Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. I would like to start by noting that board budgets are being cut while boards are being asked to deliver even more services to students. A recent study by the NWT Teachers’ Association, entitled “Understanding Teacher Workloads, A Pan-Northern Teacher’s Time Diary Study” underscores how teachers are becoming so overloaded with new duties that their opportunity to educate is reduced.
Can the Minister ensure the House that the findings of this study are being considered and that school boards will have the resources they need to deliver the right level of education that the students of the NWT deserve? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Rolling out the junior kindergarten across the Northwest Territories, as I committed, starting this fall, Phase I, next year Phase II, the following year will be Phase III, and I met with the board chairs and superintendents just May 13th, I believe, two weeks ago. I did hear them and I wanted to hear their perspective and due to the fact, I’ve made some changes, I’ve made some commitments where delivering is optional starting this fall. So all of those 29 communities will have the option of delivering that in their communities and also providing half-time as opposed to full-time.
So those are a couple of ideas that came forward and I’ve listened and I’ve committed to it. Some of the areas that the Member is alluding to are cutbacks. When you look at the overall funding, there’s been a low enrolment in several schools. Due to that fact, part of the process will be the board will have to decide on where those impacts will be. Our contribution is based on enrolment, but as part of a long-term solution, we are looking at school formula funding as part of the Education Renewal Innovation.
So those are the discussions that we are currently having with the board chairs. Mahsi.
Thanks for the response from the Minister. It sounds like there’s some progress being made there and I appreciate that. His choice of the word “commitment,” I might use the word “edict,” and I appreciate the fact that he’s backing off on edicts and starting to listen here and respond.
In the Yellowknife school boards, I hear from a teacher, for example, that with the cuts that are planned – and there has been no backing off from those that I’ve heard about – his class sizes will go from 28 to 33, to 33 to 40. That’s off the chart. People want to know how this government can reduce the funding to Yellowknife school boards, add 120 students and also maintain pupil-teacher ratios. Mahsi.
Yesterday I met with the two board chairs of Yellowknife, YK 1 and the Catholic School Board. Both chairs aired their concerns and issues and brought some ideas to me to work with. Resulting from the meeting, obviously, is that we have two different numbers. We have our departmental, based on enrolment projected numbers, and they have their numbers. What has been produced in, of course, the media is kind of misleading. This is the information that we need to gather. We need to sit down. Both parties committed, and as we speak, the Catholic School Board, I believe, is meeting with my senior staff within my department, and the next day, tomorrow, will be YK 1, so we can compile the actual facts, the numbers that we can share with the general public. Those are some of the areas that we will continue to push forward. I did make a commitment that my staff will be meeting with them, so that’s what’s happening right now.
That is a significant commitment that the Minister has made here, and I appreciate learning about that today. I think it’s good that the two entities get together and explain their numbers and come up on agreement with what the numbers are. I will expect that will reduce class sizes. If it doesn’t, we’ve still got some work to do.
As a rule of thumb, though, demand for implementing new programs should be backed by new ECE funding. Yet, Yellowknife school boards are laying off teachers and staff because ECE is taking money away right now to provide junior kindergarten in the smaller communities and now at a reduced rate, so maybe there’s some relief in sight. But ECE is requiring JK in all NWT schools within a couple years, including in Yellowknife in 2016, so what assurances can the Minister give to Yellowknife school boards that new funding to implement junior kindergarten in their schools will be forthcoming, not just replacing some of the money that they’re taking away this year and next?
I am very pleased to announce that as of this past Friday, May 23, I have been informed that 22 smaller community schools have committed to offering junior kindergarten in communities starting this fall, out of 29. The following years will be the remaining regional centres and also Yellowknife. When I met with the board chairs, we talked about that. We talked about the PTR. There is additional funding that is going to the school board. That’s why I said we’re working with them. We’re working with the finance directors so we can gather the facts. With the numbers that have been shared the last couple of weeks, it is not accurate information anymore. We have the actual numbers, the true numbers that we need to share with them. Based on that, it will reflect changes of the numbers that have been addressed in the media.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t hear the positive response I’m looking for there. I heard a repetition there. The funding formula at ECE has what the Yellowknife school boards state, that the budgets for their operation will be funded at 80 percent of the GNWT estimates and 20 percent by the local taxpayers. The Minister subscribes to this. He has said this in letters. The teachers of Yellowknife deserve the same pensions as all other teachers in the NWT. If not, please explain that.
