HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2018

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

3:00 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Suzanne Lohnes-Croft

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order. The Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply will come to order. Today we have the Department of Labour and Advanced Education. We will begin by introducing members at the table.

            [The committee members introduced themselves.]

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Minister, you can introduce your staff and start with your opening remarks.

            Resolution E14 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $389,373,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Labour and Advanced Education, pursuant to the Estimate.

            HON. LABI KOUSOULIS: To my left, I have Laurie Bennett, she is the director of financial planning. To my right, I have Duff Montgomerie, and he is the Deputy Minister of Labour and Advanced Education.

            I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who are here today again. I am pleased to speak about Labour and Advanced Education’s budget and programs, and the important work being done by the department. As before, I would like to introduce a couple of people who are with me here today, our director of financial planning and our deputy minister. Several members of the LAE senior leadership are also in attendance. They represent the many branches of the department.

            Skills and Learning is the branch that helps ensure Nova Scotians are trained for the job opportunities available in our province, while helping employers address their work force needs. Higher Education is the branch that works with students, universities, the community college, and private career colleges to help students access quality post-secondary education and expand the province’s innovation research capacity.

Safety is the branch that works with businesses, individuals, employers and workers to make sure that our workplaces and public facilities are safe. The Workers’ Compensation Board, a non-adjudicative board that administers the legal framework for workers’ prevention, return to work, assessment, and compensation programs, is also supported by this branch. Labour Services ensures minimum employment standards are being met, works with all parties involved in labour issues, and provides representation to injured workers in Nova Scotia. The Labour Board, an independent adjudicative tribunal, is also supported by the branch. The Apprenticeship Agency is responsible for repositioning the apprenticeship and trade certification system as a viable post-secondary option for our youth, a system that is industry-led, responsive to labour market needs and helps Nova Scotians gain access to apprenticeship opportunities and quality training leading to certification. Of course, the corporate service areas help run the department behind the scenes.

            Madam Chairman, I want to sincerely thank all of the dedicated civil servants at the Department of Labour and Advanced Education for their hard work in providing these important programs and services to Nova Scotians.

            Our department’s focus is very broad. The Nova Scotia Department of LAE works to contribute to a competitive workforce by making strategic investments in people, programs, services, and partnerships. Our vision is to foster Nova Scotians’ belief in a bigger future, knowing where their jobs are and will be, building the skills to access those jobs, and working to their highest potential in fair, equitable, safe, productive, and inclusive workplaces.

            I would now like to turn my attention to the general budget numbers for my department. We have two separate budgets, one for the funding provided to universities and one for the remainder of the department. LAE’s budget estimate for fiscal 2018-19 is $389,373,000. The budget estimate for LAE is up approximately $13 million from 2017-18. The majority of the increase is due to the labour market transfer agreement, $11 million; and an increase in the funding for the Graduate to Opportunity program, $1.7 million.

            The department plays a key role in providing programs and services to help support the youth of our province. Government’s strategy to train our youth, to keep them here at home, and to support the economic growth of our province is working. We are continuing to invest in programs that help young Nova Scotians get their first job and build their career here. We are investing more than $18 million in a suite of programs to achieve that goal.

            Another important program is the Graduate to Opportunity program. It contributes to help young people connect to the workplace. It provides salary contributions to employers to offset the cost of hiring a recent post-secondary graduate. Since the program was launched, Nova Scotia businesses have created full-time opportunities for more than 500 new graduates here in the province. We have increased our budget for this program to $6.5 million over the next four years. The expansion could create as many as 1,200 jobs.

            Madam Chairman, apprenticeship is also important to the growth of our industries and our economy. Over the past year, we made progress in raising the profile of apprenticeship as a viable career option and in adding tools to ensure certification requirements are met in the workplace.

            We remain committed to increasing the engagement of employers, women, and diverse populations in the apprenticeship system. This year, we have amended the Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Act to give the Apprenticeship Agency more tools and authority to enforce certification requirements. These changes will help level the playing field. They will also help to provide confidence to consumers that skilled trades work is being done safely by individuals who are properly trained and certified.

            I would also like to talk a little but about our post-secondary system. Our universities and the NSCC supply the workforce with highly qualified graduates and provide research and development opportunities that spark innovation. There are economic drivers that help our local businesses to grow and increase their competitiveness.

            On March 15^th, government announced more than $38 million in funding for projects that drive research and innovation. As a province, we’re working together to drive innovation, grow our economy, and create jobs for Nova Scotians, particularly young Nova Scotians. We need research to have innovation, and we need innovation to have economic growth.

            The Research Nova Scotia Trust is an excellent example of how we are investing in research to grow our economy. Currently, work is under way to establish Research Nova Scotia and the Research Opportunities Fund. It is expected to be legislated in the House this session, and until Research Nova Scotia is established, we have created the Research Nova Scotia Trust. This year, we are investing an additional $20 million into the trust. This money will have a significant impact on research happening here at home.

            In addition to this significant investment in research, we are also investing in innovation. That’s why we’re investing $11 million to support the Saint Mary’s University Entrepreneurship, Discovery and Innovation Hub, $1.5 million to the innovation team, and $850,000 to support the Nova Scotia sandbox program. These investments in research and innovation show the province’s commitment to building a stronger Nova Scotia.

            We also want to ensure our students are supported and safe. Many of our young people are struggling with mental health problems. Post-secondary students may be at risk due to the changes and pressures in their lives. This year, we will be providing funding for new technology-based interventions which could provide essential supports for the mental well-being of our post-secondary education students. Work is currently under way to review the evidence behind the tools and make recommendations on their efficiencies.

            As I mentioned, ensuring our students are supported and safe is a top priority. Sexual violence is unacceptable, and we know it’s preventable. The Province of Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia university presidents committed, under the 2015-to-2019 memorandum of understanding, to combatting sexual violence on Nova Scotia’s university campuses. The Sexual Violence Prevention Committee was formed as part of this commitment. The committee of 17 very dedicated and passionate members released the report Changing the culture of acceptance this past December with 10 recommendations to help prevent sexual violence on Nova Scotia university campuses. The report is up front and frank about the issue of sexual violence and the societal influences of power and privilege. At the end of the day, students should be able to study and learn in an environment free from fear of sexual violence. These recommendations will help us achieve that.

            I would also like to talk about the important work from our Skills and Learning branch. We have made real progress in achieving our goal of providing the services that Nova Scotians and businesses need, regardless of their locations or circumstances.

            Over the past several years, the employment services system has truly been transformed, and it will continue to evolve to meet the needs of Nova Scotians. Nova Scotia Works Centres are at the heart of this. There are 18 Nova Scotia Works providers with 49 centres across the province, and they provide Nova Scotians with a one-stop shop for help with finding employment. They are also a place where businesses can get help recruiting and developing the talent they need to be more productive.

            We’re also investing in Innovate to Opportunity. The program is helping to reduce business risk, all while helping companies attract, develop, and retain new talent that will help them grow and succeed.

            In addition to growing our workforce, ensuring our workplaces meet minimum employment standards is critical to the department’s mandate to create fair, equitable, productive, and inclusive workplaces. Our Labour Standards team has also been maintaining harmonious labour relations, which are key to ensuring that Nova Scotia workplaces are healthy and desirable. Nova Scotians need to have confidence in our Labour Board. The board resolves and adjudicates impartially and independently decisions related to labour standards, safety, labour relations, and many other areas impacting our workplaces.

            I would like to turn the discussion on the LAE’s budget to workplace and technical safety. One of the most important responsibilities I have as the Minister of LAE is the safety of the province’s workers. Nova Scotians need to know that safety in the workplace is a top priority, and it is. The safety conversation in Nova Scotia is changing for the better. As a province, our approach has shifted focus to education, promotion, and awareness, as opposed to enforcement alone. We have made significant progress over the last number of years, and we must continue to build on this momentum.

            Health care in particular is a key focus as the health care industry is the largest single employer in the province. Nova Scotia needs health care workers safe on the job to support patients who need them. We’re working to develop a five-year framework to guide us.

            However, our consultations and research point to things we need to invest in right away, including education, equipment, violence prevention, and staffing. This will result in increased funding to Aware-NS to hire two additional employees to develop and deliver a provincial safe patient handling and mobility program as well as investing $150,000 annually. Together with the Workers’ Compensation Board, we will roll out training on a pre-mobility risk assessment tool and leadership program for the next two fiscal years. The joint funding of $25,000 annually with the Workers’ Compensation Board will expand the development of a provincial workplace violence program to all sectors. These initiatives will have a significant impact on workplace safety.

            Madam Chairman, thank you for giving me this time to talk about some of the work under way at the Department of Labour and Advanced Education. In the year ahead, we will continue to focus on the things that make a difference in the lives of Nova Scotians. I’m honoured to be the Minister of Labour and Advanced Education and look forward to our accomplishments in the years ahead. Thank you.

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: I will turn the floor over to the member for the Progressive Conservatives, Mr. Orrell. We have been just doing an easy flow back and forth, and as long as we can maintain order, I think that will continue. Minister, I will just announce you so that you can turn your mike on and off if you need to consult.

            Mr. Orrell.

            MR. EDDIE ORRELL: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your opening comments. I would like to thank the department, the people you have here at the table, for all the good work they do in the province to help our workforce and our students who so desperately need to complete education so we can keep our young people here in our province. Without them, we die as a province. We have real problems with maintaining and recruiting if we can’t keep and educate our own - it’s a lot easier to do that than it is to try and bring them in.

            I’m going to start off with just a few questions about universities, about funding and a few other little things. The budget talks about Labour and Advanced Education collaborating with universities, the community college, students, and other government departments to implement a complement of strategic recommendations from the sexual violence committee report.

            In fact, a couple of years ago, I know Cape Breton University had a sexual violence and sexual strategies - they had hotlines that were open for great amounts of time. Most universities had to cancel that because of a lack of funding from the universities, which ultimately was lack of funding from government because they had to focus their money elsewhere because of other things that were happening in the university. They were told that they had to work within their budget and within their means. That was the easiest way, I guess, to do that.

            I’m going to ask, can the minister explain to me the support that’s being given to universities now in respect of completing their sexual violence prevention strategies?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of past cuts, I’m not aware of the ones at CBU. If you could provide more information, we can look into it in the department - or what year they were done. I know universities’ government budgets have faced pressures. I’m more than happy to have the department look into that.

            In terms of what our strategy has been going forward, I think we’re all in agreement that sexual violence is preventable, and it should not be happening on our campuses. All of the universities and the presidents are in step with us in terms of changing the culture and making the universities much safer places for the students.

            In the MOU that has started, which we’re in right now, all the universities had to have a stand-alone sexual violence strategy by 2019. They have all met that challenge, and they will all have that strategy in place actually by this summer, 2018, available for the next school year.

[3:15 p.m.]

            There was a process to that. You kind of think, why can’t we just snap our fingers and have a strategy tomorrow? Why can’t we take someone else’s strategy? Some of the feedback that I did get from the group that put together Changing the Culture was that the actual strategy we have for Nova Scotia is a strategy designed for Nova Scotia. It looks at what our university life is like. The example they gave me is, if we took a strategy from any American college, it would be talking about fraternities and tailgating parties at football games, and that’s not really in our culture. We needed a strategy which was homegrown for Nova Scotia, which was really applicable to Nova Scotia universities in order for that to have a lot of weight and actually make the difference.

            What our department has been doing is looking forward with the universities in terms of getting this implemented. Although the report does deal with what you do after a sexual assault, we want to encourage our victims to come forward. We don’t want them to feel ashamed. We want them to feel supported to seek criminal charges against the person who perpetrated the violence against them.

            What we’re also trying to do is keep that assault from ever happening. Much of the report talks about consent. Some of the feedback that I received was that a lot of our students aren’t even quite sure about what consent is. They might have been in a situation where they were sexually assaulted, but they might not realize that they were. We need to educate all our students - male and female - in terms of what consent is. Upon educating them, we need to make them aware, if they are a victim, of what they can do, who they can turn to, and how to get the supports.

            The other part that the report deals with as well, in terms of supporting the victim, is having them come forward. We don’t want them to feel ashamed. We don’t want them to feel that the courts aren’t going to listen or people aren’t going to believe them. That’s part of changing the culture.

            I’m not sure if everyone has read the report. Although it’s a university report, I think it applies to all students. I think it’s a report that parents should share with their kids even if they’re in high school or junior high. Putting this knowledge into our youth at an earlier age I think will also pay dividends. If anyone has not had a chance to look at the report, I do strongly recommend it. It’s an excellent, well-written report. We had all universities participating. We had CONSUP participating. We had student groups participating. We had the elected students groups from the universities participating. There were 17 groups represented at the table that brought this report together.

            MR. ORRELL: All universities participated in the report and student groups and so on and so forth. The strategy itself, is it going to be a preventive strategy? What is going to happen? If the prevention strategy is only part of it, are there going to be programs or financial assistance for groups to seek support after such assault may happen? I hope that we do enough that it doesn’t happen. Is there going to be money or programs and services provided to the universities - either financial or other supports - to help people post sexual violence? If that’s the case, if we’re not able to give enough education and enough preventive measures to keep it from happening, are they going to provide support so that people don’t feel ashamed to come forward, so that people feel they can come forward to get the help they need and either prevent it from happening again in the future or stopping it before it happens?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: The universities are coming together with their stand-alone strategies. Now we anticipate all the strategies are going to be in place this summer. This is the start of it. As the universities are gaining knowledge in terms of the broad strategy, which is not only prevention but also helping victims after an assault, at that point what we will do is sit down with the universities and have a conversation. We have indicated to them we are going to support the universities financially, but we’re not sure at this point, and the universities aren’t either, what level of support is required.

            They’re on board, and they’re going to start the stand-alone strategies. Then over the next year with the new MOU coming in, there will be financial support to those universities to have these in place.

            MR. ORRELL: Is the financial support going to be depending on the number of people at the university? Or is it going to be equal and each university gets a certain amount? If the university has the strategy in place that is recommended by the department and wants to add the different types of strategies for different areas in the province - is each university going to see the same amount of funding, or is it going to be divided up according to population and/or student population?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: At this point, we haven’t landed on anything. We are very flexible and open. An indication we have had from universities is that the larger universities are going to help the smaller ones because larger ones have a lot more resources. In terms of how we will fund them, some funding could be direct, and some funding could be supports that are across the province. One example of that is in this recent budget, we brought in mental health supports which is a lump sum that all university students can access. The investment is about half a million dollars, but the support will be provided to all university students across the province.

            In terms of our sexual assault strategy, I anticipate there will be a combination of the two. At this point, without having them launched, without the universities having undergone that process, we don’t have the expertise, at this point, to know how much we need to invest.

            MR. ORRELL: The reason I ask that is because I know that some of the universities are having problems with recruiting students. The problem I have is that just because there are only 1,000 students on one campus, it still doesn’t say that 10 assaults or 10 problems aren’t going to happen - that they may need the extra.

            I guess my question would be - however it’s going to be passed around, and I appreciate that that hasn’t been determined yet. If for some reason, Dalhousie, which has a huge population, has four times more sexual assaults than Acadia, would they be able to access the funds that would help to deal with and treat the victims of sexual assault and sexual violence? That could be the one thing that would cause a person to drop out of university, and we could lose that young mind here in our province because of something that might have happened. Could they draw a little extra, if that was the case, or depending on how it was divvied up, to make sure that each individual gets the treatment that they need?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of funding, we’re not committing to per student funding or to per institution funding. What our goal is going to be is to fund the universities for the amount they need to deliver this strategy. There could be other factors, other than just the amount of students. There could be a difference with the university that is more centrally located and has most of their students living on campus versus another university where students live out in the community, commute in, and leave again.

            There are many factors here, but the end goal will be that each university - and they are working together, as well. They’re not going out there and working at this individually. They are all sharing resources, as they do in other areas, and they are supporting each other, as well.

            In terms of the end goal, it will be that all universities have the level of support and the level of implementing the strategy so that it can be successful on campus.

            MR. ORRELL: I think that’s what I was getting at. The Halifax universities have the Halifax downtown close to them. Acadia has its own little community. CBU has its own little community. Widespread access to things that may contribute to sexual assault and sexual violence would be easier to obtain here in the city.

