EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
So if someone wanted to take a carpentry program they could still go to the pre-employment carpentry, for example, in Igloolik, or Whale Cove, and then when they are ready to do the other features of the program, they would go to Rankin Inlet and they would be doing it there.
So the reason for the proposal calls is to look at as a basis, what do we want and need in Nunavut?
Pull those different ideas and thought processes together, and they come forward with a program in the fall where we say this is what we want to advance, again being politically cognizant of some of the other issues about de-centralized and non de-centralized communities and opportunities, and so on.
So, I think if that helps answer the member’s question, that is where we are right now under the planning process.
At the end of this budget cycle, when this budget, if approved in the House, then we will go forward with the RFP, bring that information and go back to the Standing Committee and explain it.
Anything else, Mr. Curley?
I am even encouraged that he is explaining it in some respect, a little more optimism, as far as I am concerned about that. We are serious about opportunities in getting our children, our young people in trades opportunities.
But my question is still is that, we certainly don’t want to rely on the consultants only to consult the recommendations.
We have to narrow this straight down a bit exactly, what is feasible and what isn’t and surely we would have some idea.
We know for a fact that funds are not unlimited.
They are limited and therefore, we don’t have a cash till somewhere where we can draw funds to build these facilities in all the three regions.
So I appreciate the explanation that it’s going to take a number of options to get it going.
Could you at least explain to me on what that particular item is because, surely, I think the minister is going to have to be told exactly what he is asking the consultants.
If we issue the RFP too broad, it will die on some shelf somewhere and not get acted on.
So I would like the minister, maybe he could show me what amount he is talking about, so we can go to the appropriate page later.
There are a couple of points and I appreciate, again, the clarification by the member.
Right now, we are actually underway.
Under the labour markets development agreement, the LMDA that we have with the federal government, we are looking at opportunities for training and see and try to identify the positions that will be available.
For example, under a principal trades, but also as a college of trades and technology, what would be available in Nunavut in the next five to ten years, we have already talked about for example, we know mining is coming forward.
Are there principal trades or other types of trades in the high tech sector, for example, under IT, working with computers, the internet, and so on and so forth?
So, we need to be able to look at what are the positions that are available, that are becoming available, and they have developed those programs and services to be able to deliver those types of programs.
That’s part of the work that we are doing right now.
The information that the member is requesting would be found under G-21 in the detail of work performed on behalf of third parties.
You would find it under the labour market development agreement.
Within that amount, we have budgeted about $50,000 for that next step RFP on the actual physical infrastructure and so on.
I would hope to be in a position as the minister to bring forward something in the House, as the member has said and stated, early and probably in September, after we complete that RFP process.
We know it’s in March and we get this budget finished by April 1, complete the RFP process, do the analysis, bring it back in the fall to the direction we are going for and look at the capital dollar availability, because as all of the members know, there is nothing in the capital plan right now for any type of physical facility.
Maybe there is an opportunity, under some of the labour market agreements we actually have in place over federal contributions, or some of the special funding that may come available.
So that’s what we have to look at.
Maybe the members in October, when we come back and say here is what we want to do, the members endorse it, a motion is passed in the House to actually access the money for the capital plan because that will be the next capital planning cycle for us.
It will be this coming fall when we look at the new capital budgets and that could be a new item put on to the budget with the acquiescence and approval of the members.
Mr. Curley, any more?
I wanted to allude to an article that I read not long ago.
I think it was one of these newspapers locally.
With respect to the Nunavut research in general, the minister made a statement that people would like to see Nunavut become first-class, have the ability to deal with a large-scale or major research in Nunavut and that kind of stuff.
But my question really was: are we raising expectations with something that we can’t actually deliver?
I think we need to be practical about what we say, what we can achieve and what we can propose.
I am wondering if the minister could explain to the House because, for the first time I read that Nunavut is going to become an expert on climate change. We really don’t have that technology or the ability.
Surely, if we are going to do something, we should back it up with a certain amount of allocation of funds and so on because, surely, we are dependent on the knowledge somewhere of our counterparts and all over the arctic regions as well as many of the institutions down south.
So, could you maybe clarify for us this directorate item?
Chairman: I’m sorry.
First of all, the article that the member is talking about from Nunatsiaq News talked about the issue around climate change.
We have the Nunavut Research Institute, the NRI right now, under the auspices of the Nunavut Arctic College.
Basically we’re left in a position where we actually just permit, allow different scientist, and so on and so forth, to come forward, we give them a permit and let them do studies in Nunavut and then we tell them to report back to us.
