HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012

 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

3:05 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Becky Kent

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Committee of the Whole House on Supply will come to order. We are debating Resolution Nos. 3 and 33 of the Department of Community Services and the Department of Seniors.

 

There are 16 minutes remaining for the member for Dartmouth North.

 

MR. TREVOR ZINCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am pleased to have a little bit of time to finish up my last hour. Sadly, however, for such a large piece of the budget I have only two hours allotted, as an Independent member, and on such an important topic.

 

For the next 16 minutes I'm just going to go on a little bit of a ramble, bring up a couple of different subjects that I think are key and important to future developments in the province and to this department in particular and to communities around Nova Scotia. Perhaps the minister can make some notes and we can go on to continue our conversations outside the Chamber and throughout the department in future.

 

I began my deliberations the other day mentioning a number of individuals who assist constituents of mine and constituents around HRM who I deal with through my office. I failed to mention a few so I'm just going to rhyme off a few more names of individuals who have assisted my office; from the Portland Street office, case workers Michael Wall who has been in the business of doing casework and helping individuals for over 15 years. Janet Langille is a senior member of staff over there. Janet puts in a consistent effort and I'm pretty sure she has well over 30-plus years.

 

485

 

Kevin Cleveland, Clyde Raynard, two gentlemen who we have some very good conversations with. They are very fair, very policy-oriented but also have that approach of building relationships with their clients. Tanya Rodgers and Affy Sparks. I want to make mention of two senior members as well who are out with serious illnesses and have been for quite some time but they were valuable members of the team over there, Deborah Wilton and Debbie Murray. Both ladies are tremendous to work with and have been a real asset to the Dartmouth team.

 

I bring up caseworkers for a number of reasons and the importance that we recognize them. It is simply because over the years those of us in Opposition have heard about caseloads and the stresses of caseloads. In the Portland Street office it's probably up around 200 cases per caseworker. Sometimes the general public don't understand the stresses and pressures that they deal with. Some of the changes that governments make to policies, they are the frontline people who bear the brunt when individuals call them out of concern and frustration, so I want to recognize those individuals.

 

There's another organization in my community, Holy Trinity Church and the congregation there that run a clothing bank. They do a breakfast program for Harbour View Elementary and they also do a Christmas hamper program at Christmastime, so I want to recognize the membership and congregation of the Holy Trinity Church.

 

Another important entity - and actually it is in the constituency of the member for Dartmouth South - but they do a tremendous amount of service for a number of individuals and constituents of mine in Dartmouth North and that is the folks and friends at Feeding Others of Dartmouth and Margaret's House. Margaret's House provides meals at lunchtime and in evenings on a number of days through the week. For those folks who unfortunately don't get enough funding to be able to afford meals or don't receive enough funding for food from food banks, Margaret's House and Feeding Others of Dartmouth have really been a great asset in making sure that individuals receive nourishing meals. I just want to take a couple of moments and recognize those folks because I did miss them the other day.

 

A topic that I talked about last year and the year before was I think we need to do a real better job at recognizing those individuals, men and women, who are coming out of our prison systems and don't have the ability right away to find employment or housing. I know I've made mention of this in the last two budgets in both Justice and Community Services. A lot of times what happens is these folks come out of the prison system and obviously they've served time for certain offences but they are coming back into our communities.

 

When they come back into our communities and they are not able to navigate or negotiate the system, oftentimes we have a cycle that is created. It's not easy to deal with some of these particular cases and individuals but if we don't, they end up back in the justice system which really is a great cost to taxpayers.

 

When we look at an individual who is coming out of the prison system, if they're on any sort of medication they are usually given about seven days worth of medication and then they're brought out into society to make their way. If they don't have proper housing or a link to find housing, if they don't have a link to find income, it's a very difficult situation for communities to deal with these individuals. Again, as I said, the process is repeated. They have three square meals when they are inside, they are housed, they have room for exercise, they have medical attention, education, but when they come out into society again they don't necessarily have the supports.

 

Through income assistance, which many of these individuals, or a lot of them, come to us to link them up with, oftentimes the process is difficult, it's not as seamless as it could be. You know: when was the last time you filed your taxes - well I've been inside for last three years, and getting that extra information to caseworkers so that the process can be seamless.

 

It's an opportunity, I think, for the department and the minister to have conversations with her colleague at Justice to see if there is a possible way that we can be working with these folks while they are inside awaiting release so that once they are out that piece is in place and they are confident that they don't have to go back to the criminal element.

 

I want to talk briefly about the Housing Strategy, I know it's important. I know the federal government and the recent announcement has basically written a cheque and given the province the opportunity to fill a void where the province sees its needs to be met. I think it is a wonderful opportunity but it is a very important opportunity that we can't make a mistake on. I know I've worked, like I said, in past with a number of individuals in and around the housing piece. We've had great conversations and actually, Madam Minister, I know that there is a landlord in my community that is on the cusp of receiving a rental RRAP grant and I very much appreciate the department for working with that individual. We're about to see 23 units stay affordable for the next 15 years and it's not a new building, it's a renovation of an older builder. The gentleman has also purchased another building which has 23 more units of bachelor and one-bedroom apartments that hopefully in the future we can fix that up.

 

That affordability piece is so critical, as I mentioned the other day, when it comes to dealing with individuals who are suffering from mental health and addiction issues. If you ask anyone who is working in those sectors, in the addiction sector or with mental health clients, I guarantee you they hear it daily that I'm not able to afford my medication, or I'm not able to afford a proper diet because I'm paying so much in my rent. That is why I took the time the other day to bring up the shelter component and that one piece that will allow these folks to deal with and take those strides towards better overall health and well-being.

 

The Housing Strategy and the monies - I do want to throw one caution out there, I know in the past I've been critical of governments, the Progressive Conservative Government in particular in 2006 and 2007, wanting and pressing to find out where the federal monies went to. We had promised a number of units, 1,500 at the time, and we received only around 500 to 600. I put a lot of pressure on the then minister to come up with why that money wasn't spent to create affordability. One of the criticisms I also had was centred around giving big developers funding through the affordable housing funds and the timelines that we put in place to ensure that those developers keep that money or those units affordable. At the time, it was 10 years, back in 2006 and now it's up to 15, which is fantastic. However, with the Irving Shipbuilding contract, the call for the municipality and high density in the downtown core, we will see large developments.

 

I know the minister in her comments the other day directly stated that we have a wonderful opportunity to move some individuals of certain incomes and certain abilities and seniors and disabled into units and surround them by other folks with different levels of income and that's fantastic. I want to say that I'd like to see a portion of that funding and I know the last round with the funding that came down, we had two years to throw some money to the co-ops.

 

We built some new units for the disabled and seniors. I think we really need to keep that up, especially knowing that we have an aging population. We need seniors living with seniors. We might want to look at perhaps sometimes having a building designed specifically just for seniors and remove that age waiver. I've had a lot of comments from seniors who just want to live with seniors, not individuals who are 45 or 55 who we've waived, they want to be in amongst people their own age.

 

As I said, I've recently met with a number of seniors who are really concerned, who are looking at going into seniors' housing but they want to be comfortable. We have a real opportunity there and as I stated in my conversation the other day, I will continue to work with the folks in head office in and around those pieces whenever and wherever I can.

 

The daycare strategy, we've heard a lot of talk during the budget deliberations about private and the non-profit sector. This has been an issue going back for a number of years, my tenure in the House for sure. I think again with the Irving contract, it's very important and I'm encouraged that the government is going to go through a process of consultations. I think it's very important to have a balance, a real balance here.

 

If we're going to have folks come back to Nova Scotia, if we're going to have folks relocate here or immigrate here and they're going to benefit from the jobs that are going to come, they're going to have their family set up, they're going to want options when it comes to daycare, they're going to want spots, obviously, in subsidized daycare. They're going to want good daycare for their children, qualified individuals who in the past, sometimes society thinks that maybe they're just merely babysitters. I think part of the discussion has to be in and about balance and options for parents who are willing to look for quality daycare services.

 

The other factor I want to make mention and we haven't heard it much in the last couple of years, maybe it's a sign that it has been rectified in some way but these individuals who look after our children are dedicated, they are educated and they deserve a fair wage. As I said, I haven't heard much as far as discussions around increases in their wage or the desire to have respect, as of late. I think it's still something that with the demand for daycare coming, as the economy improves, I think we still have to go back and recognize these individuals for the efforts and the work they do.

 

I also want to make mention about the importance of early education when it comes to preschool children. I know there have been a number of discussions, Fraser Mustard for one, over the years, often talked about the importance of giving a young child as much information and opportunity to develop and grow, both body and mind, before they enter the elementary school situation.

 

I think it's a real opportunity, when you go around the province and you have these discussions, that we consider an opportunity to do that, to give parents that ability to educate their kids and when they go in the elementary school they are prepared, they are really prepared to learn.

 

In February 2010, we saw Target 100, the initiative Target 100 come out. I know last year I asked the minister a question as to where it is. That was an opportunity and a partnership with the Co-operative Council that the government had struck up. I believe it was a three-year contract for approximately 100 positions that could possibly be filled. I haven't heard anything on it, I actually have a request in to Dan Troke on some actual numbers of that.

I believe the last time I asked a question last year the minister said there were approximately 14 people who have had the uptake on that. I think it's a real opportunity to grow and identify those individuals who are on income assistance to be employable. I think having access to an ESS worker almost immediately -and I know we've heard discussions that it takes up to three months to be linked up with an ESS worker, I think it's really important if we have an individual who might have a disability of some sort, but it can be mediated or remedied with other supports, I think we have to get these folks involved. Yes, it will put more money in their pockets.

 

The Childhood Obesity Prevention Strategy that's coming out is a very, very important one I'm waiting for. We see a lot of parents who either don't know how to prepare meals, how to properly shop for nutritional food and our children who sometimes live in poverty, it's easier to survive on a high-carb diet and they're not getting the nutritional good. I'm really looking forward to that and I hope you, as the minister, have had an opportunity.

 

At this point I'm going to wrap up my comments by thanking the minister and her staff again for coming out. Again this year I did not see the deputy minister - and it's the 7th time debating the budget - come out for the budget. Hopefully next year he will come out and join us for conversation. Thank you.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Bedford-Birch Cove.

 

MS. KELLY REGAN: Madam Chairman, the Liberal caucus is prepared to call for the resolution on this. My colleague may have some more questions, but we are ready.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

 

MR. KEITH BAIN: Madam Chairman, I just have a few questions I would like to ask the minister before we wrap up with her department. It's just a follow-up to some of the discussions that had taken place today and it's concerning the FOIPOP process more than anything else, I guess.

 

I know that the minister said in Question Period that she released the Talbot House report because of a FOIPOP request from the media. I guess the first question I would like to ask is, is this a common practice, that if a request comes in from the media, that it's automatically posted on the government Web site at the same time before the media even has a chance do anything with it?

 

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Madam Chairman, since it's a FOIPOP - I had said the day before that we received a FOIPOP and requests from the media and that's what I intended on saying today. I would not know who the FOIPOP came from, so we had a FOIPOP request and we also had media requests. That is why we made the decision that we wanted to be able to provide it as public. We went back to the board of directors and we discussed that with them, that we felt this was the best course of action for us to take because there would be the media enquiry and there would be, as we all know that often government is accused of not being transparent and trying to hide something, that happens quite a few times. We wanted to make sure, that was the only motivation here, the fact that we wanted to make sure that we had that opportunity to post it.

 

As I said, originally we weren't going to do that, it wasn't our intention at all until we received that media request and also that a FOIPOP had come through, so we thought it was better to post it so people would see the transparency. The other reason would be that this is an organizational review and we've done that with Braemore, very similar, I think it's a good correlation to look at the Braemore organizational review. There are a lot of issues with Braemore, a lot of issues with individual staff people within the Braemore report and it was the same procedure that we followed, nothing different whatsoever.

 

I have to say I find it extremely, extremely disappointing that the member opposite and the Progressive Conservative Party are taking this to the limits that they are. I do know what the motivations are in terms of politics and wanting a constituency back that used to be Progressive Conservative for 10 years. No, don't give me a look that you don't know that's what it's all about, I know exactly what it's all about. That was an organizational review no different than any other organizational review that the Department of Community Services would have done when you were in government. I'm sure we can go back in the history books and look at other organizational reviews that followed exactly the same procedures because we're working with a lot of the same staff that you had when you were in government who would have been following those procedures.

 

Also, as I mentioned, the legislation that we have followed, in terms of the daycare situation, was legislation that has been in existence since 1996, the Progressive Conservative Party asked us for a copy of that and we have provided that, but they stand in the House and say it's a make- believe protocol. It exists and anybody who wants it, we can provide it to them.

 

I also want to clarify what the differences and the similarities are between the two cases that the members opposite continually bring up. With respect to Talbot House, that was an organizational review and I have stood in this House and I have said we received a letter of complaint. It is our job when we receive any letters of complaint, regardless of what they're about, to look into it further to find out - we wouldn't be doing our due diligence if we didn't and then something would happen and then we would be standing here trying to defend why we didn't take it to the next step. So we did the same thing that we have always done, we would go to the board of directors and because of the complaint, we felt that we were in the right to do an organizational review and that's exactly what we did. We did not have the legal authority to investigate any further than that.

 

With respect to the daycare, we followed the protocol that I am referring to in the legislation of 1996. That is the current issue that was presented to us, it was from allegations that were 42 years old. We do not have the legal right to investigate something that happened 42 years ago, but we do have the legislative right, when it's concerning children and that's what the difference is here, we have the legal, legislated right when it's involving children to investigate on current issues and that is exactly what we did. We did an investigation - or a review, I should say, whatever terminology you want to use - within the department to find out whether there were any recent, current allegations with respect to the person that was named in the historical allegation. There was absolutely nothing in the Child Abuse Registry, there was absolutely nothing in our files that indicated that there was an issue for us to take forward, so therefore that is why we did not call the daycare because we did not have any current evidence.

 

The historical part, as I have said in the House, is the responsibility of the RCMP and that is why the RCMP has set up a special RCMP task force to investigate the historical allegations surrounding this. As I have also said in the House, I tabled several articles that indicated that the daycare was aware of the allegations. I only can assume that they found the same thing as us, that there was no current evidence, so they could not take it any further.

 

I do know that through all this, it is an awful shame of what people have had to listen to, what they've had to hear. In terms of the daycare, I know that the East Preston Day Care has a stellar reputation over the years in that community and this has hit them very hard. That is why I have asked for the members opposite to have a little bit of compassion and empathy. You may want to take me out politically, but do not take out the people . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just want to remind all members that while this committee is somewhat more relaxed on the use of "you" and the collegial kind of debate that would go back and forth between members. When it becomes beyond the consideration of Supply and estimates, I would just be mindful of where the debate and comments are going and perhaps just come back to presenting your remarks to the Chair. Thank you.

