Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Mr. Wally Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains, replaces Roland Butler, MHA for Port de Grave.

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

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Jones): Order, please!

We will call the Social Services Committee to order to review the Estimates for the Department of Education.

I would like to start off by first asking for a motion to adopt the minutes of the Social Services Committee this morning in which we reviewed estimates for the Department of Health and Community Services.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MADAM CHAIR: I would like to start by asking the Committee members to first introduce themselves by name and district. Then I will ask you, Minister, to introduce yourself and your officials, then we will go over the procedure for this evening.

I will start with Ms Hodder.

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

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

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

MR. MANNING: Fabian Manning, MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. HEDDERSON: Tom Hedderson, MHA for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Ross Wiseman, MHA for Trinity North.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, Minister, when you are ready.

MS FOOTE: Judy Foote, Minister of Education and MHA for Grand Bank.

Maybe my officials could introduce themselves, starting with Gary Hatcher to my far left.

MR. HATCHER: Gary Hatcher, Senior Director of School Services.

MR. GALWAY: Gerald Galway, ADM of Planning and Educational Programs.

MR. PRESS: Harold Press, Deputy Minister.

MR. YOUNG: Bob Young, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and Administration.

MR. THOMPSON: Jack Thompson, Director of Financial Services.

MS COLES: Linda Coles, Executive Director for Literacy.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.

My name is Yvonne Jones, and I will be your Chair this evening.

Before we start, I just want to inform all members to make sure you state your name before you speak so that it can be recorded in Hansard, and please ensure that your microphones are on because the switching is done in the basement. They are using cameras to follow because all the members are identified by seat and we are all in different seats. They need to ensure that they have the right microphones on.

I will start by asking the Clerk to call the first subhead, please.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

MR. MANNING: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thus far in these Estimates rules of procedure have been fairly lax, and that has not been unusual. We have usually allowed all members wide-ranging questions, and that is not a problem in any budget debate. Time limits have not been adhered to, even though the rules of the committee states we have twenty minutes back and forth. I feel, Madam Chair, that in this morning's estimates, in a different department, those rules were abused. We had members speaking for upwards of two hours. In one case, I believe, a member spoke for an hour and forty minutes, or at least the questions to and fro were an hour and forty minutes.

The committee, instead of convening or recessing at 12 o'clock, which was three hours after the initial debate, we went on to 1:15 p.m. So we were four hours and fifteen minutes in committee, at which time we held the entire department and the entire senior management of the Department of Health - I would not say at ransom but they certainly were not free to leave and to attend the businesses of the day and the businesses of the evening.

When Question Period in the House began today the first line of questioning dealt with an issue on which correspondence had been delivered to the minister's office at 12:30 that day, and the minister, had he not been well briefed on the issue and well prepared for the questions, would have been caught rather cold. I am not suggesting that any members were in collusion with any others which would cause the minister and his department and his officials not to be aware of that letter, but it is extremely regrettable that the department -

MR. MANNING: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Well, the member is raising a point of order. You may speak after he is finished.

MR. MERCER: We have done everything, I think, in committee to allow people to ask questions and to allow the time frames that are permitted by the rules to be lax. We have done that many, many times, but I feel this morning, Madam Chair, we went beyond the rules and the bounds of the rules in our committee. I would respectively suggest that this committee revert back to standing rules of twenty minutes per member, back and forth until the questions have expired. I am not suggesting that we conclude all discussion in three hours but I would suggest that this evening at 10 o'clock this committee do stand in recess, if in fact the estimates are not complete at that time.

MADAM CHAIR: Is the member also putting a motion as well as raising a point of order?

MR. MANNING: No, I have a point of order. I do not think we are here to discuss Question Period today. We are here to discuss the Estimates on the Department of Education. We did the Department of Health and Community Services this morning. Both departments are very large departments of government. Many issues and concerns that people here have raised - I do not intend to sit here with my hands tied behind my back tonight, tomorrow morning or any other morning, neither do my colleagues. So we will proceed. We will follow whatever rules and regulations that are set down by the House. We will ask questions until we are finished asking them.

MR. MERCER: Madam Chair, to that point of order.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: There is no intent, in what I have said here, to in anyway stymie people's questions. They can ask as many questions as they wish on any subject within the Department of Education or early this morning in the Department of Health. I think what happened here this morning went just a wee bit beyond that. I think, if I have to, we could table evidence of the appropriate forums to substantiate what I am saying.

MADAM CHAIR: I would like to thank members for the points that they have raised. We will certainly follow the time limit that has normally been outlined, from my understanding, for committees. However, it has not been the norm. Usually members intervene and ask questions at a time that is convenient for them and for the committee but, no doubt, we will use the twenty minute limit.

With regard to adjourning at 10 o'clock this evening, the purpose of the Estimates Committee, as all committee members know, is to discuss the estimates of a particular department to raise questions and to seek information. Until all members feel they have had an opportunity to do that, we will have to continue in the committee stage. However, that does not permit any member of the committee from putting a motion, at any particular time, to adjourn and to reconvene at another time.

My question to the Member for Humber East is: Are you putting a motion at this time to adjourn at 10 o'clock or would you wish that we continue and wait until that particular time?

MR. MERCER: I would not want to presuppose what anyone is going to say in debate here this evening, but at 10 o'clock I will, for one on this committee, be vacating this hon. House at 10 o'clock this evening. If that requires a motion at that time, it will be so moved.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you for that clarification.

Without further ado, we will continue on with the Committee Estimates for the Department of Education. The Clerk has called the first subhead, 1.1.01. I would now, at this time, like to invite the minister to make her opening comments and then we will open the floor for questions and information.

Madam, Minister.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First let me apologize for the persistent coughing but I have a cough that, as the evening wears on, will probably get worse and it just tends to happen in the evening. That is why I had hoped my estimates could have been earlier in the day. However, I will bear with you if you will bear with me.

Given the discussion that just took place and the fact that Health and Community Services went on for a little over four hours, I think I am going to do away with the commentary and the niceties and just say we are here to answer whatever questions you have to put forward. That is why we are here this evening, and I look forward to a good exchange of information.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

Who would like to open this evening?

The Vice-Chair, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the Member for Humber East for being so courteous in letting me go first. I would like to thank the minister and her staff for coming this evening. Hopefully, we can have a thorough discussion on the Department of Education under the Estimates. I am sure there are many concerns and issues and an opportunity to have some debate and certainly, an opportunity to ask some questions.

My first go will look at some of the costs, some budget amounts last year and revised amounts and some questions that I have on different ones here. We will just start with that for now.

Madam Chair, for clarity, we have in the past - I am not sure, even though the Clerk has called one subhead, can we move around in the department under different subheads or do we take one subhead at a time and go through?

MADAM CHAIR: I will just ask the committee if it is okay to debate all aspects of the department under the first subhead. Does anybody have any objections to that?

No objections have been noted, so we will continue with discussions for the whole of the department under the head that has been called.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Under subhead 1.2.01, Executive Support. Under Transportation and Communications we had a Budget amount of $65,400 which was Revised to $90,400 and a budget amount this year of $60,300, a difference of about $25,000. I am just wondering if someone could elaborate on the difference in that, please?

MS FOOTE: I can speak to that, Madam Chair.

One of the things that is there would be a meeting to the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. In the past, the CMEC absorbed travel costs for ministers and for others who would travel with her, and as a result we would have to not incur as extensive costs in terms of travel. As a result, however, the CMEC fee structure has changed and now we have to pay for all of the travel. In fact, the last CMEC meeting was held in Saskatchewan, so the additional cost is associated with that.

As well, included in that figure is a trip to China. That trip was taken at a time when we had responsibility for post-secondary as well as K-12. One of the initiatives that we started to work on when we had responsibility for both areas in the education system was the establishment of a Canadian school in China. In fact, I can take that back a little further than that. That started when I was in the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology at a time when discussions centered around the whole issue of trying to find a way, I guess, to increase our enrolment and our post-secondary education, recognizing that we have a severe declining enrolment in our K-12 system. At the time, I had the discussion with the then Minister of Education, who is now the Premier, looking at what other provinces have done, like New Brunswick and the other Atlantic Provinces, and Ontario, where they have, in fact, established Canadian schools in other parts of the world, particularly in China, and finding that it was much to their benefit to have that kind of arrangement.

We have been working hard to try and put that in place, and I am pleased to say that we have reached an agreement with private interests in China and the outcome, I would like to think, will be the establishment of a Canadian school that will, in fact, use the K-12 curriculum from Newfoundland and Labrador. In doing that, there are a couple of interests there - and this is where I go back to my industry, trade hat - where it was seen to be an opportunity as well to look at opportunities, not only for increased tourism for this Province from that part of the world but other business opportunities as well. We are finding that other provinces are finding it to be very beneficial.

We are at the point now where we, in fact, are prepared to licence a school, a Canadian school, in China. The curriculum would be K-12, so they would be well-informed about Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, I would like to think that during their schooling they would also be exposed to the Province through any advertising, tourism advertising, that we might want to undertake. All of the costs associated with this school will be borne by the people in China. There will be no cost to the Province whatsoever. All of the inspections to ensure that they are adhering to our curriculum will be borne by them. They would also like to see, I think it is, probably 25 per cent of the teachers would be from Newfoundland and Labrador. They would like to have a principal from Newfoundland and Labrador to be responsible for the curriculum aspects of the school, but they would also like to have a co-principal who would be looking at and responsible for running the school; because, of course, this school would also have a residence associated with it.

I have to say that my experience has been that the parents in China have a lot of money that they are quite prepared to spend on educating their children in a Canadian or an American system, and we can benefit from that. This whole initiative, that is where the additional cost came from. It was a result of that trip.

MR. MANNING: It sounds good, Minister. Would this be 100 per cent Canadian curriculum?

MS FOOTE: Absolutely.

MR. MANNING: That is interesting.

MS FOOTE: Newfoundland curriculum.

MR. MANNING: Newfoundland curriculum.

MS FOOTE: Yes.

Of course, our hope would then be that it would be a natural evolution that, when they graduated from Grade 12, they would come for post-secondary in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MANNING: Subhead 1.2.02., Administrative Support, under Purchased Services, there is a budgeted amount of $286,100, we see an increase up to $801,100, and an estimate this year of $263,300, a considerable amount of increase. Exactly why? What were those purchased services?

MS FOOTE: Our insurance deductible was $200,000. $100,000 of the $801,000 is for things like any advertising we might do for the Department of Education. Then we had incurred extra postage, another $90,000, as a result of our testing. Of course, when you are doing that kind of testing for the curriculum, it cannot be done through the regular mail system so you have to incur express postage costs or delivery costs from some of the services around. We also spent $125,000 in putting some new carpet down in the department. I have to say, it was the first time since the building has been there that the carpet was replaced so that was long overdue.

MR. MANNING: Is there anybody, Minister, on contract with your department for consulting purposes?

MS FOOTE: The only contractual services that we would have would be, that we would contract teachers in the system, or retired teachers, to do some course development for us. We have a gentleman by the name of Robert Rose, to whom we gave $5,000, who did distance teaching services for us for Charlottetown, Labrador. I think that was math. We had difficulty getting a math teacher to go in there so we did it by distance, and, I have to tell you, it was a really successful undertaking.

Another man, Don Squib, a $15,000 contract for course development for the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation; David Power, $5,000 for the same, course development for CDLI; Ed Somerton, $5,000 for the same thing; Harry O'Rielly, $4,000 for the same thing; Mark Jones, $3,000 for Intermediate Physical Education Curriculum Guide; Kellie Baker, $3,000 for Intermediate Physical Education Curriculum Guide; AEM Human Resource, $8,500, and that was a review of general administration and a review of position descriptions. Total Communication, $4,930, that was for the Literacy Foundation logo. We have established a Literacy Foundation that we can speak to after, if you wish. Kevin Major was contracted for $1,500 to review the Religious Education curriculum for Grades 4-6; Patricia Cowan, $1,250. Patricia chairs the Teachers' Certification Review Board, so that would be her per diems. Education Concepts, $43,716.83 for exam guides and handbook development, and that is for a total of $99,896.83.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Minister.

Under Administrative Support, 1.2.02., Grants and Subsidies, there was $5,000 budgeted last year and that was what was expended. This year it climbs by $50,000. What falls under that, that it would have an increase of $50,000?

MS FOOTE: I am sorry, what was the -

MR. MANNING: Subhead 1.2.02. Administrative Support, 10., Grants and Subsidies. It has gone from $5,000 to $55,000.

MS FOOTE: Oh, I see, yes.

That is additional funding there that we are looking to support national and international education initiatives, like the national math competition for instance.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

MS FOOTE: We had a fund in there for youth initiatives and, when the department split, all the funding that was under that heading went with Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MR. MANNING: Okay, so we have an increase of $50,000 - I am not following - because you want to partake in more national testing?

MS FOOTE: Yes, to support students who are going off to national and international competitions.

MR. MANNING: Okay, so that is the difference there?

MS FOOTE: Yes. Right now, of course, there is nothing there, where it was all moved into Youth Service and Post-Secondary Education.

MR. MANNING: I wasn't aware that if somebody is travelling to some other province in Canada to partake in a competition, they can apply for a grant from the department.

MS FOOTE: They can now, but normally it is done.... For instance, if you have a teacher taking a group - or the university, for instance, would be looking to do something like that in the way of national math competitions, organized by the university but taking high school students.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Under Corporate Planning and Research, 1.2.04., Salaries, it was budgeted last year at $290,000, the revised was $266,000, and this year it is $241,000. Are there less people involved in policy formulation, research, or - this year it is $50,000. Has somebody moved?

MS FOOTE: The fact that we did not spend as much was delayed recruitment, essentially, and the fact that it is less money now is because we had to take - was it 5 per cent? - on salaries as part of the overall savings throughout government, so we had to take a 5 per cent hit on salaries and an 8 per cent hit on operating. That is why you see a reduction there, down to $241,900.

MR. MANNING: Purchased Services, under Corporate Planning, budgeted $25,600, spent $5,600, $20,000 less, and this year budgeted - what would those purchased services be, under Corporate Planning and Research?

