on the north coast that have the large native components - at a point in time, by the way, we fully expect that the Aboriginal communities will take over full control and operation of the schools as we evolve more towards self governance and dealing with land claims issues and so on. That is fully contemplated to be part of the overall scheme of things.

Presently, it was agreed that they did not need to be designated as small necessarily existing schools. They are, in many cases, small. They are absolutely necessarily existent, because there is nowhere else for the students to go. The same additional assistance that they would have gotten through this feature of the Schools' Act they have been getting and continue to get through a native education component that meets their needs. There has been, in that area of the Province, complete satisfaction. They are getting served from that component as well as, if not better, than if they had been designated small necessarily existing schools.

On the Southern Straits of Labrador, there may be a school in the Forteau - L'Anse-au-Clair area that is not small and necessarily existent, but I believe all the others are. There is a list. That board, District #2, which serves the tip of the Northern Peninsula and the Southern Straits of Labrador, only operates thirty-four school altogether. Twenty of them are small necessarily existing schools, and most of those, I would say, are in the Straits of Labrador.

MR. G. REID: I would like to see one other thing included, and that would be necessarily existing isolated schools. The problem I have on Fogo Island is that there is only one school system over there. It is not considered small because it is a K to XII school. The argument they use is that because they are an island - the issue is greater than that of education. Their argument is that, for example, with declining enrolment if they lose a unit it may be a music teacher, and that cannot be picked up elsewhere on the island like it would be available in Gander. You may be able to find someone to teach music privately in Gander, whereas it is not available on the island. Their argument has always been that if they lose more teachers they are going to lose more programs on the island, not just in the school but things that were available to the community before.

I don't think it would be that many, would it, if you included the clause of necessarily existing isolated schools? There would only be a few islands, I think, in the Province, wouldn't there?

MR. GRIMES: Most likely. It is a very interesting concept that you raise, and one that we are interested in pursuing, because it would be restricted to maybe just half a dozen or so (inaudible).

MR. G. REID: Because the Change Islands' one falls under the small necessarily existing schools. Right? I think most of them would.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, the current one of small necessarily existing schools, which is the point that the member is raising, is our first step. What it has done and what the school boards are encouraged about, and I think what the parents in Fogo would be encouraged about, is that for the first time it has given us an opportunity to move away from these formulas and actually decide how many teachers should be in a school to preserve the programs. So far what we have done is say: You do have to meet the two criteria. You have to be necessarily existing by virtue of the fact that there is nowhere else to go, but you have to be small.

I think the education critic raised the issue as part of a question in the Legislature a while ago. The small version, which is where you get back to numbers again, kind of arbitrary numbers, is that the mean grade enrolment has to be twelve or less. You pick an arbitrary number. Therefore, in a place like Fogo where the students don't have a choice, they qualify for part of the formula but not for the others, so they are lumped in under the regular (inaudible). What the school boards are hoping we will be able to do, and what we are hoping we will be able to move towards as well, is to take maybe the next logical extension, which is the one you suggest, to move from small necessarily existing to necessarily existing, period.

Because the other thing that we are hesitant to do at this point in time is to go to... The proposition that the boards have put to us - and the Committee might be interested in hearing this - through the last year or so is that they believe they would like to get to a position where they come in to the government annually and negotiate the number of teachers based on programs for each of their schools. Not a bad concept.

MR. G. REID: How would that work?

MR. GRIMES: Basically, you would look at the schools you have today, how many teachers you have, what program you have been able to run under current allocations, and then unless there are major shifts in the population, unless something has happened in a town where half the population left, the government would commit to make sure that they can run the same program in the same school next year, as long as the school has to exist.

The difficulty in moving to that right now is that we do have circumstances - and probably the most remaining opportunity for it is right in the St. John's area. This board acknowledges they have many opportunities to consolidate services, that they have many more schools than they need. I have heard the chair of the board on suggesting that there could be fifteen or twenty buildings that they are in today that they were in for traditional reasons that they probably don't need to use. It would be difficult to move into a process with all the boards. Because in this area the board has acknowledged that because they have lost 2,500 students in the last three or four years and closed no schools. They have given notice now they are going to close two or three next year.

They have also suggested publicly that it may be possible to have a better education system in and around St. John's in fifteen or twenty fewer buildings. When they get to the point where they have the optimum number of buildings I think then the government would be very interested in saying: This is the number of buildings you are definitely going to need. You cannot close schools now because you need them. If we get to that point with each of the boards where you have the schools that you need to have, I think then it is clear, and it should be clear to all of us, that if we are going to arbitrarily then reduce teachers on the basis of declining enrolment or anything else, we can only expect to reduce programs.

I think all of us in this room have probably had stories told. Okay, the basic formula is, say, twenty-three to one. Even if you have a high school where you are offering five or six grades, and maybe there might be two classes of the same grade, in a case like in the metropolitan area, twenty-three students could leave the building but there might not be any more than three of them in any one move. So you take a teacher; now, from what room does the teacher come out? So the formula works but it does not do anything with the school.

We would be very interested in the not too distant future in using the model of negotiation that we used for small necessarily existing schools. Mr. Chairman, the member has made a good point, that maybe we can follow through in the next step. Which is to say, those that are necessarily existing by virtue of physical location like Fogo Island, but may not be small, maybe we should do a negotiation with them next. Then leave the ones where there are still options in our larger areas, like in Corner Brook and St. John's and so on, where they still may have some physical consolidation options that, when they get their consolidations done, hopefully we will be in a position to negotiate so that we can maintain programs for all of the schools. Maybe over a five- or six-year period we could then abandon formulas altogether. That we just look at how many teachers we have now, which programs are you offering now - they are obviously all valuable, they are all good -, and get us in a position where we can fiscally then bear that. That looks like the ideal way of doing it.

MR. G. REID: You might end up with comparable programs across the Province then. Something that is closely or somewhat related now. You are talking about the efficiencies that can be found in operational. (Inaudible) is going to be capped for how long?

MR. GRIMES: When we did the Budget last year we committed to a three-year period, so this would be the second year. There is one more year after this. What the boards are now finding, because we have not yet - the next year out, hopefully I guess, if the government follows its target of a couple of years ago, and it goes through that exercise again, we might be able to give them that commitment. They haven't gotten a commitment now beyond next year. They know that this year any monies that they save they keep. They know that next year any monies they save they keep. There are no guarantees because we have not been able to provide them for beyond that.

What boards have been finding is that those that made some moves last year - and there were some; there were a few that were reversed because of Justice Barry's ruling in the court -, but there were a number of boards that made substantial moves last year. They are now starting to reap the benefits of it this year. Because they have the money and they can put the additional money, by virtue of their closures and so on, back into their remaining schools and their remaining students. We have already had examples of where, in the Labrador area for example, Labrador West, because they made some adjustments and moves last year in consolidating, they were able to re-institute a music program, refurbish the band equipment in the school. They were able to refurbish completely their computer systems, moving up to the Pentium models for the whole thing. They were able to put a local area network in the school because they had savings from a consolidation that they made the year before. Now boards are now recognizing that.

I guess it is a little bit of incentive that the more quickly they can move to whatever consolidations make sense, the longer the period they would have had the money available to them. Now the longer it takes them to make the changes, unless we can get into a... I think the intention of the government, in my discussions with the Premier and the Finance Minister - and they will bring that to the government at that point in time when they can see their way through - is that if we can move that commitment forward to another two- or three-year cycle we would like to. I guess particularly the finance department is still doing more investigation of what kinds of things might be possible for future budgets. As a policy and as a program that works and is giving opportunities out there to actually get more money into the curriculum and materials and instructional materials for students, the program is paying off dividends for some boards this year.

If anything, again I guess, the biggest board in the Province is the one that has not taken advantage of it because they did not manage to do any kind of consolidating. They will have the least benefit of it because there are some students who have left - I think there are 800 or 900 students who have left the system -, so the money for the 800 or 900 students is still in the system to be dispersed amongst the other 32,000 students. It is not a great (inaudible). Had they been able to consolidate eight or ten schools and keep the money for heat and light, snow clearing, insurance, and those kinds of things, they would have had hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not maybe a couple of million extra dollars, that they could have kept in the system to use to improve programs and improve the facilities for the remaining student body.

MR. G. REID: I do not think it should continue forever, because then the school board which could do the most consolidation would end up with the most money down the road in ten years from now. In a case like - and I have talked to you before about it - New World Island, where we have five schools now, if they were consolidating one, which they are proposing to do, would you consider allowing them to keep the operational money for a longer period of time so that they could mortgage a new building and maybe pay it off, and in the end save government a lot of money? Rather than, say, it could be closing five and having one remain open. I think there could be enough efficiencies there to pay for it, but you would not be able to do it in three years obviously, or two years or one. Maybe if you could mortgage the building in that light it might be okay.

MR. GRIMES: Again, it is an interesting concept, Mr. Chairman. We have had some discussions. One of the things that limits that kind of a commitment is that any particular government is hesitant, and I think rightfully and properly so, to put in commitments in the longer term. Because another succeeding government, whether it is of the same stripe or a different stripe, may have different priorities.

I do not think it is right or proper for someone to - other than through a regular capital budget, the same as we would mortgage your house and know we have a set mortgage for twenty or twenty-five years. If you are trying to find innovative and creative ways to use current account expenditures by giving savings on a current account for an extended period, there is a good argument to be made that it is not only unfair but improper to go beyond what would normally be the life of any mandate that you have been given as an elected government. Because another succeeding government might have a different set of priorities and would come in and find out that the previous government tied their hands to the point that you could not do certain things that might be a priority for the group.

We have tried to be creative. Mr. Young and his group have worked with school boards, for example, to suggest that this particular government has a mandate in the Province. We want to invest, to be in existence for another three years, or approximately that range, almost three years; so we would not hesitate to make, say, a two-year commitment to somebody, knowing... Unless there is some strange circumstance, this group is likely to still be in charge and likely to live with the consequences of its own decisions. Once it gets beyond that, if we get the request for three- or four- or five-year commitments, we are very happy to enter into an arrangement for those kinds of practical reasons. It is not that it is not a good idea, and not that (inaudible) find any creative way to help somebody get that facility that they need now, particularly if it seems to be better than the current educational organization, but there are other restraints that apply to the system, Mr. Chairman.

WITNESS: Back to the $50 million, that seems to me like a lot of money. I have never heard it announced in education before; $50 million for capital construction, is it?

MR. GRIMES: Again, it is a fund that is designed to take care of the capital requirements. When we had the provincial construction board - maybe many members in the room, on behalf of people in the area, might have been asked to at least write a letter of support to the construction board because the school board in their area had asked for a new school or major renovation or repairs, those kinds of things, in their area. There was a debate as to - one of the things that happened last year, for example, just to give an example, the construction board, because they had available to them in the range of $13 million or $14 million, had over $100 million worth of requests and there was a debate as to which was capital and which was operating. One of the issues was defective roofs, as we recall.

