EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If you’re a student and your parents or one of your parents come to your class, don’t you think that perhaps the student is going to modify their behaviour while the parent is there? They could be on their best behaviour. How would you overcome that so that the parent actually can somehow observe their child in action without the child actually knowing that their parent is observing them?
Hon. Ed. Picco: We could put a two-way mirror in the classroom, Mr. Chairman… no.
Mr. Chairman, I think basically what we’re saying right here is that if a parent wants to come in and observe their child and that’s well welcomed by the school, we have explained how that process would work.
If the teacher, in consultation with principal, says, “Look, this is great that Keith would like to come in and watch his child in the classroom,” then you would expect, of course, that if the parent is in the classroom, the child may be at their best behaviour if there had been behavioural problems in the past.
However, in some cases, it’s just the opposite.
When the parent is in the classroom, some kids my might say, “My dad is here.
I can do whatever I want because he or she is the boss.” So it’s kind of a two-way street at times.
And again, the teacher, who is in the classroom with the student, with the children, would have the best idea of how to facilitate that observation period. If they request that it happen during instructional time, then probably I would suggest that the principal, the teacher, and the parent would have probably gotten together and said, “Look, we would like you to come in during instructional time and here’s the reason for that.” It wouldn’t just happen.
So I think, through the legislation here, it allows the teacher and the school, but also with the parent, to be able to facilitate that observation.
In the event that the principal requests the parent to come in and observe the student but the parent declines, what remedy does the school have to encourage the parent to be more proactive and come in to participate in the education of their child?
I think that’s what makes our schools a little bit more culturally unique. When we use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, we know that, in our culture in Nunavut, it’s not right to be aggressive and to tell people what to do. Everyone has their own Isuma, their own way of thinking.
If a teacher says, “I want you in the classroom,” and so on, and the parent says, “No,” you don’t have the right to force them. They have the right to have their own idea.
However, we do have two mechanisms in place to be able to support us in seeing what the issue is with the parent and hopefully help them make that transition to come into the classroom if that’s what has been requested by the school.
One resource is using the community school counsellor that we have talked about, who should be the liaison between the family, the school, and indeed the community, and the second is of course with the DEA.
If the issue is a serious enough issue and the teacher feels that it would be a valuable experience for the parent to come into the classroom and monitor as requested, then that teacher can approach the local DEA also and say, “I’ve got an issue here. How do we help out?”
I think that’s again using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, not being aggressive and telling people what to do and force them.
By using those two mechanisms between the school and DEA, as well as using the resource of the school community counsellor would be the optimum way to go.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would like to ask the minister a question in regard to Inuuqatigiittiarniq Policy.
I do understand 58(1), where it says, “A district education authority shall develop a policy for students...” What I would like clarified is will this policy deal only with curriculum, or does it say these people will work on social harmony, or will this policy be implemented within the school?
This is again a new section within the Act.
Here we talk about how we want our students to behave within the school and outside of the school.
Mr. Curley raised that earlier with the bullying issue and this follows right alongside of what we have been speaking about.
We have processes right now in our schools across Nunavut and we have a wraparound, I talked about the tribes program for example.
The DEA has an opportunity within legislation to expand all of that and look at it from their unique community’s perspective.
In a bigger community like Rankin Inlet, or Cambridge Bay, or Iqaluit, maybe the policy would be a little bit different, let’s say, than Whale Cove, or Grise Fiord, or Resolute Bay.
The flexibility in the Act allows for each DEA to be able to develop their policy within the framework or guidelines through the legislation.
So the guideline says, “Have a friendly and opening school with respect for each other,” then the DEAs can broaden that and say, “Respect also means when you’re in the playground, when you’re away from school, when you’re at home.” It could involve, for example, cyber bullying that we have already talked about, and so on.
So the current Act also provides the DEA the opportunity, the resources, and the tools to be able to maybe be more proactive when we look at that policy in the school.
I was reading through this clause and I’m just wondering: is there a limit to how many times a student could be suspended by their principal?
In the legislation itself, the policy can make rules about what’s available on the suspensions.
This is again a new section of the Act and we tried to incorporate what we heard from communities when we talked about in-school suspensions and so on.
The principal can suspend up to a maximum of five days, but under the policy itself, they can change that where he or she, as principal, might be able to do that three, or four, or five times, depending on the seriousness of the situation, depending on the work that will be done with the DEA, and what type of extra suspension policy that would be put in place to support the disciplinary measures that needed to be taken in the school itself.
