EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
When we were in discussion with communities a few years ago, especially in Arviat, about continuing to add more and more to the schools, especially when the school addition is being built a second time, when the population greatly increases in the school, it creates opportunity or at least significant potential for violence, misbehaviours, etcetera.
In fact, at one time in Arviat, we were told that parents go to school with their children to prevent them from being bullied in the school. The reason, they say, was there are too many students in one school.
There are over 300 students in school; there were close to 400, I think.
How is it that, my questions will be when it comes to the Peter Pitseolak School and I will give the minister a heads up right now, that how is this IQ, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, is being used in the planning stage when Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit says too many people in one place creates for the potential of violence.
In a similar paragraph on page 3, he stated that “We continue to experience a high degree of vandalism… and break-ins in our schools.”
Isn’t that from having too many students in one school?
We were advised by the Inuit, especially the seniors, those who have life experience, to build separate schools even in the same communities, like in Iqaluit.
Maybe before we even go into details, then why is it or how is it the same that IQ is used when you start building additions to existing schools to increase their student capacity?
(interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s all.
I will give you an opportunity to ask that question later on when we get into the page-by-page departmental review.
Right now, I’m asking for general comments from members.
I would like to welcome the minister’s officials to the proceedings. It’s always a pleasure to see Mr. Horn and Ms. Opik here, instead of just the minister.
It’s good that they’re all here.
Before I go on with my general comments, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I’m sorry I forgot to mention something earlier and that was; I wanted to wish a happy birthday to Kevin Kullualik, who is sitting over there in the booth. I want to remind members that unlike my learned colleague across the floor with the red tie, cheers for a real hockey team.
Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things from what I’m hearing in the minister’s opening comments, and one is that trades is mentioned quite a bit. For years I’ve been an advocate for getting trades programs back into the high school system because I believe that if we don’t have enough carpenters, electricians, and plumbers around the territory, that we’re always importing them...
They have a trades program in Cambridge Bay.
It’s up and running. With the trades school, I look forward to the minister’s next O&M budget and seeing something in there for trades programming in the high school system so that we can try to, as he indicates earlier, address the high degree of drop-out rate that we have throughout our school system. So I think that that’s a pleasant thing to see.
Also, this time I will be questioning him under his projects. He indicated that they have come in way over budget; tenders that have been put out and the bids are a lot over the budget that’s been allocated for that project.
I’ll be asking the minister: if this is something that had been occurring for some time, why haven’t they adjusted their budgets accordingly to that known fact that things are coming in a lot higher, and if we can expect to see more of the same type of thing in the future? And, not only with the minister’s ten projects that he has here, but I think that’s an issue that we should be addressing for all of the departments as well.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I guess I’ll just leave my general comments to that and look very much forward to questioning the minister and his officials as we go through the detail of the capital budget for his department.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would like to welcome the minister and his two officials. We have known these two individuals for a long time. (interpretation ends) It’s good to see the both of you.
(interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I would just like to mention that, and I had brought it up before, we don’t have school boards in our communities. (interpretation ends) I don’t think we have a school board at all in Nunavut.
I believe the minister is the only school board that we have in the whole of Nunavut, who is responsible for administering, monitoring, and delivering K to 12, as well as college programs and so on.
It’s amazing to see that the minister has complete control of education in all aspects, including the capital estimates and spending powers. With no education or school board, not having any, no wonder he enjoys his job, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that that’s something the Assembly, in time, will certainly, I hope, continue to work upon.
My comments have to do with the way in which the capital projects are planned. I believe there are some communities that tend to have a much quicker approval process because they don’t have to worry about whether they are in a five-year capital spending plans.
Those of us not close to the headquarters, we normally have to go through our local school boards and say, “We’re not that close in the five-year plan.”
Whereas, many of the projects that are happening here in Iqaluit normally have a lot quicker supplementary estimates and a rush to the approval process for this House and grant it, and now, they’re not going to bother tendering the capital project.
They’re just going to do it as they progress and so on.
So my comment is, Mr. Chairman, why don’t we have the same standards throughout Nunavut?
If the minister can work with us to improve standards that are substantial, I think we would be in a proper planning process because it’s important that we have that.
As well, I would like to comment on the way in which the local school boards are not used, in terms of planning many of the education facilities. They may be but probably just administrative. I believe the minister can work towards in getting them actually a little more informed of what’s in the planning process.
