EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) My question is to Madam Premier.
The member and Deputy Premier were both recently in Vancouver and according our system, you leave your authority at the border of Nunavut. So I just want to know who was in charge when both the Premier and Deputy Premier were out in Vancouver, outside of Nunavut borders. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Okalik. Premier of Nunavut, Hon. Eva Aariak.
During our trip to Vancouver, we were working daily and followed our usual practices, and we even managed to hold a cabinet meeting.
I didn’t leave my authority when I was in Vancouver.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) According to our system, you leave your authority to make legal decisions for the territory at the border.
We had a system of designating various portfolios to other ministers if we were leaving the territory. So my question is: who was in charge?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): When I was given the mandate as the Premier, I was not informed of the practice nor have I heard of it occurring elsewhere that I have to leave my authority at the Nunavut border.
I will have this matter researched and reviewed as to whether this is the case and I will do so diligently.
I thank my colleague for raising that issue.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) That’s rather unsettling.
In the event of an emergency, we always try to be prepared for anything, and I would like this government to do the same.
We don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow.
So I would like this government to be well prepared and assign designates if they’re leaving the territory because you never know what’s going to happen.
We have gone through quite a few challenges over the years and it’s unfortunate, but it happens.
All I was asking is: who was in charge? And obviously, nobody was.
So in the future, I would hope that we will take appropriate measures to avoid those problems. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I was in charge. Even though I was in Vancouver, I was in charge.
We conducted our cabinet meetings over in Vancouver and I would like to give my thanks to Premier Campbell for allowing us to use his office space there.
Our correspondence that was coming out of my office kept going on a daily basis because we are very much connected through technology. I conducted my everyday activities as a Premier even though I was in Vancouver.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I’m not questioning who is in charge, but at the time, when you leave the border, when you go past outside of our territory, you leave your authority with you, so you have to assign another minister while you’re outside the territory.
That’s my question. That’s all I asked.
I hope that this will not happen again in the future, that you take appropriate measures to protect the interests of Nunavummiut in the event of emergencies, that you have a backup plan as ministers. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I retained my premiership and I didn’t hear a question that requires a response.
Question 246 – 3(2): Compensation for Polar Bear Outfitters and Harvesters (Arvaluk)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity.
The Minister of Environment was unable to respond to my question, so I will direct my question to the Premier.
We know who the outfitters and dog team owners are in our communities, but there are only three communities that are impacted by this decision.
I was wondering if the government is going to set up policies on how we can provide support to those individuals who have direct loss of income. This would be used for a few years so that they will not become income support recipients.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation ends) Premier of Nunavut, Hon. Eva Aariak.
Perhaps today is my day as I have so many questions.
Mr. Speaker, (interpretation ends) the Hon. Minister of Environment (interpretation) had already responded to that question by stating that polar bear hunting is not closed. They have only reduced the quota. The hunters will continue to hunt polar bears.
When the polar bear total allowable harvest has been reduced, we agreed to some form of support.
In regard to compensation on the loss of the outfitters’ income and the reduction of the polar bear quota, I can request assistance from the federal government and ask them the question because we have already went through the budget process.
We can look for additional funding outside of the Nunavut government, such as the federal government.
I hope that we can understand each other.
What I’m trying to say is that looking at the environment minister’s report that there will be no more sport hunting and the polar bear hides will not be exported to the European Union and the United States, there will be no more sport hunters coming up from these two countries.
That is what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the outfitters who take them out on dog teams. Those are the ones who will lose their income directly.
The Premier stated that she can consult with the federal government or that she will request assistance from them. Nevertheless, during the early 70s, it was the GNWT that developed the management system, not the federal government.
Further, all of the powers, functions, and responsibilities of the GNWT were transferred to the new Government of Nunavut in 1999.
Therefore, everything that was administered by the GNWT was transferred to the Nunavut government, which is now responsible for this management system.
What I was trying to infer is this: is the government developing policies to look at compensation for these affected individuals? If these individuals require assistance or support in lieu of their lost sport hunting income, how will the government deal with replacing that lost income? How will this be dealt with?
The cabinet has to develop policies prior to any funding being allocated towards the matter.
What I’m trying to ask is this: is the cabinet preparing policies pertaining to compensating these individuals for their lost income?
