This is page numbers 1279 - 1309 of the Hansard for the 12th Assembly, 7th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was education.

Topics

Bill 32: An Act To Amend The Legislative Assembly And Executive Council Act, No. 2
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1297

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

The next item on the agenda is Committee Report 11-12(7), Report on the Review of Bill 25 - The Education Act. Is the chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation prepared to make introductory comments?

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

June 12th, 1995

Page 1297

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the Standing Committee on Legislation read its report into the record on June 8th, and in our report we had a number of recommendations. I would like to begin by reintroducing the recommendations.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1297

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Before we get into the motions, perhaps we should ask for general comments on the committee report from the chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation. Are there any general comments on the report of the standing committee on their report of Bill 25, Education Act. Are there any general comments? Mr. Patterson.

General Comments

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1297

Dennis Patterson Iqaluit

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend the committee for the good work it did in consulting with regions of the Northwest Territories. I was quite impressed with the manner in which consultations were undertaken in my constituency.

In particular, I was delighted that the committee responded to a request from students to consult with students by taking the trouble to make a special visit to the school the day after the hearings, where I think we had a very lively session about the new bill and got some good advice from students particularly on student discipline matters.

I would also like to say that since the committee began its hearings, I believe, in the territories in my constituency, there has been an awful lot of changes made to the bill. Of course, I should certainly give some credit to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment and his staff, but I do believe the committee also deserves significant credit for having encouraged substantial amendments and, I think everyone would agree, significant improvements to the bill. So I want to commend the committee for the progress that has been made.

One of the most astonishing accomplishments of this committee is the agreement that was reached, unprecedented in the history of the Northwest Territories as far as I know, that regulations drafted pursuant to the act would not be finalized until affected groups had been consulted. I think that was one of the major criticisms of the bill, and, to me, it's remarkable that this major amendment was made which will basically change the way we do business in the Northwest Territories, at least as far as education regulations are concerned. I suspect this amendment may also affect and set precedents for other bills that may be brought to future Legislatures, recognizing that regulations are often a very critical way of describing the rules by which people must govern themselves in the territories.

I am not totally convinced that this is the right way to go because the problem with the consultation on the regulations is that there is no guarantee that those groups consulted with will be satisfied. It will also certainly delay the implementation of the new act, and I think the department has taken upon itself quite a staggering responsibility if it's to take this requirement of consultation on the regulations as seriously as most people would like it to be taken.

I think, for me, the jury is still out as to whether this will work. I understand the argument that flexibility has to be built in to the act and that it can be done best through the regulatory regime, but I want to point out that this is a significant departure from the approach we have taken to regulation-making up till now, and it will be very interesting to see just how it works.

I do want to say that this has eased a lot of the concerns that I expressed in my intervention about not knowing what the regime is actually going to be. Now at least we'll have a chance to see the draft regulations and comment on those. I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that one of the major issues which had to do with the choice of language of instruction by communities has been dealt with, in my view, satisfactorily, with the bill as amended. Again, I think the committee is to be commended for having encouraged the Minister and his staff to fix that problem up.

Another area that was of great controversy and concern in my constituency had to do with religious education. I believe that the provision that is now in the bill may somewhat ease the concerns that had been expressed about disrupting the current practice in many communities in the Northwest Territories. I think the relevant provision has been softened and should perhaps pose less of a threat to existing programs of religious instruction that are in place in the schools in the Northwest Territories.

I want to commend the committee and the department for those and many other changes; I know there have been over 80 amendments. I haven't been able to participate in every day of the committee's deliberation, even though I was accused yesterday of hanging around the committee. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to hang around for all the good stuff. I know this represents a lot of work and a lot of compromise -- and I think politics is the art of compromise -- and I'm delighted to see that so much compromise has occurred.

However, I must say, Mr. Chairman, in my general comments that I have not seen very much willingness to compromise and reach out to the Francophone groups in the Northwest Territories concerned about French language education rights under the Charter of Rights. It's been an exercise in frustration for my constituents and for myself. I recognize and respect that the committee says in its report that they are now satisfied as a result of legal opinions the committee received that the bill, as amended, addresses the requirements of section 23 of the Charter.

My problem, Mr. Chairman, as an ordinary Member is that I haven't been able to see any of these legal opinions. I've been told that they are privileged, that they are confidential advice given to the government, that they may... it's like a lawyer's advice to his client in contemplation of litigation and that I have no right to see these opinions. Since they were prepared at public expense and with lawyers on the public payroll, I would have hoped that there might have been some way found to make these opinions available to Members of the Francophone community who I know desperately wanted to see them to be satisfied that their fears, perhaps, had been dealt with by the bill but that has not been possible.

