EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We talk to our constituents and try to explain what we’re doing. We’ve had this Bill for over a year and I believe we’ve all had a chance to talk to our constituents and hear their reviews on it.
So, I’m not going to point fingers as to who did what, who did their jobs and what else we could do to make a difference, but the Bill is before us and it’s our job now to decide whether to go forth or not.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Any further questions?
When we have comments that we are welcoming yes, that’s a fact, needless to say we are a welcoming territory and that is not the question at hand.
There is no protection for the guarantee of us being welcoming to everybody who comes into Nunavut, yes we maybe fair and treat everybody equally by being welcoming and nice to people but it’s not in writing and we should have it legislated.
And so perhaps I can ask the Minister that once this Bill is dealt with, how will it impact me, I’m sure it will not impact on my day to day life, however if I was mistreated and my human rights were violated then we won’t be doing our job.
What will it have, what kind of impact will it have on my day to day life and what are the dangers because I don’t see any dangers in this act whatsoever?
Yes those are, that’s a true statement.
This Human Rights Act will not affect our day to day lives but only in the case where our human rights are violated then it’s something we can fall back on.
If I go into a restaurant say down south and because I’m an aboriginal person and we’ve all felt discrimination at one point or another.
This piece of legislation will enable us to have an avenue and an agency that can deal with those types of complaints; any Nunavut resident who was violated or discriminated against then can go to this tribunal and make their complaint.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: I really don’t have any more questions I just want for the record to make a point that when my friend from Nanulik says that there is no separation between church and state and I’m saying there is because church is not God; there’s a difference between God and church.
If God is mentioned in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, church is not mentioned because there are so many churches.
But there has to be a clear separation between church and state.
The church does not have business in the laws of the government and nor does the government have business in the doings of the church.
The government has to be able to treat all of its constituents equally without any bias.
Chairman (interpretation): I don’t hear a question in there.
I have no one else on my list for general questions.
Mr. Iqaqrialu’s line of questioning, the way I understood the way this Bill is enacted the contents will be dealt with to add Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit concepts in there.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Perhaps once we are dealing with the contents, we will identify that in the clause-by-clause review because there is a Statement in there that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit will be considered and how the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit will be incorporated into the processes and the tribunal that will be appointed will also have to be versed on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit concepts and values.
It is in the content of the Bill and we can find out more of it when we go clause-by-clause.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. I have no one else on my list at this point.
Would you like to go line-by-line, clause-by-clause?
Human Rights Act.
We will go clause-by-clause.
Mr. Tootoo: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
I was anticipating Clause 4.
I put my hand up there.
Motion 008 – 1(6): Sub-Clause 9 (5) OF Bill 12 Human Rights Act be Amended
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a Motion here on this Clause of the Bill and as the Chairman of the Committee had indicated as there were a number of recommendations that the Committee put forward that if these amendments were passed, it would be appropriate for the Bill and help enhance the Bill and that is what these amendments we are going to be making are either, none of them are of a contentious nature and I am doing this as a Member of the Assembly and not as a Member of a Committee.
So, I just want to make that clear off the bat.
Mr. Chairman, I moved that the Bill be amended by striking out Clause 4 and substitute the following:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall construct so as to obligate or degredate from any existing Aboriginal Treaty Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada under Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982.
And, Mr. Chairman, as the Motions were handed out, it is Motion #1, it is on the Clauses on Page 2 in English and Page 3 in the Inuktitut.
Chairman (interpretation): The Motion is in Order.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): I was just following the usual procedure.
The Inuit do not have treaty rights.
It is only First Nations who have treaty rights.
Why is it that we include the treaty rights of aboriginal peoples here in this amendments, or are we including the First Nations and their claims to harvest in our lands?
Why is it that we are including their treaty rights, or are we also including the First Nations or their treaty rights around the Churchill area and is it including the First Nations who have the right to hunt outside of Churchill and around the Arviat area?
I am not sure why we are including treaty rights in here.
It is protecting the rights of aboriginal or treaty rights and it is also following, well, this is for greater certainty and also to further protect our rights as Inuit.
This is for greater certainty, this clause.
Well, I do not fully understand it, but I am sure he is a lawyer and he can understand exactly why it is included, and it seems that it is going to be for further protection of the Inuit.
From what I seem to understand, does it imply that Inuit already have laws?
Chairman: Premier Okalik.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Inuit have rights spelled out in the agreement and those are our rights, to harvesting, for right of first refusal and so on.
This is to enhance and further protect what is already included in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
I just wanted further information.