 

The honourable Minister of Community Services.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Certainly, thank you, Madam Chairman. I wanted to take the opportunity again to explain each and every step that we took and that each and every step that we took was within our authority and were absolutely appropriate steps. There is no need to read anymore into it than that. Thank you.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, through you to the minister, I just want to tell her that the Progressive Conservative Party is not targeting her seat. I think the government opposite and the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party would like to get all 52 seats in this province. To say that we're specifically targeting the minister's constituency might be perceived as that she's our target, well, I don't think that's so.

 

I'd like to, if I could, the minister referenced the review at Braemore Home, so I'd like to talk for a few minutes about that if I could. The minister has said and she said it in her remarks when she first got up in response to my first question that the review that took place at Talbot House is no different than the review that took place at Braemore. I can see a difference, Madam Chairman, in that the review that was done on Talbot House, from my understanding, was done by the department, it was a departmental review of the operations of Talbot House. It is also my understanding that the review that was done on Braemore was by a third party. I guess my question to the minister is, am I correct in that, that the Talbot House was done by the department, but the Braemore review was done by a third party, if she could confirm if that is correct and can she tell me why it was done that way?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Madam Chairman, the Braemore report was a third-party report, okay, but we have done many reviews in the department that are similar to that one, so if you are feeling that that wasn't a good example because it was a third party, we have done a Shelburne Workshop that we've done internal reviews. We could actually, what I can do for you is we will go through the list of reviews that we have done in our department over the last number of years and we will have those available to you, to show you that this is a normal course of action in the Department of Community Services when we have a concern, that we would go forward and do a review in the same manner as the one that was done for Talbot House. So we will table that information.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, again, through you to the minister, the minister keeps referring to the commonalities between Braemore and Talbot House. Again, Talbot House was done by a third party, so I guess my question to the minister would be, why was Braemore done by a third party?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Madam Chairman, with respect to Braemore we made the decision that we would do it through a third party. With Talbot House - it depends on the circumstances that are in front of you at the time and Talbot House, as I said over and over, is no different than other program reviews that we have done. We would sit together with senior management and make a decision of what's the evidence, what is the complaint about and whether it's necessary to take it to a third party level or to do it internally. Those types of decisions are made on a regular basis, such as when your Party was in government.

 

I'm sure when we go back over the list we will see reviews that your former ministers would have made a decision that they would do an internal review within the department, or made a decision to go externally, so it depends on the information that is before us.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, so in reality then the minister is not correct in saying that the Braemore review is the same as what took place at Talbot House, because she just answered that. I'm going to ask just two more questions, Madam Chairman, and it goes back to the FOIPOP and the requests coming in and the action that her department has taken as a result of that. Is it common practice of her department that every time a request for a FOIPOP comes in that that is put on the government Web site?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Of course not, not for every FOIPOP that would come in, but it depends on, once again, the circumstances. You're talking about an organizational review, so the decision was made and I explained why that decision was made, so I'm not going to go through that again. It depends on what the circumstances are surrounding what we're doing and that was an organizational review. We have done that before and we'll do it in the future.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, I wonder if the minister, through you, could tell me if the Braemore Home review was put on the government Web site, if there was a FOIPOP request?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Madam Chairman, the Braemore review was put on-line. There was no FOIPOP request with respect to that. I know that the member opposite is trying to draw a difference in comparison by saying that because I said that Braemore was third party therefore it was different, it was different in that aspect. What is the same is that it is an organizational review, they're the same in the fact that you're going through and reviewing the operations of the organization to see if they are meeting the standards that have been set out within an agreement between the Department of Community Services and the organization itself.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, again, through you, I'm just wondering if the minister could table any specific examples of people who were pointed out in the Braemore review, if she would be willing to table that?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Madam Chairman, yes, we can certainly table that report, that review and then they'll be able to see how that organizational review was set up.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, I thank the minister for that. At this point I think that will conclude the questioning by the Progressive Conservative Party.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Community Services to offer some closing remarks and to put her resolution on the floor.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Madam Chairman, thank you, I appreciate that. What I'd like to say is as a government we must account for how we invest Nova Scotians' money and show how we continue to make life better for families while bringing Nova Scotia back to balance. Although estimates is about the numbers, for me, it's the people behind those numbers who really count.

 

Through the Department of Community Services we touch the lives of 40,000 people in every part of the province every year. These are the people you see every day in the grocery store, walking down the street, with their kids at the playground. These are the individuals or families whose quality of life is better thanks to our housing programs, our programs to support families, or our income support and employment training programs.

 

Since 2009, we've created, preserved or constructed more than 1,400 affordable housing units to help the 27,500 Nova Scotians who rely on affordable housing. There are 30,000 people benefiting from the improvements we've made to income assistance programs such as increased personal allowances, increased wage exemptions and improved cohabitation rules that will allow families to build stable relationships without losing support.

 

Today, 24,000 families and their 40,000 children are better off because of the significant investments we've made in the Nova Scotia Child Benefit. The province's 800 foster families are receiving more financial supports to help care for the foster children they so kindly and selflessly bring into their homes. Children are getting a great start in life thanks to more child care subsidies. We've also given child care operators an additional $7 million to build on the care options available to parents.

 

We've invested significant money in programs addressing homelessness and we continue to invest to the tune of $5 million to make it easier for our disabled clients to live at home in their apartment or with a foster family. These are the real people, the real Nova Scotians who are helped by the money we are talking about here today in estimates.

 

Madam Chairman, this government acknowledges the fiscal challenges we face and yet we are keeping our commitments to Nova Scotians to make life a little better and more affordable. We are doing that with reason, compassion and with discipline. I am proud to be part of a government that puts people first and recognizes we can and must live within our means, yet still provide programs and services that support Nova Scotians who are most in need. We can do this because of the leadership of our Premier. With his guidance we are carrying out our plan of fiscal responsibility while making life a little better for families in every region.

 

The Department of Community Services has submitted a budget request to this House for just under $978 million. This request is on behalf of thousands of Community Services clients, our hundreds of service providers, our stakeholders, and our staff. Our numbers are big and they have to be. As I mentioned, we touch the lives of a lot of people. As I said earlier, 40,000 Nova Scotians look to the Department of Community Services for support and every single one of that 40,000 is at the forefront of our minds as we make some significant investments this year.

 

While some initiatives have come to an end, like the Economic Stimulus Program, which injected $18 million into last year's budget, others, as I spoke of earlier, are expanding or improving, the increases to the Nova Scotia Child Benefit and changes to income assistance and housing programs to name a few.

 

Like last year, we are increasing the personal allowance rate for income assistance recipients by $9 per month. That's on top of last year's $15 per month increase. The amount will increase from $229 a month to $238 a month. Once again we are increasing the funding for community-based programs for persons with disabilities. This will help more people live independently and remain in their community where they already have positive relationships, connections, routines and memories.

 

Because of these changes, fewer people have to start over in a new environment and more can remain contributing members of their community. This is good for individuals and it is good for their families who want to see their loved ones live and thrive in their communities.

 

We're also investing specifically in children. The Nova Scotia Child Benefit goes to all low-income families to help them with the cost of raising children under the age of 18. This year the province will increase the monthly benefit by 5 per cent, which represents a two-year increase of almost $200 per child. This is on top of last year's $4.8 million investment. Thanks to last year's commitment to increase child care subsidies, we now have 1,000 more subsidies available.

 

This means more families have access to affordable child care and it means giving more children a great start in life while their parents provide for their families by remaining or re-entering the workforce or attending school. These are significant investments to make life better for Nova Scotia families which in turn strengthen our communities and our province. That's good for all Nova Scotians.

 

I am proud of what our department is committing to and the work that has been done in the short time I've been the Minister of Community Services. Our financial situation won't allow us to do everything we wish to do, but that won't stop us. We will continue to make the right decisions for Nova Scotia families.

 

I know I have many, many staff people and I've asked Dave to write some names down but he's continuing. I'm sure you won't want me to stand here and list everyone. I will make sure that I contact them personally to thank them for all the work. It takes an awful lot of work to put this together, the budget information and all the work they do each and every day in the department. It is an incredible amount.

 

I do want to recognize a few people that work with me every day that make a huge difference. Firstly, I would like to thank my secretarial assistant, my right-hand lady, Lynda Tabbiner. We have other secretarial assistants in the office who are the heartbeat of the office, in our main office, and that is Kim Chartrand, Linda Butler-Fox and Rhonda Judge-Parsons and Sonia is a recent addition. One other person that I need to mention who is moving on to LAE, Marilyn More, the minister, they're very fortunate is Kristen Tynes- MacEachern who is our director of communications.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, I just want to remind the minister that you are not allowed to reference a member of the Legislature by their proper name. Just the portfolio they represent or their constituency. Thank you.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Okay, so you're not allowed to mention a staff person's name?

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: No, you referenced . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Oh the minister, I'm sorry I apologize. So the director of communications Kristen Tynes-MacEachern who is actually going to LAE and there are many others on my list. I want to thank both Dave and George for being here because as I said it takes a lot of effort to pull this together. I will certainly contact my other staff members to let them know just how much I appreciate each and every one of them and I would be remiss in not mentioning our new Deputy Minister Rob Wood.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E3 stand?

 

The resolution stands.

 

Resolution E33 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,871,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Seniors, pursuant to the Estimate.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall E33 carry?

 

The resolution is carried.

 

We'll now take a brief break to change staff and bring in the Minister of Labour and Advanced Education.

 

[3:51 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[3:56 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We will begin the Estimates of the Department of Labour and Advanced Education.

 

Resolution E13 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $346,208,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Labour and Advanced Education.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now invite the Minister of Labour and Advanced Education to make some opening comments and also if she wishes to introduce her staff to the committee.

 

The honourable Minister of Labour and Advanced Education.

 

HON. MARILYN MORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. I'm pleased to share with you and the members, details of the important work underway at the Department of Labour and Advanced Education. I'm joined here today by our Deputy Minister, Sandra McKenzie and our Manager of Financial Services, Laurie Bennett. Following a brief overview of the department - "brief" in quotations I should say - I would be happy to take questions from the committee members.

 

The Department of Labour and Advanced Education has several elements and we help many Nova Scotians every single day.

 

Following a brief overview of the department, I'd be pleased to answer questions. We have our traditional mandate and expertise in the areas of occupational health and safety, public safety and labour relations. Our efforts to build a skilled workforce in Nova Scotia continue through the combined efforts of our Higher Education Branch and our Skills and Learning Branch, as well as our jobsHere partners across government and across the province.

 

Through our Skills and Learning Branch, the department oversees Apprenticeship Programming, Adult and Workplace Education, and Employment Nova Scotia. Employment Nova Scotia manages skills upgrading that helps Nova Scotians fulfill their employment and earning potential. Employment Nova Scotia also manages our involvement in jobsHere, as well as our federal-provincial initiatives - the Labour Market Development Agreement, the Labour Market Agreement and the Target Initiative for older workers.

 

On March 29^th, Her Honour, the former Lieutenant Governor, referred to a number of initiatives in the Speech from the Throne that our department will implement in the coming year. These initiatives reinforce the province's plans to make life better for Nova Scotians. This includes living within our means, creating good jobs and growing the economy, and maintaining a high-quality, affordable and sustainable post-secondary education system. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, providing Nova Scotians with the information they need to make informed decisions about the career opportunities that they wish to pursue; training Nova Scotian workers to use the latest technology and work practices; making us more competitive around the corner and around the world; continuing Nova Scotia's tradition of stable labour relations; building a culture of safety in all workplaces across the province; improving our Student Assistance Program; and keeping tuition for undergraduate Nova Scotians at or below the national average.

 

Our department is a key partner in this government's jobsHere initiative. Last year we released two strategies that support jobsHere - our Immigration Strategy, Welcome Home to Nova Scotia, and the Nova Scotia Workforce Strategy. Last year we learned the Irving shipyards was a successful bidder for the 30-year, $25 billion combat ships contract. This is a game-changer that will have a profound and positive effect on Nova Scotia's economy and on life across Nova Scotia. It will improve the lives of Nova Scotians in ways that we can scarcely imagine. For example, approximately 700 electricians, metal fabricators, sheet metal workers, welders, carpenters, steam fitters, pipe fitters and millwrights will be needed over the life of the project - all over and above the normal market demand for these trades.

 

Our government is making the necessary investments to have a skilled and experienced workforce ready for these opportunities. The public sector school program will introduce a high school-level trades training and the Nova Scotia Community College will further tailor its offerings to meet industry demands. Where we do not have enough trade workers here at home to meet the demand, we are attracting the best and the brightest from across Canada and around the world to share in our good fortune. In addition to those factory-floor opportunities, our universities will develop the engineers, the business leaders and the visionaries needed to turn contracts and concepts into Canada's next generation naval fleet.

 

Where generations of Nova Scotians used to look West for opportunity, all of Canada and eyes around the world will now turn toward Nova Scotia. As a result of this opportunity, roughly two generations of Nova Scotians will have chances that their fathers and grandfathers lacked; they will have choices. We are putting the resources they need in place that will help them make choices that work for them. For example, we've recently launched a new Web site called careers.novascotia.ca that brings together resources and Web sites from across government under one roof, making it easier for Nova Scotians to discover ways to attach to the workforce. It is the place to go to access information about needed skills and the learning and training opportunities available.

 

The Careers Nova Scotia Web site has information for career development, where the jobs will be, how many people are needed in that sector, et cetera - information necessary to make informed decisions that will lead to challenging and rewarding careers; careers that will provide for a family, a home and a prosperous future right here in Nova Scotia. Careers Nova Scotia is part of this government's $200 million investment in jobsHere, making sure that Nova Scotians have the skills, the knowledge and the experience they need to succeed.

 

More than ever before, we are committed to providing training for Nova Scotians. Our Workforce Strategy addresses the economic challenges and helps Nova Scotians acquire the right skills for good jobs.

 

To that end we have actively engaged Nova Scotians who need more skills to succeed. We have provided workplace education programs, adult learning opportunities and funded training for businesses that purchase new equipment or adopt new processes. We have a new Workplace Initiatives division in the department and this government is investing up to $1 million in workplace education. Workplace education is a unit of the new division that coordinates programs such as the Workplace Education Initiative, One Journey Work and Learn and One Journey at Work.

 

The Workplace Education Initiative is a nationally recognized program that is intended to improve workplace essential skills, mobility and assist career transition and continuity. Workplace education is a flexible partnership-based model which encourages government, business and labour organizations to invest in education and training, cultivating a culture of learning within workplaces. As part of the Productivity Investment Program, funding for Workplace Education Initiative was increased by $300,000 in 2010-11 and $1 million in 2011-12. We have eight regional workplace education coordinators who develop and deliver workplace education programs and employers can apply for a grant to hire their own trainers.