            You say that most universities have to have their policy up and running by 2019. You expect that they’ll have it up by 2018, which is a great thing. If a university doesn’t meet that 2019 deadline, what’s going to take place? Will it be pushed on them, or will it be a penalty system? Is there something that’s going to happen to a university that doesn’t have that up and running by 2019? It is a very important strategy to have going.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: It’s definitely an important strategy. Before I talk about what punitive measure there is, I don’t want it to sound like a negative point because all the universities have embraced this, and they have all endorsed the strategy. In terms of when the MOU is negotiated with the universities, the increase in their funding is tied to this. If we feel that a university is not doing everything it can to bring this strategy forward and prevent sexual assaults, we could eliminate an increase in funding to the university.

            Our annual increases at this point are approximately $3.5 million, each university being a little bit different. In terms of a larger university, it could be as high as $1.5 million. A smaller one could be $30,000, $50,000, or $60,000. At the end of the day, that 1 per cent increase to each university within their budgets is a significant amount of dollars.

            I really don’t see us ever having to use that punitive measure because the feedback we have received has all been very positive from the universities and the presidents.

            MR. ORRELL: Mental health has become a big issue in our province, especially with our university-age students. They say most mental health issues happen between the ages of 18 to 25, which are the exact years that kids attend university. I know that we have been working to try to improve mental health supports in the province’s general population. University populations, you have a bunch of kids who are traditionally away from home for the first time. They finally have a little bit of responsibility they have to take on and have to make some of their own decisions. I know that’s probably the biggest stress on most of our kids who are leaving home or even attending university.

            I guess my question is, how much financial support is the department putting towards initiatives for mental health issues? Is there a line number in the budget that would reflect this number?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I agree with you that it is definitely a stressful time for our youth. I recall, even when I went to university, that it was quite a big change in terms of the level of responsibility you have to lift yourself to. You had nobody looking to see if you were attending classes or doing your work. If a student does slip, it can create added pressures on to their mental health as well.

            I’m going to talk about the mental health support that is introduced in this budget, which will be in place by the Fall. This was actually brought forward by students. It was brought forward because they were doing it on one of the campuses and they had great success. It was peer support, and it could be via text or via telephone call. This is the way our youth communicate now, so it’s a fitting way for them to talk to another student. It tries to keep problems or stress from escalating.

            It could be as simple as, it’s your first couple of weeks of school, and you’re not sure about classes and how to conduct yourself or when you should be doing your homework. The goal, as the students explained it to me, is that they don’t want small problems to become big problems. Having this peer-to-peer network, they can alleviate a lot of this and answer a lot of the questions. It is done anonymously, so you can also help people with a lot more serious issues.

            The students who are actually giving the advice take training so they can help the individual if the individual is in crisis. They’re not psychiatrists or psychologists. What they do is, when they recognize that a situation is serious, they have the basic skills set and tools to get that individual to an area where they can get more help and support.

            The initiative, when it was presented to me, was about half a million dollars, and that would be to roll it out province-wide. What I really liked about the program is that it was one strategy covering the whole province. All students could participate, and it was being delivered by other students. They have a better understanding than somebody else would in terms of what the pressures could be. I think that will allow the students seeking the advice to get better outcomes and to get better supports.

            We did do an initial evaluation of it, and it did meet a standard. When we reached out to a professional within the industry, they said there is value in this. Now what we are doing is fine-tuning it to make sure we pull out as much value as we can and support our students.

[3:30 p.m.]

            MR. ORRELL: In this session of the Legislature, there has been some talk, mostly amongst our caucus, about an electronic app for a child’s telephone. I haven’t seen a kid on a campus or in a university or high school today who didn’t have a cellphone attached to them. To students today, that cellphone is probably their biggest form of communication, news, however they get their information, and so on and so forth. I’ll bet if you asked an 18- or 20-year-old today if they watched the news on TV, they wouldn’t be able to tell you what it was, but they could tell you exactly where it’s at on a certain website.

            There has been a bill introduced that would allow government to create or borrow or buy or steal, or whatever you want to call it, an app like Newfoundland has. It’s a mental health app. It’s very easy for a child to go on there, find out what they’re feeling, what they’re looking at, and it gives some areas of where there might be some help.

            Is the department open to considering this? It’s very minimal cost. It could be the first step to a kid who’s on campus who has certain feelings. He might be able to go to that and learn, there is a little help here, a little help there, or I can call this person. It might be just the thing that might not allow that, as you talk about, to escalate to a point where something more serious could happen. I guess my question is, could that be considered one of the applications that we may look at as trying to help and/or treat mental health illness on community campuses?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: That will be part of it. With just an app on its own, there is also a risk involved which we have to be cognizant and aware of. I believe the Newfoundland app is not a live person on the other end, that it’s the type of app that has almost a database behind it, and it is computer driven.

            What this is proposing at the university is actually a live person. I’m not an expert but I did hear that the risk in the app that Newfoundland has is that an individual could access it and think that that’s all the help they need. That would actually be a false crutch for them, and they would not access the proper help they need, which would be getting into the system or getting face to face with an individual. Then it could actually escalate or spiral quickly, and we could have an unintended consequence because we created almost like a false crutch for individuals.

            The program we’re looking at launching at universities is peer-to-peer. It’s actually dealing with another person, talking to the person. At that point, the person would also be able to ask exploratory questions to see if they have to refer the individual to a professional or to a hospital.

            I also want to add that - the deputy just passed me some more information - the province is also investing $974,000 to reduce wait-lists for the psychological educational assessments. That’s under Education and Early Childhood Development. Primarily it’s to also deal with - we can deal with mental health at the university level, but the earlier we catch it and the earlier we can help individuals with it, the better the outcomes and not having it escalate.

            Dr. Strang is leading this new committee on post-secondary student health and wellness. It is expected to have a significant impact on the health component. I’ll just read the other members very quickly - the Health Authority, LAE, senior Student Services leadership, Council of Nova Scotia University Presidents, Nova Scotia Community College, Students Nova Scotia, Canadian Federation of Students, and Dalhousie Student Union.

            MR. ORRELL: I want to move now to a question I asked earlier in the session about student loans. We talk in our preambles and stuff about the highly trained grads that we’re training. We’re trying to create jobs for young Nova Scotians. We’re trying to keep people here in our province.

I found something out recently through one of the nursing program people who has built up quite a bit of a student loan in her four years of an undergrad nursing degree that readies a young lady or young man to come out of university and directly practise nursing here in the Province of Nova Scotia. When she found out that nursing students don’t quality for full forgiveness in the student loan program, she was quite upset. She asked me to try and explain it, and I couldn’t. Can the minister explain to me why groups like nurses were left off of the program for student loan forgiveness for students in our province?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: We might need a bit more information on this. The department has communicated back to me, and I will give some details on the loan forgiveness program. A full bursary in Nova Scotia is $6,800. The bursary program up front makes 40 per cent of that as a bursary. The rest of it is carried as a loan.

            The program we have introduced is, upon graduation, having full forgiveness. In terms of when that program was brought in, it wasn’t backdating, so the individual could be in the situation where, when they received their students loans, they are not eligible for forgiveness. In terms of whether a nursing undergrad study qualifies or not, I don’t know that offhand. The department has jotted down the information, and they will get you that information.

            We can get you more exact details. If a person was graduating today, they could be in the situation where one or two years are forgiven but the others aren’t. We’ll clarify all that for you.

            A lot of this is the timing of the program starting. When the program started, it started from that day forward. The individual could just be in the period that they graduated before the program started or shortly after, and their total loan is not forgivable as well.

            There’s another nuance as well to the loan forgiveness. To qualify for the Nova Scotia loan, you also have to maximize your federal loan as well. The individual could be in that category where they did not maximize their federal loan. By doing so, you are not qualified to have the full loan forgiveness.

            If you want to get a waiver from the individual, we can look into their specific case and provide you details back on specifically why they did not did not qualify.

            MR. ORRELL: In the Nova Scotia student loan forgiveness program, it says directly, “The criteria for the Loan Forgiveness Program are . . . . You must graduate from an undergraduate” - which a nursing degree is - “non-professional degree program at a Nova Scotia university.” Non-professional degree would eliminate physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and social workers - the people in this province who would actually get a job and be able to stay here.

            I look at the department’s writeoffs as of March 31, 2018, and on it is the student loan writeoff for $2.4 million, I believe, in student loans. These kids who are graduating with the nursing degrees are the ones who could make the payments and start providing. These are written off because they are students who can’t get out and get a job. To say non-professionals in there is discriminatory against professional students in this province, people who are actually going to come and contribute to society and fulfill the needs we have in the health care system, in the education system, and in the mental health system.

            Yes, we’ll have that conversation. I think it’s a great idea, but I would like the minister to at least look at that. Undergraduate, non-professional eliminates a lot of people in the province. To get an arts degree or science degree and go on to get another degree, yes, you can eliminate that, but they’re still going to accumulate a ton more. They are not benefiting as well as the professionals who want to stay here who can’t, or will go away because of the high student loan they would like to have that forgiven by another province.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: The staff here is under the impression that nurses do qualify for the loan forgiveness. We would have to look into the individual case. If you want to provide it, we would be more than happy to.

            MR. ORRELL: I will, definitely. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

            I have a request from my colleague to come in and ask a few questions. She has an appointment that she has to go to. I wonder if that would be okay if she subbed in and did a couple, and I’ll come back and finish off. Is that okay?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Sure.

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. Smith-McCrossin.

            MS. ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: I was wondering, what is currently available across the province for those adult learners in our province who weren’t able to obtain a Grade 12 education? As you know, there were some adult learners here today from Amherst from Cumberland Adult Network. Are there any other opportunities across the province for those trying to find a way to obtain their Grade 12 education?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I have a pretty extensive list here. As the member mentioned earlier, this being Literacy Week, we did have some individuals in the gallery, who were recognized, graduating from the literacy program. I was very fortunate to go up and open up their meeting and hear some of the stories of what it has meant to them in terms of getting the literacy they need to be able to go out and get jobs. There were two individuals who were pretty much written off by society, and attached to the workforce - just great stories.

            I feel this is very important because I think the more people we can have literate has a larger impact than the amount of people we have with PhDs. In terms of where people can reach out to, we have the Nova Scotia School for Adult Learning. They can also reach out to Nova Scotia Community College, which has a GED equivalency. We also provide preparation for the GED. As well, we fund 15 non-profit community centres across the province.

            MS. SMITH-MCCROSSIN: For an organization like CAN-U, Cumberland Adult Network, how is the funding formula determined? How do you determine how much you’re going to provide for funding in a community like Amherst? Is it based on need? Is it based on how many people there who maybe wouldn’t have their Grade 12 education?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of CAN-U and our other organization, there has been a formula in place for the last few years. We are undertaking a review of that formula in terms of how we can better support them and looking at outcomes as well.

            MS. SMITH-MCCROSSIN: As a former employer in Amherst, I had several of their adult learners come and do work placements in my businesses as a way to transition back into the workforce. It’s such an important organization. I was able to speak with some of them today. I asked the students, what are the barriers to you entering the workforce? As you know, there are many people who, if they don’t obtain that Grade 12 education, often experience a life of poverty. It’s trying to find ways to remove those barriers.

            They talked about things that either have prevented them in the past or barriers that are currently maybe preventing them from being successful, things like transportation. Actually, both male and female learners identified the need for child care support. One of the students identified that CAN-U needed more funding, more money, more finances.

            It was great to have input from them. Many of them weren’t comfortable speaking about the need for more mental health supports, but I do know from working with some of the former students that that was a big need.

[3:45 p.m.]

            I know we need to be careful not to have people jump the queue. However, I do wonder if there would be the ability for the minister to partner with the Minister of Health and Wellness to look at ways of having specific mental health services for those people who are working on developing the skill set to get back into the workforce. The province, the economy as a whole, is going to be much better off as each one of these individuals are able to live their best life and be contributing members of society.

            I’m sure your department looks at that, but I’m wondering if you could speak to what is currently being done to remove some of those obstacles.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Those are great points bringing forward, and I completely agree with them. I would say there’s even other departments that have to come into the fold. This is part of the review we are undertaking right now. Those are some of the obstacles, but there are even other ones, such as having a person’s criminal past expunged. The other part is funding for universities. I think there’s individuals who, upon getting their GED, might want to pursue an undergrad, and there could be certain supports in place. I know that within our funding model of loan forgiveness, if a person does have any sort of disability, we allow them eight years, as opposed to five, for completion of their undergrad studies. That is eight years of forgiveness as well - not only to complete in eight years, but they can have supports as well.

            I think if you look at the impact that literacy would have or getting your GED - today an individual said that the cost of incarceration was $60,000 for her, if she was incarcerated. She went around begging for $7,000 to go back to school. She did get it because she was very resourceful, and she was very determined at the age of 58, which is remarkable in itself, after a life of searching for her education.

            In terms of what we can do to support individuals, we have to look not only within the department, but we have to bring in other departments. Mental health is one. Justice is another one. Collectively, the impact we can have on society, on individuals through education would be less incarceration and better jobs. It would just go on and on.

            MS. SMITH-MCCROSSIN: In some of my recent reading, there’s a lot of government departments where there is an overlap. Individuals who are currently needing assistance through Community Services also have high demand in the mental health services, as well as sometimes overlapping into Justice.

            Is there currently any formal committee work done between those three, as well as the Department of Labour and Advanced Education? Is there any sort of formal working committee right now that would be able to do sort of case work? In Amherst, for example, I notice the Department of Community Services is in one building in one side of the town and we have Nova Scotia Works CANSA in another side of the town, and we have the organization CAN-U in another location and then of course mental health in another location. Sometimes I think if everyone was even physically housed in close proximity, they would be able to have conversations that would remove some of the barriers to helping people.

            Anyway, I think there would be a lot of common sense. Obviously you would need to have the permission of the individuals. We’re all sometimes working in silos. If we were able to find a way to work more collaboratively to help individuals, we may be able to use our resources more effectively.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: We do work very closely with DCS, and we actually fund them. They do help their clients through certain programs to get them more skill sets to have attachment to the job market.

            What you speak of could flesh out in part of our analysis that we’re doing. It’s interesting that you bring it up because that’s exactly what we did in Nova Scotia Works. In Nova Scotia Works, we saw the same fragmentation in that in a small town, you could go to two or three places to attach to a job market. We did bring it together. This is going back a couple of years, so I don’t remember the exact outcomes of it, but I remember that we took a good percentage of funding out of administrative and put it to the front lines.

            In terms of the efficiencies we found there, as we look at our funding model, those are areas that we will look at. Some of the organizations would be harder to pull in because they do provide various different services, being non-profit, versus other areas that are run by the community college or other organizations.

            MS. SMITH-MCCROSSIN: In Question Period, if I’m allowed to refer to that, the Minister of Community Services referenced that in Nova Scotia Works, there is somebody who’s responsible for connecting with the business community to find out where there are openings in the skilled workforce. As a previous employer, I saw that there was a huge gap between what businesses need for a skilled workforce versus what sometimes students are being trained for.

            If there is someone already who is working through Nova Scotia Works, my recommendation would be to find a more effective way for them to be connecting with employers. I don’t think many employers know about that service. For example, I know of a hair salon that went under-staffed for about six years. They could never find enough skilled workforce, yet I’m sure if there was funding provided for students to get the training, this employer would have guaranteed a full-time position.

            I know there are trucking companies that can’t find enough truck drivers, farmers that can’t find skilled workforce or labourers, and manufacturing plants that can’t find workers, yet I see all these people who can’t find jobs. There seems to be a disconnect in how we’re preparing people for the workplace needs. I’m just wondering if you had any comments about that.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Most definitely. The reorganization of Nova Scotia Works resulted in a lot of efficiencies. The individuals you’re talking about, their exact title is employment engagement officers. Through the reorganization, we have 23 more working in the province. Within the last year, the officers have actually connected with over 1,000 employers to see what the needs are.

            What you speak of is a challenge that we always face in terms of whether our workforce is prepared for the jobs that are available today. That’s always the ebb and flow of what we try to work through at the Nova Scotia Community College and at other organizations to give them the skillset that matches them to the workforce.

            As we changed the way Nova Scotia Works operated, we increased our front-line staff by about 38 people. There used be about 206. Now we’re up to 244. These are the individuals working for people trying to attach to the job market.

            The part where a lot of efficiencies were gained - when we collapsed from 51 agreements to 18 and collapsed the amount of centres, the amount of funding going to administration and infrastructure dropped from 53 per cent to 27 per cent. That put all that extra money right to the front lines as well. It also created the staffing for the 23 officers who go into the community and find the needs and try to help with the matching as well.

