EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Although we don’t qualify, sometimes we require bilingual language.
Does that mean in the case of school that the principal who is the supervisor determines that a particular teacher or counsellor who is required to speak both languages should get a bilingual bonus?
Is that up to the principal then, not at the direction of the minister?
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Minister Shewchuk.
Again, it’s my understanding that the supervisor has a process in recommending this and if there is a discrepancy, I believe that it would go to our human resources department, to staff relations, and then a review would be done at that point and a decision made there.
Then that supervisor who is the principal I’m referring to in this example would go to resources and say, “This particular person in my school should get a bilingual bonus because we require him or her to be bilingual in her or his work.”
My question then is: have you notified all of the supervisors across Nunavut that they must determine whether that particular employee of the government deserves a bilingual bonus or not?
Yes, I believe they have because the bilingual bonus is defined under the collective agreement with the Nunavut Employees Union.
So it would be in there and every staff member would have access to that.
However, I would like to just state to the member that if he has a specific case, I would be more than willing to get the information from you too.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk.
Question 136 – 3(2): Union for Nunavut Nurses (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Not long ago, when the Department of Health was devolved into the Northwest Territories, there used to be a union specifically for nurses and this was eliminated when the devolution took place and the Public Service Act of the Northwest Territories was amended to remove the union that represented the nurses.
I would like to ask the minister for public service if he is open to reopening the representation of nurses with their own union with our legislation. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Okalik. Minister of Human Resources, Hon. Daniel Shewchuk.
Yes, we would be open to reviewing that and looking at that scenario to see if that could happen again.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) From what I understand, this removal of the union was not at the call of the union. It was a legislative change that took place from the legislatures at the time.
So I’m hoping that the minister can talk to his nurses’ representatives and see if they’re open to the idea and see how we can represent the nurses better so that we can have more stability and reduce our health costs for the entire territory. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can commit to the member that we will review this with all parties involved, the Department of Health, the union, and the Department of HR, and we will review his request.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I didn’t hear the nurses’ part, so I would like the nurses to be represented as well in those discussions. If the minister can commit to reporting to this House on those discussions during our winter session, I would like to ask the minister for a commitment. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do apologize for leaving the nurses out, but we will include them in this review.
I know that at present, they’re involved with the union right now, but I do commit to the review that the member is asking for and hopefully we can move on and see if this could be done.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Okalik.
Please note that question period is now over. Before we go back to the orders of the day, we will take a 20-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:02 and resumed at 15:27
Speaker (interpretation): Going back to the orders of the day. (interpretation ends) Item 7. Written Questions.
Tabled Document 062 – 3(2): House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table my speaking notes on the presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as requested by the hon. member from Baker Lake, Mr. Moses Aupaluktuq.
Tabled Document 063 – 3(2): Nunavut Housing Corporation’s Report to Cabinet on Provincial/Territorial Housing Ministers’ Meeting (Tootoo)
I am pleased to table the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s report to Cabinet on the Provincial/Territorial Housing Ministers’ Meeting in St. Johns, Newfoundland, that was held on August 19, 2009.
Tabled Document 064 – 3(2): 2008 Qulliq Energy Corporation Annual Report (Tootoo)
I am pleased to be able to table the seventh annual report for the year ending March 31, 2008 for the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
Tabled Document 065 – 3(2): 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Nunavut (Speaker)
I, too, have a document to table.
I wish to table the 2008-09 Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Nunavut.
Motion 011 – 3(2): Acceptance of the Report of the Integrity Commissioner to the Legislative Assembly Regarding Mr. Paul Okalik, MLA (Tootoo)
WHEREAS the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has tabled the Report of the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut regarding Mr. Paul Okalik, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Iqaluit West;
AND WHEREAS the Integrity Act requires that the Legislative Assembly shall consider a report laid before the House within 10 sitting days after its tabling and shall respond to the report before the end of the session in which the report is laid before it;
AND WHEREAS the Integrity Commissioner has made certain recommendations in his report;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, that the sanctions and recommendations contained in the Report of the Integrity Commissioner be accepted.
Before we proceed with the debate on the motion before us, I have a few comments to make as to procedures.
As the mover of the motion, I would like to start off with comments made on May 24, 2001 by our House Leader at the time when Bill 7, the Integrity Act, was in front of Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, the House Leader at the time had indicated that “This new legislation creates standards for Members of the Legislative Assembly in performing their duties of office. It establishes the highest standard for ethical leadership in Nunavut.”
