EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The responsibility for hiring and termination of employees, and so on, some of the DEAs, not all the DEAs, have said that they would like the ability to be able to hire and fire teachers for example.
So the question would be then, if you want to be able to take on that role and be, for example let’s take Pond Inlet, if the Pond Inlet DEA says, “Okay, all teachers and principals and everyone in the school are employees of the DEA in Pond Inlet,” then does that mean the DEA in Pond Inlet would have to look at the collective agreement process and the superannuation pension plan?
If you have problems with disciplinary firing of staff, payouts of wrongful dismissal, would the DEA then be taking over all of those issues and control?
Does the DEA have the ability to be able to do all those types of things?
The biggest employer in many of our communities is the schools. So when you’re talking about 20, 25, 30 employees and you’re having to look after collective agreement negotiations, HR issues, and so on, that’s when we come back and say.
“Maybe you don’t want to do that.”
Now, if the Pond Inlet DEA comes to the minister, under the new Bill 21, and says, “We’re in the position where we can take on these responsibilities. Minister, will you give them to us?”
Then in the new Bill 21, the Act allows the minister to say, “Okay, you do have an HR person in place and you do have a good accountant or a bookkeeper, and you can make the superannuation payment plans, and so on, you can do all those kinds of things, then you could do that.
Here is that responsibility and control.”
I shiver because… how long have we been involved in the land claims negotiations?
Mr. Curley: Forty years now.
Mr. Arvaluk: I mean the whole principle behind the negotiations is it’s not supposed to be here anymore.
Mr. Chairman, I think I understand that the Department of Education has staff already that the minister is talking about.
They already have staff in place, okay?
So are you saying that the DEAs are not good enough for your staff to work for them?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Mr. Chairman, let’s get serious again here.
What the member is trying to suggest in his phrasing and so on, let me say this very carefully and very quickly to the point if I may, I’m not in any way trying to demean local DEAs and I resent the accusation.
What I’m suggesting is that a lot of our communities don’t have the people in place.
If the question was: how can local DEAs take on hiring of teachers and principals and can they be in the position to hire and fire teachers and principals?
Well, if you want to take on that role and responsibility, I outline, do you have the ability to be able to do that and do you have these different steps and mechanisms in place to do that?
As an example, Mr. Chairman, I suggested to you: do you have HR people? Do you have the negotiated collective agreement, superannuation, the pension plan, and all this kind of stuff?
If you want to set up 25 DEAs in 25 communities to go ahead and do all of these things, then you would have, for example, Clyde River would be advertising and competing against Pond Inlet for teachers, and so on and so forth.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Arvaluk was involved, he was a former Minister of Education, when the boards were taken out and I sat with him when that happened.
I’m not suggesting in any way, shape, or form that we’re not able to do that because at the local level, hamlets are hiring and firing people all the time.
I’m saying: do you want to take those resources and invest them into communities and take it out of education system? At some point, you have to fund that type of program.
Mr. Chairman, the majority of DEAs haven’t come forward and said, “We want to take over those roles and responsibilities.” So that’s why we suggest in the Act that if a DEA would like to be able to do some of these things we just talked about, then they have the right in the Act to do that.
I was just using the minister’s words that the Department of Education already has staff to run the school system.
If he said that the DEA will have to get new staff to do what the Department of Education is doing now, that is what I was referring to.
I was not making a new idea because I was just using his phrase.
I think we also forgot that on April 1, 1999, we did not fire a whole bunch of government civil servants.
Mr. Quirke is still here and a whole lot of them are still on Baffin Island; the same people that worked for the NWT.
The Nunavut Legislative Assembly was good enough for them, so I don’t know how the DEA Board cannot be good enough for making decisions and then the same Department of Education employees does the clerical work and other responsibilities that they’re carrying out right now.
I don’t think DEAs are asking for a whole transfer of $1 million or $2 million to run 25 individual communities.
I think we have been reading the different lines here.
So I would like to ask the minister then… I was involved in a very quick hearing and there were very good suggestions; we recorded them, we transcribed them. They belong to the Department of Education, I don’t know where they are at now but they’re still there.
Some of them were very good suggestions and we would have loved to use some of these transcripts and these reports in the debates.
I don’t want to prolong my questions on Bill 21 but I would like to see a list. Would the minister then commit to listing the problems that we have right now for the spring session so that we will have a better idea of where some of the problems still lie?
The minister and I are no different; we have the same objective and the same goal: successful students for Nunavummiut with pride in Inuktitut.
That’s not very complicated.
I have known the member for over 20 years, I know he is passionate about education, I have served with him in various capacities, and we’ll try to facilitate what he’s saying.