I think all of us in the Legislature about a year-and-a-half ago were a bit surprised to hear that the roof trusses on some of these buildings had failed and (inaudible) joists had failed. When that happens, you have to go fix it. Even if it is not budgeted for, it is an emergency. You cannot let the roof collapse in a school or any other public building.

If it is going to be several million dollars - fixing a roof is normally considered to be a normal operating cost. You should expect your roof to leak or fail every now and then and you go fix it. They did not usually apply to the old denominational education committee to fix the roof; you fixed it out of your regular budget. There were so many of those that had to come out of the capital budget because there were so many of them - it was extraordinary - and that then put restraints on how many new projects could be done and so on.

What we have tried to do here is that where there are major repairs we are going to try to fund them out of the $50 million fund, and as many of them as we can do, even in the summer. It is true that some boards, with their repairs and maintenance budget restrained last year, have had to defer a number of repairs and maintenance projects that they would have ordinarily done. So there will be some monies that ordinarily we would say to the boards: Do it out of your own budget. This particular investment corporation, chaired by Mr. Young, will try to accommodate a good number of those requests in the short term.

Again, secondly, there are some major extensions and renovations required to accommodate some of the consolidations that school boards have decided to do. They have closed out some schools; they have moved some people to an area. They have requests, for example, because they are reconfiguring and because the student populations in certain buildings are increasing, they need a cafeteria which they never had before. They may have only had 100 students before and the custom, because they are all from local - they might have all gone home to lunch. Now, the same school might be serving three communities. There is no prospect of sending them home. They have to have lunch in school, and rather than have them eat at their desk and so on, which happens in some schools, the boards in certain areas, part of their planning says: We need a cafeteria. So you get a cost that in some cases runs well beyond what the normal operating budget could accommodate, and those types of issues are being dealt with through this fund.

It is true that the fund - I think the historical record will show that over a two-year period since Confederation there has not been anything that comes close to $50 million made available. At one point in a previous administration, since 1989, there was a year where there was $20 million made available at one point because that was seen to be a major investment. The annual investments have been in the range of $8 million and $10 million before that, and that $20 million (inaudible) went back to $4 million. So, over a two-year period, a large amount of money.

We are continuing to investigate, and Mr. Young is leading this. There are many, many major companies and corporations, and local companies as well, interested in the idea of private/public partnering which is occurring in our neighbouring provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario, whereby private investors raise the capital, build the school, (inaudible) the building, and lease it back to the school board. Now the school board has complete control with respect to the educational programming and so on, but the cost of actually building it is borne by a private sector investor; in other words, a lease/buy-back arrangement. So we are investigating that further, hoping that this $50 million fund might actually be able to become $100 or $150 million; and there are lots of expressions of interest.

So, rather than have to do new school construction over an eight- or ten-year period, which would be the norm, if we have enough interest and if it is done in compliance with the appropriate public tendering legislation and so on in the Province, we will accelerate the opportunities to get the educational needs, on a physical (inaudible) side, done more quickly than we ever could have imagined before.

Our focus this summer will be addressing the recommended air quality improvements, because there are a number of those that have to be done, addressing immediate repairs and renovations that have to be done, also committing to the construction projects that were already sanctioned by the old construction board, and any other new construction and major renovation projects that we can also accommodate within the short term.

MR. G. REID: On that private/public partnership, government itself would still control the schools and what is taught in them?

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely!

MR. G. REID: Because I was listening to a commentary last week by one of our (inaudible) friends who was saying that basically she was worried that if (inaudible) happened, a company like IBM would not only control the school but control the minds of the individuals in it. I don't happen to believe it. I think it is a good idea. I think IBM has (inaudible) in Nova Scotia. I would certainly like to see one in my district like that, because at least you would be assured that you would have decent computers.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Harvey Hodder, and then we will go back to Mary Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: Well, at twenty after ten we are -

CHAIR: Moving right along.

MR. H. HODDER: Two people have asked questions and we have not gotten to the critic. We know that we are going to be here for a while.

CHAIR: I was just thinking the same thing, Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: For the last hundred minutes that we have been here, Roger has taken up ninety-two of them.

MR. WHELAN: You are going to take up another fifteen before you start.

MR. H. HODDER: The Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne can be guaranteed that he is not going to get an early lunch.

MR. G. REID: I figured we would give everybody fifteen minutes and come back, so I could have kept on going.

MR. H. HODDER: I just wanted to, first of all, Minister, say how delighted I am that 2.1.04 appears in the way it does.

I assume, from my comment in the House last year, that they could not have found the dollar that I said I would give them if they could match it. I am talking about denominational commission. (Inaudible) eliminated, it certainly is consistent with the approaches that I have espoused.

I would like to go right to - thirty years ago we had 1,200 schools. We had 391, I think, this year; data that came by my desk. How many schools are we going to have next year in this Province?

MR. GRIMES: I don't know at this point, Mr. Chairman. It is an issue with which the school boards themselves are grappling. From what I have heard, with respect to meetings that school board have conducted and public plans that they have announced, it seems as if there may be in the range of twenty or so closures this year.

One particular board on the Burin Peninsula, for example, by resolution of the board, made a motion shortly after they were advised of their teacher allocation, that basically they were going to do no school closures this year. They would study it further and, even with the reduced teachers, they would explain to parents that they would rather have some program reductions for a year, if they have to, rather than close schools immediately. So boards are empowered to make that kind of decision.

Other boards, for example, like District 5, are undergoing a major reconfiguration. Even one town, Grand Falls - Windsor, are closing out four schools and reconfiguring. So they are taking a different approach altogether. So, depending on what the boards have done, my expectation at the end of it is that it will likely be in the range of the high teens, and probably not to exceed twenty in any event in this year.

Other boards, as we discussed earlier in Committee, Mr. Chairman, like our biggest board in District 10, Avalon East, have indicated that while they are only suggesting three or four closures this year - three, I think, in the final analysis, that they decided upon just recently; one is subject to a challenge in the courts on the basis of notice and so on - that they do plan to do further consolidations, after another year of deliberation, for the next year.

So we should expect that there are likely to be some closures again for this school year coming up and probably the one after. It will largely slow down after that because the boards are currently coming to the conclusion that they are down to the minimum number of schools that they will have to operate for the foreseeable future unless again there are, from time to time, major shifts in certain areas of the Province because of some economic reason and things of that nature.

MR. H. HODDER: A quick question - just data. We were up to 162,000 students, I think it was in 1970-1971, and we are down now to about 101,000; 608 I think is the number I got the other day. What is the projection over the next five years? We know now, from our birth rates, what the enrolment should be in five years hence. What are the demographics looking like in terms of rounding off the data?

MR. GRIMES: The numbers that are being used by the research analysis group in the Department of Education, and also by the group that does the economic analysis and so on for the whole of government through Executive Council, they are projecting that there will be in the range of I think it is a 4.5 per cent or 4.6 per cent decrease in the student population each year for the next four years, because the birth rates are already accounted for, and that will be adjusted any one year if there are changes because of out-migration or anything with respect to economic things that occur in the Province. So if they find there has been a change in out-migration patterns due to increased activity, or an increase in out-migration activity because of some decline in economic activity, they will adjust those numbers marginally.

Roughly, for purposes of calculation - and the school boards concur with this because they are the ones involved and receive these early kindergarten registrations, and they question their local health authorities from time to time as to the birth rates and so on, they are predicting, with us, that for each of the next five years, unless there is some very strange circumstance, we can expect the student population to decline in the range of 4,000 students a year. We are just over 100,000 now. In five years' time they expect it to be down around 84,000 or 85,000.

MR. H. HODDER: Which is considerably less than was predicted, say, five years ago. We were expecting it to level off at around 100,000.

MR. GRIMES: The expectation now is that the school-age population, K to XII, could certainly go below 90,000 - again, unless there are some countervailing circumstances in the Province - because the two things I think that all of the statistical analysis have continued to show is that not only has there been an out-migration pattern that has persisted, but the birth rate has declined remarkably in this Province. I think that would be - for the people who are doing the demographic research - of a greater concern to them than anything else they have seen.

On the basis of population type of things, in Newfoundland and Labrador today, because of the make-up of our population and whatever other factors, we do not reproduce at a rate to sustain our population.

MR. H. HODDER: With the reorganization - and I guess I should acknowledge that I went through the reorganization that occurred within the (inaudible) system, having been active in the teaching profession in the 1960s. It does take time and, having seen the adjustments there that occurred with church-owned property moving to a public-owned property status, and the transition that occurred over time, without getting into great detail - because perhaps this is not the appropriate place to do it - what is the status at the moment of negotiations that are occurring between, in particular, the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador? - primarily with these, although there may be some with the Seven Day Adventist as well, but not with the same categories. When do we anticipate there will be a resolution to that problem? Has the government taken any targets as to when there can be a satisfactory conclusion reached on the use of the schools for educational purposes as the priority?

MR. GRIMES: It is a good question, Mr. Chairman. I am glad it is raised and I will respond to it as briefly as I can.

It is a difficult issue at this point in time. I guess the targets in terms of the government were outlined in legislation where it clearly suggests that there be a twelve-month period whereby the school boards and the denominational authorities would be given the opportunity to come to agreement as to the disposition of properties when they are no longer needed for education. If that is not successfully concluded - and we are into the fifth month now, of course, because the act became effective in January - at the end of that twelve-month period the Minister of Education and the government would be given the authority to impose a resolution.

The difficulty occurs in that there are a number of major renovations and so on to buildings that are already agreed to and slated, most if not all of them involving former Roman Catholic properties, and therefore involving the Episcopal Corporation, whereby a little bit of a wrinkle was thrown into negotiations when the representative for that particular group came to the table with - it was a committee of school board representatives trying to work out this arrangement. It is an arrangement that is supposed to be struck between the school boards and the denominational authorities and then sanctioned by the Minister of Education.

The wrinkle is that there has been some difference of opinion, I guess is the right way to put it, as to exactly what a school is under the act and the period of time that it is actually a school. When is a physical building actually a school? It is the whole notion that I was really surprised at, that was brought forward by representatives of the Roman Catholic authority, because that is the only place it has surfaced, suggesting that the Schools Act requires instruction in a school for periods of time depending on age and grade. I think it is three-and-a-half or four hours guaranteed for primary and elementary students, and up to five hours for high school students and so on, including break periods and overtime.

They are applying a very narrow definition, suggesting that school boards only have unfettered use of the school during that time. I think anyone who has an educational background understands - because that is the argument sometimes even with people when they try to suggest that teachers don't work that hard and so on. They say: Well, you only have a five-hour day. The real answer is that a teacher's day... A teacher is like a politician, sort of never off duty. They might actually be in the building with the students for a certain number of hours, but even when you are in a grocery store you can't say to some parent: I am sorry, I am not a teacher right now. They happen to be a teacher all the time, and their day is a lot more than five hours.

