EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, yes, I’ll certainly advise the member but I can tell the member that it would not necessarily have gone anywhere else in that Housing Corporation and the way that it is structured where we have the ability to carry forward unused funding for future years and of course utilize those funds for priority.
Speaker: Members will note that question period is now over and before we proceed, we will take a 20 minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:20 p.m. and resumed at 15:46 p.m.
Written Question 009 – 1(6): Dental Services
My written question today is to the Minister of Health and Social Services, the Honourable Ed. Picco.
My first part of the question is:
Who is contracted to provide dental services for the Kivalliq region, and, specifically for the community of Baker Lake?
What are the Terms of Reference for the contractor providing dental services to the Kivalliq region and specifically to the community of Baker Lake?
Do the service provided under this contractor include denturist services?
If not, how are denturist services provided?
How many denturist service days are contracted to be provided to the Kivalliq region and specifically to the community of Baker Lake?
When contractors are providing dental services in the communities, and, specifically, in Baker Lake, what are the working hours?
What is the exact number of dental service days contracted to be provided to each year to each community as specified in the dental services contract for the Kivalliq for the region for the calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003?
On which specific days of the year 2001 were dental services provided in the community of Baker Lake?
On which specific days of the year 2002 were dental services provided in the community of Baker Lake?
On which specific days of the year 2003 are dental services are scheduled to be provided in the community of Baker Lake?
Item. 10. Petitions.
Committee Report 003 – 1(6): Bill 1 – Education Act
I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to provide the House with our Committee’s Report on the Review of Bill 1 – Education Act.
Bill 1 was introduced in the House in March 2002, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Education for review on April 24, 2002.
Members of the Standing Committee were pleased to see Bill 1 brought forward as a first step towards a made-in-Nunavut Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, during the November sitting I tabled a Progress Report on the Committee’s Review of Bill 1, which summarized the development of education legislation in Nunavut, and described the Committee’s consultation process.
Members were pleased that the Committee’s interim recommendation for the Government to provide an Inuinnaqtun version of Bill 1 was acted on by the Department of Education where Members were pleased to finally see an Innuinaqtut copy of the Bill this January.
It was noted that this arrived over a year after the Bill was first drafted.
The committee wishes to emphasise that in order for Members and the public to be able to give adequate consideration to proposed legislation, it should be provided in the appropriate languages.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Health Education has made ever effort to conduct a comprehensive review of Bill 1.
By way of motion 3-1 (6) which was carried without opposition in the house, alternate Members of the committee participated as fully voting members in the review process and other Members were able to also take part as non-voting Members from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, recognising the important role that a made in Nunavut Education Act will play in the future of the territory, the standing committee undertook an extensive consultation process in order to solicit the most comprehensive feedback possible.
Given Nunavut’s vast size, the standing committee dividing into two teams in order to enable Members to meet with as many Nunavut residents as possible within the allotted time frame for consultation.
In the fall of 2002, committee Members travelled across Nunavut to hold a series of public meetings on Bill 1.
Members heard from Nunavut residents from a total of 18 Nunavut communities at public meetings which were attended by over 650 Nunavummiut.
Groups such as Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Association du Francophone de Nunavut, the Federation of Nunavut Teachers’ and the Languages Commission of Nunavut appeared as witnesses before the committee and made formal submissions.
The committee reviewed a number of written submissions including submissions from the Federal Commissioner of Official Language, Nunavut’s Information and Privacy Commissioner and a number of DEAs.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill has generated a tremendous amount of discussion.
The committee continued to receive submissions up to the very last minute including correspondence from the Department of Education itself.
Members were extremely pleased with the level of thought and consideration given to the issues and have carefully deliberated on the input they received. Mr. Speaker, Members of the standing committee are of the view that Bill 1, is an ambitious first attempt of creating a man-made Nunavut Education Act, however, during the review process, a great many concerns were raised.
Committee Members grappled with a number of difficult issues. These included concerns with the process followed to develop Bill 1.
Members of many District Education Authority’s felt inadequately supported in reviewing drafts of the legislation and those few raised that they did not submit comments and only drafts of the legislation expressed frustration at the lack of follow-up from the Department of Education.
Some Members of the education act working group formed by the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to develop the proposed legislation expressed disappointment that nearly half of the recommendations were changes to the draft, were rejected or greatly weakened.
