EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Tapardjuk, while you’re waiting for a copy to ask your question appropriately, can I go to another member?
While we wait, Mr. Ningark has the floor.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): I was going to make a suggestion following Mr. Curley’s comments. (interpretation ends) I was going to suggest that Mr. Curley has every right, every privilege to amend a motion, but since he withdrew his intention to make an amendment, I have nothing else to say.
Are there any other comments on clause 1 while we wait for Mr. Tapardjuk to get the Inuktitut copy? Mr. Tapardjuk.
When this button is pressed, the bells go off.
My question specifically is how Igunaq was translated into Inuktitut when it comes to adulterated, rotten, or otherwise unfit, Mr. Chairman.
I cannot assist you right at this moment although I’m the Chair since I haven’t even seen the Inuktitut copy of the bill.
Mr. Elliott says that he can help.
You may proceed, Mr. Elliott.
I’m not sure why. The bill was translated into French and Inuktitut.
In terms of the terminology, back in January, when the bill was distributed to all members for comments and feedback, it was actually Mr. Tapardjuk who raised the concern about the wording in terms of Igunaq, in terms of rotten, and the terminology, so there was a lot of thought put into how that was going to be handled.
I would like to note that there are many different foods from many different cultures that are served in an aged or fermented state and which are eaten in Canada, including aged cheeses, meats, and fermented soybeans in Asian cuisine.
I would note also that the term rotten or spoiled is not synonymous with aged or fermented. I would emphasize that fermented and aged foods can be perfectly fit for human consumption.
That was, like I said, in response to Mr. Tapardjuk’s concerns back in January, when it was first represented to him.
I thank him for presenting that.
The way it was handled with the interpreter/translators, when they were actually… . I’ll talk about the process, like the mechanical process in terms of interpretation. The interpreter/translators that we use within the Legislative Assembly sat down and there was a discussion because I wanted to make sure that, in the Inuktitut translation, it didn’t have the “Igunaq” reference to confuse people.
It’s not the intent of the bill to confuse people, so the translation should be worded to the effect that it’s not fermented and it’s not the intent of fermentation, but it would like something that was left out, rotten, and not able to be consumed by a person who was eating it.
So I hope the translation lives up to that because I know our interpreter/translators do an amazing job.
So if Mr. Tapardjuk has the Inuktitut copy and he approves of it, it would be great to know before we go a little bit further.
Mr. Tapardjuk and colleagues, I apologize first of all for not providing the Inuktitut copy of the bill and I will make sure that there are copies in both languages before being presented to the House.
I know that Mr. Tapardjuk now has the copy in Inuktitut. If you would like to make further comments, the floor is yours, Mr. Tapardjuk.
Reading it carefully, if the food was adulterated, rotten, or otherwise unfit for human consumption, it’s perfectly fine, but in English, it says that rotten means “Igunaq.” In Inuktitut, it says “Suruq,” which is spoiled.
This is specific. Reading this, it seems to be specific for merchandise like canned foods or imported products.
As one of our colleagues was saying, sharing food is an Inuit custom.
So I would like to ask the sponsor if this bill is specific to our imported foods, not country foods.
No, the bill and the intent are for all foods, whether it be country food or whether it be food brought up from the south.
As I mentioned before, in terms of rotten and spoiled, in my interpretation of the way the bill reads, it is different from aged.
The example I had used initially was the idea of blue cheese.
If we’re talking about blue cheese, people don’t call it rotten cheese, but it is aged cheese and same with Igunaq.
The way I say it, and maybe I’m doing it wrong, I don’t say it is rotten walrus meat or rotten narwhal; it’s aged narwhal and it’s done through a process.
That’s where it talks about it here, the last part of 1(a).
When you ferment it and when you age it, it is fit for human consumption.
When it’s rotten or spoiled, it is unfit for human consumption.
That’s the key point that I think the bill was trying to emphasize there.
I want to raise this question that probably pertains to walrus hunters especially. Sometimes they harvest walrus that have a sickness or a disease, not by choice, and most walrus meat is tested.