            MS. SMITH-MCCROSSIN: I have a strong connection with the business community, so I always find it frustrating when they are sharing with me that they can’t find employees. Now as an MLA, I have a constant stream of people coming in, looking for support and a job. Thankfully my office is literally less than one block from Nova Scotia Works, so we walk up there together and make them an appointment. My goal is to help everyone get back into the workforce.

            I am going to thank you for your answers and pass it back to my colleague.

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orrell.

            MR. EDDIE ORRELL: I just want to go back to a few very simple questions on the university funding model. The question I am going to ask is, how much is the student loan forgiveness costing the government overall? If this year, there’s 10,000 students who graduate and 8,000 who qualify for the forgiveness, approximately how much money - I don’t need exact numbers, I just want approximate numbers - is that going to cost the government in payments?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: This year, it will be $8.5 million. We do anticipate that number is going to be increasing. Since the program was launched, it will be capturing more and more students as we go along. The starting point would have been zero, and then it would have jumped. I believe we are in our second year of the program, so in terms of the people getting loan forgiveness, it might be only two years of their studies. Within two years I would anticipate that that number would be more than double.

            MR. ORRELL: Is there going to be a cap on that amount or program? Or is it that we won’t cap it? If there’s 10,000 kids - young adults, pardon me. My kids are young adults now, I guess. As long as it’s like Community Services, needs based, there won’t be a cap put on that. Is that what I’m assuming?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: There is no cap on that. In terms of that program, a big part of it is accessibility to university and getting people who are some of our most vulnerable citizens able to access university and not have that burden.

            If the individual qualifies for the Nova Scotia student loan, then they would have 40 per cent immediately up front as a bursary and the rest upon graduation forgiven.

            I’ll give you a little bit of background. A lot of people have asked, why do you not forgive it all up front? We don’t want every student to sit there and say, I might as well go because university is pretty much free. We want them to think long and hard in terms of whether this is a good career path, whether it is the right fit. Community college might be a better fit, or there might be another program out there for the individual.

            We do put an onus of responsibility on the individual because we want them to graduate. Even if they are in university for two years - and this is something I heard from university presidents who are in my riding before I became the minister in this department. A problem they faced in the past was students coming for one or two years and then dropping out in their last year or two of studies. Although the student got a partial education, which is valuable, I think completing their education gives you the completion which, 10 years down the road, might mean you might move on to a master’s program or something else.

            What I like about this program is it puts the onus on the student to say, I’m going to graduate because I want my free tuition, essentially. It also helps our most vulnerable. One thing I always say to students when I talk to them about the program is to apply for it. If you get it, it’s essentially going to be free money at the end of your studies.

            MR. ORRELL: Some of the concerns I have from students in my area who come to me within the office is, yes, it’s great that the tuition part is done, but they’re having difficulties with the rent, the books, and so on. Their concern is if some of that money could be more of an upfront grant to make sure that they could pay their power bill, feed themselves, and have the conditions conducive to better studies.

[4:00 p.m.]

            I was thinking if it’s $8.5 million, if there was a way we could take some of that and put it as an upfront grant for the people who need it. Means test it. I’m not saying give it to everybody because not everybody needs it. By all means, the people who need it most are the ones who suffer the most. Some of them just can’t go to university because they don’t have it up front. I’m just wondering if somewhere along the line, we may look at diverting some of that upfront stuff so that they could at least get a start and hopefully then we make enough summer jobs available and da-da-da so that they could continue with that.

            A lot of the concerns I have, and some of the questions I have, are how they don’t have the money to live in the city in a decent apartment and afford groceries and/or the stuff that goes with it to make studying conducive. I guess that’s my question. Has that ever been considered? Is it a discussion that we would be able to sit down and have with our student groups and universities to see if that would happen?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I would never take away from the program, but I would keep enhancing the program as time went on. Keep in mind, we have enhanced the student loan program every year we have been in government. We started off by making all the student loans interest free, whether undergrad or graduate, from that point forward. That was early in our mandate. Back in 2014, I believe, that came in.

            In terms of going to university, if you’re not living at home, it’s a small part of your cost because you do have rent, and you have food, and those things are expensive.

            The way I look at all the programs as a whole is, there’s one thing we do give all our university students regardless of their income. Every Nova Scotia student who goes to a Nova Scotia university, as they pay their tuition, gets a $1,283 bursary as a reduction to their university fees. That’s regardless of income. That’s done through the registrar.

            In terms of our student loan program, the $8.5 million that we’re writing off this year only represents 60 per cent of the loan because we have already given an upfront bursary. Anyone who gets a student loan, and the maximum amount is $6,800 a year, 40 per cent of that is a bursary up front. Regardless of what happens to the individual through their studies, the 40 per cent is not repayable. They’re only carrying the 60 per cent, they do carry it interest free, and upon graduation, hopefully it gets wiped out.

            We did just recently do an enhancement to this where we increased the annual amount by $680 up to $6,800. To me, that was an enhancement. As time goes on, I want to keep enhancing the program to help our students. I want to keep helping those who do need the help. I have the same view as you. Some people in society, some of us, don’t need a bursary or don’t need help for our children. We’re more than happy to pay for their education, but there are others who we want to have a chance to go to university.

            In terms of statistics, and this is a Canadian-wide statistic, about the cost of university, this is the percentage that each student pays in after-tax earnings upon graduation. In 2002, it peaked in Canada at about 12.5 per cent of their earnings going to pay back their student loans. Across Canada in 2014, it had dropped to 7.9 per cent.

            If you actually look at Nova Scotia with our new program, for some students that’s going to be dropping to 0 per cent, which I think is a huge cost savings. They’ll have nothing to repay. They’ll have their federal loan to repay, so you could see that amount actually being 4 per cent of their earnings. That gives them the ability to hunker down, pay off a bit more because of the savings they have on the Nova Scotia side, and then get that much quicker to homeownership, starting a family, and things that carrying debt might hold you back, for a short period of time, from doing.

            MR. ORRELL: You just tweaked my antenna a little bit, or my interest. I’m getting personal when I say this, and I’ll be up front to say that I have a daughter who left the province to study medicine. She took a four-year degree from CBU in nursing, didn’t have a student loan, couldn’t get a student loan. She went out of the country to take this medical program, exorbitant amounts of money, and didn’t qualify for a student loan through the province although she would like to come back here.

            I guess my question is if that program might be expanded. We’re in need of doctors in the province now. Could these programs be extended to allow some Nova Scotia kids who don’t attend Nova Scotia university - a medical school in Toronto or wherever it might be - to at least be considered to qualify for that type of student loan?

            I’m going to tell you, you don’t have any kids in university yet, and I don’t know how many kids you have. You’re saying you are going to be more than happy to pay for their university. I’m going to tell you, when they get to that age, you had better start saving now because it’s not near what everybody thinks. You can save all you want and put money in RESPs. It’s not enough.

            Just to finish off in this little bit of time, would there be consideration or are there exceptions that might allow people in necessary professions to the province to at least have that conversation with departments about possible financial assistance?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of physicians, the funding for that does happen under Health and Wellness. I think it would be a more appropriate question for them, and even at the university level.

            In terms of our loan forgiveness and supports, we did get clarification from the department. Nurses do quality. Professional programs that require an undergrad degree do not qualify. The program is geared toward an individual’s first degree. If you list a profession that requires a science undergrad or an arts undergrad, that profession does not qualify, but the undergrad part does. Essentially, what we do have as the blanket is that your first degree qualifies.

            In terms of physicians, you do bring up an important point. There’s a need for them. There’s a great cost to a physician going to university. I guess that’s part of why they do make a good income, because they take quite a large risk. Many of them come out with $200,000 or $250,000 of debt, and they have very little to no income. Then they go on to do residency and make very little money. Where they don’t repay any of that debt, it probably goes even more. At that point, as they’re sitting on a quarter of a million or $300,000 or $400,000 of debt, they need to have an income where they can pay that down.

            I knew, in my last life as a commercial lender, many doctors who, in their 40s, still had not built up a net worth. It’s a big misconception that if you’re a doctor - many of them do well, but not all of them are multi-millionaires. Very few professions work as hard as them. It’s a very much needed profession, and they earn every dollar that they receive.

            In terms of the funding, that would be a Health and Wellness. In principle I would say I agree with you completely that we do need to support our doctors. We need to support all our students at every level. With the programs, that’s where we’re trying to get to. We keep improving them year by year. We don’t have an unlimited supply of money, so we take the amount we have and we try to use it to the best of our ability and try and have the most impact on people and their lives in Nova Scotia with it.

            MR. ORRELL: We need more than we can produce in our own university here in the province. Not only do some of them not get into the universities in the country, but they have to go offshore. Because of that, the amount of dollars goes up and so that’s why I ask that question.

            To finish off the session, I’m looking at grants to universities and community colleges. There is a difference: community college, up front college grants are $138 million compared to a decrease in the university grants of about $11 million or $12 million. I’m just wondering, why have the grants to universities gone down when the grants to community colleges have gone up?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Grants to universities went down because there was our SIF program, which was matching funds from the federal government. When the federal money flowed into the universities, it flowed through our department. As those programs have ended, the money doesn’t flow the following year. There has been no cut from the department to universities. We have had a 1 per cent increase. That decrease you saw was just infrastructure money that flowed last year. Those projects would be funded and under way or completed, and it wouldn’t be flowing this year.

            Just very quickly, in terms our community college funding of $138 million and our universities, which is a bit over $300 million, I believe we’re funding our universities to about 46 per cent of operating. Community colleges we fund at over 80 per cent of operating. It’s . . .

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order. The time has elapsed for the Progressive Conservatives. We’ll hand it over to the NDP. Ms. Martin, you have up to an hour.

            MS. TAMMY MARTIN: Thank you to the minister and his staff for being here and prepared to answer some questions. I will specifically be doing Labour, and my colleague Ms. Zann will come in and do Advanced Education.

            I just want to follow up on my colleague from the PCs’ questions about the student loan forgiveness because I, too, have a daughter who graduated with a hefty loan from St. F.X., and she is nurse. We’re specifically just talking about the Nova Scotia part, not the national program. Does this happen automatically?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: All the student has to do is prove that they graduated. A photocopy of their degree sent into the department wipes out the loan. It’s good.

            MS. MARTIN: Awesome. Thank you.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Hopefully, your daughter saves some money on her student loan if she has one.

            MS. MARTIN: She has a significant student loan from St. F.X., and she’s in an emergency room now. That’s awesome. Thank you.

            I would like to talk about the domestic violence leave legislation that you tabled last week and the amendments to the Employment Standards Act. How did this come to be? Who was consulted or talked to? How did we get here?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Just give me one second. I will talk to staff about this because this predates me coming into the department back in June.

            This was initiated after Manitoba brought in their legislation. The department started looking into it. They went out and consulted with the Retail Council of Canada and Restaurants Canada. On the labour side, they consulted with the Federation of Labour, Canadian Labour Congress, NSNU, and various advocacy groups. I know there were also other employers that we consulted with through the Chamber of Commerce. I believe Sobeys was one that was there and other employers that came forward to talk to the province.

            MS. MARTIN: I’m wondering, is the minister able to table a document with questions that would have been asked and information or feedback that would have been received?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I don’t have it here with me, but we do have a document that summarizes the feedback. A lot of it was done in conversations, so we just summarized what was happening. I can bring that to the House and share it with you.

[4:15 p.m.]

            MS. MARTIN: I think it would be valuable information for us to see how it came to be. I know the minister has mentioned that the department will entertain paid days, follow the federal government’s going forward with five paid days.

            In the press conference, the minister targeted that it would assist low-wage earners. If I could ask the minister, what does the minister believe is the wage of a low-wage worker?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Who the legislation would be targeting, in my opinion, would be a person who is in a job that - in terms of the legislation, the person who I want to protect is an individual who is married, and they are a second income in the family, so they might not be the primary income. It could be male or female. The family unit does not rely on their income per se. There would be a worry that if something did happen, and they lost their income, they would be under a greater financial situation. The person might, for reasons, want to leave the household right away or go to a shelter or look for other accommodations. That’s the individual I wouldn’t want to have the added stress, before a court might decide that there has to be spousal support, in terms of, “Am I going to lose my job on top of it too?”

            As I did mention, this was the starting point, but there’s other workers who we’re not even supporting with this level of security, which was a surprise to me. I asked the department, because I think it’s an oversight not only currently but from past governments as well. If you get sick, you can be fired. I think that would come as a shock to most people.

            The reason I don’t think it has come to light is because I think most employers know that you couldn’t, in good conscience, get away with it. Although part of me says we might not have to legislate it, the other part of me says it should have been legislated a long time ago and should be the minimum.

            In terms of our feedback with a lot of employers, we had a lot of positive feedback. Many of them were already doing what the legislation states they do, and many of them were doing even more than what the legislation is stating to do. I think wholeheartedly that most employers are good employers, and they know that the well-being of their employees means the well-being of their organization. What the legislation intends to do is put that level of support in for someone who thinks they might have a loophole for getting rid of someone. I don’t want a person to feel that stress, and that’s where I think it will be a great help.

            As you mentioned, we’re not closed off to having paid leave in the future, but we’re also cognizant of the fact that we would want to go out, do consultations, and have a better understanding of what that means because that is a cost that the employers bear in their organizations. We want to look at everything in balance in terms of bringing forward a decision. Immediately your sense is that this should be done, that it’s the right thing, and your heartstrings say it should be done. But businesses have pressures as well, and every time we put a burden on them, we want to at least have another area where we might be relieving them as well. We want to maintain the balance with them.

            MS. MARTIN: The specific situation that comes to mind is of a single mom who is working at Joe Pop Diner, making less than $15 an hour. She has a family at home and has an abusive partner who has no obligation to support this mom. She has monthly bills. She should try to feed her kids out of that money she is taking home. If she takes time off without pay, at under $15 an hour wage, she is losing hundreds of dollars. In the press conference when this was released, the minister made reference to legal counsel. Jane Doe who works at Joe Pop Diner can’t afford to feed her family, let alone get a lawyer.

            There are so many more situations out there that desperately require this leave to be paid. Does the department understand how detrimental these days not being paid is to a single mom or dad who is being abused by a partner outside of the home?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I did see this argument out there. Why would a person who is being abused need a lawyer? How could they afford one if they are at a low income? We do have Nova Scotia Legal Aid, which is for these exact purposes. I did say they might need a lawyer. It had nothing to do with them being able to defend themselves in terms of a lawsuit. What it had to do with is that the person might sit there and say they want a divorce. You need a lawyer to go through that process. You need to know your rights.

            Many people are in abusive relationships because they don’t know their rights to get out of it. That’s where a lawyer can come into play, and if they can’t afford it, a Nova Scotia Legal Aid lawyer. Having the information and having that knowledge might actually be the tipping point for that individual to say, I’m out of this relationship, and end the cycle of abuse. That’s where my comments were regarding needing a lawyer. In terms of major life decisions, that’s where lawyers do come in and help you to move on in these situations.

            In terms of the legislation, one thing we did find is that many employers were actually providing a higher level. This diner you speak to, I’m not sure if they are providing a paid leave or not to the individual or allowing them to use their sick days if they do allocate sick days to the individual. What we did bring in with the legislation is the minimum standard.

            At this point in the province, all leaves are unpaid, in terms of work. If we were actually to have this as a paid leave, we would go out and do consultation, and we would get feedback from employers. At that point, upon consulting, we would get the evidence, look at what it would mean to the employers as well, and move forward from there.

            Without having done that work, I wasn’t going to hold up the legislation. I think the legislation should have been brought in a long time ago. I wanted to move forward with it because it is a good piece of legislation, and it does give people peace of mind. It also puts our thought process into this, and it puts domestic abuse in the conversation that people are having in society and at home. It could be enough, as that conversation is happening, for people to look at what their rights are and help them get out of the situation.

            In terms of domestic violence, as we have this conversation and continue to have this conversation, I think that knowledge will reduce the amount of violence happening.

            The other parts I’ll point out in the legislation are quite broad. There’s leave for your child if they are in a domestic violence situation, and there’s leave for sexual violence as well. There’s also a broad definition of what a partner is. When you look at the other provinces, they came in and they said there would be a paid part, but it was quite narrow, and it was a narrow definition of partner.

            This is something that we talked about in the department. Our intent with the legislation is that if you or your child are in a domestic violence situation, your notification is not going to be a doctor’s note or a police report. It’s going to essentially be you self-identifying. You will have the protection of nobody at work knowing, of your employer not being able to tell anyone, and you’ll have that job protection.

