Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. To the motion.

Question has been called. Motion is carried.

---Carried

We will continue on with the clause. Clause 5 as amended.

---Clause 5 as amended approved

Thank you, committee. Clause 6.

---Clause 6 approved

Clause 7.

---Clause 7 approved

Bill as a whole.

Does committee agree that Bill 30 is ready for a third reading as amended?

---Bill 30 as a whole approved for third reading

Thank you, committee. Bill 30 as amended is now ready for third reading.

I’d like to thank Minister Beaulieu this afternoon for joining us. Mr. Chutskoff, Ms. Desjardins, Ms. MacNeil, thank you for joining us. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber, thank you.

Thank you, committee. As agreed upon earlier today, we’re going to continue our deliberation this afternoon on Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Education Act. With that, will go to the Minister responsible for the introduction of the bill this afternoon, Minister Lafferty.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Education Act.

The purpose of this legislation is to bring education superintendents, other than Yellowknife Education District No. 1 and Yellowknife Catholic Schools, into the public service.

Currently, there is a wide discrepancy in pay and benefits between superintendents. This change will help create equitability in the pay and benefits offered to superintendents.

This change will also make it easier for divisional education councils to hire qualified northern educators, many of whom are already, and wish to remain, within the public service pension and benefits system.

Of the five superintendent positions impacted by this bill, three incumbents are already seconded from within the public service. The bill includes a transitional provision to honour the existing contracts of the two superintendents who are outside the public service. We engaged all boards and superintendents on this proposal, and they are in agreement with this change.

I want to be clear: this bill does not change the reporting relationship between a divisional education council and their superintendent. The divisional education council will also continue to hire, supervise, evaluate and, if necessary, discipline and fire their superintendent. This is set out in the Education Act.

In terms of following my direction, superintendents are already required under the Education Act to follow ministerial directives, and nothing will change in this regard.

Having superintendents within the public service will also help strengthen accountability in the education system. It will create consistency between the employment status of superintendents and their staff and teachers. It will also clarify that superintendents must comply with GNWT acts and policies, such as the Public Service Act and the Human Resources Manual.

Overall, this bill will improve our education system and help attract and retain the best northern educators for the important position of education superintendent.

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Minister Lafferty, we will offer the committee that reviewed the bill to make some opening comments on the bill. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Education Act, on May 28, 2014. A clause-by-clause review was conducted on October 5, 2014. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.

The bill is intended to bring superintendents of the district education councils and the Commission scolaire francophone into the public service. Three school boards would not be affected. The Tlicho Community Service Agency has a unique structure and will not be affected by this legislation. As well, the two Yellowknife superintendents will remain outside the public service.

The bill makes corollary amendments to the Public Service Act to address the employment status of superintendents.

The committee consulted with the chairs of the affected education bodies and no concerns were identified. However, during the public hearing in the clause-by-clause review, Members expressed some concerns about the implications of bringing superintendents into the public service. Specifically, some Members were apprehensive about the potential for the authority of superintendents to be unduly constrained. Members also noted that some superintendent pensions are currently provided through NEBS, the Northern Employee Benefits Services, and asked the Minister to clarify who will cover the costs of converting pensions from NEBS to the GNWT Public Service Plan.

The Minister subsequently advised that if there was a cost to the employer to convert pensions, the department would cover that cost.

Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 25 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 25, and individual committee members may have additional questions and or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee chair, Mr. Moses. With that, I’ll ask the Minister if he has witnesses he’d like to bring into the House today. Minister Lafferty.

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could be kind enough to bring our witnesses into the Chamber.

Mr. Lafferty, if you would be kind enough to introduce your witnesses to the Chamber tonight.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I have to my left Rita Mueller, assistant deputy minister, Education, Culture and Employment, and Ian Rennie to my right. He’s the legislative counsel within the Department of Justice. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Rennie, Ms. Mueller, welcome this evening. Committee, we’ll open up with general comments to the bill. General comments. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have some concerns about some of these changes. Obviously, the superintendent, one of the reasons I’ve had more concerns is he’s in the South Slave. I guess the one main area of concern is how this reporting would go. I know the Minister talked about how the reporting wouldn’t change, but I guess the difficulty comes in the fact that now you have a superintendent that’s a government employee but also reporting to a board at the same time, the DEC. I guess how that individual will be conflicted, obviously, from his boss versus the people that direct him on the initiatives. I would use recent discussions about our Junior Kindergarten as an example. We have the department who are the bosses and will be paying his wages and yet the direction of the DEC was that there was difficulty they were having with implementation of that. I guess my concern will be the reporting.