However, with other animal species harvested by Inuit hunters, they can physically see the sickness or disease most of the time, but this issue seems to be particularly affecting walrus.
Now, if a hunter harvests a diseased walrus without any testing done on the meat and donates it, would that hunter be liable for causing people to get sick? Has it been included in this section, that there has to be protection for hunters since they can’t always physically determine if the animal is sick? Are they liable in this case?
Again that’s a very good question and a very good point because one of the things that we find and with what some members have said in terms of people donating food, when I was explaining the intention of the bill in Grise Fiord, Resolute Bay, and Arctic Bay, most people said… . Well, what Member Ell was saying is we don’t understand why we would do something like this.
If we go to a feast and there was something that was wrong with it, you’re eating traditional food and you get sick, you went to the feast and you got sick, and there is no flipside to it in terms of civil liability.
At least from the conversations I had in the High Arctic, it was mainly people felt that it would be the bigger centres in Iqaluit where something would actually end up happening.
In terms of donating food, the bill is intended to shield a person who donates food from civil liability unless they intended to harm another person or who acted recklessly in regard to the safety of others. The person would not be acting in disregard unless they knew that it was.
There are already processes in place through the Public Health Act.
I know you raised it in the House many times about testing of… . We’re getting into a totally different area which is not the responsibility of the bill, but the testing of walrus and local testing of walrus.
Does the committee agree to Bill 46 as a whole?
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Thank you. I want to refer to clauses 1 and 2.
I didn’t hear approval for these two clauses and I’m unsure as to whether or not we approved them.
I also thank you for that reminder.
With the different versions I am hearing from our staff here, for the sake of clarity and to ensure that it is properly housed in the record, let me instead note the two clauses independently.
Let us return to the sections here.
Chairman (interpretation): Again, does the committee agree to Bill 46 as a whole?
Chairman (interpretation): Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 46 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Mr. Elliott, I would like to thank you for sponsoring the bill. If you have any closing comments, the floor is yours now, Mr. Elliott.
I have a few closing comments. I want to thank everyone for the first time I have sat in this chair. It’s fine sitting as a regular member and asking the questions, so it’s kind of a different perspective when you actually have to answer the questions.
At the same time, I appreciate the questions from Mr. Curley in terms of best-before and expiry dates.
By our little extended time in the House dealing with it, maybe that will bring some more public awareness and inspire people to go to some of the websites we talked about or ask Public Health about what does the difference between expiry dates and best-before dates mean.
I think we’re starting to become more aware that consumer awareness is something that everyone is responsible for, whether we’re going to be consumers of goods and services in the community or outside the community.
At the same time, I would like to thank all of the individuals and organizations, “Feeding My Family Nunavut,” Skills Nunavut/Skills Canada Cooking Club, the Qayuqtuvik Society, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Frobisher Inn, the North West Company, and the Arctic Co-operatives Ltd. for their letters of support.
I actually will have a few more letters of support coming that I will table as the sitting goes on.
Thank you to the seconder for seconding the motion, and also our Law Clerk and the Legislative Assembly staff for helping with the hours and hours it does take.
It’s amazing in terms of a three-clause bill thinking how it could actually affect and it’s nice that we have the scrutiny in the House as well. I really appreciate Mr. Tapardjuk’s questions around country food.
I spent quite a bit of time in talking to the HTO chairpersons in all three of my communities just to get different ideas from them as to how this bill will affect them.
Thank you, everyone.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation) What is the wish of the committee?
I would like to move a (interpretation ends) motion to report progress. (interpretation) Thank you.
Speaker: Thank you. We will continue on with our orders of the day.
Mr. Enook: Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bill 46 and would like to report that Bill 46 is immediately ready for third reading.
Bill 46 – Donation of Food Act – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Iqaluit West, that Bill 46, Donation of Food Act, be read for the third time.
I declare the motion passed and Bill 46 has had third reading and is now ready for assent.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Clerk, for the first Orders of the Day for 2013.
>>House adjourned at 17:49 Appendix – February 26, 2013
Return to Oral Question 462 – 3(3): School Community Counsellor Training
Date: November 1, 2012
The school community counsellor training course was instructed in English.
