EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In light of the decision of the court this morning, this provision is now unconstitutional.
The second amendment is to section 4, which deals with determining residence of voters. Section 4, sub10, sets out the criteria for determining the residency of inmates.
Currently, the provision only refers to inmates in correctional institutions, which is interpreted as institutions operated by the territorial government for prisoners serving sentences of less than two years.
This provision will have to be expanded to include penal institutions, which is interpreted as meaning institutions run by the federal government for prisoners serving sentences of more than two years.
The regular inmate who’s serving a sentence outside of Nunavut, there right to vote in an election of members of the legislative assembly of Nunavut will now be turned by the general provisions relating to residency.
I’m advised that the Minister of Justice will be bringing the appropriate motions to amend the bill once the balance of the Bill has been considered by the committee.
Chairperson: (interpretation): Thank you, Sue.
When we were going clause by clause yesterday, we’ll just continue on from the clause we left off yesterday.
We went as far as clause 119, agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 120. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 121. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 122. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 123. Agreed?
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Chairperson, the whole idea of proxy voting, and if memory serves me correct from the consultations that we did, and some of the presentations in meetings that we had, prior to one the committee had.
One of the concerns that were raised was the abuse of proxy voting and I’d like to just ask someone to explain how those issues might’ve been, how they’ve been addressed, in this piece of legislation.
Ms. Kusugak
Ms. Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Yes, it’s certainly a concern across Canada, the abuse of proxy voting, so the restrictions here have been tightened up.
We continue to allow it for people who are unexpectedly taken away from home, particularly people who go to hospitals that would be our major users.
Also, people who are must, you know, all of a sudden go to a meeting, miss the advanced poll, that’s such a big mistake.
They don’t have any possibilities.
The restrictions around this are tight.
You can, a person can be a proxy voter for only one person.
The applications themselves are numbered, they’re signed, they must be signed by the returning officer, they must be completed by the person who wishes to have somebody to vote in their place, and signed, etcetera.
So, there is no longer the abuse possible, it happened years ago not in our jurisdictions.
But, where many people would be signed up, would just sign their name at the bottom of the page and other people would vote for them and they would come along and say, gee, I didn’t know somebody was voting on my behalf.
So it’s very tight now, but it still is there for people that need it and I think it serves the purpose.
Clause 123 agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 124.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
So we will have one proxy vote form and another form is called a certificate.
Then there will be two forms there.
Is that what the Speaker is saying?
Ms. Kusugak: It can be one piece of paper that is applied for, and signed by the people as they need to do so.
And can be faxed, you know, that of course is the situation that people find themselves in when they’re away at a, waiting to go into a hospital for a medical appointment, etcetera, probably.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Arvaluk?
Mr. Arvaluk: This proxy voting is also the same as any race, as any election that the name of the proxy voter is his name or her name picked up from the list.
Is that’s how it is?
Ms. Kusugak: Yes, that is correct.
Clause 124.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 125.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 126.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 127, Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 128.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 129.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 130.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 131, Agreed?
Mr. Arvaluk: Mr. Chairperson, on the clause 131, I think it’s the rejection of ballots, okay.
You have these agents, candidates’ agents who are present at the counting of the ballots.
How do you determine whether the ballot is spoiled and to say, anybody for example, if a person marks an X beside and somebody should inadvertently tick the paper way somewhere else from that X, is that considered good or do you have guidelines as to when everybody can agree that this ballot is spoiled?
Ms Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are standards for accepting and rejecting ballots and these are forms that are sent to all election officials that give them examples of ballots that are good and ballots that are not.
Clearly there are sometimes ones where people have to make a decision, it’s a subjective thing. But you know our elections officials are taught too that it’s not a contest to see, to make sure that somebody never, part of their X never goes out of the circle.
It’s that clearly it must be in the circle, done in a generally excepted way and not identify the voter in any way.
Mr. Arvaluk, anything more?
Clause 131.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause. 132 Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 133.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 134.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 135.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 136.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 137.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 138.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 139.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 140.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 141.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 143, I’m sorry, Clause 142.
Chairperson (interpretation): I flipped two pages together, Clause 143.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 144.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): I’m sorry, going back to Clause 144, I have a comment on 143 that I want clarification on.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Iqaqrialu would like to go back.
Chairperson (interpretation): Proceed to Clause 143.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
Under 4, it states that the candidate has to pay 250 to a judge for the challenge of a recount.