In difficult times, I think on most issues this wouldn’t be a factor. Most of the day-to-day operations I can understand the superintendent working with the DEC and not even having to deal with the government most of the time on day-to-day operations, but in the critical decision times there are times to criticize the GNWT about some of the implementations of any program or funding budgets. Some of those types of items, I think it’s going to be difficult for that superintendent to tell his bosses – and I say “he” because in the South Slave we have a male superintendent – the people that sign the cheque, that this is the problem that we have, we need to fix this. I think that’s one of the issues we’ve been pushing for Junior Kindergarten, as an example, this was an issue.

So I have difficulties with this as far as superintendents becoming GNWT employees, and I understand some of the rationale behind doing it, but there’s that main issue of the reporting process and when it comes down to some tough decisions, and they may only be five or 10 percent of the time, but at that time it’s going to be critical when you need a superintendent to fight for the DEC. How much can you really fight when he’s giving direction and concerns to his boss? So that is definitely a concern.

The other area of concern that we’ve heard from our DEA was just the fact that our superintendent has a great deal of education and can he keep the same type of individuals that you want. Doctorates, let’s say, for a superintendent. Would you be able to keep that type of individual if they’re a government employee and on a pay grid? My understanding is that as superintendents come in, they’ll be red circled for whatever their wages are if they are above the existing pay grade, but the difficulty comes in the fact that don’t we want the best person that we can possibly get in our system. That would be limited because we have a set wage, we have a set amount of money that we can pay this individual. Sometimes when those people have a doctorate, they may be able to get work other places for bigger money. So, obviously, are we getting the best people in our education? Yes, we can find people that are educated and do a job, but are we getting the best people that we want to get in this system?

So those are the two main areas that I have concern with on the changes to this act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. We’ll allow the Minister to respond to those concerns. Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. This obviously has been brought to our attention through the committee’s work, and the committee has heard a lot from South Slave members, as well, the DECs and DEAs. The reporting mechanism has been talked about with the South Slave as well. I met with them about a month ago. This particular topic was brought to my attention, so we talked about how it’s going to be structured. The reporting mechanism will stay the same as it is now, it will just be part of the public service staff if you will.

So we did talk in length about the reporting mechanism and the current superintendent did state and reiterated that he would like to be part of the GNWT public service immediately if that’s the case, but we still have to work with his current contract because we’re honouring the contract that they have. But he reiterated on a couple of occasions that he would obviously like to fall under the public service. So we did talk to them and they were satisfied with that reporting mechanism and I’m there to work with them. At the end of the day, the decision lies with the district education council.

The superintendent, obviously we want to have the best-qualified people for those positions because it is a high level position. What’s happening now is there’s a huge discrepancy between the superintendents. What we want is them to be a in a position with our current GNWT senior staff pay grid, so that will be aligned with other senior staff at a comparable level.

Those are the discussions that we’ve been having. It was satisfactory when we presented that case, so those are two areas that we’ll continue to push. We had a really good meeting in the South Slave when we met with them on these two subjects. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess the two issues that were brought up, you know, it’s fine for right now I think as far as what’s going on, but the problem is when you create this bureaucracy and put the superintendents into the public service, what’s going to come forward in the future once there’s a new Minister, once there is new staff in the DEA, DEC, and once there’s new staff in the Department of Education and now they’re going by the written document? They’re not going by okay, this is what we agreed, we agreed to the fact that the superintendents will report to the DECs and the Minister and give them direction from there. But the way it’s written, the way it’s being described and will be described in the act, is the fact that they actually report to the Minister. Right now we’re saying this is the way it’s going to be, but in the future when you go back to the written document, it’s going to read completely different, so the direction can be taken and interpreted any other way. Like I said, that 5 to 10 percent of the decisions that have to be made and argued for a DEC against the superintendent or against the Minister, when the Minister is the boss of the superintendent, will put that person in a wedge that would be very difficult for him to fight the battle to a point. He will be able to make the point, but he won’t be able to fight it because the Minister will just say, you know what, you are an employee of the GNWT. You should be taken to a certain task, but you can’t be pushing me too far, and the DECs may need that superintendent to push the Minister to the point where they need to go in a different direction.

