[Page 297]

HALIFAX, THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

2:47 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Wayne Gaudet

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. CHUCK PORTER: Mr. Chairman, would you please call the estimates for the Department of Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will continue with the estimates for the Department of Education. I believe the NDP had just started off last night.

The honourable member for Queens.

MS. VICKI CONRAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, which I will be sharing with my colleagues, I have a couple of quick questions. I want to thank the minister for giving us the opportunity to ask her questions. I know this is probably not an easy go around when you have so many hours to sit and have to be thinking on your feet and addressing us over here with our pointed questions.

My first question for the minister is with regard to the funding required by South Queen's Junior High School. Back in 2000, the board had requested renovations and much-needed upgrades to South Queen's Junior High School. Some of those renovations which are desperately needed include repairing windows, roofing, washrooms, and the electrical system needs to be addressed. That was in 2000 when that request was made. I understand that in 2003 the province approved that request in principle but, unfortunately, the money needed was not approved, it was just approved in principle.

297

[Page 298]

So in 2003, the initial investment that was requested at the time was $500,000 to start with those much-needed renovations, but again, with those funds not being approved, the school board waited, and in 2007 those funds were adjusted for renovations to start at $300,000, looking at those renovations to start in 2008-09. But, unfortunately, what has happened is in April of this year, those funds have not been approved to start those renovations.

I have a letter here that I was copied on and I understand that those funds have not been approved, and will not be approved, until the budget has been approved by the government. I guess my concern is that these renovations were identified in 2000. Eight years later, this school is still waiting for those much-needed renovations and South Queen's Junior High is integral to the school system in Queens. So I want to ask the minister, why weren't those monies forthcoming in 2005 and will this government, and will this minister, commit to seeing those renovations being done to South Queen's?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member, I understand the anxiety in communities with respect to projects, delays in projects, if the funding will come and when it will come, and I understand that fully. I want to explain to the member that any project, whether it's a new project or a renovation project, that is on that 2003 capital construction list is one that this government is committed to working through and completing as resources are available.

So I want to assure the member that the renovations for the South Queen's Liverpool school will be completed. They are part of that approved list. Our government's commitment is to follow through on everything that is on that list and so even though people are always anxious until they see a nail in the wall, or a hole in the ground, I hope they will understand that we are sincere about that. We've not waivered from any of the commitments that we've made in that 2003 list. In fact, some of them have been - the scope has been increased as a result of changes over the number of years that they've been on the list. So the commitment is there to do that project.

We recognize, and I'm sure the member will understand, that construction costs since the time the list was introduced, or approved, have increased by about 40 per cent in construction costs and that has caused the departments, and the governments during that period of time, to look at the capital dollars they have and how they can work through that list. It has definitely slowed the progress through that list. The list was approved in 2003 and it was expected that - it was over a $400 million list - and it was expected that it would be completed in about eight years.

Well, we know that's not going to happen. We know that we have completed a lot of the projects and we also know, and I go on record as saying, that two years ago, when I was asked about a new capital construction list, I indicated I was not prepared to bring a new one in until we had more progress and advanced through more of the projects on the current list.

[Page 299]

As you would have heard me say in the last couple of days, we are to the point now where we're going back to our School Capital Construction Committee and saying, have a look at everything that has been submitted and begin the work to prepare your next capital construction list. When that happens, the commitment I made to your colleague was that we would be looking at bringing a new capital construction list to the minister and then to Cabinet sometime during this current summer. However, that will not impact negatively on the current list that we are working through. That's our priority, that's the commitment we have made. Under my watch, we will continue with the 2003 list until we complete that and we will begin the next list once those have been completed.

So two things, Mr. Chairman. The commitment is still there to complete the project, as identified. There has been a delay in the funding, there's no question, and that has pushed that project out. It is on our list, but as to when we are able to begin that and when we are able to complete that, right now we're looking at beginning that project in 2009-10.

MS. CONRAD: I thank you for giving me that response. Well, 2009-10 is one year further out and the school, as I had indicated, has been waiting since 2000 for these much-needed renovations. While I certainly understand that the approval for that project wasn't made until 2003, that it actually appeared solidly on that list, as we all know, one more year adds more strain on buildings that already have structural problems. So I really do trust that the minister is going to keep that word, that construction will begin sooner rather than later.

We don't want to see that school get into a more serious deficit in terms of the needs for that school. I understand that when it rains hard, there is a lot of flooding that happens in sections of that school. Certainly it doesn't lend itself to be a healthy and safe environment for the students there. So that needs to, I think, be taken into consideration when the minister is sitting down with that list and determining when that project is going to start for that particular school.

My next question is going to focus around the review process that's happening for a number of schools in my riding of Queens. Based on the school utilization study that took place here a couple of months ago, some of the recommendations that had come forward from my school board, the South Shore Regional School Board, had identified three schools for the review process.

[3:00 p.m.]

As we know, the review process, whatever the outcome, is very stressful for communities, for parents, for teachers and certainly it's a trying time even for school boards because they are needing to seriously look at each school individually and make some decisions that communities may not, at the end of the day, be welcoming.

[Page 300]

The three schools in my riding that have been identified for review are the Milton Centennial School, which, I might add, is the only elementary school, a P to 1 elementary school, in the province. It has a program in place for P to 1 students that is second to none in this province and, in fact, the department has held up that program as a model for Primary to Grade 1 students. So Milton Centennial School is very concerned that they are going through this review process. The other school under review in my riding is Petite Rivière Elementary School, in the far end of my riding, and this, too, is a very unique elementary school, I believe with 70 some-odd students. Petite Rivière, too, is very concerned that their school has been selected for review.

The other school in my riding that is up for review is the Greenfield Elementary School. I would like to remind the minister that Greenfield Elementary School finds itself in a very unique situation because the minister and the department entered into a partnership with the community of Greenfield to see the construction of a new school through a leasing arrangement over 20 years. So Greenfield finds itself in a very unique situation where they have now been identified for review.

What I'm asking the minister and the department, because the minister has already signaled very strongly with the initiative that's happening in Greenfield, that this minister and the department are willing to partner with communities to come up with viable and alternative solutions to keeping our schools open. Now, I'm not suggesting that every community has the same sort of uniqueness that Greenfield could present, or has presented, to the minister and to the department, but what I am suggesting is that many communities have and will come up with alternative solutions to keeping their schools open during this review process.

What I'm asking the minister to do is to seriously step up and be a true partner during that review process so that if a community comes to the minister and the department and presents to the school board through the review process, that they have a viable solution to keeping their school open regardless of set formulas on numbers, that this minister and the department will be true partners in that process, because the minister has already demonstrated that the minister and the department are willing to look at alternative solutions to keeping schools open.

So I'm trusting that the minister will take the initiative that was started with the community in Greenfield and to transfer some of what is good in that arrangement to other communities and not all communities are going to have the same set of circumstances. So I don't want to confuse what's happening in our community of Greenfield with what could be happening in the community of Milton, or the community of Petite Rivière, in coming up with their own viable solutions to keeping those schools open.

So that's what I'm asking the minister, to take the lead role in demonstrating, because you've already demonstrated that you are a partner, with keeping community schools open

[Page 301]

and finding alternative solutions to either building a new school or keeping programs in place. So what I'm asking the minister is, will you work with communities during this review process and come up with those viable solutions for when a community says, our numbers may be dwindling, but we're still offering good solid programming and we have solutions that we want the department and the minister to partner with us to keep those schools open? That's what I'm asking.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not surprised and I'm pleased to have the question because I do want to respond. I will take it as two parts - first of all specific to the Milton school, and secondly, specific to the Greenfield school, but overall I want to make a few preliminary comments about the process. We did have agreement, legislation in this House, all-Party agreement, to implement a new school-review process in this province, and that legislation certainly is very specific and very clear in what that process involves and it, of course, is premised on community involvement, community participation, and on being a very transparent process.

Communities welcomed that because they wanted to be part of any review and any decision that might have an impact on their school. Community schools are, in some places in this province, in many places in this province, the centre of the community and they are treasured by that community. So, you know, I recognize that and I know that all members in the House, on all sides, recognize that when they support that legislation.

Part of the process in that legislation is, of course, that somewhere a process has to start and it's clearly articulated there that the process begins with school boards identifying those schools that they want to put under review. I agree with the member opposite. I know that whenever a community hears that their school is under review, they automatically jump to the conclusion that it means school closure. Perhaps in the past they had good reason to believe that, but what I'm expecting out of this process is people will learn that having a school put under review is not an automatic closure. It can mean many things and closure can be one of those, but it is not the only outcome of that review.

When the school boards, according to a timeline, were asked to identify schools they were putting under review, the timeline was that those schools would be identified by April 1^st of the calendar year, the following year would be a year of review, and then there would be a recommendation at the end of that. Two boards in the province have identified schools for review for April 1, 2008 through to March 31, 2009. The South Shore board was one of those and the Halifax board was the other.

Those boards are doing exactly what the legislation asks that they do. With the South Shore, there were a number of schools that were put on that list for review and the two the member mentions, Milton and Greenfield, were there. The opportunities for communities to come forward exist in the process and in that review. It's at that time that we hope, we expect and we encourage communities to do that, to go to the public meetings, go to their board. I'm

[Page 302]

sure they have lots of information about why a school should remain open or why a school should close. Maybe communities will come forward - I've been around long enough to see some communities come forward and say, it's not viable, we want our school closed. Those feelings of the community have to come from the community.

If we go to the Greenfield situation, the member and I worked very closely, I believe, on that, initially, when that whole idea of a community-built school came forward last year. We recognized, as a minister and at my department, the uniqueness of that particular community and the uniqueness of that particular proposal. As a result of that, there was support for, and we did move forward with, an arrangement with the community to have that school built.

The fact that the board has identified that school as one under review, I'm sure has caused lots of anxiety in the community. Our position, as a government and as a department, has not changed. The need for that school was identified, the uniqueness of the partnership was supported, and we're anxiously waiting for the Greenfield school to open and for students to populate that school.

Part of the criteria that boards would use when they decided they wanted to put a school under review, would be such things as demographics and geographic location and so on. Some of those things that made Greenfield unique and caused us to support the proposal would also be the same things that would cause a school to be considered for review. I guess the uniqueness that's there, that allowed us to support that proposal, obviously, has been deemed by the board to be enough for them to take a look at that.

But I do want to remind the member and all others that closure is only one option. I would anticipate that - I believe nine schools in the South Shore board have been identified and I think I would be safe in saying that will not translate into nine closures, but it will translate into a review of those nine schools. I can't predict the outcome, but I would be very surprised if it translated into nine closures. To the people in the community of Greenfield, from the government's perspective and from the department's perspective, it's business as usual.

MS. CONRAD: Thank you for your response. My time is up and I'd like to pass on to my colleague, the member for Halifax Citadel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel.

MR. LEONARD PREYRA: Most of my questions will be about post-secondary education, but since the minister is in hot pursuit of a constituency question, I will ask it first. Given your comments on the previous question, I did want to commend you, as I have earlier, for your review of the school closure process and I think implementation of a significantly much more improved process on what was previously a pretty flawed process.

[Page 303]

I wanted to say something about a school in my constituency, Saint Mary's School, that's about to be closed. It's an elementary school that has gone through five or six review processes over the last few years and each time the community has fought successfully to keep that school open. The community has essentially used an argument and used arguments that are now in the process that the minister has set out - the contribution of the school to the community; it's working at capacity; it has a tremendous program for intergenerational learning with the next-door Spencer House, which is a senior home; it provides support for inner-city, single parents, people who are working in the health care on shift work, and international students at Saint Mary's University and Dalhousie. This school really is at the heart of the community in every sense of the word and it has successfully made this argument in every single review it has faced.

In fact, the Imagine Our Schools process that the school board itself undertook, recommended that the school be kept open, and overcoming the recommendations of that Imagine Our Schools process, the staff are recommending that the school be closed. All I ask is that the Imagine Our Schools' recommendations be reviewed very carefully, that the previous objections of the community be taken in mind, and as this review process is underway, that the new review process is followed. I think if that review process is followed and if the Imagine Our Schools' recommendations are followed, this school will be kept on hold, at least, for the next five years while the HRM by Design and other initiatives for the downtown Halifax peninsula are being pursued. But I take from the minister's response that she is going to be looking at this process very carefully and that this new review process that has been implemented, which will be tested for the first time, I think will be followed.

[3:15 p.m.]

So I want to get back to where I left off last night at the memorandum of understanding and things that are in there but need clarification. Let me start by talking about the infrastructure provisions made for universities. I note in the Budget Assumptions and Schedules, Page 3.17, with regard to the Crown Share Revenue, the government says:

"The governments of Canada and Nova Scotia have agreed to allow an Expert Panel resolve the outstanding issue of Crown Share revenue owing to the Province. To date, the Expert Panel has not submitted its report. To be consistent with our revenue recognition policy and to reflect the uncertainty of this revenue, no Crown Share revenue is included in the 2008-2009 estimates."

So my question to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, is if no monies are allocated for the Crown share and we don't know when the Crown share agreement will be forthcoming or how much is in there, how do we know what's directly committed to infrastructure, in the budget and in the MOU?

[Page 304]

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, thank you to the member for the question. I know there was no question in the first commentary about Saint Mary's School. Comments that I made to your colleague would apply there as well, but I would just remind the member that when we went into the legislation and the new school review process, there were some schools that had been identified and at that time we put those schools on hold. In fact, the elementary school in the South End was one that was there at that time and we asked the boards to go back and do a complete review.

So I hope the communities understand that we want to make sure that what we do there, Mr. Chairman, is the right thing for those communities and thus cause the board to go through that review. I would also like to say that the uniqueness, I guess, of the Halifax situation is that - I want to remind the member that during the course of the 2008-09 review year, there will be the school board elections and there will be a fully-elected board in place before any recommendation comes to the department. So I hope the member will take some comfort in that, that there will be certainly representation from that area at that time.

If I could go to the question with respect to when we can expect to hear something from the expert panel, Crown share and the trust fund. We don't have the word from the expert panel but we do anticipate there will be significant dollars there for this province. In anticipation of that, we recognize that in the course of our MOU negotiations with the universities, that they were obviously very concerned, as we are, about infrastructure dollars. They agreed, the members of CONSUP agreed, that they would support the forming of a trust with a maximum of $25 million as a starting point. So that when that Crown share money is received, we could immediately - we knew that there would be money for the university infrastructure, they knew there would be money for the university infrastructure. So with their co-operation and with their agreement, the trust fund was formed. In addition to that, the presidents will be the trustees of that.

So I think there was an understanding. I think that says to the universities, yes, the government does acknowledge that we have an infrastructure problem here and yes, they do want to take some steps and they do want to protect some money. So, as a result of that, the Crown share was established, or the Crown Share Trust Fund was established.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, I'm assuming the answer is that there is no money at the moment but we expect an awful lot of money. If the universities are expecting $25 million, I'm assuming that there is going to be at least $250 million in the Crown share. But we know we waited for the Offshore Accord for a long, long time and it might essentially mean that there will be no money for the universities for the 2008-09 academic year.