This particular negotiating group, on behalf of the Roman Catholics, are trying to suggest that a school building is really only a school for five hours a day, and that then these extracurricular activities that occur afterwards, and things in the evenings where you want to meet with parent groups, or have your school council meet, you would actually have to go and get permission or authority to go in to use the building, and that there might even be some charges for it; and if there are charges for use of the building after hours, the question is: When is after hours for educational facilities? It is an issue that we never, ever expected to be raised. It has proven to be quite problematic and quite a surprise.

We hope that common sense will prevail so that any particular denominational authority would not suggest that in the evening or on the weekend, if you are running tournaments and those kinds of things - or even practising, as they are in Mount Pearl; they need the use of the school for their major spring production. They need it in the evenings, they need it on the weekends so that they can go in, because they use the full of the gymnasium, the full of the auditorium. They need access to the classrooms.

The suggestion was that maybe there should be a charge for that and if the money accrued - because there are charges for use of our schools now by school boards for outside groups, not for students; if there are external groups, school boards have policies to charge a fee to recover the janitorial costs and so on - the suggestion is that any fees that would be charged would be proceeds that would be paid to the denominational authority. Today if there are any fees, they stay with the board to be used in the school to offset fund-raising needs for equipment, materials, supplies and so on.

So actually it would not be too strong a word to suggest that the proposition put with a very narrow definition of a school, (inaudible) these discussions, shocked the school board members. They were not expecting it. It has not yet been officially removed from the dialogue, as I understand it. They are convening meetings on a regular basis. They will continue on. They hope to be able to resolve it. If not, the worst case scenario, I guess, would be that a year would expire in negotiations and discussions of that type and there may not be an agreement reached. Then the Ministry of Education would, under the act, impose some kind of a resolution to the issue.

If that pertains, however, there will be several construction or major renovation type of projects that will not happen that are now scheduled. They are funded, they are agreed to, but again there is no circumstance whereby we can commit to spending major capital dollars out of the development corporation on a property that was either formerly a Roman Catholic property or Pentecostal property, if we don't have some agreement as to what happens to it at the end of the (inaudible). This kind of a wrinkle that was thrown into the discussion really set everybody back and has not yet been resolved.

MR. H. HODDER: A supplementary. On the issue of land title as opposed to building ownership, are these two things seen as separate entities by the negotiation groups for the churches?

MR. GRIMES: As I understand it, yes. In many cases they are and, as you would know through the integration process some years ago, who owns the land and who owns the building often times are different issues. They still are, but that does not seem to be nearly as contentious an issue now as this other sort of thing that was thrown into it that nobody expected to have to even deal with or discuss.

We are quite confident. I think Mr. Young and the group are now suggesting to school boards - even in trying to establish clear title and so on - that we should get to the position of maybe even accepting affidavits from people rather than having them send us over boxes of documents that in some cases are 100-or-more years old as to who owned the land, when, where and what and so on. A clearer statement signed by somebody as to who actually owns the property today, as opposed to who actually put that building on it today, and who owns that building. As long as we know those two things definitely then we can deal with this position.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I will give a quick example. In District 5, in the old integration, a school that was an integrated school, that had invested with integrated authorities through a process that happened in the late 1960s, is on land next door, of course, to the United Church, because it was a sort of United Church community. The interest was that the United Church - now it is still alive and well and actually expanding a bit - wanted the land for parking but had no use for the building. Nobody else in the community wanted it. So the arrangement that was struck, actually, was to revert the land back to the United Church, to call a contract for the demolition of the building, and to share the proceeds.

They did a tender process for the demolition of the building, which the board gladly gave up because nobody wanted it. Somebody paid them x number of thousands of dollars to demolish it, and gave half the money to the school board and half the money to the United Church. Those kinds of arrangements are what we are contemplating they will do, based on the history of who put what there and who owned it some time ago.

MR. H. HODDER: Of the $6 million that the denominational authorities kept from 1971 onward, when Bill Doody let them keep the interest - they kept accumulating it for nearly thirty years, amounting to about $6 million - how much of that money has been transferred back to the Province for capital expenditures?

MR. GRIMES: I think the number is actually on page 181. I think that is where it appears.

MR. H. HODDER: Is that the $1,719,200?

MR. GRIMES: Yes. In reconciling (inaudible) there was in the range of $5 million to $6 million in the funds of the Roman Catholic, Pentecostal and Integrated. Because they had that arrangement (inaudible) they had arranged some commitments on a cash flow basis, differently than we would with capital procedures of government. So there was a reconciliation done with the department whereby they honoured certain commitments. The money did go to pay out capital commitments that they had made. Then the remaining amount, which was the $1,719,200, was sent over as a couple of cheques to the government by way of revenue.

MR. H. HODDER: So that is part of the $50 million?

MR. GRIMES: No. This basically has gone into the general revenues of the Province, but it shows up here as coming back to the department. It went to the overall fiscal circumstance of the Province at the end of last year.

MR. H. HODDER: Of that $50 million, how much has been already committed?

MR. GRIMES: Basically, at this point, it is in the range of somewhere between $15 million and $17 million, that was earmarked by the previous construction board. What they did last year in the beginning, of course, was already accounted for, and the $50 million fund, Mr. Chairman, was established by taking $25 million of brand new investment money, which had no commitments to it whatsoever, and marrying it up with the $16 million or so that the old construction board was to get this year as their second disbursement, and then the $9 million from last year.

So of the remaining $25 million, which is really the remaining two years of the three-year construction board funding, not all that $25 million had been committed over the three-year period. So we have complete flexibility with the $25 million, a flexibility that the board is now dealing with and will determine at their next meeting with respect to some remaining part of the other $25 million, which most likely will turn out to be in the range of $5 million or $6 million. We have some commitments that are between $15 million and $20 million that we will honour.

The other thing that will give us increased flexibility is if we have successes, particularly in moving some of the commitments in year three, although (inaudible). If that can be done, particularly in new construction, through a private/public partner, with Johnson Air Controls, with IBM, or any of those other groups, if they can carry some of those commitments it will free up even more money that the development corporation will have available to deal with more immediate concerns.

MR. H. HODDER: Before we enter into private/public partnering on school construction, because there is a lot of literature on that - some of it is interesting, some it is not so positive - will the Province be putting forward a proposal for public consultation?

MR. GRIMES: Yes. I think the necessary features of it, as we see it - Mr. Young and his group are doing some research on this now. It is clear that we would have to have a public dialogue and a public education process as to what it is, what are the features of it, what does it mean, how does it really work, and those types of things. The group, led by Mr. Young, is actually getting really to bring some recommendations forward to us for consideration; because it is clear that if we move in that direction, we think in a preliminary fashion, it would be advantageous and would help us do even more.

We can only go there if it is understood that it is beneficial and that it is an add-on that actually helps, and it does not restrain us in any way from doing the things we need to do for the primary purpose, which is education. So if we can satisfy ourselves that that is a good idea and a good concept, then it will be helpful and will also provide the integrity of the basic precepts of it, things like the Public Tender Act. In order to convince people of that, I think it will definitely need some kind of public process to investigate the pros and cons of the concept generally.

MR. H. HODDER: We will do a public opinion first, just to see what people think, and then we will say: Now we are going to go out and give you consultation. In other words, public opinion polls will go up from $58,000 to -

MR. GRIMES: I had better check and find out, for public opinion polls, what is budgeted for us.

MR. H. HODDER: Where is the budget here for public opinion polls?

WITNESS: (Inaudible) public opinion polls, then we are riding roughshod.

MR. H. HODDER: Of the $69 million that you have in for Regular Operating Grants -

MR. GRIMES: Harvey, by the way, I will refer that comment. I will make sure the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board hear that comment, in case they do not get the transcript of the Committee right away.

MR. H. HODDER: The (inaudible) any initiatives here (inaudible) with (inaudible). We can't risk... Anyway, of the $69 million for regular operating grants, that would be under head 2.1.02.10, School Board Operations, how much of that is anticipated to be of a quasi-capital nature, general repairs? Do you have any breakdowns of that particular category? I am not interested in how much per cleaning and that kind of thing. I am interested in seeing how much of that really will augment the $50 million.

MR. GRIMES: I will refer the detail of that to Mr. Young, but I would just put it generally in this particular context. When Mr. Young's division sends out the grants under operating to school boards, we basically have moved to a system of block funding. No matter how we send it out to them they can spend it how they want to. They like that. They like the flexibility to be able to meet their needs. When we send it out, and determine how much each board is entitled to of the $69 million, we do have three or four distinct headings.

There is instructional materials type of thing; there is a maintenance and repair thing which I believe is the question you are asking. Because that is the kind of money they will expend from their own budgets to go along with some of the $50 million to get the physical plants up to a state where they are happy with them and that they are better than they are today.

There is a breakdown, because I know we dealt with it in detail when I was involved in the discussions with the Labrador Board about the possible separate board in Labrador West, or no separate board in Labrador West. They were very interested to know in Labrador West how much money did the board get in Labrador for the four schools that were in Labrador West, and what did they get it for? Because when we send out (inaudible), we do send it out under discrete headings, but then the school boards under the act are given the ability to transfer from one heading to the other if they run into a difficulty.

Just in the general nature, I am sure Mr. Young can let you know what the headings are exactly - because there are three or four of them - and what portion of the $69 million in total actually goes into boards for maintenance and repair, as opposed to structural repairs and operations even like (inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: Thank you. The answer specifically to your question on repairs and maintenance in the $69 million is $7 million for repairs and maintenance that the school boards have at their disposal for minor roof repairs or painting or playground (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: A supplementary to Mr. Young then. What kind of criteria have we established to differentiate between what is capital out of current, and what should come through the Education Investment Corporation? Have school boards been given the authority to call tenders themselves for this work? Where is the cut-off where they would call it as opposed to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation?

MR. YOUNG: The first question you asked is: What is the cut-off? It is approximately $15,000. That will be a decision that we look at in respect of the specific project and whether or not we think an item should be capitalized over time or expensed in the year in which it is put in. We are generally looking at about a $15,000 cut-off range for projects.

The other question as to whether or not tendering will be done by the school boards or by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is one of the issues we are currently looking at. Because we are hoping to use some of the $7 million that the boards have in their particular pots to assist us with some of the work that we want to do through the capital corporation. We are still working with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and the school board to make a decision on the level at which tendering will be done. We do not want to unduly delay projects by having lengthy periods of time for tendering, but by the same token we have to abide by the spirit and intent of the Public Tender Act.

MR. H. HODDER: Relating that to the air quality studies, then, therefore the air quality studies will show, when the reports are all received - and I understand they are being received now - some need for some changes. There won't be need for changes in all fifty schools that have been assessed because that would be unrealistic, but there will be some changes. In financing those air quality remedial programs, how much of that is going to come out of that $7 million, and how much do you anticipate will be coming out of the regular Investment Corporation?

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Young will have it in case (inaudible) incomplete or incorrect. Again, it will depend on the nature of the recommended remediation. I (inaudible) heard from a particular school that had a study done even before we started our own, because some had been done prior to this, that one of the recommendations, for example, was as simple as: You should clean out the air ducts in your washrooms. Obviously they will not apply to anybody for that. They talk to Mr. Young or his committee and they would say: You should clean that out anyway. That's a normal repair and maintenance type of thing that you should not have to apply to.

