This is page numbers 6469 - 6510 of the Hansard for the 16th Assembly, 6th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was territories.

Topics

Jackson Lafferty

Jackson Lafferty Minister of Justice

This is an area of concern if the number is correct. We have to work with those inmates. Those corrections officers, again, they work closely with the inmates. We have to keep in mind the health hazard they may impose on those inmates, not only inmates but other staff members that do not smoke. Mr. Speaker, that’s the very reason why we don’t allow smoking on the premises due to health hazards. Mahsi.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other day I had a constituent come forward to me with concerns regarding income support and the ability to have a telephone as an allowance expense that income support can help them with. Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment why the policy of income support does not allow a person to have a telephone as an allowable expense when we consider that we provide expenses for daycare, shelter, food, clothing but when health and safety concerns could arise, a telephone is very important and that’s not considered an allowable expense. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.

Jackson Lafferty

Jackson Lafferty Monfwi

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. The income security is for basic necessities of life where food, shelter and clothing are required. So we provide those services to those individuals that are on income support. A lot of clientele do have telephones in their home units. Some just have local calls, which of course is very cheap. Mr. Speaker, this is an area where we need to focus more on what we could provide as a shelter, food and clothing. That has always been the mandate of this government and we continue to deliver that same messaging as we roll out the program. We made some changes to the program in 2007; same thing, we increased those areas. Mahsi.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Time for question period has expired, but I’ll allow the Member a short supplementary. Mr. Hawkins.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The person talking to me has high blood pressure, probably other heart-related problems. I’m not a doctor, so I’m not going to try to diagnose him, but they said what would happen in this particular case if they were starting to have a health attack in some manner that required immediate assistance and urgency. What do they do? They have no one to call because they have no phone. So they find it seems to be more than a luxury item. Why does the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, namely income support, define a telephone service, even a strapped phone that does not allow long distance calls, why are you defining it as a luxury service and not a necessity in this modern day? Thank you.

Jackson Lafferty

Jackson Lafferty Monfwi

Again, we provide services and funding through shelter, food and clothing. Those are required necessities. So we continue to enhance those programs specifically to those areas. With the surplus that individuals may have, they can purchase phone services if they wish to do so. Mr. Speaker, we provide the basic necessities. That’s the very reason why we have income security, to provide those services in the Northwest Territories, the 33 communities that we service, to provide those basic necessities and we’ll continue to do that. Mahsi.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

In many cases income support provides the cost of power at any cost, which runs into hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for that department. Again, they provide rental costs, actual costs which again run into hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Mr. Speaker, this is a health and safety lifeline which could help many families ensure that they are protected if something arises, whether it’s a health and safety issue due to personal health as I highlighted as an example, or what if there were domestic abuse problems? What do they do? Do they have to wait until somebody else finds them? Mr. Speaker, would the Minister be willing to investigate and do a cross-jurisdictional survey to see if this is a reasonable expense? Because I feel strongly that it is. Thank you.

Jackson Lafferty

Jackson Lafferty Monfwi

Throughout the Northwest Territories we serve over 40,000 people, 33 communities. Not everyone has phones per se. As indicated in the past, where there are individuals that are working, they don’t even have phones sometimes, can’t afford it. It’s not only income support clientele. There is a variety of people who may have phones, but some don’t have phones for various reasons. Again, to reiterate, our program is for basic necessities: food, shelter and clothing. That’s what we’ve been providing over the years and we will continue to provide those services to the 33 communities that we service. Mahsi.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Income support is supposed to be the backstop of public policy if you are down and out due to whatever reason has brought you to that point. It’s to ensure you have the basic necessities and I agree with that, Mr. Speaker, but one of the programs in income support is to encourage people to get out there and get work. I’m quite curious on how a person on income support could make that type of contact with a potential employer without a phone call or to be waiting for that opportunity and to say that they have extra money, I would assure you that at least 80 to 90 percent on income support would say that there is no extra money, especially when you have children and certainly there would be no

extra money for Internet again or a cell phone. So, Mr. Speaker, times have changed and I’m asking the department to change with the times and certainly recognize that. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister be willing to re-evaluate this particular case, take a look at cross-jurisdictions and recognize that the phone has become an integral part of basic service that we need as people, whether it’s getting jobs or staying in contact due to health and safety concerns if you ever had to call an ambulance? Would the Minister look at that?

Jackson Lafferty

Jackson Lafferty Monfwi

Mr. Speaker, we can list a variety of areas where there are additional costs. There are not only phones; there are cell phones, TVs and others that are not really a necessity. I am glad the Member agrees that income security is an overall necessity that we provide services to.

