Mahsi. When I say school boards, it would consist of those experts that are in the field, the professions. So it was generic when I said school boards, but they will be involved with the professionals and experts in the field. I’ll get Ms. Martin to elaborate a bit on the difference between $131 million or $150 million, or Mr. Heide.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Heide.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In 10-17 you will see program delivery details broken out. Several of them are related to school funding directly. So you’ll have the $26.573 million inclusive schooling coupled with the minority language education instruction at $2.588 million, coupled with the $131.705 million, which would bring us to the 150 number. Also added to that is the $8.002 million for Aboriginal language and culture education within the schools.
Thank you, Mr. Heide. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to Mr. Heide for that. Okay, having learned that, that’s great. That’s kind of what I thought, but my other concern, I guess, or lack of understanding, is that on page 10-35 we have another number, a different number again. We’ve got 148. So from 152 to 148, can I understand what the difference is there. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. We’ll give the Minister a second here. Mr. Heide.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I get some clarification on the page number the Member is referring to?
Mr. Heide, the Member indicated page 10-35. Mr. Heide.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The 148.881 number you see referenced on 10-35 is funding that flows for the school year as opposed to the fiscal year. When we shift from fiscal year to school year the numbers are somewhat changed. So when we fund for the fiscal year into the school year, 37 percent of that would be in the ’13-14 portion of the fiscal year and 63 percent would be in the next portion of the fiscal year. So it’s a matter of changing between fiscal years and school years.
Thank you, Mr. Heide. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my time is up.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. I’ll just give you one final supplementary to this question. Ms. Bisaro.
I don’t know, Mr. Chair. I wasn’t quite ready for that. I think I’ll just leave it at that. I appreciate the explanation and I think I knew that and had forgotten. So I’ll have further questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Again, I’m moving on with the second round of questioning. I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the involvement of elders in our schools. If the Minister could just briefly let me know which schools have elders in their schools and where the funding is coming from. If he could provide me with the department’s plans of ensuring that all the schools will have the best opportunity to bring elders into their schools.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Lafferty.
Beginning in 2013-14, we launched territorial Elders in Schools programming dedicating just over $400,000 to ensure the elders are actively involved through NWT schools. Our contribution is to the school boards and they decide how many elders will be hired based on the numbers. Some are larger populations and some smaller. This is also a first for us. Obviously, over time this number will increase. We know the hours elders will be working in school will be minimal with $400,000, but it will be increased over time. Mahsi.
I want to ask the Minister how many schools and school boards on record have elders in schools. I know he provided funding. I appreciate that. That’s a drop in the bucket. I want to know how many schools today. What are his plans? Can he provide the plans to us?
As I stated, part of our contribution is to all school boards. There are approximately 37 communities, but we deal with all the school boards, the $400,000. At their discretion, they hire elders on an as-needed basis, as well, so this is an initial step for us as a department. We’ve never had this before. We feel we need to have more presence in our school systems. Our prime focus is increasing this over time. Mr. Chair, all I can say at this point is our contribution is towards all the school boards. Currently, we have 37 communities that are accessing it. Obviously, we want all schools to be captured. Mahsi.
So, Mr. Chair, the funding has gone to the school boards. Is that correct?
Yes, Mr. Chair. We have to work very closely with the school boards. From there, they decide on hiring the elders on need and the hours that they should be working in the schools. Mahsi.
Just for clarification, the funding went to the schools. They are continuing working closely. This is not about working closely; this is about putting in a project that I’ve been harping on for a long, long time. The funding went to the schools. They have the funding. Does the Minister know today from the school boards how many elders are in the schools?
We need to get that information from the school boards, the detailed information. I don’t have it in front of me today. Based on our contribution, it is specifically to hire elders in schools. In the 37 communities I have highlighted, the $400,000 has been disbursed to the school boards and it’s at their discretion to hire the elders through our contribution. Mahsi.
I look forward to that information given the long, continuous push from my side, at least, to have elders in schools. I thought the Minister would have the information on hand because it’s such a high priority for me to have elders in schools. I am a little bit disappointed the Minister doesn’t have the information at hand to tell me how many elders are in school right now and how the education boards are working as to what ways of putting these valuable professors into our schools. I will leave it at that.
