Thanks to the deputy minister. I appreciate that things are not always equal

between one jurisdiction and the other, but I guess I would have thought that if we are putting on a course, we are certifying people and we are certifying them against the Saskatchewan standard, we would know how that measures up in other places. I would think that would be something that we should know as a department.

I want to change course here and ask a question about junior kindergarten funding. I have struggled to get… I don’t know if I’m asking the question incorrectly or whatever, but I’m trying to find out in terms of junior kindergarten funding, whether or not the plan that was outlined by the Premier last fall is still going to go ahead. That was a three-year plan for funding junior kindergarten. Year one was certain funds deleted from education authorities’ budgets. Year two, some more funds from certain education authorities’ budgets. Some got it back if they had JK. Then, year three, the same thing all over again.

In year one education authorities had some funds removed. JK was put in place in 22 or 23 communities. We have now put a stop to that. In school year ‘15-16, I am presuming that we will have, from what the Minister told us a few days ago, 18 or 19 schools providing junior kindergarten. My question is whether or not there is any reduction to education authority budgets to fund junior kindergarten for the ‘15-16 school year. Thank you.

I’m really struggling with this. If we take Yellowknife Education District No. 1, for instance, I believe it was $450,000 that they had their budget reduced by last year, and you’re now telling me that they’re going to again get a reduction in the ‘15-16 school year. We’re not increasing the JK Program. The money that was collected from the reductions in the education authorities for the

first year of implementation of junior kindergarten, the ‘14-15 school year, that money you already have. It’s in your base now because you’re not giving it out to the education authorities. So why is it that the education authorities have to be reduced again? There’s no additional cost to JK in the ‘15- 16 year. Why are we charging the education authority, so to speak, more money when there’s presumably no bigger cost? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi,Mr. Chair. Again, when the decision was made October 30, 2014, it was decided that we would continue with rolling out of junior kindergarten in 19 communities, based on the feedback that we received, and 18 the following year, not to proceed with the second and third phases and to continue with re-profiled funds from education councils. That was the decision that we went with.

Last year, 2014-15, it cost us approximately $1.8 million. In 2015-16 it will be approximately $1.3 million. That was the decision that was made by our government to move forward. That is what we’re doing, unless my ADM has a bit of detailed information. By all means, Mr. Lovely can answer that.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Lovely.

Thank you, Mr. Lovely. Ms. Bisaro.

Maybe I need it to be written down. I don’t understand. I don’t know how to try again.

I understand that education authorities are funded by pupils. In the 2014-15 year they were funded by pupils and then they were reduced $400,000. Are you telling me that they’re going to funded to the max by pupils in ‘15-16 and again be reduced by $400,000? Except for enrollment, is it going to be an equal amount of funding in ‘14-15 for the education authorities as it will be in ‘15-16? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Lovely.

Thank you, Mr. Lovely. Next I have on my list is Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to take a break from junior kindergarten. I’ll let the department take a rest.

Mr. Chair, I know the Minister is deeply passionate about Aboriginal language, especially getting Aboriginal language programming in the communities. He spoke very passionately last week, actually this week on CKLB. I myself have been equally passionate about trying to aid an organization that has been saddled with a number of old debts and has been dealing with aging infrastructure, aging transmitters and, quite frankly, very stagnant in Heritage Canada funding and also funding from the GNWT, but to a lesser degree, through our community broadcasting grants.

The Minister indicated that there has been some recent activity in the last week or so with respect to the Native Communications Society and its executive director. I’m asking, at this time, if the Minister can provide some clarity as to where this radio station stands, and will we expect to potentially hear this radio come back on the air in some form or fashion in the very near future. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. When I spoke about it last week, I did indicate that I had met with the chair of the NCS that looks after CKLB. It was made clear that obviously both he and I want CKLB back online because it is the voice of the North.

My department has been contributing, for a number of years now, our portion of $202,000. We’ll continue to do that. That’s our commitment. Obviously, through the federal government there is approximately $464,000 that goes to the CKLB. There have been some challenges, obviously, on the reporting mechanism.

I did meet with Shelly Glover, as I indicated last week. This is very important that we need to resolve this issue, once and for all, how to best deal with the next step. The next step, I’m hoping that the federal Minister will be receptive to us taking the funding over from the federal government so we can work directly with NCS and CKLB. That’s where it’s at right now.

As the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, we will continue to deliver our

contribution. I believe the chair has stated that they’re in the process of discussing amongst the board to see if we could offer some sort of CKLB broadcasting to some degree. Probably not full- fledged at this point, but those are discussions that they are currently having.

