EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The change relates to one of the first amendments in the bill which is to define charitable organizations, and this is in Clause 2, paragraph B which is basically; any society within the Societies Act would be eligible to receive this surplus from the candidates campaign contribution.
So any organization that is registered as a society under the Societies Act in Nunavut would be eligible.
They would not have to be registered with Revenue Canada.
This is to simplify, to allow more organizations to be eligible to receive the surplus.
So the definition means then that they would have to be registered as a charitable organization through the Nunavut Act, charitable, what do you call these, Societies Act, or so.
If they’re not registered, does that mean then that any group is not eligible to receive a donation from a candidate’s surplus?
If the organization is not a society and registered as a society under the Nunavut Societies Act, then it would not be able to receive that.
So the only alternative would be to give it to the consolidated revenue fund for the benefit of all Nunavummiut.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. It is a concern in some smaller communities because many of the organizations that are doing good charitable work in communities, normally, many of them are not registered.
So, for instance, school programs, we have a morning breakfast program for some students. That is a charity that the local education society provides.
Are the candidates prevented from donating revenue to this group as a result of the fact that they are not a charitable organization?
Ms. Kusugak: We could look into expanding that list. I think we need to be wary of people giving to an organization that no longer met the requirements of a society.
We do have some organizations in Nunavut about whose financial dealings we’re not too sure how they are proceeding. In some areas that a hamlet has found it necessary to take over the work of a group that was operating on its own and was raising funds through ordinary community means. Perhaps that wouldn’t the best group of people to be given a surplus.
I think that we do need to have some oversight on it. Certainly I understand about school sport groups, etc., set up school lunch programs, and breakfast programs. Maybe we can look at a way that this can be expanded without being unaccountable.
It would be important to note Nunavut is reflective of Nunavut groups. I understand that there are many circumstances where hamlets take over many of the groups that are doing work. We have in Nunavut a whole lot of charitable groups, for instance, homeless groups, many of them are not registered, and that kind of stuff.
I know we have to wrestle with those kinds of stuff when we are dealing with that thing.
So I appreciate that the chief electoral officer has committed to the possible consideration of groups, and so on. I would certainly look forward to seeing the work once it’s done.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 39. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 47.
This clause deals with the compliance statement.
It mentions the Integrity Commissioner.
I know that that’s something that members and people want to see in Nunavut was less dealing with the police on issues that may arise.
I am just wondering, with that in mind, if the Speaker or the officials could give an explanation on this and whatever that was for?
The change here is something that came out of our experience with the last election. We had a meeting among lawyers for the government, police officers were involved; Crown Counsel, the Integrity Commissioner, and Elections Nunavut to debrief on enforcement.
One of the things that came up is the notice provisions for when the police notify a person who is accused of committing an offence, when the Integrity Commissioner gets involved.
The change that’s in Clause 49 is basically to separate the Integrity Commissioner from the police process so that the Integrity Commissioner will handle all communications directly with someone that’s been offered a compliance agreement.
So the idea is to make them available generally. In the case of the last election they were made available to everyone who was charged with an offence.
Not everyone accepted the idea, but at least for the first experience they were widely offered to the people who had breached the Act.
Clause 49. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 51. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Page 12. Clause 52. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 53. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 54. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 55. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 56. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Are you agreed to Bill 10 as a whole?
Chairman: Are you agreed that Bill 10 is now ready for third reading?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Sandy Kusugak, and Mr. Orr.
Mr. Speaker, would you like to make your last comment?
Speaker (interpretation): I would like to thank my officials from Nunavut Elections for making us understand the provisions of these amendments.
Just a couple of questions that don’t deal directly with the amendments to the Bill, I just have more general questions to ask the chief electoral officer and her officials while they are here.
I know that I had the privilege, if you put it that way, of being on the standing committee of the First Assembly that dealt with and reviewed the report of the 1999 Election.
The work that the committee did jump-started efforts to lead to the passage of what we are looking at right now, with a Made-in-Nunavut Elections Act. Maybe the Minister of Education could take some notes on how it was done.
One issue that was considered then was the desirability of consolidating elections’ administration into a single office.
We know this is a very small jurisdiction with limited resources with all types out there to deal with elections and if you look at the history of elections, there has always been concerns raised sometimes due to just the wrong information getting out there for whatever reason.
So, I’m just wondering in the long-term of this office, it would seem to be able to administer elections at the territorial and municipal levels as well as for plebiscites and votes held under the Liquor Act, pretty much all elections in Nunavut.
I recall, quite vividly actually, meeting with NTI on this idea and they were very receptive to it, to cooperating and coordinating these efforts along with Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer for Elections Canada was receptive to the idea.
So maybe I would just like to ask the witnesses if they could inform us of any progress that has been made to date on that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Ms. Kusugak.