I know that the Minister himself has met with the associations and their representatives and there has been no resolution of their concerns. Mr. Chairman, I'm left with the dilemma of being told by the committee, we got legal opinions, everything's okay, there's no need to worry, the Charter provisions have been dealt with. Yet my constituents, Francophone groups in the city of Yellowknife and the territorial association, are all saying we're not satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, these parents and children especially, who want to receive education in their first language, they're a very small minority in the Northwest Territories. I am under no illusions that this is an issue in many constituencies in the Northwest Territories. However, I want to say that as a representative of a community that does have proportionally one of the largest Francophone populations in the territories, these rights are very important to my constituents. They've worked very hard to establish a first language French program in Nakasuk School in my constituency and they've worked alongside Inuit organizations and parents who are promoting the Inuktitut language and have achieved considerable success. I'm sure that Members of this Assembly would want to give them every respect the same as we give respect to aboriginal parents who want to see their children educated in their first language.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this is my main problem with the bill. Only today -- and I haven't even had a chance to send this across to my colleague, Mr. Nerysoo but I will do so now -- only today have I received a legal opinion, a copy of a legal opinion which has been prepared in draft by the counsel for the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada. We may not relish being told by Ottawa or by a federal government institution whether our bill meets the requirements of the Charter or not, but this opinion has been prepared by a lawyer, Mr. Richard Tardif, who works full time, I'm told, on section 23 across the country. The draft opinion, which I understand Mr. Tardif has authorized for public release, states that the bill as drafted does not meet the requirements of the Charter and spells out in detail why not.

Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister of Education has read all the cases, he's studied this aspect very closely himself, he's received legal advice from several lawyers, and I know the Minister is convinced that the bill is adequate and that anyone who says less should sue. Mr. Chairman, I'd rather not see that happen.

I think it would be very unfortunate if we couldn't solve this without resort to the courts. I want to, at the beginning of this debate, let Members know that I hope we can have a discussion while the bill is before the House about these problems, examine the independent views of the counsel for the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who I don't think anyone would say would be a person who would want to have an interest in taking sides in the Northwest Territories, and see whether some of the criticisms that were laid out in this legal opinion can be dealt with in a cooperative fashion while this bill is before this committee.

I have reviewed the opinion and believe that the bill has to only go a little further towards meeting the concerns that are identified in the opinion. I think it goes some distance. I understand, Mr. Chairman, full well that a statute cannot be expected to spell out every detail of the school system that is being contemplated, but the point made in the opinion, and I won't get into it in detail as I'll have a chance to table it, share it with Members and discuss it in more detail when we get to those sections, but the point made in the legal opinion is that the essential framework for governance has to be spelled out in the bill and cannot be left to regulations. So the structure necessary to guarantee the exercise of constitutional rights to instruction should not be left in the hands of the Minister or in the hands of regulations.

So, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour this one. Generally, I'm positive about the progress that's been made on this bill, and many of the concerns have been dealt with.

I have to say, though, Mr. Chairman, there's one area that I think we need to still work on. We have three or four days now to devote to this bill. I hope the Minister will take the constructive criticisms that I've made here today and the advice offered in this opinion in a positive manner, and look at a way of perhaps making a few more changes. I know some have already been made, but perhaps look at a way of making a few more changes so we can all leave this Chamber as one happy family and say we've dealt with the aboriginal language issues, we've dealt with the concern about the consultation on the regulations, we've dealt with concerns about religious instruction, we've dealt with concerns raised by divisional boards, and the Francophone parents -- the few there are in the Northwest Territories -- are not going to be threatening that the only way they can get their rights recognized is by litigation.

It's a big order, but, hopefully, we can make everyone happy and deal with this bill in a constructive manner and make the final polishing touches so that it will reach out to everyone. I have to say that I've tabled some press clippings today; whether we like it or not, this issue of French language minority rights is a very volatile issue in the country. I think we have to be concerned if the Commissioner of Official Languages' legal counsel says the bill doesn't quite hit the mark, and if the Commissioner of Official Languages is writing our Minister saying if legal proceedings are revived, I will have to give serious consideration to seeking leave from the court to intervene. We don't need this problem, Mr. Chairman, with all the issues that are facing us with the Government of Canada. Let's try to fix it up here in this committee, so that we don't have to draw national attention to ourselves by appearing in any way to be trampling on the constitutional rights of a minority.

