EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
One of the reasons why you see, for example, no increase in the day cares is that at any given time, we have an X number of day cares running and sometimes they close for different reasons and everything, so we have a budget in place. You might have 50 day cares you’re funding today and at the end of the year, you might only have 39 because of different reasons.
So, yes, I will make that commitment to the member that we will look at that.
Would the minister commit to involving the day cares themselves in that process?
Yes, I will direct our staff, the person who looks after in Early Learning and Child Care Services within the department, to make sure that any type of ideas would be basically used as a sounding board.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the minister, for that commitment.
The next question I want to ask and I know the total Income Support funding is there under Fees and Payments and it is... I’m trying to get the business plan to line up with the main estimates, or the other way around.
They have budgeted $30,041,000 for the coming fiscal year and last year, they had $26,603,000, and I know that there’s a reason they’re there. The revised main estimates for 2007-08 have it at around... the number in the main estimates is $31 million, but I know that includes other numbers.
Can I just get an indication from the minister of what the revised amount, specifically for Income Support, was in there for 2007-08?
I believe it’s $31,082,000.
That was the overall total number for the revised main estimates for that area but I was looking specifically for the amount for Income Support.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the number I have for the main estimates revised for 2007-08 was $31,082,000 and that includes a forced growth amount of $3,438,000.
Did all of that go towards Income Support? I know in the 2008-09 one that we’re looking at now, the amount here is $30,977,000, but the actual amount just for Income Support is $30,041,000. So I’m just wondering, out of that new $31,082,000, how much of that was Income Support?
That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
Based on the numbers that have been provided here, that entire amount, $31,082,000, was dedicated toward the Income Support Division.
On the budget increase for 2008-09, the $3,438,000 that we spoke about, it gives an example.
We increased the caseload amount by 131 and we factored those costs in, we also factored in increases to electricity cost overall, and we also increased the estimated housing increases. There could be some more new social housing coming on board and so on that the member is aware of.
So, hopefully, that helps clarify the answer.
If you look at the 2008-09 main estimates that we’re looking at now on that page G-10, it is $30,977,000 and if you go to the business plan on G-24 for Income Support (Social Assistance), out of that, there’s $30,041,000.
So there looks to be about $930,000 being used for something else, whether that’s administration... I don’t know what the other fees and payments are included in there, but to say, “We’ll just round it off to $1 million,” one would assume then that for the 2007-08 year, the revised amount of $31,082,000 that was actually spent on social assistance and income support would be $30,082,000.
I think the issue here is that on a line item, it’s just a clarification of the actual number brought forward and the cumulative number that’s in there. I’ll just have the Comptroller, Ms. Susan Nichols, to come to the witness stand just to clarify that for the member.
Welcome, Ms. Nichols.
Then, for the record, it all went to Income Support and I’m going to break it down for the member to add it to the $900,000, which is a little more than it is, as the member has suggested, or at more around the $900,000 amount.
On the total social assistance payments for 2007-08, as the member has indicated, it was $30,041,000; on the Day Care User Subsidy, it was $635,000; under the Senior Fossil Fuel Subsidy, it was $179,000; and then under the Building Careers and Compliance, it was $78,000; and under the Fees and Contract Payments under Early Childhood, it was $35,000.
That gives you the total which was the $30,977,000.
Those numbers then are cumulative on that page and then those numbers go into the main estimates book on that contingency.
That still doesn’t answer my question. My question was: the revised estimates for 2007-08, Fees and Payments show $31,082,000.
As the minister just indicated, it points out on G-24 of their business plan, $30, 041,000 is what they paid on Social Assistance and I know there are other things included in there as he just indicated.
Out of the revised amount for 2007-08 of the $31,082,000, that’s what I’m trying to find out, how much of that was paid out in Social Assistance in Income Support?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you. $30,041,000.
So then you’re budgeting the exact same amount for this year. Is that correct?
It was $27,644,000 and we got the increase we talked about and we already gave the breakdown of the $3,438,000 for a total of $31,082,000.
I don’t think he still gave me the right amount. If you look at page G-24 in your business plan, and it’s too bad I’ve got to use up all my time asking the same question over and over again, it’s showing a budgeted amount for Income Support (Social Assistance) of $30,041,000 for 2008-09. It’s also showing there for 2007-08, $26,603,000.
We know that was not the final number for 2007-08; the revised estimates show different.
So that’s what I’m trying to get at is: what did that $26,603,000 change to with the revised estimates for 2007-08? That was the initial number at the beginning of the year, not the revised amount.
Hopefully, that clarifies it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Ed Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. $27,644,000.
That was the number.
From that $27 million and whatever, I didn’t catch the rest of it, to the $30 million right now, does that reflect the 15 percent increase in fees when they increased the amount?
