EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I thank the committee for their insights and I also thank our staff and our minister.
You have succeeded in your quest and sometimes I would get tired of seeing you every week, but we must do that when we have to work together.
I just want to apologize profusely. I did forget to thank three individuals that assisted us in this process and that’s the committee staff, our Committee Researcher, Siobhan Moss, I’m sure she’s upstairs watching right now, along with Nancy, our Clerk, and Ms. Cooper, our Legal Advisor, for going through this.
I know with all the amendments and reprints that keeping track of them all wasn’t very easy.
I know there was a lot of effort put in by them as well and I wanted to thank them very much for their assistance.
We will now proceed to the clause-by-clause review of the bill, starting with page 1 of Bill 21, Education Act.
Page 2, clause 1.
I just want to ask this general question and return to the clause about the Fundamental Principles and everything.
I think it’s pretty tough to ask this question in any specific place within the legislation because it has been something that’s addressed in so many different places throughout the legislation, and I know the minister touched on it somewhat in his opening comments, and that’s the fact of devolving power, authority, and responsibilities to the community level and to district education authorities.
We all know that that’s something that was very controversial throughout this whole process.
So instead of asking all throughout the bill on that, I would like to take this opportunity for the minister to outline where these issues have been addressed in the legislation.
One of the concerns raised in NTI’s public letter which they sent to the media, and so on, I don’t think they had an opportunity to see the actual bill at all and the 71 amendments that we have in it.
Specifically on local control for education through the local DEAs, as the member has pointed out, it’s all through the Act.
So when you look at the Act itself, DEAs receive more power than ever before and it’s in sections of 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 32, 34, and I could keep going on.
Local control has been dramatically changed and increased by motion in the committee.
That also includes: the majority of the minister’s directions have been removed from the Act; the DEAs’ general directions can now be overridden by the minister’s general direction of power and that’s only unless, for the first time ever, the DEA was doing something unlawful or indeed if they were in trusteeship, meaning we had taken away their power.
For the first time ever, what’s been requested by the DEAs and supported by the DEA Coalition is in the Act, and NTI asked for this, now, the DEA has the direction and control over the principle.
What that basically means is that the DEA power now is entrenched within the legislation in that aspect.
I know this is an area that I had raised concerns the first time and I know the minister is aware that there were a number of issues in regard to inclusive education that were raised.
I’m just wondering if he could give us a brief summary of how they have been addressed through amendments and changes to the legislation.
Under section 41, we’re looking at the inclusive schooling entitlement and indeed we have done considerable work here.
I wanted to point out that the recent article in Exceptionally Education Canada, which is a peer reviewed paper, that the committee had an opportunity to discuss with me, points out that Nunavut is probably one of the best jurisdictions in Canada and indeed is on cutting or leading edge when it comes to inclusive schooling in the country.
Our inclusive schooling section is charter compliant, and we have looked at other jurisdictions and we do believe that we compare quite favourably. We have actually taken a more Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or IQ, inclusive approach when we look at inclusive schooling.
Basically we established that all students are entitled to adjustments or supports if they need them in order to meet curricular outcomes and with that amendment, we helped guide the determination of what supports or adjustments a student may need. So I think that was quite an exciting section within the Act itself.
And again, I think when you have a peer reviewed paper, that means the best educators, and so on, who go back into a school system and look at what you’re doing, they come back and say that there is a national standard, indeed that is nationally recognized, by what we’re doing, which is culturally inclusive and indeed language inclusive.
I know one of the other issues that were raised was ensuring that the DEAs and the schools had resources to deal with the problems with inclusive education.
I’m just wondering if the minister could give us a summary of how those issues have been dealt with.
Hon. Ed. Picco: What we have done in the Act, Mr. Chairman, is allowing for oversight of inclusive schooling and that is to be looked at on a school-by-school, student-by-student, case-by-case basis.
In the Act itself, it establishes that our DEAs would oversee the delivery of inclusive schooling and that would probably be carried out through the general direction of our principals.
And also, if there was a mediation of a dispute of what type of inclusive schooling was happening, for example, if it wasn’t meeting the requirement of the parent, the teacher, and most importantly the student, then we would have actually the establishment of an appeal panel, when necessary, to be able to review that.
So it gives us the supporting mechanism, but for the first time ever, you have it in legislation and there’s no cost issue for who gets supported. It’s supported based on the needs of the student and what we can do within the school system itself.
