Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 15 has had second reading, and accordingly the bill stands referred to a committee. Second reading of bills. Item 18, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Ministers' statement 10-12(2), Education Dispute; Tabled Document 9-12(2), Strength at Two Levels; Tabled Document 10-12(2), Reshaping Northern Government; Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite Direction; and Bill 14, Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1992-93, with Mr. Pudluk in the chair.

The committee will come to order. We have a number of items to deal with this afternoon. I need direction from the committee as to which item you want to deal with. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with the document Ministers' Statement 10-12(2), Education Dispute, because this was something we did discuss and then drop when Mr. Koe was not going to be in the House. It is still an ongoing dispute that has not been resolved, and we need to have some answers to questions that Members might ask.

Thank you. Is the committee agreed that we deal with Ministers' Statement 10-12(2), Education Dispute?

Agreed.

---Agreed

General comments. Mr. Allooloo.

Minister's Opening Remarks

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, on February 20th the Member for Inuvik made a number of allegations in his statement related to the dispute between teachers at the Sir Alexander Mackenzie School and the Beaufort/Delta Divisional Board of Education, saying that all the facts were not disclosed by the government.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the real issue here is not in-service training, the real issue is closing the schools for two and one-half days, two and one-half days when students will not be in school. As I said in my earlier statement, there is a public process for setting the school year, a process that supports the devolution of the responsibility to communities by involving parents through the community education council. This process also involves the divisional boards, and their proposal is then presented to the Minister of Education. This process was followed, and on April 30, 1991, the school year for Sir Alexander Mackenzie School was set at 190 days plus five professional development days. Once a school year is legally established, a school principal cannot then submit a new plan to the community education council which arbitrarily shortens the school year by another two and one-half days. The Inuvik community education council turned down this proposal in November of 1991, and they were quite right in doing so.

The issue is not in-service training, as I stated earlier. I am not surprised that the board or its officials would state their support for in-service training. That is something that we all support. What we do not support is the closing of schools for more than the five days already provided to teachers throughout the year.

The NWTTA appears to be making a distinction between in-service and professional development. The Department of Education does not view these activities as separate things. In fact, article 17.01 of the NWT Teachers' Association collective agreement links the two by referring to "professional development and in-service training of teachers." If we want to talk past practice, Mr. Chairman, I would refer the Member to the fact that board and departmental personnel often provide curriculum in-service training sessions on regularly scheduled professional development days.

The Member alleged that one school in the Beaufort/Delta Divisional Board of Education was closed for a full day in January without any modification of the school year. The school and staff in question understood this was to be one of their five professional development days. I would state further as well that if there are instances where boards allow schools to close for periods beyond the five days allowed, then it should not be happening.

On Thursday, February 20th, the Executive of the Beaufort/Delta Divisional Board of Education met in Inuvik to again discuss the issue. Their position is that the 1991-92 school year adhered to the department's guidelines in providing 190 school days and five professional development days. The approved calendar has no provision to close Sir Alexander Mackenzie School for either in-service training or administration days. Therefore the board does not support closing the school for any additional days.

However, the board and the community education council recognize and appreciate the concerns of the teachers. A plan is being presented to the teaching staff at Sir Alexander Mackenzie School which will meet their needs in providing in-service training but will not require the closing of the school.

So, Mr. Chairman, the request by teachers in Inuvik could be resolved, and I think it will be resolved very quickly. The divisional board has offered a solution, and I believe the teachers are looking at the proposal which the divisional board has put to them.

General comments. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is the Minister aware if a teachers' representative was invited to speak to the Beaufort/Delta Board of Education on the concerns that they had? Were they invited to submit any proposals or counterproposals that might resolve the matter that you outlined in your presentation?

Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said earlier, this school year for the Sir Alexander Mackenzie School was set last April. The teachers requested an additional two and one-half days back in November, and they submitted their proposal to the education council and the education council did not agree that the school should be closed for an additional two and one-half days, outside of the five professional development days which were negotiated.

I believe that the school submitted their proposal to the education council and their proposal was turned down. Thank you.

Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the honourable Member answered the question. I asked if a representative of the teachers was invited to speak to the Beaufort/Delta Board of Education to raise the concern that they had, and whether or not they were asked to submit a counterproposal to the one that was originally submitted to Peter Murray, to the community education committee.

Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure if the teachers were represented at that particular meeting, but I am told that on the education council board the principal is an ex officio member of that particular board. I do not know if he was there to represent the teachers or not.

Thank you. Mr. Nerysoo.

In that case, maybe I could make a couple of comments. I think the matter at hand is probably the result of a greater misunderstanding about the issues and the positions that have been presented rather than, I believe, a policy that could accommodate the proposals that have been made by the teachers. I do want to say that from the information that I have received, there is great confusion as to who is actually responsible for the final decision, because I believe that in November a submission was made to the Beaufort/Delta board and they approved the idea of the in-service training. Maybe I am confused about that, but that is the information that was given to us. It was then subsequently brought to the attention of the community, to the CEC, and they then rejected the position. Now, maybe it is a misunderstanding on my part and it needs clarification, but I think that has been one of the problems that seems to be the basis for confusion.