A lot of the studies that are going on right now, for example, one last spring in Sylvia Grinnel in the glaciers thing, to see how far glaciers have retreated and so on as well as on the Pentium Barnes Ice Cap, deal with global warming and climate change.
Under the Federal Government, there is a strategy in place on climate change, and so on.
What I’m suggesting is, why don’t we start doing some of that work here in Nunavut and house the work in Nunavut itself.
Why should the Federal Government be sponsoring some person to come up out of the University of Ottawa, University of Lethbridge and come on the ground for two or three weeks or six months and then leave.
If the coordination of the work right now under the permit and we do that under the land claims and some of the other legislation that are in place, why can’t we have that kind of centre of excellence in Nunavut.
I think at the federal level, this has actually been heard favorably by the federal Minister and indeed since that article; I’ve been contacted by the Federal Government and the Minister asking for a meeting in Ottawa, to talk about some of these issues.
Climate change, the Kyoto Accord, is really raising some issues across not only Nunavut but across Canada and internationally.
If climate change and we believe in climate change and global warming, we have seen some of the reports that the Minister of Environment as one who has also signed a letter with me to the Federal Environmental Minister to deal with some of these issues, is real and is happening mostly in the Arctic and in Nunavut.
Therefore and thus, I would expect that we would be on the forefront of that and be able to have that type of institution and have our federal friends bring it forward.
So that was the interview that I did in Nunatsiaq News and we’re talking about hopefully under the climate change initiatives, the Federal Government would see the merit, that if you’re going to study something, why don’t you study it where you are and that’s in Nunavut and then have that information available to Nunavummiut for Canada.
Let’s act on our government policies to the federal programs on issues around global warming and sovereignty and those things with the jurisdiction.
Nunavut and this Minister, we were really the first jurisdiction in Canada to sign the Kyoto Accord.
We did it right here at Minister Anderson’s a year ago.
We were the first jurisdiction to sign on and later on this week, Mr. Chairman I would be making announcement measures by the Qulliq Energy Corporation where we’re going to be eliminating thousands and thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions in Nunavut.
That would coincide with some of the work that the member has asked about.
Hopefully that helps explain some of the issues that came up out of the climate change article in Nunatsiaq News.
Mr. Curley: I think these are some things that we need to discuss in Nunavut, not just in this forum but throughout, even with our elders and our local leaders in our communities.
The reason I’m asking the question to that is because I’m not sure, with respect to the research, the knowledge requirements of our institutions, whether they be government education or Inuit.
In my opinion, there is no agreement amongst each one of us.
If you talk about wildlife, the Minister will most of the time, probably side with the scientists, that the biology that have no relationship whatsoever with my kind of people, people I grew up with who has research and knowledge.
If it’s Inuit knowledge, it’s questionable, always.
It’s never part of government policy.
So, what I’m afraid of is that its knowledge based institutions, if it doesn’t incorporate the expertise, there were certain Inuit that specialized in areas.
Normally, the press would just say, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, Inuit knowledge, it’s questionable.
There’s no factual base.
It’s just like my father walking in, if he was alive, he would probably be called a dummy because, what does he have?
He has no credentials but he certainly knows about wildlife, the hardship, and the movement of the seas and the weather.
To me, the climate change is not something that changes so rapidly that we can’t live with it.
To me, it’s an evolution of change that has been occurring since the time we were born and so on.
I am amazed that the minister is now moving so fast on Kyoto Accord because our emission is probably less than one percent of the total consumption of the emissions of Canada.
So, it’s both dead and it’s in the Arctic. So it sounds great, but will it actually be getting different?
I would urge the minister and his colleagues to incorporate the importance of including Inuit knowledge and not isolate it and footnote IK. It’s traditional knowledge, it’s somewhere out there.
It should be a part of government, to government policy, and would the minister respond that they have got to do better than just commenting on Inuit traditional knowledge when referring to the importance of research in Nunavut.
Any response to that, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Ed Picco: Well, it’s a strange day, but Mr. Curley and I are on the same page.
I would agree 100 percent with him, but I want to point out some issues that sometimes, for example, this government in the past two weeks has taken it on the chin and Minister Akesuk took it on the chin when he actually agreed with Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, Inuit knowledge, when you look at the population quotas for polar bears.
That was incorporated in the decision made by the government and the minister.
So, we are actually doing what the member is saying.
On the second part, on the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, under IK, Inuit knowledge, we are left outside the mainstream of Canada when it comes to global warming and global research in Nunavut, when we have no control over that center or science.
