EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): I will be doing my opening comments. (interpretation ends) As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Education I am pleased to make some opening remarks as we begin deliberation on the budget of the Department of Education.
The Department of Education proposed Operations and Maintenance budget for 2007-08 of $188,954,000 is very close to the department’s revised O&M budget for 2006-07.
In light of ongoing forced growth pressures, and increasing demands on some support systems, the committee would appreciate hearing from the minister what assurances he can provide that his department will be able to remain within the budget during the upcoming year.
The standing committee was pleased to review the 2007-08 Programs and Services plans for Nunavut Arctic College, which was received for the first time by the Legislative Assembly.
This document, along with the departments recently tabled Nunavut Adult Learning Strategy and the 10-Year Educators Training Strategy, details a number of initiatives to add as Nunavut’s need for educational opportunities for adults.
The committee was also pleased to note Nunavut Arctic College management’s response to the report on our review of the Arctic College.
Committee members had also expected a response from the government, especially on four of our recommendations, which directly relate to the responsibilities of the Department of Education.
Members have noted the ongoing progress towards the establishment of the Nunavut Trades School with programs to be delivered out of Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay.
Members look forward to the start of these programs. In the meantime, the committee has noted the department’s current efforts, in cooperation with Nunavut Arctic College and the Nunavut Housing Corporation, to provide trades training as a component of the Nunavut Housing Trust Delivery Strategy, which will be used in building new homes in communities across Nunavut.
Members will be closely monitoring this initiative, as concerns have been raised regarding the number of on-the-job training positions that will be available to community residents, the availability of instructors in the communities and the timely completion of the housing units.
The committee has noted that the department’s Inuit Employment Plan projects an increase in the number of beneficiaries employed in professional positions.
Members encourage the minister in his efforts to revitalize the Nunavut Teacher Education Program and support all efforts to increase the number of Inuit teaching in Nunavut’s schools.
The standing committee further believes that in order to promote and support the development of Nunavut-trained professionals such as teachers and nurses, greater efforts must be made to ensure that financial concerns are not a barrier to success.
The standing committee recommends that the minister work with his officials and representatives of Nunavut Arctic College to bring forward a proposal to provide additional financial support for students in degree-granting programs such as the Nunavut Teacher Education Program and the Nunavut Nursing Program.
The committee recognizes that the department has a number of ongoing initiatives aimed at increasing the number of high school graduates, including the Multiple Options Strategy and the Young Parents Stay Learning program.
While members support the goal of increasing the number of students who graduate across Nunavut, it is important that these graduates have attained the appropriate skills and knowledge that will enable them to access further opportunities such as post-secondary education or trades training.
The committee urges the department to closely monitor the ongoing educational achievements of its grade 12 graduates and will be requesting regular updates on this issue.
The committee is aware that the department is in the process of developing and implementing evaluation and assessment tools for math, reading and writing in grades three, six and seven.
Committee members and Nunavut parents look forward to hearing the results of these assessments and how they compare to national standards across Canada.
The role of District Education Authorities has been a point of discussion on many occasions over the past few years.
In recent years, DEAs have asked for support with cultural programming, staff hiring policies and discipline issues.
DEA members have also been involved in discussions regarding the development of community Bilingual Education Strategies, the new Education Act and other ongoing initiatives.
While the standing committee is aware that the department has facilitated the creation of a DEA Steering Committee, it is also aware that a Coalition of Nunavut DEAs has been established.
It is not clear how the Coalition works with the Steering Committee and the department to address the many issues facing our schools across Nunavut.
The standing committee anticipates the introduction of the department’s new Education Act in the near future. Members are aware that the development of this new legislation has involved extensive consultation and revision.
The Education Act introduced in the First Assembly did not pass and a number of outstanding issues continue to raise concerns.
Members urge the minister to ensure that major issues have been resolved before introducing this legislation.
The department’s business plan indicates that regulations, policies and procedures for the new Education Act are currently being developed and the committee will expect to receive these items for review as soon as the proposed legislation is introduced.
The committee is pleased to note that the department has introduced a Nunavut-wide electronic case management system for the administration of Income Support across the territory.
Members are confident that once this system is phased in, it will help to ease the workload of case-workers in addition to providing a better system for managing and monitoring the overall costs of this program.
Committee members have noted recent changes to the eligibility criteria for the Seniors Fuel Subsidy Program, which is administered through Income Support.
