Thank you. Is any of this used by the Teachers' Association for the administration, or does the $2 million all go directly to the teachers for their educational advancement? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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, Mr. Chair. This isn't actually a contract arrangement. This is a right negotiated by the Teachers' Association on behalf of its members. Teachers' associations across the country take great pride in negotiating provisions like this, where they have control, more direct control, over supporting their members to advance their education. The pay grids for teachers are linked very closely to educational attainment. The higher education a teacher has, the higher pay they receive, so these things are kind of connected. The Teachers' Association manages these funds on their own, and are provided them as per the collective agreement. We don’t contract with them for this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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, Mr. Chair. There was a restatement of positions that was done, and so yes, it's not as transparent as it otherwise would be within the main estimates. There is one position, the registrar position, that is moving from Hay River to Yellowknife. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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, Mr. Simpson. Ms. Haener.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This position, the registrar's position, has been operating on its own in Hay River for a number of years. It's actually supervised from Yellowknife, and supervising from a distance can work. Technology does support that, but there are also positions within Yellowknife that help to support the registration function, and connecting those supports to that position on a daily basis, given that all the files were in Hay River, was becoming more challenging, especially within an environment where we are seeing an increasingly higher number of teacher registration requirements.
Unfortunately, the challenges we have filling positions and with teacher turnover, the demands on this position have increased considerably. We are needing to use those additional supports which are within other positions here in Yellowknife.
As well, there is an increasing need to focus at a higher level on the teacher registration function. As people would be aware, this is a function that is fairly critical in terms of ensuring that individuals have the right qualifications and the right certifications and can pass criminal records checks. Doing the registration certification process in a timely way is critical to ensuring that we have qualified and effective teachers in classrooms, and that things aren't held up due to a high workload that can't be shared out effectively amongst other individuals. 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.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Ms. Haener.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amount, the reduction of the funds that are moving to Health and Social Services, are reflected in that inclusive schooling line. The funds were attached to positions that each education authority had for counsellors, and they were not fully trained counsellors, necessarily. For example, in the Tlicho, the Tlicho chose to hire art therapists rather than fully trained mental health counsellors. When we were originally planning, with Health and Social Services, a partnership to try to change the situation in terms of counselling available to youth, it was agreed and determined that it would be much more effective having fully trained counsellors in schools, under full clinical supervision of individuals who were trained counsellors, as well. That is the model that we have gone to here. In order to make that a more viable and more cost-effective endeavour, the funds that were allocated and provided to education authorities for counsellors are being shifted over to Health and Social Services to partly offset the implementation of the whole suite of counselling services that will be available to youth in schools and communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Haener. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the detailed response. I want to move into early childhood for a moment. I think the Minister is well aware that I have often said that investment in early childhood, and I am talking about ages zero to five, is ultimately where we are going to start to overcome many of the health and well-being issues that we suffer in the territory and improve many of the social outcomes that we currently struggle with, and that this early childhood investment ultimately creates a more productive society and ultimately a better economy. I would just like to start by asking: the early childhood program grants have $98,000 identified. That has been around, it seems like, for a couple of years. Is that just a one-off that goes to one particular organization? Can we get a little bit of information on who is accessing that $90,000? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister Cochrane.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The early childhood staff grant is actually provided to staff who work at licensed childcare centres. It is provided to supplement their wages. It is provided to them directly, and I believe it's on a quarterly basis that they apply and are fund for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we move to the next line, we see the early childhood program operator subsidy. We know that this has been long-standing, and this is good. This is a grant to support licensed daycare and day-home operators. I would just like to get a little clarification on this, however. Is this where we have an identified list of operators throughout the entire territory and each one of them gets a particular amount, or is this on a case-by-case application basis? How do we dispense these funds in this line item? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister Cochrane.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The early childhood program operator subsidy is actually for daycares and family day homes, licensed; licensed daycare centres and licensed family homes. They are application-based for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a fairly significant amount of funds, $4.2 million. Are we seeing a fairly good distribution of these funds throughout the territory? Who is applying? Have we got a little coverage going into small communities, the regional centres as well as Yellowknife? Has this got a good group that is applying to it? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister Cochrane.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would love to be able to say that this is actually spread out amongst the 33 communities. The reality is that we have 11 small communities that have no licensed daycare at all, so it's not spread out. Any licensed daycare centre or provider knows of this money and should be accessing this money. I don't know why they would not be. It is not available in all of the communities until we can get those 11 communities covered with licensed childcare facilities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Okay. Thank you, and thank you to the Minister for the reply. I appreciate that there are some communities without licensed daycares or day homes at all, and so I appreciate that there would be no applications coming from there, but I am going to assume from your answer that this funding gets distributed to those communities that do. Quickly, just a comment first. Healthy Food for Learning has been pretty stagnant. While it's a significant fund, it has been staying steady at $650,000 for the last number of years, so I am going to recommend that, going forward, you should take a look at increasing that. The cost of food goes up continually. The cost of transporting it goes up continually. Eventually, the program, the actual food, getting access, is chipping away if we are not keeping up with the cost of inflation.