 

Workplace education helps companies to be more competitive and provides workers with the skills they need to meet the challenges of the new workplace. It builds capacity in organizations and individuals. The Workplace Education Initiative supports human resource planning and essential skills development in workplaces across the province with educational programs that address specific issues and use materials that are relevant to each workplace. Training takes place at the work site, usually during work hours. Workplace Education Initiative promotes learning at work and supports the development of the skilled, adaptable and competitive workforce.

 

By February 29^th the Workplace Education Initiative had delivered 195 programs and/or organizational needs assessments to 3,261 participants. That's more than twice the number of participants who benefited last year. Last year, more than 14,000 Nova Scotians got jobs after receiving coaching and other services through our department. Under our Workplace Education Initiative, we are increasing funding and the number of employers who can provide customized education and essential skills programs to their employees.

 

The Workplace Education Initiative has had a broad take-up with companies of all sizes benefiting. There have been large manufacturers like Maritime Paper Products, Peter Kohler Windows and Louisiana Pacific. Medium-sized businesses such as Elmsdale Lumber and Allendale Electronics have participated, as have small businesses like Inglis Jewellers. Programming has been sponsored by local regional development authorities and Chambers of Commerce throughout the province.

 

Workplace education programs provide an affordable partnership model to respond to the changing needs of business, to increase productivity and build worker confidence. The province pays for an assessment to determine the needs of the workplace and we provide the instructor, with business absorbing the remaining costs. Employers are enthusiastic about workplace education. Canada's favourite greengrocer, Pete Luckett says that: Workplace Education "worked with us to develop a training program customized to our staff. Employees who took part in the program are thrilled and can apply the knowledge to their work immediately."

 

Dan Clarke of outer wear manufacturer Helly Hansen told us, "As Helly Hansen transitions into new markets developing our ability to adapt to change is crucial. Workplace Education gave us the confidence to come to the change table." Janet Thomas, Minas Basin Pulp and Power, says, "People could relate to the material and bring it directly back to work."

 

Employees are also receptive to Workplace Education. Dan Francis from Pete's Frootique says, "It gave me a whole new skill set that I can apply to the job." Kevin Landry from the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal told us, "A decade ago I was a snowplough driver and now I've earned my GED diploma. Now I help other people reach their goals." Kevin is now an equipment instructor and inspector with TIR.

 

A large part of preparing tomorrow's workforce today is making sure that people possess essential workplace skills. This year the Nova Scotia School of Adult Learning, NSSAL for short, is celebrating its 10^th Anniversary. NSSAL continues to offer tuition-free services for adult learners, in English and French, in more than 140 programs at 68 sites across the province. The services range from basic literacy to high school completion. Over the past 10 years there have been thousands of enrolments and more than 4,000 graduates - a milestone to be proud of.

 

We want to attract even more Nova Scotians to NSSAL by increasing our marketing efforts and by creating a virtual school. The virtual school will make it even easier for Nova Scotians to access the skills and education they need to compete in tomorrow's job market. With our declining workforce and the demand for skilled workers expected to outstrip the supply by 2015, we will continue to further train and up-skill workers already in the province.

 

Our department is helping other departments deliver on their commitments. Take Better Health Care Sooner, for example. There has been a shortage of continuing care assistants, CCAs, in Nova Scotia. These dedicated professionals work in nursing homes, hospitals and private homes, caring for our seniors. Through One Journey and jobsHere, we have been able to meet the needs of the health care sector. The program is called LINK. Participants are interviewed and trained and then go right to work in the industry. By the end of their training, graduates earn their high school certificate and a Nova Scotia Community College certificate. Last year we had 156 graduates of the program, all of whom had a job offer waiting for them. The success of these programs is reflected in comments we've received from participants and employers.

 

Marcella Gale of Amherst is a CCA who graduated from the program. She says: Taking the CCA course has been the most rewarding step in my life. It not only improved my communication skills but also my knowledge of what a CCA position is all about. I'd like to thank everyone involved for this opportunity.

 

Similarly, Robin Fage, RN, Director of Health Care Services at Gables Lodge in Amherst, says: Gables is proud to have been part of this initiative and the completion of this course will prove to be a huge asset to our facility. This will most definitely help relieve the staffing issues that we are experiencing not only at Gables Lodge but with CCA positions in long-term care throughout Cumberland County.

 

I should mention, Mr. Chairman, the LINK program is provided at the Nova Scotia Community College at no cost to the student. While preparing for the opportunities ahead remains a priority, there simply are not enough of us to fully meet the demand. To fill that need we need more people to move to Nova Scotia. Now that includes Nova Scotian families who moved West for employment, in the past, and it includes encouraging other Canadians to move to Nova Scotia, and it includes skilled, innovative, and professional immigrants.

 

Our new Immigration Strategy, Welcome Home to Nova Scotia, is the most comprehensive and focused plan Nova Scotia has ever had. It complements jobsHere and our Workforce Strategy by identifying international workers with the technical skills and international contacts the province needs to become innovative, productive and competitive, and keeping them here.

 

Of the last two years we attracted 500 provincial nominees as allowed under the quota that Ottawa imposed on Nova Scotia since 2010. In fact, we were allowed to exceed our quota because other provinces did not meet theirs. Our goal is to increase immigration to more than 7,000 people by 2020 and our retention rate to 70 per cent. We have a number of initiatives and programs rolling out to achieve that goal. For example Nova Scotia Starts will extend a welcome to immigrants even before they arrive. Prospective immigrants will receive information about employment opportunities and living in Nova Scotia before they move here. This helps prepare them, both professionally and personally, to make a successful transition to life and work in Nova Scotia.

 

As well we will continue lobbying the federal government to increase the cap as we have both the need and the capacity. We will continue to work with private industry to recruit new skilled workers to meet our labour market needs.

 

I'd like to take moment to reflect on some comments my federal counterpart made across the harbour a month or so ago. Perhaps Minister Finley was not fully briefed when she told Nova Scotians that we didn't need more immigrants we simply needed to put our unemployed to work. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Minister Finley's own department, frequently issues labour market opinions to Nova Scotia businesses and these are required before Ottawa will allow a Nova Scotian employer to recruit foreign workers, even for a temporary assignment.

 

We have been saying for years that Nova Scotia faces a critical shortage of skilled workers. Nova Scotia has an aging population with many baby boomers approaching retirement. We have fewer children entering the public school system, which means fewer people entering the workforce in the future. We have already started to make inroads in our attraction and retention levels. Retention is critical because we need people to stay, not to perceive Nova Scotia simply as a doorway into Canada, a point of entry on a road to a different destination.

 

I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that 67 per cent of immigrants landing in Nova Scotia make it their home. Our goal is to continue increasing that retention rate to at least 70 per cent. Regardless of whether someone is looking for work in their hometown or travelling around the world to pursue an opportunity, everyone wants to have a job that they can depend on to provide them and their families with steady income. In essence they want a stable labour environment. They want a workplace that is productive, challenging, rewarding, with fair bargaining and dispute resolution processes and Nova Scotia is fortunate to be just such an environment.

 

More than 90 per cent of contract negations are resolved without a workplace disruption. To improve on that record, our government passed legislation last Fall that makes it easier for newly unionized workplaces to reach a first contract. It is a made-in-Nova Scotia approach that includes an education component not found in other jurisdictions, a timeline that provides more time for employers and unions to negotiate their own collective agreement, and a role for the Labour Board. Over the past year we consolidated six workplace adjudication boards into the new Labour Board I just referenced, and appointed a full-time chairman, Douglas Ruck, Q.C. Regardless of whether one is seeking redress under Occupational Health and Safety legislation, collective agreements or the Labour Standards Code, the new Labour Board provides a more streamlined and consistent structure to do so.

 

Legislation passed last Fall introduced a new Pension Benefits Act which will see pension plan members better informed about the benefits and financial health of their plan and which provides plan administrators with new options for plan designs. These new options will make it easier for more employers to offer pension plans to their employees. We also passed legislation to ensure that men and women who are new to the country can take time off without pay to attend their citizenship ceremony.

 

Last Spring we passed legislation designed to improve the protection of temporary foreign workers, especially with regard to recruitment and unfair treatment. Nova Scotia needs a stable labour environment to prosper and those are but some of the measures we have put in place to maintain this province's enviable labour relations record.

 

With regard to workplace safety, our department and partners such as the Workers' Compensation Board and Safety Services Nova Scotia have been making progress in establishing a safety culture in this province. This year is especially somber as we remember several poignant anniversaries: the 20^th Anniversary of the Westray disaster, where 26 coal miners died; the 20^th Anniversary of the McDonald's murders in CBRM, where two employees died and one was paralyzed; and the 30^th Anniversary of the sinking of the Ocean Ranger. While the Ranger was technically in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a reminder to those currently working in our offshore energy sector.

 

Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of Canada continue to negotiate a health and safety regime for the offshore. These negotiations have been going on for too long and it is time to bring them to a successful conclusion before another life is lost. Regretfully, we had a very disconcerting start to 2012. To date there have been 10 workplace deaths in Nova Scotia, one just this morning in Dartmouth which we are investigating.

 

We made the unprecedented move of issuing a news release early on this year asking employers and employees to be more vigilant on the job. Thankfully, the alarming rate of fatalities has slowed. That is excellent news because we have otherwise been seeing a steady decline, not only in fatalities but in time-loss injuries, injuries that are serious enough to make a worker unavailable for their next scheduled shift.

 

More good news, we're seeing a general trend of employees returning to the workplace faster than before. On April 13^th I tabled the Workers' Compensation Board's 2011 Annual Report. I'd like to share some highlights with you and the members. I want to begin by commending the WCB for taking a different approach to their report this year. The report showcases the 2011 Mainstay Award recipients. The Mainstays are presented jointly by the WCB and the department to recognize organizations, companies and individuals who are leaders in promoting a culture of safety. Nominations for the 2012 Mainstays are being accepted until June 29^th for this year. There's a lot of information about the categories and the application process at www.mainstayawards.ca.

 

In 2011 there were 27,786 claims registered with the WCB, down from 28,002 claims in 2010. Since 2005 the number of Nova Scotians who are injured on the job has declined by 27 per cent. The injury rate dropped considerably in the construction sector, the fourth-largest industry sector in Nova Scotia. The injury rate ratio of time-lost claims per 100 workers continues to decrease. It is now 2.02 lost-time claims per 100 workers down from 2.26 per 100 workers just two year ago.

 

Even with this good news, Mr. Chairman, there is room for improvement. Strains and sprains remains the most common type of time-loss injury comprising 62.6 per cent in 2011. Back injuries account for one third of time-loss injuries in 2011. Preventing back injuries will be the focus of a new WCB public education initiative which will be unveiled this Spring. In the realm of workplace safety we will continue to raise awareness about the importance of safe, fair and healthy workplaces. This will come from a mix of educational and enforcement activities that will include stronger penalties for health and safety offensives.

 

Our department has been very forthright regarding administrative penalties, Mr. Chairman. We appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on this topic last October and I did promise to provide details around administrative penalties during estimates for one of the members and I will honour that commitment now. Administrative penalties came into effect on January 15, 2010 to accomplish three objectives: one, to provide staff from Occupational Health and Safety Division with another tool to encourage compliance to existing laws; two, to create a deterrent where there is a failure to comply with existing laws; and three, to provide an alternative to other forms of enforcement such as prosecution that can have more significant burden on the courts and the provincial Public Prosecution Service. Administrative penalties were implemented to provide an enforcement vehicle that could be appropriately applied as an alternative to prosecution thereby lessening the burden on the court system.

 

Now to draw parallel to enforcing our motor vehicle laws, there are offences that garner a ticket, speeding for example, and others that result in court proceedings, a collision that results in a death for example, and like a speeding ticket an administrative penalty is imposed after one breaks the law and is intended to promote further compliance with the law. A speeding ticket is not rescinded because one drives away at the correct speed limit, by continuing to drive the correct speed limit you avoid future tickets. As I said, administrative penalties avoid placing too large a burden on our courts. Prosecutions are generally reserved for the most serious of offences, those that result in a serious injury or death.

 

While we were developing the administrative penalty system, we informed stakeholders of the pressures facing the department including compliance related statistics in all industrial sectors, and used input from them to finalize the process. Before administrative penalties were introduced in January 2010, the department launched an education and awareness campaign. In addition to the January 15, 2010 news release, the department distributed a pamphlet entitled, Workplace Health and Safety. It's a shared responsibility to individuals, unions, employer and industry associations, and to attendees at public meetings, conferences, information sessions and regulatory inspections across the province.

 

We also created a Frequently Asked Questions page on our Web site and posted the guidelines that explain how penalties are decided by the administrator. We circulated the links to these pages through our monthly newsletter. In addition staff made more than 60 presentations across the province. These were well attended and with audiences sometimes exceeding 200 people.

 

Administrative penalties reflect the internal responsibility system and that's the foundation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. In essence, IRS says that government, employers and employees all have a role to play in making and keeping workplaces safe.

 

We had heard, before the administrative penalties came into effect, that employers felt too much of the burden fell to them and not enough to the employees. For example, beforehand they could have been fined for not providing adequate training and protective equipment, but employees were not fined for failing to follow the employers' safety program. Administrative penalties are starting to address that. Administrative penalties are relatively new to Nova Scotia, having been in effect only two years and a bit. We continue to monitor their impact on workplace safety and their efficacy and we will tweak the initiative as need be.

 

A quick overview of the process may be in order. I have to say, I do get a lot of questions about administrative penalties and I really believe that this detail is both timely and extremely relevant to every member in this House. When an officer visits a workplace, possibly as the result of an injury or illness, perhaps because of a complaint, or simply as part of a standard inspection, she or he may notice situations that are not in compliance with the Act. They issue orders with which the business must comply in a specified amount of time. Some may be stop work orders where an activity is suspended until a condition is met. That condition may be changes to that activity or a requirement for an independent expert to inspect a piece of machinery, for example. When the business addresses the order and comes into compliance, they must notify the officer of that fact.

 

All those orders come back to the Department of Labour and Advanced Education where an administrator reviews each one to determine if an administrative penalty should be issued. To provide a consistent approach, one administrator reviews all orders that are issued, based on established guidelines. We have posted those on our Web site so that employers and employees know what is expected of them. Those guidelines determine which orders merit an administrative penalty. If the administrator determines that an administrative penalty should be issued, the amount is determined according to the regulation by the recipient's position, their level of authority, and the potential for immediate or an actual injury.