Given that lack of uncertainty, as I was starting to talk about last night, Clause 17B is particularly problematic for the universities and the students. I want to know, given that there really is no new money or no money committed, what combination of funding mechanisms, that is referred to Clause 17B, these alternate funding arrangements, what

[Page 305]

combinations of funding mechanisms will the minister permit? Given that I think I heard the minister say yesterday, that there will be no exceptions made in terms of the increasing tuition fees and in terms of increasing ancillary and auxiliary fees. So in other words, the universities are back to where they are. I am wondering how the minister is going to deal with the infrastructure deficit, given that situation.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, yes, to the member opposite. Good recall from yesterday, in that I did say that part of the discussion and the agreement with the MOU was that we were freezing tuition. We were wanting to make tuition more affordable for students at university and with the understanding and the agreement from the presidents of the universities, there was an agreement that they would not increase tuition and that they would not add on ancillary fees that would be on the backs of the students. So we are not expecting students to pay fees to cover other costs. We are trying to make university, as I said, more affordable and more accessible for students. So that is correct and that was an understanding with the negotiating team for the MOU.

With respect to the infrastructure money, there are some dollars within universities funding allocation for infrastructure maintenance and repairs. We know it is not enough to- there is deferred maintenance and there is infrastructure costs- and we know what they are facing. But we are confident that there will be and they were confident and trusting that when those dollars are received, they will be the beneficiary of that and that $25 million was a maximum. You're right - we do not know what the Crown share will be, but in anticipation we had to set a figure. If you're going to establish a Crown Share Trust Fund, you have to establish a figure. We agreed, and the universities were accepting of that, that a maximum of $25 million to be spent over three years for infrastructure in universities was something they saw as a signal that we were going in the right direction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Before I recognize the honourable member, I would like to remind all members in committee, it's very difficult for the Chair to hear the speaker. Of course, it makes it even more difficult for the other person asking the minister questions. I would encourage the members, either try to turn the volume down or carry out their conversations outside the Chamber, please.

MR. PREYRA: I thank the minister for that reassurance that the universities will not be permitted to raise tuition fees and ancillary or auxiliary fees. But I am disappointed there is no real commitment to providing universities with infrastructure monies if the Crown share is not going to be coming forward in the foreseeable future.

Before I move on to the next question, I do want to circle back - I apologize for circling back - but I did receive an e-mail from one of the parents at Saint Mary's saying they had received instructions this week from the school board saying they will not be accepting students from out of area at Saint Mary's. The result of it has been that siblings will be separated at the school, that kids who are currently in the school may have to leave. The

[Page 306]

worry is, the school board is, in effect, priming the pump - if I may use the expression - for closing Saint Mary's School by stripping it of a significant number of students and then claiming that enrolments have declined. I'm wondering if the minister would use her good offices to make sure that the school board doesn't implement any kind of penalty, or decline on enrolment on this school, in anticipation of a review process that has to happen and still has not happened. I wonder if she could reassure us that she will contact the board and ask them to cease and desist until the review process is completed?

MS. CASEY: The policy that the member opposite speaks about is a board policy. All boards have policies and procedures with respect to out-zone or out-of-region students. It is their prerogative to form their own policies and to implement those policies. I would expect that the Halifax board is acting on a policy that they currently have in place. I certainly would be glad and pleased and will ask my staff to check Halifax board policy to see exactly what it states. If there has been correspondence go out, I would hope it reflects the board's policy.

I would say that most boards, perhaps all boards, have to have a policy in place with respect to that because it helps with the management and the administration of their students.

MR. PREYRA: Thank you. I would like to move on to a new topic and that is the whole issue of teacher education in Nova Scotia. The minister and I have had several discussions about this topic, but we have not had a chance to talk about it since she formally responded to the report.

Let me start on just a point of principle, really more than anything else, but it is a principle that colours her response and the response of the review panel itself. That is the question of supply management in the teaching profession. It seems to me - and to many others, especially teachers - that this conception of teachers as employees, as line departments in the Department of Education whose supply and demand is determined largely by what the board of education has to offer in any given year, demeans and debases the value of the teaching profession and the value of teachers.

I'm wondering how she would respond to that question about the role of the teacher and whether or not teaching should be looked at in such a narrow way.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, you know, we have conducted a review. One of the models that I've used, as minister, to make sure that we have - that I as minister and our department have - current and accurate information before we make decisions and that we have spread the net very widely so that we can give opportunity for people around the province, in all sectors and at all levels, to give their messages to us and for us to hear what they have to say.

[Page 307]

So the Teacher Education Review was one of those and we did that. We had an excellent panel, an excellent committee that went around the province, held the consultation meetings and provided a lot of opportunity for people who wanted to come forward, either to speak or with a written submission, and to let us know how they felt about teacher education in the province - such things as where teacher education programs are delivered, the curriculum in those programs, the duration of the programs and, of course, tied into that, a report that was published about the same time as they were finishing their work, was the Teacher Supply and Demand Report. So all of that information came together in their report and their recommendations to me.

Again, to make sure that we were giving everybody every opportunity to be heard and to give us their thoughts, we allowed that report and recommendation to be out there for a number of weeks for people to respond to the report. We had hundreds of responses and, as I said, they came in a variety of forms; they came in e-mails; they came in phone calls; they came in letters; they came in presentations; and all of the universities, of course, were included in that and all other sectors.

So when that report was received, the questions that we had, that I had as minister, that had prompted the review in the first place, I was looking in their report and recommendations for some direction, the Teacher Supply and Demand Report, I believe - and I've stated this - impacted heavily on the recommendations in the report, but I have also stated that I believe the interpretation of the supply and demand statistics needed to be clarified and some layers peeled away so we could really see what it was saying.

[3:30 p.m.]

It was saying, very generally, that we have too many teachers in our province, we're educating too many teachers, and that we have too many teachers on our substitute lists. I knew from my background in the public school system, and also from hearing from boards on a regular basis, that those statements were not true in every part of this province or in every discipline in our schools. So I had to take that information and sort of weigh that with what the supply and demand report was saying because I do respect the report and I do respect the work of the committee, but there seemed to be some more clarification that was needed.

Thus, I put all of that together to come up with my response and my response, I believe is - well, I know that my response was predicated on maintaining a quality teacher-training program in our province; maintaining the high standard that we have; trying to improve on that standard; trying to address the concerns that we have in our schools and our school boards with teachers who are trained in the disciplines that we need. In fact, in a question yesterday about the junior high teachers who are teaching out of their subject area, math was the one that was identified, so we recognized that we wanted to make sure we had teachers trained with a teachable in math.

[Page 308]

So, taking all of that together, we made some decisions about how we could have more teachers trained in Nova Scotia, not having to go outside the province unless that was their choice, and making sure that the curriculum and the training that they took was going to help meet the demand that we had in our schools in those particular disciplines.

So, I value the teacher education programs. We have an opportunity and we have an obligation, I believe, to make sure that our young people who are graduating and who wish to become teachers are very familiar with the opportunities in our province. Part of that is making sure they understand the areas where we need more teachers in a particular discipline. So it's an education process for those young people who want to be teachers, and if they want to be teachers and we can provide quality programs in this province, then I believe we will have created that as a result of the recommendations that I have accepted.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, the minister will know that teachers can do a whole variety of things. I come from a family of teachers and I know my brothers and sisters have travelled the world doing international development work. They have worked as activists and they have done a whole range of things and they wandered far afield from their professions. In fact, we know that some teachers can run for office and get elected and sometimes even become Ministers of the Crown. So we do know that there are many paths that one can follow after getting a B.Ed.

We also know that many students come from elsewhere because of the high quality of our teacher education programs and they go back to where they came from. We know also from the review committee itself that there are gaps in our offering of teacher education programs, particularly in these areas of specialization, math and sciences, gaps in rural areas, and gaps in the training of aboriginal students. So to look at the teaching profession so narrowly as to say we're going to look only at what the Department of Education is going to be hiring this year really does place a great restriction and, in fact, will kill some very successful programs where there is a high demand. So I would urge the minister then to revisit this question of supply management.

I also want to add that the minister is also managing demand at the same time that the department has cut back on the number of staff it's hiring, that the minister is cutting back on programs. So the minister is not only controlling the supply side but is controlling the demand and to a certain extent is controlling demand and then saying that we don't demand as many teachers so we're going to cut the supply and, you know, I'm wondering if maybe the minister could deal with some of these shortfalls by going back to hiring more teachers.

I want to get to one of the recommendations as a follow-up to that. In particular, I want to look at Recommendation 13, Mr. Chairman. Recommendation 13 in this panel report recommends that Nova Scotia school boards give priority in the allocation of practicum places to students from approved B.Ed. programs offered by institutions in Nova Scotia. This provision seems to be really shortsighted and somewhat illogical.

[Page 309]

It discriminates against Nova Scotian students. It discriminates against citizens who live in Nova Scotia, who sometimes take offshore programs in Nova Scotia, Memorial for example, and yet they can't practice as teachers in their home province. Some of those people want to teach in Nova Scotia. Some of them study elsewhere and want to teach in Nova Scotia for a variety of reasons, some related to their family situations. Perhaps the answer to this recommendation is not to restrict practicum places but to increase the number of practicum places that the department can offer and maybe expand the number of places that are available for student teachers regardless of where they come from.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to speak specifically about the last concern with practicum and I think it was Recommendation 13, and if the member looks at my response, it is a board responsibility to determine which schools and which teachers will host a practising teacher. Boards take that very seriously. We want to make sure that when a student goes into a classroom as part of their practicum, that they have a very positive experience there, that they have a role model there, that they have a mentor. So the placement of those students in schools is important. It's critical and it is a responsibility of the boards. My response has been that it will continue to be the responsibility of the boards. The recommendation was one that might have suggested that we limit that.

But I would like to go back to a comment that the member has made with respect to the practicum sites. I'm not sure if the member fully understands the practicum site because any classroom in the Province of Nova Scotia, Mr. Chairman, as you would know, can be a practicum site. But it all has to do with the board's participation in identifying model classrooms for young people to practice and schools that are willing to take student teachers. I taught in the Town of Truro for many years, when the Teachers College was there, and there were many, many classrooms in the Town of Truro that did not take practice teachers but there were many of us who did. So the number of practicum sites that are available really is any classroom in this province and I think that is unlimited, but you have to be selective.

So we would encourage school boards to look at their model teachers, to look at the students from their community who do, as the member said, want to come back home. We know that because of the concentration in metro, that a lot of students are looking for practicums in this area. We also know that it is important for students to know where they are going to have that practicum because many times they meet with the teacher, they get introduced to the class and they make it a positive experience. So there is certainly no limitation as to where those practicum sites can be or will be and there is no involvement from me or from the department as to where those sites will be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member has approximately five minutes left.

MR. PREYRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do understand that the practicum sites are limited only by the willingness of the boards and the teachers to offer them. My question was whether or not the Department of Education was going to create incentives for these

[Page 310]

school boards and for these teachers to offer more practicum spaces, given that there are any number of classrooms in this province, any number of teachers who could use the help and students who could use the help.

I want to move on to my next question, to what seems to be an inconsistency in the treatment of Saint Mary's University, Dalhousie and Cape Breton University, in whether or not they could continue their programs with out-of-province universities. It just seems to me that Recommendation 12 which says that Saint Mary's can continue is not that consistent with Recommendation 14, which says that Dalhousie cannot continue. Recommendation 16 that says CBU can continue only, insofar and as long as, it can get the permission of the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission.

All three responses seem to be very different and I am wondering whether or not that inconsistency can be cleared up in some way. In particular, I wanted to talk about the implications of that. I see a press release this week from Memorial University, which was prevented from offering programs at Dalhousie but not at CBU. Officials at Memorial University's Faculty of Education have announced that they will continue to offer its Bachelor of Education to applicants from Nova Scotia.

Here is a quote from Alice Collins, who is the Dean there: We are in the process of contacting all students who applied and expressed an interest in doing our education program. We will advise that they can be considered for admission to the program on the St. John's Campus and at Cape Breton University. We want students and parents of perspective students in Nova Scotia to know that we will do our best to accommodate those who have a passion for pursuing teacher education but are unable to do so because of a provincial restriction. It's unfortunate that all these students cannot undertake the degree in their home province. However, we look forward to welcoming them to St. John's and we look forward to having them with us for the year. They will join an already large group of Nova Scotia students who undertake their education program at Memorial.

I'm wondering whether it makes any sense for us to drive Nova Scotia students away from Nova Scotia to study in another province - in the case of Maine, in another country - and whether or not there's something else we can do to keep Nova Scotia students in Nova Scotia.

MS. CASEY: I believe all of the responses to this report and recommendations were designed to do exactly as the member has said - provide opportunities for Nova Scotia students to stay in Nova Scotia. The choice of students is theirs, they can go wherever and I encourage students to do that. But I also want to make sure that if their desire is to stay in Nova Scotia, that the opportunities are here and the programs are here.

I do want to speak to the comment about CBU, Saint Mary's and Dal. There's really no comparison because all three of those are unique. The arrangement that Cape Breton has

[Page 311]

with Memorial is one that we have asked them to discontinue and they have obliged. However, we were not going to jeopardize the plans of teachers or potential teachers who had already applied for, and been accepted into, the program. So the cohort that has already been accepted or will be accepted into a September 2008 year of study will continue. They had their plans made, they knew what they were doing and we're not prepared to interfere with that.

The advertisement that the member shares from Memorial certainly would be in reference to the program that is currently there, which in my report we have agreed, will continue until that cohort graduates.

The second reference to Saint Mary's, Saint Mary's has not been offering a degree in education. They have been having their students travel to Maine, if they wish, to take a B. Ed. program, but Saint Mary's is not offering a B. Ed. program so that's where they differ from CBU and Memorial.

[3:45 p.m.]

With respect to Dalhousie, Dal does not offer a B. Ed. program. What was happening at Dal with a proposed arrangement with Memorial, was that Memorial University would be coming into the Dal campus, bringing Memorial professors. Students would be paying their tuition to Memorial and the curriculum would be Memorial's curriculum and it would be delivered on Dal campus. Dal has agreed they will discontinue that potential partnership.

To compare all three is unfair because all three are very, very different.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.

MS. DIANA WHALEN: Thank you. I'm pleased to have an opportunity to address some questions to the Minister of Education. This is a very important area for all of us as MLAs. I think we all recognize that proper education and funding for education is going to be essential to prepare our province for the future. That begins from pre-school right through the whole gamut of skills training and post-secondary education. It's a compelling area for all of us and I think it also is the cause for a lot of calls that we receive in our own constituency offices.

I have a number of issues and I know the minister has spent hours and hours already in answering questions. I want to apologize in advance if my questions cover some ground that has already been touched upon, but there are a few issues I wanted to speak to today and we'll begin and if it is repetitive, please indulge me and we'll go along from there.

One of the questions I have for the minister has to do with the environment in schools and scent policies in schools. You may not have touched upon that, it's certainly not the

[Page 312]

major issue that you deal with every day, but I have had a constituent who called and has a very sensitive child who gets very sick if he's exposed to any scents in the school - that can be from cleaning products or grooming products. He, in fact, was not able to attend the school in our riding because of the policy that's in place through the school board.

We looked to see if there was a blanket policy across the province that might impact how school boards lay out their plans, but it appears that in HRSB, there is what they call a scent-aware program in place rather than a no-scents-tolerated program. They've watered it down, they've made it less stringent. I wonder if the minister has any knowledge of that, or could let me know, what are we doing in the instance where there are children who are chemically sensitive and very sick? In the case of the child in my riding, the reaction he had was severe migraine headaches, vomiting, severely ill, he would have to go home.

