EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
While the funding is also for implementing the family violence programs, will there be consideration to open more facilities in Nunavut?
As I stated previously, the plans for healthy families, I believe, will be introduced near the end of December.
We have made a lot of progress as a government.
This working document is progressing and it includes plans on the budget.
My expectations are that we will use shelters less. We want to see healthy families and healthy lifestyles. We have to keep talking about crime and violence in every community in all of Nunavut.
If we could keep the number of shelters down, it would be much better. Once we have introduced the report, we will be able to show what we are trying to accomplish in terms of crime prevention and preventing violence at home.
We should not just be run by reacting to crime. I think we have to keep encouraging healthy families and try to focus on the priorities of being in a healthy relationship.
The government cannot deal with this issue alone. We have to include church bodies.
Perhaps if we were to turn to ourselves and to our communities to try to fix our lifestyles, it would be much easier because every person has a choice as to how they live their lives.
Question 213 – 3(3): “Solution Box” on Government Website (Rumbolt)
My questions are for the Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, Madam Premier.
Mr. Speaker, recently I was on the Government of Nunavut’s website and I have noticed something that I haven’t seen there before. There was a new icon called the “Solution Box.”
Can the minister explain when this solution box was added and its purpose?
I haven’t seen that icon. (interpretation ends) I’ll take that as notice (interpretation) so that I can take a look at it.
Moving on. Oral Questions.
Question 214 – 3(3): Electronic Health Records (Elliott)
They’re in regard to Return to Oral Question 158 – 3(3), Emergency Preparedness at Nunavut Health Centres.
The question that I had asked was based around the electronic health records and what was in place in case of a territory-wide communications failure like there was this past month.
I was happy to note that there is redundancy in the system to be able to allow health care workers to access our records.
In part of the answer, it talked about multiple site disaster recovery for health care data storage in the electronic health record. I’m just wondering: for the information that is stored in terms of privacy and the information about individuals within the territory, where is that information stored?
By the sounds of it, it sounds like they’re stored in different locations.
Is that information stored in one specific location or in different locations?
A very important question and I think the member deserves a proper response.
I will contact my officials to see whether or not we can update my response to the member that I stated before.
Once I have that information, I’ll make further announcements before too long.
The minister did not take my question as notice, so I’ll continue along with the same line of questioning.
Specifically, is the information stored within Nunavut or is it stored outside of the territory as well?
Without infringing on the privacy of an individual and whatnot of where the person’s particular medical record may be stored, I will consider the question and provide that information when I do so when it’s available.
Again, I think everyone across the territory has the right to know where our personal information is stored, whether it’s on a server, in a GN facility here within the territory, or whether it’s in a GN facility in Ottawa or Toronto or any location across Canada.
That information and researching different companies of where information is stored, it’s amazing sometimes where our personal information ends up, sometimes in Japan and sometimes in China.
So out of curiosity, I was just curious and would like to know.
My next question is: in terms of the security for our private and personal information, what types of security protocols does Health and Social Services have in place to guarantee that our information is kept safe?
I think the member knows quite well that we are guided by federal and territorial privacy laws, and so on. I think these are quite well respected. I’m not 100 percent clear whether he is referring to electronic records or local data information about that.
Maybe if he clarifies the question, it will form part of my response to him when I do make a statement.
Could you clarify your question, Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Elliott: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
I was specifically speaking about electronic records. Otherwise, I figured I would be called out of order because I would have been changing the way I was asking questions. I was specifically talking about electronic health records.
I specifically wanted to know because I’m well aware of the privacy policy information within the health centres and how people are not allowed to access our private information in terms of communication individually.
I’m talking about the specific handling of electronic files across the territory and what protocols are put in place.
Again, this would be pretty technical in terms of what types of firewalls, what types of security passwords, and who has access to those passwords because, again, we’re talking about our private information, probably at multiple sites, whether it’s in the home community, in Iqaluit, in Ottawa or Winnipeg or Edmonton, where health care is taken care of for individuals in our territory.
I can assure the member that the government does take all security questions seriously. We work with CGS on these very complex technology issues and they have particular sort of very well established protocols in place.
When I do make a statement, we will probably indicate exactly how the whole electronic health information system operates.
My final question in regard to that handing of information, the minister sort of alluded to that. If I could find out: when we’re talking about computer systems, electronic records, and the handing of that information, is it just Health and Social Services, that specific department that is responsible and is required to handle our private confidential electronic health information, or is other government departments involved in that process, whether it would be CGS or any other department within the government?