I just want clarification as to exactly what it means Thank you.
Ms. Orr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a deposit that’s required by a voter who wants to challenge and election by having a recount.
If a voter wants to apply to a judge separately for a recount they have to put a deposit of 250 dollars in case there is a cause for the candidate to challenge it.
Clause 144.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 145.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 146.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 147.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 148.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 149.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 150.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 151.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 152.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 153.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 154.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 155.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 156.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 157, Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 158.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 159.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 160.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 161.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 162, Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 163, Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 164.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 165.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 166.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 167.
Chairperson (interpretation) Clause 168. Agreed?
I don’t understand this, prohibition on making contributions.
I think I’m going to need a lawyer for me to get that answer.
Are you saying that you have 35 days before the election that no one in Nunavut, individual or corporation, can contribute towards an election unless Canada has to clear that he’s going to run or she’s going to run before that you cannot do any fund-raising what so ever, is that how it reads.
Ms. Kusugak: Yes, Mr. Chairman that’s true because of course, there is nothing in terms of accountability.
We do not actually have candidates until the nomination period has started and so there is nothing to account for any expenditure of funds, if somebody decided not to run in the end.
Perhaps, is that explanation clear?
If you find it still confusing maybe Mr. Orr can make it clearer.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Arvaluk do you have another question?
Mr. Arvaluk: On the same question, I’m just thinking for those who have four communities, three communities, or two communities, have to start, have only 35 days, you have to do some fund-raising somewhere in order to fly over to the next community or communities when you have already decided that your going to run in the next election.
In this section it seem like you can’t start accepting contributions towards your election until such time that it is being . . . How do you budget for the next 35 days what you will be able to afford in terms of campaign or traveling to other communities until you are allowed to received contribution within those 35 days.
That’s my concern.
Ms. Kusugak: Well perhaps Mr. Orr can explain it better.
It’s the same as it has been Mr. Chairman, I guess you would have nothing to issue official receipts against, there would be no accountability if anything else were to happen.
Because there would be nothing to hold that person to actually being a candidate to actually running in that election and it’s I think for the protection of the general public that this is the case.
Perhaps Mr. Orr can explain it better.
Chairperson (interpretation): Koanaqutit Ms. Kusugak.
Could you please clarify it.. Mr. Orr.
There are of course two sides to this issue.
The first is accepting contributions and the other is making expenditures.
During the period before a candidate is officially nominated they are, they could be a Member of Legislative Assembly or not.
But they have no official right as a candidate, so it’s only when their nomination is accepted or at least when the writ is dropped that the clock starts ticking on this.
Of course they can spend money in the pre-election period they are allowed the limit on spending goes into the pre-election period from the date the election is publicly announced even if that is before the writ is actually issued.
But for accepting contributions they have to be an official candidate, so they would have to arrange some kind of financing for that pre-election period if they wanted to spend money in that time.
Let’s not think about spending.
Let’s not, you know, I find it ironic, I find it funny because in a consensus government without party system that anybody who pays 200 dollars, does not owe income taxes or eligible under the in consideration section and pays 200 can run.
That’s how we get six or seven candidates in a population of 700 people which is good, people need choices.
But in political parties you don’t know if you are going to get nominated or not but in consensus government you know you are going to get nominated because you only require 15 people, 15 signatures.
And that’s very, very, very easy to get.
I guess what I’m interested is the exorbitant cost of trying to go from let’s say Cape Dorset and Kimmirut, okay, you have to fly to Iqaluit and then down to Kimmirut and back again.
And if you cannot start accepting contributions, with, you know, before the election announcements, or when the nominations will actually open then there is no way to know what you will be able to afford in terms of campaigning trips.
You know, try the high.
Arctic Bay and Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay and I’m have only have 35 days only to start not knowing how am I going to get to those communities; when you are in Iqaluit that’s fine.
Isn’t that a bit unfair on the part of those candidates who have three or more communities?
I just want to know if the corporation or the company don’t mind getting an official receipt until the nominations open but knowing that you will be a candidate who wants to help you at least to start planning the budget, real campaign can or will still be allowed.
For example, open an account, an election account where you start keeping the books without actually giving the receipt to corporation or individuals who you will tell that sorry I’m not accountable right now but if you want to commit five thousand dollars we’ll take it but we cannot give you receipts.
Will that be considered improper in the eyes of this section?
