EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
>>House adjourned at 16:28  Appendix – May 29, 2012
Return to Oral Question 304 – 3(3): Bilingual Education Models
Date: March 5, 2012
We continue to work with District Education Authorities and school administration on the implementation of bilingual education (language of instruction).
This includes ensuring District Education Authorities are provided in-service on the models, the consultation process with communities, and selection of model (s) choice.
For example, when the Bilingual Education Strategy was tabled, staff from the Department of Education provided in-service to every school and District Education Authority on bilingual education and the three model choices.
The consultation on the new Education Act considered Language of Instruction.
With the Education Act now in force, the Department is working on the Language of Instruction regulations.
They include the model choices available and details about how to reach a decision on which model (s) to offer in the community.
The Education Act regulations have a review mechanism including a specific review timeline for the Language of Instruction regulation.
The Department of Education has implemented the following activities related to Language of Instruction and obtaining feedback from District Education Authorities and school principals.
1) Staffing Plans
a. There are two types of staffing plans that school principals have to submit, Annual and Long Term (3 year plan).
b. The annual plans detail the amount of instruction (%) in each language at each grade level and whether staffing is in place.
The long term staffing plans also require the principal to determine what steps can be taken to meet the requirements of bilingual education at higher grades.
c. The Department of Education reviews the staffing plans when submitted and works with principals to ensure that the requirements for bilingual education are being put in place.
2) Community Consultation Report on Language of Instruction
a. District Education Authorities were required to submit a consultation report in March 2010 to show what they did to consult the community on what Bilingual Education model should be implemented at the school(s).
b. This will be redone when the reviews are required, potentially set for 2015/16 and every 5 years thereafter).
3) School Program Plan
a. Principals are now required to submit annual school program plans in consultation with school staff, community and DEA
b. For the past 3 years, language of instruction has been a mandated goal for schools.
c. The School Program Plan outlines what steps will be taken to improve Language of Instruction in the school during the following school year.
4) 2 Times Annual Reports on Effectiveness of the School Program
a. Principals are required to complete two annual reports on the effectiveness of school programs in consultation with school staff.
The reports are due in November and again at the end of the school year.
5) Principal’s Monthly Report
a. Principals report monthly on successes and challenges related to Language of Instruction (and other topics).
6) Feedback to District Education Authorities on Bilingual Education Model Choices
a. Feedback from the Department of Education will be provided to District Education Authorities once the Education Act regulations are approved.
The draft regulations for Language of Instruction will be going out for Phase II consultation by the end of March, 2012.
Consultation will occur for eight weeks and once feedback has been considered and any adjustments incorporated, the regulations for Language of Instruction should be in place for the 2012/13 school year.
b. The feedback on their Language of Instruction Models provides District Education Authorities with information on what enhancements may be required based on the documentation provided to the Department of Education.
Return to Written Question 010 – 3(3): Vacant Staff Housing Units
Asked by: Joe Enook, MLA (Tununiq)
Asked of: Hon. Fred Schell, Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation
Date: February 22, 2012
Responses:
A number of units are vacant at any given time in most decentralized communities while awaiting the completion of staffing competitions.
The NHC and GN HR have been working with success to ensure vacant units are only tied to staffing competitions nearing completion.
All communities have vacant GN positions; therefore units must remain available to allow for staffing to occur.
The NHC leases approximately 1,100 units and owns 270 units as GN Staff Housing.
For all units, tenants do not pay heat directly, but in most cases they do pay for electricity and water/sewer/garbage.
In the case of vacant units, the additional cost to the NHC/GN is to perform vacant units checks and to pay the minimal amount of electricity (approximately $30/month) consumed by a vacant unit.
This has reduced the number of units being held vacant.
Typically, there is one vacant unit held for every two active staffing competitions.
Provision of GN Staff Housing as Public Housing would reduce the housing available to the GN for its recruitment efforts.
Temporary allocations have proven problematic in some cases in the past, whereby the process to vacate a unit when a tenant is unwilling can require up to a year.
Temporary allocations can be made in accordance with the provisions of the GN Staff Housing Policy for government purposes with the support of the Allocation Committee and the sponsorship of a government department or agency.