That's my concern, Mr. Chairman. I hope in the next few days we can deal with these problems in a spirit of goodwill and not defensiveness. I have an open mind, I'm very anxious to hear the Minister's views on some of the concerns that I'm going to dare to express on behalf of my constituents. I hope that he won't take my criticism personally. It's not intended in any way to be a personal criticism or to indicate a lack of respect for the Minister, but I feel that I have a duty to my constituents to raise these issues. So that is the one problem I have with this bill, Mr. Chairman, but I'm optimistic that we can deal with it with goodwill. Thank you.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1299

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. General comments on the committee report. Mr. Lewis.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1299

Brian Lewis Yellowknife Centre

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned previously in this Assembly that I can recall vividly when the Education Act, which we now operate with, went through this Assembly in February of 1977. The difference between the process that led to it in those days and what has transpired over the last several years has been the way in which consultation has taken place. I recall that in 1976, the then Commissioner took it upon himself to take the Education Act around the territories to hold meetings. So what you had was a federal bureaucrat who went around and tried to get public input. I remember him reading into the record what all the communities had said about the act and so on.

So this has been a completely different process where there has been tremendous consultation with the public over a long period of time; several years. It's gone through our House, it's gone through committees, it's a completely different way in arriving at a piece of legislation.

The kinds of issues that were controversial at that time, though, are still with us. The major controversy in 1977, Mr. Chairman, was whether this government, in fact, had the legitimate right to establish an education system with its own act, as a territorial government. There were several interventions by many aboriginal people who said this government shouldn't even be dealing with this, this is a federal responsibility. There were special concerns about treaty rights and so on and constitutional rights, and it's been a controversial issue ever since that time. In fact, every Minister who I can recall has attempted to find out on what basis this government really implements education programs. What is the legal basis for it? Where is the document that says that this government should be responsible for education? A lot of time and energy has gone into trying to find some piece of paper as a directive from some Minister of DIAND to indicate that this transfer has officially taken place and this is the legitimate place for that activity to occur.

I don't think that that's any longer the fiery controversial issue it was when Mr. Erasmus was the president of the Dene Nation, because things have changed enormously over the last 20 years. The biggest change, of course, is the way in which we develop our legislation involving many, many sectors of the public who have a chance to express their opinions, and we can make accommodations. So there is tremendous consultation that takes place now, so that people's concerns can be addressed.

The two major ones, though, that were referred to in the committee, and I'm sure that they also were raised to the Minister, was the fact that there is nothing in the preamble specifically relating to treaty rights. I know there was some discussion about finding some way of honouring those or recognizing those, but it's very difficult when you don't know specifically how to translate some of those early treaty obligations into modern legislation.

The same thing relates to the collective rights of Francophones who, under our Constitution, have certain rights. This act goes some way towards addressing those concerns, but there are some questions that our Francophone friends have suggested need to be addressed. If there is one thing you expect from a piece of legislation, it's certainty; some degree of certainty as to what transpired under this legislation.

So one of the major concerns that I've heard expressed, and it's certainly been expressed to the committee, is that things still seem to be open for negotiations or open for further consultation. For that reason, some people feel uneasy because there is a certain certainty lacking in several clauses in the bill.

I know that one of the concerns that has been raised is the issue of school days. When you look at our act, although there is a promise to include in the regulations some reference to the exposure the children will get to the instruction program, there is nothing in there that tells you how long a student is going to be in a classroom. That's a source of concern because one of the other issues that was raised in a lot of the public hearings was standards. Standards was right up front. We want to have standards that are comparable to what other parents expect throughout Canada, and if you can't even specify in your act how many days a student is going to school so that you can compare and see what we do compared with other jurisdictions, then that's one place where parents will look and say, we don't even have an act that tells us how many days our kids are going to have to go to school. It's not there. That is one criteria, one little thing that you can look at to say this is what do they do in this place or this is what do they do in that place. It makes it very difficult for parents, if it's not up front, to see that spelled out in the law; although, I recognize that the Minister has said, well, we are going to consult further before we pin that down.

I was pleased to see that the department has shown a tremendous willingness to be flexible on many issues and on the issue of inclusive schooling where our jurisdiction has shown leadership, I think, right across the country. They recognize that they are only words if you just say, it's inclusive but we'll do our best and so on. There is some kind of obligation, I think, that is being made by the government to make sure that these are more than words and that there will be an act which recognizes that there is a new way of dealing with the total school population and not to have some children excluded from it so that they end up suffering, if you like, because they are not allowed to take advantage of programs in the same way that other students do so.