MS FOOTE: That would be the type of publications that you see here, and the reason it is down is that we had a delay in generating publications so it resulted in less printing, but that is one of the types of publications that we put out over in the department.

MR. MANNING: So these are reports and some studies that have been completed?

MS FOOTE: Yes, these are statistics here on the elementary-secondary system and it would contain results from the different curriculum, enrollment by subject and grade, K-6.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

In Teaching Services, 2.1.01., I realize what the amount is for, grants and subsidies to school boards. We budgeted $308 million last year but we see an increase of around $6 million. I realize this year, I guess, it is because of a reduction in the amount of teaching units that are there, but the increase last year of $6 million, would that be a fixed amount of teachers that we had in the beginning? How would you -

MS FOOTE: That was an extra pay period for our teachers. There were twenty-six pay periods, revised to twenty-seven pay periods. Then if you look at 2002-2003, that provides for twenty-five pay periods.

MR. MANNING: School Board Operations last year, 2.1.02, we had $600,000 for Purchased Services. Again, that is the insurances and allowances to students. This year we have approximately a $250,000 increase. Is that insurance costs?

MS FOOTE: Yes, that is an increase in school insurance premiums; a 25 per cent increase.

MR. MANNING: That is right across the board for the whole - that is incredible.

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. MANNING: Under 2.1.04., Community Access Program - I realize that you have started up a few of those over the past year. I know of a couple in my own district. We had a Budget of $135,800, Revised at $280,800, and this year $475,300. I would just like for you to elaborate on the Community Access Program, and not only on the figures, but exactly what the plans are for that because there is a fair increase for this year.

MS FOOTE: Well, the CAP agreement with the federal government expired actually in March of this year and we were provided with interim funding of $605,000, which was received late in 2001-2002 to enable us to continue on until the end of May. We are now working with the feds to try and put another agreement in place, and it is looking very positive. Nothing has been confirmed at this point in time, but we are hopeful. Certainly, they have expressed an interest in continuing on with that agreement. Right now we have 183 sites throughout the Province in 585 communities, and we are hoping that we can increase on those numbers. We are hopeful that we are going to get a renewal of that agreement or a new agreement.

MR. MANNING: I know in my own district, I think there are four now, possibly five, community access sites. It is a tremendous opportunity for -

MS FOOTE: It has been very beneficial too, in those areas where the CAP sites are actually in the libraries, because it has enabled us to increase the number of hours that the libraries are open. So it has been helpful on that end. Where we do not have more resources available to increase the hours of the libraries themselves, this has made it possible to the CAP agreement.

MR. MANNING: I think I know from my own experience, it is bringing more people into the library, not only to use the access - I know my own two children are doing the same thing.

MS FOOTE: That is a real plus from my perspective.

MR. MANNING: Under Grants and Subsidies, we basically see the same outline, $1.6 million up to $2.1 million. Would that fall inline with - would the Grants and Subsidies be the same thing in relation to the fact that - under number 10, I am sorry.

MS FOOTE: What was that? Sorry.

MR. MANNING: Grants and Subsidies, under the Community Access Program, we went from $1.7 million approximately to $2.15 million, an increase there. Would that fall under the same -

MR. PRESS: Minister, if I may?

MR. MANNING: Your light has to be on there.

MR. PRESS: (Inaudible) and wait for the light to go on?

MR. MANNING: Yes, the light should come on.

MR. PRESS: Okay, thank you.

Under Grants and Subsidies, basically, it is about 200 sites projected at about $7,000 per site. The point that the minister spoke to - just bring you down to 01. on Revenue - Federal. If you noticed, between Budget and Revised there is about a $600,000 difference. That is $600,000 that was put in on the revenue side to carry us over for a couple of months, a month or so, until we can negotiate a new agreement.

MR. MANNING: Okay, so that is $600,000 from the federal government?

MR. PRESS: That is the $600,000 she talked about.

MR. MANNING: On 2.1.06., School Supplies; a Budget last year of $6 million - I am going to round these off instead of going into all of them - and $6 million this year or $6.4 million. Again, there is a $400,000 increase. Is that an increase in costs or are we getting - are there more supplies or is it just an increase in costs?

MS FOOTE: We have a base budget there of $4.5 million for School Supplies. That includes $1.9 million as recommended in the Sparkes-Williams report.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

MS FOOTE: We should be increasing that by a certain amount and that was the $1.9 million.

MR. MANNING: On that line: Amount to be Voted, Revenue - Provincial, $700,000. Where does that fall into the amount under supplies?

MR. PRESS: The $700,000, that is just the projected revenue. That is from the sale of books in the high school level. It is hard to say from one year to the next year how much replacement you actually have. That is simply just a round figure on the sale of books.

MR. MANNING: Okay, that is just a possibility (inaudible).

MR. PRESS: Can I go back just a minute to link 04 and 05?

MR. MANNING: Okay, yes.

MR. PRESS: If you noticed, and I thought you might have asked about the $816,000, that does not appear in the current year. That was part of a contract for religious education Grades 4-6.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

MR. PRESS: That is almost to conclusion. There is another couple of hundred thousand dollars left in that, and that rolled into the $6 million. That is why you see the $6 million go up to $6.4 million. Where now the completion of religious education, and fully implemented, is included under 04. in Supplies, because most of that would be textbook based.

MADAM CHAIR: The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, your time is up. We will move on to another committee member. If you have further questions I am sure we will get back to it.

MR. MANNING: Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Manning.

I will now call on the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a couple of general questions. First of all, dealing with declining enrollment. How would you address that or how is that issue being addressed in this year's budget? What particular initiatives are in there or actions in your budget that you have taken in response to declining enrollment?

MS FOOTE: Actually, even though we have a declining student enrollment, we really have not done anything to impact negatively on the educational system. In fact, what we have done is - even in the teacher allocations, in removing 208 units - chose not to follow the formula that was put in place in the Williams-Sparkes report which would have seen us, as you know, removing 426 units.

Even when you look at the revenue for the school boards, we have chosen not to decrease their operating grants, but, in fact, we have increased them year over year. I think in the last five years we have seen an increase in their operating grants of 14.5 per cent. Even though we have a declining student enrollment there is a recognition that costs have been increasing as well, so we have to be responsible in that vein.

As well, with our teacher allocations, the allocations for next year are based on this year's enrollment and we will have 3,000 fewer students in the system come next September.

Even though we have declining student enrollment, we have tried to be cognizant of the fact that there are still going to be increased costs in the system to which we have to respond. I guess one of the ways, in terms of dealing with the declining student enrollment and trying to be as effective and efficient as we can, is working with all of our school boards to look at the number of buildings they have out there and how they can do some consolidation and be able to offer the quality programming that needs to be offered.

We have also recognized, with the formula that was put in place by Williams-Sparkes, they took into account rural Newfoundland and Labrador and isolated schools in terms of the formula. So even if you look at the number of students and the decline that we are seeing, they factored all of that into the formula and then added on additional resources for rural Newfoundland, especially in isolated areas.

MR. MERCER: So, when you say that the Williams-Sparkes report would have taken out 426 in last year, or is that -

MS FOOTE: Total, it would have been 218 last year and 208 this year.

MR. MERCER: Yes, okay.

MS FOOTE: So, it would have been a total of 426, but we left in the 218 last year and we chose to leave them in again this year.

MR. MERCER: One of the problems that has always concerned me about teacher reductions is that they have always been done on the basis of declining enrollment. If you lose one student out of each class in each of the various schools you will end up with a large number of students having left. It is difficult to look at a class of twenty-six, and you only have twenty-five and notice that the one is missing, but yet we take the teachers out based upon numbers. How does your department factor that in, because at some point in time you are taking people out but they still live in the communities and going to the schools where they normally go?

MS FOOTE: I will speak to that to say that is why we did not take out the numbers we were advised to take out under the formula, in recognition that we want to be able to deliver the quality programs and want to ensure that we can offer the core curriculum, no matter where you live in the Province. In fact, if you look at the teacher decline compared to the student decline, we have a teacher decline of 3.5 per cent versus a student decline of 7.6 per cent over a two-year period. So that has all been taken into account. We have not, as a government and as a department, said we have to follow the formula because there is a recognition of that very fact that you raise, but of course it works both ways.

MR. MERCER: It seems to me that the formula works rather well when you have an increasing enrollment. It does not work quite so well when you have declining enrollment. There will come a floor where, even though we did lose a number of students, you really cannot take anymore teachers out of the system.

MS FOOTE: If you look, for instance - and I have the breakdown here for all of the boards. The Labrador school board, for instance, losing 197 students and losing five teachers over the system. You can go down through all of them and get the numbers. So, you get a teacher decline of 1.3 but you get a student decline of 3.7. We are looking at that and cognizant of the fact that we have to deliver a certain core curriculum. That is what we keep in mind, irregardless of what the formula says.

MR. MERCER: And I can see how your small Necessarily Existent schools work and why you need that. That works very well for some of the smaller communities because regardless of whether you have twenty, thirty or forty children going to school, you still need one or two or three teachers to deliver that program. But, when you get into the more urban areas, Corner Brook, St. John's, Grand Falls and Gander, I am still having in my mind, Minister, how and when - obviously, we do not wait for every school to become small and Necessarily Existent to say: No more cuts. There has to be some point where Williams-Sparkes - they must have recommended something to say that the formula no longer works once you get to a certain point.

MS FOOTE: Well, the formula is very clearly spelled out in the Williams-Sparkes report. The ratio of students to teachers - if you look at grade level in small schools and small schools with an average grade enrollment of less than thirty. In Kindergarten you would have a ratio of 16:1; Grades 1-6 a ratio 20:1; Grades 7-12 a ratio of 21:1.

Then they have it broken down for multi-levels instructional groups. They say here, "Teachers will be allocated for high school based on the framework for small, mid-sized and large schools with a minimum number of teachers assigned as follows: In small schools 1.5 teacher units will be allocated to each school with 21 or fewer high school students. Schools with 22 to 31 and 32 to 42 high school students (inclusive) will be allocated 1.75 and 2 teachers units, respectively."

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: This is out of the Ministerial Panel, Recommendation 56. This is the Williams-Sparkes report.

"High schools with enrolments greater than 42 will be allocated teachers based on a divisor of 21 for small school, 24 for medium schools and 27 for large schools."

Then it goes on. They have broken it down according to grade and multi-level instructional groups and numbers of students in a grade. So a lot of work went into it. I would like to think that at some point in time we are going to see an increase in student enrollment, but the projections for the next, I would say five years, is in fact that we are going to be seeing a further decline. Based on the formula they have here, they felt confident that we would be able to deliver the curriculum that we have to deliver, especially in high school, to ensure that our students get the thirty-six credits which are required for high school graduation.

For instance, if you want to look at - the formula does indeed, as you mentioned, work for small schools. In Norman Bay, Labrador, there are ten students and two teachers.

MR. MERCER: That is the point I was making. Unless you want to get back to the one-room, one type of class, one-teacher school, there comes a point where, regardless of the number of students you have, you need one or more teachers to teach those students. Those ratios, while they work at a certain level, and once you go below a certain floor, they really do not make a lot of sense.

MS FOOTE: I think we also have to bear in mind that we are working now with the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation. We are certainly looking to that centre. I think we have now developed ten courses that can be offered at distance by the centre. In fact, I am very pleased to report that my colleagues in the other three Atlantic Provinces have looked to the centre as a model to be used throughout the Atlantic Provinces where we will, in fact, develop the courses and they will buy the courses from us. It is becoming a way of delivering courses, and not just in rural parts of the Province. We are hoping that, even in places like Corner Brook and St. John's, they will avail of advance courses that can be offered via distance, where we will have E-teachers. We are looking to the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation to help us in respect of ensuring that we can deliver programs anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If I can mention, when I mentioned the rural adjustment for rural schools, the teacher multiplier for grade level specific ratios shall be set at 1.05, so it is taking into account the needs of rural Newfoundland.

MR. MERCER: Two further questions on teachers, and teacher-student ratios. We frequently hear in this Province, and from your department perhaps, that we have one of the best student-teacher ratios.

MS FOOTE: In the country.

MR. MERCER: There are those who will say: Yes, but you do not do it the same way as B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, et cetera. Do you, in fact, do your calculations on the same basis as any and every other province?

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. We compare apples with apples. So, if you look at -

MR. MERCER: So when we say that the student-teacher ratio in Newfoundland is, and we say whereas in Ontario it is, we are comparing and that is a real, honest-to-goodness type of number. We are not fudging it, we are not trying to (inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the ratio is 13.4 students to one teacher; the Canadian average is 16 students to one teacher. In Ontario, I think, the average is 16 students to one teacher.

MR. MERCER: You hear that all the time and people come up to you and say: Oh, yes, but they are including - I will take, for argument sake - librarians, special education, or guidance councillors.

MS FOOTE: That is true.

MR. MERCER: My answer is: Well, if we do then everyone else does also.

MS FOOTE: That is right, yes. We do and they do.

MR. MERCER: The other point on the declining enrollments and the leaving of the teachers in the system, say, last year when we left, I guess, 208 in the system -

MS FOOTE: Two hundred and eighteen last year.

MR. MERCER: Two hundred and eighteen last year.

MS FOOTE: Eleven million dollars.

MR. MERCER: At least in my area, and I cannot speak for all school boards, a number of those teachers came to the school board office and they did things which were appropriate at the school board level. Now, in theory, they are still surplus teachers, quote, within the system, even though they are delivering from the school board office a number of what they would consider to be critical -

MS FOOTE: Some of the boards will utilize teaching units within the board, yes.

MR. MERCER: One of the problems that happened before, as I understand it, is that school boards developed a substantial staff at the board office and then at some point in time a government - whether it was this one or another one, I am not sure, it does not make any difference - cut the numbers and all of a sudden the programs that were being offered at the board office had to be reduced.

One of the problems I see with the formula is that while we leave these numbers in, some government, whether it be this one or another one in the future, might say, based upon the formula, we have too many teachers in the system and they make the cut for whatever the reasons are of that day. The school boards are now left where they were a number of years ago, scravelling. Do we do anything in our thinking to keep those numbers in the system, now that we have once done it?

