HANSARD

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Mr. Ronald Chisholm (Chairman)

Mr. Brooke Taylor

Mr. Cecil O'Donnell

Mr. Frank Corbett

Ms. Maureen MacDonald

Ms. Joan Massey

Mr. Russell MacKinnon

Mr. Leo Glavine

Ms. Diana Whalen

[Mr. Cecil O'Donnell was replaced by Mr. Gary Hines.]

[Ms. Maureen MacDonald was replaced by Mr. William Estabrooks.]

[Ms. Diana Whalen was replaced by Mr. Daniel Graham.]

In Attendance:

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Gordon Hebb

Legislative Counsel

WITNESSES

Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations

Ms. Joanna Laskey, Executive Director

Mr. Curtis McGrath, President of Dalhousie University Student Union

Mr. Ryan Foley, Vice-President External, Saint Mary's University Student Union

Canadian Federation of Students

Ms. Danielle Sampson, Executive Representative (Nova Scotia)

Ms. Anna Wilson, Deputy Chairperson

Mr. Dave Hare, National Treasurer

Mr. Matthew Currie, Vice-President, Student Life, Mount Saint Vincent Student Union

Mr. Scott Saunders, Vice-President External, Student Union of NSCAD University

Ms. Holly Farrell, Student-at-Large, Saint Mary's University

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2004

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Ronald Chisholm

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a few minutes after 9:00 a.m., and maybe we can bring our meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources to order. We'll go around the table first, if we could.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: We may have to do this again when we have our guests come in. About 9:15 a.m. when we're expecting them, we'll have to do the introductions again for their benefit.

The first thing we have on the agenda is the appointments to the agencies, boards and commissions. We do have some correspondence, too. We wrote a letter at the last meeting, as to some of the questions that were raised on a few of the appointments that we have. So we do have a letter. This is a copy of the letter we sent and the response. (Interruptions)

MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, with regard to item number two, Gwen Haliburton. I'm a little curious as to why she omitted from her curriculum vitae the fact that she was a minister in a provincial government. I would think those types of credentials would be quite impressive. (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question would be best asked of her.

MR. MACKINNON: If that's void, then what else is void? That would be the question I would ask. They didn't answer the question we raised, Mr. Chairman, and that is, is she the only one who was considered for this position?

MR. CHAIRMAN: She's a reappointment.

MR. MACKINNON: I know that, she's made a career of appointments, from what I can see. She's already on another for the College of Physicians and Surgeons. (Interruptions) Seriously, Mr. Chairman, we haven't had that question answered with regard to Ms. Haliburton, were there any other names considered?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That information, how many people applied and how many people were considered, would be in the information package that you received. You could refer to that. (Interruptions)

MS. JOAN MASSEY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to put on the record that I did not receive my package for ABCs. I did get the presentation binder, but I didn't get that. It's probably stuck at the caucus office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mine came out over a week ago.

MS. MASSEY: I just wanted to let you know I don't have mine, so I won't be voting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: From the letter that Mr. LaFleche sent to us, to myself and the committee, the screening panel screened for qualifications only.

MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: The number that applied, is that what you were asking?

MR. MACKINNON: There were seven, but they didn't give us details. We asked for the details. The point I raised at the last meeting is we seem to be doing a lot of recycling here, and I know in Nova Scotia we're quite proud about our efforts in recycling, but if the government is to move forward, we have to bring some new blood into the process. That was the issue I was raising the last time, that the government seems to be recycling a lot of human resource without creating some opportunity for some new human resource. We've gone through a very elaborate process in terms of trying to attract more Nova Scotians to become involved in the government process.

I've no problem - and I understand the importance of having individuals who have a certain degree of symmetry and understanding of the philosophy and the objectives of government policy, but this seems to be getting a little out of hand - every committee. If we go back any further, we're going to be going into the graveyards to find people. Let's give it a break.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of the committee is to either appoint or not appoint. The names have come forward, and it's our role as a committee to either appoint them, stand them, not appoint them or whatever. That's our role. The applicants are all screened by the screening panel, and this is what we have in front of us.

Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to move the committee along and in the interest of being fair to our presenters who will be coming in shortly, I think we should begin.

Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the committee, under the Department of Justice, Human Rights Commission of Nova Scotia, I so move David Samson, as a commissioner. Committee members would know that name was stood back in October. Perhaps we could do them one at a time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, for the Advisory Committee on Provincial Judicial Appointments, I so move Gwen Haliburton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

We better have a recorded vote.

YEAS NAYS

Mr. Chisholm Mr. Estabrooks

Mr. Taylor Mr. Corbett

Mr. Hines Mr. MacKinnon

Mr. Glavine

Ms. Massey

For, 3. Against, 5.

The motion is defeated.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, we'll try the Nova Scotia Legal Aid Commission, I so move Mr. Frank G. Gillis, Q.C. as a director.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. GARY HINES: Mr. Chairman, for the Office of Economic Development, Film Development Corporation of Nova Scotia, I so move Richard J. Hebb and Wayne Mason.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, for the Waterfront Development Corporation Limited Board of Directors, I so move Eric F.G. Thomson, Ken R. Giffin, CA, John Leedham, and Brian R.F. Lugar.

MS. MASSEY: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question on that one? I didn't get that package. How many people applied for that one, can somebody tell me?

MR. HINES: Twenty people.

MS. MASSEY: It's popular. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Education, as members of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, I so move Mr. Frank Anderson and Mr. Victor Syperek.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, for the Provincial Examining and Licensing in Cosmetology Committee, I so move Michele LeBlanc.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Environment and Labour, the Fuel Safety Advisory Board, I so move Frederick L. Chalmers, Marjorie Davison, Arthur Irwin, Colleen Rollings, and Robert Sampson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Health, District Health Authority No. 7, Guysborough Antigonish Strait, I so move Keith Gallant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, for the Nova Scotia College of Pharmacists, I so move Franklyn Burgoyne and Jean Mary McDougall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

We will now take a short break.

[9:14 a.m. The committee recessed.]

[9:16 a.m. The committee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Today we have with us students from the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations, as well as the Canadian Federation of Students. We will get you to introduce yourselves before you start, but our process is we allow 10 to 15 minutes for your presentation and then we open the floor to our members for Q&A. If we could start with the introductions and then we will introduce ourselves, as well.

MS. JOANNA LASKEY: My name is Joanna Laskey and I'm representing the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations. I was asked, as well, to introduce those who are with me. With me is the President of Dalhousie University Student Union, Curtis McGrath; and the Vice-President External, Saint Mary's University Student Union, Ryan Foley.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: My name is Danielle Sampson and I'll be representing the Canadian Federation of Students. With me is National Treasurer Dave Hare; Deputy Chairperson Anna Wilson; our VP of Student Life, Mount Saint Vincent, Matthew Currie in the back; Holly Farrell, from Saint Mary's University; and Scott Saunders, VP External, NSCAD University.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you individually want to make a presentation on behalf of both of your organizations?

MS. LASKEY: Yes.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The floor is yours, whoever wants to start. Just relax, we're not here to beat up on you or anything. We'd like to hear your presentation so relax, take your time.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: First I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to talk about issues facing Nova Scotia students.

In the last 10 years we've seen massive increases to student debt. We are seeing more students forced to borrow to finance their post-secondary education and average debt sizes have tripled, to a national average of $25,000 for an undergraduate degree. But it's impossible to have a discussion about student debt without first addressing the cause.

Tuition fees. Nova Scotia students pay the highest tuition fees in the country. An average of $5,984 a year, and they continue to rise. These increases in fees have led to diminished access for low- and middle-income students and are the biggest cost driver in terms of student debt. These massive debts are leading to a diminished quality of life for students. Students have been forced to work increased hours at part-time jobs and we are seeing lower participation rates in the classroom. There is no discernable evidence that higher tuition fees lead to a higher quality of education.

Accompanying these increases in tuition have been increasing cuts to government funding. The Nova Scotia Government funds only 41.9 per cent of university budgets, the lowest in the country, leaving students to contribute over 28 per cent of their university budgets, the highest in the country.

So what can the Nova Scotia Government do to address this problem? We need to immediately implement upfront, non-repayable student financial assistance in the form of needs-based grants. The elimination of Nova Scotia's Loan Remission Program in 1999-2000 followed the introduction of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. While the loan

remission was not an ideal system, it did create a loan ceiling and was worth twice as much as the current non-refundable financial aid.

Furthermore, the elimination of the Loan Remission Program was clearly a violation of the spirit of the agreement with the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. The new Debt Reduction Program is worth only $5.1 million, and has a number of flaws, starting with only replacing half of the non-refundable financial aid assistance that was eliminated in 1999-2000, and has flaws in its basic design and implementation. It is unable to address the issues of access and equality for low- and middle-income students.

The Nova Scotia Government must introduce grants and not student loans. Evidence shows that grants are the only system of financial assistance to increase access and participation in post-secondary education. The Nova Scotia Government needs to immediately increase its funding and immediately reduce tuition fees. Nova Scotia is currently an anomaly when it comes to post-secondary education policy. Currently provinces such as Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland all have freezes or reductions in their tuition fees. It is crucial that the Nova Scotia Government legislates a tuition fee freeze and increases post-secondary education funding, so as to not compromise quality.