There also were concerns raised by students that they are not really that involved and they would like to be more involved. I think that the request to be full-fledged members of councils and other education bodies is probably farther than the Legislature would be prepared to go simply because, although as a client of the system you would like to be involved in the governance, then it becomes very difficult. Since there is a way in which any member of the public can be officially elected to a body like that, I think that they would have to be satisfied with the same kind of role that the principal or teacher has where you can be an ex-officio member of a school board so that your point of view or the office that you hold or the position that you hold in the system can be represented to that board.

In 1977, Mr. Chairman, the major emotional issue was that there was compulsory schooling and the fact that many parents were upset with the idea of fines. If you didn't send your children to school, you would be fined. That was the hottest issue in the whole debate because there were some people who said, why should we send our kids to a school system that we don't agree with. It's not our system, so why should you be fining us for not sending our kids to a system which is really not of our manufacture or design? We were never involved in it and not consulted much about it, and yet you want to fine us for not sending our kids.

What happened, of course, was that the act went through leaving the compulsory education clause in there but with no specification of penalties if you never did it. So we lived with an act which had a clause in it but had no teeth to enforce it, and that existed for quite a period of time.

The controversial issue this time was not whether people should be fined or not for non-compliance but the fact that if you are going to fine people for not complying with the act on the basis that you are not attending school, somehow the funds should be reverted or transferred to the local education body. That was an opinion that was expressed in some places. It's possible that some mechanism could be found in which, if you are going to fine people, some bookkeeping way could eventually be worked out so that those monies could be used locally.

There are two other issues that I have noted, Mr. Chairman. One of them that I am pleased with is the fact that there was tremendous debate and discussion on whether we should have more or less religion and spirituality in our school system. We all recognize that there is a Charter requirement that schools can't be used to evangelize people, to push young people in this direction or that direction on religious questions. I believe that the department did come up with a compromise eventually which will allow people to recognize that if there's anything that matters in a school system, it's those values that really guide us and if you don't find some mechanism whereby young people could be exposed to spiritual questions, the basic questions of human life, then really it's not much of a school system. I think that the government went a long way to giving people some comfort that we would have a school system which did recognize that those things that have deep meaning for people should find some place in the school system.

I have some concern about a proposal or plan to recertify teachers. I have gone along with it so I am not making a minority report to this committee. I have gone along with it, but I do have some concerns about recertification.

I know that in the past all kinds of ways have been devised or attempts have been made to release teachers from the system who are not easy to release because the whole area of labour relations is very difficult in many jurisdictions and especially in ours, as it relates to professional people. I really seriously wonder whether this is one other ploy, if you like...And I use that word, I suppose, unadvisedly because it suggests that it's been a deeply-thought-out subterfuge to circumvent some difficulties that you can't solve in the normal course of events. But I could see recertification, if it's not done right, being used as some method of simply getting rid of a person. What you do is just don't give them a certificate and then he can't work anymore and he or she has no job.

So, to me, I agree with the principle that if you are a professional, you should make sure that you keep up with your trade, that you keep up with your business, that you go back to school, that you take the kinds of programs that will put you on the cutting edge of things and not rely upon stuff that you learned 30 years ago, like a person such as myself, for example, Mr. Chairman. I started out in 1958 as a school teacher, and I then took advantage of whatever was going on so I could keep abreast of things. But I haven't really been a school teacher since 1967. That's when I finished my teaching career in the territories. I did other work in education over a long period of time but I finished teaching in 1967, and I would feel completely inadequate if I wanted to and if anybody wanted me to go back to the classroom because things have changed so much over that period of time.

However, if we are serious about this recertification, it should be made clear to the individual that these are the requirements that you have to meet to be recertified. It's not just the whim of a bureaucrat or a Minister. I don't like you so you are not going to get a certificate anymore; that's it. There should be something specified that you have to do to bring yourself up to speed or up to date or whatever, and this should not be used as a mechanism simply to get rid of somebody that you can't find a legitimate way of getting rid of under our current regime. That's a fear I've always had, that you try to find some other mechanism to do things which you can't do under the normal course of events.

There are two other things that I've heard, Mr. Chairman, in my discussions on this bill, and I've thought about them at length, in fact. What we have is a bill which is a very large bill, but although it's so large, there are many things that are not specified, that are still open. It may be that what we have is a piece of legislation that is, I don't know, maybe a sign of doing things in a different way, that we have a different process of doing things in the territories, that our legislation will evolve differently.

