June 4, 1996

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Perry Canning, M.H.A.,

Labrador West substitutes for Mary Hodder, M.H.A., Burin - Placentia West.

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m.

CHAIR (Mr. Mercer): Order, please!

To get started, I would like to welcome everyone to

the last meeting of the Social Services Committee of the House. Today we have

the Minister of the Department of Education, last but not least, Mr. Minister.

Perhaps, to begin, we will ask the members of the Committee to identify

themselves.

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, Harbour Main -

Whitbourne.

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

MR. CANNING: Perry Canning, Labrador West. I am

replacing Mary Hodder.

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

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

East.

CHAIR: Bob Mercer, your Chairman, from Humber

East.

Mr. Minister, the procedure that we have been

following is that the minister can take up to fifteen minutes to make an

introductory statement. Of course, he is not obligated to take fifteen, five

would be nice. We will proceed from there to have the Vice-Chair respond and the

questioning then in turn. I would ask you, if you would, to identify your

officials and to remind the officials when they are responding to a question, if

they could state their names for the purpose of Hansard.

Mr. Minister.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say, it is a pleasure for us to be here and

I hope that we are able to bring your deliberations, for you and the Committee,

to a successful conclusion. I understand that you have all worked very hard over

the past couple of weeks and that you, like some others, will probably be

pleased to see an end to this part of the process so it can get back to the

Committee of the Whole in the House and have a more wide-ranging debate on all

the issues covered in the Budget.

If I might just introduce the group, Mr. Chairman,

that are here with me from the department. On my left is our deputy minister, Ms

Deborah Fry, whose move to the department coincided with my appointment this

time as the minister. So I guess we are both relatively new on the job in this

particular portfolio. I am sure that the Vice-Chairman, when he makes his

remarks, will indicate that that is obvious from what has been happening in the

public over the last little while but I am sure he will be kinder than that to

us in our continuing efforts on behalf of the young people in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

On my right is Florence Delaney who is an Assistant

Deputy Minister with respect to Finance and Administration. She has been with

the department for several years now, having moved from Treasury Board a few

years before that, and she has had extensive involvement in the public service

of the Province.

Behind me are back-up rows, the fellows in the

gallery - like with the Muppets, I guess, the two fellows up in the back that

are supposed to nod and make the sage comments at the appropriate time.

At the far left is Dr. Frank Marsh. Dr. Marsh is

responsible for the advanced studies of post-secondary education, the college

system, the University, the private training institutions, apprenticeship and

other types of areas. Dr. Wayne Oakley, who is our Assistant Deputy Minister,

with responsibility for the primary, elementary and secondary branch of

schooling in the Province.

So that is the group that is there. It also shows,

Mr. Chairman, the divisions that are here in the new Department of Education.

Just by way of making the official name change, we are still using - for

purposes of economy and efficiency and proper use of government materials and so

on - the letterhead of the former Department of Education and Training. So the

functions are the same but the official name of the department, in the latest

rearrangement, is the Department of Education with all of the same functions

encompassed. We continue to use letterhead and so on until it expires rather

that incur the cost of throwing out very usable paper, letterhead and so on and

ordering new stuff. We will do that at a later date and I am sure that we will

be applauded for that effort by all members of the Committee as we get into the

details of the session this morning.

Just a couple of comments, if I may, Mr. Chairman,

and as everybody here gathered in the Committee would know, I always try to get

right to the point if I can at all and give the maximum amount of information in

the shortest possible time. The estimates that we are going to look at this

morning will reflect the view that in the budgetary process this time, it is a

fact, I guess, as all the Committee members have seen in their preliminary look

at the estimates, that we have, in fact, a departmental budget that is smaller

in real dollars than it was in previous years. Just to put it in context in the

budgetary decisions taken by the government with respect to the Department of

Education, we felt quite clearly as a government that in a system that basically

is going through decline in terms of the number of students that we service, K

to XII, and also decline in terms of the number of students from the K to XII

system that go into the post-secondary system. But the post-secondary system, of

and by itself, is not into decline the same way because there is another shift

occurring where there are a lot of adults learners coming back into the

post-secondary level for many other reasons. So there is a different dynamic

occurring there. But with decline in the K to XII system, projecting that from

some years ago we built the school system in the Province actually to

accommodate almost 170,000 students, K to XII, there is just over 100,000

students in the system now. And the projections, Mr. Chairman, for the Committee

are that in six or seven years will be serving about 90,000 in the K to XII

system.

So we have a system that is in decline in terms of

the numbers of bodies that we are geared up to serve. We are basically

over-built at this point in our history in terms of the facilities we have in

the Province, because they were built to handle almost as twice as any students

as are now in the schools in the Province today. And with the decline we felt

that that continuing trend in the next five or six years there was a department

obviously that could reorganize itself at that level and could probably get by

with a little less money in its budget without impairing the services to the

students. So that is reflected and that is one of the driving principles behind

the government's decisions in looking at some actual dollar reductions in

education.

The other thing as well, Mr. Chairman, for the

Committee's thought as we go through the estimates is that there are two major

restructuring occurring in the Department of Education and in the education

system. One again, in the K to XII system, the whole issue of going from

twenty-seven school boards to ten and the education reform agenda that is

continuing on as we know from the debate in the Parliament of Canada yesterday

and last night. It has moved another step further and there are another couple

of steps to go before we reach the conclusion. But because we are reorganizing,

we also again felt that with the decline in the student population, and with the

administrative reorganization that we could certainly offer the same level of

service in the K to XII system with less money, and that we would not have to in

any way seriously impair course offerings for students or the educational

opportunity in the K to XII system while making those reductions. It is also

clear I think, Mr. Chairman, to the Committee from things that have been in the

public realm in the last little while, since the Budget and a couple of weeks

before, that there is a significant reorganization of the college system that is

imminent that is going on as we speak. It is only a matter of, I guess, days, if

not weeks at the most that we will see the final outcome of a reorganization of

the five community colleges in the Province presently located with Cabot, the

Eastern Community College system, the Central Newfoundland Regional College, the

West Viking system on the West Coast and the Labrador Regional College system

going into a single college system with a single board of director instead of

five boards of directors and with a single headquarters instead of five separate

headquarters providing administrative services to the student who are in the

college system at the post-secondary level.

So with that significant reorganization and the

potential for real savings, again it was felt in the Budget process that the

Department of Education could sustain a reduction in real dollar funding without

reducing the level of services in any drastic way to the students at the

post-secondary level in the college system. And those kinds of particular

decisions have been communicated and debated publicly. There were some impacts

in terms of campus closures and discontinuation of programs have been part of

the public debate, but we have felt again, by and large, that on balance it was

not a serious impairment of the educational opportunity for students in the

Province at that level.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear in

the Budget that because of the changes with the federal transfers where there

were established programs financed funding before directed at post-secondary

education, which is now in the Canadian Health and Social Transfer envelope of

money, that in looking at our grant in aid to the University, we worked out an

arrangement with Memorial, whereby instead of passing along the complete

reduction that would have been earmarked for the University in one year, we have

come to a three-year arrangement whereby we will reduce some grant in aid to the

University.

They will be announcing in the not-too-distant

future, Mr. Chairman, what their plans are to accommodate and offset the

reduction in funding from the government so that they again try to keep the

negative impacts on the students at the University to a minimum. There will be

some, I think, which we will acknowledge and probably discuss further as the

Committee deliberates this morning.

We have dealt with those issues on that basis that

we have a system K to XII that is in decline and projected to continue to

decline for at least another decade. We have major reorganizations occurring

both in the K to XII administrative structure of twenty-seven school boards to

ten, and a major reorganization occurring at the college system, going from five

colleges, five boards, five headquarters, down to one. As a result, we feel that

it is quite justified and that the education budget, while reduced in real

dollar terms, would not negatively and seriously impact upon the student

educational choices in the Province for the coming year, and years into the

future.

It is with that kind of approach that I introduce

our estimates and welcome the comments from the Vice-Chair, Mr. Chairman, and

also will participate in trying to answer the questions. Being new to the

department, I hope I will be forgiven if the members find that some of the

officials are answering the questions instead of myself. Because I try to learn

as I go, but like all of us, I guess, we have some limitations. You can expect

that probably the officials might answer most of the questions.

The other reason is that it is early in the

morning. I'm used to doing these things in the evening when I'm in more of a

talkative mood. I'm probably not that talkative this early in the morning, but

get some officials to give you some real answers which the Committee is really

looking for. I appreciate the opportunity to make those few comments, Mr.

Chairman.

CHAIR: (Inaudible) introductory comments.

Perhaps the Clerk could call the first head.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Mr. Vice-Chair.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

thank the minister and his officials. I thank the minister for his introductory

comments.

I suppose, if there is a particular department

which has received certainly public attention and has been a main agenda item

over the past several months in the Province it would be the Department of

Education, largely as a result of the very restructuring that the minister has

referred to in his introductory comments.

What we have done in the past, Mr. Chairman, and I

assume we can continue this procedure this morning, is that both - well, I know

Mr. Hodder and I, and indeed all of the Committee members, we have asked

questions certainly in a random fashion in terms of going from area to area and

division to division within the department. I particularly have questioned some

specifics and also some more general issues. With the Chair's consent, perhaps

if we could begin just with a couple of general areas for discussion.

I would like to begin with perhaps what has been

one of the more contentious decisions by the department, and that is the

elimination of public exams in this Province. We saw last week some several

thousand students voice their opposition to, I guess, the lateness of such a

decision. Clearly time speaks for itself. With respect to that issue, the

decision for this year is made and I would think has to be made, because we are

now in the early part of June. My question for the minister, though, is in terms

of the long term, and I'm thinking of next year.

We have heard educators talk about standards and

the need of standardized testing and the importance of it. We have seen even

some government documentation which tends to support that view. I'm wondering

what plan the department has to give some reconsideration to the whole issue of

standardized testing and the return of public examinations, clearly not this

year, because of the lateness, but for the teaching year of 1996-1997.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I might just offer a response. The issue with

respect to public examinations again, maybe just to briefly retrace the history.

There is no question that in terms of in the previous fiscal year, which ended

on March 31, all of the plans had been in place to run a set of public

examinations again in eighteen subjects out of the eighty at Level III for this

year. Of course, the cost had been incurred because the planning for these

things is quite extensive and there was no thought at that point that we would

cancel this year because of the very points, I think, that the Vice-Chairman

makes and that the students themselves have made because of the timing.

The thought was clearly that we could have the

teachers participate with us and mark the examinations during the regular school

year rather than to come into the capital city region after school closed and

mark them in the first three weeks or so of the normal summer vacation period.

