Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Harvey Hodder, MHA for Waterford Valley, replaces Ross Wiseman, MHA for Trinity North.

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

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Jones): Order, please!

I welcome you all to the Social Services Committee. This morning we will deal with the Estimates of the Department of Education. There are a couple of things before we start. First of all, can I have someone move the passing of the minutes of the last Committee meeting?

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MADAM CHAIR: I also want to bring to the attention of the Committee that I have received a request from the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and I will read the letter to the Committee. It says: As a member of the Social Services Standing Committee of the House of Assembly, and in accordance with subclause 69.1 of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, which states: "No witness shall be summoned to attend before any committee of the House, unless a certificate shall first have been filed with the Chairperson of such committee, by some Member thereof, stating that the evidence to be obtained from such witness is, in the opinion of such Member, material and important.", I hereby certify that Mr. Mark Hundert, Director of the Hay Health Care Consulting Group; Dr. Lydia Hatcher, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association; Ms Debbie Forward, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union; and Mr. John Peddle, Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association, have information and evidence which is material and important to the work of the Social Services Standing Committee of the House of Assembly in considering the 2002-2003 Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services. I therefore hereby request, pursuant to subclause 69.1 of the Standing Orders, that the Committee Chair take whatever measures are necessary to summon Dr. Hundert, Dr. Hatcher, Ms Forward and Mr. Peddle to attend before the Committee to give evidence on Wednesday, 08 May 2002. Yours truly, Fabian Manning.

This was received by myself, as Chair, on Thursday evening at about 5:15, I think it was. This is the first time our Committee has met since the request has been put forward. I have discussed it with the Clerk of the House, Mr. Noel. His recollection and interpretation of the Standing Orders of the Committee is that: One, there has not been a precedent for it in the past, and I guess the Standing Orders of the Committee do not address the bringing forward of -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: It does, does it? It was not entirely clear, I think, was what I understood yesterday. Certainly those things can be pursued with the Clerk of the House in more detail. I wanted to bring it to Committee this morning so that we could have a discussion on it, on the request that has been put forward.

I will now open the floor for discussion.

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

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

MR. MERCER: Madam Chair, do we wish to do that discussion here? The officials from the Department of Education who are here, I am sure, are not terribly interested in a debate which is going to go on about the calling of some witnesses for another government department. It is just a point.

MADAM CHAIR: I guess, because it is the first meeting of the Committee since the request came forward, I felt it was appropriate to put the request to the Committee this morning to have it dealt with.

MR. MERCER: I would suggest that perhaps it might be more appropriate if we were to have the Estimates Committee dealing with the Department of Education, after we have finished with them, if we, in fact, finish with them today or tomorrow or the day after, then we deal with the issue raised by my colleague to my right.

MADAM CHAIR: Is it the consensus of the Committee that the issue be dealt with after the Estimates of the Department of Education?

MR. H. HODDER: Speaking to the point of order, there isn't any doubt of several things. One is that the letter from Mr. Manning indicates that we had intended, or our representative had intended, that the evidence would be given on Wednesday, May 8, 2002. This happens to be Wednesday, May 8, 2002. Therefore, any further failure by the Committee to deal with the issue then has, by its very nature, a factor which says that, if we wanted to move on this matter, we would have to deal with it expeditiously. Of course, there have been a number of days - and there are time sequences that are in play on this particular matter.

On the issue of the calling of the witnesses, and while we on this side admit that it is the Committee itself that has to make a decision on this matter, as ultimately will be the case, whether or not this Committee will decide, and as the Speaker has said and as the rules do provide, both in Beauchesne and other parliamentary rule books, that the Committee is self-governing in the sense that it is governed by a majority vote, and we recognize that; however, the fact that there are no precedents is, in our opinion, insufficient reason for us not to deal with it. Parliamentary procedures are living documents. They vary from time to time. If you were doing a history of parliamentary proceedings, you would find that from time to time new rules come out. That is why we have the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That is why members of this House and members of all Houses, from time to time, go to seminars, and I have attended many of them, both in this Province and other parts of the country. The whole idea is that we can deal with the new ways in which we can assure accountability; in which we can assure that our rules are comparable to what is happening in other jurisdictions.

Therefore, if our rules are silent on it, and, as the Speaker has said, there are no precedents for this particular matter, there is precedence, however, that we would then follow up on the proceedings as they are followed in the House of Commons.

It has not been uncommon since I have been here for the Speaker to refer to the precedents in the House of Commons, for the Speaker to refer to the precedents that are in the House of Parliament in London, and references have been made to all of these in terms of guidance to the Speaker making decisions. So the fact that we have not done this before is, in itself, a very weak reason for us not to consider it now.

The only question that I think you have before you now is, out of courtesy to the officials, whether we would go and deal with this matter now, tell the officials to come back at some hour specific and deal with it, or we would deal with the matter before adjournment occurs for this Committee but before or after the officials from the Department of Education have left for today's Committee hearings.

The fact that we would postpone it beyond today is totally inappropriate and, in terms of procedures, I think, would be very unkind and inappropriate in terms of what the member who has written the letter would expect from the Committee.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hodder.

There has already been a suggestion made by another Committee member that we deal with the Estimates of the Department of Education first and then we discuss the letter that has been brought forward to the Committee after that particular time. It is my hope that we would do both before we conclude our business this morning, so it would be dealt with today. I guess if, for some reason, time does not permit that we will have to discuss that before we finish our Committee hearings today.

If that is the wish, as has been suggested by the Committee, then we can continue on with the Estimates of the Department of Education.

MR. H. HODDER: Before we would get to that, may I ask, Madam Chair, if there is some kind of commitment that we can deal with it today? It is important that we deal with these matters before adjournment occurs today, and I don't have any idea as to how long these Committee meetings will go on this morning. I am filling in for my colleague from Trinity North, who is unavoidably absent today. Although I do have full participatory rights in today's session, I am not familiar with how far you have proceeded. Before we could say on this side that we would agree to not having these decisions made now, we would want to know some idea as to - if, for example, we were to not conclude our hearings this morning at the Committee level until 12:30, is Madam Chair saying that we would then reconvene at 5:30 p.m or reconvene at some other time so we can have this matter dealt with before today's parliamentary day concludes?

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

MR. MERCER: To the point of order, the members on my side here have no questions further to ask of the Department of Education. We concluded our questions in the last session, in which we did three hours of Estimates. I guess, to answer the member's question of how long it is going to take, the answer is in their hands. It can take an hour, it can take two, it can take three, whatever you wish.

MADAM CHAIR: At this particular time, I cannot commit that the Committee can resume hearings at 5:30 this evening. That will have to be a decision of the Committee. What I can say is that we have three hours this morning of questions that we can use on the Department of Education Estimates. We have already spent three hours on the Estimates of that particular department. When we finish that department this morning, if time permits, we will carry forward to deal with this particular issue. If not, we will discuss it at that particular time.

MR. H. HODDER: I do believe, because of the necessity, in dealing with this matter on today's date. If not, then I do believe there is a matter that becomes a bigger issue, and that is, that we are dealing with a legitimate request from the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's to call further witnesses and then the Committee will be dealing with it after the date has passed. In view of that, I do believe that it would be most appropriate if we were to deal with it now. I do believe that if we could assign not more than probably -

MADAM CHAIR: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The Committee Chair does not want to give a time to it, but I do believe the matter could be dealt with in a reasonable time. I think, without a firm, alternate, choice of time, which would be late in the afternoon, if we do not get to that, then I think the only choice you have is to deal with it now.

MR. MERCER: To the point of order, Madam Chair.

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

MR. MERCER: I think there is a commitment on the part of the Chair that we will deal with it today - today being whatever the date of the calendar is - and we will deal with that either this morning before the Committee rises at 12:00, or 1:30 p.m., as we did last week for other Estimates, or we meet this evening. It is certainly not an issue for us on this side. We are simply saying, out of courtesy to the minister and her staff, who I am sure have things to do within the department, it is not, perhaps, appropriate that we, as parliamentarians, sit here and discuss a procedural issue while affairs of the Department of Education go neglected.

It is a very simple request, that we afford the courtesy to the Department of Education to discuss their Estimates in an expeditious way and then thereafter, immediately as we can, get onto the issue of the procedural question made by the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Madam Chair, as you noted, I delivered the request to you last Thursday. We are into the middle of another week now. I certainly have no problem with the fact that the minister and her staff are here but, I mean, we could have had a meeting of ourselves prior to this meeting. My concern is that we could be hitting 12:30 p.m. here and we all know that we have to be in the House by 2:00 p.m. - and to try to deal with the issue in a three or four minute time span. The request went in last Thursday. The first opportunity to discuss the request is here this morning, and I believe that we have to discuss the request before we go any further for the simple reason that we have to know where we stand with it. We do not want to be in a situation where we are trying to deal with it in five minutes. If that means the minister and her officials have to be here, we regret that, but the fact is we could have dealt with this earlier. If the minister and her officials want to take a recess and we will deal with it, it is up to you people but it is -

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Manning, can you give us an idea of how much time you feel that you will need to deal with this issue? Would thirty minutes be sufficient time?

MR. MANNING: I do not want to put a time limit on it, Madam Chair, but certainly, we can try to deal with it in that time but -

MADAM CHAIR: Well, we obviously have two different suggestions on the table. First of all I want to point out, with regard to the date of the letter, Mr. Manning. You have a schedule of all the meetings of the Social Services Committee. When the letter was presented to me you also knew that the next meeting of the committee would be May 8. There was no meeting scheduled prior to that particular date. Unless there was a special meeting called to deal, primarily, with this request, it would not have been dealt with until this meeting this morning.