 

The administrator has the authority to increase or decrease an administrative penalty based on three factors: one, the efforts made to prevent a contravention from occurring; two, whether or not the person on whom the administrative penalty is imposed derives any economic benefit from the contravention; and three, the relative harm the contravention causes to any person. As well, penalties can be doubled for a contravention if the person on whom the administrative penalty is imposed has already received one for a previous contravention, or if they have been convicted of an offence under Section 70 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act within the last three years. Initial penalties range from $100 to $1,000. Maximum fines range from $500 to $2,000 unless they are doubled under Section 7 because of a previous penalty or conviction.

 

There is an appeal process if people feel that they should not have been issued an administrative penalty. The technical orders are initially appealed to the director and if a further appeal is required, these and administrative penalty appeals go to the Labour Board. Penalties must be paid within 30 days of the Labour Board's decision.

 

In 2011-12 the administrator reviewed 3,306 orders; in the year previous the administrator reviewed 4,221. In 2011-12 those reviews resulted in 780 administrative penalties being issued. The year previous there were 1,154 administrative penalties issued. So in 2011-12 about one in four orders resulted in an administrative penalty.

 

The dollar value of administrative penalties, like their quantity, has declined. The value of administrative penalties issued in 2011-12 was $528,776. In the year previous the amount was $649,496. Like most fines, the money goes to general revenues rather than being earmarked for a specific cause. General revenues fund most government programming, including safety initiatives.

 

In closing on this issue, Mr. Chairman, I will table a copy of the one-year review of administrative penalties tabled by my department last year.

 

Moving from the labour side of the department, I will now spend some time explaining how this department is making post-secondary education affordable for students and their families and for taxpayers. This year our department is investing $48 million in student assistance. This complements last year's investment of $42.5 million, so over two years, more than $90 million has been invested to protect students from large tuition increases, to reduce the amount of student assistance that graduates must pay back, and to overall reduce student debt. This year's investment includes $5.5 million in new money to further address unmet need and to increase the grant portion, as students had requested. We will release further details in the coming weeks.

 

The student debt will be reduced to a maximum of $28,560 thanks to Nova Scotia's first-ever debt cap. Over four years students will be able to earn up to $13,600 without seeing a reduction in the student assistance they receive. But that is not all. We have taken steps to make our excellent university system affordable for students and for taxpayers - affordable for students by rolling tuition back and then limiting tuition increases, fee increases must be justified beforehand.

 

Our efforts to make a university education affordable do not end upon graduation. The province administers a graduate retention rebate that reduces the tax bill of recent graduates. In this sense, "recent" is a relative word because the benefit continues to be available for six consecutive tax years. Under the graduate retention rebate, grads can receive a tax credit of up to $15,000 for university graduates and $7,500 for community college graduates, over six years.

 

Each year the province makes assumptions about the size of the graduate pool that is eligible to receive the credit and about the take-up rate. The pool of graduates is cumulative since they have the year of graduation, plus the next five tax years, to take advantage of the credit. The graduate retention rebate was implemented in 2009 and the province estimated 5,880 graduates could claim the graduate retention rebate and set aside approximately $7.8 million for the rebate.

 

The Canada Revenue Agency has told us that 2,810 tax filers claimed some or all of the credit. The take-up meant a $3.9 million tax savings for recent grads. In the 2010 tax year the pool of eligible graduates essentially doubles to 11,764 because we would have two years of graduating students. Accordingly the budget allocation increased to reflect this, setting aside $15.6 million. The preliminary count on the number of filers claiming the credit in the 2010 tax year, as received from CRA, is 3,530 and the tax savings for grads totalled $5.3 million. It may be higher because we won't receive CRA's final data for a while.

 

The 2009 and 2010 take-up was lower than estimated so the forecast for 2011-12 was revised, assuming less take-up. That estimate will continue to be adjusted as we receive CRA numbers. If uptake increases so will the allocation. The CRA provides an aggregate number which does not let us determine how many college students are taking up the rebate as opposed to university graduates. Some have suggested that the low take-up means that fewer graduates are staying and earning a living in Nova Scotia and that is not the case. A significant portion of graduates return to university or community college for additional education. As well, low take-up may mean that income levels immediately after graduation may not be sufficient to access the rebate but the grad may qualify in the following years. Also, 2009 would have only included graduates in 2009 whose income levels would have been much lower in year of graduation than in the following years.

 

Mr. Chairman, could I ask for a break for just a couple of minutes, please?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Absolutely, minister. I was going to ask if you needed a little time. We will take a few minutes recess for the minister to look after her coughing spell.

 

[2:43 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[2:44 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Labour and Advanced Education.

 

MS. MORE: I apologize for losing my voice. I'm pleased that I can share this information with the members since the rebate is offered by the province and benefits thousands of our graduates every year. To date the graduate retention rebate has saved college and university grads $9.2 million. I'll repeat that. To date the graduate retention rebate has saved college and university grads $9.2 million.

 

Our government is also working to make our university system affordable to taxpayers by reducing operating grants to universities and requiring them to address their inflationary pressures without additional funding from the province. If I may, I'd like to address some comments about operating grants to universities. In this House we have heard claims that we are taking $75 million out of university education. To the contrary, we have reduced university funding by 4 per cent last year and 3 per cent this year and invested more than $90 million in our students. One must remember that for every dollar that a student pays for tuition, the province - that is, the taxpayers - invest $2 in the university system. The reductions to university operating grants don't come without additional supports. We have established a three-year, $25 million Innovation and Excellence Fund that will help the sector to identify opportunities to work more efficiently and more strategically while maintaining the excellent learning opportunities they provide to Nova Scotians, to Canadians and scholars from around the world.

 

Over three years the universities, either acting individually or as a group, will apply to the fund for seed money to implement new ways of doing business, new approaches that will permanently trim at least $25 million from their annual operating costs. The universities have just been informed about the initial projects that have been approved and we are considering additional projects at this time.

 

Moving to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, we are raising awareness about important issues such as domestic violence, making Nova Scotia safer for women of all ages. Statistics show that about two women report being a victim of sexual violence every day and we know these numbers are under-reported. Next week I have the honour to chair the federal-provincial-territorial meetings of ministers here in Halifax, a gathering of my counterparts from across the country.

 

That meeting leads into a three-day conference of the Canadian Coalition of Women in Engineering, Science, Trades and Technology, CCWESTT, that explores all of the accomplishments and opportunities available to women in those fields. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women is also developing an on-line guide designed to help immigrant women access information about living in Nova Scotia. The Status of Women is also working on initiatives that will improve access to health care and to promote greater equity and diversity.

 

Another important initiative of our government and my department is creating jobs and growing the economy. As part of jobsHere the province is finalizing its workforce strategy. This will be a call to action for all stakeholders to increase productivity and innovation and to reinforce the connections between learning and work. It is important that every woman has choices that enable them to be independent and self-sufficient.

 

Working with EnCana Corporation, the Status of Women will continue the Bread and Roses Bursary, providing 20 young women with a $1,000 award to pursue science, trades and technology programming at the Nova Scotia Community College. In a similar vein, Women for Economic Equality, Labour and Advanced Education and the Hypatia Society will help women pursue science, trades and technology studies at four Nova Scotia community college campuses. The biannual Campaign School will also be held again, inviting more and more women to become active in politics and the political process. This gives them an opportunity to shape the future of their communities, their province and their nation. In addition to this Campaign School, my department is a strong supporter of the five municipal campaign sessions that are being offered across the province this year.

 

As a foundation for our forthcoming parry-and-thrust questioning around the work of the department, I would like to reaffirm that Labour and Advanced Education's vision, mission and mandate and I'm going to give some details on that and I'm also going to be talking about how we are contributing to delivering on government priorities. I mention this because when I was a critic in the Official Opposition, I really did find it useful to check the department that I was the critic for, to check their Web site and better understand the vision, the mission and the mandate. I really found it was a useful way to frame, what I felt, were meaningful questions.

 

Labour and Advanced Education's vision is fairness, safety and prosperity for all Nova Scotians, by living, learning and working to their highest potential. The department's mission is as follows: to improve the social and economic well-being of Nova Scotians through education, improved working conditions and services that help them live, work and learn; to promote equitable and affordable access to quality higher education and knowledge for Nova Scotians, in partnership with universities, colleges, federal funders and service-delivery providers; to take a lead role in engaging and working with partners to attract, integrate and retain immigrants, recognizing the important contributions they make to our social, economic and cultural fabric; and to advance equality, fairness and dignity for all women in Nova Scotia.

 

Last, but not least, our mandate is as follows: the Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Advanced Education works to develop a competitive workforce by making strategic investments in people, programs, services and partnerships. Our mandate is to provide a fair, equitable, safe, productive and inclusive environment in which to learn, work and live.

 

Our broad mandate for the Department of Labour and Advanced Education includes: regulatory responsibility for occupational health and safety, building, fire and technical safety, private, municipal and university pensions, Workers Advisers Program, labour relations and labour standards; improving access among Nova Scotians to labour market information, employment services and learning programs that support their labour market attachment and growth; strategic action is taken to help all Nova Scotians prepare for, find and keep employment and to meet the needs of Nova Scotia's labour market; providing opportunities for individuals to advance at home, in the community and in the workplace, through adult learning, literacy and essential skills, apprenticeship and skill development programs; developing a supportive environment for volunteers and developing non-profit and voluntary-sector capacity; providing funding, services and support to post-secondary institutions, to maintain access to high quality post-secondary education and information; attracting, integrating and retaining immigrants and bringing to my attention matters related to women, to improve the status of women in Nova Scotia.

 

With regard to government priorities, the department is helping the province get back to balance through initiatives such as the labour market programs, support system, technology that enables a common system and business practices to administer programs and services, and streamlined modern legislation. Our Better Health Care Sooner priority, as I explained earlier, is supported through initiatives such as the LINK program that trains CCAs. Other examples include preventive initiatives that promote illness and injury avoidance at home and at work. To create good jobs and to grow the economy, we are helping employers to improve productivity through workplace education and by maintaining a stable labour relations environment.

 

We are reviewing the apprenticeship system and helping people who are unemployed or under-represented in the workplace to find work and prosper.

 

The performance measures that my government, the members here and all Nova Scotians will use to measure our success are laid out in the 2012-13 Statement of Mandate. With regard to workplace health and safety we want our time-lost claims to be at or below the national average. In 2011 Nova Scotia was at 2.02 claims per 100 workers while the national average was 1.9 claims per 100 workers.

 

As well we want to see that the average duration of time-lost claims to be at or below the national average. In 2010 Nova Scotia's average was 98 days and the national average was 69.8 days. To achieve these goals we will collaborate with the Workers' Compensation Board and other safety partners, conduct targeted risk-based inspections where the higher the risk of injury the more often you will be inspected, and other work safety initiatives.

 

On the labour relations front we want time lost to strikes or lockouts to be at or below the national average. Last year there were four work stoppages in Nova Scotia: Metro Regional Housing, Summer Street Industries, Maritime Paper, and Metro Transit, and the equivalent of 62 work days were lost. This puts our province in the middle of the pack with respect to average number of workdays lost in other jurisdictions across Canada.

 

At the same time we want to reduce the time that expires between when we receive a Labour Standards Code complaint and when it is assigned to an officer. In 2009-10 we were averaging 16.2 days to accomplish this and our goal is to do this within 14 calendar days. In 2011-12 we were assigning officers on 9.3 days, on average.

 

To see more Nova Scotians attaining their maximum employment potential, we want to see a higher number of people completing their trade certifications. Our target for 2012-13 is 898 certifications. Last year 813 people completed their certifications. To improve workplace productivity across the province, we intend to issue at least 182 grants to businesses for programs such as Workplace Innovation and Productivity Skills Incentive. Last year, the first year for which we have . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister's one hour is now up.

 

The honourable member for Yarmouth.

 

MR. ZACH CHURCHILL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Minister, thank you very much for your comments and thank you for always treating the subject matter of your department with a very real sincerity and respect in this House, I always appreciate that. It's obvious that you care very much about the different sectors that your large department covers and I think you've displayed some very real and helpful competencies in managing your portfolio. Congratulations on that but it doesn't mean I'm happy with everything, okay, so let's just be clear.

 

We don't have very much time until estimates finish up so I'm going to start with some questions around post-secondary education. That is a subject that's pretty near and dear to my heart, and then maybe if we have time we can move to some other stuff, hopefully, that is more in tune with the labour aspects of your portfolio.

 

I think it is important to give credit where credit is due and this department has brought in some positive measures when it comes to addressing the issue of post-graduate support for students, the student debt cap being one of them. I think it's important and helpful to recognize that Nova Scotia had some of the highest debts in the country and to have a cap put on that is a positive step and it's something that I know former student leaders used to advocate for back in the days when Dennis Cochrane was the DM in the department.

 

There are still questions around tuition. I know I still hear from student groups and parents in my home constituency and other parts of the province who are worried about the increasing cost of tuition. I know that there is an MOU in place for another year - I think for the duration of this fiscal year - that will keep tuition increases at no less than 3 per cent, I believe, for Nova Scotian students. The cost will be higher for out-of-province students, I believe, and students coming from out of country.

 

There are some concerns after that one-year MOU is complete that tuition may go up. There has been an issue of core funding being cut from the education system; you referenced in your comments about $75 million. Because of that, there probably will be additional pressures put on institutions to cover their costs and there are only two ways that institutions get funding - from the province and from students. What are you anticipating tuition levels to be at after the MOU is complete and that 3 percentage cap is no longer valid?

 

MS. MORE: I certainly understand and appreciate the concerns that the honourable member has around tuition and the sustainability of our university system. I know that he has been a strong advocate for students in the past and he, of all people probably in this House, would best appreciate the delicate balance that a government has to maintain. We are very fortunate to have 11 universities in our province, but it is a costly system to maintain. Certainly between 1999 and 2009, over that 10-year period, the provincial government actually increased its funding to universities by 77 per cent. That is a trend, a pattern, that during a recession - considering the small province that we are with our limited tax base - that's an impossible situation to maintain and sustain into the future.

 

So here we are, trying to protect all our institutions, knowing that in their various regions they are the economic engines for the economy, but also for the cultural and social activities, they're very much prized by those communities. So aside from the value that they add to Nova Scotia in terms of being institutions of education, learning and research, the economic impacts that they have in their regions are very important.

 

Government is trying to maintain those institutions in their communities in a way that both recognizes their strengths, builds on those assets, but recognize that every service delivery operation in this province has to operate differently and more efficiently into the future in order to protect that infrastructure across the province. At the same time we feel very strongly that Nova Scotians should be able to afford to go to both community college and university. We have committed, both the Premier and myself, in this Chamber, have said that we are trying to protect as much as possible the ability to keep tuition for Nova Scotia undergraduates at Nova Scotia universities at or below the national average in terms of tuition.