That having not been agreed - and, by the way, I might put the record straight

in this Committee hearing that while the President of the NLTA repeatedly talked

about lack of consultation, and while there was no formal consultation, for the

record, with the NLTA, in meetings prior to the Budget, the NLTA executive and

the president directly was told that this was one of the things that was being

contemplated by government and would likely be a final budget decision, and that

they should prepare themselves and their membership for that, and that we were

asking for their co-operation.

I would expect that conversation would have been

had with the NLTA at least a week or ten days before the Budget, because it was

at that point that we were reaching these kinds of decisions. So while we were

not in a position to officially say that to the NLTA and therefore we could not

have a public dialogue about it, because it was a budget decision that we were

contemplating and finalizing, they were certainly aware that it was likely to

occur. That is why, in my opinion, for example, that they were as prepared to

make a statement on the very afternoon of the Budget, without themselves

consulting with their own members, that they would recommend that they not mark

the examinations. That was not something that the NLTA decided three or four

days after the Budget. They made that announcement in the lobby of the

Confederation Building the very afternoon that the Budget was read.

Because of the fact that we had done them the

courtesy of letting them know a week or ten days before that, that that was a

likely outcome in the Budget and they should prepare themselves to respond to it

and react to it, we are disappointed, and still disappointed, in the response

because we though it was totally reasonable for the NLTA to ask its members to

co-operate with government in a very small matter of marking the examinations

themselves rather than insisting that we put in place a public examination

marking board as had been the tradition for a number of years.

The students who came forward were clearly of the

view first and foremost that they needed the public examinations. I repeatedly

made the argument, and continue to make the argument, that for those students

who are borderline with respect to whether or not they will get credit for their

courses, those who are borderline in terms of getting 50 per cent, or for those

students who are borderline with respect to maintaining an average that would

allow them to meet the qualifications to go to a post-secondary institution, or

those who are borderline, 60 per cent or 65 per cent, who may not get accepted

into the college system, or those who are borderline around the 70 per cent

mark, who might not get accepted to university, that those people clearly were

looking forward to and needed the opportunity to write a final examination as

part of their evaluation, but it didn't need to be a public examination. That is

still the point and it is still the case and it is a legitimate point and cannot

be argued, in my view. If they are borderline and need some final evaluation

tool, it doesn't need to be a public examination, what they need is what the

school boards have now done quite sensibly, in my view, is give them an

opportunity to write a final examination, which they will. And if they have been

as diligent as they suggest they are, we all wish them great success in either

getting the credit for the course and meeting graduation requirements or getting

a higher mark and meeting the eligibility requirements to go on to

post-secondary education to an institution - that it offers that opportunity.

With respect to the standards, Mr. Chairman, there

has always been a debate about that and it is clear, in other provinces where

there are no public exam mechanisms, that the standards are developed and

accepted in terms of what the school boards and the teachers in the schools do.

Just as we accept the judgment of the teachers in every other evaluation process

from Kindergarten right through to Junior High School, all through the courses

of Level I, all through the courses of Level II, and for sixty-two of the eighty

courses in Level III, every one of those evaluation decisions is made without

question or judgment of standard and the teachers evaluative procedure is

accepted. With respect to the students' other concern: would they be acceptable

in post-secondary institutions, whoever put that thought in the minds of

students that they might not be accepted at post-secondary institutions because

of lack of public exams, did them a great disservice and caused great

consternation and concern with no basis and for no reason other than to be a bit

mischievous, in my view, and that is about as strong a language, Mr. Chairman,

as I will use about the issue. There is no question with respect to Memorial

University in this Province, the colleges in this Province, and with

universities and colleges outside the Province that a mark verified by the

Department of Education and a transcript sent out by the Department of Education

is acceptable in every post-secondary institution in the country. And it has

nothing to do with and nobody ever asks the question as to whether or not the

mark was arrived at by a public examination, a school examination, or no

examinations, As long as there is an evaluation procedure that is acceptable in

the Province and that has been acceptable to the department, then the

verification of the final mark has always been acceptable to the post-secondary

institutions. Again, I was disappointed that we would find some educators at the

school level and at the school board level, and at the university level I saw on

one panel where a professor at the university or at least a lecturer at the

university, was suggesting that there might be some question as to the

acceptability of the mark. And it just isn't so. The marks are verified by the

department in every other province and it is the transcript from the department

that gets accepted, and there is no footnote anywhere in the country saying that

these marks were arrived at with public examinations or not. They are verified,

they are acceptable from the Province and they are acceptable in the

post-secondary institutions.

So we are going to have a discussion, Mr. Chairman,

with the Student Education Alliance. We are trying to arrange a meeting now just

before they disperse for the summer. I have indicated again that I don't think

it is in their best interest or ours for those students to be in here meeting

with the Department of Education. They should be studying for their examinations

and making sure that they are successful. But when the examination

schedule

finishes around the 17 or 18 of June, somewhere between there, and when they

disperse for the summer we will meet with them and discuss the students'

legitimate concerns about standardization.

We understand that change is difficult and there is

a normal resistance to change, in any event, but there should be no concern from

the point of view of either standards or the need for public examinations.

We are looking most closely - to answer the final

question, and the concept of looking into next year, we are looking most closely

at the model that is in New Brunswick, Mr. Chairman, whereby even at the

graduating Level III course level where there are public examinations, or there

were public examinations here in the past, that they usually spot check from

year to year for the purposes of ascertaining standards province-wide, by having

a public examination in a subject or two. They might test mathematics, for

example, next year at Level III throughout the Province just to see that the

marks are consistent, and if they find there are inconsistencies, then through

an in-service program, they go back to the teachers and talk to them about

getting consistency into their evaluation procedures, rather than instituting

public examinations regularly and adjusting the marks based on an examination

and those types of issues.

We will continue the discussion, Mr. Chairman. But

the view that the public examinations as we have known them in the past will be

re-instated in a future year: At this point in time, not likely at all. I

wouldn't suggest that is a likely outcome. Might we follow the New Brunswick

model where we spot check in a subject or two annually just to deal with that

issue of standards? That is a possibility. That seems to be a model that has

been discussed in the department and seems to find some favour at this point in

time. Again, we might ask whether or not even that is a wise and necessary

expenditure of public funds for the purposes of standards when the standards in

this Province are quite high, quite acceptable.

We should not miss the fact that we have the best

trained, most qualified teaching force in the country. We are the only province

that can boast that every one of our full-time teachers is a degreed teacher

with considerable experience in most cases, who have done evaluation courses and

procedures as part of their basic training. Other provinces can't say that.

Really, the public examination system might have been very necessary several

years ago when we could not brag of that kind of a teaching force, but we are

quite confident of the capabilities of the teaching force of this Province to

handle evaluation without question.

If we find wide discrepancies from school to school

by doing some standardized testing now which is done at grades III, VII, IX and

so on to spot check standards, then through in-service programs people are

reminded to get their evaluation procedures back in sync so that there is

consistency across the Province.

I am sorry for the lengthy answer, Mr. Chairman,

but I thought it was a very important issue and that we should address it.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just a

follow-up on this issue before we leave it.

It is certainly my understanding - however, I will

be interested in the minister's comments - that in provinces where decisions

were made a number of years ago to abolish standardized testing, there is now

some consideration being given to in fact re-instate standardized testing. I

think one province that comes to mind is Prince Edward Island, where that may be

the case.

Therefore, obviously, the question or the concern I

have is in other jurisdictions in the country where similar decisions have been

made, such as the government is making now here in this Province, if the

importance of standardization, or if the issue of standardization, is being

questioned in other jurisdictions, why, after we have, I suppose, the experience

and the example of what has happened in other provinces, now, that decision

being reversed? Why are we now making this decision? Again, to be more specific,

I guess, having the other examples in other provinces, how can we now justify

the decision when there appears to be a trend to reverse what has been decided

earlier?

MR. GRIMES: Thank you. Again, Mr. Chairman, the

academic debate about standardization is as old as education itself, I guess. I

would suggest to the Vice-Chairman that his colleague on his right and another

colleague over here in the benches, and myself and others who have been in the

education system for a number of years, have debated this very issue ourselves,

to the extent that amongst educators I would suggest it is a split decision at

best.

Like many educational development issues and

curriculum-related issues, things seem to go in cycles. There is no question

that at least one, and maybe more, of the provinces that don't have public

examinations is or are looking at the possibility of having one or more, like

New Brunswick, for the purposes of standardization. At the same time, it is

equally as true to suggest that in provinces where they have public

examinations, as we have done, the debate is whether or not they should

continue, whether they serve any real purpose or not, and that is a very

circular debate. It is almost like certain things become in vogue for a while in

education and then move out of style and then move back into style and so on.

It is very much like Language Arts programs and so

on where we had a tendency, for the longest time, to concentrate on form and

structure in the Language Arts, that you had to write proper paragraphs,

indentation, capitalization and punctuation. Then we moved to a period of time

where that wasn't deemed to be academically important, the importance was

expression. It didn't matter if you ever knew how to spell a word or if you knew

how to write a sentence or write a paragraph, as long as you put something down

on the paper about your thoughts and ideas that was encouraged. The pendulum has

swung again, we have gone completely around the circle to where the move in

education and the academic argument again is that we had better learn how to

spell again. We had better learn how to write proper paragraphs again. We had

better learn how to do indentation, punctuation and capitalization, because

there needs to be structure in writing. So that debate has gone completely

around the circle in about fifteen years.

The same thing happens, I would contend to you, Mr.

Chairman, with respect to standardization and examination. The public exam is an

example of it but more importantly, the debate usually hinges around the whole

idea of standard curriculum. In this Province we have a provincially-based

curriculum in which, at the high school level in particular, Level III in

particular, at these graduating level courses - every student is doing the same

course from largely the same text materials, with the same teaching syllabus and

guides, with the same parameters and concepts outlined for each of the teachers,

with teachers who are on a common wavelength as to what it is the students are

supposed to master in the subject area and with teachers who all have equal

skills in terms of being able to evaluate and assess whether or not the students

have met the objectives of the course.

The issue around standardization, generally in the

country, is much more around, `Should we have a standard curriculum in a

province rather than do you need a public examination?' So there are public

examinations - is one part of the issue and that debate swings back and forth -

but the idea that in a Province, particularly where you have a prescribed

standard curriculum as we do, then the view is that you probably don't need a

public examination at all. You probably need much more of a public examination

in areas where there are some swings and some latitude in terms of what the

people are actually studying, because you don't have a real idea as to whether

or not they are even at the same level when they are at Level III, and in other

provinces they are and would be here.