It wasn’t a 15 percent increase in one year, remember, it was a five percent and then a ten percent increase.
Then does that reflect the ten percent increase?
It’s my understanding that that would include that amount.
It seems like in here it indicates that there’s a larger uptake on it and costs are going up for the program, and he has just mentioned that that the ten percent increase takes into account that you’re projecting 121 new clients for 2008-09 and for last year, I think you said it was 131 or something like that.
It doesn’t seem then that a whole lot of extra money was put in there to deal with what the department seems to be indicating - the increased demand on the program. So I’m just wondering if I could get an explanation on that.
Like I said before, we did put an increase of $3,438,000 forward in this budget and we have broken that down by number. As we move forward into the fiscal year, if there’s a need for extra money and in that budget line item, then the minister would have an opportunity to go back to the FMB and say, “Look, I’m short an X number of dollars in my budget in that area.”
If I can’t distribute money internally, meaning that I’ve got a surplus in one area of the department and a deficit in the other area, if I’m not able to do that, then I have the opportunity to ask for more money from the FMB.
We feel confident with the $3,438,000 that’s been put in place, that we should be able to meet our budget expectation in Income Support.
I would like to recognize the clock and move to report progress.
I will now rise… (interpretation ends) I’m sorry; let me try that again.
We’ll continue with Branch Summary. Career and Early Childhood Services.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $41,390,000.
Chairman: Curriculum and School Services.
Branch Summary. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $13,825,000.
Chairman: Go to G-12.
I have some questions for the minister. Your department’s business plan indicates that a number of Nunavut-based curriculum modelling have been completed with IQ-based Aulajaaqtut 10 to become a “compulsory graduation requirement.”
Can you provide an update on the current status of other components on the made-in-Nunavut curriculum and when they will be included in the teaching programs?
The member is correct; we have completed a lot of curriculum for Nunavut.
In Nunavut, I think the curriculum that we have in place; I’ll just give you some examples. The Aulajut Senior Secondary Handbook for Nunavut schools is complete and that’s English from 10 to 12. The Aulajaaqtut models also include the teacher manual and the student journal.
We also have the model value - Module 1 for Valuing Values, Module 2 for Communicating and Helping, all the way through to Module 5 - and those are completed in grade 10.
We have the Nunavusiutit, which is the science teaching model, it has science and diversity programs in place and that’s grades seven to nine. Arts/science specializing and focussing on Nunavut for grades seven to nine, that’s completed, as well as Social Studies, Nunavut Land Claims, the impact of the contact of Europeans, Inuit Land Claims in the Circumpolar World for grade seven and that’s there.
We also have different resources, including the land claims website, an interactive CD for student use with a teacher’s manual and that includes Arctic Peoples and Archaeology, and several more.
Thank you, Minister, for answering the question.
In 2007-08, your department worked on a number of assessment tools for students in grades three, six, and seven.
Which of those tools are ready to be used in the upcoming school year and will the results be provided to parents and made public?
The member is correct; we have moved forward with our criterion standardized testing program and we have completed a lot of the student assessments.
We have also developed a Nunavut-wide assessment in grade three math, which is offered in all four languages, and we’re working on the grade seven writing assessment right now in all four languages.
As part of your department’s Bilingual Education Strategy, Nunavut community school organizations were required to select one of the three models of language instruction.
Could you update this committee with which communities have selected which model of language instruction to follow?
Have all schools implemented one of the three models posted by the department, and if not, which schools or communities still need to determine their language of instruction model?
The language of instruction workshops have been completed in the Kitikmeot region. We’re moving forward now in the Kivalliq and the Qikiqtani regions. Workshops have been held and completed in all of Kitikmeot, completed in Rankin Inlet, Pond Inlet, Resolute Bay, Iqaluit, Cape Dorset, Artic Bay, Igloolik, Pangnirtung, and Qikiqtarjuaq, and the rest should be completed by April of 2008, in the next few weeks.
I think the discussions have been very productive with the workshops and we’re also setting up an allocation of $10,000 per community to establish DEA Language Committees to assist with the implementation of the language of instruction.
Looking at the time, I would like to make a motion to report progress.
Chairman: Sorry, Mr. Evyagotailak, you’re out of order.
We’re on G-12.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $109,752,000.
I’m sorry. Mr. Tootoo.
I’m really glad that when we schedule things, we stick to them. People make plans around the schedules that are agreed to and then it’s just very disappointing.
Some of us are going to be here for a while, so I’ve got lots of time to ask questions.
Can the minister give an indication if this is all the funding that the schools get for their operations? Is that correct?