My second question I want to ask on the culture and heritage section. This afternoon I recognized a geographical name of a mountain that is bordering on the Yukon/Northwest Territories border close to mile 222 on the Canol Heritage Trail. Is this something that the department is working towards in the North that there are some original names that should be brought back into the geographical naming of our territory? There are some strong Aboriginal names that haven’t been recognized, but we certainly have given recognition to other names. Certainly that has wiped off the Aboriginal identity to their area and their land. We are talking some pretty strong names that now we haven’t put on to the name of our land. I can speak about the Mackenzie Valley Highway, on some bridges, river crossings, trails. There are some hills that are given some pretty non-essential names for us like Seagram Creek. That’s not the original name. I don’t know where Seagram came from or Devil’s Canyon.
Is there any project to recognize our traditional names in the North?
Just to touch on the first one, as the Members know, the Elders Program started just last September. We’ve just started our second semester now. We will be providing detailed information on the elders who are in school. At this point, we are still going through the first phase, the first year, but we will provide that information.
With respect to the geographical names, historical sites, traditional name, there has been some recent announcement with the Member’s riding and even prior to that with the Gwich’in, the Degee area. There are all these different traditional names that have been highlighted. We are very proud of that work. It’s continuous work we have been doing with the museum. We are working very closely with the Andrew family and other proponents, the discussions we are currently having with other regions as well. So, I can assure you that there will be more of these geographical names or sites will be announced and highlighted as we move forward. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
I’ll look forward to those mountains, as the Minister stated. My last question is on the adult and post-secondary education. Information I got from the department I am very appreciative of. It shows a number of technical training programs on our campuses in the Northwest Territories. Mine right now is the interest of the Sahtu students on these campuses. I have enrolment of campus and community programs in the Sahtu region of the students who are taking some form of post-secondary training or education. We have 81 students in those institutions today.
What type of career guidance do these students receive as they are going through their training programs to hook up with potential jobs? We also have, potentially, a high number of graduates in the Sahtu this year, maybe 47. What is the career guidance that we are giving these students once they finish Grade 12? Are career officers going into the school in March or April to say this is where you’re going to be going to, about post-secondary trades or whatever? Are we going to be doing that, especially in the Sahtu?
We provide detailed information to the Member. He alluded to the 81 students. We should be proud of those students advancing their education whether it’s through Aurora College or adult learning centres in communities. Obviously, we want them to succeed even further, whether it is trades accessing programming or whatever. The Member asked what happens for them in Grade 12. Obviously, we want to have supporting mechanisms in place for them through the high school programming or even the college. We are currently working very closely with the college, as well, to provide those supports. Even within our department, there is a career development shop that we’ve been pushing those students. There are training coordinators in the Sahtu region pertaining to job placements. As the Member knows, there is a committee consisting of all these different industry representatives and we are on there as well as the community.
Job placement is very important. We’re doing what we can as a department to provide those options to students. At the end on the day, we want those 81 students the Member is referring to to succeed in life. We will do what we can to push that forward with the communities. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Committee, the chair is calling for a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
Committee, we are on page 10-17, activity summary, education and culture, operations expenditure summary, $241.213 million. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard a lot of questions here about early childhood development in the last couple of days. I have a motion that I’d like to read, please.
Go ahead, Mr. Moses.
Mr. Chair, I move that this committee recommends that the government reallocate an additional $2 million from its existing budget to early childhood development in order to achieve the priorities set by the 17th Legislative Assembly. Thank you.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I have here in my hands is the Early Childhood Development Framework of the Northwest Territories. In this framework we have seven commitments made by both the Department of Health and Social Services and Education, Culture and Employment. Within these seven commitments, we have 22 areas of action and underneath that, 39 deliverables and somewhere in the area of about 82 targets. I’m not sure if I counted them right. That’s just for this year alone, so moving forward I have a lot of questions about where we should be putting dollars.
When I look at these commitments, areas of action, deliverables and targets, I’m feeling that we’re not sure if the department has enough dollars to meet the needs in this upcoming fiscal year.
There is a strong link between health and education. What’s been reported from experience during the early years with education strongly influences lifelong health as well as learning.
In reading what other frameworks have shown, “Quality early learning experiences have the potential to improve children’s overall health and well-being for a lifetime. Similarly, children who are healthy tend to learn better, further underlying this connection.”
So, I’m just trying to support what the department is doing. I’ve given them acknowledgement and recognition at the start of this discussion today. We just want to continue to further support and ensure that this department and government have the necessary resources to enact this action plan with early childhood development. I am obviously in favour of the motion. I would encourage other Members to speak to it as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Next I have Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate Member Moses for bringing this motion forward. If this isn’t apparently clear right now, you’ve heard from numerous committee members on their passion on this area of early childhood development. Now, we may not always agree on the actual steps or the age group per se, and we know that the department is working quite well in getting their junior kindergarten up and running, and I do support that initiative. You’ve also heard from many committee members that zero to three or the month five to month nine. I’m sure anyone who does enough research can probably dig up any study that will corroborate anything in that area of childhood development, and I think there are some good ideas out there.