MR. MANNING: No. Well, that would be your choice, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: I guess, two issues: One, shall we deal with this letter now, or shall we deal with the Estimates of the Department of Education? The minister is here. Her officials are here. We have spent three hours on these Estimates already. I think it was indicated at the conclusion of our last meeting that at least another hour would be required by your members of the committee. We certainly agreed to come back and give you that time to ask the questions that you have to ask. It is my hope that once we conclude these Estimates, we can deal with this letter. So, if there are no other objections to that, we will move forward with the Estimates.

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: None, since.

I would like to start this morning by asking the committee members to introduce themselves and also to ask the minister and her officials to introduce themselves. I will start with the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, the MHA for Port de Grave District.

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

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

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

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

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

MS FOOTE: Judy Foote, Minister of Education.

MR. PRESS: Harold Press, Deputy Minister.

MR. YOUNG: Bob Young, Assistant Deputy Minister.

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

MS COLES: Linda Coles, Executive Director for Literacy.

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

MADAM CHAIR: My name is Yvonne Jones, I am the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

I guess we will just pick up where we left off the last time. I will just ask the Clerk, we don't need to call these heads again, do we?

CLERK: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, 1.1.01. Is it the consensus of the committee that all discussions will take place under that particular head?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Normally, we have been limiting all committee members to twenty minutes at a time. It does not mean that you cannot have more time. I just want to ask the committee members to note the time so that when your twenty minutes has expired we can move to another member who may have questions.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: The members on this side have asked all the questions that they need to ask. The members to my right may ask questions without interruption until they are finished.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to go back to some questions that my colleague from Harbour Main-Whitbourne was asking in the House the other day relative to Math 3205. I noted, when the questions were being asked, that the minister responded to the effect that it follows from the strike of last year and that some students in various parts of the Province lost considerable time. Of course, that also means that some students in various parts of the Province did not lose considerable time.

I wanted to ask the minister: Why would we take a provincial policy relative to a public examination in 3205 when probably only half of the Province's students were affected by the strike, or the fact that schools were not open during considerable days in September and into October? Certainly, that wasn't the case in the St. John's schools. That did not occur. I fail to see the logic in taking a provincial policy to deal with an issue that was regionalized and was, in most cases, various boards specific and, in some cases, very school specific.

The minister, in her answer, said that because students had lost time - one of the factors she used - they were going to cancel the public exams because students did not have sufficient time to have the instruction completed. I am wondering if we can get into all the arguments of why the strike occurred and the fact that there wasn't intervention. The Premier said he was not going to intervene and all this kind of thing. I am wondering why we would have taken a province-wide policy of cancelling public examinations when, perhaps, not more than one-half of the maximum number of students affected would have been less than one-half of the total number of students enrolled in 3205? A great majority of students enrolled in 3205 occur in the St. John's region where we can offer the advanced math course. The two pieces of information do not add up. I wonder if the minister could respond to that?

MS FOOTE: Madam Chair, it would be my pleasure to respond to that but I can tell you we will be here until midnight if all the answers are going to have that kind of preamble to the question.

MR. H. HODDER: There will be further questions.

MS FOOTE: Let me say that, clearly, the member opposite from Waterford Valley obviously did not understand the answer to my critic, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

At that time - when I answered that question, as I did subsequent in the media - I explained that there were a number of factors contributing to what we are seeing as poor performance in Advanced Mathematics 3205. I spoke to, yes, the strike, that did in fact have some impact, but I have also said that in consultation with all of the lead mathematics teachers in the Province, where this program is being offered in the twenty-seven schools in all of our districts, in consultation with those, in consultation with the program specialists for all of the boards - not just where the strike happened but all of the boards - in consultation with the NLTA, special interest council on mathematics who is responsible for math in all of the Province, that was why we came to the conclusion that we may have to look at cancelling Advanced Math 3205. Whether or not it was the strike, whether or not it was poor performance for some other reason, all of these factors combined.

The fact of the matter is that in several of our boards we did have a strike, and because of the strike textbooks did not get out to those schools until October. So commonsense will tell you they did not have the time necessary to spend on the curriculum. Again, we are being told by teachers who are involved in this curriculum that they do need more time and that we probably need to look at the content. We are doing that. We are consulting with everybody impacted here to make sure we make the decisions that are in the best interest of the students who we are here to serve.

MR. H. HODDER: I apologize to the minister if she is perplexed by my preambles, however -

MS FOOTE: Perplexed? You put it mildly.

MR. H. HODDER: However, that will not deter me whatsoever. I have been around this place for nine years and I will choose exactly how long my preambles are.

MS FOOTE: We know, only too well.

MR. H. HODDER: I was told by the Chair that I had twenty minutes. I assume in that twenty minutes I can ask a question, and that might be the case. I am quite able to carry on for longer lengths of time, from time to time, but we will decide over here how long that is.

However, I want to get back to this point again because it comes down to the fundamental evaluation process. This course was in-service in Level I. The math council of Newfoundland and Labrador were involved in drawing up the curriculum. The university was involved. It was in-service and then after being in-service was (inaudible) Level I, Level II, and is now in Level III. Certainly, there must have been signals which occurred at the implementation stages of Level I and Level II that would have indicated there were difficulties that were incumbent with the course, either in in-service for teachers or materials available. I am wondering why it took until the eleventh hour for the minister to suddenly cancel the evaluation because students did not have a chance? There were signals. Why did the department ignore those signals from Level I implementation, Level II implementation, and wait until we had the 3205 evaluation process in place and then say: No, no, we are not ready to have these students being evaluated on a province-wide evaluation scale?

MS FOOTE: Madam Chair, the Member for Waterford Valley has said that the public exams have been cancelled. That is not the case at this point. I would like to set the record straight on that. I will make that decision when the time is right to do so, based on the consultations that are taking place. But, for the record, Advanced Math 3205 has not been cancelled, the public exam.

Having said that, all I can do is reiterate for the member opposite the consultation that is taking place. We are working with our teachers. As with any new curriculum there are bound to be difficulties that will occur. These are pointed out by our teachers. We work very closely with them. Even Advanced Math 3205 was piloted in seven schools before it went to twenty-seven schools. There were some problems identified at that time and modifications were made to the curriculum.

It is not unusual, Madam Chair, to find that when you are piloting new curriculum, there will be issues that will have to be addressed. Our responsibility is to make sure that in doing that, we respond positively to concerns that students have. That is what we are looking at now, whether or not we are going to offer the public exam in Advanced Math 3205.

MR. H. HODDER: Could the minister inform me as to - you mentioned that there were twenty-seven schools doing the mathematics program as of, I guess the current date, May. As a former high school teacher, we know that students drop courses throughout the year for various reasons. At the third-year level sometimes, unfortunately, people even leave school. But, since this is an advanced math course, we have to assume that very few students would drop out of this course just to leave school. These students intend to stay in school. Is there any data available to tell me how many students were registered for 3205 in Level II last year, how many continued to Level III this year, and how many dropped out from the enrolment in September to, let's say, the end of April? What has been the participation rate over three years since these people would have chosen a math program, really, which would have started in Level I and then go to Level II? What is the database? Has there been a significant decline? There will always be some decline, I recognize that, but is there any data on that?

MS FOOTE: I do not have with me. Obviously, we were looking at going through the Estimates and dealing with issues that are in the Estimates, not on policy issues with respect to data that might be necessary, that you might ask for. We can get that for you.

MR. H. HODDER: My colleague, the Member for Harbour Main, has his stats books here with him and he does indicate that there has been some decline in enrolment over the three years. I am not saying that is a wrong thing. I am saying that is a natural thing. It occurs in most cases. However, one of the pieces of information that I -

MS FOOTE: My deputy would just like to -

MR. PRESS: Can I just clarify that? That would speak to enrolment which would take natural declines in a year-over-year basis because of demographic issues, but that would not speak to dropouts from courses. We have taken a note that we will try and get that information for you, how many have actually dropped out of one course and failed to go into the advanced on the following year.

MR. H. HODDER: Our initial data that I saw last fall indicated there were around 750 or 780 students enrolled in September, and in the House the other day the minister indicated there were 500 students -

MS FOOTE: Five hundred and some-odd.

MR. H. HODDER: - so there must have been either a school or several schools drop the course altogether. But if we are losing, let's say, 250 to 280 students from September until now, my point would be, that would be a significant signal to the ministry or to the school boards, whatever. My purpose in getting the data is to, I guess, find out if the students themselves have been making choices that indicate that this course either was going to be inappropriate for them, or too challenging, or whether they were unsatisfied with the teaching methodologies or whatever. The fact is, the minister's comment in the House was that 500 students were now enrolled and our data from September indicates there were 780 students enrolled. That should have been a signal to the math councils, a signal to the ministry, that something was wrong long before the beginning of May.

MS FOOTE: We will get the data for you, that you asked for. I am certainly told that there is in excess of 500 but nowhere near the 700 and some-odd, or the 800 that the member alluded to in Question Period the other day, because I asked that question and we were told it is in excess of 500; in fact, about 540 some-odd., I think, is the number actually.

I guess we can look to any number of reasons why, if there is a reduction in the numbers taking the program. I think, if you talk to some teachers, the whole question around mathematics and mathematics performance by our students is one that we really have to look at seriously. Some teachers will tell you that it is a question of students really applying themselves as well when it comes to mathematics, and whether or not they are finding a program, if it is a little bit challenging, dropping it rather than continuing on in it.

