That will do for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Now I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under operations expenditure summary, $147 million, I have to move to page 18 because that's detail of the item on page 9-17 and I'm just wondering about the downward trend we're seeing in the funding for the schools. For example, under schools we allocated $104 million in the year 2004-05 and then last year the actual revised estimate is $99 million. So that's $5 million less and we're budgeting $101 million this year. I'd like to know why that downward trend. Thank you.

Thank you. Does committee agree to go from page 9-17 to page 9-18 for now?

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I could ask Ms. Lee to clarify exactly which number she's looking at on page 9-18 so that I'm sure that I'm answering the question correctly.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Ms. Lee.

Okay, how about if I stay on page 17 and I'll ask those questions on page 9-18 when we get there. Let me just ask questions under activity description, education and culture. I'd like to know if this is where I can discuss question about PTR in that I'm assuming that the money that we give to the schools here are calculated on the basis of PTR, and in this Legislature we have increased funding or lowered the ratio of PTR over the last number of years. But as the case I feel is with the special needs funding, I'm not sure if we're seeing as much tangible improvements on the ground as we like to see. I mean the more money going in there has to help some in many ways and we have had discussions in the past about reviewing what positions we use to fund PTR because there are lots of positions that are necessary in the school system that are not funded under PTR such as I think librarian and language coordinator. I'd like to know if the way we figure out our PTR is in line with the other jurisdictions and whether or not it is time for us to review that, because I think we need to look at not only how the special needs funding is being applied and what sort of benefits that is having, but we need to look at the overall

funding arrangement to see if there are some gaps there that we need to be looking at filling. So I'd like to know if the Minister could tell us how we stack up in terms of how we calculate our PTR for the needs in the school. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm advised that we use the exact same definition as all other jurisdictions in Canada for pupil/teacher ratio. That allows the divisional education councils and DEAs the flexibility to determine how they want to allocate the positions in the schools. The question of who gets excluded or not included, again, like I say, the flexibility is there to allow school boards to determine whether or not they want to put in librarians or computer specialists or those sort of specialist positions that we don't stipulate in any situation have to be provided. In terms of the allocation of monies between the different boards, there is a committee that includes representation from the boards that determines how the money will be allocated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This leads to chronic problems in many of the classrooms in Yellowknife and I'm sure it's the case in lots of other schools. You will see grade 5 and 6 in combined classes of 31 students, and you may see another grade in another school that have only eight kids, or you may see two kindergarten classes at 18 each, which is like an absolutely perfect class. I think every class would want to be a size of 18. Then you go to another floor in another school and you see a French immersion program with 31 kids. That would all be in the same school district. I understand that we need to give enough flexibility to school boards to make those decisions, but, at some point -- and the same argument applies here as I stated with respect to special needs funding -- at some point as I sit here and work to increase funding that goes to schools, I'd like to have more clear parameters defined about how the monies we allocate are going to translate into classrooms. I appreciate that we're using the same formula as every other jurisdiction in the country, but could it be time for us to look at it differently? Could it be a time for us to look at it and see if we should continue to follow what other jurisdictions are doing, or is there anything unique about what we do in our communities, or our Yellowknife schools are small, large, medium communities, wherever, but something unique to the North that might suggest that we need to do something differently? Because I'm telling you, even though we have increased PTR funding by as much as I think three to one, by now, in the last five or six years, I think we went from 19 to one or 18 to one to 16 to one. What can we do? Would the Minister look at that, please?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to take this issue up with the chairs of the other boards. I guess I can say honestly that I have, over the last couple of years, discussed this extensively with board chairs and they would agree with the Member that we need to try to do what we can to increase the money that goes into PTR. However, most of them, I believe, would prefer that we leave the flexibility in the situation. I think that a number of them have expressed some concern about how we've started to limit the funding already around special needs, around how the aboriginal language and culture directives have limited their flexibility. I think the flexibility issue is one where we need to allow local communities to reflect what is going on in their communities. I know that in talking to them, they agree that we need to, as a first step, try to improve access to physical education. I have talked to them that if we were able to find some money for a decrease in the PTR, they are quite agreeable that that should be the first area of focus. We know that kids who are active during the day tend to have a better chance to learn. They also tend to have healthier lifestyles which, in the long run, will greatly improve their chances for success.

The other area that they have told me that they would like to see some focus on is in trades training. I think those are the two priority areas that we would like to be able to move with our partners at the schools to improve the funding for PTR; to focus on those two areas. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask the Minister to get back to us with the information on what positions we fund at the moment. I am sure I was given this years ago, but I don't have it on me. I need to revisit this and see what the possible areas are for us to look at, whether they be training or trade schooling or phys ed, the room for flexibility. There might be some essential items that we are not funding for and not including in PTR that should be declared essential in every school in our territory. I think that's the kind of thing we should look at as a Legislature.

For my remaining seconds under this section, Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask questions on the early childhood services. This is where the day care program fits in, but I would like to know what other services we provide under this program across the NWT. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are the language nests, as well as day cares. There is the healthy children's initiative. The healthy choices framework would be aimed at early childhood and a full-day kindergarten, and licensing of day cares may be areas that would be considered in there, as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much there, Mr. Chairman. With respect to this activity description, one of the program areas is the NWT Teachers' Association professional improvement costs. I am just not sure how applicable this is to some of the concerns that I raised with the Minister with respect to providing incentive for our aboriginal teachers to each Dene as a second language, or upgrading their skills to become a teacher of an aboriginal Dene language. One of my concerns was that we say we are bending over for aboriginal languages, yet when they do take professional leave to take their training certification, they are only funded at 80 percent of their

salary. Granted, based on I don't know which standard, it might seem satisfactory. However, when there is a gap or a perceived need to fill a void, often employers or industry add additional incentive to get people trained in specific areas. I think we did it three years ago, Mr. Chair, where we offered, in the law field, employees 100 percent of their salary to attend law school. That's the kind of incentive that I think we should be offering our teachers. The Dene languages in our schools, schools are falling way behind. So once again, is this a category wherein our government can provide incentive and further assistance to our teachers in expanding their skills in the Dene languages? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The money that the Member refers to could be used for that kind of training. This is a fund that is negotiated as part of the Collective Agreement and the teachers apply to take advantage of the funding for upgrading their skills. There is a committee that allocates the money to recipients.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. We are going to have a power outage...

---Power Outage