MS FOOTE: You mean instead of having them utilized in the board office?

MR. MERCER: Well, sometimes in the board office is a good place to have them because there are things that need to be done at the board level to ensure a smooth running of the school district. My point is: If we had determined right now that we left 218 in the system, and let's say the school boards across the Province has taken a number of those and moved them into a board office - which a number of them have done, I know in my area they have - the danger I see with the way that things are right now is that a government, whether it is, as I say, this one or another one re-elected after next year, might decide to say: Well, let's go back to the Williams-Sparkes report; we have more teachers than enough.

I don't know if you understand what I am trying to get at.

MS FOOTE: Yes, I know -

MR. MERCER: If we build up an expertise at the board office, then it is like, olé, and you pull the carpet out from underneath them and now, where do we go from here?

MS FOOTE: Well, I think all I can say to you is that I am not quite sure what will happen next year or the year after. A lot of it depends on what we can afford as a government.

MR. MERCER: Yes.

MS FOOTE: Clearly, I, as the Minister of Education, will have to make the case, as the Minister of Health has to make the case, around the Cabinet table for whatever I feel I need in the system. Whether or not I am successful depends on what resources are available to us. Without telling you discussions that happen around the Cabinet table, all I can tell you is that I will do my job in terms of making the case for what I feel, as the Minister of Education, is needed in the system, based on the information that I have at my fingertips. Whether or not we are able to get a positive response to that will depend on the overall budget that government has to work with.

MR. MERCER: I guess where I am coming from, Minister, on this one, is that while the Sparkes-Williams report has done a fine job in determining the number of teachers we need in respect of the different schools and so on and so forth in declining of enrolment, do we have or is there a similar policy within the department to say that, these are the services that must be delivered and could be delivered or should be delivered by the board office, and here is an appropriate staffing level.

MS FOOTE: You will find in the Avalon East School Board that, in fact, they will have more personnel available because of the larger student body and the number of schools which they have to administer, but we do allocate to board office personnel and we do encourage boards to use teaching units for teaching activities. That is part of the ongoing discussion with our boards, and we sit down with them when it comes time to allocate teachers and discuss with them what their needs are and how best we can meet those needs.

It was clear, when we had the discussion with the boards this time around, that if we were to, in fact, use the formula, that there would have been considerable hardship so we chose not to and the Cabinet saw fit to support me in that decision.

MR. MERCER: I guess the only point I am trying to make on that is that the boards, rightly or wrongly, feel they have a mandate, obviously, to deliver, and they feel they need a certain core amount of staff to do that, and sometimes they have to rob Peter to pay Paul to be able to do that, to take teachers out of the classroom into a board office to do something which they feel is necessary for (inaudible).

MS FOOTE: It varies from board to board. One board may feel they want to do this or need to do this. Another board may not feel, and the best we can do is allocate the resources available to us and encourage the board to use the units that are there for the schools to use them in the schools.

I know that an article that was carried today in The Telegram quoted Brian Shortall, the Education Director for the Avalon East School Board, as saying that they will lose 1.5 units, I think, from the district office. Well, in some cases you will find that some boards have been utilizing a fair number of units in the board office for very good programming, and especially last year when we did not take any teachers out of the system. I think, if you talk to any of the Education Directors out there, and any of the board chairs, they would tell you that it was wonderful and that, in fact, they were able to do things they probably would not have been able to do prior to do that and maybe you cannot do this year. But I think we all have to be realistic and say, while it is nice to do, we have to offer quality education, we have to offer a core curriculum, and anything above and beyond that, if we can afford to do it, then we should do it, but there are other demands.

MR. MERCER: Thank you very much. I have a number of others, but -

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. member's time has expired at present so we will come back to you.

Thank you, Mr. Mercer.

I would now like to call on the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MS FOOTE: May I ask, Madam Chair: Do we now go back to the Minister's Office again, the heading under that and everything?

MADAM CHAIR: When we called the first subhead, Minister, anything pertaining to your department is now open for discussion, at the discretion of the Committee members, in terms of what they want to ask.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MS FOOTE: I am not objecting, Madam Chair. I am just wanting to know where I am in terms of responding.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: We will try not to duplicate the questions, or confuse you by jumping all over the book.

Just a couple of things, but first for clarification, today we were distributed a copy of Bill 8 in the House, and included in that was $10 million for Education. Is that the $10 million in total that the department has overspent, or the difference between the budget and the revised figure in this document, or is this $10 million a separate figure?

MS FOOTE: Is that the EIC?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The introduction, the cover sheet on this bill, says: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. On the back schedule there is $10,420,000 for Education. Can the minister tell us what this figure is?

MS FOOTE: A different Bill 8.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: What was that?

MS FOOTE: He was thinking of a different Bill 8.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Oh.

MS FOOTE: You don't remember the other Bill 8?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: This is fresh off the press today; pardon the pun, Harold.

MS FOOTE: That is to cover off the extra pay period.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The extra pay period?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: So that figure, $10 million, that is here, we won't see individual figures accumulating to this $10 million in this document as we talk about it?

MS FOOTE: No, that is -

MR. PRESS: If I could, what we see under Teaching Services, that we talked about earlier, the difference between the two pay periods was about $6 million or $7 million. There were also sayings that we accumulated last year through some slippage and so on that we put towards that, because one pay period has a cost, Bob, I presume, around $13 million or $14 million per pay period.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I don't know if I am asking the question correctly or not. What I am trying to establish is: When we go through these Estimates here and we see last year's budget figure and we see the revised, sometimes we will see some overage, sometimes we will see some surpluses. When I look at the net figure in this document here, is this $10 million in addition to what I am seeing in the Estimates document?

MR. PRESS: I presume they will not be cumulative, they will not add.

MS FOOTE: Bob can give the breakdown.

MR. YOUNG: The $10 million figure, of that, approximately $7 million is shown in the Estimates as part of a - this is a special warrant, and that is to cover the additional pay period. Then, the other $3 million are things that are flesh throughout the department. I guess some of the money is for the EIC, the Investment Corporation, and I think that would chew up the bulk of what is left, rather than get into minor details. Those two particular items account for the $10.4 million.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The $3 million, you just mentioned that EIC -

MR. YOUNG: That is the Education Investment Corporation.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Exactly, which, in this Estimates document, is found on page 176. If you look at 2.1.08. in this document here, the Estimates document on page 176, what you are telling me - at least if I am hearing you correctly - is that the budget last year was $1,555,000, the revised was $5,350,000, and because you overspent in this category you have now brought that figure forward in this warrant here.

MR. YOUNG: Under special warrant, that is correct.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The math will not add up. There is an in-service in budgeting here now. The math will not add up because, if I take the $4 million there, you said there was $3 million -

MR. YOUNG: Sorry, there is $4 million there and the other difference is in the teachers' payroll side. So, you go from the 308 up to the 314.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: So, if I see 308 to 314 -

MR. YOUNG: That is correct.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: If you look at the difference in those two figures there and the difference in the $5,350,000 and and $1,550,000, it adds up to $10,420,000.

MR. YOUNG: That should be about it.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay, I just wanted to clarify it.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) balance of our commitment of the $12 billion over three years.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I just wanted that for clarification more than anything else. Thank you very much.

Minister, I will just focus on two components for this series of questions, if I could. I want to talk out the school board operations. The other one I would like to talk a little bit about is the Centre for Distance Education and Learning. We will just focus on those two pages. How is that?

MS FOOTE: Okay.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: You mentioned earlier about school boards; you have reinvested significant amounts of money in school boards and rather than get into a whole discussion around the whole process of funding school boards, I would like to be able to pick out a couple of things that come up quite frequently in discussions around the financing of school boards. One of them deals with the issue of - because I understand the framework for budgeting school boards is pretty structured, in that there are some items that are a very direct reimbursement for expenses, like the cost of heating buildings and things like that. Then there are some other costs where there is a per pupil allocation, so it is a fairly structured process, but within that structured budget process, to my knowledge, there is no direct line item or consideration for technology: the acquisition of computers, the maintenance of computers, the replacement of computers, that side of it which is a rapidly expanding area, and as you move more into the technology - we will talk in a moment about the centre - the utilization of computer technology in schools, the expanse of that has been so rapid in recent years. Then, of course, once you have the stuff in place there is the maintenance of it and then there is the ongoing upgrades. So, once you go down that road you are committed to the long-term and continued investment. It is never an issue of becoming complete, flush, or you are now finished.

Has the minister given some consideration as to how you might reconfigure the funding of boards to include a commitment for that area of board operations?

MS FOOTE: I guess, up to this point, it has all been included under the operating grant for the board.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Yes.

MS FOOTE: The fact that we have not allocated funding to the boards, based on your declining student enrollment and fewer buildings and allow them to keep their savings to be used for incentives, is a recognition that they do need more money in the system. That is why we have left that in and we have not seen a decrease in funding going to the boards.

We have not, at this point, to the best of my knowledge anyway, looked at coming in with a line item that will cover off additional costs that could be attributed to the cost of implementing a new technology. I guess what we have allowed the boards to do is to manage that pot of money as they see fit. I am not interested in micro-managing in the sense of saying: You use this amount for this and this amount for that. We have just given them an overall grant, and they have been able to move money around in that grant. We have not, in fact, been specific in terms of: This is money that is being allocated for technology as an area, as an item of budget.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I guess, given the structure of the board's financing now, if you look at aspects of boards' funding, if you look at the utilities, janitorial maintenance, secretarial, administration, repairs and maintenance, instruction and special incentives, as I understand, there are seven categories. Given how some of these are fixed and there is no flexibility for boards to - you cannot take money out of school utilities, for example, and hire a computer support technician or janitorial maintenance. Well, the maintenance one you can, I guess. Secretarial is pretty defined, based on student enrollment as I understand it. Administration is an in and out issue. So, you have instruction material and repairs and maintenance, the only two areas where you can actually take money out and put it into computers, the purchase of computers or replenishing of what you have or the maintenance of those systems. There is, within the framework of a budget, only two real categories where you have flexibility there of directed funds.

MS FOOTE: I am not sure if you are aware of this, but we are, in fact, reviewing now the allocation to boards for secretarial and maintenance.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

MS FOOTE: We have Dr. Phil Warren who is spearheading that initiative for us. That, of course, came out of the collective agreement that we reached.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That's right, yes.

MS FOOTE: So that area is being looked at to try and see if, in fact, they are being underfunded, I guess, and see if we can come to some kind of consensus about how best to go forward. I know it is an issue for us, certainly in terms of technology because we are moving in that direction, as you already stated, and certainly with the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation. It is something that is very front and center in the department. We recognize, because we do hear from boards and we hear from schools, difficulties that they have, not with getting computers but maintaining them. That is an area that we are looking at with Dr. Warren taking the lead for us.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: But he is looking at it from a staffing perspective in administration and secretarial area, which is directly coming out of the collective bargaining process. So it is very much staff oriented and staffing levels. That piece will not include looking at how boards may be funded for technology. That is not a part of his mandate, is it?

MS FOOTE: No, but they can - I guess in terms of maintenance, I was thinking, from that aspect of it, because you mentioned hiring computer technicians. That is why I was looking at that aspect of it; but, there is nothing to stop boards from using their incentive funding, for instance, to buy computers.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That incentive funding, I guess, by now is - as I understood it, the incentive is based on school closures and boards being able to keep the net savings from school closures and for three-year periods.

MS FOOTE: That is right.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: With the stabilization that has occurred in recent years with the number of schools being closed, that wave of school closures - would it be fair to say that the big wave of school closures is somewhat behind us now? There are still some possibly, but the wave of them, the bulk of them, is it fair to say that's behind us?

MS FOOTE: There are still some boards out there that have some consolidation that they are looking at.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: But the wave of them, I will use that word, the bulk of them are probably done. So the opportunity for this category of funding, there is an endpoint for this special incentive process here, because at some point - I will just use Vista District where I live, they have stabilized now. There will be no more school closures in Vista District for a long, long time. So the potential for Vista District to ever come up with any funding for this source is over; done. Once the next couple of year are over, they are finished.

MS FOOTE: I do know though that some boards have, in fact, used their incentive funding to buy computers. Again, it is like everything else when we talk about whether or not - I am sure all boards could use more. Those are discussions that take place when we are budgeting, whether or not we are going to be to find additional money, and there may be other ways to look at that.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I guess, just as a commentary - and I commend the incentives in the area of technology that the department has undertaken in recent years. Going hand-in-hand with that, I think there needs to be the recognition that boards need to be supported with that technology to be able to keep current and also to acquire new stuff.

The other piece of this is - no doubt you have heard this story before, and to be frank with you, I have never seen verification of the data. So feel comfortable in contradicting me, which I am sure you probably will. The measure that I have heard referenced is that school boards get, on average, fifty-five cents a square foot for their buildings and they compare that to what it costs to maintain this building and other government buildings. First of all, is that an accurate statement, that, on average, boards get fifty-five cents a square foot to maintain the buildings?

MS FOOTE: No, they get fifty-five cents per square foot of floor area, but that does not include, as it does in public buildings, the salary costs that would be factored in for maintenance. In fact, if we factor into all of the other costs, we would come out about even with the cost to maintain Works, Services buildings versus the school buildings.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I throw this out for your reaction, and I do not throw it out because I am suggesting I have a strong position that we should look at it or government should be looking at it and that should be a direction; but, given the realignment of the system that has really occurred in the last number of years and the consolidation of schools - and as I said a moment ago, the wave of closure is pretty well over. So you have some sense of where you are going to have buildings. You could almost map now where you are going to have school buildings in the Province for the next ten or fifteen years. With the amount of time and energy and aggravation school boards have in and around the maintenance of buildings - and which takes away from their core focus, which is to provide instruction to the students - has the department given consideration to saying that we are not in the business of maintaining buildings? Give that to Works, Services, and we become the tenants in the buildings. We will go in with our teachers at 9 o'clock in the morning and we will have some contractual arrangement for the control of schools.