I think the bigger issue for us as a department is to look at what is happening in the Province with respect to the performance of our students in math, and finding a way to deal with it, which is a serious problem from my perspective and from what I am seeing on national testing that is being done.

Even though, if you look at the SAIP results, we have done very well in terms of the other Atlantic Provinces, we really need to be looking at the national scores and seeing what it is that our students are not able to do that other students can do. I am told, for instance, if you look at Quebec, if you look at the results there, and they do very well in math, their objectives and their outcomes are not as great as you would find in this Province.

Those things we have to look at, and whether or not, in fact - I don't know if you could say we are expecting too much, but certainly in terms of our students' performance, if you look at what we expect versus what Quebec expects, we are probably asking our students to do more. I think that is a good thing. The problem is, how do we get them there, to achieve at the level at which they need to achieve?

MR. H. HODDER: My concern, Madam Minister, is that we cancel, or we would consider cancelling, a program that has being duly in-serviced. I am not sufficiently close to the situation now to say how much in-servicing has been done. I have not been the critic for that department for several years, but as a person who has a great interest in the teaching of mathematics, and the fact that I fund a scholarship at the local school, which is a perpetual scholarship and it is in mathematics, I have a long-time interest in this particular subject and in the teaching of it.

I am concerned that we not send a message to our teachers, to our school boards, to our parents and to our students, that when a course has been duly in-serviced - the bugs should have been straightened out of it at that time - that at the eleventh hour, if we do not finish the curriculum, we simply walk away from it and then change the evaluation process. I am afraid that particular scenario will not do the teaching of mathematics any good in this Province, and I come from that not from any other point than as a former teacher who knows that standards are so essential to maintain, and walking away from the evaluation process may be the most counter-productive thing that we could do in education and in teaching mathematics in this Province today.

MS FOOTE: Madam Chair, to that point, clearly there is a difference of opinion here between the member's views and the views of some of the lead mathematical teachers in the Province, so there is not much I can do about that. That is his opinion. We have consulted with the lead mathematics teachers who are out there today in the system teaching, who are telling me that this is the best way to go for the reasons that they are giving me. Having said that, we reintroduced public exams because we wanted to have standardized testing, and the member makes a valid point there, but we are just talking one course here. We are talking the Advanced Math 3205, and that is the only course that we are talking that we will not be proceeding with a public exam in.

All I can say to him is that, while I appreciate his views, I am consulting with those who are out there today teaching this subject and who feel that to go forward with a public exam at this particular time in Advanced Math 3205 is not the best way to go. Of course, we all know that, while it would show us how well the students are doing with a public exam, there will be a common test. It will be administered by teachers, if we go down that path, and they will use their professional judgement in terms of marking that exam, which happened before when public exams were dropped.

Having said that, we know, too, the fact that there isn't a public exam being administered in Advanced Math 3205 does not affect the knowledge that the students have gained. So, even though the public exam will, I guess, be marked by a group of markers, the common test that will be administered, if we go that route, will be the same test but marked by teachers who have covered the material and use their professional judgement in marking.

MR. H. HODDER: What steps has the minister taken to assure that the percentage of the curriculum that was expected to be covered is somewhat consistent across the Province? For example, has the minister indicated - and there is still a good month and maybe several weeks of school left yet; there are still seven weeks of school available to students - has there been any indication that some schools are 60 per cent of the way through the curriculum and some others are 90 per cent, or will be 90 per cent by the end of the year, and some schools may even have 100 per cent of the curriculum covered? Is the issue the fact that the curriculum has not been covered and there is great inconsistency from one school or one part of the Province or, in some cases, even - I don't think there would be any differences between classes within one school because most schools would not have more than one course of 3205. There might be rare exceptions like that where there is a large population. Is the problem that some schools have covered very small or, you know, expect to be only 60 per cent through or 75 per cent of the way through the curriculum and others will have it finished? Is that the problem in terms of doing a Province-wide evaluation?

MR. PRESS: If I might answer, there have been significant steps taken throughout the year. Certainly, there was significant in-service done and certainly there were issues raised by some, but there is also significant support for the course. Any discussion around this particular issue is not around changing the course, removing the course, going back to the old curriculum. It is about: Given the nature and the things that happened this particular year, are we ready to go forward with a full public exam?

We have taken unusual steps in this particular course because, on several occasions, we brought every single teacher together at a central location and have gone through it and seen where they are. This is particularly flagged because, in this particular course, there is a significant paradigm shift in teaching and learning. It is more problem-based and so on.

There is some attrition in terms of an earlier question you raised. There is typically attrition from advanced back to academic. You cannot go the other way. People do not go from academic math into advanced; but typically, even in years when you were teaching and so on, often, for many reasons, students cannot cope with the advanced problem-solving and so on with the mathematic course and there is some attrition in that response. Recognizing that, there were a number of issues raised among teachers and so on that attempted to respond. During the time, it was felt that there was a need to not go forward with the public exam.

Certainly in the last few weeks and so on we found that there were significant differences, not only between schools in terms of where they were but also even within schools. In cases where, for example, a school in New World Island may have been open throughout the strike but not all children got to school; they may have been a significant distance away. The teacher, as you well know, has to deal with, for example, students who might be within the same class on the different levels within the class and so on. So, a number have advised that it may be advisable not to go ahead with a public exam. A common exam would be issued. They would mark it themselves and use a common marking grid and so on in terms of that marking.

We have taken a number of steps to really ensure that the full breath of the coverage, to the extent possible, was covered throughout the curriculum, and certainly the core areas within the advanced math curriculum is covered significantly for all the children involved.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much.

On the issue of schools being closed, we have a significant history in this Province of having sizable gaps in our instructional time. You go back to the polio epidemic back in 1956 when we lost almost all the autumn. We had a strike in 1983 when we lost significant time there, three or four weeks in May month. In 1994 there was a strike as well, with teachers, and we lost a lot of time then. So, the fact that there were school closures, particularly when they occur at the beginning of the school year, should have, in my opinion, meant that we would have taken precautionary measures and that we would have had a contingency plan in place specifically for this particular course.

I am sure, as the deputy has said, there were some steps taken, but obviously in prior times when we have had new school time loss we have never ever used school time loss as a reason for cancelling or changing, or considering cancelling or changing, a public exam process. I have heard the minister on that, and I don't want to go back to that; I just want to make that point.

I also wanted to say now about the university: I do believe, in teaching mathematics, we have made some strides in getting some kind of a sensible, common approach. The school mathematics programs have become more respectable in terms of the university being more willing to accept them. We will never, ever, quite get to the point where the university will be totally happy. I have served on the Board of Regents for Memorial University; I know the comments that get made. I have been a practitioner for thirty years and I regret sometimes that the university does not see the positive things that happen, and that concerns me; however, on this particular course, if we are going to have a change in the evaluation processes, what steps are we taking to make sure that the university is going to be able to accommodate these students in a manner that is fair? Fair for two reasons. One is because - as a former administrator, it frustrates me that we are encouraging people to excel in mathematics; however, when we do that we put them into the advanced math courses. The university, on the other hand, doesn't always look at that. I have always said, if you can have a student who is getting a seventy on advanced math, that is as good as or better than a 90 per cent on academic math, but it has always frustrated me that the university doesn't quite make that distinction. Suddenly, we have a student who has been, I think, disadvantaged because the student is trying to excel. I am wondering, in this particular case, because of this 3205, what steps the minister and the officials have taken to make sure that the students who have done this course, who, even if they had chosen to do the academic math, would have probably been admitted to MUN, now may run the risk of not getting the average of 70 per cent for admission. What steps has the department taken to make sure that these students are being treated fairly?

MS FOOTE: Madam Chair, first of all, I have to address your comment about strikes not being uncommon and students losing time.

We have taken steps to make sure that students are prepared for their publics in all of the subject areas. The fact of the matter is that this is a pilot. It is a new course that is being implemented. We have a responsibility to be fair to the students, and we are doing that. All I can say to the member opposite is that the decision I make will be based on consultation, and I have always thought that was the right thing to do. I can sit in the department and talk to the officials and say: no matter what we hear, we are going to move forward with the public exam; but in this case I am consulting with those who are out there delivering the curriculum. Unless you are telling me I shouldn't do that, in terms of talking with the teachers who are delivering the course and taking their advice, that would be contrary to everything I have heard in terms of the importance of consulting with those who are involved in the process.

Having said that, and I take his point in terms of the Department of Math at the university and how to get an appreciation there, I guess, for what is happening in the K-12 system, but we are working closely with the university. Contrary to some of the commentary you have read in the newspaper recently with the counts on higher education - which involves the university, the department, Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, and the College of the North Atlantic - we are working very closely with them looking at the failure rate in math and wondering why the poor performance; and looking at this particular course and working as a group trying to make sure that there is an appreciation for what our students have accomplished, or why they are not able to accomplish in some cases. But, having said that, they know where we are. They have been involved in this process. They know exactly what we are doing.

I am hoping that since they are members of the Council on Higher Education and working with us in looking at math in this Province, there is a recognition that what is happening today with the Advanced Math 3205 is not unusual in the sense that it is a new curriculum. There are still some modifications required, but the children will be tested. They just will not be tested in the way of a public exam. As I said before, the fact that they are not tested in a public exam does not determine the degree of knowledge they have or does not mean that they know less. They will still be tested. In the Department of Math at the university, whether or not we offer the public exam or common exam, they will still offer what they call the mathematics placement inventory. So, when the students come in they will do their own evaluation. They were going to do that anyway, whether or not we have the public exam or whether it is a common exam. When I look at the Department of Math at the university and recognize what have they done in the last thirty years with the math curriculum they are teaching over there, that maybe we need to have more discussion in terms of bringing them up to scratch, I think, in recognizing that there is a problem here and we need to address it, but we are trying to do that through the Council on Higher Education.