There has been much discussion around income-contingent repayment loan schemes. It needs to be clear that these are not the answer. Income-contingent repayment loans are a model of funding, not student financial assistance. It is an attempt to justify rising tuition fees while moving to a system of full cost recovery. Due to the discrepancies of income for women and minorities, income-contingent repayment loans force them to pay for their education by extending their debt.

The federation opposes any designation policy that applies to publicly funded institutions. Any such policy is illogical and detrimental. Tying designation policy to default rates does not address the cause of student debt, which is high tuition fees. It is a punitive measure for students, and a contradictory public policy.

Once again I would like to thank the committee for the chance to share the views of Nova Scotia students. I will be submitting a written report that will go into much more detail, in the next few days, to the committee, and I'll be available for questions after Ms. Laskey's report. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Laskey.

MS. LASKEY: I, too, would like to thank the committee for having us here this morning to discuss this all-important issue of student debt. As Ms. Sampson noted, the past decade has been marked by an unprecedented reduction in government funding for post-secondary education. It should come as no surprise that this has led to a significant downloading of costs onto students and their families. As tuition fees continue to escalate

exponentially, students and their families are forced to borrow greater amounts of money, and in turn students are graduating from universities with insurmountable debt loads.

Over the past decade, student debt loads have doubled in Canada. In Nova Scotia students who graduated from a four-year degree in 2001 inherited an average debt load of $22,400, well above the national average of $18,900 and second only to Newfoundland and Labrador. Students are also turning to private lending institutions to finance unmet need. We know that 30 per cent of students in Canada owe money to private sources, with an average balance of $8,000. Those debts can also be comparable to public debt loads as well.

Currently in Nova Scotia, 48.1 per cent of university students graduate with debt loads, whereas nationally this number stands at 42 per cent. Nova Scotia students are also graduating with more debt. In 2001-02, 23.1 per cent of debt loads exceeded the $25,000 range. This is in contrast to the national average of 13.4 per cent.

Finally, we know that Nova Scotia students, relative to their national counterparts, are having a more difficult time repaying these debt loads. Student debt is a harmful by-product of the Student Financial Aid Program. It must be realized that just as post-secondary education is intimately linked to social and cultural prosperity of the province, so too is the problem of student debt. Often students from rural communities are unable to return to their homes because they are forced to take higher-paying jobs in urban areas to cover their loan payments. This denies rural regions the social and economic benefits of higher education.

When a student graduates from a university program, they are looking to begin their adult lives; however, because students are leaving the system with large debt burdens, what was once a normal progression of life events has been complicated. Everything from buying a car or a home, establishing a business, starting a family or even making ends meet month to month, these endeavours have become increasingly difficult to fulfill.

Loan repayments and the omnipresent threat of default are a crippling burden on students when they're at their most financially vulnerable. These students are trying to get a leg up in the world, and instead are being dragged down by the damaging after-effects of their education. Moreover, student debt unfairly penalizes those students who are least able to pay for their education. After interest and several years of repayment, student debt magnifies the original cost of their education. In many cases some students will pay more than double the cost of their education, when paying down their debt.

There exists an enormous social gap in post-secondary participation. In terms of student indebtedness, we've seen from the MPHEC that students coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to borrow, borrow more and have a harder time coping with their higher debt-to-earning ratios. Debt aversion is emerging as a difficult problem, both in reality and in perception. Evidence has been mounting which demonstrates

that students are de-selecting themselves from pursuing post-secondary studies because the cost burden is viewed as too great.

Also, the MPHEC demonstrated that those students from less-educated family backgrounds are far less likely to return to studies after the completion of an undergraduate degree. This is affecting career choice. This is particularly troublesome for substantially more expensive professional programs, such as medicine. According to a recent Canadian Medical Journal study there are fewer students from low-income backgrounds in Canadian medical schools. As costs continue to escalate it's conceivable that this phenomenon will increasingly threaten more mainstream programs.

Nova Scotia must invest in its future by investing in post-secondary students. The provincial government must immediately make significant increases to core funding for post-secondary education. A series of ambitious targets aimed at bringing tuition fee levels in line with the national average must be set. In pursuit of this aim, there must be special caution to ensure that quality is not adversely affected. Lower tuition is an essential solution to the escalating student debt crisis, but it is far from being the only solution.

Accordingly, the provincial government needs to create a student financial aid package that includes both upfront and back-end measures for debt management, not one or the other. A robust grant system needs to be developed to assist those who most need it and these must be in the form of upfront grants. Upfront money creates the impression of a government that is supportive and working to get a student into school, softening the psychological impact of a large student loan award by immediately and visibly reducing debt before a student begins their studies. Back-end remission grants do not provide these less tangible benefits. Such grants also penalize students who are unable to finish their schooling.

There are a host of other issues that must be addressed in the student financial aid package, such as interest on student loans must be significantly lowered if not eliminated altogether, the provincial government must commit that any federal funds for student aid are not displaced from the current system's dollars, parental contribution expectations must be revisited, and the government should consider moving towards a system of integrated and harmonized loans.

Additionally, the government must ensure that they are effectively communicating with post-secondary students. For example, today we know that a large portion of students who are currently defaulting on their Nova Scotia student loans, are neglecting to access interest relief programs, despite being eligible for this assistance.

[9:30 a.m.]

Finally, we appreciate that the provincial government has limited financial resources. Nova Scotia is at a distinct disadvantage with regard to federal transfers, because they are

distributed on a per capita basis, rather than a per student basis. This does not account for the disproportionate amount of students that Nova Scotia educates. As such, we would stress the necessity for this provincial government to begin to advocate for a pan-Canadian accord on post-secondary education, including earmarked funding for education. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now open the floor for questions. Mr. MacKinnon is up first and I guess we would ask if any of your group would like to answer a question, please come up to the mic in the centre, and introduce yourselves. Mr. MacKinnon, you have 10 minutes.

MR. MACKINNON: Last week there was a press release put out by the Nova Scotia Government called New Designation Policy Will Benefit Students And Taxpayers, dated November 17, 2004. Have you had a chance to see this in terms of designating universities? There are a few code words in here that seem to raise a few flags with myself. What it does is designates universities, community colleges and private institutions as to whether they will qualify students attending to be eligible to apply for a student loan. It appears to come down to the final statement in the press release that says, "Nova Scotia currently guarantees $130 million in provincial student loans."

It would appear to me from this press release that what the government wants to do is to reduce the amount of money that it guarantees for student loans. I would like to have your thoughts on that. Has there been any consultation with the provincial government prior to this press release?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: I think we have been alerted that there is a designation policy coming about, although students were not consulted as to the framework around this policy, in terms of creating one that is fair and equitable to public institutions. As I said before, this is a very regressive and illogical policy. It punishes students who are forced to take out large debts and then for one reason or another defaults on those loans. Because one institution or one program has a slightly higher than acceptable level of default rates, their students will no longer be eligible to receive Canada student loans, although their institution will still be able to receive government funding. It is not trying to put the burden back on the institution, it is putting the burden on students who are forced to take out those loans.

We have heard that this policy is mainly driven at for-profit institutions that normally stick around for a year or two, have tuition fees that are around $10,000 to $15,000 and then close down. This is fine, if we are looking at a designation policy that targets those for-profit institutions, we cannot have one that targets public institutions. We will see programs like fine arts at NSCAD being designated, because that is not a high income area. We are going to see students at UCCB ineligible for Canada student loans, because they're trying to improve their economic situation. It is unfair and a regressive policy and we oppose it.

MR. MACKINNON: That is what raised the flag with me because my understanding is if the delinquency rate on student loans is over a certain percentage, whether it be 35 per cent or 40 per cent, I'm not sure what figure they're targeting, then that institution or particular program within the institution would become designated, which means that any student attending that institution or that particular program would not be eligible for a student loan.

The statement in the press release, I think, concurs with what you're saying, "Students will have better experiences with their loans because of the new policy and less student assistance money will be spent on bad debt." In other words, they're blaming the students for not handling or managing their money wisely.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: That's another thing that we've been seeing, that the government is chronically underfunding institutions and chronically underfunding non-repayable student financial assistance. Then again, when those students are forced to take out $25,000 or $35,000 worth of debt and are unable to pay it, they are being punished.

MR. MACKINNON: If you have NSCAD, or for example UCCB, over 60 per cent of the students attending that institution receive student loans. If that becomes designated, then effectively you're shutting down 60 per cent of the university, which will have a major, negative impact, not only on education but on the socio-economic factor as well.

Are there any other institutions that would fall within that bracket that you can identify? This seems quite concerning, it appears to me what the provincial government is trying to do is to alleviate itself of this $100 million loan guarantee, because it is a budgetary item and they want to bring that down. It's almost like they're setting the stage for the budget in the Spring and I guess that's why I'm a little concerned.