We Inuit have rights today.
That is why we are debating this issue and they already have existing rights because it is outlined in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which in turn is protected constitutionally.
Yet, at the same time, the Bill we are dealing with has no legal standing.
Looking at both aspects, it does not make sense to me.
This is protecting the Inuit rights outlined in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
It is not going to obligate or barricade any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of Inuit.
Chairman (interpretation): Manitok, no?
To the Motion. All in favour. Opposed.
Carried. Clause 5.
Mr. Havioyak: On the 7(1), you have sexual orientation.
Can you maybe elaborate on that a little bit?
Maybe definitions first of all for me to understand when you say sexual orientation.
I think it is one of the main reasons why there is a lot of opposition to this Bill is because one of the grounds that is being protected is sexual orientation, which involves having relationship between the same sex, like a male and a male and a female and a female having a relationship, sexual relationship or otherwise.
That is should not be used as a grounds for discrimination amongst all the other things that we list there including race, religion, or other reasons in there. It is one of the reasons why we have to have it in there for us to assume responsibility.
The Federal Government has told us that this has to be in there and it’s defined in the courts, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects everyone, and in particular minorities.
Chairman (interpretation): For example, when we heard religion and the state do not go hand in hand so that we do not keep asking the same questions, let us not talk about religion, or the state and just focus on what is here.
Of course, it is going to keep coming up because religion is one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Mr. Havioyak: I can hear you.
It is for their attention and for any other Nunavummiut, I guess, that is what you are saying.
When I first heard of this I said to myself, so the government is going to be recognizing same sex, and along with that you say that, and you put down same sex marriage.
I am trying to understand it.
I am hearing you that you are recognizing the same sex, I hear you on that too.
I want to hear that you are recognizing the same sex.
When you say that it comes to my mind when you are saying, oh maybe this is where I have to be careful when you are saying that you are recognizing that there is going to be a same sex marriage.
Maybe if you can make me understand where you stand on that.
You mentioned about the Federal Government; we are talking about the Nunavut Government.
We have our own Government here that we should work with.
When you mentioned Federal Government before it sort of throws me off when you say that we have to listen to the Federal Government.
Anyways, I am just saying please make me understand what you really mean by that, the same sex issue that you talked about.
Maybe he is recognizing the same sex marriage, too.
This Bill does not deal with marriage.
It is dealing with basic rights to services and other things that may pass on basic human rights of individuals.
I must clarify also there were comments made about pedophilia, and that is not the case.
We are not trying to protect pedophilia.
There are already laws in place to protect children.
That is not what we are trying to do.
We are trying to protect everyone.
If there is going to be criminal activity, that’s not what we’re trying to do, we’re not trying in any way to condone that.
Mr. Havioyak: I’ll repeat it for the record.
So, what you’re saying is that you’re not recognising the same sex marriage in this act?
Yes, we are not recognising it in this Act.
That is a debate that will happen perhaps later next year when the Federal Government debate their definition of marriage and it will likely happen after a federal election.
So, there will be time and opportunity for those that have strong views to present their views at that time.
We are not dealing with it yet.
During our debate and listening to the comments that were made around here, I’ll read the Inuktitut.
Clause 7, it’s part two 27 (1), for the purposes of this act the prohibitive grounds of discrimination are race, color, ancestry, ethnic origin, citizenship, place of origin, creed, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, pregnancy, lawful source of income, and a conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
During our debate, we were told that there was nothing in there about sexual orientation.
Now that we’re going clause by clause, we find that we are recognising same sex couples.
We are already preparing for the Federal Government’s debate on the issue of same sex marriages and adoption and so on.
We’re already preparing our legislation in anticipation of the federal Bill that is going to be passed in a year or so.
That’s not what we’re trying to do.
This Bill is for the Human Rights and has nothing to do with same sex marriages or unions.
I don’t know how much further I can add to that.
In regards to the sexual orientation, that would mean same sex couples.
A man and a woman, they live common law for over a year they are seen as a married couple.
If same sex couple have been together it would be the same as, wouldn’t that be the same as common law and then presumed or seen as married afterwards?
And since sexual orientation is here we are already accepting the union of our same sex couples and this is the reason why we are opposed to this Bill.
This is not what we are dealing with.
We are dealing with prohibited grounds of discrimination and that includes sexual orientation.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Netser.
No matter what you say, if sexual orientation is there then that includes everything and I don’t believe what you are saying anymore.
Chairman (interpretation): I don’t believe there was a response to the question.
If you could respond to the question.