I had a recent discussion with one of the site directors at one of the campuses of the College of the North Atlantic who does not worry at all about the physical building. They have full control of the building in terms of school activities, nights, weekends, days. Whatever they want to do, it is their building, but in terms of the maintenance of it, snowclearing, painting and all that kind of stuff, they do not worry about that. Works, Services have their own staff in place. Given this ongoing problem with maintenance that school boards appear to have, and you do not hear those same outcries from government buildings, is it worthy of some consideration? Have you given that some thought?

MS FOOTE: I remember when I first went into the department asking why, in fact, Works, Services did not have responsibility for school buildings. At that time we had gotten into a discussion with them about the possibility of them taking on responsibility for schools, but it really did not go anywhere. It was something we had a discussion about but there was no real desire there by Works, Services and Transportation to take responsibility for the school buildings. So, I guess, it did not go anywhere other than we continue to maintain them and we still have to continue to provide small schools in remote parts of this Province.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I wasn't looking at it in terms of who is responsible, but it would appear though that in a community where you have a number of schools or a school and in that same community you have one or more government buildings, then those government buildings are always well maintained. If a leak appears in a window someone is in fixing it. If it needs to be painted, it gets painted. Whereas, school boards go around with five gallon buckets spread around classrooms and you have people up on roofs in the wintertime pushing off snow because they are afraid it is going to collapse, and all that kind of stuff happens.

I appreciate the budget restraints but if you are focused purely on the education piece of it, and I know from my own experience as a school trustee and a board chair for a number of years, the amount of time consumed by the director and the board around building stuff - the physical plants that are around the district are just enormous. It was a major, major aggravation and an unnecessary diversion from what the real business was about.

MS FOOTE: Yes, and you make a valid point. In discussion with Works, Services, if you consider that we are in 326 sites with our schools, that would be a major undertaking for them compared to the number of buildings they have to maintain now and probably why there wasn't a great willingness there to move in that direction.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Yes, and they would have to bring it to the standard of the rest of the buildings too. That did not get lost on anybody I am sure.

MS FOOTE: I have to speak to that because when you consider the money that we have put into the system over the last couple of years, and we are talking $170 million in (inaudible) and redevelopments -

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: They are more receptive to doing it now.

MS FOOTE: - twelve million in roof repairs and window repairs. We have not been shy about the money we have been investing in ensuring that our buildings are brought up to standards that we can all be proud of.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The other piece of school board finance I would like to talk a little bit about is the - because if you look at boards budgets and if you look at the in and out figures, because teacher's salaries go in and out, and then if you look at the line items that are - I will not use the term in and out but they are very directive, like utilities and so on. The board does not have a whole lot of discretion as to where it can come up with money for any kind of things other than the day-to-day operations that they have.

I understand there are a number of boards that currently have some - relative to their flexibility or relative to the discretionary money that they have on an annual basis they have some significant debt load. Can you table for us or share with us the accumulative operating debts of each of the boards in the Province? Do you have that figure there?

MS FOOTE: Rob might have that. I know that we have been working with a couple of boards, certainly the board in Labrador, where they have some significant problems. Part of their problem stems from - again, it goes back to what you were saying about boards time being consumed with things other than delivering education. When you look at the Labrador School Board, they are responsible for housing, teacher housing. So that has been a monumental cost for them because there has been a significant amount of vandalism to those as well. They have incurred costs having to repair that because you cannot just leave it. Then you have travel costs, of course, in Labrador. So, all of these things have added to their deficit.

What we are attempting to do to help alleviate that problem for them is to look at housing for professionals in Labrador, whether it is nurses or teachers, looking at the infrastructure agreement that may come with the federal government and the Province, to see if Newfoundland and Labrador Housing can take on responsibility for professionals, in Labrador in particular, because we have to be able to provide housing as part of the incentive or at least provide it on a cost recovery basis for teachers.

That is one board that has experienced some difficulties, but when you look at the problems they have you can see where they come from and that it is a real cost they are being asked to absorb. We can certainly get you the numbers in terms of the overall deficit of the boards. We have boards - in fact, I think your own board is doing very well.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: We just finished paying of the debt.

MS FOOTE: Yes, absolutely. We have another board in fact that has a surplus.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Could your deputy just read out the figures, Madam Chair, if you don't mind? Then I am finished with the questions, if you could answer that question by reading out the figures.

MS FOOTE: I think Bob may have the numbers, the ADM.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay. We will have Bob read out the numbers and then we will move to the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, please.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. YOUNG: I do have the numbers on the accumulated deficit of the boards, they are some $3.4 million in total.

I will just mention this to you, this takes us to the last set of financial statements that we have from each of the boards which goes back to June of last year. We will not get the next set - their year-end is June. We did not get their financial statements in from the boards until September, October. So the next set of financial statements that we will get in from the boards will be this coming September, October. While we are aware of certain situations and work with the boards quite closely to address any anomalies, as the minister just outlined, for example, in Labrador, the figures that I will give you now relate to the end of last year's financial statements.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is fine, thank you.

MR. YOUNG: Pardon me, Minister?

MS FOOTE: I think the point to remember here too is, of course, under the act school boards are not allowed to carry a deficit. As soon as we become aware that there are issues there we go in and work very closely with them to try and deal with that and ask them, in fact, to put in place a financial plan. I suppose if you were to look at how the education boards have done, compared with the health care boards, we are doing very well.

MR. YOUNG: I will just read the list for you. The Labrador board, and these are round numbers, approximately a $950,000 deficit. The Northern Peninsula, about $189,000 deficit; Corner Brook board, $600,000 deficit. There is a surplus in the Cormack Trail board of $61,000. Board five, which is Baie Verte-Central-Connaigre, $890,000 surplus. The Lewisporte-Gander board, $500,000 surplus. The Burin board had a $1.2 million deficit. The Vista board, $165,000 deficit; Avalon West, $317,000 deficit; and Avalon East, $211,000 surplus. The Francophone board was at a break-even position.

In looking at these numbers, as I said, the net of that is $3.4 million, but in the ones where I have identified deficits, as the minister has indicated, we have engaged in discussions with all of the boards and have put in place plans that will address all of these deficits in the very short term.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: We can get a copy of that, I guess, can we, Minister?

MADAM CHAIR: Would you like to table that, Mr. Young?

MR. YOUNG: This copy, at the moment, has some markings on it, but I would be perfectly happy to give you a copy tomorrow or the next day, whenever.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Good night to all.

I am going to start off just on a general sense. Basically, when it comes to budget allocation for Education, I know there was a split last year. I will just, for example, go back five years. There has been a steady decrease in the allocation, percentage wise, of funding to Education, something like 20 per cent in 1998 down to 18.9 per cent as we speak. Is this a trend? Is it explained by less demands? How would you look at that, Minister? It keeps dropping.

MS FOOTE: I think it is simply explained by the fact that, at one point we had 160,000 students in our school system. Today we have 83,000 students. At one point we had, I guess, over 1,000 school buildings. Today we are down to 326. I think logic would tell you that we don't have as many students, we don't have as many structures, so clearly we should not be incurring the same amount of costs. Having said that, we have not, even though there has been a decrease over a period of years, if you look at what the boards are being allocated - because this is a new system now in terms of what the boards have been allocated since they have come into being - in fact, they have seen a steady increase in the amount of money that has gone to the boards.

MR. HEDDERSON: There is the dilemma. Again, we are hearing that basically all the savings are going back in and everything is staying in the system. What you look at when you see decreases like you are talking about - you know what I mean - that is going out of the system, we are getting less opportunity to reinvest the funds, so again I don't understand. That is a dilemma that I would like to have explained. How can it decrease and yet increase?

MS FOOTE: Well, it can decrease from what it was, I guess, based on the per pupil, but I can tell you that I take grave exception to the fact that you would suggest that we are not putting the savings back into the system; because, I can tell you, whether it is going back in for capital, whether it is going back in for maintenance, or whether it is going back in for whatever, it is going back into the system. You do not put $170 million back into the system for new builds and redevelopment and not consider that as an infusion of money back into the education system. But, if you look at the per pupil grant, the percentage of change, if you look at operating expenditures, we have seen a reduction of 7.2 per cent over a ten-year period and you have seen the operating expenditures per pupil increase by 33.5 per cent. So, there has been an increase in terms of the amount of expenditures per student. In fact, we have gone from 1991-1992, when expenditure per student was $4,818 and today, 2002, we are at $6,434. So, clearly there has been an increase overall in terms of the amount of money that is going into the system. All I can do is give you the facts; they speak for themselves.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Minister, the point that I was getting across is: We are losing our piece of the pie with regard to the Budget. It is steadily decreasing. It has decreased since the 1980s. When you look at what you are spending per student, obviously, as the numbers drop, what you are spending on students, if you keep the same amount steady, is going to go up. My point simply was: I just don't understand how you can cut back by percentage points each year and still maintain the same level of funding.

MR. YOUNG: I can address just a couple of the issues. If you look at our school board operating grants over the past five years, you will not find the school board operating grant component decreasing. I think you are making reference to the bottom line of the vote of the Department of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Exactly.

MR. YOUNG: If you look at the bottom line of the vote, for example, five years ago capital was voted in the Department of Education. It is not voted in the Department of Education today, because today it is voted within the Newfoundland and Labrador Investment Corporation. There is a significant portion of the funding that has been taken away from the Estimates, if you want, and vested in the corporation, so you are bound to see a significant difference because of that.

Over the last five years there have been cost-shared agreements that the department has had that in fact have fallen off the table and were not necessarily generating the federal revenue and the expenditures and so on because of that factor.

Another one that I could just think about is pay periods. We referenced one of the pay periods tonight where, if you look at one particular year in Education on a bottom line, we might have had, in that year, twenty-five pay periods. That would show $14.5 million per pay period less than a year in which we could have twenty-seven pay periods, which could show the Estimates of the department on a bottom line basis up by almost $30 million.

We are going through those kinds of shifts and balances but I suggest to you that if you look at the operating grant of the Department of Education that we apply to school boards, we are pretty much increasing or at least maintaining the same as it was four to five years ago.

MR. HEDDERSON: You are saying that the capital is with the Investment Corporation.

MR. YOUNG: That is correct.

MR. HEDDERSON: That shows up where in the budget?

MR. YOUNG: It does not show in the budget. It is a Crown corporation and it is appropriated from government by way of loan structures and so on for that corporation to enable it to borrow money and so on, and through investment by government in that corporation so that it can engage in capital activities.

MR. HEDDERSON: There is no problem, that is accessible, obviously, the information. Could it be tabled, for example, as to what has happened in the last five years with regard to that investment corporation, how much money has gone in and so on?

MS FOOTE: That would be tabled in an annual report that I will be tabling as the minister responsible.

MR. HEDDERSON: It will be tabled?

MS FOOTE: In an annual report. We have to report to the House, so that would be tabled in an annual report.

MR. HEDDERSON: In this particular year, and again if we look at the bottom line - I like looking at bottom lines - we had $527,340,000 budgeted.

MS FOOTE: Sorry, where are you?

MR. HEDDERSON: Just overall on your entire K-12 budget.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

MR. HEDDERSON: You would talk about $527 million budgeted, $537 million spent, and $10 million more than projected. Now, I assume that $10 million then was what was already indicated? That has already been answered, so that is that $10 million?

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) special warrant, right?

MR. HEDDERSON: You mentioned pay periods and that sort of thing, so that would account then for the somewhat $25 million that is not in the budget this year, less than what it was last year. That is strictly two pay periods, then?

MR. YOUNG: The difference is two pay periods, and there is approximately $14 million to $14.5 million per pay period.

MR. HEDDERSON: Obviously that will show up in the budget next year and we will have an increase, so to speak, in the allocations by about $25 million?

MR. YOUNG: That is right. There will be twenty-five pay periods next year in teachers' salaries.

MR. HEDDERSON: Twenty-five this year coming, but twenty-seven next year.

MR. YOUNG: In 2002-2003 there will be twenty-five pay periods and in 2001-2002 we had twenty-seven pay periods.

MR. HEDDERSON: Next year?

MR. YOUNG: It could very well go back to twenty-six.

MR. HEDDERSON: So that is how it is reflected?

MR. YOUNG: Yes, it has to do with the collective agreement with the NLTA.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) that we had to take as part of (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: That shows up this year, too.

I guess, under Executive and Support Services, the Minister's Office and so forth, this section of the department, $4.7 million was estimated. I am sorry. No, it was estimated at $4.7 million - you were off by approximately $360,000 - and a final total of something like $5.1 million, that would be the bottom line. I am looking at bottom lines here. That $360,000 was certainly taken from somewhere else. It was not included in the $10 million?

MS FOOTE: Where are you again?

MR. HEDDERSON: Just overall, under Executive and Support Services, you estimated $4.7 million, you spent about $5.1 million, and a difference of about $360,000. Where would that have come from?

MR. MANNING: As a point, could you refer to the subhead when you are asking a question? It is easier to follow that way.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, this is the Executive and Support Services under -

MR. MANNING: The number of the subhead, because the minister and staff do not have the book that you are following there. They just have the subhead numbers.

MR. HEDDERSON: I am sorry. It is all under the Executive and Support Services starting with the Minister's Office, 1.1.01. If you want to go to the bottom line on page 173, I am just looking at the bottom line, and basically there was a budget of $4.7 million, you spent $5.1 million, there was a difference of $360,000. Where did that come from, basically?

MS FOOTE: It could have come from anywhere in the department. It could have been slippage in some other areas. Remember, I told you we had a delay in recruitment - no, in printing, for instance, where we did not print as many publications. Some of it could have come from there. It could be any slippage in the department under any heading.

MR. HEDDERSON: Three hundred and sixty thousand, is that an acceptable - it seems like a lot to me to be underestimated?

MS FOOTE: No, just go through and if you go through the Estimates we can break it down for you, but you can see where we have had slippage, even if you look at some of the - let me see - Purchased Services would be an area, for instance.