The other thing I think that the boards have been giving assurance of is that they will be expected to do those regular maintenance things. Any project that gets over $15,000 or so to do as an individual project they can consider applying for, and it would be judged on its merits at that point in time. The major ones, when people suggest that you need a significant ventilation system installed, they will obviously come to the development board and that is where they will be funded from. Because there is no expectation that the boards, with their regular maintenance or repairs budget, are going to be able to accommodate those kinds of issues without them being left with no money even to put on a coat of paint (inaudible), where they would normally do that in the summer.

That is the discussion and dialogue that has occurred between Mr. Young and the directors of the boards and the financial assistance directors of the board at this point.

MR. H. HODDER: My concern of course, with the air quality studies, is that we will deplete the $7 million in bits and pieces, and leave the school boards with no money to carry out the programs that in essence led to the difficulties, in some cases, that we already are trying to repair now. That does not make any sense and so we have to be carefully monitoring it.

On the new schools; school boards I understand have been asked to identify their priorities. There have been some public commentaries about new schools for places like Buchans, Clarenville, Sop's Arm, Pouch Cove and New World Island, (inaudible). When do you expect the Corporation to be able to give answers to those new construction programs?

MR. GRIMES: The Corporation itself is going to meet tomorrow to review the new list. Because of the list even that you mentioned some of them are already committed to and announced from the old construction board and will be carried forward, like Buchans, like Sop's Arm, and so on. When you hear tell of a proposal for New World Island, that has not been considered by the old construction board. That will be the first time it will be considered by this particular group. They will be in a position to be able to suggest, on a priority basis, which of those they think should proceed now. Because there is a time issue that is important and somewhat urgent and they need to be done.

What I am expecting they will come back to myself as the minister, and to the government with, is that others they would expect they would rate as what they think are good ideas they would like to defer further consideration on, until we see whether or not in the next few months we are going to be able to do some private-public partners. So that they can let as many of those as they possibly can be funded. New ones that we have not heard of before, except now, arising, we might try to get as many of those considered under a private-public partnering process, if at all possible, and commit funding to ones that are deemed to be more urgent and critical to meeting school board plans that are imminent. Like, today.

Because if they have to close a school - and again if I may, Mr. Chairman, by way of giving an example - at St. Mary's, at Dunne Academy, the school board has a plan for September coming, and the parents have agreed. Myself and the member, Mr. Sparrow, met with them at St. Mary's and they fully agree, there is no disagreement there, that the schools in the two smaller communities should close and that they should all bus to a larger, expanded school at St. Mary's. The school board has already made plans for that to occur in September.

Between the construction board, this particular group, some monies that the board itself has agreed to put in from its repair and maintenance budget - because they were going to have to do significant repairs on the building anyway if they were going to use it for any reason -, a combination of needs to about $1.5 million to $1.6 million project because they want to start right away and get finished for September. They will confirm the arrangements on that.

Interestingly enough, you raised the question before, that the only potential left to delay it is the fact that the Roman Catholic Denominational Authority has not yet agreed on how to use the school now and how to dispose of it in twenty or thirty years' time if it is no longer needed as a school. That particular issue is complicating it a little bit. The committee is going to deal with that issue tomorrow: what part of a project like that is a commitment that must come from this fund and what is coming from other sources.

When we have other ones that we are just now hearing of - New World Island is an example - the board has sent their proposal to us, as I understand it. I have not seen it; it is in the hands of the officials on the board. There is an issue with respect to an area in Happy Valley - Goose Bay where the board has looked at now closing the schools, building a new single high school in the area using a couple of feeder schools, because the school on the base might close at some point in time and all these kinds of things.

There are some new ones that we have just become aware of in the last few weeks that they will have to consider, and see which of those could more appropriately be deferred three or four months until we can at least have public dialogue that we need to have to come to some decisions as to whether private/public partnering is going to be any part of this, or whether we are going to have to do them all from the $50 million fund.

MR. H. HODDER: The New World Island one is interesting because there is a significant cost benefit analysis there that I assume has been done. Because it does essentially close five schools, I think it is. The experience of that in the Island, or in the Province I should say - I am more familiar with the Island section of it - is certainly very positive. You go back to the 1960s and you find out that that kind of arrangement in the long term has benefits both in terms of programming and operating, and in terms of teacher allocation. It has some very positive features to it. I had to put in a plug for you, Gerry, because it is good, not because of any other arrangement. There is real potential there.

MR. GRIMES: The key to the support of it, then and now, if we do it, is the fact that parents would have to be convinced on behalf of their students that there is an improved program.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: That is what (inaudible).

MR. G. REID: They are all on side right now. All the school councils are on side.

MR. H. HODDER: One last question, concerning the Dunne Academy. One of the real problems we came across last winter was tendering. For example, when Dunne Academy went to tender they called for a tender for windows. We have three window manufacturers in Newfoundland. Their specifications were such that only Euro-built windows that were coming out of Nova Scotia could meet the specs.

Now they are doing all these air quality checks and things. Are we now going to make sure that every single school board in this Province is going to be told that when they write specifications, and they have to tell their architects and business people, whoever it is, that when they write their specifications that they are never to be written to exclude made-in-Newfoundland products? Has that been done?

MR. GRIMES: I could not answer definitively if it has been done with respect to us and the boards, but certainly it has been an issue I think that has dominated two exercises that have occurred in the Province. One was an exercise, I think, where the MHA for St. John's South raised a related issue and had some discussion groups and so on, where people brought that issue forward. It was, I think, determined as well that the crux of the problem was not necessarily in the tendering process but in the specifications that were put in, in the first instance.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: As well, then when the minister in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation that had responsibility for the Public Tendering Act, in doing their review - I think in the one report they have made back to us and our caucus they suggest that issue has dominated the meetings, enough to the point that I think all of us are aware of it. The school boards themselves, certainly in discussions I have had with them, in verbal meetings that we have had with directors of the school boards and the chairs, we have raised and discussed the issue.

Maybe the Deputy Minister or Mr. Young could let you know whether we have actually followed up or not with written - if we have not, I certainly think we should. The issue has been raised and everybody is aware of the issue. If we have not followed up with a written memo to the boards or a directive along those lines, I think we are very well reminded here today that if we have not already done it we certainly should have, and should. I don't know if we have. If we have not, I certainly give an undertaking that as of today we will, because it is a critical issue in terms of not asking for any preferential treatment.

MR. H. HODDER: No.

MR. GRIMES: Just asking that at least their specifications clearly indicate that. Some of them will do enough research to know that the specifications will not exclude the Newfoundland manufacturers from being able to bid on (inaudible) in particular. Because we expect here that not only the educational advantages, but it is another component, when there is $50 million worth of work going out there (inaudible) in which we want to make sure that Newfoundland companies that are qualified, capable and so on, and there are many of them, at least get a fair shot at it. I (inaudible) you raising the point.

MR. H. HODDER: The reason why I ask the question is this. In my discussions with the Avalon West group, on this particular issue they were very (inaudible) issue with the schools. The Member for St. John's South has other examples. They were very non-apologetic for the approach they were taking, and saw that the (inaudible) windows in their opinion - based on no data that I could find that showed superiority - on their opinion the (inaudible) windows were superior. Because they could make more of the parts available, they could do this and do that, which was, in my opinion, a lot of irrational justification. I wanted to give notice today that we will be following up to make sure that this kind of situation does not occur either on the work for the air quality or indeed on the general contracts. It is an issue of: We have to make sure that our money is spent right here in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: A couple of years ago I raised the same thing about Memorial University. Newfoundland companies were excluded on the same thing. Certainly, I think as Harvey mentioned, that not only in the funding, but there should be at least some discussion when monies are going out from the provincial treasury, $400 million going to Memorial and various other agencies out there, that there should be similar follow-ups, that we shouldn't be excluding Newfoundland companies (inaudible. That was an issue two years ago, if you remember an instance there.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Because the deputy indicates to me that it was an agenda item for one of our recent discussions with school boards, but that we do not recollect having followed up in writing. We will. Not only that, but as a result of the issue being raised today we will also check and renew our efforts with Memorial University and the Colleges of the North Atlantic.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and the colleges.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Also we need to send a message out to the architects and all the engineering firms, the construction association, and all of these groups. Because very often school boards are getting the end-product, you might say, in terms of writing the specifications.

The other thing is this. There are all kinds of rumours, and I do not know whether they are true or not, but someone said that Memorial (inaudible) from the mainland. It is crazy.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) doing that every day.

MR. H. HODDER: That is why they should be before the Public Accounts Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you. I had indicated earlier that we will go to Mary, but Don has indicated he wishes to leave at 11:15 a.m., so I will pass it to Don. Before I do, could someone perhaps show me in the heads where the $50 million that we are referring to and have referred to many times throughout the morning is to be found? Which head or a combination of heads?

MR. GRIMES: 2.1.09 on page 182.

CHAIR: Yes, there is $16,250,000 allocated for this year.

MR. GRIMES: There was a $25 million one-time cash payment right at the end of 1997-1998.

CHAIR: Okay, so that is where that figure is coming from, it is an actual block of money from last year being spent this year?

MR. GRIMES: Yes. The $25 million was actually deposited with the corporation on the 31st of (inaudible).

CHAIR: Now I recall, okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) special warrant, I think, to (inaudible) it. (Inaudible) $41,250. (Inaudible) have there now?

MR. GRIMES: Yes, and the (inaudible) million dollars will come on the first of April next year as it was the remaining money that was in the old construction board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Seven million dollars or something?

MR. GRIMES: Yes, the difference between that and the (inaudible).

CHAIR: So it is $25 million basically carried forward from last year as a result of the deposits -

MR. GRIMES: A one-time cash (inaudible) -

CHAIR: Sixteen million new dollars allocated this year, and approximately $9 million which will be allocated effectively the first of next year. That is where the $50 million is.

MR. GRIMES: Right.

CHAIR: Okay. That educates me. Don?

MR. WHELAN: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to ask any questions, but I was listening to Harvey there and I lost track for a little while. I am not sure whether he asked this or not.

Over the past number of years we have closed a number of schools, I do not know exactly how many. I am wondering who has the responsibility of the disposal of the schools, the ones that are not to be used anymore. Who has the responsibility of disposing of them? In what way are they disposed of? Are they sold? If so, who benefits from the sale of the buildings?

MR. GRIMES: That issue, Mr. Chairman, is one we have touched on, as you have indicated, through previous questions. The specifics of it are that it is an arrangement that is to be made between the school boards themselves. The school boards themselves have title to and control of the properties. They dispose of the properties, but for most of them (inaudible) last year in part of your area for example. When it is no longer needed for educational purposes and is to be disposed of, the board makes the arrangement, but because the denominational authorities, in many cases, had involvement in putting them there - some of them even actually putting some of the cash in. In some cases they were actually built by the churches holus-bolus, some of them, depending on the age of them. Some of them have some government money in them, a combination, and so on.