            In terms of the onus on you to provide that information, it will be very minimal. But when you look at the employer having to pay, and this is where other provinces are, now there’s a higher standard of having to provide information to be paid as you’re not at work. That’s another area that we also grappled with. I do like where we landed because I don’t want the individual to have to provide any details, to feel that they’re being victimized again by having to relive what happened or having to seek out a note from a doctor or a note from the police who might have been involved in the situation.

            I am very pleased with where the legislation is at as a starting point. I think that it will make a difference in people being able to have that comfort in terms of job protection. It also puts the lens on domestic violence, which as that conversation happens, is a good thing as well.

            MS. MARTIN: Talking about Legal Aid and legal fees, I understand the cut-off is $12,000 in order to use Legal Aid, and the maximum is four hours. If somebody is being abused by a partner, I don’t believe that they should have to use sick time.

            The people that I’m speaking about, these low-wage workers, I believe the least of their worries is legal services. As I said, they’re trying to feed their family and pay their rent. I guess my hope is that we reach a paid leave sooner rather than later. When somebody is making $12 an hour, I don’t know how anybody could expect them to take time off without pay and feed their family.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I can’t comment on the details of Nova Scotia Legal Aid. That would be more for the Justice Department. What I do know about Legal Aid is that the four hours is the initial consultation. Legal Aid always provides four hours of legal work for you to determine if you require more.

            If you are in a Legal Aid situation, there are many instances where there are even hundreds of hours provided to an individual. The four hours are what they’re legally obligated to provide every individual who walks through the door. They can’t say no to it. They make the determination if more hours are required or not based on your situation at that point.

            In terms of any other aspects of Nova Scotia Legal Aid, that $12,000 of income - it’s the first time I have heard it. I would check with them. Dealing with individuals through my office who did have Legal Aid assisting them, I know that their income was higher than that amount, so I’m not sure if that’s completely accurate as well.

            MS. MARTIN: To that end, I guess we’ll agree to disagree because at the end of the day, it’s not the legal issue - it’s about not being able to feed your children. That’s the issue that we take exception with. These people who are in abusive relationships cannot take the time off work because they will not be able to feed their children.

            Would the minister agree that this would be an incentive to enforce paid leave so that employers could provide anti-violence, anti-sexual-assault training and violence prevention strategies?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: After the legislation is passed, our department, in conjunction with the Status of Women, is going to reach out and provide education to employers and employees in terms of what the legislation is and what their rights are. The employees will know what their rights are in terms of that standard, and employers will know that they have to hold the job for the individual if they declare that they’re in an unfortunate situation.

            MS. MARTIN: I would like to move on now and talk about minimum wage in our province. Nova Scotians are among the most highly educated population in the country. Over 70 per cent of 25- to 29-year-olds have a post-secondary degree, diploma or certificate, but young people are not seeing their investments reflected in their wages.

            Last year, more people left Nova Scotia for other provinces than those who moved here. The fact that our highly educated and energetic children weren’t able to start lives here should be setting off an alarm bell. We can no longer afford to be this low-wage jurisdiction. More than a quarter of Nova Scotians are earning less than $15 an hour.

[4:30 p.m.]

            Does the minister believe that it’s appropriate for an educated person in this province to work full-time making less than $15 an hour?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I will correct one statement. In the last two years, we have actually retained more people in the province, especially our youth, than have left the province. This is straight from Stats Canada. It’s the first time it has happened since the 1980s.

            What I will say about our educated - we’re talking about two different things. We’re talking about minimum wage, and a minimum wage generally is what’s referred to as the unskilled labour rate. Then what we’re talking about is somebody with a university degree, which would be a skill, or somebody who might have a college diploma.

            When we look at our graduates from NSCC, of which 85 per cent are attached to the job market immediately, they are not making minimum wage. When we’re talking about a minimum wage in play, we’re talking primarily retail sector. We’re talking primarily the restaurant industry. I will also add that in the restaurant industry - and I know this industry quite well - minimum wage employees tend to be the dishwashers. Staff in the kitchen are generally making $15-plus an hour. Servers who earn tips are generally making more than double.

            I will differentiate that that is generally within a licensed establishment - bartender or a restaurant that serves alcohol, as opposed to a minimum wage earner who might be at Tim Hortons. They would not be earning a large amount in tips. A minimum wage earner at a fast food joint that doesn’t have an alcoholic licence would not be earning an amount of tips.

            I will also point out that in Ontario today, the minimum wage sits at $14, but they have a different minimum wage for individuals who are 19 years and under. That minimum wage is $11 an hour. When I look at minimum wage, my goal is to have our workforce not working for minimum wage. In terms of doing that, that is where skills come in. That is programs like Graduate to Opportunity and Innovate to Opportunity.

            You did hear in the past about a university graduate working as a barista, not that there’s anything wrong with doing that. But if you go to university for four years, and you’re carrying student loans, you want to come out and have a job where you can put your skill set to work and be able to have a higher income to repay your student loans.

            As you look at minimum wage, even within this province, and we have done quite a bit of analysis, 96 per cent of the people earning minimum wage are not the primary breadwinner in the home. As they’re earning minimum wage, it’s generally a child, or it could be a spouse who takes a part-time job as well. When we look at the 96 per cent, yes, there would be an amount of people who are earning minimum wage or close to minimum wage who might be the primary breadwinner in the home. For those individuals, we can sit there and say hey, let’s pump up the minimum wage. Ontario did it, and Alberta did it, it must be a good idea.

            It would be the wrong thing to do because Ontario and Alberta have full employment. If you went to Fort Mac five years ago and got a job at Tim Hortons, it paid $18 an hour, so why do they care if it’s a $15 minimum wage? Very few in Alberta were making less than $15, so going to a $15 minimum wage did not hurt their economy.

            In Ontario, we did see some negative effects of minimum wage. At this point, we are looking at the data to see why and if there will be negative effects or positive effects long term. I spoke to the Minister of Labour out of Ontario and had a conversation with him because I was interested in this. I also felt there are many employees, in certain instances, who should make more. I don’t want the unintended consequence of shrinking that pool of work as companies automate and as small businesses just decide the owner, mom and pop, are going to work more hours because they can’t afford to pay the $15 minimum wage. The unintended consequence I was worried about was to the individual actually - “Great, I make $15 an hour, but I went from 40 hours down to 20. Now I’m actually only taking home half the money I was.”

            In terms of Nova Scotia, you cannot compare Nova Scotia to Ontario. You cannot compare Nova Scotia to other areas that have increased minimum wage. If you do, you’re going to fall down a rabbit hole that is going to have very large unintended consequences.

            Ontario has an unemployment rate of 5.8 per cent, and full employment is considered 5.5 per cent to 6 per cent. In Ontario, full employment means that there is always about 5.5 per cent to 6 per cent of our workforce who are in flux in the job market, who are looking for a better-paying job or who might have moved to another area. Ontario has essentially no unemployment. Alberta is the same thing.

            I believe Seattle was the first to bring in a $15 minimum wage. They had an unemployment rate of 2.8 per cent. They actually evaluated Seattle’s increase - this was the first increase, the $13 - and they found significant disemployment effects that, on the net, reduced the incomes of minimum wage workers. The main finding was that hours worked by low-wage workers fell, reflected in job loss and reduction in hours. This was a Bank of Canada report talking about minimum wage.

            My question would be, who are we trying to help with the minimum wage? Are there other ways to help them? When we talk about that full-time individual who is the breadwinner for the family, it would be very easy to say we can help by increasing the minimum wages. What would be even harder - and I don’t have the answer for this, and I don’t think anyone has addressed the answer - is how we give them a skill set so they’re out working and making $18 an hour. That’s what I would like to work at for these individuals. Even at $15 an hour, if you’re a parent, you’re still going to have struggles, especially if you’re a single parent. If you’re two parents, you have a fighting chance, but also life is expensive.

            I would rather have the challenge of how we give that person the skillset they require and get them into a job that could pay them $18 or $20. What I look at as a minimum wage job is - when I was 16 years old, I went out and had many minimum wage jobs. If I didn’t have those opportunities, I would not have learned about being to work on time. I would not have learned about sitting there and doing work that was very hard on you even as a teenager because it wasn’t the best job in the world. In my mind I thought, I really don’t want to do this job for my whole life, so I had better get an education because I want to have a better chance at a greater income. That’s the hand up I would like to give the individuals who are in that situation.

            If we raise the minimum wage to $15 tomorrow, I truly believe you would have a lot more of youth unemployment. Individuals who might be the sole breadwinner would have their hours cut and reduced, which puts a great stress on them. I think when we talk about minimum wage, we have to talk about it in the sense of who we are trying to help and how.

            The other thing we also have to recognize with our minimum wage and when you compare it to Ontario is that we’re not Ontario. We’re not Alberta. We can’t sit there and move and follow them. I’m not saying we can’t learn from them because I think we can. I do look forward to the data over the next couple of years from Ontario because I think it will be telling.

            In closing, I want to add one thing. I spoke to the Minister of Labour in Ontario in terms of why they did this. I think it’s the proper reason, and I did actually task the department with looking into it. They said they looked all communities in Ontario and felt that $15, as you believe, is the amount you need to have a living wage. I thought that’s actually noble and right. Then they did come in and say, but we didn’t want to have a negative consequence - and nobody talks about this - on our youth, so they are $3 less.

            Ontario also has a tip differential. In terms of people who work at licensed restaurants, many of them make $20-plus an hour in tips alone. The tip differential in Ontario, I believe, is about $1 and something. I don’t want to be quoted on it. I think it’s $1.25 or $1. A person earning tips has less. I know the argument has been that that person is being taken advantage of because they are below a minimum wage earner. In talking to many people in the restaurant industry what they actually say is, I am not a minimum wage earner because I make a whole lot more money in tips than my paycheque. Many of them, if you monetize what their income is after tax, would be up in the $60,000, $70,000, or $100,000 range.

            I put the lens on what Ontario is doing, and I did like the methodology of it. I tasked my department with doing the same thing. I said I want that data for Nova Scotia. I want to know what a minimum wage should be. I am not convinced that $11 is right. In terms of how we got to $11 in this formula, you have to go back in history. There was a minimum wage group brought in by a previous government. The NDP did make small incremental wage increases which brought the minimum wage up to closer to where all the other provinces are.

            Then the formula changed and, going forward, that group - it’s not my decision. I actually asked the department if I can actually change minimum wage on my own with a ministerial order. I was told no, because we have a working group together of industry, representing the employers and representing the employees. We have union and industry at the table together.

            That group came together, and they did an increase. They did it based on what the legislation says, which is that the increase must be in line with inflation. Inflation has been less than a per cent a year for the last three, four years, and they brought in a 15 per cent minimum wage increase which is in line with the legislation.

            One of the individuals on the committee, Danny Cavanagh, reached out to me and said, it doesn’t sit well with me because our hands were kind of tied. He asked, would you look at raising the minimum wage on your own? I said, in discussions with the department, I wasn’t comfortable with that because what if the individual representing businesses said, I’m not happy with $11, and I want you to lower it to $10.50? I would say no. My initial reaction to Danny is no, I won’t raise it on your recommendation. What I will do is let you get together with that board and look at data, and we’ll help you in any way we can, and look at a Nova Scotia solution and what our cost of living here is.

            I think we can all agree that the cost of living in Ontario is way higher than here, especially in rural Nova Scotia. Many places are actually still affordable, and much more affordable, to live in than Ontario, where you see the median home price in Toronto being almost $1 million now, which is ridiculous.

            I have told the group I’m more than happy, and I endorse you getting together and looking at any data you want to, and we will support that. Whatever minimum wage changes to has to be supported by data. It can’t be supported by Ontario’s data, and it can’t be supported by it feeling good. It would feel good to just say, the minimum wage is $15, and we’re helping people. But when we turn around and there’s unintended consequences, then we’re not really helping the people we’re trying to help. I think that would be a bigger shame.

            I know you have advocated for increases that people who pay minimum wage can generally afford. I do agree with that. One of the mistakes I think Ontario made is that there was a shock when it jumped by a few dollars. I think if we’re trying to get to a point in the future, we would have to do it incrementally.

            I have asked for the data from your leader - he said $15 an hour - and he has never provided it to me. One time in Question Period I did say, provide me with the data that $15 is the right minimum wage for Nova Scotia, and I’ll consider it, but no data has been provided.

[4:45 p.m.]

            I did like Ontario’s approach: $15 is where they landed based on their own data. I did commit to taking the same approach here in Nova Scotia, but it will be a Nova Scotia solution for our workforce. Our workforce is quite different than Ontario’s as well. In Ontario 11 per cent of their workforce earns minimum wage. In Nova Scotia, less than 6 per cent of our workforce earns minimum wage, and the Canadian average is 7 per cent. Any solution we bring has to be for Nova Scotia, and we want to mitigate the unintended consequences.

            That’s where I stand on minimum wage. I know you advocate for $15. Any data you have supporting it as a Nova Scotia solution we will definitely take under advisement and pass on to that minimum wage group as well.

            MS. MARTIN: I realize that you’re suggesting we can’t compare to Ontario. However, the Premier tabled a document today that absolutely compared us to Ontario. That data was actually outdated because the benefits only increased after the minimum wage in Ontario went up. The data that the Premier referenced was in 2017, and the new data provided that ours went up.

            I can speak to teachers, professionals, who have gone to university who sell me shoes or serve me food because they are not able to get a job in their particular field. They are making under $15 an hour. To say that people who are making minimum wage are typically second incomes or don’t have a university degree, I don’t think we can say that completely because that is not the case. Maybe not in HRM, but in rural Nova Scotia, the people who are selling your shoes and serving you dinner at the local restaurant have university degrees. I would venture to guess most of them do.

            The minister referred to a trained workforce or an experienced workforce that would make over $15 an hour. What is your comment, then, to aestheticians, who are trained and professional, or to the janitors who we need, who are trained and, I would think, professional? Let’s look at a hospital situation - they need to know what they’re doing with these cleaning products and whatever. These people are trained in their field, and they are clearly not making a $15 minimum wage.

            I would refute the minister’s claim that there would be an unintended consequence. I, too, did think, how is Joe Pop going to be able to maintain their business? Studies have shown - and I will ascertain to get you that data - that when you increase wages, people will reinvest in their economy. Right now, I hear every day that people can’t afford to go down the street to the local diner because they can barely afford to go to Sobeys.

            If you increase their wages, they may order a pizza on a Friday night or go to the local movie theatre. Like I said, I will try to provide you with that, but I think it’s a stimulus. It provides stimulus to the economy. It encourages spending. No, I don’t think that we should be doing something drastic like jumping right there, but we need to look long and hard at being able to provide Nova Scotians with the ability, as single earners - educated, trained, professional people - to earn enough money so that they can live a halfway normal life.

            You talked about the committee. Is there data that the minister can provide us? Can the minister provide us with data from this committee? Are they a standing committee that reviews the minimum wage going forward? What is the criteria that surrounds that?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: The committee meets annually to review the minimum wage. It generally happens in the Fall, as it did this past Fall. The legislation put them in a box that said essentially that the only data you look at is the inflation rate. That is why we have seen a very modest increase in the minimum wage.

            When they did come back, I did say, by all means meet again. I’m not holding them to meeting once a year. They also provide recommendations to me which I accept when they’re all in support of it, or when it’s unanimous between the members on the group. What I did signal to them was, by all means get together again, look at minimum wage. Don’t look at it from the parameters of just an inflation increase. They will consider any data out there.

            You mentioned you had some data of the increases to the economy. That wouldn’t surprise me if there was more economic stimulus from an increased minimum wage. I can tell you personally that in my businesses I never paid minimum wage. My feeling was always that if I can attract the best, then they will provide the best service, and that will help my business. In some businesses, it worked out well in terms of service. In other ones, I probably overpaid, and it probably didn’t work out so well. That’s a learning experience as well. In terms of that group, they will get together to look at other things and bring it forward to me.

            This will also be done in the context that we are trying to harmonize with all of Atlantic Canada. That brings New Brunswick and P.E.I. into the fold as well, to take a look at having one rate of minimum wage. We have to have all the provinces in Atlantic Canada at the table to have that discussion, which we have been working towards for the last year. From that, we could see a modest increase as well.