MR. YOUNG: Just as an example, the minister made reference earlier to a number of things, including our insurance deducible, education awareness, and carpeting and so on. That is all additional things that were put into the budget this year that reflect in the total that you are talking about of the subhead adding up to the $5.1 million. That was recaptured, as the minister has correctly identified, from elements throughout the department where we did not spend necessarily the amount that was budgeted so we reallocated within the department.

MR. HEDDERSON: Under Executive Support in 1.2., Minister, you talked about Thailand and China.

MS FOOTE: China, not Thailand.

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, I thought you mentioned Thailand.

MS FOOTE: No, just China.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay, I am hearing things tonight. China it was, right?

MS FOOTE: You can go to Thailand if you wish.

MR. HEDDERSON: If you want to send me to Thailand - I don't know if I would get support to vote on that here tonight. I just heard a comment on this side. Certainly, a one-way ticket would be unanimous, right?

MS FOOTE: I didn't say that, but thank you whoever (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: No, Minister, I will admit, it didn't come from that side over there.

It is interesting, and I think we talked about this last year, so the agreement is in place or pending, you said?

MS FOOTE: The agreement is actually in place. The way the Chinese work, of course, the Chinese government would be involved and it would be government to government; and, for the Chinese government to agree, we had to provide a licence, but in order to provide a licence we had to have a Memorandum of Understanding which had to be approved by Cabinet. Cabinet agreed that this was a good thing to do and then the licence was done. Nothing has started on it yet, other than the fact that they have to be able to show the Government of China that they have a licence in order to move forward.

MR. HEDDERSON: A concern, of course, again you mentioned recruitment of our Newfoundland teachers to go to China. I don't have to say too much about recruitment within the Province proving to be difficult in some areas. What type of numbers are we talking about here, and what sort of involvement will our government have in providing teachers? Is it an open market? What is going to be the story there, Minister.

MS FOOTE: They would like to see a fair number of teachers from Newfoundland, and I know that a lot of our teachers like to go to other places, but there will be no one who will be forced to go to China. If they cannot get the full complement, they can take other Canadian teachers. We would like for it to be an opportunity for any Newfoundland teachers who would like to go, but they will certainly look at Canadian teachers to make up the complement if they cannot get them from Newfoundland.

MR. HEDDERSON: How many teachers were we talking about, Minister?

MS FOOTE: From Newfoundland?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes. What size would this school be?

MS FOOTE: Well, at this point, there are no definitive numbers but they would be looking at about one-third of the teachers being from Newfoundland or Canada.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay.

With regard to our curriculum, because obviously we have put a lot of time, money and resources into our curriculum, in our development, and literally it is intellectual property. It is alright to be targeted for this particular school but, you know, if it ends up in China, what guarantee do we have? First of all, are we getting good return on that particular service in a sense that, financial wise - and a guarantee that all of a sudden this curriculum will not be popping up at different spots in China? What kind of a guarantee do we have there?

MS FOOTE: The agreement that we have would see them using our curriculum for K-12. Part of the agreement would see regular inspections being done to ensure that they are, in fact, adhering to the curriculum, if it is to be a Canadian school using the Newfoundland curriculum. They will purchase the textbooks from us. What I have said to them is, it is not to be a cost, whatsoever, to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, not even to have the inspections done. That cost will be borne by the school. They will purchase the textbooks because, as you so aptly put it, we have invested a lot of money in developing that curriculum. So that is our contribution in terms of the development of the curriculum. Now they still have to purchase the textbooks from us. Anything to do with the school will be covered off by the school, and they charge a substantial dollar to the parents of the students. So it is not going to be onerous at all on the school, in fact, to carry out this MOU.

MR. HEDDERSON: In this initiative, you are opening the doors of post-secondary for these students. We do know that with our decline in population, I do not think anyone would be averse for any international students turning up on any schools doorsteps in this Province.

Again, we are providing the K-12 curriculum. Are they giving us any sort of a guarantee that if they were to travel abroad to go into post-secondary, that we have first dibs at them? Do we have any hold on them at all? I know it is hard, but is there anything in the agreement that would encourage them to come to Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS FOOTE: Encourage is a good word. Certainly, when you are talking about post-secondary education you cannot dictate to those students where they go. Clearly, a lot of them have gone to the US, have gone to Chicago, have gone to LA, and some of them have gone to Montreal to McGill. But, we will have these students for a period of time to introduce them to Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, Newfoundland history will be one of the courses that will be part of the curriculum. So we are really looking to use this opportunity to introduce them to Newfoundland, and marketing is going to be a really important part of this by the university.

The university now has to find an additional 1,000 students for this coming September. So clearly, this is an opportunity to help them in their recruitment efforts where we will provide the venue for them to go and market the university or market CONA to a body of students who are looking, once they get to Grade 12, to go to a post-secondary institution; but we cannot dictate. It would be unfair to put into any agreement because again, remember this is not costing us anything. In fact, we are very fortunate to have been able to get to this point where we can have the Newfoundland curriculum delivered and at the same time, create an awareness about Newfoundland and Labrador that, hopefully, will result in a natural progression being to attend post-secondary institutions in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. HEDDERSON: Under the next heading, Administrative Support. I was curious when you mentioned about student support for - I believe you referenced math competitions. Under this there was - for travel and you mentioned MUN. Is it specifically geared towards a particular competition, a particular group, or a particular curriculum area?

MS FOOTE: Not really. It is meant to be for those students who want to compete on a national-international basis. There is not a lot of money there. It is meant to be something that they can tap into if they are going off to compete on a national-international level.

MR. HEDDERSON: One of the schools in my district did a Geography Challenge and they will go on up to Ottawa for the national and perhaps on to the international. The Geography Challenge is what it is called. Would that fall under this heading?

MS FOOTE: Sure.

MR. HEDDERSON: Is it possible? Again, who has availed of this, Minister? How many groups have availed of it?

MS FOOTE: This is new money.

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, this is - oh, okay.

MS FOOTE: This is new. As I mentioned to the Member for Placentia, before the department was split - under Youth Services there was money allocated for travel and grants to the Boys and Girls Club, and other groups that availed of it. When the department was split the money went into Youth Services and Post-Secondary. So this is new money.

MR. HEDDERSON: Are we talking about $50,000?

MS FOOTE: Fifty thousand dollars.

MR. HEDDERSON: Right.

MR. PRESS: I just want to say, if anything, just for fun. I got tired of saying to the minister, we really do not have a fund. Once the split was made - and any flexibility that the minister might have had was gone under that grant program. Effectively, we had really good potential events taking place for young people in the Province but had no mechanism within the department, legitimately, to provide some support. This was an attempt to legitimize this process and really find some support; very small. You recognize $50,000 will not go very far when you look at some of those events. But, it is a recognition that we really cannot be saying no to a lot of very good, potentially good, educational endeavours by students.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes.

MADAM CHAIR: Excuse me, if I may? I must inform the hon. member that his time has now expired.

MR. HEDDERSON: So quickly? With so many questions.

MADAM CHAIR: If you have further questions, we will revert to you.

Thank you, Mr. Hedderson.

I would now like to call on the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, if I could go back to 2.1.02., School Board Operations. Under 10., Grants and Subsidies, Student Assistants. There was a Budget amount of $9.6 million last year and Revised to $9.9 million, and down this year from last year's budgeted amount to $9.5 million. I just wonder if we could get some explanation on that, please?

MS FOOTE: Again, that goes back to the number of pay periods.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

MS FOOTE: You will find that throughout, the same with the teachers as with the student assistants.

MR. MANNING: On Student Assistants, we had some discussion in the House yesterday, myself and you. I am just wondering, could you - a teacher, in most cases, is based on student population. I know there are parents out there who believe, rightly or wrongly, that every student who needs assistance should have a student assistant, but I realize that is not the way it is done. I realize that financially, I guess, it cannot be done that way either. I am just wondering, how do you determine that or who determines - in a school we may have a student assistant who assists two students and the next school up the road may assist four. Is it based on the level of a concern - I use the word concern - or the level of whatever particular situation that child finds himself or herself in?

MS FOOTE: Based strictly on need.

MR. MANNING: Based strictly on need. Who determines that need, the local administration of the school or the school board?

MS FOOTE: There is a team, and as we talked about yesterday, there is an ISSP team. These are Individual Support Services Program, and it is part of what we called Pathways. That team would be comprised of someone from the department, someone maybe from Health and Community Services, whatever supports are needed but, certainly, the teacher and the parents of the child - as well as what other supports in the system that the child has access to - with a lot of consultation and discussion on what the need is. They would then determine where that student falls in terms of the types of supports the student would need, whether or not the student would need a student assistant, a categorical teacher, a special education teacher. All of that would come into play through the ISSP process.

MR. MANNING: From a parental point of view, is there an appeal process? For example, if this committee decides that a student needs a student assistant and the parent, for some reason or other, thinks different than that, is there an appeal process? What exactly is that appeal process?

MS FOOTE: This is done in consultation with the parents. So this is ongoing. I mean, there isn't a decision taken without involving the parent, and it is an ongoing thing. If, in fact, a decision taken is one that the parent finds is not fulfilling the needs of the student, then they will go back and review that. It is an ongoing process in the department through our Student Support Services and working with the school, working with the guidance counselor and working with the other departments of government, that maybe called into play here. It is an ongoing process. It is continually being reviewed.

MR. MANNING: You have not run into the problem, I guess, of a parent appealing. What I am hearing from you is that they are part of the process and, hopefully, their input is taken well. I should not say hopefully, it is taken into consideration when a decision is made. Would that be -

MS FOOTE: Yes, and even if the student is an older student that student is involved in the process. I know that we have had calls to the department about particular students. It is just a call to the department and then Brenda Smith, who heads up the Student Support Services, will take the call and then get in touch with the school, work with the principal and work with whomever at the school we need to work with to ensure that the student is getting the services that he or she requires. It is being monitored on a constant basis and that is what is really valuable about the ISSP process. It is not something that is done in isolation, it is an ongoing process.

MR. MANNING: If there is a parent out there who has a question and feels, whatever the case may be, that they are not fully being heard by the ISSP process, they can contact Brenda Smith of your department?

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. All they have to do is give us a call. Give Brenda a call. I have to say, that process, by the way, has received national recognition as a very good process.

Again, I know you talked about student assistants, and we talked about that yesterday. Part of the problem I think we have there is that they are called student assistants and not teacher assistants. You can have a student assistant, depending on the need of the child, who can be responsible for any number of children; but the problem, if you are in a school and a student assistant is assigned and there is only one child who has a particular need, if another child comes into the system the parent automatically thinks that student assistant belongs to his or her child, and that was never the intent. It was meant to be, depending again on the need of the child - could share the service of the student assistant.

MR. MANNING: Is there consideration being given to changing the name? Maybe it cannot be done, I do not know but - I realize what you said - I am dealing with a situation in my own district where - not to put the parent at any lower level than anybody else, it was just that somehow or other they don't feel they are involved in the process. I do not want to give any particulars of that person why, but it is a single mom and things that go with that.

MS FOOTE: Have her call Brenda.

MR. MANNING: She feels that there should be a student assistant for her child. I tried explaining it to her but - it is just that there are other children coming into the program now and the student assistant has to be spread out a bit more. That is what is causing the conflict.

MS FOOTE: If you look at the situation in Nova Scotia, they are called teacher assistants; the same job descriptions, everything. You don't run into the same type of reluctance, I guess, in terms of sharing when it is called teacher assistant verses student assistant.

MR. MANNING: Yes, a name is important I guess.

On 2.1.08., Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation - I think Mr. Young mentioned this earlier. We see a $1.5 million Budget; $5.3 million Revised. That is based on, I guess, construction and renovations or whatever.

MS FOOTE: That is the $4 million of the three year commitment by government of $12 million. This is the final $4 million.

MR. MANNING: There is none of that carried over into this fiscal?

MS FOOTE: That is for this year, yes. That $4 million there, that was the final $4 million. What do you mean, for the 2002/03?

MR. MANNING: Yes, none being carried into this year's Estimates.

MS FOOTE: No, that was the final - that was the third year of -

MR. MANNING: So all that has been expended or -

MS FOOTE: That's right, all been committed.

MR. MANNING: All been committed, I should say, yes. Some of these constructions are still ongoing but it is committed to the construction.

MS FOOTE: Yes, that's right.

MR. MANNING: Under 2.2.01., Curriculum Development, we had a Budget amount of $868,000, Revised is $727,000, give or take $140,000. We are back up again this year to $854,000. You mentioned earlier on, concerning printing and things like that but I am just wondering, from a curriculum development point of view, is there instruction materials - there is a decrease here, I am just wondering -

MS FOOTE: That was delayed recruitment.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

MS FOOTE: That is reflected in the second one as well, Transportation and Communications.

MR. MANNING: From $240,500 down to $140,500; the same thing.

MS FOOTE: That's right because - remember we had the NAPE strike. So there was less travel happening then in terms of -

MR. MANNING: Under Professional Services, under the same heading -

MS FOOTE: Sorry, what was that?

MR. MANNING: Professional Services, under the same heading, 2.2.01.05, there were no funds budgeted but there is a $10,000 expenditure. There was nothing budgeted in the first place, so I am wondering -

MS FOOTE: Is that the meeting?

MR. PRESS: (Inaudible) curriculum and so on in ways that they consist their journal and so on. It is one publication that we anticipated this year (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: There was $10,000 budgeted last year - there wasn't any budgeted last year but spent $10,000, and there is $10,000 budgeted this year. So, the $10,000 last year?

MR. PRESS: The $10,000 last year was for another publication, a curriculum guide. I think it was - I am trying to think now. I think it was probably the intermediate curricular guide. It was one of the curriculum guides. That is fundamental -

MR. MANNING: I am not overly concerned about that. I am just wondering what it is for. It is for printing of some type of thing?

MR. PRESS: Oh yes, printing.

MR. MANNING: The same thing under the next heading, 2.2.02., Language Programs. You had a $7,000 expenditure with no funds budgeted. Would that be for the same - and there is $10,000 this year.

MR. PRESS: These are all curriculum guides.

MR. MANNING: All curriculum guides?