 

You've clearly identified that universities have limited numbers of revenue sources and certainly through the memorandum of understanding, the presidents have committed to reviewing all those various factors that determine the viability of their institutions.

 

It makes sense, in a year or two, to actually review tuition because, as you can imagine, when tuitions were frozen and then capped, universities were at different points in their cycle. Some were quite high in terms of tuition for their programs compared to other universities in the province. Some were, perhaps, at the low point so perhaps there needs to be some reset there. Even within an institution, we're hearing reports that some programs have very low tuitions compared to others offered in the same university.

 

I think all the presidents are saying that they just want to look at those situations. Whether there's any adjustment, we have been quite clear that we want to maintain, for Nova Scotian students attending Nova Scotian universities, taking undergraduate degrees, that we stay at or below the national average. As you well recognize, there's other uncertainty as well because that average changes depending on what other jurisdictions are doing. We're keeping a close eye on the review and reform that's happening across Canada and we will certainly factor that into our analysis and review of tuition in this province.

 

We are committed as a government to protecting our university system across this province and protecting the affordability for Nova Scotians to attend. Those will be two of the driving factors during the upcoming discussions, analysis, recommendations and then decision making. But we're in the very early stages of all of that.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: Before I ask my next question, I just want to make a quick point. I appreciate that we're doing our best to keep tuition for Nova Scotian students attending post-secondary education institutions in Nova Scotia at or below the national average, but if we want to be the university capital of the country, which we've talked about before, and really pull in all the real benefits of having such a vibrant post-secondary sector, I think one thing to consider is to look at tuition costs for out-of-province students.

 

We have a real opportunity to recruit bright and skilled people from other parts of the country to come and train here and hopefully afterwards stay and join our workforce and maybe build families here and become Nova Scotians and contribute to the economy here. That's just another thing I would hope the minister would consider.

 

In terms of where we're at with the tuition question, from what I understand, the MOU is non-existent after this fiscal year? Is it complete after this fiscal year? Or is it next year? (Interruption) There are three more years? But the tuition level in the MOU is only 3 per cent for this fiscal year, right? Tuition is only capped at 3 per cent for this year? I guess what we want to know is, is there an expectation from your department that tuition will go up more than 3 per cent the year following that cap is completed?

 

MS. MORE: I have no idea what's going to come out of the discussion in two years time on whether there needs to be any change in tuition. I'm telling you, and we've been very clear about protecting - the cap is for the three years of the tuition. The discussion will happen but any changes won't take effect until after this MOU is finished.

 

I just want to remind the honourable member as well that tuition is the same for out-of-province students as it is for in-province students, except for the professional programs and international students. For example, if you're from New Brunswick and you come in and take an education program at Mount Saint Vincent, you don't pay more than a Nova Scotia student does taking that program.

 

It has just been clarified that the 3 per cent cap on tuition is in place for the life of this MOU, but that the discussions, analysis and research for future considerations will happen during the life of that memorandum.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: I realize it's perhaps too early to speculate what tuition levels will be but one thing that is happening now is ancillary fees are also going up on campuses. I remember when I was at Saint Mary's - I don't think it was that long ago - we had deferred maintenance fees coming in, athletic fees, a lot of other different fees that aren't linked directly to tuition costs but are being put on students. When universities lose funding - and universities have lost about $75 million in core funding over the course of the last two years as a result of this government's education cuts - universities will go to those ancillary fees to increase their revenues in very specific and particular areas. What mechanisms are in place in your department to ensure that ancillary fees are regulated and fair and that the real cost of education - not just tuition - is staying at a competitive level and one that's fair for students and their parents?

 

MS. MORE: Certainly, universities need to be able to reflect increased costs, so for example, residence accommodations. Just as apartments outside, off campus, those rents are going up, certainly, they want to be able to pay their expenses on some of those fees. Under the MOU we've asked them to present to me what they're going to be doing for any fee increases and they will have to both consult with the people impacted - the students - and they'll also have to have a rationale to explain exactly why any fee increases are being considered.

 

The university presidents are very aware that auxiliary and ancillary fees are not to be seen as a way to recoup revenue that they feel that they've lost because of inflationary pressures or because of reductions in the provincial operating grants. It's a very delicate balance for them, but they certainly appreciate that that's a very sensitive issue for students and I have full confidence that they will be very cautious in terms of their increases. They have not presented me with a list of expected increases so I can't speak from knowledge on any of that.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: It is important to recognize that when we're talking about educational costs, it isn't just tuition. These ancillary fees and, of course, the cost of living have a big role to play. Does the department track all auxiliary and ancillary fees that are brought into place and are they taking that into consideration when we're looking at the full cost of education or does the department simply look at tuition?

 

MS. MORE: I've just been reminded that at the most recent meeting with the presidents, they were reminded that they have to present any increases and auxiliary and ancillary fees to me and the department with an explanation of the consultation that they have done with the full rationale for why the increase is necessary. That will be reviewed by my officials and myself to ensure that they're not making money off of any of those services nor the students. As I said earlier, it's not a way to recoup any other lost revenue. They are starting to put that package together but it has not been presented to me yet.

MR. CHURCHILL: Thank you minister, back to the issue around tuition. The minister said that for out-of-province students coming here, the tuition cost was the same?

I'm curious because I know the minister said that tuition for Nova Scotian students attending here in the province is at or below the national average but overall, tuition for undergrads in Nova Scotia is above the national average. I think there are only two provinces that have higher tuition than us in terms of undergraduate education. If out-of-province students are paying the same as in-province students, and in-province student tuition levels are at or below the national average, why are tuition levels, according to Stats Can, above the national average? I think they're above by about $300 or so.

 

MS. MORE: The information we get from Stats Canada isn't a nice, tidy package. They don't necessarily separate out information we get. We have to go further down into the weeds to separate out-of-province and in-province students and students who are in graduate programs. We have to do further analysis to get that average. If you just take what comes from Stats Canada, that's not the information that we're working with. They include other students in there, students who are in graduate programs.

 

I also just want to remind the honourable member that Nova Scotia's actually the first government to extend its provincial bursary to out-of-province students at university. It's not as much as the bursary that we give our own students from Nova Scotia but we were the first province to extend some benefit to out-of-province students in terms of bursary as well. We feel for a small province supporting 11 universities, and considering the economic times and the restraint we're under, we are being quite fair to out-of-province students.

 

We're trying to attract them because as our youth numbers decline, we certainly want more and more students to come. The money they spend in this province is important to our economy and as well it's a way to get them integrated into our families and our communities and our culture and economic jobs and whatever. They're more likely to stay and live and raise their families here in Nova Scotia. It's a win-win, but we have to take a balanced approach because of the challenging times we're in.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: The challenge remains that when it comes to recruiting out-of-province students there are only two provinces that have higher tuition levels, in their undergrad, than Nova Scotia. That's even worse, according to Stats Can. When we look at graduate tuition levels, we're the highest, I think, by a pretty substantial amount. University is really becoming the new high school in terms of need for skills and training to gain meaningful employment in the workforce and more and more we're seeing that graduate studies are important for individuals in order to have the skills they need to work. What work is the department doing to address the issue of the extremely high tuition costs for graduate students in the Province of Nova Scotia? We're higher than everybody else, we're higher than every other jurisdiction; we have the highest. What are we doing to address that issue?

 

MS. MORE: I just want to correct something the honourable member said about only two jurisdictions having higher tuition. Obviously for Nova Scotia to be at or below the average means that there are more jurisdictions with higher tuition for undergraduate programs than Nova Scotian universities.

 

Regarding the cost of graduate tuition and graduate programs in Nova Scotia, I can't say I have a lot of personal knowledge or experience on this but certainly in my discussions with various university presidents and vice presidents of finance across the province, they say it's very competitive across Canada and they are able to market their programs and attract a number of out-of-province and international students because of the quality of the graduate programs that they are able to offer.

 

If I may be allowed a little reminiscence here, I remember about 15 years ago friends of mine in Calgary and their daughter checked universities right across Canada and they ended up sending her to Acadia even though, I think, at the time it had the highest tuition in Canada because of the - I think it was called, the advantage program where they had laptops. It was in the early days of using that as integral technology within the classroom and they were willing to pay that tuition fee because of the quality of the program. It was innovative. It was very competitive and they felt that that would give an advantage to their daughter when she went out seeking work.

 

There are other things that graduate students are looking at to balance the cost of tuition and that is one reason we are really trying to protect the quality of our programming at all levels of university because we want to maintain the reputation. Certainly a number of our Nova Scotian universities market their programs, their product if you will, right around the world and I think one of the reasons we are getting such huge increases in our international student numbers is because there is an international reputation to Nova Scotian universities, including their graduate programs.

 

That has never been identified as a concern by the universities. They are proud of what they do. They know that they have excellent programing and it's just a matter of getting that information out to the world and the students will come. They pay attention to what each other does in terms of tuition, right across Canada, and they're certainly not going to price themselves out of the market.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: Listen we have world class institutions here. I was privileged enough to be a graduate from one at Saint Mary's here in Halifax. It's not Robie Street High for anybody who wants to say that.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Good football team.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: Great football team too. I know that the institutions themselves do a very excellent job at out-of-province recruitment for graduate programs and out-of-country recruitment as well. In my experience a lot of the out-of-province folks - the international students who come in - are willing to pay the extra costs to come study in Nova Scotia. I think that is great, it speaks to the excellence of our institutions, but there is still the issue of affordability of a graduate degree which is becoming more and more in demand in Nova Scotia. Based on my experience, a lot of the folks who are engaged in graduate studies who come from out of province come from higher family-income levels. What I think we need to do is have our graduate studies program be affordable for all students, no matter what their financial means are. I think that needs to be a goal in our province.

 

The fact is we have the highest graduate tuition costs in the country by a large margin. I think we need to do a better job of first of all identifying the necessity around graduate education. It's becoming more and more needed. If we want to have an innovative and creative workforce, we need to have young people who are able to pursue post-graduate studies. I think we really do need to take a look at the high costs of pursuing a graduate study here in Nova Scotia and start to address that. We don't want our young people not going, or anybody not going, because it's not affordable.

 

Back to the question around the MOU and the partnership that's involved in reviewing the tuition policy. One of the concerns that has been brought forward by student groups, I know both official student groups that represent post-secondary students here in the province, ANSSA, the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations, and the Canadian Federation of Students Nova Scotia, is that there won't be any student representation on that group that will be reviewing the tuition policy. My question to the minister is, why, after students were involved for so long - I guess not that long but a number of years under the previous government and then this government - in the MOU discussions, why have students been excluded from the discussions around tuition?

 

I see that as problematic because they represent the demographic that is most impacted by tuition increases and they represent their families and their parents at those meetings. My question is, why were students excluded from that partnership that will be reviewing the tuition policy?

 

MS. MORE: Representatives from the student organizations have met with the deputy, the Premier and myself on a regular basis. They have raised this issue and it has certainly been explained to them that they are not excluded from the process. In fact, it's built into the memorandum of understanding that there will be regular consultations with students.

 

As we get into the more specialized work groups under the MOU, it made sense to have the relevant vice-presidents involved in some of those work groups. Certainly I would say that student organizations probably have more input and more meetings with government over the past three years than they've ever had in the course of their history. Not only do they have the physical meetings but we take their advice and their input very, very seriously. It's often used to adjust the outcome of our decision making. We certainly value their input and always agree to meet - if we don't initiate it ourselves - we agree to meet.

There are regular meetings at all levels of government. They will have numerous opportunities to have input on these issues. I would say that I have a very good working relationship with the executive members and executive directors of both those organizations. I think we have some very good individuals on those executives. They take these issues very seriously. I'm amazed at the extent of the research and analysis that they do and we have some very productive discussions. They are influencing what is happening through government and affecting all universities.

 

I make no apologies for the extent of the consultation that is currently underway with the student organizations. I'm very pleased. As I said, they have taken it very, very seriously.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: There are some questions around what consultation means even in terms of the language used in the MOU. Around auxiliary and ancillary fees, you said it stated that they need to consult with student groups. It's not clear what that means, if it just means having a meeting with the student union president or executive director, or if it means that there needs to be a plebiscite on campus, or a vote on campus, to actually make sure that happens.

 

You know, student groups have been consulted a lot. I remember when I was a student leader, we had excellent access to the previous government and to members of all Parties. I remember some good meetings we had with the now Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and folks in all three Parties. But I think it's important to define what that consultation means and to ensure that it's done in a way that is meaningful and gives a real voice to students who represent their families and parents because I know I've been consulted on things before, and given my opinion, and my opinion and suggestions were never included in a final document.

 

That can be the case with this. A university can go talk to their student president and say what do you think of ancillary fees going up and student president will say we don't want it to. It tends to be the case that they are going up anyway so I think it needs to be a meaningful consultation process whereby the opinions expressed by student leaders, who represent a lot of people and a lot of voters in the province, are taken seriously in a very real way and a tangible way.

 

Specifically with this tuition review policy partnership, the student voice has been removed from that committee, officially. I realize that the minister does have a great working relationship with student groups in the province, I don't doubt that. We have some very, as she said, responsible, educated and bright student leaders but the fact is that having a meeting with you is one thing. Being on the official body and having a voice represented there that is choosing where the province is going to go with tuition is completely a different thing, entirely, and they have been excluded in a very official way from that process.

 

I think it is important to recognize that and to define what consultation means and how the student voice will impact the outcomes of decisions. I think students need to know what that process is going to look like and their parents and families who they represent need to know as well.

 

On the issue of affordability I do have another question here and this is an issue actually that ANSSA has brought up. Currently there are 2,275 students in Nova Scotia whose annual recognized need outweighs the maximum amount of available assistance and that is about an average of $2,043. So what is the government doing to address the issue of unmet need with our students in the student loan program?

 

MS. MORE: I just want to go back to your earlier issue. I just want to remind the honourable member that the university presidents and senior officials who are on these working groups or on the working partnership group are not making decisions at those levels. They are doing the jurisdictional scans, the research and analysis, and making recommendations to government, to my department.

 

I just want to reinforce that having a good working relationship with people in my department, with government, is going to serve the representatives of the student organizations very well. In fact it will ensure meaningful consultation and probably much more input and influence than perhaps putting some sort of superficial membership or whatever in place. It's a combination of things. They have, as you say, been very responsible in their work to date and all the more reason why government is going to continue to keep them both informed and also in a situation where they can provide advice and input.

 

I just want to reassure you that we take the information from the students' organizations extremely seriously and I think it's a credit to the individuals who have been both a staff and on their executives over the years that they have this credibility with government. We recognize their stake in all of this and they want to make sure the universities are as sustainable as possible. That relationship, the give and take of the discussion and their ability to influence is very, very high. I just wanted to reinforce that.