They are instructed by the act to undergo a negotiation with the appropriate denominational authority to agree to the disposition of the property and how they will split the proceeds on an appropriate basis, depending upon the historical infusion of monies over time and so on. They can make any range of arrangements. They can sell the property, they can demolish the property, they can rent the property, and they might even rent the property to some group. I've heard of an instance in one community where a group wants to buy a school and make it into a seniors home. Make some renovations, have some apartments, for a seniors home.

The arrangement they will have to make with the denominational authority is: Will they split the proceeds of the rent, (inaudible) those kinds of things. That is between the school board and the denominational authority that had some connection with the property prior to it being invested in these interdenominational and then these non-denominational school boards. So they do that. Hopefully they will be successful.

The only other thing that the legislation provides is that after one full year of entering into this - because they have to enter into a discussion about all the properties the boards are still using, about disposition some time in the future. They are given a year to do that from the time the act came into place in January 1998. If they have some remaining issues where they are not able to come to an agreement by themselves, then the act provides one further provision. It says: After one year, if there is no agreement, then the minister will write an order and say: Here is what will happen to the property if it is no longer in use, and here is who will get any proceeds and so on.

They are hoping, and they would prefer, to make the arrangements themselves rather than have whoever the minister of the day is just walk in and say: We are going to sell the property and the church is going to get half the money and the school board is going to get half the money, or whatever. They would like to make the arrangements themselves which is what they are working at now.

If they sell the properties they usually go to a tender process. They can rent the properties. That is happening with some boards. They have kept the facilities and in their judgement they are leasing it out, in some places to probably training institutions and so on that are using the schools for those purposes. They are satisfied that the rent they are getting is more than enough to offset the continuing operational cost, and the building is actually generating a little bit of proceed for the board that they are ploughing back into programs for the students. They have made judgements on those basis, that that is the best way to deal with the properties.

CHAIR: Perhaps we can go to Mary and then back to Sheila.

MS M. HODDER: I have just one small question. What is the current provision for students living away from home? For example, South East Bight students who come to go to Rushoon and stay there for a week. Is the amount determined by the school board or is it by government?

MR. GRIMES: There is, Mr. Chairman, a small continuing bursary program, to my knowledge, and if we don't have the information, or if the (inaudible) at this point. To my knowledge the amounts are determined by the government. There used to be fairly extensive bursary program some years ago. It is much smaller now than it was in terms of participation by students, but there are still some and it allows for, again, a student to move to another centre. It provides a contribution to the hosting family to offset some of the expenses of having the additional person in the house. I don't know if Mr. Young has additional details to the amounts. If he does he will certainly share it with you. If not, we can provide it to you after the Committee.

MR. YOUNG: (Inaudible) cannot confirm the number precisely but it is approximately $200,000 that is devoted to bursary program expenditures.

MS M. HODDER: Again, I would like to have a breakdown on what that is per student, per week, or whatever.

MR. GRIMES: Because I think that is exactly how it works. They get so much per student, either per term or per week, (inaudible). The budget number, there is enough in there to cover the (inaudible). Because there aren't very many students but there are some, and it is prescribed by the government.

I am going to check this for you as well in terms of the information we will provide. I am not aware of whether school boards do any top-ups that are in there, if school boards themselves say: It is only a couple of hundred dollars a month or something for the student, but we will give the parents something or the student another $100. I am not aware of that. Certainly there is a provincially based departmentally prescribed program.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, that's fine.

CHAIR: Sheila. Then we will go to Wally.

MS S. OSBORNE: That's the first time I have ever heard of that happening. I had not planned to talk about it. How many students are involved there?

MR. GRIMES: Not a lot. I can get you the details. There are instances, as the member previously indicated, in places like South East Bight. In some cases there are communities where there are no schools at all, and a few families where there may be three or four children (inaudible). In most cases it is a circumstance where there is a school that ends either at Grade III, Grade VI or Grade VII and those kinds of things. It is usually junior high school or high school students that cannot commute and actually go and live with somebody (inaudible).

In my area for example, where I taught for twenty years in Central Newfoundland, before the Roman Catholic School Board made a decision to put a school in Fortune Harbour, the high school students from Fortune Harbour, once they left Grade IV, would move in, and in many cases (inaudible), in Bishop's Falls or Grand Falls-Windsor to continue their schooling.

It happens in places along the South Coast where there are - in many communities school may be from K to III or K to VI, but the tradition has always been that once they get to Grade VII or VIII and there are small communities, small numbers of students involved, they would probably go to Port aux Basques and live for the winter, and then go back home for the summer. It is a circumstance that maybe many people are not aware of but that has been a way of life for some people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Altogether there may not be any more at this point in our history. I would suggest, off the top of my head, that the number of students involved in that in Newfoundland and Labrador is probably less than one hundred at this point in time. There would have been a hundred involved in that type of program twenty years ago in my area of Central Newfoundland alone. Now of course boards through different processes - and in many areas it was overcome by road links. Twenty-five years ago the road did not go to Fortune Harbour so you had to go by boat, but you cannot put a road into many places on the Southeast Coast because there is no way to do it, or the South Coast in particular. There are still areas like that where the bursary program applies.

MS S. OSBORNE: Page 179, line 1.2.05.01. There is a substantial increase in the amount from $271,700 to $702,300. What positions will be created to effect this increase?

MR. GRIMES: I think, Mr. Chairman, that particular aspect needs to be answered; also, maybe if you could stick your finger in the page with respect to page 185. There was a reorganization of a couple of divisions within the Department of Education where on page 185 we took the Division of Student Testing and Evaluation and down sized it a little bit. You see where it was budgeted at $566,100, it came in at $544,000, and down to $475,200. We actually moved some people who used to answer to that division, and a director of Student Testing and Evaluation, over into Corporate and Business Planning. These are the kind of people who work on things like the student indicators report that was released a while ago. They do analysis for the department.

The reason the number looks like it is really big, from $271,000 up to $702,300, that is not really what happened either. A good chunk of that is salaries that we get because we are doing special projects. They are funded on a one-time basis and it is done in this particular division.

You will see for example that underneath, in revenues for that, there are $461,600 down in line .02 underneath that, Revenue - Provincial. We are getting that as a one-time thing. We are doing a special project actually for the Marine Institute where they got some money from HRD Canada to follow up on some of their students, the same as we did with the indicators, as to the success of the programs, whether they actually got employed in the areas they trained for. It shows as a big number here. Again, when this project is finished this whole line again will be reduced by $461,600.

All that really happened is about two people in the department moved from answering to one director to another director, and they are off one page and on another page. The number went from $271,700 to $702,300 only because there is half a million dollars of a special project at the Marine Institute that is being funded by the federal government.

MS S. OSBORNE: Page 181, line -

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not shown. Is the revenue effective to that shown? It is not shown here, though.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, it is shown as $461,600, and there was no related revenue last year. It is $461,600 -

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, that is Revenue - Provincial. Wouldn't that be Revenue - Federal? It is coming -

MR. GRIMES: Yes, (inaudible) HRD. Maybe it is from one of the agreements that is federal-provincial. I guess it is showing provincial because we are getting the money directly from the Marine Institute.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. GRIMES: They are getting it from HRD and giving it to us.

MS S. OSBORNE: Page 181, 2.1.06.04. Why were the expenditures in Supplies over budget by $1,300,000?

MR. GRIMES: This is an issue basically that deals with our ongoing efforts at this point in time to put the appropriate religious education programs in schools for September. What the number shows, the revised number for the end of the year, was that we pre-purchased. Again, because we had a little bit of extra cash, and we got permission from the government. There was a special warrant tabled in the House a couple of days ago as well for the extra $1 million or so for textbook purchases.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is for their new religious program?

MR. GRIMES: No. What we did actually is because we knew that we had to purchase textbooks for English language, mathematics and the new science program, we purchased those because we knew we had to have them. It leaves us the flexibility in our float for the $5 million for this year to purchase the appropriate religious education materials as soon as the final decisions are made as to what they are. We borrowed a bit of time, I guess, and did some increased purchases of things that we would have had to buy starting April 1, a month ago, in other subject areas to leave more cash here to get the religious education materials that we need.

MS S. OSBORNE: More space. You do not have an approximation of what the new religious education materials will cost?

MR. GRIMES: No, not at this point. What we did is we created enough flexibility so that we got $1 million or so at least of things that we would have had to purchase for other programs that we can use for religion if we need it. If we do not need that much for religious education (inaudible), then we will certainly accelerate our purchase on other reading materials and so on that are needed in the schools.

MS S. OSBORNE: Page 183, 2.2.01.03, how much of that $205,000 was for travel?

MR. GRIMES: I do not know what the breakdown is, but this is the budget head for Curriculum Development under which we have two things that occur, Mr. Chairman.

One is that when we do curriculum development for exclusive use within the Province, the process that has been used for the last twenty years or so, fairly effectively, is to involve teachers right from the schools in the Province in their own subject areas on the committees that would assess materials and so on and look at the learning outcome. This provides for the travel of these teachers in from their schools to meet on the provincial curriculum committees.

The other thing we are involved with that is now also increasing is what is called the Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation, where the four Atlantic Provinces are jointly developing common curricula materials in certain areas. We have done chemistry, we have done mathematics, we are doing physics, we are doing language, mostly at the high school level.

I met with the groups. They were introduced in our Legislature yesterday, actually, the leaders of the teacher organizations right here. I met with them yesterday. As we do more curriculum development as well, teacher representatives from Newfoundland - not only the people from the Department of Education but three or four teachers, for example three or four chemistry teachers from Newfoundland -, sat on a committee that met most often in Halifax to develop the curricula materials, to develop the resource materials, and to develop the testing materials. Because we are expanding the program that is why you see increases now from about $205,000 to an expected $313,900, because there are more programs coming on stream and more of our teachers will be involved in APEF.

How much (inaudible) in terms of Transportation and Communications versus your normal telephone costs and mail and so on I do not know, but the bulk of that would be travel for our teachers who work on these committees.

MS S. OSBORNE: Further down on the page, 2.2.02.09, do you have any sort of a breakdown as to (inaudible) that $650,000 spent on Allowances and Assistance?

MR. GRIMES: Maybe again the Deputy Minister or Mr. Young can give you more detail. In the language programs, this is just where our department administers these on behalf of the federal government. This is where we do French Immersion and advanced French and so on in the school system. We get the money, as you can see, reinstated to us under the official languages program for Canada. It just needs our department as a facilitator for it.

The Allowances and Assistance are actually monies that we provide for schools and school boards to enable them to offer French Immersion. Some of them use the money to have coordinators and assistants at the board offices; some of them use it for additional teachers in the schools for French Immersion; some of them use it for curriculum materials, additional resources dedicated to French Immersion and advanced core French. The range of them I do not know, but it is split out to the boards. It is under a federal-provincial agreement. We are just sort of a conduit for the money to flow through to the school boards and the students.

MS S. OSBORNE: Page 184, 2.2.03.06. What services were purchased to result in exceeding the budget by $250,700?