I would like to provide the information to the member properly, but I think he should know that the whole government coordinates if there are any interdepartmental questions that are involved, including the Department of Justice or whatnot.
Our officials always make sure that they contact various levels of government to ensure that all protocols are followed.
It’s not just one client department like health with respect to information technology that we’re contacted. Precautions are taken.
I can assure the member that proper protocols are followed, including coordination with all the other departments, if they are affected.
Tabled Document 119 – 3(3): Annual Report on the Administration of the Government of Nunavut’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the Period April 11, 2009 to March 21, 2010 (Aariak)
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to table the Annual Report on the Administration of the Government of Nunavut’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the Period April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 120 – 3(3): Correspondence from the Hamlet of Coral Harbour Re: Electoral Boundaries Commission (Ningeongan)
Tabled Document 121 – 3(3): Correspondence from the Hamlet of Chesterfield Inlet Re: Proposed Changes to the Chesterfield Inlet Constituency (Ningeongan)
I would like to table two letters today.
The first letter is from the Hamlet Council of Coral Harbour.
The second letter is from the Hamlet Council of Chesterfield Inlet regarding the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s recommendations.
Both letters indicate support for the status quo on our current electoral boundaries.
I plan on reading the letters at the Committee of the Whole today.
Tabled Document 122 – 3(3): Transportation of Dangerous Goods Annual Report 2009-2010 (Taptuna)
Tabled Document 123 – 3(3): Transportation of Dangerous Goods Annual Report 2010-2011 (Taptuna)
I have two documents that I want to table.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Transportation and Dangerous Goods Annual Report for 2009-2010 and also the other report of 2010-11.
Tabled Document 124 – 3(3): F/P/T Ministerial Report on the Aboriginal Affairs Working Group in Ottawa, Ontario April 18 to 19, 2011 (Aariak)
Tabled Document 125 – 3(3): 2009-2010 Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society (Aariak)
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to table the F/P/T Ministerial Report on the Aboriginal Affairs Working Group in Ottawa, Ontario April 18 to 19, 2011.
I would also like to table the 2009-2010 Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society.
Tabled Document 126 – 3(3): GN Grants and Contributions 2010-2011 (Peterson)
I am pleased to table the GN Grants and Contributions 2010-2011.
Tabled Document 127 – 3(3): Chief Medical Officer of Health’s 2010 Tobacco Control Act Annual Report (Curley)
Tabled Document 128 – 3(3): Nunavut Tobacco Reduction Framework for Action Titled “Tobacco Has No Place Here” for 2011-2016 (Curley)
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to table the Chief Medical of Health’s 2010 Tobacco Control Act Annual Report.
The second document, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today is the Nunavut Tobacco Reduction Framework for Action titled “Tobacco Has No Place Here” for 2011-2016.
Bills 14 and 22 with Mr. Ningeongan in the Chair.
Before we proceed, we will take a short 10-minute break.
>>House recessed at 11:03 and Committee resumed at 11:23
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan) (interpretation): Good late morning.
We now have quorum and we can proceed with the meeting.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 14 and 22.
We would like to complete the review of Bill 14 and we will proceed to review Bill 22. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Are we in agreement that we first deal with Bill 14?
As that is the case, Minister Peterson, I would like to ask if you would like to have officials with you at the witness table.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have officials with me.
Chairman (interpretation): Are we in agreement to bring in the witnesses?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses in.
Minister Peterson, for the record please introduce your witness.
My witness is Mr. Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance.
I welcome your witness.
Yesterday we didn’t conclude Bill 14 and we were in the supplementary appropriation on page 4.
Department of Finance. (interpretation ends) Not Previously Authorized.
Total Centrally Administered Funds. $850,000. (interpretation) Are there any further questions?
I have to apologize to the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College.
While I was asking questions yesterday, I had said stimulator when I was supposed to say simulator and I apologize to the minister. (interpretation ends) I can attempt to stimulate the minister to give me a better answer, maybe.
I don’t think there are any questions as I have no names on my list.
Page 4. (interpretation ends) Total Department. $850,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
We can now go to page 5. (interpretation ends) Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
Total Culture and Heritage. $6,480,000. (interpretation) Are there any questions on that line item?
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to welcome Minister Peterson and Mr. D’Arcy.
The $6,480,000 is going to be removed from the Nunavut Heritage Centre line item.
I would like to ask: in the short-term future, will this fund be reallocated back to this line item? We really need the Nunavut Heritage Centre in Iqaluit to house our resources.
Will we have to start from scratch within the Department of CLEY?