Return to Written Question 013 – 3(3): Government of Nunavut Responses to Resolutions Adopted at the 2011 Annual General Meeting of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities
Asked by: Louis Tapardjuk, MLA (Amittuq)
Date: February 28, 2012
Return to Written Question 014 – 3(3): Suicide Prevention Activities
Date: February 29, 2012
Return to Written Question 016 – 3(3): Fuel Distribution Service Contracts
Date: March 7, 2012
Premier; Minister of Education; Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs; Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs; Minister responsible for Immigration
Hon. Monica Ell
Minister of Human Resources; Minister responsible for Homelessness; Minister responsible for the Status of Women
Deputy Premier; Minister of Economic Development and Transportation; Minister of Energy; Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Pages 2520 – 2574
Opening Prayer 2520
Ministers’ Statements 2522
Members’ Statements 2523
Returns to Oral Questions 2526
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 2527
Oral Questions 2528
Tabling of Documents 2545
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills 2546
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2546
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2573
Orders of the Day 2574
Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2520
146 – 3(3): New Junior Informatics Technician (Kusugak) 2522
238 – 3(3): Correction to Previous Member’s Statement (Ugyuk) 2523
239 – 3(3): Congratulations to Nunavut Arctic College Graduates (Oshutapik) 2523
240 – 3(3): Supporting Food Security (Elliott) 2523
241 – 3(3): Correspondence from High School Constituents (Curley) 2525
Return to Oral Question 316 – 3(3): Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic (Arreak) 2526
341 – 3(3): Completion of Public Housing Units in Taloyoak and Gjoa Haven (Ugyuk) 2528
342 – 3(3): Status of Collective Bargaining (Elliott) 2529
343 – 3(3): Update on Physician Services in the High Arctic (Enook) 2530
344 – 3(3): Fish Inventory in Pangnirtung (Oshutapik) 2532
345 – 3(3): Vehicle Usage Policy for Health Centres (Tapardjuk) 2534
346 – 3(3): Fuel Supply in Constituency (Ningark) 2536
347 – 3(3): Responsibilities of Minister without Portfolio (Curley) 2538
348 – 3(3): Update on Audits (Elliott) 2539
349 – 3(3): Changes to Old Age Security (Curley) 2540
350 – 3(3): Poverty Reduction Plan (Elliott) 2542
186 – 3(3): May 22, 2012 Presentation to the Nunavut Impact Review Board by the Baker Lake Hunters and Trappers Organization on the Kiggavik Proposal (Aupaluktuq) 2545
187 – 3(3): Arctic Bay DEA Press Release: Community Library (Elliott) 2545
188 – 3(3): Hamlet of Pond Inlet Correspondence on Doctor Position (Enook) 2545
189 – 3(3): Speaker’s Exchange of Correspondence of February 24, 2012 and March 1, 2012 with the Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove (Speaker) 2546
190 – 3(3): Speaker’s List of Outstanding Statutory Tabling Requirements (Speaker) 2546
Bill 38 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act – Notice 2546
Bill 39 – An Act to Amend the Judicature Act – Notice 2546
Bill 36 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2012-2013 – Consideration in Committee 2547
Bill 37 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2012-2013 – Consideration in Committee 2557
Honourable James Arreak, Mr. Moses Aupaluktuq, Mr. Tagak Curley, Honourable Monica Ell, Mr. Ron Elliott, Mr. Joe Enook, Honourable Lorne Kusugak, Mr. John Ningark, Mr. Johnny Ningeongan, Mr. Hezakiah Oshutapik, Honourable Keith Peterson, Mr. Allan Rumbolt, Honourable Fred Schell, Honourable Daniel Shewchuk, Mr. Louis Tapardjuk, Honourable Peter Taptuna, Honourable Hunter Tootoo, Ms. Jeannie Ugyuk.
Before we proceed, I would like to ask Mr. Ningark if he could lead us off with a prayer, please.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. (interpretation ends) Members, thank you.
Before we proceed with the orders of the day, I wish to make a statement.
As the House will recall from our sitting of February 23, 2012, the Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove rose in his place and asked me to rule on a point of order concerning remarks made by the Member for Rankin Inlet North.
I took the matter under advisement.
On February 24, 2012, I delivered my ruling that there was no point of order and ruled the matter closed.
Subsequent to these events, I received correspondence on February 27, 2012 from the Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, who wrote to me in his capacity as Government House Leader.
The minister’s correspondence was copied to his cabinet colleagues.
In his correspondence, the minister stated that although he accepted my ruling, he presented me with further ideas that he indicated I should consider in the matter.
I replied to the minister by way of correspondence dated March 1, 2012, in which I reiterated the basis for my ruling.
My correspondence was copied to all members.
Subsequently, my office took note of concerns expressed by the Member for Rankin Inlet North, who indicated that he had not had the opportunity to review the minister’s correspondence to me of February 27, 2012, which concerned a matter in which he was a participant.
Therefore, in the interest of transparency and for the benefit of all members, I will, at the appropriate time during today’s proceedings, formally table both of these documents.
I also wish to take this opportunity to address the House on the subjects of points of order, questions of privilege, and Speaker’s rulings.
A point of order deals with an alleged breach of the procedural rules of the House.
When a point of order is raised, the only issue that the Speaker has to consider is whether or not a procedural rule of the Legislative Assembly has been breached.
Points of order are properly concerned with process and procedure.
They do not concern the substantive matters of a particular debate.
