MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, we will resume the estimates of the Honourable Minister of Health.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would advise the committee that I understand there was an agreement to go approximately 12 hours in Health estimates. It is the NDP's turn and they have 50 minutes left.
The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, one of the things I would like to examine more closely with the honourable Minster of Health is the number of cancelled surgeries throughout the province. (Interruption) Fifty minutes, yes - I'm sorry, I am consulting with our Leader.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, you can use it as you deem appropriate.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: You know anecdotally, we certainly hear lots of stories from people around their cancelled surgeries, but in addition we know that the surgical cancellation rate is tracked fairly closely in each health district, so that information certainly is situated in the Department of Health. Looking at the information we have been able to acquire through the Department of Health, probably through freedom of information requests and other routes, it would appear that the rates of surgical cancellations are steadily on the increase, rather than on a decline.
163
[9:15 a.m.]
So I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he would table any information he has, or the latest information he has, on surgical cancellations in each of the district health authorities and any projections they have for the impact of the budget for surgeries in the next year.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Health.
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member referred to some documents she got from the Department of Health, and actually one of her colleagues, in Question Period a few days ago, referred to a document obtained under freedom of information. I wonder if she would be kind enough to table that. Normally we don't officially collect that information. Ours would come to us from the district health authorities. I would be pleased to give her what we have but she would be far better off to go to the district health authorities, to get that information directly.
In terms of the projected cancellations, the issue of surgical cancellations depends on a number of things. There were surgical cancellations simply for the lack of staff, although a lot of people put it up to lack of beds. The reason there was a lack of beds was there was nobody to look after people after it was done.
The human resource issue improves steadily. It is not where we would like it to be, obviously, but there are more nurses in the system now than there were last year. Therefore, there should be less cancellations. The only figures I have heard cited were some that were released after the Capital District Health Authority released its business plan.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I will table the surgical cancellation rate from the Dartmouth General Hospital between April 2000 and 2001 and the cancellation rates of surgeries from the QE II from 2000 to 2001, and a comparison between 2001, which would indicate - from the QE II, for example, the minister will see after I table this - that there were 401 more surgeries cancelled in 2001 than in the previous year. So I guess what I am trying to establish here - and I am really very surprised that the department doesn't keep track of this. I mean why, on earth, would you not keep track of this? After all, this must be part of the evidence that you need to indicate whether or not your health care plan is working or not.
We have been in this House and listened to this minister for a number of years now, talking about evidence-based health care. I cannot think of a more significant piece of evidence on which to establish the human resource needs in our acute care facilities than the rate of cancellations of surgery. So I am really quite astonished to learn from the minister that his department does not, in fact, track this data and does not use it to determine whether or not the resources that are being given to these district health authorities is adequate and how
to adjust that in the future. It seems to me that it is a fairly basic piece of evidence or a fairly basic piece of information that would be required in order to establish what needs to be done and how the Department of Health needs to respond to people in need of health care services in the province.
I have a number of other tables and indicators of wait times. To me, I guess, this would be another fairly important area for data collection, as the basis to determine whether or not your health care policies and the resources that you provide to support those health care policies, are adequate or not.
I want to ask the minister now about what data, what analysis do you have on wait times in the district health authorities for various surgeries; what reports do you have, and if you have information with regard to wait times, would you table that, please, today?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question. Again, like cancelled surgeries, she indicated that the documents tabled were FOIPOP requests, or at least the Leader of the Opposition, her colleague, indicated they were FOIPOP from the Department of Health. I don't think they were FOIPOP from the Department of Health, I don't think they were FOIPOP at all. I think they were requests of the Capital District Health Authority and made available.
The issue of cancelled surgeries last year, too, Mr. Chairman, it is - you take a look at the bump in the year 2001 as the honourable members would be aware, there were intensive labour negotiations going on at that time and, of necessity, there had to be some non-essential surgeries cancelled, to protect the health of patients. In terms of wait lists, the last official study that was sort of done by the Department of Health was for the years 1994 to 1999. It was published by the Department of Health and we would be pleased to make that available to you.
Again, the issue of waiting times, as you would have noticed, there was a national study, I believe, by the Canadian Orthopaedic Association last year, which indicated that our wait times in Nova Scotia were a little better than the national average, despite the fact that we have the highest rate, I think it is, of knee and hip replacements in the country. Again, those are records which are being kept by the DHAs.
The other thing, and I think the honourable member appreciates this, is that wait lists are sometimes related to individual positions, as opposed to being wait-listed for a service. I can give an example of that, I suppose, which is not to do with surgery. Some time ago there was presumably a wait list of a year to have a bone densitometry scan in Halifax, yet you could have had it done in Lunenburg probably in about four weeks. The question is, what really was the wait list, the appropriate wait time?
I also spoke last week about orthopaedics, Mr. Chairman, saying that if you were referred to a physician in Halifax, or perhaps Sydney or Kentville, you would have had a longer wait time for that process than you would have had, had you been referred to New Glasgow.
So I guess what I'm saying is I certainly understand and appreciate the honourable member's question and I also have a great deal of empathy for anybody who is waiting for a surgical procedure. The information is not as cut and dry as you would say, but I would be pleased to give the honourable member the information that we have in the department.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that our time on the Health estimates is fairly limited. It will be drawing to an end fairly soon. There are two matters that I really want to pursue. Actually, there are three, and one is relatively straightforward. So I would like to ask the minister, on behalf of the member for Halifax Atlantic, about the Doula project in Halifax Atlantic. The Doula project is a project that has been in effect for a number of years now. It is a program where woman who are pregnant are matched with a woman who has already had children. Generally speaking, it is the pregnant woman's first pregnancy, although not necessarily. The idea is to provide ongoing support, prenatal and postnatal, to women who can be isolated, may not have extended family in the area, perhaps women who are single, perhaps women who are teenagers or younger women without the kinds of supports.
My question is, does the Department of Health provide financial assistance to this really important project? I think it is and has been recognized nationally as a very, very significant model for ensuring that we have healthy babies, that we reduce high-risk pregnancy, that we give children the best opportunity for a good start in life and we support their parents, their mothers, so that they have the confidence in their own abilities to parent adequately and to ensure healthy parenting practices. The member for Halifax Atlantic had asked me if I would raise this in the time I have left.
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the honourable member put that program on the floor and for those who haven't heard of it, it's like a buddy system for expectant mothers and most of those who would be expecting are first-time expecting. It is a program which may have actually got its initial impetus over in the Middle East because the name is, I believe, of Middle Eastern origin and it is used extensively throughout the world. I believe that program is not funded directly by the Department of Health, but is funded by the Capital District Health Authority.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I want to thank the minister. Mr. Minister, I want to talk to you about the tobacco control strategy and the need to allocate the correct amount of resources to make this strategy a reality. The minister will know that the Canadian Cancer Society here in Nova Scotia, the Nova Scotia Division, has released their tobacco control recommendations and a very brief discussion paper. The Canadian Cancer Society is saying
in this report, and it's something that we all know and recognize, that a number of things need to be done and certain things in a comprehensive tobacco strategy require some priority be given.
[9:30 a.m.]
One of the things that they are indicating is that smoking cessation itself must be treated with some urgency and given priority by this government, that a toll-free help line and pharmacological aids are very much required and that approximately $1.2 million needs to be invested in this priority area alone. Yet, it would appear that the government is not prepared to dedicate this amount of resources to this very important area, in spite of the fact that this government continues to reap an extraordinarily large amount of revenue, an increasing amount of revenue, from increased tobacco tax.
So I want to ask the minister why haven't you invested more significantly in smoking cessation, particularly since it is necessary for people who particularly are smoking as a result of the stressful situations they live in, in poverty, in the difficult situations that many people find themselves in, where these pharmacological aids are simply out of their reach?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my thanks to the honourable member for putting tobacco strategy on the floor of the House during the estimates. Nova Scotia probably has the country's most comprehensive tobacco control strategy. I do just want to clarify. I know that the honourable member, when she said an extraordinarily high amount of taxes were being collected from the sale of tobacco, I know that she was not inferring that we should lower the taxes. I just would like to get that clarified. I think probably words could have been better chosen. I do know that she does support our strategy and is not going to rise in her place and criticize this government for raising tobacco taxes. I am very confident of that.
We have, Mr. Chairman, the seven-point strategy, which involves legislation and policy and, of course, the legislation will be forthcoming in probably the next fortnight or so. The program also involves treatment and cessation and includes a 1-800 line for people who need some counselling about how to cease smoking. There is community-based funding to the tune of $450,000 and there will be, obviously, the tobacco education officers. A number of the DHAs have already put those in and, of course, we have a strategy for youth prevention and a media public awareness campaign. Obviously, the last thing is the evaluation and monitoring of our efforts.
She has raised a legitimate question about pharmacological aids for those who wish to stop smoking. They are not provided for this year. We would hope that we would find the money to begin that program before too long. We just couldn't do it this year, but on the other hand, like the honourable member, I do know that those things have some success in
some places and I expect that, if we possibly can, within the next year or so, we will be trying to find money to help people with those things.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I want to say to the minister that he's absolutely right. I very much support, as do Smoke-Free Nova Scotia and all of the various groups, that the increase of taxation on tobacco is a very important piece of a comprehensive strategy to eliminate smoking, but my point wasn't that he shouldn't be taxing tobacco. My point was that the incredible amount of revenue that's being generated from this increase in tobacco taxation is going into general revenue; it's not going into assisting people to stop smoking in anywhere close to the proportion that is required.
The other evening I met a gentleman in my riding who is an elementary school principal, and he told me he had quit smoking in January. He's quite proud of the fact, but in the course of that conversation, I asked him how he was able to do it. He said that he had gone to the pharmacy, talked to the pharmacists about getting the patch or something like that, one of the pharmacological aids that are available, and when he found out what the cost of this was, he said, it's cheaper to smoke than it is to get this. Let's face it, he's a professional person in the education system; he's not living on minimum wage or a low income and he found that the cost of these kinds of aids was prohibitive, so you can only imagine what someone with a mental health problem who has been a smoker for many years and is living on less than maybe $400 or $500 a month would . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wonder if I could ask the conversationalists who are not directly engaged in this debate to please turn down their conversations a notch or two. It's very difficult for members to discern what is actually transpiring here. The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate that. So my point is that we need a comprehensive strategy. We need to listen to those groups and organizations - the Medical Society, I was very shocked, actually, to learn that the PC caucus was unwilling to meet with over the smoke-free legislation in the release they sent out last week. I think that these are people who see, every day, directly the impact of not having a comprehensive strategy in place with resources to back up the sentiments that the minister sometimes expresses. We need more than sentiments; we need action, and we need it sooner rather than later. We've dilly-dallied around enough.
I want to turn now to one other area, and that is with respect to persons with brain injuries in Nova Scotia. I have here - and I will table this - a report that was acquired through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I don't know what the cost of doing this was to our caucus, a few bucks. It will be a lot more in the future, courtesy of the Minister of Finance, but let me tell you, it was a complete waste of time in many respects because pages and pages of this document - the pages with the recommendations have been eliminated. What we got back was . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Just ask. They said just ask.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: . . . just ask, what's the secret? I guess my question to the Minister of Health is, what's the big secret on the recommendations around what your department's policy should be for dealing with persons with brain injuries in the Province of Nova Scotia? What's the big secret that the department has on this?
MR. MUIR: Just prior to getting into the question on brain injuries, she referred to the PC caucus and not meeting with the Medical Society people. I want to tell the honourable member that the development of the tobacco strategy had people from all over, very many interested stakeholders, including medical people. The reason for not meeting with the Medical Society was explained. It came in, like your caucus, I assume; well, probably not, we probably, as a government caucus, get a lot more invitations or requests from groups to meet with us. It was just not possible to fit them in in the time frame that they wanted to come. The invitation was extended for them to come again.
I just wanted to make sure that was on the record because the Medical Society, on the other hand - they were there, to be quite frank, as a lobby group and I don't think they deny that. We get requests from lobby groups all the time, and I don't say that negatively in that context, but they were going to put forth a particular position. I think, to be quite frank, the caucus would be perfectly willing to meet with them when we have the time. I'm not so sure that their input was needed then because we're certainly very much aware of most of that information in the Department of Health and it has been used in development of our tobacco policy.
In the question of the acquired brain injury, in 1999 the department established an acquired brain injury working group, and perhaps that's the report to which you're referring. It was reviewed in 2000, and at that time senior management directed that the focus of an ABI program be narrowed to create a proposal that would be financially viable. Subsequent recommendations for program development in extended residential rehabilitation and day programming were reviewed later on in that year, and it was requested that the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre develop more detailed program plans and cost estimate. That report was received.
To be quite frank, the funding parameters that accompanied that report prevented us from fully implementing it in 2002-03 and we don't have the service for that group of people that we would certainly like to have in this province. We do have services available from a lot of different agencies, and services that are available include home care, long-term care and rehabilitative services. We are continuing to work with the DHAs and other appropriate people and it has to be linked to a long-term strategy. A band-aid solution is not going to work for this; again, it's something that there are other things we'd like to do as well that we can't move forward.
We're starting - now that we've got the books balanced, we'll be able to start to look at the long-term planning, but in the current climate that we found ourselves, we just weren't able to move ahead with a more detailed proposal. The proposals that we've had have been pretty expensive.
[9:45 a.m.]
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I appreciate that, but what I really don't understand, Mr. Minister - I have a copy of the acquired brain injury working group report and what I don't understand and what my question is around is, why are the recommendations a secret of this report? Why? You may not have the resources to devote to the report as you claim; I don't know. But we don't even have an opportunity to establish what it is you would like to do if you had the resources because you won't release the recommendations of this report. The terms of reference are - there's a table of contents, a little executive summary, some introduction about who formed the working group, the background to it, the terms of reference, and then we get to the real meat of the work of the working group.
After the real meat of the work of the working group - let's see if I can find this here - the document goes blank. No opportunities, we don't know what the working group established as opportunities, blank pages; recommendations, blank pages; purpose accountability, blank pages; recommendation number four - we know there were at least four recommendations - blank pages; and then we get appendices, which again are terms of reference, other blank pages.
I guess what I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is this isn't just frustrating for members of the Opposition; this is extraordinarily frustrating for members of the brain injury community. These are people who put their faith in government, and they work with government. They provide the benefit of their ideas, experience and insight; they're very dedicated and they desperately want to see some response to the horrendous situations that they often face in attempting to care for their loved ones and family members. The department has so little respect; this government has so little respect for their situations that you're unprepared to disclose some fairly basic information.
We're not talking about a nuclear arsenal that you need to secure away somewhere here; this surely can't be a matter of provincial security, Cabinet secrecy or whatever, that you would have a legitimate right to withhold. This is serious. I would like the minister to acknowledge, at the very least, that this is very serious, not providing that kind of information when the Premier says just ask, it's not a problem, and the Deputy Premier says just ask, we're an open government; we will give it to you, not a problem. Well, what the heck is this? This is anything but open. Thank you.
MR. MUIR: The honourable member, I take her point. Certainly in our department we have a policy of making information available that is appropriate for people to have. I would be most happy to take a look at why that document was stripped. Really, I don't know the answer to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be able to join the examination of the estimates of the Minister of Health this morning. In particular, I want to raise a matter that is of some concern to me over and above my responsibilities from a legislative perspective. I have, of course, grown up in Queens County to a large degree. As the minister would know, there are things happening with the Queens General Hospital that are of considerable concern to the people of Queens County, and certainly of particular concern to me as a large number of my family still live in very close proximity to that hospital. Of course, with this particular program, they're not, as far as I know, going to be in use of it, but it's still an important program, and that has to do with the obstetrical unit.
Mr. Minister, as you know, there has been a proposal by the district health authority to take the obstetrical unit out of the Queens General Hospital. As I understand it, the recommendation is that the people from Liverpool and the surrounding areas would now travel to Bridgewater in order to have their babies. Well, as you may also know, the municipal council in Queens County decided that that was an unacceptable situation for the people in Liverpool and the areas around Liverpool and have decided, I understand - I believe the figure is $240,000 that they've appropriated out of the municipal taxes and agreed to give to the district health authority in order to maintain that program at the Queens General Hospital.