If I hear him right, I believe he is asking about individuals who will lose income in these three communities.
The policies that we are currently following as well as any future policies have to reflect our current situation. We can’t return to old policies from the 1970s, so we are following current applicable policies.
The individuals who stand to lose this income will be given more information about other options.
As an example, property damage caused by marauding bears can be reimbursed, including any polar bear damage in the impacted communities for which the Department of Environment has programs and services to provide support for.
As I stated earlier that it has already been several years, the discussion for the possibility of an import ban on polar bear hides to the United Stated and Europe has been discussed by this government, environmentalists, regional organizations, the wildlife management board, and the regional wildlife boards.
This government hasn’t developed any kind of a planned policy at least to show us, “Here are the options we are thinking about in case we have to develop a policy in the event the ban does take place.”
These kinds of things happen all the time.
Not too long ago in the NWT times, we were complaining, “Why aren’t the regular hunters, ordinary hunters not covered under the WCB?” After not too long of discussion and dialoguing between the cabinet and regular members, they became covered.
If a hunter gets hurt, they could be covered under the WCB.
Those things are not strange, those things happen. All I’m asking is: why hasn’t her government created any kind of policy development initiative when they knew several years ago that this might happen?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Several years ago, I was not the Premier. (interpretation) Also, we can establish policies only once we know exactly what we’re talking about.
We can establish policies when we know exactly how the impact will be and where it will occur.
It’s a little frustrating because I know she was not a Premier, but the discussion was going on already that everybody who was interested in Nunavut knew there was a possibility of a ban of exportation to the United States and Europe.
When she took on the office, she could have very easily declared, “My premiership will be involved in preparation in the event of the ban.”
My last question, Mr. Speaker, is similar to the question that I directed to the environment minister. Will she have some kind of a plan in place to announce to Nunavummiut before the session is over what kind of policy development she will create, at least a plan, before the sport hunt come into effect that is usually in March or April?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I have full confidence in this government in terms of policy development in all areas and I have full confidence in the Department of Environment in looking after what has to be addressed.
They are fully aware, over the last number of months since they have been with this present government, in seeing what is coming and planning how to address it.
I will reiterate the fact that we cannot set up a policy until all of those who are affected and the other sides as well are well known by this government. We are very much involved in keeping a close tab on what is to come in terms decisions and we will go from there. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Written Question 013 – 3(2): Loans Made By the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation (Aupaluktuq)
My written question is directed towards the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, the Hon. Peter Taptuna.
Within the meaning of section 5 of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation Act, which enables the corporation to make loans to business enterprises “for the purpose of stimulating economic development and employment in Nunavut,” how does the corporation measure the number of jobs created as a result of the loans made to business enterprises?
Broken down by each loan made by the corporation between April 1, 1999 and March 8, 2010, how many jobs were created as a result of each loan?
Tabled Document 117 – 3(2): Wildlife Tracks (Shewchuk)
I would like to table the following document entitled “Wildlife Tracks.”
Tabled Document 118 – 3(2): Government of the Northwest Territories News Release Concerning Polar Bear Outfitter Assistance Program (Arvaluk)
I wish to table today a copy of an announcement made by the Government of the Northwest Territories on January 8 of this year concerning that jurisdiction’s Polar Bear Outfitter Assistance Program.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation ends) Can we have that document brought forward to the table, please.
Tabled Document 119 – 3(2): Agricultural Products Marketing Act Annual Report 2008-2009 (Taptuna)
I would like to table the following document: Agricultural Products Marketing Act. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 016 – 3(2): Moratorium on Purchase of Products from the European Union by the Nunavut Liquor Commission – Notice (Schell)
I give notice that on Thursday, March 11, 2010, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Member of Iqaluit West, that the Legislative Assembly calls on the Government of Nunavut to impose a moratorium on purchases by the Nunavut Liquor Commission of products originating from the European Union from this day forward until such time as the issue of the seal product ban is resolved to Nunavut’s satisfaction.
>>House recessed at 15:18 and Committee resumed at 15:49
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following item to deal with: Bill 22, Appropriation (O&M) Act, 2010-2011.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 22 and the Department of Health and Social Services.
If time permits, we will commence the review of the Department of Education.
Chairman: Do members agree to continue?
Mr. Curley, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. Tagak Curley: You’re welcome, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would.