For instance, when we’re about to announce certain, maybe a year ahead or what not, an educational facility, we normally, in my view, politicize it first. I believe we need to get away from that.
I can tell you, I can use a number of examples where a major infrastructure project is planned.
First, there’s a big political event, and really, in my view, these are used not so much for getting the educational group and community recognition for the work that they’ve planned.
And, I believe the minister really should begin to plan now, that they actually forget about the politicians. Forget about me, for instance, in my riding. You, your local school board, the chairman of the educational committee, if you’re going to make an announcement, don’t worry about me, whether I’m going to get re-elected, or whether that’s going to make any mark on my political ambitions or not, I think that you should focus on the school kids’ education groups.
Get them recognition and get them involved because it’s a little uncomfortable sometimes when only politicians are invited to make statements and so on.
Sure, we can participate as a regular Joe or a regular Inuk on the street.
So I’m just asking the minister, I think it would make a good ‘bring it back home’ kind of planning and grassroots if we can get local education groups involved. So I think that’s something that they can do. They can also arrange for welcoming the minister to the community in this fashion.
So these are just my points that I thought were useful.
I have Mr. Peterson.
I welcome Minister Picco and his officials to our Committee of the Whole meeting today.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Minister Picco for coming to Cambridge Bay last month. I had a firsthand opportunity to talk to him about some projects we are looking for in Cambridge Bay.
I also had an opportunity to take Minister Picco over to the high school there to tour the trades shop. It’s quite a nice facility now that it’s running. The kids are happy and the teachers are very enthusiastic.
So in early going, it looks like it’s going to be a positive success for Cambridge Bay, and hopefully, attendance increases.
I am expecting to get updates from the principal on a regular basis.
He seems to be that kind of guy.
I had the opportunity last week to meet with representatives from Newmont Mining, who were in town to talk to folks about their takeover of the Miramar Mine Project down in Hope Bay. As everybody knows, that project was approved with their water board license last month as well.
So shortly thereafter, Newmont made an offer to take them over.
During the meeting with the Newmont official, we talked quite a bit about mine training. They are planning to be around the Kitikmeot for two to three decades and a lot of the mining employment that they’ll have down there will be tailored around underground mining and also heavy equipment operators. So I’m not sure how the trades shop in Cambridge Bay and the trades school in Rankin Inlet will provide the specialized training for people working at the mines, or this particular mine, that they require for those underground jobs.
The Newmont officials did indicate that they have their own training school in Nevada. So it might be an opportunity for the Government of Nunavut to meet with those people.
I think they might be planning a trip to Iqaluit some time. We just talked about what kind of training they provide at their school, and if we can’t provide the underground training in the Kitikmeot, there are other areas where we can look for that type of training.
One of the things I have been lobbying the minister for quite a few years, and other people from Cambridge Bay have as well, is a new Nunavut Arctic College campus.
As the minister is well aware, the facility that we presently have in Cambridge Bay is quite old; it’s probably close to 40 years old. It’s a collection of trailers; I’m not sure how they were connected but it’s quite a contraption.
We do have some beautiful accommodations in Cambridge Bay but I think, to properly help the folks in the Kitikmeot and other students who come from across Nunavut, we should have a facility that’s modern, that has classrooms and labs; training centres within the facility.
So I’ll be asking the minister for an update on where the planning is within his department with respect to the Nunavut Arctic College campus in Cambridge Bay.
Another area or item I brought up with the minister in the past, and I had an opportunity to mention to him last month when he toured out high school, is the need for a proper flooring for the high school gym.
When the high school was being constructed, for one reason or another, the flooring that went in there is very hard.
It’s hard on the limbs and joints of the young people who are using that gym for any sort of recreational event or sport - basketball, floor hockey, and jogging. So I mentioned to the minister that we had to, again, look at that. We don’t want our kids growing up with knee and ankle problems when they’re growing as youth and then become adults.
The other thing that I promised I would ask the minister about is the backboards for the basketball hoops. So that’s another thing.
Overall, I found the minister to be very helpful in his trips to Cambridge Bay over the years.
I was thinking about making him a honourary citizen of Cambridge Bay. He’s been there so often, I think seven or eight times in three and a half years.
So it’s certainly appreciated by myself and the people in my riding, when the minister is out there and gets a firsthand opportunity to see what an MLA is dealing with, and gets a chance to talk to my constituents personally and answer their questions.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. I don’t have any more names for general comments.