Why is the Minister not willing to apply the government’s own funding formula to the pensions of teachers in Yellowknife while not hesitating to pay 100 percent of costs for teachers throughout the rest of the Northwest Territories, and I would note, we’re just talking about the incremental amount, 80 percent of the incremental amount here now to bring the pensions up to a fair level?
From JK to pension. This is an area that two DEAs, in their choice, very different from the rest of NWT education authorities. They are very independent employers and negotiated directly with their own bargaining units when they negotiated a few years back. They also own their own schools, and they are the only education authorities in the territory that can raise their own revenue through school taxes.
As independent employers, both YK1 and YCS are responsible for planning any financial implications that flow from the decision to agree to a new pension cost to ensure that they are consistent with delivery of educational programming across Yellowknife. The GNWT has no role in or responsibility for the YK1 or YCS collective bargaining process or the implementation of the collective agreements. GNWT respects and supports the desire of the YK school boards to operate at a greater degree of independence and their responsibility.
Those are some of the incidents that are undertaken with the negotiation of their agreement. We were not part of that.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Human Resources. It’s going to reflect on the Member’s statement I made earlier in terms of the northern living allowance. I’d like to ask the Minister, first and foremost, the question that we know that negotiations between the GNWT and the Union of Northern Workers is done on an annual basis, and whether or not the negotiations are positive or negative or they’re even concluded to, so I want to ask the Minister of Human Resources if the northern living allowance rates for the 2014-2015 year were not agreed to, would the rates have stayed the same as 2013-2014?
Thank you, Mr. Moses. The Minister responsible for Human Resources, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a negotiated item, as the Member indicated. A negotiated item between the northern union workers and the Government of the Northwest Territories. It’s based on a methodology of comparing costs to Yellowknife. It’s based on transportation and the cost of living components. As we get the consumer price index and the cost of transportation, using the methodology predetermined between the union and the Government of the Northwest Territories, we set the northern living allowance.
I do know the answer that the Minister has given; it was also something that I had stated in my Member’s statement earlier today. I asked the question if it was not agreed to. When you’re going to negotiations, both parties need to agree on the end product, so the GNWT seeing, when they look at some of these numbers, we have four communities who have lost over $1,000, decreased over $1,000, and in one community in the case decreased by $2,628. That’s almost two paycheques for somebody that might be in a low-level paying job.
I’d like to ask the Minister, again, if these were not agreed to, would the rates have stayed the same as the previous year of 2013-2014, and why was it not red flagged when we see these numbers?
I should have been clearer in my response. I apologize for that. What I was indicating was that it is a negotiated item, so it was agreed to. The methodology was agreed to and it’s been left up to the Government of the Northwest Territories to do the annual adjustments. The northern living allowance was not an item that was on the negotiating table. The last time we negotiated an agreement with the Union of Northern Workers, they felt that they were more interested in the salary portion of it, the increase in the salaries, and they were satisfied with how the northern living allowance was being paid out, and they were satisfied with the methodology, which we are continuing to apply. If the union, which we are going to be going back to the table at the next agreement, indicates to us that yes they definitely want to renegotiate the northern living allowance or the methodology that we’re using such as adding other components to the cost of northern living, then that is something that would go into the negotiation mandate from them and we would respond accordingly. Thank you.
I want to speak to the community of Inuvik and the decrease in $383. Although it’s lower than most of the other communities that decreased, coming from Inuvik, we know the utilities are a lot higher than what they were in previous years and that $383 does help out the middle-income family. That’s two weeks of groceries right there, or even paying utilities. We’ve got residents who are going on payment plans to pay utilities, yet we are decreasing the northern living allowance in those communities. I did ask the Minister why this was not red flagged and not agree until something could be adjusted in these negotiations.