The Speaker has the ultimate authority to rule on the matter of whether or not the rules have been breached.
As I explained in my correspondence of March 1, 2012 to the Government House Leader, and I will quote it, “The role of Presiding Officers is to rule on alleged breaches of our procedural rules – not to rule on the substance or accuracy of Members’ interventions, except insofar as they may breach such clearly defined boundaries as using unparliamentary language or explicitly accusing Members of uttering deliberate falsehoods.
There is no rule against drawing incorrect inferences from other Members’ statements. There is no rule against misinterpreting another Member’s words.
There is no rule against being wrong.”
The remedy against those transgressions is the judgment of your colleagues, through the process of debate, as to the quality of your reasoning and arguments.
The Speaker’s role is not to rule who is right or who is wrong in a particular debate, but to rule on whether the Rules of the Legislative Assembly have been followed during the conduct of the debate.
To further illustrate this concept, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a recent ruling made on May 7, 2012 by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
In his ruling, the Speaker noted that, and I will quote, “In reviewing the other arguments being advanced, it would seem that the Chair is being asked to ascertain whether what was said in the House was truthful.
However, I must remind Members that in such circumstances the Chair’s role is clear and, indeed, very limited.
In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 510, it states: ‘The Speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions.
In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue.
As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.’”
A point of order is not the same thing as a question of privilege.
Any claim that there has been an infringement on the privileges of the House as an institution or the privileges of a member as an individual legislator should be raised in the House by means of a question of privilege.
A member wishing to raise a question of privilege in the House must first convince the Speaker that his or her concern is prima facie, meaning “on the first impression or at first glance,” a question of privilege.
The Speaker’s ruling does not extend to deciding whether a breach of privilege has, in fact, been committed.
This is a question which can only be decided by the House itself.
The decision of the House on a question of privilege, like any other matter which the House has to decide, is resolved by way of a formal vote on a formal motion made by a member.
I remind members that Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut outline the specific process by which a member may raise a question of privilege and I again encourage all members to take the time to familiarize themselves with the Rules.
I also wish to take this opportunity to comment on a different but equally important issue related to this exchange of correspondence.
It is important for all members to be mindful of Rule 12(2) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly, which provides that, and I will quote, “In deciding points of privilege, order or practice, the Speaker shall state the applicable rule or other authority.
The Speaker’s decision shall not be subject to debate or appeal.”
A ruling of the Speaker is final.
The only conceivable way of challenging a decision of the Speaker would be by a substantive motion that is moved, debated, and voted upon in the Legislative Assembly.
Although the Government House Leader clearly stated in his correspondence that he accepted the ruling of February 24, 2012, I believe that it is necessary to advise the House that no correspondence of a similar nature concerning a Speaker’s ruling will be accepted in the future from any member.
This is to safeguard the principle that a Speaker’s ruling is final and that it is not to be undermined by the misconception that a dialogue on a particular ruling may be entered into after the ruling has been made and delivered in the House.
I trust that all members will honour this guidance and I thank all members for their attention.
We will now continue with the orders of the day.
Minister’s Statement 146 – 3(3): New Junior Informatics Technician (Kusugak)
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Ullukkut.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Mason Greenley, who won the competition for the junior informatics technician position and started his employment with Informatics Planning and Services at the Cambridge Bay Helpdesk on Monday, May 14, 2012.
Mason was born in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut.
While growing up in the community, he attended Kullik Ilihakvik, then Killinik High School.
Mason just graduated last month from Northern Alberta’s Institute of Technology, where he obtained his diploma.
Mr. Speaker, Mason, not being a stranger to the informatics routine in the Kitikmeot region, will be a huge help for the busy informatics section.
I am pleased to see the investment my department makes toward informatics education is building capacity with Inuit youth and that this result is another positive step toward increasing Inuit employment.
I would like to welcome Mason Greenley to the GN and to Community and Government Services.
Congratulations to Mason.
Member’s Statement 238 – 3(3): Correction to Previous Member’s Statement (Ugyuk)
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to apologize for an error I made in my Member’s Statement of yesterday, where I mistakenly assumed that the Premier was going to Gjoa Haven to attend to an event. She apparently went elsewhere.
However, the officials representing the Department of Education did travel to Gjoa Haven to attend to that function and I am thankful for that.
I was informed that they are holding meetings that are progressing smoothly, so I want to thank them.
Member’s Statement 239 – 3(3): Congratulations to Nunavut Arctic College Graduates (Oshutapik)
I rise today to congratulate a number of my constituents who graduated earlier this month from Nunavut Arctic College’s Office Administration Program, which lasted the entire calendar year. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, this program teaches skills that are important in the modern workplace.
I want to express my appreciation to the college for its efforts to deliver meaningful training programs across the territory and in our smaller communities.