But the two major issues that I've heard are the fact that, one, we don't have a clear division of powers between the levels of authority. That's supposed to be worked out over a period of time and it will be set in the regulations. But normally in an act of this nature, when you specify powers, then you always put in what those powers are, because the whole point of legislation is to give you certainty so you know exactly just by looking at the act exactly what the powers are that you are expected to exercise. So the idea that you can negotiate, and so on, is in the act. It is implicit, I suppose, that there will be lots of things worked out through consultation. But it does get people used to a different kind of legislation, where things are spelled out. There is some cause for concern because this legislation is unlike any other legislation I've looked at. So much seems to be open. Maybe that's the way things have to be, and far bigger brains than us have said the only way to deal with this subject is to give people a bit of room.

But the idea of not having division of powers, not specifying the number of school days...I'll tell you why people of my generation find it unusual that you're not prepared to spell out the number of days in which a child would go to school. In the old days, and I'll only hark back to this once, we were always told that the register of the enrolment was a legal document. It told you where a child was supposed to be on any one day, and it would be used by the police, courts or whatever to indicate that the school was in session on these days and that's where the child was supposed to be. This is what we got from Justice in the old federal days. We understood that it was a legal document and in it, you spelled out all the days in which the school is in session and you would know, then, where that person is.

It is going to be more difficult if you're not prepared to specify days, the number of days when school is going to be in session. Maybe you've already thought ahead to redesigning the instruments for recording instruction, maybe the register is obsolete now, maybe there is a different method or system of keeping track of instruction. These are the types of technical things, no doubt, that the department has worked on to try to find some way of meeting their obligations to make sure the students get the right exposure to instruction that they should have. I know that if any parent looks at the system, they would find it unusual if you don't put a minimum of days in which a child is expected to be in school.

I know the arguments have been heard throughout the territories about flexibility. There are two words that seem to characterize this act: flexibility and negotiations. There should either be flexibility, so you could do the things you want to do so you won't be boxed in by some inflexible instrument that prevents you from doing what makes sense to you. The other thing is negotiation, that you can negotiate things, and you can petition the Minister.

Those are the concerns I heard, Mr. Chairman, but I congratulate the Minister and the department for having gone about this in the right way. This is the way in which an act should be done. There has been a tremendous amount of consultation over a long period of time, not rushed -- it may seem rushed not because we have so much work ahead of us still -- and a tremendous amount of effort has gone into doing the work. There has been consultation like, I believe, has never happened before in creating a very important piece of legislation.

We've all agreed that education is still one of the chief instruments of our social and economic development. If we get a good act, then of course we will have achieved something of major significance in this Assembly, through the good will of the committees and the government. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will leave it. I would like to say that this is where I began my career, as a school teacher, and also in the department, being much involved in the last act, and I'm quite happy to be involved with this piece of legislation too, which is close to the hearts of many of the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1301

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Are there any further general comments on the committee report? Mr. Koe.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1302

Fred Koe Inuvik

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As other Members have mentioned, a lot of work has gone into this bill to get to this stage, where the committee has reviewed the proposed bill under consultation. This is after several years of work by the department after their consultation. Once we finish dealing with the committee report, we will be getting into the bill, itself. There are a lot of clauses in the bill and each raise different issues.

I've been very supportive, in terms of working on the new act, and have followed the progress through all the different documents that have been prepared by the department that have gone out for people's input and comments. I would have to say that I think the review process has gone fairly well. It has not been perfect; any consultation process we have in the north takes a lot of effort and work to ensure that people have access to the documentation and are able to have a mechanism to voice their concerns on new proposed legislation.

It's not the sexiest thing to read. When you're in a community and get a piece of legislation, people tend to put it aside and not pay much attention to it. I find that this is the case now. The act is a fairly thick document, there are 160 some odd clauses in it. People tend to leave it to somebody else and we're the "somebody elses" because it is now up to us to deliberate and ensure that what we approve in this Assembly is going to be appropriate for all the residents of the north and for an education system that people have been saying they want.

I think the whole education system has been criticized in terms of excellence in education, the quality of education, the types of schools, the hours, everything that's in the act, the teachers, the roles of parents, teachers, students, principals, superintendents, community councils and boards. All of these have been addressed in this new act.

The committee went across the north and heard a lot of presentations. I was pleased with the committee meetings that followed where a lot of the changes, I think over 40 new amendments, were made, adopting a lot of the concerns raised by people across the Northwest Territories.