So it is an academic debate that goes on forever.

There is no end to the debate. I am sure that there will be somebody sitting

here maybe discussing that kind of issue in fifty years time about

standardization in graduating levels and so on. The key to it normally in

education circles has been whether or not you have qualified teachers who have

the skills to evaluate the components of a program offering a standardized

curriculum. We have those components in Newfoundland and Labrador and don't

really need a public examination system at all. That was the position we were

looking at debating more fully and on a more timely basis for next year. But

because of the refusal of the NLTA to have its members co-operate with us at

this point - I guess, because we did not have the option, in our view, of

reinstating the money in the budget - then clearly, we moved to the other

position. And rather than put any student in a position of writing an

examination that was already prepared, knowing that the NLTA had said quite

clearly that their plan was to put them in a box and send them back to the

Minister of Education and to insist that no teacher in that organization marked

one of those examinations; rather than have that occur and put students through

the process of writing an exam that would not be marked, we cancelled the

examinations a year in advance of when we were actually going to take the time

to lay out the public debate on the issues that we are discussing here today.

There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that there will

be a continuing debate, and there is a continuing debate in the country. And you

will see shifts from time to time. You are likely to see at any point in time

the country probably just about split on the issue, with the five that are in

and the five that are out probably switching back and forth. I doubt very much

if we will see a point in time in the history of the country where all ten

provinces and the territories will either be writing public exams, or all ten

provinces and the territories will not be writing public examinations. Because

there is always a debate to be held, and it depends on how the debate has

progressed in that Province or territory, what the history of it has been, and

where they have been, and where they are going next. At some point they are in,

then they are out, then they are in, then they are out.

It is just like many other things in education.

There are always differences of opinion as to what is academically best for the

students, because that is supposed to be the driving force always behind the

decisions. The standardization issue is one that will be debated as long as

there is an education system.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Minister, what are the

true savings to government? We hear, and we have certainly seen, some reports

that obviously there are administrative costs that have already been built in,

and certain expenditures with respect to exam preparation and so on. But this

decision at this stage, what are the actual savings to government to have

abolished exams at this time for this year?

MR. GRIMES: The latest update in terms of the

numbers and the continuing commitments that we will have to carry on with

respect to marking and making provision for marking the language exams, for

example, that were completed in December and January at the end of the first

semester, scholarship examination that we had not intended to run because we

were going to base the scholarships on the public examination, and other

functions, will take the projected savings from the $650,000 down into the range

of $540,000.

If we were to go ahead and proceed as had been

suggested in some quarters, with the marking board, and continue on with the

examinations, we would have had to spend $540,000 more out of this budget than

is in the budget and projected. The estimates, if we had been able to get the

NLTA to co-operate with us and mark the examinations, we could have actually

reduced expenditures by $650,000 rather than $540,000. We now have a difficulty

because of the decision by the teachers, and quite clearly their decision to

make, that they not co-operate, that the NLTA suggest to its members that they

not co-operate and mark the examinations.

We now already this early in the budget year have a

difficulty in the range of $110,000 that was not budgeted for and that we will

have to try to find somewhere else in our budget as we go through the remaining

eight or nine months to make sure that we accommodate that. Because none of us

is going to be in a position, I guess, to over expend anything other than what

is provided for in our estimates. But $540,000 will be the amount of money that

will be spent, less than would have been spent had we proceeded with the public

examinations and the marking board. That is the latest we have.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. G. REID: Let me ask just one question on

that, Minister. Page 216, 2.2.05.09, under Public Examinations and Scholarships.

What is that Allowances and Assistance, $244,900?

MR. GRIMES: Let me find that page.

MR. G. REID: Page 216.

MR. GRIMES: The number you were looking at is

$244,900?

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

MR. GRIMES: Two hundred and forty-four thousand

nine hundred dollars is the amount of money, yes. Mr. Chairman, that amount of

money is budgeted under this heading. That is where we put in the money for the

scholarships that are paid to graduates from the high school system. Because

each year we pay out electoral scholarships for the top scholar in each of the

forty-eight electoral districts, it used to fifty-two up to last year. Then

there were also centenary of Responsible Government scholarships that are paid

to the rest of the scholars as now identified by a scholarship examination in

high school graduates to assist them in terms of going on to their

post-secondary education. So I am very pleased to see that the numbers stayed

consistent from last year and that there is almost $250,000-worth of assistance

to scholarly students leaving the high school system in helping them to go on to

their post-secondary studies. That is where that appears in the budget, it is

under Public Examinations and Scholarships and that number itself is for the

scholarships.

MR. G. REID: Thank you.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Minister, if we could go to

page 210, under Royal Commission Implementation. We have seen a significant drop

from $667,400 to $105,400. What changes have you made in the department, and

certainly, we hope this is not indicative of the department's changing of the

way and decreasing the emphasis on the implementation of the Royal Commission

program. I am wondering what changes you have made within the department and

what programs you are going to keep in terms of the Royal Commission

Implementation?

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted that the question was asked because

that is a very important issue, I think, for all of us. A couple of years ago,

maybe three years ago now in 1993, the decision was made to establish a separate

stand-alone implementation group in the Department of Education to assist

government in trying to work through putting the 212 - is it?- recommendations

in the Williams Commission Report.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: Two Hundred and Twelve, Two Hundred

and Twenty-two, the number escapes me now. But it is in excess of 200

recommendations from the Royal Commission report that we were trying to move

forward as best we possibly could. A number of them, as we know, have to deal

with these governance issues that are now still before the Parliament of Canada,

having passed the House of Commons last night, and are moving on now to the

Senate. There are a number of others, as the hon. member has pointed out many

times in the Legislature, particularly when he was the education critic, things

that we could move forward with anyway, that didn't require the consent of

denominations or anybody else; they were issues of general agreement in

education that were for the betterment of educational opportunity to students

that we should proceed with. There was a separate committee and a separate

implementation group budgeted for and set up, and as you can see in past years

the budget was in the $500,000 to $600,000 range. A lot of that, you can look as

well at the subheads in .05. You can see that the bulk of that money was with

respect to Professional Services. This is where a number of the recommendations

in the Royal Commission Report talked about doing further detailed work, for

example, on the whole issue of special needs students. Dr. Patricia Canning had

been brought in on a special assignment and contract to do some work along with

the NLTA and the school boards and the public generally as how we meet the needs

of special needs students in the system, because that was a very general

recommendation in the Williams Commission Report. It could not give any

specifics and someone had to try to put the flesh to the bone in terms of a

general recommendation, and what did we really have to do and what should we be

doing in the Province, to meet the needs of special need students in the whole

continuum into the future? So those kinds of studies were done. A lot of

preparatory work was done. Dr. Crocker had been heading up the implementation

secretariat and had done a lot of work with respect to working with the Justice

people on the draft legislation that will be coming before the House next Fall,

the changes to the Schools Act, the changes to the Education Act, and it was

understood that would be a two-year project. When the end of the two years came,

a year ago, it was decided to extend it for another year because it was obvious

that we had not made the progress, particularly with the churches, that we had

expected in terms of moving ahead on the basic governance model, and that there

was more work yet to be done.

It was, I guess, a more complex and more

complicated issue than anybody had actually contemplated at the beginning. We

thought we would move forward with agreement more readily on some of the major

issues. So, this year when the new department was put in place and it was clear

from the mandate given to the new government in the election, and as attested

here in the Legislature just a week or so ago with a unanimous vote in the

House, that we proceed with the implementation of the basic, fundamental,

governance changes for education reform, knowing that we had been given a

mandate to do that, it was felt quite clearly that we had most of the background

work that was necessary already completed by Dr. Crocker and his group, and that

we could now go ahead, proceed with the passage, hopefully the successful

passage, of Term 17 in Ottawa.

The legislation drafted was released, I believe,

January 3. I believe you may still have been education critic at the time,

before the election, when former Premier Wells and Minister Decker had released

the changes to the Schools Act, the Education Act, the viability criteria and

all of those types of things that were in the public domain at that time. So all

of that preliminary work had been completed, a great job done by the

implementation secretariat, and we felt that now we were at a stage where we

could take it back into the normal functioning of the department.

Dr. Crocker is finishing his final work and writing

a report for us on his efforts. That is just about completed. Dr. Oakley now, as

the ADM responsible for the K-XII system, has taken over direct responsibility

again for the final implementation stages of the reform agenda and the Williams

Commission recommendations, so we felt that it was the appropriate time now for

us to draw it back into the normal functioning of the department, that the great

bulk of the work that needed this extra attention has been completed, and we are

very well positioned now to move ahead with a public consultation in the Fall

with respect to the new draft Schools Act, the new draft Education Act, that we

are hoping, with the co-operation of the members of the Legislature, to have the

fundamental changes that are required to legalize the ten interdenominational

boards and the construction board passed even before we recess for the Summer,

so that they can have legal constitutional base by July 1, and that the other

detailed issues in terms of the rest of the reform agenda, parental choice, how

that is exercised, which schools remain interdenominational, which become

uni-denominational, all of those issues are in the legislation which will go

through a public process in the early Fall and go through full debate in this

Legislature hopefully for passage before we adjourn for Christmas.

That is why we basically show in 1.2.08 that the

actual separate implementation secretariat that has been there has been wound

down. There is some money in the salaries part to allow for several months of

salary for Dr. Crocker and some of his staff who are winding up now but will not

be there for the full year. And there is still some money in Professional

Services and Purchased Services to finish up a bit of the work on which Dr.

Canning and her group are now in the stages of submitting their final reports.

They didn't get them finished at year-end so there is a little bit of carryover.

By and large it shows that the detailed extra work

necessary to position the government so that we could proceed with the

implementation of the Williams commission report has been done. Now we feel

confident that the normal complement of staff in the department, under the

direction of the Deputy Minister and Dr. Oakley, can complete the implementation

agenda over the next year or so.

MR. H. HODDER: What provisions have you made

and what proportion of the recommendations in the Williams Royal Commission that

relate to collective bargaining matters - the length of the school day, the

length of the school year, the commitment to professional development programs -

are these matters now matters that have been referred by your department to the

collective bargaining processes? What is the status of that particular strategy

in terms of the Royal Commission recommendations and the implementation of them?

MR. GRIMES: I think, Mr. Chairman, there was a

very clear signal given by Premier Tobin during and immediately after the

election when he met with groups like the NLTA. The indication that we are

following up on completely and thoroughly is that matters respecting the working

life and the workload and the collective agreement of teachers, in this

instance, would not be dealt with through legislation except as an absolutely

extreme last resort. It isn't the intention of government to use legislation at

all. Those matters are properly within the realm of collective bargaining and

would be referred there.

