Thank you, committee. Committee, we have next agreed to consider Committee Report 24-18(3), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on the Review of Bill 48, Post-Secondary Education Act. I will turn to the chair of the standing committee for any opening comments. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Development is pleased to report on its review of Bill 48, Post-secondary Education Act. The committee read their substantive report into the House on August 12, 2019. To commence its review of Bill 48, the Standing Committee on Social Development sent letters inviting input from an extensive list of stakeholders, including all municipal and Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories, and a number of non-governmental organizations.

The committee held eight public hearings on Bill 48 in Fort Smith, Hay River, Fort Providence, Behchoko, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, and Yellowknife. As well, the committee received three written submissions on the bill, from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, College nordique francophone, and N. Kabiri. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the communities who welcomed us on our travels and everyone who provided input on Bill 48.

The clause-by-clause review was held on August 6, 2019. At this meeting, the committee moved 18 separate motions to amend Bill 48. All 18 were carried with concurrence from the Minister.

Individual Members may have additional comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Are there general comments on the report? Ms. Green.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is primarily an administrative act to set up the framework for commissioning new post-secondary institutions, whether they are public or private. The real weakness of this act is that it doesn't lay out, even in aspirational detail, the terms and conditions for commissioning Indigenous institutions, of which we already have one in the NWT: Dechinta Centre for Learning. It also doesn't lay out any of the criteria for the partnership model that the College nordique is pursuing.

The fault that I find with this bill in general is that it doesn't address the institutions that already exist, while it does provide for institutions that may exist in the future. The importance of the latter is that it provides clear direction on issues such as quality assurance and advisory committees and so on that would strengthen those post-secondary educations when and if additional institutions are applied for. I think that we have done some value-added work as a committee in ensuring that there is procedural fairness in this act, and I appreciate the Minister and her staff being willing to negotiate the changes that we agreed on. Thank you.

Thank you. Further general comments on the report? Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the committee recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment consult stakeholders in the development of eligible requirements by which application for status of post-secondary institution will be measured. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order and is being distributed. The report was, I believe, distributed on Monday. The motion has been distributed. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?

---Carried

Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment target a comprehensive group of interested stakeholders in the development of regulations concerning the recognition of Indigenous institutions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Green.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard quite a bit about Indigenous institutions while we were on the road. There is, I think, some interest in creating Indigenous institutions and some disappointment that there was no detail in the act about what that might entail. What we heard was that there were stakeholders, and in particular, I recall the Gwich'in Tribal Council who said that they had already been consulted on this point. The way that the bill was developed, they are set up for a second round of consultation on the same topic. This is an area where there is a certain amount of duplication and consultation fatigue that will result, and it's not necessary. I think that the work should have been done up front on developing the section on Indigenous institutions.

Having said that, I certainly will support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?

---Carried

Thank you, committee. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment develop regulations containing a requirement that the Minister provide reasons, in writing, for his or her decisions under the act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I listened intently to committee's report on this recommendation. I am just wondering -- well, I guess I can't wonder; this isn't question period. These things are best dealt with by way of statute. You can do anything in regulations, just about, if pursuant to the contents of the act. My concern here is that those regulations may be a long time coming, and they may not be as forthcoming as we may want.

I think that, as the committee noted, there needs to be some explanation given to people who are turned down. It would have been nice to see that coming forward in legislation. The committee that I serve on has dealt with a number of these kind of decision-making pieces, and written reasons have often been sought by the committee and agreed to. We have seen that come forward. I think it is unfortunate that that didn't make it into the bill, and I know that was contemplated by committee.

Although I support this recommendation, I don't think that it goes far enough. We should be giving certainty to the public and to stakeholders that, when they are rejected for qualifications or for certification, that there is something coming to tell them exactly why. Right now, apart from the goodwill that this motion represents, there is no requirement in law for them to do so. You might just be told "no," and that's it, without any way to understand why the decision was made. I think it is imperative that, as on overall thing, government and this Assembly endeavours to ensure that written reasons around decision-making, when sought, are put into law as much as possible. Clearly that was not possible by committee, so this recommendation will have to suffice. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?

---Carried

Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.