Now, I am not going to try to make any arguments in support of the proposals that have been made, but I do think that one aspect that requires our serious consideration, or reconsideration on this government's part, is to really indicate who has the final decision- making authority in the region. Is it the CEC or is it the Beaufort/Delta Educational Board? It has to be clear, because we cannot continue to have a situation where the community CEC overrules a decision of the overall board, because the board itself has -- for instance, in the case of Inuvik, the overall board has jurisdiction with regard to the high school. It is a collective decision-making process because all communities in the region are affected by that particular high school, and so I am concerned that we should have a situation where, when people are brought to a meeting, that they do not have the kind of clout they think they have, especially if another board, an independent board, a community board, begins to overrule decisions that they agreed to.

I am not going to challenge the issues you have raised or brought to my attention, but I do want to say to you that it is important to resolve this particular matter. I raise that point with you and ask you if you could have your officials meet to resolve this, because it is necessary so that there is a clear indication in future about who really has jurisdiction.

On the matter of in-service training, whether or not the teachers are going to have the same kind of access to in-service training that most other school boards have across the North, I think that what you will find is that they are not going to be unreasonable if there is a solution that they are part of. I think that if I could ask you and your department officials to try to work that resolution out -- because I do not think that at this particular juncture people have the kind of confidence they should have in the regional director, the board and the executive director, and maybe there is a lot of confusion about that but that is the reality and until you resolve that I do not think you are going to have any teaching community in Inuvik that is going to be satisfied or happy with the relationship they presently have with the executive director of the board of education. I think you have to resolve that as much as you have to resolve the matter of in-service training.

Thank you. Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Education Act is very clear on who has the authority to set sessional days. With respect to this particular problem, the school calendar year is set on April 30 of that particular year. For instance, for the 1992-93 school year, I believe the school year is going to be established by the Minister of Education on April 30 or prior to that. In establishing a school year, it says that the act requires the Minister to consult with the local education authorities before the academic year is finalized, so the community education council gets involved in establishing the school year. The school days are set by the act to be that of 190 days. Depending on the number of hours that the kids are taught, that particular calendar can be moved either way, and also in-service training.

The NWTTA collective agreement says that there will be five additional days set aside for professional development days, but in some cases those five additional days are enhanced by lengthening the school hours. For instance, I mentioned that in Hay River last year school hours were lengthened by 10 minutes each day. That allowed the teachers to have more time to have in-service training. But in Inuvik the school year was set in April on the advice of the educational authorities and the divisional board. Apparently the teachers were not happy with the in-service training. They wanted to have more in-service training, and they brought their proposal to the education council, and the education council turned them down, unfortunately. That is where the problem began, but I believe that my officials will be meeting with the NWTTA tomorrow morning at breakfast time, and also the teachers have been given a proposal by the divisional board which they could look at. I have not heard whether that would resolve the problem, but I believe it will resolve the problem. Perhaps tomorrow afternoon, when the session is on, I could update the Members on the situation. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you. If I could ask the Minister if those Members that are concerned or affected by the regional board could receive at least the proposal that was submitted, if it is possible, or at least a summary of the proposal itself, so that we are clear about the proposals and also we can get clarification on the counter-proposals that are being made, so that we can try to bring some resolution to this particular matter. But I do say that I am hoping that this particular matter is resolved before April 30 of this year so that it is clear what we can do next year, and we do not have an argument in November again, because I do not think it is in the interests of the teachers or the board or the students that this kind of situation arises in the middle of their educational term.

Thank you. Mr. Allooloo.

Project Proposal To Introduce Seasonal Homes Unit To Primary Teaching Staff, Sir Alexander Mackenzie School

Mr. Chairman, I would just read the proposal into the record. Remember the request for 2.5 days for in-service training?

"The proposal is that six substitute teachers for a half day to release primary classroom teachers in the morning session will reduce the number of substitute teachers required. Session needs to be conducted prior to March 31, 1992, so that the costs can be accrued to the 1991-92 budget and take advantage of available human resources.

"What is available in terms of resources now is that three board consultants would be available to take on the duties of two of the presenters plus classroom. One Inuvialuktun co-ordinator would be available to take on duties of the language instructor, and two teachers-in-training would be available to take over two classrooms.

"The rationale is that the Seasonal Homes unit needs to be introduced to the primary teaching staff at SAMS by the committee members who create the unit. Without a proper instruction the intent of the unit will not be realized. While it would be beneficial for all staff members to understand the unit intentions, it was designed as a primary document and, as such, at a minimum, the primary staff required an introduction to the unit.

"The suggested plan is an attempt to provide an introduction to primary teaching staff with as little disruption to school operation as possible. That is, all primary classes will be covered by substitute teachers, teachers-in-training or qualified teachers employed as board office staff.

"Classroom assistants and special needs assistants could attend the primary session if the school administration felt that school operations could be met, if they were released for half a day. The cost would be six substitute teachers at about $80 per half a day. The total would be $480 per day for the duration of the 2.5 days of in-service training."

This is the school board's response to the teachers' request.