The examples, for example, that you give with

respect to length of day and length of year: In the discussion that I've had

with the NLTA both privately and in an address I gave to its annual general

meeting this year, we indicated those matters would be referred to collective

bargaining in the government's opening position. Because in the Royal Commission

study through 1991 and 1992 before the report was submitted in March 1992, one

of the major issues - in my own review of it I would rate it as the second major

issue that came forward after the whole government's model as to how much

control should the denominations still have in terms of where to put schools and

those types of issues; I think that was the primary one.

The second most repeated issue that came forward in

all the public consultation was the notion that in the 190-day school year,

parents were convinced that students weren't getting the maximum instruction

time. I guess the phrase that educators have always used is time on task. There

have been too many interruptions of various sorts and natures, and that of 185

instructional days in a 190-day year, I think Dr. Williams' study and commission

itself suggested that in certain areas of the school system, as few as 135 or

140 of them were actually used for teaching, in terms of normal standard

teaching. Others were tied up with examination schedules that were very lengthy

at the high school level, all kinds of other educational experiences that some

people question the value of.

I happen to be a firm believer, I think as you

probably are, that there is a lot more to education and teaching than sitting in

a classroom and having a teacher and a student interact in that one environment.

There are a lot of other very positive educational experiences that occur

outside the normal classroom setting. But it draws attention, and it drew

attention in the Williams commission report, it drew attention in the public

hearings, to the point that they were so concerned about the perceived lack of

time on task that they made two specific recommendations as to how to very

visibly address it.

One of them was that the school year should be

lengthened. And I believe the recommendation was that it should be lengthened to

200 days from the current 190 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: - that fifteen of those days should

be for other things, but 185 should be for pure in-school instruction, and that

the other fifteen could be used for assorted other reasons. Secondly, was that

the school day itself, as defined in the current legislation, should be

increased by basically, I guess, half an hour or so for both primary/elementary

and for high school students so that you would have additional time available

for instruction. So you would have a longer day and a longer year. The other one

related to that, the notion of full-time Kindergarten was also addressed, that

we would have a full-day Kindergarten rather than half-day, which the government

looked at and for fiscal reasons again, a couple of years ago, decided not to

implement because of the fact that it was a fairly costly item.

So the whole notion that we indicated to the

teachers is that there has been an issue raised which is concerned about time on

task. So far, there has been one recommended solution, which is a longer day and

a longer year, and that we would present that one recommended solution as the

government's opening position in collective bargaining. So they fully expect

that. The challenge I indicated to the representatives of the NLTA and to their

membership at their annual general meeting is that, I guess I used the phrase

'that we' if it is going to be the government and the NLTA through the

Department of Education and the NLTA, the government represented by the

department, we would have to convince the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at

the end of a collective bargaining process that we have addressed the time on

task issue to their satisfaction, because they have raised it repeatedly in the

public hearings. They did not think we were getting the best value in terms of

time for instruction during the school year. And I indicated to them that unless

the teachers can show us through a round of bargaining better and different

solutions rather than lengthening the day or lengthening the year, at the end of

the process we will either have to lengthen the day and/or lengthen the year or

we will have to go out together and say we are doing these other things instead

that we have agreed to that will, in fact, take care of and should alleviate the

concerns of the parents on behalf of the students that they were not getting

enough time on task. They were not getting enough quality instructional time

during the school year.

So that is the challenge that has been squarely put

before the NLTA. The opening positions and the opening packages have not been

exchanged yet for collective bargaining. But they are fully expecting that the

government's opening position through the President of Treasury Board and our

bargaining committee will contain references to a longer school year and a

longer school day in trying to deal with that issue of increasing time on task

for instructional purposes.

MR. H. HODDER: In a supplementary to the same

topic - we were discussing the Royal Commission implementation, particularly

with reference to the focus of Dr. Crocker and his emphasis on math and science

music, physical education, and some of the industrial arts types of programs and

art itself. Has the department revisited that particular philosophical tendency

of Dr. Crocker? And there has been some considerable dialogue and discussion

with the teachers, with school boards, with parents and some concerns raised by

many of the parents about the narrow focus of the implementation program when it

comes to curriculum, and concerns raised that there was more to a child than

and all parents want to have quality programs in these, there was great concern

about the narrow focus that was evolving in the department and that we were

placing at risk some of the programs that are found to be of value, particularly

in terms of life-long skills and music. I know in some cases, some schools were

cancelling physical education programs at the high school level; they were not

being offered at all. Even though the goals of education in Newfoundland state

that it is a mandatory program, some boards were dropping everything from

guidance programs, to art, to a whole variety of programs, and that wasn't just

at the high school level, it was also within the primary and elementary

divisions. It came to be supporting, on the one hand, going back to the basics,

but many people have great concerns that that was at risk to the under-educating

of the total child.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I could, I think it might be useful if I made a

very brief comment and the Committee might like to hear a little further detail

on that issue from Dr. Oakley.

MR. H. HODDER: And I apologize, in a few

moments I have to leave for a caucus meeting, and then I shall return after a

short while. But when you have a relatively small caucus, it is necessary, when

you are a House Leader for the Opposition, to try to put a number of hats on

sometimes at the same time.

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

MR. GRIMES: You are going to leave and go in

and plan your savage attack on the government for today.

MR. H. HODDER: A savage attack upon the

government today. We are just letting you have a little bit of warning. But with

the three questions you have answered thus far within an hour, you are doing

pretty good.

MR. GRIMES: So I am not going to get asked a

question in Question Period today for sure?

MR. H. HODDER: Not a chance.

MR. GRIMES: Now, with respect to the issue, the

only comment I wanted to make - because it is an important, educational,

academic debate again about the whole idea of the basics versus the broader

education. I believe that it would be unfair - and I know that you certainly did

not intend in any way to associate the direction strictly with Dr. Crocker, a

public servant doing work on behalf of government. When that view came in it

wasn't that it was Dr. Crocker's view, it was the view of the Department of

Education and the government being espoused by Dr. Crocker. I think it was clear

that the executive of the Department of Education would normally debate and

discuss these issues and, as you would know, there is a debate to be had,

clearly that once that was articulated it seemed that a certain point of view

was winning the day at the time and the question is, are we still headed in that

direction? Is the debate still open and so on? I think it would be more

instructive if Dr. Oakley gave a few comments with respect to where the whole

issue is in terms of the broader curriculum debate.

MR. H. HODDER: Before Dr. Oakley begins, I

don't want to leave the impression that this was Dr. Crocker's sole initiative

or that he, in fact, was the only proponent. In the dialogue that took place in

the public forums, whether it was dialogue with teachers or whether it was

dialogue with his professional colleagues, certainly there were two things that

happened. One was that he communicated as being the direction that the

department was heading but also, of course, from our knowledge of Dr. Crocker,

and from my own experience of him, I just happen to know that he happened to

believe very firmly in what he was espousing. Therefore, I don't think it is any

secret that this particular direction was a direction that Dr. Crocker shared

personally, as well as a direction that he espoused on behalf of the department.

Whether that was correct or incorrect is something the government has to decide.

Obviously, if they hired Dr. Crocker to do the implementation, they must have

been satisfied with some of the recommendations that he was making.

MR. GRIMES: Fair enough.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask Dr. Oakley to address

this in more detail.

DR. OAKLEY: Thank you, Minister.

I think it is fair to say that the Royal Commission

Secretariat was really taking its direction from the -

CHAIR: Dr. Oakley, could you just mention your

name for the purpose of the record.

DR. OAKLEY: Yes, it is Wayne Oakley, Assistant

Deputy Minister, K-XII.

CHAIR: Thank you.

DR. OAKLEY: As I was indicating, the Royal

Commission Secretariat was taking its direction from the Royal Commission with

respect to what was considered to be core areas of the curriculum.

Unfortunately, once you mention that something is core, it means often, in

people's minds, that other things are peripheral, and that is furthest from the

truth.

The Royal Commission indicated that at least 50 per

cent of the curriculum should focus in the areas of math, science, language

arts, and basically that is not far off where the curriculum presently is, if

you were to do an analysis of the time spent at the various grade levels and at

the senior high level, depending on the program that students follow at the

senior high level.

Over the course of the past two to three years, I

think it is fair to say, and with Dr. Williams as deputy minister subsequent to

the Royal Commission, the area of social studies has much more become part of

the core as well, so that that is much more in line with what was considered

core by the vast majority of people, and I think a great deal of debate that we

heard over the course of the two years had to do with basically the whole of the

social studies being omitted from that particular area.

We have certainly attempted within the department

over the years, as a previous director of curriculum, to be very cognizant of

the fact that many students should be exposed to a broad program. That is the

commitment, and I believe will continue to be the commitment. There has been a

tremendous amount of effort expended. As you know, the department has been

working on developing intended learning outcomes which is another word, I guess,

for objectives of the past. It is just a more refined way of stating these so

that students would know, and be able to demonstrate that they know, certain

aspects of whatever it is they are studying. So the department has been focusing

on these intended learning outcomes, not only for the core areas of the

curriculum that you have mentioned, but also in all of these areas, and they are

in the process of being published for public consultation.

A tremendous amount of effort, as the minister

indicated earlier this morning, has gone into the development of these learning

outcomes, particularly for at the end of Grades III, VI and IX. In addition to

the revision to a senior high school report that was done, that has been

circulated to the public, we have received reaction from the public and are in

the process of finalizing what the revised senior high school program will be.

That will be made public sometime during the Fall in preparation for

implementation, we hope, in 1997.

So I guess, to summarize, there is concern that the

focus would swing in one direction and, I think, those of us who are educators,

and I think many in the general population, believe that there is tremendous

value in a number of areas other than the three that were listed.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hodder.

Mr. Canning.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would just like to say for all

those present, with respect to public exams, when we went to school in Labrador

City, we didn't have public exams. There were no public exams when I graduated

from high school in Labrador City. I think the record will show that not all of

us - it can be argued that some of us didn't achieve great things, but some that

I graduated with did. It wasn't the result of the exams that they had written,

it was a result of the overall education program they had received.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CANNING: Exactly, that is the point I am

trying to make. But I just say that because whether or not there is a public

exam, in my own view, doesn't make the student in the final analysis. But I want

to ask a question with respect to the Apprenticeship Board and the Industrial

Training and Certification Board. I think there is some transition being

undertaken now and we are trying to get a handle on how it is we should certify

people within the workplace to make sure they have the skills that the workplace

is calling for. I would just like to get a sense of the time lines for this

transition period. I think Dr. Marsh may be able to respond to that.

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

Studies.