Mr. Speaker, again, when we’re dealing with something, it was on September 17, 2008, in regard to a motion on the Report of the Integrity Commissioner and I’ll quote from Hansard to that day. It says, “The Integrity Act establishes the parameters within which MLAs and ministers are expected to execute the powers and responsibilities that have been entrusted to them. It is the responsibility of all of us in this House to adhere to these provisions.”
Mr. Speaker, I think the Integrity Commissioner’s report is pretty self-explanatory.
I do agree with the Integrity Commissioner’s comments in regard to the fact that a sitting Premier should not solicit campaign contributions from deputy ministers as these individuals serve at the pleasure of the Premier and the sitting Premier has total control over their employment.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that any employee should be put in a position like that, where they feel uncomfortable or intimidated by such a request from an individual who has complete control over their employment.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand that this isn’t clearly stated in the Integrity Act, but I also agree that the appropriate legislation should be amended to clarify it so that a situation like this doesn’t happen again. I believe that such an amendment would serve as a protection mechanism for both the employees who are involved in a situation like this and also any future sitting Premier running for re-election in our system. That’s the only individual who has the authority and control over people in that position.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just encourage all members to support the motion and move forward.
I regret that I have to attend this matter as it has been over a year since the election was completed. In spite of that misgiving, we have to deal with this issue and so I want to make a brief comment.
I will be alternating between English and Inuktitut as I do not want any misunderstandings from any quarter.
For that reason, I will be excusing myself when the members are deliberating on it. I am informing you that as soon as my statements are completed, I will be leaving the Chamber.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have to be here before you today to deal with a complaint that took place over a year ago in the heat of an election campaign.
I will keep my comments short and to the point.
If you do not mind, I will be leaving this Assembly after I am done as I do not wish to be perceived in any way in influencing my colleagues’ decision.
First on the matter that I found a little confusing is that I and only I was found to be covered by this legislation. No other candidate in the entire territory would have been found to be in a conflict. If any other campaign had done what mine had done, your candidate would have been fine.
I do not blame anyone as all of us were following the Elections Act, which states clearly that any campaign is entitled to seeking donations and contributions from anyone in Nunavut or from those businesses that are carrying out their work in Nunavut.
Our Elections Act is no different than other governments elsewhere in our country.
To find that there is an added burden after the fact is a little difficult for me to swallow.
(interpretation) I want to first of all state that I was confused at the beginning when the Act was applied seemingly only to my riding, with no other candidates being reviewed.
None of the other candidates who ran in their ridings were going to be reviewed.
For that reason, my colleagues, I envy the other candidates as they would not have to deal with this ludicrous process if they had been elected.
I don’t want to be negative towards any member here, as I was simply, like every other candidate, trying to adhere to particulars of the Elections Act.
It states in the Act that anyone from Nunavut who is campaigning can ask for campaign funds from individuals and from any private companies that support their candidacy.
This campaign funding process is different from but is only slightly similar to the election processes outside of Nunavut.
The difficult part is that once the elections were over, all of a sudden, I was the subject of this review simply because another candidate accused me of breaking the election rules.
This has been a difficult phase for me.
The other part that I had a harder time with and that I could not understand, by virtue of setting the precedent, was that I was the very first one to be reviewed under this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, if we look outside Nunavut at any of the elections for the leadership, have any other leaders in Canada ever been blamed for election wrongdoing?
I can answer “Yes,” but were they the subject of a witch hunt?
Even the person who made the complaint couldn’t find where the alleged breach was.
There have been many elections outside of Nunavut, but I am the very first and only one that is being accused of this misdoing. For that reason, I find it unbelievable that this process was undertaking by an accusation.
It makes me wonder: if I am to run in another election, will I be the only one subjected to different criteria than other candidates?
I tried to follow the election rules, but then I was subjected to another set of rules. I find that unacceptable.
(interpretation ends) The other matter that I found far more disturbing and unsettling is that no other candidate in our entire country has ever been found to be in a conflict over an election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, have there been complaints made of cabinet ministers in the past in other parts of our country in situations like mine?
And has there ever been one found to be in a conflict of interest? No, Mr. Speaker.
The person doing the review could not even cite a single case where there has been such a conflict.
Thousands of campaigns have been carried out in our country and I happened to be the first one to ever bear such a burden. As such, how was I supposed to know that I would find myself in such a predicament?
What other burdens will this commissioner place on me on my next campaign?