I apologize. I didn’t realize that the wording was stated as being returned.
Thank you, Mr. Tapardjuk, for identifying that.
Mr. Chairman, the government would have to start over again.
With that excluded, this will mean that there are no funds set aside for the Nunavut Heritage Centre, although this government has already spent a large sum at the planning stage.
Will Iqaluit still be the location as per the previous decision or will the government now have to conduct another study on which community would be best suited for a heritage centre? Will this require another study?
As he stated, we would have to start over again. So with the past decision to choose Iqaluit as the location and with the deletion of this funding, does this mean that Iqaluit is no longer the choice? I would like the minister to clarify that first, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it’s our understanding and belief that the land that was identified as part of what’s called a capital district would likely still be available.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): It was previously identified that Iqaluit would be the location and the government approved it. There has been a report announced in the Legislative Assembly that Iqaluit would indeed be the place.
My question is: the fact that Iqaluit was identified as the location, has that been removed as well?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again thank Mr. Tapardjuk for the question.
Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, there has been no discussions to change the future location from Iqaluit.
We haven’t had those discussions.
I will read it again. (interpretation ends) Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
Total Culture and Heritage. -$6,480,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Total Department. -$6,480,000.
Go to page 6. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services.
Not Previously Authorized. (interpretation) There are three items for Capital Planning. -$1,781,000. (interpretation ends) Petroleum Products Division.
Total Petroleum Products Division. (interpretation) -$25,000.
Down at the bottom, (interpretation ends) Total Department. (interpretation) -$1,806,000.
I don’t see any show of hands. I’ll go through it one last time. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services.
Total Capital Planning. (interpretation) -$1,781,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Just underneath that, (interpretation ends) Petroleum Products Division.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Down at the bottom, (interpretation ends) Total Department. (interpretation) -$1,806,000.
You didn’t seem very enthusiastic about that one.
Economic Development and Transportation. Capital. Transportation.
Not Previously Authorized. (interpretation ends) Total Transportation. $4 million. (interpretation) Are there any questions?
I see no show of hands. I’ll go through it again.
Total Transportation. $4 million.
Down at the bottom, (interpretation ends) Total Department. $4 million. (interpretation) Do you agree?
It’s nice to hear enthusiastic responses.
Go back to page 2. (interpretation ends) Schedule 1.
Capital Appropriation. -$3,436,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): I don’t believe there were any questions.
Go to Bill 14 in your white binders.
We need to go through it clause by clause.
I think Bill 14 is in front of you. (interpretation ends) Bill 14, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2011-2012.
Chairman: Clause 3 (interpretation) and the Schedule on page 2.
Are we agreed to Bill 14 as a whole?
Chairman (interpretation): Pursuant to Rule 62(2), are we agreed that Bill 14 can be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
I would like to thank yourself and the members of the Committee of the Whole for your excellent questions the last couple days. I would like to thank my cabinet colleagues for being in attendance both days to answer any detailed questions at the Committee of the Whole, as I asked.
I would also like to thank my staff at the Department of Finance for working hard on preparing these documents. Finally, I would like to thank my Deputy Minister of Finance for appearing as a witness yesterday and today.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson and your deputy minister.
Thank you for concluding to this point.
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): We can now proceed.
At this time, we will deal with Bill 22.
I would like to ask the Speaker of the House to make an appearance and please escort him to the witness table, Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. Speaker, do you wish to bring witnesses to the witness table?
Bill 22 – An Act Respecting the Constituencies of Nunavut – Consideration in Committee
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, please introduce your witnesses.
It gives me great pleasure today to introduce the officials that are here with me from Elections Nunavut. To my right is Ms. Sandy Kusugak, the Chief Electoral Officer for Elections Nunavut, and to my left is Mr. Patrick Orr, who is the Legal Counsel for Elections Nunavut.
Welcome to the both of you.
Mr. Speaker, do you have opening remarks and, if you do, please proceed.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear today before the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of its consideration of Bill 22, An Act Respecting the Constituencies of Nunavut.
As members will recall, the Legislative Assembly passed a motion at its sitting of October 25, 2010 to establish an independent electoral boundaries commission, pursuant to the Nunavut Elections Act.
The members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission were the Hon. Justice Ted Richard, Mr. Kirt Ejesiak, and Mr. Gordon Main.
Given the unique circumstances of our jurisdiction, the challenge of ensuring fair and effective representation for our residents in their legislature is not an easy one.
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for their hard work, comprehensive report, and thoughtful recommendations.