            There’s a lot of unknowns. I think we’re at the second-lowest in Canada, in terms of minimum wage, but six provinces are within 25 cents of us. I know years ago, when the NDP brought in increases, we were dollars below the other provinces, and it was a bit more offside.

            Again, I’m not opposed to changing the minimum wage, but I want the data to support it. In terms of the road we’re on now, which is harmonization, if that data supports a different minimum wage for us, it would support it for the other provinces. We would all be looking at the same data and making sure we don’t have unintended consequences. It would not be a quick process, but it would be a thoughtful process. We would move forward with it and see what the adjustments could be.

            MS. MARTIN: I would like to move on to occupational health and safety. Earlier this month, a worker was killed at a Kent Building Supplies site. I understand it was a fall that occurred during high winds. Is the minister able to provide or table a document that will list the fatalities and injuries, say, over the last five years that took place in the province?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of fatalities, we do provide that data every year.

            MS. MARTIN: Aside from that aspect, I have experience with - I digress. You spoke before about a five-year framework in your opening remarks around occupational health and safety and how it affects health care workers, a strategy you were looking at. Can you describe that in more detail, please?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: This five-year framework came to be when we tackled other industries that had high rates of accidents. In tackling them with education, the accidents dropped.

            What we did is, we looked at what industry had the highest rates of accidents. It was health care workers. Primarily it was home care workers, in terms of lifting an individual, muscle strains, back strains, and not being able to work. We had a very high degree of people taking time off work.

            We came together - it was a joint effort between health care, LAE and the Workers’ Compensation Board - to make some investments in education. If we make the investments in education, we will keep people at work. By keeping them at work, we will also keep the individual off workers’ compensation, so it’s a win-win there. The person will be more able to protect themselves from situations - not only from lifting someone they shouldn’t, or if they don’t have the proper supports. Many workers face abuse in these types of positions. It also gives them education for when they are in a situation to help them get out of the situation.

            The five-year framework is to tackle the health care community, our nurses and our home care workers, and to look at reducing those rates of injury and lost time so that people can be productive and be at work. I do anticipate that there will be a difference because education, as with all areas, is the key. As they know and they are educated about areas where they could have an accident or an unintended injury, then they will hopefully find that they are not going to try to lift a person who is dead weight in a certain way or in another way. Or they might be like okay, in this situation I need help, and actually go to get the help instead of trying to do it on their own, and all of a sudden they’re out for weeks on end with a pulled back or something else.

            It’s an investment that we’re making. I do anticipate that we’ll see a great reduction because our rates of lost time are far too high in those professions.

            MS. MARTIN: I agree. I believe that education will absolutely help. What about the situations where they don’t have the proper equipment?

            I know of many places in health care, specifically in long-term care, where they don’t have the proper equipment. They don’t have lifts. I know of one specific long-term care facility where the doors aren’t wide enough for wheelchair bound patients to get into their bathroom. They are in a room, in a wheelchair, and they are unable to get into their bathroom. How can we fix this?

            This is clearly - I agree that people need to learn how to lift, tug and pull, and all of that stuff. But when we don’t have the facilities or the equipment that is required, how can we address that?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Those are the exact areas that will be addressed under the five-year framework. There’s also funding that goes directly into - I’m just going to read a quick paragraph here. The intent of Health and Wellness is to provide funding to AWARE-NS in the amount of $450,000 this year and next year. The funding is to support the operation activities of AWARE-NS in addition to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

            Part of it is two positions. Part of it is another $150,000 per year. It’s exactly for these types of situations you are talking about.

            We are starting in this program in the framework this Spring, and it’s a five-year framework. These are the types of data and situations we’re also going to be aware of and look at like in terms of what the amount of it is. We’re not going to solve every situation. You put your resources to try and educate, but in terms of this type of work, there’s always an instance when someone would suffer something that might have them take time off work.

            What we’re going to do is try to get the majority of it that is happening now, that we think we can get to through education and through investments.

[5:00 p.m.]

            MS. MARTIN: One area that wasn’t mentioned was short staff. Many times, injuries take place when there are not enough staff present, and staff need to work on their own. I would hope that, through this five-year review process, staffing ratios will be included in that.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Most definitely, and that’s the data that will be covered as well. That’s why the two departments have come together - us and Health and Wellness as well as Workers’ Compensation. We all bring different data to the table and different expertise, but we all have the one common goal of reducing injuries and keeping people at work.

            MS. MARTIN: I would like to talk briefly about Donkin Mine - we talked about it in Question Period - and the issues that were taking place, the safety concerns about ceilings caving in and spraying without masks. Is the minister able to table any information on what is being done? I know the minister mentioned investigations - announced and unannounced. Are you able to table any information about how it’s going forward to ensure the safety of that mine?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: You mentioned Donkin Mine, and I do want to go to a high level of occupational health and safety. This is an area where we have professionals who are trained. There is absolutely no interference from myself. The only thing I have said to my deputy is that our occupational health and safety people are responsible for health and safety. The only thing that I direct them on is to tell them make sure people are safe and that safety is not compromised. There is no political interference for anything.

            I know people have talked about these being good jobs. We don’t want to lose the jobs. If there is a reason that our occupational health and safety staff feel that there is a situation that needs to be rectified, they’re the safety experts. They will work towards rectifying the situation.

            In terms of what we have talked about, there have been announced visits to the mine and unannounced visits to the mine. We have found, in our inspections, areas of concern that have been brought up to the company, and they have been addressed. There were some other areas of complaints. From the feedback I received, occupational health and safety did not see those infractions.

            I would say to every worker, and I have kept this message very clear, if you feel you’re unsafe there, you can report it to the department anonymously. I have heard from the member that some people are afraid of reporting something because this area really appreciates the jobs and appreciates the work. They feel that maybe they can put up with a higher level of risk because their neighbour is depending on it too. I personally feel that’s wrong. I hope that no one feels that they’re in that situation working anywhere in the province.

            The support line is 1-800-9LABOUR. You can leave it anonymously. We will investigate. We won’t even know who is calling. The tapes are never released. Nobody will hear them. We will go and investigate.

            In terms of some of the accusations that have been out there, for occupational health and safety, they have been unfounded. From their inspections, they have found infractions. They worked with the company, and the company has worked towards alleviating them. I’ll give you the least serious, which was a screwdriver on the floor somewhere. I don’t have the specifics of it. It was just written up as, don’t leave a tool lying on the floor. I’m sure that can happen in any workplace, but that is considered an infraction.

            The most serious infraction was with the backup generator. I don’t know what the role of the backup generator is, but I’m assuming it might provide fresh air if the power goes down to the mine so that people don’t consume gases, or it might be the elevator getting out of the mine. The backup generator was not inspected. They knew the backup generator worked, but it didn’t have that rubber stamp from an inspector. Until that inspection happened, the occupational health and safety person said this is a technicality but they said the mine can’t operate until you get that inspection.

            When I look at it and we closed the mine for that, the inspector did, they didn’t ask permission from me. I would never, ever want them to come to me with anything like that. This is them, as professionals, doing what they have to do in terms of their profession and ensuring that people are safe. But when you look at it and say okay, they actually took this seriously enough that they said the chance could be a fraction, but that’s a fraction of risk that we’re not willing to take.

            I also recognize that it’s an industrial site. I’m not naive and I think with an industrial site and you’re going underground, there’s an inherent risk. I don’t want a repeat of Westray but what we are doing as a department is mitigating all the risk we can. But we also recognize - I previously worked at TrentonWorks which was the worst site for occupational health and safety in the province. We had a Workers’ Compensation individual on site, essentially any minute the plant was running there was one person from Workers’ Compensation there because we had so many workplace accidents - not because the workers were not skilled or they were not good workers, but because it was a heavy industrial site of building railroad cars.

            I’m not naive, Donkin Mine, I would anticipate, is a mine that’s underground, it’s deep, and it’s near the ocean. That creates challenges. We’re not naive in terms of the inherent risk in a mine like that, but I’m confident our occupational health and safety people are doing everything they can to mitigate the risk. If there’s too much risk, they’ll put the lives of the workers first and get them out of there or shut the mine down, like they have done in the past.

            MS. MARTIN: I have just two final questions and I’m going to rope them together just to get them in. The first one, in QP when I mentioned to the minister about workers being told they’d be fired if they tried to start a union, I’d like the minister to comment on his knowledge about that, as well as the WCB. I have presented legislation to have the WCB revamped and looked at because I believe, and I don’t know the year, but James Dorsey did a review and those recommendations were never enforced.

            I see WCB clients in my office every single day where they cannot get - I had one gentleman who worked right inside the coke ovens. I don’t understand what that is but I guess it was bad because he was right in there with the fire. He has black lung, COPD and all that because of it and he has been denied compensation because it wasn’t work-related. It just boggles my mind.

            I do believe the program needs to be evaluated, at the very least, and revamped, at the very most. I would appreciate any comments on both of those.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I’ll try to answer as quickly as I can. In terms of Donkin Mine and what was told to the employees, I have no knowledge of that and nobody in the department has ever brought it back to me. In terms of what the rights of the employees are, they have the same rights as any other employee in terms of forming themselves under a labour union.

            I can’t interfere and would never interfere in the process of employees banding together to form a union or not form a union. The rights of the process they have to follow are laid out in legislation and if they’re following that they have the right to have a union formed in whatever capacity they want, to represent them.

            In terms of the Workers’ Compensation Board, the Workers’ Compensation Board has a board, they are board-run, just at a very high level. The board has individuals from both labour and business, representing both sides. One thing I can say is in the past when political Parties have meddled in the Workers’ Compensation Board, they really put the fund at risk and we’re still facing the challenges of that. The fund is underfunded. There’s a liability there because it does not have enough money to pay out its future liabilities.

            They have been getting better, but I do know - and I can get you more information if time runs out - there are mechanisms that the individual you speak of can trigger for appeals, but I’m not sure if they have gone through that whole mechanism. If you want to bring the individual’s case into the department, I’m more than happy to get staff to take a look at it.

            We also actually fund two non-profits that advocate on behalf of people who have not received funding from Workers’ Compensation. So that’s another avenue as well and we can get you that information too.

            MS. MARTIN: Thank you. I’ve actually reached out to your staff about the Cape Breton Injured Workers Association because they’re extremely busy and it would take a big load off of me, so I appreciate that and the help from all your staff. Thank you for taking my questions and I appreciate the staff assistance.

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order. Time has elapsed for the NDP. Now we’ll go to the Progressive Conservative caucus and Mr. Orrell.

            MR. EDDIE ORRELL: I want to start into a few higher-level questions on some of the programming and some of the facts of the programming and some of the costs, benefits, and so on.

            First, I want to start with PTSD. When we made amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act with presumptive consent to come into play in October 2018, we were told that the regulations will be coming. Will those regulations be available for the public or us to see so that we can have a look at it and go over them before the Act comes into place?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: After the legislation was passed, the consultation period was one year, and we’ll have those regulations in place next October. They will be public and everyone will see them. At this point we’re just at the start and in the midst of consultations.

            MR. ORRELL: In the midst of the consultations, has there been any more talk of or people recommending that we expand some of the professions that are available for the presumptive PTSD stuff? Some of the different professions that we talked about - physiotherapy, social work, and emergency workers who may not have been included at first - has there been more discussion on expanding the amount or number of professions that would be included in the presumptive law?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: That is part of the consultation talks that we’re having. That’s one of the changes that was in the legislation from last Spring until this Fall - that adding more people into the presumptive coverage could be done through regulation and didn’t have to come into legislation, so it gave a lot more flexibility and leeway going forward in the future.

            As well, at the time we expanded individuals who weren’t covered, I know there were a few different groups, one of them being guards at our penitentiaries. The other professions that you spoke about, I know that can be worked out through consultation as well. I know they haven’t landed anywhere at this point, but it is an area that they will be looking at.

            MR. ORRELL: Getting into a little bit of the Workers’ Compensation Board, you guys were going to identify some opportunities for partnerships and some training and some investments in business and industry to build and adapt to some of the areas that have major injuries - professions that have more injuries than other injuries. There has been some concern about the relationship between the Workers’ Compensation Board and some of the employers and police, so we talked about building some stronger relationships with the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I’m just wondering if there has been any movement on that and some of the things that we may be doing to try to strengthen those relationships so that both the Workers’ Compensation Board and the employers and employees don’t feel like it’s a combative type of relationship, which it shouldn’t be, because let’s face it, we’re all there for the same reason, for safety and to make sure that a worker who is injured on the job is fairly compensated and doesn’t feel like they’re being pressured.

[5:15 p.m.]

            Are there any talks going on that we should know about that are designed to help strengthen those relationships?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Talks are always happening with Workers’ Compensation and industry. I’m going to give an example of one: the fishing industry. The amount of accidents and deaths plummeted after there was a large awareness brought forward in terms of survival suits and flotation devices within that industry.

            I will also add that the Auditor General is doing a review of the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Workers’ Compensation Board is also in the process of doing a self-review. We welcome the Auditor General coming in to do a review and we look forward to what recommendations he can find in terms of how we can have the organization be more efficient and better run.

            MR. ORRELL: Can you tell me, other than the fishing industry, what other initiatives are being undertaken by the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Department of Labour and Advanced Education to help prevent injury and in what professions, I guess, are we going to target? I think nursing homes and hospitals have been the number one profession for injury and compensable injuries. Are there any other initiatives being undertaken now by the department to try to target some of those initiatives?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: As you mentioned, health being one of the largest areas where we have workplace accidents, that initiative is under way right now and I did talk about that. We’re in a five-year plan to take a look at accidents happening across our health care sector. It’s from home care to nurses and throughout because the amount of days lost there is the highest that the Workers’ Compensation Board is experiencing.

            They do have a program as well aimed at small businesses and medium enterprises as well where they help those smaller organizations become more aware of safety. Earlier I was mentioning to the member for Cape Breton Centre about my experience back in 2004 and 2005 when I was working at TrentonWorks. It’s an industrial site that made railroad cars. It had the highest accident rate in all of Nova Scotia. There was an individual from the Workers’ Compensation Board full time in the plant. This wasn’t for punitive reasons, this was for preventive reasons, and there were two other individuals who would come and go every week to help the plant operate more safely, to try to identify areas. So even back then I saw first-hand a proactive approach.

            As we know, in the fishing industry the amount of deaths plummeted from work that Workers’ Compensation and the department did in that industry, and I hope to see the same in our health care industry which has quite a high rate of lost days of work currently.

            MR. ORRELL: One of the biggest problems in the health care system is we’ve gone from wanting to keep people at home, living at home longer, loved ones keeping their loved ones at home longer to either live out their days or to rehabilitate or put them in the hospital - I don’t mean it that way, but we’re discharging people earlier. Because of the need for the beds they are going home earlier, so home care workers are the ones who are taking the brunt now of the rehab part of the healing time from surgeries and so on. Most of the time home care workers are on their own. If there are any transfers and if there’s any necessary heavy lifting to be done, they’re on their own.

            A lot of people will call and ask for help and a lot of companies - their home care workers won’t have the help they need. Can we guarantee that those people who are in the home care system are getting some training or more training to make sure they understand their limitations and/or they would make someone available - and they might need a little influx of money to do that - but someone available to help with the stuff they can’t do, the heavy lifting or the rolling or the turning or the toileting even, if it’s something simple like that? If we take them home and we don’t do the rehab part of it or if we don’t keep them active because we can’t, they’re going to be back in the hospital again with a more serious type of illness, which is going to cost our system a whole lot more money that it does now.

            Are there initiatives being undertaken with that? If not, can we look at that because that’s going to be our number one cause over the next number of years.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: That’s exactly what part of the five-year plan is. Those are areas that have already been identified, that there’s too many lost days because of workers possibly lifting up someone who is dead weight, injuring their back.

            I know when it was brought to me from staff in the department that’s the exact example people use, a home care worker who is alone in a home and they try to lift someone who may have gotten to the ground or trying to lift somebody onto a bed or for a wash or something, it could be that they shouldn’t do it in the first place or they didn’t do it properly. This is exactly the type of education that we’re looking at providing. Perhaps they need to get to the point of saying look, I can’t do this because I might risk injury.

            That’s all part of the five-year program in terms of - and it doesn’t mean that it’s going to take five years to implement, it means that as we go, we will be assessing it over a five-year period where we’re implementing from day one but we’re looking at outcomes to make sure that those injuries are reducing. If they’re not, we will be adjusting or looking at the data as to why the injury is happening, what could we have done to prevent the injury and let’s learn from it and move forward, but we’re exactly on the same page.