There were two bilingual instructors for parts of the training.
The Department of Education plans to have a professional development opportunity for Inuktitut speakers in 2013-14 which may be provided by the bilingual instructors.
Return to Oral Question 474 – 3(3): Government of Nunavut’s Legislative Agenda
Asked of: Hon. Lorne Kusugak, Government House Leader
Date: November 5, 2012
The Government of Nunavut’s legislative agenda is as follows:
Public Service Act
An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act
Youth Criminal Justice Act
An Act to Amend the Legal Profession Act
Annual Reporting Validation (Nunavut Law Foundation) Act
An Act to Amend the Jury Act  An Act to Amend the Nunavut Teachers Association Act
An Act to Amend the Liquor Act
An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act
Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act
2 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Acts
Return to Written Question 019 – 3(3): NAC Courses to Support Early Childhood Education
Asked of: Hon. Daniel Shewchuk, Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College  Date: October 29, 2012
Program Delivery
Early Childhood Education courses have been delivered in the following communities in the years indicated.
The number of participants is also listed.
ECE Course Delivery-Nunavut Arctic College
Pangnirtung-11
Kimmurut-5
No deliveries
Kivalliq Regional delivery  Rankin Inlet-7
Pond Inlet-25
Clyde River-  16
Kimmurut-9
Iqaluit-10
Arviat-6
Pangnirtung-  6
Iqaluit-8
Coral  Harbour-3
Whale Cove-  1
Chesterfield  Inlet -1
In 2005-2006 Board of Director Training was offered in the Qiqiktani in the following communities: Pond Inlet, Hall Beach, Arctic Bay, Clyde River, Cape Dorset and Resolute Bay. The training was funded by the Kakivak Association.
The Community Programs Division of the College conducts annual community needs assessments across the territory as part of the program planning process.
Although the need for training in the ECE field is critical in many communities, the final program decision is influenced by two considerations: level of community support, including the availability of a cooperating Daycare facility (open or planned) to provide practicum placements and availability of third party funding.
The Early Childhood Education program is not base funded through the GN contribution to the college.
The program can only be offered when third party funding sources are found. Funding support is usually found through contributions from Regionallnuit organizations and/or the Department of Education.
Current and Future Plans
In 2012-2013 Nunavut Arctic College is currently delivering Early Childhood  Education Programs at three sites in Nunavut:
Baker Lake: A full certificate program (10 courses).
This is funded through a partnership agreement with the Nunavut Department of Education.
Hall Beach: A full certificate program (10 courses).
This is funded through a partnership agreement with Kakivak.
Pond Inlet: Two core courses are offered to students who have already had a background in Early Childhood Education.
This is funded through a partnership with the Nunavut Department of Education.
The Aboriginal Head Start Program, a Division of Childhood and Adolescence within the Public Health Agency of Canada have indicated a strong interest in supporting ECE training in Nunavut.
The college has submitted a multi-year proposal to the PHAC to deliver ECE training courses across the territory, beginning with delivery of entry level ECE courses in six communities starting in January 2013 (Cape Dorset / Arviat / Rankin Inlet / Repulse Bay/ Coral Harbour and Taloyoak).
Course delivery will expand to include other communities.
Exact locations to be determined through community consultations.
The proposal has reached the second level of evaluation.
Return to Written Question 020 – 3(3): Government of Nunavut Staff Housing and Public Housing Units Equipped with Hurricane Strapping
The Nunavut Housing Corporation had equipped public housing units with permanent steel cables as part of Modernization and Improvement projects in the 1970’s.
In May, 2012, staff housing units were equipped with metal tension straps to facilitate structural repairs.
A total of sixty nine (69) public housing single family dwellings in two (2) communities within Nunavut have been permanently equipped with steel cables.
These cables are placed over the roof of the house and are tied to 45 gallon drums filled with rocks which are buried in the soil.
This process is also referred to as hurricane ties, or hurricane tie-downs.
See below the breakdown by community.