MR. PRESS: Yes.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

MR. PRESS: It depends on how the curriculum rolls out. Some years you might have none, other years you might several guides that just happen to go through because their curriculum rotation comes through on the cycle.

MR. MANNING: Okay. So is there a change in the curriculum?

MR. PRESS: Usually, if there is a new curriculum guide, there is a new curriculum that has been printed and implemented in the school.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Under Program Development, 2.2.03., Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation. I believe others may have questions on those. I just wanted to ask some questions on the figures.

Salaries, we had budgeted $434,000, we revised that down to $170,000. It is a considerable amount of a decrease. Could you explain?

MS FOOTE: Well, this is a new activity, and I made reference to it earlier. What we had anticipated did not materialize in terms of activities throughout the year. That is why you are seeing the difference. You can see it is back up for 2002/03.

MR. MANNING: So, you are hoping to implement this year?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. MANNING: Okay, but still it dropped from $434,000 down to $368,000.

MS FOOTE: That is right, and you will see that if you look down through all of them. You see the drop of $450,000, if you look at Transportation and Communications. It is the same thing. While we had anticipated higher expenditures it was not rolled out to the extent we anticipated that it would be.

MR. MANNING: Under Transportation and Communications, you just mentioned from $450,000 down to $346,000, but then we have a large increase for this year's budget of $840,000. It seems to be a little more than what the increase was in the other section. I am just wondering - it is almost double the amount.

MS FOOTE: I guess it gets back to an earlier question in terms of technology and connectivity. That will be the additional cost to bring additional connectivity to seventy schools, online.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

MS FOOTE: And, of course, where we will largely be phasing out the telemedicine model in going with CDLI.

MR. MANNING: As we follow down to 2.2.04., under Purchased Services again, they have a Budget of $25,600, and a Revised amount of $70,600, which is a $45,000 increase. Now we are back down this year to $23,600. Was there a special service that had to be purchased there?

MS FOOTE: That was increased costs associated with public exams. It was for the printing, as well for criteria and reference testing. So that is where you see the significant jump there.

MR. MANNING: Would that be followed through in this year's school year?

MS FOOTE: Do you want to answer that?

MR. PRESS: No, it would not necessarily be the same funding. Last year we had some extraordinary costs associated with the startup of the public exams; additional printing. Now we will absorb that into our direct cost - I am not sure where they came out of now, but we do not anticipate any significant increase as we have now.

MR. MANNING: What does it cost to run the public exams? A ballpark figure.

MS FOOTE: Overall costs? Well, I guess we have the marking boards.

MR. PRESS: The incremental costs associated with implementing the public exams, if I recall, was in the order of about $250,000. I think it might have been $250,000, $270,000. That included, if I recall, some consultants, an additional consultant or two, the increased cost of travel associated with that, the developmental cost of bringing - exams are not developed by the Department of Education, they are developed by teachers. We bring together teacher committees and so on to develop the exam, to administer them, and to mark them. So the cost, I believe, was in the order of about $270,000. That is right off my head now.

MR. MANNING: Okay, that's fine. Would that be the same cost this year?

MR. PRESS: Oh, yes. Once it is in, it is in.

MR. MANNING: You are talking approximately $250,000 to run the public exams across the Province, give or take some -

MR. PRESS: I believe so, yes.

MR. MANNING: Under what heading - where would that be covered here?

MR. PRESS: The next page, 2.3.02., Student Testing and Evaluation. Although, there are some costs associated with - most of 2.2.04. are some incremental costs that we have carried over, but essentially, it deals with evaluations, scholarships, CRTs and so on.

The following page, 2.3.02., deals with public examinations, markers, sitters, which come under Professional Services.

MS FOOTE: Of the $70,600, in terms of Purchased Services - Student Testing and Evaluation - the printing of public exams cost $63,500 of that number.

MR. MANNING: I will go on to what Mr. Press just touched on, 2.3.02., Student Testing and Evaluation. The $250,000 that you mentioned that time - we will use that as the ballpark figure for public exams - will be covered under Professional Services. The salary amount here under 01. was almost $700,000, which was up around $150,000 on salaries. Why would that be? How come we have a decrease there of $150,000?

MS FOOTE: We had two auditor positions that we did not fill, that we anticipated filling. If you remember, the Williams-Sparkes report recommended putting in place two auditors. Those positions have yet to be filled.

MR. MANNING: So they have not been filled this year either?

MS FOOTE: No.

MR. MANNING: Do you anticipate filling them? Because your budget is up to $651,000.

MS FOOTE: Yes, absolutely.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Under 2.4.01., Student Support Services, I am going to lump two of these together because it will make it easier - 04. and 06. - Supplies and Purchased Services. We had budgeted amounts of $189,000 and $188,000, and on both we had major decreases of $113,000 and $123,000 respectively. I am just wondering. We are back this year up again to $175,000 and $180,000. I am just wondering about the decrease there on Student Support Services.

MS FOOTE: On the Supplies one, I guess we try and project how much we are going to need but these, in fact, are supplies that are purchased based on individual student needs, so you never really know, to purchase things like, for instance, large keyboards and voice output communications devices, special needs. The expenditure was down from what we had anticipated were the costs we would incur.

For Purchased Services, the lesser amount was a result of having a delay in generating a Special Education Policy Manual and other publications, and that resulted in less printing being required.

MR. MANNING: Under Student Support Services, as you mentioned, for special needs children in regard to Student Assistants, does that fall under the same - your ISP, or in regard to looking for or asking for or requesting special computers or special whatever - you mentioned keyboards and things - would that fall under that committee also?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. MANNING: That committee would cover all aspects of the special needs child?

MS FOOTE: That is right, and they would look to this Budget for any particular needs of the child.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

If we could go over to 3.2.01., Provincial Information and Library Resources, they have budgeted $6.4 million. We see an increase to $7.6 million - of $1.2 million- and this year we are back down to $6.855 million. Is there a $1.2 million extra expense?

MS FOOTE: Yes, that was the additional million dollars that was put in for library books, materials, and $200,000 for regionalization.

MR. MANNING: The $200,000, that was on the movement of the library board, was it?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. MANNING: On the cost associated with moving the library services, would all the costs of moving be borne by your department or would that be borne by Works, Services and Transportation also?

MS FOOTE: The cost of relocating the library services was $711,000 in one-time costs.

MR. MANNING: Was that the total cost altogether for moving, or from your department?

MS FOOTE: That is the total cost.

MR. MANNING: Of moving?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MADAM CHAIR: Excuse me; I have to intervene.

The hon. member's time has elapsed. If you have further questions, I will have to come back.

Thank you, Mr. Manning.

I would now like to call the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Just one or two questions of a local interest for me, Minister. The private schools - in our district we have a private Catholic school, the Immaculate Heart of Mary. How do you treat those schools vis-à-vis regular publicly-funded schools?

MS FOOTE: We do not fund them in any way. That is one of about five private schools in the Province.

MR. MERCER: How about school books?

MS FOOTE: No, we don't - they pay. We fund the public school system and every student has an opportunity to go to the public school system which is funded by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We don't provide textbooks to any private school.

MR. MERCER: It just seems to me that if you are a student, whether you go to a publicly-funded or a privately-funded school, you are still a student of the Province. I guess if you had gone to a publicly-funded school we would cover some costs of the school book. Why would we not do the same with respect to the privately-funded school?

MS FOOTE: Because we fund the public education system and there are costs associated with doing that in terms of the cost per student, and that is the policy. We fund, as a government, the public education system. If someone chooses to establish a private school with fewer students per class, parents are paying for that privilege or benefit, whatever you want to call it, then they pay all the costs associated with that.

MR. MERCER: That I understand, and I believe in a privately-funded school they should be responsible for the cost for their building and so on, but I am getting at books. If that student went to a public school, we would pay a certain percentage. I am wondering, just because a student goes down the road to a privately-funded school, why wouldn't we do the same thing?

MS FOOTE: Because we do not fund any component of private education.

MR. MERCER: That is the bottom line: no component of the privately-funded schools do we put any dollars into whatsoever.

MS FOOTE: That is right.

MR. MERCER: Okay.

The proposed reorganization of the school system in Corner Brook, the high school system, particularly with respect to Herdman and Regina, is there anything that you could share with me on that as to where we are right now? I have had a number of discussions with the school board but perhaps there is something in addition to that.

MS FOOTE: I have had no discussion in my department with respect to that. You probably know as much as I do in terms of the interviews that have taken place and the meetings that Dr. Elliott has been holding with all and sundry, from what I can gather. I know that there was some suggestion at one point that the department was advocating a super high school, and we set the record straight that the department does not advocate. Boards have responsibility for reorganization of schools, and it is strictly up to the board how they move forward with this. That has been the extent of our involvement.

MR. MERCER: Thank you.

MS FOOTE: You're welcome.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Mercer.

I now call the Member for Trinity North. Do you have any further questions?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: If I could go back, I said earlier there were two areas I wanted to talk a little bit about. One was board funding and the other was the Centre for Distance Education. Just to wrap up on the board budgeting process, there are, I guess, a couple of questions around the substitute teacher budget. I notice in - I will find it in a second here now if you will bear with me - subhead 2.1.01, Teaching Services, there is an issue here for substitute teachers, or a line here for substitute teachers, under Grants and Subsidies, but also there is - maybe the minister can share with me the current practice. Boards, in addition to this figure here, because there are some parameters around what boards can charge this particular cost under, as I understand it, but there are some situations where the boards incur overruns on substitutes that the board then has to come up with the funding themselves from their own discretionary - not so much discretionary fund, but in the areas where they have some flexibility. I commented earlier, as I understand, there are only a couple of areas where they have some flexibility, so if boards go over in their budgeting or use of substitute days then it has to come from that board fund rather than this substitute teacher fund. Are those circumstances still applicable today, as they used to be at one time?

MS FOOTE: I think the last time - and Bob can speak to this - I know that we cover off 80 per cent of overruns that a board would have, or additional costs that a board would have, in terms of a substitute budget. Bob, I don't know if there is anything else that you want to add?

MR. YOUNG: There are two components to the substitute teacher budget. One is the discretionary component; the other is the non-discretionary component. Under the discretionary component, if the school board overruns the discretionary component we will fund that to 80 per cent of the difference. On the non-discretionary side - sorry, pardon me, I have it reversed. On the non-discretionary side, we are funding 80 per cent. On the discretionary side, where the board does have the use of resources and so on, it is up to them to manage it. If they overrun that budget, they have to pay the overruns themselves; however, if they wind up with, say, a surplus in one side versus the other side, we do allow the boards the opportunity to net that cost so that they can take advantage of a saving on one side, if they have it, and an overrun on another. They can net the cost out, but the boards do have to fund the cost, totally, of any overruns that they do have on the discretionary side.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: In both, though - I don't know which one would be which, not that it really matters, I guess, but such things as in-servicing and sick leave and replacement costs for sick leave would come from that substitute budget?

MR. YOUNG: That is correct.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Those two areas are driven by collective agreements and not necessarily a board having much control. A person's ability to avail of sick leave is a collective agreement issue. The issue around in-servicing, I assume there is certain criteria for in-servicing new courses, new programs, and I gather with the emphasis in recent years on teacher development there is a certain minimal amount of in-servicing and certain amounts of in-servicing going to take place within a board. I guess the question becomes - and I understand that some boards have been hit with this harder than some others, but I guess if there are some areas where boards may not have that much flexibility and control over their substitute days because of collective agreement benefits, they still have, then, to take that out of their own board budgets?

MR. YOUNG: To the extent, on our professional development, we would treat that as a non-discretionary item for PD and so on. We would look at the allocation that has been made to the board and if there is an overrun we will fund 80 per cent of that overrun to the board. Sometimes you see a board may choose to send three teachers. They may only need to send two to a particular professional development thing, if they have to look at their budgetary considerations. As I said, if they do drive it over then they have to fund 20 per cent of the overruns that they have on their non-discretionary side.

MR. PRESS: (Inaudible) non-discretionary side, or they might conceivably have some difficulty, as you suggested, because they have little control. If sick leave goes up, certainly it is a problem for them but we have spent a lot of time over the last twelve months working with the districts to look at innovative ways by which we can deal with the whole issue of sick leave and so on, bringing in Wellness workers, maybe running a pilot in one or two districts and so on to enable them to come to terms with increasing costs due to sick leave.

On the other hand, with enrollments going down and the number of teachers having gone down over the last dozen years or so, in fact the total usage of this area has been going down anyway simply because the numbers have been going down. Certainly it is an area that we have had some interest in trying to work with the school districts to try and reduce the amount of non-discretionary leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: One final area in terms of board budgeting - it is a board operation rather than budgeting, I guess - is the issue around capital; not so much the major capital projects like new school construction or something on which there is a fair bit of dialogue, and that is a separate category. In this year's budget there is $10 million announced for priority construction and renovation jobs, but this other allocation of the $4 million, which is capital projects but the smaller capital projects, the timing in some of that - number one, that is not a large amount of money. I appreciate the challenges you are going to have to carve up that piece of pie.

MS FOOTE: Actually, it has been carved up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: What is that?

MS FOOTE: Actually, it has been carved up. It is all committed.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: It was committed before it came out in the budget, was it?

MS FOOTE: In anticipation of getting the third commitment of the twelve.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I appreciate the challenges you are going to have, especially my comment earlier about off-loading the buildings to someone else because they are in such bad shape, but the timing of that, Minister. I understand boards submit their requests - and I appreciate your situation - the boards submit their requests in the fall and the Budget comes down some time in March, so you don't know what you are dealing with until then, but the issue of: It is allocated now but the boards.... You know, it is probably a good point you have raised for me to ask the question. You said it is committed. Would that mean that the boards that are going to get that money now know, today, that they have it? The projects that you approved that $4 million for, do those boards know today that they have that money?

MS FOOTE: Some of them would.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

MS FOOTE: We are still talking to some of them because they have come in - we ask boards to prioritize.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Sure.

