Thank you, Mr. Thompson. To the motion, Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to thank my Honourable friend, the member for Nahendeh, for laying out some of these considerations. I, too, have consulted with some people on this issue. The crux of it is, the NWT students graduate with an NWT senior secondary diploma, and not an Alberta education diploma; and although there are some course equivalencies through the NWT senior secondary diploma such as the Alberta 30-1 or 30-2 language arts course, ultimately, the NWT's diploma is standalone. Universities do not require 1,000 hours when they are considering the NWT's senior secondary diploma. Whether an NWT student has 1,000 hours of instruction per year for grades 10 to 12 has nothing to do with whether or not they will be accepted to post-secondary institutions.

I appreciate where the mover is coming from, and she clearly laid out her case for why compromise is preferable to something imperfect, however, in this case, I think the diploma speaks for itself, and how those diplomas are considered by post-secondary institutions, and as a result, I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion. Minister Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the Member for bringing forward this proposed amendment. As Minister responsible for Education, I believe that the NWT superintendents, principals, and teachers know their students best. They want their students to be successful as do all of us here in this House and to have a variety of options available to them upon completion of their high school program.

Schools will schedule the appropriate hours of instructions that they believe their students require to successfully complete their coursework. I think it is important for all Members to remember that the proposed 945 hours of instruction represents the minimum hours of instruction, not the maximum hours of instruction. Therefore, schools will still be able to schedule more than 945 hours if they feel it best meets the needs of their students. Mr. Chair, schools will inevitably make the best decisions for scheduling the appropriate hours of instruction for their students to require successful completion of their high school programs. Therefore, Cabinet is not in a position to support this motion before us. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Moses. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. First off, I'd like to thank my colleague from Yellowknife Centre for bringing forward the motion. I think I heard many of the same concerns from parents that she has. I think this was an attempt to try to find some middle ground or some kind of a compromise here and ensure Alberta equivalency and I commend her for bringing it forward. It's very important that the public hear the debate and discussion around this matter because it's still a live concern with many parents. I can agree with my colleague from Yellowknife Centre to a certain point. She said many of the same things that I said in my opening remarks on the bill itself that the change in instructional hours was not found in the education renewal. This was driven by the fiscal strategy of Cabinet, the compromise that was reached at the negotiating table, and I believe we need to get back to the education renewal initiative as the way of bringing forward further change to our educational system.

I agree that we need to invest more in our school system. Unfortunately, this bill has only given us one way of dealing with the issue of teachers being overworked and that's reducing instructional hours. I guess I can vaguely remember back to my time in the 1970s when I applied for university. The thing that you submit when you want to get into colleague and university is your transcript, the courses you took, and the marks that you got in them. That's the basis on which universities and colleges accept students. There's nothing in there about instructional hours. I'm not convinced that this amendment will change in any way the ability of our students to gain entry into universities or colleges.

The last thing, I guess, I wish to say is that as I understand it, the Alberta system – their high school level there – instructional hours are in a state of flux themselves. I think it's very difficult to specify what exactly Alberta equivalency is at this point in time let alone probably any point in time. For those reasons, I don't think I can support – I will not be supporting the motion but I do sincerely thank my colleague for bringing this matter forward for the debate and discussion on the floor today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion. Seeing no further comments, I will turn to Ms. Green to close debate on this motion. Ms. Green.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course, when one applies to university, nobody is interested in how many hours you spend in a classroom. What they're interested in is what your marks are and I continue to believe that in order for NWT students to be competitive in departmental exams and have the best chance to compete with Alberta students for post-secondary education that they need the mandatory minimum instructional hours in high school to be set at 1,000.

The last thing I want today to reflect on is that it is a mystery to me and has been for many months here that the department is adamant that every school have JK and it be uniform in every school, but when it comes to mandatory minimum instructional hours, every school can make up its own mind. Is it department setting the standards or is it whimsical? This is not clear to me as a result of this debate on Bill 16. I'd like to request a recorded vote.

Thank you, Ms. Green. The Member has requested a recorded vote. To all those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

All those abstaining, please stand. The results of the recorded vote are one in favour, 15 opposed, 0 abstentions. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Clause 4. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill 60 be amended by adding the following after clause 4. The following is added after subsection 126, subsection 4, subsection 5, the Legislative Assembly or committee of the Legislative Assembly designated or established by it shall review the hours of instruction prescribed under subsection 4 at the next sitting following July 1, 2020.

Subsection 6, the review shall include an examination of the hours of the instruction in effect of those hours of instruction on students and teachers and may include any recommendations for change to the hours of instruction.