We will now proceed to page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page G-6, which includes G-7.
We’re at the top of page G-6.
Corporate Services. Tangible Assets. Headquarters Region.
Total Headquarters Region. $685,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: We’re on the second half of the page. G-6, which includes G-7.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I will be asking my question in Inuktitut.
If we look at the Peter Pitseolak School addition and the Inuksuit School addition, which are additions included in here, one is $6 million and the other one for next year is $9.5 million.
In his opening comments, the minister stated that they incorporate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in their planning process. I’m sure they do so indeed with additions, too. Can the minister elaborate more where they are incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in his opening comments?
He just mentioned Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
Which areas of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit are they incorporating in their planning stages?
Hon. Ed. Picco (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In regard to the new schools, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit... (interpretation ends) There are three basic areas where Inuit Qaujimajatugangit is used, Mr. Chairman, in the planning and design, and finally the functionality of the school.
First of all, as the members are aware, at the local level with the DEA and with elders and so on, we go through the outline for the school and that would include, in our current designs, gathering places for elders in the school, and you’ll see that in many of the new schools that we’ve built in the last three and a half years; having skin rooms in there, for example, or rooms that would be suitable for preparing skins and so on; and being able to have gathering places and meeting places in the school for elders specifically; talking to elders about what would be the best learning environment. For example, elders talked about having more light in the schools.
So when you look at the schools that we have been building over the last few years, with more ambient light, with more natural light coming in from windows and so on and so forth, all those types of things that we hear from elders are incorporated into the designing of schools.
The question that the member raises is a good question.
He is suggesting that: why would you go ahead and renovate a school when the school population is so high? And, in his opening comments he made a good point. He said that in many schools where you see a lot of the school population, meaning, when you’ve got a school with 300, or 400, or 500 students, would you see maybe an increase in violent activity and so on, and I think the member is making a good point.
Our issue comes back to, when we look at the size of a school, when a school gets over 200 in population, then we have to look at, do you need a new school?
Then you try to take what the demographic breakdown of the school is, meaning what’s the school age population in the community and how do you project that over five years? How is the school population going to grow; is it growing two percent a year, five percent a year, and so on and so forth.
And, then you try to forecast any economic activity. Now, a good example of this is in the community of Pond Inlet. For example, you have to factor in the current growth but you also have to look at if the mine takes off, would more people move to the community and so on and so forth.
So all of those factors are placed into the pot when you’re trying to project the development of a new school; in this case, we also have to look at what the budget available is also. So do I have the available funds to be able to build a brand new school and is it warranted to do that, or should we actually renovate that school and expand a current school?
In the last ten years, when we were building schools and new schools, all schools have, what we call, expandability on the given site, meaning you can expand the school based on the design that you have in place. A good example of that was the Aqsarniit School here that members can see, where we were able to expand the current school on the given site instead of having to build a new school.
So, hopefully, that helps to answer the member’s question. It’s based on the school size; it’s based on the number of population. Once we get over 200 in a given school, we have our people go in there, in consultation with the local DEA at all times, with the school principle and with the staff, to see what is the best part for that school and to prioritize it by the utilization of that school also.
So, hopefully, that helps answer the member’s question.
You mentioned Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit when there is an addition to a school; Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is not being used at all.
Inuit have long stated that it doesn’t only occur in the schools but everywhere there’s population growth, there’s potential for more people making offences.
So that’s not incorporated when they’re making school additions, as the minister indicated.  Yes, I understood him when he said there would be an elders’ meeting room, for example.
I understand that but maybe it would’ve been better if you had stated that you used some of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit values and not all of it because you stated that you used Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
My other question: will you be looking at revising the planning and design of schools? It’s obvious that if a school is not overcrowded, they get along better with each other, with the teachers, and even with their parents.
Is this being looked at by the government?
I appreciate the member’s comments, especially on the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. I guess what we’re trying to say there is that we do involve our elders and the local DEAs when we’re planning and designing new schools. That’s not to say that we don’t take their advice when we look at the size of the school.
The two major factors in the size of schools, as the member has indicated, is the utilization of the school, meaning what percentage of the school is being utilized based on the population of that school. Is it 80 percent, 90 percent, or 100 percent based on enrollment?
And the second part, of course, is based on the need.