That’s a responsibility that has been devolved to the district education authorities and through them, the principal would determine what their inclusive education requirements would be as far as resource-wise and what their needs would be, and that would be provided by the department. Is that what the minister is saying?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Yes, Mr. Chairman. All the staff are paid by the department. Any capital expenditures or capital construction, or any of them that would be needed to accommodate the student would be covered off by the DEA and if the DEA wasn’t in a position to be able to do that, then we would have to do it through the Department of Education.
The DEAs do have an extra O&M budget also for the communities and that could be used to cover off equipment and supplies if needed or by the Department of Education.
I just need a clarification here. So do I understand then that clause 41 is eligibility criteria, 42 is who will have the oversight, and 43 is how clause 41 and 42 will be carried out?
Chairman: Thank you. Minister Picco.
When we look at 41, it actually speaks about what inclusive schooling is and inclusive schooling entitlement.
When we look at clause 42, it’s the oversight of the inclusive schooling and we just talked about that with some of the questions that Mr. Tootoo asked. So the answer to the member’s question is he’s correct.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you. (interpretation) That’s all.
So for everything in those clauses up to clause 53, you were mentioning a few clauses that relate to DEAs, or speaks about, or authorizing the DEA for the purpose of local control.
If the bill is passed, will you be issuing to DEAs what parts and what clauses in this bill relate to them so that they will know exactly where to look?
Chairman: Thank you, Member.
As the members have said in the opening comments, we had over 70 amendments to the bill originally. It’s quite a large piece of legislation and indeed it’s over 100 pages.
So one of the things that the committee had suggested and we thought was a good suggestion was to come forward with a companion to the legislation.
So basically it would be an easy-to-read guide of where the different parts of the legislation are. For example, if there was an issue on inclusive schooling, the DEA would have the easy-to-read section. They wouldn’t have to take the whole 100 pages of legislation of the bill which is all full of legalese.
They would actually have a common read guide overview of the Act itself. It’s the first time ever we’re doing that with any type of legislation in Nunavut.
To me, section 54 is very important.
Many drop-outs have problems and it’s no surprise that many drop-outs don’t graduate.
I would like further clarification on this section here all the way to section 55.
I would have expected it’s in regard to bullying because a lot of times, students don’t want to go to school due to bullying.
Section 54(2) states that “Students have a personal responsibility to help maintain a welcoming attitude and a safe school environment.”
It appears to be in reference to zero tolerance towards bullying, but I don’t know how bullying will be handled in there.
Can the minister explain if the present procedures are adequate for dealing with bullying?
I really would like to hear from the minister on that even though it states that learning should be improved, but if that’s indeed the case, how is it done?
Under this section, I think it’s more open now and a more positive section. We actually did a lot of work with this section and it came from the community consultations that we had. Indeed, it’s more Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or IQ, oriented version and more friendly.
Basically what we’re saying is that students are now required to follow school rules, but we’re also saying that we must help maintain a very welcoming, positive and safe school environment. And that goes directly into what the member just spoke about when we talk about bullying.
No longer is bullying just within the four walls of a school, or a classroom, or in the playground, now, we see where some of our students are being bullied through what we call ‘cyber bullying,’ where kids have all access to Internet and sometimes they say things on MSN Messenger, or Bebo, or one of these sites, and that can be just as emotionally scarring as what we see when someone has been physically attacked, or whatever, when it comes to bullying.
What we have done in our schools is we have a wraparound process; we have what we call tribes in schools. All of these different mechanisms, processes, and projects within the school itself talk about how we treat each other with respect and so on.
I think we have been more proactive and we have actually seen a pretty good turnaround of what’s happening in the school, but we have seen a disturbing trend of more outside-of-the-classroom, of the cyber type of bullying.
What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is ask maybe if Kathy, the Deputy Minister, would like to just add to what I have said about bullying and how we’re dealing with it in the context to what Mr. Curley’s question was.
Just to add to the minister’s comments, this legislation states that the DEA has the power to make regulations on school attendance and together with developing social harmony, their regulations will have spelled out the role of students.
They would clarify the behaviour expected of students within school and other rules considered necessary and what problems are expected.
Also, procedures would have to be outlined for conflict resolution among misbehaving students or considered to have misbehaved.
This legislation can then be raised and applied within the school.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Okpik. (interpretation ends) Clause 54.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Parents should do more under section 55 (1).
In Rankin Inlet this winter, I heard an elder say that teachers sometimes don’t discipline the students because they’re more scared of the students’ parents.
Section 55(1) states, “A parent of a student who is not an adult has the responsibility to be involved in decisions that affect the student’s education or the student’s health or safety in the school.”
Can we get more information on how the parents will be fully informed of this section?