I think as the member knows, as a former member of

the Apprenticeship Board, there have been a number of changes that, I guess,

occurred as a result of changes in the workplace and so on throughout the

Province and the ability of workplaces to accommodate a broad range of learnings

in an apprenticeship program, because apprenticeship is a workplace training

program that is supplemented by periods back in school. The Apprenticeship Board

did a report for the department through consultations with industry and employee

apprentices, journey persons and so on throughout the Province. Two years ago

that report was presented to the department, about a year ago, in fact, in the

Fall. And as a result there have been, I guess, a number of changes that have

occurred. We are in the process of doing a number of pilot projects where, in

fact, training would be done by the industry. The Apprenticeship Board would

move to an Accreditation Board, so that it would accredit institutions or

industries for the provision of training, and the other is to ensure that the

standards in Newfoundland Apprenticeship, and the journey person while they do

write common examinations in the designated trades, you know, forty-three of

them to ensure that the standards of instruction, the standards of equipment

that people use, and so on, are similar in Newfoundland to that in other cases

where the apprenticeship board would take on an accreditation role for

institutions.

I can tell the member that in fact in line with the

report and the recommendations of the report they are being put in place. The

department has hired a consultant to work with the implementation of five pilot

projects. The director and the board are working through that and we have made

some recommendations for additions to the board to replace the member.

MR. CANNING: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would

just like to point out that this is a good story. Because I recall we had

meetings with people from around the country. People from around the country

suggested this Province was in fact on the cutting edge, in terms of setting up

new certification boards, for the whole of the country, and it was done after

very wide consultation. Because I recall I was a labour rep on that thing. There

were employers and union reps alike. That board travelled around the whole of

the Province. I would like to commend Dr. Marsh, the department and the minister

for their continuing efforts in this particular area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chair?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 212 of the Estimates, specifically heading

2.1.05, there is reference to the Denominational Education Councils. My question

is general in nature, and it ties in, of course, Mr. Minister, with the whole

debate on education reform. You mentioned earlier in response to a question

that, I believe, in the context of public consultation obviously there will be

legislation and debate dealing with the whole issue of the implementation of

specific reforms as to how they relate to the boards, and interdenominational

schools and uni-denominational schools and so on.

Really, I have two questions. One is: What do you

foresee the role in the near future of denominational education councils to be?

Two, how do you envisage these public consultations? Will they be Province-wide?

Will there be a committee set or struck to deal with that? How do you envisage

these public discussions to take place? I guess, specifically, the

denominational education councils, how do you see them co-existing, even on a

temporary basis, with changes which are to take place in our system?

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A couple of points with respect to that. I think it

is clear from the budget that there has been a significant reduction in terms of

the operating grant that the department will provide to the denominational

education councils for this year. It has been done again on a consistent basis

that the money that is provided under this heading is for the fundamental

operations of the councils which have the Pentecostal Education Council, the

Integrated Education Council and the Catholic Education Council, housed in their

offices across the city. This provides for everything from the rent of their

offices to the payment for their staff to their travel budgets, their

transportation-communication budgets, phone calls, meetings and various

functions.

In the department itself, and in just about all the

departments of government, what we tried to do this year in meeting some of our

fiscal restraint targets was to reduce the operational accounts in the range of

30 per cent to 35 per cent. Where there was discretionary spending for things

like travel we would make some very serious and deliberate inroads in reducing

those amounts of money this year. And that consistent principle, Mr. Chairman,

was applied to the operational funding for the denomination educational

councils, and in fact, I think it reflects a 35 per cent reduction in the

operational funding to the councils.

In the short term, they have a continuing role to

play. There is no question of that legislatively and until there is a new

schools Act or a new education Act that redefines the role in the lines of what

was contemplated in the Williams Commission Report. They have legislative

mandate. They are necessarily existent. They have to continue to exist, by law,

to the extent, Mr. Chairman, that even in bringing forward the proposals, even

with Term 17 past, and let us all assume for purpose of discussion that it

passes the Senate fairly quickly as well in a matter of a few days or so, and

that it has full approval of the Parliament of Canada - even then with the

changed legislation with respect to education in the Province, one of the

mandates clearly spelled out is that we have to have the new legislation made

available to, and I guess, vetted in some form by the denomination educational

councils. Because we run a denomination system and they are the appointed

representatives of the churches with respect to education matters.

So when we bring forward a piece of legislation,

for example, we are compelled by law to make sure the DECs have seen that

legislation first, have been provided an opportunity for comment and know the

direction in which the government is intending to move, so that they can give

input on behalf of the churches that have rights under the Constitution as to

whether or not they agree or disagree with the proposed changes. So we will go

through that process.

In the near-term, it is clear that the government's

intent, as will be spelled out in the Legislature over the next week or ten days

or so, is to move to the ten interdenominational boards and to do it on the

basis of appointment rather than run an election. We looked at the option of

whether we would elect the boards immediately because the current twenty-seven

boards have been in place for seven years now, just about seven years because

there was no election held.

At the last municipal election, we thought, we were

going to have reform accomplished shortly after that, but it is taking a little

longer. So the role for them clearly, on behalf of the respective denominations

that have rights, Mr. Chairman, under the Constitution and continue to have

rights under the new Term 17, is that when we look for denominational

representatives on school boards, which is spelled out in the new Term 17 that

two-thirds of the members will represent the denominations that had rights at

the time of Confederation, when Term 17 was first put in place, and will

continue to have rights. In selecting, for example, the Roman Catholic

representatives, the Pentecostal representatives and the Integrated

representatives to the board, and the rest will be at large, we are duty bound

to contact those people who speak for the churches on those matters, and they

are the Denominational Education Council's representatives. So there is a role

for them in terms of suggesting to us. The Minister makes the appointment, but

we certainly have to at least let them make some recommendations and suggestions

to us as to who their representatives on the interim boards should be, if we are

appointing them. Once it goes to an election process, of course, that role is no

longer required. There is no longer an input role for the DECs. Any person who

would want to run as a member of the Roman Catholic class of persons, for

example, on a school board would declare themselves as such and say that is what

they want to run for and their name would be placed on the ballot, as a person

seeking a seat as a Roman Catholic. Those issues will be there, and there is no

vetting role or anything contemplated for the DECs or the church authorities in

any way with respect to the election that would occur in November of 1997.

But in the shorter term when we are looking at

interim appointments for the next eighteen months, we would go through the

recognized designates of the churches, being the denominational representatives

at the DECs, and ask them for their input. The whole notion of the public

consultation, we fully expect and I think the Premier outlined the case outside

the Legislature yesterday with respect to the continuing role for the churches

through their denominational representatives or through the church leaders

themselves, if they like. But at this point in time they have designated all

contact with the government to their denominational representatives at the DECs.

There has not been a direct face-to-face meeting of the heads of the churches,

the Archbishop, the Bishop and the rest of the group, with the Premier or with

myself. We have dealt with their duly appointed representatives at the DECs in

all matters to date. We will certainly meet with the heads of the churches at

some point, because that will be, I guess, the proper protocol, and required at

a point in time. But the Premier laid out the case that when we bring forward

legislation the interim legislation that is required now to give legal status to

the ten boards and the construction board and the detailed legislation that will

come in the Fall, that the churches will have an opportunity through their

denominational representatives to have input just like everybody in the Province

will.

The proposal right now, Mr. Chairman, is that we

would arrange for a public consultation process similar to what the Minister of

Finance arranged for in his pre-Budget dialogue, that we would go out with a

short brief statement and some possible draft legislation with the minister

himself going around and leading public sessions in twelve, fifteen, eighteen,

twenty locations in the Province in early September. We would then come to the

Legislature with a piece of legislation and, I guess, the Legislature itself, as

usual, would make a determination as to whether or not it is of enough import

that we would have a legislative committee follow up with further public

meetings. If the draft legislation itself meets with some preliminary approval

of all parties in the Legislature, it might go to a quicker passage.

The other commitment that is being given, Mr.

Chairman, is that the Premier himself has committed to the official Leader of

the Opposition and to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that before we

bring legislation to the House of Assembly with respect to those major reform

changes in education, that they would, on behalf of their respective parties,

have an opportunity to look at the draft legislation before it ever surfaces in

the House of Assembly for debate by all members. So those commitments will be

held and kept in terms of a public consultation organized and orchestrated by

the department. Also, there will be an opportunity for the Official Opposition

and the Leader of the New Democratic Party to have a pretty thorough look at the

draft proposed legislation before it ever comes before the Legislature for

discussion in the Fall.

So I think it has been clear to all of us that the

public generally want an opportunity to have a real say in this reform as it

moves forward. And the only clarification again, because I have listened to some

of the news reports this morning, and for whatever reason -I am at a complete

loss as to why some members of the media today were discussing whether or not it

was going to be possible to really reform the system for September coming; when

I believe everybody in this Committee understands that that was always

impossible and it was never the intent. The intent was to have ten school boards

in place in July to let them take over management control of the system. But

anybody in education certainly already knows that all of the decisions with

respect to which schools will operate next year - there was someone saying that

the current twenty-seven school boards are out there hiring teachers. Well, I

hope they are. I am surprised they don't have it done already, and I hope they

have 99 per cent of it finished. And to think that anybody, particularly a

professor at the University, would be suggesting surprise, on a broadcasted

interview, that the current boards were actually out there staffing up the

schools for next year - well, when does anybody think we are going to do it?

There was never a prospect that we would reorganize the actual school system for

next September. The view was that we will debate the legislation in this

Legislature next Fall and the school boards will then be crying, the new ten

school boards will be crying that we are putting a lot of pressure on them by

not giving them their new legislative mandate until Christmas, by which they

will then have to go out, look at exercising parental choice as to which schools

operate on what basis for September of 1997, and also look at the school

viability criteria, the new transportation policy, the new teacher allocation

formulas and so on. They will be crying then that we are pressuring them for the

September after.

So I was really surprised, actually, and a little

disappointed again that some people who have been following this issue were in

the media today commenting on the passage of Term 17 in the House of Commons

yesterday, suggesting that there is no way the minister or the department is

going to get reform in place by September coming up. That was never the intent.

Anybody in education certainly knows that it was impossible. And anyone who was

even thinking that, it would have been pure folly in the first instance to

suggest that you could now turn around and redo all of the decisions for

September coming up as to which schools will open, whether they will be

uni-denominational, whether they will be interdenominational.

We don't even have the draft legislation available

yet to the leaders, as was promised by the Premier. There hasn't been a public

consultation, which we promised the whole Province. That will happen next Fall,

and the phrase I have been using is the reform on the ground in terms of which

schools will be which, and which students will go, and whether there will be

neighbourhood schools and whether they will be interdenominational. All of those

decisions were always contemplated for September of 1997, not September of 1996.

