EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I think Mr. Chairman again, and I’m sure that Mr. Curley has read the Berger report the outcome over a 15-year period; it means a huge influx of money to be able to deliver that outcome.
I think Mr. Berger says about $20,000,000 and that’s part of the reason why NTI has gone to court to sue the federal government, is to be able to move these models forward and that’s what we are doing.
This year alone, Mr. Chairman in the last few months we’ve held language of instruction workshops throughout the Territory and as the members know, I just recently announced in the House an extra $10,000 for each DEA to look at that Language of Instruction and have the language experts in their communities involved in that process.
Page G-5.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I really very much appreciate the minister’s frank discussion on that policy.
I do want to ask you, are there more choices now for bilingual students graduating out of high school? That’s one question.
The second point that I want to raise is, I have not fully seen yet, that my culture, my language really has any significant benefit in the public service, or whatnot, in the workforce in Nunavut.
I think I am a pretty good Inuktitut speaker but it has really has never been one of the criteria, or what not, required in any jobs that are available.
Will there now be more choices for Inuit students graduating with the Inuit language and as proficient as I am because I have not benefited from that. I see more unilingual people in high profile jobs, or boards of corporations.
So is the minister now saying with that choice, fundamental changes will be made within the employers and government jobs, the Inuit language, are we not deceiving our young people that they will have more choices now in the government workforce with that?
I need the minister to clearly address that so that we’re not … I fully support my culture, my language … but really I have gone along in jobs and anywhere that I’ve worked not because of my ability to understand my culture, my society, Inuit values, and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
I had pretty much part of all those but I’m saying to you it really hasn’t been a requirement in any jobs that I ever had.
I wouldn’t strongly disagree with the member. I would strongly argue against his statement.
What I would say and suggest to the member is that Minister Tapardjuk is in the process of bringing in two very strong pieces of language legislation.
We are moving forward as a government, the Premier is saying he would like to have the public service bilingual and he has given a firm date for that.
I believe, from my own perspective, and my children, I keep telling them that you’ll have a better opportunity for employment if you can speak two languages; if you can speak Inuktitut and English and be able to be literate in both.
I think it’s very important that we as leaders, as Members of the Assembly, endorse and support Inuktitut at all levels of our society, our community, and the government.
So I would disagree with the member in that part of it.
I would suggest to you that if you have the ability to have Inuktitut skills, that the member has said he has, then I would suggest to you that there would be a better opportunity in Nunavut.
What I’d like to do at this point is ask the deputy minister if she would like to speak to that point as an Inuktitut first language speaker and see how that affects her job and is she able to carry out her position, or seen more of it because she’s had the opportunity of being in several senior positions, including the Deputy Minister of Human Resources, which is in charge of hiring people for the public service. Ms Okpik.
Perhaps if I can answer by saying it in Inuktitut, because I can speak Inuktitut and that’s beneficial for my job because there are a lot of people out there in the public that I can speak with in Inuktitut.
Also, before I became a Deputy Minister for Education and the other department I was a teacher.
I taught the lower grade kids and that’s why I got the job because I was able to speak Inuktitut.
Those are the answers that I can give right now.
If I’m bilingual, whoever is bilingual, whether it’s French, English, or Inuktitut they get a bilingual bonus, because it’s recognized that you can speak two languages.
I know that some jobs require bilingual employees.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Okpik, for your response. (interpretation ends) For the record, don’t misunderstand me.
I appreciate the culture of Inuit but I just see that it hasn’t really been fundamentally recognized in any major job forces.
For instance if you look at the government’s advertisement for a job, it may have stated in there, “The Inuit beneficiaries will be given the first opportunity.”
It may so be, but really in the end, the numbers don’t speak all that good about that.
So what I’m trying to say at the same time is that I think unless we have the bilingual status, for instance, on all these civil service jobs like they do in the federal public service, bilingualism means a lot to the French Canadians.
I think it has helped them a lot.
Unless we have a similar policy that’s saying we are having an Inuit language clearly stated in that legislation as fundamentally part of the job requirement of the public service or whatnot, are we really just saying we’re hoping that your Inuktitut language skills will help you but it’s never really been a requirement?
So it is based on that and I’m asking the minister, it’s like we have a whole lot of choices, hopefully, that eventually that will be translated into something that can really benefit those that chose to go through bilingual programs in Nunavut.
So I just want the minister to clearly understand that because many of us are really quite bilingual but we have not really seen that in the job descriptions and whatnot of the government.