I find that very difficult in the fact that superintendents are going to be able to fight that battle when he’s got two bosses being pulled and pushed from both sides, so I guess I do have concerns about the way it’s going to be. We can say what it’s going to be like right now, but when it comes five, 10, 20 years from now, how it’s going to be written in this document is going to be the way it’s going to roll out after a period of time after we’ve gone.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. The board superintendents do have the flexibility if there are issues being addressed and they’re not in agreement with my department. Obviously, they can voice their concerns still through the board chairs. We have been going through the process where I deal with the board chairs, and the superintendents also deal with my senior staff. Obviously, that reporting mechanism will still be captured as part of the DEC’s board chair. Currently, he reports to them and that will continue. Yes, there will be some feedback or criticism behind the scenes from the superintendents, but that’s always been the case, and we work with that.

The superintendents, as I stated, will continue to report to their respective DEA and DECs. The DECs, the district education councils, will continue to employ, hire, and also dismiss and evaluate their superintendent. All the superintendents, obviously, still have to follow the Education Act. All of them. As it stands now, they’ve been following that and will continue to do so. The Education Act, under Section 78, already requires the superintendents to perform the duties assigned to them by the act and the regulations in respect to education bodies and the directives of the Minister. That has been ongoing for a number of years now and that will continue.

I understand where the Member is coming from, but the reporting mechanism still falls under the regime of the board district education council. As the Minister responsible, I still have to work with the board chairs in that manner, but at the end of the day, they report to the board district education councils.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Continuing on with general comments on the bill, I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the beginning of Bill 25, I certainly also had concerns with the reporting, the proposed structure and set up, and the jurisdiction, the authority, and maybe the confusion around the board chairs and the Minister himself. I had that confused. I have noted that I did receive a letter from our chair of the Sahtu education board and they wanted to clearly state that there are clear indications as to our superintendent and the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. I believe the Minister did receive that letter and that the board wanted to know that, you know, are we creating a two-headed dragon here called superintendents of education boards. There is clear, as the Minister just read out, ministerial statement guidelines for the superintendents. Even though it falls under the premise of the GNWT now, the jurisdictions, the funding will go to our education boards who will sign off on the cheques as they are being discussed here.

I did talk to the education superintendent in the Sahtu and he wanted to make sure, and he is okay. There is still a bit of apprehension yet in the Sahtu health board. You know, it’s a matter of transition. I somewhat agree with my colleague from Hay River. The chairs are voted like a political body. They deal with us and they deal with certainly the overseeing of our superintendent, and the Minister has clearly written down the board still has that responsibility. I just wanted to say that very clearly. I’m not too sure where the previous speaker mentioned about in the act, and that’s always been something we think about in the future. We’re not going to be sitting in these chairs all our lives. In the future, if for any reason the interpretation is misconstrued about what is meant in the act and what the Minister is saying right now to us. Is this the intent, the spirit and intent of this act, and they cannot deter, erode or derail what the previous speaker and myself are saying, that a board still has a strong connection to our superintendent. What happens if the superintendent does not agree with the Minister’s direction yet still works for the Sahtu, and if the Sahtu does not feel that the direction of the Education department is going the way they want to go, and they’re directing their superintendents to do something else may be very radical? That’s what they want to know.

That’s my one comment. I mean, I have read the Minister’s statements. There is a little bit of a leap of faith here. There is some trust here, but like my colleague says, 10, 15, 20 years down the road, we don’t know the interpretation, and if the interpretation of what we’re talking about today and what the Minister is saying, that’s it and then that’s it. Because we know that, over the years, interpretation changes. Different players come into place. Just as when we negotiate our land claim, the spirit and the intent of some of those clauses have changed with the different players and today we get different interpretations, so you’ve got to pull out the old files and say is this what you meant when you’re sitting across the table and you agreed to this clause. That’s what we have to not to always go back to that. That’s what I’m saying.

The other one, before I close, is the Minister, in his comments, says that overall this bill will improve our education system. I guess it’s a matter of, again, interpretation. I’m not too sure how it will improve our education system. That’s a pretty vague statement. It’s kind of… It doesn’t say too much. I just want to say, what do you mean by improving our education system? We always want to attract the best and the brightest and the most culturally driven type of superintendents in our education system. Well, our Minister knows how much work we have to do in that. So, what does he mean by that? I guess it’s too vague for me, how he’s going to improve our overall education system. So, I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Mr. Chair, those are my comments.