There are two parts to this. First, I want to know whether you think that it is not the responsibility of the Department of Health to see to it that these services are available in that community, and secondly, I want the assurance of the minister that if those services are not going to be funded by the provincial government then, in fact, they're not going to interfere with the attempts of the people of Queens County to try to save a service that they think is absolutely critical not only for service to their community but to the community itself.
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, it's clear that that particular recommendation from the DHA, which was contained in its business plan, has generated some degree of interest. I just want to put in perspective that the district health authority is responsible for providing health care services in Lunenburg and also in Queens County, in providing leadership. The responsibility of the district health authority is for the health of the entire district. One of the unfortunate situations that we have down there - you know it as well as I do, and everybody recognizes it, including those who are involved in it - we haven't reached the stage down there where everybody is looking at the health of the whole district. They're more concerned about their own particular situation than they are about that of the whole district.
The DHA made that recommendation as part of its business plan, and it was done, I guess, probably for two reasons. One is that there was a significant financial saving to be gained by doing that; secondly, as perhaps the honourable member knows, in Queens County - and it's a wonderful little hospital they have there. I've been in it and I think it's delightful. They've got good people working there, and what I'm going to say is no reflection on that facility. The obstetrical program there was operating about four and a half days a week. They didn't deliver babies there on the weekend; the people went off to Bridgewater. Obviously if you were in labour on a Friday or came in midday Friday and chances were that you were going to deliver in the downtime, then you went, straightaway, to Bridgewater anyway, I'm told. This is what I've been told.
The number of babies being delivered there, and I stand to be corrected on the number, was around 70. I see the honourable member nodding his head; it's something in that area. Yes, 70 deliveries a year. There are roughly, I think, at the South Shore Regional Hospital in Bridgewater, maybe 300 babies being delivered a year. It has a capacity, the way it is set up, to deliver about 450 babies a year. What we have is - clearly, if there were any complicated pregnancies, they would have been referred to the South Shore Regional Hospital where they have more specialized services available to look after people who need them. The decision was made for financial reasons, but I believe there was probably a good clinical reason to suggest that change as well.
MR. DEXTER: Well, I don't think the minister answered the second part of my question. First of all - I will go back and restate it - has that business plan been approved? Secondly, are there any plans by the DHA or the minister's office to interfere in the initiatives undertaken by those communities to keep the obstetrical unit there?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, the way that sits right now is that, obviously, last year this issue was raised by that same municipality. Minister MacIsaac and I wrote a letter back to them and basically said, well, I guess there's really nothing in legislation or whatnot that says you can't do that. Typically in Health here in Nova Scotia, we do rely very heavily on funding from non-government funding, I guess you would say. Certainly hospital auxiliaries do a marvelous job of raising money for a variety of things - and, similarly, hospital foundations.
Your colleague, the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid, has talked about his facility out there along with my colleague, the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank, the Cobequid Multi-Service Centre. The member for Dartmouth East - where foundations are raising 25 per cent of the capital cost of new facilities. Typically in Health in Nova Scotia, the contributions of municipalities or auxiliaries or foundations have been for capital items. I think you understand that. There have been a couple of cases where auxiliaries have contributed to operational costs. Indeed, when they purchased the bone densitometer for DHA 4, part of the agreement was that they would pick up some of the operational costs. The
department, regardless of how it was spun out, did have some costs associated with that because the radiologists don't work for free.
Now in terms of this, it sets a precedent. Whether the board has fully considered that proposal at this time, I don't know. Whether it is a good thing, Mr. Chairman - one of the things that I think has to be looked at is if it is done this year, are you going to be back, perhaps, doing it again next year, the whole issue? It may be appropriate to try to redefine the role. As you are aware, perhaps, the Department of Health offered to do a role study for DHA 1 and it was turned down by the board. They said that they would do their own. I'm sure that was one of the questions that would have been dealt with, along with the issue of emergency services and Fishermen's Memorial Hospital and other issues, including, I suppose, the pediatric unit at the South Shore Regional Hospital. The board was going to do their own, and as I understand, the project was not completed.
MR. DEXTER: I want to be really clear about this. Are you saying that you are prepared to prevent the Municipality of Queens County from continuing to support the obstetrical program at Queens General Hospital? Is that what you're telling us? Are you telling us that regardless of whether or not the municipality is willing to fund the program, you are going to undertake initiatives that would stop that from happening?
MR. MUIR: What we have indicated to the board is if they choose to follow that course of action, then obviously we are going to need a revised business plan from them. Do I think it is really a good idea? I'm not really excited about it, no. But have we said we are going to stop it? No.
MR. DEXTER: I have one last very quick question that I wanted to get in. One of the things that we have been very concerned about is the whole question of technical aids for the disabled community, as the minister probably knows. I don't know if my colleague has raised this with you before, and you can tell me whether this is under the Community Services budget or not, but certainly, in terms of the health of individuals who are trying to get back and forth to appointments at hospitals and trying to get medical help, one of the biggest difficulties they have is that they don't have the actual assistance they need to keep themselves healthy. So I'm wondering, have you talked to your colleague, the honourable Minister of Community Services, about a technical aids program for the disabled community? I would point out in particular that there are some wheelchairs that are $20,000 or more, in many cases.
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. MUIR: We don't normally provide direct grants, Mr. Chairman. We are setting up, though, and I think the honourable member will be pleased to hear this, an equipment loan from - we are working with the Red Cross to try to set up an equipment bank so people can borrow.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Minister, just as we finished yesterday, I just want to reiterate again. I had asked you the question regarding the Richmond Villa. As you are aware, construction plans are underway and have been for quite some time. Again, for the record, has the funding been set aside by the Department of Health to proceed with construction of a new Richmond Villa this calendar year?
MR. MUIR: Before answering your question, if I could just go back to the question that the honourable member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour asked about equipment rental. I said we didn't provide direct grants, but I've been advised that specialized equipment that a person in a long-term care facility would need, we quite often assist with that. (Interruptions)
Okay, yes, there is money in the budget for the Richmond Villa this year.
MR. SAMSON: Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, I'm extremely pleased to hear that. I am wondering, just for the purpose of the community, if the minister could give us an idea as to when one might expect construction to actually begin on the new facility, if your department has set that sort of a time frame yet?
MR. MUIR: An architectural firm, Mr. Chairman, has been engaged to get into the design work, so that's a pretty positive sign. One of the things that we haven't fully determined yet is who "will own the building."
MR. SAMSON: So I take it that at this point in time, you're not sure whether you're going to continue with the municipality running the facility or if you're going to look to a private operator to step in. Is that what I am to understand? My understanding was that they had already done the negotiations with a private operator and it didn't work; therefore, the municipality was proceeding with the intention of operating the facility on its own with funding from the government to build a new facility. So what the minister just said seems to be a bit of new information. I'm just curious as to when this changed directions and what discussions are taking place with a private operator.
MR. MUIR: I am not sure of the information the honourable member has. It's not really consistent with what I have. As you know, Richmond Villa is currently operated by the Municipality of Richmond County and is owned by it. The building does need considerable updating or replacement and we are going ahead with a replacement schedule. There are, as I understand, still negotiations going on between representatives of my department and the municipality to determine if the municipality is still interested in operating it. As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, there have not been any particular negotiations with particular private operators. I guess a couple of years ago the municipality wanted to
shed itself of Richmond Villa and it did approach some private operators to see if they would be interested in taking it over. That may be what you are referring to.
MR. SAMSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to create confusion where there isn't. I guess my question there was when the minister said through his discussions as to who was going to operate the facility, which led me to believe that somehow the municipality was no longer going to operate the facility, my understanding is that the intention is that they were. So, obviously, maybe I misunderstood from his comments.
Back to an issue we discussed yesterday, the rural incentive program for physicians. You did confirm that the decisions as to which communities were going to have a six-month incentive, which communities would have a five-year incentive, was made by the Department of Health, contrary to the statements made by one of your communications officers.
I am curious, in a community like Arichat which, for the last number of years, had a significant challenge in being able to keep physicians, as do many of the rural communities. The incentive program has moved from five years, in that community, down to six months. I am curious if the minister could tell us - I guess two things - why, and secondly, what discussions were held with the local physician, Dr. Laurie MacNeil, who has been there for a significant amount of years, what consultation took place with him as to what impact, positive or negative, he felt there might be from moving it from five years to six months?
MR. MUIR: I don't have that information at my fingertips, Mr. Chairman, but I will endeavour to find out for the honourable member.
MR. SAMSON: I am sorry, I missed it. I wonder if the minister could repeat that answer again.
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member asked how it was determined that Arichat would go back to a six-month incentive contract and if there had been consultation with the resident practitioner, Dr. Laurie MacNeil. I said I didn't have that information at my fingertips but I will endeavour to see that the information gets to you.
MR. SAMSON: Well, I am curious to see why it was done. As to consultation, I can tell you there was none, having spoken to Dr. MacNeil who has publicly stated his disappointment with the fact that it has been moved down to six months and has publicly stated the additional burden and challenge it is going to place on the community of Isle Madame, as in other communities throughout Nova Scotia that, for some mysterious reason, have been downgraded to a six-month incentive. So I am hoping the minister will provide the rationale for that, as to why that was done.
I would certainly take this opportunity, as the MLA for Richmond, to encourage the minister, as far as Richmond County is concerned in the Strait area, to move those incentives back to five-year incentives, rather than six months. The challenge we have to locate doctors is a big enough challenge as it is. We have had a great deal of success and a lot of it is because of that incentive program, which has been there as a guaranteed salary.
I can tell you that in many cases it has been surpassed, which is good, but what brought them here was the guarantee. As you know, going into communities, physicians from other provinces don't know what to expect. A Department of Health spokesperson telling them, here is what you can expect in billings, isn't always so comfortable for them when they don't know the community, especially in rural Nova Scotia. This was a guarantee that gave them a level of comfort. If they bill more, all the better, fine, then the incentive obviously wasn't absolutely necessary because they bill more. The incentive helps bring them here and it helps rural Nova Scotia. I certainly hope the minister will reconsider putting the incentive for Richmond County back up to five years.
At the end of the day, Mr. Minister, if the doctors are billing more than the incentive, you are not losing any money. So this is not a matter of telling you, spend, spend, spend. If they are billing, as you have pointed out in some communities, more than the incentive, you haven't lost anything, yet it has helped that community locate the doctor. I certainly hope you will reconsider that because I think it is a very unfortunate decision.
As the minister is well aware, when he sat on this side of the House and I sat on that side, I rose on numerous occasions to talk about the success we had in Richmond. All of that success came through the rural incentive program, which was the five-year guarantee. I hope the minister will reconsider that.
One of the other programs which I am sure the minister is aware is near and dear to my heart is the in-home support program. Now I am sure the minister doesn't need reminding that one year in office, this government decided to review the program, which, I believe, was in April 2000. Now, as I am sure the minister is aware - we are now in April 2002 - so your department has had two full years to review this program. You have not allowed any new applicants in this program for two years and, needless to say, it has been an extreme frustration for those who are seeking support under this program and those who want some financial assistance to keep their loved ones at home, which clearly, at the end of the day, the program is meant to save money in the long term for the government. So, Mr. Minister, where is the in-home support program?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, I did get this question from somebody else the other day during the estimates process. One of the things we discovered in in-home support, it was like so many of these other continuing care programs, there was absolutely no standardization of who would be receiving what, any place in this province. If you were in Arichat you might get some type of service and if you were out in Dartmouth North you might get another type.
We have basically been trying to get a handle on the home support service. We feel fairly comfortable now that we do have a handle on it, and I expect it will be, as I said the other day, accepting new clients probably within a couple of months.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On an introduction, the honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for allowing me to introduce a couple of people in the west gallery from the great Island of Cape Breton who have made the trek to Halifax this weekend - gee, I wonder what for - Arlene MacIntyre and Joyce MacKenzie. Joyce has the great pleasure of being my constituency assistant - one of the hardest working constituency assistants in the Province of Nova Scotia. I would like the members of the House to welcome them today. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I can certainly agree with my colleague, knowing Joyce, that she is a tremendous, hard-working constituency assistant. Like all of our constituency assistants, they are underpaid, overworked, but certainly they are very much appreciated for the hard work they do for all of us. (Applause) For those of us who have been elected more than once, we can certainly point to them as a major reason why we've had the privilege of coming to this place more than on one occasion. Certainly it is a pleasure to see her here and I look forward to seeing her more on the weekend.
Back to the in-home support program. I am certainly pleased to hear that the minister, after two years, is prepared to start accepting new clients in this program. One of the things that has disturbed me in the correspondence we have had back and forth on this issue - I think we have exchanged maybe 10 or 12 different pieces of correspondence on this particular program, which is of great concern to the people of Richmond County and has certainly helped keep loved ones at home rather than being put in long-term care facilities at an increased and high cost to the government.
One of the particular aspects in the correspondence, as a result of this overall change in a province-wide program, the minister indicated that family members would be disqualified from participating under this program. I'm curious, could the minister indicate if that is still the intention of his department, or if that has changed as a result of the ongoing negotiations? In one piece of correspondence it was pointed out by the minister that family members would not qualify under the in-home support program, and I'm curious, is that still the case or not?
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. MUIR: That is still the case, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you, I can't understand why you would disqualify family members. The whole idea of the in-home support program is to allow loved ones to stay at home rather than go into long-term care facilities. One of the major reasons is that they wish to remain in their own home and, second, they wish to be cared for by family who are close to them, who they know, who they trust, and who they feel comfortable with. The fact they don't want to go to long-term care facilities is because it's the idea that they don't know who the people are, they don't know who will care for them, and they want to be close to family. That's what the in-home support program did.
I know in Richmond County, while we were in government, I certainly was able to assist a number of families to get funding under this program to keep their loved ones at home. In some cases it was daughters taking care of their elderly parents; it was a son taking care of his elderly parents. It was different circumstances, but the idea of the program, Mr. Minister, is that you can stay at home and have loved ones care for you. Why would your department want to disqualify family members from qualifying under the in-home support program?
MR. MUIR: I understand, Mr. Chairman, the reason for that, and mind you, we've been reviewing the program that in some cases there were family members who were being paid to deliver services, and services were not being provided.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, what the minister is basically saying is that you've had a couple of cases of abuse with the program. Now if we get the Minister of Community Services up, he's going to say the same thing. If we get the Minister of Economic Development up, he's going to say there's been abuse in his programs. There is abuse in every program, Mr. Minister, which is an unfortunate thing but is a reality, which is why we have safeguards, which is why you have support staff who can check in on these things.
Why would you use a few cases of abuse to disqualify all family members throughout this province from being able to participate under this program and be able to keep their loved ones at home and care for them in their own home? Why are a few cases of abuse being used as a blanket decision that affects all Nova Scotians?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, that was indeed the policy when we arrived. As I said, we've been studying the problem. I guess one of the things I wanted to do, just to go back to the honourable member again is that - I said the program had no standards across the province. We also found the same thing in home care. So, we've been working in the past two and a half years trying to address some of the lack of consistency in the application of particular programs.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying that at some time in the future that family members may not go back into that program again as care providers, but as we are currently proposing to roll it out, in the interim, they will not qualify. It's the issue, to be quite frank, we don't
have all the accountability measures worked out. There weren't any there before. I think we're making progress. I would like to make more rapid progress. I want to tell the honourable member I certainly understand the concern he is articulating. I know of a number of cases personally, where family members have provided truly excellent support.
MR. SAMSON: I'm pleased to hear that the minister is familiar with cases. I'm certainly familiar with a number of cases. The idea that you would bring in this new program and disqualify family members - first of all, I will tell that legally it would be questionable whether you can actually do that. I would ask you, first of all, to have your legal staff look at whether you're even able to disqualify family members from participating under this. That's your first question.
