EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Chairman, as directed by the Members of this House, the act combines provisions to establish an electoral boundaries commission along side provisions governing the conduct of elections.
Under the act, voters, candidates and election officials will find many improvements in the way elections will be administered.
To begin, the elections period will be shortened from 45 days to 35 days and the period of nomination from 10 days to five days.
We will establish a permanent register of electors so that the potential voters can enter or change their vote information at any time, not just during the elections period.
We have made it easier for electors to exercise their right to vote by extending the use of the mobile poll to those with physical disabilities and by creating an emergency voting procedure that will allow voters in outpost camps to vote by satellite phone or radio phone if they chose.
The use of special ballots is extended.
Proxy voting, although rigorously controlled, is maintained for those who are away from home unexpectedly on voting day.
Voting in the office of the returning officer and advanced voting are also maintained.
In addition, voters will be able to obtain up-to-date information, have their voting questions answered by accessing our web site.
The new act will also allow us the flexibility to pilot the use of new technologies.
The basic maximum allowable campaign expense limit remains at $30,000.
Reasonable travel, living expenses and child care expenses as well as special expenses related to a disability above that amount will be allowed, if approved by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation lays the groundwork for a new level of electoral cooperation and coordination by providing for the Chief Electoral Officer, to and from a working group with the representatives from other territorial organizations and Elections Canada with the aim of providing better service to voters in Nunavut.
Finally, new options exist in cases where a complaint about elections wrongdoing is put forward.
In accordance with the directions from the Assembly, a process has been added to allow elections-related offences to be dealt with more flexibly outside of the court system in a process partially modelled on the Canada Elections Act.
Nunavut’s Integrity Commissioner may negotiate a compliance agreement with a person who is alleged to have committed an offence.
The decision will be made after considering all of the facts of the situation.
An agreement might oblige the person to pay money or make restitution, make apologies, perform community service or perhaps seek in accordance with the traditional Inuit practice.
If the person does not comply with the agreement they may be prosecuted.
If the prosecution is justified judges may give similar orders.
I look forward to responding to any questions or comments that Members may have. I can assure you that most of the questions will be answered by our legal assistants here, Pat and Ms. Kusugak.
Please, before you speak, please make sure you recognize me since I am the Chairperson, so I can conduct the meeting properly.
Before we open the floor to questions or comments to Bill 14, I would like to ask the Members if they have any opening remarks.
According to our Rule 77(1), I will give you 10 minutes.
The floor is now open if you want to make opening comments.
I have reviewed the draft Elections Act, and overall it looks fine but I feel there is one part that has to be amended.
I want to make a point of it.
For those who will want to vote but can’t read English, because everybody can vote, but for those people who can’t read, I will be making a motion at the appropriate time to assist those people in understanding the issue.
All the voters should be treated the same, whoever they are and whether they can read or not.
They should be able to vote with complete freedom… I will be making a motion to that point.
Other than that, the content of the bill is okay, except for where I indicated.
There are no other comments.
Mr. Arvaluk (Interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask the Speaker a question, but first of all, let me make a comment as to why I want to bring this up.
If you have travelled to other communities and if you have gone to the other countries, where there are no voters for example like South America, where they do not have the advantage of democracies and elections.
For us Inuit prior to 1960, we did not have the right to vote.
Women as well were excluded from the voters list until early this century.
Sometimes, you get so used to a procedure that it becomes taken for granted.
A lot of times, the voters vote for people that they do not really wish to, because they may dislike that candidate’s platform but they vote for that person, just because of who they are and not because of his capabilities.
As Canadians, we should celebrate that we can elect our representatives and leaders so that our income taxes can be put into good use, whether it be through elections or something else.
To see this bill, it covers pretty well everything because we elect somebody who most of the people agree upon.
I want to ask the Speaker if this bill is passed, I wonder if you will be able to provide or make occasional announcements as to why elections in Nunavut are a privilege and not a waste of time.
First of all, I was going to ask a question myself before you get your response, I got ahead of myself.
Mr. Speaker, can you introduce your witnesses?
Sorry….Can one of the witnesses please respond to Mr. Arvaluk’s question, Mr. Speaker?
I will allow our new Chief Electoral Officer to address that question.
Ms. Kusugak.
Kusugak.
Ms. Kusugak: Part 8 of this act instructs me to have a strong public education policy.
Certainly that would be the instructions and directions from Ajauqtiit Committee and that was incorporated into my roles and responsibilities.
It is one that I take very seriously, particularly having been a teacher.
It will be a very important part of the work that I do, but it is in this act as well.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Kusugak.