            MR. ORRELL: The problem we’re going to face is because of the situation in health care right now. They’re going home earlier so they either need a second person or they need to be in hospital longer. The options are not great, no matter what way we look at it, they’re not great.

            I guess the big thing is, is there a price tag associated with - I know we’ve increased the funding to health care but that’s not going to be enough over the next couple of years for the situation we’re facing now with changes in the health care system here in the city where they’re moving from the VG to other areas, but even at home where some of the institutions have less care beds now than they had. We can talk about wait-lists, we can go crazy on wait-lists but the fact that there’s still wait-lists means we are moving people home quicker.

            I guess my question is, is there a price tag on the changes that need to be made? What line item would it be and/or if there’s not, is there talk about adding that so that we can adequately treat our people at home, to give them the proper care they need, or make sure they stay in the facility they’re in, to get that care before they go home?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: The framework was started and got approval just in the last few months. In terms of the areas you’re talking about of somebody leaving hospital early, that’s more of a question to Health and Wellness but it’s also why they’re part of this framework and this strategy, as is Workers’ Compensation and Labour and Advanced Education.

            We will be looking at the costs associated with the accident, what could have prevented the accident, and we will be analyzing instances as you speak of, if that is deemed to be a reason why an accident is happening. Then that assessment will be done in terms of where investments might have to be made in the health care system, where we might have to make investments from a training point of view.

            As that framework unfolds over the next five years - it will be broad - it will be looking at all the areas that are contributing to the accident, how we can avoid the accident. That’s where interviews of the person who finds themselves missing days, that’s where those will come into play in terms of learning about what caused the accident and how we can prevent the accident. Is it a policy change? Is it education? Are there investments anywhere?

            At this point, that could be one area, but there could be five other areas as well that we have to look at and address and take a look at what the investment would be, what the education would be, and get to the point of less accidents happening in the health sector.

            MR. ORRELL: It is a health care issue, but the compensation of the injuries that happen because of what happens there, that’s why I’m saying we have to really work together a lot more than we believe being in that system for so long. The health care system is trying to save money by getting people out of the hospital early, getting more people in or keeping the stays down. They’re trying to move people around as quick as they can, as best they can, because it’s cheaper in a nursing home than it is in a hospital bed. It’s even cheaper when it’s home.

Their best bet is to try to get them home as quickly as they can, and without those checks and balances in place and the training and reasoning, it’s going to cost our system a lot more money. If we don’t prepare for that now, we’re going to get a big pillow in the face in a couple of years. I’m hoping that’s one of the areas that we’ll look into and try to develop that sector because we have, as a government since I’ve been here, been leaning more towards in-home care and treatment of people.

I just hope that the budget will reflect that over the next number of years to make sure that when there is help needed - and they might only need it once a day to get someone out of bed or get them into the chair or out of the chair. If they don’t have that training and/or help to go with it, it’s going to cost our system a fortune. So, thank you - I’m glad to hear that’s going to happen. I’ll look forward to that happening.

Back in March, we introduced amendments to the Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Act that are going to enhance the legitimacy of the enforcement programs, create tools for enforcement, administrative penalties, and so on. I guess my question is, how much are these fees that we’re talking about going to generate for the government for that department?

MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of the fees or the penalties, we don’t anticipate these being a revenue generator. They’re there as a deterrent. We expect that the companies are going to live by the rules. In the past, although we had found many companies in violation, I believe there was only one instance where we actually levied a fine because the company was constantly doing this. It wasn’t an honest mistake. It’s not going to be that when a company makes an honest mistake or the ratio is off that we’re going to put a fine on them to collect the revenue. That has never been the case in the past.

What we want to do is send a loud and clear message to those one-off companies - and there’s not very many of them - that when they are in violation that we do have the ability to fine them at a greater amount than the current amount. In reality, at $1,000, that was less than the amount they were saving by contravening by essentially not having the right number of apprentices or journeymen or Red Seals on a job site.

MR. ORRELL: To administer this program there is going to be a cost to it. The fines or whatever are going to offset the cost of the administration - is that what you’re saying?

MR. KOUSOULIS: Any revenues that come to the province go to the Treasury, they don’t come to our department. We still have the same amount of staff complement. The program already exists in terms of us going to the job sites to see if everyone is compliant. We don’t anticipate the cost rising because we have the same complement of employees.

What this legislation changes is the ability for those employees to do their jobs. In the past, they could not enter a job site outside the hours of approximately 9:00 to 5:00. If a construction site was operating overnight or on a weekend they wouldn’t have the opportunity to enter that job site, which doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense when you look at it.

[5:30 p.m.]

            We don’t anticipate an increase in costs or a decrease in costs, and we don’t anticipate an increase in revenues. What we have now is a full tool set for those individuals to be able to go in and identify that the right ratios are there for apprenticeships to journeymen and to be able to have the ability not to have them impeded in carrying out the duties of their job as well.

            MR. ORRELL: As you’re talking apprenticeships, I have just a quick question on the ratios of apprenticeships to Red Seals. There was some talk about expanding some of the professions from two apprentices to one Red Seal. Has there been more talk about that in certain professions? Have there been more professions boosted up to allow that to happen? Do we have enough Red Seals right now to accommodate the apprenticeship program that we have here in the province?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Currently there are no discussions in changing any of the ratios that are out there. The ratios are set by industry as well, in terms of what you have between the journeymen and the Red Seals and the apprentices as well.

            At this point, not to say that something might not change in the future, but there’s currently nothing under way. When industry does recognize something, they bring it to the department and we consult with industry to look at if there should be a ratio change.

            It’s also different amongst, depending on what the trade is as well and the level of danger that’s inherent in that trade. Sometimes it’s a one-to-one ratio, sometimes it might be a little less.

            MR. ORRELL: As far as administering safety procedures and monitoring safety procedures, I’ve heard from some people in the trade system and construction sites that there are basically only three enforcement officers in the province: one that operates in the office here in Halifax on mostly a full-time basis, and two others that go throughout the province to monitor enforcement and to hopefully prevent injuries from happening.

            I’m told there is not one person from Antigonish down. There’s not a lot that happens because there’s not a lot of manpower to be able to do that. I’m told there was hope there would be money in the budget to improve that enforcement and maybe add another enforcement officer. I wonder if that’s the case. If it is, what line item would it be under?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of inspectors that we have for health and safety, there’s 40 across the province. The area the member is talking about I believe is our apprenticeship inspectors and he is correct, there are two, as well as a supervisor. Their job is not to look at the health and safety on a job site. When they go into a job site all they look at is - when they see a trade person it’s like okay, who is the journeyman, who is the apprentice? Do we have the proper ratio, yes or no? They’re very focused on that one area.

            In terms of as they blanket the province, the three individuals, we have the coverage. For health and safety, that now brings into, is the job site safe? Are the workers safe? Are they wearing their fall protection? Are they harnessed in? There are 40 inspectors across the province ensuring the safety of our citizens.

            MR. ORRELL: I’m going to move over now to some of the employment - I won’t say problems, but some of the things that have happened over the last year. I want to start with the Labour Market Development Agreement. It was stated to be amended to include additional flexibilities for both the program eligibility and additional funding over the next five years. Can the minister give me an idea of what types of flexibilities have been added to this new LMDA so that we can know as MLAs, if we need to send somebody what they can qualify for?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: We’ve just signed a new agreement with our federal partners on LMDA and one of the areas that we’ve had enhancement is - before the program was geared towards individuals who are on employment insurance or receiving EI benefits, now we’ve expanded it and it allows us to also target this funding towards vulnerable workers as well and provide support to them.

            There was an increase in funding from the federal government which was a significant amount in this coming budget - actually in last year’s budget, which just ended, there was a $4.6 million increase, which flowed to us just in the past month. In 2018-19, we’re looking at an $8.351 million increase; 2019-20, a $9.279 million increase; 2020-21, a $12.99 million increase; and 2021-22, a $15.77 million increase. In 2023, we’re looking at the same increase. It’s a substantial amount of funding that our federal partners have provided for us.

            As well, Nova Scotia had a - there’s a clause in there because we had a substantial share of the new money come to us, but there’s also what we call kind of like a top-up clause that if somebody negotiates a better deal than we have then we get their deal as well. That’s in place on this as well because we were one of the - with the agreement we wanted to lock down the increase and we were one of the first provinces to sign.

            MR. ORRELL: That was my next question - that’s great, so that cuts down on one. I guess my next question is, coming up, the Nova Scotia work facilities agreements are expiring. We just went through a transformation where we’ve combined a bunch of them. Will all these Nova Scotia work facilities be renewed or are they looking at some of the areas that have two and three providers within a certain distance? Are they looking at changing some of those so that they would be condensed down? With the new funding - and I know the success of the transformation has been great. I use them a lot in my office and they’ve been fabulous in providing both education and employment to a lot of individuals in my area. Will those facilities be renewed when their contracts run out in 2019?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: What we found with that reorganization - I don’t like using the word “transformation” - and I’m glad to hear the feedback that they’re doing great work in Cape Breton. All 18 facilities are doing great work.

            We’re always going to hold them to account because we don’t want them not to provide the outcomes, because at the end of the day, that money isn’t there for the facilities - that money is there to help the individuals using the service. We will always do reviews with the organizations and hold them to account on the taxpayer dollars we’re investing.

            The feedback I’ve received is they’re all doing excellent work and their funding is renewed again next year, but every year we will be reviewing them because we want to make sure that if there is any, let’s say slippage, or if they’re not providing the outcomes we want, we want to be able to address them early on to adjust them because we need to support those workers and get them attached to the workforce as soon as possible.

            MR. ORRELL: You talked about outcomes, how is the department measuring the outcomes? I understand when the Nova Scotia Works programs were formed and we went down from administration to the front-line workers, the theory behind them was that everybody is going to get their labour services at one facility or at one group of facilities and it would provide more money, more funding, more outcomes.

            How are the outcomes going to be measured? Are the outcomes achieving what they were designed to achieve? Previously we had a disability specialty, we used to have a women’s centre specialty, they’re all combined under one now. Are those outcomes being measured? Are they achieving the targets they were meant to achieve?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of, and this will be very high-level broad, but what they’re judged upon is employment outcomes. We will be tracking the clients they serve when they get attached to the workforce - do they hold their job for one year, two years, three years - so we’ll be tracking more of a longer-term outcome there.

            We also track the number of clients they see and how many clients are from a diverse or under-represented background. That’s generally the high level of the three but we do break down the clients in terms of what type of client as well. It could be that it is a more complex case or a simpler case in terms of attachment back to the workforce.

            MR. ORRELL: We did have numbers of how many people were being served prior to the amalgamation or the transformation. What were the goals by achieving, thereby condensing or combining - the goals were to put more people in the front lines, to employ more people. What were the goals as far as employment numbers go, compared to what they were achieving prior to the changeover?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Although we will be tracking going forward the amounts of individuals and how long they’re attached to the workforce, that wasn’t one of the criteria we looked at. Prior to that we looked at the amount of cases handled, so this is new data that’s with us at this point on a go-forward basis, in terms of attachment to the workforce.

            I will also add that because each client is different, that’s not the only factor. We’re not pitting one centre against the other and saying you did better so you get more funding, because the complexity of a worker might be different in one region than another and the complexity of attachment to the workforce might be different as well. There’s still a lot of flexibility within the framework of helping individuals and the attachment to the workforce as well.

            MR. ORRELL: The reason I ask that is because when this was going on, the big concern was the amount of people with disabilities who were now going to go into one large group. The fear was that people with more complex issues would take a lot longer to get an attachment to the workforce but they also would take a lot more interventions to get there. If there was a goal, a percentage of people being attached to the workforce, the amount of money that could be spent on individuals for different reasons, we all know that the complexity of some people with an attachment to the workforce is great, so some workshops, some centres would spend more money but their attachment rate might be higher, as far as percentages go.

[5:45 p.m.]

            The question is, what goals are we trying to achieve as far as attachment goes? What kind of budgets are they going to be able to - and I think you’re now monitoring, you just said the types of people who are being served by the workshops. If it’s shown that the Digby workshop or MetroWorks in Halifax are seeing more complex clients, they would take more money, but their attachment might be greater so we’d have to look at how that would be distributed amongst those groups of people.

            Is that what we’re tracking? Is the goal to achieve a certain percentage of attachment to the workforce?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: The kind of scenario the member has brought up is actually in the flexibility in funding. As the centres are funded, the case management is tracked and the amount of - the jargon used is interventions. An individual might need one intervention to be attached to the job market but other individuals, as we talked about cases of disability or under-represented groups, might need more interventions.

            By “interventions” we mean it could be meetings but it could also be bringing in skill sets and supports from other working groups to increase a skill that the individual has. What we’re tracking in terms of it - and it will capture the complexity of cases - if the cases are simple, it’s less interventions. If the cases are more complex, it’s more interventions, so the flexibility the member is speaking to is captured in the funding agreement with the centres.

            MR. ORRELL: Earlier you talked about when the transformation took place the administration costs went from 53 per cent to 27 per cent, and that was going to be transferred into the front-line workers. How much would that have saved that would have been put from the administration to the front line?

            I guess what I want to try to get at is if that saved $10 million, my question would be, how much did the transformation cost Employment Nova Scotia and how long did it take to recoup that to the front line to what it cost to do the transformation?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of total funding under the LMDA - and this will be ballpark, give or take $5 million - if you take this year’s funding of $82.98 million, previously out of that money 53 per cent of it would have been allocated to infrastructure and to administrative, so 53 per cent of the $83 million, for rounding purposes, now under Nova Scotia Works, that amount of administrative is coming in at 27 per cent.

            So, $83 million is the total funding. Admin and infrastructure used to be 53 per cent, and now it’s at 27 per cent of that total. The difference being - I’ll do some quick math in my head - 26 per cent of $80 million so it’s about $20 million moved from the administrative side to the front lines.

            The 23 officers I spoke about earlier who are out in the community talking to employers to find where those jobs are, that’s where some of that money went. So those 23 individuals last year connected with over 1,000 companies to also help us attach the workers. Because it’s one thing to have the worker if we don’t know where the jobs are - we’re going to have a difficult time attaching it. As well, we have 38 more front-line staff who work with the clients.

My apologies, the total budget for this program was $26 million. I gave the total budget of the entire LMDA, so when we’re talking 26 per cent, it’s 26 per cent of the $20 million so the amount that went from administrative to front line would be approximately $5 million. Those are the two primary areas where we had the enhancements.

MR. ORRELL: My question is - and I know it’s going to save money and it’s a great program, don’t get me wrong when I’m saying this - the cost of the transformation, when you took the 52 and brought it down to the 18, and you changed the offices and brought in extra people and so on, the cost of that transformation was X number of dollars. You say $5 million was the cost of transformation under the $5 million, because the budgets hadn’t changed - it was just to add more to the front line, but it might take a couple of years to get to that. What was the difference in the cost of transformation, the change to the leasehold agreements, the severance packages of the people involved - how long is it going to take to recuperate the cost of transformation by putting $5 million more on the front line?

MR. KOUSOULIS: The transformation happened in 2016-17 and it was a one-time cost of $4.423 million and so for that, let’s say the one-time investment . . .

MR. ORRELL: So, one year made up the difference.

MR. KOUSOULIS: . . . of $4 million we have 100 per cent return because every year there’s about $5 million. I’ve got a bit of a further breakdown, and it’s a very short one. Universal design, one-time cost for the infrastructure - and this was for accessibility to all the centres - was an investment of $826,000, and I would say whether we transformed or not, we would have made that investment for accessibility.

Start-up, one-time cost, the leasehold improvements for the now larger centres was $2.3 million. Our wind-down costs for our previous centres as well as severance - severance was a small amount of employees - was $732,000. Then in consulting fees for the whole process to get to where we are today, was $565,000, and that’s for a total of $4.423 million.

MR. ORRELL: That’s great - so the cost to the front line, the second year was beneficial. You say we hired 38 more new front-line people. I guess the question I have now is - we talked about it a little earlier - are there still some duplication of services being provided in certain areas? I know in Halifax there are three centres within two or three blocks of each other. In Sydney, there’s a centre within a block of each other.