Right now, we are only in a position where we permit things.
If, for example, you had a scientist who lived in Nunavut and they were based at the NRI, at the Nunavut Research Institute, and they are dealing with people and see the climate change we see on a regular basis, they have a better perspective on that, than just coming up for three months when it’s warm in the summertime.
That’s how we get Inuit knowledge and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit integrated throughout, not only what the Government of Nunavut does, but what other governments do. Our portion of the Kyoto Accord may only be one-tenth of one percent of the total gas emissions dropped or contributed by Canada as a whole.
However, Nunavut should be at the forefront and should be leading the way. We live in the Arctic.
Ozone depletion is at its highest over the Arctic and the southern poles, caused by what we hear, by greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming and climate change supposedly are caused by this industrial waste in the atmosphere. It behoves, as a government and as a people to make a small stab at it.
I think in the next couple of days when I do the announcement in the House, you will see that we are actually doing it and I agree with Mr. Curley.
It’s only a small amount, but at least we can put our money where our mouth is and say we are actually trying to make a difference and I think that will echo well with our compatriots across the country.
Margaret Wenteen might think that we are in some kind of ghetto, but I would suggest to you that a lot of the cutting edge and leading edge things that are occurring, not only in Canada, were actually occurring right here in Nunavut itself and I believe that’s where the opportunity lies.
Myself and Minister Akesuk wrote the Honourable Steffan Dion and some of the other ministers and talked about the opportunities that present themselves under the climate change initiative, that we can squeeze a few dollars from that proverbial, I mean you can’t get a lot out of a turnip, but we can squeeze a few bucks from our federal friends to actually accentuate and enhance some of the things that we are doing on the ground.
I think we should do that, and I think Mr. Curley’s points are right on because that’s what we are trying to accomplish, and we will have a better opportunity for Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and IK when you are actually having the facility on the ground here and we can stroke and massage, and make aware, these scientists aware of what’s occurring here when they live here, if they are actually based here and are not coming up here for several weeks during the summer.
Do you have anything else, Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: My last comment.
I actually appreciate the Minister on that, because my concern is with respect to the reducing emissions policy within the department.
That may be fine but I think the government needs to be very careful.
They first should make public what in fact their actions would likely have on the private sector, eventually.
If they were eventually to have to comply with the same kinds of standards that the Government of Nunavut would be practising, because in the long run if you allow the mining company who may or could only develop a mining development, with the technology that we have today, that they may not be the exact same standards as the ministry is proposing.
So, what I’m saying is I don’t think you can move that quickly without taking into consideration what impact that they may have with the supplies and what not, of that kind of stuff.
There are economic impacts with any major government initiative.
The reason is this; we lived in a global market.
We depend on the technology that we have to buy from the south and bring up here.
So, it will be interesting whether or not the Minister is unilaterally announcing policy without consultation with the business sector or suppliers, and what not.
My second point is that I’m worried about, I hope that the Minister is too, with respect to northern research because scientists only believe the only fact that we should trust, are the ones that are certified by people with a PhD. or what not from down south, even when they impact on our traditional economy.
The wildlife, the conditions of the environment, the sea and the weather and so on, so because when I hear federal biology that says when you see more animals or more, it may not be more.
My question is this, when the scientist say that the numbers may be decreasing, I say I don’t think that’s a fact.
So, I think there are two sides to the question.
Their research is something that they say may be available but we don’t get to see that.
So, the Minister has to continue to rely on that whatever the scientists, biologists they’re proposing or believing, that he should also compare it with what we have, what we own and our people owned. That is the Inuit experience and not just the traditional knowledge.
If the Minister would agree to that, we’ll be on the same page.
That was my last comment.
Everybody is on the same page.
We’re on G-5, Education Branch Summary.
Did you want to respond to that Mr. Minister?
We’re on the same page but we’re in a different time zone.
On the page to page where Nunavut Arctic College, Nunavut Research Institute and I guess G-12, I think we’re on G-5. I would like to respond just very quickly if I can Mr. Chairman, to some of the comments that Mr. Curley has made.
I agree in most cases with what he had said.
I think it’s safe to say that the largest contributors of greenhouse gasses in Nunavut are our power plants, spewing it right up into our atmosphere.
The announcement that I will make in a couple of days doesn’t affect industry in Nunavut.
It doesn’t affect any of these other issues.
It’s something that the Federal Government helps up fund.