Chairman: Sergeant-at Arms, could you escort the witnesses in.
On my left is the Deputy Minister of the Department of Health and Social Services, Mr. Alex Campbell.
On my right is the Director of Corporate Services, Debora Voth.
Before the Committee of the Whole continues with its consideration of the 2010-11 Main Estimates of the Department of Health and Social Services, I have a brief statement to make.
During yesterday’s proceedings, a number of ministers were overenthusiastic when they attempted to agree to the approval of the department’s budget before I called the question.
I remind the committee that members have the right to raise their hands and be recognized so that they can make their comments and ask questions.
I ask all members to refrain from agreeing to a budget item until the Chair asks for approval.
Now we will proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page H-5. H- 5. Branch Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $36,434,000.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Again, to refer back to a previous question I raised during question period with respect to social workers that are included in H-5, I used to raise questions with respect to the young children who were apprehended and sent to southern provinces.
I believe the minister recalls the issue when I raised concerns about this matter.
The residents of Pond Inlet are incensed by the social workers’ poor judgment.
In fact, a petition containing close to 300 signatures was delivered to the minister to object to the stupidity of sending children out of Nunavut into southern provinces.
This occurred again just recently. At seven o’clock in the morning, RCMP officers were waiting outside to apprehend a child.
My question is: with regard to the Child and Family Services Act and using other Acts, will they be able to keep the children in Nunavut and not send them to southern provinces?
I fully understand the question being posed by my colleague. I would like to thank the individuals who are concerned about that issue.
It’s not just the residents of Pond Inlet who are concerned about this practice but there are many individuals in Nunavut who are thinking along those lines.
We have to increase the number of foster parents in every community because when a child is apprehended, the child has to be properly cared for and that requires foster parents.
This is something we have to keep in mind. These children who were sent out of Nunavut have to be dealt with and we have to meet that challenge by increasing the number of qualified foster parents.
Why do children need to be apprehended and sent away from their parents?
That is the first question that must be answered.
Is the child in an unsafe situation? Is the environment too crime ridden? Are the parents abusing alcohol or other substances that place the children in dangerous situations?
Due to these types of reasons, this legislation was drafted to protect children during unsafe stages of the parents’ lives. Once the parents have stabilized their home environment, then the children are to be returned to their care.
I totally agree with the member that during our assessment of the legislation, it definitely needs to be improved, especially here in the Inuit homeland. We would prefer it if we could place the children in a foster home in Nunavut or amongst their relatives in the interim.
With respect to the team that is conducting this review, as per my Minister’s Statement this afternoon when we first commenced today’s session, I stated that we will be meeting with the review committee elders again. We’ve already had that meeting. We will also be consulting directly with communities and undertake a tour of the communities to discuss the legislation included in the Child and Family Services Act, as well as regional meetings over the course of the coming year.
However, I don’t want to put constraints on the tour since it will depend largely on the feedback we receive from the communities, specifically in relation to the barriers and obstacles they face with this legislation. They are more intimate with the actual implementation of this legislation and what issues are faced in their communities.
Moreover, under this legislation which we are reviewing, the Child and Family Services Act, the power to apprehend has been placed with the director of social services. The director uses the powers in the legislation to apprehend the children and these powers can be delegated to other staff.
We, as a department, while conducting a comprehensive review of the legislation, are expecting that these children in the communities who are currently in unsafe situations are properly cared for and our expectations are that these children will be placed in a foster home closer to their homes. That is where, Mr. Chairman, our direction is headed as a department.
We have heard and understood the foundation for the concerns conveyed to us.
I will stop at this junction as the response to the member’s question is quite complex.
I thank the minister for responding to part of my earlier question. I noted that he responded to this part of my question and it relates to the comprehensive review and consultation with the communities.
This consultation would, I imagine, include areas or items that create these hardships or concerns.
Why does a child have to be apprehended from their parents?
There are numerous scenarios that would all require different approaches and we could come up with a thousand different answers.
The reasons for apprehending a child are varied.
However, it is obvious as to what the barriers are.
It is only those parents who don’t have good parenting skills that tend to have their children taken away.
The usual grounds are drug and alcohol abuse, not providing adequate nutrition and child abuse.
Those are the ones without parental skills.