MR. GRIMES: Basically, I guess the increase with respect to the Distance Education, the Purchased Services and the Transportation and Communications, all of them lumped together, relate to our cost of offering Distance Education which is largely done through the telephone linkages and the telemedicine program.

We have talked about some pilot programs that are ongoing, for example, in places like Clarenville now, where, with the satellite dishes that are on the schools and everybody linked to the Internet, they can down load actual programs directly from the Internet instead of having to send out our discs and cassettes to be fit into a machine. You have one of two options: either you sit in front of a television with a feed from a program, or you can go on line through telemedicine and actually interact with a teacher in another location.

The Purchased Services budgeted here increased by a couple of hundred thousand dollars last year directly related to the Barry decision again in the court, the Barry ruling. A number of the schools that had been slated for closure had been ones that had been using Distance Education. When they were slated for closure by the school boards of course we deleted the money from the budget, a budget of $300,000. The bulk of the ones that were reopened, we had then to put money back into the budget and re-establish the Distance Education linkages for them in order to have their program.

MS S. OSBORNE: Page 186, 2.4.01.03: Why are the expenditures expected to increase there on line 03, from $62,000 to $100,000?

MR. GRIMES: Basically again, the whole budget that you would notice there, this is one of the areas where we are implementing part of the recommendation that can be recorded, and this is all in order to provide the special needs.

We will have, in fact, the ability to have some extra people. Any time you have extra people working, and extra resources, you will automatically be in a position where you will need a higher budget in order for them to travel to the districts to meet with the teachers, to meet with the parents. There will be increased activity under this particular heading because this is where we are going to have to do the analysis and so on to decide where the additional seventy teachers go. Consultants who are in the department now will have to travel out to school boards to meet - we expect more contact with parents and so on, and the budget has been increased to reflect increased activity in terms of assessment of the needs of special needs students so that we can determine primarily where to put the additional seventy teachers that are going to be provided to the system.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is not reflected in the salaries under the same heading, 01; salaries have gone down.

MR. GRIMES: The salary in this particular instance, the whole salary unit has gone down, I think, only because there has largely been a little bit of change in staff between this particular group and one of the other divisions where the curriculum consultants are. There is an additional curriculum consultant in this area who will be in the department and will answer to this particular director, because it is a curriculum consultant for special education and special needs, so they have budgeted another heading; but again, when they travel - because they are travelling on special needs - they will come out of this particular heading.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. Page 187, under Salaries, where it was just (inaudible), what positions will be created by the increase in salary there?

MR. GRIMES: I am not sure if there is an increase in positions at the School for the Deaf. This is basically the teachers at the school. What it reflects again - everywhere there are actually teaching units - is an additional pay period. There are going to be twenty-seven pay periods in the next calendar year for teachers because of how many fall in a twelve-month period, from April 1 to March 31, and all that reflects is that there are no reductions in staff at the School for the Deaf; there are no increases in staff. They get to maintain their full staff but they are all paid with the teacher salary bill and it is registered here. Because there is an extra pay period, just for (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: They did not get that last year, which is why the budget and revised is the same (inaudible).

Page 188, 3.1.01.03: Once again there has been a big increase in the Transportation and Communications amount.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, and this reflects... This is the area where you will notice that we monitor the public and private sector training institutions. The salary component has gone up because this is where we are going to hire the additional monitors to go out and spot check the private training institutions. The money shows that they have to have the money to pay for their expenses when they are travelling around the Province.

The intention is to have one person responsible for the Avalon region where the bulk of schools are. One person will then cover the Central region from Clarenville out through Gander, Grand Falls - Windsor and so on, as far west probably as the Baie Verte area. Then another person will take up responsibility for the West Coast, the South West Coast, the Northern Peninsula and Labrador. So because they have fairly big geographic regions to cover, there was a need to have a significant increase in their transportation and communications budget for those new monitors to get their jobs done.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. Page 189, 3.1.04.10: What types of financial assistance will be provided with that $731,600?

MR. GRIMES: This is basically two headings. The Allowances and Assistance and Grants and Subsidies are, I guess, two different ways of describing a whole series of financial aids that are available to students. The other part that happens from time to time is that there are some research projects undertaken with respect to job opportunities relating to the offshore industry. We are getting close to... This is a program we put in place several years ago to maximize transfer of technology going to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that they could be competent in the offshore sector. This program has been phasing down a bit as that fund expires, but the combination of 3.1.04.09 and 10 are the two headings under which research is done and under which scholarships and grants are provided directly to students in post-secondary institutions who are training in careers that have potential employment in the oil and gas sector.

MS S. OSBORNE: Page 190, 3.1.06.06: Why are the expenditures on Purchased Services expected to increase dramatically in 1998-1999? There is an increase of $2.7 million.

MR. GRIMES: As I understand it with respect to the Offshore Fund, again this is where they get some capital projects approved. One of the ones we did a year or so ago related to the College of the North Atlantic campus out at Seal Cove where they put in a simulator for a derrick for a drilling rig. They had to put in a couple of million dollars to build the simulator so that students could train out there as to when they actually get to run a rig on an offshore platform. You would simulate the experience by going to a course at that school.

There was another program approved. I don't remember the details of this one. I think this one was at the Marine Institute, where they needed to buy another major piece of equipment to help train people in a simulated experience for potential employment in the offshore.

MR. SULLIVAN: A basic survival training program, would it be?

MR. GRIMES: The equipment itself is in the range of $2 or $3 million. It provides the actual infrastructure that they need, so that they can put the program on and make the course available to Newfoundlanders here.

The argument that went forward was that this course was available in the North Sea and somewhere else in Canada, I understand, but we wanted to maximize the opportunities for Newfoundlanders. There is a joint management committee that runs the fund and they agreed that the best opportunity for Newfoundlanders was to provide the Marine Institute with the ability to purchase this equipment and offer the course right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where they got the money from, a federal-provincial agreement to do that.

MS S. OSBORNE: My final (inaudible) is page 191, 3.4.01.03. There is a major increase there between budgeted and revised, from $26,700 to $131,500. That is on Transportation and Communications. How much of that $131,500 was spent for travel, or do you have a breakdown?

MR. GRIMES: The biggest change, actually, with respect to that, was the work that was done in agreeing to implement for the students the toll free 1-800 number for accessing information about their applications for student loans. We have met with the students groups repeatedly over the last few years, and at one of the meetings it was agreed that it was unfair that students who are within the local calling area could call the student loan numbers, particularly since they put in these automated systems. Some people get frustrated with: Push 1 if you want this, push 2 if you want to talk to somebody else, and push 3 if you want to make an enquiry.

Of course, outside of the local calling area that was a long distance charge for students. So on an equity and fairness basis we agreed at one of the meetings that there should be a toll free capability. They did some work on it to institute it, came back to us and reported that it would drive the cost up by this amount. Therefore, it was put into the budget to enable that plan.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: So it cost $100,000, did it, basically?

MR. GRIMES: Yes, when they did whatever infrastructure they did. They had to find where they were going to hook it in so that they could house the actual operators and so on, and hook them into the system.

The other part that is involved in that as well is that they moved headquarters. They moved from the Thomson Student Centre over to a space in Queen's College, and whatever costs were involved, the physical move and the hooking up of the 1-800 number, were accounted for in that particular budget.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. Now, I would like to go to St. Bon's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ever go to St. Bon's (inaudible)?

MS S. OSBORNE: I had some very good experiences at St. Bon's.

I know that the board is empowered to make the decision, but why just that school and why this year? Why couldn't it have waited one more year until the master plan was in place?

MR. GRIMES: I don't know, and I have not seen the detailed rationale that they have provided, because I think parent groups met with them and so on. What I have gleaned from the media, which is my following of it, because I can tell you quite honestly I did not have them explain it to me - it is not important to explain it to me; they need to explain it to the parents, which is what they have done.

MS S. OSBORNE: Unsatisfactorily, I might add. I have been to some of the meetings there and they are in total disarray. Actually, the children now, when they call the board, they don't know where they will be, not September coming of 1999 but September of 2000. There is no designation for these children yet. Some of them have moved from Mercy Convent and Presentation Convent to St. Bon's, so this is already one move for the children. Now they have another move and the parents don't know where to send them, because things are happening. One parent moved to Elizabeth Avenue, almost facing Pius, and tried to register their child there, but that child was scheduled to go to St. Andrew's. So the master plan is really not totally in place. There is a lot of disarray down there.

I am not saying the school shouldn't be closed as the boards are streamlining. I totally agree with that, but for the board to have picked one school this year and have all these children in total disarray...

MR. GRIMES: The crux of the debate, as I understand it now, is that the issues that the boards saw themselves confronted with where choices - as I indicated earlier with the board on the Burin Peninsula, they had indicated that they would make no decisions to close until they did further review, but that they might have to explain to parents in some schools that there will be program reductions. Apparently this board had similar options, because they did have some limited teacher reductions. Their choice was to say: Well, we will do a minimum number of closures rather than reduce programs in any school.

MS S. OSBORNE: They just sort of closed that one and St. Boniface?

MR. GRIMES: You couldn't lose twenty-odd teachers. It would have to be one thing or the other. On balance, their board debated it and voted to close a couple of schools rather than leave all the schools open for another year, finish the study, and then do more closures next year.

It is true, and they acknowledge as the board, that they cannot give assurances to any student where they will go the year after, because there will be a fairly significant reorganization again. So for one group of students there is no question that there might be another disruption the following year depending upon the subsequent decisions that are made by the board.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is devastating for the pupils, to adjust. The ones from Mercy and Presentation, they were adjusted to that school, that closed and now they have readjusted to St. Bon's. They will readjust this September to another school, and then in 2000 apparently to another school.

MR. GRIMES: Some may or may not. I think that last part of it, the only thing is that the board cannot tell them for sure.

MS S. OSBORNE: Well, this is their problem.

MR. GRIMES: So some of them may very well go to the school they are going to this September and then stay there for the rest of their school days, but some may have to move again. To question it, they cannot get a definitive answer because the board has not made decisions subsequent to that.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is why it is the chicken and egg situation. They now are closing the school but they cannot really tell the children where to go. Because as I am picking up from some of the parents down there, they mind that the school is closing but they understand that schools have to close, and they are accepting that. What they are not accepting is why it is this September and not next September. They could cope with that, because then when the master plan came out they would have to deal with the implications of how they felt the school that was appointed to them affected them at that time.

Another question that arose down there - and I don't know if it is hearsay or what, but I will ask you: Are schools allowed to turn children away based on whether they are special needs or not? I understand that Brinton is not accepting students that aren't, sort of, good students, if they are special needs or ADD or whatever. This is what I have been told. I have not checked into it. You are the first one I have asked.

MR. GRIMES: Under the act, schools themselves are not given the authority to set attendance policies. The school boards set attendance policies. Parents, by the way, don't choose which school to send their children to. School boards assign children to the schools, and then the parents can go back through an appeal process and request to have them go some place else.