MS FOOTE: Because we go out, especially for that $4 million, you are talking primarily roofs and windows. We are still in discussions with some of them, in terms of just how much they need, but most of the boards would know, I would say - not most of them, but some of them would know - what they are getting. We are still in discussion with some others.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Can I localize that question? Can I ask you if Vista knows what they have yet?

MS FOOTE: Vista? I don't know.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Have they been told?

MS FOOTE: No, they don't know the total amount.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay. They don't know yet, do they?

WITNESS: (Inaudible) envelope.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay. Do you approve the very specific projects, or do you give the board a chunk of money and say: Do the ones you can with this money.

MS FOOTE: We would ask them to tell us what their needs are.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

MS FOOTE: Then we would work with them to see just how many we could respond to, bearing in mind that we have eleven boards.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

MR. PRESS: Also bearing in mind (inaudible) priorities.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Sure.

MR. PRESS: What you might find is that there may be a more serious capital issue in one community that may be one priority for one district, that may be more serious than the number one priority in another district.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: So, with that in mind, there is potential for a school district or several school districts not to get five cents of that $4 million because they do not fit within a provincial priority rating system. In theory, that could happen.

MR. PRESS: Yes.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

Would the minister be able to give us some indication of those boards that do not now know what the envelope might be, what time frame she might put on that in terms of letting the boards know that? Some know, you suggest, but those that do not know, do you have some sense of when that might happen?

MS FOOTE: We are anxious because, obviously, of the time of the year. We are anxious to get moving, so I would say within a month, four or five weeks.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you.

Getting back to the next part of my question dealing with the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation, can we talk about that a little bit? Because that was an initiative you announced last year.

MS FOOTE: You are not interested in that, are you?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I am interested in asking some questions about it.

MS FOOTE: In the CDLI?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I am interested in knowing, in terms of how you are developing that. You mentioned earlier, just as a starting point, that there were currently ten courses at present that are being delivered. The centres that they are being delivered to, do you need high-speed Internet access to be able to deliver those programs?

MS FOOTE: We are now delivering them - I guess it is synchronous.

MR. PRESS: Some of them.

MS FOOTE: Some of them are.

MR. PRESS: If I may just respond to that, some might require high-speed connection, and that would be ideal, but where it is not possible we do it through CD-ROM and so on, so you deliver the service, let the student log on and do it within their same time frame and so on, but make sure it is linked up with an E-teacher at Distance so they can communicate on a reasonably regular basis.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: But it won't be an interactive process.

MR. PRESS: No, typically, Internet-based or not, there is not that sense of immediacy that we would have gotten in the old system.

MS FOOTE: I guess that is an issue for us, and we are having discussions with the federal government in terms of accessing some money to move forward with respect to connectivity as well.

MR. GALWAY: There are actually plans to have a synchronous component to even the E-learning aspect of it. There is a committee being struck of assistant directors, working with the director of the centre. While most of the E-learning will be in the asynchronous mode, the feeling is that there needs to be a portion of it, maybe one period in a cycle, where there is that synchronous connection with the E-teachers. To clarify, I guess, most of it will be asynchronous and there will be a portion that will still be real time.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: In that real time, that synchronous mode, will high-speed Internet be required to be able to do that?

MR. GALWAY: Most of the courses have been developed so they can be delivered with telephone lines. The goal is to increase the interactivity of the course content as the high-speed access becomes available to the world communities, but as it stands right now we are using a combination of CD-ROM, high-speed and low-speed delivery. Also, I might add, for the coming year we will still be delivering three courses using the traditional telemedicine program.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The reason I ask that, obviously, is that there is an obvious concern that, the more rural Newfoundland, the more difficult it is to make a business case for high-speed Internet access, and those are the schools that are going to become victims of declining enrolments more rapidly than the larger centres and they are going to be more challenged, so there is the question. That is why I pose the question.

MS FOOTE: We have ongoing discussions with NewTel in terms of high-speed access, and a committee was struck, in fact, to work. That was before the department was split, but since the split we have also been working from the perspective of the needs of Youth and Post-Secondary service as well for high-speed throughout the Province when you talk about the College of the North Atlantic.

Those are ongoing discussions, recognizing that the best of all worlds would be to have high-speed access but it is very, very costly. NewTel will tell you that some of the discussions I had with them was whether or not they could, in fact, bring high-speed just into the school in a community, so those are ongoing discussions that we are having with them. We are also, of course, addressing this at the table of Ministers of Education, and the whole issue around connectivity, and trying to bring the federal government on side and looking at funding that system throughout the country.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The structure of the centre in terms of the teaching units that are assigned to work with the centre, these teaching units, as I understand it, some of these teachers are spread around different communities in the Province. They are not all at a central point, so those units, are they attached to the school district in which they are living, and do they form a part of the teacher allocation to that district, or do they somehow become a part of a provincial pool and do not factor into the boards allocation for teaching units?

MS FOOTE: They are assigned to the districts.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: They are assigned to the districts?

MS FOOTE: In fact, we have pilot courses happening now in every district.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: So, every single district has a pilot project -

MS FOOTE: E-teacher.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Oh, yes, ten courses. There is an E-teacher in each of the districts and that teacher becomes a part of that district's allocation?

MS FOOTE: Yes, that is right.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

MS FOOTE: For instance, if you look in Labrador, we are offering Math 2204 and we are offering it at four schools; on the Northern Peninsula-Labrador South, we are offering Enterprise Education 3205 at four schools; at Corner Brook-Deer Lake-St. Barbe, we are offering Math 1204 in five schools; in the Cormack Trail, we are offering Communications Technology 2100 and 3104 in four schools; in Baie Verte Centre, we are offering Chemistry 2202 in two schools; in Lewisporte-Gander, we are offering Writing 2203 in eight schools; in Burin, we are offering Physics 2204 in four schools; in Vista, we are offering Canadian History 1201 in five schools; in Avalon West, we are offering Math 2205 in four schools; and, in Avalon East, French 2200 in four schools.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Minister, when this was announced last year, you talked about it in terms of a phased approach to development. Where are we at now? Is this phase one, phase two, a continuation of phase one or phase two, or are we moved into phase three or four?

MS FOOTE: A continuation of phase one.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: A continuation of phase one.

MS FOOTE: I think what we have found is that, in trying to deliver this, working with the resources we have available to us and what the Province has put into this, because we are still hoping that the federal government will, in fact, see this as something that they should look favorably upon and we have made some representation to ACOA and to Industry Canada, as I mentioned earlier, the other Atlantic Provinces have recognized this centre and the fact that we are developing courses that they are going to purchase from us. We will be offering courses, as well, to other parts of the country through the centre but at this stage what we are finding is that while we have a director in place and we are able to - in fact, the centre is operating from every district. It is not one central location, as we had envisioned at the onset. I think as time goes on and it starts to gel and some more money is forthcoming then we are going to have to look at a central location from which to operate, but we haven't gotten there yet.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: In this area, looking at the grants and subsidies, who would these grants be to? Is this to the schools that are developing, or the school districts that are developing, these courses? Who gets the grants?

MS FOOTE: I don't know. Bob, do you want to speak to that one?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That would be 2.2.03.10. There was $2 million in grants paid out last. Who would you pay grants out to for this project?

MR. YOUNG: That is the telemedicine program, and our return of $50,000

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is for using that system?

MR. YOUNG: Yes.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

Professional Services, $630,000, is that the development of the courses or is that - course development, is it?

MR. YOUNG: Professional services.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Okay.

MR. PRESS: The reason it is up next year is because we are beginning development of seven new courses.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you.

One other thing that I want to talk about with respect to boards deals with the teacher allocation. There are a couple of things, I suppose. When you look at trying to - and I appreciate the challenge when you have a declining enrollment, and I appreciate the base lines established in the Williams' report, and I have heard the comments that there are still a couple of hundred left in there that could have come out. I read an article where your colleague was being interviewed, the Minster of Justice and Attorney General, and he made a comment in a West Coast newspaper that the other 200 potentially could come out next year.

In terms of schools, I am trying to wrap my head around - and I will just use my district as an example. There are three schools in Trinity North that are part of the Vista district system that are all-grade schools and they are experiencing rapid declines in enrolment, and they do not have large numbers. One of them, for example, next year will have 155 students in it, which is a small all-grade school, but the school will always exist there. There are a number of courses that are being offered through - I think a couple of students are involved in the CDI program and there is a lot of multi-grading taking place. But, in that same school, if you look at the IISPs that have been done in the last year in particular, there has been a significant increase in the number of students who have been identified as requiring special services. Some of them are at the high school level because they have been missed in the system at some point. For those kinds of considerations, where, at some point, do you start to factor that kind of thing in, in a district allocation in terms of the numbers of special or challenging circumstances that might exist in a particular school?

MS FOOTE: We are well aware, I guess, in terms of the need out there when it comes to special needs because if you consider that of our total student population ,12,500 of those are special needs students who (inaudible).

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Is that what the figure is, 12,500?

MS FOOTE: Twelve thousand, five hundred of our total student population are receiving some sort of special support and it is costing us in excess of $70 million annually. What you have to bear in mind there, when you talk about that cost, of course, is that brings into play categorical teachers and special education teachers, so all of that is factored in, too, when we talk about teacher allocations, because, of course, of our student support division. We are well aware of the needs out there in terms of special needs and the costs associated with that, and the number of categorical teachers and special education teachers that will be required.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Does that mean that this 12,500 figure, that is the number of students in the system this school year we are in right now, that have been identified through this process of having special needs? Can you give us some sense, because that is a large number as a percentage -

MS FOOTE: A high number, yes.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just to talk about that for a minute, because I can see where that can present a number of (inaudible) and challenges, the budget being probably the smallest of them, but it is a major consideration. Have you trended the increase in numbers that have occurred, and is there a correlation? I will use this Little Heart's Ease school - I did not use the name before, but it is Little Heart's Ease - that has 155. The number they have in that school just blew me away in terms of the number, but what surprised me was the number of people at the high school levels who have only been identified this year and last year, because either the evaluation mechanism was not in place or they got missed in some way.

Now that we are better able to identify and we are better able to profile so we have improved our ability to be able to identify those students, can you give us some sense of what your rates of increase have been? Are we on a fairly sharp curve moving up, or where are we with that?

MS FOOTE: Well, if you were to look at 1991-19, 10.3 per cent of our students received special education services.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Ten per cent? Okay.

MS FOOTE: In 1996-1997, 11.8 per cent; and, in 2001-2002, 14.8 per cent. So, 14.8 per cent of our student population was receiving some sort of support.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Now, do you have some sense of where they break down along grade lines?

MS FOOTE: Grade lines?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Yes.

MS FOOTE: All I can tell you from what I have here is that we have seen an increase in the number of students who are receiving criteria E, criteria F and criteria G, but I do not see anything here that gives me an age breakdown. This is just to give you some - 150 students received support in 1988-1989 when the allocations were introduced. In the current school year, approximately 225 students are receiving support under these particular allocations: criteria E, criteria F and criteria G. In the current school year, there are approximately 1,000 students receiving low-ratio teacher support, like severe cognitive, physical, emotional, behavioural problems. Then, if you look at special needs in Student Support Services, we have a number of non-categorical special education teaching units in 2000-2001; 650. We have approximately 320 low-ratio teaching units allocated in the current school year, and that is criteria C, D, E, F and G, resulting in about a thousand special education teachers in our system.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is a big chunk.

MS FOOTE: In addition to that, we see an increase in guidance counsellors. We have 28.5 itinerant teachers, and that is to serve the children who are visually impaired, who are deaf or hard of hearing. We have forty-three speech and language pathologists, and we have forty educational psychologists.

MADAM CHAIR: Excuse me; I must intervene. The member's time has expired. Actually, I have let you go five minutes over to pursue your line of questioning.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you for your leniency, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. Thank you, and I apologize. I wasn't watching the time myself. Obviously, my time is up but I would like to come back to a couple of questions just on that very specific issue and that will be all my questions.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.

Does the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne (inaudible)?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, not a question, I guess, but a few comments.

Certainly, the part of providing education today is far more challenging and a greater demand than ever before, but certainly since our Administration, since 1996 - on Friday, a tender closes for a K-12 school in Postville. That will be the fourth new school that will have been built in my riding since 1996.

The part of what you say of putting money back into the system, there is probably no greater example than in my riding where the demand for teachers are great. Minister, nowhere in this riding is there a more demand, or where teachers have to make a bigger commitment and a bigger sacrifice - if I can use that word - than those who go to teach on the North Coast of Labrador. Minister, had you not put initiatives in there to attract teachers to the north coast, a part of putting money back into the system, than certainly we would be in a big need for teachers on the north coast. The demand up there I guess will always be there. The fact that in my riding alone, geographically, is bigger than the entire Island. A prime example was this past week when the septic tank gave out in Davis Inlet, the cost out in any school in any outport in Newfoundland could have been fixed very easily, but because of the location and isolation, it cost probably five or six times more. But, again, the Department of Education came through with funds to try and provide the children there with an education.

Minister, I also want to recognize, too, Gary Hatcher, who does a lot of the agreement work between the federal-provincial agreement. He has worked very closely with the school board up there and with the town councils. The people up there certainly appreciate his time and efforts for the job that he has done.

Again, Minister, I think it is only fair that we also take the time to recognize the tremendous amount of emphasis that has put on to provide every child in every community, regardless of where they live, the right to a good education. I believe that you and your staff have certainly done that for the people of Torngat Mountains.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Andersen.

I now call on the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just to pick up where we left off. I believe I left off under heading 1.2.03., Assistance To Educational Agencies And Advisory Committees.

MS FOOTE: Sorry, what heading?

MR. HEDDERSON: 1.2.03.

Consistent funding; so I assume it is a consistent number of groups and whatever. Who is funded under this particular section, Minister, please?

MS FOOTE: Grants and Subsidies?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes.

MS FOOTE: We have the Council of Ministers of Education, that is $34,000. Canadian Education Association is $25,800; Federation of School Councils, $30,000; Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association, $59,600. That is to cover off the cost of an industrial relations officer with the school board. Atlantic Provinces Educational Foundation, of which we are a member, $143,900; Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institute, $34,800.