In summary, I want to say that the reporting has to be clear; it has to have a strong foundation because you’re dealing with a political body, which is a community chair to be voted by everybody. That’s a political body. They fight for our people in the community and we’re the ones that go to the regional meetings and give direction to the superintendent. The superintendent has the…(inaudible)… The Minister is right; they have the Education Act they have to follow. In the chair sometimes we want to do something radical to improve the education of our children, and they have to know that they cannot be in conflict if the board says something and the Minister’s staff say something else. The department can always fall back on, it says in the agreement here. It’s a very greyish area, I would say. The easy answer says, well, you have to follow that. This is it. Without any type of, I don’t know, they may be tired, they don’t have any discussion, they have lots of things on their plate. That’s what I’m looking forward to, especially from small communities, small regions. I think it could work.

As my superintendent is okay with it, my chair is going to know that as long as we don’t lose that relationship with our superintendent and not have the government, in the future, come down and say, too bad, you signed it already. We have history amongst our people of these things happening, so we want to be very careful. That’s what I want to say. I’m not going to oppose the bill; I just want to say, those are my concerns. I support the Minister and the bill. Maybe a good preamble should go to that. Anyhow, that’s it, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I just want to be clear that this bill does not change the reporting mechanism or the relationship between the district education council and their superintendent. That relationship still continues with DECs and board chairs. They have very positive working relations right now and we would like that to continue.

The superintendents, obviously, give advice and also feedback to the district education council. Obviously, we may disagree on various issues or things that are happening, but at the same time, we work with it. We’re not going to discipline a superintendent for saying certain things. It is up to the DECs to deal with that.

The reporting mechanism stays the same. We’re not talking about that. We are talking about having superintendents under the GNWT Public Service Act. So, improvement in our overall education system obviously is to attract the best superintendents out there that can be part of our team and that can work with the district education council. Highly experienced Northerners, obviously, is what we want to attract and who want to be part of the public service and also get the GNWT benefits.

Those are just some of the education outcomes that I would like to achieve over the long term. Just to be clear, we are not embarking on the relationship between DECs and superintendents, but just having those individuals under the public service, and the reporting mechanism will stay the same as it is now between DECs and superintendents. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Next I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few minutes ago we had heard the concerns about reporting lines and the Minister keeps saying that they will be reporting pretty much the same as they are, but the fact is, we really have no guarantee at the end of the day. The superintendent is instructed to pursue and follow, to the best of his abilities, obviously, the Education Act. One would have no doubt that that would be the case.

But we do have a very vivid, vibrant and certainly a functional example where the department had stifled superintendents for speaking their mind and telling the truth to the school boards. By an edict issued by the department – luckily we have the person here today who told us that – that they had to stay quiet on that particular issue when it came to Junior Kindergarten.

So what we have here now is the financial reporting line changing. So really, where does the loyalty of these particular employees now stay? It causes me great concern on how are we going to adjust this in the future? So in the future, when we run into another incident like Junior Kindergarten and the superintendents are told to stay quiet, they in essence have to be forced into a very difficult challenge, and I don’t want to use the word lie, but I will say they are put in an awkward position not being fully truthful in some manner, form or other by avoiding the truth or avoiding the situation. It does cause me concern as to what we are putting in place here, which is the mechanism of loyalty between the school board and their superintendent.

Frankly, I don’t really care about the paying process, it will be what it is. Does the government now want to regulate school board superintendents’ pay? It’s odd they have such courage over such few superintendents when they don’t have the courage to regulate gasoline prices which would help far more people in the Northwest Territories, yet we will put our finger on a single little issue here. Do they like the way school board superintendents pay their employees? Well, you know what? I’m sorry, the school boards pay their superintendent employees is what I’m trying to say.

Frankly, I think it’s none of their business. This is why we have an elected board. Do we know how much the government pays some of their senior bureaucratic employees? We know some deputy ministers make well over $200,000. We know presidents of organizations make well over that amount and number. We know, but we don’t put the spotlight on those things.

It’s not a question of the money, and that’s the easy distraction of this particular one, is to be saying, well, we want to adjust the line by line on the Hay Plan and coordinate them with similar employees in the GNWT. Honestly, that is just a distraction to what the issue is. Ultimately it comes down to control. Who is going to be in control at the end of the day?