The committee encourages the department to make every effort to make information about this program publicly available.
Members have made recommendations that the department conduct a review of the Social Assistance regulations with a view to better supporting individuals, such as hunters or outfitters, who only have seasonal opportunities to earn income. Members look forward to the results of such a review.
On a final note, Mr. Chairman, the issue of literacy is one that concerns the standing committee.
The federal government’s recent cuts to literacy funding across Canada have had serious impacts on program delivery here in Nunavut.
The Nunavut Literacy Council has had to lay off employees, reduce programming and meet demands with fewer resources.
The committee applauds the fund-raising efforts of organizations such as First Air, which recently donated a significant amount of money to the Literacy Council.
The committee is also aware that the federal Department of Human Resources and Social Development has recently approved transitional funding so that the Literacy Council can continue its work for another year.
Members urge the minister to lobby the federal government to reinstate funding, especially in the areas of family literacy and community-based literacy.
Members further encourage the Minister to carefully consider options to fill in the gaps left by the federal cuts.
That concludes my opening remarks. Individual members may also have questions and comments as we proceed.
Before we proceed I remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak and according to Rule 77 (2), subject to the discretion of the Chair a member may speak more than once to a matter until discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
I suggest to members that whenever possible ask your detailed questions during the page-by-page review of the governmental estimates.
I thank the minister and chairman for their opening comments and welcome the minister and his officials to this Committee of the Whole.
A few things … the minister in his opening comments he talked about the Berger Report and how it reflects on education.
I think the fact that finally the department seems to be a little bit more proactive in that area of looking at evaluating the system itself with the criterion testing that they are developing. I think that’s the step in the right direction.
Another thing that they’ve done, it was attempted a number of years ago with the coalition of the district educational authorities … and the district educational authorities felt with the divisional board gone, when we dissolved those, that they had no way of working with each other to help each other out.
And it is nice to see after the second attempt of trying to get that done the department eventually came around to graciously giving consent for them to do that.
I think he talked about the fact that there’s not a whole lot of talk in his opening comments about the Education Act.
As the chairman pointed out, and I concur with him, that some of the outstanding concerns that were raised in the last Assembly with the Education Act aren’t addressed. We don’t want to be dealing with the same thing again.
There has been, you could almost say over-extensive consultations where the first time around the government said that they … volumes of consultations on it and the standing committee did consultations on it, and now the government done consultations on it again.
I really hope that in the go-around this time that they take a good look at the concerns raised by the standing committee last time to try to try alleviate some of those problems that were identified at that point in time so that they won’t resurface again. As our chairman pointed out, we will be watching for those.
So I really hope that that happens. I can suggest to the minister that the one thing that failed to happen the last time with the development of the Elections Act, you know you have a coalition for district educational authorities now.
Once they’ve developed draft legislation, to sit down with the coalition and explain to them these are the things that are changing, these are why they’re changing. And granted, no one is always going to agree with changes but at least they have the ability to know what they are and why they were made.
That was something that the department failed to do the last time around and you had a big piece of legislation sent out to all the district educational authorities saying you got two weeks to let us know what you think about it. It was a difficult task to go through legislation on its own, never mind volunteer boards trying to do it in a couple of weeks.
I would urge the minister to go through that process quite deeply with the coalition, and that will alleviate a lot of problems that could arise if that doesn’t happen. I would think that if they’re comfortable, whether they agree or not, with everything that’s in there at least they know what’s been changed, and the rationale behind why.
It would probably give them and the members of the committee and the Members of the House a little more comfort on moving forward on that.
He had indicated that he’d give us an update on it. I’d like to hear what types of areas that the department is having differences of opinions with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated on the Education Act. And see if there is something there that they’re going to be able to overcome, or is it just going to go down too, “That is what you think.
We respect that but this is what we think.” Agree to disagree and move forward rather than stalling the process.
I would like to hear from the minister what types of things they are at loggerheads on and which things can be overcome and which things can’t. What types of progress does he expect to make on that? That’s it for my general comments.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation) I would just like to welcome the minister and his officials, first of all.
Thank you for appearing before us and the main estimates are very useful. There’s about $200 million.
First of all, I would like to state that, as the minister knows, the future of our children in the schools, we have to concentrate on it.
