EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I would like to focus my time on offering a suggestion for the government’s consideration in the event that the European Union does implement this proposed ban.
As we’re all aware, the Government of Nunavut owns and operates two liquor warehouses in Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet. The government purchases liquor products from suppliers in the south and resells them to Nunavut residents and businesses. I believe that the products include quite a few items that are from Europe, including wines, beers and spirits.
Mr. Speaker, in the event that the proposed European Union ban comes into force, I think that we should ask ourselves the following question: “If the European Union won’t allow our seal products to be imported into and sold in Europe, why should the GN sell liquor products made in the European Union to Nunavummiut?”
Mr. Speaker, I’ll leave you with this thought.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Schell. (interpretation) To the motion.
Mr. Ningark: Thank you. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we were growing up, especially as young boys and also girls, we used to be told that if we’re not going to eat the animal or utilize the skin for clothing, then we leave it alone.
We don’t kill the animal and not scar or injure it if we’re not going to eat it or use the skin for clothing. We also utilized the fat and the bones.
I can’t say it any other way but today, we only harvest the animals that we’re going to utilize and eat. Our children and our grandchildren are being told by elders and by us that if they’re not going to utilize or eat the animal, don’t kill, maim or injure it.
We also have to know what season to kill a certain animal because the meat and the fur changes from season to season.
The marketing of sealskin products is something that’s very important to us because there are severely limited employment opportunities, especially for hunters.
For those of us sitting here in the House, we look forward to the hunters coming in and wait for them at night. We, including many of us in this House, used to wait anxiously for the hunters’ return and their bringing seal meat. We would wait until it was dark and listen for the sound of dog teams in such anticipation of their arrival.
I fully support the motion and I thank the seconder and the people who spoke to the motion.
I would also like to request a recorded vote on this motion.
Mr. Aupaluktuq: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to commend the department and the minister as well for sharing that information.
I guess this really demonstrates what we truly are here for, to do our jobs as leaders and to speak on behalf of our culture and people of Nunavut.
As a former graduate of Nunavut Sivuniksavut in 1993 and an alumnus, I’m kept up-to-date with a lot of photos and happenings with the Nunavut Sivuniksavut students that are happening in Ottawa.
I would like to advise this House and Nunavummiut that our youth at Nunavut Sivuniksavut have shown support against the European ban by demonstrating and doing protests at Parliament Hill in the last three years.
So with this in mind, I would like you to know as well that our youth are also in full support of this. (interpretation) Thank you.
I am sure I’m speaking on behalf of all Nunavut and the people of Sanikiluaq when I agree with this motion concerning the seal product ban.
I may not be of Inuit descent but I am a Newfoundlander and I have been eating seal meat all my life and still do.
I have lived in Nunavut for 22 years.
The people of Sanikiluaq depend on seals for their livelihood and as do the rest of Nunavut.
I rise here today to wholeheartedly support this motion. I think I have said in the past, we have seen other things with the United States of America putting the polar bears on the Species at Risk Act and all of these types of moves that they say they are worried about us.
Mr. Speaker, I think this particular instance by these activists that suck money out of bleeding hearts to portray something that isn’t factual should be something that the federal government should look into by making it illegal. I know there’s fraud and things like that that go on, criminal things.
They are putting misinformation, as my colleague pointed out, out there.
Portraying something, getting support for something, and putting out information that isn’t accurate is shameful.
These people, I would say, who are passing on this information to these animal rights activists who are making their cases to the European Union don’t have a clue. In fact, I would say they are clueless.
They haven’t got a clue what’s going on.
They are just being told what someone tells them and they believe them.
That is shameful behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, I also think that as Inuit, this is another example of us being exploited, but I do not like to stand for it.
The fact that they are using the exemption for Inuit, knowing full well that it’s not really going to mean anything, to say, “Oh, it’s okay, we’re taking care of these guys,” so that they get to get support behind it, to me, I feel, as Inuk, exploited.
That should not be tolerated.
Mr. Speaker, another thing, as my colleague pointed out from Baker Lake, I remember after the last time, the students at the Nunavut Sivuniksavut program put out a poster, ‘Save the Veal.’ It had a couple of Inuit students dressed up in traditional clothing holding a baby cow.
They’ve got no problem over there eating calves, sheep, or any other kind of domesticated animal. They’ve got no problem slaughtering those animals in a much less humane way than seals are harvested and they have a problem with that?
I think these people should take a good strong look in the mirror and realize what hypocrites they really are by portraying something like that.