Now, the Minister will say, my goodness, day-to-day operations, they report to the school board and the chair and the process, and he will probably reach in his hand – he probably already has it there in his right hand – and they quote chapter and verse of the legislation on what clause they say they do. I yet again stress that they probably will be reporting to the school boards. But you know, it is always a scenario of saying, follow the money, where is the money, who is in control of the money? If the GNWT is in control of the money and billing the school boards back for the superintendents so the school boards get less money, I just don’t like the tone of this. It’s controlling the school boards whether they like it or not. They can try to say that there are firewalls and there’s a way to show they are not controlling, but we have examples now that they are. The current examples, the real examples, we have seen what crisis it has put our school boards in by putting pressure on school board superintendents with the edict of silence.

Mr. Chairman, I am worried about what trend this will leave. This Minister won’t be Minister of Education for long. We have a year, so what happens to the next Minister? What happens to the next board? What happens and on and on? It’s easy to say we are going to realign these things, and it’s easy for him to say that he’s not going to do anything. Well, no, it will be business as usual. Well, maybe it will be business as usual in the next 12 months, but it’s 12 months and a day I worry about it. It’s 12 months and two days I worry about it, 12 months and two years and four years and 10 years. It’s things beyond our grasp which we have no control over.

So, we have to caution ourselves how quick it is to change these things, because at this point, is the school board now turning into an advisory as opposed to a management board? They say management on paper, but now you’re controlling the infrastructure, the administrator. You’re paying the administrator and you can’t tell me you’re not in charge of the administrator if you’re paying them. Is the administrator somewhat accountable to the department more than they are to the board? That question eventually has to be faced.

We can hear all the answers and justifications, but that’s the reality before us. Of course, they will provide their argument saying that’s not true at all, but what, in all fairness, is the person who pays is the one who provides the direction.

I’m concerned with where this amendment is leading. Frankly, I think that this is a bad choice. This is not about the money and people should not be caught on that. It doesn’t really matter what the money is. It’s about fairly allowing school boards to duly operate unfettered by the Department of Education which sets the playing field, which is called the Education Act. As long as they work within it, the Minister should stay out of the business. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I have to make it clear that this is not a bill. It does not change the reporting relationship between a district education council and their superintendents. That will continue as it has been for a number of years since the inception of this government.

There has been a change, obviously, of leadership from Ministers, but we continue to build on the relationship with the district education council and we would like to continue doing that. Not every one of us will stay in this position forever, obviously, but during the inception there have been changes over time. At the same time, this reporting mechanism has always been with the district education council and will continue as we move forward on this particular bill that’s before us.

The superintendents, obviously we’re dealing with public money. There obviously needs to be a public accountability too. That’s our role as elected officials. Member Yakeleya also alluded to we’re elected members of community district education councils that we should be working very closely with. I totally agree with that because they’re accountable to their constituencies like we are, to the Northwest Territories. That area will continue. At the same time, the Education Act again, Section 78 requires all superintendents to perform their duties assigned. One of them I heard that one of… there’s the superintendents or board chairs don’t follow their directive. Well, it’s in their Education Act, Minister directive. There is a directive. They have to follow that. It’s nothing new. It has always been there.

If I missed out on maybe key topics, my assistant deputy, Ms. Mueller, can elaborate a bit more if I did miss out on key points. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Assistant deputy minister, Ms. Mueller.

Thank you, assistant deputy minister. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister knows that this department has controlled the superintendents to stay silent on particular issues. This just reaffirms the reporting line by now being known that the person from whom they receive their paycheque, they have to further take direction from the department. This is a major issue; it has been recently a major issue; and frankly, I don’t see this getting any easier.

I say that we can confuse the issue by dangling the carrot of money in front of people and saying, well geez, it’s a money issue. But it’s not necessarily a money issue. It’s a distraction of the fact that these boards are publicly accountable. They table their budgets. They have budget discussions. They invite the public in to talk about them. The boards publicly debate them. The board votes on them. Every one of those folks are, through a duly elected process, brought onto that board.

I’m going to wrap it up very quickly here. They go through an election process, I think, all but one. Frankly, we can talk about the disparity of these things and be confused about the issue. These boards are empowered to make their decisions. Now the government is taking their power back. This colonialism aspect of this government is now taking control of the school boards. We always talk about wanting to draw down and empower people. Well, this is the exact opposite. So I find it offensive that no one talked… The Minister or his staff member didn’t talk about them controlling school board superintendents by giving them the hush order or else. Why don’t we spend some time talking about that? You don’t think that dotted line now becomes a solid line after this situation? If they speak against the department, the department will put undue pressure on them. So let’s not fool ourselves. There’s a lot more happening here behind the scenes than certainly just this one reporting line. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. We’re not taking the power back. What we’re talking about here is bills to have those individual superintendents under the Public Service Act. The reporting mechanism, the bill does not reflect on that. The reporting mechanism will continue as is for a number of years now, will continue to support that through their elected officials as DECs.