At the end of the day, we have Bill 21 that’s before the committee.
The committee will want to have a chance to take it out to the public. It will come back and we’ll have a chance to debate the bill here in the House. Like Bill 13, as the minister and Mr. Curley has said in the House here, wasn’t favourable to the members, I withdrew that bill, and I’m going to try to bring back a new bill to make some of the changes that the members have suggested.
On Bill 21, I am open and the department and the government is open to looking at the suggested changes to the Act that would help enhance education in Nunavut because at the end of the day, as Mr. Arvaluk said, that’s the bottom line and that’s what we’re trying to do. I think we have a pretty good Act, but like anything else and I have said this many times, there’s always room to make changes and adapt it to make it better.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you. (interpretation) That’s it.
At the same time, significantly, debates should not occur.
Mr. Curley, I will use my discretion as per Rule 77(2) and allow you an additional ten minutes.
Mr. Curley: A reminder is not required.
It’s sort of a sad situation and I am discouraged. I don’t see the enthusiasm of the minister in considering changes from the public, from DEAs of the communities. I believe that the DEA Coalition has done a very excellent coordination of DEA members, which the department has failed to do, and they’re publishing these concerns, unlike the department.
We haven’t seen anything that has been presented out to the public and they are concerned of the high drop-out rates and graduation only occurring at 25 percent of the student population. They’re not proud of that; they’re not proud of the record of the government.
I think they should be reminded of the 40 years of work that has occurred for the creation of Nunavut.
I had dinner with one of the judges not long ago, I won’t mention who, and I think this person was one of the first lawyers of Inuit organizations ever. That lady said to me, “When the Nunavut idea was proposed, I really didn’t think it was ever going to happen,” and my colleague sitting next to me remembers that very well.
He shared that view but unlike the minister, he was able to reflect on it and change his mind, and went on at 100 percent to entertain public consultations and we didn’t stop there then.
I just want to quote from one of the parents, who is a member of the DEA, “As parents of students in our education system, we think it’s okay to dare to dream and believe that things can be better than what we see today in our schools.” And that’s how Nunavut came about. If we believe that if nothing dramatic changes in governance of our schools, nothing will change.
The minister says there will be no changes as long as he is the minister.
Nunavut’s precedent, in accordance with the DEA’s Suvaguuq, states that, “In Nunavut, in accordance with the Constitution of Canada, Francophone parents are working with the GN to devolve full and effective local control. Nunavummiut parents are asking how the government can support Francophone parents running their schools but oppose other
Nunavummiut parents from doing so?”
We’re not interfering with any work of the minister. The minister alluded to Bill 21 earlier, Nunavut parents, but the schools, they’re opposed. So why are you opposed to that, minister?
There is a microphone on and everyone has headsets. I’m not screaming or shouting but I think the record will show that just two minutes ago, I said that this minister was open to suggestions and amendments to the Act that the standing committee has been taking out on the road, and so on. I’m not here to debate Bill 21; I’m here to look at the Main Estimates of the Department of Education.
Earlier this week, I met with all the members and we gave a presentation on the Education Act itself. I just want it for the record that I am not against that, Mr. Curley. I am for opportunities to look at the Act and warrant changes that would enhance the Act, bringing it forward with some thoughtful suggestions, and so on.
That’s the whole democratic process and that’s why you provide, again, that check and balance where the standing committee can take it out, have public meetings, come back with suggestions, and come back to the House, like I did with Bill 13. I think that shows some vision, so I hope Mr. Curley has heard that.
I alluded to the fact that it was kind of sad that when we called for changes with some of the local DEA controls and more power, you said, “Why should we have 25 different DEAs and all that,” when no one had suggested that.
I believe and alluded to: you could have maybe more, rather than having two sets of proposals only - headquarters control and 25 different ones - that’s not what we’re talking about.
I believe there can be devolvement of some of the departmental programs to the regions.
Even the DEAs said in their Suvaguuq January issue, “We have heard the concerns about creating ‘25 separate boards,” so the minister’s message probably had gone to them as well, “... and bureaucracies.’” This doesn’t have to be the model.
Like the northern Ontario model, in Nunavut, the communities close in distance could band together.
Why are we hung up on only one or two choices; 25 different set of communities and so on? Why couldn’t the minister look at options that reflect Nunavummiut as he did so with the Francophone school board?
He said I wasn’t passionate. Let me say, look, if I was anymore passionate, I would be over there right now on the floor, Mr. Chairman.
What I’m suggesting to the member and to the House, Mr. Chairman, is this: when we look at the DEA processes and the suggestions that have come forward, that’s where we are right now.