Are there still services that are being duplicated between what they’re able to provide and what Community Services might be providing? There are a bunch of people who come to my office, who have been to one centre and want to go to the other centre. Is there still a duplication of services? Are we working towards trying to make that smoother so that the person gets the services they need, no matter what department they are attached to - Community Services or Labour?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: After our first year having the 18 centres, which previously we had 51, we don’t see a lot of overlap. When a client goes to one centre, because LMDA funding comes from the federal government and it’s attached to EI as well, the client gets registered so the ability to jump from one centre to another does not exist. Once the client is registered in that one centre, they’re a client of that one centre, because at that point we have to start measuring what the outcomes are. We also have to report back to the federal government in terms of our investments with the money.

            The other part, when we talk about the overlap with DCS, this is the area that has been opened up with our new funding where we can now have those clients come in under Nova Scotia Works. We jointly work with DCS for the clients to enter in, but when they enter in, they’re entering in one location, so we have no overlap there either. We’re trying to keep everything as streamlined as possible so when the individual enters, whether they’re at one location or another, they’re going to receive the same high level of service and get the same outcome as well, which we hope is the attachment as fast as possible to the workforce.

            MR. ORRELL: Can you provide an analysis of what areas have the highest demand for your employment in Nova Scotia and what the outcomes have been in comparative areas? Are these groups of people working together to try to achieve the same outcomes and give some overall general outcomes across the province so that each area that has a specialty would be able to provide the same outcomes?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: We just finished year one so what we’re doing right now is working with the Centre for Employment Innovation at St. F.X. We’re getting together the baseline of data and then we’ll be able to track that moving forward. Where the approach has changed under the new LMDA, where the transformation has happened, we’re now measuring differently, so as we go forward we will have that data and it will be available.

            Earlier, just to give a little bit more context to our five regions in Nova Scotia where we have funding of LMDA and this is the total funding that comes under the program, you can see that geography or you can see that there’s more to it than just population. The funding is not driven by population, the funding is driven by need. If you look at HRM with half the population of the province, out of the $82.9 million, it’s receiving $18.8 million. If you look at Cape Breton as a whole, it’s at $18.6 million, the South Shore is at $13.8 million, the northern region is at $10.9 million, and then non-specific regions which are pockets throughout the province, funding is $20.8 million.

[6:00 p.m.]

            This was a previous question, I’m not sure if I answered it clearly enough, in terms of how the funding is rolled out, although there’s a formula, it’s not based on how many people live here, we’ll give them this much money, it’s based on the need in the area and the need would be primarily from EI recipients but now we also have DCS as part of the calculation as well.

            MR. ORRELL: I can expect then that the Cape Breton budgets are going to go way up because of our high unemployment and our need for good-paying jobs or training for people in Cape Breton.

            Under the Opportunities Fund, it has been up for a year now, can you tell me how many people accessed that program in the past year and is that participation expected to rise in this fiscal year? Is there a budget line item to say that that’s going to be the case or not the case, and if there’s an increase in the funding?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: What we anticipate in this past fiscal year, what we actually had filled was 237 positions. What we’re targeting for this upcoming fiscal year is 350 positions.

            MR. ORRELL: Do we have a breakdown on the extra funding that would be put in place, what the cost of those extra people are going to be to the system? Has more money been put through the budget and what line item would that be under?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: The estimate for the amount that will be invested is in total $6.292 million, but in terms of this program it is actually multi-year funding so if you recall in the program the amount funded - when an employee comes in they get funded at a higher amount for the first year and then a lower amount in the second year. If you are a minority or Aboriginal there’s also a higher amount of funding as well, I believe it’s 10 per cent more. There’s also a 10 per cent upfront increase in the subsidy to the employer for women in non-traditional roles as well.

            We also provide an increase for persons with disabilities as well. In terms of it, the $6.292 million I speak about, I don’t have the breakdown here but in terms of the funding amount, you’re probably looking at about two-thirds of it going to the new people coming into the program and the other one-third would be funding people who came into the program last year and are into their second year of the employment because the first-year percentage is approximately 50 per cent higher than your second-year subsidy as well. We also factor in that sometimes employees will leave their job before they’re into the second year, which also means that that benefit is not paid to the employer.

            MR. ORRELL: I have a few quick questions, I know my time is running short. I just recently attended an announcement in Sydney of the NOW program that is being administered through the Centre for Employment Innovation at St. F.X. and they talk about the great work that they’re doing and then how the pilot project is working. I guess it would probably take up the only question so I’ll ask it in two or three parts because I don’t think we’ll get it all in. Can you explain to me how the program is working, the cost of the project, the amount of participants, and maybe the department’s return on investment or the cost per intervention for the participants for under-serviced people?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: The total investment for that program was $10 million. Only 5 per cent of it can go to administration. The other 95 per cent is direct programming, and that’s broken down into two streams. One of them is education for the individual and the other stream, when we do attach the individual to the workforce, is a wage subsidy to the employer. That wage subsidy is $10.50 per hour, and the employee must make a minimum of $15 an hour.

            MR. ORRELL: How many people are involved in the program? My understanding is there was going to be up to 150. I don’t know if the uptake has been full or not. At 150 with $10 million, I understand the cost per intervention is about - my math’s not great - $80,000.

            My understanding is interventions through the Nova Scotia Works programs are about $2,500, $3,000, $4,000 per invention. I believe that this program is a great program because it’s going to serve our under-represented - people who are not in the workforce and it attaches them back.

            What is the cost of the intervention? How many people are in the program and have we had any problems with people not completing the program so that maybe a seat goes unfilled?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: The program did originally have a goal of 150 participants. There was actually 170 who filled the seats. It does work out to - for the education part and the wage subsidy - to $58,800 per participant.

            MR. ORRELL: That’s great. I don’t think I want to get into much more as far as that goes. I thank the department for what they’ve been doing. I know, Elizabeth, you went through quite a transformation period with the department itself, and the department has been very good to provide employment services to people in my area and I appreciate that. I thank the minister for his answers and I thank the department for allowing me to ask those questions.

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: We will start with Ms. Zann for the NDP.

            MS. LENORE ZANN: Good afternoon. Do you need a break or are you doing okay?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I’m great.

            MS. ZANN: When you have your final statement to make, how long would you like for that?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I think just one minute.

            MS. ZANN: Just let me know when we’ve got two minutes and let him finish off.

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, I will.

            MS. ZANN: In the recent budget, there was an investment of $1.7 million into job creation programs, specifically the Graduate to Opportunity, and the Innovate to Opportunity programs which subsidize employers that hire recent graduates. Is that right? (Interruption) Okay.

            How many students are currently being supported by both the Graduate to Opportunity and Innovate to Opportunity programs?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I can recall the Graduate to Opportunity because we just had a discussion about it. Last year there were 273 students that came into the program, and this year we’re anticipating 350 students coming into the program. The total funding for that program was approximately $6.1 million, $6.2 million.

I was asked the question about how that would break down, and because the funding is 25 per cent in the first year and 15 per cent in the second, under-represented groups - if you’re Mi’kmaq or have a disability, if you’re a female in non-traditional type of employment, the employer also hiring for those groups would get a 10 per cent bump. As a ballpark, we anticipate out of the $6.2 million, upwards of about two-thirds of it would go to the new recipients coming in, and because the recipients last year are in their second year of funding, the other one-third would go to them.

MS. ZANN: How many students did you say are right now, currently, being supported by both of those programs?

MR. KOUSOULIS: In Graduate to Opportunity there are 526 individuals from the day it started, so the number I gave of 276 was new individuals last year, but the program has been under way for a few years. The second program, Innovate to Opportunity, being a new program, we’re just starting to take applications and attach people to the workforce.

So far within this fiscal year, we are three people in. What we anticipate, our goal for the year is 12. Innovate to Opportunity being a Ph.D. level and master’s graduate, the threshold of compensation back to the employer - because there’s a greater risk for them hiring the researchers - I believe in the first year was up to 75 per cent. There are other factors in there that if they’re export-based they could be 75 per cent and a lower amount of it’s primarily not export-based.

MS. ZANN: Do you have any actual evidence that you can show that these programs are effective in countering youth out-migration and job loss in the province?

MR. KOUSOULIS: Most definitely. In terms of the strategy behind this - if you look at an employer hiring an individual to fill a job, they’ll always take the person with experience. It’s less risk to them. The person has experience - it’s less training, less cost. This program was brought in to essentially give an incentive to those employers and compensate them for the extra investment they’ll have to do to train a new graduate.

In terms of how we gauge - we’re talking two programs here but there have been many facets that the government has undertaken to keep youth in the province. I would not single out any one program as being the only program that would contribute to the success of keeping our youth in the province, but you have to look at the whole suite of programs and initiatives taken. Innovate to Opportunity is a very important one. Graduate to Opportunity has already had 526 individuals tied to the workforce who might not have had that chance. Investments in COVE and Ocean Frontier will allow research dollars to flow into our graduate students. Investments and supports for Volta Labs also help our entrepreneurial community. If you walk through Volta it’s primarily youth, and I believe the direct and indirect jobs were over the 2,000 mark in the last few years.

Then when you look at sandboxes to start that entrepreneurial spirit within our youth, what we do is we then look at Stats Canada that tracks people coming and going from provinces. What we have found is that in the last two years we are now retaining more youth in the Province of Nova Scotia than are leaving. The last time that happened was in the mid 1980s.

[6:15 p.m.]

            When you look at it from a global perspective, if we are keeping our youth here, we’re keeping more youth now than we have who are coming out of high school. That’s the litmus test you would have because to measure one program where you have 500 youth, to measure another program where there would be a couple of thousand youth, it’s great to know that they got jobs, but how do we know that other youth did or did not get jobs in other sectors that would be next to impossible to track? The only mechanism to track that is Stats Canada that does track the migration of youth in and out of the province. The indication the last two years has been that we’re retaining our youth, and I do hope to see in the next Stats Canada numbers that same trend continuing. I think having three years would just be a fantastic news story as well.

            MS. ZANN: Could you actually provide any of those baseline studies that you might have that would show these employer subsidy programs actually result in the employers creating new positions? Or are these positions that the employer would be hiring for anyway?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Part of the program states they have to be new positions. That is audited and it can’t just be a position that is being filled that existed before, they have to prove it’s a new position.

            MS. ZANN: Great. Do you have any baseline studies you’ve been using to show that they are actually resulting in these new positions? You mentioned something about a Canadian study.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: The Canadian study in terms of youth retention was Stats Canada, that’s what I was quoting.

            MS. ZANN: Could you provide any baseline studies that the department might be using to be able to tell, if possible? Thank you. Also, do you actually track the employment outcomes for youth who fill positions that are subsidized through the programs, for any period after they leave that position?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: We track the positions after the two-year program. That was one of the reasons in having two years, is two years gets you a good level of experience within an organization. But after the two years, we also track it at six months after the two years, and again at 12 months after the two years. Where it’s a new program, the individuals who have gone past the two years are just now starting to enter that period and we will be tracking them.

            MS. ZANN: Okay. And would you be able to provide that information any time soon?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I’d be more than happy. I’ll make a copy of this and table it as well.

            In terms of positions that have gone past the two-year mark, there’s 135; 45 of them continue to be with the original employer and 38 of the individuals did not complete the two years. There are 52 where the positions were closed out.

            Out of the 38 who are no longer with the employer, we still kept tracking those individuals: nine of the 38 were dismissed, nine employees left for other jobs within Nova Scotia, three employees left for jobs outside of Nova Scotia, and 10 employees left the job for other reasons. There are seven individuals that we are waiting for more information on.

            In terms of positions filled, the 526, the only ones that could possibly be out of the country are the three we know of and seven individuals that we are awaiting information on. This is the first time I’ve seen this data and I must say it’s quite good to see only 10 people out of 500 that left the province.

            MS. ZANN: I’m glad I asked that question.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: I’m glad you asked it too.

            MS. ZANN: You said there are 135 . . .

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Minister, would you like the Page to photocopy that page?

            MS. ZANN: First of all, there were 526 individuals who were in the Graduate to Opportunity programs. There are 135 students that you can track so far that have been in the program for two years or longer - over two years - and 45 of those are still with the companies they started out with. Correct?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Correct.

            MS. ZANN: Then the rest of them, 38 didn’t complete and other ones wandered off somewhere else but we’re not quite sure where yet. Do we know if those other people stayed in the province or did you say the country?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Three individuals left the province and we lost track of seven individuals so we’re not sure, in terms of the seven, whether they found other employment, we just don’t have track. Although we track the employee, our contract and subsidy is with the employer.

            MS. ZANN: When will be the next batch of people who we’ll be able to check and see what happened with them, of those 526, when will be the next time that a large swatch of them will have been doing it for two years?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of when you look at the program, it’s not a batch program where they’re all hired in May or June. The new graduates can find employment any time of the year so there’s constantly employees or graduates who are rolling past the two years. This year we anticipate 350 new people coming into the program but they won’t all be in like one season or one month, they’ll be spread throughout the year. As that flows through, every month we’ll see people going beyond from one year to two years, so the compensation will drop, and then from two years on.

            MS. ZANN: So, you’ll basically keep tracking them then?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of the data, it will be updated every week because it is flowing constantly, so those numbers are constantly changing. We’re in touch with the employers - as we get any changes in status, we update that on a weekly basis.

            MS. ZANN: And we’d be able to get those numbers when we want to by just contacting the department?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Yes.

            MS. ZANN: Thank you. Has the department done any studies yet on the link between student debt and youth out-migration? Have you done any studies yet on the link between those two? What I’m hearing is that a lot of students are saying they are so much in debt that they have to go out West and get a job, because they get paid better and they can pay down their debt faster than staying in Nova Scotia.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: In terms of tracking and following students upon graduation of what their debt level is and why they might leave the province, that specific, we don’t have access to the students to provide that information to us. What we do track from our students and at a global level is the amount of youth being retained. I would agree with the member’s statement that if a student has student debt, they want to repay the student debt, so they will go where the job is. I’ve seen it throughout - when I was doing my studies in the early 1990s, everybody was going to Ontario.

            As the economy has changed and as we moved away from manufacturing towards resources and opportunities were in Alberta - I mean, we had direct flights from Sydney to Alberta on a daily basis, so people were going to Alberta to the tar ponds and good-paying jobs, and no surprise as to why students would go there to pay down their debt.

            When I ran in 2013 and being the representative of the south end of Halifax where there are five universities, I knocked on doors - there must have been at least 1,000 students, and I kept hearing over and over again: I want to stay in the province, but there are no jobs - I’m leaving. I’d ask them, and engage them, and most of them were going to Alberta because that’s where the opportunities were at the time.

            In the last election, that conversation switched. I wasn’t hearing that as much at the door. I heard that there were opportunities. I had a conversation with the president of Acadia who shared something with me. He said, for the last eight years I sat on a stage, shook hands with students crossing the stage, I’d ask them very quickly where they’re going next year. He said, last year the whole graduating class pointed across the street because they were going to the new science sandbox and they had employment there because of investments made in research.

            When I see that we’re retaining more youth than leaving the province, when I look at enhancements that have been made by this government in terms of student debt, and enhancements that have grown every year - we started off with making the student loans interest free - a good first step. Then we proceeded to make those student loans forgivable upon graduation because we didn’t want our youth carrying the burden of the Nova Scotian student debt.

            Last year we proceeded to increase that student loan by $680 a year and we also at the same time said, although there are four-year university programs, sometimes because of circumstances, it could take five years to graduate, so we made up to five years forgivable.

            In terms of a student looking at what their prospects are coming out of university upon graduation, what they’re facing now in terms of carrying a student debt in an undergrad program is wiping out their Nova Scotia student debt. That is a significant savings for the student.

            For those students who are carrying student debts for other programs that are ineligible - master’s programs, Ph.D. levels - as they accumulate Nova Scotia student debts, they’re carrying it interest free, which is also a good positive.

            MS. ZANN: What would you say to the fact though that the average tuition fees for an undergraduate Arts degree, for instance, have increased by 18 per cent?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Well when you look at our tuition fees in the province . . .

            MS. ZANN: Since 2013.

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Yes, but you’d have to go back to the cuts of 2011-12.

            MS. ZANN: But we capped it, right? We capped the tuition.

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Can you let the minister finish his response?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: If you would let me finish - if you go back to the previous government, there was a 10 per cent cut amongst university funding, which amounted to approximately $30 million. There was a cap brought in which allowed universities to raise their fees by 3 per cent a year.

            This question here has two facets to it. Number one, although university fees have increased, when they increased, many of the undergrad programs - the universities were not told that this cap would be coming in so in their surprise, and not having made a market adjustment, we had undergrad programs at one university that were $2,000 less than another. That university then faced great financial strain moving forward because for every student that came through their doors they were collecting $2,000 less in tuition than another university in the province offering the same undergraduate program.