Mr. Speaker, the graduates are as follows:
Natasha Qumuatuq;
Rita Kunilusie;
Patricia Qiyuaqjuk;
Corrina Kuluguqtuq;
Ceporah Evic;
Samantha Veevee;
Lisa Jaw;
Rita Annie Nakashuk; and
Lorna Nowdlak.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating these individuals who have worked hard to further their education.
Member’s Statement 240 – 3(3): Supporting Food Security (Elliott)
Yesterday, I rose to speak about the issue of food security and how we need to work together to make sure that all of our residents are able to properly feed themselves and their families.
To me, this is an issue that affects the very heart of our communities.
The fact of the matter is that on a daily basis, a large number of our constituents, the majority of which are too young to care for themselves, are going hungry.
Mr. Speaker, I look in the mirror, the camera is on me now, and even though they say the camera adds 10 lbs, it is obvious that I am not suffering from the same challenges that a majority of Nunavummiut are.
However, it causes me great pain to see the suffering that goes on in the communities on a daily basis. I want to do something to help.
It is only natural for everyone to want to pitch in and add their support in any way they can.
Yesterday, I spoke of the need for a collaborative effort between all parties, whether it be the federal government, territorial government, Inuit organizations, hamlets, or individuals in the communities.
It is for this reason that I rise today to applaud and commend the ongoing efforts across my constituency, across the territory, and across Canada to address the serious and critical need for food security.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note the different initiatives being supported at the local level.
I believe that by following the Tamapta Mandate and by working towards self-reliance, we have the ability, skills, and resources to solve our own challenges.
In Grise Fiord, the community health representative, with the support from the local health committee, runs a cooking program and focuses on prenatal nutrition and community wellness. In Resolute Bay, volunteers run a breakfast program at the school so that our children and youth can focus on learning instead of on empty stomachs.
In Arctic Bay, there is a food bank which is very busy at this time of year.
And tomorrow, the community health representative in that community is coordinating a community breakfast program with the aid and assistance of the community health centre.
This does not even touch on the contribution of our hunters when they come back with the day’s catch and go on the community radio or Facebook to announce that anyone is welcome to come to their qamutik to pick up some country food.
Even the MLAs in this room, people travelling on medical travel, and individuals travelling to meetings often carry in their luggage a frozen fish or country food for family and friends.
Everyone plays a part in this and I hope that everyone recognizes the important role they play… .
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to unanimous consent to continue with my Member’s Statement.
Everyone plays a part in this and I hope that everyone recognizes the important role they play and what a strong voice they put forward, not necessarily by their words, but by their actions.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work that our volunteers, health committees, and health staff do towards supporting food security in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that our community, territorial and national agencies continue to work together to find ways to address this critical issue.
Access to healthy, nutritious, and affordable food should never be a barrier to the health and well-being of our residents and our communities.
Member’s Statement 241 – 3(3): Correspondence from High School Constituents (Curley)
I would like to wish a good afternoon to Rankin Inlet residents as well as to my colleagues.
The reason I rise today is I recently received eight letters from high school students in Rankin Inlet outlining their concerns and what they consider as their priorities in Nunavut.
I want to personally thank all young students for writing about their concerns and priorities to various members of this legislature.
I will not read out their entire names, but perhaps I will read the last letter I received.
The author is Patrick. In order to put the message across, I will read it in English so that it will be on the public record.
(interpretation ends) “Dear Tagak Curley, my name is Patrick Beardsall and I am 15 years old and a grade 10 student at MUI.
I would like to share some of my thoughts with you about an arena here in Rankin Inlet. Hockey is very important to me and to Rankin Inlet.
The arena is a place where everyone goes to have a good time, to watch or play hockey, but our arena is too small for our ever-growing community.
If the arena’s dressing rooms were bigger, the coach of the hockey team would be able to coach a team without cramping the whole team into a little room. It would also be good to have plumbing in the dressing room area.
It’s always a hassle to get water or use the washroom because everyone is walking around in the lobby.
Another thing would be if the government could help support the Hamlet of Rankin Inlet to make the seating capacity higher since we have a lot of hockey tournaments here.”
Mr. Speaker, I will paraphrase and read the following: “I realize the government is always tight for money, but I think investing in our youth would be wise for long-term health as a community…”
There being none. Please proceed, Mr. Curley.
Continuing, Mr. Speaker, “… perhaps you could take the lead in building a partnership between the GN, the hamlet, the federal government, and the private sector in raising the funds to upgrade our arena.
I am sure the community would do a lot of fundraising to help with this as well.
Thank you very much, Tagak, for listening to the concerns of youth.
I know you’re very busy. If there’s anything I and my hockey team can do to help, just let me know.”
I will let the young person know that I will do my best and ask my colleagues to help support in building a very important facility, the Rankin Inlet Hockey Arena.