I’m glad the member is back. This is our job: to pass the budget, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
Mr. Chairman, the schools receive different types of funding. The main estimates demonstrate and include all the money that is coming from the Government of Nunavut in the department’s budget, but there could be auxiliary or outside funding from Brighter Futures programs, for example, that schools would also receive.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Picco. (interpretation ends) Members, please restrict your comments to the budget.
Mr. Tootoo: And ministers, too, I guess.
Can the minister give an indication of how they fund the schools?
Just for clarification, that was for all members, including ministers.
All of our school operations are funded through a formula and we have been working on that formula over the past several years. The formula includes some costs of O&M, which are staffing costs, general costs within the school itself, curriculum costs; it could include the bussing costs and other operations to run a school.
The minister indicated they’re working on that and reviewing that formula. Can he give us an indication of what things they’re looking at changing?
The formulas that were in place that we were using have been in place for some time and we’re reviewing the formula to look at: does the formula that’s currently in place reflect the actual needs of a school in 2007 or 2008, and so on.
For the past few fiscal years, we have been looking at how that formula was in place and made some changes to it. One of the changes we made, for example, was transferring all of the employees that were under the DEA funding as school year employees and make them NEU or NTA employees so they became full employees of the school.
Do the schools get funding from here for textbooks?
I was under the understanding that the DEAs, in their budgets, were supposed to be the ones that supply the textbooks, so maybe if I can get a clarification.
The member asked about the school funding and the funding formula we have in place.
When we fund schools, schools are funded through the DEAs and there’s an allocation in the DEA budget for each school.
How do they figure out how much each school gets for textbooks?
That’s a number that they arrive at when they look at the number of students that are in the school and based on the number of textbooks needed, and that’s usually divided by the number of books that may have to be replaced from time to time on a go forward basis by the school.
Does the minister feel that it’s important that all students have textbooks?
The textbooks that are available to our students should be in the school and in the classrooms. If the member is aware that they’re not, then he can make that known to the department.
I’m sure the minister is aware that there have been cases in the past where they’re photocopying a textbook to have copies to give to other students. Can he confirm that?
No, I can’t confirm that. What I can say is that I do have a spouse who works at a school and I have students in school like the member does, and having been a former adult educator, at different times, we make photocopies of learning materials and resources that we may be more familiar with or may be more used to using that follows the thematic theme unit that is being used in a given classroom, and therefore and thus, we photocopy as instructors and teachers.
I know that through the DEA budgets, they’re the ones that had been delegated the responsibility to get the textbooks out, but still, they got no control over their budgets; it’s the department that sets it.
So I think it’s the government’s responsibility to make sure that there are enough and adequate textbooks in the classrooms, and it’s not something that should be dumped off onto the DEAs to deal with when they got no control over setting their budgets.
In the new Education Act, the member is aware that we’re actually looking at how resources are devolved into the schools and what responsibilities and roles the DEA should have.
Under that area, I believe we would be able to ensure that there is no ‘dumping’ from the government or the department to the schools because we don’t want that to occur.
So we’re in agreement with the member on that.
Then I guess the minister is planning on amending Bill 21 because that’s exactly how it’s spelled out in there.
As I said yesterday in the House, when the bill comes forward, we will entertain amendments to the bill at that time as long as the integrity and the scope of the bill haven’t been interfered with.
I guess my question to the minister, as he seems to keep saying the new Education Act will do this and will do that, but the perfect example that we just mentioned about the textbooks is it doesn’t change anything.
So maybe I’ll ask him why he says it’s going to be changing these things when it doesn’t.
I think the member’s question, and I just asked Kathy, “Did you hear that?” I thought the member’s point was, in his earlier statement, if we didn’t agree with the way the textbook issue was being held by DEAs, would we change it, and I suggested that when that Act comes forward, we would look at all opportunities to ensure that the Act reflects what we want for education in Nunavut.
Right now, the department sets the DEA budget.
Under the current Act and under the proposed Act, the DEA’s budget has to include textbooks and stuff.
The department has nothing to do with that. So my question to the minister is: does he feel that students should each have a textbook?
Will he include that into the department’s budget, not the DEA’s budget, to provide those textbooks to all the students?
We will do what we can within the timeframe that’s available to us, as well as the financial ability that we have in the budget.
Again, what I have said and what I’m trying to say here is that, where there are opportunities to move within the budget to facilitate some of the things the members have been asking for, that’s what we have tried to do.
Under the K-12 instruction, there is about a $1 million increase around that area.
Could I get an explanation as to why that increase is there?
I think it was a $1.6 million increase as a result of the NTA Collective Agreement amounts, because, as you know, collective agreements are put in place based on three, three, and three, and so on; three percent over a year, and three percent and then three percent. So that’s the amount for forced growth based on the NTA Collective Agreement.
There’s also about a $500,000 decrease in support for District Education Authorities.
I’m just wondering if I could get an explanation on that.