For your information as well - I think you would interested in knowing this, given your background - we put in place an advisory group on mathematics performance in the schools. It is chaired by Randell Mercer who is the Education Director for District 6. It is to look at the mathematics performance of our students in the Province. We are hoping at the end of that period, when he has a chance to do a sound evaluation, that we will have some good direction and some good data of where the problems are; and we are looking at a number of things like the new curriculum. We are being told it is a good curriculum. It is a curriculum that has been written according to national standards. I do not know if you know Rita Janes but Rita speaks very positively and highly of the curriculum, and we have a lot of respect for her views.

There are some people in the Department of Education at Memorial who do not believe in this particular national standards body and I'm going: Well, what can I do about that? There is not much I can do about that. That is their view and their opinion, but there are others over there who do. It is like everything else, you have a couple over there who are saying this is the worst thing since sliced bread. Then you have others who are saying this is really good. You have to try and come down the middle somehow and say: Look, at the end of the day we have to do what is in the best interests of our students; and we are trying to do that.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much.

I just have one last question. I ask it from the perspective of having served for many years as a chief reader in the public exam system. While the courses I have read for many years were economics, it is related to mathematics. We always had a way in which students were evaluated, and again, they were the marks that were assigned by the schools. I know Mr. Hatcher is totally familiar with the evaluation process that we used some years ago, and I have not been a practitioner in this area for the last number of years. But, there was a way in which we were able to scale these things to be able to let a student's learning and knowledge be compared to other students who had taken the same course. It was not unusual, if there was a particularly difficult exam, and sometimes that happens, particularly in the sciences and some of the math related courses, whereby the student could be evaluated and marks were adjusted on a standardized system. What I am referring to, of course, is sometimes teachers simplistically - and educators refer to it as the Bell Curve approach. It was a way in which we were able to let students know, on a province-wide scale, where they stood in relation to other students. I am wondering if that has been considered?

Also, I can say as well as a chief reader, there were often very substantial variations between the evaluations that came in from schools where teachers were marking their own courses, between that and the province-wide evaluation. I have seen cases where students have gotten, for example, 80 per cent on a school based examination but putting them on a provincial scale they would be, shall we say, at 30 per cent. In some cases students said: Well, I only need to make that many marks to be able to get over the mark I want, which is 50 per cent. But, when we had whole schools which were skewed completely opposite at the school based evaluation, then when they were put on a provincial scale these students did very, very poorly.

One of the arguments I have always put forward for public examinations is that it lets the student, lets the parent, and lets the school know exactly how they measure up in comparison with other students and other schools on the province-wide system. In your considerations - again, the minister says she has not made her decision. There are ways in which we can make sure that an evaluation for 3205 can still go ahead. There are ways in which we can make sure that students are evaluated in meaningful ways to be able to accommodate, I guess, the student's difficulties in terms of the curriculum being incomplete or the course not finished, but they can also know where they stand. I think that is important, for students to know where they stand. We are talking about standards. I am a strong advocate of high standards. I am sure you have gotten that impression from my conversation.

MR. HATCHER: Just to speak to that point, Mr. Hodder. I think what you are referring to is what was called a D-factor.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. HATCHER: It was not really a scaling method. It was a calculation that addressed two possible outcomes.

The final examination mark in public exams is made up of 50 per cent from the mark submitted by the school as a result of testing throughout the year, and 50 per cent from the actual examination mark. The D-factor was a calculation which was intended to avoid the possibility of students being penalized or adversely given an advantage. For example, it compared the student's school mark to the average school mark given. If a teacher were to mark really, really high and a group of students in one school came in with really high marks on their school share and the rest of the Province was much lower, it equalized so that all students had a fair opportunity. So their mark would not be inflated or deflated unfairly to them. The same thing with the examination mark. It would ensure some form of equalization, if you will. Probably that is a poor word, but standardization of the exam mark. So rather than scaling, it was comparing students in a school to the average performance of students in the Province.

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

My point would be that there are methodologies and there are processes available that can be employed to preserve the integrity of the public examination system, to preserve the standardizing that we wish to achieve.

My suggestion to the ministry, in spite of what others might say, there is very much, I guess, a principle involved here. This is a situation of where we do not want to send the wrong message, and yet, at the same time, we want to be fair to students. Using some kind of a standard deviation, the D-factor - which I think at the time was a plus or minus five - was the scale that was used. That was very successful.

I say to the department officials and to the minister, that there are alternatives available to preserve the integrity of the process and at the same time, being very fair to students. I think the bottom line is we have to be fair to students; but, being fair is not necessarily walking away from public exams.

MS FOOTE: While I appreciate the member's view, and I totally support his view with respect to standards, in the consultation that we are doing we are hearing from the teachers, lead mathematics teachers, NLTA's Mathematics Special Interest Council, we are hearing from the President of the Federation of School Councils, and they are all coming with the same recommendation. So, with all due respect, in terms of the consultation that we are doing, I have to believe that these people, too, believe in standards.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just to continue on. I think I left off the last day on school board operations, but with this steam going on, I just have a few questions regarding the public exams.

Minister, word is on the street, in most of the schools now, that the public exam is indeed cancelled. I know the school that I am most familiar with, Ascension Collegiate, the students have not been told officially, but basically, they feel that it is cancelled. Most of the media reports talk about not possible, but probable. What is the timeline on this, Minister? Is it tomorrow, the next day? When will the decision be made?

MS FOOTE: It is in a couple of days.

MR. HEDDERSON: You were expecting me to have the same preamble as this gentleman (inaudible). I will see if I can help you out.

Minister, again, just for some clarification on it because most of the students who are involved here are Level II students, some of whom have doubled up on courses and probably began this course in January. Just a breakdown, just quickly. Is there anyone in Level III doing this course who may have been part of the pilot or anything? Is there anyone in Level III doing the course?

MR. PRESS: I do not know the answer, but presumably, yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: I was not aware. Again, I cannot find the numbers. I am just trying to get my head around the decision that is coming. If indeed the majority of them are in Level II, obviously we have a year. I would be more inclined to support the cancellation of a public exam knowing that there is another year in the secondary system. You do not know the -

MR. PRESS: Well, this is a Level III course so presumably most of these people are in their final year. The majority of them would be in their final year but we did not get a breakdown in anticipation of the Estimates Committee. We did not get a breakdown of the numbers of students who would be in various mathematics courses.

MR. HEDDERSON: Many of the high schools in the old advanced program doubled up on the courses. My daughter right now is doing 3201 and (inaudible) to do that, that school did.

MS FOOTE: How is she finding it?

MR. HEDDERSON: She is finding it tremendously great. She was very pleased the other day that she was not involved with the other one, that she can do her public exam. She has worked very hard on it.

There is a mixed reaction out there, minister, with regard to it and that is why I asked, because the students are - on the one hand they kind of danced in the corridors first, that we do not have to do a public exam but then on the other hand - and I speak just for Ascension, I do not know the rest, and that is why I was just asking some questions. In talking with the teachers and some of the students, they have worked extremely hard on it. The teachers are somewhat disappointed because they felt that they had their students where they should be going in the public exams. The flip side of that too is that it sacrificed some other subject areas for the math. I know it is a hard decision, and I am not privy. This is why I am just fishing today, more or less, to try and get my head around the decision.

With regard to the public exam, I know that it is a difficult decision but I kind of wish that it would go forward. Even if it is only a benchmark, we are still protecting the children with regard to their marks. That is why I was looking at Level II. If they were mostly all in Level II and they go ahead and do the public exam, well they will have an opportunity next year to do a supplementary or to get further intervention and that sort of thing. Just a caution to the minister, that there are obviously a lot of factors which need to be looked at here.

Just to get back to 3201, the other advanced system, it has worked in the past. As a matter of fact, when the two of them came in, I pushed to have my daughter do the old system. Now, it was kind of selfish on my part because I knew the old system inside out. I knew that there would be no adjustments made and that it steadied to the course, so to speak. She is prepared now. She is in Grade 11, so she is going into the opportunity next year to do some advanced placement, either in math or some of the other areas, and this why I am saying about the - it is crucial that I find out, I guess, how many are in the Level II who are doing the 3205, because again that it going to be crucial in your decision.

WITNESS: Probably half and half.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes. I don't think there is anybody in Level III doing it, to be honest with you - maybe at Ascension - so I don't know if that is par for the course across (inaudible).

MS FOOTE: At Ascension, you don't know if there is anyone in Level III doing 3205?

MR. HEDDERSON: I don't think there is anyone in that school doing 3205, who is in Level III. Perhaps the only ones doing it were maybe some who were involved in the pilot program or something. Again, I do not know.