So can the minister reassure us again that we will see the light of day someday in the future?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation) We’re on Education.
It takes time for a society to develop, especially around the language in the bilingual model that we’ve talked about.
Mr. Berger, in his report, pointed out that in 1968, 1969, 1970, when Prime Minister Trudeau decided that there should be bilingual public service members across Canada, whether you’re in Cape Breton, or you’re in British Columbia, or you’re in Nunavut, or in the Northwest Territories that the French Canadians should have the opportunity and the right to be able to communicate in their own language with their federal government.
At that time there was a disproportionate number of English speakers.
The money that the federal government at that time put into the program, as Mr. Berger pointed out, and now, two and three generations later, it’s come to be a fact that having both languages, English and French, would give you a better opportunity to move forward with jobs and positions, and so on, which wasn’t the case in the late 60s.
So I think when you look at where we are right now in Nunavut since 1999, to see that you have several of your deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, and senior directors in government being bilingual and being Inuk, I think is an important road and step to take.
And I think we will grow with it as we move forward with the bilingual models that we’re talking about.
Inuktitut will become more important with the language legislation that we’ve talked about tabling also.
So I agree with Mr. Curley that sometimes it doesn’t seem where it is important.
We know it’s more important and I think this government has taken the proper steps in ensuring that there is not only viability in having Inuktitut as a language but it should be a priority.
We’re on page G-5.
I have a question on G-5 in regard to some of the questions that Mr. Curley already asked but if we are going to go to school and we have to be bilingual and if we tried to be bilingual because we don’t see social workers speaking Inuktitut.
I think they have to be able to speak Inuktitut.
They have to not just have the language ability but they also have to know the culture of the Inuit as well as the Baffin Correctional Centre employees and the wildlife officers.
Like income support workers have to be able to communicate in Inuktitut and know the culture of the Inuit people, that’s what I would like to see.
What we are saying is we worry about the high school students because we don’t know whether they are going to be able to enter the university programs or not or trades schools.
We worry about some of them because, like Tagak mentioned, there are too many choices. Sometimes they don’t complete their math and they get into grade 12.
Under Directorate, I would like to ask a question. Are you planning right now whether we can have in place five or six compulsory subjects that they have to pass before they graduate from grade 12.
The mathematics does not involve just doing numbers but it has to do with your thinking.
We are on Department of Education, Mr. Picco.
To graduate whatever grade, like grade 10, grade 11, and grade 12; let’s say we use the three high school grades. There are different levels in math, as the member is aware, you could be doing applied, or basic math where you might be doing adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing whole numbers, fractions and so on.
You may also be involved in doing the second level which may be algebra and geometry, different types of statistics and algorithms and so on. You may be doing the higher level in math, which may be a university course equivalent.
At the grade 11 and grade 12 level, and at grade 12 specifically the students has to write the Alberta Departmental Exam.
A combination of the Alberta Departmental Exam and their own school mark in their home community schools is weighted just for that student to pass, and they need to have so many credits to pass the grade 12.
So that’s the standards that are in place. If they graduate with the departmentals then that grade 12 is recognized across Canada and is recognized as is the transferability of that credit to any university or college in Canada.
On the income support workers that the member talked about earlier, and I think he made a good point, I think you were picking it up with social workers, or income support under the department.
All of our income support workers are Inuk and are needed to speak in Inuktitut.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I only asked one question but he did not respond to the question that I posed.
In regard to when you use the Alberta curriculum and you get so many credits and then you can complete your grade 12 with that departmental exam.
But the question I was posing, what kind of compulsory subjects are there in order to complete the 100 credits. So what are the mandatory subjects in order to graduate grade 12?
Could you specify if there is none?
The member again when you start grade 10, grade 11, and grade 12 you start earning so many credits towards your final completion of grade 12.
As an example at the grade 12 level you have to have either English Language Arts 31 or 30-2, you also need to have 10 credits to grade 12 level to do that.
Also as I said earlier the grade 12 departmental exams are written which is equivalent from the Alberta exams, and the same as Alberta and Northwest Territories.
You could write those exam courses again depending if the 30-1 English for example, or the 30-2 English would have to be passed.
And also as we said earlier, the math. At the same time the combination 50/50 of the final exams departmentals is weighted with the mark from your school. So hopefully that helps answer the member’s question in more detail.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Honourable Ed. Picco. Mr. Arvaluk.
I hope that this is the last clarification question that I would like to ask.
What are the compulsory credits you need to do, you need to pass in order to get your Alberta Curriculum Graduation.
