EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
He indicated that they already started over a year ago in working on addressing those issues, and he also indicated that a lot of work has been done to address some of those issues in that last year and individuals that were there when the problems occurred are gone. So why now suspend and make these drastic changes? The time to do that was a year ago when it was discovered.
Is it still even after all the help that they have been providing in the review and the work that they’ve done there in the last year, they are still not confident? This government is still not confident in the organization to be able to perform those functions after the year of help and knowledge that they’ve had in working on this?
As I stated before, we have done a lot of work since then. We have rewritten it since last year.
We have addressed a lot of things and assessed it before.
We had to wait for the Auditor General’s Report.
Although we were working closely with NBCC’s office to correct the issues that needed correcting, we wanted to wait for the report to find out what the report would contain. The report was tabled yesterday.
Having been through this whole process of Auditor General reports and things like that for a number of years now, I know the report was tabled here yesterday but generally speaking, all the Auditor General reports go to the government, usually it’s just seller’s ball.
We had one go to the Minister of Education, and usually all the rest go to the Department of Finance.
They have advanced knowledge of that report.  So again, why did the minister have to wait?
Why did they feel this government had to wait until after it was tabled before it did anything?
The Auditor General identified for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 estimates that were not done properly concerning NBCC and that would have to be redone.
Looking back, yes, we should have overhauled the portfolios of the NBCC.
We were told things are progressing and proceeding.
Once we understood the circumstances then we went ahead and did the investigation.
We are still working on it up to now.
Question 334 – 2(4): Status of P3 Policy (Peterson)
Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 2007, I asked the minister if he could give MLAs a firm date on when the public private partnerships, otherwise known as a P3, policy could be complete and tabled for MLAs to review it. He told me it was a priority for this year. He also said they’ll give it their best effort.
It is a priority for this department and the deputy minister has been instructed to finish the job and get it done. I wonder if the deputy minister is watching right now.
My question for the minister: can he tell us today what status is of the P3 Policy, and when it will be finished and available for tabling in the House for review by MLAs?
The draft policy is being prepared and should be presented to the Cabinet for distribution some time within the next month, well, before Christmas.
Can the minister commit that that document will be tabled in the early days of our winter session for review by the regular members?
I can certainly approach Cabinet to see if they would agree with me tabling that document once it’s completed and approved by Cabinet.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister and I hope that he can table it.
We’ve been asking for it almost since 2004, that’s three years; 2008 will be almost four years, so it’s long overdue.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if the Government of Nunavut has sought outside help to develop the P3 Policy?
The Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Community and Government Services, has been developing the framework P3 Policy.
The other day in Committee of the Whole when I was asking the minister about the Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Project, he mentioned P3s.
I wonder if the minister could tell me today if he envisions the Government of Nunavut’s P3 Policy, when it’s completed, as an opportunity or as a vehicle for the Government of Nunavut to participate in a P3 development of Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Project.
That is certainly one option that could be looked over seriously for the Bathurst Inlet Road and Port because going through the P3 process utilizes public private sector’s efficiency, knowledge and innovation, and it certainly is one option that can be looked at very seriously.
Before we proceed, I’m happy to see that there are many people in the Gallery, and I would like all of the members to know that I want to recognize the man who got the Order of Canada, Mike Gardener. Welcome.
Thank you. Going to the Orders of the Day. Item 7.
Reports of Standing and Special Committees. Item 12. Reports of the Committees on the Review of Bills.
Tabled Document 146 – 2(4): Developing Healthy Communities: A Public Health Strategy for Nunavut 2008-2013 (Aglukkaq)
As per my Minister’s Statement, I’m tabling the document: “Developing Healthy Communities: A Public Health Strategy for Nunavut 2008-13.”
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) Can we have that document brought forward to the table, please?
Notices of Motions. Item 15. (interpretation ends) Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills. (interpretation) Item 16. Motions.
Bill 20 – Midwifery Profession Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East that Bill 20, Midwifery Profession Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the regulation of the midwifery profession.
In order to practice midwifery, a person must be registered under the Act unless a person practiced traditional Inuit midwifery before the coming into force of the Act.  The bill sets out the scope of practice of registered midwives and the eligibility requirements for registration.
A Midwifery Registration Committee is established to decide on applications for registration and renewal of registration, advise the minister on matters of midwifery policy and legislation, and promote continuing competence and professional development of registered midwives.
