EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I'm sure that this could be experienced by candidates because I have seen it myself during election times, trying to intimidate the voters or are we talking about someone else talking about placing votes. Is that what this is about?
Chairperson (interpretation): Who will respond?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairperson, that’s basically it, I guess, if somebody threatens you or another person to say that if you are not going to vote for me, I'm going to break your legs.
That may happen, but certainly not here, so it’s pretty basic, if somebody is threatening somebody or trying to force them to vote a certain way then that is illegal and the person can be charged.
Or if somebody were to try tell you that your vote is not a secret, I can know, you should tell me how you’re going to vote, that’s illegal also.
I appreciate the response but the Nunavut residents have to understand the clarity of that provision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for letting them clarify that to me.
Chairperson (interpretation): Okay. Are you finished? Clause 247.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 248.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 249.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 250.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 251.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 252.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 253.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 254.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 255.
Mr. Chairman this one deals with broadcast on Election Day or the day before.
A couple of things here and one it talks about the scope of the broadcast and (2) it says broadcast includes television, radio or internet and I know one form of communication in a lot of the communities is Citizens Band.
I was wondering if that would be considered as something that could be used because in some communities it is used more widely than the radio for getting information to travel around long distances.
Maybe if I can get an answer to that one, I will have another question.
This was a specific recommendation, number 63 of the standing committee and we’re implementing it in this place, particularly to take account of that situation and the new technology that is available for our broadcasting.
I was asking specifically to CBs because I know when we were doing our consultation, there were issues raised around people talking to each other saying things on the CB that the whole community is listening to, about one candidate or another whether it be good or bad or indifferent but there was.
So I was just wondering if that issue was addressed or that wouldn’t be covered under this broadcast issue and people could do that all they want and not be guilty of an offence.
I would think that CB radios would be covered under the scope of broadcast as a radio.
However the prohibition is against speeches entertainment or advertising for or against a candidate.
So I think that normal conversation on a CB radio would not be prohibited but if a candidate gave a speech on a CB radio or there was some kind of advertising that was clearly campaign related that would be prohibited.
Chairperson (interpretation): Okay. Are you finished?
Yes I was going to mention that myself.
Like maybe it should be written and included through here the candidate, the campaign manager, I don’t know. I know that I don’t think we should include CB although people quit listening to the CB radio.
But because CB radio is not like radio and television the question I have is; I know the candidate has until the day before the Election Day to campaign, but I don’t think in Canadian elections the campaign manager is included.
I’m just thinking that perhaps we should have one for the campaign manager because they could talk on the CB radio, so the candidate and the campaign manager should be both identified in here.
Ms. Kusugak: Thank you.
Well I think it says any person who broadcasts it so on behalf, I think it rather takes that in.
I would like as the Chief Electoral Officer, I would have interpreted CB radio stuff to be the equivalent of broadcasting if it took on that tone and I think at some point, you know you have to be able to interpret, this Act is long and we tried to include everything.
I don’t know if Mr. Orr will agree whether it needs an additional amendment or not.
But I do have some provision for adapting this Act to carry out its intent and I think the intent is clear in this section.
Chairperson (interpretation): Would you like to add comments, Mr. Orr?
I think that technically CB radios are broadcasting radio.
However, the purpose of this is not to stop conversation or speech generally, but basically campaign related promotional material either for or against a candidate as opposed to just people conversing, which they also use the CB radio for.
On that same note, in section 255 if an individual were to use the means of broadcasting, either on TV, radio, CB or internet, now is the candidate penalized if an individual comes on the radio and says I want this guy elected.
Is the candidate part of the investigation there and then, because I’m afraid that if we leave this open if Jack were to run against me here in Pang, the day before election he go on, he can go on the radio or have somebody go on the radio and say vote for Peter Kilabuk.
Now that would be seen to be my promotion when it’s not and if the candidate is going to get penalized, then I think this is too open with use of the term broadcast.
The guidelines or the rules state that the person that makes the comment or statement on the radio is the person that would be charged.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Kilabuk, you have any supplementary questions.
You said that they could be charged.
How could they find out, how could they be charged. Could I report them to the RCMP and if an individual says that “oh I didn’t say that”, then they could deny it because they do not speak the same language. Would they be charged?
Should I report them to the RCMP?
And if an individual could say, oh I didn’t say that, they could deny it.
What does that really mean?
I think we definitely need to amend that because if there’s two of us witnessing it and hearing but if I was alone by myself, if I heard someone talk about, if I was a candidate and if I heard on the radio someone promoting another candidate would I be supported.