 

You are right, in various meetings over the past few years the issue of unmet need is always raised by ANSSA and CFS. We appreciate their focus on that because those are often the most vulnerable young people who have the ability to go to university and perhaps just have greater financial need. That's one reason why this year, it was very difficult, but we were able to set aside $5.5 million in the budget to continue us down that road to mitigate unmet need.

 

We're very pleased. I'm going to be able to make some announcements, hopefully in the next several weeks, giving the details of that. Certainly, we obviously will be looking at increasing the grant portion but the actual details will have to wait for further announcement. I want to give full credit to those two organizations for maintaining the spotlight on that very important issue of unmet need.

MR. CHURCHILL: There are a couple more things I want to talk about, but my question is if the student representatives, if their voice is so important, why were they excluded from that tuition review policy committee? Why aren't they there? If the minister and the department are taking their concerns so seriously, why not include them in that group, especially considering they were involved in previous MOU discussions in recent years? I guess I'll just ask that question and then we can move on to a couple more things.

 

MS. MORE: I don't have all the details but students will be involved on some of the working groups, I'm not in a position today to say which ones.

 

I just want to remind the honourable member - and I think he would appreciate this - this is a period of extremely unusual times in that I'm sure you remember from your days with student organizations, universities have built up traditions of being autonomous, independent, somewhat self-sufficient organizations. The student groups have always said to us that if there is anything you can do to open up the transparency and the accountability of that, so we're in a very delicate new stage of a relationship with universities. They are starting to release information and talk to one another in ways that hasn't happened before.

 

We have to be both cautious and sensitive to their need to protect their competitive edge in terms of some of their financial and other information at the same time that we're trying to encourage them to see where their common ground is and where they need to work more collectively together on some of the challenges and issues that they all face. This is a time of transformation. Things are evolving and changing week by week. As I said, we value input from students and we will ensure that every opportunity possible where they can be actually sitting at the table will be made. It's not the kind of thing - we have to develop the trust, we have to make sure that the universities are going to be open and frank and so we're trying to balance all that and get everybody moving forward. Perhaps a little bit of code there but I think you appreciate what I'm saying.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: We only have about 20 minutes left for our first round here and I don't know how much time we'll have after, but there are two programs that I'd like to talk about specifically. One, the Graduate Retention Rebate program, it's one that you mentioned quite a bit in your opening remarks. What is the current uptake of that program? Percentage-wise, out of the graduates who are eligible for it in the province, what's the percentage of graduates that are actually using that and staying in the province?

 

MS. MORE: Okay, I'm going to fill in a little time here with the relevant parts of my speech. You have to recognize that the Graduate Retention Rebate is a tax rebate that's run out of the Department of Finance so it's not something that I work with on a regular basis.

Because of its relationship, obviously it was going to be a topic raised here today, the information that we have on the tax filers is coming from the Canada Revenue Agency. They are telling us that 2,810 tax filers claimed some or all of the credit. In the 2010 tax year, the pool of eligible graduates essentially doubles to 11,764 because then we have two years of graduating students. I believe that's the last information that we have from CRA.

 

I mentioned in my opening remarks some of the reasons why there may be an initial delay in people taking advantage of it, but it's still available because I believe it's over a six-year period. We are doing our best across government to make sure that graduating students are reminded of that opportunity. We'll be putting additional efforts and resources into getting that information out to everyone.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: Thank you for sharing that information with us. So, 2,810 people used that graduate rebate. If it's possible at a later date if we could get the information on what percentage of graduates that is in the province. Would you be able to do that at another date, maybe provide us with some information from that from the department? Just to clarify because you know, I've tended to be pretty critical about post-grad graduate rebates. The uptake tends to not be as high as we'd like it to be. I think that was reflected in the fact that I believe the department just shifted the budget. It looks like a cut to the graduate retention but I think what it is is to more reflect the uptake?

 

When you look at it from a budget perspective it looks like a cut. But really I think what the department did was just shrink the budget line because the uptake wasn't exceeding the original budgeted amount. I think the fact that you had to shrink the budget line for this program in particular is an indication that the uptake might not be where we want it to be.

 

Also, I know key priorities that the minister has said her department has are affordability and accessibility. I don't think a program like this helps you do that, to be honest, providing the support on the back. It usually goes to folks that are going through the education system anyway. I don't know how many people are actually staying in the province because of it. It's hard to track. The fact is, you have to be making money when you graduate anyway to benefit from it. Unfortunately, I think a lot of our graduates are in a position when they finish their schooling where they might not be working right away and they might not be eligible even for these benefits. I think this would be one program that would be worth a review to see if you're getting what you want out of it and to see if it actually is contributing to the stated goals of affordability and accessibility and keeping people in the province.

 

It's just a suggestion. I've never been a huge fan of this program and I think the fact that we've had to shrink the budget line is an indication the uptake might not be what it is and we might not be getting what we need out of it. I think when you take the limited resources that we have as a province and put them in up front supports, I think the evidence would indicate they would be a lot more effective in terms of helping out with affordability and accessibility, getting people into school and helping them complete their program.

 

Let's talk about the debt cap for a second. As I mentioned before, I think it's a good thing that we've acknowledged the high levels of debt in the province and have capped that. I believe that's just for undergraduate students, the debt cap. Perhaps you want to look at what the debt levels are for graduate students as well and start thinking about what we want to do to keep their debt levels down.

 

The debt cap in particular, I know ANSSA has been pushing an idea where you would eliminate the debt cap, take that money and put it into up front grants. According to the numbers I have looked at, I'm sorry I don't have them in front of me right now, according to ANSSA they actually said if you do that you will keep debt levels the same and it will save the department money. Providing that support up front for students when they're coming into post-secondary education I think would be a lot more beneficial in terms of getting more people in the system and helping them.

 

I think ANSSA's proposal of eliminating the debt cap and taking that money and putting it into up front grants which will, in effect, minimize debt, limit debt and according to their numbers they have, it would actually save the province a bit of money.

 

Specifically, with that $5.5 million - we're running out of time here so I just want to make sure I get my questions in - that $5.5 million in new money that's going into financial aid, we don't have all the details on yet. We have 10 minutes? Okay, we have a bit of time then. That $5.5 million, is that coming from the money that was saved by shrinking the graduate rebate? Is that where that money comes from?

 

MS. MORE: No, that is additional new money in the budget, it's not a reallocation from any other budget. As I've said, we met with the student organizations to get advice on how we can best use that $5.5 million to reduce the unmet need.

 

Just a reference to one of your earlier issues about graduate programs, I just want to mention that our funding formula for the grants to universities means that the graduate programs receive three to seven times more money than the operating grant for the undergraduate program. Certainly Nova Scotian taxpayers are investing a considerable support into graduate programs.

 

I just want to mention on the graduate tax rebate, that is more of a graduate retention, worker retention initiative than meant to make university more affordable. I've said a number of times before that as a government we have to be looking at the menu of supports for both students and graduates and workers in this province. We have to balance what we have available so providing the graduate a tax rebate, we still have to do things to make university affordable and accessible to students. But, they're not in competition with one another. We are trying to make strategic investments in all the different areas.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: I think it is worthwhile to do a review of that program to see if we're getting our bang for our buck out of it. I forget when that came in but I remember it has been pitched as we'll make your education more affordable by giving you money back after you graduate if you stay here.

 

I just don't know if we're being successful at actually keeping grads here. I don't know if there has ever been a study done, I just think it's worth the department's resources to take a look at it and see if having funds through this Graduate Retention Program is actually meeting its intended goals. That's mostly just a personal opinion on graduate retention rebates. I don't think they work as well as we pretend they do.

 

I guess before we leave this subject I just again want to emphasize that I believe cutting the $75 million out of the core funding for institutions is going to create affordability troubles for students and their families. I know the department has allocated some resources into having back-end supports in place to cap debt and of course to give a rebate when you graduate if you're going to stay here. But when you take money out of our institutions it will affect them in a few very real ways.

 

One, costs are going to go up to students and their parents and families who help contribute to their education. It's going to put extreme pressures on institutions to meet already tight budgets, especially with power rates going up and it's going to affect ancillary fees and so I do think that the department has done some positive things in terms of providing supports with some affordability measures. I think we can do better, to be honest, if we think outside the box a little bit. I just think it's important to emphasize again how that cutting to the core funding will just add significant cost pressures on institutions that then will be felt by students and their parents.

 

And, that will also affect the quality of education that we're giving in the province. So at a time when we want to be thought leaders in the country, where we want to be the capital for post-secondary education in the country with so many great institutions, eliminating very vital funding to those institutions, I think negatively impacts our ability to reach those goals, to have a quality education system that are centres of innovation and to make sure our post-secondary systems are affordable, that tuition levels are at an affordable rate.

 

Quickly, I don't know how much time we need on this subject, but NSCAD has been a topic of conversation that has come up quite a bit in question period and I know the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and the member for Hammond Plains-Upper Sackville, when I mentioned the department might be not as supportive to NSCAD as it should be, said that they were. My question is, is the department supporting an independent NSCAD model and providing them the appropriate amount of funding so they can exist in that independent state as they have for all the years they've been in existence?

 

MS. MORE: Certainly this government is supporting NSCAD as an independent institution and I just want to remind the honourable member that the province actually contributes over 62 per cent of NSCAD's operating budget whereas some of the other universities get as low as 30 per cent and they make up the difference with their own fundraising, tuition and whatnot.

 

When you look at NSCAD compared to other arts colleges and universities across Canada, NSCAD receives more funding per student than any other arts school in Canada. Over the last three years we've put in $6 million additional to NSCAD in order to allow them to meet their budget. That is unsustainable. We are asking NASCAD and all universities, just as we are asking every government department and every other publicly-funded body in this province, Nova Scotians can't afford to fund how things are structured and how services are delivered, the way they used to. We don't have blank cheques in this province, so we're asking everyone to evaluate and review how they do their work, in order to allocate as much money as possible on the front-line services and on programming for students.

 

This government has been very, very supportive of NSCAD. It's actually celebrating its 125th Anniversary this year. I think there's huge interest, motivation and commitment to provide another 125 years for NSCAD, but things have to be done differently and I'm very, very pleased that the senior officials, other stakeholder groups, students, faculty, support staff and the board of governors seem to be working together to recognize that they have to change the way they do things, in order to maintain quality programming and their international reputation.

 

If anything, this government has been more supportive than previous governments but it has been recognized that their premature move to the port campus created a structural deficit for them and they've been trying to make up lost revenue ever since. So we're all working together to safeguard that institution. We value fine arts education in this province. NSCAD is an institution that we're extremely proud of and I'm really, really pleased that everyone now seems to be working together to move it into the next phase of its operation. Thank you.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Yarmouth, with half a minute.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: One of the main issues, I think, that NSCAD has faced is the current funding formula doesn't necessarily reflect the actual costs of delivering some of the programs they deliver. I know that's a problem in other institutions as well.

 

I guess quickly, if we can, are there any plans in place - I know there were when we spoke earlier in the summer, tax and review, the current funding formula that is used to fund our post-secondary institutions.

 

MS. MORE: NSCAD actually benefits from a very generous funding formula, that's not the issue here. Thank you.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time allotted for the Official Opposition has elapsed. We have reached the moment of interruption and so we will recess.

[5:58 p.m. The committee recessed.]

[6:29 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Committee of the Whole House on Supply will come to order.

 

We will continue the estimates of the Department of Labour and Advanced Education.

 

The honourable member for Cape Breton North with one hour.

 

MR. EDDIE ORRELL: I have just three or four questions before I turn the floor over to the member for Victoria-The Lakes and they involve employment around disabled individuals in the province. My background as a health care worker has led me into some situations where employment services for disabled individuals have been asked of me.

 

I see on Page 15.4 the Employment Nova Scotia budget has been decreased and I'm just wondering if the employment services for disabled individuals are going to take a decrease as well.

 

MS. MORE: I just want to explain that those programs are funded through the federal money that comes to us, that is devolved to us through the Labour Market Development Agreement. The formula is based on population in Nova Scotia compared to the relative population of the other jurisdictions so other provinces are increasing in population and so that affects the amount of money we get through that agreement. We're not anticipating that there will be any direct impact on persons with disabilities but we have to recognize that we're working with less money and we just have to be very careful and strategic in how we allocate it.

 

We fully recognize that we have some untapped potential in terms of future workers in this province, in terms of women, First Nations members, African Nova Scotians and persons with disabilities. A lot of our focus over the next few years is going to be providing supports and training programs for those marginalized groups because we are trying to support them to get attached or reattached to the workforce. Even though we have less money coming in they are an increasing focus and priority for our department.

 

MR. ORRELL: What we have been seeing is some of these disabled individuals who are going into post-secondary university or community college, get into their program and end up with problems later on because they didn't have the proper assessment through an employment agency that deals with disabled individuals. The fear that we're having is that some of these people if they eliminate the disabled individual employment agencies and put them in the mainstream that these people may fall through the cracks. Is there any possibility that those associations for employment of disabled individuals will be eliminated and put into the mainstream program?

 

MS. MORE: It's interesting, as late as, I think it was yesterday, I met with representatives from some of the organizations that provide training and support services to persons with disabilities. You may be aware that we're actually doing a review because we inherited a number of those agencies and organizations from the federal government plus we already had a system in Nova Scotia that supported the same population.

 

We are currently reviewing all of that to see how we can, as in every other publicly funded organization, we just want to make sure that there is as much money allocated for direct support to persons with disabilities as possible. We are working with those organizations in terms of how best to deliver those services. As well, we have some dedicated funding that we provide, I believe, to universities to provide accommodations and support for persons with disabilities. So both post-secondary and through our training programs we're trying to be very sensitive and to free up as much money as possible for direct support.

 

MR. ORRELL: If we're going to use these marginalized individuals to hopefully capture the opportunities that are available in the province, will there be more money available for adaptive services for workplaces and/or educational institutions?

 

MS. MORE: I don't have a lot of detail on amounts or anything but certainly we are very aware of the significance and importance of those adaptive measures, the aids, the accommodations, the workplace mentors and coaches and whatnot and getting the best mix of those. Also being responsive to the unique needs of individuals, you know some people need more support, others less. Some need the support at the beginning of their training or when they start a new workplace situation, others need ongoing support throughout that period of time.

 

Those are some of the very questions that we are reviewing and working alongside our service delivery system. We work very closely with the Department of Community Services on many of those issues as well. Those discussions and analyses are going on right across government and also with community and provincial organizations outside of government.

 

MR. ORRELL: If educating disabled persons in the province is going to get people off the Community Services system, could the money that's saved in the Community Service system be transferred over to the education of a disabled individual so that they can improve and be active members in the work community?

