Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Bill 34 has had second reading and, accordingly, the bill stands referred to committee of the whole. Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Committee Report 11 - 12(7), Report on the Review of Bill 25 - The Education Act; Bill 25, Education Act; Bill 34, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1995-96, with Mr. Ningark in the chair.

Thank you. Do we have agreement of the Members that we deal with Committee Report 11-12(7) and Bill 25? Agreed?

Agreed.

--- Agreed

Minister of Education, would you like to bring in the witnesses before we continue with the consideration of Committee Report 11-12(7) and Bill 25?

I would like to request the permission of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to invite the witnesses in.

Agreed.

--- Agreed

--- SHORT RECESS

I will call the House back to order. Sergeant-of-Arms, would you please bring in the witnesses.

Thank you. For the record, Mr. Minister, would you please introduce the witnesses.

Thank you. This is the Department of Education, Culture and Employment and all its staff. No.

--- Laughter

If I might, on my right is Gail Joyce, Mr. Chairman. At left, the deputy minister, Mr. Hal Gerein. On my back left, Mr. Eric Colbourne. Immediately behind me, Carol Whitehouse, legislative counsel; and, Janet Grinsted, the senior policy advisor, on my right behind Ms. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Before I recognize a speaker to the item, I would like to remind each and every Member that the rules allow a Member at any one time to speak for only 10 minutes. If any Member wanted to go beyond that, the Member would have to ask for consent from the committee to continue. Mr. Antoine, I believe you wanted to speak. Mr. Antoine.

General Comments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to the Department of Education, Culture and Employment Minister and the staff.

Yesterday, I made a few comments on the treaty issue, and I was just getting into my concern with regard to language when the time ran out. So I will pick it up where I left off.

In the previous act or the existing act we have today, there were a number of provisions in there regarding the language of instruction. One of the concerns that I have, and I raised it during the Standing Committee on Legislation hearings in Fort Simpson, is that this act is a totally new act, so it's difficult to compare what is in the existing act and what is planted in the revised act to see what the differences and changes are.

On the language of instruction, section 89.(1) in the existing act states that, "the local education authority or the divisional board of education, as the case may be, shall determine the language of instruction to be used for kindergarten in schools in the education district or education division where a kindergarten program is offered, and for the first two years of school programs following kindergarten."

Section 89.(2) on that is, "where a language other than English is the language of instruction under subsection (1)(a) English must be taught as a second language; and (b) instruction must be provided in English for students whose first language is English."

Section 89.(3) is, "where English is the language of instruction under subsection (1) but is not the first language of the majority of the students, the first language of the majority of students must be taught as a second language."

On this one here, I was hoping that this section remained intact; or was, in fact, even expanded upon. The reason I am saying that is that there have been requests from different quarters and people that I represent to increase aboriginal language in the communities.

For example, in the Deh Cho First Nations women's gathering that was just held, a number of recommendations were made, and one of them deals with education. It says that, "The Deh Cho First Nations resolve to integrate Dene language, culture, knowledge and spirituality into the institutions of education from preschool through to high school in the Deh Cho region, that the institutions of education recognize the value of the history of the Dene in the Deh Cho, and in doing so, are supportive of developing programs in the schools that call for the teaching and instruction of Dene elders, and that the institutions of education set aside four to five minutes a day for instruction and discussion on treaty rights, Dene history, Dene culture, politics, traditional justice, traditional medicine, traditional knowledge of land and people and all such teachings that will provide the Dene youth with a sense of pride and belonging as well as the knowledge and skills to take their place as leaders in due time." This is the direction of women from the Deh Cho region.

What has happened here in the tabled version of it on March 30, 1995, in the revised bill, is hard to determine if you are going through the bill. I think it deals with it in section 73.(1) of the revised bill. It says: "Subject to subsection (2), a District Education Authority shall, in accordance with any directions of the Minister, determine a language to be taught as part of the education program in the education district or in any school in the education district." Section 73.(2), "If an Official Language other than English is the language of instruction, English must be taught as a language as part of the education program."Third, section 73.(3) says: "If English is the language of instruction, an official language other than English must be taught as part of the education program."

In section 70.(1), it says: "The language of instruction of an education program must be an Official Language." And 70.(2):'There may be more than one language of instruction in an education district and more than one language of instruction in a school."

Section 71.(1) is: "A District Education Authority shall, in accordance with the requirements of this section, determine the language of instruction to be used in the education district!'Section 71.(2), "Before determining a language of instruction in an education district that is in an education division in which there is more than one education district, a District Education Authority shall request from the Divisional Education Council relating to development and use of school program materials and the supply of teachers who are fluent in a language and their availability to teach in that language."

Further on, section 71.(3) says: 'The Minister may give directions establishing standards and guidelines for the selection and use of language of instruction to assure the maintenance of the highest possible standards of education..." and it goes on.

I am trying to determine what all this means. In the tabled document of March 30th, the Minister had discretion over all these things, but that was taken out, which is good. But the criteria that was established in the revised bill was, in order to teach in an aboriginal language, you have to determine the significant demand. I would like to know what the definition of"significant demand" is in this area.

The other thing is that you have to determine if there are enough teachers who are fluent in a language and you also have to determine if there are enough materials or resources to teach this.

You have to fulfil these requirements before you can even teach in an aboriginal language now, so what this new revised bill does is make it even more difficult now to teach in an aboriginal language. There was a comment made that I heard that there is enough culture in the bill already, but to determine culture is very difficult. Culture is derived from language, and language is key for the culture of the Dene people.