Again to graduate from high school the Nunavut students are required the credits of the grade 12 level and either English Language Arts 30-1 or 30-2.
So that’s the answer and of course it’s the number of credits they need for the three years. They work on credits each year but they need to pass those specifically to get their grade 12 pass.
Hopefully that clarifies the question.
As I mentioned in my opening comments a lot about the Education Act and I know the minister said that he would very happy to give us an update on that if he was asked.
And as that division or the director of the division that is dealing with the development of legislation and that, I’d like to ask the minister to give us the status on the new Education Act, and if he has an idea of when it will be introduced here in the House.
I think we just discussed that at great length with the Education Act and the time frame and what has occurred and everything I can again recite goals for the information again for the record if needed.
Can he indicate when he plans on bringing it forward into the House?
I read with interest over the last couple of days hearing Mr. Tootoo talking about ensuring when that legislation is brought forward that it meets the criteria and that it’s done right the first time.
And that’s what we’re trying to do as I said earlier to Mr. Curley.
About 70 percent of the Act is complete right now.
There are some outstanding issues with our partners Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated through the steering committee and we’re working those out to get some consensus.
We haven’t begun to draft the Act yet, we need to able to complete that work first, the policy side of the equation.
So if all that goes well I could be in a position to table the Act in May, but if I do that in May, then nothing would happen with the Act until the next fall in September of course because we’re into the summer June, July, and August. I doubt that we would be holding public hearings or so on in our communities during the summer time.
It probably would be better, more expedient for me, if I actually brought the Act forward in October and had it read first and second time referred it to the committee and you would do your hearings on it.
Again, I want to ensure that the Act is complete. So that’s our timeframe.
I’m still working towards June, but it will be you know, in that six-month period.
So it will be either in June or this fall. Again, depending on how we work out not only the logistics but some of the administrative issues with the Act.
Your TV audience says you’re chewing gum.
It’s good to hear that the minister likes to read what I say.
Maybe he’s not listening so he’s got to read.
Mr. Chairman, he indicated that it’s 70 percent done and they haven’t started drafting the Act yet but the business plan indicates that the department is developing the regulations, policies, and procedures to go along with the new Elections Act.
I’m just wondering, usually, as we saw with the Wildlife Act, those regulations are developed after the Act is brought forward and passed.
So I’m just wondering if you could explain how or why they’re doing regulations before the Act is even ... they said they haven’t even started drafting it yet, then how could they be doing the regulations?
We will need the bells before we vote on this branch summary, so standby.
I thank the member for his question and I always read in here what the member says. I take it very serious.
Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, what I’m trying to say is that on the Education Act itself, we haven’t began the drafting instructions, meaning it hasn’t gone to a lawyer to have the proper legalese put into place.
We have signed off several areas, for example, under policy development for a new Act and I could give you some examples, like hours of instruction, inclusive schooling, and so on.
The regulations of the Act itself, after the drafting instructions are given to the lawyer, then we would do the regulations also. A good example is the question Mr. Curley had raised earlier on the power of the district education authority, their roles and responsibilities.
Once we have the policy developed for the Act, then there would be regulations that would go along with that, indicating, for example, what the drafting instructions would be under the regulation.
So we would do that in conjunction and parallel, not as separate things, unlike the Wildlife Act.
Would the minister be willing to commit to providing those draft regulations at the same time as he introduces the new Act?
I would hope to be in a position to be able to do that. If I commit to doing what the member’s asking, then I may not be ready to do that in June but I would be able to, for sure, have it in the fall.
And that’s one of the considerations I’m looking at right now when I talked about logistically bringing the Act forward when I have not only the policy supports but the regulatory supports, too, in the Act.
So if I commit to doing what the member wants, then for sure I can say almost 90 percent that I won’t be in a position to deal with the Act in June.
The minister has indicated that they’re looking at it logistically and administratively and stuff with dealing with the Act, itself. He forgot one of the things he always usually throws in there as well, and that’s financially.
I am just wondering if they’ve looked at any financial implications that the 78 percent of what they have so far could have on the government. Will there be financial implications as a result of what they’re looking at?
In the development of any legislative process, you have to have a financial component; what those costs would be to the government.
That’s part of the process that we’re involved in right now with the Act is costing out some of those issues with policy there that we want to incorporate into the Act.
We haven’t completed it because we haven’t completed the Act yet. We’re still, as I said earlier, looking at, for example, some of the minority language rights issues, which we haven’t completed yet.
