EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In the regulations in the Act, it does outline what those certification processes are. Just because you have been certified today in Ontario and then six months later you come forward and you want to apply in Nunavut, we still need to be able to check the certification and ensure that it’s up to date, it’s current, and that the information that’s being provided is correct.
We have had incidences in the past, for example, where certification has been checked and we’ve had people who were working under assumed names, who have come to Nunavut, who had psychology degrees and didn’t, and so on and so forth.
So the certification process needs to be in place, it needs to be rigidly enforced, and I think it’s a good thing that, within the legislation itself, we’re able to do that certification locally and for Nunavummiut.
I have no doubt that the certification process is probably a necessary thing and a good thing as we do tend to get some strange people up here under assumed names and qualifications.
Nowadays, you can go online and order a doctor’s certificate for $100 and you’re a doctor.
Having said that, I have talked to a number of my constituents in Cambridge Bay who are teachers and they find that the certification process in Nunavut is fairly onerous compared to other jurisdictions where they have applied and had to go through their certification process.
So I’m wondering if the minister could perhaps clarify why there seems to be a feeling amongst some of the teachers that Nunavut has one of the most onerous certification processes in the entire country.
I can’t speak to the reasons, or feelings, or opinions of some people who believe that the certification system in Nunavut is onerous.
What I can suggest to you is that if you have been a teacher for 30 years, working out of Ontario, and all of a sudden, you apply to come to Nunavut and you haven’t gone through the certification process in Ontario for 30 years because you have been working there, then yes, it might be a bit slow for you and because you have been a teacher for a long period of time, you might feel that it’s not working out.
At any given year, we can hire 100, 200 or more teachers across the territory.
We do hear it at the end of the day and I’m sure the NTA here has, maybe 10 or 12 percent, had some issues with their certification.
When I have followed up on some of these concerns and I have heard them, in most cases, it’s because information that an individual has given hasn’t arrived properly or on time to the registrar.
I do know, for an example, that in this particular case I think we’re talking about in the member’s constituency, I believe the registrar had changed positions or wasn’t in the position for a while and that caused some delay.
Could the minister perhaps explain or provide some assurances that when you go through the recruiting process at a certain time during the year, that the process is clearly explained to the teachers and when they do have to initiate the certification, that there are people that are available to help them though the process to make sure they know what information is required, what steps they have to follow, and that there are people there to answer the telephones, respond to emails in a timely fashion and not let it go for one or two months?
That just slows down the process and then the teacher ends up getting back pay in December or January when the school year actually started in August.
The minister could perhaps provide some assurances in that regard.
We agree with the member.
We were trying to recruit teachers and other staff. When they have been hired, they’re in their community and they’re not receiving their pay on time, that wouldn’t meet the satisfaction of anyone.
So we have talked about that within the department and we have looked at how we can be more expeditious in making sure the certification processes can occur.
(interpretation ends) We’re on clause 103.
Chairman: Clause 104.
Chairman: Clause 105.
Chairman: Clause 106.
Chairman: Clause 107.
Chairman: Clause 108.
Chairman: Clause 109.
Chairman: Clause 110.
Chairman: Clause 111.
Chairman: Clause 112.
Chairman: Clause 113.
Chairman: Clause 114.
Chairman: Clause 114.1.
Chairman: Clause 115.
Chairman: Clause 116.
Chairman: Clause 117.
I would like to ask the minister, it says, “Appraisal of principals and vice-principals.”
A principal “is appraised by an employee of the department at least once in each school year.” The principal is the highest position in the school, so who would perform the appraisal on the principal?
We have talked about how we’re trying to give a little bit more responsibility and ownership to DEAs, and this is one of these sections in the Act.
So in this section, the principal evaluations are made mandatory and will include an appraisal by the local DEA, as well as a collaborative oversight with the regional director or the superintendent.
Each principal shall have a conversation with his or her supervisor, who is the superintendent, within 30 days of the school year.
Chairman (Mr. Arreak): Thank you, Minister. Mr. Peterson.
Just for clarification, when you say regional superintendent, are you referring to the executive director of… in the Kitikmeot, we have the Kitikmeot School Operations. Would that be the person you’re referring to?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would be the superintendent of the school for KSO.
Chairman: Clause 118.
Chairman: Clause 119.
Chairman: Clause 120.
Before we get into the minutes here, I think maybe it would be good to have a short break so that members can get up and stretch their legs, as well as the staff that may need to get up and stretch their legs.
So if we could take a short break for everybody who has been sitting here since over two hours now. It might be a good idea for everybody’s comfort.
That’s a very good idea. We will take a short break.
>>Committee recessed at 21:17 and resumed at 21:31
We’re on (interpretation ends) page 60.
Chairman: Clause 121.
Chairman: Clause 122.