This definitely has to be clarified.
I would prefer to have it clarified right to be because I’ve considered it myself because some elders go through the radio, even to the day before the election around 10:00 because these elders don’t know the election laws.
They are not allowed to broadcast around 9:00 the day before the election.
I would like to have that clarified please.
Mr. Chairperson, I guess for the most, but there’s no way that we can oversee and insure that every rule and every clause here is enforced, the member is right, you don’t know, it could be whoever on the radio disguising their voice saying you know, vote for so and so or making slanderous remarks.
I think first of all we have to use some common sense first.
They have to get on the radio, they have to have access to the radio and all of that live in small communities, we pretty much know who is who and who’s on the radio and, but you really don’t know, we can’t say for sure who that voice is so, I guess for the most part, we’re just trying to provide enough information so that people do know what’s right and wrong but we’ll never guarantee or insure that no laws are broken, that we can find out who did it, it’s just almost impossible.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 256.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 257.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 258.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 259.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 260.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 261.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 262.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 263.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 264.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 265.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 266.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause. 267.
Any person who makes a personal contribution or give other than to a financial agent or person authorized by a financial agent, and be given to a non financial agent; that’s an area that I don’t quite understand and would like further clarification on it.
Chairperson (interpretation): Either one of you.
Mr. Chairperson, basically what it means is that we touched on this earlier that any donations have to go through the official agent and they can’t be given to other people or the candidate. They have to be turned in to the official agent.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 267.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 268.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Clause 268.Provided in this act any person who contravenes this act is guilty of an offence and liable of summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand, be imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or see to both a fine and imprisonment.
It mentions here about imprisonment for that amount of money.
If I was a candidate and ended up in prison, that’s kind of harsh for running as a candidate.
I don’t think we see this too many times, but I just clarification.
The amount of the penalty is basically in keeping with other provinces.
The Canada Elections Act has a much higher penalty, of coarse and I think recently they had a compliance agreement where $200 thousand was given away to avoid prosecutions.
So these amounts are relatively low, but they’re in line with other provinces and certainly in line with what has been the case under the current statute.
If at all possible, as soon as I hit a clause , if possible, try to make your comments when I’m under that Clause so our meetings on recordings will be easier.
Because it’s very difficult to go back after we agree to it.
So if you have any questions on say for numbers, Clause 268.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 269.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 270.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 271.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 272.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 273.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 274.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 275.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 276.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 277.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 278.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 279.
Agreed? Mr. Nutarak.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I just want clarification on Clause 279. Is that saying that we can’t have photographs on there? Thank you.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 279. Either one of you respond to clause 279.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairperson, the question doesn’t relate to the article here.
This is just an amendment for Nunavut as a way to be appealed.
So it’s not related to the question that the member has.
Chairperson (interpretation): Okay. Mr. Nutarak.
I agree on 72.
In terms of 73.1, I was getting confused but now I understand it.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): 280.
This Act comes into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the commissioner and it’s quite thick.
As we start using it, we will be able to see where we might encounter problems in the coming years.
I wonder how long will this act be in place before we can make amendments to the discrepancies we might have, even though we might have encountered problems with this Bill, when would we be able to revisit it and makes amendments to it.
Mr. Chairperson, from this point on, whether it be tonight or from this point on, at any time the House or the members can make changes to the act through a motion.
Clause 280.
Committee Motion 004 – 1(6): Amend Clause 4(10) of Bill 14
Before we agree to the Bill as a whole, I’d like to go back to deal with those sections clause 4 and 7 in the Bill.
Committee Motion 005 – 1(6): Amend Clause 7(2) of Bill 14
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you. honourable members and Mr. Chairperson. (interpretation ends) I move that clause 410 of Bill 14 be amended by striking out “correctional institution” and substituting “penal or correctional institution”.
Hon. Paul Okalik: I move that clause 7 to Bill 14 be amended by striking out paragraph (a) and renumbering the following paragraphs accordingly.
Chairperson (interpretation): To the motion. All those in favour, to the motion?
Chairman (interpretation): Do members agree that Bill 14 is now ready for third reading as amended?
Chairman (interpretation): We should have a break and go to bill 15 and 16.
We’ll have half an hour break? Do you agree?
>>Committee recessed at 6.26 p.m. and resumed at 6.56 p.m.
I would like to call the meeting to order.
In committee of the whole, we have the following items to deal with.
Bill 15 and Bill 16.
I would like to call Mr. Ng. to state his opening comments.
I am pleased to appear before the committee of the whole to speak to Bills 15 and 16.