We’ve been in constant contact with them and we will continue to do so. Mahsi.

I’m encouraged by what I’m hearing from the Minister. I strongly know he is committed and passionate about wanting to get this back on the air, and I’m pleased to hear that the funding model might come under the one-roof model which would be administered through the GNWT.

But there are still some key areas of operational challenges that CKLB is still facing. The first one is the ongoing debt that this organization has been saddled with for so long. This debt is an albatross around its neck which prevents it from getting to the next level as a business entity.

What opportunities are there for this organization to deal with that debt moving forward?

When I met with CKLB and the NCS chair, I offered, from my department, a financial accountant to deal with their bookkeeping challenges, their debt load that we’re aware of. So, the offer is on the table with the board chair and also to deal with the board members. It is at their discretion if they want to take advantage of that, but we offered that. We are offering as much support as we possibly can, as a department, to the organization because we want them to be back up and running. That’s what we’re offering at this point. Mahsi.

I’m encouraged to hear that we’re providing that financial management support, and hopefully CKLB can see that as reaching out by this government and I strongly encourage it to take advantage of it.

That being said, the so-called 600-some thousand dollars of programming dollars isn’t enough to keep the doors open per se. I mean, that’s just a smidgen of the amount that’s required to pay wages, operational costs and everything. One of huge undertakings that CKLB is facing today, and has faced for probably over 10 or 15 years, is its community transmitters are in dire need of replacement. As I referenced once, not that long ago, I refer to them as a Timex watch in a digital age, and I meant that. Because we have to not only look at providing some funding, we have to look at how we can help with upgrades or at least open doors to investment dollars or investors who come forward to help bring those much needed dollars to make those upgrades to electronics and equipment. So, to the question, knowing full well that this is another hurdle in the success of this radio station,

what is the government prepared to do, or doing, to look at this dated equipment? Even if you throw money at this, this is a freight train. If you don’t deal with this equipment in due course, this organization is going to be facing the same problem.

So, to the question of aged equipment, what is this government prepared to do or are doing currently? Thank you.

Madam Chair, since we’ve been in discussion with CKLB, capital infrastructure has been brought to our attention on numerous occasions. Obviously the federal government plays a key part in this.

My department, obviously, provided support. So the organization can submit a contribution proposal to CanNor. We’re providing support at that level, even as far as developing a business case proposal to be submitted to CanNor. That’s what my department is offering, as much support to deal with those matters at the federal level. We’re behind CKLB when we’re speaking to the federal government. When I met with Shelly Glover, Minister responsible for Canadian Heritage, in January, that was the same message I reiterated, that the capital is a challenge to CKLB, so she is fully aware of it. The CanNor is her counterpart, Leona Aglukkaq. We’ve been dealing with those Ministers as well. Mahsi, Madam Chair.

All I know is that as of July 31, 2014, programming ceased. There are just a minimal amount of updates to the website and some sponsorship messaging that continues to go on this radio station.

When will the department, in conjunction… It sounds like we’re involved with the federal department, as well, as well as NCS itself. At what point in time will we be able to see something publicly come forward with a plan with a timeline and with an investing model so that the public can be reassured, and our Aboriginal stakeholders and our communities will be reassured that we’re going to see this radio station back on the air in its rightful place? Thank you.

Those are questions that I had with the board chair. What kind of resources do they need to be back up and running? Obviously, he needs to sit down with his board and highlight those key areas of what it would require to establish CKLB online again. At the end of the day, it’s the federal government that’s the process we have to work with, but we’re doing what we can as a department while we’re waiting for the federal government to push that forward.

So, I met with the board chair and also with the board to decide on the next steps. Again, financial accountant, we offered that, we offered proposal writing as well. So we’re doing the best we can to

support NCS and CKLB and I told the board chair that I’d like to meet with him again as a follow-up. So there’s that constant contact that we’ve established. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Page 65, education and culture, operations expenditure summary, $244.200 million. Next on the list I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to my colleague for that reprieve. I’d like to get back into it just for one moment to see if I can penetrate the finances, which I’m sure are my shortcomings, not the Ministers.

Just to follow up on the last response with regard to the board funding, I understand that the reduction would be less this coming year than in the current one. Does the thing return to zero every year, sort of zero-based funding? In other words, it’s not cumulative and the funding reduction will actually be less this year or this coming year than last from the original amount at the beginning of this fiscal year. Am I understanding that correctly, if I said it at all clearly? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Lovely.