I think that, to me, they make a mockery of themselves. If you look at the European countries, they’ve killed off just about all the wildlife that they have and I think they’re feeling guilty now, so they want to try to save some somewhere else.
We shouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of their guilt.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge all members to support this motion. I think it’s time to send a strong message and I commend my colleague from South Baffin for his suggestion.
You know that old saying, Mr. Speaker, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Maybe we should start looking at different things and maybe the impact won’t be as significant, but the message will be clear.
And I don’t think that should be something only coming from Nunavut but I think the rest of Canada should look at that as well.
As the minister has indicated, this is something that our government is working collaboratively with the federal government on and I think that those are steps that, as a country, we should be looking at doing, that exploitation that’s being done to us should not be accepted by us as a nation.
Two can play games like that, if you want to call it that. But to us, it’s not a game, it’s a serious matter.
I think that things like that are things that we need to do, to send a very clear and strong message to educate these people who are in Europe, in the European Union and the Parliament over there, who are being taken advantage of by these activists because of their ignorance.
I would also like to thank the movers of this motion. I am in full support of this motion and I want to make a brief comment.
First of all, we grew up without many jobs in our communities. The first job that I ever obtained was seal hunting.
I was eight years old when I first started out.
I didn’t have a godmother while I was growing up, so I was able to sell the pelt of my first seal.
That was my first job and I would help my father with the seal hunt.
Often, I wanted to hunt by myself, so it was okay when he didn’t bring me along. It was part of my learning experience and it was something I enjoyed very much.
I used to watch my fellow community members selling their seal pelts to get income so that they could at least buy some groceries for their families and for their hunting supplies.
It was very good to see that they were self-sufficient.
Looking at this issue, when the sealskin market collapsed and these hunters became income support recipients, it was very discouraging.
Now they’re proposing a ban on seal products once again and having fought this kind of thing in the past is the reason why I am in full support of this motion.
Once we have done that, I will want to work with our government to look for ways on how to respond to this impending ban. I know that if this proposed ban goes through, it’s going to cause a great deal of hardship. We have to do all we can in our power to stop the proposed ban.
You have my full support and I sincerely hope they hear what we have to say.
Does the mover of the motion have any last reply?
I am looking for unanimous support for this important motion to oppose the European Union’s proposed ban.
We will continue to fight this European ban and will speak out against its hollow Inuit exemption used to further a cause which is based on misinformation.
Mr. Speaker, the seal hunt will always be at the heart of Nunavut.
Again, I urge all members to vote unanimously to support the motion so that we can send a clear message to misinformed animal rights activists and the European Union.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
This closes the debate and a recorded vote has been requested. All those in favour of the motion, please stand and sit down when I call your name.
For the record, the motion was carried unanimously.
Bill 1 with Mr. Okalik in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:41 and Committee resumed at 16:11
Chairman (Mr. Okalik)(interpretation): Good afternoon.
We have a quorum, so we can begin our committee meeting and thank you for coming.
We weren’t finished with our consideration of Bill 1.
Do members agree to deal with this bill today?
Mr. Schell, do you have any comments?
Mr. Schell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We would like to continue with the review of Bill 1 and the Department of Education, followed by the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, and if time permits, the Department of Health and Social Services.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Schell.
Do members agree with that?
We were on page G-3 with the Department of Education. Minister Tapardjuk and the witnesses can now proceed to the witness table.
We already know who the officials are.
Do members agree to have them at the witness table again?
We were on page G-3. Education. Branch Summary.
Corporate Services. Mr. Ningark had a question and you can now ask your question. Mr. Ningark.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
I forgot what I was going to ask, but I was talking about gifted children in the communities.
Mr. Arvaluk, my friend and colleague, had stated that we need to provide more support however possible not just for gifted children in schools but also for gifted artists, those who can draw and sew.
Members of the Legislative Assembly understand that we need to provide education services for everyone, provided that they’re not of age. After they come of age, they should continue their education if they wish to do so. That should be practiced in all of Nunavut and Canada, if not the world.
We need to provide support to gifted children and I’m sure that the Third Assembly will consider those individuals.
That is a very good comment and I am sure the department has heard it loud and clear. We have commented on this on more than one occasion.
Mr. Rumbolt, do you have a question?
My question is concerning the new school in Sanikiluaq.
Quite a few years ago, when it was in the design stage, I was a member of the District Education Authority, and there were some discussions of including a community learning centre within the new school.
Can the minister provide an update on whether a community learning centre component is still included in the new school’s plans?
Minister Tapardjuk, would you like to respond?
Yesterday, we made a report on the Sanikiluaq school project.