We’re also looking at issues under the DEA rules and regulations. For example, we haven’t cost those out. And we’re looking at some of the things under the Public Services Act, the teacher exemptions, and so on.
Those types of things haven’t been completed yet so we haven’t completed the costing of the Act.
It is good to hear that they’re doing that in conjunction with developing the legislation.
I would assume then if the minister would be in a position, whenever he does bring forward the legislation, whether it is in the spring or the fall, that they would have an idea of the cost implications to the government as a result of that legislation? Assuming if what he is saying is correct, that he wouldn’t be in the position to provide that information as well. So my question is will he at that time?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are three steps with the process of the legislation.
One is the consultative phase, and we’ve completed that. Now, we’ve taken what we’ve heard and are developing policies and regulations around it. And third, is to have that policy and regulations put into the bill.
A component of that is to cost out the bill.
So I would commit to the House, once the bill is ready to be brought forward, there will be a price tag attached to that bill, and that would form part of the Bill too. So before I can get to the House with it, I have to go back to Cabinet and say, “Here is what I think the bill is going to cost.” And then you need to have support for that because you can’t bring the bill forward with cost implications and not have the funding place.
The minister also indicated earlier that they’re working out some things that they don’t agree with on the Education Act between the department and NTI and also the other stakeholders involved there as well, Nunavut Teachers Association and the DEAs.
Can he indicate what types of fundamental areas do they have disagreements on in regard to the legislation they are developing?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said earlier, we’re looking at areas around the roles and responsibilities for DEAs. We’re also looking at some of the issues with the organizational structure, itself, how we move forward in the Public Service Act, and the teacher’s exemptions that have been requested by some groups in that Act.
I don’t see these as really major stumbling blocks. We want to try to reach consensus with our partners. That’s what we’re trying to do.
We do have a dispute mechanism in place if we can’t get an agreement at that level.
So that’s where we are right now.
So hopefully, at the end of the day we will be able to finish the Act and have consensus on the majority of the act.
The minister touched on a couple of issues dealing with the DEAs and things like that but I also understand, as he has indicated, there are some fundamental areas of disagreement between the department and NTI.
I was just wondering if he could let us know what those areas are and how they look at coming to a consensus on it or if they feel they will or they’ll just agree to disagree.
We are working with NTI again on some of these issues.
One is the language on instruction and how we can accommodate the wishes of NTI; at the same time looking at the Berger Report as a landmark study which both government and NTI endorse, which talked about having a bilingual model.
So that’s one of the disputes that we are having right now that when we move on with the resolution and proceed with that resolution with NTI.
At the end of the day, as we come closer and closer to trying to wind up the work on the Education Act we need to move forward and hopefully we won’t have to go to conflict resolution on a lot of the outstanding issues. The majority of it, as I said earlier, about 70 percent, is complete. So at the end of the day if we can’t get an agreement, we have to bring a bill forward to the House and let the members vote on it.
At the end of the day, that’s where the bill will be approved or rejected here in the House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know in the first go-around of the Education Act in the last assembly, one of the concerns that I raised, it was brought to my attention, was that the DEA for the Trois Soleil School had brought in an opinion that there was some constitutionality issues with the way that the legislation was drafted.
I am just wondering if the minister could indicate if those issues have been taken care of and we won’t see those issues crop up again this time around.
Under the Canadian Constitution the minority language rights for French speakers, and particularly what the member is talking about, is guaranteed. There’s nothing in our legislation that we can do or allow to do that would constitutionally override that.
We are in discussions right now, one of the outstanding issues is the Francophone minority language rights and I’ve had good discussions with CFSN representing the Francophone population in Nunavut.
That work is continuing. I believe we are going to have an adequate resolution to this issue.
I hope the minister is right.
That was a major issue last time even though it didn’t get brought out as much of an issue, but that could have been a major legal issue, they could have caused problems. I don’t want to see that happen again.
I am just wondering, I know the minister has said there have been extensive consultations taking place on this piece of legislation.
I’m just wondering if he could give us an idea to let us know what the cost associated with the department’s consultations and other activities relating to the development of this new Education Act have been to date.
Just looking at some numbers here, the majority of expenses, the members know, have been funded internally by the Department of Education.
We expect the net cost of 2006-07 to be about $600,000. For 2005-06 we spent about $349,000, so at the end of the day, we’ll be around $800,000 for the bill. That includes everything from the legislative point of view to the drafting to community consultations and so on.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Mr. Picco.
Oh, Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: I know it’s been a long day.
I’m glad I don’t get bills like that.