EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I would like to ask the minister: does the federal government provide funding to pay for these costs for the immigrants?
There is about $300,000 available to the Government of Nunavut for the process of helping facilitate immigration to the territory and the settlement of staying when we use that.
We haven’t drawn down on the monies specifically through the provincial nomination program because we’re still in the process at the jurisdiction of working with the federal government on having a provincial nomination program in place for the territory.
I think either last year or the year before we had nurses in training who came to our community to help Nunavut, but my question is: to date, how many nurses have immigrated to Canada?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. (interpretation ends) Minister responsible for Multiculturalism, Homelessness, and Immigration, Minister Picco.
As I said earlier, the process that we use to bring in nurses and other professionals, what we do there is we target certain sectors of the economy where we need these specialist people, in this case nurses, and in other cases it could be a doctor, it could be an epidemiologist.
In those cases, Mr. Speaker, what we attempt to do is identify those people.  They have to pass the registration to practice their profession in Canada itself and they don’t necessarily actually apply for immigration status when they come in.
They come in under a work permit.
Your final supplementary, Member for High Arctic, Mr. Barnabas.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We see through the media that in all of Canada we have a shortage of health professionals, nursing professionals, and doctors.
For Nunavut, we already know we have a shortage of nurses and doctors.
So what is the problem in Nunavut for that?
Like any other jurisdiction in Canada, we’ve seen a real shortage of different positions, in this case, the medical professionals of nurses and so on.
We did do recruitment in Australia that the member may remember, early in the life of the first government, and we were able to follow up on that success with bringing about 22 other nursing professionals to the territory over the last several months.
However, Mr. Speaker, when people want to come to Canada, Canada looks at the overall policy for us when we look at immigration, that’s a federal jurisdiction.
What the Government of Nunavut can do as a provincial and territorial government, we can have a nomination program in place where we try to bring in specific categories of employees, and that’s what we’ve been working on.
At the same time, we’re also working with the federal minister and signing off on a provincial nomination program as a jurisdiction so that we can access some more federal dollars, but at the same time, identify some of those skill shortage positions that we are trying to bring in. That may be electricians, it could be plumbers or what have you.
It is not solely for health but it would be across a whole spectrum of employment opportunities or occupations.
Members, you will note that Question Period is now over.
I would like unanimous consent with my colleagues to go back to Item 5.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. The member is seeking unanimous consent to go back to Item 5.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to acknowledge and also thank our Sergeant-at-Arms who came from Igloolik. Today is his last day.
He wasn’t told that we start Friday morning at ten o’clock, so I apologize.
I would like to thank him again for being with us for a whole week, so I would like to acknowledge him.
I also would like to thank our replacement Sergeant-at-Arms this morning.
I’m sorry. Mr. Curley.
Committee Report on Bills 002 – 2(4): Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development: Report on the Review of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Local Authorities Elections Act (Curley)
I do have a report, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting a brief report by the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development on its review of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Local Authorities Elections Act.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 5 was introduced earlier this year by the Minister of Community and Government Services.
The bill was referred to the standing committee for scrutiny following its second reading in the House.
The bill proposes to amend legislation governing the election of members to local authorities, including municipal councils and District Education Authorities.
Mr. Speaker, after its referral to the standing committee, a call for public submissions on the proposed legislation was issued.
The standing committee also wrote directly to a number of key stakeholders to solicit comment on the bill, including the Chief Electoral Officer, Mayors, Chairs of District Education Authorities and the Nunavut Association of Municipalities.
During its scrutiny of the proposed legislation, the standing committee identified a number of specific issues of concern.
Mr. Speaker, these included candidate eligibility, dispute resolution mechanisms with respect to debts owing to a municipality and the filling of vacancies on local authorities.
The standing committee was pleased with the minister’s willingness to work with members in addressing these issues.
The standing committee considered a number of potential amendments to Bill 5.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, the Nunavut Elections Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly in 2002.
This completely new piece of legislation replaced the old Elections Act which was inherited upon division in 1999.
Experience has clearly demonstrated the value of this undertaking.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that work is presently underway by Elections Nunavut to bring forward a new, made-in-Nunavut Plebiscite Act.