Ms. Kusugak: At the moment, we have quite a few initiatives underway.
During the last Federal Election, we did not, of course, administer the election for Elections Canada within Nunavut, but we provided them with a great deal of administrative assistance; suggestions on who could work for them, places to have polls, etcetera, we did some of the translations for them, and provided general assistance in how they can shift things to make life easier.
We are, at the moment, actually working on a pilot project with the Hamlet of Rankin Inlet and we have a voter information sharing agreement going on with them and at the moment, they are using staff under our direction to update voter information.
We are doing data input and then printing their voters’ list for them, as a path for the future and we are going to try this out and see how it goes.
We are also during this week we had our second meeting with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and we will be providing administrative assistance to them under an agreement for their upcoming election in March.
They will have their own chief electoral officer but we will be providing support and guidance in a number of areas for them.
So that is another step down that path. As well we will be submitting to the Management and Services Board a legislative proposal for reviewing the Plebiscite Act to make it modernized and to sort of encompass liquor plebiscites and other plebiscites that we normally have in Nunavut as we are not so commonly having Nunavut-wide plebiscite votes.
So that is another initiative that we have underway. We would look to support any government initiative to review the Local Authority Elections Act so the legislation could be meshed and work better for Nunavummiut so that the procedures could be done in common.
That is of course a government initiative, but we would be prepared to do certainly most of the legwork with regards to the elections aspect. That’s assuming of course that the Department of Community Government handles all the issues related to the administration of Municipalities that need to go in that as well. But during this period before, we need to gear up intensely for our own elections to work out well.
The other initiative is to work to support the boundaries commission that will be established.
At the moment that requires a fair amount of attention as they need a lot of work on electronic mapping that doesn’t currently exist so we have to develop some expertise around that and with relationships that we already have with Community Government. The planner there helps us to provide the kind of maps that will be needed and the City of Iqaluit is helping to provide the mapping for that job.
That is an addendum, but the reason I added that on was to show the kinds of work our office is involved in at the moment.
I look forward to seeing some progress made in this area. I think it can only lead to the ultimate goal of maximizing participation and economies of scale and providing expertise in all elections across the territory.
The chief electoral officer indicated that they need to look at some things with Community and Government Services in relation to the City, Towns and Villages Act.
I am not sure if that was the one that she was referring to. But I am wondering as a result of the direction that they want to move in; are there restrictions with current legislation that would prevent something like that from happening with municipalities or other organizations that would need to be looked at with other officials to address that and to try and move that forward.
If those restrictions are in place I know we would be willing to initiate some meetings with the appropriate department to address those.
We completed Bill 10 and you’ll be able to ask those questions at a later date.
Ms. Kusugak. Do you wish to respond?
Ms. Kusugak: No. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these things and I think we have really developed a really good Elections Act. We are fortunate to have a competent drafter and somebody that deals with this on a day-to-day basis.
Other jurisdictions are quite envious of the modern Electoral Legislation that we have. I think we are on a pretty good path.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Sandy Kusugak and Patrick Orr, and Sue Cooper.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had one more question to ask.
I know a lot of leeway has been granted over the last couple of weeks about people asking questions that may not be directly related to this. I’m just wondering if I could ask, the witness said she had mentioned in her comments that they were... a period to gear up for the next election, and a pilot project that is being started in Rankin Inlet.
If her office was ready, if need be for a snap by-election in Rankin Inlet, or where their office is situated, or any other office, that was going to be my next question, before you excused the witnesses regardless of whether or not any member had questions still to ask of them.
The Speaker is not here, and is not at the witness table anymore, and I’m sure we can ask this question at a later date.
Mr. Tootoo, Bill 10 is completed.
There is a motion on the floor and the motion is not debatable.
All those in favour, raise your hand.
Speaker (interpretation): Back to orders of the day. Item 20.
Your committee has been considering Bill 10, and would like to report that Bill 10 is immediately ready for third reading.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of the Committee of the Whole be agreed to.
Mr. Okalik, the Premier, seconds the motion.
Bill 10 – An Act to Amend the Nunavut Elections Act – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay that Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Nunavut Elections Act, be read for the third time.
Mr. Clerk, could you please ascertain if the Commissioner of Nunavut is prepared to enter the Chambers to give assent to Bills.
Bill 01 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2006-07 – Assent
Bill 02 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #2, 2005-06 – Assent
Bill 03 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act #2, 2005-06 – Assent
Bill 04 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act #4, 2004-05 – Assent
Bill 10 – An Act to Amend the Nunavut Elections Act – Assent
Commissioner Hanson (interpretation): Members, please be seated.
As Commissioner of Nunavut, I hereby assent to the following bills:
Bill 1, Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2006-07;
Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #2, 2005-06;
Bill 3, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act #2, 2005-06;
Bill 4, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act #4, 2004-05; and
I am pleased to take this opportunity to wish all members a safe trip home to their communities and families.