Mr. Speaker, we have those clientele that have clientele service officers working closely with them. We know who the clientele are and we contact them through the clientele service officers and if there are issues or questions and concerns that are brought to their attention, there is a discussion. Communication is ongoing. So, Mr. Speaker, again we will continue to deliver those main essential services to the clientele. Mahsi.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Colleagues, before I go on with the orders of the day, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank a couple of Pages from Hay River North that have been here all week working with us. We have Skylar Constant and Logan Gagnier. Logan happens to be my oldest grandson. I’m very proud to have him here.

---Applause

I’d like to acknowledge a constituent of mine, Mark Stephens, in the gallery, who has been here as a chaperone all week. Great job, guys.

Item 9, written questions. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

David Krutko

David Krutko Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier of the Northwest Territories.

What is the total cost to date of radio, print and other media advertisement on devolution since the signing of the agreement-in-principle?

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Item 10, returns to written questions. Item 11, replies to opening address. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Yakeleya’s Reply
Replies to Opening Address

Norman Yakeleya

Norman Yakeleya Sahtu

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To govern this Territory properly the GNWT and Aboriginal governments need to work together. Devolution is not about transferring controls, it’s just not about transferring controls over land and resources, it’s nation building.

Devolution will play a critical role in the GNWT’s ability to provide citizens with adequate and sustainable programs and services. Devolution will play a major role in determining how the Government of the Northwest Territories shall share powers with the land claim and self-governments that represent the treaty and Aboriginal rights of 50 percent of NWT citizens.

We must recognize that any final devolution agreement will affect the Aboriginal and treaty rights due to the devolution deals with jurisdictions and management over the lands and resources. Along with the devolution AIP final agreement there is a proposed deal on resource revenue sharing. That deal will also affect how the Government of the Northwest Territories will certainly affect how self-government will be governed.

Like I mentioned earlier, devolution is not just about transferring control over lands and resources from Canada to the GNWT. Many questions have been raised about how this transfer of power will be funded. The funding will come from two sources: the money from Canada that will be spent on the transfer of responsibilities from the resource revenues flowing to the GNWT as a result of the proposed resource revenue sharing agreement.

In 2007 the GNWT walked away from the settlement offer of $65 million a year to support the staffing programs that will be transferred from Canada to the GNWT. At that time the GNWT said the $65 million was not enough to run the programs. Yet here we are in 2011 and the GNWT has changed its mind. This is in spite of the fact that Canada has offered $65 million in 2005 dollars. This means that the funding will not account for the inflation that has occurred since 2005. So the GNWT now has settled for less than what was originally refused.

In 2007 the GNWT argued that a fair level of yearly funding would be around $85 million. This is puzzling. Where will the additional $20 million come from each year?

This leads to the issue of net fiscal benefit. The GNWT has signed on to proposed resource revenue sharing agreements with Canada. That deal says that the GNWT can have 50 percent of the Northwest Territories resource royalties up to an amount that equals up to 5 percent of the GNWT’s gross expenditure base. The gross

expenditure base is in the amount that the GNWT would have to spend to ensure that everyone in the Northwest Territories can access the same quality of public service no matter where they live. Right now the gross expenditure base equals about $1.2 billion per year. In this scenario the GNWT would at most get an extra $60 million per year from the resource revenue sharing agreement. Considering the GNWT will likely have an annual shortfall of $20 million we need to take on its new land and resource responsibilities, it makes sense that the shortfall will come from the $60 million provided by the net fiscal benefit. But we must remember that it is optimistic to assume that the GNWT will receive $60 million in resource revenues each year.

As a result of the $20 million fund shortfall, the GNWT will really be left with $40 million, and the $15 million that will go to the Aboriginal governments to share, so really under this resource revenue sharing deal the GNWT at best-case scenario will benefit to the tune of $25 million. The situation will not be good either for the GNWT or the Aboriginal governments.

The Gwich’in Tribal Council did a comprehensive review of the proposed resource revenue sharing agreement and a net fiscal benefit. The Premier quoted that report as supporting the proposed resource revenue sharing deal. The Premier’s reading misconstrued the report’s finding. The GNWT reported simply, note that it stands, it would be better for the Gwich’in Tribal Council to get at least some resource royalties rather than none at all. Specifically, that getting some of the resource royalties would be beneficial but not optimal. That observation does not constitute support for the proposed resource revenue sharing deal.

The same report goes on to take a closer look at how the formula was arrived at for this revenue sharing deal. Canada says that this revenue sharing deal is consistent with the principles of governed equalization formula for the provinces. The Gwich’in analysis shows that this is not the case. The GTC analysis shows that this revenue sharing deal bears no relationship at all to the approach taken to the rest of Canada.