That was a new school for him this year and it became obvious right away that he was not going to be able to attend the school. I feel really badly in responding to that child's mother to say, I can't influence the policy - if the school board isn't enforcing it, then, unfortunately, you have to stay away for your own good health. I wonder if the minister has a policy that might apply, or a plan.

MS. CASEY: To the member opposite, if the question has already been asked, I have no problem answering it again.

With respect to the specific question about scent-free or scent-awareness initiatives and policies, at this point in time our individual board policies - and as the member knows, she has checked that policy for that particular board - some boards have gone to the scent-free and what I'm hearing here is that Halifax board is a scent-aware policy. We know that we have an ever-increasing number of students in our schools, or adults in our environment, who have sensitivities. It's challenging for them if they are in an environment that affects their particular condition.

We do not have a provincial policy, but what I will agree to do is to make sure that goes on an agenda for my deputy in meeting with board superintendents and board chairs. Those meetings happen on a regular basis and I would ask the deputy - I guess I'm asking him now - to make sure that becomes an agenda item when he meets with superintendents and board chairs, first of all to see what they have as their policies, what kind of concerns they're having brought to them. We can certainly preface all of that to say we know it has been brought to my attention, through my colleague, and begin a review there and determine from that what the next steps would be.

MS. WHALEN: Thank you very much to the minister for agreeing to pursue this and find out a bit more about it. I'd certainly be happy to provide the name of my constituent if that would be any help as you go along. If you want to keep that in mind, I'm sure the person I'd spoken to would be happy to explain her experience. She had actually moved from

[Page 313]

Colchester County prior to this so she would have had experience there as well. That would be helpful.

I have a question, it kind of continues on a little bit in the same vein. As the minister and her staff are aware, I'm sure, there is an organization in the province that's known as CASLE - think they've recently added something to their name and changed it slightly, but it was Citizens for A Safe Learning Environment. They have changed it just slightly and I can't remember the change.

Essentially they're a group that sprang up to provide a healthy environment, a chemical-free environment for schools. They've done tremendous work, first in HRM in the Halifax schools, then across the province and, in fact, across the country. One of the founders of that group is Karen Robinson who does live in the Rockingham area in my riding and I had the privilege of meeting her long ago as a fellow parent in the schools. She's been an advocate and a trailblazer, really, in this whole area. As I say, I think it's of note for the whole House to be aware that she's won national awards and recognition for the work she's done in trying to make schools a cleaner and better environment.

What I wanted to ask was around our school construction, which is one aspect of the work that Karen has done. As I say, I met her first as a parent in the school where my children attended. At that school, at her local level, she was working to have harmful cleaning products taken out of the school or not used when the children were present, and that was at Rockingham School. She took that work from her own health experiences with chemical sensitivity and became very knowledgeable and very well informed. I know over the years she has guided and assisted, sometimes as a volunteer, sometimes as perhaps a thorn in the side of government, and offered her opinion about how things should be done.

Again to the credit of the government, I will say, or perhaps because of the changing times because people are becoming more and more aware of the importance of protecting the teachers and the students, or anybody who works in schools, from these chemicals, she has gotten the ear and more attention to this cause. I do think part of it reflects the changing understanding that we all have and that has been reflected, as well, within the department. I know with the recent opening of Citadel High this year, Karen Robinson was one of the consultants on that project for a period of time, advising the department on what to do and how to proceed.

Rather than go straight to questions on Citadel High, I would like to know if there is a change in your policy about always involving somebody who understands the importance of timing the opening of the school, timing of certain construction processes, so it minimizes and mitigates the problems that are going to occur later, which we understand and know so much more about now. I'm referring to the off-gassing - when is the best time to finish the gym floor with the kind of finishing it needs, or tarring the roof, which leaves a lot of smells and residue for a period of time.

[Page 314]

Even the materials that the desks and countertops are made out of, a lot of these are pressed boards, or pressed materials, and they have a lot of chemicals in them that require a period of time to off-gas. Basically, before the area is clear, they need a certain number of days or weeks to sit. I think that those are very important issues to us. I know that there have been instances where students or teachers are impacted by going into a building that's brand new. Everybody is so excited to get into it and yet it has that impact of not having good-quality air. So can you give me an idea about where the thinking of the department is, that leaves you a wide-open berth to go, but I would like to know? I'm seeing a change in attitude, I would like to know that this is part of your policy now across the board in every instance.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member, you know, you've raised a very important and a very timely issue and question. I was involved with new school construction before I became involved in politics. I was on the other side, so to speak, working with staff from the department, and the learning curve was steep for some of those folks at the department, I can tell you that, and this is no exception. The challenge - and I will say it - that I found when I worked with the Facilities Planning folks at the department, is that they were actually facilities planners and they were not educators. So the value of bringing expertise to the table to make decisions certainly became very obvious and very necessary. I have to tell you that attitudes with some of those folks in Facilities Planning did change, but they didn't change easily.

So to move that forward to the particular issue about sensitivity and air quality and Karen's participation and involvement, I know that she has, with respect to her particular concern, raised the awareness at the department level. Again, a learning experience for folks there, but I do believe that has translated into changes in the design requirements manual for new construction with respect to materials that are used. I also know that our experience with new construction has told us and has caused us to pay close attention to that period between construction completion and occupancy. We know we had an unfortunate situation at Citadel in the slowing down, or the delay I guess, in the construction and the importance of getting in to start a school year and the time between was compressed.

So I think all of those have been learning experiences, but I would say that the department and the Facilities Planning folks there are much more cognizant of the need to be mindful of that period between, as I say, construction and occupancy, and any changes in the design requirements manual that can make the materials in a new building, I guess, less offensive to those who have some sensitivities. Can we ever remove all of those from a building or from our own homes? That's a challenge but I think the groundwork has been done. Karen certainly should take full credit for raising the awareness and working with the department. I know you referred to her as perhaps a thorn in the side of government, but I would say it's more a conscience that's at the table and I would encourage that.

[Page 315]

As far as any policy, I'm not aware of any policy, but I am aware of practices that address that.

MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to speak a little bit more about this because I believe it should be enshrined in policy. I know we talk often here about new schools, what your new school list is or renovations and where they are happening. There's so much anticipation and we push hard to make sure that the facilities are there. I think it's really important, not just as part of your design manual but as part of the key team, that you would have in place in a school construction or renovation process, that you would always, without question, know that is one of the boxes you have to tick off. One of the requirements is that you have somebody on your team who can advise in this. It may not have to be somebody who's there the whole way through but you need to have a consultant, I think, who is available. I'm sure there are others.

I'm not just putting a plug in for one person but to get somebody who is part of the team. I would stress that it is not, I think you've gone a long way to bring somebody on the team, but obviously the person that we had in the Citadel case, for example, didn't have the full ear of the rest of the construction team. We know we're dealing with people who are engineers and architects and technical people. They love building but they may not be nearly as concerned about that air quality side of the piece that this particular consultant would bring or that an air quality environmental health consultant would bring to the project.

I would like to see the day when, within the Department of Education, there would always be somebody with that expertise, part of the team. By enshrining it in policy, it would give that person some authority to speak and that their recommendations would actually carry the weight that they deserve. So I'm wondering if the minister could, perhaps, look ahead and talk a little bit about what could be done. You are much more familiar than I with the kind of team building that goes on to create a new project of that large scope. I think it's really important and I would like to hear your opinion on making that person more integral to the team.

[4:00 p.m.]

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to perhaps explain something about new school construction that may not be known to everybody in the House. There are two departments that are involved in building schools in the province. The Department of Education is involved in looking at program spacing and size of the building, location of the building based on recommendations from the boards, right down through to the actual tendering for the design work and the final approval of the design.

Once that design has been approved it goes over to Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and they are responsible for the actual building of the school. So I guess I could say that the department kind of loses a bit of control or shares control with the building of new

[Page 316]

schools. So once the design is approved and the construction tender is called, that construction tender is prepared by Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and they are responsible for delivering the new school.

So I think there are a couple of places where the recommendation from the member opposite can and should be considered, and that is at the design stage with the Department of Education but also with Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal during the construction stage. So the expertise that we want to bring on here - and I agree, we need that expert at the table all the time. It would be over two departments, because I believe that knowledge base and that conscience, if you want to call it that, is there with both stages - with the design and then with the construction.

I know with construction that there is a fairly extensive checklist that contractors have to move through to make sure that they have met the expectations that have been set as part of the tender. Including something in that with respect to air quality is definitely needed. However, I think it's also needed before the construction begins because, you know, with materials and things like that, and how the school is designed, that voice has to be there as well. So we certainly, Mr. Chairman, will take this under advisement and I just want the member to know that it does involve two departments and my recommendation would be that the expertise be there for both departments.

MS. WHALEN: I do believe the answer from the minister suggests that, in fact, we should raise this again with Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal so that it's on everybody's radar screen and agenda, because I think the time has come for this. We've been talking about pesticide use in HRM and across the province and the public's opinion has changed greatly around chemical sensitivities and around the concern for health, recognizing that it is a genuine concern and that some people are really going to get sick and it's not a figment of their imagination, it's a real illness. I think that now policy and procedures and programs have to change to reflect that. So I will raise that again as we go along, hopefully with the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, just so it's on their record as well.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to a slightly different thing, although it still relates to school construction. Last week I had an opportunity to speak as part of a panel, at the theatre in the old Chebucto School, which is the King's View Academy private school, which is a fine arts private school for, I think, Grade 7 to Grade 12, but they organized a public meeting for people across HRM to come out to talk about fine arts and all of the aspects of culture and art in schools. It was not about private schools, it really was a forum to talk about where they fit in the Public School Program and how we can, I guess, recognize their value.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in asking about the school requirements. We talked about the Department of Education being involved in the planning stage and

[Page 317]

laying out everything right up to all the design stage of a new school and I know that you have particular items, a checklist of items that would be in every school. If it's elementary, it has a certain size gymnasium or if it's a junior high, you have to have a - perhaps it's a tech-ed lab or, you know, some other facilities that would go into a junior high school. I'm not sure if you still do family studies, maybe they do, but what I'm interested in are the facilities for fine arts.

At that panel - and I'm sure the minister has over the years been part of similar panels or discussions about fine arts - the public that attended asked some questions of us at the end, and it wasn't just politicians on the panel. There were a number of other people representing dance, theatre, music, symphony, so a number of other people whose lives and careers are in the arts, and then there were just a couple of us there who were political. So the questions asked were, why the schools would be built without a theatre, for example, and we're talking at the high school level. To them it was as inconceivable as building a school without a gymnasium. Many students obviously excel in sport and we need to have sport for the health and fitness of all, but we also need to have music and theatre and the facilities that will allow those to flourish, in a school, at the same time.

So the minister, I'm sure, can see where my question is going, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know why theatres are - and I don't even mean a full proper theatre, I mean having a stage and having a performance area in the school - why aren't they part of the criteria for a high school?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, again, I'll go back to some of my previous experience in Facilities Planning. You know, when a new school is announced and the steering team is put together, part of their responsibility is to look at how we provide for the program spaces that we need to deliver our curriculum.

So that's what drives the spaces and that's where you get into the gymnasium and the shops, if it's at high school, drama room, music room, cafeteria, resource room and all of those rooms. Those are all based on what the program is for our province at that particular grade level. So the challenge there is to take those spaces and then design them so it's functional, but the spaces are clearly defined by the department and they are identified because they're required to deliver a program that's offered in the public school system.

One of the things that we have been able to do - because the question of a performing arts room, a theatre, costly kinds of facilities - and there are a couple of ways that schools and school boards and communities have been able to meet that demand. One of them is - and I don't want to get too technical here, but let's take a high school. A high school does qualify for a drama room and they qualify for a cafeteria and for a gymnasium and for a music room, based on programs that we offer. So the challenge is, how can you design the school, and how can you place those particular rooms in the design so that you can get some kind of a performing arts space?

[Page 318]

One of the things that we've been able to do, and it has been a bit creative, but if you situate - and this is only one example - your drama room, for example, in between your cafeteria and your gymnasium and you raise the drama room, you effectively get a stage, and you curtain it off, and you can have small audience performances where people are in the cafeteria and for large productions, they're in the gymnasium. So that's one way to do that. Or that could be the music room that's there. But the design of the building and the location of those spaces that are approved spaces, because they support program, is a challenge, but there are ways to do that and we have had some very successful designs that are very functional and allow that to happen.

The other thing that happens, as part of our new construction, is the opportunity for community enhancements. Many communities come to the table because during that planning process, municipalities are represented and parents and school advisory councils, they are all there at the table to help design this building and the opportunity to enhance is presented to that particular community. If there's a need in the community for a performing arts space that can't be accommodated in the design and the community, or the municipality, or other groups in the area want to come forward, they can enhance the project and we write into the design what that particular space will look like.

Again, we have many schools, Mr. Chairman, that have been built with community enhancement dollars and for the community, if they're interested in having a performance space, they will never get it any cheaper because they don't have to pay a lot of the construction costs, they don't have to pay the design costs. There is a value put on that particular square footage they're adding and it becomes part of the design. The contractor that gets the contract to build the building includes that in the design, so, a couple of ways to address that.

To get to what I expect is maybe the next question, or the real question is, at this point in time, we do not build performing arts spaces in our high schools, but we do work with the school steering team and the architect to try to be creative and find spaces where that can happen. Most of the schools in our province that have performance spaces, it's the result of a community enhancement project.

MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, I guess I'd like to ask the minister, you're quite right, my questions were going to whether or not it is in the current program for a high school. I have a short snapper for the minister and that would be, does the minister, or perhaps her staff as well, know of any high school in Nova Scotia that has been built in the last 10 years that doesn't have a high school auditorium or theatre? I believe they all do. Do you know of any exceptions to that rule? It is a need of every community - oh, maybe there's one that exists in Timberlea.

AN HON. MEMBER: No auditorium.

[Page 319]

MS. WHALEN: No auditorium? Well, maybe I should be a little clearer. I see that Mr. Chairman is asking me to clarify that question. Maybe I have to pontificate a little longer to get to it then. All right, I will.

I had the opportunity to be involved when Halifax West was built. One of the first needs that the steering team came up with, and I was a member of that steering team at the time, was we have to have an auditorium. We didn't have one in the old Halifax West, which was an old county high school. Even though it is Fairview, it was actually built to serve the county. It didn't have an auditorium and, as a result, they always had to go elsewhere for productions, elsewhere to practise and so on. They felt it was a real deficiency of the old high school. So when we were presented with the opportunity of building a new high school, top of the list was we must have an auditorium in that school.

So I saw first-hand that communities see it as a tremendous need. I know in the two downtown high schools that we have closed this year, both of them had big auditorium areas and theatres. The community was very upset that they were going to lose both and there was no requirement to replace either of them and that it requires a community effort to make it happen. I know in Digby they put a theatre in. I believe Horton High School has a theatre in it. I'm just trying to think of high schools I know that have been built. It seems to me that whether it's in a big community or in a little one like Digby, the community sees it as a tremendous need and comes together and wants to see a theatre put in there or an auditorium put in there. I'm not sure which is the better term, but auditorium might be a safer term to use here.