[6:30 p.m.]

            The cap caught many universities by surprise and universities were taking the full 3 per cent increase. They did have the ability to make a market adjustment, primarily because of two universities that were caught off guard - one which was $2,000 less for their undergrad program. The other one was NSCAD who got caught in a year where to boost enrolment, they offered six courses for the price of four, and when the tuition freeze came in, that got captured for them. That came out to be quite a hardship for NSCAD.

When I met Dan O’Brien back in 2013, one thing he asked me for as the local member, which NSCAD is part of my riding, is would I commit to keeping NSCAD independent. I knew nothing of the issue at the time, but I did approach the Premier - at that point the Leader of the Opposition - and asked, is this something our government would do?

We said we would commit to keeping them independent for a couple of years so they could get back on their feet. Part of getting back on their feet was for them to essentially recover from offering six programs for the cost of four, which they did. The market adjustment was to help NSCAD to remain independent because the university could not keep offering four classes - you know, a student comes and pays for four classes but gets six classes because there are costs associated with it.

The other part that I will also address - we are the model for Canada in terms of our universities. Our 10 universities are an asset. The fact that students from across Canada choose to come here - and people say that our university tuition is higher than the average. I would also say that the experience we’re offering is much higher than the average. Cost is one way to look at it, but the value you’re getting out of our university experience is unrivaled across Canada. There’s a reason why students come here. There’s a reason why students from other provinces and around the world come here.

In terms of helping our Nova Scotia students, our students who come from a financial background that might not allow them to go to university, I go back to - and I won’t repeat again - our tuition forgiveness program.

I will also add that when you factor in that every Nova Scotia student going to university gets a $1,283 bursary off the cost of the posted tuition, that changes the cost of tuition within Nova Scotia to being above the national average.

MS. ZANN: Thank you for that very long answer. Listen, international students have become integral to our post-secondary institutions, contributing immensely to our communities and to our learning environments. In 2014, international students spent $342.7 million in our province, resulting in 3,328 new jobs and $142 million in wages. Also, before that, there were a number of students from NSCAD who actually had gotten jobs with different animation studios here in town. They were from different countries and they were putting down roots. They were adamant that we need to keep our creative economy vibrant and keep it attractive to people from outside of the country and outside of the province. Also, many of them are working backstage in film and television, and a number of those young people have had to leave and either go back to their homes or go to Toronto or Vancouver for work.

Currently, international students experience a 13-month delay for medical services for their insurance, MSI, with strict restrictions, provided that they don’t leave the province for 31 consecutive days. It would only cost $800,000 to actually cover international students with MSI for each year.

Right now, it often means that throughout the course of a four-year degree many international students actually don’t ever become eligible for public health care coverage, which means that these international students often avoid accessing the health care system until they’re in a really bad condition and have to access emergency services. Then they face hefty bills, which they can’t afford. It’s estimated that the cost of addressing this issue, as I said head-on, and providing health insurance for international students from day one would only be $800,000, which is significantly less than this government’s surplus.

            I think personally there’s a clear moral case for providing health care to international students and also clearly an economic one because we know that more highly educated immigration to this province has significant payoffs. I think we should be making Nova Scotia as welcoming as possible to these students. I know a number of universities look at them as cash cows, but we need to keep them healthy.

            Many of them have told me that this is a major problem. A lot of people seem to think that they’re rich because they can afford to come over here but really a lot of them are working, they are doing two or three jobs just to be able to pay for their tuition. I really don’t understand why this government doesn’t grant international students health care upon arrival.

            The other thing I want to bring up is that because of lack of public funding, universities turn to two sources of revenue. We already spoke about one of them: the high tuition fees. The other one is funding from corporations. We recently learned that Cooke Aquaculture provided almost $1 million in funding to Dalhousie for aquaculture research, so effectively was paid for by public dollars because in exchange for that donation, NSBI forgave $2 million of its loan to Cooke Aquaculture. Instead of government directly funding the quality, independent research, we’re actually funding it in a kind of backward way in which a corporation gets to establish the research priorities and get free advertising.

Tim Bousquet, a journalist here in Halifax, provided the following commentary on that deal. He said the research chair said that “. . . the company does not ‘dictate’ the research projects worked on by he and the team at Dalhousie . . . but when the company is providing the ‘boat and diver costs’ and even the ‘employment opportunities in the short term (co-op, summer) and in the longer term for graduates as they complete their research programs,’ who are we kidding? The relationship between the company and the university research chair is simply too intertwined for true independence . . .” - I don’t understand how it would be possible for the researchers to be independent.

            I have a concern that this impact of relying on corporate funding is having a major effect on the independence of the research of our universities. We also know that industry funding has impacted academic freedom, like before, in the case of Tara Tapics, her sea turtle research apparently upset industry partners, which resulted in interference in her research. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia awarded Ms. Tapics a $48,000 settlement this March. Again, I’m not sure really what the department’s place is in this because they should be ensuring that corporate funding agreements do not impact the independent research of the future. What would you have to say about that?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: There’s a few questions there so I’ll start off with the international students. I’m in full agreement that the international students bring not only economic stimulus to this country, to this province, but I would say they also bring in awareness in terms of other cultures in the world. I think we have over 80 countries represented in Nova Scotia where people come for further education and it can’t be measured in dollars and cents.

Having said that, in talking to many international students and every time I meet an international student, I make a point of asking them why they chose Nova Scotia, I want to understand what brought them here. Overwhelmingly, what they say is this was the most cost-effective place to get an education. They looked at Ontario, and Ontario charges a much higher rate than we do. One individual looked at the United Kingdom and he said it was triple. Again, this comes back to cost versus value. The value is there in our institutions, they’re worth every penny.

            That doesn’t negate the fact that we should be helping underprivileged people, or people of lower economic income access to universities, because I wholly believe we should. We do have 8,000 international students in the province and the number about MSI that comes out is $800,000, which is correct, to insure those 8,000 students. It’s about $100 a student.

            I would like to correct the member, a student who is an international student is not allowed to come to the province unless they pay $100 for insurance, so no student is not accessing health care when they need it because they’re worried about getting a bill, that situation cannot occur. No student has been presented a bill, because the fact they’re a student in the province means they have to carry the MSI coverage with the university. That’s part of the tuition fees, so as soon as they pay the tuition, they pay the $100.

            In terms of what we’re looking at in supporting our international students, and I do think this is an area that we could offer supports to them, it’s $100 per student. Having said that, in the past few months I’ve actually - the department has done a lot of work in conjunction with the Department of Health and Wellness, and the authority lies with the Department of Health and Wellness because MSI is under their purview.

One area, we actually at this point - and this is something that was new to me - we don’t provide health insurance to the students. It’s not a rule that you’re a student, you get health insurance after 13 months. It’s a rule that if you’re not a Canadian citizen and you’re in Nova Scotia for 13 months, you get health insurance. It’s not the fact that they’re a student here for 13 months that triggers it, it’s the fact that they’re a person here for 13 months that triggers it.

            When you talk about making a change to fund the students, it actually goes to a change of MSI, which then opens up not only the 8,000 students, but opens up every individual who is in Nova Scotia. This is a pressure that the Department of Health and Wellness would have to absorb. The dollar tag on it is a multiple of $800,000.

            Having said that, I am still, in my conversations with the Department of Health and Wellness, I think it’s a good initiative because not only from our student perspective but from our immigration perspective, I think it sends the right message and I’m in support of the investment. I can share with you, Madam Chairman, that that work is being analyzed at this point by the Department of Health and Wellness, and we’re assisting in terms of whatever information we have of the students coming forward.

            Very briefly, there was a quick question about NSCAD animation - good jobs. I’ll add that under the animation program, in terms of funding, which was under the previous Film Tax Credit, the funding for animation has not changed. That remained at 50 per cent of a person’s salary, so those jobs that were referenced still exist with the same amount of funding as before, there was no change. Although this is my department, I just know the programs, the only change that was made was under the Film Tax Credit, which previously funded 55 per cent to 65 per cent of a person’s salary. What the new fund does is it funds 25 per cent, up to 35 per cent of the entire production, so that not only captures salary but it captures set design, carpenters, hotel stays - any dollars spent in Nova Scotia are captured.

            MS. ZANN: That doesn’t really help the artists, though.

            MS. KOUSOULIS: We’ve seen changes in terms of the uptake of the fund itself and we’ve seen, after those changes were made, the fund went from $68 million of direct productions, up to $140 million of direct productions.

[6:45 p.m.]

            The last part that we had spoken about was funding of Cooke Aquaculture into a research program to solve a world problem, a business problem they had and they wanted researchers to do it, so they directed money into Dalhousie for research to be done to solve one of their problems.

            This is exactly what research is. Research is putting new monetary dollars in - and it can be brought in by government, it can be matched to corporations, it can be brought in by other institutions around the world. The dollars sometimes directly solve a problem for industry. Other times they might just be pure research and we don’t know what they’ll solve, but down the road - decades or years - a problem will be solved from that research.

            I will add for the member that linking loan forgiveness to Cooke Aquaculture has nothing to do with their investment. They had a choice whether they wanted to make the investment or not, and I will point out that the Cooke Aquaculture loan was actually done by the member’s government prior to us taking office, and that whole loan provision was set out in an agreement. The agreement is public. It can be viewed on NSBI’s website. They met the criteria set out by the NDP Government and that is why they had a $2 million loan forgiveness.

            I will add that under our government those types of deals are not being done. We ran on not bailing out companies. We ran on not having these types of loans done. Essentially what has happened since we came into government, these loans are not done anymore. The Department of Economic and Rural Development does not exist. These types of loans are not under the mandate of any public servant. They’re not under the mandate of NSBI as well.

            What is under the mandate of NSBI is to continue with the loans that are on the books. They have to adhere to the rules of past governments and what they have made, and the $2 million forgiveness - and I agree with the member, it was gross, but it wasn’t my government that did it. It wasn’t the member that did it either, she was not in Cabinet in that government, but it was the previous government that did it. If we don’t adhere to the rules of what the original loan was and the loan forgiveness attached to that, then we would be sued and have to pay it regardless.

            The same holds true with our shipbuilding contract. That was a $306 million loan, and I believe the forgivable part is close to $300 million. We have to live by the loan that was put in place by the previous government.

            Finally, I want to point out that when we talk about research and private companies, if we want to keep our youth here, they have to work at a private company. I’m going to point out that IBM who has been a partner of Dalhousie, a partner of NSCAD, has hired in the last few years - and here I will give credit to the previous government, not the process, but I will give credit to the outcome because the outcome was quite good. The NDP Government did a direct source where they hived off SAP out of the Province of Nova Scotia and handed it over to IBM.

I disagree with the process, but the outcome was actually very good for Nova Scotia because IBM had this baseline of business. They then leveraged it, got more business in the Province of Nova Scotia, but more importantly, they saw - look at this great, skilled workforce - and this is a testament to our universities and colleges - look at this workforce that we can hire and they produce fantastic results for our organization. Although they started with approximately a 350-employee payroll rebate, they’ve hired over 750 people. We are an IBM centre of excellence in the world, and I think that is a fantastic story and one that we should celebrate more often.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We have nine minutes left.

MS. ZANN: I was going to say, by the way, thank you for acknowledging that and also the $300 million loan to the Irvings, which also came with 11,000 jobs over a 20-, 25-year period. I’d say that that seems to be turning into a pretty good thing for Nova Scotia as well.

            I’m going to turn to a different topic right now which is important to me and to my colleagues in the NDP, it’s the issue of the sexual assault programs on campuses. Sexual assault continues to be a very disturbing issue on campuses in Nova Scotia. Just a couple of weeks ago another survivor, Gabrielle Chapman, spoke out about her experience at Mount Saint Vincent. Ms. Chapman says the university’s response has been inadequate. The Canadian Federation of Students are frustrated that the minister thinks non-binding agreements in the memorandum of understanding are enough to address sexualized violence on campus. They actually say that the minister is prioritizing the government’s relationship with university presidents over the adequate student protections. This is concerning.

            The Canadian Federation of Students also says that as of Fall 2017, Acadia, Dalhousie, Kings College, NSCAD, and the Atlantic School of Theology all failed at least one of the requirements outlined in the MOU. That means that another cohort of students has entered universities that did not have adequate policies in place.

            I’m wondering if there are going to be any repercussions that those universities are going to face because when student leaders in the CFS published an op-ed that was critical of your department’s lack of action on sexual assault policies, they were told that you were “. . . unhappy with the op-ed and that there would be consequences.” A scheduled meeting with those students was cancelled, which seems to me to be very punitive, and there is a thing called freedom of speech here in Nova Scotia, so I find this very disturbing that students would receive these consequences for just writing a piece and speaking out.

            I don’t understand why they were told that. I don’t know why that meeting was cancelled, other than to be punitive. I do understand that the minister is going to be meeting with them again, so I would like to be assured that they will continue to have full access.

            One other thing I’d like to bring to the minister’s attention is again, the issue of the MOU. I would like to know, as this government looks to the negotiation of a new memorandum of understanding with the university presidents, how will you address the issue of sexual assault on campus? How will you address skyrocketing, upfront costs of post-secondary education for the students and a real crisis of student debt in this province?

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: There’s only five minutes left. I will call on you, minister, when we’re down to the one-minute mark. Is that agreed?

            MR. KOUSOULIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Quite a bit of questions to answer there. Number one, I will say the CFS report that was put out about our universities and what the status is on campus was inaccurate. I will also say the op-ed they did in The Coast was inaccurate.

            What we did is we reached out to them privately and we said, we feel your report is inaccurate, we’d like to have a meeting with you to address the report. At that point, they chose to go public and say that we had threatened them, there were consequences, which there were no such things. We were trying to get a meeting with them, they were going out publicly and I don’t know what their motivation would be, you would have to ask them.

            What I can say is the department is meeting with CFS to address their inaccurate statements, and I believe that’s within the next few days. The deputy will be meeting with them to go through what’s there.

            I can say in terms of when you talk about sexual assault on universities, let’s not sit there and say that we’re siding with the university presidents or we’re siding with anyone, implying that the university presidents are sweeping this under the rug because they’re all supportive of this. They were all part of the - every university was at the table, as well as CFS, Students Nova Scotia, various other groups, elected school representatives, to put the report together.

            If you’ve had a chance to read the report, it’s an excellent report. It not only deals with changing the attitude and ensuring that sexual violence doesn’t happen in the first place, it supports victims to come forward when it does happen.

            One thing I did say to CFS - and I’ve met with CFS many times, most recently as February. At the time they said to me, we have a concern about this not being legislated like it is in other provinces, we don’t think there’s enough teeth to it. My reaction was that other provinces have legislated it, but it hasn’t reduced the sexual violence. What we did in conjunction with the universities, and they agreed to it, was we tied their funding increases to having stand-alone sexual assault strategies. All the universities are going to have them in place by this summer, which is a full year ahead of schedule.

In terms of the funding, I don’t see how legislating something is more effective than saying to the universities, if you don’t have this in place - and every university, in my mind, is going to have it in place and they’re committed to it so they are going to bring it out. Earlier I had mentioned to your counterpart when she asked similar questions that we’re also going to be assisting the universities and funding whatever their requirements could be - it’s a $3 million penalty for them.

To me, that is a deterrent. But I don’t think we’ll ever have to use the penalty because they are extremely willing partners. They have brought it forward. They want to see the reduction of any sexual violence on campus, as do we - as does, I believe, everybody. Anybody who is saying that anyone’s intention is not to see the reduction of sexual violence on campus, that is an absurd statement. Anyone out there saying that anyone has that goal, it’s defamatory. It’s absolutely a ridiculous statement to happen.

In terms of CFS, I value the relationship with them, but again in protection of staff, in protection of this process, in protection of 16 other groups other than them who came forward and put this together - and they had input into it, and it is a good report. I would say that if they’re going to put out inaccurate statements, we want to have a conversation with them to find out where their concerns are to be able to address them, and that will happen, but at no point were they threatened. I’m not sure where they feel they were.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E14 stand?

Resolution E14 stands.

Resolution E15 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $425,272,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Assistance to Universities, Department of Labour and Advanced Education, pursuant to the Estimate.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E15 carry?

Resolution E15 is carried.

Thank you, minister, your staff, and members. We are adjourned.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 6:59 p.m.]