MS. LASKEY: I don't think it has progressed that far yet though. Some things to consider about the framework is that it is a framework that has been debated for a number of years, it is interprovincial. I think what Danielle did mention is a concern. We, as well, don't want to see any public institutions threatened by de-designation; however, there is some merit to the fact that there are for-profit education institutions that are in business, rather than the business of educating students. I think that is what we need to be wary of. I think in that regard, the framework is positive. However, what Danielle was mentioning is of concern.

I think a framework that excludes public institutions is one that would be preferable and one that does not deem things to be punitive. I think another aspect of the framework which could be of some concern is that information on default rates will be publicized for students, for example, so that when people are making decisions on what institution to attend, they will have a sort of portrayal of okay, UCCB, this many people default on loans, versus Dalhousie, where maybe considerably less people default on student loans. The

government has assured us they are going to work it in a way that it's not a punitive measure, but I think that's something that needs to be looked at.

I know if I was a student entering the system, that might be something I would consider, or even program specific, if you were looking at a degree in philosophy versus a degree in engineering, and looking at the default rates on that. So I think those are some of the concerns of the policy.

Also, what you were mentioning, in terms of student loan assistance being diverted, I think a strong recommendation that we've been trying to push on this framework is that they need to make sure that any money that is saved is reinvested in student financial assistance. As I said, institutions that are in the business of business, rather than in the business of educating students, that that money has to be reinvested. I think those are some of the key elements that need to be looked at. This is a framework that has been debated by the Ministers of Education for a number of years now and has just been announced as a framework for a framework.

MR. MACKINNON: You indicated, the government has given guarantees. Have you received any of those guarantees in writing?

MS. LASKEY: No, I said that that's what we are asking for.

MR. MACKINNON: No, earlier you indicated that the government gave guarantees that it wouldn't adversely affect these programs that you're referring to. Anyway, I know my time is getting short, it says "Students attending designated colleges, universities and private post secondary schools in Nova Scotia can apply for government student assistance, including loans, interest relief, and debt reduction."

The silent part of that is students attending non-designated colleges cannot apply and that is the issue and the implications of that, as to whether certain institutions will get bigger and stronger and other regions will suffer.

MS. LASKEY: Yes, as I said, I think there should be the exclusion of any public institutions from this framework.

MR. MACKINNON: But you haven't received anything in writing from the government?

MS. LASKEY: No, in fact it does not explicitly exclude it in the framework, which is of concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Estabrooks. You have 10 minutes.

MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: First of all, I guess I should get my bias out of the way, and we're going to talk about this, some extension to the NSCAD. I am the proud father of a daughter who attends the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design. I'd like to ask, if I could - perhaps Danielle could explain to me - as a parent who is fortunate enough to be able to help his daughter as she goes into a very - although I should point out to you that for the next semester, she's off to India of all places, in fact it's probably cheaper for her to go to India for the next semester as opposed to staying here in Halifax, as part of her work at NSCAD.

Danielle, could you clear up for me what a needs-based grant is? And are there other examples across this country, in other jurisdictions, where we have such things as needs-based grants as opposed to loans?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: A needs-based grant is a grant that is based on the student's financial need. So it is a non-repayable grant, it is upfront, and that's to equalize the opportunity for low-income students and those from higher- and middle-income students. There are many provinces - actually Nova Scotia is one of the only provinces that has eliminated its needs-based grant program, one that we had. We are seeing more provinces move away from needs-based grants into student loans specifically. There are a lot of very good studies, actually, coming from the U.S. that say that needs-based grants are the only measure that substantially increase the opportunity for low-income students. If you'll just bear with me for one second.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Specifically, Danielle, I understand you're going to make a further submission to us, so we can get some of these details, but you are aware of students in other provinces who are eligible for needs-based grants.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Yes, there are many other needs-based grant programs. Actually we were quite happy with the introduction of a federal low-income grant program, also, which is a progressive start for the federal government, although it's not quite enough.

MR. ESTABROOKS: If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity to meet Scott Saunders for a moment. He's here from the Student Union of NSCAD. I was wondering if Scott could take the microphone, however this is going to be done.

When you talk about recruiting students to go to university - and at one time when I had a real job as a school principal I did that regularly - one of the things, of course, that always comes across is - and students have asked me in the past - what is a food bank doing in a university? I'm aware that other universities have food banks, but from personal experience - and I, of course, was told by my wife to ask this question, so NSCAD students should know who's the dominant influence in my life here - could you tell us about your food bank?

MR. SCOTT SAUNDERS: Absolutely, I just want to quickly introduce myself. I'm Scott Saunders, VP External, Nova Scotia College of Art and Design. Though I don't actually run the food bank myself, I can offer you some facts and some personal insight as I have had to make use of said food bank, as well. We've had our food bank for a number of years. It's quite interesting, we're not the only school in the area that actually has a food bank. When I came to NSCAD, at first I was unaware that it even existed, and I was quite surprised that it was on our campus.

Over the last couple of years, I've become more aware of this and some of the facts surrounding our food bank. The way it works - and I'm sure Danielle can jump in at any point here to correct me if I'm wrong - is we receive donations from private donors as well as working with the Metro Food Bank, and our shipments come in every two weeks. What's really interesting is how many students we get to see coming in every day and actually accessing what we have, both perishable and non-perishable goods. Before I actually get into those numbers, we actually have an interesting way of keeping track of the students month by month, how many are using the food bank and whether those numbers fluctuate. Every student who actually accesses it marks down when they actually took food from the bank, so that we can check these at the end of the month, of course.

[9:45 a.m.]

On average, I'd say we see about 20 to 30 students coming through there a day. There's always somebody in the student union office. I want to actually clarify, though, that those numbers can be somewhat deceiving. For every student who actually has the courage to go and access the food bank, there's maybe two more who don't. I'm speaking from experience here, because I used to be that student. Nobody wants to admit that they need help. Quite often nobody wants to show that they need to access something like the food bank. It is mandatory, but there are many students who are afraid to be seen doing that.

Speaking for myself, I work a part-time job and I go to school, as well. Though I work a part-time job, it is still difficult for me to actually cover my expenses month to month. I, myself, have used the food bank. I know what that feels like. It's not something I feel especially proud of, but it's something I am required to do to survive. That's extremely important for everybody to understand, because that's where our students are coming from. This is out of absolute necessity, and if we did not have a food bank in our school, there would be many more students, particularly at NSCAD, who would be suffering.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: If I could just follow that up, also being a student at NSCAD and having a lot of experience with the food bank, on average we see about 400 visits per month to our food bank. Last year alone, we went through 12 tons of non-perishable foods. With a student population of 1,000, 400 visits a month is a significant number of students. This is a result of government chronic underfunding that forces students to choose between day-to-day necessities, such as food, and getting an education.

The current situation that has been forced upon us by the government is one of a mandatory student poverty. That is why we have been forced to take out a food bank, and that is why we are seeing more and more food banks pop up around more and more campuses, especially in Nova Scotia.

MR. ESTABROOKS: If I could, Scott, Danielle, add a comment, please. You said it takes courage to go to a food bank and, of course, seeing that situation with other people in our communities that we represent, you have a part-time job, you're a full-time student, you also, of course, and Danielle's added, frequently use the food bank. To many Nova Scotians, many of us who are university graduates from many years ago, that's just foreign to us. I went to university, I went to class, I kicked around on a football field, did all those sorts of things. People just don't get it anymore, what it's like to be a university student or a community college student in this province. You're handling a lot of different commitments. I just want you to clarify for me this point, why would you say that it takes courage to go to a food bank?

MR. SAUNDERS: It's very imperative that I help everybody in this room to understand exactly where our students lie. Even from 10 years ago, things are radically different in this province and across this country in regard to tuition fees, student debt and many of the other issues that we're talking about today. When I say that it actually takes courage to go to a food bank, to use said goods that are in that place, it takes courage because of the stigma that's attached to such a move in our society, how people who need financial help are viewed.

It's looked down upon, it can be frowned upon. Seeing somebody go into the food bank, a student go in, it's easy for other people who watch that to stereotype that student as somebody with need or to look down on them. Though this isn't right, this happens in all areas of our society. Speaking for myself, the first time I actually went to the food bank I was very afraid because I did not want to look like I needed that help. I was embarrassed myself. I have no problem admitting that now. I've gotten over that, obviously. It's either receive food from the food bank or not eat. So I was forced to shed those feelings.

My position is one that many other students have experienced. I get to hear this every single day in my position with the student union. I have many opportunities to talk to the student body, many opportunities to hear what people really think about these kinds of issues that are going on. It's very important to remember, as well - you want to know where the impact is on students when it comes to higher tuition debt and everything else we've been talking about, well, this is the grassroots right here when it comes down to fundamental rights, access to food, things that we all need, it is a right.

One quick note that I want to actually add here, as well, is we're actually making plans to expand our food bank, not only for the growing population that we have at NSCAD but more students are actually starting to use it as well within that population.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you. I know my time has almost elapsed. I want you to continue to use the oranges that my wife drops off there every two weeks.

MR. SAUNDERS: And I want to thank you for those oranges, they are quite appreciated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine, you have 10 minutes.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much to all the students who have come in today to certainly enlighten us about some of the areas of their current plight and situation on campus.