The standing committee itself were disappointed not to receive copies of submissions and materials used to develop Bill 1, despite repeated requests to the Department of Education, concerns that the principals of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit are not adequately incorporated in the Bill.
A number of individuals expressed the view that the concept of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is not incorporated strongly in enough in the Bill.
Many speakers indicated that the references to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit appear in different sections of the Bill as if it the intention is to squeeze Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit into an education system that is based on Qallunaaq culture principals.
Many other felt that the government should have taken the opportunity to draft a new education act founded on a principals of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
Some people discussed how expressions of Inuit culture often differ from community to community and from region to region.
In their view, protecting, promoting and supporting Inuit culture and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit within the education system should reside with the community based bodies such as DEAs.
If the District Education Authority’s do not have the decision making powers at the community level then they will be powerless to support and promote Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit where it is most important.
On the other hand, there is recognition that a great deal of work remains to be done to record and document aspects of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit that could be specifically applied to the formal education system.
Some individuals further suggested that definitions of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit within education legislation should be specific to education and not referred to broader role views.
Concerns Relating to the Constitutionality of the Bill.
A number of submissions including legal submissions expressed the view that Bill 1, as currently written is unconstitutional in nature.
The arguments are based on the rights of French language minority populations as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Some arguments have also brought forward with suspected English language minority rights.
The committee understands that a number of amendments have been suggested to address a number of concerns related to the Bill’s constitutionality.
However, it is not clear if the Bill is still vulnerable to a court challenge, concerns that Inuit languages and culture are not sufficiently promoted and supported within the Bill.
Many representatives of communities and organizations expressed frustration that Inuit languages are not given equal status to English and French.
Some felt that the Bill treated English as the majority language of Nunavut.
They expressed desire to the have the education legislation not only commit to recognising Inuit languages as having equal standing as English and French but that Inuit languages be established as the primary language of instruction.
A number of different opinions were expressed with respect to the issue of language instruction which was one of the major themes of discussion during the consultation process.
Some individuals and organizations expressed the opinion that the legislation should establish Inuktitut as the primary language of instruction and should be required from kindergarten expressed the opinion that the legislation should establish Inuktitut as the primary language of instruction and should be required from Kindergarten through Grade 12.
In their view, legislating this would ensure that the government would make every effort to meet its goals and objectives with respect to the future working language of Nunavut.
Other individuals voiced caution with respect to legislating full Inuit-language schooling when adequate resources such as Inuit teachers, curriculum and materials are not yet available to meet the demand.
Estimates of when sufficient numbers of Inuit teachers, curriculum and materials would be ready to support full Inuit language schooling varied from 5 years to more than 20 years.
Others raised doubts about whether Inuktitut terminology is currently available to allow for the development of Inuktitut language materials for academic courses such senior high schools civics or chemistry.
Speakers also expressed concerns that important aspects of cultural diversity, such as different dialects, could be lost if the curriculum and materials are developed too hastily and standardized across Nunavut.
Views such as this led to suggestions that revised legislation not be brought forward until resources were better developed instead of imposing a radical change in the education system that would be unenforceable for some time.
A number of suggestions offered a compromise approach with bilingual or transitional schooling supported in the legislation.
Other suggestions included requiring all Nunavut students to attend Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun language of instruction schools unless they could demonstrate a specified level of competence in Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun, and ensuring that Grade 12 certification would not be issued unless the student could demonstrate a specified level of competence in Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun.
Concerns that the roles and responsibilities of students, parents, teachers, principals, executive directors, District Education Authorities and the Minister as laid out in the Bill are not reflective of the manner in which people wish their education system to operate.
The proposed means to enforce registration and attendance through fines and prosecution were objected to at almost every consultation opportunity.
Many felt that fining parents and taking them to court were approaches foreign to Inuit culture and likely to be unproductive.
Many felt that counselling with the assistance of Elders and other community representatives would be a more effective means of achieving the desired results.
Issues of discipline in general were felt to be treated in a non-traditional way in the legislation.
However, others felt that sections pertaining to fines and prosecutions should remain in the legislation as a “last resort.”
In keeping with the demand for stronger support for Inuit language and culture within the education system, a number of community representatives felt that all teaching staff should be required to attend orientation courses on Inuit culture, language and social issues in Nunavut.
A few suggested that a level of certification or fluency in Inuktitut should be required of all teachers.
Others expressed the view that it is a parental responsibility to teach children their language and culture.
Most DEA representatives expressed the concern that Bill 1 severely reduces and restricts their decision-making power.