If it's not legally wrong, Mr. Minister, it is morally wrong to tell family members that they should not be able to qualify under this because this government thinks they're cheats and that they're going to abuse the program, which is the message that you've sent today whether that was your intention or not. With all due respect, people who participate under this program, in most cases also receive home care services, they also receive visits from your health nurses, they also receive services from a number of different service providers through your department.
To say that there is no safeguard there, I'm just not buying it. If there's abuse taking place, you have the people within the system who can identify that, through their home visits, through the home care network, through the different networks provided through your department. You have that system in place should you wish to use it. But to announce this program and tell family members you don't qualify goes against the whole idea of a loved one wanting to stay at home to be cared for by those closest to them.
If I have an elderly grandfather who says, I don't want to go to the Richmond Villa, I want to stay at home, and we say, well look, we can't afford to keep a family member there with you, but we're going to go get the lady in the next community to come here and care for you because she can qualify under the program, why would he not want to go to the Villa to be cared for by strangers, if that's the case, if you're saying that family members cannot qualify under this? Again, I ask the minister, will you reconsider the decision not to allow family members to qualify under the new in-home support program?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, we review programs, all of our programs, regularly. Like any other program, we're currently still in the policy development stage for the re-implementation of that program. I'm pleased to say that probably within a couple of months we will be readmitting clients but, as I say, like all other programs, we do review them regularly.
MR. SAMSON: Certainly not wishing to delay the implementation of this program, will the minister undertake to review that particular provision of the new program before it is launched in the next couple of months?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to speak to those people who are developing the policy to ensure that that question of family providing or being eligible under that program be reconsidered. It may have been considered already.
MR. SAMSON: I'm pleased to hear that from the minister. Again, I would point out to you that you do have the support system within your department that's dealing with these clients that can be there as your safeguard to make sure there's no abuse. No one wants to see abuse of any government program. You have a safeguard system in place that can be used, which is not trying to re-invent the wheel or anything else in this particular regard. Mr. Minister, I'm just curious, what impact will the new program, when you do announce it, what impact, if any, will it have on existing clients under the in-home support program?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, the people who are in the in-home support program were grandfathered when we stopped taking new people. I'm not sure what his question really means.
MR. SAMSON: I understand they were grandfathered and I'm pleased to see that they were grandfathered through this. I'm just curious, when the new program comes in, will that grandfathering continue or will there be any of the new policies of the new program that might impact those already in the system, or will they just continue to receive the benefits they were receiving when the freeze took place?
MR. MUIR: The people who are admitted to the in-home support program, of course, will be under the single-entry-access umbrella, like others. I suppose there could be some reassessment of those people currently in the system. I don't think it's going to be right at the beginning. Could there be some change? I guess, technically, there could be. It could be increasing care, as well as the other. Do we intend to go in and strip these people? The answer is no.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister. I'm sure the minister will appreciate that those who've been in the system for some time have made some lifestyle changes and adaptions because of the fact of this program. Certainly I would hope that the minister would keep that in mind when the new program is announced.
One of the other issues, Mr. Chairman, which has caused us a great deal of concern in the Strait area, especially in my county, has been ambulance service. As I am sure the minister is aware, your government made the decision to cut one of the overnight ambulance services in Port Hawkesbury; your government has also decided to not provide any future
funding to the Judique Fire Department to fund their volunteer ambulance service that they were providing.
I am curious, will the minister, today, make a commitment that the current level of service in Richmond County - having a base in St. Peter's and a base in Arichat - will not be changed in the foreseeable future?
MR. MUIR: We have a high performance ambulance system here which is totally performance-based. To say there could not be changes would not be appropriate for me to say. I can tell the honourable member, and I think one of the things he is acknowledging by his question is - and indeed, it was backed up by the stats that we saw and we reviewed it with the people down in that area - that the removal of that ambulance between the hours of 12:00 and 4:00, or 2:00 and 6:00, or whatever it was, did not have any impact on the service to the residents of the community.
MR. SAMSON: Well, Mr. Minister, I will leave that to you to explain to your own colleague, the member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury to explain to his constituents whether that is the case or not. Our big concern is the impact it was going to have on us in Richmond, because it is our ambulances that would have been called upon to provide the backup service, taking them away from Richmond.
Again, for more clarification, is it the minister's statement that there will not be changes to the current level of service being provided by EMC in Richmond County right now?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, this is a high performance system and it is totally performance-based. It would not be appropriate for me to stand up in this House, if the annual evaluation of the performance indicates that there could be changes, it could need more service, it could need less, it would not be appropriate for me to stand in my place and say that there would not be any change; now there very well may not be, but it depends on the data.
MR. SAMSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate to hear his words about data and performance and not ever hear the words safety, lives, concern for the care of the people in these areas and concern for their best interests. We have a government now that is more concerned about numbers, data, spreadsheets and faceless people, which is what they see throughout Nova Scotia. For us, Mr. Minister, they are not faceless people, these are real lives, these are loved ones who we have, who we know, who we want to make sure there is proper ambulance coverage and emergency coverage should they require it; not being consoled to go see them and say don't worry, here's the chart from the minister saying that there's an ambulance that is going to be in this district at this hour, because of the charts and the numbers that he has. It is quite unfortunate to hear the minister talk in such bureaucratic
terms, unfortunately, talking about performance-based and numbers and charts and everything else, rather than talk about lives and talk about safety.
Mr. Chairman, one of the final topics I wanted to talk about, the increase in Pharmacare premiums for seniors has gone up to, I believe, over $300 a year right now. I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly where that figure came from and how it was arrived at?
MR. MUIR: Basically it was three things, Mr. Chairman. One, is that the increase did allow the income threshold to be raised, as recommended by the seniors' group; secondly, it keeps the percentage of contribution by government and by the seniors' population at around 70/30; thirdly, the increase did allow for increase in usage and the incorporation of new drugs. Normally new drugs are more expensive on the formulary and we believe that the program next year - I think it is budgeted for about $124.5 million, or something like that, and we think that's what's going to cost.
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. SAMSON: I am just curious, Mr. Minister, in your own opinion, in your personal opinion, do you believe, before increases take place, it is unreasonable for Nova Scotians to expect that their elected officials would have the opportunity to debate and find out the logistics of an increase before it takes place?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Speaker, this government has done more consultation about that type of thing, certainly with those affected, than any government before it. There is no question to debate it with the Opposition, Mr. Chairman. For three years I have been defending these estimates, and for three years they have been criticizing the cost of Seniors' Pharmacare. If we were to go to them and say that you think - I mean, I don't think it should be raised. If we could avoid not raising it, as a matter of fact, I would like to go back to the situation where it was totally free but that's not realistic and it's not going to happen unless the federal government comes along and picks it up. So to say that you should have your input, we are talking with groups who are affected - I know what your answer is going to be, so I really don't think there will be much gain from that. As a matter of fact, as I said, my response, basically, as an individual, would be the same as yours. Unfortunately, it's just not feasible.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I raise this because of the point that I had a number of calls from seniors. What they were saying was, well, how could you guys possibly let this go through the House of Assembly without any sort of debate, without us even being told the justification for this, without us being able to read why this was being done, without being able to put forward different proposals for consideration by the government, for there being an opportunity to debate this and to justify the increase. My response was, well, I tell you, your open and accountable government, your Premier, who, when he sat in the Third Party,
said there should be free premiums, has decided to put the increase on on April 1st, with the House of Assembly going in on April 2nd.
Now, again, I ask the Minister of Health, why would you not have at least waited and given the courtesy, if not to Nova Scotians, to the people who they have elected to come here and speak on their behalf, to allow for an open debate on this increase? All you had to do was wait a day, in this case, at least Nova Scotians would have known their representatives had an opportunity to examine this, to see the numbers you have just proposed, before this increase went through. Why would your government not have done this? For the minister to say that he agrees there should be free premiums, it's your own Premier who advocated that when he was in the Third Party, not the Opposition of the day. So why would you not have allowed for an open debate on this very subject, if you are saying that the fees are justified and that there is all this consultation that took place that Nova Scotia seniors accept this increase with great joy?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say from the practical point of view, the premium changed on the first of April. The policy requires the seniors' groups to be notified, I think it is 30 days in advance or something like that, and from a practical point of view it was impossible and from perhaps an even different perspective, I guess what the honourable member is asking me - and you would have to debate everybody else - is that we have the estimate debate before we have a budget.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, it's called responsible government. I am not going to go back in history but I am sure the minister will recall the good old Boston Tea Party they had in the U.S., and the idea of taxation without representation. What you have done to Nova Scotians is taxed them without representation because you have put a tax on them and, then, the next day, after you put it in, you welcome back their elected representative to come talk about the tax you have already put in. That is the issue that I was raising. I think Nova Scotians will judge for themselves the performance of the minister and this government, to ask that such an increase, which has had such an impact on seniors on fixed incomes, that there be an open debate on that, an exchange of ideas, I don't think is unreasonable and it's quite unfortunate that the minister does.
With that, Mr. Speaker, certainly I appreciate the minister's responses. Again, on the in-home support program I certainly do hope they will review that, and that family members will not be disqualified or discriminated from participating in this most important program which, at the end of the day, keeps loved ones at home and at the end of the day saves all the taxpayers and his department a great deal of money.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes questions on the Health estimates. Would the minister like an opportunity to wrap up?
The honourable Minister of Health.
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the members of the Opposition for some of the thoughtful questions that they proposed and their co-operation. I think that the estimates of the Department of Health for the fiscal year 2002-03 certainly show that health is the number-one priority of this government. I also recognize that there is never enough money for health, and I would dearly love to be able to have twice that much to spend on health and health care for the citizens of Nova Scotia.
I also want to assure everybody that we have a very, very good health care system here in Nova Scotia. Some of the fear-mongering that has gone on is clearly unwarranted and it was done for political reasons. The citizens can rest assured that the DHAs are managing their affairs well, that the Department of Health is managing the overall picture well. I would also just like to re-emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that when people think of health care, they tend to think of the acute care system, but our budget, more than 50 per cent of that budget is not expended in the acute care system; we have to remember things such as home care, long-term care, the cost of drugs and all of these things are contributors to the rapidly rising costs of our health care system, and indeed our costs are rising at a greater rate than the costs on the acute care side.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that we have made considerable progress in partnership with the DHAs in getting a handle on the acute care system. We will be putting extra effort this year on trying to get the continuing care sector to understand it a little bit better and to develop it and bring it along so that it's at the same level in terms of understanding and organization as the acute care sector.
With those few words, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to move Resolution E9.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E9 stand?
Resolution E9 is stood.
Resolution E13 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $595,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Emergency Measures Organization of Nova Scotia, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, would you please call the estimates of the Minister of Education.
Resolution E4 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $928,733,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Education, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Education.
HON. JANE PURVES: Mr. Chairman, before I begin a short statement, I would like to introduce the staff and make an introduction in the gallery. In the east gallery today is Lavinia Parrish-Zwicker. She's a member of the Annapolis Valley Regional School Board and the Chairman of the Nova Scotia School Boards Association, and I would like to have the Chamber give her a warm welcome. (Applause)
Mr. Chairman, with me, on my left is Deputy Minister Dennis Cochrane and on the right is Darrell Youden, the executive director of our finance and operations division.
Mr. Chairman, I couldn't help but note the final remarks of my colleague, the Minister of Health, wishing that he had twice as much money to put into health care, and he can't have it because I intend to have that for Education next year.
Mr. Chairman, last week this government tabled the first balanced budget in 40 years. It has taken a lot of work, a single-minded focus and patience on the part of the government, but particularly on the part of Nova Scotians themselves, and I'm pleased to say that this budget protects education funding and, in fact, increases public education funding by almost $21 million and funding to school boards by $19 million, but I want to be clear from the outset that the bulk of this new funding this year will cover wage and benefit increases for teachers and administrators in school boards and at the community colleges.
Outside of anticipated wage settlements, we have made some modest, yet meaningful investments that will benefit students. We are currently negotiating with the Nova Scotia Teachers Union and we are committed to providing our teachers with fair and reasonable increases. Salaries and benefits account for about 80 per cent of funding to school boards. The government's position on the settlements in the 2 per cent-a-year range for public sector employees is well-known. We have provided in this budget for anticipated wage settlements for teachers in that range. Every per cent above that range means we have to find an additional $6 million from somewhere else, either in the department or in government, and there are only so many places we can find it.
Mr. Chairman, again I would like to see a lot more money for education. I also believe we can do better with what we have. I would like to talk for a few moments about what we can do for students and for education with this budget. Most importantly, we have managed to add money to key program initiatives and direct existing money to priority areas. Our plan has one goal: to put our students at the head of the class. The first step is for students to develop solid skills in the basics first: reading, writing and mathematics.
First, more of the school day will be spent on getting the basics right. We are working with school boards on standards for time spent on language arts. We believe students should spend one to two hours every day on reading and writing and it isn't just about time, it's about time well spent. Elementary students are clearly struggling with math. A few weeks ago I announced a comprehensive math strategy to help them and we're working with school boards on implementing it. It will include more time spent on math, about an hour a day, again depending on the grade level. We will provide $220,000 for professional development for 880 teachers to become math leaders in their schools, and we will spend $230,000 to develop practical math resources that provide sample lesson plans, homework and other learning activities for teachers.
[10:45 a.m.]
Mr. Chairman, students need books. This school year alone, every Grade 4, Grade 5 and Grade 6 classroom is getting at least 130 new books to help children learn to read and read to learn. This year we will also spend $1 million on books for Grade 7 students, and $180,000 so all Grade 4 students get their own writing handbook to help with grammar. We've also pre-purchased $780,000 to add classroom resources for math, including graphing calculators, books and fraction block sets.
Mr. Chairman, there is growing concern about the relative achievements of Nova Scotia students, not just internationally, but against other parts of Canada. Scores on recent international, national and provincial tests are below average. I think we can all agree that mediocre is not good enough. Anything we can do to help student achievement is of no value if results are just sent to the department and not shared with boards, teachers, parents and students, and with this budget we can look forward to a better sense of students' progress, of greater accountability, responsibility and, we hope, parental involvement. Providing more complete and meaningful information to parents on their children's progress was one of our blue book commitments and the reason is simple: we believe parents have a right to know how their children are doing. We're working on a standard student report card with clear grades so parents can plainly see how their children are doing in school.
Recently I released the First Ministers report to parents. This report will be an annual event and each year we will add more information for parents with school-by-school results appearing in the future. We are also developing a new Grade 6 literacy test. The goal is to use those results to identify struggling students and help them catch up. Students will again be tested in Grade 8. If they need extra help, they will get it. Nova Scotia is also the first Atlantic Province to introduce a new high school math curriculum based on standards set by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The curriculum has been implemented and we're now developing a Grade 12 provincial exam to assess how well students are learning it. This curriculum ranges from advanced mathematics to foundation courses to help struggling students. As a government, as educators, administrators, parents and students, we all share the responsibility and accountability to help students achieve.
Recently, Mr. Chairman, I announced the school improvement evaluation accreditation pilot program. This is not simply about finding out what you do well and repeating your performance, it's about self-examination, finding weak spots and improving them. It might be about reducing dropout rates; it might be about getting kids more physically active. It will be different for each school but, whatever it is about, we can be sure that its success is about working together to help our young people achieve in education.
Mr. Chairman, last year we added $3 million to the special education grant. We have protected that money this year and we hope to add more in future years. We are not sitting on our hands until we can invest more money, we are taking action by directing the money we have to priorities. Last year we received a report with 34 recommendations to improve education for students with special needs. Of the 34 recommendations the department and the school boards have already started acting on at least 20. Some examples include help to address student behavioural problems, professional development and training for teachers, communications and involvement with parents, and continuing support for reading recovery.