Bill 15 is the supplementary appropriations # 5, fiscal year 2001-2002.
This Bill is to provide additional appropriations in the amount of $24 million 152 thousand dollars to fund departmental over-expenditures for the fiscal year 2001-2002, in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act.
The main components of this Bill are $12.8 million dollars for the settlement of the pay equity dispute and $9.4 million dollars for the Ed Horne settlement.
Bill 16 is supplementary appropriations # 2 for the fiscal year 2002-2003.
This Bill is for providing additional funding of $27 million 209 thousand dollars for increased capital expenditures for this year.
The major components of this Bill are $10 million dollars to the Nunavut Housing Corporation for the required staff housing needs in Iqaluit and the decentralized communities: $4 million dollars as athe capital contribution to the City of Iqaluit under a capital contribution agreement, $3.7 million dollars to undertake the remaining repairs for the Pond Inlet sewage lagoon, $1.4 million dollars for the projects under the strategic highways infrastructure program, $2 million 420 thousand dollars for the furniture, fixtures and equipment for the three health facilities, $3 million 745 thousand dollars for the design, development and construction of the Kivalliq Health Centre, and $1 million 483 thousand dollars for the funding to purchase the Sivumut building.
And now, with that Mr. Chairperson, I’d be pleased to answer any questions from the committee members.
Minister Ng. I would like to ask the Minister, if you can hear me, I would like to ask if you could pretend to be me first because it’s Halloween.
Mr. Ng, could you please introduce your officials.
I have with me, Mr. Paul Reddy, who is the Manager of budgeting for the Department of Finance.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Supplementary appropriation # 5, 20021-2002.
That is the Bill that we are going to be dealing with and we’ll turn to page number 6.
Supplementary Appropriation # 5, 2001-2002, any comments?
Mr. Chairperson, This one there, $2 million, 270 thousand dollars, was not previously authorized for the Legislative Assembly operations and maintenance.
I'm just wondering if the minister could explain what those funds are going to be used for.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: These are the funds to finance the retirement allowances act for members from the period April 1st 1999 to March 31st 2002, so three years worth of accruals for that, those payments.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ng. Mr. Tootoo
Mr. Chairperson, just to make it clear, I am just wondering if the minister indicated a further retirement allowances act.
Is it for the regular retirement allowances act or the supplementary retirement allowances act that this appropriation was for?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Chairperson, the member is aware that it is for the supplementary allowances act that was passed earlier this year.
This $2 million 270 thousand is what it’s costing the government to fund the supplementary pension plan for the members of the legislative assembly that opted into that program, is that correct?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: That is correct.
Basically, this is the amount that is requested to the management and services administrative board where the member is a member that have come forward to the supplementary appropriation process.
Mr. Chairperson, if that’s the amount that the government’s putting in, is the minister aware of the amounts?
Does that include like the members’ contributions?
Or is that just the government’s cost for the first three years of the pension, or does it cover the amounts going to the pensions for the whole term.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Speaker, this is the Legislative Assembly’s portion of it.
It’s not net of any recoveries that might take place through contributions.
And Mr. Chairperson, does the minister have any idea of what percentage or what portion of the total amounts going to the fund that this represents for that period?
Mr. Chairperson, I don’t have that information here.
It was all debated and brought forward when the supplementary appropriation act was before the house earlier this year.
And at that time, all those figures were detailed and outlined.
I am here on behalf of the legislative assembly on this particular item just like I am towards all the other departments sponsoring their request through the Department of Finance.
I was wondering, I’m quite clear as to what it is now, that’s the amount costing this government to fund the supplementary pension plan in the members for the past three years or the term.
And that’s totalling $2 million 270 thousand.
Mr. Chairperson, I’d like to make a motion, but I’d like to wait until any other members have had an opportunity to ask questions before I make my motion.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
I was hoping to be noticed earlier. (interpretation ends) After $2.27 million dollars, other contributions from the government to this account will be done on regular O & M, then after that they will not have to come in through the supplementary appropriation.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr, Chairperson.
That’s correct because there was base adjustments made for the annual amounts in the O & M estimates for the Legislative Assembly.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Anything else?
Mr. Chairperson, as my friend from Qamanittuaq would say, it’s no secret that this fund is something that I didn’t agree with and still don’t agree with.
I think I could probably think of $2 million 270 thousand other reasons, and places where this money could be more properly spent looking after the needs and concerns and issues and funding shortfalls throughout all 26 communities in Nunavut.
Given that Mr. Chairperson, I’d like to move that this amount be deleted from the supplementary appropriation.