 

MS. MORE: Certainly the focus within Labour and Advanced Education is to provide every opportunity and support possible for people who want to work, who want to be trained and have a good-paying job. It's interesting, I've had a little personal experience in my home constituency where we created an organization that included all levels of government, both politicians and staff, as well as the business community, the voluntary sector and the community health board. We surveyed clients who were going to a hot meal program and many of them were persons with disabilities or they were mental health consumers. Almost to a person they all identified as wanting to get out and have meaningful work as a goal in their lives.

 

I can't answer from the Department of Community Services' perspective but certainly I think the people who have disabilities value work because they want to be contributing members of society, and also work can bring pleasure and meaning to one's life. Plus because they'd earn more money, it gives them choices and options in life as well. It's very, very difficult to survive on a low income in any jurisdiction across Canada.

 

I think there are number of motivators and I think it's in the individual client's best interest when they identify that that is a goal, a personal life goal of theirs to help them. I don' t think any department of government is in a position of wanting to force people into a situation where they don't feel comfortable, they're not supported or that is not what they want to do. So we are working with people's own motivation, own interest and building on their assets and strengths to support going back to work when they've identified that as a personal goal.

 

MR. ORRELL: So the employment agencies or employment services that are dealing with disabled individuals in the province, very important obviously, mainstream employment services are very important as well. What I found is when a person goes through a mainstream employment service for an education aspect of it they are not getting the proper evaluation that they deserve in order to see if they need adaptations, to see if they need extra supports in the classroom. Can we assume that those employment agencies will be maintained in the province in one form or another?

 

MS. MORE: I would say that our overarching objective is to improve services for all Nova Scotians. We're trying to get the right mix of model for service delivery and also the right mix of supports. We're doing a number of things, we're looking at necessary standards and providing supports if necessary to help organizations meet those standards. We're also looking at what the right mix or model might be in terms of some of the employment agencies serving the whole population including persons with disabilities and then in some communities you have specialized services that only work with persons with disabilities or some other subpopulation within Nova Scotia.

 

The questions you're asking are the very questions that we're having discussions about with these organizations. We don't have the menu of models and service delivery, there is no predetermined outcome of that except the driving motivation is we want efficiencies, we want excellence because we want to be able to provide as much resources, both human and financial, to persons who need those supports. It's trying to improve the system and the options for our citizens out there is the motivation behind this. But I don't have all the answers because we're in the middle of the review.

 

MR. ORRELL: On Page 15.2 there is an increase in Labour Services by about $67,000. Can you tell me where those increases are going to?

 

MS. MORE: That covers increases in the salaries in the Workers' Advisers Program. Those are recovered by the Workers' Compensation Board - just increases in salaries.

 

MR. ORRELL: My last question is an easy one. Can I be assured that some of the services that are offered to disabled people will still be offered to them even if it's found that agencies have to be combined? Because I think the people who are providing the service for the disabled people are better able to provide services for able people than for able services to provide services for disabled people. I'm hoping that that will get a lot of consideration if anything has to change from what's presently offered.

 

MS. MORE: Some of this falls under the Department of Community Services as well as Labour and Advanced Education but I know we share the common goal of trying to improve services for all Nova Scotians and that certainly will include persons with disabilities.

 

MR. ORRELL: Thank you very much, I want to turn the rest of my time over to my colleague from Victoria-The Lakes.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

 

MR. KEITH BAIN: I'm pleased to have the opportunity this evening to ask some questions to the minister concerning her portfolio. You know Labour and Advanced Education is a large portfolio to have and there are a lot of divisions so I'm going to ask the minister for both her indulgence and her forgiveness if I'm all over the place when I'm asking this.

 

I guess the first question, through you Madam Chairman, to the minister is, as Labour and Advanced Education Critic, about a year ago I guess, I met with members of the NSGEU Health, Safety and Environment Committee. At that time I believe they had some concerns and, I think, questions to you as the minister and, I believe, that as of today they haven't gotten a response so I'm going to ask these questions to you now and hopefully you might be able to answer them. The first question is when will the department be finalizing and proclaiming the indoor air quality regulations?

 

MS. MORE: The honourable member raises a good question and I've actually, with senior officials, had a number of serious discussions over the last couple of weeks about how we can coordinate a number of issues that have come up around safety and standards. We're currently looking at how to develop a strategy to meet some of those. As the member can appreciate, certainly our government places top priority on a safe workplace for workers. As important as having good-paying jobs, you need a safe workplace.

 

Everything you do or don't do that affects employers and employees has all kinds of repercussions and sort of a ripple effect. I know some of these discussions have been going on for some years and I think it has happened in isolation. I actually have a meeting coming up, I'm not sure, it may even be tomorrow with the Occupational Health and Safety Committee of the NSGEU. I meet with them on an annual basis officially and then have other meetings with individuals in between.

 

I know there are three or four issues that we talk about every time we meet, I think this year will be the third meeting. There are important issues that they raise, they are very complex, they impact on so many different people so we're trying to work out a coordinated way of moving forward on a number of fronts to do with workplace safety, how it's structured, relationships with the Workers' Compensation Board and - I can't remember the name but there is a safety group provincially.

 

One of the options we're seriously considering is developing a technical working group and air quality will be one of the issues on it. We're looking individually at these issues but we're also trying to see how we can move forward on a broader, more comprehensive approach. I'm sorry I don't have more details but it's a significant issue but it is extremely complex and it has a number, as I said, of different impacts and we just have to be very careful in how we move forward.

 

MR. BAIN: I believe you are correct that you will be meeting with the group tomorrow because I will also be meeting with them at some point as we do yearly and I believe the critic for the Liberal Party meets with them as well. We just go over the things that they've been presenting to you, I guess, and I'm aware too that the committee wrote you a letter, I believe on April 4^th mentioning those points that had been addressed.

 

The second question that they had was a commitment concerning bullying and harassment and the definition. So I guess their question is will you commit to changing the definition of bullying and harassment under the definition of workplace violence. I know that is another concern that they have and I wonder if you could speak to that.

 

MS. MORE: Bullying and psychological harassment are important issues. Our department views those less as a regulatory matter than as more of a human resource management issue. We're deliberating on what we can do to encourage employers, unions and other employee groups to take the matter more seriously, to perhaps develop policies or internal ways of dealing with that. Just as cyberbullying, you know we had the task force on that and I think the recommendations that came out of the task force just reaffirmed how much bullying has integrated right across society and everything we do and don't do. I think we can probably agree that the same wide range of factors would impact on workplace bullying and psychological harassment.

 

Again, it's a very complex issue, certainly within government we have a respectful workplace policy which, I think, mitigates against it and I think there are probably things that government and other employers can do to lead by example. There are certainly models out in private business as well as public organizations that are best practices along this. I think education, awareness and less tolerance by society generally will impact on some of this.

I'm sure I'm going to be having this discussion with that particular group. I have to commend them because they actually have developed a tool, an anti-bullying resource manual and I've read it, it's extremely well done and I know that they put anti-bullying workshops on across their workplaces. We're certainly looking into the possibility of encouraging very strongly the inspectors and other staff of the Department of Labour and Advanced Education to become engaged and take those workshops, they are extremely well organized, and they have a lot of excellent content. We're taking small steps but certainly we recognize the seriousness of the issue.

 

MR. BAIN: Thank you, minister, I am sure you can appreciate the frustration and concern that the committee has because this has been going on, I think, for a couple of years that they have been requesting all these items. They are of concern to the committee and indeed to the union. I realize that it's small steps and it's very serious issues that they are talking about but I think the fact that they are not getting updates as to where things stand, if there was a better line of communication possibly and maybe you're doing that, I don't know, I'm not going to say that you're not communicating with them, that would be very unfair of me to do that.

 

Again, there are items that have been on the docket that I know of, I've been Labour and Advanced Education Critic for the last two years and I know that these same items have been there. I guess it is important that they know what, if any, progress has been made in that two-year period. I'm just going to ask the last question that they had and that's when will you be finalizing and proclaiming the Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee's training regulations. That's a long title I know but if you could respond to that please?

 

MS. MORE: We certainly recognize the need for training standards for members of the JOSH committees. We're looking at the possibility of bringing those regulations forward that set minimum standards.

 

I have to put a little bit of context around this. Some of the issues that the NSGEU have been discussing with you and me on a regular basis, just as an indication of their complexity, some of them have actually been on various governments' agendas for eight, nine, 10 years, so these are not new issues. We're watching carefully what happens in other jurisdictions as well and we're always mindful of the fact that as with so many important issues, there's a shared responsibility and we have to be careful as governments not to assume total responsibility for some things.

 

It's just trying to get the best mix of reinforcing the shared responsibility, putting the supports, providing the necessary education and awareness on some of these issues and at the same time recognizing the importance of workplace safety. Although they sound fairly simplistic, I'm sure you appreciate just how complex some of them are. It's not for lack of interest that we're not having faster progress on this, but as I said, we're trying to put a number of these issues together perhaps in a longer-term, more comprehensive strategy.

MR. BAIN: Yes, minister, I think we could all appreciate the complexity of this. I guess it's important that the committee realize that there is some advancement taking place in addressing their concerns. I think it's important that they know that and where the status of each of those concerns might be. I'm sure that when you meet with them tomorrow, those same concerns will be coming forward and it's important that there be an open line of communication as each step is made.

 

I sense, because of the fact that it has been there, and you're correct, it's not something that just happened, it has been there for a number of years. I think that the question is probably saying, how serious is everybody in this whole thing and getting it done? I think they realize the complexities of it too. It's important they know that it's not just pushed aside, that there are steps being looked at or being taken and that those steps be communicated to them. Again, I will probably be discussing these in greater detail with the committee tomorrow, as will you.

 

I'm going to move now - before I start getting into budget lines - to first contract arbitration. I'm sure you expected that at some point somebody, especially from our caucus, would be asking these questions.

 

I want to go back from when discussion on first contract arbitration started and the study day that took place. We know the history of that, many feel they weren't invited to participate in the study day and so on and so forth. I guess one of the biggest concerns is the fact that the department didn't tell participants of the study day that they had already drafted the legislation based on the Manitoba model. Was that ever mentioned to the participants in that study day and if not, why not?

 

MS. MORE: I'm really stretching my memory here a little bit, but I'm trying to think of the sequencing.

 

There have been several versions of a first contract bill around for some time. As Opposition, I'm not sure but I believe our Party actually introduced two private member bills on first contract. It's not unusual when an issue is being discussed in government to do the jurisdictional scan and just see what legislation is in place across Canada. I can't remember exactly when I first saw perhaps a later draft of the legislation.

 

What I can say is that the consultation process was genuine. I actually met, I'm trying to think, about 10 days before the study day with representatives of business organizations and major associations and some businesses in this province at my department and we talked about a number of issues but I made them aware of the study day. I explained to them, quite frankly, that there had been very little response from business. They gave me various reasons - they thought it was short notice and some of them were travelling and whatever.

 

I strongly encouraged them to find a representative from their association or business to attend the study day. I'm very pleased that many of them did make that extra effort and made sure they had a representative there. In fact, it was over-subscribed. There was a mix of unionized, non-unionized employer and employee representatives that day. I was there just at the beginning to welcome everyone and I believe the agenda was discussed and then I left because I felt it important that there be no political representatives there, this was meant to be a forum of brainstorming with the people there.

 

As a result of the discussion that day, as a result of the suggestions from Opposition Parties and from the Law Amendments Committee process, the final draft of the bill became a very much made-in-Nova Scotia piece of legislation. It has some unique features that are not found in any piece of legislation across Canada. I think we can be very proud that we developed a process through which we had input and advice and information that enabled us to draft a final piece of legislation that more uniquely fits the needs here in Nova Scotia.

 

Just getting back to your comment about the bill, I don't remember at what point quite frankly I was aware of the bill. Certainly I know there was an analysis done showing the highlights, the main points, of various models of legislation across Canada. They were thoroughly discussed on the study day as well.

 

Every part of that consultation, the discussion paper that went out - I'm trying to remember, I read all the presentations made, I think there were around 30 of them, about half were from labour groups or unionized business and the other half were from non-unionized business. There certainly was a fair representation of the various perspectives and points of view.

 

MR. BAIN: The minister mentioned that after the study day and the consultation that took place, she did mention Law Amendments, I think it's important that we note that from what we heard at the Law Amendments Committee, the concerns that were brought forward by businesses like Michelin and Sobeys were never considered when the final draft of that bill came through and I think it's important to note that.

 

Madam Chairman, we see through a FOIPOP obtained by a business group that the idea of first contract arbitration went to Cabinet in 2010, long before the bill actually came into effect and actually months before the Labour Management Review Committee was created. I guess my question would be, it came to Cabinet in 2010, then it goes on to forming a Labour Management Review Committee and then the bill comes forward. I'd have to ask why it was brought up in Cabinet in 2010 and the steps forward from there.

 

MS. MORE: I have to be very careful here because I'm sure all members in the House understand that what goes before Cabinet, what is discussed at Cabinet is confidential. But if I could just talk theoretically, certainly when any issue is even being considered, whether to go ahead, hold back, wait, revise, whatever, initiated, there has to be some research, something to work from, it's not just talked about at any level of government without having done some initial research or just having something to respond to or to work from.

That is a usual practice in government, I'm not saying that's what happened but I can guarantee that at each stage the study day, the initial consultation I had with business, I had meetings also with the LMRC, the study day, the discussion paper, the consultation that was on the Web site that anybody, any organization, any business and any individual in this province could respond to. There needed to be something to respond to and all that information, all the responses went into the final product.

 

MR. BAIN: Yes, minister, I do respect there is confidentiality within Cabinet but the idea of first contract arbitration came from somewhere so I guess my question is going to be point-blank, where did it come from, the idea of first contract arbitration?

 

MS. MORE: It came from a long-time interest; as I said, two private member bills from the NDP were introduced over the last 10 years or so, I don't know the actual dates, I'm guessing like 2003, perhaps 2007, somewhere in there, on first contract. It has been an item of interest for our Party, for some time. Certainly first contract has been introduced by political Parties of every persuasion across this country and it's not necessarily identified with any political Party because it's seen as one small tool to ensure as much labour stability in any jurisdiction.

 

MR. BAIN: I'm still going to talk on this point a little bit further on first contract arbitration. Has the minister had any meetings with Michelin since they appeared before the Law Amendments Committee last year?

 

MS. MORE: Madam Chairman, I personally, as minister, have not had any discussions since that legislation was passed but I am aware that my deputy went on a trip to South Carolina to meet with Michelin officials, to talk about training needs. I believe those discussions are still underway but no, as minister, I have not had any meetings since then.

 

MR. BAIN: Thank you, minister, for that. I guess when you bring up South Carolina, that's just a lead-in to what I'm going to say next because Michelin has come out and said that because of the policies and the first contract arbitration that is here in Nova Scotia, that it's not really pro-business, that it's anti-business. They said they're investing more in their U.S. plants because some of those states are pro-business.