I would also like to offer my best wishes to all Nunavummiut for a joyous holiday season and a New Year filled with hope and promise.
Orders of the Day for February 21, 2006:
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Our session is adjourned until February 21, 2006 at 1:30 in the afternoon.
>>House adjourned at 11:36
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Pages 805 – 839
Opening Prayer 805
Speaker’s Ruling 806
Ministers’ Statements 808
Members’ Statements 809
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 816
Oral Questions 818
Returns to Written Questions 837
Tabled Documents 837
Orders of the Day 838
Tuesday, February 21, 2006 805
053 – 2(3): Minister Tapardjuk Absent from the House (Picco) 808
054 – 2(3): 2006-07 Budget Address (Simailak) 808
055 – 2(3): Update on Financial Reporting (Simailak) 808
098 – 2(3): Member Arreak Absent from House (Evyagotailak) 809
099 – 2(3): Prohibition of Polar Bear Hides to the U.S. (Barnabas) 809
100 – 2(3): Canada Winter Games Mascot (Netser) 809
101 – 2(3): Congratulate the Arviat Search and Rescue Team (Alagalak) 810
102 – 2(3): Passing of Elisapee Karlik (Curley) 810
103 – 2(3): Lack of Support for Disabled Persons (Tootoo) 811
104 – 2(3): Cambridge Bay Wellness Centre (Peterson) 812
105 – 2(3): Congratulations to Aglaktiit Tusaajiit Members (Mapsalak) 814
106 – 2(3): Polar Bear Issues and Climate Change (Kattuk) 814
107 – 2(3): New Role as a Regular Member of the Legislative Assembly (Kilabuk) 815
118 – 2(3): Update on the Management of Polar Bears (Barnabas) 818
119 – 2(3): Housing for 26 New Positions for Health and Social Services (Tootoo) 820
120 – 2(3): Yellowknife Boarding Home Inspections (Peterson) 822
121 – 2(3): Placement of International Nurses (Curley) 824
122 – 2(3): Patient Escort Requirements (Mapsalak) 826
123 – 2(3): Research on Polar Bears Due to Climate Change (Kattuk) 829
124 – 2(3): Update on Providing a Tracking System for Missing Hunters (Alagalak) 830
125 – 2(3): Number of Vacant Units (Tootoo) 831
126 – 2(3): Tabling of 2004-05 Public Accounts (Peterson) 833
127 – 2(3): Federal Funding for Childcare Programs (Barnabas) 835
Return to Written Questions 001 – 2(3), 002 – 2(3), 004 – 2(3), 005 – 2(3), 006 – 2(3), 007 – 2(3), 008 – 2(3), and 009 – 2(3) (Clerk) 837
068 – 2(3): Statutory Requirements for Tabling of Reports and Other Documents in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut February 2006 (Speaker) 837
069 – 2(3): 2003-04 Public Accounts of Nunavut (Simailak) 838
070 – 2(3): 2004-05 Interim Financial Report (Simailak) 838
071 – 2(3): Response to Petition 01 – 2(3): GN Staff Housing Policy (Clerk) 838
072 – 2(3): 2005 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut (Speaker) 838
Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Mr. David Alagalak, Mr. Levi Barnabas, Honourable Levinia Brown, Mr. Tagak Curley, Mr. Joe Allan Evyagotailak, Mr. Peter Kattuk, Mr. Peter Kilabuk, Mr. Steve Mapsalak, Mr. Patterk Netser, Honourable Jobie Nutarak, Honourable Paul Okalik, Mr. Keith Peterson, Honourable Edward Picco, Honourable David Simailak, Mr. Hunter Tootoo.
Speaker (interpretation): Good afternoon Premier, Members, and Ministers.
Welcome to Iqaluit for our session.
Just before we go to the Orders of the Day, I’ll be reading a letter.
February 17, 2006
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
X0A 0H0
Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that I recommend to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, the passage of the following bills during the third session of the second Legislative Assembly:
Bill 12, Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2006-07
Bill 13, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act #3, 2005-06
Bill 14, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #3, 2005-06
Sincerely, Ann Mikijuk Hanson, Commissioner of Nunavut.
As members are aware, we did not broadcast our proceedings on the Aboriginal People’s Television Network during our last sitting.
Unfortunately, the Assembly’s administration has not been able to come to an acceptable agreement with APTN, so we will once again not be able to offer Nunavut-wide television coverage of our proceedings.
The Assembly’s administration is actively pursuing alternative broadcast solutions and I am confident that we will soon be able to share the important work we do in this chamber across Nunavut.
I would like to thank the members and all Nunavummiut for their patience during this unfortunate situation.
February 21, 2006
At this time, I would like to deliver my ruling on the Point of Order raised on December 1, 2005, by the Member for Iqaluit Centre.