Chairman: Clause 122.1.
Chairman: Clause 123.
Chairman: Clause 124.
Just on clause 123, on the student to educator ratio, I know there were some issues related to that, so I’m just wondering if the minister can clarify how that’s been resolved.
If this legislation is passed, Nunavut will be one of only a few jurisdictions in Canada that will have a legislated teacher-to-student ratio.
We are ensuring in this legislation that Nunavut will be the best in regard to that.
Our section assures us that Nunavut is ahead of the country as a whole on the ratio of teachers to students.
So that’s something to be quite proud of as a jurisdiction and indeed for our education system.
I know there have been some concerns raised, as the minister indicated, on the student-to-teacher ratio and yet, in here it says, “Student to educator ratio.”
So I’m just wondering if he could explain the difference.
I know this has been an issue and I’m going to read out to you the official definition.
The national definition of an educator is all employees in the public education system who are required to have a teaching certification. This does not include, for example, school community counsellors, teachers’ assistants, teachers on leave, and substitute teachers.
Chairman: Clause 124.1. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 125.
Chairman: Clause 126.
Chairman: Clause 127.
Chairman: Clause 128.
Chairman: Clause 129.
Chairman: Clause 130.
Chairman: Clause 131.
Chairman: Clause 132.
Chairman: Clause 133.
Chairman: Clause 134.
Here, it talks about student participation on a district education authority and I know there were some issues around that as well.
There have been some amendments made to that section, so I would like to ask the minister if he could just explain that for the record.
The standing committee really took a good leadership role in this section and we wanted to look at how we could have student participation on the local DEA.
So there was a motion brought forward and an amendment in this bill and that allows for the student elections of a student representative, which means the students themselves actually pick their representative to sit on the DEA. In the past, it was the principal who might pick someone in the school to sit on the local education authority.
So the amendment has gone forward and that motion now is in place within the Act.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question to that clause because section 131 clearly states the membership of the district authorities, but on this one, the student is not a member of the education district.
Mr. Curley: So section 134 is saying that a student elected by peers is just to attend the meeting.
Why would they go through a democratic process just to attend the meeting instead of appointing or whatnot?
So is there a particular reason for that, to participate in a democratic process not just to elect a member but just to attend the proceedings of the district education authorities?
When we were looking at this section in the Act, we wanted to have a more inclusive way of involving the students or having the students participate in their education.
Again, we have talked about how this Education Act is for our children and how do we make it more inclusive.
One way of doing that is allowing for the students themselves to pick amongst themselves, one of their own, to sit on the district education authority.
The student that is selected and chosen democratically to sit on the local education authority has all the fundamental ability on that DEA to debate issues, to be involved in the participation and discussion at the DEA level, and to bring in that perspective of a student.
I think this is a better way of doing it than allowing the principal or someone else outside saying, “You’re the person who is going to be on the DEA,” or having the DEA pick someone themselves.
It’s the peers picking their own representative democratically through an election.
Clause 134.
Chairman: Clause 135.
Chairman: Clause 136.
Chairman: Clause 137.
Chairman: Clause 138.
This clause deals with additional duties and responsibilities of the district education authorities and in subclause 1, it indicates, “The Commissioner in Executive Council may make regulations,” assigning duties and it goes on over anything else.
Mr. Chairman, my question is: do the DEAs have an ability to be involved in the making of regulations or are they just something that the government can say, “This is without any input from the district education authority. This is what you have to do.”?
In all regulations within the Act, the government has a duty to consult with the DEAs and also having the ability now to have, through legislation, an incorporated body known as the DEA Coalition.
And I should mention here in the House tonight, I am very pleased to have the Chairperson of the DEA Coalition from Pond Inlet, Jeeteeta Merkosak, in the Gallery also.
So Tunngasugit, Jeeteeta.
So in answer to the question and very shortly and quickly, in the regulations in place in the Act, the government has a duty to consult on any regulations pertaining to the agencies.
Clause 138.
Chairman: Clause 138.1 Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 139.
Chairman: Clause 140. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 141.
Chairman: Clause 142.
Chairman: Clause 143.
Chairman: Clause 144.
Chairman: Clause 145.
Chairman: Clause 146.
Chairman: Clause 147.
Chairman: Clause 148.
Chairman: Clause 149.
I believe, in the minister’s opening comments, he had indicated that this legislation actually provided a tool for the DEAs and I’m just wondering if there was a disagreement with the department or the minister on something.
I’m just wondering if Structured Dialogues was the tool he alluded to in his opening comments.
Again, what we’re trying to say in the Structured Dialogues is to be able to ensure not only a meaningful but a culturally appropriate dialogue that could occur and should occur to promote consensus building and understanding between the DEAs and the minister.