Lastly, because I only have under a couple of minutes here, supporting child inclusion and participation is $1.7 million, and this contributes to target the needs of children who are vulnerable, at risk, or who have specific needs. I would like to know: how is this program going? What is involved in this program, and what kind of, for lack of a better word, uptake, I suppose, is there with regard to us utilizing this program? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Ms. Haener.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When the rates for licensed childcare programs were changed a little over a year ago, there were some efforts put into examining the effectiveness of the different types of funding. There was a category of funding called "the healthy children's initiative." It was changed to the "supporting child inclusion and participation" funding category in an effort to ensure that the funding was being used for the right purpose. There were some daycare providers who were not viewing the funding as supporting children who needed additional supports and assistance, and so the change in name and the change in structuring was an effort to put a greater focus on it and to ensure that the funds were being used for the purpose for which they were intended. Almost all of the licensed childcare facilities have an interest in this, and we have been working closely with them to make sure that they understand the process to access this funding for children who need it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Haener. Mr. Vanthuyne.
I had one more. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. Okay, I appreciate that, and I am happy to hear that that is going to licensed daycare and day homes. That is where I would rather see it.
Are we doing any long-term observation and monitoring of kids over their lifetimes, or at least into early adulthood? Is there a program of that nature so that we can learn what impacts our investment is having on the benefit, not only for the benefit of the kids themselves, who are receiving the program, but also, hopefully, on the long-term reduction of the public funds? Of all of our early childhood and other programs, are there any programs where we are actually monitoring kids from youth or from infants all the way through to adulthood? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister Cochrane.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I would like to say that we monitor people right through adulthood, but I am not sure how we would do that. I am open to sitting down and talking about that, though. Currently, what we do now, though, is before children enter school, usually age five, we do the early development instrument, which tests their vulnerabilities in five areas, and then Alberta achievement tests are done annually in grade six and grade nine. We also do a middle years development instrument, and that is done annually in grade four and grade seven, and then, finally, we have a health behaviours in school-aged children, which is done every four years in grade six and grade 10. I do say that after grade 10, though, we don't have any tests at this time that are assessing developmental assets in people. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Next on the list, we have Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my last line of questioning, I was talking a lot about the registrar position as being moved to Yellowknife from Hay River, and much of the time was spent by the witnesses talking about how important the position is, and I agree, it is a very important position. I don't agree with the notion that anything that Hay River can do, Yellowknife can do better. I don't think that that is a solution, Mr. Chair, and I will leave it at that for now.
I have questions about the education authority contributions. Later on in the document here, there is some detail. It discusses how many positions are being allocated to each authority, and it discusses how much of that $156 million is going to each authority. The South Slave is going to see an increase of $200,000 in money allocated to it, yet it is going to see a decrease of 10 positions. Can the Minister please explain why the funding is going up, but then the number of positions is going down? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you Mr. Simpson. Minister Cochrane.