During the Fall sitting of the Legislature I asked the minister about student participation in the memorandum of understanding regarding multi-year funding. Joanna, I was just wondering if you feel the students have been represented well, to date, in this particular area? I think it is one of the critical components in stabilizing tuition, at least, over the next three or four years. I wonder if you could comment on that please.

MS. LASKEY: Sure. I think that all students agree that we have not been consulted in the MOU process. We have been briefed on the issue from time to time and given very vague details, and an understanding of what the process is. Any sort of information that we receive comes through second-hand sources and when you raised the issue in the House, we know the response was that university students are represented now on the board of governors of institutions. We don't feel that that's a legitimate way of consulting students for a number of reasons.

First of all, it's not the institution's responsibility to hear from the stakeholders of students, it's the province's responsibility. It's not guaranteed that a board of governors president or executive will be discussing the details with their BOG and having student input on that issue. We feel that it's not a legitimate answer to having a consultation with an issue where students are the primary stakeholder.

We also feel that even if there were, ideally, students getting ample information and their board of governors being able to provide it, and that was being given to the department on our behalf, that's problematic in and of itself because that serves as a filtration of our concerns, our ideas, and they can put their own spin on it, they could not provide that information at all. We feel that it's a crucial problem to the process and as such, all students will be skeptical of the results of the memorandum of understanding.

We have expressed this both to the minister in a meeting in October, we've expressed it to senior bureaucrats from the Department of Education and we've expressed it to the university administrations, that we are not satisfied with the way that student consultation has happened, or hasn't happened.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Joanna. I guess to paraphrase then would you say that this is probably part of the ongoing, callous disregard that this government has had for students? Would you go that far, Joanna?

MS. LASKEY: I don't know if I would necessarily put it in that regard. I think that it's indicative that they do not feel that the students were needed to be consulted in a proper fashion. I don't know if I would play into that sort of partisan perspective on it.

MR. GLAVINE: Danielle?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: I would go that far, yes.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you. I would have to say that along with the current plight that students convey to me about how they have to now experience and go through their three or four years at university, I think the most disturbing fact, however, that I have heard this Fall was one that you have already brought out, Joanna, and that was in the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission's report.

To see a trend developing in this province where, for the first time, we note that students from low socio-economic backgrounds are entering university. That is simply not the Nova Scotia way because my 30 years in education show that when those students go to university, they perform just as well as those from the higher socio-economic end. How do you think we can reverse this? What does government truly have to do to reverse one of the most disturbing trends that we are now experiencing in Nova Scotia?

MS. LASKEY: I think that the answer is not one solution. I think there are a number of ways that this needs to be addressed and fundamentally it comes down to money, it comes down to funding. There has been a shift in funding to students, so students are less able to afford it. The MPHEC report that you're referring to demonstrated, and MPHEC has demonstrated before, that the primary deterrent for high school graduates is financial concerns. We feel that on the one hand, tuition needs to be brought under control, there needs to be a stop to all these escalating tuition fees to the extent that we've been seeing. On the other hand, we need to see solutions to the student financial aid system, in particular for low-income background students, we want to see that come in the form of needs-based, upfront grants. We feel that that is the most helpful manner of assisting students and there's a growing problem with debt aversion, just on the basis of perception even, and sometimes, some reality.

People are not attending post-secondary because they don't want to be graduating with these debt loads. If they know right away that they're getting this money in the non-repayable format, then that is more likely to help soften the psychological effects that a large debt load can carry.

MR. GLAVINE: Danielle, or perhaps any other student, can make a comment here. Last week when I was on the Acadia campus, I talked to a number of students in the dining hall. Some of the stories were around, in order for me to stay here this year, I have to work four part-time jobs - in other words, a couple of hours here, an hour there, two more here and so forth. Another student living off campus told me, thank goodness my boyfriend is in the infantry because I will have a suitable sleeping bag to survive the Winter. The stories just go on and on. What are some of the other ways that the stresses and so on of student life are showing up because of the enormous tuition costs? At Acadia they are $7,300, by the way, well above the Nova Scotia average. What are the kinds of stresses now that you are hearing and experiencing across the campuses of Nova Scotia?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Actually, coming from someone who has three part-time jobs myself, I feel that I will probably be able to answer that fairly well. One of the major obstacles is actually getting in the door for low-income students but it's also a huge problem of what happens when they get into that door. They are saddled with $6,000 in tuition fees, $200 a book, living expenses. A lot of Nova Scotia students are moving to Halifax or to Sydney to attend post-secondary education, which also increases their costs.

In terms of non-financial issues, we're seeing more and more food banks pop up. We're seeing lower participation rates in class; because students are forced to take on two and three part-time jobs, they're not being able to concentrate on their studies as well, they're not taking advantage of the full quality of education that our institutions are able to offer. We're seeing less students attending classes and when they do, they're usually nodding off in the back because they're so tired, because they have just gotten off a graveyard shift. We are seeing students forced to choose between getting an education and providing necessities for themselves and their families like food, taking food out of the food banks. It's not just financial barriers, it's also social barriers that are leading students to not being able to take advantage of the full experience at university.

MR. GLAVINE: Maybe some of the other students can jump in here, as well, if they so wish. When you heard the $5.1 million student Loan Remission Program set into process with the announcement in the budget last year, what did you understand would happen with the $5.1 million?

[10:00 a.m.]

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Well, I guess in the beginning we understood that with a $5.1 million program, that $5.1 million would have been paid out to students. As of last year, only $300,000 of that $5.1 million was paid out to students. That Debt Reduction Program, 2,000 eligible students applied. We don't actually have the numbers on how many students successfully applied, but only 2,000 students applied. That's a very small number of low-income students that that program was able to help.

This Debt Reduction Program was one that replaced a $10 million Loan Remission Program. We'd like to see that $40 million that students lost in the four years that we were without any program, and also the $5 million that we're missing every year that that program is in place. As I said before, the Loan Remission Program was not an ideal program, but it did cap ceilings for financial assistance and it was $5 million more that students received. Actually it was about $9.7 million more than students are receiving right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corbett. You have 10 minutes.

MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the questions of my colleague, the member for Cape Breton West, around what I prefer to call the de-designation, because I don't, quite honestly, trust the government on this one. Once they attack a problem, fail, and come back and rename it, I get duly paranoid. I know some paranoids do have enemies, but I'm really paranoid.

I want to say that you talked about this and, particularly, Joanna, your level of discomfort wasn't as great as what I think Danielle's was. I know you talked in terms of, well, we've been in discussion with government, and government seems to be out there having a de-designation light. What have they said to you that kind of waylaid your fears on this?

MS. LASKEY: I should clarify, it's not necessarily that I'm trusting government, and I think that we are asking that these changes be made to the framework. We don't agree with the fact that public institutions are included in the framework. We don't agree with that. I think what makes me - I wouldn't say I'm less skeptical of it, it's not that I necessarily trust, it's just that I think there is a legitimate problem with private for-profit institutions that are in the business of business rather than in the business of educating students. I would like to see students being protected from that sort of thing.

I think there are a host of issues, though, with the program, such as the fact that public institutions are not being excluded from it, and we've voiced that concern, continuously. We don't agree with that. I also think that it's problematic in the way that they may present information on default rates, that sort of thing, because it could be prescriptive to an institution, and punitive rather than just providing information. I don't know which way they could provide information for students that wouldn't sort of be punitive to an institution.

MR. CORBETT: Thank you for that clarification. I believe there's really two problems here, one is geographic and economic in nature, and the other one is when we talk about for-profit institutions. There's a whole other lever for government to get at. If there's a performance rate that they're not hitting, then I think government, through the Department of Education, has a whole other way of going after them.

Just changing gears a little bit, we've been told that so far 150 students have applied for debt reduction, and only half have been protested. This is less than half the 3,146 students who received loan remission in 1999-2000. Is the program even going to make a dent in the millions of dollars of debt owed by students currently? Mr. Chairman, I would like to table an e-mail from Kevin Chapman on this.

MS. LASKEY: Is it going to make a dent? It depends on which students you're talking about. There are many provincial programs that run on an accrual basis. I don't think the Debt Reduction Program is necessarily doing anything wrong in terms of how much it's distributing, but I do think it's provided some smoke and mirrors for students. We thought when it was announced, or we assumed, that there was $5.1 million being disbursed annually for these students. So I think that that's a problem.

Whether or not it's going to actually put a dent, well, not right now it's not, especially for those students in the system right now who weren't covered by anything for the years that there was an absence of a Loan Remission Program or a Debt Reduction Program. Whether or not it's going to put a dent in it more long term, it will put a more significant dent than it currently is, at $300,000, but I don't think it will put the dent that a $9.9 million program did or potentially more money than that.

MR. CORBETT: Thank you, Ms. Laskey. I should say I misspoke, I said 150 when I meant 1,500. Just to change gears a little bit, every student has probably had that awful day of having to call down to the Trade Mart Building to find out where their loan is or what's going on, so I want to talk a bit about that office in particular and how you've kind of co-existed with that office. I've heard students who come into my office and complain that because of the cost of their tuition, they had to carry on, as Danielle said, with three, sometimes four jobs, and that predicated them not being able to go to class full time. They go part time, and they're extremely busy people, yet they tell me they can't apply for a loan on-line if you're a part-time student. Is this accurate? Has this ever been explained to you?