I'm sorry to hear if, in fact, Sir John A. Macdonald did not get one because I just see that in every instance - I'm sure if you asked their community, they would be sorry not to have it, because the students in these facilities, I believe, need to have performing space, just as much as they need to have space for physical activity. So my real question is, given that in every community it's an issue - there may be a few that haven't been able to achieve it, but I think it would have been an issue and an ask in every case - is it going to come up on your agenda as an item that should be included? As you point out, the cheapest time to provide it is when the school is being built, even if there was a method to cost share or a method to help communities get there because some communities may not have the wherewithal to achieve it.

[4:15 p.m.]

I just believe, Mr. Chairman, that it should be a component of every high school and that it's a way for us, as a government, to demonstrate that we believe fine arts is just as important as a lot of the other academics and a lot of the sport that happens in a school.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I think there are two questions. Is there any school that has a performance centre or an auditorium that the department has paid for? I believe the

[Page 320]

answer is no. Are there any that have been built over the last 10 years that do not have one? I believe the answer is yes, because in that particular community it would be my sense that when the community looked at how they might enhance that project, that was not their priority. Their priority was a football field, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was?

MS. CASEY: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: They got their priorities right.

MS. CASEY: So, anyway, my point to the member is that communities do look at it differently but I think your point is a good one. If, in fact, in the last 10 years, if we want to use that time frame when high schools have been built, and if every community, perhaps with one exception, has enhanced the building with a performing arts centre, then we need to look at, is that to meet a community need or is that to meet a student program need? We know that programming for students is a priority and they certainly take advantage of that but we also know that many of those are used by community. It's certainly not something that we have done, but the data would suggest that maybe we need to look at that.

MS. WHALEN: That is exactly where I would go, that we need to look at that because, in fact, I believe it's a priority in every community. Maybe in some communities, the voice is a little louder for some sport facilities, but I think we can all agree, and particularly the minister (Interruption) Yes, well, that's true, I'm fortunate to have a field beside Halifax West High School.

That was, I must say, another example of partnerships, because the school board agrees, or the school construction agrees to provide a certain amount for a field and that field was upgraded by partnering with HRM to provide an all-weather field, which has extended the amount of play by a significant amount. You only miss a few months of the year with an all-weather field. I think that partnerships are something we can all agree upon as being a very positive way to go.

Again, in the case of the theatre at Halifax West High School, I think it's worth noting that I was on city council at the time that was being built and we were very fortunate that the councillors - Councillor Russell Walker and myself at the time, representing the area - were able to get the support of our city council, which was not available, unfortunately, when Citadel High came on board. The council did not agree to do this again, but they agreed to put $300,000 into the building of that school, so we had a municipal contribution and that allowed the shell of the theatre to go into the original building, at the time it was being built, with the commitment that the community would step up later and provide the fundraising necessary to complete the theatre.

[Page 321]

I don't know if the minister is aware or has been to the new theatre there, but the theatre is called the Bella Rose Theatre. It is now completely outfitted with wonderful chairs and all of the acoustics and so on in place. It still has some more fundraising to be done for the technical side of it, some of the technology that they'd like in the theatre, but they've received a very generous donation from Mickey MacDonald and from the MacDonald family to give it the name Bella Rose, which comes from his mother and his daughter, it's a combined name. They haven't yet had their official opening, so perhaps the minister would want to go to that official opening when it does come.

It's being run as a community, non-profit theatre organization and the school has complete use of it, so they have a joint-use agreement that allows it to be a professional theatre as well as a school amenity, and it's been a really good example of a shared facility. I think there might be a model there for the minister and her staff to look at as we go forward, because it was a very successful project. It's taken a number of years - we're, I think, in the fifth year of that high school being open and the theatre was just outfitted last summer and finished last summer.

In fact, you can see there are some good examples in the province and I'm very proud we were able to do it in ours, but it is a struggle. I think the upgrades to a theatre could be a community responsibility, but that it would be very good to see the basic theatre put in place in every instance.

I'd like to go back to the panel that was held on fine arts to just ask the minister some questions around basic fine arts curriculum and what the department sees as core fine arts and what might not be seen as fine arts. I understand earlier in the questioning, there were some questions around band and band isn't considered a core component of the school curriculum or what should be available. Could you outline for me, in general terms at all levels, what is considered essential, what part of the curriculum is essential? That will help me understand what's an additional. What's an embellishment?

MS. CASEY: Just before we leave the auditorium, fine arts theatre theme, I have not visited the one of which you speak, but I have been in a number in Cape Breton and a couple in Pictou County, which are part of new construction within the last eight to 10 years. They certainly are beautiful facilities. The acoustics are such that they are performing arts centres so we do have a number of them around and I look forward to an invitation to the official opening at the theatre.

With respect to fine arts in our schools, we do have some compulsories. If you start at the Primary to Grade 6 level, music and visual arts is a compulsory, it's part of the curriculum. All students participate in that. At this point, when you get to the junior high, they are electives. That, again, is to start the process where students can have some choice in what they take and so music and fine arts are one of the electives at junior high. We do have a couple of pilots, Grade 7 music, and I think as we develop and perfect more

[Page 322]

curriculum, there will be more students at the junior high who elect that. So I think that's our challenge, to make sure we have a program that's meaningful, interesting and students are encouraged and attracted to that.

We also have, as part of our Grade 12 graduation, there's one fine arts course that's required for graduation. There are a number of options there that students can choose but they must choose one to have completed their 18 courses for graduation. But they have a number of choices and I will just read them off. There's Grade 10 drama, Grade 11 drama, Grade 12 theatre arts, Grade 11 dance, Grade 11 design two, Grade 11 cultural industries, Grade 12 film and video production, and Grade 12 multimedia, which are all part of that whole menu of music-fine arts courses. Students have the option, depending on what school they're in, of course, the options may not be the same but they do have an option to choose and they must choose one of those as a Grade 12 graduation requirement.

MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to hear that. I, in fact, wasn't aware that there were just only electives in junior high. I'm glad to hear that you need at least one credit for graduating high school, 18 credits for graduation for high school. I'd like the minister to know, and I guess this is my opportunity to reflect what I heard at the panel, that there are so many parents who really feel that this is an opportunity to open up avenues for future careers, for future study. I know the minister must have been at many concerts and performances that are hosted by the schools. They are, in my opinion, essential ingredients to a proper school education and activity.

The parents are saying that we can't treat these courses as additional frills that are easily cut or the first thing that goes if there's a shortage of funding, that they, in fact, are integral to the development of young people's minds as well. I don't know if the minister is aware, but I have a daughter who is studying music at Acadia and I know that music students - and this is just from my reading - they say music students and math students have a lot in common. They score higher in math if they're good in music. It's the same part of your brain that's activated and working and I think any pilot would show that if you took a similar group of students and one group had music and one didn't that they would have much better math scores.

So I'm suggesting that we look at the evidence and we look at the studies that are being done and recognize that it is unlocking a lot of the thought patterns that young people have in developing. As we know today, I know there have been a lot of questions on early childhood education, for example, and we know today something we didn't realize even a few years ago - that we are not born with all the pathways in place in our minds and that those pathways are built and developed, particularly through preschool years and through the experiences we have. Certainly exposure to music and understanding and studying music gives an avenue to a lot of students to strengthen their academics and to embellish and improve their lives, I believe.

[Page 323]

The other point of the whole discussion is the cultural industries. Here in this House, we've talked about film and the $100 million a year in film production in Nova Scotia. I believe my colleague beside me here, the member for Cape Breton South, introduced the film tax credit initially, which has done a lot to bring that industry and have it thrive here. The point of it is that there are some very good careers for people who choose the arts and that their being active in our communities creates a lot of other economic spinoffs. I think one of our advantages in Nova Scotia is the cultural communities that we have and the cultural heritage and abilities of our people. The more we can do within our schools, even to give it root and to begin to nurture it, is going to pay a lot of dividends down the road.

I'm sure that you're very well aware of the studies of cultural cities that are out there, the author of which is Richard Florida, but he's done so many studies. In fact, the Ontario Government now, I believe, has him on retainer, at least as an adviser to government. He's now moved to Ontario because they recognize that if they can foster their cultural industries, they're going to have a much more vibrant society and a place where young people will stay and continue to live, and that's what we need right here.

So I'm suggesting that these programs we have in place, which are unfortunately too tenuous today, need to have bureaucratic and departmental support, so they can at least be on firm footing and parents can be aware that it's going to be there from year to year and not have to have the struggles to keep them in place. I believe HRM School Board has had some real advantages through the supplementary funding that's been available for more than 20 years, which shows a commitment on behalf of our property taxpayers, that for so many years they've been willing to pay extra money toward providing the extras in schools.

When you actually break it down, an awful lot of it has gone to the arts. There have been some for school secretaries, some to provide for full-time vice-principles in elementary schools, for example, so they didn't have to spend as much time in the classroom or at junior high, but an awful lot of it has gone to the honour choirs, the violin programs and the band programs that are central and really, perhaps, one of the few things we can say have been exemplary, have been better than the norm in the country, and we need to make those programs available more widely and see them as a model to go to.

Now I know the minister has a lot of financial pressures on her to run that department but I would suggest that this is such an opportunity for our province. I would like to hear your response to the opportunities that presents.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, I certainly understand the passion. I know you're speaking from experience and you've mentioned a couple of things I would just like to comment on. When we were talking about the number of courses that were available in the PSP, our public school curriculum for high school students, we have seven courses from which those high school students can choose to get that one elective in

[Page 324]

the fine arts. That's grown, we haven't always had seven, but we've had seven and we'll continue to add to that as required.

[4:30 p.m.]

So we are giving students an option and we are giving them a variety of courses, as I said, from which to choose.

The other thing that happens at high school and I'm sure the member may be familiar and maybe her daughter participated, but that's the opportunity to challenge for credit. This means that students have an opportunity to challenge for one of the 18 credits that they have to have to graduate. Many of the students who challenge for that credit do it in the area of fine arts and music. I think that again gives those students who have that particular interest and that particular talent to demonstrate that and to get credit for what they have learned outside of the classroom, but related to the fine arts. That again gives another opportunity for students at that particular level.

The member mentioned supplementary funding and I do know that - I guess we would call it the band or the fine arts program that exists in the Halifax board has been the envy of many schools and many school boards across the province. I'm pleased to know that is a priority, that's where the Halifax board has opted to use some of that supplementary funding because, again, it does complement programs we offer through our PSP. I would like the member and others in the House to recognize that we do value the fine arts, we do, as I said, try to strengthen our curriculum so that there are more options, and we do want to work with communities to make sure that together - and it may be a partnership - we can provide opportunities for these students.

As we know, we need to make sure that students have exposure to as much information as possible before they make their career decisions. Some of those career decisions are made based on a course in the fine arts they may have taken at high school or a course in O2 that they may have taken - again, giving them the opportunity and the exposure so they can make more informed decisions. Mr. Chairman, I think the member has raised some excellent points and we certainly want to work with the communities to make sure that our students have as many opportunities as possible.

MS. WHALEN: I think my time is a little bit short. Can you tell me how much is left in this hour?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're on until 4:36 p.m.

MS. WHALEN: That's not much. I'm going to go back and I know you've been asked a few questions about the lunch program in HRM. It has been a real thorn in my side personally going through the school system. I can happily say I now have no children left in

[Page 325]

our school system, happily or sadly, because it was sad to see my son graduate last June. At the same time it was a constant struggle, particularly when they were in elementary and junior high to see whether or not we were on the bus from year to year, whether or not we had a space in the lunch program.

I've talked to Carole Olsen, the superintendent, just as an MLA on behalf of my constituents about people who are in real distress because they couldn't get into the lunch program. The cases are numerous but if you're not well informed and in the loop and you didn't know to line up in March of the year before, when September rolls around you will not have a space at their lunch table - unless you're a bus student. A lot of us were living two and a half or, in my case, 2.35 kilometres from school, not the busing distance.

I, in fact, talking to friends today, said I am going to be speaking to the Minister of Education this afternoon, what are your concerns? The one thing they said is, can we have clarity this year? Because what happened when the bill came through asking for a free lunch program and availability to leave your children at lunch, chaos ensued in HRM. I believe the school board did not co-operate with the minister. I don't know what happened, but the message back to parents was you're going to lose what you've got, none of you will be able to stay for lunch. We won't be able to get monitors, we won't be able to pay for it. People that even had a position sort of lined up against those who might have been looking for a position.

I think there's still some uncertainty - although, I want to point out that the minister's statement in the metro newspaper today does say that the legislation will be effective September 2009, that no student will have to pay in any school, it will be universal. Now, that's quite clear, but is it just that there's going to be a year to bring this in or what is the confusion today? Can parents be assured that we're heading to some stability in this program?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the member did read my quote because I think it's clear. I hope that message is clear and I think that reflects the true intent of Bill No. 51 that was introduced by your colleague. You know this has grown from something we thought was, I think my words were, a molehill into a mountain. I hope we're back down to a molehill now, because I think the clarity that was required is now there. What that clarity is, it's very clear and my comment, I hope, is very clear for September 2009.

The place where there could be some misunderstanding - I hope there isn't, but I see the potential for it - is for 2008-09. The message to all school boards and correspondence has gone out to all school boards, it was delivered verbally by my deputy to all of the superintendents, but it has gone in writing to all school boards so that they're well aware of where we're going. Most school boards - I would say seven out of the eight school boards - did not need to get that clarification, because they already have models in place to provide supervision for the students who are in their schools during lunchtime. Those models include

[Page 326]

teachers doing the supervision - I know that some of the schools in the Halifax board have teachers doing the supervision. I've talked to some of them - we know that it's not part of the collective agreement.

We recognize and most administrators, or a lot of administrators and teachers, recognize the value in having teachers do that supervision over the lunch period. I spoke about this earlier in estimates but, as a former administrator and teacher, I know what happens the first hour after lunch break and I've been in schools where that supervision was done by teachers and I've been in schools where it was done by lunch hour supervisors. So there are a number of models: one is teachers doing the supervision and one is the school board hiring lunch hour supervisors. In all of those boards, with the exception of the Halifax board and some areas in the Halifax board, the cost for that is borne by the school board, they pay for that out of their funding for the year and it's not an issue.

Within some parts of the Halifax board there was, as we all know, a program where students, as you say, lined up, or parents lined up, to make sure they were in that program and it was really an inequity. So what we've asked the Halifax board to do, during the course of 2008-09, is move to a model where they can provide the supervision for students without students having to pay. I understand that some of the confusion may be that there are still some parents who are quite happy to pay and have their students stay, but the direction we're going, and the direction we've asked that board to go, is to move to a point where there is no student who has to pay to stay for lunch.

We've started that by saying you have to accommodate your students who travel by bus, you have to accommodate the students who are there for programming, or who have been assigned there by the board for some other reason. We've also asked the board to look at the length of time that students have if they wish to walk home at lunchtime. It was demonstrated, and I know it exists in some places, where it was a challenge for a student to get home and back during the lunch break, so we've asked them to look at that. What was happening, I believe, is that students were, perhaps, not given enough time, and I don't believe it was intentional, but there was not enough time for the student to walk home so they had to stay and if they stayed they had to pay, so we want to eliminate that particular situation.

So during the course of 2008-09, the board has been asked to look at ways to accommodate students so they don't have to pay. Effective September 2009, it will be universal, across this province, that students do not have to pay to stay for lunch.