In coming to my ruling, I have considered the Hansard, two independent translations of the remarks that gave rise to the Point of Order and the audio recordings of the remarks.
Although there are minor differences in versions, the nature, context, and intent of the remarks are consistent.
Given that it has been some time since the issue arose, it will be useful to review the background that brought us to today. The Point of Order was raised during debate on a motion relating to the timing of the Midterm Leadership Review of the Executive Council.
The Leadership Review, by an earlier motion of the Assembly, had been scheduled for the fall of 2006.
At our last sitting, a motion was made to bring the review forward that it be completed no later than March 30, 2006.
An amendment to the motion was made. The motion to amend it was made by the Regular Members of the Assembly. The amendment provided that the review be completed by June 30, 2006.
During the debate on the amendment to the motion a number of members, including Members of the Executive Council, spoke in favour of the amendment.
The rationale given for supporting the amendment was that if the review were to be completed by March 30, 2006, it would overlap and detract from consideration of the Government’s 2006-07 budget.
Those who spoke in favour of the amendment stated that they wanted all members to be able to give their full attention to both the budget and the Leadership Review; the amendment to the motion passed and debate progressed to the motion as amended, which now provided that the Leadership Review be brought forward from the fall to occur no later than June 30, 2006.
The Member for Rankin Inlet North rose to speak to the motion as amended.
At that time he stated:
The midterm review has now been moved forward from September. It would have been better if you were given more time to do your work.
It will also make the ministers happier as they can now earn of their salaries to that date of the review, increase their pension amount after their four year terms are up, and give them more time to sign cheques for three more months. The way the motion is worded, we all have been given rights and we also know and understand that the end of June will not be good for the people of Nunavut...
At this juncture, a Point of Order was raised. In the Point of Order, the Member for Iqaluit Centre was of the view of that the statement imputed a false motive to members of the Executive Council, who voted in favour of the amendment.
The contents of the member’s remark raise a number of concerns.
The remark suggests that the Members of the Executive Council voted in favour of the amendment for three reasons:
so that they can be assured higher salaries for a longer period;
so that they will have a longer period to incur pension benefits at a higher rate; and
so that they can continue to sign cheques for a longer period.
Our rules provide that a member will be called to order if a member imputes false or hidden motives to another member.
In other words, it’s improper to suggest that another member is doing something for reasons different than those stated by the member.
To do so is to impute false or hidden motive. Our rules in this regard are in keeping with parliamentary tradition.
Members of the Executive Council who voted in favour of the amendment stated that they supported the amendment because it would allow the Assembly to direct its full attention to both the budget debate and the Midterm Leadership Review.
In his remarks, the Member for Rankin Inlet North did not accept this as being the motivation for supporting the amendment and, instead, stated that Members of the Executive Council supported the motion only for personal gain.
This is, indeed, imputing false motive and is a breach of our rules and parliamentary tradition.
Accordingly, I uphold the Point of Order.
During my review of this matter, a further issue came to light.
Upon reviewing the audiotape of proceedings, it’s clear that when the Point of Order was raised, the Member for Rankin Inlet North responded by saying, “Ah, shut up.”
I have no doubt that the member didn’t intend the comment to be picked up by the microphone or to become part of the House’s official record.
However, the fact is that his microphone was on, the comment was clear, and I have no doubt that if the comment can be heard on the audiotape, it could also be beard by Members of this Assembly and members of the public who were in the Gallery. Such language is not parliamentary and will not be tolerated.
I am, at this time, requesting that the Member for Rankin Inlet North retract his statements, both of which I have ruled not parliamentary.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding me, and I retract my statements.
Minister’s Statement 053 – 2(3): Minister Tapardjuk Absent from the House (Picco)
I wish to advise the members that the Honourable Louis Tapardjuk will be absent from the House today.
Minister’s Statement 054 – 2(3): 2006-07 Budget Address (Simailak)
I wish to inform members that tomorrow, Wednesday, February 22, I will present the Government of Nunavut’s 2006-07 Main Estimates in the Assembly.
Minister’s Statement 055 – 2(3): Update on Financial Reporting (Simailak)
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today I’ll be tabling the government’s 2003-04 Public Accounts and the 2004-05 Interim Financial Statements.
The Auditor General continues to express concern over delays in the delivery of this important information, and I share this concern.  My department is making concerted efforts to eliminate the causes of these delays in order to meet the government’s legislated obligations.
Initiatives already underway include:
recruitment of qualified staff as a priority to fill vacancies;
automation of financial reporting processes wherever possible;  closer collaboration of departments and agencies, and provision of technical support to help solve reporting problems;
coordination, timely communication, and closer monitoring to facilitate reporting by departments;
a move towards more frequent accrual accounting and a current reconciliation during the fiscal year.