Also, just to look at the math curriculum in general, I know in Nova Scotia, for example - I will just use Nova Scotia - there is an indication, starting in 1997 right up until this present day, that Nova Scotia has phased in the new curriculum from, really, Kindergarten to Grade 12. Minister, are we a mirror image of that? I know that we started in Grade 7 last year and there are still some gaps. Like, the Grade 7 students going through now will take it up in Grade 8 and Grade 9 so there are some gaps. How do we measure - not measure up; that is not the word I wanted to use - how do we stack up with regard to our implementation schedule? Are we a mirror image in the sense of - is there a 3205 in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I.? You know what I am leading to; it is just as well to ask you. Have they been ahead of us? Are they right on track with it? Are they behind us? Have they experienced -

MR. PRESS: I wouldn't say we are an exact duplicate in terms of mirror image because we all proceed at different levels and so on and there is a significant cost involved that, in this Province, we absorb, that Nova Scotia does not, because Nova Scotia implements curriculum but does not provide resources. We actually provide the resources at a significant cost of the materials for the course which runs anywhere from about $350,000 for, let's say, Grade 6 mathematics, to double that in some high school courses and so on, but we have phased in ours as well. We are not doing it in K-12 in the span of a year or so. It has been phased in over about a three- to five-year period. For example, in primary now we have a new curriculum in K-2, and in Grade 3 it is being implemented in September of 2002, this coming September. In elementary, it is being implemented in 2003-2004, so over the next two years following this current budget year. In the intermediate school we have new curriculum in Grade 7, which was introduced this year, and then it will be Grade 8 and Grade 9 in the subsequent years. We are taking it sort of as blocks and gradually phasing in, and obviously we are phasing in, in the high school courses.

One of the big differences has been in the area of who is taking the lead role in professional development. While the minster noted that there have been a few people at the university in the math department who feel that perhaps we should stick with the old curriculum, in fact, in Nova Scotia - you raised Nova Scotia - in fact Dalhousie University, probably one of the more prestigious universities in Atlantic Canada, is actually taking the responsibility for in-servicing the new math program throughout the Province, and another university as well. So, from what we have been told through my colleagues and so on, in the rest of Atlantic Canada, this has been phased in at roughly the same speed that we have, not on a sort of course-by-course, or the same year in the same course, or the same grade level, but roughly the same speed and so on, but it has been certainly embraced throughout the region probably a bit more than it has been here, and it has been here probably because, to some degree, once you leave the Avalon area there are a lot of teachers who are teaching a course who do not necessarily have a strong mathematics background. That occurs everywhere, but it is certainly probably a bigger challenge for us in our Province because we have such a young teaching force in some respects. Nevertheless, it does provide challenges for us; and the other issue: it is a paradigm shift. We are sort of moving more toward problem-solving and how you use mathematics and information as much as how you actually do the calculations and so on.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. PRESS: Yes, the answer.

MR. HEDDERSON: Harold, with the, I guess, secondary curriculum from Levels I to III - let's just stick with the math, then - are they ahead of us on that? I have been told that they have had problems with the math and that they have pulled some things and done some adjustments. When I say they, I am referring to Nova Scotia in particular. I was told last year that in some cases they were pulling back on the math and doing adjustments and so on and so forth. Now, with regard to the high school, the 3205, let's just look at the 3205, are there provincial examinations in Nova Scotia covering 3205? And, how do they compare with ours?

MR. PRESS: Well, no, there are no common examinations. The only common examinations that we have had have been in the area of chemistry. If you have heard that from Nova Scotia, I have not. I have not heard it.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. I hear a lot of things, I suppose, that I have to substantiate. I am sorry I am taking the time here, but my colleague started it. It wasn't a train of thought that I had today, but we are on it so it is just as well for me to....

MR. PRESS: There is no doubt, when you are implementing any new curriculum, that you need to sort of have it as evidence-based. You have to learn from it. What does it tell you about the curriculum and how you implement it, and what learnings take place and so on? I have not heard there are any significant problems, and I had a meeting probably six weeks ago with the deputies and ADMs in the other provinces and none of this came out. In fact, in many cases they were talking about how smooth it has gone in relation to some of the issues that have been raised locally.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) Dalhousie and how they have worked (inaudible)..

MR. PRESS: Yes.

One of the issues related to the public exam decision, when it is made - we have had, in our history, and you are quite right in that there have been gaps in past years when we have had significant periods of time when no schooling has taken place during the year, and have had to deal with it.

In this particular case where you had the impact of the strike, that was coupled with a brand new curriculum, so this is the first time the course has been offered. On top of that, that particular course has quite a paradigm shift in how you teach and the very content involved in it and so on.

All of those things together sort of have exacerbated, I suppose, some of the issues around this. The issue has not being discussed with the teachers, including, I presume, teachers from both of your areas. They have communicated to us quite directly that they would rather the public exam not go ahead this year as opposed to - and they have not said: Do we cancel the course, or do we make a significant shift in the course?

MR. HEDDERSON: The reason I bring it up is because in March, in Nova Scotia, the Minister of Education did come out and indicate that there were great difficulties in the math, and put in initiatives to deal with the problems in math. To me, that is an indication - because they got the curriculum. Between 1997 and 2001, they put in the curriculum, the math curriculum. The minister has come back out and, in light of the SAIP results and everything, she lumped everything together and said: We really need to raise the bar. Even going so far as to talk about increasing the amount of time dedicated to math in all grades. Well, the secondary -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, these are initiatives that are responding to it, and the bells went off for them in March. Do we follow? Are we looking at it? Again, I just throw that out to the minister in a general sense.

MR. PRESS: Minister, may I answer that?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. PRESS: It is a very good question you ask. I think, though, the response, if it was Minister Purves, when she made that -

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes.

MR. PRESS: - that was around when the results of PISA and SAIP came out, which are the international tests to look at comparisons across countries, and Canada had a significant sample size so it enabled it to make comparisons across provinces.

The mathematics achievement in the Atlantic region was lower than the rest of Canada. All four Atlantic Provinces expressed concern around achievement in mathematics and felt that initiatives were required to improve mathematics achievement. So, that is one thing that both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have - and Newfoundland and Labrador, because the minister has said that we now have a senior advisory policy committee which is going to give us advice in terms of dealing with the whole issue of mathematics achievement. But the PISA and the SAIP results that she was commenting on had nothing to do with the curriculum and the issue that we are discussing today because those tests were based upon the old curriculum; they were not based upon the new curriculum.

MR. HEDDERSON: Basically we have certainly adjusted as best we can to the changing, but the other thing, too, Minister, is that I am a bit concerned about the fact that you are indicating that the school strikes and that did have an effect on the 3205. Of course, it begs the question as to the effects on the other exams as well. I just want to trace back. I do know that there were, initially after, disruptions in the fall in the Gander area and other areas. I know because I checked. I was speaking to the board officials and they assured me, from Mr. Mercer on down, that everything would be done to give the students, especially those who were dealing with public exams, the opportunity for tutoring and any help so that when it came to this time in the year they would be up to par with the rest of the Province - again, the money that was dedicated to it, the amount, and basically how it unfolded. Are you prepared today to indicate that yes, except for 3205, I would assume, they are on par with the rest of the Province in where they are? Just an assurance from you that the rest of them would be fine as well.

MS FOOTE: Thank you for the question, because I really appreciate an opportunity to spell out, I guess, exactly what we did. For every school that was impacted by the strike, there were action plans put in place to make sure that the students were, in fact, given every opportunity to catch up, as it were, on material that, I guess, had not been covered while the strike was on. There was a significant cost to that, and Bob might have the dollar figure for it, but clearly we told each of the boards impacted to come into us with an action plan and the cost of doing it and we would cover it, and we did do that. The problem, of course, with Advanced Mathematics 3205, is that it was a new curriculum. I think you recognize that is where the difference is there compared with the other subject areas.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay.

MS FOOTE: Bob, do you have...?

MR. YOUNG: It is about $100,000.

MS FOOTE: It is about $100,000.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. (Inaudible), right?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: Madam Chair, I will just leave it off at that point. I have some more questions but I see my colleague came in so I will just pass it along to him. I just reserve that I do have some other questions and I will just leave that.

MR. MANNING: I just have one question, Minister.

In regard to dollars that go into the school, each school receives an allotment of funds for incidentals, paper, and things like that. The school board decides the amount of dollars that go into each school, I would assume. Is that based on enrolment? I will just give an example: a school in my district, Laval High School in Placentia, two years ago they received $14,000 from the school board for copying, cartridges for computers, and so on and so forth. This year it is down to $11,400. I am just wondering, how is that determined, that amount of allotment that they received? I am not sure the exact name on what - is there a -

MS FOOTE: A formula?

MR. MANNING: Yes.

MS FOOTE: Bob can speak to that.

MR. YOUNG: Yes, there is a formula for allocation of school supplies and so on. Instructional funds that are provided are based principally on enrollment and the size of the school. We do not allocate, however, to the schools themselves. That is done by the board, as you can appreciate. We give an aggregate sum of money based on the number of schools and the number of students in each of the schools and so on. So, we aggregate that to the board and the board distributes to each of the schools as they wish.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Each school board, if there are ten school boards in the district, receives an allotment of funding from the district, and I guess a fair amount of that is already allocated in regard to salaries and things like that.

MR. YOUNG: No, the instructional side does not include salary components for teachers. That is a separate allocation entirely, for things like consumables, supplies, and that sort of thing.

MR. MANNING: I am talking about what comes from the department to the school board. They receive x amount of dollars. Each school board, I guess, is different. It is based on enrollments and the amount of students they have. What I am saying is, that allotment of funding that they receive from the department, there is an element of that which is already categorized, I guess, because there are teachers and staff, and there are things that have to be done from that. No?

MR. YOUNG: If you are referring to the instructional grant, there is no salary component in there. The instructional grant is based on, as I said earlier, the number of students you have in a classroom, the amount of consumable supplies and so on that you would need for that.