A major concern for teachers is supporting and coping with students with serious behavioural problems. The behaviour gets in the way of the individual student's ability to learn and may interfere with the learning of his or her classmates. This is an area we are making a priority to support students and for teachers. We're working with the other Atlantic Provinces on intervention strategies for students with behavioural problems. We are also providing professional development and resources for teachers to support these students. We're beginning to track suspensions and, more importantly, the reasons behind them. This will allow school boards to identify the most common behavioural problems and focus attention on how to deal with them.
Working with school boards and universities, we've developed a masters program tailored to the needs of resource teachers. It's being offered at two universities, with 90 teachers enrolled this year. We've protected $300,000 targeted for professional development. Boards apply for this funding, which will be linked to priorities identified by teachers, parents and school boards to support special education. We continue to offer summer institutes, including one this year on programming for students with extensive needs. We are working with the Nova Scotia Educational Leadership Consortium for training for school administrators regarding inclusive schooling.
Mr. Chairman, we have more teacher assistants in Nova Scotia per capita than any other Atlantic Province, and we are currently assessing what qualifications they should have and considering programs that will give them the skills they need. At least half a dozen of the recommendations in the special education report focused on the need for more effective communications so everyone understands policies and procedures and ways parents can support their children's education. A lot of work is going on in this area within budget. We are revising our handbook for transition planning for students, including a brochure for parents; we are updating guidelines around school board and ministerial appeals; and we've
developed brochures for parents and others on early intervention for children with autism. This is done in partnership with Health and Community Services.
To improve accountability we're working on a report card for parents that shows the student's progress on expected outcomes in their individual program plans, and we're developing a tracking tool on school boards and school progress in supporting special education. As well we continue to fund reading recovery; in fact we are a leading province in bringing reading recovery to well over 1,000 struggling young readers each year. This is a program with a proven track record.
Mr. Chairman, this year we increased our new school construction budget by $9 million. We are on track to deliver 19 new schools for 2003-04. Eight were completed in the Fall of 2001 and another eight will be under development this budget year. Repairing existing schools is also a priority; we will spend $13 million this year to repair and renovate 29 schools across the province. The department is working on 28 major capital projects. Including the eight schools that have already been completed, the total value of these projects is $275 million.
Mr. Chairman, for the first time in this budget, the provincial contribution to French programs is clearly identified. Our partners have been telling us this was a major concern to them, primarily because the provincial contribution was never clear. Now it is clear that we are spending $352,000 on French first and second language in the Acadian French Language Services Branch. Having a diverse culture is critically important and it is important that our schools reflect that. On that point we continue to support the implementation of programs that promote diversity. We are dedicating $100,000 for the introduction of the new ratio equity policy province-wide. An additional $150,000 from last year's budget will go toward establishing a fund to support race relations, cross-cultural, and human rights initiatives - we call this RCH. This funding will go to ensure all boards have a dedicated RCH staff member and to support specific projects in boards that already have an RCH person.
For the past two years we have supported the Council on African Canadian Education in its development for a business plan for the Afrocentric Learning Institute. Members of the House will recall that this learning centre is named in memory of Delmore "Buddy" Daye. We have protected that funding this year to support the presence of ALI at Mount Saint Vincent University and there is an additional $30,000 within the African Services Division to deliver the parent education initiative. This program will provide support to parents who need help navigating the education system, and where to go if they have concerns. This was a recommendation of the Black report which we continue to support and implement.
Mr. Chairman, today's students must learn the skills that our economy needs to face the challenges emerging in the new economy. In some sectors of our economy there are more jobs available than skilled workers to fill them and the gap could widen. By the year 2025 there will be 130,000 more Nova Scotians over the age of 65 than there are today. The
demand for skilled workers must be met for the provincial economy to grow. That's why we've added $300,000 to promote apprenticeship and skills development. My department will lead the government's efforts to develop and implement skills for success. A new skills and learning division will be created in the department to support workforce development. They will work with an advisory forum that will bring together experts to advise on business, industry and labour market issues.
The Nova Scotia Community College will pay a key role in this. The college has changed dramatically in recent years to respond to the needs of Nova Scotia's economy with programs that produce skilled workers for service, IT and trades industries; however Nova Scotia industries need more workers than the college can provide.
In other provinces about 30 per cent of students who pursue post-secondary choose college over university; in Nova Scotia that number is only 17 per cent. One of the reasons for this imbalance is the lack of space at the NSCC. In 2001-02 the province provided an additional $1 million to the college to add 200 more seats for a total of 7,600 in full-time core programs - still the college cannot meet the demand and gets 20,000 applications each year. To ensure Nova Scotia's skills gap is closed, the college must grow and has proposed a strategy to gradually increase its seats by 50 per cent. We have allocated $1 million in 2001-02 to help the college develop a plan to address its capacity shortfall. The plan will include an analysis of program demand, an assessment of facilities, and a comprehensive financial plan. Funding to the community college will increase this year by $4 million, again, primarily to cover wage and benefit increases.
Skilled workers must have a basic education, so lifelong learning remains a priority for Nova Scotians. Our Nova Scotia School for Adult Learning will continue to help adult Nova Scotians open doors to new opportunities through education. We are adding $950,000 this year to help more Nova Scotians earn credits toward the Nova Scotia high school diploma for adults.
Mr. Chairman, funding to universities has increased by $9 million over the past two years and yet universities continue to raise tuition. More than $201 million goes to universities. This year we have maintained that funding and, in addition, will provide $500,000 towards the merger of the Collège de l'Acadie and the Université Sainte-Anne.
About one-half of the students studying in Nova Scotia institutions have student loans; their average debt load upon graduation is $20,000. We know students need support in terms of debt relief. They get some from the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, and they also get some in the form of provincial interest relief, and we committed in the blue book to reinstating a debt relief program. We are working with the Department of Finance to develop a program that will help these students who are most in need, we will be releasing details of this program over the course of the next 12 months.
Mr. Chairman, over the past few months we have witnessed very serious financial problems at two school boards. As a government we recognize the system allowed this to happen. This means the system must change, not just for the Strait Regional School Board, where the most serious breakdown occurred, but for all school boards. Last week we introduced legislation that will tighten controls and improve accountability for all school boards. The purpose of the amendments is simple. The province is held accountable for how tax dollars are spent, and we must have controls and reporting lines in place to meet this accountability. It is not a matter of fault or blame, it's a matter of doing something decisive and significant about it. The system broke down, a system that in some school boards was about misdirecting money, encouraging waste, and diverting money from the classroom. That's why we're changing the system that failed students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers. We are repairing that system and it starts when changes our government brought forward last week as part of the Financial Measures Act become law.
Mr. Chairman, I do believe elected school boards have a valuable role to play. I recognize that in the Strait Regional School Board and in the Chignecto Regional School Board the elected board members have been working hard to fix these problems. What happened here was not the fault of the elected boards, and the elected boards have taken many steps to set things right.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would all like even more money for education. I realize this budget will not fulfill everyone's wishes. We've had to make some hard decisions. We've had to take a hard look at what we're putting into the system and what is coming out. We have continued to add money to education - $70 million more in the last two years - $70 million more despite the fact that there are 4,900 fewer students in the system. The Education budget is more than $1 billion. There is money to spend and we need to refocus on how and where we spend it. It's about a system that is responsible and accountable to students, parents, teachers and taxpayers. This budget is designed to get us there, if not as quickly as we would like.
[11:00 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Can we get a copy of your speech? Two copies I guess, one for the critic for the Liberal Party and one for myself would be great.
Every year, Mr. Chairman, I have an opportunity to hold three town halls in my riding, and this year as Education Critic I held some throughout the province. I've heard this minister very regularly in the last couple of months say we have increased funding in education, and it's not a matter of having to put more money in, it's how we spend our money more wisely. I've heard that refrain on a fairly regular basis over the last few months
and I guess I just want to start by letting her know what I'm going to be talking about with my time, partly it is about funding, but do you know what I've been hearing from people?
It's about a vision for education and what I've actually noted in her opening speech is not a vision, but a checklist of things - you know, almost this minister should be in charge of the Fire Safety Act and volunteer firefighters in this province because I swear to you, Mr. Chairman, she's spending more time putting out fires than she is dealing with our education system and that's what the real problem is. She and her staff, who wrote her speech for her, have made a list of every problem people said that they have with their education system. Is it about maintenance of our schools; it is about whether school construction will happen; and, let me think, oh, bullying is an issue, you better put that in the speech; maybe we should mention something about the Strait Regional School Board and how important it is to have elected officials - oh, yes, put that down there; maybe we should mention something about student aid, even though we've done nothing about it; in fact we've actually made it worse since we've been elected, so we better put something down about that.
So every problem that has been identified as a crucial problem in our education system, her staff decided to spend two sentences mentioning it. Yet they do nothing to solve these problems and it all comes back to one crucial point - this minister and this department have no vision for education in this province. It's about putting out fires, and the Minister of Education might as well be the little Dutch boy, sticking her finger in the dyke to try to stop the dam from breaking and not actually trying to (Interruptions) The last time I heard, Mr. Chairman, I have an opportunity to give a statement as well.
Anyway, my point is that this Minister of Education has no vision for education and she continues to try to put out the fires and stop the dam from breaking, but she has never identified a clear - and even in the areas where she has tried in the past few years, few months, to have a photo opportunity here and there, whether it be literacy, or grammar, or math, they've stage-managed photo opportunities for her to make it look like she can sit around with a bunch of children and read books to them, so she's doing something about literacy and, Mr. Chairman, even in that case, there's no proof that this government has a vision on how we're going to address literacy.
I hear, in her speech, her talking about testing Grade 8 students for literacy. Well you might as well close the barn doors after the horse is out because, quite frankly, literacy is an issue that needs to be addressed in Primary, Grade 1, Grade 2 and Grade 3. If you're dealing with it in Grade 8 and doing testing then, you're way too late and behavioural problems that will be created by a lack of literacy in those students will definitely have already come to fruition.
Mr. Chairman, this is the problem and this is what I hope, through my questions over the next several days, to talk about is a vision for education and how this Minister of Education has dropped the ball and only seems to be worrying about putting out fires and not
actually trying to ensure that our education system has a long-term goal, because - do you know what? - she may be right. I'm not saying she is, but she may be right, that there is enough funding right now in our education system. But the point is if we don't have a vision and a plan as to how we are going to actually ensure that that is sufficient funding, there will never be enough money.
I think one of the crucial points - and this was brought up yesterday in Oral Question Period, Mr. Chairman - was around school maintenance. She said it herself, and it started long before she came here, but she has done nothing to solve the problem. Preventative maintenance has been dropped. It has not been an issue that has been funded properly and, as a result, instead of having to pay a little now, as it would have been several years ago, we're paying a lot for schools like Sir John A. Macdonald High School and Halifax West High School.
I was talking to my colleague, the member for Timberlea-Prospect - and it would be funny if it wasn't so sad - about the fact that we have two major high schools in this province, particularly in this community, the greater Halifax area, that aren't even in their communities any more. Halifax West High School is now in Cole Harbour; Sir John A. Macdonald High School, which represents suburban Halifax all the way down to Hubbards, is in Bedford.
Mr. Chairman, these are abominable problems with our education system and things that we cannot allow to happen, yet this government will spend $10 million, $20 million, $30 million to build a new school instead of providing the preventative maintenance over the years to ensure - and do you know, the minister may be right; these problems started long before she came in. But I would like to see from her some plan to show, again, a vision as to how she is going to make sure that the other schools in this province are going to have the preventative maintenance so that the next Minister of Education and the Minister of Education after that aren't going to continue to pour $30 million into new high schools, but instead will have a plan that she devised.
If this minister wants a real legacy as a Minister of Education, instead of sitting down in front of the cameras and reading a book to some four- and five-year-olds at the IWK, I would suggest that she actually develop a plan on preventative maintenance so we can ensure that our schools are not actually going to fall down around our children's heads. In the end, it's pretty hard to learn, be literate, and compete in the global economy with our math skills if we don't actually have schools in which our children can learn because they're unsafe and unhealthy.
All of these are issues that this minister has failed to address, and her speech, quite frankly, does nothing more than create a checklist of problems that people in this province have with our education system. I would suggest to her, every year - and I know I'm not the only one, other members of the Opposition do this as well. They go around and meet with
the principals in their area, they meet with their PTOs, their home and school associations and their SACs, and what we hear time after time is that we have major problems with our education system. If you were to listen to that speech and not have any connection with the education system, you would think that this minister had it all under control.
What she has to understand is that those who are involved in the education system don't even have to scratch the surface. It's there; it's visible. There are major problems in our education system, and it's because of a lack of vision from her and her deputy minister that we have these problems. That's what I and, I'm sure, the other members in the Opposition hope to get out of these supply debates, a vision, or put on the record the fact that they don't have a vision. I think I know which one we're actually going to deal with.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start with the bullying issue because, obviously, this is something that has come up more recently, but it has been an ongoing problem. I want to start by asking the minister a question that she didn't really answer in Question Period the other day. Under the province's code of conduct there are two types of behaviour, I believe: disruptive and severely disruptive. Disruptive behaviour includes bullying; severely disruptive, which means endangering the well-being of students, does not include bullying. It does include physical abuse but it doesn't include bullying. My question to the minister is, can she explain to me why her department didn't feel that chronic or prolonged bullying would not be considered severely disruptive behaviour for a code of conduct?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, severely disruptive behaviour goes beyond what is normally considered bullying. Bullying can mean a lot of things to a lot of people; it can mean something relatively minor or become very major. The disruptive behaviours, listed as such in the code of conduct, are very likely the kinds of behaviours that occurred in the most recent incident that we know about. The fact that is important is that the severely disruptive behaviours are recognized as such in the code of conduct, and it would depend on how - one could actually say bullying was all those behaviours or a small part of some of them, but we do recognize that there are severely disruptive behaviours in the school system that have to be addressed.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, the code of conduct provided by the Department of Education is sort of like the skeleton of the codes of conduct that the boards had to adopt and that every school is adopting. I've actually been fortunate enough to sit on an SAC, I've attended other SACs, School Advisory Councils, in my area, and I've actually been there when they've debated and approved their codes of conduct. It's based on this as a skeleton. I have a copy in front of me; it was tabled the other day.
Severely disruptive behaviour is - I will read the definition: "Behaviour that is serious enough to significantly disrupt the learning climate of the school, endanger the well-being of others or damage school property is classified as severely disruptive." Examples include: "vandalism; disruptions to school operations; verbal abuse; racial and/or discriminatory
misconduct; sexual harassment and/or assault; sexual misconduct; sexual abuse or physical abuse; physical violence; use or possession of weapons; or illegal activity."
I think what the minister is trying to say is that bullying could fall under one of these categories. Here's the crucial point - and we in this Legislature draft, write and pass legislation on a daily basis - the minister and her staff don't have the ability to go around to every principal and vice-principal who is doing the disciplinary policy and say, oh, don't forget, severely disruptive behaviour can include bullying. It should be written in as severely disruptive behaviour so that every principal knows that chronic and prolonged bullying - so it doesn't have to fall under verbal abuse. Is it verbal abuse? What do we mean by verbal abuse? Is it physical abuse? What do we mean by physical abuse?
If we had specifically identified as an example of severely disruptive behaviour chronic bullying or prolonged bullying or a second incident of bullying, then it would be clear to every school, every principal and every vice-principal that it's an issue that is a priority to this government and every school board, and it should be a priority to them as well, and they must ensure that it's being addressed. So I ask the minister, is it something that she should be trying to do, ensuring that chronic or prolonged bullying is identified as a severely disruptive behaviour?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite may be right, but I do have to point out that this code of conduct did not spring out of my head nor was it written by people in the department; it was written by a group of professionals from across the province who deal with students and principals and schools every day. They are the ones who drafted this code of conduct. Certainly, I will mention what the member opposite has said the next time I have the opportunity to speak with the group. I agree that chronic bullying can be severely disruptive, but I don't pretend to have the professional qualifications to actually write a code of conduct for schools myself, and that is not how it was developed.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, here's the problem with the bullying policies, and these are just my observations. Maybe it's a bit of my old Crown Attorney in me, maybe it's just observations as a layperson, but I was talking to some people about this earlier. If you want to suspend someone for more than five days, it kicks into what I will call a quasi-legal procedure. There are appeals; it may be to an SAC or a board of appeal in front of a school board. Parents end up getting lawyers and so on and so forth. In many cases, in the first incidence of bullying, disruptive behaviour, maybe it's addressed as a suspension or some other form of discipline. But if it's chronic, if it's prolonged and if we want to move it to be a severely disruptive behaviour and you really want to address it, there's the possibility, maybe that, it has to be addressed through a suspension of more than five days.