The committee would also recommend to the minister standards of practice and standards of competence, and may appoint practiced auditors to conduct reviews of the practice of registered midwives.
The bill establishes the board of inquiry and sets out the procedures to be followed when a notification is given or issued that an act or emission of a registered midwife may constitute unprofessional conduct.  This bill includes consequential amendments to the Disease Registries Act, the Evidence Act, the Medical Professions Act, the Nursing Act, and the Pharmacy Act.
Question has been called. To the principle of the bill.
The motion is carried and Bill 20 has had its second reading, and with the amendment, will be referred to a committee that will deal with the bill.
Bill 21 – Education Act – Second Reading
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Nattilik that Bill 21, the new Nunavut Education Act, be read for the second time.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the many educators, principals, DEA members, the President of NTI, the Executive Director from NTI, the senior officials from the Department of Education, who are all here for second reading.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 21, the new Nunavut Education Act, is landmark legislation in Canada. It is the first time, Mr. Speaker, a language other than English or French will be legislated in Canadian schools.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Mr. Speaker, this landmark legislation legislates bilingual education with the Inuktitut language and provisions for culture and Inuit societal values.
For the first time, Mr. Speaker, and for the first time in Nunavut, legislation will guarantee a lower student-teacher ratio than the national average in Canada. That will strengthen our students’ success.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, we have mandated our local DEAs to have a language and culture revitalization program for our youngest children. To encourage healthy living in Nunavut, Mr. Speaker, we are making daily physical activity mandatory until high school in the Act.
This Education Act will mean more than $14 million annually of new money being invested in our schools and our students, more resources for Inuit language programs for young people, we will need more community school counsellors in every school in Nunavut, the creation and continued support of a territory-wide DEA organization to help with policy development as well as advocacy.
Mr. Speaker, included in all of this will be the ability to certify our elders as cultural instructors and language instructors.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, the department will actually report with a report card publicly on the progress of our students, schools, staff and our department. This landmark legislation follows input from every community in Nunavut; it mirrors the recommendations from the Berger Report which has been endorsed by NTI and the Government of Nunavut, and Mr. Speaker, discussions and debates from this House.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 21 signals progress for our education system. It embodies the fundament shift that will change the scope and direction of education here in Nunavut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I’m pleased to rise today to speak to the principle of Bill 21 – the proposed Education Act.
Over five years ago, I rose to speak to the principle of Bill 1, the Education Act, that was proposed during our First Assembly.
Many of the issues that concerned me then concern me now.
Bill 21 is extensive and I have obviously not yet had the opportunity to give it full and complete scrutiny. However, my colleagues and constituents can be assured that I shall be reviewing this bill very carefully.
Mr. Speaker, achieving a solid level of education is one of the cornerstones of success for ourselves, for our children, for our communities and our territory.
We know that our current education system needs to be strengthened. We need to improve the levels of student achievement and success. How we do that will rest in large part upon the legislation that governs our education system.
Mr. Speaker, five years ago, I spoke of the important role that can and should be played by our District Education Authorities. Over the years, we have heard many speeches to the effect that the strength of our community-level bodies are critical to self-reliance and success at the community level.
I will be looking to see that our DEAs, which are made up of elected community representatives, have the right to be involved in programming and have the tools and authority to do what is required of them.
Mr. Speaker, I believe strongly that our education system should be governed in an open and transparent manner.
Bill 21 must apply equally and fairly to all levels of governance.
I had concerns with bill giving dispensation to the minister or any of his officials with respect to any statutory instruments relating to the Act.
Mr. Speaker, to the merits of the bill. Nunavut’s Education Act is one of our most important pieces of legislation.
The success of this piece of legislation affects our future tomorrow because it affects our children today. Education covers a broad range both in what it delivers and to whom it is delivered. I will be paying close attention to restrictions on the ages of our students as I do not feel that artificial barriers to attending school will benefit anyone.
Mr. Speaker, our students must have the opportunities to attain the level of education that will allow them to follow their dreams whether they wish to follow a trades program or continue on to post-secondary academic studies.
Individual education plans for students with special needs and for those who could benefit from advanced challenges must be supported through this legislation. Our legislation must ensure that the rights of our youth to the education they need are not overlooked.
Language issues are a critical area.
This legislation must ensure that language rights are respected and accounted for. This bill must not only provide for the needs of first language speakers of English, French and the Inuit language but it must also address second language needs for those languages. It must not be open to a constitutional challenge by any language group.