The Federal Government stepped to the plate last year when I was Minister of Energy with Mr. Robert Nault, and gave us a contribution to be able to work on this, what we call a Kyoto strategy.
Like I said, in a couple of days I will be doing that announcement here in the House.
It doesn’t impact on any of the other jurisdictions or companies or corporations.
So I would be pleased to speak to it when we get back to G-12, where the college budget is located.
We’re on page G-5, Education Branch Summary.
Total operations and maintenance, $1,022,000.
Just for the record I would like to ask the Minister a couple of things that I mentioned in my opening comments. Is the development of the new Education Act, and the new school funding formula, is that done through this area in through the Directorate division within the department?
The policy is under tab G-7 in the book.
And the K-12, which is the school system. That is where the formula would be, it would be under G-19.
So I can answer questions now in this section, or we can wait until we get to those particular pages.
Chairman: You can answer that one when we get to that particular page.
I noticed under the summary for the Directorate, it talks about development of legislation and policy.
And then when you go over to the other page, it is communications and legislation.
That could be either/or, so I just wanted to make sure that that was clarified so we don’t ask about it at a later point.
My question on this page deals with the grants and contributions.
It goes into something that I know that the member notes as well that, as I mentioned earlier, with the dissolution of the Divisional Boards of Education there was supposed to be more power and authority and control devolved through the local communities, the DEAs.
I see here under the grants and contributions that there was $100,000 last year allocated to the DEAs for special needs funding and this year there is none.
So maybe if I could just ask the Minister if he could explain why that is the case?
Last year there was $100,000 put into special needs, specifically for special needs funding.
This year in the extra money that we talked about within the budget of the Department of Education, there is actually considerably more money for special needs and the actual hiring of new positions, which is very good news for schools and DEAs across Nunavut.
That is a little bit later on when we get into the budget.
So the member is correct, there was $100,000 last year.
It is not there for this year because we have actually increased by a couple of million dollars, the monies for special needs.
Therefore and thus, it is not in the main estimates or the contributions, like it was last year.
The Minister indicated that they are hiring people to take care of that.
Is it the Department of Education that is going to be hiring and looking after the special needs’ stuff now?
Is that why that money is no longer needed there?
The $100,000 was used in a special circumstance last year for special needs. $100,000 divided by 42 schools in 37 or 38 DEAs, isn’t much money.
The amount of the money right now when we go into special needs when we get to the point in the budget, is considerably more.
Those positions, then there will be positions hired by the Government of Nunavut new PYs.
As well, there will be an allocation where the different DEAs may want to pick up extra on top of that.
So I am suggesting to you, and I don’t want to get into big detail at this stage, but let us say that if there was five special needs positions at a given school last year, then those positions are funded and then the DEA might want to pick up a couple more themselves. So you are actually adding to it.
Those positions would be core funded now through the Government of Nunavut, not asking the DEA to pick up those costs. So there would be actually extra money for extra positions.
Where there were three last year, now maybe there would be five positions.
Again, it would depend on the District Education Authority and it would depend on each school because as the member said in his opening comments, each school is different and should be treated different.
Every community and District Education Authority is different.
So, you can’t have a cookie cutter approach as to how many positions are going to be hired because some communities may have different issues on FAS/FAE or special needs that other communities don’t have.
Some communities for example, might have a group home with special needs and that community will have greater needs in the community that doesn’t have a group home where there are a lot of children with special needs and would be integrated into the school system.
I would like to ask the Minister if this is all the money last year, 100 thousand. Was that all the money that the District Education Authorities used to get for special needs, or was there other pots of money that they were given towards this as well?
No, there was more money in the budget last year, considerably more money for special needs.
This 100 thousand dollars for special pilot projects at some point through the year like last year, some District Education Authorities had come forward and said look, we have a special circumstance or whatever and then we were able to come up with the extra money to fund those District Education Authorities for those extra pilot projects in their community.
That was 100 thousand dollars that we had budgeted there for that last year.
I guess that just begs to ask the question that if the District Education Authorities are supposed to be given more control or more authority in an area of a situation and here you have a situation where money is allocated to them to use and decide on how it’s used in their communities is being taken away and done by the department if that’s my understanding of this.
Is the Minister and his department still committed to looking at devolving control and authority?
Is that still a priority of this Minister that the District Education Authorities should be able to take on additional responsibilities and authorities? Not that they end up being the scapegoat for the department just responsible for absenteeism and truancy.
Each District Education Authority in each community is elected by the community and I know that there was one major issue I had with the last draft of bill 1 that it took away all the authority of the District Education Authorities.