One of the questions was if I was living common law for six months, then the federal government would see it as a marriage between the couple, that was the question.
The question was after a same sex couple have been living together for certain number of months would they be seen as a married couple?
We are not, we don’t have the jurisdiction over the same sex issue, over same sex marriages; it is the federal government’s legislation and we can debate it as much as we want in this House but it is the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I can try to respond to your question.
We do have a separate piece of legislation where it deals with common law spouses and it’s separate from this Bill.
This Bill is the Human Rights Act and it is for all people.
(Floor) If a couple has been living together in a common law relationship, and are not married then the purpose of this Act is to protect them from discrimination.
That is the intent of the legislation.
For the twentieth time tonight there is a propaganda campaign out there that all MLAs got and we got confused in the whole issue.
For the twentieth time tonight, does this Bill promote or endorse same sex marriages?
Just to elaborate on this issue again.
It doesn’t matter, whether they might be same sex couples.
What it’s trying to say that we have to treat them exactly the same way because we all know that they are out there.
Is this recognizing those individuals and we have to recognise them the same way as anybody else?
But it doesn’t say whether they are going to be married or not, whether we are going to recognise them in marriage.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Anawak.
If you want to respond to those questions maybe you could go to the witness table.
What I am asking is the Minister and his officials, and if you want to respond to those questions go to the witness table.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): I have the right as a Member of the Legislative Assembly to speak, whether I am going to be for it or against it.
Chairman (interpretation): Okay if you won’t want to ask any questions.
Mr. Chairman, I think I’m going to read it in English because I’m not really sure how to translate sexual orientation in Inuktitut because we do not have terminology for it.
(interpretation ends) There are many definitions of sexual orientation.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty close to it by now.
I could probably defend myself.
Sexual orientation.
It is very difficult for us who have English as a second language to understand it.
We cannot seem to translate it well into our language.
I understand we are not talking about people getting married, don’t mislead us or manipulate us.
Sexual orientation describes or defines the sexual attraction of one person to another person.
Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.
That is straight from the English words that I was able to gather from different lawyers from the country.
That is what we are frustrated with.
We are not talking about marriage.
We are talking about a translation that does not fit in our culture because we do not recognising homosexuals in our culture.
That is the problem; it is difficult to interpret.
That is why we cannot - that’s the question. Okay, that is the question.
What is your definition of sexual orientation?
To us, we do not want it being forced upon our children.
Chairman (interpretation): If you understood, Mr. Premier, perhaps you could give us an interpretation of that in Inuktitut.
As I said, this is where the biggest concern is because people do not agree with what other people do in their bedrooms.
So, I think the Member did a fairly good job in describing sexual orientation.
You can be very informed.
The biggest concern appears to be that there is a big concern about males having relationships with males and females having sexual relations with females, and so, along with other sexual conduct, like heterosexual relationships that maybe existing.
Chairman (interpretation): Is that it?
Clause 7. I have no more names. Manitok?
I think that there was a person before I had my hand up.
If I could read it again.
Under section 7, it is on (4), I will read the Inuktitut.
It states in (4), Pregnancy and adoption.
Whenever this Act protects an individual from discrimination on the basis of sex, the protection includes, without limitation, (A), the protection of the female from discrimination on the basis that she may become pregnant, or she may adopt a child, and (B), the protection of a male from discrimination that he may adopt a child.
One or the other might have to take a maternity, or paternity leave, is what it is talking about.
Because for adoption and pregnancy leave, we want them to be protected for that even though if they are pregnant, that they are allowed to be in the workplace as long as they are able to work, as long as she wants to work, until she want to take pregnancy leave, up to the point where they want to take adoption leave.
Chairman (interpretation): I am sorry I did not see some of the Members who had their hand up.
Back to 7(1), I wanted to ask the Minister about sexual orientation.
Could these two people be married as well? If they are called sexual orientation, could they also be married?
Maybe they got married in Ottawa to come up here.
Could we still call them this?
That is what we have been trying to ask.
This also could mean two women, two men that are married.
So the Minister cannot tell us this is not so.
He just told us that this implies that two people also could be married.
Hon. Paul Okalik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fact that they are married does not change the fact that they are having, may be having sexual orientation.
So we are not dealing with marriage.
If there is marriage, I am sure there is some activity happening.
We are not dealing with that.
We are just focussing on discrimination that may take place on the basis of sexual orientation.
Chairman (interpretation): That is it?
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): The people who elected me, I stated that I would not approve this legislation, and I think that it would be better if some of the sections of the Act could be amended.