Obviously, when we look at Section 41.(7) of the Public Services Act, I’d like to ask the Minister, will amendments be made to this section of the act to adjust such things as the high cost of fuel, as mentioned earlier by some of my colleagues, in the smaller communities and have that adjusted? Are amendments going to be forthcoming to this act, specifically to section 41.(7) of the Public Services Act? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are no planned amendments to that specific section of the Public Services Act, the section that indicates that the Collective Agreement will not deal directly or indirectly with any payments that relate to owner occupied rent space. Anything to do with the cost of housing is not a part of this agreement, so there is no plan to amend that. We are bringing the Public Services Act forward for a couple of minor amendments at this time. If committee wishes to expand upon the review of the Public Services Act, I am sure the department would be willing to have that discussion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Short, final supplementary, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister whether or not there is anything this government can do right now to go back to the table and renegotiate the rights that came out of the 2014-2015 northern living allowances in Inuvik. The $383 decrease did bring a lot of people’s concerns forward to my office. I know that’s only $383 and there are smaller communities with higher decreases. I can’t imagine what they’re going through right now.
Is there anything we can do to go back to the table and revisit this, renegotiate the 2014-2015 northern living allowance rates of the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated to the Member, I am sure that if the northern union wanted to put this on the table the next time around, it would be something that government would certainly discuss. At this time there’s a pre-determined agreement on the methodology that we’ve applied. We’ve applied the methodology to 22 of the 34 communities that are under this agreement and have increased. So we must recognize that this was a give and take and that there are some increases and some decreases. I also recognize that the cost is high, but this is something again that was pre-determined, agreed to the methodology. So I’m sure the northern union is listening to our debate and if they want to put that on the table as one of the items in the negotiating mandate, then GNWT again would be prepared to talk about that item as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Human Resources. I want to follow up on my Member’s statement. On October 1st of 2013, some eight months ago, we had a grand change in the way that we advertise for GNWT jobs. We weren’t going to advertise specific jobs any more, we were going to have generic ads, people had to have an e-mail address and they could apply online, and so on and so on. It was a grand improvement, we were told.
I’d like to know from the Minister, if it was such a great improvement, why the change that we’re now seeing in the newspapers in the North? What happened that we went back to some of the new and some of the old? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the positions would be advertised in the paper. There were a lot of issues coming from some of the smaller communities that indicated they were having difficulty with e-recruitment. We recognized that we have a system where we have indicated to individuals that we would be posting jobs in various places throughout the small communities and offices, municipal governments, with government service workers, with career development officers and so on. But even at that point, there were still some requests to advertise some of the jobs back in the paper, so we’ve made some provisions for some special jobs back in the paper, but not at increased costs. We’re still with the idea that we had originally asked all people that we interview, where and how they had obtained the job ad to apply for the job. Only 3 percent of the people were getting their advertisements from the paper, so that was the reason for the original cutback. But the reason for the slight change is just to try to reach everyone that we intend to reach. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister for that response. I know this is why we went to the one big ad, having people access jobs online and so on. I’m pleased that there’s been a recognition that obviously some jobs need to be advertised specifically.
The Minister mentioned that there’s been no increased cost to have what I’m seeing as twice the amount of ads that we had before, so I’m finding that very difficult to understand.
Can he explain to me how we have gone from one ad and now we have one ad and sometimes six others? How is that not an increase in our advertising costs? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the department was seeing the cost of advertising escalating every year. Since we’ve gone to this system in October, we are able to stabilize the cost and we are within that cost and we’re not increasing the budget to add on some of the jobs. This is something that was discussed between our department and the papers.
Right now a lot of what we’re doing with advertising, we’re doing a lot of generic advertising. All the departments are cost-sharing, so we’re getting economies of scale on that. So that’s one of the ways that we’re bringing the costs down in that area in order to pay for specific ads that may go into the paper that’s needed. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister. If I understand this correctly, as of October 1st the cost for our ads went down because we were placing fewer ads. So from a year ago, so I guess from the 1st of April of 2013 to the 1st of October of 2013, we had a cost for ads. After October 1st our cost went down. So now, if I understand the Minister correctly, he’s telling me we’ve increased the number of ads, so that presumably has increased our cost, but we haven’t gone over the cost that we incurred as of April 1st of 2013. Is that right?