I’m not going to change the bill; the bill just came to the House and the committee hasn’t even reported on the bill.
So how can I incorporate the things you’re saying? I haven’t said I’m not going to look at 25, or 23, or 20; what I have said is here are some of the challenges that we see presented to us.
If the member has a proposal, if the DEA Coalition comes back with a proposal and says, “We would like to set up four hiring bodies for 22 communities,” or something, we will entertain those. We will look at it logistically, administratively, and financially how we can deal with those, so no one has closed the door to that. That’s the whole process.
Now, Mr. Alagalak’s committee just reported back that they wanted another 120 days. They will take the bill on the road, they will do more consultations, they will review those consultations, then it will come back to the House and then they will say, “Minister, here’s what we would like to do.” That’s how the bill works.
No one has shut the door.
Chairman (Mr. Barnabas)(interpretation): Thank you, Minister Picco.
I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the statements from the minister because this is the first time we hear that type of possibility.
That’s why I was sad because there was no way, with this minister, that we would consider devolving more regional control.
I just want to quote another comment from a general issue of the Coalition of Nunavut DEAs, Volume 1, Issue 2, on page 1, it says, “Governance: Many parent representatives voiced the observation that our schools were better governed 10 years ago than they are today. Ten years ago, the schools were governed by elected boards…” So we’re not speaking from out of thin air.
The parents are saying that with the Department of Education regional offices located in different communities, no one on the ground in communities are overseeing schools.
Problems or successes in our schools should be the communities’ responsibility and not the job of distant bureaucrats who try to sort things out through email or phone. So, Mr. Chairman, what we’re seeing is the overwhelming, I believe, desire of the DEA members and the parents that they should be taken more seriously in that regard.
So these are the preambles only and I believe the minister should have a role in exercising that role, rather than just saying, “Now, it’s up to the committee to bring it back.”
We might as well be successful through the committee process, but I believe the minister, if he is seriously representing schools and parents, can also propose amendments that would be acceptable to the Members of this House.
First of all and very quickly, I have read the newsletter from the DEA Coalition and I believe the members here in the House will have a chance to meet with some of the members next week, and I will be meeting with them next week.
It’s very difficult when legislation is brought in, in this format, for a minister to propose amendments to that. That’s usually done by the members and then if there are friendly amendments to the Act, as the verbiage goes, then those are ascended to in the House. So I’m prepared to look at that.
I appreciate that and I will continue to speak to him as well, but there was one question that I want to follow-up.
The minister stated earlier that the DEAs will be provided with funding. If the bill, as you stated in the House, was to be passed by this Assembly, how would it differ from the current funding status?
First of all, in two different areas, on the DEA Coalition right now, through the department, we have funded them so that they are able to take an advocacy role for DEAs. We have been part of the genesis of the DEA Coalition; it really sprung from the Department of Education in meetings I had with all the DEA chairs. I think that’s safe to say and we’re funding them.
So if this legislation goes through, there will actually be base funding in the Department of Education’s budget for the DEA Coalition so they can hire administrative staff and so on, and the function, as we have talked about before, like the Nunavut Association of Municipalities organization, like a NAM organization.
So you would have an advocacy group for education throughout the territory for all schools and so on.
So everyone sees that as being a stronger process for education.
The second process is, if the Act is passed, then money would flow, whenever or if the Act is passed, into the budget because parts of the Act will have to have start dates, for example, let’s say it’s the invigoration of the NTEP program, then we would have to start pouring money into it right away.
Let’s say the Act is passed in May, so that by September, you would actually be able to do the heavier recruitment program, to do more community based programs, and delivering of the services and everything.
So depending on when the Act will be passed, that’s how the cash would flow.
My next question has to do with, and I know that the director has the sole responsibility to communicating with the public more than any groups and the locals.
Because you people are responsible for ensuring that the school kids remain in school and so on, as a result of that, have you got any ongoing plans to work with the schools and DEAs that kids should remain in school, and if so, is it working, and if not, why not?
I’m going to ask the excellent communicator, the deputy minister of the department, Kathy Okpik, to answer that question.
Just for further clarification, I’m not the only one who’s the communicator in our department.
We have three offices in the regions within the Nunavut area - Pond Inlet, Baker Lake, and Kugluktuk.
They each have their own staff positions where they are the regional offices for the schools. We also have another staff position which is the DEA development officer. These individuals work with the DEAs and the principals of the schools.
Perhaps I will elaborate on how absenteeism in the schools is dealt with.
In some communities, some of the DEAs have sub-committees that deal with absenteeism or truancy and they work with the school community counsellors. They are responsible for truancy, meeting with the parents, and I can say that in one of the communities, it has made a huge improvement and lessened the number of truant children.