I fully support the development of a made-in-Nunavut Education Act. I will vote in support of second reading.
I look forward to making positive contributions and to reviewing the results of the extensive consultation process that has already been undertaken.
Mr. Speaker, to the expediency of the bill.
My colleagues are all aware that the end of this Assembly is approaching. However, it is important that we do not rush through the legislative process simply to meet political agendas. This piece of legislation, Nunavut’s own Education Act, is much too important for us to risk not taking the time to do it right.
It is our children’s future. It is the future of Nunavut. We must ensure that we do not threaten our long-term success by making short-term decisions.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation ends) To the principle of the bill.
I wanted to say something on Bill 21, and I know that the people we represent want to have a clear understanding, and there are many concerns.
I fully expect that, Mr. Speaker, the people will feel what he says.
I wish to thank NTI because they work very strongly for the Inuktitut language.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we, as members, will have to keep a close eye as legislators and not just agree with Bill 21, and I want them to revisit the communities.
My reason being: so then in Nunavut, once we can see Bill 21, what kind of school boards are we going to see in Nunavut, maybe there will not be a school board?
All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that only the government Education Minister will be the school board.
That’s not satisfactory.
Looking at the reviews and some of the proposals I thought that they are requesting local controls towards the classes and those will be improvements but I want to say that the local education authorities will have to be reversed, they’re responsibilities of the DEA are being handled by the officials, by the office of the minister.
The local education authorities should be worried about the size of the classroom and capital projects up to a certain amount.
I want the DEAs to be given those responsibilities.
The other issue, the Inuktitut language, yes, this is given more recognition but the minister will have to give more authority.
Will it benefit me if I know Inuktitut and English, and I complete my education, am I going to be guaranteed to work with the government? I don’t know.
A lot of us are very fluent in Inuktitut and very good hunters but that capability we have doesn’t count.
If we’re going to be fluent and to be able to instruct Inuktitut, (interpretation ends) it should be a credential for applying for government jobs. If that’s not the case, Mr. Speaker, we’ll be trying to fool Nunavummiut that the language and culture are important.
If we don’t put them in the categories of one of the credentials required in entering public service, all the efforts and money we spent for educating our Inuit people back in acquiring Inuit language will be fooling them.
So I look forward to having a complete bilingual service that will actually ensure that Inuit abilities of knowing their culture and language will mean something.
If that’s not the case, it will be moving backwards.
So I look forward to further debate, Mr. Speaker, and I am certainly glad to vote in favour of it today.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) To the principle of the bill.
As for myself, I have concerns.
The curriculum right from the federal day schools up to today, the students were abused back then.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I am one of the victims; the guinea pigs on education. I don’t think any student in Canada should be used as guinea pigs to see if the education system is good or not, especially as they are today.
We couldn’t afford to use some of the guinea pigs.
I had an opportunity to travel all over the North, all over Nunavut, as the minister mentioned, as the Chairman of the Public Consultation Hearings on the proposed Education Act.
As a Member of the Standing Committee on Health and Education, I will be very carefully reviewing the bill to see if it reflects what I heard from the communities.
It has to reflect because those parents are really scared of their children’s future abilities. They want them to be able to function as happy citizens of Nunavut through the educational process, and it has to reflect that.
So as a member, I will be very awake and alert to make sure that the bill reflects those opinions.
Today I will be voting for the motion.
I wish to thank the educators who are in the Gallery.
(interpretation ends) When I first appointed the current Minister of Education, he wanted to introduce this Act two years ago when we first had a Cabinet Retreat.
I told the minister that I would like to do a good job and make sure that we try and reflect the aspirations of Nunavummiut. So listen to the people.
Hire people and listen to Nunavummiut.
Make sure this Act will pass during the current Assembly that reflects the expectation of our fellow Nunavummiut, our students and their parents.
I was encouraged to see the hiring of the former Ministers of Education to do that task.
I think document, the Act, reflects our expectations.
(interpretation) So if we want good education for our students in our own language so that they can have a better future and to be able to apply for any job, they not only need Inuktitut instruction because we are not alone in the world.
We want to open up their future to be able to go anywhere.
We also don’t want them to forget how to use their language.
We have to be able to communicate with people outside of Nunavut.
That is the purpose of this, and I’m pretty sure in some areas not everyone will be happy, but we are representing everyone in Nunavut so that our language, Inuktitut, will be strong. It will have to be included in the Act and I am very happy about that.