There are still issues that the committee raised in their report, and issues that I, and I assume other Members, will be bringing up when we get into the details of the bill. But at this time, I would like to just comment on some of the issues so that people are aware where the concerns I will be raising are going to come up when we deal with the particular clauses.

In the preamble, the whole issue of recognizing rights and freedoms of aboriginal people, and the treaty rights and aboriginal rights is an area that still has to be addressed. I know that this act is not the vehicle to address and define what these are, but education is one aspect that treaty people, particularly in the new land claims agreement, are very concerned about. It is one that we still feel that there's a fiduciary responsibility from the federal government to provide for the right of education for status Indians and Inuit people; a right to have free education, not only up to grade 12, but post-secondary education.

When we get the particular sections, the issue is going to be do the clauses in the preamble cover the new land claim agreements and any land claim agreements that are to follow. Does section 35 of the Constitution Act cover the Gwich'in claim, does it cover the Inuvialuit claim, does it cover the Nunavut Act, does it cover the Sahtu claim and the respective provisions in those acts? They have to be protected and recognized somewhere, and the only place I feel that it should be is in the preamble. So when it comes to discussing that particular section of the act, I'll be raising that particular issue.

Quality in standards; we put a lot of people in our schools, we're graduating a lot of people, but you have to raise the question of the whole principle of excellence and quality. Where are our people going once they come out of our school systems and what are they doing? These are things that are of concern.

The issue of equal rights; the report makes mention of it and it makes mention of section 15, but the Native Women's Society of the NWT raised the issue in their presentation that it has to be front and centre in the act and has to be a theme that overrides the act. It's the same with the issue of violence in our society.

The issue that the committee mentioned on hours or days of instruction; we'll get into some discussion when we talk about the recommendation. I'm of the opinion that we should quantify the number of instructional hours that we expect our schools to provide, and it's up to each education district to convert that to numbers of days or numbers of hours in a day; whether it be four and a half, five, five and a quarter, or whatever, to fit their program.

One more comment on the whole issue of treaty rights and choice of education. The committee report made mention of it on page 10, that it was difficult, and I know the dilemma that the Minister has in trying to define these treaty rights or aboriginal rights in this act. To try to include it would imply a resolution and definition of these rights, which is not the case because every day there are different negotiations that take place; different definitions and different arrangements or agreements are made. I guess the point is that it's incumbent on this government and the federal government to try to get those resolved. I guess that's the issue. We have to keep bringing it out on the table so that it gets addressed and that we are able to facilitate discussions between the groups so we can get appropriate definitions of these issues.

The area of parents' responsibilities; again, the committee is making a recommendation of parent advisory committees. I agree with that, but the comment I would like to make is that we're finally putting in the act a section on rules and responsibilities of parents. I think we've just touched the surface of that area, and I'm not sure how we can make it stronger. But the whole area of parents' involvement in the schools is key. Not only in the schools, but in all the school activities, camp-outs, sports activities, tutoring and whatever activities go on in school, I think the parents have a responsibility to get back into that area where I think they've moved away from. Years ago, the teachers and the parents used to share a lot of these responsibilities and chaperone dances and chaperone sport trips and other activities, coach teams and do all the dancing clubs, debating clubs, chess clubs, things like that. So we have to somehow encourage people to get involved into our schools again.

The area of education staff is an issue my colleague from Yellowknife Centre raised; the recertification of teachers. Again, the act is very clear, and the committee heard clearly that if we're going to strive for excellence in our schools, then we have to strive for excellence in our instructors, in our teachers. The way to do that is to ensure that they are qualified, ensure that they are certified to teach, and that they have to keep up to date with the changing times and the changing materials that they use for teaching. I think the phrase today is "active learning," and there are new teaching mechanisms for doing those things. I think the act has now touched that, and I fully support that.

The whole area of culture and language and spirituality and religion is another area that is quite contentious and I think the majority of the comments we heard across the north were related to these areas. We have to protect, encourage and enhance our aboriginal languages, all our official languages in the Northwest Territories. We have to encourage as much as possible the development of the curriculums, use of these curriculums and use of the materials -- develop materials so people can use them. One of the recommendations that's been made, again, I fully support.

The whole area of spirituality and religion, I know there's concerns about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the limitations that puts on but I truly believe that we have to have the option of being able to teach religion in our schools. However that's provided for, I think we have to leave that option open. I fully support not only religion but spirituality, native spirituality in particular, where people have to have the freedom to believe and practice spiritual beliefs and values.