MR. SAUNDERS: This is a great question, because it actually ties in with what this gentleman down here had said before, concerning part-time students' access to student loans and such. Now, as I said, I'm a student with a part-time job. That's been the case for the last three years I've been in school. Speaking personally - I'm going to actually address your comment in a moment, I'm just going to set this up - I've had to flip-flop from semester to semester, from part time to full time, as I tried to balance my schedule. I do documentary video work myself, that's what I want to do. Now it can be extremely frustrating, especially since that's such a time-intensive medium, that I can't put everything I have into what I want to do for my career. I think that's extremely sad. It's very ironic. I want to get out into the workforce, I want to do what I want to do, yet I'm actually being held back because of my financial situation.

I was part time last semester and the one before that, became full time this semester. What's interesting when it comes to student loans is that, you're absolutely right, when it comes to part-time loans, it is actually more difficult for students to access and difficult on-line to do that. I've had to go through those motions myself. Even speaking about full-time loans, it can be difficult to work with the government, in receiving that, which I've experienced as well, not only with the waiting lists, sometimes you fall through the cracks, get shuffled to the back. These are things I have experience with. I don't know if I'm lucky or unlucky that I have so much practical experience with many of the issues that are being discussed here today, but nevertheless I can offer my thoughts.

Back to the part-time/full-time student thing, it's very important for you to know, everybody in this room, students want to go full time, they want to be out of school as quickly as they can so that they can get on with their lives. Being stuck in limbo, where you're in a four-year program that can take upwards of seven-plus years to finish, is absolutely ludicrous and it's just not right. I'm speaking for every student across this province and Canada who are in the same situation and would like to say the same thing to you today.

MR. CORBETT: In my area, through no fault of their own, many of the students' parents have been thrust out of work, whether it was the coal mines or the steel plant, and they had many people who were just entering university. A real problem that I experience in my job is the student loan folks would tell the people, well, if you can't get a loan, go on welfare. Have any of you had experience with that same sort of thing, from the people you represent, that type of comment?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: I guess one misconception is that you're actually not eligible for student assistance while you're in school, so it's really an either/or situation where it's forcing students to choose between well, find a way, whether it be bank loans which you're paying interest on from the day you start out, try to find money from your parents, maybe try to get one of those five or six scholarships that are available that are supposed to help out thousands of students - that's the kind of thing that we're seeing.

Also, in terms of middle-income families who are earning $30,000 to $40,000, which is a living income, but if you see that family with two children in university at the same time, or even two children in university several years apart, the government has put on such high expectations for families to put away money for their students' education that are not realistic.

Low- and middle-income families would actually have to put away 20 per cent to 30 per cent of their yearly income to pay for their child's education. We all know that for low- and middle-income families struggling to make ends meet day to day, putting 20 per cent of your income aside for an education is not a possibility. It's not a matter of placing priority on their children's education, it's a matter of not having the money. Those are definitely some of the

barriers that we're seeing, high expectations of families' contributions is a huge problem for students.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham, you have 10 minutes.

MR. DANIEL GRAHAM: Thank you for coming and discussing with us this very important issue. My name is Danny Graham, I apologize for coming in when you were making your first presentation, I had a personal commitment that kept me away.

My introduction is going to be longer than probably it should be but I get a little worked up when I think of this particular issue. I'd like to share with you some of my background thoughts. Twenty-two years ago I was in your shoes, I was the Chairman of the Student Union of Nova Scotia, I was one of the student union's presidents here and trying to make the case to the provincial government at that time.

When I was at an economic summit this past weekend, the supposed business leaders, community leaders in Halifax came together to talk about the challenges that relate to this region. It was centrally focused on the question of economics and when asked what are our assets, clearly, one of the messages that came from that was our post-secondary education institutions and possibilities. Not enough mention was made of the peril that our institutions have been in over the last period of time. The greatest peril exists, in my view, for the students, but it exists across the board with respect to maintaining the infrastructure, that the physical capital of these places, ensuring that we retain and recruit instructors with the right and best qualifications possible.

On the question of research and development, and venture capital, our post-secondary education institutions have a vital role to play in all of this. But more than anything else, this is a social justice issue, when I look at the challenges that exist in Nova Scotia. I'm reminded of that when I was going through some of my files, in preparation for today's discussion, and I came out with - from August of this year - headlines that say, "N.S. ranks last in university funding", that was from August 2004. From April 2003 the headline reads, "N.S. education funding 'almost preposterously low' - Maclean's guide editor". "N.S. tuitions priciest" is the next headline. I went to the sources for Statistics Canada which indicated that not only is tuition in Nova Scotia for undergraduate institutions the highest in the country, it is higher than the national average by 38 per cent, and it's substantially higher than every other province in Canada.

Then we have the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives which provided a report in August of this year that was reported on and it not only looked at funding, it looked at the overall support. In overall support it examined questions of equity, quality, accountability and accessibility, something more than just funding, when it looked at the overall support that exists here and it ranked Nova Scotia dead last. In fact, on the question of equity, it ranked Nova Scotia 10^th out of 10; on the question of accessibility we ranked 7^th out of 10;

on accountability we ranked 9^th out of 10 and curiously, given much talk about the Maclean's ratings when it comes to quality - because there are several institutions in this province - we ranked 10^th out of 10, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and that, I think, should be cause for alarm for everyone.

[10:15 a.m.]

One more point with respect to the support, it is incredible that the Loan Remission Program was allowed to be revoked for the period that it was. When the Millennium Scholarship Fund came in it was intended to be a top-up, it turned out to be the base of grant funding for students in Nova Scotia.

When I listened to Scott speak with great courage today - and it's wonderful that you got through all this - many students you are speaking on behalf of, I'm sure, would thank you for speaking about the challenges of having to go to a food bank. It's tough enough to tell your parents perhaps that my choice is to go to NSCAD, I'm going to follow my soul and I'm going to do the things that really matter to me. It's quite another to be here today and in a public forum before the media to say, I go to a food bank and I'm still trying to get educated. So this is an issue, I think, of social justice, when we hear about 12 tons of food being picked up at NSCAD every year, 400 visits a year.

Ultimately, it becomes a question of effective advocacy and I'm concerned that you're fighting a losing battle with us. You're not alone in this but frankly, you're the strongest voice that you have. When one looks at the cold stats over the last 10 or 20 years, you've been pounded, and we need to find a better way to get to where we need to be.

Having been on both sides of this issue, as an advocate for students - only for a 12-month period - and having been on the government side to a certain extent, it's clear to me now that you are seen as a relatively transient group and now we see a division in your ranks, to a certain extent. You are here strongly making similar positions but not identical positions, I would argue and, most importantly, we have the memorandum of understanding that's being negotiated by the government, largely, in your absence. I'm wondering what could you possibly do to bring a stronger message, a more effective message to government that sustains itself year over year so they're not picking you off piecemeal because you are a transient group and you're divided at that? I ask that of both of you.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Luckily, because we're being forced to take part-time studies for six or seven years to finish our degrees, you might be seeing a few of us a lot more. (Laughter) I think in terms of being more effective, maybe you guys could cut us some slack and start listening, and when you do listen - which you've done very well - go back and not only listen but take action.

MR. GRAHAM: Joanna.

MS. LASKEY: I tend to agree. I think what you're speaking to, being involved with student leadership for a number of years, is not unique to our province and that's why we have in place things like permanent staff positions for our organizations and we tend to work together.

In terms of the division issue, it's an issue, we both recognize that but at the same time, when the student movement decided to do this two years ago - and it was a long time coming before that - it is an issue, we recognize that but at the same time, we're trying to work together. We try to bring together issues when we can and I think we're doing the best that we can at this point. I think it's something that will obviously progress over time but I think what Danielle said as well, it's not only our responsibility as students to be implementing these things, we can only say so much. People have to start actually listening and not just listening and nodding your heads but listening and doing something about it.

I think you raised a valid point. I don't know what we can do about it but at the same time, we're working on it. Let us work out our house and you guys work out your house.

MR. GRAHAM: I appreciate that and there's no question that we have a lot of working out to do at the provincial government level, and this is an opportunity in a minority situation for us to bring the issues and challenges of students squarely before the government in the preparation for budget in this coming year. The message that you bring we will continue to try to bring as strongly as we can.

