Richard Nerysoo

Roles

In the Legislative Assembly

Elsewhere

Historical Information Richard Nerysoo is no longer a member of the Legislative Assembly.

Last in the Legislative Assembly September 1995, as MLA for Mackenzie Delta

Lost his last election, in 1995, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Ministers' Statement 10-12(2): Education Dispute February 23rd, 1992

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.

Ministers' Statement 10-12(2): Education Dispute February 23rd, 1992

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.

Ministers' Statement 10-12(2): Education Dispute February 23rd, 1992

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?

Motion 4-12(2): Membership Of The Special Committee On Health And Social Services February 23rd, 1992

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the matter of the committee but, more importantly, I think I am going to have to clarify the record here. People here are giving the impression that people did not consider the matter of people from the Eastern Arctic, and that is not exactly the case. It is really not a matter that is normally discussed in public but the fact is, and Mr. Pudluk will rise on this, there was only one other person from the Nunavut caucus that considered the position of being on this particular special committee. I just want to clarify this for the record. I do not want to name names but I think the person knows and indicated in this House who that person was. I want to clarify that for the record because I do not think that people like myself appreciate the arguments that are being made with the view that we are being dishonest, or that we are not considering people from the Eastern Arctic, because that is not the case. People know, from my own personal record, that I do not have any biases or arguments against representation from the Eastern Arctic; I never have, so I just want to correct that for the record so that people do not get the impression that I am sitting on the striking committee at the expense of people from the Nunavut area, because that is not true. I think I can speak for all Members of the striking committee on the basis that that is the way we consider placing Members on the special committee.

The other aspect of this particular committee is that special committees now have been reduced to five Members, with no alternates; that is the new rule. If you want to change the idea of special committees, then for God's sake introduce a motion to make the appropriate amendments, but do not accuse Members of the striking committee of trying to ignore the concerns of Nunavut. That is not the case, and I just want to make that point.

Question O151-12(2): Availability Of Beatty Report To Previous Government February 23rd, 1992

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Government Leader. Were any of the documents or any portions of the report available to the former government?

Question O149-12(2): Ongoing Involvement Of All Members In Implementation Of Beatty Report February 23rd, 1992

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to continue to pursue the questions with regard to the process. I would like to ask the Government Leader -- I recognize the concern that the Government Leader has expressed with regard to a unilateral process that could occur and could cause problems even for this government if it happens. However, the concern that we have as ordinary Members is the perceived unilateral process that exists right now in our government: that there are certain decisions that have been made to implement -- or at least that is the perception -- to implement Strength at Two Levels, the Beatty report, without consultation and without involvement of ordinary Members.

Could the honourable Member seriously consider ensuring that all ordinary Members, including those Members that are among our implementation representatives, could continue to be involved in consultations with regard to the Beatty report, Strength at Two Levels, on an ongoing basis, and not only when certain reports are concluded?

Question O146-12(2): Effect Of Government Policy On Self-government On Gwich'in Claim February 23rd, 1992

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a question to the Government Leader. It is in relation to the remarks that were made earlier about regional negotiations. I am curious, Mr. Speaker, as to how the present policy of government, which primarily deals with the matters of community self-government on the basis of individual communities, does not consider the agreement that was reached between the Gwich'in and the federal government that allows the Gwich'in to negotiate directly with the federal government on a regional basis. I want to know how government policy is, in fact, going to reflect the final agreement between the Government of Canada and the Gwich'in.

Question O144-12(2): Ordinary Members Amending Government Direction Re Beatty Report February 23rd, 1992

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary to the Government Leader. I want to ask, if the initial proposals are such that the communities determine and, in fact, in some cases present an argument of immediate development of a regional structure, whether or not this government is prepared to accept that.

Question O144-12(2): Ordinary Members Amending Government Direction Re Beatty Report February 23rd, 1992

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary. I want to ask the honourable Member, the Government Leader, if there is a proposal that could be or may be made with regard to the continuation of regional structures and whether or not that particular matter will be given serious consideration by this government.

Question O144-12(2): Ordinary Members Amending Government Direction Re Beatty Report February 23rd, 1992

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to, if I could, pursue the question of Mr. Arvaluk with the Government Leader. There is an indication that Members here are not concerned about the matters of the Beatty report. Maybe it is misinterpretation of what has been said, but I want to ask the honourable Member, if Members do not agree with the proposals that have been made by government, then how and what is the method by which we can amend or change the direction the government is taking? That could, in fact, completely contradict the direction that has been proposed.