Many representatives indicated that they had originally understood that Bill 1 would result in empowerment at the community level.
They anticipated that there would be more direct contact with the Minister and that there would be a certain amount of flexibility in the manner in which DEAs influenced school programming.
Many stated that they felt that Bill 1 instead goes in the opposite direction by reducing the decision-making power of DEAs, by allowing less flexibility and less involvement in day-to-day activities and more control from regional departmental officials.
Representatives from several District Education Authorities indicated that their involvement in education within their communities would be greatly reduced by the Bill.
Many DEA representatives indicated that they were already being left out of decisions which, under the current legislation and regulations, they are entitled to be involved in.
As a result, most DEA representatives indicated that if the Bill should become law, they would not wish to sit on such a powerless entity.
The significant amount of power given to the position of Executive Director was a specific concern, especially in circumstances where the Executive Director would have the power to make arbitrary and final decisions.
Concerns that the legislation does not account for the types of programs that Nunavummiut may wish for their children.
A number of suggestions came forward recommending that culture-based school programs should be provided for within the Act.
Parents and students alike expressed the need to learn cultural skills within the educational environment, including hunting skills, sewing skills, survival skills, navigational skills, Inuit history and traditional knowledge, Inuit social studies, language and terminology, and traditional medicine.
This would further require specific positions for cultural teachers or Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit specialists.
Recognizing that such programs may not always fit in with academic programs, some suggestions included establishing summer culture camps for students.
Many community residents recalled that religious instruction in schools greatly supported their learning of Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun as well as instilling certain values.
They felt strongly that this religious teaching should be resumed.
A number of individuals indicated that the education system should not focus on academic subjects alone.
Keeping students interested and stimulated was seen as one of the keys to keeping them in school and on the path to further learning.
Shop programs, trades preparation programs and practical skills programs such as small engine repair or driving classes were all brought forward as subjects that should be better supported through the education system.
However, some concerns were raised that if certain groups of students were assigned to non-academic classes then this would not give them access to higher academic opportunities, thereby restricting their opportunities later in life.
Concerns that the proposed legislation does not address the quality of education in Nunavut’s schools, a number of speakers expressed the concern that maintaining classes of children based on their age, referred to as inclusive schooling and advancing children through the grades when they may not have attained a certain academic level.
So call social promotion sets children up for failure at a later date.
Many preferred the wording in a current act, which refers to peer groups instead of age group.
The issue of standards and comparative levels of education were discussed at many of the consultation meetings.
Many felt that the level of education attained by students in Nunavut did not equal that of students in other parts of the country.
The idea of conducting standardized assessment on students across Nunavut has met with both vocal support and opposition.
Some individuals indicated that they would support such testing if benchmarks are set within the system so that the assessment measured the system itself and did not result in unreasonable judgments on teachers or students for successes or failures.
Many individuals felt that the large class sizes across Nunavut contribute to the difficulties teachers face in not being able to deliver quality programming and for students to access it.
For example, the NWT has set a precedent by legislating Pupil-Teacher Ratios within their Education Act.
Another suggestion was to include setting maximum class sizes.
Currently, it appears that the main criterion for class size is one of physical safety rather than an optimum learning standard.
Conflicting views were heard regarding the number of hours or days of instruction set by legislation.
Some felt that DEAs should be allowed more flexibility to accommodate community activities or hunting seasons.
Others felt that the same standard should be set across all Nunavut schools.
Many community residents expressed the concern that the Bill provides little commitment or support for social issues that have a great impact on the success or failure of students.
Under Bill 1, Individual Education Plans will be required only for those students who find the program too challenging and no longer for those who do not find it challenging enough.
Only one section of the Bill refers to school counsellors.
It requires that the Minister make “a reasonable effort” to ensure the position is filled.
Many individuals spoke passionately regarding the importance of including stronger commitments to establishing and filling such positions, and initiating policies and procedures that address some of the more critical social issues faced by youth, such as suicide.
A number of parents noted that the Bill makes little reference to support for children with disabilities.
The area of special needs receives little or vague attention within Bill 1 and the legislation allows for education assistants to be hired with no requirements for training.
Individuals expressed a strong desire for a greater use of Braille and sign language for those who need it and programs specifically designed for students suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Fetal Alcohol Effect.
Mr. Speaker, Committee Members would like to acknowledge the considerable thought and contributions that were made by individuals, Members of District Education Authorities, stakeholders and other groups that participated in the review of this Bill.