We don't run a system whereby, even when there are options available, such as in St. John's... In many parts of the Province there are not any options, but even when there are options available the act does not provide for parental choice. It gives the school board the authority to set attendance zones, to set the attendance policies, and to assign students to a school. It does allow for parents then, on an individual basis, to appeal that decision, and see if on an individual merits case they can be sent to some other school.

Normally the case has been, if it is a reasonable request from parents, if there is room in the school when all the other students have been assigned there, then reasonable requests have been accommodated over the years. School attendance in a particular school is not triggered initially at all by parents or parental choice. The schools themselves are not empowered under the act through school councils, the school administration or anybody else to say: Here is an admission qualification for our school. The school board can do that.

MS S. OSBORNE: If they live in the zone, I think they have to accept them, don't they?

MR. GRIMES: A school board can do that. A school board, for example, is empowered, if they so choose, to set up what they could define as, say, an elite school, if they want, for advanced learners or whatever. A school board can do that. A school itself cannot say: We are only for certain students.

MS S. OSBORNE: The school board can designate it.

AN HON. MEMBER: My kids went to Brinton and one of them still does, Sheila. I don't think that is correct. They have a special education teacher down there and there are kids taken out of regular classrooms and put in -

MS S. OSBORNE: That sort of just landed on my lap.

MR. GRIMES: Follow it up with the school board, because the school boards clearly do have the authority, if they wish to do so, because they have established - for example, here in the St. John's area I understand they do have a facility, one facility, for parents who agree to go to it, that is sort of specially designed for some special needs students who would rather go with more special needs students; not necessarily with the severe (inaudible), but those who are just probably slow learners and so on, who might want to go knowing that it will get me a little more attention in this building. From time to time, at parents' request, boards will set up a special school; but the board makes that kind of decision.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. In that zone, then, would there be two schools, so that if you had, quote, "normal" and (inaudible)? If the board, for instance, had set up a special needs school where the majority of students attending were slower than normal, in that zone would there also be a school where there was sort of a `normal' strain?

MR. GRIMES: Sure. Because even in this case, if there is a special school either for advanced learners or slow learners - if we use that kind of generalized language - then it would be provided, say, for the whole of the area. They will determine not only that there are enough people like this in this area who (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Well, that could be a district school (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Sure.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, thank you.

MR. GRIMES: The board in Stephenville has a special arrangement for a drop-in centre type of thing, that is available to everyone living in the area, those kinds of things. So there are some special circumstances that can be accommodated.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, thank you; that's all.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Wally, and then back to Loyola. You have a couple of questions to redirect? While Wally is being briefed...

MR. SULLIVAN: With reference to Youth Services, 1.2.04, I know there was a budget of $500,000 under Allowances and Assistance, and an expenditure of $50,000. It is re-budgeted again at $500,000. I am just wondering, why the difference?

Then, more specifically, the Tutoring for Tuition Program, how much was expended under that last year? Then, I guess, while you are explaining that, the $500,000, what is the breakdown basically on that projected for this fiscal year?

MR. GRIMES: I appreciate the question again, Mr. Chairman. That is the Tutoring for Tuition Program, the line that you actually - the Allowances and Assistance.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: The reason that only $50,000 was expended was because basically it is a voucher system whereby the students at Level II and Level III do the tutoring and they get a voucher which they cash in when they go to their post-secondary training institution the next fall; or, in some cases, for the Level IIs, it will be two years' time.

The activity level - the $50,000 reflects the cash that we had to pay out offered in vouchers that were actually cashed in. So the program was in place, ran very well, and most school boards used it effectively. So we budgeted $500,000 because we announced a new program and then, of course, found out that of the vouchers that showed up to be claimed, there were only $50,000 worth of them because the Level IIs are still in school again, even this next year coming up; they will cash theirs the year after. The Level IIIs will cash theirs at different times during the year; some of them will have cashed in (inaudible). So, of the $500,000 that is budgeted, we will more than cover off all of the vouchers we expect that will be cashed in this next fiscal year.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so there are no accruals for credits earned. It is only when they are cashed in, basically, is what you are saying.

MR. GRIMES: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you have an estimate, then, of how many credits have been earned last year, in the 1997-1998 year? How many credits? What would have been the dollar value that is due to be paid, roughly? I just want to get a handle on how much it is costing per year. We will not really know that until it runs its course, right?

MR. GRIMES: Right. The information is complete enough at this point, from the school boards, as to how many - what was the breakdown of the Level IIs and Level IIIs and so on, the expectation.

The $500,000 that is budgeted for this current year is anticipated to be more than enough, but I will have Mr. Young actually follow up with the boards to get a more detailed breakdown so we can provide to you exactly how many of them were Level IIs who should be expected to cash in probably later, in the latter part of this fiscal year, at the earliest opportunity, and then the year after. We can get that breakdown for you.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is basically only for tutors who are in need financially, I understand, when the program was announced. That is only for those who have a low income in their family or they are not financially -

MR. GRIMES: Yes, the priority certainly was to be given to them but each board, as I understand it - Mr. Young again will correct me if I am wrong - was told that they have a certain block amount that they could commit to per board. They then did it on that basis, that they would offer it to students who were willing to provide the tutoring services, were deemed by their teachers to be good, capable tutors. Also, there was an assessment of needs, so that if that occurred, those who were deemed to be in the greatest need were offered the opportunity to earn the voucher first.

My understanding as well is that they did have tutors in place for the full limit that they have on a graduating scale, but the most needy who were interested were given an opportunity to earn the voucher before anybody else.

MR. SULLIVAN: How do you determine that?

MR. GRIMES: By information that was shared with the teachers in the schools or -

MR. SULLIVAN: On parental income (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: - the coordinators that did it. In the instance in my own area for example, the school board asked one of the teachers who was doing the co-op education program and something else in one of the schools to coordinate it for the whole district. What he did was he contacted the guidance counsellors in the school and made them aware of the program, and got the information from the students who were interested. They actually sat down and had an individualized interview with the students and asked them whatever questions, in confidence, that they felt were appropriate to determine.

MR. SULLIVAN: So if a board had a chunk of money they would have more tutors than dollars would allow, basically, and they would just use it on a priority basis.

MR. GRIMES: Yes. They would keep going through the list of interested students on an interview basis in most cases, I understand it, until they committed the full amount of money they would have available to them.

MR. SULLIVAN: The students I guess being tutored, was it an initial intent too that that was only for students who are in a position where they are not financially able to (inaudible), distinction there too? They could not afford basically to hire a tutor?

MR. GRIMES: They would offer the tutoring, through this process, to students who the teachers deemed. The teacher sort of recommended to people: You should get a bit of help here. I know enough about your circumstance that you probably cannot get a tutor yourself, and there is a program available in the school. They referred students to the Tutoring for Tuition Program.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so both ends, the giver and receiver of the service, are on a need basis. I know that was the initial announcement. That's it on that one.

Now to the next one, 2.2.02, under the Language Programs. That is, I guess, fully recovered. It is indicated under the official languages program, under the federal. Is there a demand out there for extra services like the French Immersion Program? If there is, what efforts are being made to expand it? Is there any particular limit under the official languages program? In other words a cap. Is the Province given per capita a cap of what they can expend under that program?

The purpose of asking that is this. If opportunities are out there and the demands are out there today to get a job in the federal public service, you are going to need to be bilingual and people in there are given limitations on becoming bilingual. If we can get 100 per cent recovery that is dollars saved in our system. What proactive approaches might the department be using? The purpose of that is to best utilize our provincial dollars and whatever we can get back under this program. It not only helps the employment aspect of our people, but also probably a reduction of costs expended here by the Province.

MR. GRIMES: There are two things. I have met repeatedly with the Canadian Parents for French with respect to this issue. The volunteer parents who are involved with the local chapters in the provincial organization, the Canadian Parents for French, have traditionally been sort of tagged with the label of being French Immersion supporters only. They have recognized and have passed on to me at meetings that the need for and call for and demand for French Immersion programs in the Province seems to be shrinking. It is parent driven, but for whatever reason the demand for that does not seem to be as great as it was ten years ago when the programs - I guess there is a thirty year history of bilingualism (inaudible) some funded programs, but ten or twelve years ago there was a stronger push in the Province from parents, particularly on the immersion side.

There seems to be now more satisfaction with the enhanced core French. You can do accelerated French as part of the curriculum in the school rather than Immersion. Parents seem to be suggesting that their students who want to attain a proficiency in the second official language would be sometimes at least fairly well served if they do the accelerated core French rather than commit to French Immersion. It has been difficult to maintain the resources for that.

The federal government has been withdrawing the funding slowly over the years. This is administered through Minister Copps' department, that is the Canadian Heritage Ministry. We deal with them through the Council of Ministers of Education because the administration of it actually comes out of that department. They actually provide their staff at the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada and administer on behalf of that department the official languages programs into the schools (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They do the allocation to each province, do they?

MR. GRIMES: Yes, they do.

MR. SULLIVAN: They make that decision.

MR. GRIMES: As I said, there is a federal-provincial agreement. The master agreement I guess is negotiated by CMEC, the Council of Ministers of Education on behalf of the provinces, and it is done on a sort of a per capita basis.

We just did get a commitment. We lobbied the federal minister, because this had shrunk three or four years in a row. There were some pressures coming in the system where the fundamental immersion programs and even some of the advanced core French programs were being threatened in some provinces, including ours. The federal government did agree to continue on with that agreement. There had been a suggestion that it would phase out over the next four or five years. Minister Copps just recently advised all the ministers through the Council of Ministers of Education that they would continue current levels of funding for the next few years to this program instead of instituting planned cuts and reductions.

There are still some school boards which would suggest that they are not able to offer the range of programs today, particularly immersion, that they could three or four years ago, but the demand does not seem to be as great in our Province either. It seems to have switched to accelerated core French.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a recovery you can allocate too out of the advanced French courses in high school. You also include that in the figures here, that you get a recovery.

MR. GRIMES: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have just one on 2.4.02, Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority, page 186. There has been an increase for next year. Would that be based on an increase in total cost there per se, or that there is going to be an extra number, basically, from our Province availing of the service, and that would be sort of the per capita cost? Is that the way it is broken out?

MR. GRIMES: I will ask the provincial director who sits on the board who is here with me, I think. He has been involved in discussions. The Atlantic Provinces will share in certain areas if we continue the commitment. We review it from time to time and decided to commit these figures to the Special Education Authority for the next fiscal year and so on. The deputy can give you a little more detail as to the question you asked.

MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is this. Primarily these costs are related to operational costs and the sharing of the budget between the provinces. There is considerable economies of scale, of course, available to the Province as a result of sharing services with the (inaudible). The Province takes advantage of those, because we have an opportunity to get resources that we normally would not or that would cost us considerably more. The $400,000 contribution is our piece of the pot that the provinces provide. We, in turn, take advantage of these economies of scale which (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I gather then that it is really an agreement on the percentage of cost that the Province would carry, rather than the number of people who might be availing of that. That is what I would gather from that?