MS. WHALEN: One of my responses there would just be some were happy to pay and there was an outcry. The people were frightened they were going to lose it altogether, the school would be closed at lunch, and all working parents, no matter what your circumstance, wouldn't have a place for their children. So if you already had it and you were among those that had the program in place, it isn't so much the cost, it's more about having access and

[Page 327]

that those who might have difficulty paying shouldn't be excluded. The dollar amount itself isn't so much the issue as actually being able to accommodate all of those who need it and want it.

Clearly, you have to have it one way or the other, so I think if there are many who can't afford it, we said it should be universally available without fee. To be fair, a dollar a day for the supervision of the children, which is roughly what it is, was never the issue, it was more, for many parents, the access and being able to get in there. The case I had this year was one of a person who desperately needed it and couldn't get in at the school and there was just no policy in place, so that pushed me and I know other MLAs who had a similar issue. I would never say it wasn't so much about the money, being happy to pay, but the school board really twisted it to make it as though it was going to be denied completely.

The other thing I'd like to - because I think my time is short. (Interruption) Five minutes, that's even better - I think I was given the wrong time. Thank you. Just a moment, I'm going to take a breath.

As I say, that was one of the big concerns that I had was around how the children are going to be able to stay there at lunchtime, I think you've answered that to quite a degree. The other part I'd like to ask about is around the transportation distances because I know that you've been looking into that and wanted to change the busing distances from schools. I think Nova Scotia has a much higher distance from school than other provinces and jurisdictions. There was a busing review done and I'd just like to know where that stands.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, the two are tied together in some parts of our province and in some schools. Again I mentioned that one of the models that I used to get information to help me make decisions is to have a team, a panel or a committee that goes out, takes an issue and goes across the province to gather reaction, input and suggestions - puts that together in the form of a report and recommendations for me. Then decisions are made, based on what people have been saying and the direction that perhaps we should move toward.

One of those was on walking distances. So that report was completed, it was submitted to me, and my response was that any changes with respect to walking distances would be effective in September 2009. The reason again for that is to give boards and schools some time to look at implementing new changes and that involves busing, driving and so on, so September 2009.

MS. WHALEN: Just as a last comment, I would like the minister to respond to the issue around funding for HRSB and that was the comment I was looking for. The issue is really, HRSB is the lowest funded school board in the whole country in terms of per capita funding. I think it is pertinent to the discussion around why or how they can afford to provide free lunch supervision is really the fact that they are underfunded and providing a great level

[Page 328]

of service to so many students. It's our most populous board, it's our busiest, fastest growing board, and we need help and a way to address the fact that they have such low funding per capita. So maybe the minister could just address that as the last question.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I do want to speak a bit toward the funding and to remind the member and all others in the House that in this province we have declining enrolment. Every board is experiencing a decline in enrolment that has been progressing over the last number of years. It's been magnified over the last number of years to the point where we have 2,000 or 3,000 fewer students in our schools each year. I do want to make the point that the Halifax board is no different than others in that they are experiencing a decline. What's unique about Halifax is that because of the broad geography that it covers, some areas are growing and others are declining. The overall net of that, of course, is a decline.

[4:45 p.m.]

However, our funding to that board and to other boards over the course of the years, from 2002-03 to 2007-08, has continued to increase. I just did quick math here. Funding to the Halifax board since 2002-03 until 2007-08 has increased by $72 million and at the same time a decline of 4,300 students. So even though there is a decline we have maintained and increased our funding to the boards. Halifax is no different than others but I know that was the one of particular interest to you. So funding has increased, enrolment has declined. That's not to say that there aren't funding challenges for every board. That's one of the things we're asking boards to do is to look at really what can you do with the funding that you have.

I would just make a comment, if I could, to say that one of the comments that I made to the media here yesterday was that when boards are looking at what they can do with the funding they have, I have great confidence that boards and senior staff will not make any decisions that have a negative impact on programming for kids.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time for the honourable member has expired.

The honourable member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.

MR. PERCY PARIS: Mr. Chairman, before we start may I suggest with your indulgence, I know the minister and staff have been sitting there for quite some time, so would it be appropriate for me to suggest for their benefit that we take a wee bit of a recess?

MR. CHAIRMAN: How about five minutes, Madam Minister, will that do? We'll recess for five minutes.

[4:47 p.m. The committee recessed.]

[4:56 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

[Page 329]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We will now resume with the estimates.

The honourable member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.

MR. PERCY PARIS: I think even though we discussed this - I guess I'm kind of losing track of time now. If it wasn't yesterday it was certainly the day before during estimates, and since my colleague from the Liberal caucus was talking about board funding I would just like to, while we're on that track, pick that up a bit, if I may, where she left off. I think my first question through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I know when I hear numbers in the millions of dollars, when you're quoting $50 million and $70 million, it sounds like a lot of money, and indeed it is. I'm just wondering, when you talk about increases, you mentioned an increase with respect to the Halifax Regional School Board. What increase is that per student and how does that increase compare to the other school boards within the Province of Nova Scotia?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member, the funding to the boards is as per the Hogg formula. There are many components that factor into that, and student enrolment is one but it is only one. The other factors, of course, are your transportation costs, your teachers' salaries and a number of other things that all come together to determine how much funding a board gets. The funding per pupil is a bit misleading because it costs more to deliver a program to students in some schools than it does in others and, again, that's dependent on those factors that I said form part of that funding formula. Overall, our funding to boards has increased by about 4.3 per cent across the board, as per that funding formula.

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, I think - and correct me if I'm wrong - what I'm hearing is, even if a school board has a declining enrolment, it could receive a greater percentage than another school board where maybe the enrolment may not be declining as much, depending on those other factors.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, yes, indeed, that is true. There is a factor within the funding formula that does recognize student decline and once the decline in a particular board reaches a 2 per cent decline, then there's additional funding to that board, based on that decline. So you may have a decline that is less than 2 per cent, so you would not qualify for that; if your decline goes over 2 per cent, you do. Some of our boards do get that additional funding based on the percentage of decline they are experiencing.

[5:00 p.m.]

MR. PARIS: Is there - and I don't know what the correct term is but I'm going to grasp here - is there any supplementary funding that would be available to school boards if any school board came up short at the end of the fiscal year?

[Page 330]

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, the question is that we are constantly in dialogue with boards about their funding. It's not uncommon for the CFOs - in fact, it's very common for CFOs - to meet with my deputy and our staff to talk about their funding, their cost pressures. There are times when boards do find that they need additional funding in order to address a unique circumstance. We are always saying to boards that if and when that situation presents itself, the dialogue will begin to see how we can assist.

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, is there a reporting mechanism in place? In other words, does the school board have to report every quarterly or every half year on the academic year, where they stand financially and whether or not the actuals are on target with what the projections were, what the estimates were?

MS. CASEY: Yes, indeed, to the member opposite. As I said, it is common for CFOs to meet with the superintendents and our staff. We monitor that and they provide us with updates on a monthly basis. So, if there is something that is unfolding, people are aware of that early on, so it is on a monthly basis that CFOs meet with the staff to talk about their forecast, their actuals and what the situation looks like.

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, that slight delay, that wasn't added to my time was it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not at all. (Laughter) That was an effort to quite the House down.

MR. PARIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Still staying with funding, but I want to go to another division or another department. I want to, if we may, just briefly discuss Mi'kmaq Services. I understand that the Department of Education has a division which is entitled Mi'kmaq Services. Correct me if my history is a little wrong here, but I think it was in 1999, something to the tune of $140 million was provided, and I think most of that, maybe all of that, might have been federal money, to provide for a transition for the First Nations, the Mi'kmaq communities of Nova Scotia to take control of the education of the Mi'kmaq individuals in this province. I think that would have involved nine bands or nine First Nation communities. I think some of them are referred to as First Nation and others are called bands.

I have it here somewhere, I was looking at a budget item, a line item in the budget and, again, Madam Minister, please correct me if I am wrong here, but what I see is in 2007-08, the estimates for Mi'kmaq Services was going to be somewhere in the ballpark of $514,000. One of the things that I guess I am asking is, what is provided out of that $514,000? What would be the expectations?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, we have undergone a bit of a structural change within the department but there certainly is a Mi'kmaq Services Division within the Department of Education. The budget line to which the member speaks is for that particular division. That is not money out into the schools. That is our consultants and those folks who work with the schools but they work out of a division of the department, so that

[Page 331]

line, that $514,000, is staffing and costs for the division of Mi'kmaq Services within the department.

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, I thank Madam Minister for that and that is what I need, I need some clarity on that particular division. Still staying with Mi'kmaq Services, and again, Madam Minister, please feel free to help me out here in your response, but I understand that there was a review of that division very recently. Out of that review - and that division might have been disbanded for a period of time and I don't know if that is accurate, but there certainly was a review - came a number of recommendations. I am curious if any of those recommendations have been implemented and if they have, fine, if they haven't, how many more do we have to go? For the implementation of the recommendations, does it come out of that $400,000-and-some-odd?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, we did undergo a complete review and a kind of a restructuring, or redesign of that division, within the department. We had input from the First Nations communities as part of that but we did do that redesign and that restructuring which we believe will allow us to be more efficient and more effective in our delivery of services to schools. So we have the director position and we are working toward implementing the recommendations in that report.

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't help but notice, and I certainly know that I want to be very careful when I say this because you always run a risk sometimes - and this is not a comparison - but you always run a risk whether it be a riding or whether it be comparing one department against another. I am also very curious because I see, even with the $400,000-some-odd, I notice that there is another department, another service division within the Department of Education which I see the line item and I think it might have been $5 million or $6 million. There seems to be quite a difference between what the Mi'kmaq Services Division gets and that maybe of some other departments. I will be more particular. African Canadian Services division gets in the millions of dollars and I am just wondering why one is getting millions of dollars and one is only getting a little over $400,000?

MS. CASEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and there certainly is a significant difference in those two lines and I think it is important to note that a lot of that has to do with the population, the numbers, the demographics. Many of our students from First Nations communities do attend their own schools. So you know you can't compare by population in the province, you have to compare by population that is served through our public schools. I think the reference to the $5.5 million, that includes a lot of implementation of recommendations in the reports that we currently have, scholarships and resources and supports like that. So looking at the numbers in each of those different populations would suggest that the numbers we serve are certainly significantly different.

[Page 332]

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the minister for that explanation. Again, just to reiterate, I know we always run the risk when we start, and this is certainly not a comparison, but one sees the line items and there is quite a discrepancy.

Also, within the division of Mi'kmaq Services, could the minister tell me how many individuals are employed there? That's the first part of the question. The second part of the question, of those individuals who are employed in the Mi'kmaq Services Division, how many of them are of Mi'kmaq descent?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, to this specific question, that division, the way it is structured, will have four positions in it when they are all filled. When they were all filled before, three out of the four were First Nations employees.

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, I trust that is a theme that the department will try to maintain.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, that is our goal and sometimes the delay in filling positions is making sure that we have the best qualified people in those positions and that they do represent the culture that is part of that particular division.

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, I am going to change gears again, or at least I'm going to try to. Over the last little while, we have talked about new construction and we have talked about schools that are up for review and certainly this is always a topic that no matter when you talk about it, it stirs up deep emotions, I think, in all individuals. During the Imagine Our Schools review - and I went to a number of those sessions - one of the things that always amazed me, I don't know if amazed is the right word, but raised some questions in my mind, because when we talk about schools today, we talk about high schools and we talk about junior high schools and elementary schools, we talk about schools at the junior high level that we are looking at anywhere from 900 to 1,300 to 1,400 students. Those, to me, are pretty large schools.

Even when we look at some of the feeder schools going into those high schools, I remember the day, it wasn't all that long ago, when I was part of that system as a student, granted, it wasn't yesterday but it wasn't that long ago. One of the things that I really enjoyed about public school was the neighbourhood schools. I know the neighbourhood that I lived in had a school. There was an elementary school and it wasn't until I got into, I think it was Grade 6, that I went from the school in Currys Corner to a junior high school in town and then from there to the high school, then eventually other places. Has the Department of Education ever done any sort of feasibility study on smaller versus bigger? When I say that, I mean the big high schools versus the small neighbourhood schools.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the member's experience in schools has been quite recent, perhaps more recent than others. You know, there is a lot of research that speaks

[Page 333]

to large school/small school, it speaks to the benefits of community school and this is something that boards and communities wrestle with all of the time. You know when you are looking at - and I want to speak particularly about junior and senior high schools - when you are looking at program delivery in high schools, a critical mass is important for a number of reasons, but one of the things that a critical mass does is it allows you to have, obviously, more teachers because the number of teachers is based on the population.

[5:15 p.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the minister allow an introduction?

MS. CASEY: Yes, certainly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Environment.

HON. MARK PARENT: Thank you very much, Madam Minister, and thank you very much Opposition. In the gallery we have several guests. They are all special guests, but the one who is most special is Manfred Wefers from Brazil. He is with Coimex - and we will ask Manfred to rise - one of the largest sugar-cane ethanol trading groups in the world. Welcome to the Legislature. (Applause)

Along with Manfred is George Romney, who runs an environmental consulting firm and Paul MacLean who is with a financial company, behind them, and then John and Terry are with Minas Basin Pulp and Power and I would ask them to rise, and give a warm welcome to all of them. (Applause)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We welcome all visitors to the gallery today.

Minister, you have the floor.

MS. CASEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will pick up on my response with respect to critical mass. At the high school level, in particular, when you are looking at program delivery and options for students, a critical mass is important. That simply means that as your enrolment increases, so, obviously, does your allocation of staff and the more staff you have, the more flexibility you have as an administrator in how you deploy your staff and the course options that you can offer, so, you have to weigh that against the benefits of a community school, the benefits of a small school and somewhere you find a balance.

In many of our small schools, because of the enrolment and numbers and the staffing numbers, there are courses that are in that menu of courses we have in a public school program that you cannot offer. You can offer, and some small schools can only offer, the basic requirements for graduation. So you may say that puts students at a disadvantage. It does with respect to course selection but it doesn't with respect to a community school.

[Page 334]

So there is lots of research to support both of those, but whenever boards are looking at their future planning for schools, and the Imagine Our Schools would be one example, they have a lot of factors to consider and that is certainly one of them, the community school, the critical mass in a larger school, those are factors that weigh into that. As I said, there is a body of research that will support either position you want to take on large school/small school.

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to touch on another thing before I hand the floor over to my colleague and that is with respect to P3. We have some new construction coming up right around the province and we are all happy to hear that. Could the minister tell me, will any of the new construction that is slated for this year and for next year, will any of those be P3 schools?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, we do have a number of P3 schools in this province that were built during the 1990s and at that time there was a decision made that we would go back to Crown-built schools, so that is the model that we are currently using. The capital construction list that we have presented and are working on, the 2003 list, that is the model that we will be using in future construction at this point.

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, where does time go when you are having fun? It just flies. At this point in time, I am going to hand the microphone and the floor over to my colleague, the member for Pictou West.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.

MR. CHARLES PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to the minister and deputy minister and staff. I am glad to have a couple of minutes here to ask an important question. In the riding of Pictou West, I know, Madam Minister, we have talked about this issue concerning the busing of students after Grade 9 in the River John area who would very much like to have the option of going to North Colchester Regional High School in Tatamagouche. I wrote a letter to you recently outlining some of the reasons why I feel that should be allowed.