Grise Fiord 4 x public housing Single Family Dwellings
Pangnirtung 65 x public housing Single Family Dwellings
Twelve (12) Government of Nunavut staff housing 4-plex and 6-plex buildings have been equipped with metal tension straps that secure the structure to the steel pile foundation.
This was done to compensate for the improper fastening of the roof assembly to the exterior wall assembly at the time of construction.
The steel straps were designed and installed in accordance with the engineer’s report and recommendations.
Pond Inlet 2 x 4-plex staff housing two-storey townhouse
2 x 6-plex staff housing two-storey townhouse
Cape Dorset 2 x 4-plex staff housing two-storey townhouse
Pangnirtung 2 x 4-plex staff housing two-storey townhouse
The costs of installing hurricane tie-downs in the sixty nine (69) single family dwellings located in Pangnirtung and four (4) single family dwellings located in Grise Fiord were absorbed by the Nunavut Housing Corporation (NHC) as part of Modernization and Improvement projects in the 1970’s.
Northern Properties REIT, the landlord of the 4-plex and 6-plex buildings in Pond Inlet, Cape Dorset and Pangnirtung assumed all liability and structural repair costs to these buildings and the GN owned buildings of the same design.
The installation of the metal tension straps and additional repairs to the buildings was at no cost to the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation has no plans to equip any other Government of Nunavut staff housing or public housing with hurricane strapping or hurricane tie-downs.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation does not anticipate needing to equip any staff housing or public housing units with hurricane straps or hurricane tie-downs.
In Pangnirtung, most buildings built prior to 1975 were permanently retrofitted with hurricane tie-downs.
These buildings are supported on wooden foundations and can shift from their supports when hit by severe winds if they are not tied down.
The sixty-nine (69) public housing single family dwellings in Pangnirtung and the four (4) public housing single family dwellings in Grise Fiord were built prior to this time and are permanently equipped with hurricane tie-downs due to the extreme wind conditions regularly experienced in these two communities.
In newer buildings built to the standards of the National Building Code, hurricane strapping is not required.
Return to Written Question 021 – 3(3): Status of Decentralization
Minister of Human Resources; Minister responsible for Homelessness; Minister responsible for the Qulliq Energy Corporation; Minister responsible for the Status of Women
Government House Leader; Minister of Community and Government Services; Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Pages 3424 – 3479
Opening Prayer 3424
Ministers’ Statements 3424
Members’ Statements 3431
Oral Questions 3438
Tabling of Documents 3454
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills 3454
First Reading of Bills 3454
Second Reading of Bills 3455
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 3455
Report of the Committee of the Whole 3478
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3424
227 – 3(3): Budget Address (Peterson) 3424
378 – 3(3): Search and Rescue in Nunavut (Ugyuk) 3431
379 – 3(3): Importance of Conservation Officers (Ningark) 3432
380 – 3(3): Community Action against Food Insecurity (Elliott) 3432
381 – 3(3): The Need for Preventative Dental Care (Rumbolt) 3433
382 – 3(3): Congratulations to Nanulik Recipient of the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal (Ningeongan) 3434
383 – 3(3): Congratulations to Baker Lake Recipients of the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal (Aupaluktuq) 3435
384 – 3(3): Appreciation for Enhancements to Security at Pond Inlet Airport (Enook) 3435
385 – 3(3): Appreciation to Queen Elizabeth II – Diamond Jubilee Medal (Tapardjuk) 3436
386 – 3(3): Tribute to Yvo Samgusak (Kusugak) 3437
491 – 3(3): Marine Infrastructure in Pond Inlet (Enook) 3438
492 – 3(3): Update on Federal-Territorial Relations (Schell) 3439
493 – 3(3): Preventative Dental Care (Rumbolt) 3441
494 – 3(3): Update on Hamlet Office/Community Hall in Kugaaruk (Ningark) 3443
495 – 3(3): Federal Support for Search & Rescue in Nunavut (Ugyuk) 3444
496 – 3(3): 2013 Budget Issues (Elliott) 3444
497 – 3(3): Policy on Polar Bears as Endangered Species (Curley) 3446
498 – 3(3): Operations of the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission (Aupaluktuq) 3448
499 – 3(3): Vacant Conservation Officer in Kugaaruk (Ningark) 3450
500 – 3(3): Inadequate Specialist Services (Enook) 3450
501 – 3(3): Nunavut Construction Association (Curley) 3452
308 – 3(3): 2011-2012 Annual Report of the Nunavut Development Corporation (Taptuna) 3454
309 – 3(3): December 2012 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (Elliott) 3454
310 – 3(3): Federal Publications Concerning Food Safety (Elliott) 3454
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Notice 3454
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – First Reading 3455
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Second Reading 3455
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Community and Government Services 3456
Speaker (Hon. Hunter Tootoo): Before we proceed with today’s sitting, I would like to ask Mr. Ningark to lead us off in a prayer, please.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. (interpretation ends) We will move on in our orders of the day.