I would also like, for the record, to make a correction that indeed I thought Jeeteeta was here but she isn’t, and indeed it’s Alice Ladner who is here from the DEA Coalition.
So I would like to welcome Alice to the Gallery.
I think this is a rather unique thing in here, the Structured Dialogues. I’m just wondering if the minister can just give a little bit of an explanation of when it would kick in and how it would work.
When direction which would be given to schools and indeed to principals, there would be a request to have a structured dialogue and that would arise only after the minister has made a decision or given the direction.
For example, if there was a difference of opinion or if it was felt that the direction given, it might be in a negative sense, wasn’t the best for the school or indeed the direction that the DEA was looking at, then under the legislation itself, for the first time ever, you would actually have what we would call a structured dialogue where we would be able to ensure that you would actually have a meaningful and a better consensus building way of that direction that may have been given, that may have raised some concern on behalf and by the DEA in question.
So hopefully that clarifies the question for the member.
Clause 149.
Chairman: Clause 150.
Chairman: Clause 151.
Chairman: Clause 152.
Chairman: Clause 153.
Chairman: Clause 154.
Chairman: Clause 155.
Chairman: Clause 156.
Chairman: Clause 157. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 158.
Chairman: Clause 159.
Chairman: Clause 159.1.
Chairman: Clause 160.
Chairman: Clause 161.
Chairman: Clause 162.
Chairman: Clause 163.
Chairman: Clause 164.
Chairman: Clause 165.
Chairman: Clause 166.
Chairman: Clause 167.
Chairman: Clause 168.
Chairman: Clause 169.
Chairman: Clause 170.
Chairman: Clause 171.
Chairman: Clause 172.
Chairman: Clause 173.
Chairman: Clause 173.1. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 174.
Chairman: Clause 175.
Chairman: Clause 176.
Chairman: Clause 177.
Chairman: Clause 180.
Chairman: Clause 181.
Chairman: Clause 182.
Chairman: Clause 183.
Clause 183 deals with the operating budgets of the district education authorities and it says that it would include, in subclause 1(a), the last part there, it says, “… and teaching resources…” Would that include any additional requirements as a result of the DEA’s assessment of their needs in regard to the Inclusive Education section of the Act?
What happened by amendment and motion in committee was we removed Part 6, which was the inclusive schooling, from the list of things not to be in the DEA budget.
Now, the reason for that is because there are operational expenses such as specific supplies that DEAs purchase directly for inclusive schooling.
I think, when we were at that discussion on inclusive education earlier, the minister indicated that it was the DEA and the principal that would determine what the needs were.
I’m just wondering where the resources to cover off those needs would come in. Would that be something that wouldn’t be included in their budget or would that money automatically flow from the Department of Education?
There could be a whole range of issues here depending on how the inclusive schooling is going.
So let’s say that you’re dealing with a student that may have a physical handicap as an example, or maybe you’re dealing with a child that may be blind and maybe they would need special instruction with Braille books, then we would be providing those types of materials above and beyond what the DEA had a budget for.
Is the minister saying that if the DEA indicates to the department that they need those additional resources, the department would provide them?
Hon. Ed. Picco: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, in the context of what they have been using their budget for. For example, if a given DEA had a large surplus in their budget and said, “We can’t afford $2,000 for an item for inclusive schooling,” then we may say, “Well, you should be able to find that within.”
But if it’s a large item that is needed, for example, if we have an issue with children that may be blind or if they have a special needs situation in regard to instructional needs in the classroom itself, that’s above and beyond the scope of what DEA has available to do, then the government, of course, would come in and do that.
That’s part of the duty that we talked about earlier in the Act itself.
I’m not sure where it was in here or which clause but I believe there was an indication that, I don’t know if it was a school staff, I can’t remember… there are so many sections I have looked at where to include a student support assistant or a teacher’s assistant that would be required.
As a result of the DEA and the principal determining that they may require three assistants because of special needs students and they don’t have the budget for that, would the department provide the resources for them to obtain those necessary staff to help fulfill their obligations?
Again, these are all things that may or may not occur and are hypothetical.
If we say, for example, you have a student in a given school who has a severe handicap, whether physically or mentally, and so on, and we’re trying to integrate them within the school system itself and there’s a need for extra resources, whether those resources be human resources or physical resources, then if the DEA doesn’t have the ability to be able to provide the extra remuneration or expenses, then that, of course, request would come back to the Department of Education for that type of supports.
Again, it depends on each individual student and each individual circumstance.
Chairman: Clause 184.
Chairman: Clause 185.
Chairman: Clause 186.
Chairman: Clause 187.
Chairman: Clause 188.
The clause states, “The accounts of a district education authority shall be audited annually in accordance with Part IX of the Financial Administration Act.”
It’s very expensive to get audited.
Will they be getting the money from within their budget for the auditing?