If that's the case - and I would suggest to you that there are many principals out there who are very hesitant to move to a suspension of more than five days because they're very nervous about having to spend the time and resources that will be involved in a quasi-legal
procedure. Now, how do we deal with that? Good question. I would suggest that the minister - I'm not even sure she's aware if that's one of the problems. I'm just identifying it as potentially a procedural problem. I guess I'm asking the minister, does she see that as a limitation on our ability to address bullying and does she have any solutions as to how we can address that if she does believe that is one of the problems, procedurally, with how we address bullying?
[11:15 a.m.]
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, I think the procedures involved in dealing with disruptive behaviours are, at times, close to intolerable for some of the teachers and parents and principals involved; I have to say that the ones that I've talked to do their best to deal with these issues. I agree with the member opposite that we have to find a way to make it easier for violent kinds of behaviour to stop and we have to find ways to make it easier for teachers and principals to do their jobs.
MR. DEVEAUX: In some cases, we do this. Every case is different. I understand that. There is a subjectivity with regard to every incident. In many cases, let's face it, the people who are bullies are the victims themselves, maybe, of incidents outside or behavioural issues or there could be issues of literacy resulting in the behavioural problems that are manifesting in bullying. There is a whole web that we weave, I guess, with regard to this.
But I guess my point is that there is the old saying in law that my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Quite frankly, someone who has a problem that has resulted in them being a bully may have their own problems and behavioural issues and may need a lot of support. I don't disagree with that. That doesn't mean that that should forgive them for what they could be doing to another student that results in bullying and can manifest itself in a lot of problems for the victim.
So my suggestion is - and I understand that the professionals develop this, but the minister, in the end, has to sign off on this; she is the one in charge of providing a code of conduct. In fact, I believe it's in the Act that the minister is responsible for providing a code of conduct for education for students in Nova Scotia. So I would suggest to the minister and I would ask her, is there a means by which we can ensure that that subjectivity is maybe reduced a little and we can say, look, if you are caught in a bullying circumstance two, three or four times, this will happen. I understand that every school has to have a certain flexibility, but at the same time, if this is a serious issue, then maybe we need to start at the top with a minister and a department that are willing to say this is such an important issue it doesn't matter what the circumstances were; we are determining that if this becomes prolonged, if it's once, twice, three or four times, we are going to ensure that it's going to be addressed with x. I guess I'm asking the minister, is that something she has considered?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, this issue of disruptive behaviour was the one that was most important when we were doing the special needs review, and we asked the committee especially to look at what we could do to address this. We have made some progress. However, regardless of the fact that we've made some progress, we still have big problems in some of our schools.
There's an added issue; sometimes the bullying or the issues don't manifest themselves in the schools, but manifest themselves outside the schools. Although it's involving the students and the groups from the school, it's not something the teachers and principals actually see. That is something that also concerns me very much because even if we had a perfect system in the school - well, we don't have a perfect system. There are many people who try very hard to deal with these issues and they try to correct the behaviour and make sure the other students aren't harmed, but they often feel intimidated and helpless. I do recognize this as a serious problem, particularly in some schools, and we will continue to work very hard on that to try to find ways of addressing the situations, both in and out of the classroom.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, my question to the minister is, can she tell us how many incidents of bullying occurred in Nova Scotia last year in the schools?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, no, I cannot. We do not compile statistics like that, although we are starting to do so. Again, that is something that, obviously, the system should have been working on for a long time, but we are starting work on that.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I believe every school has to file an incident report, not only for bullying but for assault or possession of a weapon or what have you. What happens with those incident reports? Who obtains them and where do they go?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, those reports are filed with the individual school boards and they are kept at the school board level. Even so, the board that has actually done the most work in this area is the Cape Breton-Victoria Regional School Board. They are actually leading the province in starting to track suspensions and why. Again, there's a lot of leeway in why kids are suspended. Sometimes they're suspended for smoking, sometimes they're suspended for this, and there's not enough qualitative and quantitative data on why kids are suspended. Therefore, our statistics are not good enough, although they are beginning to improve.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I want to move on to another subject, which is school closings. I am going to talk about École Beaufort. It is in your riding, so maybe this is an opportunity for you to discuss it as well. Would you agree with me that École Beaufort was a school that was at capacity, or possibly even overcapacity?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, whatever you call it, École Beaufort was a full school.
MR. DEVEAUX: Now, my understanding of the closure policy, the regulations that were set down, the whole point was to address underutilized space. I guess my question is - and I'm not asking you to second-guess the school board on this one - was it your understanding that this policy was meant to close schools that were full?
MISS PURVES: Well, Mr. Chairman, obviously there are different reasons why you would close a school. It does seem a bit illogical that one would close a full school, but in some cases the school board will choose to do that. Mentioning École Beaufort, sometimes they will choose to do that to fill up half-empty schools. In the end, their aim is, at least theoretically, to consolidate space. You would rather have two full schools than three half-empty schools. That's the theory, in any case.
MR. DEVEAUX: Because it is your area, maybe you do have - as a Minister of Education, as an MLA, can you tell me if there is underutilized space in the South End of Halifax, then, that resulted in this particular closure?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there are nearby schools - not in my riding, not in South End Halifax - that are partially empty, but to my knowledge, there are not schools in South End Halifax that are half-full.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the South End of the peninsula is actually at capacity. The minister is nodding her head, so I will take that as she would agree with that. Has there been some discussion about the possibility of a new south central elementary school in the South End of Halifax? I know that you've recently produced a list of schools - I'm very well aware that you recently produced a list of schools; we'll get to that at another point - but I don't believe that was one of them. So I guess I'm asking, is that an issue that has been brought up and has a decision been made not to build a new south central elementary school on peninsular Halifax?
MISS PURVES: A new school for somewhere in the South End of Halifax was recently added to the Halifax Regional School Board's list of what it would like to build, but that is all that we know about it at this point. We have not been informed of any details that the board might have, where they might want to put it, why and so on. But it was put, I believe, number four on their list of what they would like to build.
MR. DEVEAUX: While I'm on it, I may as well ask, because the four schools were originally an elementary school in Waverley, the L.C. Skerry, I believe; a school to add onto Gorsebrook Junior High School in Jeddore, in your riding, Mr. Chairman; a new high school in Middle Musquodoboit; and a merged high school of St. Patrick's High School and Queen
Elizabeth High School. So which one of those did they drop off the list to add the south central school?
MISS PURVES: I'm not sure that any were dropped off the list. I think it was just made bigger; the list was just made bigger.
MR. DEVEAUX: I'm sorry; there were four on the list originally sent back from, I believe, a Mr. Clattenburg in your office saying that there were four on the list. You're telling me that this is number four, so I presume that one of those had to be dropped further down the list. If you need a moment to look that up, I can move on to another question. Would you prefer that? Okay, while one of your staff is looking that up, the other issue is around French immersion because this is a French immersion school, École Beaufort; it's a program. But the question is, what type of message are we sending if French immersion is a program that - you had a school; you had a community based around that school, École Beaufort. Now you're saying that they're going to have to be moved into Oxford School; I believe that's where they're going to go. Can you tell us what type of message you think that sends with regard to French immersion and the province's commitment to French immersion?
MISS PURVES: The member knows that decisions in these matters of schools are not made by the province, so I'm not sure it sends a message about the province's commitment to French immersion, but it does say something about how the boards use or feel they must use French immersion as a program. They've always treated it as a program that is kind of outside the regular school program. No one treats mathematics as a program that can be taught in any school - you know, has to be moved to some school. It's a program on its own, and the board obviously feels that French immersion can be offered equally well in other schools and that there is no need for a total French immersion school, which École Beaufort was, actually the only one in the province. It's rather historic in that way. It is certainly the board's belief that the program can be taught in any school, that it's not an issue of where it's located, but how it's taught. I think that's probably true, although the parents would argue that the total immersion school produces better results because even the recess announcements or lunch or whatever, everything - it was more French than a school that was dual track.
MR. DEVEAUX: I see in my own area school, Tallahassee Community School - three or four years ago when it wasn't even a primary French immersion, it was a totally English school. Now, I believe, by next year it will be 50 per cent or 55 per cent French immersion. You see a school transforming because of it, so I understand those points. My question is - particularly there's federal money that comes with French immersion programs, which obviously makes it very tantalizing for any school board in the province. Maybe you can start by telling us, what percentage of French immersion is funded by the federal government?
MISS PURVES: Yes, the federal government does help to start the program off and it follows them through. We will try to get the exact percentage of it. It starts off quite good, but as usual with federal contributions, it trails off. So in total, it may not be that large, but to get it going, it's quite good. I will get the exact figures for you.
MR. DEVEAUX: The other question I have is, those students who were at École Beaufort are now going to have to be bused, I presume, to Oxford School? Those students are going to have to be bused to Oxford School, or some of them will have to be bused. How much will it cost? Do you have a rough idea of how much it costs to bus a student, and if so, can you give me a ballpark figure as to how much it will cost to bus the students to Oxford School, the ones who are at École Beaufort?
[11:30 a.m.]
MISS PURVES: The figure, on average per board, is $180 per student, but obviously that's an average. It depends on how many kids, how far they have to go and so on.
MR. DEVEAUX: So it's $180 per year? Okay.
MISS PURVES: In Halifax.
MR. DEVEAUX: In Halifax. And how many students are at École Beaufort? As the MLA, maybe you would know that. I don't actually have the number in front of me. (Interruptions) I know it's full; I'm just wondering if - so it's $180. So I guess my other question then is, is it possible then to transfer that money - and maybe this is - I said the Minister of Education. But is it possible to transfer the money that would go into busing, into portables, and then maybe put them either at LeMarchant-St. Thomas School - instead of putting that money into busing, put that money into the Le Marchant-St. Thomas School so that you have portables there. Is that a possibility?
MISS PURVES: Certainly there are a lot of possibilities. There were and are a lot of possibilities for what to do with the schools and the students, but again, the member knows this is within the school board's jurisdiction. Although I do have feelings about my constituency, I don't want to get up and pretend that it's up to me what to do with the kids and the school because it is not.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the bottom line is that this is a school board decision. You have as a role as an MLA and the Minister of Education, two different hats, but in the end this is something the school board has done and it's a decision they had to make. Is that your position as Minister of Education?
MISS PURVES: Yes. There have been several school closings since I became minister. In Dartmouth there was a process; there's a process going on in Sydney. Although many people have asked me to interfere in keeping schools open, I have not done so and I have not done so in my own riding. In that case, I thank the member opposite for allowing me to say that I have not been as good an MLA as I should have been because of my job as Minister of Education.
MR. DEVEAUX: Just a couple more questions in this area. Has your office reviewed the policy on closure? And as far as you're concerned, you believe that the school board has followed that policy?
MISS PURVES: We have no reason to believe that they didn't follow the policy. I believe the board was quite concerned after what happened last year, when a decision they made was reversed over in Dartmouth. That being said, I'm not a lawyer and I know the parents are still very interested in overturning that decision, but to the best of our knowledge, having looked at the school closure policy and how it was followed, it was followed correctly.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to move on to special needs. The minister talked a bit about that in her opening remarks, and I guess this is something when I first got elected - my children aren't in school yet, so I haven't had to deal with the education system as a parent yet. That will be changing in the next 18 months as my son starts school. What first hit me was that there are - I guess this is how I categorize it - two types of issues around special needs. Behavioural issues, ADD, ADHD, Tourette's syndrome and so on and so forth; then there are those with the intellectual or physical or mental disabilities that some call higher needs. I guess I want to try to break these down into the two.
Every time I go to my principals - and as I say, I do it on an annual basis every Fall, and I have 11 schools in my area - almost to a one, almost every one of them will say to me that the inclusion program the province has developed over the last 10 or 15 years, starting with the Luke Elwood case and then moving into an inclusion policy, has resulted in supports for those with higher needs - intellectual and physical disabilities - and the ones with the more behavioural-based disabilities are falling through the cracks. The principals are quite candid with me about that.
I know the minister mentioned in her opening remarks that that's something she's trying to address, and I'm glad to see that. I guess my question to her is, to start with - I will give you examples. EPAs or TAs or whatever you want to call them aren't provided for children with ADD or ADHD. They're provided - and I won't use the terms that the principals use, but they're provided with ones who are clearly going to be disruptive to the class, ones who, because of the nature of their illness or disability, are not in a position to be able to function in a classroom without a direct assistant. Then there are resource issues and so on and so forth, so my question is, can the minister explain to me, based on her opening
remarks, how she will be addressing those behavioural issues and ensuring that they are better addressed in the school system?
MISS PURVES: The member opposite is right. In some ways I would say that there are almost three categories because there are kids with real physical disabilities that require a full-time teacher's aide who aren't necessarily learning disabled or behaviourally disabled. But that being said, we have tried through the code of conduct and in ways that are part of it to try to address the behaviour problems first. Sometimes the behaviour problems are a result of ADD and ADHD, and if they are disruptive, sometimes they can be taken to learning centres for part of the day or something like that. I think your question was also to do with people falling through the cracks? In other words, the physically disabled child has a teacher's assistant who takes care of him or her and the disruptive child may get a lot of attention paid to him or her because they have to. Kids with milder learning disabilities who are just getting by and may not even be learning to read, if the classroom is too big or there are too many kids like that in a class, they don't get enough attention paid to them. That is absolutely true.
A teacher's aide is not necessarily helpful in that situation because a teacher's aide is not a teacher. The teacher's aides don't have qualifications to teach - or usually they don't. Some do, right. One of the strategies for these kids is the Reading Recovery Program that I mentioned. A lot of kids are helped through Reading Recovery and they aren't necessarily on the extreme of the behaviours. They're kids who may be quiet and nobody notices them, but teachers can pick them out. They're quite good at picking these kids out and that is probably the most successful strategy we have for teaching kids with at least some forms of learning disability, because it's intensive tutoring and a different method of addressing their problems.
In some boards they have learning centres that do essentially the same thing; they use different teaching techniques with certain kinds of kids because they respond to them better than the general classroom. That being said, in the case of Reading Recovery teachers, in the case of resource teachers, we need more of them; we need more of them and that does require money.
MR. DEVEAUX: When I started off in response to the minister's opening statement, I said this would be about vision, and this is one of those, as teachers like to say, "teaching moments" because the minister in response to my question as to what - in her opening statement she talked about what we're doing to ensure children with behavioural issues are being addressed more adequately - I asked her what that was. I heard a little bit about reading recovery which, let me be candid, is a good program. I've observed it in my schools in my area, and it works, I understand that, and then she talked a bit about learning centres, some boards have learning centres.
Well, I guess what I'm getting back to is where's the vision from the Department of Education? Let me start with a specific question because learning centres have been developed by various school boards and you see them scattered; some schools have them, some don't. I almost begin to think it depends on the principal as to how they adopt the learning centre. Some parents will tell you they think they work, and other parents will tell you my child has a right to be in that classroom and learn with the others. That's what inclusion is about, so let me put it directly to the minister, does her department have a policy that supports learning centres as a means of addressing inclusion in the classroom?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, the department's policy is an inclusionary policy, but there are parents, and students and teachers who will tell you that while they support that it is not necessarily good, depending on the child, for it to be 100 per cent of the time, and I know that and many parents feel very strongly that they don't want their child ever taken out of the classroom. They want the child in there all the time, and there are other parents who want them out part of the time. There are other parents - quite a lot of them - who want their tuition agreements for their children to go to separate schools. So all the boards and the department try their best to look at each student and what they think is professionally, from the point of view of the educator, best for that child, and, no, we can't please everybody all of the time.