In this long, lengthy bill there are many provisions, and if we were to pass this bill prior to year-end, the public will have a chance to find out whether it is appropriate or not.
If we allow this bill to be passed in this House, then we will find out what kinds of problems we are encountering at the local level.
Everything we do in the House changes, according to the needs of the communities.
My question is, if we pass this bill, how often would it be reviewed to make it more appropriate to the needs of the people in Nunavut?
Mr. Orr.
Mr. Orr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The bill is a long one, but it is no longer than most Elections Acts.
The reason why it is a little bit longer than the current act is because there were provisions in regulations, the provisions dealing with all the special ballot procedures were put into regulations.
I thought it was appropriate in this case that it should come before the Assembly and be approved in bill form, so that all the important rules are in the document itself, and cannot be varied by anyone other than the Assembly.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Orr.
I would like to ask another question. This is going to be a law for Nunavummiut and sometimes the residents travel outside of Nunavut, whether they go to school or for some other reason.
Perhaps you can give me some clarification.
For instance, in the summer time or for the seasonal workers, people who come up here from the south are able to vote after being residents of Nunavut for a year.
My question is, there are construction workers and people who live in Nunavut for one year, and if they go back down south to live, then what happens if they are going back a little over a year after being here?
There is a 12 month residency requirement for voters in Nunavut, the same as there is for the Northwest Territories.
Many provinces have no duration, no residency requirement of that sort.
That will remove a large part of the seasonal workers coming up here.
However, if they do stay here for more than one year or at least a year, they would have the right to vote here.
As far as people moving for education and temporary purposes, we do have a provision that residents of Nunavut who go south for education or temporary employment continue to be considered residents for the purposes of voting here.
It is a rule that allows flexibility on behalf of the people who live here and do travel south for periods of time, especially students.
My other question is, as part of the question that I asked earlier on, that the people who come here to do construction work cannot vote unless they have been residing in Nunavut for 12 months.
Perhaps this is more geared to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and Nunavummiut, just as an example.
Say for instance I was running for a councillor for the hamlet, does this act have anything to do with electing hamlet councillors?
Will the hamlet councillors have to follow this legislation?
Which one would like to respond to that question?
Ms. Kusugak: There is separate legislation that governs the election of municipal leaders.
The Local Authorities Elections Act governs that.
Additionally, further to Mr. Iqaqrialu’s original question, there is a provision for people who are taken away from home suddenly, for instance people who must go to the hospital and they have not anticipated it, they can vote by proxy.
We have retained that for those particular circumstances, so that is in addition to the other things that Mr. Orr outlined.
If I can get some clarification, perhaps it doesn’t have anything to do with this new Elections Act, but let me know, Mr. Chairman.
The hamlets are a part of Nunavut Government, even though they have their own act, Local Authorities Elections Act, the municipal elections act, say for instance if there was a problem with regard to elections, the procedure of elections and that act is made by the Legislative Assembly, if I was running for hamlet councillor I might encourage people to vote for me.
These are Nunavut residents.
As long as the individual is not from Nunavut they cannot be elected to the municipal council but I just thought maybe if something comes up that maybe the local municipal election act may have to be amended just so that those people that are not qualified to be elected do not get elected.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Member is referring to the Municipal Elections Act which really does not have anything to do with this act here.
It is a different issue.
We are here tonight to discuss the new Electoral Act for Nunavut, the Territory of Nunavut.
That is another issue that maybe at another committee meeting it can be discussed.
I have another person that wants to talk.
Under the Nunavut elections presentation, on page 19, it states that… I will talk in English.
(interpretation ends) Section 10 I guess, page 19, it says “offences for improperly influencing voters.
The value of a prize given away on behalf of a candidate is limited to $500.”
I was looking for it in the actual bill but I could not find that particular section.
I just wondered where it is.
Mr. Or: Mr. Chairman, the provision is section 246(6) paragraph (c). It should be around page 85 I believe, of the bill, in the English version.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): Yes, I found it.
It says that the value of the price the value of a price given at a meeting cannot exceed over $500, but I do not think there is anything in the act that says that it is the prize provided at the meeting.
I could have two separate meetings in one night or separate nights and give them a prize not exceeding $500, but perhaps if I am a candidate and I have a prize it seems like I could buy their votes by providing them $250 here and $250 to the other person.
Can it be worded that how many times they could have a meeting?
(interpretation ends) At a meeting of voters, it does not specify the number.
Shouldn’t there be a minimum in order to get away from say having ten meetings of two people each and spending $5,000 that kind of concern.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Kusugak.
Ms. Kusugak: Certainly this is a new provision and did not exist at all under the old act.