The member is correct. The funding for the audit would come directly from the department. We would provide and help the funding of a full audit as outlined.
Chairman: Clause 189.
Just on clause 189, (f) says, “respecting funding formulas and limitations in respect of money…” I know there’s a formula that the department uses to determine the number of teachers that a school is allocated and it’s based on student population.
One of the concerns that have been raised since the First Assembly when we first started going through this was the fact that principals are included in that formula as teachers. In a lot of cases, they don’t teach and they spend most of their time doing administrative stuff.
So I’m just wondering if there’s any looks at dealing with that issue and taking the principals out of the teacher allocation formula.
This has been an ongoing issue over the last couple of years within the department.
Right now, we’re in the process of looking internally at what the costs will be to take the principals out of the school funding formula and depending again on the size of the school.
So as an example, if you’re the principal at one of our smaller schools in Grise Fiord or Resolute Bay or Nanook in Apex, would you take them out of the formula when they’re still instructing classes?
Whereas in a larger school in Cambridge Bay, Pond Inlet, and some of the other schools where we have a larger school population, then you might want to take the principal out because the principal is actually a full-time administrator and the leader in the school as it were.
So we’re looking at what those cost benefits should be and look at how we can incorporate that within the context of this legislation because this legislation guarantees the best student-educator ratio in the country in legislation and so those types of things need to be worked on.
Once the legislation is passed, then the department will be looking at opportunities within the framework of the current school funding formula and see what those cost implications would be.
Chairman: Clause 190.
I know Part 15 was something that there was some concern with throughout the process and I’m wondering if the minister could give an overview of how the issues related to Part 15 have been addressed.
When we were looking at the issues around the DEA Coalition, we had the proposed motion and we accepted it within the committee.
It was to look at all of Part 15 and removing by the proposed motion and replacing by the new sections 190 to 192 now, and that included the role of the DEA Coalition as well as the funding for the DEA Coalition, and report on spending of the DEA Coalition.
Many stakeholders believe that the DEA Coalition would be in a framework similar to the NAM, or the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, where they have their own executive staff and they do work on behalf of and for municipalities across Nunavut.
They have their own advocacy service and indeed they train staff, and so on.
We see the same role with the DEA Coalition, to be an advocate, speaking out on education issues across the Territory of Nunavut, helping train DEA staff, bringing concerns back and forth between local DEAs and the Minister and the Department of Education. So that’s all outlined in the regulations within the Act.
I know one of the other issues that was brought up and just dealt with was third party funding and things like that for the coalition.
I’m just wondering how the department has addressed that issue.
Again, this is brand new in the Act, it has never occurred before in Nunavut.
The DEA Coalition will have the ability, as an incorporated society and an independent society, to be able to leverage third party funds.
And they might use those monies, not only what they get from the Government of Nunavut in their core budget but third party funds, to provide extra training, extra staff, extra supports to schools, and so on.
So we’re quite excited about that opportunity for the DEA Coalition.
We’re thankful to the DEA Coalition staff and the chairperson.
I would like to ask the minister if the membership of this coalition comprises of all regions.
Can the minister or his staff tell me?
I believe the DEA Coalition has been in operation now for a little over year and again, we agree with the member that we think it’s an exciting aspect of this legislation.
They have their own by-laws and they pick amongst their DEA members, and every community in Nunavut is involved, and they select their members.
The current chair is from Pond Inlet, Jeeteeta Merkosak, and they have members on the DEA Coalition from across the territory.
This is done through their own by-laws.
Yes, I assumed that that was the case with respect to their constitution and incorporated by-law.
It was never really clear as to whether or not all of the DEAs throughout Nunavut were represented.
I think there were some regional representatives but not fully enforced in my view. So I think you should also insist, as the minister, that the regions are fully represented.
It was obvious that the Kivalliq region was really, for perhaps a number of reasons, not fully represented and that should not be.
It should not happen because we are very much part of the educational system in Nunavut and we would like to see that more active participation is solicited and encouraged, and actually have a representative from our DEAs sit on that committee.
Maybe they do now, but three or four months ago, that was not the case.
A point well taken.
I know that the DEA Coalition, and again, it’s new and it’s only been in operation for a little over 12 months, has been in contact with all of the DEAs.
So I think after they get there funding, get up and running, and get their staff in place, you will see that regional representation and I believe that you will see that they will have in place and that all regions of Nunavut will be involved.
So it’s a point well taken by Mr. Curley.
Chairman: Clause 191.
Chairman: Clause 192.
Chairman: Clause 193.
Chairman: Clause 194.
Chairman: Clause 195.
Chairman: Clause 196.
Chairman: Clause 197.
Chairman: Clause 198.
Chairman: Clause 199.
Chairman: Clause 200.
Chairman: Clause 200.1.