Certainly the full intent of the board, I believe, in 1998, when the resolution was passed, was that students would have the option of either going to Pictou Academy or the new West Pictou High School - I guess it is now Northumberland Regional - or North Colchester at Tatamagouche. From talking to previous board members, they indicate that was their full intention, that it would be not only the option given but transportation would be provided with that. I think I gave you a copy of the letter that I had written to the board a year or so ago outlining some of the reasons why I felt it was important that that should be allowed to happen.

[Page 335]

I understand now there is perhaps a more recent letter that has surfaced from former board staff person, Dale Sabean, that outlined again that the option was yes, they would have the transportation provided to them. Now I haven't seen that particular letter but I understand it is from 2003.

So I guess first of all I would just like to get an update, Madam Minister, on where we are with this issue and when it is going to be possible for these students to have that option to go to Tatamagouche.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Pictou West, I am very familiar with that particular concern issue. I was with the board at that time when we were planning for those new schools and I have communicated with the member, he has shared with me some correspondence. I have also had it brought to my attention, as the MLA for the area, where one of those schools exists. I think, to the member opposite, the information that he and I have shared, the correspondence that we have seen, to me, it is fairly clear that the intent of the motion of the board of the day was that when they were planning for the new school, that students in the River John area, because of their geography, would have the option of going to one of three schools; that would be North Colchester High School in Tatamagouche; or Pictou Academy in the Town of Pictou; or the new high school, Northumberland, in Alma. I guess the extension of that would be that if they had the choice . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. Order. The chatter is getting a little loud. I can't hear the minister speaking. If I could just ask the indulgence of the group to keep the decibel level a little bit lower. Thank you.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should speak a little louder. I will try. Anyway, what I was saying was the motion of the board of the day would suggest - it was clearly stated they would have their choice and one would take from that, because of the geography of the area, that transportation would be part of that. I know it has not been resolved. I would be interested in seeing the most recent correspondence of which you speak because that particular person would have been involved in the transportation operations of the board at that time. I have communicated with staff in that particular board and have, on behalf of the residents of River John and the member, shared my interpretation of that motion of the board.

MR. PARKER: Just a follow-up question, then. I, too, have not seen that letter from Mr. Sabean, but I understand the principal at North Colchester has a copy of that and I am hoping to obtain it as well. I also understand there is a special needs child who, next year, will be going to North Colchester from the River John area. I am told, in that situation, where there is a special needs child, that busing would be provided for that individual under, I guess, current board policy. If there is going to be a special needs bus coming down, why couldn't it be expanded just a little bit more to accommodate the other children who are wishing to go to Tatamagouche? So I will ask you about that.

[Page 336]

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, this certainly is a board issue. It is something that we would expect boards to address, transportation bus routes and those kinds of responsibilities are boards' and they have their policies and procedures in place. I don't know all of the particulars from the board's perspective, but I do know that if parents believe that their students have a choice, and if that choice doesn't specify that transportation is their responsibility, then I guess you can assume that it is the board's responsibility. I know that some transfers that exist in and out of schools where students attend schools out of their own area, that qualifier is there. You know transportation is the responsibility of a parent. I am not aware of that being a condition in this and I will follow up on that.

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Madam Minister, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue on this topic and hopefully we will find a solution that will work for that area. I will turn my time over now to the member for Halifax Citadel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel.

MR. LEONARD PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be back. I believe this is my third session now and I think we are reaching the end of what has been a very long series of questions, not the least of which, for the minister herself, and I appreciate her holding out through these questions.

Just to review, we have talked yesterday about the principles that might want to underpin a comprehensive review of post-secondary education. We have talked about the memorandum of understanding and some of the things that are in there and that are not in there. We have talked about the budget and some of the implications of the budget, particularly on infrastructure.

Where we left off, we were on teacher education. I had spoken about our concerns, about the narrow interpretation of the role of the teacher and what it means to be a teacher and the kinds of motives that teachers have and the reasons why students might come here, essentially arguing that the supply management view that the department has adopted is too restrictive. It harms the successful business, if we can look at it as a business, the business of educating students, but it also demeans the whole role of the teacher.

We also talked about the inconsistency and the treatment of Dalhousie, Saint Mary's and CBU in its restrictions, particularly on out-of-province programs. I am wondering if maybe the resolution to this issue lies in a bilateral agreement with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or Memorial University or the expansion of the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission. I am wondering if the minister is going to embark on more formal or more serious talks.

[Page 337]

I don't know if it is an aside in the report, whether it is formally in the report, but you did say you were going to engage in some casual, informal dialogue. I am wondering if the time has come to maybe do something more formal there.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to say that Ministers of Education from all of the provinces do meet on a regular basis and we do discuss common concerns, common issues and so on. On a broader perspective, there is certainly regular contact with my counterparts in other provinces. To be specific, on our province and Newfoundland and Labrador, the recommendations in the report, there was a recommendation that there would be some communication and some dialogue. Since the report and recommendations have been received, that communication and dialogue has begun, deputy to deputy. Also, it has been made clear what our position is and why we have taken that position.

So I would expect that we can resolve this and work through this and that each province will understand the position of the other, Mr. Chairman, and if we continue to be motivated by what is best for our students in this province and our post-secondary institutions, I believe we can work through this.

[5:30 p.m.]

I do want to make a comment about perhaps unfair treatment, maybe would be my words, not the member's, but I believe that we have been fair in asking other jurisdictions to respect the principles on which we have made our decisions and I believe that they will respect our decisions.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, I have just one last question, really more of a comment on teacher education. The minister and I have talked about this now on several different occasions, in several different issues, and it relates to recommendations relating to the creation of an advisory council on teacher education, Recommendation 1, Recommendation 7, and it appears in other places. As the minister knows, when we were talking about the Degree Granting Act, we had discussed this, what is really quite a fundamental difference of opinion we have about the role of universities and the relationship between universities and the government.

This treatment of the faculties of education as line departments of the Department of Education really carries through in this recommendation on the minister's advisory council which says, for example, that the minister's review panel will advise the minister on the appropriate balance between the theoretical and applied aspects of Bachelor of Education programs and recommend changes when necessary. There are a number of examples like that and we are absolutely convinced, and it's an important point of principle, that it's not the business of the Department of Education, or the government, to get involved in micromanaging the affairs of universities to that extent. We are determining whether

[Page 338]

programs on the theoretical and applied aspects can be determined by people in the Department of Education, however well-meaning they may be.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I do want to make sure that I repeat a comment that I have made in the last few days. I will repeat it, that our involvement, the Department of Education, is to make sure that we have the best possible program that we can deliver to the students in the Province of Nova Scotia. One of the main components of that quality programming is the qualification and the expertise and the ability of the teacher in front of that class. We know that if we have quality teaching we have good learning taking place in the classrooms.

So we do have a vested interest in this. We want to make sure that the teachers who are in front of our students are the best qualified, the best trained that they can be. Where do they get their training? They get their training in our B.Ed. programs. So, take it one step further. We want to make sure that the quality of the program that is delivered allows the teachers to have the skills that we want them to have when they get in front of our students. So there is definitely a connection here and it is a responsibility. There's a connection and a responsibility. I want to make sure that this government and our department is able to work with universities to make sure that they understand what we are expecting those teachers to deliver when they get in our classrooms.

I have had an opportunity to work with one of the Departments of Education on their teacher training, teacher placement, teacher supervision and evaluation. It became very obvious that the curriculum that was being delivered in some of the universities was not as connected to the curriculum that we deliver in our schools. So there needs to be a coming together of the universities so that they know, and I would think most universities and most B.Ed. departments would want to make sure that the curriculum that they deliver is preparing their students to be effective and knowledgeable and ready to hit the ground running when they get out into our schools.

So there definitely is a need for a dialogue, for a connect, for an advisory committee so we can dialogue back and forth and universities know what their students will have to do when they get into a classroom. We want them trained as best as they can possibly be trained before they start working with our students. So we have great students, we have great graduates and many of them have been and will become great teachers. If we can do anything to facilitate and enhance that, I believe we have an opportunity.

MR. PREYRA: Just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, we don't disagree with the priority, the premium that we would put on quality teaching and quality programs. Where we disagree with the minister is whether or not the department of education is the body to decide that. Some of us who grew up in the Third World, in particular, are particularly sensitive to the role of politics and political Leaders and elected officials and the establishment of the

[Page 339]

curriculum and in terms of managing the affairs of universities. Here we have a long tradition of academic freedom, we have a long tradition of autonomy for the universities.

We don't disagree with the creation of advisory bodies either but we know that those advisory bodies, in almost every other context in Canada, and in Nova Scotia, I should say, have been at arm's length from the government. So we accept the idea of quality, we accept the need for an advisory body but we do not accept the fact that the Department of Education is the best body for making that determination.

I want to move on to something more mundane, Mr. Chairman, and those are the estimates and the assumptions. Really, most of these are questions for clarification. I'm a rookie here, as is the minister, but she has a veteran sitting beside her, or two veterans sitting beside her so I will maybe use what time I have left to ask for some clarification.

I'm looking at revenues by sources, which is in the assumptions, Schedule 1C, Page 1.15. In talking about revenues, it says Revenues from Federal Sources. I see that the Canada Social Transfer has $296 million, let's call it $297 million, if you don't mind. I am wondering if the minister or her staff can tell us what the Department of Education, what the post-secondary education part of that transfer is? In other words, how much of that $297 million is dedicated to post-secondary education?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, I just want to make a comment, you referred to the veterans, I wonder if that's synonymous with age, but I'll let other people decide that. (Interruption) Oh, okay. To get to your question, the social transfers of which you speak, $297 million, all of that and more goes to the universities. So that certainly is directed towards post-secondary and indeed other dollars from our provincial funding goes there as well.

MR. PREYRA: So are you saying, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that most of our post-secondary education money is coming from the federal government and the provincial government is contributing very little to it?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, what I said was the social transfer money, the line $297 million, all of that and more goes to universities. I didn't say that that's all of the money that goes to universities.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, just below that the C48 Infrastructure Trust Funds, you've got $38,767,000. Could you tell us how that money is used and what the status of that money is and what will happen when that money disappears?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, my apologies for the delay but I'm hearing from my staff that that is a Department of Finance question and perhaps it could be asked to the Minister of Finance.

[Page 340]

MR. PREYRA: Well, I'm afraid to ask the question again because it's eating into my time, Mr. Chairman, but what I was asking was that $38 million is now in the Department of Education and I'm assuming that the Department of Education, in its projections, have built certain assumptions into it. The reference I'm making is to a document called Assumptions and Schedules and I'm asking the department what assumptions it's making about the C48 money?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, that is part of the C48 money and that money was used for the tuition reduction initiatives that we had introduced in the budget.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, moving on to the estimates, Page 1.7, talking about the consolidated fund, the line item talking about assistance to universities has an estimate for 2007 that's approximately $258 million. The forecast for that period is $400 million which is well off the estimate, and the estimate for 2008-09 is $230 million. I'm wondering if the minister can explain the almost $200 million discrepancy in those two amounts?

MS. CASEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think the question is what is the difference there, how do we account for the difference, and that difference is, I think it's about $137 million and it's $72 million that would have gone into the MOU and $65 million into the trust fund for bursaries for students.

MR. PREYRA: I just find it so extraordinary there would be such a big difference between $258 million and $400 million over the course of one year. As the minister knows, the people in post-secondary education have complained about this dumping of money at the end of the year. The Auditor General has expressed surprise and disappointment at the way in which this money is accounted for and I wonder why the minister just does not introduce this money every year as part of the ordinary budgetary process where we can review it and hold her accountable?

I expect that in the next budget we will see a higher figure for assistance to universities, yet we won't have the opportunity to debate it here.

MS. CASEY: The amount of dollars that we could access to set up the trust fund and to address the MOU over three years and the student bursary was money that became available. It was money that universities, obviously, had agreed upon as part of the MOU and students were pleased with the student bursary we were able to provide and the fact that was established when it was, I believe, is good news for both universities and students.

MR. PREYRA: I don't doubt that it's good news for universities. My issue was more in how that money is doled out. I'm sure the universities would like to have stable and predictable funding. If they were looking at the estimates for 2007-08 and then realized they were going to get $293 million, they may have made other plans. There is this continuing

[Page 341]

question about end-of-year funding and dumping of money at the end of the year for other perhaps more political reasons.

I also notice that in Assistance to Universities, Page 7.2, we have similar figures. The operating forecast for 2007-08 was $293 million and we're back down to $214 million for 2008-09. I assume there's the same logic that's driving that - that there was money dumped at the end of the last fiscal year into that program.

[5:45 p.m.]

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that we may be losing sight of not what we did, but how we did it. I think I'd like to focus on the dollars that were spent for universities and for students were dollars we had planned to spend, we had the resources to do it and we did it. The benefit that's there, it came in 2007-08 as opposed to 2008-09. It was part of the commitment in the MOU and part of the student bursary commitment. I think we need to focus on what we achieved with that and the benefit that brought to universities and to students.

MR. PREYRA: I won't belabour the point, but my point is that a difference between $400 million and $230 million is quite a significant difference.

Again, looking at Page 6.9 in the estimates, Grants and Contributions to Higher Education, the forecast for 2007-08 was $36 million and in 2008-09 it's back to $33 million. How does the minister explain the $3 million difference there in Grants and Contributions?

MS. CASEY: The difference between the $36 million and the $33 million, the $3 million is a difference in the C48 money, is the explanation.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, a similar question, I see on Page 6.2, under Program Expenses, summary and resolutions, that the forecast was for $50,300,000 last year and it's $48,400,000 this year. It looks as it did with the previous one, that grants to universities were declining and program spending as well is declining?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, if I could go back to the member and ask him for a clarification on the line?

MR. PREYRA: Page 6.2, line six.

MS. CASEY: The name of that line?

MR. PREYRA: Higher education, it's under Program Expenses.

[Page 342]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we clarified? Does the honourable Minister of Education need further clarification?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I believe we're going to have to ask for some time on this one because my staff are having some difficulty finding the answer.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, I would be quite happy to pass this on to the minister. In the meantime, a similar sort of question about student assistance, I see that last year student assistance was listed at $41 million and for the fiscal year coming it's listed at $39 million. That's on Page 6.6.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the difference in that money again is back to the C48 money.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, so again it appears that grants to universities, program spending and student assistance are all going to be down in the coming year and that's something to watch for. I have a couple of questions and these may be just general education questions but I see in Fees and Other Charges in the Estimates Book on Page 1.5 the forecast for 2007-08 is $1.8 million and the forecast for 2008-09 under Education is $1.2 million. I'm wondering what that figure means?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the member to repeat the question?

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, it just appears that Fees and Other Charges, whatever those may be, have gone down by quite a significant amount and I'm wondering what those fees are and whether those are revenues in the department and why they've gone down?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, the member will recall that during the course of this year one significant part of my department, one division, was transferred to Labour and Workforce Development and that has caused the change that's noted in those dollars.

MR. PREYRA: A similar question in the Estimates Book on Page 1.4 under the Ordinary Revenue, the figure for 2007-08 is $4 million under Education and in 2008-09 it's $992,000.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member, again, that change, that difference is directly related to the transfer of that division from our department to Labour and Workforce Development.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, again in the Estimates Book, Page 1.18, looking at Funded Staff, the forecast for 2007-08 $362 million for Education and in 2008-09 was $306 million.