That said, I can just imagine what’s going through Cabinet’s mind right now going, you know, we’re on a fiscally tight budget, we’ve got a lot of initiatives on the agenda. How can we afford another $2 million? What’s going through this committee’s mind that would allow us to even conceive that, given the fiscal restraints that we continuously hear when motions are brought to the floor of the House? That’s a good question. This committee as well as Cabinet as well as the entire Northwest Territories have waited over two years for this early childhood development to come into play. We’ve heard a lot of good things, and I think over the years, this committee and individual Members have supported the initiatives, waiting feverishly to see these actions and these steps to be put in motion.
I think we just heard from Mr. Moses, this is a fairly daunting action plan where this committee feels that we’re not actually putting enough money to achieve meaningfully, the results that, I think, everyone is hoping to resolve this. This motion basically gives that direction to say, listen, we support this initiative, which I think is a good thing. No one should read negatively into this motion. What we’re saying is we’re supporting what is being done. We’re just saying let’s put a little bit more grease on that axle so that we can achieve what is meaningful to the people of the Northwest Territories.
I can tell you that in this committee structure in this very House, we will spend less time debating on $20 million, $30 million, $40 million, $300 million for new highway construction, and that goes with very little debate, and yet sometimes we’ll sit here and we’ll talk about a $2 million project, a $1 million project when really that’s less than one kilometre of new highway. I always find that mindboggling in this room. What will benefit the future of our territory and we put so much debate into it, and yet other pieces of equipment or infrastructure barely see the light of day and barely get debated. It’s usually just approved, because, yes, infrastructure is the right way to go. I’m not saying that it isn’t. I’m just saying that this is something that will greatly shift.
This motion is setting the course of a paradigm shift in our thinking. It’s saying, listen, let’s put more money where we’re going to get a bigger bang for our dollar. Let’s put more money in something that we’re going to have a tangible benefit for the future of the Northwest Territories, and nothing more.
This is not about a power struggle. This is not about a bunch of Regular Members who don’t understand dollars and cents. Members on this side of the House clearly understand the budget and clearly understand the fiscal restraints that we’re facing. We’re saying let’s put more money where it really counts, and it counts in our people. If it’s not apparently clear what I’m indicating today or what my rationale is for this motion, I will be in support of this motion, and I will actually be calling for a recorded vote.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is no question, I think the record is strong and clear on the national and international front that early childhood development is the best possible investment that any government can do, that any nation can do, that any jurisdiction can do, in terms of education, reducing corrections costs, and economic development. The list goes on. Health and reducing health costs, generating local economies. The list goes on and on. Family integrity, social structures. These are completely well documented, especially when there’s a clear and consistent focus starting with the early years.
The Minister has said he would like a discussion and clear direction with committee, and I think this is an important step in trying to provide that when we talked about, for example, community family resource centres. Community family resource centres have long been a focus, a major focus for Members. We have tried repeatedly to fund these over the years, and we have put money in place and called for them repeatedly, and given the return that has been demonstrated from these sorts of investments, we are nothing less than flabbergasted that the department is not moving aggressively forward on this front. This motion is the dreary and pedantic but totally consistent next and latest attempt to get these key tools in action on early childhood development.
I will be supporting it, and I hope the Minister takes this, once again, as direction. I’m feeling like after all our input, the department is still unilaterally going forward with their own programs, and they’re not totally useless. I think there’s some important work being done on lots of fronts, but we don’t feel there is sufficient and we don’t feel the department has been listening to our call for an early years focus through, for example, child and family resource centres run by community organizations and with support from this government in at least most of our communities. I’ll be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am in support of this motion. I think my comments yesterday indicated that I believe very strongly that we need to put more effort, more consideration, more design into our early childhood development budget. The department is set on implementing junior kindergarten, and that’s fine. It’s a good program. I don’t have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that we are not putting the same focus on our zero to three children, and we need to put more money into that area. Other Members have spoken to the benefit that we get from focusing on zero to three, so I don’t need to repeat that, but simply to say that I strongly support the positions that they’ve put forward.