Mr. Chairman the, what we are seeing here in this legislation is the same as it what was in the last legislation.
It has not changed and I know in the past that when members were getting ready to run there are costs that you have to absorb yourself, you know, I’ve seen other Ministers or members rather take loans out or borrow money whatever else to get started.
Prior to 1997 there were no rules in place, no announced or no dates set, so, but this is the same as it was in 1997 in the last two elections.
I’m not sure if that helps you any Mr. Arvaluk but things have not changed in the last five or six years.
Because I know that, that’s what concerns me.
In the last election I think most of us had to scramble, you know, try to convince the airlines, like in Kivalliq, Skyward and Kivalliq Air, I have no time at all to contribute or at least fundraise for travel between Coral Harbour and Chesterfield Inlet, you know, would you be kind enough to give me a ride or something while you charter.
I mean I don’t think that should be the case.
I think we should be allowed to do some fundraising way before the nominations are open so that you can prepare, at least be able to tell Grise Fiord people that I will be coming or whoever the candidate is for that area that he will be coming.
Or at least be able to Kimmirut that we’ll be coming, we’ll be you know producing this and that, that kind of thing.
And it doesn’t have to be done now Mr. Chairman, it’s just that it’s something that I think will have to be looked at sometime in the future.
Because if you look at other jurisdictions who have party systems, they do it way before, they have what they call a Liberal Party Association and they do fundraising all the time, $100 a plate or $50 a plate fundraising all the time.
Here this section is saying we can’t like other Canadians.
Chairperson (interpretation): Koanaqutit, Uqaqti.
I think the member brings up a reasonable point and again we are just here to explain what’s in front of us and if members feel that they’d like to make changes, that’s up to them or if they feel it can wait for another time this document can be amended at any time now or in the future.
I have names here and they have to go in order, so wait for a bit.
This is regarding the contributions limit to candidates for an election.
Today the costs of the airlines are ever increasing and already quite expensive.
Just using my constituency as an example, if I were to try and get to my community, it would cost over 2 thousand dollars to get there and back.
That’s the way it is today.
But what I wanted to say is, for those of us who are in the smaller communities and let’s say six of us wanted to run for the position or let’s say four of us.
Even then, the list of people who sign the nomination paper would disappear very fast so it wouldn’t be appropriate if the time limit was shortened.
These are the types of situations that occur within these processes and the contributions are harder to come by in the smaller communities and to try and raise it is more difficult as well.
That’s going to be a problem in our smaller communities and number of the corporations available for donations are limited as well.
The government has set up the process this way and it seems they are punishing the candidates, perhaps they have not tried to have this outcome, but that’s the way it is unfortunately.
If this is going to pose a problem, I think it should be corrected within the next five year, especially referring to the contribution limit for candidates.
Perhaps this could be clarified further.
Chairperson (interpretation): Point of order.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order to state.
This insinuation is against the government, I wanted to point out that the legislation was not set by this government, this is a piece of law that we are trying to enact, this legislation is for all of us, not just the government.
I just wanted to point out this fact to my colleague as I am part of the government; I don’t want to be blamed.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you for answered me right away.
My statement which I mentioned was in regards to the elections act so if I could get an answer regarding my questions about the issue, I’d be happy.
Chairperson (interpretation): One of you, could you please raise your hand because there are three of you.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, we are going to ask the member if he would try and clarify his question so that we can try and provide an answer.
As I mentioned earlier in smaller communities, it is very hard to come by contributions for a candidacy in the smaller communities.
For me, it was very difficult because I did not even get one dollar.
That goes to show you how hard it is for a candidate to get contributions in the smaller communities.
Let us suppose that there were a number of candidates whether it’s four or six, it would not be possible to get contributions if we follow the process according to what is written here.
In Nunavut although that does happen, are we going to recognize that?
Ms. Kusugak: If we’re still talking about gathering funds prior to the election period, then I guess I think my answer is still the same, Mr. Chairman.
If there are not actually nominated candidates, then I think my answer is still the same Mr. Chairman. If there are not actually nominated candidates there is nothing to hold, nobody to hold accountable for those funds and the voters and the public are generally unprotected at that point.
I can see that it is difficult for people to raise funds within that period of time during the election.
As the Speaker said there is nothing to prevent a person from spending their own funds or perhaps taking out a loan in the pre-election period as long as the entire spending does not exceed the 30 thousand dollars.
