Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The laws in the Northwest Territories aren't one above another. They are meant to work as a whole. They are meant to work as a unit. They are meant to be read together, Mr. Speaker, and they are meant to work together, which is not to say that they don't necessarily sometimes come into conflict one with another and that we are asked to interpret them in order to then back away to read them in concert one with another. Laws about jurisdiction, any jurisdiction in Canada, are meant to be interpreted in a way that they are consistent one with another. Rules of statutory interpretation help guide that exercise. They help provide us the ground rules around which we can interpret what sometimes seem like conflicting pieces of legislation, sometimes conflicting parts within legislation. Lawyers are often called upon to apply those rules and to try to provide opinions that, in fact, can help us understand what conflicting provisions mean, what specific provisions mean, and can help understand how to apply those different provisions depending on the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, a legal opinion is just that. It is an opinion, at the end of the day, based on one's professional judgment and best efforts, but it is still just an opinion. The final authority on any legal interpretation is done by the judiciary; it is done by the judicial branch of government, not by the executive or the legislative, and not by any lawyer. That is part of the division of responsibilities that we have. One of the examples of a piece of legislation, or parts within a legislation, that has perhaps led to quite a bit of challenge within the House, Mr. Speaker, in fact, is, of course, the Public Service Act and the Aurora College Act, and specific provisions around the hiring of the president.
These two acts deal with two very different things. The Public Service Act, at its core, of course deals with the provisions around hiring and governance of the public service. More specifically, Section 16.1 of the Public Service Act confers an exclusive authority on the Premier to make a recommendation for the appointment of all deputy minister roles. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is only the Premier who can hire or terminate someone within a role of a deputy minister.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the Aurora College Act, under Section 19, confers on the Minister of Education an authority, with consultation of the board, to appoint a president of the Aurora College. Section 2 makes the president of the Aurora College a public servant. That is important, Mr. Speaker, because most employees of the Aurora College are not public servants. Then Section 19(3) says that this happens notwithstanding what is in the Public Service Act, which makes some sense, Mr. Speaker, because, of course, as I have said earlier, it is the Public Service Act generally that would govern creating any kind of employment relationship within the public service. Whereas, in this case, someone who is the president becomes a public servant.
However, Mr. Speaker, someone who becomes a public servant by appointment as president does not become a deputy minister. The deputy minister authority, again, that lies exclusively on the recommendation of the Premier. So, unfortunately -- "unfortunately" is maybe a bit too strong. The reality is that you have sort of two different things happening, Mr. Speaker. You have deputy ministers being appointed under the exclusive recommendation of the Premier, and meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, you have the president of the Aurora College being appointed under the Aurora College Act. The president becomes a member of the public service, but not every public servant is a deputy minister, and certainly not every deputy minister becomes the president of Aurora College.
Unfortunately in this case, Mr. Speaker, this has certainly given rise to a fair bit of confusion, perhaps, and uncertainty, and led to a lot of attempts to explain in this House what has occurred when someone who was holding those two dual roles has ultimately been terminated, and whether, in fact, the Premier had the authority to terminate someone in the role of a deputy minister.
Mr. Speaker, in my view, someone who is in the role of a deputy minister can only be terminated by the Premier, which is separate and apart from the fact that someone who happens to hold a statutory appointment as president of Aurora College, that statutory appointment would be terminated by the Minister responsible; but it doesn't change or impede or take away from the authority of the Premier to terminate a deputy minister, or to make the recommendation, rather, to terminate a deputy minister. Because, again, that is the only role that has that authority to make that judgment to do that thing, and that is exactly what the Premier had done in this case and has described having done in this case. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.