Thank you. I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for Education, Culture and Employment if he would like to read his opening remarks. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to introduce Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act. The purpose of this legislation is to raise the maximum aggregate of the principal amounts of all student loans that may be made by the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The maximum aggregate principal amount of student loans that the government may lend under the Student Financial Assistance Act is currently set at $40 million. The amendment proposes to increase this amount to $45 million for the fiscal year 2014-2015 and thereafter. This change is required to allow the Department of Education, Culture and Employment to continue providing student financial assistance at current benefit levels.

I trust that Members will agree that this amendment is appropriate and necessary.

I would be pleased to answer any questions the Members may have. Mahsi, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. I’d like to ask the Minister if he’d like to bring witnesses into the Chamber.

Yes, I would.

Does committee agree?

Agreed, thank you. I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses to the table.

Minister Lafferty, could you please introduce your witnesses for the record?

Mahsi, Madam Chair. To my left is Jolene Saturnino. She’s the director of income security within the ECE department. Also, to my right is Ken Chutskoff, legislative counsel within Justice. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Before we proceed with general comments, I’d like to ask the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, Mr. Moses, if he would like to bring the committee’s remarks. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act, on May 27, 2014. A clause-by-clause review was held the same day. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.

The purpose of the legislation is to ensure ongoing financial aid to students. The bill increases the maximum aggregate for principal amounts outstanding for all loans to $45 million for 2014-2015 and subsequent years.

Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 24. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. General comments. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Some of the discussions that we had with this bill in camera I want to bring to the floor of the House to make them public. One of the areas of concern that I know I had as a Member, this is the second time during the life of this Assembly that we’ve come back to add a component, or a financial component to this SFA total. I just want to make sure that we’re doing things in the right mannerism.

One of the concerns we had, and it was also brought up and echoed by the Auditor General of Canada, is that there has been some concern on the collection of student financial loans. In fact, some of the numbers that the Auditor General realized in their audit was that we failed to collect on roughly around 60 percent of our student financial loans that are out there, which is putting a burden on our system.

So my opening question here in a general sense is because of the fact, not just me, not just committee, but the Auditor General of Canada clearly articulating that we’ve got a collection problem. Is this collection problem, or is the repatriation of getting our money back to taxpayers causing the impetus here for seeing an increase of $5 million being asked here today? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Madam Chair. We’re fully aware of the collection that’s before us. It’s a challenge that we’ve been faced with, and the office of the Auditor General gave specific instructions on this particular area. The Member alluded to 60 percent fail. Those are areas that we are continuously and aggressively going after for collection. This is not pertaining to this particular change. The amendment is coming with the $5 million increase. So it is a separate topic, and I’ll get Ms. Saturnino to just elaborate a bit more on the process itself. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Ms. Saturnino.

Thank you, Ms. Saturnino. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just so I’m completely understanding the situation, this increase has to do with more remissible loans being involved; however, what we have heard also here is that this is a revolving amount of money, so money going out and coming back in. With respect to as we are now talking about the challenges we have had in collecting that money to come back into this so-called pot of revolving money, so you’re saying that this increase of $5 million has no way, shape or form involved with the fact that we are struggling to collect those monies back that are in debt or default. Are these two separate issues? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Lafferty.

Madam Chair, that is correct; they are two separate issues. We have been talking about the collection, how we can collect or be aggressive in that area. I’ve been dealing with my department on how to address those matters at hand because we have to take the Auditor General’s recommendations seriously into consideration, so that’s what we are doing. Those

are two separate issues with requests of the $5 million to increase. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Dolynny.

Madam Chair, for the life of me I can’t understand. If we have a revolving amount of money, which is a total wholesome amount, a pot, if you will, and we are giving out loans and we are collecting loans back in payment, to me this is a revolving pot of money. If we are, by virtue, having trouble, as indicated by the Auditor General, and I am hearing promising words that we are working towards mitigating collection, which is good to hear, that sounds like by default that we are actually increasing this revolving pot limit. For the life of me, I can’t understand how these are two separate issues if we are dealing with one pot of revolving money.

I’m going to ask the department if they can provide some type of accounting framework to clearly articulate that these are indeed two separate issues, because I can’t for the life of me see how this are two separate issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Ms. Saturnino.