I believe that in the party system that exists in other places, there is ongoing monitoring of parties and parties exist over a long period of time.
So it’s difficult to equate the two situations and provide the level of protection for the general public about this spending that occurs.
If, I believe if we were to change this, there is nothing to say if somebody believes they will be a candidate and then changes their mind at the, before the election period, they have received donations from corporations or from people in good faith and you did not have, you know, there is not an accountability for that.
I can understand the difficulty, but I don’t see that we have a mechanism for resolving it both ways, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): I believe our legal counsel wanted to mention something else.
Mr. Orr: One other matter Mr. Chairman.
Of course if a candidate, if a person proposes to the public that they are seeking election as a candidate before the writ is dropped, there is no obligation on them to run, it is only when the nomination papers are actually accepted that they are officially a candidate.
So, I think what Ms. Kusugak was saying is in that other period, there is no protection for the fact that you might be giving money to someone who says they will run but there is no obligation on them to run.
So if we wanted to fix the problem of a lack of a party system here that would be a fairly complex provision that should be perhaps thought in greater detail.
Thank you for clarifying the matter.
I know that we will have to amend this later on in our future and it is something we should address.
I’ve seen this Act, I looked at it at that time and it didn’t pertain to me that much.
I would like to know where this Bill was drafted.
Which one of you, Ms. Kusugak.
Oh, did you raise your hand? Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, I believe that’s more of a comment from the member in reference to the fact that he realizes that this could be changed in the future in the next four or five or six years.
So, we don’t have an answer for that.
Mr. Chairman on 168 (3), it talks about contributions to a candidate.
In there, it states where a corporation carrying on business in Nunavut, how do you define that.
Does it mean that they have a physical presence in Nunavut or do they just have to be doing some work here you know, do business here without having any physical presence.
So I’m just wondering if there are any guidelines around that.
The phrase; “carry on business in Nunavut” is something that appears in other legislation of Nunavut, particularly the legal registries and there was an obligation for businesses that carry on business in the territory to register with the registries office.
So, there is a mechanism already in place for identifying these companies.
This is fairly well established, meaning that they have got to have the commercial activity going on here, although they may not actually have to have an office here per se, but they are actually doing business here.
Mr. Chairman, also under 168 (4) it talks about group contributions and I’m just wondering if, I don’t recall if this something new or if it was in there before.
And if it was new, how come it was added in?
My understanding is, this is the same as section 168 (4) it is a coincidence that it is exactly the same number as the previous Act.
It just worked out that way by coincidence, but it is the same that is what is in there at the moment.
So there’s no change on this point.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Qujannamiik.
I don’t agree with the two of them, with the two MLAs here about collecting contributions while still in office.
If you are going to be accepting contributions prior to leaving office, if the situation remains the same, to cite this example, we are Ministers and it is only when the new MLAs have been elected and sworn in, that we would be replaced.
I think we have to protect those who may want to give contributions.
To use as an example, the limit can be 30 thousand dollars.
If I were given 20 thousand dollars and I didn’t use them for my campaign, but I use it for a vacation instead which would be embezzlement but the contribution funds copy has been forwarded to the electoral office, then person who had given that contribution would have no recourse to get the contribution back as it would already be filed with the election papers.
I do not think that a candidate should be benefiting from their present office and that I don’t agree with collecting contributions prior to becoming a candidate.
I don’t hear any questions.
Mr. Chairman, on 168 (3) and (4), as raised by Mr. Tootoo and the earlier question from Mr. Iqaqrialu, I wonder if the Speaker you know, he’s gone through this a couple of times in elections.
I wonder, does he have an opinion on 168 (3 ) and (4) and indeed that the legal registry should be the modus operandi as it were for allowing the corporation to be based in Nunavut if that’s for elections.
So I wonder if the Speaker could give us his feeling, you know, having gone through it a couple of times he has a good feel for that and as the guy that is introducing the Bill.
Chairperson: Koanaqutit.
Uqaqtii.
In regards to 168 (3), I have a comment to make under this clause.
Why this subsection is put here, it’s not really a question, although I suppose it can be taken as such.
Prior to our government and the elections for the MLAs, if somebody was going to be making a 3 year contract for transportation, whether it would be by airline or ship, the company could make a large contribution to a candidate using this sub-section.
And then in turn, after the elections and if the individual was successful they would, in turn, support that corporation that made a huge contribution.