I know in some areas there are constant challenges that we see that are new, especially when we see young adults, when they’re in school we see great challenges they have to go through because they are influenced, whereas maybe more would stay in school but there are so many challenges now.
I just wanted to state that. As the minister knows, our teachers work really hard and sometimes when our children are going through difficult times they help out the parents, especially the elders, who have children who would be in high school, a lot of times they just end up babysitting.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise some fundamental challenges I believe that we’re facing today because we are living in the geography of where there are much less choices for economic opportunities for our children, for the future of our young people. And yet we must find a way to make them succeed, even with the limited opportunities in Nunavut.
So I think having said that, the minister is faced with tremendous challenges.
We’re going through a number of exercises in Nunavut where we’re trying to establish a Nunavut-made legislation for a new Education Act.
Again, I think a number of people that participated in that process have very conflicted kind of proposals, ideologies, ideas.
And yes, I will have specific questions later on but how do you reconcile some of these broad, diverse ideas. Let’s say that even before the language legislation is established in Nunavut by legislation; how do you reconcile that the best use of Inuktitut or English language teaching is best? So where does the minister stand with that?
I know that you are developing the Language Arts Program and it’s one of the priorities but I would like to ask the minister later on, exactly where does his leadership stand with respect to presentation or the best use of language instruction?
Which one is he going to promote or is he going to let the local groups stand instead of clearly making a clearly defined language of instruction in our schools because we still have to play a role with the global challenges.
So I really believe that you have tremendous challenges. Like some of the areas that we have to look at and give serious consideration to give teachers and schools better protection.
We are now faced with situations and challenges where the teachers are faced with very difficult students sometimes.
They require security and everything else, therefore some call that bullying and everything, and security for teachers and so on.
So I think these security needs of schools really have to be fundamentally established. They shouldn’t be an option; they should be either in the regulations to that affect or something.
So I would like to see the minister clearly define what we need by providing security for the teachers as well as the measures to control bullying for the younger students that normally have disadvantages and so on.
Finally, I think the one area that I would like to point out is I really truly believe that we are not doing enough for special needs students.
I think we are doing … we have bits and pieces … pots of programs here and there but they are really not comprehensive.
However, many of the students with special needs may be young people, students that have either some disability with mental as well as a physical. We really should have the best in Nunavut. We may not be able to have a comparable program with southern students that are have special needs programs.
But, we do need some in Nunavut and we will be asking the minister how exactly he is going to address that and I think it should be closer to local schools and so on instead of being one available at that particular location here and there.
We have a very unique situation in Nunavut.
I encourage the minister to not be shy about how he is developing and improving all the challenges that we have and I fully support that because this department is really one of the most important and I think the social agency and department should also bring hope to our children as well as the fact that we have a challenge with our teachers.
I certainly hope that the teachers are fairly represented with their housing needs as well as the other benefits. If we don’t have that we will continue to have a weak system in Nunavut. (interpretation) That is all I have for now, Mr. Chairman.
I don’t mind if you conclude with that. General comments?
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This morning, since we started earlier than eight o’clock this morning I would like to acknowledge the clock and report progress.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Alagalak. Did you move a motion?
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Yes, I move the motion.
There is a motion on the floor to report progress. Motion is not debatable.
Opposed? Only one. Motion is carried.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, Mr. Chown, Ms. Okpik. Thank you. I will now report progress to the Speaker.
Report of theCommittee of the Whole.
Your committee has been considering Bill 1, and would like to report progress and that one motion was adopted. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of the Committee of the Whole be agreed to.
Mr. Curley seconds the motion.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like unanimous consent to go back to Item 5 if that’s okay with the members.
There is a request to get unanimous consent to go back to Item 5.
Are there any nays? No nay.
Our Sergeant-at-Arms’ wife Hannah Kilabuk is here and it’s the very first time that I have ever seen her in the gallery and she is from my constituency.
Speakers’ Ruling
Before we move on to Orders of the Day, (interpretation ends) I will now provide my ruling on the Point of Privilege raised by the Honourable Member for Nattilik on March 20, 2007.
In raising her Point of Privilege the member referred to the translation of proceedings in the Legislative Assembly.
The word translation is normally used to refer to words in written form, while the word interpretation is normally used to refer to the oral word.
This distinction is important, as translation services in the form of the Hansard are provided by an outside agency while interpretation services and, yes, some translation services are provided in the House.