We have already identified the company that will be contracted to construct the building of the school.
The CLC is not included in the school plans and it is too late to include it in there, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Rumbolt.
I believe Mr. Ningark just remembered what his question was, so he has the floor now.
I have just been recently elected; it has not even been ten days.
I have heard recently that there was a plan for a school project for Repulse Bay.
I was wondering if the minister or his officials could respond to that.
Can someone respond to that?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): My deputy minister will respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.
We considered setting aside $60,000 for the planning and design stage, but it’s not included in the plans for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
I would also like to thank the deputy minister for her response.
I would like to get clarification on why that $60,000 was dropped after it was considered.
Can someone provide clarification?
Yesterday, I made a report on the previous plans that were in the capital plan.
Similarly for Repulse Bay, in my response I gave yesterday, our priorities were based on safety reasons.
Our department has been allocated $130 million in total for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
For that reason, the review has not been totally deleted from the plans and it will be included in our review of the 2010-11 capital estimates, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ningark, do you have further questions?
Perhaps the school in Repulse Bay is still not full to capacity. I was not at all sure if I understood that, so I would like to get further clarification on why it’s not included in the plans right now.
Minister, can someone provide an explanation?
Once the new numbers came in, it became evident that the school in Repulse Bay was built with a capacity of 263 students and the total number of students enrolled at this time is 266, so that school is at 101 percent capacity.
For that reason, when we review the 2010-11 capital estimates, that school in Repulse Bay will also be included in the review, Mr. Chairman.
It’s over capacity by three students, so hopefully the review of the school can now begin.
There are more questions.
Mr. Ningeongan, you have your hand up and you may ask questions now.
With respect to my line of questioning yesterday, I believe I need to make some comments because I’m not sure if the minister understood.
I wasn’t talking about a replacement for a school; I was talking about plans for a senior school project that was initiated by the residents of Coral Harbour. That was taken off the plans even although there was a target to get a senior school in Coral Harbour. It would not constitute a replacement, so I became a little confused yesterday.
So I would like to ask another question to the minister if that was the case as well.
Minister Tapardjuk, do you want to try and answer the question.
We were thinking that this has been discussed since 2001 and it has been deliberated almost every year.
During those talks, they discussed whether they need to renovate or replace the school.
The Department of Education’s staff and the DEA have been considering this since 2001.
The existing school was expanded to make sure there was room for computers and a library. There was no room for those types of things previously, so they had to do renovations to accommodate them.
With regard to his comment on the five-year capital plan, the project was identified in the plan and it was to be initiated in the 2010-11 fiscal year. There is no funding allotted for this current fiscal year according to the previous plans.
Although there were plans to start that in the 2010-11 fiscal year, it had to be taken out in order to accommodate higher priority projects.
I would like to work with my colleagues when we’re planning future capital projects for schools and other facilities.
The Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College and I have agreed that we will work closely together on the planning stage. That’s how it is to date, Mr. Chairman.
We had asked what percent capacity the school was at in 2006.
Was that looked into?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2005-06, it was at 72.5 percent capacity, and in 2008-09, it was at 78 percent capacity. During the planning stage, it was at 72.5 percent capacity, Mr. Chairman.
Now, I’m even more confused.
Why did they bring this up in the plans when there is only that much figured out? It shouldn’t have been brought to the plans at the time. As I stated yesterday, we need to be fully prepared and it would be more beneficial to be prepared ahead of time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a final question. It would be preferable to see more plans other than the initial stage of the project, which they have set aside $50,000 in the 2006-07 fiscal year. $50,000 is a lot of money, which is money that belongs to Nunavummiut, and it seems like we wasted it.
I would like to work closely with the minister and the DEA not so much on the initial stage but more on the establishment of a senior school in Coral Harbour.
Minister Tapardjuk, if you can respond.
That $50,000 has not been spent yet and will remain in the books for the next fiscal year.
I would like to explain further that the district education authority and our staff have been considering this since 2001 to date.
The Coral Harbour District Education Authority had requested the renovation of their school because it was deteriorating due to age.
The DEA requested the renovations and they also requested a senior school that the member was talking about, so they had two requests at that time.
After the school was renovated, we had to work on other priorities, which were schools that are filled to capacity or aging. After the school in Coral Harbour was renovated, there was enough space to accommodate the students.
But as I stated earlier, our plans for the 2010-11 fiscal year included the initial stage of this project, but we will not expend any funding on it this year.
As I said, I want to work closely with my colleagues when we’re planning capital projects for the future, especially in regard to schools, because it’s very important.