On the teacher salary side, that is allocated out in a teacher allocation formula. We do not allocate salaries to the boards. Actually, the allocation is based on the number of teachers. Once the teachers have decided on - to go to each of the boards, then we automatically have the salary dollar follow. The allocating is based on the number of teachers rather than the allocation of salary dollars.

MR. MANNING: The amount of dollars that a school board would receive from your department in regard to operations of the school board falls under heading 2.1.02. I am just wondering if each school board does not have - at their board office, I am just trying to get to the board office. There is a Director of Education and then it is followed down through that. Does the school board themselves determine the positions within that structure, because they are different from school board to school board? I am just trying to find out - for example, some school boards have, I will just use the figure ten people on staff at the school board office while other people may have fifteen. Is that a school board decision or is it something that is laid out from your department in regard to the positions that are available or have to be at the school board office?

MR. YOUNG: The School Board Act says that there will be a common set of individuals at the board level. The School Board Act defines the Director of Education for that board. There are three Assistant Director positions, and that is what the act speaks to. Beyond that, it is up to the boards themselves in terms of the number of board officials that they would have at the board level for the administration of the responsibilities that they have to carry out.

MR. MANNING: The salaries that those people receive, again, would be the decision of the school board? I am not talking about the Director of Education or the Assistant Directors but beyond that. Would that be a school board decision?

MR. YOUNG: We give an administration grant to each board and again, the administration grant is applied by formulas and so on. The administration grant is theirs. We give a block funding to them and they decide how they will use that administration component. The only piece that is not in the administration grant is the salaries of the Director of Education, the Assistant Director of Programs and the Assistant Director of Human Resources. Those are covered under teachers' payroll. The Assistant Director of Finance and Administration is covered in the Administration Grant.

MR. MANNING: Are all the Directors of Education, the ten Directors of Education of the ten school boards, do they receive the same salary?

MR. PRESS: No.

MR. MANNING: And neither does, I guess, the -

MR. PRESS: No, that would vary just as it would vary within the government bureaucracy, I suppose.

MR. MANNING: Based on experience, based on -

MR. PRESS: Some are paid on the HAY scale, some -

MR. MANNING: Okay.

At the school board level - I am particularly talking about with my own, Avalon West, which serves my area. I get calls from people. Just the amount of people who are working at the school board office, is it possible to get a list of those people, and the positions and salaries they receive from your department?

MR. PRESS: We can certainly get the list for you. You probably get the directory of schools from us each year. So that would give a list of who is in most of the board offices. What we can do is get the list of them with their salaries to you at some later date. We did not bring it with us today.

MR. MANNING: No, no, I do not expect to have it this morning. I just wondered if can we get it at some -

MR. PRESS: Yes.

MR. MANNING: Okay. That is all I have.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Manning.

The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, did you have any other questions?

MR. HEDDERSON: Just a couple of minutes and I will have it clued up.

MADAM CHAIR: Go right ahead, sir.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, just looking at the francophone board and some of the difficulties that have been experienced by that board in the transition from Merrymeeting Road to Lakecrest, and into the new building. I was speaking with them the other day and there is an upset again, which I will not go into now. What I am curious about is: Where does the responsibility lie? Because right now there is a transition taking place and there are some questions about Lakecrest. Where would the money come from with regard to the interim measures? Is that coming from us, the feds, or a combination? Is there any possibility - well, let's start there. Where is the breakdown there?

MS FOOTE: Well, in terms of where they are, I guess, and in their move, we are responsible for that board as we are for the other ten boards in the Province.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay, it is the same.

MS FOOTE: There was a federal-provincial agreement but that expires, I guess - we have a couple of more years, one more year. Then we have total responsibility for delivering French-first language education in the Province.

We are working very closely with the federal government right now in terms of the new school that we have announced because while we fund the new school, and that has come out of the provincial capital dollars, they want it to be much more than just a school. They want a community centre which houses their francophone association and any number of other things; pre-school. So, the federal government is coming to the table with us to deliver on that component of the structure. It has really been a cooperative effort there.

In terms of the transition from - well, going from where they are now into Lakecrest, we have to incur the additional costs. We pay the cost right now of renting the premises that they are in. They want to move for obvious reasons. We have agreed. We were working with them day in and day out, month in and month out, to try and find an alternative location for them where we would not have to waste the time building a new structure. We looked at any number of sites and worked with them. One that was identified was not available. Other sites that were looked at did not meet with their approval. So, at the end of the day, we agreed that the only solution would be to build a new school.

Where they are now - the difficulty that we are encountering with them is that we work with the school board, as we work with all school boards. If we start to work with all the parent groups, there are not enough hours in the day. So we leave the organization of the schools and the running of the schools to the boards, for obvious reasons. There are over 326 schools in the Province. But, having said that, with this particular school and this particular board there has been a history of some difficulty with a couple of the parents and the board itself, and the Director of Education. There seems to be - every now and then that will flare up.

We have done, with the department in terms of trying to support the board and support the parents and the students - certainly when there was a (inaudible) cry about the air quality in the school, we sent in Dr. Patel to do an assessment of the school. He came back and said there were no higher levels of carbon dioxide in that school then you would expect in any other facility with those numbers of students, and that what we would need to do would be to open the windows from time to time to take care of that. He went on record to say that he would send his child to that school. So that seemed to be comforting to the parents. We removed the carpet in the school. We took a lot of measures because they had some flooding over there. Even though it was not recommended, we did it anyway. We took out all the carpeting in the school and paid for that.

Then the board went - subsequent to the air quality tests that we had done - and had another one done on their own. This was done by (inaudible) Jacques Whitford, who came back and said the same similar results as to what Dr. Patel had found, and the same recommendation in terms of opening the windows. The lady who in fact reported to the parents and to the board, went on record to say she would have her child attend that school and would not have any concerns about that.

There are a couple of families - and I will go on the record - at the school who seemed to, for whatever reason, have some difficulty with the Director of Education there, and it has caused some problems. But, I guess, it is like you would find in any institution, they are all not going to be on the same level of agreement. All I can tell you is that we will bring in experts to do the testing that is required. The testing is done and they go on the record. That is who we have to listen to in terms of how we respond. Although we have gone above and beyond in terms of what would have been required by those who went in to do the assessments.

MR. HEDDERSON: With the Lakecrest School - it appears that is where the school community will be going. Now that is a lease situation, I would assume. It is not the government's building. You are leasing it from the owners, I would think. Obviously, going into that school right now, they want a clean bill of health of the building. Will that be the responsibility of the department, the government, or will it be the responsibility, let's say, of the landlords who own the building?

MS FOOTE: The landlords will have to ensure, before we go in there, that there are no issues. We will be leasing from the landlord. So the landlord will have - Gary, I'm assuming I am right on that. I cannot imagine we would lease from a landlord without having a clean bill of health before we go in there.

MR. HEDDERSON: You know what I am saying. Right now if there is a question of air quality, for argument sake, will you ensure that that is done? I guess you are entering into the lease, not the school community.

MS FOOTE: That is right.

MR. HEDDERSON: Will you take every precaution to ensure that the building they are going into is okay, be it with regard to air quality testing, looking at the structure and that sort of thing?

MS FOOTE: Absolutely.

Go ahead, Gary.

MR. HATCHER: The building is owned by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. It is now being leased to a private school. So it is a school now. Last week we had one of our engineering technicians conduct a structural assessment of the building to ensure the building is sound and structurally fit. That has come back positive. There has been no evidence of any air quality problems in the school whatsoever because it is a school now. However, the lease will be between the school board and the owner. We will supply the funding for that. The board may undertake, itself, to do some further investigations if it wishes but we are quite confident that since it is a school now and that Lakecrest community has had no problems with air quality down there and we have a structural assessment done, it is a good and fine facility.

MR. HEDDERSON: The last section I would like to look at is Literacy, if I could. Basically, in looking at Literacy, in the funding of Literacy, I just want to - the Literacy Endowment Fund, now I know we have matched up - I think the feds and the provincial came through with $2 million and there was an indication that a further $2 million would be raised. I think June Alteen was the chair. I am just checking, minister, how far along are we with that?

MS FOOTE: We have (inaudible) approached several individuals to serve on the foundation but one of the issues for us, of course, is that we have to get charitable status and that takes some time.

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, it is still not (inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Yes, that is right.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I checked the Web site one day and just going down through your department and getting all kinds of information -

MS FOOTE: That is why we put it up there.

MR. HEDDERSON: But there was in the list - well, first of all, there are employees dedicated from Linda's position as director right down through. I was just curious one day because it came up, fundraising. I think Ms Joy was part of the fundraising. I said, my God, the government are in trouble now that they have to hire someone to take care of fundraising. Was that associated with this or -

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: So, that was her job?

MS FOOTE: That is right.

MR. HEDDERSON: Is she still working there now?

MS FOOTE: No, because, as I say, it is going to take about seven or eight months, I think, to get charitable status. In the meantime, we have approached several individuals who have agreed to serve. They have had one meeting to discuss Terms of Reference for the foundation. June Alteen is, in fact, the honourary chair for that. We have been able to attract some very credible individuals to work with us to try and match, if not exceed, the $2 million. The reason we are saying exceed is because we want the entire operation of the Endowment Fund and any travelling that might be incurred to actually come out of their own money they raise and not out of money that would be actually going into literacy programs. So, that is part and parcel of it.