[Page 343]

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, again, part of that is due to the transfer of the skills and training division to Labour and Workforce Development. The other is human resources services to Public Service.

MR. PREYRA: Under Senior Management, Education Page 6.3, looking at Program Expenses, the forecast for the Office of the Deputy Minister was $290,000 and next year it will be $323,000. What explains that increase?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member, the two bits of information there. One is that part of that is due to an increase in salary and part of it is due to the Healthy Workplace Initiative becoming part of the deputy's department.

MR. PREYRA: Well, I thought I heard the deputy say that he got a bonus. Actually, that's quite a significant bonus.

My time is running out here, Mr. Chairman, but I do have one question left. I wanted to ask a question about the Child and Youth Strategy. I wanted to ask about the Nunn inquiry. In particular, there was an article in the paper yesterday about youth mental health supports. I know the Department of Education is in the forefront of the strategy but the upshot of this article yesterday, from Dr. Kutcher, was that the Department of Education is really not doing a heck of a lot to address child mental health issues. There is a huge burden put on the department but the department doesn't have the resources to do it and really hasn't followed up on that part of the Nunn inquiry and that part of the Child and Youth Strategy.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, the whole Nunn report and the recommendations that came out of that certainly spread across five departments within government through integration of services and supports and resources, an effort to address those with our youth in the province. We have, from the Department of Education's perspective, certainly increased the number of specialists we have. Our speech language pathologists, our school psychologists, our guidance counsellors in elementary schools and so from the Department of Education's perspective, those are the resources that we have identified. That's where we have put dollars in our upcoming budget to improve the ratios that exist in our schools in those particular core services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member's time has expired.

The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, I don't have very much time but I did want to draw the attention of the House to the west gallery where we welcome back and introduce ANSSA representatives Paris Meilleur and Tara Gault. If the House could give them a warm welcome, please. (Applause)

[Page 344]

One of the areas that hasn't been talked about much of late but in terms of the security and safety of university students. There have been incidents - as we all know - in other jurisdictions. I know there was a review around school security measures and I'm wondering if those also apply or had some impacts on universities or is it up to the individual university to develop a plan for the safety and security of students? I direct that to the minister.

MS. CASEY: To the member opposite, as he will well know, safety and security of students in our schools or in our universities is of utmost importance to us. What we did, as a result of some of the incidents, unfortunate incidents that we learned about, caused us to ask our boards to look at the practices, policies and procedures they had with respect to security. We also asked the same of the universities and asked them to review any practices and procedures they had in place. Obviously, any review would lead to modifications, changes that might be appropriate based on the circumstances at the university, their facilities, and so on.

We did engage Mark Young with the Department of Education to come up with a review and some recommendations and some strategies that public institutions - whether school or university - could use to help guide them through establishing a procedure, a protocol so that they would feel comfortable that everyone in the institution was aware of what to do, what procedures were in place and how they might cope - hopefully never having to - with an unfortunate incident.

That information went out to universities, we've asked them to review that and when they come back to us - we currently have Mark Young at our disposal and that service may well be extended to universities based on what they come back with to us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We are getting closer to the moment of interruption. I just want to inform the committee at 6:00 p.m. we will have completed three hours of estimates and we'll have one hour remaining when we get back at 6:30 p.m.

[6:00 p.m. The committee recessed.]

[6:30 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee is called back to order. When we left off, the honourable member for Kings West had the floor.

The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to continue with the estimates on Education. One of the references that my colleague, the member for Halifax Citadel, made to the minister in one of his comments was that she was an older rookie, but

[Page 345]

that's a dangerous road to go down so I won't go there. I'm just going to say that perhaps a rookie showing lots of energy and stamina, she goes into the eleventh hour of estimates over the last two or three days. So I do commend the minister for that and I know she has had a little family worry to deal with as well, so I appreciate what she has given to the House in the last few days.

With that, I wanted to start off on an area that perhaps needs some explanation around, as opposed to whether it's a troublesome part of the MOU and that's the ninth clause in the MOU which is speaking about the transition funding allocation formula which utilizes an enrolment average for the years, and then goes on to explain how in each of the next three years of the MOU that years past will be used to determine the notational allocation in terms of funding. I would just like to have a little bit of an explanation, because I'm not sure exactly how this may help or may not be enough help in terms of transitional funding.

One of the concerns that I would relate to that is the fact that we're already seeing signs at CBU and Acadia with enrolment challenges whether or not this transitional funding allocation formula will be of help or enough help as they deal with those issues in the coming years.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member. Referring of course to the MOU that was assigned between the universities and the province and that process of negotiating an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, with the universities proved to be a good process. We were currently operating in the third year of a previously negotiated MOU, and one of the benefits of the MOU was that it gave the universities some predicatablilty and some stability in their funding. So when we got into the third year and looking at where we would go from there, it appeared that all parties were interested in going back to negotiate another memorandum of understanding.

When the plans were made to look at who would be participating in those negotiations, it was agreed that university students were important members of this process. They were invited to have representation on the negotiating team, along with the representation from CONSUP, from the presidents of the universities, and also from the department. So those representatives set down - and a good process, because all parts of the post-secondary, I guess, environment were represented there - it was an agreement between the universities and the department and, thus, the representation.

When the negotiations began, Mr. Chairman, they looked at what would be included in that agreement and the success of the previous one certainly gave some direction to the second memorandum - funding, of course, being the main issue. As the member has mentioned, there is a clause there that speaks to transitional funding. During the course of the last MOU, we all recognized that there had been enrolment declines. We are experiencing that in our schools and we know that universities were experiencing the same thing, so there

[Page 346]

was a need to address that and to come to some agreement within the MOU that would allow universities to adjust to the declining enrolment that they were experiencing.

Two universities in particular have been mentioned, Acadia and Cape Breton University, that had the most serious enrolment decline. The members of the negotiating team recognized that it would be unfair to apply a formula that would be detrimental to the operating and the continuation of both of those institutions, so there was the transitional clause that was put in there and it was a clause that will allow a transition or a gradual move to a funding formula that is based on enrolment. To do that all in one year would have a significant impact and a very negative impact on the funding for those two universities, so there was an agreement that over the three years of the MOU they would do a 25/25/25 and that would allow the universities to adjust to the new funding that they would get, but they believed, and they agreed that that would not be detrimental to their ability to continue to operate. So thus the transitional clause and, as I said, both of those universities have accepted that and will work with that.

Because it's a three-year MOU, we get to the 75 per cent by the end of that MOU, but I guess there is always the expectation and the hope, and it will happen, that the enrolments in universities are monitored during the course of that three years and, at the end of the MOU, if it has the success that the previous one had, and the success we predict this one will have, I would expect we will be looking at another set of negotiations.

MR. GLAVINE: One of the areas left to deal with, from my perspective in terms of universities, is the university connection to teacher education in this province. We know that we have undergone, of course, a review. There were many parts of the review which were strong, which were positive, and which point at some direction for future teacher education in the province. I felt perhaps it did get skewed a little bit too strongly by the labour force report around the number of teachers, which came out during that review that was going on around the province. I am hoping that through the minister's and the government's intentions to bring in some regulations in the Fall, that will help guide through the next period around teacher education and certification that may end up being the strongest beginnings that review had to offer.

However, I am a little bit dismayed at the member opposite who, in talking about university autonomy, seemed to indicate almost, you know, hands off in terms of the delivery of the B.Ed. program in our province. While I have the greatest respect for all universities in the province, having attended two for degrees and two others for courses, the autonomy of a university is indeed a very special part of the academic freedom that a university has.

However, the B.Ed. program is a certification program that does need guidelines, that should have certain criteria, that in fact should be designed to deliver the best teachers for the schools of Nova Scotia. That's why I feel there has to be a very relevant, a very important link with the Department of Education. Again, one of the recommendations that did come

[Page 347]

from the review panel was that there be an advisory committee. I think that advisory committee can have enormous potential in lots of collaboration, in lots of discussion and discernment around what, in fact, may be best practices for that B.Ed. program. So, first of all, I would like to hear the minister's comment around teacher education in this province currently, and maybe even a little bit of how she envisions the future as well.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to my colleague across the way. We certainly do share common backgrounds as far as our training, our profession, and our interest in teacher education in the province. I think we do recognize the importance of quality training, having well-qualified, dedicated, committed teachers in our classrooms, because we do have a responsibility to every student in this province to make sure that they are, in fact, engaged with a teacher who clearly understands how students learn, clearly understands the curriculum and the variety of strategies that teachers need to have in order to respond to the variety of needs.

The first place that students will learn that, Mr. Chairman, is in their teacher training program, therefore it's absolutely critical that we, as a government and as a department, do whatever we can to make sure that that program that students follow is the very best that it possibly can be. So I don't think there's any question, I don't think there's any dispute that the member opposite and I share that interest, that desire and that belief, and accept that responsibility.

The Teacher Education Review certainly provided lots of information, lots of ideas and involved a lot of consultation. The three-person panel is to be commended for the work they did to make sure that they made themselves accessible. They visited all parts of the province, they provided opportunity and invited participation, so that when their report was completed, it truly reflected the ideas and the feelings of Nova Scotians. They were a very credible team and they certainly gave their time and attention to the important task that I had given them.

[6:45 p.m.]

So when they presented their report and recommendation, again I received that, but I wanted to make sure that Nova Scotians had another opportunity, and that was an opportunity to see what that report looked like, what those recommendations were, and so we left that out for a period of time to get that reaction. Again, there were hundreds of e-mails, letters and submissions and many of those, I might say, were from the universities in this province themselves - and that tells me that they are keenly interested in how we deliver teacher education even if they are not one of the universities that currently have that as a program.

The Shapiro Report, Mr. Chairman, identified the universities where B.Ed. programs would be delivered, that being Acadia, Mount Saint Vincent, St. F.X. and Université Sainte-

[Page 348]

Anne. But it wasn't just those universities that took interest in what we were doing - we had submissions from other universities; we had representation from other universities. I had university presidents and academic VPs come to speak to me and share their thoughts. So it generated a lot of interest, a lot of discussion across the province and I think that sends a strong message that there is a keen interest in this province in making sure that the teachers we have in our classrooms are the very best they can be.

The member opposite mentioned the whole issue of supply and demand and we know that that report was released around the same time; it did have some influence on the recommendations that the committee prepared. My response to that indicated that there needed to be a broader interpretation of some of those statistics in that supply and demand report. I believe that the response that we came up with and delivered is a true reflection of what Nova Scotians feel and the direction that we should go.

The whole report was premised on two things: number one, that we maintain and improve on the quality programming that we currently have; and number two, that we make sure that we provide options for students who wish to study in Nova Scotia, to be able, if they have the qualifications, to enter into a B.Ed. program in our province.

I also wanted to look at - and we have discussed it much over the last three days - the tuition rates in our province, the cost of education, how our government has provided student assistance programs. So with those universities that I mentioned, Mount Saint Vincent, Acadia and St. F.X., their programs in teacher training are a four-plus-two - that's six years of university studies, four years for your undergraduate and two B.Ed. years. We recognize that that is costly for university students, so I wanted to look at other models that could be delivered in this province, whether it is an integrated program, a four-plus-one or a four-plus-two, but, again, to give students more choices.

So my response, again, focused on how can we do that, how can we give them more choices. It's up to the student. I believe in giving choices - and they have a choice to stay in Nova Scotia if they wish to, they have a choice to take a program of a duration that is of interest to them and that they can afford, and the third thing is that they will have a choice of where in Nova Scotia they do that program.

We know that, again, the Shapiro Report, the universities that were identified were on the mainland and during the panel's travel around the province, they heard very clearly from the folks in Cape Breton that there was a need for a B.Ed. program on Cape Breton Island and the importance to those students to be able to attend a program close to their home and not have to incur the additional expenses of residency or living away from home. So all of that played into the report and recommendations and to my response to that. So I believe that we did recognize all of that when we came out with our response.

[Page 349]

I want to speak to something else that the member opposite mentioned, and that is the minister's advisory council. I firmly believe that we need to continue to hear from those people who have a vested interest in and a knowledge of teacher education. On that ministerial advisory committee there will be representation from the different partners in education. We have already had letters of interest and expressions of interest at the office - resumés, in fact, of people who might want to serve on that advisory committee.

It goes beyond just the university determining what program they will offer, what their curriculum will look like - there has to be a link between what they offer and what we need in our public schools. I believe the advisory committee will give us that link and it will allow us to make sure that the programs that are delivered prepare our young people as best they can for positions in the classroom.

I'm pleased to be able to move forward with that advisory committee, with the recommendations that we believe will improve and enhance teacher education programs in our province.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Madam Minister, for that overview and some of your strongly held beliefs as minister and also reflecting on where the Department of Education currently is.

I'm certainly pleased to hear that there is wanting to be, and will be maintained, a very strong link between the teacher education program in universities so that they're not theory-bound, but they have a very strong connection to our classrooms, that in fact they are preparing our teachers for the next generation of Nova Scotians to the greatest extent possible. I think this advisory council does have the potential to once again draw on the strengths of each of the programs delivered in our universities currently, and perhaps come up with best models of practicums and teachers in the schools - after all, that is the link that needs to be made.

Also, in terms of the advisory council, we know that we have some serious gaps in terms of teachers and their backgrounds, especially in the area of math, which is proving to be a very troublesome area for our province in getting our achievement levels to a higher degree. When we have 67 per cent of our high school math teachers without a math background, or a significant math background, and only 37 per cent of our junior high teachers with math in their background - and that's where the foundations are laid for a successful high school math success - I'm hoping this advisory council as well will help in having more students arrive in the B.Ed. programs who will fill some of those current needs we have in the system.

The other related piece to teacher education that I believe needs, if you wish, corrections, or some new criteria, is around certification. We know there will always be Nova Scotians whose parents will get transferred to other parts of the country and then will come

[Page 350]

back to Nova Scotia after getting their teacher training in other provinces or perhaps in some of the United States or in other jurisdictions. I'm not saying that we need to use certification as a means to control the number of teachers that would be available in the province, but in light of the strong programs we have established in this province - think of the number of recruiters who show up at Acadia, Mount St. Vincent and St. F.X. in order to get some of our students to go to Alberta, Ontario, to the United Kingdom, and North Carolina is a State that comes to Nova Scotia.

We're highly regarded in what we do, and that's why I thought that was a good reason to expand the CBU and to have in fact more students educated in Nova Scotia, but with some limitations obviously on the number. So to get back to the area that I was going around certification - I'm wondering, will that will be part of a connection to the review that has just been done and is that an area of concern to the minister?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, you know, when we talked about the number of seats that we would have in the province and the number of seats that we would fund, we recognize that we have a change in our demographics as far as teachers that we have in this province, and we recognize that even with retirements - our projected number of retirements for next year is 330-some teachers who will be retiring, and we have in our budget that we've proposed 157 new positions. So when you look at those demands on our pool of teachers, I think it's obvious that we needed to expand the number of seats.

I want to make mention, before I go to the certification, your comment about teachers and their teachables and the discipline in which they are prepared to teach, and in order to make sure that we can continue to build on and perhaps improve the whole business of teachers teaching out of subject area, we wanted to make sure that there was some expectation that those new seats that we were prepared to fund would address that demand issue.