Minister’s Statement 227 – 3(3): Budget Address (Peterson)
Good afternoon to all Nunavummiut and good morning to my constituents, friends, and family in the Kitikmeot, Cambridge Bay and Kugluktuk. Good afternoon, colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the government’s budget for fiscal year 2013-14.
In doing so, I want to make three key points.
First, we made a commitment through the Tamapta Action Plan to improve the lives of Nunavummiut, and this budget furthers that commitment in delivering greater funding for improved programs and services.
Second, we made a commitment to improve how the government delivers those programs and services, and this budget will show how we are doing just that.
Third, our financial situation is reassuringly stable and I can report that the government projects a modest surplus for another fiscal year.
The bottom line is that we are managing our resources prudently so that we can achieve the future we all desire.
Before we get down into the details of my budget, let us take a moment to consider where we are and how far we have progressed.
As this territory approaches its 14th anniversary, this government believes that we are making good progress toward the vision on which this territory was created.
In that vision, Nunavummiut control our destiny and, through our government, shape a better Nunavut.
In Tamapta, our government said the future would bring Nunavummiut a better standard of living.
Families would be active, healthy, and happy.
Communities would become more self-reliant.
And we would be recognized for our unique culture and our contributions to Canada and the world.
I believe that we are on course.
The First and Second Legislative Assemblies provided the base on which we could proceed.
Those bodies improved our governance, our infrastructure, and the programs and services that we provide to the public.
This Third Assembly has built on their work and soon the Fourth Assembly will continue our forward movement.
My role has been to ensure that our financial resources would enable our progress.
You may recall my 2010-11 Budget Address.
My key word in that speech was “prudence.”
I felt the need for a cautious approach.
Today, as I present my fifth budget, I will say that I consider prudence the best guide we could have had.
Our finances are sound, our programs and services are improving, and our future remains within our grasp.
Let me turn now to a summary of our financial situation.
I am forecasting today that the government’s expenditures next year will reach $1.48 billion.
Most of this will be spent on operations and maintenance, while $153 million of this amount will fund investments in capital infrastructure: the schools, hospitals, and other public works that keep Nunavut moving.
The operations and maintenance forecast is $1.33 billion for next year, a rise of less than 5 percent from this year’s revised estimates.
On the revenue side, I project we will receive $1.56 billion next year, excluding third party revenues.
This number is also up nearly 5 percent from the current year.
Most of the increase comes from a rise in the territorial formula financing arrangement.
Our own source revenue will also rise modestly thanks to increased receipts for personal income and payroll taxes, and tobacco taxes.
I’ll note for the record that the higher tax rate on tobacco products imposed at this time last year has raised our tobacco tax revenues by $2.3 million.
I’ll also note that overall reported tobacco use has gone down about 3 percent since we raised the tax rate.
Taking all of that into account, my budget calls for a surplus next year of $21.9 million.
This amount represents just over 1 percent of our expected revenue, and we have put aside $45.6 million for contingencies.
So here we see the big picture, Mr. Speaker.
We are managing to improve programs and services to Nunavummiut currently.
At the same time, it is crucial that we rebuild our cash reserves that had been depleted through previous deficits.