Some students may be very disruptive. I would think two or three suspensions and then they move into the DEA level where they suspend or eventually to expulsion.
For the record, could you clarify who would set the number of times a student could be suspended before they move to the next level, up to the suspension by a DEA or eventually expulsion from the school?
Could the minister clarify that, please?
In our new Act, again this gives more flexibility to the local DEA and more control to the local DEA.
The suspension by the principal can be up to a maximum of five days and if we follow along in the Act itself, in sections 63 and 64, we talk about different types of suspensions; in-school suspensions, out of school suspensions, and so on.
Specifically on this section here, the principal can allow up to five days and then the DEA can step in after reviewing it and say, “Maybe that should have been for ten days,” and the DEA can put more days in if needed.
So they have the opportunity to jump in at any time to give a longer suspension in the cases that the member is talking about.
But farther on into the Act, when we heard from the constituency at large, when we did our community consultations, we found out that a lot of parents didn’t like the idea of just suspending and sending a kid home because “Once you send me home from school, I think it’s a holiday. I go home.
My mom and dad are working. Now, I’m watching TV. I’m not doing anything.”
Wouldn’t it be more constructive, when we did our community consultations, by funding the DEA so if there was a need to have in-school suspensions, that when Eddy gets suspended for five days, he is suspended for all extracurricular activities like soccer and hockey and everything else, and he has to go to a detention room from nine-to-three or whatever the regular school hours are and have to do homework given to him by the teachers.
So he’s suspended from everything in the school and is in a room with other people who might be suspended, monitored, and does his school work, and so on. That type of in-school suspension could be for five or ten days.
If the issue and the incident was so serious that the child would have to be expelled from school, again the DEA could look at the policy on the maximum times available in consultation with the principal and indeed the teacher that has been involved.
Also, the legislation, for the first time, talks about school assistance. When a child is expelled from school, in some cases, the parents aren’t helpful.
So the school, through the DEA, has to put a return-to-school assistance program.
The DEA would be key in making and ensuring that when the child is out of school, someone is actually following them and not just being thrown out.
Saying, “You’re not working out here, just go home,” no, we can’t do that.
We have the school counsellor and some of the officials at the school with the local DEA making sure that there’s aftercare given to the student.
I understand what you’re saying.
If I’m the school principal and I suspend a student the first time for five days with an in-school suspension, which the Kitikmeot DEAs support, and the minister and I met with the DEAs and they wanted that, it’s good, but then a month later, the same student gets suspended again up to a maximum of five days, and then a month later, it’s the same student, how many times does that occur before I’m the principal and say that this can’t continue - three suspensions of five to ten days, five suspensions of five to ten days?
What’s the upper limit before someone takes a really proactive action to deal with the student?
Through the Act itself, it talks about what type of collaboration and responses that have to occur before a child is suspended. That includes work with the principal, the teacher involved, and the student, contacting the parents, and work with the local DEA. So there’s a whole range of things that have to occur.
If the principal feels that the issue, on review, is a very serious situation and the child has been a repeat offender, for example, then the DEA has an opportunity to look at a longer suspension if needed and at that time, other resources might be needed.
So we already talked about the school counsellor, but maybe there are some other underlying issues that are causing the issue with the child and maybe that would be part of the recommendation from the DEA is that we need to seek help for the child.
We’ve had some cases where some children have been violent in the past and if, for example, the RCMP is called, then all of a sudden, it falls out of our hands because there may be criminal charges and everything laid.
So each case has to be judge on its own merits.
What this legislation does, in legislation, it says that there has to be actions and strategies taken by the parents, in cooperation with the school and the staff, to make sure that we can take and help that student make the transition back into the classroom because at the end of the day, that’s what they’re trying to do.
Chairman (Mr. Kattuk): Thank you, Mr. Picco. (interpretation) Is that all?
(interpretation ends) Clause 62.
Chairman: Clause 63.
Chairman: Clause 64.
Just a quick question on this, I know that there were some issues raised by some of the stakeholders on it.
I’m just wondering if the minister could give an indication as to how those issues have been resolved.
I know that there were some concerns when we were doing our consultations with, for example, the NTA and some of our communities when we were looking at in-school suspensions to ensure the safety of not only the students but also of the teachers, and so on.
Again, each suspension, it’s in the legislation itself now, is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
So for example, if a student was being violent and there was a concern, because in 99 percent of the cases, the teachers and the faculty in the school, the DEA, and the community know the individual, if there was an issue, they wouldn’t put that child in a situation where we would be putting at risk teachers and indeed other students.