Math, as we've said, is one of those areas. It's an area where at junior high we have the fewest number of teachers teaching in their own area of expertise. We need more math teachers and so what we said to the universities, CBU with their additional seats and a partnership with the Mount and St. Mary's, is we expect that with CBU because they had the larger number, that at least 70 per cent of the students who fill those seats will graduate with one of the teachables that we require - that being math, sciences, French and technology. So we're trying again to, I guess, make sure that we are able to meet the demands for the number of teachers and make sure they have the background that they need.

When we look at the question of certification - and we certified over 1,000 teachers last year - we know that about 400 of those graduated from our own universities in the province, so we have about 600 teachers who have applied for certification in Nova Scotia. Some of them came from Atlantic Provinces and the question of their certification and ours has been raised. There is a reciprocal agreement among the four Atlantic Provinces that

[Page 351]

acknowledges and recognizes certifications, one with another. When someone from outside of the Atlantic Provinces presents themselves for certification, there is an assessment process that we use. We look at the program they've gone through and also how that matches up with what we would expect our students to have completed before they get our Nova Scotia certification.

In some cases they are given a bridging certificate, Mr. Chairman, and that simply means that there's something that they have to do to fulfill that requirement that we would have, and bring them to the same standard that we would want our teachers to have going into our classrooms. So there's an advisory committee and, again, an advisory committee I believe serves the minister well because it brings expertise to the table and gives me the advice that I need to move forward.

[7:00 p.m.]

So there is an advisory committee on teacher certification. We have a process in place to make sure we do acknowledge, through the reciprocal agreement, that if teachers come and need some further upgrading or additional courses, that that's identified. They know exactly what they have to do. They have a bridging certificate until they do that and, once they do, then they get their teacher's certificate. So it's an ongoing process, but it's one I believe, again, speaks to the standard that we want our teachers in our classrooms to have.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Minister, for that perspective on certification, which I was pleased to hear that it is an area that does occasionally get attention in order to strengthen the criteria and to make sure that those who are entering the province from other institutions, or who have been teaching in other jurisdictions, in fact have some commonalities in their preparation.

We are into the last half hour, roughly, of the very long education estimates this year, so I guess this half hour will be a little bit of a grab bag since I do have a number of areas that I was wanting to hear the minister speak to. One of the areas where I heard from two school boards was the student information system. We know that it has had a bit of a derailment. We know that this can be very helpful, very significant in planning for the future and lessen the difficulty in tracking information across regions - and probably, therefore, right across the province. We know with high-quality information, better planning can go on, better analysis of what we are doing. So it's a system that many today feel very strongly about in our school system, and I'm wondering where that currently stands.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, to the member. The member raises a very important issue here and one that has not moved along as quickly as we would like it to. We recognize that the collection of data at each board level, or even at each school level is critical. The value in having statistics is to see where you are, plan where you want to go, and then monitor to see how you get there. If you don't have that information, then it is pretty hard to

[Page 352]

base your planning on some statistics. So there is obviously a great need to have a database where you can have that information.

What has happened across the province is that boards have developed their own system of information management and they have done a good job of that, but it is a bit of a patchwork and not all systems will easily talk to the others. So it presents a problem with the increased mobility of families moving around the province, even from school to school but more particularly from one board to another. So it is a challenge and the student information system that takes all of that and puts it together in one system, Mr. Chairman, is extremely expensive - an estimated price to do that for all of our school boards is about $12.5 million and that's huge. So without that money in place, we are dealing the best we can with what we have.

However, as recently as today, there has been a meeting, a deputy with the representatives from the boards, and they have agreed that we have to work together on this. We have to look at how boards can contribute. As I said, there are different systems and different boards; maybe there is one of those that can be modified, it can be adapted and it can be accepted. But there is a willingness to work together on that to see if we can come up with something that will help with that easy storage and transmission of data. We don't have it and, as I said, it is costly but it is someplace we do have to go.

MR. GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, one of the topics that we hear often, among educators, administrators and teachers, is the area of school discipline. We know that; in fact in this House we have raised the issue of the number of suspensions that occur in some jurisdictions, in some of our boards, and the amount of time that is required to deal with them by review committees, by suspension committees. We know that there are also, I guess, developments in some schools whereby they're not giving the students an external holiday - they're not doing as many external suspensions; they're keeping the students in school.

One of the models is having a teacher - who has expressed the desire to take four, five, maybe upwards of six students who are suspended - who has a very wide background in a number of subject areas and they're keeping the students in school and they're doing teaching with the students, and they're not just acting as a cop or a supervisor which also happens in some of our internal suspension rooms.

I've heard of a model in Park View High School that is proving to be very successful. Over the last number of months, teachers are talking about students who were suspended, kept in school, and the teacher kept up with the lessons every day, the homework requirements, and when students went back in the classroom they were surprised to see, in fact, the students were right up to par with those in the classroom. I'm wondering, is the department looking at models like this? They're a little bit more demanding, obviously, of financial resources, but again improving the environment in our schools and keeping students in our schools is very, very critical. I'm wondering, has the minister been taking a look at

[Page 353]

some ways to improve school climate and the area of discipline and success with suspensions?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, the member raises again another very important part of a student's day in school and a teacher's day in school. We recognize that if students aren't in class and if they're not engaged in the learning process, then we can't expect them to make progress academically. So the full notion of suspension from a classroom takes on new meaning - no longer do we encourage or even support out-of-school suspensions, unless it's a very severe situation and the safety of the student or other students certainly would play into that.

What has evolved over the years is that teachers and administrators have recognized that, so they've tried to make sure that, for example, if a student's behaviour is disruptive to the classroom, we recognize that there has to be some measure where that student perhaps is removed from the classroom but not necessarily from the school environment. What has happened is that many boards, Mr. Chairman, have implemented in-school suspensions, and in-school suspensions, of course, allow for the student to continue on with their learning but in an environment where they are not disrupting the others in the class and where they are, again, still able to continue on with their learning.

We have some boards - one board in particular that has an in-school suspension program in all of their high schools, and in fact they have a system where students may come out of their school and go to a school suspension classroom where there are several other students there who have been suspended, but there is a teacher there responsible for those students and, of course, the ratio there is a better ratio, more individual attention and so on. I think it's acknowledging that we have challenges and students have challenges, but we also have responsibilities. We have to make sure that we try to keep those students engaged and at the same time give them some counselling, or some remediation I guess, with their behaviour so that they can be integrated back into the classroom successfully.

The PEBS program, the Positive and Effective Behaviour Supports program, that we have in many of our schools and are expanding, is a very encouraging model. It does address, as the name says, positive behaviour - reinforcing positive behaviour rather than punishing negative behaviour. So that approach appears to be working, Mr. Chairman, and of course, overarching all of that, the department does have a code of conduct within that, and under that umbrella each board would have their own discipline policies and procedures. One of the ways, again, that we try to keep students who are disengaged active is to provide those supports on the site rather than out-of-school suspension.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Madam Minister, for that overview. It seems like we've had a bit of a natural evolution around just having students go to a classroom with a rotation of teachers, to a dedicated teacher who, in fact, is very involved and instrumental in keeping the work of the students up. So we know that we need to keep our students in school.

[Page 354]

There was an issue that was in the media during the past year - and I don't remember right off the actual statistics, but the absenteeism level in some Cape Breton schools was brought to the media and I'm sure, a concern of parents, the school administrators, central office and the school board, and I'm wondering if the minister was involved with that or if the board and central office looked after that. But when you have the numbers which were, I believe, in the range of 100 to 200 students with 30 to 40 per cent absenteeism - and I'm prepared to have the minister correct me on those figures since it is a little time and I hadn't really prepared for that question today, but it is one that came to me because as we talk about discipline, decorum and making sure that, you know, taxpayer dollars are developing the strongest public education system, so I'm wondering if the minister could comment if she had any connection to that event.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I guess really I can go back and refer to something that I spoke of just in the previous question and that is if students are not in the classroom and they're not engaged in the learning process, then obviously no learning is taking place. So whether it's suspension because of behaviour or whatever, or whether it's absenteeism from the classroom, those are serious concerns. We have to take every step we can to make sure that we do have our students in the classroom with a teacher as much of the instructional time as we possibly can. So the notion of absenteeism is a real issue.

[7:15 p.m.]

Just to let you know, Mr. Chairman, some of the things that we're doing, principals have come together - this, although it was highlighted in some Cape Breton schools, it's not unique to Cape Breton schools, it is an issue in every school, in every high school, so the principals of our schools have come together to look at what the issue is and what some solutions to that might be. We have attendance policies and we look at strategies to keep students in school, but what's happening right now is we have the people who are on the ground and working with these students, i.e., the principals coming together with a healthy debate, looking at best practices, looking at what is fair to the students but also what is fair to the teachers who have a responsibility to deliver a program, and to see students move through that program successfully - and when they are not in the classroom, it is very difficult for that to happen.

So I am looking forward to the outcome of the principals' debate, and that committee, as I said, will be recommending some changes or some direction that either we, at the provincial level, or the boards can go to make sure that that problem not only doesn't continue but that we have fewer students who are absent from our classrooms.

MR. GLAVINE: Just one, perhaps, last question and then just maybe a comment to end off with before the minister makes some closing remarks.

[Page 355]

There is, again, a lot of attention being drawn to the delivery of math programs in this province. It's not just about teacher backgrounds and qualifications to teach math, but the semestering versus the year-long delivery of math is getting a great deal of attention. We know some students, because of their interest and propensity toward math, will take two courses a year and therefore, in effect, even with semestering they are getting year-long math instruction. Also the fact that semestering does, by its very nature, speed up the presentation of concepts and perhaps a lot less time for practice and for making sure that students are well- grounded before moving on to the next higher- level concept, since it's a sequential process. So I am wondering, has the department, or has the minister, had discussions around year-long math for all of our high school students in Nova Scotia?

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, it's not the first time we have heard about the problems or the concerns with math; it was brought to my attention when the math results from Grade 12 were released last year. Those math results showed less than favourable results for Grade 12 math and advanced math. As I have said before, whenever we have an assessment, what you do with the results is just as important as doing the assessment, because the assessment is really to help you plan for the future.

So we looked at those results and we tried to determine what might have contributed to those poor results. The first thing we determined, it was not the students. We have excellent students in this province, so for people to make a quick assumption that it was the responsibility of the student and it was their fault the scores were not good was absolutely wrong, and we wanted to dismiss that. The next thing was, what about the teachers? Again, we have very dedicated, committed teachers in our classrooms so you had to keep looking at what may have contributed to this, and the next thing you look at is curriculum. We recognized that in our math curriculum there was a lot of material for teachers and students to cover, so we had to go back and look at what were the absolute essential outcomes and make sure that we did a few things well, that we looked at core essential outcomes and had teachers focus on those.

The fourth thing, I guess, that we looked at were the number of students who wrote the math exams - the advanced math and the Grade 12 regular math. We know that about 20 per cent of our student population is probably able and capable to handle an advanced program - that's a round figure but it's about 20 per cent of your population.

When we looked at the number of students who wrote the advanced math on that particular set of exams, 41 per cent of the students in Grade 12 wrote the advanced math. So then you start looking at that and say, well if it is designed for 20 per cent of your students and 41 per cent wrote, maybe that has contributed to the results that we got. So as staff looked at that, it became quite obvious that if you have about 20 per cent of the students who are in a program that is perhaps too challenging for them, their chances of success are less and their marks are going to bring the average mark for that particular exam down. That

[Page 356]

same 20 per cent, had they been in a program that would be more suited to their ability, i.e., the regular Grade 12 math, would have done well and brought those scores up.

So that is one of the things that we looked at and then the challenge is, okay, how do we help students make a choice in a course that is most suited to their ability? We tried to work with teachers and with students. The classroom teachers and the guidance counsellors in the schools are the people who can best help students with their course selections - so that was one of the steps we took there.

The other thing we did when we looked at math was we knew that our scores in English Language Arts had been improving over a number of years and so we looked at what we were doing there, and is there a model we are following there that we can apply to math. That takes us to the assessment. We were doing assessments at Grades 3, 6 and 9, identifying areas of concern in Grade 3, putting mentors in place to help bridge that gap and then tracking those students to see if that made a difference, and we found that it did. We decided that we would apply that same model for math, and so we introduced assessments in math at Grade 3 and we will move it through Grades 6 and 9.

The other thing that we are doing, recognizing again that time is important, we increased the amount of instructional day that students spend on math and we increased that to 60 minutes a day, more professional development for teachers, math mentors and, again, all of the supports that we could put in to help address the problem and help the students be more successful with their math program.

MR. GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, just to end off with a comment and allow the minister time to wrap up and conclude her twelve hours on a good note, I guess. First of all I would like to see the minister and the department, despite what the minister has talked about in terms of appropriate courses and assessments, I believe year-long math in our schools would go a very long way to improving our math scores and, more importantly, math in terms of the subject base for so many careers and preparation for university and community college.

Also, I think we need to see O2 courses more quickly accelerated, expanded in our schools, but also some form of reach down into junior high. Junior high is still one of our problem areas in P to 12, and I think an appropriate junior high program with some of the hands-on type of experience that O2 can give will be very positive.

The other one thing that I would like to mention is that I believe at Grade 9 it is not just an assessment that we need of some of the subject areas but we need to look at aptitude of students and we need to help them do some planning for their high school - I believe there is a real gap there in having students reviewed well before taking their high school courses and giving them a plan.

[Page 357]

I would just like to end off by thanking the minister and her staff for the 12 hours, and I know there are a number of us in the House who have teaching in our backgrounds but I would recommend to all members, if they don't, to get out to our schools and see some of the phenomenal things that are happening, because any time you are having a bad day go into one of our schools.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now recognize the honourable minister to close the debate on her estimates.

MS. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with the member opposite, that if you want to have a good day, if you want to feel good about yourself and feel that you are making a difference, go into a classroom. There is nothing any more rewarding than a career in education and the good days certainly outweigh the bad days, so I would encourage all of you in your second career to take up education, take up teaching. We've provided you a number of options now for your teacher training program, so I'll be interested to see how many are taking it on.

I do want to take this opportunity to thank the members opposite for their questions during the estimates. I do hope my responses have helped clarify, provide information and a better understanding of what does take place in our department. It is a large department and we have a responsibility for learners - from the early learners, age four, and up to the adult learners. That's a broad range, and so it is a very responsible department and it's a responsibility we take very seriously.

With respect to the budget, it is the second largest budget in the government - $1.49 billion total - that's our public schools, P to 12, our community colleges and our universities. That is a huge budget and it serves about 135,000 students in our public schools, 42,000 in our universities, and about 10,000 in our community colleges. It does touch every community, it touches every family, it touches every part of this province.

I'm very pleased and proud to be part of that department and hope that some of the activities that we have undertaken have made things better for that total student population.

I would like to thank my two staff members, who are here with me, for their extra support and information that they provided during the questioning, for my staff who are in the gallery and the staff back at the department who certainly work with me to make education in this province something we can be proud of.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E4 stand?

Resolution E4 stands.

[Page 358]

Resolution E5 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $230,511,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Assistance to Universities, Department of Education, pursuant to the Estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E5 carry?

Resolution E5 is carried.

That concludes the debate on the estimates of the Department of Education.

The time allotted for debate on the Committee of the Whole House on Supply has now expired.

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. CHUCK PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I move that you now do rise and the committee report progress.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

[The committee adjourned at 7:29 p.m.]