With the greatest respect, I think you're going to continue to get picked off if you remain divided and you don't find some way to come together on sustained messages. That doesn't mean you have to agree on everything, but I think it's fundamental because I see on this memorandum of understanding that you provide, it appears, about 40 per cent of the total funding for post-secondary education right now, and you're not even inside the door at the negotiating table when they're talking about your tuition increases. Surely that has to change. Surely you agree that you should stand up on your hind legs - and it requires for you to have your students with you as well - and say, sorry, stop the negotiations until we are fundamentally included in these discussions. Is there anything of that sort happening right now?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Actually, yes, there is quite a bit, and it's definitely one of the opportunities that Ms. Laskey and I have had to come together and fight. Unfortunately, there are only so many doors that have been slammed in our face, only so many phone calls that have gone unanswered, and only one consultation where we were briefed, not on what was happening but what had already been decided, and not on numbers but on estimations, and given assurances that our university presidents were working in our best interests. As we all know, that doesn't always happen. So it is something we have been working together on, it is something that we feel strongly about, very passionately about, that

we need to be involved. Whereas government contributes 40 per cent of university budgets and we contribute about the same, I feel it is only fair that we have equal standing on this.

MR. GRAHAM: I couldn't agree more, and I wish you luck in that. One final avenue that you might consider is a higher percentage of representation on the boards of governors across the province, and I'm wondering whether or not you're looking to make a strong stand with respect to that, so that you have a stronger voice in what happens at individual institutions.

MS. LASKEY: I think that's something that the student movement has always been looking for, and I think that we will continue to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massey, 10 minutes.

MS. MASSEY: Thank you for coming in today and giving us this presentation. It seems to me that every time I'm in this room and we start talking about education, I lose my cool. So I'm going to try to stay calm today, but I have to say I think my blood pressure is rising. When I sit here, I have to say it rots my socks off to sit here and listen to our honourable members from the Liberal Party talking about the problems that you're facing when it was their Party that actually cancelled student bursaries and forced tuition increases on you, and also the Progressive Conservative Government has had a hand in this whole sad story. They're the ones that actually cancelled the Loan Remission Program.

People can sit here and give you all kinds of good advice on what you should be doing, and I think you're doing a fantastic job and I don't think anyone needs to tell you what to do. What I would like to get you to talk about - what I tried to do last night when I went through this binder, it's full of great information, and I tried to sit down and do a budget, pretending that I was a student, in your place. I'm telling you, one gap I had, I don't know, I couldn't find in there how much it would cost you for books, and I'm sure that varies according to what courses you're taking, but if somebody could give me an average, throw a figure on what an average student's costs in books would be per year, that would get me started.

MS. LASKEY: It can average anywhere - usually around $80 to $200 for a brand-new textbook, per textbook. Obviously there are exceptions to that, there would be some lower. You'll often see students buying second-hand, buying later editions, or going without, trying to photocopy from other people or just going without.

MS. MASSEY: So total costs in a year would be?

MS. LASKEY: Well, it depends on how many courses you would be carrying, but that would be about average for your textbook. Some courses can require that you would have a number of textbooks in that range. It depends on the program, and it depends on how many courses you would be taking.

MS. MASSEY: I think I've blown my budget now. I was trying to base mine on if I was a student with one child in daycare, and if I was paying rent, if I was living away from home and I wasn't on campus, I was off campus. I budgeted somewhere around $50 a week on food. I have two sons who don't go to school, they're working full time. I have to tell you, they eat a lot at my house, they do their laundry there and, in general, borrowing money, when they come up short. One works in Halifax and one works in Dartmouth, so they live quite close to me. I don't know what you students do when your mom and dad don't live nearby. I know I've talked to students who can't go home at Christmastime, they can't afford the bus fare to go down and visit their mom at Christmastime, students who are struggling, paying back their loan.

I think you made a good point, it might take you seven years to finish trying to get the education you're looking for, because there's all those gaps where somebody is breathing down your neck saying I want this money, I want $165 a month back from you, and then you're putting off things like - I don't know what you do when you need new glasses, if you need to go to the dentist, you need your teeth cleaned, these kinds of things. I haven't even tried to stick those kinds of things in my little budget. Certainly I would be struggling, and I think that is happening and there's no need for it. Talk about economic development, it's crazy what we're doing here in this province as far as not supporting what is our greatest natural resource, you.

I was wondering if you could just sort of give me a little bit more background information on how housing issues affect you, maybe if somebody wants to talk about that, housing issues in HRM, child care issues, because in this booklet I know they did talk about how there are spots on campus for child care but a lot of time the faculty members and staff use up basically half of those spots. Is that an issue? What kinds of issues are revolving around child care, housing issues? I'm not sure, but maybe somebody might be able to talk about employment issues and your struggle with that, how easy it is to get a job, or is it hard, and the issue around living in the city where you're going to school, your mom and dad are in the rural area, and how hard is that? It makes a huge difference, I would imagine. I'll just leave you with some of that.

MS. LASKEY: I should preface my comments by saying I've just lived here for four months. I'm a graduate from St. Thomas University in Fredericton and was there for five years. If you can take that as an accurate portrayal, I can let Danielle speak more aptly to that. I think in general, and we're seeing it everywhere across the nation, there is this perception of the student lifestyle, which has less to do with eating mac and cheese because you have to or going out and spending your money on whatever.

I think that there is a host of issues that you brought up that are all very legitimate. I think that when you're talking about making your budget and some of the things that you're talking about, I wear glasses, I've just gone without, I've had the same prescription, regardless of what I've needed, for six years. These are the sorts of things. That's just something that would be seen as a luxury for many students.

On the issue of students who live away from home, I think that's a real problem. You're not going to be able to attend a post-secondary institution, especially if you choose to go to university, in your home, necessarily. You often tend to come from a less advantaged background in rural areas, so it's a real problem. You see students often not being able to make ends meet, and they just do without or they're not able to get home to their parents. Oftentimes even if they could, their parents couldn't help them. Those were my circumstances throughout university. I always worked jobs, and even if I could get access to my parents, and they were only two hours away, they weren't often able to help me. Those are issues.

[10:30 a.m.]

In terms of the housing and child care, I would make speculations on that, what's going on in Nova Scotia. Perhaps I could let Danielle speak to that, or another student.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: In terms of addressing your idea of budgeting for a student, I'll give you a little taste of what it's like. The government decided that the maximum amount a student can borrow is about $11,000, which leaves about $210 a week for a student to live on. Now from that, take an average of $5,984 for tuition fees alone; take $600 to $1,000 for your textbooks or materials, depending on your program; take off health care costs; take off student union fees; take off auxiliary fees and ancillary fees that our university presidents are so fond of now to squeeze that extra buck out of us; take out rent.

In Nova Scotia we have no system of affordable housing, many students are forced to come to Halifax where landlords have identified that we need a place to live and they'll charge us whatever we need, and students from Cape Breton like myself who are lucky enough to be able to get an opportunity to come to Halifax for our education, we are five times less likely to succeed in doing that, because of our economic background.

So if you take off all those costs from $11,000, according to my calculations there's still a couple of thousand dollars left that you don't have, for electricity, for child care, for food, and that's what we're seeing. We're seeing more and more students taking out credit cards, private bank debts, borrowing from their parents, their parents then taking out mortgages and second mortgages on their homes to finance their child's post-secondary education. The $25,000 average student debt is one that is public debt, that is not the entire picture.

MR. SAUNDERS: One last comment I want to make is in regard to what you were asking about student jobs today. Let me just give you a quick description of what the state of that is. As I've said before, I work a part-time job and what do I make, I make minimum wage. My income is less than $10,000 a year. Once again, that's not something I like to come out and admit, but nevertheless there it is. You need to know that.

What kinds of jobs are students working? They're the ones who are working at the theatre handing you your ticket stubs, they're the ones who are working the mall jobs for minimum wage, working the kiosks on Spring Garden Road. What you have to remember is when you're a student and you have a full-time schedule, or part-time for that matter, and school needs to be your priority, when you actually take that mandate to whatever possible employer, where you're seeking employment, that is not necessarily what they're looking for. Employers today are looking for more flexible hours, and really resumés are a dime a dozen these days, especially for the jobs I'm talking about.

It's extremely difficult. The stress is always there. We're always competing, even amongst ourselves, because there's only a limited number of jobs to go around. Like I said, the ones we have access to don't particularly pay well. Speaking for myself, as a food bank user, obviously, I am not paid particularly well. This is a situation that I don't necessarily appreciate. There's not a lot I can do at this point. I have a lot of quality skills that an employer could look for, but unfortunately not a lot of employment opportunities to actually bring that out. When I speak this way, once again, I'm reiterating this for all students who are in this situation, because I get to see this every day being on my student union. Thanks.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Actually, just as a side note, last Summer 72 per cent of minimum wage jobs were held by full-time post-secondary education students, in the Summer. These are the students we're seeing. We are competing with high school students. We are qualified, educated individuals, and we are not able to get jobs.

In Nova Scotia, where tuition is about $6,000 a year, our students are having to work 1,000 hours to pay that off, and that's under the unfair assumption that they won't be paying any taxes off that. Students have to work 20 hours a week, every week to pay their tuition alone, at these jobs. It is deemed that 10 hours a week - any more than that will affect their studies. So we can only imagine that 20 hours a week is leading to less accessibility for low-income students and less participation rates in the classroom for those students.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to go to about 10:50 a.m., so we have time for a few quick ones. Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: Pointedly, I think there are a number of culprits in here that we seem to be overlooking. Number one, the administration in the universities and also the faculty associations. I wrote, almost a year ago, asking for support to have the student representation increased on the boards of governors of universities, and I didn't get one

president who would give me any type of an endorsement on behalf of the students. Every time there's a strike at a university or the threat of a strike, the faculty association always draws on the students for their moral support, but yet it's the students who are paying the highest percentage of these bills.