When we look at this agreement closely it seems that a more reasonable arrangement, one consistent with equalization principles and convention, would see a cap of about 15 percent of the gross expenditure base. That would see the GNWT cap of resource revenue sharing amount to about $180 million per year. The report notes that neither Canada nor the GNWT have provided calculations to justify how the proposed resource revenue sharing formula was determined. My view is that the GNWT is selling itself too cheaply to the federal government that’s looking to offload programs and services and the costs and risks that go along with resource development and still retain

far more from a fair share of the profits of the resource revenues.

Canada set the royalty rates for the Northwest Territories resources and these are too low to support sustainable and effective government and environmental stewardship that is essential to our well-being. The Gwich’in Tribal Council notes that the monies that the GNWT gains from any net fiscal benefits will not adequately address the social costs or sustain the public expenditure requirements that resource development will bring boom and bust population and other economic scenarios and increased demands for the range of programs and services that this government provides. Some of these programs and services will be provided not only by the GNWT, they will be provided by the self-governments across the Territory.

The resource revenue sharing deal that is currently proposed would see the Aboriginal governments divide at least seven regions sharing at most $15 million each year. In my own region of the Sahtu, once the Sahtu receives its share, which would then be divided amongst the five communities, some of them self-government. In three districts the net fiscal benefit for them is as would be maybe in the range of a few hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. In my region, communities such as Deline are close to reaching a self-government deal and are concerned about devolution. Deline negotiators do not yet know whether Canada and the GNWT will claw back those resource revenues under the self-government financing arrangements. The question for them to whether such funds were reviewed by Canada and the GNWT as own-source revenues, in which case a self-government would see little or no benefit. Because this question is unanswered, Deline is facing a situation they may be straddled with the growing cost of government, will have additional responsibilities related to post-devolution resource management systems, and they do not know how they will be resourced for that work or whether the community will actually be better off as a result of signing on to the devolution deal.

These kinds of questions require a person to take into account so many factors all at once that without having solid answers or facts about important variables are mindboggling. There are many such questions and the GNWT is asking the Aboriginal governments to sign on the devolution AIP without having the answers to these questions. The fact that we have clearly shown that in some important respects this deal is not a good one for the GNWT, it is not a good one for the Aboriginal governments, and this is before the Aboriginal governments even considered the potential impacts on the treaty and Aboriginal rights which are required, considering the whole other set of factors.

It is easy to understand why the Aboriginal governments had asked for more time to consider this AIP and why they’re so concerned about whether there is any potential for changing the AIP and the proposed resource revenue sharing agreement.

This brings me to the issue of treaty and Aboriginal rights in relation to the devolution. At this time none of the Dene leaders have signed on to the devolution AIP. Dene leaders have told Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories they have outstanding issues with the agreement-in-principle. Chapter 4 of the AIP is proposing changing land claim implementation agreements to accommodate the transfer of authority from Canada to the GNWT. It is my understanding the land claims implementation requires the consent of all the parties to this agreement. To implement the land claim, the Aboriginal parties’ government and Canada will meet together to determine what actions need to be taken to ensure the land claims are effectively and meaningfully implemented. Clearly, Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories will need the cooperation of the Dene leaders for a devolution agreement to work.

In addition, the Dene land claims contain provisions that say the Dene must be involved in the development and implementation of a Northern Accord or the devolution agreement. The Dene leaders say that between 2007 and 2010 they were not meaningfully involved in the development of the devolution AIP. They say that when they raised concerns, these concerns were not considered and no real effort was made by the GNWT or Canada to accommodate these concerns.

The Premier has insisted in this House that the devolution AIP does not affect Aboriginal and treaty rights. It is true that the AIP says it is not a legal, binding document, but the GNWT and Canada have, by signing the agreement, made the fulfillment of their land claim obligations to embroil the Dene in the devolution negotiations contingent on the Dene first signing the AIP.

Specifically, the AIP says that in order to be funded, to be part of the final devolution agreement negotiations, Aboriginal governments must sign the AIP. That applies to the Dene governments such as the Tlicho, Sahtu and Gwich’in, who have provisions in their land claims saying that they will be involved in the development and implementation of the devolution agreement.

Why is GNWT taking such a strong-arm approach? Why is the GNWT insisting that the land claim governments have to sign an agreement that they don’t agree with before the GNWT will fulfil its land claim obligations and provide the land claim governments with funding to participate? This amounts to the GNWT and Canada requiring Dene

leaders to breach their own land claims and surrender their land claim rights. How is such an action supposed to inspire confidence in the Dene leaders that the GNWT will respect these land claim obligations in the future?