So I think overall, on the school suspensions and so on, there has been considerable support for it and I think, by clarification, the NTA has a better feel for it when we look at what’s in the legislation itself.
I have a bit of concern with the Inuuqatigiittiarniq Policy being too broad, way too broad. It leaves the discretion to local education authorities to define what Inuuqatigiittiarniq Policy means.
It could be a non-policy in some communities and that’s what I’m afraid of.
I’m sure the minister has experience in dealing with students being suspended from school activities and school programs, the curriculum involvement, but without really having a real program for the one student that is under suspension, whether or not the student should remain in the school facility, and not having a proper guideline puts the safety of the students or others in question.
I would have hoped to see some examples of what the Inuuqatigiittiarniq Policy is.
I want to give you an example. Some of the Inuit organizations have summer programs now for young men and women.
One of the programs is called, ‘Somebody’s Daughter,’ Kiakiaruuq Paninga.
They take these young ladies and they have tutors, like elderly ladies, spend two weeks with them at camps and treat them exactly as the elders were raised, and taught relationships and the survival skills and everything, do operate and also to learn about sensitivities with relationships with others.
So that program is becoming really quite popular and the list is really competitive as to who is going to be eligible to go.
I know the young men are also taught.
I know, for instance, John Qaunaq from Repulse Bay and people have said he is really quite actively involved.
I would hope that the students with special problems would be steered towards, instead of leaving it to this undefined policy. It will settle the whole problem of learning problems or students under suspension. Could the minister at least indicate to this committee that these are the kinds of things that he may be hoping, that the policy would steer some of these students?
Again, the member is being very perceptive. What the policy is trying to outline is that we want to have a friendly and welcoming environment in the school.
To do that, each community may be a little bit different and each school may be a little bit different.
For the first time ever, this legislation gives each school and the DEA an opportunity, within that policy, to be able to look at how they define what their school would be and so on.
So the DEA can direct, for example, that Mr. Qaunaq, if it was in Repulse Bay, would be able to look at helping, mentoring, and providing some of that elder leadership.
And that’s what makes this policy so unique. We didn’t want to make it so structured that each DEA would have to conform because what might be culturally acceptable or what might be community acceptable in one community may not be as much in a smaller community as opposed to a larger community when you have different cultures, for example, like in Iqaluit, or a larger community like Rankin Inlet, or indeed in Cambridge Bay. So that policy allows for that to be implemented.
I don’t know if the deputy minister would like to add anything to that, Mr. Kattuk, Madam Okpik.
All the things that were discussed just now, once identified by local district education authorities, can be implemented.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Okpik. Mr. Curley
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, I am pleased with those statements.
I was presented with a rawhide rope made from bearded sealskin by a male student and which I still have in my possession and proud to own, especially when it was the first one made by that individual.
I heard one girl talk enthusiastically about how she was treated like a daughter and was taken on a trip out on the land for two weeks. As a result of her experience, she opened right up, became much friendlier, and far more caring of elders after she took that course. This is very good to see.
I would like to thank Kathy and the minister.
It’s important to consult the people out there, but I know it can be difficult when money is hard to come by for the local organizations and there are many of these groups in the Baffin region.
I believe this is a major step forward and I thank them for including this here.
That was just a comment. (interpretation ends) Clause 64.
Chairman: Clause 67?
Chairman: Clause 68.
Under section 67, counselling services, I’m not sure what the term is in Inuktitut for school counsellor, perhaps someone who deals with students.
It would seem that the DEA should have the authority to hire counsellors because they know who the best people are for that kind of work and who sincerely cares about students and their future well-being.
I wonder if the minister can tell me if it states in that legislation where the DEA has the authority to hire counsellors similar to what school principals have for hiring teachers.
We have a process in place through the hiring of counsellors and we fund those positions through the Government of Nunavut.
I’ll just ask the deputy minister if she would like to add that.
In all of our schools, we call them school community counsellors.
It would be ideal to hire those who put students first.
There’s no question that people in the communities usually know the applicants since most of them are also from the communities. Some of the applicants are elders and are usually given priority for work in the school.
Counsellors, like other employees, are difficult to get rid of when they aren’t suitable for their work because of the government’s employment rules.
When counsellors are unable to do their job properly in assisting the students, can the DEA replace them with someone else?
When we’re dealing with employees, we have to be respectful of their position and indeed when they’re in a collective agreement situation, we just can’t go in and let them go or terminate their employment.