MR. HEDDERSON: Obviously, they are standard. That funding, I guess, has stayed in place for the last number of years, Minister. There is no change this year whatsoever.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) services more money to turn on the air conditioning nighttime.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, I think they -

MS FOOTE: You can always clue up your questions and get out of here.

MR. HEDDERSON: What is that? So, you turned up the heat, minister, right?

MS FOOTE: I did this on purpose.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, this is not your department so let her go, right?

MR. MANNING: Trying to sweat us out.

MR. HEDDERSON: What is that?

WITNESS: These chairs are some sweaty.

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, Gerald had to douse Gary there a minute ago. So it was really heating up on that side of her.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: What?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I thought that was a look of satisfaction Gary had.

Corporate Planning and Research, I just want to look at - the statistics book comes out every year, you mentioned, right?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: That was under Purchased Services. Under Purchased Services you indicated that the stats book we use and everything, that comes out, but there is a jump this year of $20,000. What other ones would be involved there now? Is it new initiatives or something?

MR. PRESS: That is actually a decrease. That is an 8 per cent decrease from what was budgeted last year.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay, yes.

MR. PRESS: What it meant was, simply, we just did not get the publications. We had the strike. We had a number of things. Our directory from the schools, which typically comes out, we have not seen it yet. We have not been able to publish it yet, and a number of things that we did not cover. The (inaudible) Revised. I do not think it is on the Estimates side. That is consistent with last year, except (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. So, these are the ones that come out: the stats, the directory and those sort of things. Everything is back on stream this year then, we hope.

MR PRESS: We hope.

MR. HEDDERSON: We hope. Okay.

MS FOOTE: Yes, it is.

MR. HEDDERSON: What is that?

MS FOOTE: Yes, it is. What do you mean, we hope?

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, sometimes I live in hope, minister.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) last year the minister will say: no, it wasn't.

MR. HEDDERSON: I am just going through the different heads here, bear with me.

Teaching Services, if you would. The fluctuations under the Salaries of the Teaching Services -

MS FOOTE: Extra pay period.

MR. HEDDERSON: That is, basically, the different pay periods and so on. Less, I would assume, something like $10 million or $11 million for the 208 that are taken out. So that is taken care of, right?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: All of those for the School for the Deaf, et cetera, that is just, again, reflective of the pay periods, not a loss of units or anything like that?

MS FOOTE: That is right.

MR. HEDDERSON: I was sparked from comments, I guess, from my colleague speaking about the formula. It has been a sore point with me with regard to, I guess, adequately taking care of the needs of individual schools throughout the Province. One of the biggest complaints I have received with regard to the allocation - and I guess that was pointed out to me immediately when the allocation formula came in - is whereas prior to that, small schools were suffering with regard to teacher allocation, but with this new allocation formula coming in it is the larger schools now that are bearing the brunt of, I guess, this particular allocation. Many of the larger schools, had we gone under the old formula, would not be losing as many teachers as they do currently. From their perspective there is a shift now to smaller schools at the expense of larger schools.

MS FOOTE: Do you want me to -

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, if you would respond, Minister.

MS FOOTE: All I can tell you is that the formula is very clear in terms of allocations. For instance, if you talk about large schools, schools with an average grade enrollment of 100 or above, you have to look at the various grade levels. Kindergarten, for instance, the ratio of students to teachers is 20:1; Grades 1-3, a ratio of 24:1; Grades 4-6, the ratio is 26:1; and Grades 7-12, the ratio is 27:1. So it is spelled out. It is not something that is done arbitrarily. It is here. It is in the formula. They are very explicit about the ratio of students to teachers in the formula. If we are going to apply the formula that is what the result would be, but we did not even apply the formula. You would have gotten those numbers, I guess, if we had taken out 426 teachers, but we did not do that. Even with the formula that is here, you are getting a better ratio of students to teachers because we have left more teachers in the system than is being recommended by the formula.

MR. HEDDERSON: My point being, Minister, is that when the allocation formula was changed and the allocation formula was adopted, the one that we have now, what I am saying to you is that it cost the larger schools more teaching positions than if they had to follow the previous allocation formula. What I am saying is that it is leaning more towards the smaller schools and the larger schools are the ones that have suffered as a result of this new allocation formula.

MS FOOTE: We certainly look at the formula in terms of allocating the teachers but even then, as I have said, we did not apply the formula. We do not tell the boards how many units to put into a specific school. We allocate in a block, and the board will then decide how many units go into individual schools. Don't forget that the student population this year - if we were to even allocate based on this year's student population, when we have 7,000 fewer students. We are, in fact, allocating for next year, when we are going to have an additional 3,000 fewer students. If you look at what we have done, there is no way anyone could suggest that we have not been responsible in terms of responding to ensure that we are able to deliver a quality system; working with leaving more teachers in the system, even though we are going to have 3,000 fewer students come September. Again, we don't say to a board: you put this many students in this particular school. We just allocate a block and they decide how they are going to allocate to the individual schools.

MR. HEDDERSON: On allocations; again, there is going to come a time when the formula is not going to work. That the needs of our schools, with our declining populations - even with your distance education, we know that you are not going to be able to address the needs of every school in this Province according to that allocation formula. Is this is a bridge or a step towards a needs allocation somewhere down the line? Is that in the works, or are we holding firm to these allocations on a yearly basis?

MS FOOTE: This report is only two years old. This was done after a lot of public consultation. As a government, we have accepted the recommendation with respect to teacher allocations. We have not acted on the recommendation. We erred on the side of leaving more teachers in the system. This is something we will watch; watch very closely. We have not applied the formula at this point in time and there is nothing to say that we will apply it next year. Again, it depends on where we are in terms of the number of students in the system, the number of teachers that are required to deliver the program that needs to be delivered, bearing in mind as well that we will have more courses online through CDLI. We will take all of that into account. These courses are being delivered by E-teachers. So students are not left on their own when these teachers are being offered. It is something that we will be watching, as we ought to, and whether or not the formula is applied next year will depend on a number of things.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just take, for example, the 208 teachers which have been removed this year, or will be removed for next year. I wonder, because first of all, when you look at 208 I do not know where the figure came from. Was there - and you say that the board allocates the teachers. You give it to them as a block. What sort of checks and balances did you put on yourself to come up with that 208? Was it financial? Was it an impact study on the programs that are out there? Was it feedback from the school board, a combination of everything? How did you come to the 208?

MS FOOTE: We certainly could have done the 426, but again we looked at what that would mean in terms of the number of teachers coming out of each of the boards. We met with individual Directors of Education to discuss with them what impact it would have on them if, in fact, we removed that number. Clearly we were not interested in removing that number, but again we had to be realistic. When you are talking 7,000 plus 3,000 coming September, 10,000 students coming out of the system since we took any teachers out of the system, we felt we could, in consultation with the Directors of Education - not saying they all agree, because no one is going to agree that they can do without a unit, although we did have some directors who were very honest and admitted that they could do without some units. I think if you talked to all Directors of Education last year when we left all the units in, they would all tell you that they were able to do things above and beyond being able to deliver a quality curriculum; for instance, like being able to offer an advanced placement course for seven students. Now, those types of things are nice to do but, as Brian Shortall said today in his article in The Telegram, you won't see any program cuts but you may see a class of eighteen go to a class of twenty. So, those are the kinds of discussions that we would have had with Directors of Education in order to come to the number that we did.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just a final on the allocation, it seems like every year, you know what I mean, for as many years as I can remember, the same story comes down: We can take out so many. We are only going to take out so many. Everyone waits in anticipation for the March budget.

You have clearly articulated that you know the patterns of decline, and have known them. Why is it we are still looking under just one year? Most programs, when students come into high school, we are talking about bringing a group of students through for three years. With regard to teacher allocations, why can it not be done on a longer frame of reference with regard to time?

MS FOOTE: I guess I am glad that we do not do it on a longer frame of time because I would hate to think we would have taken out 426 teachers last year based on the formula. I am pleased that we had the flexibility and the opportunity to have a discussion about how many we could, in fact, leave in the system, the same as this year. We could have applied the formula: 218 last year and it would have been 426 this year. I would hate to think that we would have moved on taking out 218 last year and 208 this year by applying the formula. I like having the flexibility to work with the formula so that we are able to work with our Directors of Education to determine how many we can reasonably take out and not impact on the program that is to be delivered.

MR. HEDDERSON: If you can look at one year, I would say that you can look at two years or three years. It is not a matter of taking them out; it is making the decision as to what the teacher allocations are going to be over a two-year period or a three-year period to get away from this annual - I don't know what you would call it in March - March madness, I call it, forcing directors and whatever to scramble between March and May to take care of the needs of September.

Also, I have to tie in the aspect of recruitment and retention here, the nervousness in the teacher population with regard to how many teachers are going to be in the next year or two years or three years. Again, that would be where I was coming from, not the aspect of taking out or whatever but looking long term.

MS FOOTE: If you have a crystal ball and you can tell me what the budget is going to be three years out, maybe we would all be able to make decisions like that; but I think you have to bear in mind that a lot of things are factored into a government's budget, particularly health care and education and all of the other demands. We do not know from one year to the next what kind of things are going to crop up that we are going to have to deal with, bearing in mind that at one point in time boards did not know what they were getting in terms of allocations until the latter part of May and June, mid-June, and they still did not know. We have made considerable headway there in terms of working with the directors and ensuring that they know as soon as we know, when the budget comes down, exactly the number of teachers they are going to get.

MR. HEDDERSON: Staying on the teachers, again my colleague mentioned substitute teachers. Obviously there are grave concerns now about the substitute pool in light of the fact that there is an encouragement for retired teachers to pick up some slack and that sort of thing. What sort of initiatives have you put in place to look at the substitute pool, see who we have gotten with regard to qualifications, and match it up with our need for not only this coming year but certainly years to come?

MS FOOTE: Well, I guess the - do you want to speak to that?

MR. PRESS: Well, there a number of initiatives we have put in place to look at the whole issue of supply and demand, and recognize that it is an imperfect world in trying to balance between where your supply is coming from and where your demands are, whether that is substitutes or whether that is real teaching positions.

Even in a time - I can remember, and you can remember this, I am sure - fifteen or twenty years ago we were in big surplus positions. There was always difficulty recruiting in Coastal Labrador. There was always difficulty getting math teachers. There was a huge difficulty getting science teachers and so on. This is always a dilemma in trying to match that balance.

The minister put in place a team, a committee, that was chaired by Dr. Bruce Sheppard and included Directors of Education, assistant directors of personnel, the NLTA, the university Faculty of Education, as well as the department and so on, and engaged them to come up with creative solutions toward the whole issue of teacher supply and demand. On the committee, I should say, from the Faculty of Education, was Dr. David Dibbon who produced a report during that same period. They have come up with about seven or eight different recommendations of what to do, and every single one of them the minister has implemented.

There was a recruitment fair that came out last year, on May 17. It was the first of its kind. What we saw at the Faculty of Education was, school boards from all over Canada and parts of the United States, the UK and everything else, at Memorial campus recruiting students, and there was one school board showed up to recruit prospective teachers. We said: Listen, this really does not make any sense. We have to get every single one of the school boards, before the students complete their degree program, and try to recruit them. This recruitment fair was put in place last year. It is going again this year, on May 16. If you want to drop over, it is just fabulous. There is a huge take-up. In fact, while they actually did not recruit teachers, even the Labrador board was successful in getting names of people who eventually did get hired on.

MS FOOTE: You might get a job, Tom.

MR. HEDDERSON: I think I will hold on to this one for awhile, Minister. I am sure I would get a recommendation from you.

MS FOOTE: Don't count on it.

MR. HEDDERSON: How do you spell your last name, Minister?

MR. PRESS: Many of these came from the Labrador board as well, who was representative on this committee. They recommended establishment of the $5,000 bonus and recognized that there are issues of increased housing costs, increased fuel costs, increased food costs, increased travel costs and so on, and they put in place a $5,000 bonus. That is to every teacher who works in Coastal Labrador. They amended the Teacher Certification regulations so that somebody with a university degree in other than education would get, instead of emergency supply, which is $10 an hour, they would be classified as Certificate III, which enables them to make $25,000 a year. That is in a case where you might get a husband and wife that the Labrador board might want to recruit in, and one might have a teaching degree and is going teaching and the other spouse may have a university degree in commerce or something else, but the best they could make was $10 an hour, $10,000 a year. Now, they will make $25,000 at a Certificate Level III, and couple that with the $5,000 bonus, if they are in Coastal Labrador, coupled with the Labrador allowance and so on, they will do alright.

We also enabled retired teachers to - if there was a position which could not be filled by a non-retired teacher - to enable them to go and work in areas where there was a vacancy. That is to ensure that they would not replace somebody who was not retired, but there were a lot of retired teachers going to Nunavut and other places throughout Canada and so on. This was an opportunity where they can go to their own Province, if they still want to work, as long as they are not taking a job away from somebody else who is non-retired. That is key to it.

We looked at additional professional development. We are looking at, in summer, potentially summer institutes for upgrading teachers and so on to enable other substitutes to come on staff earlier and so on. Also, just to finish, I just want to recognize that this a national problem. This is probably an international problem. This is not sort of unique to Newfoundland. Supply and demand is an issue right across in every province. It is on the CMEC agenda for discussion regularly. The problem probably is different in Alberta than it is in Newfoundland because they solve their problem by coming to Newfoundland. We cannot solve our problem by going to Alberta, typically. Nevertheless, it is a problem and it is a problem in the United States and across North America.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Press.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just for the record, if I could, I would be remiss if I didn't say -

MADAM CHAIR: Excuse me; can I have order, please?

It is now 10:00 p.m. - actually, it is 10:01 p.m. - and we have discussed the Estimates of the Department of Education for the past three hours. It is my sense that the Committee has a number of questions, Minister, that they wish to direct to you and your officials, so it is probably in our best interest that we conclude our business for this evening and that we convene again at another time.

Thank you very much for your indulgence this evening.

I will ask for a motion to adjourn, please?

On motion, the Committee adjourned.