In other words, under the old act there was probably, you were only limited by your own funds and contribution limits as to what could happen.
Because it was an issue of sensitivity I found in the last few years to voters, I received phone calls because people were not happy, this was put in here.
We discussed this with the Management Services Board and came up with this as a figure to start with.
That is the explanation I can give you for that section.
Truly, it has not been tried in an election.
We don’t know.
Hon. Jack Anawak: Thank you. I don’t have anything on the provision being there, I guess my worry is without any numbers mentioned, again I point out that I could have ten meetings and spend $5,000 at $500 each with two people each.
I would think that this would not happen in Nunavut but if we are going to have a number, then we might as well maybe look at that issue of having a minimum number of people if you are going to give away prizes.
Would one of the witnesses please respond to Mr. Anawak’s question?
The Minister brings up a good point.
I guess it may be the time to see what other members think of this particular issue, if it is an issue.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): It is good to be elected by the people.
To encourage them to vote for me at an election, but sometimes some candidates can misuse that section.
I don’t want to buy votes, but I am saying, if an individual really wants to get elected, even though… he could easily buy votes, if it does not state how many times they can have a meeting and giving out a prize of $500 each for so many meetings.
The reason why I am saying this is that if I wanted to meet with just two people, two people at a time, I could give them $250 each and then another time I could give two other people $250 a piece. So I could buy votes that way.
I am just using that as an example.
If it is not a concern to the Members it is all right, but it just seems like it could easily buy votes for a candidate.
If it is okay with the rest of the Members, maybe it could stay that way.
I guess if you are just inviting two members to your meeting it might be considered a fraud, but one of the reasons that the amount was put in is in the past there was no amount.
There was no ceiling to it so it could be, instead of $500 it could be $1,000 or $1,500 per two-person meeting.
So, we felt that it was prudent to put an amount in.
That was the figure that we came up with during the MSB.
It was a starting point to see how it would work out, and also to get some feedback now from the Members if they don’t feel it is adequate or too much or too little.
It is really a policy issue at this point.
Mr. Chairman, in the past during elections, if you had three trips, let’s say that a Member was going to go from Igloolik to Hall Beach and it cost him $3,000.
The total amount he would spend on a campaign was $20,000 so everything was inclusive.
If you allow a Member who may have more opportunity for money than other Members to have prizes; so I could have a meeting on Wednesday night and have a $500 prize and then on Thursday night I could have another meeting and have a $500 prize and so on and so forth, whereas another Member may not have the fiscal opportunity to do that.
So that would be the concern.
I believe we discussed this a little bit at the Caucus meeting earlier in the week, Mr. Chairman.
I would suggest to the Speaker that we look at an opportunity that could put a ceiling on it and say that four prizes during a 35-day campaign, the most you could have was $3,000 or $2,000 or something.
Once you allow per meeting an amount, then there is an opportunity for people who have the fiscal ability to have quite a few different types of prizes.
That may be unfair to the candidate who does not have that fiscal ability.
I think that is why you would want to be able to have a limit placed on that.
Once again, when these numbers were put together it was to try to put some type of a ceiling on it.
Again, if it is the wish of the Members, that is why we are here to discuss this, if they want the amount changed or the number of, as Mr. Picco said, the number of prizes per week or per day or per month during the election period, if he is suggesting we modify that well he can put that forward and the rest of the Members can have their say.
Mr. Picco, anything else?
If there are going to be prizes or gifts, this is not Nunavummiut’s culture and it is not their tradition.
Perhaps the others, like other candidates may have gifts or prizes during their campaign but I think I can say that in Nunavut not all Nunavummiut have the money because we do provide income support programs for the residents of Nunavut.
Anyone who would like to run should be able to have that opportunity.
I know that not all the candidates are going to have lots of money in their pockets.
Anyone who does not even have money in their pockets should be able to have the right to run.
Anyone who has the money for gifts and prizes, I would rather see them as being fraudulent.
We should make it equal to all the Nunavut residents.
Also, in buying votes from the public, when the candidate buys votes from the public, when he does that in that certain way he could just buy votes.
When he or she is elected they might not be able to represent the people well.
I would not like to see that.
I would not want to see gifts or prizes, but yes I would like to see us paying for our plane tickets to travel around during our campaign.
I think the campaign and the candidates should not be giving out gifts or prizes.
I would like to see that section deleted off.
Just in reference to David’s comments, I guess it is the decision of the group here, whether it be a lower amount given out in prizes or the number of times it could be done during the election period.
I guess that is the decision we have to make, or none at all.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. .
Mr. Iqaqrialu, did you have any further comments?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding.