There are times when what the teacher and the principal think about the child doesn't fit with what the parent wants, and you know sometimes the parent is right, sometimes not, because you have to go - I mean educators do know better about how kids learn and they all learn a little bit differently. So we support learning centres where the board and the professionals involved think that is a good option for some of the students. It is not best option for all obviously.
MR. DEVEAUX: Well, that goes back to the vision issue, Mr. Chairman. You support learning centres where the boards and professionals think it's the right thing. Well, I don't consider that much of a vision, and you know I agree there is no right answer to that question and, as the Minister of Education, sometimes you have to make those tough decisions.
I will tell you what I remember as a child going to school in the 1970s - there was always a special ed class and that was the class where all the students with intellectual disability, in some cases behavioural disabilities or learning disabilities, were located. Many parents will tell you, and I agree, what percentage, where do we draw the line; is it 75 per cent, is it 10 per cent, outside the classroom and in a learning centre? I guess I will put it this way, is a learning centre a slippery slope for us to return to special ed classes, and the whole point of inclusion was that those with disabilities would be in the classroom, learning in the classroom with every other student, not only for their own benefit, but for the benefit of our communities, and if we start moving to learning centres is that the slippery slope back to special education classes where we are basically creating a mini institution in every school?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, I remember classes like that in schools that I went to as well, earlier than the 1970s, much earlier.
[11:45 a.m.]
AN HON. MEMBER: Not much.
MISS PURVES: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How much earlier, Madam Minister?
MISS PURVES: Oh, 10 years or so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
AN HON. MEMBER: The chairman is asking a question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the first time in the history of this House. I apologize, Madam Minister.
MISS PURVES: I can see that some people might say that, but I would say no, I haven't met anyone involved in the teaching of students or special ed students who thinks that we should just take a whole bunch of kids and put them in a special ed class and let the chips fall where they may. You know, there are quite careful - in my department and in the boards there are people who look very carefully at the inclusion policy and what the exceptions are for it. I will give you an example that I saw recently when I was up at Memorial High in Sydney, and they were doing (Interruption) You know about the school, right? They're doing some vocational education for kids with special needs and it's a pilot because we don't want to go back to where automatically kids who might have special needs are only streamed that way. But it is a pilot because sometimes these kids have real talents in other areas and it's a shame to pretend they don't have them, to deprive them of the opportunity for that.
So I would say that it's not just in light of policies by the department, but it's in light of the way society has changed in regard to people with special needs, that a pretty careful eye is kept on these learning centres and special classes to see that what you talked about doesn't happen again.
MR. DEVEAUX: So a fairly simple question, does your department have regulations or policies with regard to the limitations and expectations of learning centres?
MISS PURVES: I will supply that information. We do have policies, but whether they are written specifically in regard to learning centres per se, I can't answer that question right now, but I will get back and provide that.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, we're going to go back to what I said from the beginning, which is about a vision for education. I see in my communities, I see throughout this province that principals and administrators are basically ahead of the department in dealing with inclusion.
Some who support inclusion, and I hear of schools like Mount Edward Elementary School in my colleague's riding, the member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, are shining examples of inclusion, where the supports are given to teachers to ensure that inclusion is in the classroom. I see other schools where the principals maybe see the learning centre as the better way of moving and there is, quite frankly, no consistent policy throughout this province and principals are left to have to deal with it on their own.
School boards, to a lesser extent probably, are dealing with it on their own because I don't think there's a consistent policy through every school board with regard to this, and what has resulted because of a lack of vision and a lack of direction from your department of policies that may or may not be written, quite frankly, you can't even answer that today, Madam Minister, is a situation, Mr. Chairman, where we now have, because of that lack of vision, schools addressing it ad hoc in their own circumstances depending on every student, depending on their classroom, quite frankly depending on whether the principals, vice-principals and teachers are committed to inclusion in the classroom and, again, I go back to my point, where's the vision, where's the commitment?
I guess I'm just asking. Maybe the learning centre is the right way, maybe full inclusion is the right way, but without that clear direction from the Department of Education and from the Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, we have schools on an ad hoc basis that are addressing it on their own and that's not what we need. If we're going to have education consistent across this province, then we must ensure that every school has a consistent policy and, quite frankly, without a clear policy on learning centres it can become this slippery slope and it can result in them becoming special ed classes, and that's my point.
Without clear direction, without clear policies from the top, learning centres are being adopted in various schools and various school boards in this province, and without that clear direction they can easily become the slippery slope towards special ed classes again, and I guess I am asking the Minister of Education how can she ensure that that won't happen?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, we have very clear policies on inclusion in our schools, but we also allow some flexibility in the system. I mean one year there could be a lot of special needs kids in any one class, the next year there may be none, and the next year there may be half the number. It changes year to year. In schools it changes year to year, from
class to class, and one of the great advances in education in the last 20 years has been how much professionals have learned about how differently students learn. They learn to read differently; they learn to do mathematics differently; they learn problem solving differently. I do admire the principle of consistency, but I also admire the principle of flexibility. Not every kid is the same and, yes, we have clear policies, whether we have a written one on learning centres, I will get back to it, but we have very clear policies on inclusion and how to treat children with special needs, and I would suggest that we do need enough flexibility not to have a cookie-cutter approach to education.
Consistently, you know, various of us are accused of wanting to turn kids back into robots and make them learn spelling and grammar and memorize everything and do this and do that, yet at the same time we can't be so consistent that we don't allow kids to learn somewhat at their own pace. So I understand the member's concern, but I don't think that he's right, I don't think this is a slippery slope for the simple fact that society won't allow it.
MR. DEVEAUX: Well, you know, I would like to believe that, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is right, that society won't allow it. The problem is that if you go door to door in a community, not every community has a child in school, and those who have a child in school don't necessarily have a child with special needs and they may not know that there's even such a thing as a learning centre and they may not understand - quite frankly, I don't think in the last 10 years to 15 years most of them understood what inclusion was, again because of a lack of vision from this Department of Education in implementing it.
Let's be candid. The Department of Education in the last 15 years was forced to do it because of a court and Charter argument and, as a result, never funded it properly and it has resulted in a lot of problems in our school system - and not just for children with special needs. Let's be frank. This is also about children in the classroom who also have trouble learning because of the lack of supports provided for those with special needs and how they can possibly become disruptive.
We'll have more on this. I think I've only got about 10 minutes left, Mr. Chairman, in this session.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: But I do want to talk a bit about IPPs - individual program plans. Does your department have an interest in getting rid of or dramatically changing IPPs and the use of IPPs?
MISS PURVES: No, Mr. Chairman. I mean we want more parental involvement in the IPPs. They are very important for certain kids. They do take a lot of time for the teachers involved, the parents and the principal, but they're needed because for a child who may not
be able to progress the way a so-called normal child would, they still need to have a plan to progress beyond what they're capable of at the moment and it's very important to have those.
MR. DEVEAUX: Can the minister tell me, from her understanding, when an IPP is initiated, how far behind the student has to be educationally before an IPP is initiated?
MISS PURVES: There is a whole range of issues, it's how the child does on tests, whether or not he or she is progressing in reading and writing, and sometimes when a child comes into the school, an issue is already identified, so you know right away there's going to have to be something. For example, a child may have a degree of autism that has previously been identified, and sometimes it's not discovered until the child is in school, so it varies. But I mean teachers are professionals; aside from testing, they can tell if a child is having trouble.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, when I talk to teachers and parents about this throughout the province, what I hear consistently is an IPP is not initiated until the child is - I'm trying to get it exactly right - is it two or three grades behind their age, and can the minister confirm that an IPP is not initiated until a student is basically functionally behind two or three grades what they should be for their age?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, no, I cannot confirm that, that's not policy. It may be that that happens sometimes, but I would suggest that two or three grades behind is probably somewhat late.
MR. DEVEAUX: Well, exactly my point, it is too late. I talk to parents on a regular basis, particularly children with ADD, or ADHD, or other behavioural developmental issues, who will say that basically their child had to languish in school with a lot of problems for two or three years before - and this is interesting because you will talk to some professionals who will tell you that they have much better success with boys with behavioural issues in being able to turn them around and able to finish school than girls, because at a young age girls have a higher level of maturity and a higher developmental level, and therefore the girl's issues don't identify until later life. They're able to cope. They're able to continue at their certain grade, or one grade behind, until they hit 11, 12, 13, and at that point that is when that trigger starts and that creates the problems, but at 12 or 13 years old, many of the behavioural and disciplinary issues have already begun, but with boys, because they are potentially starting at a less mature stage, they will more quickly fall behind, and they therefore are able to be identified more quickly.
I guess my point is and my question is, I encourage and I would ask the minister to ensure that we are identifying these students as quickly as possible because I don't disagree that an IPP is potentially the right thing to do, but how do we ensure we identify it quickly enough to make sure that these students have the opportunity to go on an IPP so they can continue to learn?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the member opposite and I agree with him.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage has four minutes.
MR. DEVEAUX: Thank you. So my other question around IPPs then, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Education. She mentioned that she wanted more parental input into IPPs. Can she tell me what she means by that and at what stage the development of this more parental support is?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, some parents are very involved, but it's very important that parents become more involved because sometimes the language of the educator is not necessarily accessible to the parent and they have to know what the goals are of the IPP, and also a lot of work has to be done at home often with children on IPPs, not always, but the support is at home to study a certain way or do certain things, and if there's not enough understanding on the part of the parent of what the goals are for the child, well there's obviously less chance the child will be successful in school. It's hard for a lot of the teachers, but you know it's a matter of educating the parent often as well - and vice versa.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the minister has actually answered my question. I know my time is running short, but can the minister please explain what she means by the initiatives to ensure that parents will have more input into IPPs? She has specifically said that and I'm trying to clarify exactly what those initiatives are to ensure parents have more input?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, there can't be an IPP without parental involvement. I mean the parent has to be involved in the IPP, but what we found from a lot of cases where parents are appealing their IPP, or complaining about the IPP, that perhaps not enough time has been spent with the parent, explaining the IPP to the parent. Also, we have to recognize that sometimes the parents in the case of the behaviour of a particular child, know more than the teacher or can add additional information that will help the teacher. There are parents of children on IPPs who feel their children, for example, are not being pushed hard enough. There are all kinds of different cases, but he may be getting at the fact that I said that we were going to revise regulations on ministerial appeals. I'm not sure quite what he was getting at, but anything we can do to increase understanding between . . .
[12:00 noon]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. Ten seconds for the member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. DEVEAUX: I specifically remember you saying earlier today that you wanted to have more initiatives to ensure parents had more support and I will talk about that again later. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I would like to thank the member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage for his questions. Now I would like to recognize a member of the Liberal caucus, the member for Richmond, the time being 12:01 p.m.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Madam Minister, last year we stood in this place and you told us - I guess if you could verify this statement - you said that we would have a loan remission program in this province within 12 months. Will you verify just for the record that you made that statement during last year's budget process in the response to a question made by me?
MISS PURVES: If I said we would have one, then I was wrong, obviously, because we don't have one. I had hoped to have one but, obviously, we do not.
MR. SAMSON: Why?
MISS PURVES: The reason we don't have a new debt relief program for students is that perennial problem that we have here in Nova Scotia, and that's money.
MR. SAMSON: Did the minister submit to, as part of her pre-budgetary process, any requests for funding for a new loan remission program?
MISS PURVES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, department officials were working very hard with the Department of Finance. We did eliminate the tax incentive plan that we had been working on as not the most feasible, and we worked very hard on a plan and an approximate amount of money we would need to institute that plan this year, but we were unable to achieve funds to institute the plan this year.
MR. SAMSON: So it would be an accurate statement to say that it is actually the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance who rejected giving you the funding for a loan remission program. Is that correct?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, we requested funding for student debt relief and a number of other initiatives this year in the budget and we were not able to achieve those objectives. We did achieve funding for some things and not for others. That is also true for other departments. In the end, our department did not have to undergo some of the cuts other departments did and, for that, I'm very pleased, but certainly we wanted money for a debt
relief plan, we wanted more money for special ed, we wanted money for a number of initiatives and that money was not available this year.
MR. SAMSON: Does the minister not feel that her statement last year in telling us that we would have a loan remission program this year, created an expectation amongst university students with high debt loads that were anticipating that you would be bringing in a debt relief program based on your own statements in this House. Would you admit today that basically - I don't know if I would use the word misled - you created an expectation amongst university students that you have not been able to fulfill as a minister?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, I meet several times a year with the leaders of the student groups in Nova Scotia and I do not believe I have created false expectations among those groups. I think I've done my best to dampen expectations, but I will say that the debt relief program is very important and I do wish I had been able to achieve it this year, but we have not been able to. I don't believe I ever told them that, yes, it was going to be there, period.
MR. SAMSON: Well, I would certainly be pleased to go through the Hansard of last year and show the minister exactly what her comments were in regard to the loan remission program and her statements that there would be a program put in place within the next budget. I'm just curious, minister, and again with all due respect, I still consider myself a recent university graduate - it's going on five years now - who benefited from the loan remission program on a number of occasions. I've had parents come up to me to say thank you for continuing to raise this issue. I had one who had three boys, two benefited from the loan remission program and quite drastically cut down their student loans, the last one unfortunately fell under the system of no loan remission, and the loans that he is incurring now are just overwhelming, to say the least.
It's a very serious issue, it's one that is causing a lot of stress to both the parents and to the students themselves, and that's why I ask you now, what level of comfort can students in this province have that they should believe in any way that you will achieve, within the next 12 months, a loan remission program based on what the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech? In other words, what faith should they have now based on the previous letdowns they've had in regard to your government's intentions with the loan remission program? Why should anything be different now from your most recent statements?
MISS PURVES: Whatever I said in the Chamber last year, if I did say we would have one, I was obviously wrong. But in my meetings - I repeat - with the students, I have not promised them one absolutely, but I have every faith in the Minister of Finance and I have every faith at his saying in his budget speech, in addition to pressure from us, that we will be able to introduce one over the coming months.
MR. SAMSON: You know, in giving your vote of confidence to the Minister of Finance, you're going to lead me to the next question. Based on that, her vote of confidence in our Finance Minister, will the minister stand in her place today and give her own guarantee that within the next 12 months there shall be a loan remission program in this province? Will you give us that guarantee today, based on the confidence you have expressed in your own Minister of Finance?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, I can't guarantee that I won't be run over by a bus when I leave here, but I will say that the Minister of Finance has pledged that we will have one, and I pledge to bring a program forward. I cannot guarantee anything, but it is certainly a firm commitment of this government.
MR. SAMSON: Well, I guess that's about as good as we're going to get on that one and only time will tell whether the minister is able to deliver on that or not. We certainly hope or wish her well in her endeavours in that regard.
I'm just curious all the provinces in this country are faced with financial challenges, I think we all accept that - whether it be education, health, whatever. Based on that, can the minster explain why we still are the only province today without some form of debt relief program for university students? Everyone else is faced with the same challenges, Madam Minister, you're not a unique situation here in Nova Scotia, yet you're the only minister who has to say she does not have a debt relief program in this province. Why is that so?
MISS PURVES: Every province in this country certainly faces challenges, but none quite like ours. I'm not the Minister of Finance, but we have just balanced the budget, we have a huge debt, but what the member for Richmond said is absolutely true, we're the only province in Canada without a major debt relief program; we do have interest relief, which helps somewhat, but we are the only province in the country without something to help students and that is something that we're going to have to change.