And I don't know how many times any of us have to say that before some people

suggest that we are not making progress with reform because we are not changing

all of the schools into neighbourhood schools next September.

I don't believe that you, as the Opposition critic

for education at this point in time - that you yourself would think, as the

member, suggested, that could even be contemplated or done in that time frame.

The real time frame is for us to put in place the legislative framework that

will direct the decisions of the boards so that they can make those kinds of

decisions for September of 1997.

As the Leader of the Opposition has rightfully put

forward in terms of supporting the amendment in Ottawa, and whether or not those

five criteria that were put forward are actually going to be the real test, that

is what our legislation is all about. Will our legislation that we will debate

publicly and in this Legislature next Fall, be such that the decision-making of

the boards will lead to that outcome? That is the whole debate that we are going

to have in the Province next Fall. And it is a great surprise to me that some

people would be suggesting this morning that there is some potential great

failure here because we didn't get that done for this September.

So that's where it is. I know I was a little off

the rails there with respect to that, because somebody upset me a bit this

morning, listening to that kind of stuff on the radio. But the view in terms of

where we are in the near-term -

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't the Opposition who

raised that this morning.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) the councils, and where

the public consultations are, that it is a very critical public consultation

tour of the whole Province to be held next Fall. And I know that everybody in

the Legislature is going to take it very seriously because that is going to be

the key to what type of reform occurs in the Province, and will be the piece of

legislation that we pass here next Fall.

CHAIR: Perhaps before we continue with the

questioning, if it is your intent to continue for a great deal longer -

WITNESS: Yes.

CHAIR: In that case we perhaps should break for

a coffee.

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

WITNESS: No?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

WITNESS: I have seventy-three questions here.

CHAIR: In that case we shall break for coffee.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

We will resume our session, and I call upon Mr. Hodder

or Mr. Ottenheimer to continue.

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

I wanted to go to page 211 in the Estimates, Teaching

Services. We have Teachers' Salaries and associated employee benefits, exclusive

of Teachers' Pensions. Last year we had a revised budget of $320 million and

this year we are $327 million. I'm wondering what rationalization we have for

that in view of the fact that we will have about 250 or so fewer teachers in the

school system.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very briefly, two things. While we do have less

teachers allocated in the system because of declining enrolments and in line

with the collective agreement, there are always two components that - there is

one component annually that then puts cost back up, and that is, that the

increment system is still working with the teachers' collective agreement. Like

all others, the teachers go through the scale and get their annual increment in

any event. That is a small part of it.

The largest part of it this year though, is that there

is an additional pay period. Last year we had a year in which there were

twenty-five pay periods in the fiscal year for teachers, and it was budgeted as

such. This year actually there were slated to be twenty-seven, but we have

budgeted for twenty-six with the agreement of the NLTA, because they did

co-operate with us, and we are very appreciative of that. There was a

twenty-seventh pay period slated for very close to the end of March, somewhere

around the last few days of March. They have agreed to have the cheques come out

for April 1 for the next fiscal year. Otherwise, this would be increased by

almost another $15 million again. We would have gone from twenty-five pay

periods to twenty-seven. What we have reflected here is twenty-five pay periods

to twenty-six. Each pay period for the teachers in the Province in the K to XII

system is about $14.5 million, and with some pension premium things it actually

gets right around $15 million per pay period for teachers.

MR. H. HODDER: Are you saying that the teachers

who retire, and there will be about probably 250 or so people who will retire -

the new teachers who are hired, of course, they would be, for the most part,

junior teachers at the entry level in, shall we say, a macro kind of sense -

that the increments that are paid in total dollar value, that they still - there

is not enough money, shall we say, saved in terms of the difference between

paying teachers who were at the grade VI and grade VII level - for the most part

that is the teaching level of the teachers who retire - but the savings that

would accrue by hiring the younger teachers would be offset by the increments

that are still being paid into the system?

MR. GRIMES: Not totally. The increments which

apply I think in the teachers scale now at the higher levels with certificate

VII, I believe there are still eleven or twelve annual increments in the salary

scale. For lower levels of certification there are less numbers, as you know,

the grid that is basically shaped that we have worked with for a number of

years.

The increments generally in government are costing in

the range of 1 per cent or so a year, maybe a little less. Because as you know,

again, in teaching, for example, the senior teachers don't get increments. It is

those teachers who have twelve years experience and less. In most other sectors

of the public service it is less than that. They have less steps than the

teachers. They get to the top of their scale more quickly, and then they only

get increments if they are reclassified or if they move to another job, and

those types of issues. But in teaching it is a little less than 1 per cent a

year that is involved in terms of adding to the cost of the teachers salary bill

to provide for the increments for those teachers who are still entitled to

increments in any event. Then the rest here, though, this time around is because

of the extra pay period.

Normally, there would be more than enough, actually,

to offset that through retirees and having people at the top of the scale move

out and people at the beginning points in the scale move in. That is more than

enough, usually, to offset the 1 per cent. So it should stay fairly stable. The

difficulty here is that were 239 I believe was our final numbers in terms of

teachers that were removed from the system through declining enrolments in line

with the collective agreement, and that offset, though, was more than taken up

by the fact that $15 million had to be put back in the system to fund the

additional pay period. The best news, I guess, in this respect is that the

teachers could have been in a position to insist under their agreement and under

the normal proposal that another $15 million on top of that would have to be put

into budget, but they agreed to defer that to another year. They are looking at

the prospect with us of redefining it so that we don't have these ups and downs

and that we actually fund twenty-six pay periods every year instead of

twenty-five some years and then the potential twenty-seven in some others. So we

have appreciated the co-operation with respect to this, but that shows why, even

with 239 teachers coming out of the system with retirees at the higher end and

with replacements coming in at the beginning parts of the scale, that the total

budget is actually up by some $7 million over last year, because half of the

offset was taken up and used with respect to that extra pay period.

MR. H. HODDER: If I could move to the next

category - 2.1.02 - you have dropped the regular operating grant to the school

boards by about 5 per cent or approximately $4.5 million. Have you given any

recognition to the fact that this is going to result in schools not being

properly cleaned, regular summer maintenance that would be done that will not be

done; that the accumulative effect of that decision this year combined with the

reduction in maintenance that has occurred in prior years is resulting in our

schools, gradually being in a declining state of readiness for September

openings and that we are having our physical plants become more dilapidated?

That is a strong word, but in some cases it might be appropriate.

MR. GRIMES: It is one of the areas where I think

we would quite honestly admit that if we are a little bit nervous about being on

the edge in terms of the board's need to operate - because part of that

operating grant there is an instructional materials component, but there is also

a maintenance grant for the school boards for their regular maintenance that

doesn't require major capital. We have made the reductions. As you can see from

last year's budget to the revised budget to now, the first reduction was

reflected in the 3 per cent exercise and so on that the government went through

in December 1995 when we did our $60 million exercise and part of that was

reflected in which school boards themselves were asked to make savings in the

school year.

I think we were all part of the debate here in the

Legislature and so on about whether or not they could accommodate that, and they

did, to their credit. But again, some have indicated that in trying to maintain

the current component of schools in the current twenty-seven boards, this is

very difficult. What is included here though, as well, are some considerations

of the fact that we are going from twenty-seven boards to ten for most of this

operational budget year. And that while there have been some school closures,

there haven't been a lot at this point in time. There have been a couple of

dozen or less with respect to September of 1996. And the school boards will have

to be very diligent and very efficient in terms of operating the schools that

they have remaining, but most of the saving are expected to be reflected again

right at the school board office level. Because it is out of these operating

grants that they all pay for their office structures, with their support staff

as well as their superintendents - assistant superintendents; I think, we have

transferred over the funding now to another head for that particular item on

salaries. That has been moved to another budget, which is why it shows a bigger

reduction here. Because the $96 million and the $92 million last year would have

included salary allocations for superintendents and assistant superintendents

who are not in the bargaining unit. Those salaries have been moved into another

head in terms of Teaching Services, I believe?

WITNESS: From Teaching Services.

MR. GRIMES: Or moved from Teaching Services to

here. They are now included. They are in this particular heading.

The reductions in the staff themselves, already partly

announced in terms of reducing the number of assistant superintendents from

forty-three or whatever it was in the past down to only four remaining in the

system now, the number of superintendents have gone from twenty-seven down to

ten, all being accommodated in this heading. The savings there along with - in

the Avalon east area, for example, where we are going to combine the boards in

the St. John's metropolitan area and the Southern Shore, where there are four or

five school boards operating and partly affected now, with four or five business

managers, four or five bus co-ordinators or supervisors, those types of things.

Those positions are expected to reduce to one, and their operating costs are

reflected here.

We are hopeful and we have had some meetings with

them. We will monitor it throughout the year. Again, I think the overall longer

range objective of the government is that once we see the real impact of the

governance changes as a result of Term 17, and the ten boards in place and

functioning, this heading, the operating grants for the ten boards, we would

hope that a consistent number in the range of $88 million or so into the future

would enable them to operate and do a very good job with respect to the ten

boards and the remaining schools that they will have into the future.

We are a little nervous I think, as you are, as

pointed out by the question, in this year. They will have to be very diligent

this year, there is no question of that, and they have expressed those views to

us in the meetings we have had, particularly with the NLSBA on behalf of the

School Board Association of the Province. They feel they can do it. The one

thing they do appreciate is having the notice up front on a full budget year and

hoping that we don't have a December adjustment again. Because that is what

really caused the problem for them last year. Because where most of their

expenditures happen in the early part of the school year, in the Fall, and they

make commitments, it is very difficult to make an adjustment once the school

year starts. At least now they have the advantage before the school year starts

in September of knowing what their budget is for the full year.

We are also working with them with respect to the

allocation of that monies to the ten boards instead of to the twenty-seven

existing boards. So the ten boards would get the prorated amounts that would

have been in the other boards they are going to consolidate in terms of the

downsizing from twenty-seven to ten.

It is an issue that needs to be monitored very

carefully through the year. They think, because of the fact that they can plan

on a full year basis, they are going to do it. They realize it is going to be a

little tight in certain areas, particularly with respect to some maintenance and

repair issues that they normally handle out of this budget rather than the

capital account, and also a little bit on the materials side, they are nervous.

But we have made some decisions about implementation of certain programs that

gives them some relief on that side as well.

MR. H. HODDER: Given the connection between

capital and current spending, and in some cases it is - accountants have great

fun with these things, but in reality it is coming from the same dollar source.