Those were bussing contracts that were in place and we have taken them out of that area in the budget.
Mr. Tootoo: Where did they go?
It went from Grants and Contributions to O&M.
Is it still the DEAs that have responsibility for those contracts or is it now with the department?
This was the new bus contract that was negotiated and it’s actually in this line item which was just here in Iqaluit.
Mr. Tootoo: He still didn’t answer my question.
Is it the DEA’s responsibility or the department’s responsibility?
In different communities, there’s different ways of doing this contract. In some communities, it may be the DEA, and here in Iqaluit in this case, it’s the Department of Education.
Has it always been like that?
No, Mr. Chairman, last year, it was with the local DEA.
Did they give it back to the department? Is that correct?
Hon. Ed. Picco: That’s correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tootoo: Why? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Why not.
Can the minister elaborate a little bit more on why the DEA gave it back to the department?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can’t speak for the DEA and say why they gave the contract back.
What I can say is what I have heard, like the member and many members, because of some of the concerns that were raised last year in the media. It’s no different when income support contracts with hamlets are given back to the department.
In this case, there were a lot of issues; the District Education Authority had a lot of issues with the bussing contract.
They felt that a lot of their time was spent dealing with bussing issues and not dealing with some of the issues that were going on in the school, and they felt that it would be better served if the department looked after the bussing contract and let them focus on what was happening at the K-12 side of things in the school system.
That’s my understanding of the reason.
Can the minister confirm that it had nothing to do with the lack of the resources that the DEA had to deal with all the administrative functions, like the bussing services, along with everything else?
When you look at a community like Iqaluit where you have several schools located throughout the community from Apex all the way to Inuksuk and Nakasuk School, there’s a lot of work making sure the buses get there on time, the routines, and so on and so forth.
I think the DEA felt that they would be better suited in dealing with some of the operational issues in our schools.
The cost factors itself; we provide the money for the bussing contract to the DEA.
Looking at the business plan, also it’s for Curriculum and School Services, there’s a slight decrease there. I’m just wondering if that’s because the department has all the curriculum it needs developed now and they don’t need any more.
Can I get an explanation?
I’m just looking at Curriculum and School Services; I believe we passed that in the budget, so I’ll have to go back to G-11.
I believe that’s an actual increase there from my numbers.
In School Operations, maybe it’s just because the minister’s business plan doesn’t coordinate with the main estimates under K-12 schools that’s in there.
So I would like to ask for an explanation of why.
I’ll just read a note here and it just says, “Adjust salary to actual benefit calculation.”
Maybe the one that the minister was confused about was the School Operations – Regional; there’s an increase of $1 million.
Can I just get an idea of the breakdown of what that $1 million was for?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under School Operations – Regional, there was an $8,000 increase to adjust salary to actual benefit calculation.
It was $14,000 for the 2007-08 NTA Collective Agreement and that’s the salary and benefits of the RSO. It was $444,000, which is the busing contract for Iqaluit, which was moved to support the DEAs and that’s under Grants and Contributions. There was $11,000 for the departmental vacancy factor to fund remaining portions of any of the other bussing contracts that we have with QSO, which is the Qikiqtani Service Office, which regulates our schools in North Baffin, in Pond Inlet.
There’s also, on there, an increase from $121,000 to $296,000 for the French Division.
I’m just wondering if I could get an explanation of what that was for.
Hon. Ed. Picco: That was for 1.5 PYs which were no longer funded by a third party, Mr. Chairman.
It has your support for District Education Authorities at $9 million, but also, La Commission Scolaire Francophone du Nunavut is separate.
I’m just wondering why, it’s a DEA, too, it’s not included in with the other DEAs.
The Francophone Association, the CFSN, is a little bit of a different creature, as the members and our DEAs know, and indeed, the majority of their funding comes from the federal government. So we’re listing them here a bit differently in the main estimates of the Government of Nunavut.
Under the K-12 Schools, and maybe it’s just because I was waiting until we got to Schools Operations to ask these questions, but the Teacher Education Strategy in there, there’s a significant increase in that of a little over $4 million.
Can the minister give an indication as to how that’s going to be spent?
This is a result of the Qalattuq Teacher Strategy that we actually tabled in the House that the members will remember.
We’re going to be taking that money and enhancing the NTEP program, meaning we’re going to be trying to deliver it base funded in different communities in Nunavut.
We’re going to continue with our community-based programming support but at the same time, we want to be able to base it. For example, right now, we have it base funded in Iqaluit out of the Nunatta Campus where we would like to move that forward and base fund it out of Rankin Inlet and out of Cambridge Bay.
So these are extra enhancements to the program.
Also under the Inuit Educational Leadership, there’s like about a $200,000 increase in that budget to just under $600,000.
Can we get an explanation as to what that’s for?