Subsection 7, the Minister shall provide a reasonable assistance to the Legislative Assembly or committee of that it is designated or established for the purpose of this section. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There's a motion on the floor. The motion has been distributed and is in order. To the motion. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said previously, I did contact a number of people in the union and in the department and spoke about this. The union agrees. We need to do an evaluation and move forward and so has the department talked about their evaluation. What committee has done is remodeled our – modeled after the statuary requirement to review the official language act, established options to formally engage a committee, the Legislative Assembly in reviewing of its items or significant changed interest.

We also picked the date of saying we wanted the sitting as of July 1st, which normally will be September or October sitting, so this will be reviewed at that time. Review of the Bill or this amendment would need to cover hours of instruction and their effects on the students' achievements and its teachers while we're looking at how it's impacting not just the teachers but also the students, seeing how it works on it.

Finally, through this whole process, the reviewing committee may make formal recommendations to the government coming out of the review. In other words, we'll make formal reviews. It won't be a tabled document. This is the reason the committee moved forward. As we said previously, we have talked to everybody and this is something that we feel would be a good amendment to the bill to make it more operational, functional, and, I guess, a good piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I will be supporting this amendment to the bill. If you look at the memorandum of understanding, this change in instructional hours was clearly characterized as a pilot project, which means that it is going to be evaluated at the end of it. This was not meant to be a permanent change necessarily, but the way the bill was drafted, this was going to be a permanent change in instructional hours. We had this drawn to our attention by some parents. I noticed it when I first read the bill. This is a permanent change. Where is the review of this?

I believe that this amendment to make the mandatory review is completely consistent with the pilot project nature of the change in instructional hours. The issue of evaluation reporting of the changes in instructional hours and student outcomes and teacher wellness has been a source of concern for parents and MLAs. While there is greater clarity than when we started the review of this bill, I do not feel confident or comfortable leaving such a review in the control of the Minister or his department. I am also concerned about our ability to actually measure meaningful changes in teacher wellness and student outcomes on an annual basis or even after three years, something other jurisdictions do not seem to be able to do.

Given the very poor communications from the Minister and his department around these changes, the evaluation should be done by an independent party or a standing committee of this Assembly, while recognizing that the Minister will make the final decisions at the end of the day, and I am sure he would consult with it Northwest Territories Teachers' Association and the superintendents.

I also want to speak to the scope of the review that is suggested in this amendment. The scope of the review is focused on student achievement, which we have heard is the main purpose of this portion of the bill, and teacher wellness. I think that sets out the scope of the evaluation, the review that would be carried out, perfectly clear. That would be done by an independent party, by a standing committee. I support that as well. I will be voting in support of this amendment. I believe this was a reasonable compromise that was put forward by the standing committee. I heard most of their deliberations and discussion on this, and I strongly support this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next, Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it is more than reasonable to have an expectation of independent oversight over the pilot project by the Legislative Assembly after there has been so much confusion leading up to this place. Although Honourable Members may have a better handle on it as anyone listening to the debate today can clearly hear, there are still many unanswered questions and many concerns raised by both parents and teachers. This amendment will allow for that independent oversight that would go alongside the internal department evaluation, and I think it is an excellent measure to allow both the department to do its work and for the Legislative Assembly to ensure that this pilot project is meeting the needs of both teachers and students. For that reason, I support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Member for bringing forward the proposed amendments. I also believe that a detailed thorough evaluation of the STIP pilot project is critical to ensuring it is successful in achieving our goals of improved students outcomes by providing teachers with time to focus on developing their instructional practises. This is why I publicly committed to share the evaluation framework with Standing Committee on Social Developments before the end of the school year and to continue working with the committee over the source of the three-year pilot.

I have also committed to providing regular public updates on the implementation, monitoring, and outcomes of STIP. This evaluation will not be conducted by the Department on its own. Instead, it will be jointly conducted by the STIP committee made up of residents from the NWT Superintendents' Association, the NWT Teachers' Association, and the Department of Culture, Education, and Employment. The STIP committee is an unprecedented collaboration between government, school board, and the teachers' association and collectively represents the education experts of our territory.

As we look to go forward with implementing STIP, we anticipate having all 49 NWT schools taking part and trialling their own unique school calendars. Already, each proposed calendar has been carefully vetted by the STIP committee before approval. We are under no illusions that all calendars will be equally successful. We will learn from each example, and schools will actively share their success and areas for improvement.

Mr. Chair, given the complexity of this initiative and the many ways it will evolve over the next three years, I strongly believe that STIP committee is in the best position to review this initiative, and as a result, Cabinet is not in a position to support this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Moses. Seeing no one further on my list, I will return to the mover of the motion to close debate. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the people that spoke to this. I stand by the committee's recommendations. I think it is a good compromise, as my friend from Frame Lake has spoken about. At the end of the day, it is about what is good for the students and the teachers. I guess, from our side, we are going to allow an open vote. People are going to vote as they feel fit. That is how we will move forward, and I would like to request a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.