The school might be too old, for example. We wouldn’t want to renovate it because it’s old. It’s better to go ahead and build a new piece of infrastructure to do that.
Not necessarily when you have a large school population does that mean more violence in the school and so on. What we have found and what historically has been found throughout the Western World is that when you look at educational facilities, most educators believe that if you have a smaller facility, you have a better opportunity to create a family environment within that school, and that’s better than having 1,000 students in the school compared to 500.
So we agree with that philosophy, but again, we have to look at what budget opportunities are available.
We have over 42 schools in Nunavut, Mr. Chairman. The majority of our schools are under the utilization rate. Right now, based on my current numbers, we have 38 schools that are below their total utilization rate, meaning they’re below 100 percent, and indeed, most of our schools are between, in some cases, 50 to 80 percent in utilization.
So, hopefully, that helps summarize the member’s question.
Then from the minister’s comments, for example, if we reach the population of 200 in one school, we have to consider whether we should expand or build a new school.
For the Peter Pitseolak School addition proposal for $10,775,000 for renovations and additions to the existing school, and in the substantiation sheet, for 1,300 square metres, that’s a very large addition.
The present population of that school is 169 and the school capacity is 147.
I understand the need for renovation but that’s only 31 short of 200 in student population who require money before a different school is being considered. How many more students are being expected to be housed in that addition of 1,300 square metres?
The member makes a strong point and the total enrollment at Peter Pitseolak School, and I’ve had an opportunity of being in the school a couple of times last year.
Mr. Chairman, when you look at the current enrollment, as the member said, it’s about 169 and that means that the current utilization is 113 percent. When a school gets to about 85 percent, we actually start looking at when should we start building or renovating a given school? In this case, the school population is well below 200.
When we look at enrollments and the population demographic in the community of Cape Dorset after the renovation is completed, we don’t believe it would be necessary to be able to build a new school in that community based on that time frame at a given time.
The last major renovation to Peter Pitseolak School was in 1992, which is 14 years ago. This renovation, it is a considerable amount of dollars, will be able to give a longer longevity to that school, meaning that the utilization will increase over the period between eight to 15 years. Given the demographic and the population that we see in Cape Dorset, that should be more than sufficient to handle the school population.
So I think that answers the member’s question on the time frame, that we also look at the original construction year and the time frame for the last renovation. By the way, there are other schools in Cape Dorset, too, as the member is aware, Sam Pudlat for example.
I appreciate that answer. However, I am not quite sure what “we” means in this case; the Department of Education and the DEA, or the Department of Education alone.
Can he clarify that?
What we do is when we are planning a school, consultation has to be first and foremost with the local DEA, and that’s what occurs on the file, as well as the involvement of the current teaching staff and so on in a given community.
We also have our capital planner within the department who would go to a given community and meet with people to express: here’s what we are proposing. What do you think?
This is an ongoing collaboration with the community, with the department and with the local DEA, as well as, and more importantly, with the school and with the people at the institution, or at the establishment, or at the facility.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) I don’t have any further names on my list for questions. (interpretation ends) Mr. Curley.
I thought you had a long list of names.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, my question to the minister, when we look at the capital items particularly for the residential units of the Arctic College, could the minister, or the appropriate individual, or the school board official, indicate to us…
The growth of the residential units seems to be expanding pretty quickly. I’m sure you have some studies now as to what percentage of growth is happening from year to year because I note that those of us are just starting to enjoy the first time residential college units for married couples, we’re just going to hopefully have a proper tracking system.
Could the minister indicate to us because it seems to be quite serious here, as well as large; in Iqaluit, for instance, the new growth, in terms of dollar savings, huge dollars, if you look at the future years in Iqaluit, you’re allocating $13 million for unspecified years.
How does the minister actually plan for those kinds of expenditures?
Do you accept the recommendations from local school boards or something to that effect?
I had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to speak to the member before the break there. I was lobbying him on being recognized by many of us, including myself and other people, over the years is probably being one of the first and foremost fathers of Nunavut, and I think he needs to have that recognition. I want to put that on the record.
To kind of take away from some of the other things he said earlier in his opening comments, when he suggested that the minister, for some way of craftiness and so on, is the sole arbiter of education in Nunavut, and it couldn’t be anything farther from the truth.
When our new Education Act comes forward, which gives and devolves real control to local education authorities; then you don’t need a Board of Education.