Mr. Speaker, as you will also recall, the First Assembly gave careful consideration to the concept of harmonizing the administration of Nunavut’s elections at both the territorial and municipal level.
This issue was reviewed at our Full Caucus Retreat in the fall of 2004.
Mr. Speaker, after giving careful consideration to these issues, and after carefully reviewing the submission provided by the Chief Electoral Officer, the standing committee is of the view that the most preferable course of action would be for the minister to bring forward a new piece of legislation to govern the election of members to local authorities, rather than simply amending the existing and outdated statute.
This course of action would allow for the harmonization of Nunavut’s three primary pieces of elections-related legislation: the Nunavut Elections Act, the Local Authorities Elections Act and the Plebiscite Act.
This will provide a firm foundation for the future, and the standing committee is confident that this work can be accomplished in a reasonable period of time.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the standing committee recommends that Bill 5 proceed no further in the legislative process and be allowed to fall off the order paper.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to clearly state for the public record that the standing committee is pleased with the collegial way in which the minister has worked with the standing committee, as well as her officials, Mr. Speaker.
We are confident that the course of action proposed by the standing committee will lead to a positive result for all Nunavummiut.
With that, I move that the Report of the Standing Committee be received by this House.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) Do members agree that the report be received by the House?
Speaker: Thank you. (interpretation) Item 12.
Tabled Document 139 – 2(4): Court Order (Nunavut Court of Justice) NBDC Inc. and Qulliq Energy Corporation, October 9, 2007 (Peterson)
I’m pleased to table the court order filed October 26, 2007 in the Nunavut Court of Justice for the dispute between the Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation and the Qulliq Energy Corporation.  I note that Qulliq Energy Corporation has been ordered to pay all NBDC’s costs.
I urge all members to read the court order. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
(interpretation) Item 13. Tabling of Documents.
Tabled Document 140 – 2(4): Procurement Contracting Activity Report for Legislative Assembly of Nunavut 2006-2007 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 141 – 2(4): Indemnities, Allowances and Expenses to the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, March 31, 2007 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 142 – 2(4): Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Fund Financial Statements March 31, 2007 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 143 – 2(4): Legislative Assembly Supplementary Retiring Allowances Fund Financial Statements March 31, 2007 (Speaker)
Members, I wish to table for today the Report of Contracting Activity for the Office of the Legislative Assembly for those contracts of a value greater than $5,000 for the fiscal year 2006-07.
Again, Honourable Members, pursuant to section 36 of the Legislative Assembly & Executive Council Act, I wish to table the report on the payment of the member indemnities, allowances and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.
Again, members, pursuant to section 21 (1) (b) (c) of the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, I wish to table today the audited financial statements of the Retiring Allowances Fund for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.
(interpretation) And again, members, (interpretation ends) pursuant to section 20 (b) of the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, I wish to table today the audited financial statements of the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Fund for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.
Bill 20 – Midwifery Profession Act – Notice
I give notice that on Monday, November 5, that Bill 20, Midwifery Profession Act, be read for the first time.
I apologize. I believe Mr. Picco had his hand up. Mr. Picco.
I was trying to direct attention to Item 15, which is Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills.
Speaker: Minister, I will allow you to proceed under Item 15.
Bill 21 – Education Act – Notice
I give notice that on Monday, November 5, 2007, that Bill 21, the Education Act, be read for the first time.
I request the consent of this Assembly to waive the two-day notice requirement to allow for first reading of Bill 14, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Simailak. The minister is requesting consent to deal with his motion today.
There are no Nays. Please proceed, Minister Simailak.
Bill 14 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – First Reading
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Colleagues.
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 14, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008, be read for the first time.
I request consent of this Assembly to waive the two-day notice requirement to allow for first reading of Bill 15, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2007-08.
The minister is requesting consent to deal with his motion today.
There are no nays. Please proceed, Minister Simailak.
Bill 15 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Amittuq that Bill 15, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 15 has had its first reading.
Item 17. First Reading of Bills. Item 18.
Second Reading of Bills. Minister Simailak.
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I request consent of this Assembly to waive the two-day notice requirement to allow for first reading of Bill 17, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2006-2007.
The minister is requesting consent to deal with his motion today. Are there any nays?