What has to happen, and again it’s outlined within the framework of the Public Service Act and the collective agreements that are in place, is that proper letters of reprimand would have to be placed under file and so on and so forth, and then dismissal because of not doing their job or job dissatisfaction could occur.
I appreciate the member raising the issue because within the policy itself, and we just spoke about it earlier, it also gives the DEAs an opportunity to be able to hire some other positions.
So a person that may be hired, for example, as a counsellor, who is an elder, may not have the grade 11 or grade 12 academics that they might need, but certainly would have the lifelong experience in counselling skills and having the language skills to be able to deal at that level.
So that has to be taken into account, too.
So hopefully that helps clarify the question by the member.
Also, in this new legislation, we actually have the training for our counselling staff and so on.
That has been an issue in the past because of issues with the collective agreement and the different funding mechanisms that are in place for professional development, or PD, for different staff in the school.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Picco. (interpretation) Is that all?
(interpretation ends) Clause 67?
Chairman: Clause 82?
Chairman: Clause 87?
Just on education staff, and I know I could have probably asked it in clause 1, I know that there were some concerns raised in regard to the definition of a teacher and I’m just wondering if the minister or his officials could give an indication of how that issue was addressed.
I thank the member for the question. We did have some good debate on what defines a teacher.
What we have been doing is using the national classification of an educator/teacher in the country so that we meet and maintain the formal role within the Act itself, under the legislation, so they’re aware of that number.
So that’s what we agreed to do. The national definition of an educator includes all employees in the public education system that are required to have a teaching certification and that was the verbiage that was used.
It’s rare to hear the minister using “verbiage.” I know one of the concerns that were raised is that they wanted to have staff, if they had a teacher’s certificate while working in the curriculum development area, that weren’t in the classroom.
In that definition, is that something that has been addressed?
There was some concern, for example, that other people who were in the school, who might take on the role of a teacher when the school was short-staffed, should be counted. We did not move in that direction.
We used what the national definition was, which is being used nationally across all jurisdictions. For example, it doesn’t include school community counsellors, teaching assistants, teachers on leave, substitute teachers, but it does include other positions.
It doesn’t include the people in the learning centres that the member indicated.
Maybe the minister misheard my question.
I didn’t say people working in the learning centres; I was saying if the Department of Education had staff working, let’s say, in the curriculum development role or in another role within the department that had a teaching certificate.
Would those fall under that national standard definition that he mentioned that they’re using?
A good example is if there’s a requirement to have your teaching certificate. So as an example, Kathy has her teaching certificate but it’s not required because she’s the deputy minister. Brad has his teaching certificate but it’s not required because he’s working in a senior position.
So in cases that the national standard or the national definition is in place where it is required to have a teaching certificate, you would be considered a teacher for that policy.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Is that all?
(interpretation ends) We’re on clause 89.
Chairman: Clause 91.1?
Chairman: Clause 102?
I would just like to ask the minister if he could explain how the certification process works in Nunavut with respect to hiring teachers from different provinces to come work up here in Nunavut.
I know there have been some issues with certification or indeed being placed on the proper pay step and level with some constituents in the member’s riding.
Basically all certification is detailed within the regulations of the Act itself, but a cursory review of certification occurs when the person is employed.
Let’s say that person is coming out of Alberta and wants to work in Cambridge Bay. If they need a Bachelor of Education, when they’re initially hired, they give us what their qualifications are, they’re interviewed, and then they have to provide the documentation that proves the degrees, the background, and the experience that they say they have, they actually have.
While that is occurring, they’re placed on a certain band on the pay level until all that information is forthcoming to the registrar, and once that occurs and if there’s additional information, then they’re put on the proper pay level and so on.
The actual certification of the teacher is detailed within the legislation itself and that’s just a thumbnail sketch of how it works.
I have asked the minister this before, but isn’t there a way to streamline the process between the different jurisdictions?
So if you’re certified in Ontario and you come to Nunavut, why can’t you rely on Ontario’s certification process when you’re hiring a teacher for Nunavut?
The member is aware that a few weeks ago, Premier Okalik was in meetings with the other national Premiers talking about mobility rights within Canada and indeed how the certification for different trades, whether they be in the provincial red seal trade or indeed if they are a doctor, or lawyer, or a candlestick maker, can be broached between jurisdictions, provinces, and territories.
The certification by Nunavut, we have to have our own certification processes in place, which I think is only rightfully so.