Aboriginal leaders have clearly stated that they are not against the devolution. What they object to is their involvement was not, over the last three years, meaningful. They object to the fact that their concerns were not taken into account when dealing with the deal being developed by Canada and the GNWT.

Similarly, in putting this deal together, the GNWT did not take it to our citizens and ask the people for their input. When the AIP was released to the public with only access through a leaked copy of it through the CBC website, after signing the deal, the GNWT decided to make the deal public. Only then did they begin to take steps to inform the citizens of its details.

The vision needs to stand on basic principles. By signing the devolution agreement, this government indicated that it’s not willing to put any effort into ensuring northern governments moving forward together. The devolution AIP is no longer an agreement about the transfer of power between governments. The devolution AIP has become a symbol of what results when fairness and democratic processes are not valued. It has become a symbol reminding us that this government is willing to use strong-arm tactics instead of using other tools such as collaboration and democracy.

Actions have consequences. Relationships with the Aboriginal governments are not damaged by just this AIP being signed. The damage continues and is felt within our other processes. It has eroded trust and confidence in this government. To ask Aboriginal leaders to sign on this AIP should not be...(inaudible)...in terms of collaboration. Even if leaders sign onto this AIP, it is not because of the spirit of cooperation or collaboration with this government. The reality is that leaders may choose to sign on, but in doing so to have the responsibility of safeguarding their interests against the possible actions of the government. They have yet to gain trust.

Division for the Northwest Territories must be based on the principles that include justice, fairness, democracy, and respect the rule of law in the form of government observed in the contractual and fiduciary obligations to indigenous people. The actions of a government must convey that vision without exception. With respect to devolution, the actions of the GNWT do not embody these principles. I encourage the Cabinet to consider revisiting the issues I have raised today, not just to address the concerns of the Aboriginal leaders but to take a good, hard look at what we’re dealing with

and what we should be aspiring to instead. Imagine a principle of what this government and Territory can become.

The people of the Northwest Territories do not deserve a devolution agreement that, as the Premier has called it, is not the best deal. The people of the Northwest Territories deserve better. Our children deserve better. This is the conviction and vision of the Aboriginal leaders that have had the courage to stand up to defend. They have demonstrated commitment and consistency in the pursuit of something better for their own people and all people who live here. The Government of the Northwest Territories should strongly consider following their lead. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Yakeleya’s Reply
Replies to Opening Address

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Item 12, petitions. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Michael McLeod

Michael McLeod Deh Cho

[Microphone turned off] transportation report to the Legislative Assembly for 2010 on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1990. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Pursuant to Section 5 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, I wish to table a summary of Members’ absences for the period February 2, 2011, to March 6, 2011.

Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Wendy Bisaro

Wendy Bisaro Frame Lake

WHEREAS nearly 5,000 children across the Northwest Territories arrive at school without having had a healthy breakfast;

AND WHEREAS school breakfast programs have increased attendance at many NWT schools;

AND WHEREAS it is well documented that hungry children struggle to succeed in school;

AND WHEREAS children who are fed at school also benefit from feeling welcomed and loved;

AND WHEREAS healthy eating and basic nutrition should be learned by our children, starting at a young age, first by example and augmented later by study;

AND WHEREAS in 2010-2011, the Department of Education, Culture and Employment allocated $400,000 for a breakfast and lunch program in NWT schools and contracted Food First Foundation to deliver it;

AND WHEREAS this nutrition program has been cut for the 2011-2012 fiscal year, without any formal evaluation of its effectiveness;

AND WHEREAS many educators, parents and especially children support the program, making such statements as, “it has made such a tremendous difference in our school,” and “I cannot think of another single initiative that gives so much for so little” and, “I like to eat breakfast;”

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Nunakput, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommends that the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment reinstate the sunsetting funding for healthy eating and nutrition programs.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Wendy Bisaro

Wendy Bisaro Frame Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this motion goes to the most basic of our Territory’s needs, that of supporting our people, and it goes to the heart of the philosophy that this government espouses.

According to our strategic planning document from October of 2007, we aim for healthy, educated people. We will accomplish that, we said in October 2007, by a focus on prevention by promoting healthy choices and lifestyles and the role of personal and family responsibility. A focus on prevention, like teaching kids what healthy foods are so they eat the right things and grow and develop as they should, like making sure they get to and stay in school so they learn well and easily. Promoting healthy choices and lifestyles, like teaching kids what unhealthy foods are so they choose the right foods to eat. Knowing which foods are good and which are not is important and kids must be taught the difference.