Bill 17 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2006-2007 – First Reading
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Nanulik, that Bill 17, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2006-2007, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 17 has had its second reading.
Item 18. Second Reading of Bills. Minister of Finance, Minister Simailak.
Bill 14 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 14, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes supplementary appropriations for the Government of Nunavut to defray capital expenses of the Government of Nunavut and reduces an appropriation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.
The motion is in order. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Question has been called.
The motion is carried and Bill 14 has had its second reading, and accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee.
Bill 15 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Amittuq, that Bill 15, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes supplementary appropriations for the Government of Nunavut and reduces two appropriations to defray the operations and maintenance expenses for the Government of Nunavut for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.
The motion is carried and Bill 15 has had its second reading, and accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee.
Bill 17 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2006-2007 – Second Reading
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Nanulik, that Bill 17, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2006-2007, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a supplementary appropriation for the Government of Nunavut to defray the operations and maintenance expenses of the Government of Nunavut for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.
The motion is carried and Bill 17 has had its second reading, and accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee.
Before we proceed, members, I would like to be given the opportunity at this time to welcome and recognize my wife, Rosie Kilabuk.
And sitting beside her, from my constituency of Pangnirtung, Vincent Pickett, welcome to the Gallery, and Sylvain Gabrielle, welcome to the Gallery.
Bill 14, Bill 15, Bill 16, and Bill 17 with Mr. Barnabas in the Chair.
Before we proceed with Committee of the Whole, we will take a lunch break and resume at one o’clock.
>>House recessed at 11:46 and Committee resumed at 13:04
Chairman (Mr. Barnabas)(interpretation): Good afternoon, my colleagues.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bill 14, Bill 15, Bill 16, and Bill 17.
We wish to continue with Bill 16 and the review of the Capital Estimates for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, followed by the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, and if time permits, the Department of Health and Social Services.
Are we agreed we continue with the Capital Estimates for Economic Development and Transportation?
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee – Economic Development & Transportation
Chairman (interpretation): I would like to ask Minister Simailak if he has witnesses he would like to bring to the table.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Yes, Mr. Chairman if they may come in.
Mr. Methuselah Kunuk is with me, and Deputy Minister Rosemary Keenainak is coming in a little bit later. She is a little bit late, Mr. Chairman.
We were on page K-8, so we will go to that page.
I still have Mr. Curley on my list.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister providing information to us on a number of projects, very importantly and particularly, the one related to the Nanisivik Airport/airstrip.
The committee was really quite clear in September that we would like the minister to provide us with the updated status of that once he has consulted with the federal government.
I was amazed yesterday, in spite of the fact in my opening comments I alluded to that issue, the information was not transparent but we almost skipped it, I suppose, and it came in through the back door kind of thing from one of the members asking something about an airport between Arctic Bay and Nanisivik.
I would like to ask the minister exactly whether or not he has any other information that he had not voluntarily presented yesterday, but he may have wanted today because his officials may have consulted with the National Defence people.
In particular, I would like some idea of whether or not the minister’s officials are discussing with the feds about what the timelines would be like for them to start operating or working on the deep sea port, and once you have a deep port for National Defence, you need other infrastructure, and if there are, what are they?
We have informed the Department of National Defence that we intend to close the Nanisivik Airport once the new airport at Arctic Bay is complete.
There was a meeting last September between the National Defense Nanisivik Scoping Group and several of our own government departments. At that time, DND said they did not foresee any need to keep the Nanisivik Airport operational.
At the moment DND is considering their need to keep the road between the Arctic Bay Airport and the port itself operational.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I appreciate the response, Mr. Chairman.
I would only ask the minister to keep the committee and the Assembly fully informed of the federal plans as they come in, so that Members of the Assembly that are adjacent to that area will no doubt want to raise some questions, once the federal government has announced their actual plans.
So would you commit to keeping us fully informed on information coming in from the feds?
Yes, we certainly will do that. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I would also add that the Committee on Infrastructure, CGS, and Economic Development be fully kept informed of those even through correspondence.
I also have one other question. I noted that you alluded to the Building Canada Fund, what the federal government is initiating with the other provinces, I suppose, as well as the Nunavut Territory.