It is a little difficult to follow our laws when they’re being carried out after the fact.
Mr. Speaker, for this very reason, I contemplated asking a court to quash this decision.
When I weighed my options, I found myself in a dilemma as this would add more costs to our already cash-strapped government. Accordingly, at the end of the day, the decision was an easy one as my constituents’ needs are far more important to me than that of my personal issues of the day.
(interpretation) Mr. Speaker, due to this issue, I looked at my options, especially how I would respond to this finding.
I wondered if this even adhered to the law since it was based on a complaint and whether I should request an injunction on the issue and have the courts remove this decision.
However, as I deliberated upon this matter, I had to look at the possible consequences of this action. It would add costs to our already financially strapped government.
After deliberating on these issues, my decision was that this issue was not going to be the source of my concerns.
I am more concerned about dealing with the more important concerns of my constituents than I am about this personal attack on my person.
I am grateful that this will be dealt with today so that we can move forward to more important issues facing this government. Further, I will adhere to whichever decision is arrived at by the Members of the Legislative Assembly, as I believe that Nunavut’s needs are more important.
(interpretation ends) I am glad that this matter will be dealt with today so that we can move on and do far more important work. I will honour whatever my colleagues decide and continue to work for the betterment of our wonderful territory and my fellow Nunavummiut. (interpretation) Thank you.
I also rise today to speak to this matter, but first of all, I would like to state that I am not saying that this or that colleague is right and the other is wrong, as I will not be making that decision.
Nonetheless, this report seems to be making an arbitrary case whereupon I am required to make judgment on whether or not this report is acceptable. An example is that the Integrity Commissioner speaks to the situation as alleged and cites specific events that occurred in the south where breaches were found and also including examples where he surmises that these people made mistakes in the same vein.
However, I want to analogize this matter. The large robe they wear in the south is too large and does not fit up here in Nunavut.
I found the punishment wording used in the report degrading.
It states in the Integrity Commissioner’s report that if he was a regular MLA, the Integrity Commissioner could not have touched him, but this process was launched because he was the Premier.
We are currently dealing with a regular MLA and we are now making a judgment on this matter.
From a personal perspective, after a year of investigation, the commissioner has expended a large sum of funds and Mr. Okalik is no longer a Premier. I believe we need to reject the report, so I am not willing to accept the report.
I will state my reasons for making that choice.
The reason being, as a minister, if companies or businesses wanted to contribute, and if my campaign manager knew those companies, then he could ask for a contribution. This is likewise with the electors, who can contribute towards my campaign if they wish to do so.
I really do not understand why this process was undertaken, although I understand that a campaign letter was sent out to the deputy ministers requesting contributions, Mr. Speaker. What I don’t understand here is whether the letters were addressed to the official deputy minister at their office address or if the requests were sent to the individuals’ home addresses.
We need to know if it was sent to their office or homes.
It does not state that here. I don’t understand this aspect for that reason.
I think this has bent the rules as they were meant to be used. For that reason, I will be voting against this.
I hold the Integrity Commissioner in high regard.
However, he is also making a personal judgment and asking me to make a decision on Paul Okalik when he was a Premier and whether this was against the letter of the law. On page 11, it states, (interpretation ends) and I’m going to read in English. I have a very complex understanding why it doesn’t appear to be, in my view, clear-cut.
It appears, when I spoke in Inuktitut, the burden of proof, I think, was bent quite far and stretched a bit.
He said, Mr. Integrity Commissioner said, having said all of these presumptions of guilt, he concluded on page 11 and I’m going to quote it, “…I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any evidence that Mr. Okalik did use or would have used his power as Premier to terminate or otherwise discipline any Deputy Minister at any time who did not contribute to his re-election campaign.”
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I’m going to be asked to be the judge, that his crime is that he was going to use his influence to fire the deputy minister who did not contribute, then I would gladly say let’s vote for the report.
But the commissioner did not say that. He’s saying to you, “You’re better than I to judge your peer.”
I don’t think he has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mr. Paul Okalik is guilty of what he’s supposed to be guilty about.
So for that reason, what I said in Inuktitut is that one-size-fits-all perception used down south and take it up here delivered doesn’t fit.
In my view, the Elections Act should be clearer. It should mark that deputy ministers should not be solicited for funds or contributions not only by the Premier but by all candidates. That I would understand.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking and probably be writing a letter to Elections Nunavut that they clarify the rules so that we do not have to ask one year later to try and judge an MLA who is no longer a Premier in this case.