Some schools have had difficulties with electrical problems. There are schools

that have carbon monoxide problems. We have schools that are desperately in need

of repairs. Given the fact the government has indicated they will be moving to a

single school construction board - which I think is supported by everybody, and

the details, I'm sure, will take more time to work out. But given that, and

given the fact that some schools are in great need of repair - some of them are

classified as emergency or quasi-emergency - when will the boards know what

monies will be available to them for issues, like for example, addressing high

levels of carbon monoxide which is a problem in several of our schools

throughout the Province?

MR. GRIMES: Very soon, we would expect. The piece

of legislation that will come before this Legislature before we leave for the

summer will deal with the ten boards and the single construction board with an

effective date of July 1, provided we have all of the passages in the Parliament

of Canada, including the Senate. The nervousness about that again is that if we

wait until then to formally put that single board in place, by the time they get

up to speed, get briefed and get comfortable with their mandate, we might miss a

very important construction season.

Ms Delaney actually has been working with our DEC

counterparts who have agreed in principle to operate in the short term as if the

construction board is already in place. So with the $4 million that is in the

capital account, on the basis of need rather than per capita denomination split,

we would take a look at which are the priorities for capital expenditures.

Because of some of those issues with air quality and some major repairs that

need to be done, that would normally be funded outside of the regular

maintenance grant of the school board itself. We are providing information to

the school boards in the next week or so about what their budgets would be,

noting that it is being prorated for the twenty-seven and then being given to

the ten, in a tentative type of way. But the existing superintendents, for

example, will know what kinds of money are available in their normal maintenance

and repairs grant for things that they would have done from that account and

will work with the DECs to see if we can identify a list of priorities quickly

for the $4 million that is in the capital account that normally would have gone

out 37 per cent for the Roman Catholics, so much for the integrated and so much

for the Pentecostal. But it seems they are going to agree to go through that

exercise so that we don't miss a construction season even prior to the passage

of the legislation.

MR. H. HODDER: Given the fact that you have $4

million assigned to what we call schools construction account, capital account,

has the minister taken into account as well the fact that the DECs themselves

have an accumulated fund - which was identified last year in their annual

statement of approximately $6 million, which has been accumulating since the

early 1970s on interest earned when monies have been transferred and that was

identified by the former minister? Is there provision being made, when the

single school construction board takes over, to have that money properly spent,

where it should be spent, in other words, in school construction and

maintenance? What is the status of that reserve account that the DECs have built

up over the last twenty-five years?

MR. GRIMES: There is, I think, acknowledgement

from the DECs that yes, they do have some money that has basically accrued

interest over the years, that sits in accounts that they administer. The full

details of that are being provided again now to Ms Delaney for presentation to

the government, in terms of exactly what the status of it is. The number of $6

million has been used in the public for a year or so, that number is not

completely accurate but then not totally off the mark either; it is a ball park

figure more than a real figure. Some of the money is in accounts, banked to pay

debt that is coming due over the next three or four years with respect to DREE

schools and so on that were to be paid out over a time, and the interest is

being used to pay the debt rather than have it come out of the $4 million

capital this year, because the debt has to be paid one way or the other.

So there are a number of issues with respect to it.

There is a full detailed presentation of it being provided to us by the DECs in

the next little while, and they have expressed their concern and their full

willingness to see that in the appropriate fashion as long as - I guess the

phrase has been, they will pass over the money any time as long as they are sure

that the government knows that it is also assuming the debt that the DECs have.

Because the DECs, as a separate entity, have accrued and are responsible for

some debt. So if we, for example, as per the Williams Commission Report, wind up

the DECs in some capacity and change their role and function, somebody has to

stand behind the debt that has been accrued and some of the money that is in

their accounts is there coming due in certain investments and so on to be

available to them to pay the debt as it comes due on an annualized basis,

particularly related to some of the DREE schools that were built when there were

some federal monies that were available to the Province, and led to building

spurt in the late 1960s and 1970s.

So there are a couple of issue there. They are not in

any way, shape or form being obstructionist about it. It is just a matter of

providing the information, making sure that all of us have it. And we will share

the information with everybody in the House, with Mr. Ottenheimer as the

education critic on behalf of the Opposition, with Mr. Harris and others. We

will make sure that the information is there and everybody understands the full

status of the monies, how much it is, and on what basis it will be transferred

into the accounts of the school construction board. Because the intent of it is

to have the money used for construction, as it was accrued on interest that was

provided for capital construction. I think everybody acknowledges and

understands that the intent at the end of the day is to have the maximum amount

of it used to retire debt associated with prior construction or to be used to

assist with the $4 million in construction activity that needs to occur now as

we continue to make major capital improvements, maintenance of a major nature.

And there is still the issue of construction of new facilities that are needed

from time to time in different locations throughout the Province. So it is an

issue in which they are dealing with us in a co-operative manner. The details of

it will be available sometime in the not-too-distant future. I think all of us

will look at it and make our own judgment as to whether or not the

denominational education councils are in the right spirit making the money

available for capital projects that are badly needed in some instances.

MR. H. HODDER: I am sure the minister would agree

that it is hard to rationalize drawing down money on the Term 29 program that is

contained in the budget, at the same time realizing that there are $6 million or

thereabouts resting in an account of the DECs, and rationalizing that in the

perspective of having schools in the Province that have air quality difficulties

the minister would want to come to grips with that problem that has been

accumulating over some time. I didn't want to suggest at all that the DECs are

not being co-operative, just that there needs to be closure brought to that

particular problem, and that particular situation.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, the intent is to do that. They

have agreed with us that the issue needs to be brought to a head and to closure,

and to everybody's satisfaction. I think they are as interested as we are in

convincing the public of the Province, because it has become a public issue

that, in fact, the monies are there; they will be used for positive

capital-related projects, that everybody will agree it is what the intent was in

the first instance.

In the general sense of the comment about drawing down

money in Term 29, and other issues of the government borrowing against itself,

or from itself, or from our bankers, when there are pools or pots of money

around that sit there not being utilized to its maximum at this point, it is an

issue that concerns the government in a number of areas. We have had the same

type of example, for example, with respect to some of the rural development

associations and the economic zones. Some of those associations have done

tremendous jobs and actually have surpluses in their bank accounts. But under

the old process, as we move to the new economic zone, the regional boards and so

on, they had been in a process of annually still receiving administrative grants

from some branch of the government while they sat with surpluses in their bank

accounts, and the government was borrowing and raising taxes to give them more

money.

The whole notion, I guess, as the member would agree,

is one that is always difficult for a government to be out either raising taxes

generally, increasing fees to generate revenue for the government, borrowing

when we are already into a serious debt situation, to provide money for any kind

of organization, whether it be education or anywhere else, when they already

have the wherewithal to sustain themselves, and I guess that is the issue here

as well. DECs are as interested, I would propose, in bringing closure to the

issue as we are, and they would like to be seen to be doing it in the best

interest of the students of the Province.

MR. H. HODDER: Going to 2.1.05 on page 212,

Denominational Education Councils themselves -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Oh, I am sorry; my colleague

mentions that he has already covered the decrease in the funding for the DECs.

If I could mention then, going to the next heading

above that, Insurance of School Buildings, since we have an increase here. We

pay out $1 million a year in premiums. Is it that the premium rate is directly

related to the amount of usage, and that we don't insure each individual school

but we have a general program that covers all schools? Does the insurance

program cover specific schools, or do we have a comprehensive program that

covers all schools and related buildings?

MR. GRIMES: I knew, Mr. Chairman, he asked that

question for a reason, so that he could get Ms Delaney to give the answer and

give me a break. I will ask Ms Delaney to give the details, because she knows

that issue.

MS DELANEY: The insurance policy covers all

schools in the Province and it is tendered generally every second or third year,

so the amount for 1996-1997 is a tendered price.

MR. H. HODDER: My question was more along the way

in which the program is administered, for example, when we had the school burned

in Ramea. We had great difficulties there because there was some dialogue that

the insurance company was being very difficult to come to recognize the value of

the building, and there was some frustration on behalf of the school board

operating out of Corner Brook, and probably on the department itself. Because

the value that was, I guess, attached to the building at the replacement value

level was not sufficient to be able to replace the school itself. Why I ask is

that - is the insurance program identified with particular schools? For example,

is there an actual value attached to each individual school, and each individual

school and building is identified in the insurance program, or is it a program

that says, in a general sense, that we are insuring all of the schools in the

Province and that our premiums are based on the usage level?

MS DELANEY: The answer to the question is: There

is an estimated value for each school in the Province as part of the insurance

policy. With respect to Ramea, the insurance company changed at that point in

time, and therefore, the insurance company that was responsible for paying out

the cost for Ramea no longer had the insurance policy. Therefore, there were

some disputes between the board and the insurance company.

The other issue with respect to Ramea was: Which

manual would be used to construct a new school, what guidelines we would use. So

that, in essence, is the reason, I guess, for the concern with respect to the

Ramea school.

MR. H. HODDER: On the issue of School Supplies,

the appropriations supplied here, we have a drop of about $800,000. I notice

that from time to time when we get the exceptions to public tendering, you know,

there are consistent exceptions to public tendering because they have only one

supplier. I am wondering if there is some way in which we might be able to use

the public tendering process more often than we now do, thereby hopefully making

the companies who are producing materials more cognizant of the competition that

might be out there. I know there are copyright laws and all that kind of thing,

and publishers, but has there ever been a study done of the wisdom of going to

public tender more readily than simply saying, okay, you have given us a price

and we will take that, and look at the number of copies we want, that kind of

thing. Have you done an analysis of how we could better use public tendering?

DR. WAYNE OAKLEY: What we do basically for sole

source textbooks is negotiate a price with the publisher. We work very closely

with the Government Purchasing Agency to ensure that all areas where we need to

tender, where it is appropriate to tender, that is done. Areas like novels and

than one source, we would go through the Government Purchasing Agency.