We’ve also met with the board chairs on a number of occasions on this particular bill that is being introduced here today. For the record, there have not been any major issues brought to my attention from the board chairs that I’ve been dealing with for a number of years now. When I presented this idea, obviously the board superintendents would like to be part of the public service, but they did question the accountability issue of who is the board superintendent going to be reporting to. When I made it clear that the reporting mechanism will still continue, there were no issues. They were satisfied and happy with the process.

This is the bill that’s before us to have those individual superintendents as part of the public service under the Public Service Act, and the reporting mechanism stays the same. It stays with the district education council, the elected officials as Mr. Yakeleya alluded to, and I have to respect that. I have to work with that. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Committee, we’re on general comments, Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Education Act. Next I have Mr. Dolynny.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. The engagement process obviously started back in November of 2010 when we met with the board chairs and superintendents to discuss this matter in the preliminary stages at that time. There was also a letter directly to the board chairs, as well, the DECs, in January of 2011. So within the next few months from there. There’s also a proposed approach that was discussed with the board chairs and the superintendents as recently as May 2014 and there was no opposition to the changes.

Just last month, a month ago, I also met with the South Slave because they brought up some concerns on the reporting mechanism, and we dealt with that and they were satisfied when we left the community of Hay River Reserve. They did have logistical questions about bringing superintendents into the public service, but we did answer their questions and that satisfied them as well.

The financial cost, obviously it’s been brought up in the committee’s discussion. Not only that but even at the district education council, who is going to be paying for the difference if there is a cost factor once their contract is up and they’re transferred over to public service? I did commit to the standing committee that my department, obviously, will cover the costs. We don’t know what the costs will be at this point because it does fluctuate, but when the contract term is up, then we’ll know for sure and then we’ll cover those costs at that time.

A decrease in funding potentially because a superintendent’s salary is under public service. We’ll continue to provide the financial budget to the district education council because they have to hire or retain a superintendent and they still pay. It’s just a paper transaction that we provide the senior Hay Plan, the salary that’s attached that’s comparable to other senior staff and provide that to the district education council and they’ll continue to provide that to their superintendent. So the budget doesn’t really change in that regard because we’ll be doing it according to the GNWT Hay Plan on senior staff.

The two-tier system has been brought up by the standing committee as well. YK1 and YCS are out of the picture. Not only that but there was discussion about the Tlicho Community Services Agency, as well, because of their uniqueness, a self-governing board. This is an area that obviously has been brought to our attention and by nature, obviously, they’re divided into two different approaches. The staff and teachers of two Yellowknife boards, obviously, the YK1 and YCS are outside the public service. The teachers are not part of the public service, so their superintendents remain outside the public service and they maintain consistency within their organization.

Those are just some of the discussions that we’ve had with the board chairs. The board chairs raised that issue with us, as well, what’s going to happen to us. So, we did raise that issue with them. We’ll continue how we’ve been doing business with YK1 and YCS.

The Member did raise the issue of direct appointments, as well, in the standing committee. There were a lot of options, a lot of scenarios. What if there’s favouritism from the department perspective or the DECs? I did make a commitment to the standing committee that we have to find the best qualified superintendent, preferably Northerners, of course, to be on the DEC. Any appointment process obviously would fall to the government to make that decision. They are recommendations from the DECs.

All these years, the Dehcho Education Council has made the recommendations and I’ve brought that forward, as the Minister responsible, to the government. At the end of the day, the government makes a decision on that. But it’s always been the case where the government made a case and there was support from the DEC, there were no issues over the years. That practice will continue. At the end of the day, my view is that we find the best superintendent as possible with the qualifications and also the experience. The DECs also request that the incumbent superintendents be direct appointed to the positon of superintendent with the public service, so we’ve been dealing with the DECs on this matter as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My comments are not dissimilar to those of my colleagues. I will be brief because they’ve pretty much been mentioned.

I want to, at the outset, say that I’m very glad to hear the Minister finally confirmed that any costs to the boards for superintendents to withdraw from NEBS will be covered by the department. That was something that took us a little while to get that confirmed, but I’m very glad to hear that that is now confirmed.