The other day I mentioned comments from NWT schools about the Healthy Food for Learning Program, Mr. Speaker. There are six pages of responses to one simple question: Can you share any specific success stories about the program? Thirty of our 49 schools sent in a response to that

question. I’d say that’s an excellent indication that the program is a success. Twenty-three schools mentioned improved attendance as a result of the Healthy Foods for Learning Program. Academic achievement was mentioned 21 times as a measure of success. Eleven schools indicated that 50 percent or more of their student population comes to school hungry each morning. These are staggering statistics, Mr. Speaker, especially the last one.

Children don’t learn well, if at all, when they are hungry. They’re inattentive, not alert and are often disruptive, affecting the learning of others as well as themselves. Healthy, educated people, Mr. Speaker. The Healthy Foods for Learning Program goes a long way towards creating both healthy children and educated children. Witness a comment from one school which said this of a student: She has discovered that being in school and not missing instruction leads to school being easier. That’s what we want, Mr. Speaker, kids at school so they can learn. They sure don’t learn when they’re not in the classroom.

Both improved attendance and academic achievement are stated goals of the Aboriginal Student Achievement Initiative, a major focus of the Education, Culture and Employment department at the moment. How then can this department eliminate funding for a program that will achieve the successes desired by the Aboriginal Student Achievement Initiative? That initiative wants better attendance. Well, this program achieves that. That initiative wants academic achievement. Well, this program achieves that too.

What evaluation of the Healthy Foods for Learning Program was done prior to the decision to scrap it? It can’t have been too comprehensive. My information shows that at least 30 of 49 schools think that the program is a success. I can only attribute the elimination of this funding to a lack of foresight and big picture vision.

This Assembly has just approved a budget which includes $1.8 million for the Aboriginal Student Achievement Initiative, an increase of $500,000 from the current year budget, and much of that increase is going to staffing. In light of the success of the Healthy Foods for Learning Program, I have to say that the money would be better spent on the foods program.

We have to stop working top down, Mr. Speaker. We have to remember the basics. Educating our kids is paramount, and if the foods program helps us to get them to the school, then we should ensure that the program continues. Eliminating the funding for a successful, much needed foods program will not achieve healthy, educated people. Reduced funding will not contribute to the promotion of healthy choices and lifestyles. Another quote from a 42-year veteran of parenting and foster parenting

about the needs for foods programs: I cannot think of another single initiative that gives so much for so little.

The answer to the question of whether or not to reinstate the funding for the Healthy Foods for Learning Program in the 2011-12 budget is a no brainer, Mr. Speaker. Considering the negative impacts on our children and for our Territory in the long run if we don’t reinstate the funding, the answer can only be yes. I believe in the saying where there’s a will, there’s a way, and it remains to be seen if there is a will on the part of this government to find a way to continue the funding for the Healthy Foods for Learning Program. Children are our most precious resource. They are our future. Are they not worth the money? Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Paul Delorey

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.

Jackie Jacobson

Jackie Jacobson Nunakput

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You have heard me speak many times about the price of food in our communities. The high price of food is one reason for kids sometimes going hungry in the morning. Families don’t always have the money to buy the food. I am sad to say this happens in our Territory, Mr. Speaker. Hungry children are hard-pressed to do well in school while their minds are on their stomachs. It is hard enough to deliver a good education to our children as it is without distracting them with hunger. Educators and parents say feeding students who show up for school hungry is a big help. It may even help attendance, which is another big problem. But in my community of Tuk, Mr. Speaker, this last week, there were 108 kids with perfect attendance for the last month.

---Applause

Educators and parents say feeding helps and yet the Department of Education cut the nutrition program for the year ahead without even proper evaluation of the program. Mr. Speaker, most likely saving the $400,000 the government spent on this program will end up costing much more in some other area. More importantly, this undermines the success of our children, Mr. Speaker.

The program was in the community, for example, for years. We haven’t been able to eat our traditional foods as much as we want. There is caribou and that and dry meat, as the Education Minister just said. It is hard. This program that was cut helped teach the children about healthy eating. That is important, especially in small communities with traditional diets that are changing.

Mr. Speaker, the school’s nutrition programs really helped. A little food shows our students that they are important. It shows that happiness and success is important too. It is very simple for the Education

Minister to restore this funding for these programs. He should do it. It is not a lot of money if we spread the cost to 33 communities, but this does make a big difference to our children. I thank the Members for supporting this motion and helping get the message across loud and clear to the Minister of Education. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.