It takes two to tango and I believe we came to an agreement yesterday when we were discussing the directorate that those people who were not taught proper parenting skills by their own parents require this kind of training. They don’t know any better. A human, being an intelligent being require proper training or one has to learn that on their own.
Humans are not instinctual and parenting skills don’t crop up, unlike animals that have parental instincts.
Animals are different as their parenting is instinctual. They don’t even have to think in order to fulfill their parental duties. Only sentient beings require training and the passing on of knowledge in order to learn.
This is something Inuit have traditionally known.
What I want is when your department is considering the comprehensive review and the community tour, an alternative to apprehension should be kept in mind. Every community has facilities that are utilized for daycare centres, kindergarten centres, or preschool. Each community has different terminology for these types of facilities, but I’m not fixating on the term.
However, when we already have these types of facilities in use during the day, can we not consider using these facilities as overnight care facilities for younger children especially, with workers doing a night shift to care for them?
Perhaps even a social worker.
Maybe we ought to ask ourselves if we prefer not to have our children apprehended and sent out of territory. Should we not be managing our own situation? These children ought not to be placed in a dangerous situation due to the selfish nature of their parents.
People will always have selfish intentions. However, some people are slow learners, or are unwilling to learn new skills or to overcome the hurdles in their lives to improve themselves. Some parents never learn and their children are basically in and out of the system as if they are in a revolving door.
Perhaps I should ask this question.
When you are conducting your tour, you stated that your intention is to find out the barriers or obstacles faced by our community members.
Will you also be asking for recommendations on how to improve the current situation?
As per my idea, you can speak about the possibility of using daycare facilities in the evenings or any other improvements that our citizens may suggest. Will you also include this in your list of questions to the communities?
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank my colleague.
All those questions you asked are very helpful. When we had a meeting with the elders, all of the issues that you identified were discussed.
I can also add that when a child is being taken away, the current Act is directed primarily at children under the authority of the director.
Since the mechanism for applying this Act is still evolving, I’m sure that we can find solutions around that.
It is because of the infancy of the Act that this one section is too often applied by our own social workers.
I believe we all know, including Mr. Arvaluk, that if we were to go to Nunavik, we would find more social services for adults. Our own counselling services for adults are often lacking. Without having to consider broken homes where children are taken away, it is not surprising that the member is wondering why lessons are not being learned.
When we had discussions with the elders, it was mentioned that maybe it would be best if a counselling model was used in Nunavut. That’s what we’re going to keep coming back to.
At this time, I can say that we don’t want to see these children sent outside of the territory. Maybe we have to keep posing questions to the deputy minister.
To add to it further, Mr. Chairman, while we are deliberating this issue, we are not only going to be visiting the people of Nunavut but also those who are concerned. I told the organizations that we will consult with them. We wanted to place a priority on talking to the elders.
I agree that we will take all of these into consideration. We’re looking at setting up a model that could be used and we will factor in the member’s suggestions.
Under H-5 with regard to children, including the Northwest Territories, we never fully accepted having children, especially aboriginal children, sent there. They end up becoming adults who no longer know their own parents.
Children have a wish to come back to their own homes, but why is it that children who are taken away are sent outside of the territory?
We know about the safety issue. We know about lack of food or abuse of some kind in the home.
Are these children sent out of the territory due to a lack of support services here in Nunavut?
This is a little bit similar to what we discussed.
I don’t want to say exactly what happens because there are confidential issues here.
With respect to criminal activity in a home, I stated that there was one instance over the winter in one of the communities.
However, when we brought this up in the winter, the director’s annual report was tabled.
There were over 300 foster children, some with disabilities, who had to be sent out of the territory because of their needs.
We find it inappropriate to apprehend and send children outside of the territories.
Perhaps we can make some amendments while we’re reviewing the new Act.
If the question is: why are children sent outside of their territories?
I can respond by saying that there might be criminal activity in their home environment and they have to be removed from there.
They are not being abused per se but if there is a need to help the family, the child has to be removed from that environment for the protection of this child.
In those instances, the child has to be put in a foster home.
Alex could possibly make a supplement to my comment, Mr. Chairman, because he deals with it almost on a daily basis.
Just to supplement the minister’s response, there are also instances where children require specialized care and service that we don’t have in Nunavut.
In some instances, we require children to go into physiotherapy. As well, we have children at risk of hurting themselves.