It is very clear that the issue of education is considered one of profound importance for the future of Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of its review and in recognition of the many concerns and issues raised during the review process, the Standing Committee on Health and Education does not support the adoption of Bill 1 at this time.
Given the critical role that education plays in the future of Nunavut, Members feel certain that Nunavummiut will understand the need for the Government to take more time to ensure that our education system reflects our culture, priorities and aspirations.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee cautions the Government not to try to merely imitate entire education models from other jurisdictions, but to work towards identifying best practices that could be followed within our own made-in-Nunavut education system.
The Committee heard the suggestion a number of times that the Nunavut education system be modelled on the system in Greenland, where an emphasis on Inuit language and culture, for example, has had much support in recent years.
While the Committee was very impressed with many aspects of the Greenlandic educational model, it should be noted that Greenland itself is currently in the midst of a major educational reform.
In closing, the Standing Committee on Health and Education is of the view that Bill 1 should be permitted to fall off the order paper.
Members acknowledge the efforts made by the Department of Education in tackling this momentous task and suggest that the Department carefully consider the issues raised by the Committee’s review, and work to introduce a new statute.
Committee Members are aware that the Department of Education has extensive and ongoing work in the areas of Curriculum Development, Language of Instruction and the Inuit Teacher Employment Strategy.
Members are of the view that the results of these initiatives should be taken into account in the development of the new education legislation.
Mr. Speaker, later today, I will be tabling a package of materials that the Committee considered during its review of specific and problematic sections of Bill 1.
Members sincerely hope that the Department will find these materials useful and informative as it goes back to the drafting table.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time I would like to move that the report of the Standing Committee be received and adopted by the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Do Members agree the report of the standing committee be received and adopted by the house pursuant to rule 91(3)a.
Speaker: The report is adopted as read.
Report of committees on the review of bills.
Tabled Document 088 – 1(6): Written Submissions on Bill 1Received by Standing Committee
Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to table today written submissions received by the standing committee during its review of Bill 1.
In addition to submissions from organizations and stakeholders, I am pleased to let Members know that a number of students took the time to put their views on paper and these are included in the submissions.
Tabled Document 089 – 1(6): January 28 Letter to Hon. Ed. Picco – Martha Taliruq Centre
I’d like to table a document on a letter that was sent to Honourable Ed Picco, January 28, regarding minor renovations to the Martha Taleruk Centre in Baker Lake.
It’s over crowded now and it needs minor renovations.
Tabled Document 090 – 1(6): Inter-Branch Transfer
I wish to table the follow documents.
Schedule of Inter-Branch Transfers over $250 thousand dollars for the year ending March 31, 2002.
Tabled Document 091 – 1(6): January 29 Letter Regarding Eye Glass Repair
I’d like to table a document a letter dated January 9, 2003, regarding eye glass repair.
People in the community of Baker Lake have to wait up to six months to get their eye glasses repaired or replaced.
Tabled Document 092 – 1(6): Job Ad – Child and Outreach Youth Worker
I’d like to table a job act, a Government of Nunavut employment opportunity for Child and Outreach Youth Outreach worker that closed November 8, 2002.
The community of Baker Lake is still wondering when this position is going to be filled because it’s one of these positions that’s very badly needed.
Tabled Document 093 – 1(6): January 8 Letter to Hon. Manitok Thompson – New Docking Facility
I’d like to table a letter January 8, 2003 to the Honourable Manitok Thompson regarding the Baker Lake, numerous requests over the last four years for a new docking facility in the community.
Tabled Document 094 – 1(6): Health and Social Services Medivac Contract
I’d like to table a document from Jim Young, Jim the mayor of Coral Harbour regarding Health and Social Services medivac contract.
Tabled Document 095 – 1(6): January 28 Letter from Hamlet of Baker Lake – Jonah Amitnaaq Building
I’d like to table a letter from the hamlet of Baker Lake dated January 8, 2003, to Mr. Premier Okalik regarding the old Jonah Amitnaaq School and the letter regarding not tearing it down and using it as another training centre in Nunavut.
Tabled Document 096 – 1(6): PPD Positions to Baker Lake
This is my final document to be tabled to the Honourable Paul Okalik regarding the move of the Petroleum Products Division to Baker Lake and how the hamlet applauds the premier’s efforts in creating job opportunities in a have not community.