I feel there is an imposition of unrealistic conditions placed in the new bill when it comes to teaching in the aboriginal languages. The emphasis of English is very predominant in this bill and it really emphasizes that English is the way to teach. In some cases, I have to say that isn't the case. We have to allow aboriginal languages in the schools.

Another thing is the Dene languages are taught in the schools based on how many students speak the language. However, that shouldn't determine it. I understand that in the French language, if the first language of the parents is French, they allow the students to be taught in French; so, if the first language of the parents is Dene, students should be taught Dene first. The idea is to save a language and to develop it.

These are the comments I have on the Dene language part of it. I have more concerns. I just wanted to know if I have 10 minutes to speak on each clause

--- Laughter

...or is it 10 minutes for the whole bill and that is it, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you. You were just right on time. Your 10 minutes was up about two seconds ago. I believe each Member has 10 minutes to speak on every clause. That is my understanding. As I indicated earlier, one Member can speak 10 minutes at a time. If I recognize someone else and it is your turn, then you are on for another 10 minutes. Mr. Antoine.

I took a little break, does that quality me for another 10 minutes?

--- Laughter

I believe there was a question by Mr. Antoine asking what significant demand is. He indicated that he wanted to get a definition on the term "significant demand." Perhaps the Minister can respond to that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just thought I would allow all Members to deal with the general comments. The point that was made by the honourable Member was specific to clause 17 and portions of it. Just for clarification, there has been no specific definition for "significant demand." That requires us to work those issues out with the appropriate district education authority or divisional education council. That will be determined by the number of students involved in the program; the amount of staff required; the resources for us to deliver the program, at cetera. These are all pad of that consideration. That is the extent of significant demand at this time. We would develop the guidelines that would be necessary for these discussions as well.

Thank you. Qujannamiik. Are there any general comments? Mr. Antoine, did you want to continue from here? Your 10 minutes has lapsed.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to have a supplementary to the question the Minister has answered. A district education authority may choose a language as the language of instruction if there is a significant demand for the language in the education district. Who determines that? Is it the district education authority? I am aware that in the Official Languages Act, the phrase "significant demand" is in there as well. Since the life of that act, "significant demand" has yet to be defined. Like the Minister said, it is unclear what it means. For clarification, we should try to determine the definition of "significant demand." That is what we have to do. It could be interpreted any way that you would like because it isn't clear. It is going to be up to each district education authority. Each one could have a different definition of what that means. That is my concern. If one is very lenient in the definition and another district is very strict with that definition, then you will have different degrees of the language being taught in one particular district. So I have a concern with that. If the Minister would further clarity that, I would appreciate it.

I know the honourable Minister said this term deals with specific clauses, but I left the question on the floor earlier, so I will ask the Minister to give some clarification. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the concern of the honourable Member. What would happen is we would be developing the general guidelines and criteria for all. In other words, we have to set the general standards to assist the decision making with each of the authorities. It would be dependent, even in the sense of the range of options that might be available, on situations as well. In some instances, the matter of delivery will be dependent on the kind of programs that will be necessary to each in each particular situation.

Mr. Chairman, one of the better organized aboriginal Dene regions, in terms of programming and material, happens to be in the honourable Member's constituency. They have some people who have really been involved in the development of languages. They have developed some excellent material. His particular constituency, along with several others, have developed a good basis for delivering instruction in the aboriginal languages.

So we are allowing decision making to be made by the district education authorities and the divisions. In fact, we are trying to remove as much of the Minister's interference in this area, so the communities can make these choices. They will be made based on standards, criteria and guidelines, so there are no inconsistencies. They will then be able to make decisions on investment, programs and services that could be supported by our government in the context of financial support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Qujannamiik. General comments?If not, I continue to recognize Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding section 71(4)(a),(b) and (c), this is where a district education authority may choose a language as the language of instruction if the three areas are determined. These are the conditions imposed in this bill and I find it very restrictive. Like I said before, it is taking a step backwards from where we were under the existing act in section 89.(1), (2) and (3). In the existing act, from K-2, the aboriginal language has to be taught and it fulfils certain conditions. In this new revised act, under section 71.(1)to 71.(4), there are restrictions placed on that. It is really up to the Minister's discretion and the district authority if there is significant demand for the languages to be put in place -- I don't know for sure what it really means, from what the Minister has been telling us -- and if there are enough teachers. So, who decides if there are enough teachers who are fluent in the language?

The point here is, we have a lot of elders in our communities who speak our languages very fluently and that's the only language they use. Why can't we change this provision to allow elders to come into the schools to teach their languages?Why does it only have to be teachers? Couldn't we use elders as resources to come into the schools to do this? That's my question to the Minister.

Thank you. I would like to remind the honourable Member and all Members of the committee that we are dealing with general comments. At the appropriate time, we'll be going through it clause by clause. At that time, questions pertaining to specific clauses should be asked. But, I will ask the honourable Minister to respond.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so it is absolutely clear, first of all, the definition "given languages of instruction" means that all subjects are to be taught in that language. In other words, whether you're teaching math, science or languages, they must be taught completely in that language. That's the basis of the definition. There has to be some quality of instruction if you're going to deliver a program in that language.

In other words, if the Deh Cho divisional board decides they're going to teach all subjects in Slavey, then the individuals must be able to teach all subjects in that language. If there are other language programs, then they are in addition to the structural components that have been agreed to. That is what this is saying; we're basically allowing the district education authorities to make that decision and that decision should not rest with the Minister, to determine this matter.

What we're trying to say here is there are standards, there is a quality requirement, and then we can assist in the decision making by the district education authority. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.