The other area of concern, and one that I'll be making comments on when we get to the particular clauses is the areas which define the powers, responsibilities and authorities of the education bodies, the district education authorities and the divisional education councils, so that once the act is passed -- and I know there's a lot of work to be done, but the regulations which I assume will set some guidelines in how this is done; that whole process of negotiating the division of powers and responsibilities between the various councils and education bodies -- people will have to understand and know what their authorities are in terms of how it's done and we don't want to have to always talk about who does what and have a big argument...We don't want a series of court challenges over these things. People in communities have to have the authorities and powers and they give that to their district education authority who represents them. We have to know what and how they're able to negotiate in a bigger arena which is the divisional education council.

In line with that also, division of powers and responsibilities and authorities of the Minister. I know there have been considerable adjustments made on the roles of the Minister in the act; a lot of amendments to reduce that but it's still an area that has a lot of impact in a lot of the clauses in the act. The Minister, in terms of dealing with regulations, has made a commitment and it's in the act that consultation will happen in terms of developing the regulations. I just want to say that I'm pleased that's in there but we have to ensure that it happens. We just can't put it in the act and say, yes, the Minister's agreed and then that's it. It's incumbent on all of us and all the education authorities across the north to ensure that they participate actively in developing the regulations.

With that, I want to thank the committee for the work that they've done and thank the committee for allowing me, as an alternate Member, to participate in the activities dealing with the act. It's a good one, there's been a lot of work done, but in the next several days I hope we consider very carefully the provisions that we're looking at approving because it's going to be for however long -- 10, 15, 20 years -- the act has to be in place, so we've got to ensure that what we approve, what we agree on this week, is going to stand the test of time. Thank you very much.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1303

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Thank you. General comments. The Member for Aivilik.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1303

Manitok Thompson Aivilik

I just wanted to make a general comment on this Education Act about the concerns that have been raised from my constituency and also from the Keewatin over the years with regard to local programs and that is cultural programs being taught in the school, whether it's sewing programs or hunting programs.

In the Education Act there's a clause that qualified teachers will be hired and that no un qualified teachers will be allowed to work in the schools. I know there's a clause that says for less than 20 days you can have a unqualified staff to teach the students. In the communities there's always been a real concern with local program instructors being hired to teach the traditional skills in the schools. The people that are usually hired are elders from the community. They don't have teaching skills, they have never gone through the school system and they are given 15 or 20 students to teach at once. It is very confusing for them to teach a project, whether it be harpoon making or sewing kamiks.

I think there should be a program to teach these local program instructors or to certify them so that they can deliver the programs within a classroom structure because the way they were taught originally was on an individual basis. They have all the knowledge and skills to teach inside their brains, but they don't know how to deliver them to a class of 15 or 20 kids. If they are going to look at qualified teachers I think they should also look at certifying local program instructors and coming up with a program similar to the teacher education program, just geared towards local program instructors. That has been a concern for a long time.

I'm not saying that they are not educated enough to teach school kids. I'm just saying that the way that they were taught when they were growing up, most of these local program instructors are people who have not gone through the school system. They are elders coming into the schools to teach the local programs. They don't have the skills to teach a whole class of kids or even to do report cards.

I have often wondered, instead of letting them teach a whole bunch of kids in a regular classroom setting, if it wouldn't be better to contract them out to teach a specific skill such as to teach sealskin kamik making and just contracting it out to a person who is skilled in that area to have a better quality program. Instead of hiring one person, and you're expecting that local program instructor to teach all subjects in the Inuit culture, when he might just be skilled in trapping, or when he might just be skilled in parka making.

I know that has been a concern in the Inuit communities, as to how we can best deliver local programs in our schools when there is no teacher education program or local instructors program to certify these instructors so they are teaching the same quality programs as the teachers next door with all their curriculums.

Another concern has been school reviews. I've often felt that the schools should be reviewed every four years, all the programs in the schools; a review team could just come in and review the whole system to see if they're teaching grade 8 to the grade 8 students, or if they are teaching grade 4 to the grade 8 students, or if they are doing their yearly plans or daily plans; just reviewing the whole system. I think that has to be investigated in the Education department -- these school reviews -- on an ongoing basis, so that our teachers are meeting the needs of the students and that they're teaching quality programs.

In clause 61, it talks about the teachers being transferred to another community. Does that mean that the CECs don't have any more power to hire their own teachers, that they're just being given transfers from one community to another community? That was another concern.