 

We saw what happened in Hungary, they said they were not pro-business or anti-business and they closed down plants. But, at the same time, they expanded the plant, hired 500 additional people and have said they don't have any immediate plans for expansion in Nova Scotia, because of the business climate and first contract arbitration that exists here.

 

It's a very serious situation. We heard in Law Amendments Committee from the Sobeys, from the Clearwaters, and even some of the smaller employers throughout this province and they did form a group, as you are aware, that spoke out against the first contract arbitration bill that came forward.

I guess further to my question as to whether or not you, as minister, have met with Michelin, have you met with the collection of businesses and business representatives since implementing first contract arbitration?

 

MS. MORE: There had been some discussion about a meeting early this year, which never got off the ground, where I would be meeting with the employer round table. The deputy certainly has met with the co-chairs of the round table. Members of that round table would be meeting with various ministers across departments, depending on the issue that they are interested in.

 

I have offered to meet with them. I meet with individual members of the round table on a more regular basis because they are part of our stakeholder group and they often set up meetings to meet with me one-on-one. But as the collective, no, I can't say that there has been any meeting.

 

I just want to remind folks that I find the discussion and focus on first contract very interesting because it actually, if you look at a pure perspective on collective bargaining, we've actually limited the collective bargaining and the right to strike for employees, for unions, in this first contract situation.

 

In order to provide that foundational first piece so that it would actually mitigate against polarization, if it was a situation where a new employer wasn't familiar with collective bargaining, we go in right away, as soon as the site is certified to offer an education piece so people better understand their roles, what supports we have within our department.

 

We have done all of this in an attempt to stabilize labour relations in this province. I try to appreciate the fears of small, medium and large businesses around this, certainly the number of union certifications has not gone up this year. It's business as usual except we have this additional protection in place, this additional support to allow a first-time unionized workplace - both the union and the employer - to reach a settlement through collective bargaining as much by themselves as possible and then the supports are in there if the process breaks down. I would think this is a win-win for business and labour in this province.

 

MR. BAIN: There is a lot of concern out there that quite possibly the reason the government passed first contract arbitration in the first place was because the government didn't want groups applying to decertify. I'm going to ask the minister if that was the real reason?

 

MS. MORE: I have to say I'd never even heard that theory until it was suggested by one of the Opposition Parties some time ago.

 

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't remember the name, but some very well known researchers in the United States have analyzed first contract legislation both in Canada and the United States. Their conclusion was that it is supportive of stability in labour relations in a jurisdiction and that fears that people have expressed have not been borne out over the decades of experience that some jurisdictions have had, both within Canada and the United States. I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.

 

MR. BAIN: Minister, you say that first contract arbitration, the purpose of it is to have some stability. Can you provide me with an example of what has happened in the past year that has actually enhanced the stability of the workforce in the Province of Nova Scotia?

 

MS. MORE: I'm not sure what you're asking so I'll try to answer. There was no issue or crisis that triggered this legislation. In fact, the reason for the timing was around the fact that there was no major disruption that we were responding to. We did it in a period of relative stability in order to ensure that it wouldn't be seen as a knee-jerk reaction to some individual situation.

 

If you're asking in a more general sense, nothing major has happened, all the employers who are represented around the round table continue to meet with officials in my department, in Economic and Rural Development and Tourism. Many of them are represented on the Premier's Economic Advisory Committee. They are involved in a number of the advisory committees that report to me on a number of different issues.

 

There has been no change in the relationship. There have been no negative results from this. The number of certifications, I think is somewhere between seven and nine which is very similar for the first quarter of last year. I think probably the most positive thing, in terms of what has happened, in terms of affecting the economy certainly, has been the shipbuilding contract. The very next day we were hearing stories about properties being bought just like that, people coming into the province and paying the asking price, or more. It has been a confidence-builder, even though there haven't been any direct, new jobs, as I understand it, and perhaps won't be for a couple of years.

 

There is so much energy, excitement, planning, more collaboration, more openness. There are more partnerships going on, it has been a wonderful experience. Certainly every time we're either in a social or a business setting and we meet with small, medium and large employers and their representatives, they are very positive about what this government is doing to support business and the economy in Nova Scotia.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, you say that first contract arbitration is a confidence-builder in relation to the shipbuilding. I think the confidence building is the fact that Irving, because of their reputation, were able to win that contract. The fact that because of Irving's business knowledge and their track record, that's what builds confidence in Nova Scotia. First contract arbitration, I would like to say that in my view, is not what builds confidence, it's the abilities of Irving that built the confidence in this.

 

You say there has been no effect and I think that yesterday during Question Period, Egg Studios was talked about. Egg Studios, as you know, is a prominent Nova Scotia success story and it employs freelance workers but they could be seriously impacted by Bill No. 100. So if everything has been so good, why is the minister willing to risk such an important, successful, innovative business here in Nova Scotia with first contract arbitration?

 

MS. MORE: I don't have a lot of knowledge on this particular issue but I do know that government and the department set up the legal process. The outcomes were determined by the independent tribunal, the Labour Board. The process is ongoing and I would suggest it's probably inappropriate for me to say much more about this now.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, the minister in Question Period on Wednesday talked about the new applications for certification that have been filed. I guess I'm wondering, are those applications in the construction industry, the non-construction industry? Both? What are those applications, if you could elaborate on them, please?

 

MS. MORE: I'm just trying to remember. It seems to me that about half of them actually were in what I call the near public sector, like non-profits or whatever. I believe the other half were businesses. I could get the names of the businesses for you, I just don't have them with me tonight.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, if the minister could do that, that would be really appreciated.

 

I want to comment on just a couple of things; the minister said that she had never heard discussion on decertifying before. We, as a Party, have never brought it up before, it came from media accounts on your own documents that were FOIPOPed. So there was decertified that was mentioned there. So, again, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about it. I guess before I close out discussion on first contract arbitration, you mentioned there was stability and you wanted to put first contract arbitration forward for stability so why would you do that when things were already stable in the first place? Does that make sense?

 

MS. MORE: Madam Chairman, probably for a couple of reasons, there have been, when we were watching what happens across Canada and, you know, certainly we know that 85 per cent of the workforce in Canada is already covered under some model or some form of first contract and certainly there had been circumstances in the past in this province where problems in reaching a first contract through the regular collective bargaining process had caused considerable labour disruption and this is something that we would want to avoid in the future. So because things were fairly quiet and because there had been long experience across many jurisdictions with various forms of first contract, it just made sense to do it at a time of relative stability as, you know, anticipating that we wanted the economy to have the most supports possible during these very difficult economic times. So it was just a combination of reasons but the timing seemed right.

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, just on the certification applications that were received and the minister said it was nine but I do have a monthly breakdown here since January and, if I could, with everyone's indulgence, I see under Part I Section 23 in January there was one; in February there was one; March, two; and as of April 11^th, four. So that gives me eight on that side and under Part II Section 95 for those same four months, January, one; February, five; March, one. So that's another seven. So that's actually 15 applications that have been made. I stand to be corrected on that if you would like to comment on it, please.

 

MS. MORE: Madam Chairman, we would have to get the breakdown but I'm pretty sure that many of those certifications were in process before first contract came into effect but, as I said, we will get that information and I'll get you the list of actual companies and non-profits and hopefully that will clarify the situation.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, I realize my time is getting short and I only have about a minute left so I'm going to put in one quick one because I didn't really jump all over the place, I stayed on the labour side of it I guess. This one here is concerning Advanced Education - about NSCAD - and I'm going to ask the minister, why did the department bury the 2010 Hogg report on NSCAD and order a whole new one in 2011 by Howard Windsor?

 

MS. MORE: Well, the report was never buried. Information from that report, information from Dr. O'Neill's report and the Howard Windsor report were all used to inform the development of the process with NSCAD and certainly since the Hogg report, the financial situation with NSCAD had worsened. They were continuing to go over budget, to come to the government and ask for additional funding, you know, over the last two or three years we had to put in $6 million extra in order to allow them to meet their budget requirements. The situation had worsened, it was obvious that there were other factors at play and it seemed important to refresh the analysis on their financial situation and what possible options they would have to live within their budgets.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time has elapsed for the Progressive Conservative Party.

The honourable member for Yarmouth.

 

MR. ZACH CHURCHILL: I guess I'll ask a couple of questions around accessibility measures, or perhaps some accessibility programs that the department is engaged in. It gets confusing when you talk about access because usually affordability and access in everyone's mind are kind of all lumped together but they are pretty distinct things. Where affordability helps keep debt levels down, access is actually about getting new students into the system, students who aren't currently participating.

 

In Nova Scotia I know we have certain demographics of students that are under-represented in the post-secondary system and I'm wondering if the minister could highlight which students currently are not accessing post-secondary education to their maximum potential and what accessibility measures is the department taking to reach out to those groups and to bring them into our post-secondary system so that their participation rates are actually going up?

 

MS. MORE: I can probably answer one part of that better than the other part but we can get additional information. Most of my knowledge about the participation rates is about Canadian participation and I do know that Nova Scotia has the highest participation rates in Canada despite the fact that it wasn't until a few years ago that we froze tuition and actually have now capped it. For the previous 15 to 20 years we had, in Nova Scotia, among the highest tuition rates in Canada but despite that we have the highest participation rates.

 

This goes to prove the point that there actually is no direct relationship between participation and tuition rates. For example, if you look at Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, they have the lowest tuition in Canada and their participation rates at university are much lower than ours here in Nova Scotia. What I don't have is the actual breakdown in terms of Nova Scotian participation rates in Nova Scotia universities or in Canadian universities and I believe that information is available I'm just not familiar with it. We have found, and certainly this has been borne out in research everywhere, that there are a number of other factors that seem to be higher determinants of whether someone is interested or able, or motivated to go to university.

 

Interestingly one of them is the distance that their home community is from a university site. I think this plays very well in Nova Scotia because of our 11 universities spread out across the province, that that actually is quite a motivator for people from across Nova Scotia to attend university. Probably a more important indicator is whether or not the parents, one or more of the parents, has attended university. There is a much higher correlation between parents' participation at post-secondary and their offspring. They provide family encouragement, the expectations from a young age are to study, do well in school, in our family we go on to university. There are many determinants and certainly they all need to be considered. That's one reason why we're trying to encourage, through our public school programming, mentorships and supports for people who expect to go on to post-secondary.

 

As I think you mentioned earlier, 75 per cent of new jobs in Nova Scotia are going to require some form of post-secondary education and training. It is critical that people start looking at lifelong learning and don't see public school education as the end of that period of learning and training.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: The minister is right. The evidence would show that there isn't a direct correlation between tuition levels and participation of under-represented groups. What tuition does affect, of course, is affordability, debt and cost. Those things do impact completion rates but they don't necessarily impact increasing participation rates for under-represented students.

The minister did a very good job of articulating a number of the determinants that professionals in the field have identified. One of the things that we know is that students are making their minds up at a much earlier age than previously thought whether they are going to go to university or college or not. Often it's happening even in elementary school. It's not just a matter of throwing money at the issue and thinking that because there's money in the system that these individuals are going to go to university or college.

 

I think the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which isn't in existence anymore, but they did a pilot project here in Nova Scotia a number of years ago where they had a bunch of money that was directed towards students from low-income backgrounds. The money didn't get used because students weren't picking up. That was an indication that something else was going on here other than money.

 

We only have a few minutes left, the evidence shows that early outreach is of absolute importance when it comes to helping these students decide to choose higher education as a path. A concern that I raised in the House, NSCC had a program in place, I think there were eight outreach officers - I forget the exact title - that were in junior high schools. Their job was to serve as mentors and provide guidance to students and open their minds to the possibility of post-secondary education, in particular NSCC.

 

Because of the cuts that we've seen to the core funding of education, those officers were cut. NSCC chose to cut those services. What is your department doing in terms of early outreach to get out there to our youth at a very young age, change their minds about what their potential future could be and to address this now gap in the system with the NSCC outreach officers being cut?

 

MS. MORE: I'm not sure that actually was the job description for those liaison folks but I'm going to stick to what I do know.

 

We, through Labour and Advanced Education, have a number of different initiatives to reach into the public school program but also to reach into those marginalized groups who perhaps have not seriously considered post-secondary training either through community college or university. We have a number of students involved in our Nova Scotia School for Adult Learning. That improves access because when they graduate from that, especially the schools that are affiliated with the community colleges, they are very highly motivated and it's very easy to transition into community college programming.

 

We also have a fund called Skills Up! for African Canadians. It started about a year ago, I believe. It is giving special focus and support for African Canadians. We're increasing access at the community college system for under-represented groups, as I mentioned earlier.

 

In terms of universities, by increasing the upfront grants, that is encouraging people to go on. We have support programs for persons with disabilities both at community college and universities. We have grants for students who have dependent children and we're improving our outreach to students. So we're strengthening the careers information and parents as career coaches, that's broadening into elders as career coaches.

 

We have O2 in the high schools and placements in, you know, business and labs and work placements. Certainly there's much more interest in attending community college than I think there has ever been in the history of the college. So people understand the value of community college programming and now the challenge is to accommodate everybody who wants to go there. So there has been incredible work on all fronts to reinforce the value of post-secondary education, the value of life-long learning, and to make it easier in terms of transitioning from public school into community college and universities and certainly the great expansion of trades courses and the new manufacturing program in public education will also create an enthusiasm and an interest in those areas. So there's a lot going on to deal with that issue.

 

MR. CHURCHILL: Thanks for the information, minister, and just to emphasize the importance of early outreach, I just hope that it remains the focus in the department because if we are going to make our higher education institutions more accessible to those folks, that's how we're going to do it, investment in early outreach.

 

There is a really interesting program, Pathways, in Ontario. I'm not sure if the minister is familiar with it. They went into one of the inner city school districts and this school, in particular, I think they had a 50 per cent graduation rate, it was really low, and I think the number of folks who were actually participating in higher education was even in, you know, 8 per cent to 10 per cent from the high school. I know we're running out of time here but I would suggest the department take a look at the model that was used in Pathways in Toronto and try to learn from the success that they've had there and just to take a look at it and, hopefully, we could learn something and maybe bring in a new program here where we can have some success.

 

Anyway, we're running out of time, minister, but thanks again for taking the time in closing out estimates with me, it's always fun. As I said before, I think the department has made a number of positive initiatives. I think that we're nowhere near where we should be in terms of tuition and ensuring that tuition costs come down.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time allotted for today's consideration of Supply has elapsed.

 

The honourable Government House Leader.

 

HON. FRANK CORBETT: Madam Chairman, I move that we do now rise and report progress.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.

 

The committee will now rise and report progress to the House.

 

[The committee adjourned at 7:44 p.m.]