In reviewing the members Point of Privilege, it is clear that she is concerned with the television broadcast of all proceedings and accordingly the interpretation of our proceedings.
Members of our assembly speak various dialects of Inuktitut, as well as Inuinnaqtut and English.
If a member speaks English, their comments are simultaneously interpreted into Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun.
If a member speaks Inuktitut, their comments are simultaneously interpreted into English, but the English is subsequently interpreted into Inuinnaqtun.
If a member speaks Inuinnaqtun, their comments are simultaneously interpreted into English, and the English is subsequently interpreted into Inuktitut.
Members of the House and visitors in the Gallery have four audio channels with which they can listen to the proceedings.
Those channels are Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtut, English, and the Floor.
Some, but not all of the sittings of the Assembly are also broadcast on television.
The proceedings are broadcast in only one language, rotating between English, Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtut, and the language spoken on the floor.
In raising her Point of Privilege, the member advised that in her constituency there are two distinctive dialects, those being Inuinnaqtun and Inuktitut. She further advised that her Nattilingmiut dialect is a dialect of Inuktitut.
The Member is concerned because when she spoke in her Nattilingmiut dialect it was interpreted into English and the English then interpreted into the Baffin dialect of Inuktitut.
The Baffin dialect interpretation was the language that was broadcast on television.
As a result, her constituents did not hear her speak in her dialect.
Members of the Assembly have a number of rights and immunities, referred to as “privileges.”
These rights and immunities are narrowly construed and are only those that are absolutely necessary for a member to discharge his or her duties.
They include such things as the right to be free from intimidation or obstruction in carrying out their legislative duties and the right to freedom of speech in the House.
It does not provide members with the right to have their comments in the House distributed to the public at large.
What the member has complained of relates to the operational practices of the Assembly in the interpretation and broadcast of its proceedings.
Complaints about the procedures and practices of the House are by their very nature matters of order, not privilege. Accordingly, the member has no point of privilege.
Having said that, I do wish to advise the member that I have followed up on her concern. The established practice for the interpretation of the member’s comments when speaking in her Nattilingmiut dialect is for the comments to be interpreted into English by the Inuinnaqtun interpreters. The Inuktitut interpreters do not provide any interpretation.
In this way, people in the House can hear the comments as spoken by the member, or in English.
In the event the proceedings are being broadcast, the comments will be heard either as spoken by the member or in English, depending upon the language in which the proceedings are being broadcast.
On the occasion which is the subject of the complaint, this established procedure was not followed.
It was an isolated instance of human error and, in my view, no more follow-up is required.
Again, members, I will now rule on the Point of Privilege raised by the Member for Iqaluit Centre on March 23, 2007.
The member’s concern relates to the disclosure of proceedings in Full Caucus.
The member alleges that prior to him having given notice in the Legislative Assembly of a motion to reject the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission; his intention to do so was disclosed to the public.
He alleges that such information could only have come from a Full Caucus meeting
The Member for Iqaluit Centre submits that this is a breach of Full Caucus confidentiality and accordingly, a breach of parliamentary privilege. He specifically alleges that his right as a member to freedom of speech has been violated.
In proceeding, I keep in mind that there might well be a reasonable explanation for the alleged discrepancy.
A member’s right to freedom of speech is narrowly construed. It provides a Member with protection from civil or criminal liability for things said in the House.
The protection does not extend beyond the Chamber.
Nor does it prevent other Members or private citizens from criticizing or responding to what has been said.
The House of Commons has dealt with similar concerns in relation to budget secrecy.
There is a longstanding tradition of keeping the contents of the budget secret until presented in the House.
In addition to showing respect for Parliament, this tradition also has the very practical effect of maintaining the integrity of financial markets.
However, the fact that something is a longstanding tradition does not make it a matter of privilege.
Speakers of the House of Commons have consistently ruled that a breach of budget secrecy is not a matter of privilege.
Accordingly, I rule that, even if the allegations made by the Member for Iqaluit Centre were found to be true, and I make no finding in that regard, there is no point of privilege.
We will proceed to agenda Item 22.
A reminder tomorrow morning a meeting of Government Operations and Accountability Standing Committee at nine o’clock in the Tuktu Boardroom.
Orders of the Day for March 27:
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Clerk. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Tuesday, March 27, at 10:00 in the morning.
>>House adjourned at 20:08
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Pages 980 – 1094
Opening Prayer 980
Ministers’ Statements 981