I have a letter from one of my Constituents and I have to ask this question from one of my Constituents so I could get further understanding of the Bill.
It is on 7(4) A and B, it states either can apply for adoption leave and whenever the Act protects an individual from discrimination on the base of sex, the protection includes without limitation.
My question is if a same sex couple adopts a child, would they be recognized under this section because it has been the concern of one of my Constituents.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): So, they would not recognize the same sex couples who have adopted a child then?
We are not saying that the same sex couple can be recognized to adopt children.
We are not saying that.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, that is not what it says, it is in another Act and this one only deals with pregnancy and it states that if either individual is pregnant then this act prevents discrimination in their job.
We are not talking about same sex couples wanting to adopt children.
I would like clarification here.
According to Mr. Iqaqrialu’s question regarding the issue of adoption and that is on the prohibited grounds of discrimination with protection of a female from discrimination on the basis that she may become pregnant or may adopt a child and be, I am having a hard time to understand that where that comes from.
Where does the issue of adoption come from?
And we are seeing at the same time that it is not in our jurisdiction to deal with those types of issues and now you are trying to include it within the Act.
I am just confused as to why you are including the issue of pregnancy and adoption as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Yes, that is meant to protect whom ever is unemployed, whether it be the mother or the father of the child. Employers know that these employees have the right to go on leave for a total of one year, according to the Federal Legislation and we cannot discriminate and disallow people from enjoying this right to have the right to be on leave and that is all it means is that those couples who are adopting or are expecting a child, it has nothing to do with same sex relationships.
This Human Rights Act, I have a separate understanding, although I also know that the intent would be to recognise same sex couples to be able to adopt.
Is that what it means in that section?
Yes, for those pregnant women or expectant parents, they have the right to be on leave according to this legislation but again, let me say once again, it is not our jurisdiction to deal with same sex relationships and the recognition of same sex unions.
Chairman (interpretation): I have no one else on my list for questions.
Clause 7. Agreed?
I need to understand 7(1), race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, citizenship, place of origin, creed, religion, age, disabilities, sexual orientation, all these, they cannot be discriminated, two, three, four, right up to eight.
It means because you are brown, you won’t be able to adopt, it’s the same thing if you are a same sex couple, you can adopt.
Is that what the act is saying, Mr. Chairman?
If you look at 7(1), one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination is sex.
And if we go back to four, whether you are an expectant mother or an expectant father, you should not be discriminated against.
So it applies to both and there are laws in place to provide benefits and this prevents potential employers from discriminating against expectant mothers, because employers will know the potential employee will likely seek leave and get benefits which will have to be protected for at least a year.
So under the acts that we are governed by it prevents potential employers from discriminating on the basis of potential mothers or potential fathers.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): The way I understand it, in Clause 7(1, 2, 3, 4, A, B, 5, A, B, and 6 A, B, C, D) for that it’s under 7 (1) (B); is that right Mr. Chairman?
No, as I said, each one is different and it applies to some of the definitions in that.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I was told that I have a right to move a motion.
Motion 009 – 1(6): Clause 7 (1) of Bill 12 Human Rights Act be Amended
(interpretation ends) on the prohibited grounds of discrimination, I move that subsection 7 (1) be amended by striking out the word sexual orientation.
Chairman (interpretation): There’s a motion on the floor to amend clause 7 and strike it out.
We’ll take a break for ten minutes.
>>Committee recessed at 21:10 and resumed at 21:21
There is a motion on the floor and it reads.
Motion prohibited grounds for discrimination.
I move that subsection 7(1) be amended by striking out the words sexual orientation.
I’m kind of feeling a little bit uncomfortable in making comments; however, one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination was that and if you strike that word out of the Act, we are going to say that we can treat them fairly but we will mistreat and treat those unfairly who are in same sex relationships and that we are saying that we can treat them unfairly if we strike this out.
Yes, that is the intent of the Bill.
If we want the Bill passed in Nunavut and to ensure that we protect the rights of every Nunavummiut, if this is stroked out, the federal government will not give us the jurisdiction to deal with complaints of human rights violation.
I just wanted to make that clear that they will not give us the authority if we do not include this in the made-in-Nunavut legislation.
I would like to get clarification on the words “sexual orientation” from our law clerk; what does it have to do with the intent of the Bill?
Chairman (interpretation): Ms. Cooper.
Well, I think the definition of sexual orientation has been discussed here at length. It includes the sexual attraction of a male to another male, a woman to another woman and a person who is attracted to both genders.