I think we’re quite excited about parent participation and one of the comments Mr. Tootoo made on the Act itself, I think he made a good point, he talked about the drop-out rates.
One of the things that I have been saying as Minister of Education, and people are probably tired of hearing me saying it, over the last four years, I have seen in the education system that we really got to have that parental support to support our teachers and our children in school.
When parents aren’t involved in the education system, when we have social problems at home, when you see children sleeping on the floor and they don’t have a proper bedroom, the houses are overcrowded and some of the other social issues that we have, then how do you expect that child to get up in the morning and go to school?
We know, for example, almost every one of our schools right now in Nunavut, over the last five years, have had to put a breakfast program in the school because children come to school hungry.
That’s just a fact of life. So as leaders, we need to be able to articulate this and we should be able to speak in a public forum like that.
And I appreciate the question that Mr. Curley has been raising and that’s an important part.
In this section here, in Parent Participation, we talk about how a parent should be involved in all aspects of the education system of their child, but we also point something else out which is an extreme fact in Nunavut.
It says in the Act, if you look at it on page 34, “A parent of a student who is not an adult,” and so sometimes parents aren’t adults, sometimes parents are 16, 17, 18, and 19, and they need support because they might still be in school.
So we need to be able to look at: how do we have a parent participation program that works?
So that’s what this section is doing and what the section itself is saying is that we want parents to be involved in our children’s education, and that includes observing instruction in the school at times and making sure that all parents can be involved.
Not all parents may be able to be actively involved in all aspects of a student’s life.
But where they can contribute, we want to say in the Education Act, that they are welcome to come to the school. And I think that’s a very important role and I appreciate the member raising this section in the Act.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for his answer.
Students are encouraged to go to school and have to be in school by law, and their parents have been told something to that effect.
That isn’t exactly what happens when students don’t want to attend school, or when they just want to sleep, or allowed to oversleep, so I wonder how you will encourage parents.
What will you do if this legislation is not adhered to on mandatory attendance as outlined in section 55(2)?
If the law isn’t followed, what happens then?
Do I understand correctly that they’re not paid to carry out functions?
Mr. Curley is really hitting at the heart of a big problem we have in Nunavut when we look at our schools.
When we track our children through the school system from K-12 and we have the stats to show, if our children are attending school 80 percent of the time, they are graduating, they are passing, and they are being successful.
Mr. Curley is right on the mark.
What happens is we see when our children get to grade 7, grade 8, and grade 9, sometimes in grade 6, they start to fall off going to school, they don’t come on Monday afternoons and they come Wednesday mornings, and so on.
The big issue is, as Mr. Curley just said, a lot of our children can’t get out of bed in the morning because parents may not be able to be home to wake them up, parents are working, or the other socio-economic problems that are occurring in the house.
I have said, and many of you heard me say this many times and I think it’s true, when you go to a graduation, when I was at the chairman’s graduation in Clyde River and when I have been throughout Nunavut at graduations, the first thing those graduates say, it doesn’t matter if they’re in Clyde River, or Gjoa Haven, or if they’re in Iqaluit, when they’re on stage is, “Thank you, mom and dad, for getting me out of bed in the morning.”
You don’t hear that when you’re at graduations in the south for example.
Our situation is different because it’s daylight in a lot of our communities in the spring all the time and when the kids have an opportunity, they walk around all night long.
It’s a little bit different and there are some other issues there.
So what we have done in the Act here, and I’m glad Mr. Curley raised it again, is that following IQ, or Inuit Qaujimajatugangit, we have set up what we call a DEA attendance policy within the Act where the DEAs now can enforce a policy based on what their reality is in their home community.
Plus, for the first time ever in the Act, we have budgeted for a school counsellor position for every school in Nunavut.
That was not the case, certainly wasn’t the case, and isn’t the case right up until today.
Teachers should not have to phone parents and say, “Little Eddy is not in school today.” That’s why you need to have that community school counsellor who can liaison with the parents, who can talk to the children, who can help them get back into the school, and find out what the problem is, whether it’s a family problem, is it a problem at home, is it a problem in the school.
So in that section, and the member again is correct, there is a role there for the DEA and this is how we’re trying to incorporate Inuit Qaujimajatugangit within the Act, and that’s why, all through the Act, we say you see this type of policy.
So hopefully that helps clarify the question.
I appreciate that. I understand it and I do read that under section 2(e), where the Inuit Qaujimajatugangit and so on is under the direction of the education authority.