MR. GREEN: That is right.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just have one final -

MR. GRIMES: It is a similar arrangement that we have with the Veterinary College in Prince Edward Island.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just one final thing. Earlier I think Harvey made reference to about 391 or 392 schools.

MR. H. HODDER: Three hundred and ninety-one schools.

MR. SULLIVAN: Three hundred and ninety-one schools. Is that the number of schools that are currently open in the Province? I thought it was in the 400s. Back over a year ago we had about 467 or whatever, and I know it has been going down, there have been announcements, but I didn't think it was that dramatic, about eighty schools alone this year. Or is that what is projected? Could you clarify that? That is the actual number of schools that are open now, 391?

MR. GRIMES: Yes it is. Actually, last year it had been intended by the school boards - it had been in the range of 424 or 425 a couple of years before that. There have been some closures. Last year the school boards had intended to move down to 371, and there were twenty schools that were re-opened as a result of the injunction granted by Justice Barry, that particular ruling. That is why we have been answering the questions. Most of the boards have decided to reinstate those planned closures from the injunction. There is likely to be in the range of twenty closures again this year.

However, we have a couple of examples on the Burin Peninsula where there were three or four closures that were slated for last year and the board decided not to do them this year either. They are going to study it a bit further and have some program reductions that they see fit.

In our own musings, I suppose, within the department, we look and see that after the consolidations are done within and around St. John's that the board is talking about, you would be down in the range, in rough figures, of 350 or so schools in the Province. Then we will be very close to the number of schools that we will have for the foreseeable future. It is going to have to take some pretty significant economic or social upheaval somewhere to cause some shifts of bodies. That would be the likely sort of ballpark size of the school system for the foreseeable future, without some major shifts.

You cannot go much below that 350 mark or so because of geography and demography, because you are likely to need them anyway. They might shrink in terms of their individual populations, but you are still likely to have in the range of 350 or so actual different physical structures.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a final comment, not a question. With reference to, I guess, the $50 million going into capital, I know reference has been made that it is good. I guess one of the reasons why is that maybe in the past we have been underfunded in certain areas in capital and now we are at the point where we have to do something because of our new total structure.

For example, I will just make reference, I guess in my area, to illustrate the case here. In the whole area there are about 700 to 800 students just from, we will say, the Cape Broyle - Brigus South area up to Cappahayden. There are now three schools there. They have closed them continuously, and with public support. In fact, there are still three open. There are technically two now that really could close, and I think will have very widespread public support out there.

One of the problems, when they did an extension to a school in the area, back to the Baltimore Complex, to put a St. Joseph's Elementary attached, is that the schools in Cape Broyle and Fermeuse, for instance, that only had a declining number of students, had there been a few million dollars to extend that complex all would be going to the one complex now. I think there has been a small amount of money expended at times that prevented the consolidation and so on in regions here. I guess this fund now will probably accomplish a certain percentage of that, and I guess in terms of the new realities out there will certainly help that cause.

That is just a point. It is not that all of the sudden we are taking a huge chunk and throwing it there. I think it is a combination of things, of getting a change certainly in our system of education. The level in our system has been a big factor. Also, I think the lack of funding in the past has really brought it up to a level where we are probably going to find it is still not enough, as you probably indicated.

MR. GRIMES: No, definitely, I appreciate the comments. You were much kinder in your reference to some shortfalls in funding than others in the room who used language like `neglected stuff' just a few short days ago. He is only doing (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not saying I disagree with the word neglect. I could use the word neglect too, but I just wanted to end on a little more cordial note. I didn't want you to go away unhappy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I still have a few questions.

CHAIR: You still have a few questions?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I most certainly do. I don't want to have to come back here.

CHAIR: You may certainly ask them.

MR. H. HODDER: Three or four probably, and they will be governed by the minister in his usual way with very sharp concise answers. We have done quite well this morning, by the way. Next year you won't have to bring your staff at all.

I will turn to cuts to Co-op Educational Funding, the HRDC, and the impact it is having on the school system and on the programs. I have had a number of conversations with some of the high schools. I am very concerned with that issue, wondering what discussions you are having and how you are going to be able to preserve that program if the federal government does not change its mind. We understand why they are doing what they are doing, or we have heard their reason, I should say. What is the ministry doing to try to preserve the integrity of that particular program?

MR. GRIMES: We are trying to encourage the federal government. I do understand that it is a decision that is not consistent across the country, that the Atlantic region (inaudible) Newfoundland (inaudible) HRD decided this is where they would make a priority shift. They could have done something different had they wanted to. We are encouraging them to revisit it.

We have also indicated, though, to the boards that if the federal funding is gone they should not expect us to step in and provide additional program funding to keep the resources there. What it would cause would be a debate locally like they do with all their programs. What are their priorities? If they really feel that the partnership programs, the co-operative and so on, the entrepreneurship programs that have been funded are of such value that they are more valuable than, say, an additional French option in the schools, an additional math option, an additional language option or an additional social studies option, then they can keep it out of their budget allocation and reduce another program. That is the kind of decision they have to make.

CHAIR: Minister, this is just to bring your attention to the fact that the Vice-Chair has to leave. He has some duties to attend to in caucus to prepare for this afternoon's session.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you mean to say I might get outvoted?

CHAIR: No. As long as we continue with a quorum -

MR. H. HODDER: Oh yes, that's fine.

MR. SULLIVAN: We started at 11:30 a.m. I feel an obligation to be here until noon.

CHAIR: We need four for a quorum. Is that four voting members, including the Chair?

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible) Harvey asked him in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will give him another five minutes.

MR. H. HODDER: Five minutes is fine, 12:05 p.m. A couple of quick questions, and they are relative to the collective agreements.

There are two categories here. Student assistants find that they have been assigned to a particular child, worked out an arrangement and there is good response from the student, only to find two things: (a) that the teacher or the student is not sure until after school opens in September who the assistant will be; (b) and what arrangements are we going to try to implement in September, with I guess CUPE or NAPE in this case, to make sure that there is some consistency to the assignment of students for the sake of continuing a continuous program of learning for the child?

We are not going to get into being bounced around, bumped around, and sometimes some of these collective agreements are worked to the detriment of the child. I am wondering what your reaction is to that?

MR. GRIMES: That is a very important issue and the issue is at the bargaining table right now. That contract is open for discussion. There are not very active talks right now but they have them on-again, off-again.

As I understand it, the school boards themselves and our department, sitting there representing the employers with Treasury Board, have been lobbied extensively by the representatives of the community of physically and learning disabled with respect to the learning disabled association, the Newfoundland and Labrador association (inaudible), asking for changes in the agreement. The employers' package asks for those kinds of considerations with regard to those collective agreements. We have not got the definitive response as yet from the union.

Those groups and ourselves have also met with the union representatives, separate from the bargaining table, asking them to deal with issues that guarantee that the child is served first and foremost, rather than insist upon seniority provisions and bumping types of things and so on that disrupt the service to the student. How it will resolve itself, it is too early to tell, but the representation has been very strong indeed -

MR. H. HODDER: Very strong.

MR. GRIMES: - at the bargaining table and in separate meetings as well.

MR. H. HODDER: A supplementary question to that. Special education teachers are falling into the very same category in negotiations with the NLTA. In some cases when a teacher has to be

(technical malfunction) for school boards to have to retain the special education teacher. In other words, the special education teacher is not protected precisely. However, I do realize that school boards can make arrangements to protect certain programs. They do have more latitude. They are not as strictly adhering to it.

In some cases, in the Province, special education teachers have been let go, the fault again being that a teacher who may not have any training in special education, or very little, but fifteen years experience, now finds himself or herself in a special education environment with very little background experience.

What provisions are we looking at in terms of trying to address that issue, again with the focus being on the child, not on the workability of a collective agreement?

MR. GRIMES: I know the issue is again one of several that are at the bargaining table with teachers at this point. The request on the employers' side again is to - because it is a qualifying seniority in the teacher's collective agreement. It is not straightforward seniority that protects the teachers.

The school boards have always been asking for more of a qualification for areas like special needs in the collective agreement. I don't know (inaudible) in this particular round of bargaining or not. Again that issue is one that is being discussed, particularly with the added impetus that Dr. Canning's report suggests that special education teachers should be used in the schools for special education purposes. That is the other related issue, that they have been used from time to time since school boards have the ability to assign teachers, not the government. We give them to the board and they assign them, and then the school-based administration can actually finally define the workload. There have been instances where units that are special education units have been assigned to schools and used only part-time for special education purposes for which they were intended. So they are trying to get a further commitment with respect to that at the bargaining table, and as well in the release of the additional seventy units that we talked about.

The Director of Student Support Services, Brenda Kelleher-Flight, in the policy provision that they are now discussing with school boards, is asking for assurances from the school boards before these new units are released, that they will only be used for the purposes for which they were designed. They are done, of course, separately. This group, this category, is done aside from regular allocations anyway, and it is individualized, which is maybe the way all of them should be, and they are outside the collective agreement in terms of assignment. Maybe that is the route that needs to be explored further with respect to the other units as well.

MR. H. HODDER: In terms of training for special education teachers, one-third of our special education teachers do not have degrees in special education. Are we addressing that issue?

MR. GRIMES: I do not know the extent to which it is being addressed at this point in time. The school boards have always encouraged anyone they have been using for special education purposes to continue their upgrading and their in-service. As to whether or not they are requiring them to commit to getting a special education degree over a period of time, a number of boards did put those provisions in place to say to the people: We will hire you for this job, knowing you have some qualifications, but we want a commitment from you that, over a three- or five-year period, you will get your degree.

The difficulty becomes that once they go through a probationary period of a year or two - actually have their probationary period finished and get tenure - then, even though they might have some other written or verbal agreement with them, if they do not get their degree they cannot fire them. So there is a little bit of a catch-22 with respect to the collective agreement issue.

MR. H. HODDER: There are many other questions, one little final one. It is not necessarily a final one. With the agreements now in common curriculum with Atlantic Canada, what is the projected savings we would have in terms of textbooks and that kind of thing? Have you done any analysis as to the impact of cost savings by implementing a common curriculum? Now there are many other issues in a common curriculum, but since we are doing a budget I want to look particularly at the monies that can be saved by joint approach.

MR. GRIMES: I don't know if it has been articulated in that particular fashion or not. The way it has been presented, I think it (inaudible) in the first instance was that we had, for example, budgeted in the range of $4 million to $5 million for resource materials each year. What they are saying is that by being involved in APEF, with your same amount of money, we will probably be able to do two or three more initiatives each year than we could have had we tried to do it with our own amount. (Inaudible) saying you will be able to improve and extend your curriculum faster by being here than actually reducing the amount of money that you might spend in any one year.

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

CHAIR: Thank you.

I now ask the Clerk to move the heads.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.2.02, carried.

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

CHAIR: Before we leave, we also need a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting of April 30, dealing with the Department of Justice.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: The next meeting of the Social Services Committee will be at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, when we will look at Human Resources and Employment.

Minister, thank you for your time, your patience and our forbearance.

MR. GRIMES: We thank the Committee.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.