So, we reduced our cost in October; now we’ve cranked it back up, but we haven’t gone over last year’s total, so that’s good. Is that right? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I don’t have all of the cost breakdowns of all the types of advertising that we’re doing. Our initial intent was to do a couple of things. One was to contain the cost of advertising and also not spend a lot of money on advertising that was not being used. Like I indicated, only 3 percent of the ads that were in the paper were the reasons that individuals were applying. So this is what we’ve managed to do. We’ve managed to maintain the cost. We’re not increasing the cost of advertising across the board, but we are making some special provisions to make sure that we’re reaching people who are indicating to us that were not able to see the ads. They can see the general, generic advertisement in the paper but aren’t able to access it online. In those cases, we are doing that without increasing our overall cost. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Minister, I think. I guess I would like to ask the Minister if he could provide some kind of analysis of the numbers of what the costs were prior to going to the big online ads and what we’re now incurring in terms of cost.
The Minister mentioned that there was reason for the changes, that we weren’t reaching a certain number of people. What kind of analysis was done by the department before they made the change to put job-specific ads in there? Who did they speak to? What kind of consultation or analysis was done? Thank you.
The only analysis that was done was to determine where people are getting their ads from in order to fill out their applications and apply for a specific job, and the answer was that only 3 percent was coming from the paper. So that is essentially the analysis. It was more that we looked at the cost of advertising. A lot of the cost was in print advertising in the paper for specific jobs, and only 3 percent of the people recruited had actually received their advertisement through the paper and applied because of what they saw in the paper. That was the analysis done.
Also, I am prepared to provide a cost comparison of what was there before October 1st, what has happened since October 1st, and if we had done specific job advertising, the cost of that as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today will be to seek information on a statement made in the House by the Premier on Thursday, March 13, 2014. To provide context to that, the Minister of MACA told me personally that he would be leaving on Thursday, March 13th, which is a session day, so he could go home and gas his truck up on his way to Whitehorse as he goes to the Arctic Winter Games. So I draw the House’s attention to page 5 and I quote the Premier in Hansard: “I wish to advise Members that the Honourable R.C. McLeod will be absent from the House today to attend to a personal matter.”
My question to Minister R.C. McLeod as Minister of MACA is: Is it to find that doing your duty by gassing up your truck so you can drive to Whitehorse, is it clear execution of your duties and responsibilities as a Minister to this House when you’re to be here, ready and able to answer questions of Members? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister R.C. McLeod.
Thank you. No end to the surprises from the Member.
I did go back to Inuvik, gassed up my truck, drove down to Whitehorse on my way to Fairbanks to attend the Arctic Winter Games. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, on page 32 and 33 of the House of Commons Procedures and Practices it says that in terms of ministerial responsibilities, Ministers have both the individual and collective responsibilities to the House, and as such, Ministers are expected to take responsibility and defend their decisions and all Cabinet decisions.
My question for Minister R.C. McLeod is: How does he reasonably expect to do this if he’s, as he stated earlier, not in the House, travelling on personal business?
Order! Minister of MACA, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure what the Member is trying to prove, but I was representing the Government of the Northwest Territories at an international event and I stand by that statement. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, Members had questions for the Department of MACA and I’m asking the Minister the fact that the Alaska games were several days after that particular day in question, so he could have reasonably been there. So I’m asking the question to the Minister: How does he make himself reasonably responsible and available to Members of this House so that we can ask pertinent questions? This has been stated on the record by the Premier. I’m just asking, how do we do our job if he doesn’t come to work? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, it was going to take me a while to get to Fairbanks and the Member had five weeks prior to ask the Minister of MACA questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
No problem, Mr. Speaker. It’s a Member’s privilege to ask a question when they choose to. It’s a Minister’s responsibility to be available for the question when the question is asked, so don’t make it my fault.
My last question, of course, to the Minister is: What are we going to do about this particular situation that he’s not coming to work? What type of responsibility, being available to Members so we can ask questions that are important to the constituency? I’d like to understand what will be done. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I had been here for five weeks prior and I’m not saying when the Members can or cannot ask questions, but the Member’s MO, as has been demonstrated in the past, is to ask questions of a Minister he knows is not here. I had gone to the Arctic Winter Games…
---Interjection
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I draw the attention of 23(i), imputes false or hidden motives of other MLAs. Mr. Speaker, he just made a clear accusation to me that my MO is about asking questions to Ministers who are not available. That is imputing false motives on the way I’m doing my job. That’s the issue at hand here. I think there’s a point of order and he should apologize for it. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I’m not going to allow any debate. I’ll get back to the House on that point of order.
Thank you, colleagues. I will allow the Minister to reply on that point of order.