Has the government or your department established a certain kind of criteria that will be used to determine eligibility to have projects funded?
The reason I asked that is because you alluded to the fact that maybe you could use part of that funding for existing projects.
My question and concern is: do you not agree there is always caution on that?
Do you not think that the policy should be established first before the programs or funding starts to be allocated to existing programs, or does such a policy exist?
As I mentioned a couple of times yesterday, we are in the process of drafting up our own priorities for that program.
We, as a department, with the Department of CGS, is the lead department on those discussions with the federal government on what the parameters will be of that money and that will continue.
So the policies are being developed and we will move forward as we finish up our negotiations with the federal government.
My question would then be: since the Building Canada Fund initiatives were mentioned yesterday, I would like to ask the minister responsible for that program, the Minister of CGS, that members will be fully informed of policy initiatives so that we fully understand, as MLAs or the committee, exactly which types of programs qualify, whether existing ones qualify, or if it’s for new initiatives.
I think it’s important that the Minister of CGS fully explain how the policy is being drafted.
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought that was a question to the Minister of CGS, Mr. Chairman.
Can he repeat his question please?
Please clarify your question, Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, my question was very clear and I think the Government Leader was interfering with the proceedings of this committee when I’m raising a point.
So I believe you can rephrase that question and present it to her.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Curley, I cannot speak for you, I’m sorry.
I would ask the Government Leader to not interfere with any of the work. Yesterday during the proceedings, all of you will recall, the question of the project that the federal government initiated and may be working on entering into an agreement, which is called the Building Canada Fund, was mentioned.
The minister alluded, in one of his... I’m not speaking for him, but he mentioned that maybe one of the projects could get some funding from the Building Canada Fund.
So my question was to the Minister of CGS. We are concerned that before the policy is drafted that you don’t start dipping into cookie jars like the Government Leader normally does with... no I’m not saying that, with the Crown corporations in our funding.
So if the guidelines are being developed by CGS, will the members of the committee have an opportunity to see these guidelines so that we will understand fully whether or not old projects qualify for that or is it for new initiatives mainly for Nunavut communities, instead of headquarters-related projects like departments?
Our time was stalled for a bit when Ms. Brown was trying to get clarification for the question.
Ms. Brown, I would like to ask if you have any answers to the questions. Ms. Brown.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Yes, I don’t fully understand the question.
I think Minister Picco wants to answer the question.
I don’t want to answer the question. The minister is fully capable of doing that.
What I do want to say is that the member is out of line on his statement not once but twice.
There should never be any type of allegation, although he tried to correct it, of anyone putting their hands in a supposed cookie jar. I resent that statement and I would like the member to officially, on the record, withdraw it. That’s not acceptable in the House.
Number two, when the member says I’m interfering with the minister, I was actually trying to help the minister with a question. There were no pages around to send a note to the person. So I physically got out of the chair and spoke to her.
As House Leader, I am entitled to do that as you are entitled to walk around the House and speak to people.
That’s not acceptable to make allegations of interference and so on.
So I would ask Mr. Chairman that you ask the member, and I’m sure the Hansard will back me up on my statement about the cookie jar and the interference in the proceedings of the House.
Mr. Curley, I would like to ask you to retract your statements. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: I will ask you the question: why should I do that?
I can sit here and quote the rules and regulations of the House, and all the members know the rules and regulations in the House, but we don’t make allegations about members.
In his case, the member, “…as the House Leader usually does have his hand in the cookie jar,” whatever that means.
I think the allegation is that... I don’t even want to go where he is making the allegation to.
So I would ask the member, in respecting the rules and traditions of our House, that he would respectfully withdraw that comment on the record.
Secondly, his comment of “interfering with the minister,” the minister has the opportunity, as any minister or member, to walk politely around the room. There were no pages. I tried to explain that there were no pages for anyone to give instructions to.
So I went to the minister to try to help with the question so that the member could get his answer.
To suggest in any way or any fashion that the House Leader is interfering with the process, it’s not only contradictory, it’s wrong.
So I would suggest to the member, possibly, he would follow our Rule 23(b) and withdraw that comment off the record.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Picco. (interpretation ends) For the record, are you raising a Point of Order? Minister Picco.