I would like to be clear and I would like to have, maybe I am getting confused.
I am not talking about the candidates’ fee of $200, I am talking about when I was campaigning and no one supported me or helped me, I had to do it myself.
I had no money and I had to travel around.
It is better that way, to go that way.
That $200 fee is okay, but in buying votes from the public, when the candidate buys votes, I don’t like that part.
That is what I am leery about.
I am sure it is going to be painful to the residents of Nunavut.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): I just wanted to get clarification from Mr. Iqaqrialu that the gift and prizes provided at a meeting is not in the tradition.
I did not quite understand him, if he could elaborate himself further.
Like, when HTO’s hold their meetings, they provide tea, coffee and whatnot.
I think that is the usual procedure so that we can please the people and also we hand out door prizes during the election.
That is what it is talking about.
What is Inuit tradition; if he could elaborate that to me?
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Iqaqrialu, please clarify yourself. Mr. Iqaqrialu.
What James is talking about, purchasing coffee, teas and cookies is not part of Inuit tradition.
Our tradition is that if we catch a seal we invite people and feed them.
We do not pay for those, because I myself, I could not even afford to buy beverages and snacks during my campaign.
I could not even afford prizes or gifts when I was running.
I just paid my $200 fee.
That is the only money I could afford.
I am sure it is going to be a lot like that, there are going to be many people like that in Nunavut but down south it is totally different and they have lots of money and that is where it came from.
This Nunavut culture is what I am trying to clarify; what Nunavut culture is.
If that is part of it, I know that if they want to keep that in it would not be a barrier but I sure it is going to be creating problems for the future candidates.
Chairperson (interpretation): I just want to warn the Members here, please keep to the topic of Bill 14 so that we can understand.
Please try to keep to the topic of Bill 14.
I don’t know what’s wrong with me, it seems like it is Inuit culture when you are not even running, when you welcome people.
For example, we are here in Pangnirtung, every time we come into people’s homes they offer us tea and something to eat, even when we are not running, because that is the Inuit way of life, to welcome people.
To offer your things and offer your meat, because this is to provide snacks and whatnot, that is part of our way of life when we go visiting to the homes of people.
I think he responded to you.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): What Mr. Arvaluk was saying is self-explanatory, I was just going to state that.
This is not just for us Members here; it is not just for our culture.
It is better to keep that for the future.
Let’s try to keep in mind about the future voters because although we have found out that some rich candidates give gifts and prizes and sometimes feed the people by buying food and tea and whatnot, but this section is not just for us Members.
It applies to the future candidates.
If we could at least consider the future candidates.
The question I have, in English.
(interpretation ends) When you say “a meeting” do you mean a meeting with one individual in some cases?
Do you mean a meeting through a radio station?
Do you mean a meeting in a community hall or in a taxi?
The way the bill is drafted is there is a rule against trying to influence voters.
So there is a general rule that says you cannot use money, gifts, food, and liquor to influence voters.
That is a general principle.
Then it says, if you have a meeting of voters, and that would have to be more than one, if only two show up you may have other problems, but the rule is, my understanding is there was a practice to give door prizes at these meetings.
So to say that you could not give anything away at a meeting other than light refreshments would conflict with what was happening now.
So the provision is that if you do have a door prize, that door prize at that meeting of voters cannot exceed $500.
My question is, and I have heard so many people saying, there has been Members that got in by buying groceries and buying tea bags and bribing people and stuff like that.
If they are being bribed, do they go and complain to an elections officer and then an elections officer says, “That is not proper.”
Who is policing these people, because it does happen and it has happened.
I didn’t do it though.
Chairperson (interpretation): Who is going to respond to that?
Ms. Kusugak: Both myself and Patrick will, if it is okay with Mr. Speaker.
I think the first thing is that complaints obviously have to be substantial and substantiated.
People have to be willing to stand by them.
I have been working around elections to know that sometimes it amounts to “he said, she said” and sometimes people do not really want to formally commit to what has happened.
You have to determine, I think, that the complaint was a serious one and not frivolous, and at which point we have a whole procedure for following up on complaints that would involve police investigating to see if this has actually happened.
Mr. Orr might like to add to that if it is okay with Mr. Speaker.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Kusugak.
This bill provides for enforcement by the police.
There are no special investigators established for this, although complaints can be made either directly to the police or they can be made to the Chief Electoral Officer who would then refer them to the police for investigation.
As was mentioned in the Speaker’s opening remarks, we do have provisions for alternate ways of dealing with offences other than prosecution but the responsibility for actually looking into the evidence and the allegations of an offence would fall to the police.
Mr Ng..