Now, Gail Joy has moved on for personal reasons. We will be looking to put someone in there because we need someone who can pull this together, working with the Endowment Fund; but, that salary, as well, will be paid out of monies raised.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you minister, and officials, and all your staff.

MS FOOTE: You are welcome. Thank you

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hedderson.

MR. HEDDERSON: That's my questions for now, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: If there are no further questions I will ask the Clerk to call the heads.

CLERK: 1.1.01. to 3.2.02., inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 3.2.02. carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: I would like to thank the minister and her officials for their time. We hope that it has not been too inconvenient to your schedules. There are a number of committees and sometimes it is difficult to schedule them all to meet everyone else's schedule, but we certainly thank you for your time and your cooperation in our committees.

I would like to thank all the members for their questions and for their participation, and my vice-chair who has been very supportive throughout the committee process.

As the committee has other matters to attend to, I am suggesting that we break for five minutes and come back and deal with the other matters that are before the committee.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to call the meeting of the Social Services Committee back to order.

This morning when we started I raised the issue of a request that I had from Mr. Manning, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, requesting to bring witnesses of four individuals before the committee to answer questions. I guess, before we go on for discussion, as it pertains to the request, I should point out that after consulting with the Clerk of the House - again, just to ensure that the information I had stated earlier this morning had been the correct information that I had received. Committee members, I am sure, all realize that there are a particular set of Standing Orders that pertains to the Estimates Committee, which is a later and more recent, I guess, set of Standing Orders than those that pertain to regular committees. Therefore, those Standing Orders would override the Standing Orders for the regular committees of the House of Assembly. So, while regular committees of the House of Assembly can call witnesses for evidence, the more recent Standing Orders of the Estimates Committee removes the right of the committee to be able to do that.

I refer hon. members to Standing Orders 71 to 77 as it pertains to the Estimates Procedure. Subclause 73.6 states, "A committee may not question public servants except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses." Those are the Orders by which we govern our committees and the Committees of Estimates of the House of Assembly. I think it is quite clear as to what the Standing Orders are for those particular committees. However, since the request has been made, I will ask committee members if they have any comments that they would like to make.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Madam Chair, I would like to hear the rational that the Member for Placentia& St. Mary's has used to deem it so important that we call these particular witnesses in our dealings with the estimates of the departments of whichever. Perhaps we could have the Member for Placentia& St. Mary's just give us his rational for why these witnesses need to be called, in his opinion.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: No problem, Madam Chair.

Basically we are here discussing the largest department of government which expends the largest budget of government. Certainly myself and my colleagues believe that these people, especially Mr. Mark Hundert, Director of the HAY Health Care Consulting Group, Dr. Lydia Hatcher, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, Mrs. Debbie Forward, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union and Mr. John Peddle, Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association, except for Mr. Hundert, are directly involved in the operations of the health care facilities and the administration of the funding provided by the Department of Health and provided by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe that over the past several weeks comments that have been attributed to the HAY Report, comments that the minister himself has stood in the House and disassociated himself from, will have a negative impact on health care in the Province, not only from a financial point of view but indeed from a policy point of view.

We believe that there was an opportunity here to clear up some of the concerns that were out there in the public eye in relation to not only the expenditure of health care dollars, which is something we certainly will be discussing here, but indeed the operation of health care facilities, and especially for the people who provide the services such as the doctors and nurses and those people who are involved not only in the Janeway but in other facilities here in the Province.

We believe under the Standing Orders that we had the right to do that. I believe I had the right to do that and I forwarded the same to you, Madam Chair, under Section 76, which you quoted. It said you "may" not call witnesses. "May" is a word that we have used here in the House on several occasions. We have seen legislation come here before the House that used the word "shall" verses the word "may". We believe that your interpretation of that is that we may not call witnesses. My interpretation is that we may call witnesses. Again, that is up to you.

Earlier this morning you mentioned that there was no precedent for this type of action, it has never been done here before. Well, there are new things being done here everyday. This was an opportunity here. It is within the jurisdiction of the House to do exactly what we did. You know, our rules are silent on it in most cases, Madam Chair. We believe that it was an opportunity to bring forward some people who would clear up some of the misinformation, as the minister himself has eluded to, that is out there. I mean, anywhere we can save a dollar for the Department of Health and Community Services, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, indeed is to save money for the taxpayers of the Province. So, to think that these people would have no impact on expenditures, well, that is the opinion of other members. My opinion is that they would.

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

MR. MERCER: If there is anyone else who wants to speak before I do, that's fine.

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

MR. MERCER: I am somewhat unpersuaded by the arguments put forward by Mr. Manning. I guess, in committee we can be less formal.

We just concluded the Estimates of the Department of Education. I did not see us bring forward the President of the NLTA or the Chair of the School Boards' Association for the Province. Obviously, these people could have added great clarity to a number of issues - or the Directors of Education. Some of the questions that were asked here this morning, in fact, dealt with activities within their purview. So, I guess one could argue, if one wished, that you could bring in any number of witnesses on any number of government departments, if you have unlimited time, to get all the answers to every question that you want to ask about a government department.

The point I would just draw everyone's attention to, just to reiterate: The committees are, in fact, the creatures of the House of Assembly and Beauchesne is very clear on that. If you refer to section §830. "... standing committees have the power to examine matters that are referred to them by the House, ....." §831. (1) "A committee can only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the House." (2) "A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the Order of Reference."

It would seem to me, Madam Chair, that our Order of Reference was to review the estimates of several departments that come under the auspices of the Social Services Committee, and that is the mandate that we were given by the House, none other.

It is also very clear, Madam Chair, if you read our Standing Orders - and I might add that Standing Orders take precedence over any other legal authority; Beauchesne, Marleau, Mon Petit and others. These are the Standing Orders that we, as parliamentarians in this Assembly, have decided we will take unto ourselves to govern the way in which we do work. While the Standing Orders do permit the establishment of Standing Committees, as sections 65 through 70, and while Standing Committees do, in fact, have the authority to call witnesses on matters to them referred - there is no doubting of that, Standing Order 69 is very clear - however, Madam Chair, I submit to you that in our Terms of Reference from the House we are dealing with the Estimates and Standing Orders 71 through 77.

As a matter of fact, in 72(3), "The Government Services Committee, Social Services Committee and the Resource Committee may act as committees under Standing Order 71 to 77", which deal only with Estimates. It is very clear that if one reads through section 73(6), and you have quoted this yourself, "A committee may not question public servants except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses." I submit to you, Madam Chair, that the only reason the "may not call witnesses" is there is because, as a Standing Committee of the House, our right to call on witnesses is unfettered by Standing Order 69.

If it was the intent of the framers of these Standing Orders to allow this Committee, in Estimates debate, to call witnesses, they would have said nothing. They would have been silent on the issue. So, in this case, the "may" is not necessarily interpreted as it normally is in terms of "may" and "shall" in legislation. It is simply drawing attention to the fact that as Standing Committees we are empowered to call witnesses under section 69, but because we are now in Estimates Committee, the framers of the Standing Orders have said that we may not call witnesses.

So, Madam Chair, even if we wished to call witnesses, even if it was our fervent hope that we could call witnesses, we have no power as an Estimates Committee of the House to do so. If we wished to do that, we would have to take this back in our report to the Chair, to the House, to the Speaker, or whomever, and ask for permission to do that. In and of ourselves, this Committee has no authority to call witnesses. Even if I on this side were in full concurrence and the great urgency was there, as said by Mr. Manning, even if I agreed with that wholeheartedly - which, by the way, I do not - but if I did, I would not be empowered under Standing Orders to do that.

I submit, Madam Chair, this Committee has no authority whatsoever to call witnesses, and if that is the wish of the members opposite, to have witnesses, we would have to take that back to the House and the House would have to deal with it in some manner.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Mercer.

Are there any other questions or comments?

MR. MANNING: As a member of this committee I, in accordance with clause 69.(1) of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, put forward and read, " No witness shall be summoned to attend before any committee of the House, unless a certificate shall first have been filed with the Chairperson of such committee, by some Member thereof, stating that the evidence to be obtained from such witness is, in the opinion of such Member, material and important." I put forward my certificate based on clause 69.(1). The interpretation of section 73 by the hon. member is his interpretation of it. I have mine. I reiterate, the fact that there was no precedent set before does not say that you cannot do and cannot perform under clause 69(1). That is exactly what I did. I believe the information of these people who I have asked to come forward would be important to the discussions here. Again, it is the opinion of other members that it is not. That is their opinion. Mine still stands on what I proposed. It will be up to the Chair to decide where we go with it, I guess.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Manning.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think most of what my comments were have been covered fairly well by Mr. Mercer when he went back to section 69 and also referenced 73(6). I think, with regard to the rules and the regulations that we are governed by, the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, that has been explained as well as can possibly be done. The only comment I would make - and I have to reference our previous meeting here this morning, when we came back for the second time to meet with the Minister of Education and her officials. We were in session this morning for an hour and three quarters on some very important topics. The main one this morning, which took up just about all the time, was the issue of mathematics in our Province and public exams and so on. I think that is a very important issue.

Only last week I heard a couple of people who are out in the field, Mrs. Denise Pike and Mr. Graham Wood who are very familiar with this issue, making statements in the public media. As Mr. Mercer said earlier, I wonder why those people haven't been called forward and why it is only the one particular department.