I will be voting for the motion and I expect it to pass. I want it to pass. There’ll be ongoing consultations and meetings with the communities in the future.
To the principal of the bill. (interpretation) Question has been called.
The motion is carried and Bill 21 has had its second reading, and accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee.
Bill 4, Bill 14, Bill 15, Bill 16, Bill 17, and Bill 19 with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
Before we go to Committee of the Whole, we’ll have a 20-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:46 and Committee resumed at 16:19
Chairman (Mr. Arreak)(interpretation): We are ready to begin. (interpretation ends) In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19.
We wish to commence the clause-by-clause review of Bill 4, and if time permits, return to Bill 16 and continue with the review of the Capital Estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services.
Does the committee agree we first deal with Bill 4?
Bill 04 – Workers’ Compensation Act – Consideration in Committee
I would like to welcome our Law Clerk. I would now like to ask the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Board to make his opening remarks.
I am pleased to appear today, before the Committee of the Whole, to speak to Bill 4, the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Bill 4, Workers’ Compensation Act, is the culmination of a project that began in 2001, when a Legislative Review Panel was appointed to review the Act.
Following the panel’s report, entitled Act Now, the Ministers responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Board started the process of modernizing the territories’ Workers’ Compensation Legislation through a two-phase approach.
The initial phase was completed with the amended Act coming into force on January 1, 2004.
In order to address the remaining recommendations, the ministers responsible determined that further analysis was needed, and that the Act needed to be rewritten.
Bill 4 represents the remaining recommendations made by the panel.
Mr. Chairman, the recommendations in Act Now were not made in isolation. The Legislative Review Panel conducted consultations with stakeholders and members of the public in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.
The panel wrote to approximately 650 stakeholders to advise them of the panel’s work, invite them to public hearings, and solicit their input.
Public announcements about the review were made in newspapers, over the radio, and on television. Between March and May 2001, public hearings were held in regional centres in both territories.
In July 2001, the panel sent a questionnaire to approximately 700 stakeholders to follow-up on issues raised during the public hearings. In August 2001, the panel concluded the consultation process with public hearings in Iqaluit and Yellowknife.
The panel’s research also included comparing the practices as well as workers’ compensation and safety legislation in jurisdictions across this nation.
Act Now made recommendations to amend outdated provisions in the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Amendments made in the first phase addressed more than 70 percent of the recommendations. In order to address the remaining the recommendations, the WCB conducted focus group meetings with employer representatives, workers representatives, and representatives of the general public. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the WCB surveyed other Canadian workers’ compensation agencies, retained external legal advice, and carried out various analyses.
The result of this consultation and research is Bill 4, which is in front of you, which is a joint project between the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Department of Justice of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.
Bill 4 will bring the second phase of Act Now to a close by repealing the current Workers’ Compensation Act and replacing it with legislation that better reflects modern workers’ compensation concepts.
Once the Act comes into force, Mr. Chairman, the Workers’ Compensation Board will become the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission, and the Accident Fund will become the Workers’ Protection Fund.
People across Canada are beginning to realize workplace accidents are not an acceptable part of our working lives. These name changes reflect the shift in philosophy, and emphasize safety and prevention to avoid injuries in the first place.
The philosophy behind workers’ compensation is also reflected in the Act. To stress the importance of the principles guiding workers’ compensation, they are included in the Act as a purpose statement.
Workers’ compensation exists “to establish an open, fair and comprehensive system of compulsory no-fault mutual insurance for workers and employers.”
The purpose statement identifies workers’ compensation service goals, and how these should be achieved and improved.
When the new Act was drafted, care was also taken to reduce ‘legal-ese,’ Mr. Chairman, to make the language as clear and plain as possible, so that you and I could understand it, Mr. Chairman. The Act was reorganized for better flow of information.
This will make it easier for users to understand the complex concepts of the workers’ compensation law. This bill also clarifies the accountability of all parties in the workers’ compensation system through clearer designation of roles and responsibilities. The bill specifies who is responsible for what area, and to whom they are accountable for their actions.
Other clarifications in the Act include provisions about Employment Insurance and causation of injury. In respect to causation of injury, when there is more than one source of an injury, under the new Act, claimants can be compensated when work is a “material” cause of the injury. While the Workers’ Compensation Board has never included Employment Insurance when calculating benefits, which are based on earnings, what was formally a policy is now written into the Act, and becomes legislation.