I think with increased accountability at the board of governors, from the students, since you're paying the lion's share of the bill, I'd think it would be incumbent on both those stakeholders to come forward and state clearly where they stand on this issue, and stop with the wishy-washy comments that I've been receiving from some of the presidents of universities. I have that in writing, so I can make that comment safely.

My question is, have you made representation to both of these bodies, as well as to the government because we've collectively suggested that a minimum of 25 per cent representation through a private member's bill that my colleague has before the House. Have you made representation and clearly asked if they would support that position, and what has been the response? I've read so many letters with double-talk and wishy-washy language, it's disgraceful. That's my question.

MS. LASKEY: I haven't, personally, being here for four months, asked that necessarily clearly. It's been brought up with Wayne Doggett, when I have met with him, members of the bureaucracy, and I think it was brought up with the Minister of Education in our meeting with them, briefly, but it's not something that we've prioritized as an organization that's existed for a few months in regard to issues such as the memorandum of understanding and that sort of thing. Perhaps, Danielle, if you wanted to, or if Curtis or Ryan wants to speak to what they've been doing more long term, beyond the past four months.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Yes, just in response to that, we do feel that there needs to be more student representation on the boards of governors. But to be fair, I don't think it's fair for the government to set up faculty associations against student associations. We do work together, we do have their support on a lot of issues. This is something we are working on, but we're not in competition. I don't think that's fair to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hines.

MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether it was an oversight or whether it was by intention, but my colleague opposite left out another, I guess you could suggest, to coin the phrase, culprit - the federal government. What have your efforts been in relation to the federal government, because they have been absent from funding for a number of years, and in fact I think it's declining funding as well? I just wondered if you would comment on that.

MS. LASKEY: I think both of us would agree that the federal government's decline in funding is very problematic to the problems that we've seen in post-secondary education. I think they serve as one of the main sources. We saw in the last federal election campaign Paul Martin commit publicly to seeking earmarked funding for post-secondary education, which we haven't seen anything on. That's something that not only the student movement, the faculty associations, different members of the post-secondary realm have been asking for.

I think that it's high time that the provinces and the government come together, as they have on a number of issues, such as health, and discuss post-secondary education, and come out with an agreement on post-secondary that includes significant increases to funding that is earmarked and is specifically for Nova Scotia that targets the problem that we fund a disproportionate number of out-of-province students, that looks at funding on a per student basis rather than a per capita basis.

MR. HINES: Danielle, in regard to your comment to the last questioner, about the universities and the faculty groups and so on and their responsibilities, I don't know if you're aware of it or not but the Auditor General has asked for them to operate under GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and they are not GAAP compliant at this time. There has to be a reason why they're not GAAP compliant, and therefore it leaves out an opportunity to get information regarding expenditures and how they're handling their budgets and so on in the universities. Mind you, they're doing a better job of it than they used to, as well as the school boards doing a better job of accountability.

I would suggest that sometimes it's difficult for you and difficult for us as government to get the accounting that we might like to have for the expenditures that are applied at the institutions. I do think there is a bit of weakness at the administration level, contrary to the suggestion by Mr. MacKinnon that there might not be.

MR. MACKINNON: On a point of order, I'm in concurrence with what my colleague has suggested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Estabrooks.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Let's talk about consultation, because there seems to be a real gap here between consultation with student leaders and photo ops just before the announcement by this government and previous governments. Having had this discussion with Curtis before, I was wondering, as the President of the Dalhousie University Student Union - the biggest university in our province - if you could comment on the number of times you met with, discussed, feel that you're part of the process in advance of being called into the minister's office about the latest announcement?

MR. CURTIS MCGRATH: I guess I would just first seek some clarity as to which latest announcement you're referring, or are you just referring in general?

MR. ESTABROOKS: If I may, Mr. Chairman, you can point out the fact that these young men and women, duly elected in very responsible positions in post-secondary institutions across our province, have a real stake in this. Do you feel, as the President of the Dalhousie University Student Union, that you are consulted in a regular fashion and in a meaningful way before announcements are made?

MR. MCGRATH: I would have to say that the adequacy of the student/stakeholder consultation has been minimal at best. We did meet in October with the Minister of Education, where we did receive a briefing on a memorandum of understanding. It is our position that students should be central to this process, and it is also our position that we have been anything but central to this process. We should be not necessarily central at the table, because we recognize that these ongoing discussions surrounding multi-year funding for stable tuition fee levels are sensitive and delicate; however, the absence of any consultation, with the exception for that one meeting, is something that our members across the province have viewed to be unacceptable, and it is not something that is unique to previous levels of consultation that have happened in the past, and I'm speaking specifically with respect to the Debt Reduction Program that was announced.

That program did have the opportunity, in the absence of a level of funding that it should have been to be a good program. The adequacy of that program has been criticized by our members. With student/stakeholder consultation, we may have been in a different position with respect to responding to that program, to say positive things about it; however, we did not play a central role at the table in terms of developing that program, where we should have, because we could have, with respect to consultation with our colleagues from across the country, looked for best practices, as student representatives, and made those submissions at the table. That opportunity, while it did exist, was not adequate for us to be able to provide meaningful feedback in terms of the design of such programs.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you, Curtis. If I may, and perhaps I might be out of order here, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to propose a motion for consideration. I would like to move that this committee recommend that this government consult extensively and in a regular fashion with student leaders of all post-secondary institutions in this province before any further announcements are made concerning student debt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That motion is in order. You've all heard that motion. Are you ready for the question?

MR. GRAHAM: I'm just wondering if we could have a short discussion about it, Mr. Chairman. I support the spirit of the motion. It is obviously in keeping with the line of questioning that I had asked earlier. I'm wondering whether the member for Timberlea-Prospect would agree to a friendly amendment to narrow the focus to the memorandum of understanding, and the discussions around the memorandum of understanding, which is the central discussion point between government and the universities right now. As well, I

support the more general motion that consultation should be a standard mode of practice before significant announcements on issues like student debt and tuition increases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Estabrooks.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, I'd consider that a friendly amendment, and the specifics of including the MOU would certainly be a welcome addition.

[10:45 a.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will vote on the amendment first. Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

We'll now vote on the motion as amended. Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

Mr. Glavine. A short one, if you could.

MR. GLAVINE: At this time, of course, we know that the memorandum of understanding negotiations are still going on. Have you had any indicators from the universities about possible raises in tuition for next year? Usually by this time of the year, some indicators are coming out.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: We have had quite a bit of information coming out of the memorandum of understanding, in all fairness, that we shouldn't because we've been left out. But, to my understanding, by the end of this three-year plan, student tuition fees will increase to about $6,700, in just three short years. I think this is an attempt to put some kind of regulation on fees, but it is not adequate. I don't think that anybody around this table would agree that $6,700 a year is an acceptable amount for a student tuition fee, and this program is lacking, it's inadequate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corbett.

MR. CORBETT: One thing we all agree with is that funding is inadequate. One real quick question, though, with the appreciation that funding is inadequate, how would your memberships rate the assistance they get down at the student loan office here? From 10 being great to one. Do they feel they're getting the service that they deserve?

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Was zero an option? (Laughter)

MR. CORBETT: Okay, zero to 10. I think you answered.

MS. LASKEY: The rate of the service they're receiving?

MR. CORBETT: Yes.

MS. LASKEY: I don't think they would rate it very high. Obviously, different students have different reasons for not rating it highly.

MR. CORBETT: Is there one specific one that always comes back to you?

MS. LASKEY: In terms of service delivery . . .

MR. CORBETT: Yes, a problem, service delivery. We lost the fax is a big one in my office.

MS. LASKEY: Yes, there's a host of issues. There's things such as students, if they put their full name or if I'm named Michael and I put Mike, there could be problems with that. There's a whole host of issues in terms of things just being processed that have to do with it. The response they hear and that we hear is that they don't have the infrastructure, the technology there, that they're improving it, they're overhauling their system. It means that students aren't getting the money in their hands when they need it. It can have really damaging effects. I think that there are issues with service, and also with information being relayed on the other end of things when you're done, in terms of making sure that students are aware of programs, such as debt reduction, interest relief, however inadequate we might think they are. They're not even getting that information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe this last one will go to Mr. Graham. (Interruptions) Anybody else? I don't have anybody listed.

MR. GRAHAM: If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank, stating the obvious and not to usurp the chairman's role, the student leaders once again for coming in and doing such a fine job of helping us sort through a challenging issue for all legislators in the province. It's really terrific that you're in here, once again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, quickly, and it's an issue that my own children have raised time and time again, in university, every year they're forced to buy books from their professors in a particular course because the professor writes that book and it costs an exorbitant amount of money. Has there ever been an assessment done on this from your perspective, as to whether there's a lot of duplication? I know, and I appreciate the issue of intellectual property, but it seems to me - I'm not suggesting there's gouging of the students -

it's a growing concern because I hear about it time and time again. Do you have any thoughts on that?