We have yet to do the rest of the pages.
There have been no debates yet, I believe it would be better if we do the entire supplementary appropriation # 5, before we go into motions.
This was already approved by the Legislative Assembly meeting that was held in Iqaluit.
That’s for your information.
Mr. Arvaluk: Mr. Chairperson, I'm not following you because I think the motion is in order because we can delete through a motion, from page to page if we need to.
There is a motion on the floor moved by Mr. Tootoo.
Did you want to go ahead with it?
Chairperson (interpretation): At this time, we have not seen a copy of the motion.
Possibly it would be best if we see it in writing.
Mr. Chairperson, I wasn’t aware that it was a requirement for written motions in committee of the whole.
I thought that was just for formal motions in the House.
It says here that we can take a ten minute break in order to get the motion written, translated and copied.
Did you want to go ahead and deal with the motion?
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I would like him to repeat the wording in the motion so that we’ll all be clear on the contents.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr, Nutarak.
Mr. Tootoo, if you would repeat it please.
Mr. Chairperson, my motion is to delete the $2 million, 270 thousand dollars from the supplementary appropriations # 5, Bill # 15.
You will have to submit a copy of the motion to the Chairperson.
You have to give the Chairperson a written copy of the motion and there’s another clause where it says we can take a ten minute break in order to type, translate and duplicate the copy of the motion.
I'm just waiting for a copy of the motion.
I'm sure there are rules and regulations; it would probably have to be translated if we’re going to see a copy of the English motion.
Chairperson (interpretation): If there is any motion as members of the Legislative of Assembly of Nunavut, we have agreed amongst ourselves that a copy of the motion will be typed, distributed among members and that it be translated into Inuktitut.
That’s part of the rules and procedures.
Members of the Legislative of Assembly, I'm the Chairperson, and I will apply the rules and regulations as required.
That’s the way the Chairperson works in order to coordinate the meeting.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I recognise that there are rules that we abide by.
But by the same token, Mr. Chairperson, we have the opportunity to bypass and waive our own rules.
The intent of the motion, having a motion written, translated, is so that every member understands what the motion is before them.
I think there is no dispute about the issue that is before us.
Mr. Tootoo, as everybody knows, is opposed to the supplementary pension plan.
There’s an opportunity here for him to put forward his position once again though the supplementary appropriation that we’re dealing with here.
So, it’s just a matter of if we support his motion or not.
His motion is to delete the money so that it impacts not having the pension plan.
So it’s quite clear to me as a member.
Now if there is a problem and other members want it in written form, that’s fine, we can take a break and do that.
But I think it’s quite clear to all members what we’re dealing with here.
If that’s the case, I would ask that all members waive the rule to have that motion in writing, and to deal with is motion at this time if it is appropriate to do that Mr. Chairperson.
Chairperson (interpretation): The motion is written.
It will have to be translated and I will give an opportunity to the members to make their statements or comments.
We have Mr. McLean, Mr. Anawak and Mr. Arvaluk. Mr. McLean.
Mr. McLean: Mut’na Iqsivauta.
I agree with Kelvin Ng and his wording.
We all understand this.
We already dealt with this, numerous times and I just think it’s political grandstanding right now.
I think it’s just somebody trying to politically grandstand and I don’t agree that it should be written up and translated.
I think we all understand it, we’ve dealt with it numerous times.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. McLean, is that a motion or comment?
So that’s a comment?
Did you want to see a translation of the motion?
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): I don’t mind at all, not seeing a copy of the motion or a written motion.
If there is going to be anything written it has to be translated.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Even without the written motion, I think we all know what we’re dealing with.
We know the intent of the motion.
All I want to say is, when we deal with acts that require money, we have to pay the bills.
There is a portion of my salary that’s put in here as part of the contribution, so that I can get my benefits at the end of the day.
If I'm making a contribution, then the government has to contribute to it as well because it’s already there.
The Finance and Administration Act, we have to make contributions, this $2 million, 270 thousand is applied for three years, but we’ll have to change the act.
If we change the act, amend it or receive it and if there’s no change or rescindment of the Retirement Allowances Act, then it has to be applied and therefore I’m going to be opposing the motion.
Chairperson (interpretation): Okay, with due process, this will play itself out with a vote, there is a motion on the floor.
Mr. Chairperson, as a mover of the motion I agree with Minister Ng, that I think everyone understands it and there really isn’t a requirement for it to be put in writing and translated.
If we can just move forward and deal with the motion. That would be great.
Mr. Chairperson, I’d also like to call for a recorded vote on this.