Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Cochrane.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is a small amount that is used for administration. It's actually to provide a position for someone to do the coordinating and organize everything. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you. As the employer, why isn't ECE providing this service? Why is it contracting it out? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Ms. Haener.

Thank you, Ms. Haener. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you. If this wasn't provided for in the collective agreement, ECE would not offer any sort of educational opportunities for teachers? Is that what I'm hearing? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Cochrane.

Thank you. No, that isn't correct. This money is negotiated in the agreement, the collective agreement, but we also provide additional training. We provide training on self-regulation. We provide training on the Indigenizing education. We provide training wherever possible. Training is critical, and it's something that Education takes seriously. It's not something that we just dump on the Association of Teachers and not provide anymore. This is in their collective agreement, and then we provide training as appropriate to the needs of initiatives that we're bringing forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you. No, I appreciate that. It seems a little strange to me that, in addition to bargaining on behalf of the teachers, the Teachers' Association bargains on behalf of itself, and got a position out of it, and the fact that pay is linked to educational attainment has nothing to do with the fact that this is the union. It should be the employer who provides that. It's a little strange for me that there's this control by the union of this administrative function that really should be within government, it seems to me. The UNW isn't doing this kind of stuff, to my knowledge, so it's a little strange. I'll move onto something else because I don't have much time here, so I don't want to spend forever on this.

Under education, operations and development, I see here that the South Slave -- well, I guess it just says South Slave here. It shows that there is no net loss of positions in the South Slave. In the business plans, I was told there is no net loss of positions, and in the main estimates, there is no net loss of positions yet. I'm well aware that, in Hay River, there's a position that is being moved to Yellowknife. It doesn't show up in the business plans. It doesn't show up in the main estimates. The department never came out and told me this. I know this because Hay River is a small town. Can I get some explanation on why this information is hidden? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Ms. Haener.

Thank you, Ms. Haener. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you. Yes, and I've been in contact with the Minister about this because I can't for the life of me figure out why. I've been told that it's because of a capacity issue, so they're going to move the position from Hay River to Yellowknife, and that's going to increase capacity. It's still one person in that one position. There are no additional positions being added. There are no job descriptions being rewritten in Yellowknife to include duties that would assist that person. It just seems to be the typical response to a problem: well, let's put it in Yellowknife. I mean, I think there were resources in Hay River that could have been utilized. Maybe the Minister could let everyone know why this position is being moved to Yellowknife? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Cochrane.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There were a couple of reasons. First of all, some job descriptions were rewritten in Yellowknife to actually accommodate the support for this. They were more in line with the position. The position in Hay River did not align properly with this position. There were different categories. The other thing, one of the biggest reasons for moving it to Yellowknife was on, I believe, three recommendations or three requests from the NWT Association of Teachers who, as Ms. Haener had pointed out earlier, when people get higher education or training and things, their length of terms, their salaries increase. Timeliness was a huge issue with only having the one position. The Association of Teachers has asked us numerous times to actually be located where they are located so that they can actually have more timely responses and access to that position. It's critical for their work to support their teachers, and it was critical to have the appropriate support for that individual. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Mr. Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've received phone calls from people at the NWTTA, so I know they have access to phones. I don't know how much more timely it can be than picking up a phone and calling somebody and talking to them. I'm confused about that. It sounds again like the union is doing administrative work that the ECE should be doing. Why is the union getting involved with teacher qualifications? They're the union. They're there to protect employees, and this position is about teachers' qualifications. That's an employer responsibility. These are very thin excuses, Mr. Chair, and I'm not buying it. I think that the department really needs to take a close look at what they're doing. Instead of rewriting positions in Yellowknife, rewrite a position in Hay River. I mean it's not complicated. Put an extra phone line in the NWTTA's office, if that's what is needed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Haener. Next, we have Mr. Vanthuyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things. One is, I would like to just touch on quickly, as my previous colleague from Yellowknife Centre touched on, with regard to funding that is being reduced from inclusive schooling and is moving over to the Department of Health for youth mental health. Can the department maybe explain a little bit how the determination was made for what amount would be switched over? The reason why I ask is because I am a strong proponent of inclusive schooling, and I see, though, a clear delineation between kids who are identified as having mental health issues versus those who are having cognitive learning disabilities that inclusive schooling is really supposed to pay a lot of attention to, and so I am concerned that we are reducing this particular pot. While I appreciate the other pot being increased, because I see that as a much-needed investment, I am concerned that the specific programming around inclusive schooling has lost some funding. Can the department maybe speak a little bit as to what impacts this might have on the actual inclusive schooling programming? Thank you, Mr. Chair.