I have the same concerns as a number of my colleagues in bringing superintendents in under the public service. Not that their relationship with either the Minister or the board will change, but I see that there’s going to be a conflict of interest for those superintendents, particularly with regard to policy. If there is a policy which the department or the Minister wishes to put in place – not a directive but just a policy or a change to a program – and the board disagrees with that change, the board will need to rely on their superintendent to speak on their behalf, to do work on their behalf, to get the message through to the department and to the Minister. Yet, at the same time, the superintendent is employed basically by the Minister and will feel obligated not to speak against the government. That’s what most GNWT employees are obligated to do, not to speak against the government.

It’s one thing to say that the board can speak to the Minister and can present their case. That’s all well and good, but board members are volunteers and board members are not involved in the day-to-day operation of the board and of the education authority and superintendents are, so it’s going to be difficult for board chairs to truly fight a policy or a program change without the support of their superintendent. I see that as a problem. Mr. Hawkins referenced a situation where superintendents in the not so distant past were advised not to speak against a particular programming change that was coming down, and the department will have the capability to dictate to superintendents what they can and cannot say, and that’s a very large concern for me.

The only other question I have here, in the Minister’s opening remarks he says that this change will create consistency between the employment status of superintendents and their staff and teachers, and by that I think he meant that they will all be part of the public service. I don’t think we ever talked about this when we discussed this issue at committee, but that sort of consistency in employment status suggests to me that it’s possible that the superintendents may be part of the teachers’ union, and I would like to get that confirmed. If that’s the case, I think that’s fraught with difficulties. That’s really my only question.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. The Member raised the conflict of interest between the Minister and the board chairs and the DECs with respect to if there are any program changes the superintendent, well, they’ll still work on their DECs. I don’t see that changing. Right now, if we’re introducing a new initiative and there are issues, the board chairs usually raise that issue with us, whether it be public or in person with the Minister responsible for education. Superintendents will continue on record. They will still continue to report and to provide advice if there are any issues with program delivery. Obviously, they’ll be reaching to their DECs to raise their concerns to us as the Minister responsible.

I deal with the district education council chairs and also elected members of the DECs and DEAs. Superintendents still have their avenue through the board chairs and that continues to exist today and even into the future. The reporting mechanism is not part of the bill, obviously, but as I stated before, I deal with elected officials. Superintendents will continue to provide advice. Those two individual superintendents that we’re discussing, three are already part of this comment. I’ll have Ms. Mueller to elaborate, because Member Bisaro alluded to the teachers’ union. I’ll provide that to Ms. Mueller.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Assistant Deputy Minister Mueller.

Thank you, Assistant Deputy Minister. Ms. Bisaro, anything further?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I think that’s it. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Committee, we’re on general comments for Bill 25. Does committee agree we have completed general comments?

We’ll go to clause-by-clause review of the bill with a further number in the title. Clause 1.

---Clauses 1 through 4 inclusive approved

The bill as a whole?

Does committee agree that Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Education Act, is ready for third reading?

---Bill 25 as a whole approved for third reading

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Thank you, witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.

Committee, we will now work to Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014. I’ll go to the Minister responsible. Minister Ramsay.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for its review of the bill.

The purpose of Bill 27 is to amend various statutes of the Northwest Territories for which minor changes are proposed or errors or inconsistencies have been identified.

Each amendment included in the bill had to meet the following criteria:

a)it must not be controversial;

b)it must not involve the spending of public funds;

c)it must not prejudicially affect rights;

d)it must not create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.

Departments responsible for the various statutes being amended have reviewed and approved the changes.

Most amendments proposed in Bill 27 are minor in nature and many consist of technical corrections to a statute. The amendments are of such a nature that the preparation and legislative consideration of individual bills to correct each statute would be time consuming for the government and the Legislative Assembly.

I will be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have regarding this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Next, I’ll go to the chair of Social programs, Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014, on September 12, 2014. A clause-by-clause review was conducted the same day. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.

This bill corrects inconsistencies and errors in the statutes of the Northwest Territories. The bill also deals with matters of a minor, noncontroversial and uncomplicated nature. A minor amendment was made at the committee clause-by-clause review and concurred with by the Minister. Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 27 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole as amended and reprinted.

This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 27. Individual members may have questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Committee agree to go to general comments?

Minister Ramsay, do you have witnesses to bring into the Chamber?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Committee agree?

Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort our witnesses in.