It’s a little difficult for me to support this motion, so I will be voting against the motion in order that we may have a clear set of rules to abide by in the next election.
I, too, was quite confused about this issue and the reasoning behind it for a very long time.
Although I am still unclear about the matter, I don’t believe this decision is going to rectify the issue.
I have been trying to read the Integrity Commissioner’s report to understand the reasoning behind this.
I have my own reasons for not accepting this report, some of which Mr. Curley has alluded to in his statement, but I have separate reasons.
The members drafted the Integrity Act and the Integrity Commissioner was contracted out to deal with the implementation of the legislation.
When the commissioner reviewed this matter, he was indecisive and spent a fair amount of time drafting his report.
He submitted the report to the House, but he also left the decision to be determined later.
He left that judgment part to the Members of the Legislative Assembly. I cannot be a policeman and a judge for the same case, which I do not want to do, so I won’t be able to follow or accept the report.
The Integrity Commissioner ought to have submitted a recommendation and state that Paul Okalik had contravened an Act and that the punishment should be meted out. However, there is nothing there.
Also, the Integrity Commissioner did not state that this case was an undisputable breach or that this rule had been broken. It seems like the Integrity Commissioner was wavering in his decision. The commissioner could have stated it one way or the other and made his decision.
The Integrity Commissioner could not deal with a hypothetical situation, for example, if Paul had been the Premier, this is what would have happened. Maybe he’s not a Premier anymore and perhaps that is why this review has fizzled out.
For that reason, when the Integrity Commissioner provides an unfinished report to us, I personally do not want to deal with it.
I want to reject the report and return it to the Integrity Commissioner and ask for a report that is clear and understandable for this review.
He should even have stated that the Integrity Act requires amendment. I would like to see the type of recommendation on how to resolve this impasse.
I can’t tell if Paul Okalik broke that law because the Integrity Act report is unclear. I saw a reference to a section he used, but I cannot find that section number.
Perhaps since this situation is hypothetical or within the realm of possibilities, it seems to be the gist of the report that the commissioner does not know how to apply this section since the member did not contravene the law.
I believe that the commissioner may have said that it may have been possible, but he had no proof. There was indecision as to what exactly was the reason for this review.
When it is that confusing, when stories are not consistent, it basically becomes a he said/she said type of case.
I’m not saying that we ought to leave Paul Okalik alone for that issue. What I’m trying to state is that the report is unacceptable to me and I cannot approve its contents or findings as there needs to be proof of wrongdoing.
I would like to get a more succinct and clearer report format from the Integrity Commissioner based on the requirements of the Integrity Act. If this report is tabled, then I would want to review this latest report. However, if the majority approves this action, then it’s up to all of the members to make that choice.
Personally, I will not be approving this report as it stands.
To the motion. Mr. Ningeongan.
With respect to this matter, we have all had to deliberate on the issue and make our own conclusions. I wish to comment on the findings contained in the report after some preamble comments.
With respect to the review of the Integrity Commissioner, it states in his report that the individual letters sent to the deputy ministers were slightly different in their composition so that it would be easier to identify as to which person it was sent out to.
I actually had difficulty sleeping over this matter, Mr. Speaker. The reason is that when we become candidates for these territorial elections, we had to get a financial agent as well as a campaign manager who looked after these matters.
However, it looks as if Mr. Paul Okalik’s workers didn’t properly review the requirements under the Elections Act prior to drafting up these letters.
The main difference between the current sitting members who ran to represent our ridings is that we were mostly new candidates running for the seat, while the person in question was still the Premier and he retained his powers up to the eve of the election, even though he was also a candidate. He was the Premier right until someone else got elected to replace him.
I have noted that we are the judge, lawyer, and jury in this matter.
We have already conducted several reviews whenever something arises and when developments occur, we have to debate the issue and come to a decision.
As part of my deliberations on this matter, I took into consideration the two communities that I represent and what their advice on this situation would be. I didn’t want to go only with what Johnny Ningeongan wants, but what his two communities of Coral Harbour and Chesterfield Inlet want with respect to this issue. What decision would they come up with if they were faced with this type of issue?
Mr. Speaker, I note and realize that the Integrity Commissioner has a very important position and he does his work to the best of his ability, and that is obvious.
We, as a government, continually state that we have to be accountable to the people of Nunavut and make decisions in times of need. Therefore, whenever we are faced with difficult issues, we have to look at the best interests of our constituents.