The report of the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission was publicly released in June of this year and formally tabled in this House on September 28, 2011, along with the commission’s addendum of August 8, 2011.
As required by section 28 of the Nunavut Elections Act, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer has prepared a bill to implement the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission concerning the number, names, and boundaries of our constituencies.
The bill that is before members today establishes 22 constituencies in Nunavut, the names and boundaries of which reflect the recommendations in the commission’s report.
These constituencies will take effect at the next general election.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer for her innovative approach to modernizing the authoritative legal descriptions of our constituencies through the provision of digital maps.
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind members that the process for reviewing the boundaries of constituencies was amended earlier this year through the Legislative Assembly’s passage of Bill 12.
As members will recall, the Nunavut Elections Act was amended to start the regular 10-year adjustment in 2022. Lots of two’s.
This change will enhance the predictability of the redistribution cycle.
The timing of the establishment of the next boundaries commission will enable it to utilize the results of the 2021 national census.
As members are aware, the size of our legislature has remained unchanged since the creation of the territory in 1999.
I believe that it is important to note that if the Legislative Assembly approves the passage of the bill that is before us today, the related adjustments that we have approved to the redistribution cycle are such that by the time that the next electoral boundaries commission is established, our legislature’s size will have experienced only one change in approximately a quarter of a century.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments. I look forward to responding to any questions that my colleagues might have.
Before we proceed with the clause-by-clause review of Bill 22, I would like to remind members that we have proposed motions to this bill and they are in front of you in the blue binders.
These motions will be brought up at the appropriate time.
At this time, before we proceed with Bill 22, are there any questions or general comments from members?
I thank you for being provided this opportunity.
I recently spoke on these two issues during our meeting and I had tabled correspondence.
I will be reading the correspondence and it would be preferable if copies were handed out.
These are copies of the letters I received from the hamlet councils of Chesterfield Inlet and Coral Harbour.
Mr. Chairman, for clarity, I would like to tell you that this is not only coming from me personally. This bill was scrutinized and after reporting on this issue, I requested feedback from Chesterfield Inlet and Coral Harbour residents on their thoughts on the findings and that would be the foundation on which I would make my official position.
Now that they have communicated their positions, I will be reading them word for word.
I believe you are just getting copies now.
This is from the Hamlet Council of Coral Harbour. In English, it reads:
(interpretation ends) “Re: Electoral boundary commission.  Dear Johnny,
On behalf of the Hamlet Council of Coral Harbour and the community, this letter is to inform you that we are not in support of the proposed electoral boundary which purpose is to add three more members to the legislative assembly.
We know that Nunavut Government is not doing well financially to be able to accommodate three more members.
Our question to the Government, how confident do they feel it will better benefit communities?
Does the Government feel that the current boundary is not benefiting communities as well as it should by proposing to add three more members?
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact our office.  Kind Regards,
Dorothy Ningeocheak
Mayor of Coral Harbour”
(interpretation) That’s the first correspondence and the second one is from the hamlet council. It’s addressed to me and it’s in regard to the (interpretation ends) proposed changes to the Chesterfield Inlet constituency.
“Hi Johnny,
The Hamlet Council discussed the proposed changes to the riding of Chesterfield Inlet and we would like to express that we are not in favour of this proposal.
Residents and Council would like the Chesterfield Inlet/Coral Harbour Nanulik Riding to remain as it is.
Also adding new constituency offices in Nunavut will mean more dollars spent, we are not in favour of this also.
The additional offices proposed will add to a lot to the current budget that the Government has to work with.
The current riding has worked for us, and we believe it will continue to work for us.  Please consider the concerns this community has and we hope to hear a positive response.
Sincerely,  Harry Aggark
Mayor  Hamlet of Chesterfield Inlet”
Mr. Chairman, I just want to state for the record that I was extremely pleased to be given directions from my constituents to represent them today.
Had I not received these letters, I would probably be debating within myself, but given that I have been given the grounds to pursue the way of hamlet councils’ of Coral Harbour and Chesterfield Inlet letters. Therefore, I will stand to vote against the recommended electoral boundary that was done by the commission.
(interpretation) I hope I was clear on my position on the matter. (interpretation ends) Qujannamiik, Mr. Chairman.
I know that this is a very important topic and one that needs to be debated.
However, I just want to say that we put the electoral boundaries into place and tasked them with a very important job that they went out and did.
I respect them very much for consulting with all Nunavutmiut and coming back with the recommendations that they did.
As MLA for Arviat, I have heard from my constituents.