MR. SAMSON: Unfortunately, it doesn't provide very much comfort, Madam Minister. The interest relief, as you know, is a band-aid solution to a much larger problem. I'm certainly not interested in getting into an economics debate with the minister, but I would hope when she's talking with the Minister of Finance and talking with the finance officials of this province as the Minister of Education, that she would advocate on behalf of students that if you are a student with a $60,000 debt and you are paying $800 a month on your loan payments, or you're a student with a $20,000 debt paying $400 a month in loan payments, that's $400 extra of free cash that you have to invest in the economy and to make the economy grow. Right now, the Province of Nova Scotia is never going to grow its economy when our best and brightest students are coming out of university and aren't spending money. They're not buying homes, they're not buying cars, they're not going on vacations, they're not re-investing in this province.
You can talk about balancing the budget all you want, at the end of the day you will not grow the economy if those who you rely upon the most to grow it are burdened with overwhelming debt. So, I'm asking, will the minister advocate to the Finance Minister and to the Finance officials of this province and to the Premier, on behalf of university students, that you have to try to address the overburden that they have on their debts if you are going to be able to grow this economy and allow them to be the participating members of our economy that we want them to be? Have you done that to date? If not, will you do that and advocate on their behalf in that regard?
MISS PURVES: I have been doing that, and I will continue to do that.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I encourage the minister, within this House, in her speeches and in her ministerial statements that she shares that with us so that we can hear not only in the backrooms or in the Cabinet Room, but that Nova Scotians can feel confident saying our Minister of Education is advocating on our behalf. Here's a ministerial statement of the minister saying she clearly understands the issues around debt load, the impact it has on the economy, the impact it has on the students. So, I encourage the minister through her communications people or through whoever else, that she start communicating here in the House and outside that she does understand that, so students have a better appreciation.
One of the issues that was raised with us - the minister has pointed out she's met with different student groups and I'm pleased to hear that - my understanding is that once the Millennium Scholarship started in this province, your government and your department saved $1 million annually on interest payments to the banks during the period that students are attending a post-secondary institution. My understanding is that there's a $1 million saving every year. All of the other provinces - my understanding is - have reinvested that in either the debt relief program or the student assistance program. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what has the Province of Nova Scotia done with that $1 million in savings annually?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, the Millennium Scholarships do help some students, but there was no saving because our money was so tight. There was no saving. It wasn't that we took that $1 million and put it somewhere else. In our commitment to the Millennium Scholarship people who we would not give less student aid to students, we would not reduce our student loans because of that, and we obviously did not reduce our student loans, we're giving out more in student loans than ever. So, there's no extra $1 million a year floating around anywhere.
MR. SAMSON: So it is your statement today, Madam Minister, that as a result of the Millennium Scholarships, the Province of Nova Scotia has not seen a $1 million reduction in their expenses that were traditionally spent under the student aid system? So you are saying the information we have been provided with from the student groups is incorrect, that that Millennium Scholarship has not provided that $1 million we were informed of?
MISS PURVES: That's correct, and I know that despite many meetings with officials, that there are some in the students' groups who still believe that we have saved this money, but we're giving out more in student loans and paying more in student loans than we were when the Millennium Scholarship came in.
[12:15 p.m.]
MR. SAMSON: Well I guess we'll certainly have to have more discussion with those student groups but, obviously, I'm pleased to hear the minister recognize that they are still questioning that issue and, to date, have not accepted, obviously, the responses from the department.
You indicated that you have been putting more money into the student financial assistance program. Could you indicate how much that program has increased?
MISS PURVES: In 2001-02, $14.379 million, and it's going up to $14.4 million, which is our estimate for 2002-03.
MR. SAMSON: So it's your statement that for specific student financial assistance, your budget is increasing and not decreasing for that particular line item?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education is acknowledging the member's question with a yes.
MR. SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we will come back to that one. Will the minister acknowledge - I think she already has - that there is a good chance that tuitions will continue to rise in the upcoming academic year for universities?
MISS PURVES: Yes, there certainly is not only a good chance, but it would be most unlikely if tuitions did not rise. Now, what the tuitions are actually going to be at the different universities, I do not believe they've announced that yet, unless it's happened in the last couple of hours, but we do expect an increase in tuition.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Lunenburg West.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister, the deputies and guests, welcome. I understand tuitions at Dalhousie University will be going up in the range of $300 to $500. Are you aware of that increase, Madam Minister?
MISS PURVES: We have not been officially informed of what the increase will be at Dalhousie or any of the universities. He could well be right, but we've not been officially informed of that.
MR. DOWNE: Madam Minister, I would like to ask some questions more specifically with regard to the region that I represent. The Department of Education, the South Shore District School Board, which was the pilot body, had presented to the Minister of Education, February 6, 2002, a report of the Southwest Pilot Evaluation Team. That report, I believe, was sent to the minister, and there's been discussions between you and the deputy and senior staff. In this evaluation report, they indicated a number of options with regard to how the structure for the South Shore District School Board could be set up with the understanding that it would not only be able to function more effectively, but also save you $100,000 a year. I understand that the Department of Education responded to that. My first question to you, Madam Minister, do you recall receiving this report and recall the options that show the $100,000 saving to the department?
MISS PURVES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do recall receiving the report. There was a report from the Tri-County District School Board, as well.
MR. DOWNE: Madam Minister, in the report under "options", there was an option that indicated that without any additional cost to the department - in fact a saving of $100,000 - that board, in effect, could operate, not as a continuation of a pilot, but in fact as a board that's functioning. I understand that the Department of Education's response to the report of the Southwest Pilot Evaluation Team basically ignored the concerns and the comments that were brought forward in the report, in fact refers repeatedly in the document to $1 million cost-associated. Would the minister confirm that in fact the department's response document does state and uses the foundation of the document's position relative to the $1 million cost for a split in a boundary location?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, yes, the department responded the way it did to the report on the evaluation of the southwest pilot essentially because we're not prepared at this time to create two district boards. We did agree to turn over various functions to the district boards that they had asked for, but we did not go the distance in terms of what they wanted, because both boards wanted to each be a regional school board, essentially, without the central structure. We're not prepared to do that at this time. The $1 million reference comes from the original task force report on boundaries that was initiated in the Fall of 1999 and reported in the winter of 2000. That task force said that it would cost approximately $1 million to duplicate the administrations that we now have in one, and that is where that figure came from.
MR. DOWNE: Madam Minister, to duplicate the two separate boards probably would cost $1 million, but it seems to me that the South Shore District School Board was not asking for a duplicate process. What in fact they had proposed to you to save $100,000 was that the finance section be handled the way it currently is being handled in the structure that's in place. The administration, the busing and things of that nature, there didn't need to be major separations and certainly did not support duplication, but indicated that they could operate as a stand-alone entity under certain conditions that currently exist without costing the board
$1 million or costing the department $1 million but, in fact, saving $100,000. I guess there's some confusion as to why the minister would not want to save $100,000 in a structure that would save you $100,000 and, in effect, be more accountable to you under that new structure?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, as I said, at this time we are not prepared to go back to two district boards because we want to have, at least for the time being, the kind of control over central facilities that we have right now. That's not to say that at some future date the system might change, but the timing was wrong for going back to two district boards, absolutely. The member knows about some measures in the Financial Measures Bill and there are some positions and things we want to get straightened out province-wide before we take a look at the whole system. So, again, that was something that we were not prepared to do at this time.
MR. DOWNE: Thank you, Madam Minister. I do realize the power that is under the Financial Measures Bill to the minister. In fact, my sense is that the representatives of the South Shore District School Board are concerned by the fact that one non-elected CEO controls $94 million with the funding for those two boards and there's no provision for them to be able to make sure dollars are properly spent. So the concern is, under the structure that is currently in place, that they could be used as a pawn in a larger chess game, as it were, if that in fact is the strategy. I hope that's not what you're proposing to do here. Nevertheless, the way it's set up now, you have one CEO who is not elected, who is appointed, who controls $94 million for both boards, and the pilot project board hopes and has to pray that this individual is going to be fair and just in one area of the province versus another area, even though he comes from a different region of the province.
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, let me say right off that the southwest pilot, as set up, was not perfect, even though the evaluation panel recommended changes, a variation of which we've tried to put into place - for example, it was recommended that there be a joint committee to look at some of these issues, but the elected members were not interested in talking to each other. So there is a committee at the staff level now, and we've asked that the CEO spend more time explaining budgets to each board and, at the staff level, at least a discussion go on at the level of directors of education that they have a better idea of where this money is going. I do understand the concerns of the South Shore District School Board. They're echoed by the Tri-County District School Board. They feel they're elected and they should be responsible for all the money. I do understand their feelings on the matter but, for the time being, partly because of other parts of the province, it's not true that - yes, he is unelected, but he is responsible to the deputy and, thus to me, an elected person. I get hammered a lot harder every day than the school boards do. So there is accountability. I realize it's not the way they would like things to be, but that money has to be accounted for. What we're trying to do is to make sure it's explained to them better.
MR. DOWNE: Madam Minister, the buck stops with you, is what you're saying. If something's not working in the board, then you're the one who will intercede and make sure it was working correctly?
MISS PURVES: In the part of the board that is responsible to the deputy minister, that central part of the board, the administrative structure, yes.
MR. DOWNE: The people in my area, Madam Minister, are using the argument that the $1 million on the boundary differential doesn't appear to be selling very well. What you're saying is that maybe the $1 million is not the issue as much as the ability to be able to control the $94 million that the CEO has, and you're not comfortable with how this mixture is going at this point but, at some point, you will be addressing the issue of two stand-alone boards, or is it your intention to have the two temporary boards stay in that position?
[12:30 p.m.]
You can have a temporary or make-believe group for some period, but at some point you either have to fish or cut bait. We're all hoping that we're all going to go fishing and have our independent board. That board wants to manage and can manage and has proven its ability to manage, and it has consistently brought in balanced budgets. In fact, I believe they have a surplus; they've cut back and tried to save money for the department, yet they're not rewarded with the ability to have the accountability in the system that they should have if, in fact, they're to do the job properly.
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, when we first set up the pilot structure, the elected members worked very hard to make it work because they were pleased at being separated. But now that they've gotten used to the system, they would like to go back to two district boards. I do understand that. We're not prepared to do that now. There is a sunset clause in the legislation. Unless we change the Education Act, the structure would disappear in 2004.
It's not that we're letting it go and forgetting about it, but at the moment we want the boards to work. They have been working in their areas; they've done a really good job; they've focused on education. I realize they want to be a full board, without the CEO or any person being responsible to the department, and we're not yet prepared to do that. Most administrations do grow, regardless of how they save at the beginning. The $100,000 saving could be real, but it probably wouldn't stay. Again, it's a policy decision. We're not prepared to go to two district boards at this time.
MR. DOWNE: This is more of a comment, and then I will turn it back to the critic. I will say, Mr. Minister, the board itself back home has shown you how they could save you $100,000. The issue really boils down to trust and accountability. The boards you have there now, which have had many years of experience in dealing with education, they can't even
deal with a secretary, for example. If there's a problem with a secretary, it reverts back to somebody else. It reverts back to the CEO. The CEO is responsible for the secretaries. The CEO is responsible for the $94 million and its allocation. The CEO is responsible for who gets that distribution of the $94 million and the CEO is the one who could be doing something, yet the board itself would be responsible for that at the end of the day. If there's wrongdoing, invariably the boards seem to be getting the political heat for it even though our board really has nothing to say about it.
I will say that Leroy is a CEO - I believe it's Leroy Legere. From all accounts, he's done a fair job. He's been fair in his treatment of the schools throughout the region. I say that because I've heard that. I'm not leaving any wrong impression about the professional approach that Leroy is taking with regard to his job. But there is the issue that our board feels that because they've done a good job, shown you how they can save you $100,000, lived within their financial means, and spent money on school repairs and not let the system fall apart, forcing you to build schools, where somebody who should have been spending money on school repairs hasn't and uses it for other purposes, they might be penalized for doing a good job.
I will go back to this question to you later next week and give you a chance to think about it. When you have a body that is fiscally responsible, cares very much about the level of education, has nurtured a good relationship with the CEO, but more importantly has asked you for the ability to have accountability and responsibility and the autonomy to do what needs to be done - I ask you to think about that over the weekend, as you undoubtedly will have nothing else to do but think about the Southwest Regional School Board and, of course, questions with regard to Richmond County and other areas. I will endeavour to go back to this later, and I do appreciate your response.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would come up with another question, member. Very nice closure, yet another question for the minister, please.
MR. DOWNE: I apologize to the House. I thought my colleague was back, but obviously . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: He's doing a media thing.
MR. DOWNE: Doing a media thing, all right.
Recently, Madam Minister, April 11th, you received a letter from the Southwest Regional School Board. I don't know if you were able to have a chance to read it. It came in yesterday. Are you aware of the letter, Madam Minister?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, I have it here in front of me, but I have not had a chance to read it yet. I was here all day yesterday, not at the office.
MR. DOWNE: This letter basically talks about the issues that I brought to your attention today: The South Shore District School Board welcomes the announcement of the pilot evaluation a year ago. We are pleased to be given the opportunity to improve on a model that has some serious flaws. The fact that we are making this model work to benefit the South Shore students has much to do with the dedication and the co-operation of the board members and staff. They go on to indicate that they've been looking for information from you with regard to decisions you've made. We continue to hope our trust has been well placed, although your assurance that there will be no hidden agenda at work seems to be compromised by what has actually taken place. They look forward to your reply and are confident that their request for information will be honoured quickly without the necessity for them to FOIPOP the information.
I will ask you to talk just quickly to your deputy about that. Can you respond to me today with regard to this letter, which has been sent to myself and members of the Legislature and members of the Progressive Conservative Party, which Mr. Baker, Mr. Chataway and Mr. Morash represent. I would ask for your response to whether or not you are prepared to provide that information, or do they have to FOIPOP that to get it?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, I can only respond in a general way because I've only read what you read out loud. I'm well aware of the fact that the South Shore board members thought there were problems in the evaluation of the pilot. They felt there should be no presentations made to the team in private. They did not want other school boards making presentations to the evaluation team. They feel that any information that was shared with the team in private should be made available to them.
There are a couple of problems with that, and one is that the terms of the evaluation, in the first place, were public. The South Shore District School Board and the Tri-County District School Board were both part of the team that put together the parameters for the analysis of the pilot. Those parameters did allow for private presentations and private consultations with the Dodds group. There's nothing in the department that they would have to use the freedom of information process to get, because we don't have it. Any conversations that the evaluation team had in private are not in our possession.
I understand that some board members, both there and in the Tri-County District School Board, think that there's some kind of secret agenda at work here. Because of that, they're suspicious of the evaluation team or the department or me or whatever. I think that, at least at one point, they felt there was a secret agenda to put the two boards back together, which is something neither board wants, and they saw the recommendation to get some of the elected members meeting with Leroy on a regular basis as an attempt to put them back together. That is absolutely the last thing either of them wants. There is no intention to do that, none whatsoever, but there is suspicion at work here. If we have any documents that the South Shore District School Board wants, we will give them to them, but it's not within our
power to provide documents that were given to either the first task force group or the Dodds group because they're not our documents or our conversations.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, the letter starts off: At the Annual General Meeting of the Nova Scotia School Boards Association on May 25, 2001, in Antigonish, you announced the evaluation of the Southwest Pilot. You stated you did not want an evaluation conducted behind closed doors in Halifax. You said you wanted the evaluation to be transparent and open. You gave your assurance that there would be no hidden agenda and that the evaluator or evaluators would consult with a steering committee and update them on the progress of work. A year later, it's painfully obvious that you have not delivered on a number of these fronts. Can you explain to me, Madam Minister, why you have not delivered on your promises?
MISS PURVES: Well, Mr. Chairman, obviously according to the South Shore District School Board, I have not delivered on my promises, but that is not my opinion. There is no secret agenda here. I think there is a great deal of suspicion and fear, but there is no hidden agenda. The evaluators were competent. Closed-door meetings in Halifax, saying something different, I know nothing about that. There were, I am told, some private discussions, but in cases of evaluating pilots, that's necessary. Most of the opinions were public.