Also, there's a clause in the Education Act about if your school is not providing 10, 11 and 12, then the Minister can pay for accommodation for that student to go to school and take those grades in another community. In the smaller communities with grade extensions, some parents are wondering if they can have the choice to send their students out of their communities to get a quality program because the schools that have extended grades were not built to accommodate quality education programs; they are too small. The parents are having a hard time. They like their students to stay home and attend grades 10, 11 and 12 and succeed, but they don't have much choice when they don't have any room. The teachers who are teaching those grades don't have enough room or enough resources in the smaller schools to teach quality programs to those students. With the clause where it says the Minister can only pay for students' accommodation in another community if the grades are not provided in their communities, the parents are concerned with that. If they want a quality program that might be provided in a bigger school, they would have to pay for their students to stay in another community with that grade. The small communities that are trying to provide grade extensions feel that they're not providing a good enough program because when the smaller schools were built in the communities, it wasn't planned very well to accommodate high school programs. With the community high school programs happening, it's a very good idea. It's a great idea, and a lot of parents are happy with keeping their high school kids at home and succeeding, graduating, but their concern has been that the schools were built without extending grades.

Many times in the smaller communities, teachers have had to teach all the subjects in a computer room when it was intended

for computer programs. There's a shortage of resources and rooms for those grades.

The other concern over the years is that a lot of the parents have not gone through the system in order to go with their children to the high school and understand which programs their children should take, because they don't really know the difference yet between academic programs and general programs. I think that will be a hindrance in our future as Inuit because our parents have to be exposed to the whole system of education so that they can support their children going to high school and give them the right choice with the right courses and going into academic programs, so that in the future we can have the qualified teachers and qualified lawyers or doctors we want.

But right now, most of the students are making their own decisions as to which courses they want to take, because their parents are not aware of different programs in the high school. So it's usually up to the Inuit students to decide which way to go, and a lot of our Inuit students are going into general programs and just graduating with a general diploma. The parents think they've gone through high school and find out that their children cannot qualify for certain university programs because of the choice they made on their own. That has been a real hindrance in education.

I think there has to be more public consultation with the parents on high school programming. I know most of the parents in the smaller communities support community programs. They are very happy with the community programs providing grades 10, 11 and 12, but do they realize that it's mostly general programs because the schools are too small to accommodate quality academic programs that we need for the future of Nunavut.

I guess those are the general comments that I wanted to make today. Tima. Thank you.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1304

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Thank you very much. I've noticed that several committee Members have started making comments that relate not only to the committee report, but also to the bill itself, Bill 25. I was wondering if it might not be advisable at this point in time to ask the committee chair to take us through the motions that are contained in the committee report, and perhaps then ask the Minister to give his opening comments on the bill itself. Then we could resume with general comments on both the committee report and Bill 25. Mr. Pudlat has indicated his interest in speaking, so we'll make sure that Mr. Pudlat is first on the list after we get through those two items, if the committee agrees.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1304

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

---Agreed

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1304

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Mr. Whitford.

Committee Report 11-12(7): Report On The Review Of Bill 25 - The Education Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1304

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee has five recommendations that it would like to make into formal motions. I would like to go through those motions at this time.

Committee Motion 62-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 1, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1304

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Mr. Chairman, with your concurrence, I move that this committee recommends that a clause be included in the proposed act which would clearly lay out the total annual instructional days for kindergarten, grades 1 to 6, and grades 7 to 12.

Committee Motion 62-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 1, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Committee Motion 62-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 1, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

An Hon. Member

Question.

Committee Motion 62-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 1, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Question has been called, but I don't recognize a quorum. I will ring the bells.

Okay, I recognize a quorum now. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

Mr. Whitford.

Committee Motion 63-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 2, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee recommends that the government evaluate the formula funding provided for inclusive schooling and the processes used by education bodies for allocating this funding among students, taking into consideration the inclusive schooling policy.

Committee Motion 63-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 2, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Committee Motion 63-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 2, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

An Hon. Member

Question.

Committee Motion 63-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 2, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

The motion is carried. Mr. Whitford.

Committee Motion 64-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 3, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

Tony Whitford

Tony Whitford Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee recommends that a phrase be added to the bill to specifically allow for and encourage the establishment of a parent advisory committee in each school.

Committee Motion 64-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 3, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

The Chair

The Chair Charles Dent

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Committee Motion 64-12(7): To Adopt Recommendation 3, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 1305

An Hon. Member

Question.