I think Mr. Bromley mentioned that the Social Programs committee has discussed this issue many times, and it is not just within the last six months that we’ve been discussing it. This has been discussed since I have come here. It’s not an either or. It shouldn’t be programming for four-year-olds or programming for zero to three, and that’s what this motion is trying to convey. It is an issue we’ve been trying to convey for quite some time. We should be doing programs and we should be enhancing programs in both areas, and unfortunately, the department has decided that junior kindergarten is early childhood development, and so four-year-olds are going to get the benefit but we’re not going to put the money that is required and that is necessary into zero to three, and that is extremely unfortunate. As Mr. Bromley said, I hope that the department hears us this time around and does take our direction.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Once again, I cannot be supporting a motion that’s including additional dollars to the budget. I know the mover of the motion originally said in the motion to reallocate, but it also says an additional $2 million, so I can’t support the motion with that. We’ve got a bigger fight coming ahead of us. We’ve still got a $30 million reduction in the next fiscal year. All Members are aware that because of the late new information on deductions and taxes that we were going with the printed budget as we speak, and that further reductions will be coming next year. My experience has been that even if they add another $2 million, that’s actually a $4 million loss of potential programs and services that will be rolling out to the regions and communities. With that, I can’t support that.
The line item early childhood development already has in excess of $8 million in it already. I know that Members on this side want to speed up the Early Childhood Strategy but all things come in time. You have to take a slow, progressive pace at it. Once again, I’m still not convinced by us giving the government $2 million that it will be spent the way that we want it to be spent.
So with that, once again, I can’t be supporting this motion. I do support early childhood development, I do support the strategy that was put forth and I’ll continue to support that strategy as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that reading the motion very carefully, it does say a reallocation of an additional $2 million, so there might be the appearance of, when the word is additional, it’s really meant addition to the programming, not necessarily to the overall bottom line of the budget. That’s the way I read it and I think that’s the way it was intended. I do hear Mr. Menicoche’s point, but that’s why I want to reaffirm I read it and I think a lot of other folks do as well.
That said, I think it’s given enough of a parameter and design with the flexibility to allow the department and certainly the government, through the – goodness, I hate to say this word – through the government’s wisdom, to find a way to do that. This is committee members trying to help support the initiative that’s being led by the government and certainly by the Minister. I have yet to have a single person tell me that junior kindergarten isn’t important. This is re-profiling money, and sometimes we think we can offer the best advice, we know that sometimes if we just say look, this is clearly what we want, help us help you, and this is exactly what this is, is a motion that Members want to help government further the ideals and benefits of junior kindergarten. So again, this is just about re-profiling the money, reallocation within the government and we feel like $2 million is necessary to achieve the goals as prescribed.
We could talk at length, and as much as I would like to talk at length, we all know the benefits of junior kindergarten. Everyone is completely sold and I am an absolute believer in its benefits and I want to thank the department for building this into a giant pillar for long-term educational plans. That work is important. I admire the expertise they bring forward in the briefings. I mean, we have some top quality people providing this guidance and that should not go understated. We have got some really good insight on this. The only concern is we want to make sure that it gets off on the right start. This being, of course, good advice from Members of government, I would hope government would heed our advice and jump on it and say, my goodness, what a great idea. It’s not too familiar for government to think that way. They have every opportunity to agree with us, so I would like this to be the occasion. I believe a recorded vote has already been asked for, so there’s no sense in repeating that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Even though I am a major supporter of early childhood development, at this point I am not in favour of reallocating any additional money at this time. The reason being, last year, when we did ask for increases to our budget, it took away from other areas within the department and that has really been felt within the communities.
Inclusive schooling, for example, I think the department is moving ahead. I know this year is the first year we are doing junior kindergarten. Some people may not be in favour of that, but in the smaller communities it has a huge impact. I know a lot of people are very thankful and positive about that and are looking forward to how it could work better.
The department is also doing very well with the Head Start program in many of the communities. It is very successful. I know one thing we need to do is add more training and that’s one area that can be done during the summer to prepare for next fall and I’m really looking forward to that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I fully agree with the Members that we need to invest into our early childhood and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re putting $8.2 million into this budget in ‘14-15 for early childhood development and learning. The majority of it, $5.1 million, is going towards daycare and day home subsidies, healthy children initiatives, small communities initiatives and also…(inaudible)…top-up.
These are key investments into our communities and I am fully supportive of that as well. Also, the Department of Health and Social Services deals with all these different deliveries into the communities to focus on zero to three, so we are working very closely with them to deliver those subsidies to support those zero to three years of age as well.
Mr. Chairman, not to elaborate further, I just want to highlight, we are currently in a process, once the budget is approved, $8.2 million will be going towards that to the communities. As this is direction to this government at this time, Cabinet cannot support this motion. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.