What we have done in recent years that has assisted, I

believe, with getting the best price for textbooks is to list more than one

text. Now, that wasn't the real reason why we went with multiple listing, it was

a side effect. If we have a curriculum defined and we list two or three

textbooks that can be used by students for that particular curriculum, then the

publishers of one know they are in competition with the other for teachers

selecting which materials - or school boards, depending on how the board decides

to do that. To some degree, that has caused a reduction in price of the

materials, but generally speaking, the way the publishers are operating now,

they will do a polling of all of the provinces, how many provinces, how many

students will be using this particular text. They look at the cost then that

they can deliver. We normally get a 10 per cent to 15 per cent reduction off the

list price in this Province because we basically have centralized it and do it

on behalf of the Province as opposed to many other provinces that allow

individual schools to do the ordering directly.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much. If I could

move to 2.1.09, on page 213, it deals with Special Payment - Teachers' Pension

Fund. I see that last year we didn't budget anything. We had to pay out $1.6

million and there is nothing budgeted this year. What is the rationalization for

that?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, this was the issue where

in the Budget year of 1994-1995, government with the then Minister of Finance,

Mr. Baker, had indicated that we would want people to take a day-and-a-half off

without pay or exercise a pension reduction option. Then at the end of the year,

because the fiscal position had improved, we reinstated it and anyone who had

actually taken the time was given back the money. As a result, because we didn't

need to exercise a reduced pension option for teachers, we had to put a one-time

payment back into the fund on behalf of the teachers because it was not

required.

MR. H. HODDER: On page 214, Transportation of

School Children and this is dealing with item 10 there, Grants and Subsidies, at

$1.6 million down to $1.8 million. In terms of the changes that have been made,

we have known about the St. John's situation that you have taken out of the

budget for next year, what other changes have you made that would impact on the

dollars that have been saved here?

MR. GRIMES: Well, Mr. Chairman, the savings here

don't really reflect the changing in the busing system. This is debt retirement

on the capital for - we have two systems in place with respect to school busing

in the Province.

MR. H. HODDER: Thirty million dollars here

somewhere.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, and I will get to that. It is

there and I will answer the question.

In this particular heading, some school boards

actually run their own bus service and purchase their own buses. What they do is

go out with the permission to borrow and we then contribute towards helping them

pay off the debt on their school board-owned buses; and this is where this

heading is. Other school boards, of course, contract out to private sector bus

operators who carry their own debt in terms of the vehicles that they purchase,

but this just carries the amount.

I think the transportation issue is probably back a

couple of sections -

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

MR. GRIMES: On page 211, Mr. Chairman, School

Board Operations, 2.1.02, where we had asked earlier about the reduction and it

is the Transportation of School Children, the $27 million to $29 million and

back to $27 million. We are budgeting about $1.5 million or so in savings this

year with respect to transportation. Largely, it is because we have asked people

to enforce two parts of the current regulations that they have been rather lax

in, in the past, not that any of the regulations have changed outside of St.

John's. St. John's has been dealt with extensively, I think, as a separate

issue, and we are continuing our dialogue with representatives of Metrobus and

the City of St. John's to see if there are, in fact, any anomalies that need to

be taken care of. But in the metropolitan St. John's area, in the boundaries of

the city, this is the only community in the Province where there is a public

transit system capable of handling the school population during the times when

students have to go to and return from school. It doesn't even exist in the City

of Mount Pearl. Even though there is a limited Metrobus service in Mount Pearl,

it is not extensive enough, and neither is it scheduled regularly enough to

provide for the transportation needs of the student body in Mount Pearl. No

other city, town or community has any public transit system that could come

anywhere close to accommodating the student needs.

If there are a couple of exceptions or anomalies in

St. John's itself, that is what we are now discussing with the Metrobus group as

to whether or not there needs to be some very limited busing in the capital city

region.

With respect to the other areas, there are two other

regulations. There was never a provision in the school bus regulations for

lunchtime busing other than for the changeover of Kindergarten classes. With

half-day Kindergarten, in areas where there were two groups or more, half the

group would go home at lunchtime because their day was finished, and the other

half would come in for the afternoon session. That was the only provision ever

contemplated in the busing regulations for busing at lunchtime. But over the

years the system had developed whereby since, I guess, the buses were running

back and forth for Kindergarten, then they ran buses for everybody. In fact,

there are areas now where there are several additional buses running at

lunchtime that were never, ever, provided for in the regulations, and we have

asked people to go back to the regulation as it was written in the first

instance and intended, that lunchtime busing would be provided for the

changeover of Kindergarten classes only.

A number of school boards have dealt with it by

polling their parents and suggesting to them that if they want to continue

lunchtime busing, then the parents would have to pay for it in terms of they can

identify what the cost of that service is, and they have already sent out

questionnaires in several areas of the Province asking parents, if they want the

service at lunchtime badly enough, here is what it would cost in our area, and

are you willing to pay x-number of dollars per month per student to continue

with lunchtime busing, because otherwise, they will honour the intent of the

regulation and discontinue it for September. They will reach those final

decisions within the next couple of weeks before schools close, and notify

parents and students as to what the status would be for September.

The other issue that we have asked them to enforce is

that the school bus regulations always provided for transportation for students

who lived more than one mile, or 1.6 kilometres, from the school, and in a

number of areas, even though that was always the written regulation and

continues to be the written regulation, the system has, I guess, evolved over

the years to the point that everybody who wanted to get on a bus could get on a

bus, even if they lived ten feet from the school. So we have asked them to go

back to the intent of the original regulations, with the flexibility given again

to the boards that if they are in an area where there are a very limited number

of students who are more than 1.6 kilometres from the school and you have,

through a set of circumstances, a bus that can contain more than those students,

that it would be up to the board in the area to decide if they would continue to

pick up students until the bus is filled, but that no additional buses should be

put on to provide service for people inside that limit. We are having one other

look at an extenuating circumstance with respect to that policy in Labrador West

because of the severe climatic conditions in that part of the Province which

maintain for most of the school year. If there is to be an exception to that

rule, it is likely that would probably be the only location in the Province

where we would give flexibility with respect to the 1.6 kilometres. We have

asked school boards to plan their busing for September to reflect those two

changes which would comply with current regulations.

The estimate from the school bus review that was done

in detail last year, and the information that the department is working with

now, is that just by enforcing those two regulations as they are written,

without changing any regulations at all, we could save $1.5 million in the

transportation budget, and still provide for adequate transportation for

students in all regions of the Province. In the city of St. John's we have

brought in the policy of being consistent with respect to students who are

residents inside the boundary of the city. We couldn't continue on with a policy

that provided for school busing for some residents of the city, who were

provided with a Metrobus service, and no school busing for other residents of

the city who were also provided with a Metrobus service.

At least, in St. John's, while there is the debate -

and I have had correspondence, Mr. Chairman, from the Deputy Mayor with respect

to discrimination on the basis of only the residents of St. John's having to pay

to get to school when everybody else in all other communities get a free bus

ride to school. At least in the city it is consistent now that every resident of

the city will avail of Metrobus services and pay for it to go to and from

school, or use their own transportation if it is available for them. Outside of

the city of St. John's, where there is no public transit system to provide for

transportation of students, consistently it will be provided in line with the

regulations. I'm now asking them to enforce the lunchtime regulation as well as

the 1.6 kilometre pick up distance or walking distance.

MR. H. HODDER: A supplementary on school busing,

the issue of the contracts. Last year, contracts were let for a one-year term,

because at that point last July and August there was every intention that we may

be ready to implement some of the structural changes in education by this

September. The contracts that were let were let for a one-year term. Have these

contracts been extended and have there been any dollar values added because of

inflation or changes in routes or whatever?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed by Ms

Delaney that each of those contracts has an option to renew for another year.

Because we certainly didn't want to go through the same exercise as last year,

where, after a long period of renewal, we decided to go to tender and, of

course, the prices went up, and I guess in many instances added to some cost

instead of reducing some cost.

The discussion is ongoing now with the school boards

that have these private sector contracts as to what is the best option for one

more year, whether we renew the contracts or go to tender. Those decisions will

be made again very shortly. The full expectation is that everybody will follow

the process that keeps the cost at least contained at last year's level for

those services rather than risking any increases. We can do that by exercising

the renewal options; and that might be the approach taken consistently with

them, rather than go through a tender process. Because again, I believe,

everybody here in the Committee fully expects that for September 1997, the year

after, with a new transportation policy and new busing regulations, there will

be a considerable change in terms of that, and we might very well need for those

school boards that are contracting out their busing services to go through a

tender process.

Because the level of services and the quantity of

services provided is expected to be significantly different in September of

1997. But where the school system is going to be largely the same for the next

school year as it was for this school year, I think, the renewal option right

now is looking to be the most attractive option for one more school year.

MR. H. HODDER: Further to the school busing, there

will be some differences within school boards when the ten boards take over,

when we amalgamate them all together. Some communities now have their school

busing provided by the board-owned school bus system, and within that same board

jurisdiction in the future there will be communities which now have contractual

arrangements. There was some discussion in the last eighteen months about the

cost savings by going to public tender, and having private operators versus

having the school boards own their own buses. For example, on the Burin

Peninsula, the school boards own their own busing,

whereas in, say, the

Carbonear area, they are almost exclusively, I think, done by public tender. In

the St. John's area it is also done by public tender.

While there are reasons why these school boards went

that route at that time, is there any study being done by the Province as to

which route the Province will be going in the future or will this topic also be

a topic that will have public consultation?

MR. GRIMES: I will ask Ms Delaney again, Mr.

Chairman, to elaborate on the whole issue. I am not sure that the whole idea of

a board-owned busing versus contracted busing will be a matter of public

consultation. The broader issues of the types of schools that are run and the

limits and the conditions under which buses will be allowed to run from one area

to another area will be part of the public consultation. But it is currently a

matter of study and discussion within the department and with the school boards

about how we either best run a system of all school board-based busing or all

contracted busing or a combination of both.

I ask Ms Delaney to engage in the discussion with you

further, because she is leading that discussion on our part.

MR. H. HODDER: If I could just make one comment,

Mr. Minister, before that. The reason why I ask that is because almost

exclusively, the areas where there are lunch-time busing programs are those

areas where the school boards own the buses. Therefore, regardless of whether or

not you wish to have a subject for public consultation, it will indeed become a

subject of public consultation because when parents comment upon the system they

will be concerned with the broader issues, and who owns the school buses will

indeed come in because of the historical arrangements that have been made. As I

said, almost exclusively, the areas where there are lunch-time busing programs,

they have occurred because the school boards said: While we are driving back and

forth there anyway it is our buses. We had to pay the operator x number of

dollars per day and we might as well go up and pick them up and drop them back

after lunch, kind of thing. I wanted to put that in there because while you and

I might not think it is appropriate for public consultation, it will be an

issue.

MR. GRIMES: A point well taken. I will ask Ms

Delaney to talk further about the issue of the school board versus the

contracted services.

MS DELANEY: We are currently meeting with school

board personnel with respect to efficiencies in busing right across the

Province. We are also addressing particularly board-operated systems with the

view of identifying efficiencies in those systems. The average price per bus for

board-operated systems actually varies right across the Province. An argument

could be made that it may be more cost effective to contract that out, but that

will have to be addressed on an individual regional basis. Those are items that

I am currently discussing