Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to welcome the Minister and his department here today. As noted, bringing superintendents into the public service did seem like a very simple design in the bill format. But as you have heard today, it has raised a number of concerns and some issues. Some of these concerns and issues have been clearly articulated by our committee chair and some of the Members as well. For the point of clarity, I’d like to talk about five key areas, and they’re in no particular order or priority.

One of the concerns which seems to have a basic theme in some of the bills that we’ve been reviewing as of late was the consultation process. In this case here, the concern was that when the bill came to light through submissions – and again, these are submissions brought to committee – some district education councils expressed concern of not being able to review the bill prior to being tabled in the House.

With all due respect, there may have been the intent of wanting to do this, but again, committee has to be forthright in making known that not everyone was agreeable to the bill as presented. The concern that we received in submission was the fact – and we heard this today already – the concern of control and reporting requirements, that the DECs wanted to retain this power of management and administration to take care of their own superintendents that they currently do.

So I know the Minister has addressed this a couple of times now with committee members here, but it’s clear that there is a concern, as we’ve heard, Mr. Yakeleya used the words “two-headed dragon.” We have the illusion of reporting. Again, I do favour some of the comments mentioned here. Even though I believe there was no intent of the bill to create this, in its wording it does suggest, as that old saying goes, “He who holds the gold makes the rules.” I think this clearly sets that tone loud and clear. So I’ll let the Minister once again try to reassure Members that is indeed not the case.

The other one was the issue of financial cost from superintendents being withdrawn from the Northern Employee Benefits Service, or NEBS, and going into the public service pension and benefit plan. Apparently there would have been potential loss of monies in the transfer of superintendents moving from one plan to the other. The big question out there is who is going to pay for that, who should be accountable for that transfer of money and potential costs in that transfer. So again, I’ll ask the Minister to comment on that as well.

Then the other financial cost issue really is the potential decrease in funding or the funding flow disruption that could occur with the contributions of ECE when we start pulling superintendents away from funded models that they are in currently. So some of those gaps could be substantial. Again, not knowing wages, I don’t think that’s the issue of the question. The question is: Would there be adjustments to lower funding models at school boards or authorities if indeed this bill comes to fruition?

The other one, there is a concern that this amendment could codify and enshrine the establishment of a two-tier system in our education system. So let me clarify. With this bill’s passing there would only be two superintendents left outside this act, both in Yellowknife, which are YK1 and YCS. So, many of us, including myself, have looked at this from a different perspective and a holistic view, and going: what are we creating here? We’re creating a secondary system within the educational delivery of programs within the mandate or ministerial mandates. I was a bit concerned, and other Members expressed the same issues, at what are those pitfalls or any of those potential loopholes that are now created within I call it a two-tiered system when we deal with superintendents. So again, I would seek clarification from the Minister if indeed the department has thought of that and whether or not there’s some suggestions moving forward.

Finally, there were a number of concerns around the potential of the Minister to impose his direct appointment authority to favour a particular superintendent appointment, especially in the wake if a board is not positioned to the department’s views. This was somewhat brought up by a couple of Members here today. This last point is of a particular scenario. We know that there’s a certain scenario involved, but the committee felt that in reality this could present itself. The reality is that this is very viable in design. Again, what are those pitfalls that we should be careful of in terms of optics? Again, if the Minister wants to give the particular ministerial direction in a particular area of concern or a board, could he or she use that appointment authority to favour a particular direction?

So, roughly five areas of concern. Some of them have been covered by the Minister earlier today. But I would think, for clarification, I think just to reassure me as a Member, besides just trying to talk about “well, it’s enshrined in this act, it’s enshrined in that act,” what safeguards are there really to make sure that we feel comfortable as Members voting in favour of the amendments to Bill 25? Thank you.