What I’m getting at is if there is no provision within the law that is stipulated clearly exactly what the consequences would be for parents who are not actually complying with this provision, to ensure their kids and students go to school and so on, if there is no consequential fines or anything, or reprimands for parents and whatnot, I don’t see how they can be compelled to comply with the law when it’s referred back to a group that has no real legislative authority or anything.
So having said that, can the minister give an example of exactly how the parents are going to be dealt with?
I think they should be compelled to attend even sensitivity training or something so that they can understand exactly what attending properly means for their children.
When we were doing our community consultations, in the old Act, we had fines.
So if a child didn’t attend school and was a non-attender, we could fine the parents a set amount, $1,000 or $1,500.
However, when we looked at the research in the Act itself, we had never applied that, meaning we actually never fined parents for not allowing their child to come to school.
And once we got into more and more of a debate on the issue, we found out that, in a lot of cases, for parents, when you have a teenager who is 14, 15, or 16 and when you go in and say, “Listen Eddy, get out of bed and go to school,” a lot of parents are intimidated by these kids today.
We heard at our public consultations, when you have a teenager, some of the parents are afraid. How do you deal with that?
Do you fine the parents who are afraid to send their child to school because their kid is angry and doesn’t want to go to school for whatever reason?
So it was a very difficult situation.
So what we have done is we have taken out the penalty of a fine to the parents.
Is the responsibility on the parent to get the child to school or how do we help and support the parents?
So using Inuit Qaujimajatugangit, under the IQ, and this is what makes this Act so unique across Canada, we talk about how do you have the community school counsellor, how does the local DEA, who knows the family, knows the community, knows the child, work with the family and say, “Listen, maybe Eddy has to come to school.
How do we help Eddy get up and go to school?”
We have seen that demonstrated in two or three of our communities where this type of program has worked.
In our community consultations and working with the standing committee, we felt that we have never used the hammer of a fine, why have it in there?
Replace it and use it with a more opening policy and put some of the onus not just on the family but try and support them to get the children into school, and that’s what we have here now in the new Act.
I would just like some clarification on this particular clause. I interpret it to mean that the parents can request to sit in on a class to observe, but then the principal would determine if it’s not “in the best interest of the student, the parent, the teacher, or the other students.”
Now, what examples could you give us why a principal would decline a parent’s request to sit in and observe their child in a classroom?
Again, there’s a little bit of a unique aspect to the member’s question.
Just to clarify, if I’m a teacher in a classroom, and I might be involved Monday to Friday with my children in the classroom, teaching my students, my pupils, and then all of sudden, I have an exam on a Friday morning, or a Thursday morning, or a Wednesday morning, if a parent wants to come in and observe the class, then the person who is in charge of the school is the principal.
If I say I want to come in and monitor Keith’s class, then the parent has an opportunity to go to the principal and say, “Look, my son is a student in Keith’s class and I would like to come in and see how he’s doing for half an hour or an hour,” and that would be welcomed by the school.
However, they want to make sure that it’s scheduled between the teacher’s schedule, depending if they’re doing the exam or what’s happening with the kids, and that’s the reason why you would ask the principal to allow them to schedule.
We don’t want anyone just showing up and going into the classroom, and so on, that’s a workplace.
We don’t want the teacher to be intimidated by someone coming in. They might have the feeling that they’re being monitored and so on; this should be a positive happening.
Every school in Nunavut, every teacher in Nunavut welcomes the opportunity to have parents come by and share in their child, their student’s successes and failures in the school, and get a piece of that and experience that. So that’s why you would want to go to the principal to make that appointment so that it doesn’t interfere. There might be five other parents who wanted to go in on a Tuesday morning and maybe that would be too much for the teacher.
So we don’t want a situation where the teacher is put into the position that they may feel that they’re being monitored or evaluated because that’s not what this is about and that’s why the principal would have that discretionary power. So hopefully that clarifies that question.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it seems like a positive clause when you explain it that way.
On the Responsibility to observe, (2), this is a bit on the flipside; this is where the school would like the parent to observe the student, their child if the opinion of the principal would be in the best interest of the student.
Could you give me an example why a principal would want the parent to observe their child?
That seems a little bit convoluted, but basically what it means is that a parent of a student has a responsibility to see the student during instruction if the principal says, “Look, when we’re doing just talking and having an open conversation in the classroom, your child does very well. But when we’re trying to instruct in the classroom, your child may be disruptive.
There may be an opportunity for you to come in when we’re doing instruction and observe your child at that time because maybe it’s the behaviour that the teacher would like you to see that your child is experiencing or doing.”
So that’s the reason for that clause.