When we give communities false expectations, it can cause some concerns or disappointment and that’s why I want to work closely with my colleagues, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Ningeongan, did he answer your question?
My namesake, Mr. Pauloosie, would you like to pose a question?
Earlier today, in my Member’s Statement, I talked about disabilities in our communities.
Is the Special Needs Assessment project budget intended to cover both the assessment and the upgrades of school facilities to meet special needs for our special needs children?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, my namesake.
Minister Tapardjuk, do you want to try and answer that.
Yes, we will review the schools to see if they are too old, or if they need renovations, or if we need upgrades so that they’re accessible and also welcoming to disabled people.
We will review all the schools in the future to see where we need to provide services for disabled people.
We have identified these funds to review and analyze the schools in Nunavut to make sure they’re up to code and estimate how much needs to be spent on renovations or upgrades. So that’s what we would like to review with the money that we are requesting here, Mr. Chairman.
My namesake, do you have any further questions?
My other question is: the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2010-14 draft five-year capital plan includes projects for staff housing for new schools in Gjoa Haven and Sanikiluaq. The Department of Education’s 2010-14 draft five-year capital plan does not include new schools for Gjoa Haven.
Are there any plans for a new school in Gjoa Haven?
Perhaps the Housing Corporation has those plans for you.
If I understood the question, he is asking whether there are any plans for a new school in Gjoa Haven.
Yesterday, we stated that there were two phases for the construction of the school.
Phase 1, which is almost completed, is the elementary school and phase 2 is the high school. That is in our plans and we believe that this phase really needs to be completed. But we will try to move the construction date up and maybe have it included in the capital plan for 2010-11.
They have responded to my namesake.
Mr. Ningark, do you have an additional question?
I would like to ask the minister about graduates.
Although I haven’t been told personally by the experts, I have heard that if an individual, who would otherwise graduate, doesn’t know any Inuktitut, then they can’t graduate.
Minister, is that true?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. That is directed to O&M and not related to capital estimates.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Thank you.
Perhaps I will ask the question from a different angle.
He was talking about renovations or expansions to a school to accommodate a new computer room and a library.
If there are renovations or expansions done on a school, will there be an Inuktitut classroom in that school?
Do you want to try and answer the question, Minister Tapardjuk?
With the new Education Act, schools will be Inuktitut schools as well.
I can’t really respond because it will be in effect for all Inuit so that they can speak both English and Inuktitut, or maybe even French. Curriculum materials that are being developed in Arviat are geared toward Inuit students and they are to be used throughout Nunavut, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fred Schell, you have some questions.
It’s in regard to the gym addition that the hon. member is building in Cape Dorset.
I guess my question is: when are they going to resume construction there, number one, and what is the completion date for it?
And number two, when that project was tendered, was it on budget?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Schell.
You got lots of time to ask questions; you don’t need to number them.
Minister Tapardjuk, do you want to try and answer the two questions.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): The completion date for the project is the summer of 2010 and the size of the gym will be 527 square metres, Mr. Chairman.
My question was: when it was tendered out, was it on budget?
That’s what happens when you number them, one is answered but one is avoided.
Minister Tapardjuk, do you want to try and answer it.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): We’re not going to go over our budget and the renovations to the school will resume in the month of March.
A member has some questions.
Mr. Ningeongan, you may ask questions at this time.
I noticed capital items that are no longer in the plans for 2010-14.
When can we expect to see them again in the plans?
Minister Tapardjuk, could you try and answer that, please.
Perhaps those are the ones that have been taken out of the plans that we are proposing for 2009-2010.
I could tell you that even though they have been taken out, I would like to work closely with my colleagues as these projects go through the capital planning process.
The funding we receive for capital projects are limited and we can’t go beyond our means.
As I have been stating, I would like to work closely with my colleagues. As we review the capital estimates for 2010-11, they will have that opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
No one else has their hand up.
We’re on G-3.
Total Capital Expenditures. $15,268,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, my colleagues.
Going back to Education. Total Capital Expenditures. $15,268,000.
Are we in agreement that the capital estimates of Department of Education for the coming year is concluded?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, my colleagues and the officials who were here at the witness table. I thank the minister and his officials.
Minister, the floor is open if you have any closing remarks.
We will now be able to proceed with our capital estimates for the year 2009-2010.
I just want to reiterate that during the planning stages, I will want to work closely with the members because it’s very important to all of us.
In addition, I would like to thank the members for approving these funds.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort them out.
We thank the witnesses.
The Department of Education is concluded, so we will now be dealing with the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.