The only other point I will make, Madam Chair, is that if we -

MR. MANNING: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: A point of order, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Mercer and Mr. Butler brought up the fact that we did not call in other witnesses to other departments. My understanding is, Madam Chair, just for clarification, that, as a Committee, under the Standing Orders, we can only request witnesses from one department. We chose to request them under the Department of Health and Community Services, so that is why we didn't - we could have had them in on each one. We believed, under the Standing Orders, that we could request them to come in under one department. You know, whether that gets passed today or not, it is an important factor. The fact is, even with what we have there now, we believed we could only request under one department anyway, regardless of that.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My final comment is this, and I guess I will direct this through you to Mr. Manning: I am just wondering what could be obtained by our Standing Committee here meeting with the officials from the Hay group. If they really wanted to speak with those people, they could do it through a caucus meeting sooner than we could. I was wondering why it had to come before the actual committee. I am sure you can request meetings to meet with people and put your questions forward at another point in time.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Mr. Butler has asked a question. Would anyone like to answer it? His question was why the caucus, I guess, has not asked a committee to come forward and meet outside this particular Committee.

MR. BUTLER: Your caucus could meet with any officials that they want to come forward. Why would it have to go through the Estimates Committee level?

MR. MANNING: We, on a regular basis, meet with different officials from inside and outside of government at our caucus. I guess that would be a caucus decision. If we would or would not invite someone into our caucus, I can only answer for myself.

MADAM CHAIR: Are you finished Mr. Butler?

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: I just want to make a couple of comments. First of all, we know that under the Interpretation Act, that "may" and "shall" are matters of definition. In fact, they are defined. I forget the exact section, but "shall" is a directive and it is very clear. Under the same act, as a matter of fact, in the clause "shall" was defined first and "may" was defined second. "May" is defined as being permissive and lets the body have some degree of flexibility.

If, for example, in our Standing Orders, Standing Order 73(6), if it was intended that the word "shall" which would be directive were to be used, then it would have read, a committee may not question public servants, except for the minister. It would have read, and shall not call witnesses. Under our Interpretation Act - I had this checked out just yesterday in fact, and I know that "may" and "shall" mean different things in legal jargon. Sometimes they are used interchangeably. However, under our legislation, which is what we operate under, there is a clear cut definition of the word "shall" and a definition of the word "may". Under our definitions "shall" is directive and "may" is permissive. Therefore, I would say if the writers of the Standing Orders wanted to use the word "shall" they would have indicated and would have done, no, you shall not call witnesses. It says, you may not call witnesses. There is an argument that "may" and "shall" here might be interpreted to mean somewhat the same. However, our definitions do give a completely different meaning to the word "may" and to the word "shall".

In addition, we have to remember that committees of the House are appointed in accordance with the Standing Orders and, of course, that is contained in section 65(1). These are named in consultation between the House Leaders. That is the standing practice every time a first session of each Assembly occurs.

Some years ago, when we were looking at legislation, there was a policy here whereby the committee was empowered to call any number of witnesses. I do recall, when we were reviewing various pieces of legislation, there was a willingness, particularly during the Clyde Wells Administration. It was not unusual at all for the Standing Committees to call in witnesses and have lawyers and officials called in, to have the benefit of the expertise that was in the field. That occurred on any number of pieces of legislation.

This year alone, a special committee - well, it was not really a committee of the House because it was never named as a committee of the House; the fisheries issue. It was a committee of members of the House. If there was anything that John Crosbie was right in, he was right when he said that the fisheries committee was not a committee of this House. It was a committee of members of the House. However, it could have been named as a committee of the House, if the House had convened and so named it, but the House never convened and named the fisheries committee. Therefore, it could not be a Select Committee of the House of Assembly. It could be a committee of the members of the House, but not a Select Committee. If we had convened the House and named that committee, it could then have had that status. That committee did call witnesses. It did open up opportunities for people to speak.

All we are saying in this particular procedure is that here we have a government department spending in excess of $1 billion, and in terms of the expenditure of that kind of money and the issue of health care, surely goodness, if we can have committees going around this Province and calling witnesses - keep in mind, as well, the other side of this argument. Before the Budget was developed, the Minister was on television and radio saying how proud she was that she was having all those consultations. She was saying: You can contact us by internet; contact us by writing us or call us. I am going to be in Corner Brook or I am going to have a committee that is going to be in Grand Falls. I want you to come and tell me what you think of the Budget.

All we are saying here, as duly elected members, is that the reverse is true. Now we have a Budget presented and we are saying that we, as members here, want the right under our laws to be able to call in some witnesses that we feel have evidence that we would like to share. If you are going to do this upfront, in consultations, that is one side of it in developing your Budget. Then there is the other side of it saying: We should have the right, as duly elected members here, to call in any witnesses that we want to have who have evidence that we feel is important for the members of this House to have and for the public to share.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Madam Chair, I do not see the purpose of all of this discussion when we have governing rules in this House under our Standing Orders. We have a clear directive under the Standing Orders, under 73.(6), which specifically states, "A committee may not question public servants except through the Minister, and may not call witnesses." May not call witnesses! Now, I agree that "may" is a discretionary and "shall" is a directive, but we are told "may not". "May not" and "may" are completely different. It says here specifically, we "...may not call witnesses." So, I do not know what we are debating here. We have that directive there. We do not have the right as-

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS M. HODDER: Exactly! Educators or not, common sense tells you that "may not" means you do not do it.

I agree totally with everything that my colleague, the Member for Humber East, has already stated, and the Member for Port de Grave. I do not see the point of this discussion, when we could ask those people to come if we had the right to do it, but under these standing rules we just do not have the right.

MADAM CHAIR: Are there any other comments before we make a decision?

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: I would just like to say, Madam Chair, that certainly what my colleague, Mr. Manning, put forth was a request to see if, indeed, what he asked was possible. We have been told there is no precedent. We have been told that the Orders do not support it. I say to you, Madam Chair, that a precedent is not usually brought about by faint of heart. I certainly would like to have had someone like Dr. Williams in, to see and inquire as to how his blueprint, which was established in 1992 and again 1999, has affected the budgeting process and the teacher allocations. I think it would have been an excellent exchange between Dr. Williams, the minister and her department and the members of this Committee as we went through some of the initiatives, or lack of initiatives, revolving around that particular report.

Again, it was a request that was put in, in good faith, and put before this Committee. As we know, this is how we get out of the box sometimes and break new ground. Our request, I still feel, is a very reasonable one. It is put before the Chair in a very reasonable manner, and if, indeed, it has to be brought back to the House, so be it. Again, you know, Standing Orders have been there for awhile, but they have changed and evolved through the years, as well. We are looking at a process of, perhaps, not revolution here, I say to Madam Chair, but evolution, and maybe it is time that we reviewed the Standing Orders in regard to the ability to bring in witnesses or to change our approach, our process or whatever.

Again, I say to you, Madam Chair, it was put forth in good faith, and I would trust in the decision of this Committee to move us forward one way or the other, and I will abide by that decision, certainly.

I thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to speak, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hedderson.

MR. MERCER: Point of clarification, Madam Chair.

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

MR. MERCER: Did I understand the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne to say that he had put forward a request to have Dr. Williams- my understanding was what I thought I heard you say, and Hansard can tell me differently, was that you had made that request. From an earlier discussion, you had indicated that you could not do that because you were restricted to only one department that you could ask that for. I think Mr. Manning said that.

MR. HEDDERSON: Madam Chair, just a point of clarification in response to my colleague's question with regard to clarification. I just used an example that I would have liked to have had appear with the education estimates, I guess, Dr. Williams; as an example. That is as much as I said, but I believe my colleague indicated that we, as a caucus, just put forward one request. That is my understanding anyway. I said I would have liked to, if I could, have had Dr. William's before the committee.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you for clarifying that.

Is there any other discussion or comments?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh.

MR. MERCER: Harvey, I must say that I cannot wait for Hansard to get your point on what is "may not" and "may". I am going to use that one somewhere along the way.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Just a couple of comments I would like to make before I call a vote. There are a number of points that have been raised and I guess a couple of things that I would like to clarify.

In my earlier comments, when I stated that there was no precedent within Estimate Committees for this type of request, it certainly did not mean that there wasn't interest in terms of moving in a different direction. I think it needs to be clearly understood that in my interpretation of the Standing Orders of the Estimates Committee that, at the present time, we are not permitted to call witnesses as per the section that I have already quoted.

I guess a couple of things, and that is if hon. members wish to make changes to the Standing Orders of the Estimates Committee, as it pertains to that section or any other section, there is certainly a process by which they can do that. Certainly, I would ask them to follow the appropriate process in doing so.

The only other comment that I would like to make is, there was some issue raised around committees of the House that have called witnesses before and have engaged in this type of activity. I think all members have, at one time or another, participated in a committee that has done that. I just want to make it clear that was not Estimate Committees, it was other committees of the House. It was committees that were set up for that purpose, to deal with an issue that would have required witnesses be called, and had the authority and the right to call witnesses. So, just to ensure that hon. members understand, that was not Estimate Committees but other committees of the House.

I would now like to entertain, I guess, or call for a vote. The request was to call before the Committee, Mr. Hundert, Dr. Hatcher, Ms Forward and Ms Peddle to come before the Committee to give evidence. I would now like to call for a vote on that.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

WITNESSES: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

WITNESSES: Nay.

MADAM CHAIR: The request has been denied.

WITNESS: We were all for it and you said (inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Nay, yes.

The request has been denied. All the committee member's names have been noted for the record of the House and the Clerk has taken note of the names of the individuals.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Yes, that is correct. I said nay and it is recorded in Hansard.

If there is no other business of the Committee today, I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting.

On motion, Committee adjourned.