MR. DOWNE: My colleague is there. He said he's going to stay now, so I will follow up on this. Madam Minister, I don't know if it's a personal affront of trust on you. I would not think that that would be what our board is saying to me. They've never indicated that - and/or your deputy minister. I have never heard that from my people back home. The issue, if you're using your argument of a $1 million cost - and they're saying show us the facts, how you got to that number, and whatever evaluation you've done with the pilot project. If there's something in there that we're not aware of, we want to know about it. We, as a body, are trying to show you how to save $100,000, which in turn would go to the classroom - or maybe the fact that the Minister of Finance would not give you a loan remission program and it's his fault that the decision was no on loan remissions for students. Maybe you would be able to show him the $100,000 that could sweeten the pot for your negotiations that you lost this year and maybe gain next year with the Minister of Finance. But, nevertheless, I will come back to this issue.
I will check again with our people, but the sincerity of the elected board is for one reason and one reason only, and that is to provide a better quality of education for the students of Lunenburg-Queens County in a cost-effective way, also providing more dollars in a classroom. These are the elected bodies that feel that they can do that with your co-operation and not with your inability to share that information and to move forward with legitimate partnership. They don't like this illegitimate, temporary situation, if you will excuse my little joke there. They don't like the temporary approach to this so-called marriage
that we currently have with the department and the South Shore District School Board. Thank you.
MISS PURVES: I would just like to say that the South Shore District School Board has been doing a really good job. I know they have. I realize they do not like this common- law marriage.
[12:45 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Minister, just going back to the issue of student assistance, you forecast last year in your budget $14.379 million. How much did you actually spend last year on student assistance?
MISS PURVES: We spent about $2 million more, and the reason for that is because we had to put more money in a loan reserve for loan losses and that's accounted for there. That is something that the Auditor General insists that we do, have a reserve in place to account for loan losses that we have to pay out during the year.
MR. SAMSON: Does that mean you're not required to put such an amount of money in again this year?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, yes, we have to build it to a certain amount. One of the things that happened last year is because interest rates went down, we actually had a $1.5 million saving, but we had to put roughly $4 million into the fund. So we spent an extra $2 million and something to make up for that $4 million reserve that we have to have.
MR. SAMSON: Madam Minister, I guess the obvious next question is, how much money of your allotted budget this year are you going to have to put into that reserve for this fiscal year?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, another $4 million this year, and that will take the reserve to $18.2 million.
MR. SAMSON: Then is it safe to say - and we had to go quite a bit of a roundabout way to get to this point - that you are going to be spending $4 million less on direct student assistance to students because you are budgeting the same amount as last year that you had to give to students directly and now you're saying you are going to have to spend $4 million of that to go to this reserve fund? So is it safe to say that that's $4 million less that will go directly to students through student assistance?
MISS PURVES: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. We had the reserve last year too. It's not more to the reserve and less to student assistance. We have to do both.
MR. SAMSON: Okay. Last year, you budgeted $14 million to go directly to students for student assistance, correct? Then the Auditor General told you that you needed to put money into this reserve fund, so out of that you saved $1.5 million through interest, but you had to put an additional $2 million which is showing your $16 million expenditure, an expenditure of $2 million more. Now, you're back down again this year, forecasting $14 million, now you're telling us that $4 million of that has to go to this reserve fund. Therefore I ask you again, will you admit that is $4 million less than what should be going directly to students through student aid?
MISS PURVES: I stand corrected on a previous statement. We put $4 million last year and we're going to need another $1 million next year to add to the reserve, not another $4 million on top of the $4 million - another $1 million on top of the $4 million that we already have. I apologize.
MR. SAMSON: Back again. That is $1 million less that should be going directly to students through student aid that you're now going to have to put in this reserve fund. So you have reduced $1 million from student assistance that you're now going to be putting in that reserve fund. So you're admitting there actually is a loss of what should be going directly to students, is that correct?
MISS PURVES: If you look at student assistance, we continue to spend more every year. That's the bottom line - it all goes to students.
MR. SAMSON: The minister was doing so well in her forthright and brief answers and it's unfortunate that we have to get sidetracked now. The message is, $1 million less is going to go directly to students who are applying for student loans, Madam Minister. Yes, you can say this reserve fund goes back to students because it's charges from the bank and everything and the overall picture, but for the day-to-day students right now, today, applying for student loans and through the student loan system, they have $1 million less available to them - that is the bottom line. The minister can talk around it all she wants. It's unfortunate she didn't come straight out and tell that directly to students and be upfront with them.
My next question is, Madam Minister, you've admitted when I was talking to you previously that you feel tuitions will probably increase; therefore, because tuitions are going to increase, the cost to students naturally is going to go up. Is your department going to increase the current cap on student loans as to the maximum amount that students can receive under the student aid system to reflect the rising cost of tuition?
MISS PURVES: No, we are not.
MR. SAMSON: Why not?
MISS PURVES: The reason is the same for a lot of these questions, we don't have the money to be able to do that this year.
MR. SAMSON: To sum it up, the message to university students is: no more money for universities, no money in a capital infrastructure program for universities. You've decreased $1 million for student aid available to students, the minister has admitted tuition is rising, and yet the maximum allowable amount for student aid is not going to rise in return. That is the message to university students, that is what this government is willing to do for the university students of this province - a sad message to say the least.
Madam Minister, I know I'm running short on time. I want to ask just a few questions nearer to home about the recent decision regarding the Strait Regional School Board. I know that the member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage talked a little bit about school closures and you indicated that the school boards were responsible for school closures, not your department. I'm just curious, under this new arrangement, the Strait Regional School Board, you are going to control the finances of that board, will you now accept responsibility for any school closures that may take place under the Strait Regional School Board?
MISS PURVES: As I said last week, I didn't think there were any schools left to close up in the Strait Regional School Board, but no, under the terms of the pilot, the responsibility for school closures and boundaries and so on is still with the district board, with the educational board. They do have quite a large budget because they are responsible for education, so the salaries that go with education still stay with the elected board members and their director of education and their staff. Under the terms of the pilot it's the responsibility in the South Shore and the Tri-County and in the Strait, any school closure decisions would still be that of the elected board.
MR. SAMSON: You control the books, yet you're going to lay the blame on the elected board which you've basically made now into lame-duck members because you've tied their hands about being able to control where education dollars should be spent in the Strait area. Your statement today is that any cuts that need to take place within that board - you're controlling the books here in Halifax, yet it's your position, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the elected board members are the ones that you will hold to blame if there are any cuts in that board or if there are any school closures as a result of declining funding coming from your department for that school board, is that your statement?
MISS PURVES: No, that's the statement of the member for Richmond. The board, if you think about what school boards are for, if you think about what the members say they're for, it's for education and for teachers and principals and programs, and I do not consider that responsibility to be a lame-duck responsibility, and if the member for
Richmond considers it a lame-duck responsibility, then I would like to know what he thinks school boards are for.
MR. SAMSON: Well, very simple. School boards are elected by the people in the areas they serve with the purpose of being elected to be the voice of the students, the teachers, the parents, and to be able to determine where education dollars allotted for their board should be spent - the minister shakes her head, she appears to agree - now add to that mix the fact you've taken away that funding responsibility and said we will make those decisions from Halifax, and yet you disagree that they're lame-duck members. Yes, you've left them with little pickings that they can still make decisions on, yet the fundamental decisions about where money should be spent you have taken charge of that control, yet you are saying they still hold responsibility for any cuts in funding or for any closures or teacher reductions that should take place. Again I ask you, how can you say that you will not accept responsibility when you are going to be making the financial decisions from your office at the Trade Mart building as to the expenditure of money for educational purposes in the Strait Regional School Board?
MISS PURVES: All the responsibility for the educational money in the Strait Regional School Board is still with the school board members - 80 per cent of the budget, roughly, is in salaries. The bulk of the budget for the Strait Regional School Board is still in the hands of the elected members. They're the ones making the educational decisions, what principals in what schools, what teachers will be hired, what programs delivered there, that is still their responsibility.
MR. SAMSON: I know my time is running down. I have to tell you from what I've heard from my area, the parents were certainly outraged by some of the irregularities and spending that took place by the staff and administration in the Strait Regional School Board, but at the same time, I, like many others in my county, have a great deal of respect for Chairman George Kehoe and for a number of the elected board members who have worked very hard to try to clear up the mess there, who have been as open as possible - more open than the minister and her deputy have been at times - on this issue, and have done everything possible to try to clear this up and yet still address the educational needs of the students, the teachers and the parents in that area.
The fact that you came down, Madam Minister, without any sort of warning to that board, without sitting down and trying to work out a plan with them, to announce to them that you were taking over financial control of numerous aspects of their budget clearly is reprehensible, to say the least. If your government believes in elected boards, and that elected boards should make decisions on programming, on where money should be allotted for special education and for different matters, they must have control of the books.
[1:00 p.m.]
You have had an elected board responsible for decisions made by staff, which we can all accept responsibility for what happened. Some of it happened under our watch, Madam Minister, but a hell of a lot of it happened under your nose. That is something that we have to accept. These elected board members should not be held responsible for that; they have done everything they can to address that and to put in the safeguards for that. A request for a forensic audit came from the Strait Regional School Board, not from your department; the request to put in better accounting measures and to put in better guidelines came from the Strait Regional School Board, not from your department.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your time has expired.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue a discussion with the minister concerning the activities of the Halifax Regional School Board this year in considering schools for permanent closure. I would like to start by reviewing the process that took place this year. I take it that, as Minister of Education, you have a supervisory responsibility to make sure that the process that is followed by school boards is a fair, transparent and fundamentally just process that is gone though.
I have to point out to you one serious problem that jumps out at me as a participant in that process and it is as follows. You may recall that what the Halifax Regional School Board undertook to review - with respect to the schools in the areas that you and I represent - this year was what they called a review for permanent closure of Queen Elizabeth High School and St. Pat's High School Family of Schools. They embarked upon this process back in September 2001. It was never known by any of the parents who were involved that the school board had within its contemplation that this process would include the two high schools - Queen Elizabeth High School and St. Pat's High School. That was not known until the evening of January 7, 2002.
January 7th was the second of the two public meetings that were held by the advisory committee that the school board structured to move through the process. Up to that point, no member of the public was aware that anything except the elementary schools or junior high schools were being considered by the school board. They kept it very close to their chest until that night when one of the co-chairs of the advisory committee, in his introductory remarks, said to the parents assembled that night that part of their process includes consideration of the high schools.
I was outraged and I wrote to the school board about this. What was clear was that not one parent of high school children was aware that this was within the contemplation of the school board by this process. The only parents who came to those meetings were parents
of children who were at the elementary schools and parents of children who were at the junior high schools. Clearly the newspaper advertisement was not adequate; clearly the school board's communication was not adequate. The position I have had back, in written communications, from the Halifax Regional School Board is that when they passed their resolution and they talked about the family of schools, of course it included the high schools and that it was known to the review committee back in September.
Well, Madam Minister, it wasn't known to the public, and if it's not known to the public that's inadequate notice. I'm of the view that not only does that cause a flaw for the process if it leads to a decision for closure of those high schools, but it probably undermines the legitimacy of the process as a whole. I'm not asking for the minister to comment on the second part but, with respect to the first part, I would like the minister to undertake that she will investigate this process so far as it relates to the potential closure of the high schools. If she is in agreement with me that this was an inadequate and fundamentally unfair process with respect to the high schools, I'm wondering what action she's prepared to take to uphold the legitimacy of the process so that it bears the stamp of fundamental fairness?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that if there were to be a closure of either St. Pat's High School or Queen Elizabeth High School, that there would have to be a formal process starting next year. It was their family of schools, but in any case I will undertake to have someone look at the whole process to see if it, in his or her opinion, was a fair process.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister makes a fair point in the sense that there is also a requirement that if the school board were actually going to implement and make a decision, they have to make it by April 15th - I think we are not there yet, but assuming that they fail to meet that date, then so far as those two high schools are concerned, in effect they wouldn't have acted on it. What I'm concerned about is a two-pronged defect. One is that they seem to have it in their head that the fact that they called it the family of schools was adequate, without any further steps comparable to the steps that they took in order to advise the parents of the junior high and the elementary schools. That was a real defect. I push it further - and I don't require the minister to comment on this - I push it further and I think that represents a fundamental flaw in the whole of the process that they undertook this year - separate point.
Now, let's look at the decision that they actually did make. This is a decision that worries me enormously. I have to say that so far as I could tell - and I tried to follow this process in detail as it went through - there was no compelling rationale for the closure of any of those three schools that the Halifax Regional School Board ended up looking at in the end. Finally their decision was with respect to one of those schools, and just as there was no compelling rationale for any of them, that applies to École Beaufort - there was no compelling rationale for what it is that occurred and the decision that they made. What seems to have driven the process is the lack of funds that the school board operates with. Clearly,
they find themselves in a position where they feel compelled to examine schools for closure rather than schools for improvement of services, smaller classroom size, rebuildings, or maintenance of existing programs, due to the financial constraints within which they find themselves.
I made a suggestion to the minister the other day about one possible way to approach this problem, and the minister may recall that almost exactly one year ago she and I had a discussion about QEH and St. Pat's High Schools. At that time I asked her what was the prospect for capital funds being available to build a new high school on the Halifax peninsula. Regardless of where it goes and regardless of programming - which are issues we discussed last year and these are still live issues - if the money were available to build a new high school, then it seems clear that the space savings that the Halifax Regional School Board seems to feel that it has to achieve on the peninsula would be achieved through the building of that new high school. There would be no pressure for them to be looking at closure of elementary or junior high schools on the peninsula if there were a new high school - now I hope I am making my point as clearly as I possibly can.
What I'm saying to the minister is does she agree, and is she prepared to come up with the money now in order to respond to what is a request that has been made by the Halifax Regional School Board for capital funds to build a new high school on the peninsula? What is the current state of play?
MISS PURVES: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the member for Halifax Chebucto is saying. There will be a new high school on the peninsula, but funds are not available right now. That will be something down the road. We are building schools across the province and in this we have to pay for our amortization costs and we have a lot of money in school capital construction, but not for a new high school on the peninsula this year or next.
MR. SPEAKER: Only two and a half minutes left for your estimates today.
MR. EPSTEIN: Madam Minister, when we discussed this last year, at that time you believed that there would not be money for a new high school on the Halifax peninsula for a period of what you were then estimating to be four to five years. I'm wondering if that's still your estimate, or whether if you think that it's not this year could it be next year. When does the minister believe that she may have the capital funds available to build a new high school on the Halifax peninsula?
MISS PURVES: The next list that we present, which would likely include St. Pat's and QEH, because that is a priority of the Halifax Regional School Board, would be opening in the Fall of 2005. The first of any, because that's when we'd be finishing up our present schools.
MR. EPSTEIN: I have to say this is extremely disappointing, Madam Minister, if I heard you correctly and you said 2005. That's a long way away and that's a serious problem, regardless of the impact of the elementary schools.
I want to make one quick point about the École Beaufort. The fact that there is in effect an undermining of the presence of a French immersion program in that part of the peninsula is going to have serious economic impact in the following way. Parents who are wanting to move to Nova Scotia or who have been offered jobs and who want their children to have that opportunity in the neighbourhood are not going to move here. Parents who are here already who want French immersion are thinking seriously about leaving. This is not good for the economy. These are people who have much sought after, professional talents that are needed here if we are going to thrive economically. This is a bad decision on the part of the Halifax Regional School Board, I am sorry to say, and I'm wondering what steps, if any, the minister believes that she can take in order to deal with this.
MISS PURVES: I have no jurisdiction over school board decisions in that area.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Madam Minister. Time for the estimates debate has expired, leaving 48 minutes for the NDP caucus on Monday.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: I move the committee do now rise, report progress and beg leave to sit again on another day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.
The committee will now adjourn until Monday.
[1:13 p.m. The committee rose.]