Thank you. Minister Ramsay, will you please introduce your witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my right I have Mr. Ian Rennie, the acting director of legislation with the Department of Justice.

Thank you. Welcome. Committee has agreed that we will begin general comments on Bill 27. General comments.

Committee has agreed we will go into details?

We will go to page 1. We will go back to the number and title. We have 16 clauses. Does committee agree we will take them in groups of four?

Clauses 1 to 4.

---Clauses 1 through 4 inclusive approved

Clauses 5 to 8.

---Clauses 5 through 8 inclusive approved

Clauses 9 to 12.

---Clauses 9 through 12 inclusive approved

Clauses 13 to 16.

---Clauses 13 through 16 inclusive approved

Bill as a whole?

Does committee agree that Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014, is ready for third reading?

---Bill 27 as a whole approved for third reading

Bill 27 is now ready for third reading. Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witness out of the Chamber.

Thank you, committee. We will turn our attention to Bill 34, 2015 Polling Day Act. I will go to the chair of Caucus, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to provide the opening comments on Bill 34, 2015 Polling Day Act.

Mr. Chair, the general election for the 18th Legislative Assembly is currently scheduled to take place on Monday, October 5, 2015. Prior to the passage of fixed election date legislation in the Northwest Territories, the timing of our elections was a moving target. Subsequently, the Parliament of Canada adopted similar legislation establishing the third Monday in October every four years as the date fixed for federal elections. This has resulted in an overlap in the campaign period for the upcoming federal elections and those scheduled to take place in several provinces and territories, including our own. If the NWT and federal elections are held on the dates planned, there will be a 21-day overlap in the campaign period for each jurisdiction. In a small jurisdiction like ours, it is often the same people who administer federal and territorial elections in our communities and volunteer for various campaign organizations. Concerns have also been raised about message confusion and the potential mixing of partisan debate with our consensus system of government if the two campaigns take place concurrently. It is for these reasons that the NWT, like some of the other provinces in similar circumstances, supports a rescheduling of our election date in 2015 to avoid this overlap.

Mr. Chair, Bill 34 establishes April 1, 2015, as a go/no-go date for our 2015 General Election. If on that day the federal election remains scheduled for October 19, 2015, this bill will automatically delay the NWT election until November 23, 2015. The campaign period for a November 23rd territorial election will commence on October 30, 2015, a full 11 days after the federal election. If the timing of the federal election changes prior to April 1, 2015, so as to avoid an overlap in campaign periods, the date of the 2015 NWT General Election will remain October 5th.

Finally, Bill 34 will only take effect if the Parliament of Canada passes legislation permitting the life of the current Assembly to extend beyond its current four-year mandate. Section 224 of Bill C-43 recently introduced in the House of Commons intended to do just this. Although Bill C-34 permits the life of the current Assembly to be extended by up to one year, the proposal before you today contemplates a delay in our general election of only just over six weeks. Bill 34 deals only with the timing of the 2015 General Election. Additional legislation may be required to avoid similar overlaps in future years.

This concludes my opening comments. I will be pleased to answer any questions from the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Do you have witnesses to bring into the Chamber?

Yes, I do.

Thank you. Does committee agree?

Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort in the witnesses.

Thank you. Mr. Yakeleya, could you please introduce your witnesses, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On my left is Ken Chutskoff, legislative counsel; and on my right is Mr. Tim Mercer, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Committee, we’ll go to general comments on Bill 34, 2015 Polling Day Act. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a comment. I don’t have any questions on this. I think we’ve come a long way and it’s been an interesting discussion. I think we’ve come to the right conclusions on this. Of course, we could change legislation at the federal and territorial level to extend our mandate up to a year, but I think we’ve listened to the public who expressed some concern about that.

This is an extension, but it’s a modest extension and, I think, theoretically at this time, depending on when the federal election is actually finally decided to be, I think this is a very reasonable stance to take and I support our conclusions here and this legislation. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I see that as more of a comment. General comments. Does committee agree that we go to detail?

Thank you. We will defer the bill number and the title. Clause 1.

---Clauses 1 through 3 inclusive approved

To the bill as a whole.

Thank you. Does committee agree that Bill 34, 2015 Polling Day Act, is ready for third reading?

---Bill 34 as a whole approved for third reading

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Thank you, witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.

What is the wish of the committee? Ms. Bisaro.

Mr. Chair, I move that we report progress.

---Carried

I will now rise and report progress.