Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn’t want the Minister to mix this point up, which is I am certainly in favour of the regulation change. But wouldn’t legislation be more of a smarter approach, as well, as it almost seems as if the public is going to be told this is not allowed anymore as opposed to be informed or given a little bit of information in advance? It seems counterproductive for the style of government we would normally have. It seems as if the public component is being left out. I am happy with the direction but my point has been made. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I anticipate other Members will speak to this particular motion, but it has caused concerns of parents that I have spoken to in the riding, as well as I’ve mentioned my colleagues have expressed concerns. Since I have been an MLA I’ve heard this numerous times in committee. I don’t think this is a bureaucracy problem, but I think this is something that we could re-engineer and ask ourselves why are we doing this and are we setting our students up for the best abilities going forward in the future. I recognize that this dovetails into the Inclusive Schooling Policy and...

When is it anticipated that the regulations will be coming forward for some type of dialogue, whether it is through MLAs or certainly out to the public? There is public out there who do want these types of things. They would certainly find that this is good news that this is something being worked on by the government. Thank you.

I’d like to request a copy of that ministerial directive, if possible, to be given to all Members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many promises and commitments were made in the TLC some months ago about being responsive to Members. Most notably, many of the Members, and some of them sitting on the other side of the House, pleaded with their colleagues and told them how hard they’d work for them and they’d be responsive. I’ll acknowledge that sometimes forgetting things is the reality of doing a job and it does happen to all of us whether we want to admit it or not. Often it’s referred to as being human.

There is a certain exception to that. If you’re in Cabinet, you’re expected to rise above those...

Thank you, Madam Chair. We may have to go back. I’m just seeking clarification from the department. Bilingual services, there’s an allowance program built into Human Resources. Is this under this particular section or can the Minister point to a more specific page that should be referenced on it and we can talk about it then?

I thank the Minister for coming so clear on that. The question would then beg: What are the fees and payments for this particular department if there is a number there in that column?

From the experience and expertise the deputy minister carries, is it likely that we could end up pricing ourselves out of the market of affordability if we continue to strive to 40 percent of the Building Code? Thank you.

So the obvious question is why do that then? If it’s just TSC services like other departments, why is it? Is it an accounting problem? Why would you do that if we’ve already got it listed under something? Predictably I guess it’s more of a finance question by saying this is the type of process we’d see in other departments. But as far as Human Resources goes, why would we change line items if you’re trying to follow the budget?

I guess the next question is: Has Public Works investigated the process and certainly the cost required to meet or exceed that objective of 25 percent? Then, in consideration, they must extrapolate in the 40 percent that there will be significantly more costs. Has Public Works taken this into consideration in meeting and beating the National Building Code by 25 percent? Have any qualified opinions as to how stressful on our financial pocket it will be if we try to exceed it to 40 percent? Thank you.