MS. LASKEY: Certain institutions have professors who are working on a student-friendly basis, that's where you try to get help in an area. Professors might photocopy things, leave them at the library, leave a certain amount on loan but there aren't really any institutional changes being made to look at that, because there is the issue of intellectual property. You also see some professors trying to take textbooks that are more common, so you can maybe purchase them off campus, because a lot of the university bookstores don't have relative pricing to what you might be able to get - say, for example - at Chapters or that sort of thing. It is sort of on the kindness of your professor, there's nothing really being done as a whole.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess that's it for our time and questions. On behalf of the Human Resources Committee I would like to thank both of you - and all of the students who are here today with us - for your presentations. You did a very good job and we thank you very much for that. We will no doubt be hearing more on student debt and education in the near future, so we wish you well and again, thank you very much.

MS. DANIELLE SAMPSON: Thank you for having us.

MS. LASKEY: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will take a short break at this time.

[10:51 a.m. The committee recessed.]

[10:54 a.m. The committee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have a couple of items that we have to deal with. We have some correspondence from Joan Jessome, NSGEU. Does everyone have a copy of that letter and read it? Mr. Graham, you have a comment.

MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I know that I'm not a full-time member of this committee and I welcome the opportunity to speak on a matter that has been before this committee before. I know there is a letter dated November 15^th from Ms. Jessome. I met with Ms. Jessome and her representatives. I met with the minister, as well as one of her officials, concerning the so-called whistleblower legislation. It's clear that this is a matter that is of great concern to this committee and to others.

I would like to put a motion before the committee - if I could just find it - it's actually being handed to me here, I apologize, I had it here before me a moment ago. I say this just for some background, it seemed clear from the minister that there were not any changes

anticipated to this for another six months or so. If one were to read the regulations that were put in place, in particular Section 6 (2)(a), it says nobody can make a disclosure of wrongdoing unless "it is necessary to do so to prevent imminent and serious danger to the life, health or safety of a person . . ."

When one looks at the disclosure process, the policy statement accompanying that statement, it says that people cannot even report something to the police department or a police agency unless there is imminent and serious danger to the life, health or safety of a person. If you don't follow that process, according to the regulations that we have, somebody could be subject to discipline all the way up to dismissal. It is quite obvious there are serious flaws with respect to this regulation and I know that the committee has contemplated in the past having someone come before them to make representations about changes.

The motion I would put before the committee is that the Standing Committee on Human Resources hold an extended public hearing for about three hours into the province's whistleblower policy, known as the Civil Service Disclosure of Wrongdoing Regulations, which was released on September 17, 2004, and that the hearing be held before the end of this calendar year in the Red Chamber of Province House, to allow for the maximum amount of presenters and observers and that in addition to invited witnesses at least one-third of the time allocation for presentations or questions be turned over to the public employees and/or their representatives, and that they be granted full immunity from disciplinary action for doing so.

Mr. Chairman, I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that in order, Gordon? Do you have a copy of the motion?

MR. GRAHAM: I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order. Do you want to take a look at it, Gordon? Is there any discussion on the motion?

MR. CORBETT: Mr. Chairman, I basically agree with the intent of the motion but I'm looking at the letter from the President of NSGEU dated November 15^th and I guess I would prefer that we go forward with having Ms. Jessome and maybe some other representatives from the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union here, at this meeting, and then move forward if it was deemed necessary to this more full-scale approach. Again, I think, in essence, I agree with Mr. Graham's position but I think we've kind of skipped over responding to Ms. Jessome's letter altogether to this. I'm not sure if that's the most appropriate route to take. What I would ask is that we defer the motion until we have these folks here as witnesses, and then act upon it after that is done. That would be my position.

[11:00 a.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: I have several concerns with the motion. I can't recall, in my brief history as an MLA on this committee, that we have ever taken a step and supported a motion in that particular context. It seems very much like the Law Amendments Committee in reverse. I think we would serve ourselves perhaps more appropriately if we were to establish a subcommittee of this committee to examine the wrongdoing regulations and policy. If there are outstanding issues with occupational health and safety regulations, as some very learned members around this table know, there are other agencies, for lack of a better word, or other bodies that do address those concerns, but to simply set up a soapbox in this fashion, I have no interest in supporting that motion.

First and foremost, I think it blindsided most members, it certainly blindsided our caucus, and I think that given the sensitivity of the issue that the honourable member who brought it forward should recognize that members, for the most part, would need an opportunity to perhaps internalize a little further a motion of that breadth and that depth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion?

MR. GRAHAM: My only comment with respect to what's been suggested by Mr. Corbett is that in the motion as it's presently worded there is provision for the NSGEU to appear for what would amount to an hour of the three hours, and in terms of it being an open and more public discussion, I think that the public does have a general interest in whether or not these matters are heard. It's not something just in the purview of people who are directly connected to government, but there's a more general interest out there.

MR. CORBETT: In response to that, don't get me wrong, Danny, I agree with the intent of this, but I think it's the idea that we're in hunting season here and I'm not going to shoot just because I see tracks, I want to have something in sight. I think that's part of why if we would have the NSGEU here, then I think we would probably be able to mete out some more of what we want to do here. I'm in favour of moving this along, and I think that however this is resolved, I'll be moving a motion that we do call NSGEU in here.

So I would ask that we do defer this, and then I'll bring my other motion, and then whatever. Certainly, I understand what Danny's doing. I don't find it particularly offensive, I'm just maybe more cautious, and that's a strange position for me to take.

MR. GRAHAM: I don't have a difficulty with the deferral of this, if the intent is to put on the table the possibility of having the NSGEU appear on the next occasion. With respect to whether or not this was something that was discussed with other caucuses, I would recognize that this is something that had I been a member I would have raised with the

member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley. This isn't something that's intended to catch anybody by surprise. It's just a motion that was discussed amongst our caucus, and I had understood that it was discussed with at least one and perhaps - clearly it should have been discussed with more than one of the other caucuses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess the agenda item is that correspondence that we're dealing with is the correspondence that we've had from Joan Jessome, from the NSGEU. So you're prepared to defer this and we'll deal with the issue of bringing Ms. Jessome in for a meeting?

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

MR. CORBETT: Do we need a motion, then, to defer Mr. Graham's motion? (Interruptions)

MR. GRAHAM: I think we can defer it over to a later date. I would assume that the committee sets its own agenda.

MR. TAYLOR: I'd just like a question on jurisdiction or legalities of the committee, just perhaps through you, Mr. Chairman, to Gordon. I know the motion has been deferred, but I would like to know why - I mentioned earlier we hadn't done this sort of thing, but that's not to say that we can't do it. I'm not sure if, in fact, we have the necessary legislation to do it, and I guess that's my concern. Gordon, maybe it's not even a concern from your perspective.

MR. GORDON HEBB: There's no restriction, I don't think, on the committee holding such a hearing. Where the restriction would be is if the committee had intended to travel, it's subject to the committee having the budget to do so. I'm assuming there's no additional expense for the committee to meet in the Red Room.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we need a motion to defer?

MR. MACKINNON: Yes.

MR. CORBETT: I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, for clarity, are we going to be responding to Ms. Jessome's request?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to deal with that letter right now. We do have the letter and everybody has seen the letter.

MR. MACKINNON: I would make a motion that we put her on the list of potential witnesses to appear before the committee and let the appropriate scheduling take place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have an opening on December 14^th.

MR. MACKINNON: He who hesitates is lost. The 14^th sounds fine with me. I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The other issue is to meet with Department of Education officials. That was on our list to meet with them. We met with the students today so the other date we have available is January 25^th, that would be the day we do our ABCs, so we can include them at that time if that is the wish of the committee.

MR. TAYLOR: Who are you proposing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Deputy Minister of Education was the name on our list.

MR. TAYLOR: Again, I'm just curious as to why he would appear before this committee. He has been at the Public Accounts Committee a few times. Are we talking value for dollar?

MR. MACKINNON: No.

MR. TAYLOR: It's a different area we're examining now, is it? Just as long as we stay focused.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess the issue of student debt that we dealt with today is why the committee wanted them to come in, correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Estabrooks.

MR. ESTABROOKS: No reflection on the fact that Mr. Cochrane can come here and talk for two hours non-stop but I think specifically we should be looking for someone from the department who deals with student loans. There is a division within the department that

deals with that issue. I fully understand that Mr. Cochrane would, of course, accompany these people but can we not specifically ask? A number of the concerns that were brought forward here - you heard about the ranking system they're talking about, the general acceptance of our young men and women and how they're handling the requests. Can we not ask for someone from the student loan division of the Department of Education specifically? Of course, if Dennis wants to come along, then that's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe we could suggest that we're going to be dealing with student debt and student loan issues.

MR. CORBETT: Can we specifically ask for Kevin Chapman? He's director of student aid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we can ask for anyone we want to ask for.

MR. CORBETT: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next meeting date will be December 14^th when we will have the NSGEU in, and January 25^th is our regular meeting. Is there a motion to adjourn?

MR. MACKINNON: So moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 11:10 a.m.]