If Bill 21 comes into force, we will increase their responsibilities and we have asked them to utilize the sub-committees. Again, they have individual responsibilities as committees in the schools and they have to apply the regulations when they’re administrating or operating the schools.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) I want clarification on my question.
Is it working for students who don’t really attend school?
Are there improvements and are they detailed?
It seems like the local schools and the DEAs can’t really be responsible because they don’t have the money.
So is it working?
Mr. Curley: I believe it requires an explanation why and how it works because (interpretation) I saw one young person who was truant.
Why is it that the RCMP were involved and brought the student back to the school?
I can’t comment on the specific incident because I wasn’t there and I don’t know if the RCMP took someone. Was it because they weren’t in school, or was it because of something else?
Please do not ask any questions that are not under the responsibility of the minister.
Mr. Curley: Actually, this Assembly is a bit of joke, too, because I’m asking about some incident that happened. I’m not asking you what role they have in...
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Curley, your comment about the Assembly being a bit of a joke is unparliamentary.
I will allow you to speak only after you have apologized.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I will not apologize.
I am done for now.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Curley, are you challenging me with regards to your comment?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): No, I’m not. I had concluded my statements. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
At this time, I don’t have any names on my list.
We are on page G-4. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. Directorate.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. We’re on page G-5. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $940,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Now go to page G-6.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $2,285,000. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Now go to page G-7. Branch Summary.
Total Operations… Mr. Kattuk.
In my general comments, I stated that I wanted to ask a question about the $225 that a family receives per month.
Is that true? Is that the right amount or is it divided up?
Can the minister tell me and this House if a single person can qualify for this amount, or if they have a dependant or two? Perhaps, I can get some clarification on that.
Minister Picco, do you want your Income Support employee to join you at the witness table? Minister Picco.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite Ms. Sandy Teiman to join us at the witness table, and I thank Deputy Minister Okpik for her time and patience this afternoon.
I would also like to thank the Deputy Minister, Ms. Okpik.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Minister Picco’s official to the witness table.
Welcome, Ms. Teiman.
Mr. Kattuk, I’ll let you repeat your question again.
In my general remarks, I was concerned about what the income support clients received; I don’t know if it’s monthly or if the number was picked out from the air.
I know for a fact that some parents with one child have received $225. Is that an adequate number for a single mother with a child?
Can the minister update the House on what scales they have for a single mother with a child, or a single parent, or sick parents with a child?
I just need some information on that.
Chairman (Mr. Evyagotailak): Thank you, Mr. Kattuk.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for rephrasing the question. I have the revised Nunavut Food Allowance Table, so just let me go through it.
Again, if we look at it just specifically for the member in Sanikiluaq or for a family in Sanikiluaq, then I can give the numbers. Sanikiluaq is considered to be in Zone One and this is based on the family. If there were two family members in this case, then the amount would be $511.
That’s just over that period of time and that’s just for those two family members. So it would be more than the $225 that the member is talking about; they’re actually more than double what the member had stated.
Did I understand that this $511 is for a parent without a child? Is that what he meant?
No, Mr. Chairman, what I was suggesting was that would be two family members in that family.
So if that’s the question that the member had, the answer would be $511 and that would be based on the rate that would be current at that time.
Plus, we have increased those rates by 15 percent.
The concern I have, because it was given to me, is that a single mother with one child received income support of $245.
Is that adequate, or is it okay, or is it true?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, that’s not accurate.
Based on the numbers again, the member said a little over $200, it should be $511, then on top of that, there would be other monies, for example, if there was a claim for their power bill or other incidental expenses for the family, those would also be on top of that amount.
I got the information I wanted, so that’s all I have.
Mr. Arvaluk… (interpretation) I’m sorry, Mr. Alagalak.
Mr. Alagalak: That’s twice now I have been called Arvaluk. I guess I can change my name with a $10 fee.
(interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) In the business plan, Income Support has been stated as the same amount up to the year 2011.
I just wondered about this because the cost of living in Nunavut went up a bit this year, I guess, from 2007-08.
I just wondered if the minister could tell me about the little bit of increase for 2008-09 as I think he mentioned that this has been adjusted for growth of people, you know, increase in population in Nunavut. Is that correct?
I think the member raises a good point. We have to look at the base rates that are in place. I think, in the opening comments from the standing committee, it was that if the program is sustainable, then we look at the amount that it’s increasing by.
Right now, the total amount paid out of the department for income support is about one percent of our total budget, so I think we have to put that into context. We also need to look at the budget increase; there was an increase for 2008-09 of $3,438,000.