EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
When we have the occasion to meet with our MP for Nunavut, as well as with the Primer Minister of Canada, we continually reiterate the facts of the high cost of doing business. In English (interpretation ends) Cost of doing business.
(interpretation) These costs are quite high, especially the prices of healthy foods and we try to convey that message at every opportunity we get. We will continue to pound that message to them, and this practice will not be stopped. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question 582 – 3(3): Abandoned MOT Building in Coral Harbour (Ningeongan)
As the minister is well aware, there is an old MOT building situated in our community of Coral Harbour near the vicinity of the community airstrip. We have been informed that this building has toxic compounds such as lead paint and asbestos, at least based on the findings to date.
Last year, I believe the hamlet set aside some land towards this project, namely to place the non-toxic materials in a landfill site and bury it. I would like to ask the minister whether or not funding has been allocated towards completing the cleanup and to urge his department to continue to work on the cleanup as toxic compounds such as lead paints and asbestos.
I would like to know whether or not this project has received funding towards the destruction, cleanup and completion of this project?
Minister responsible for Department of Economic Development and Transportation, Minister Taptuna.
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member for that question. Mr. Speaker, the old MOT garage that is sitting outside the airport of Coral Harbour has been evaluated, analyzed, and there’s a proper disposal approved for disposal within the outskirts of the airport there.
Mr. Speaker, that work is going to be dealt with this summer and we intend to complete the project before next winter.
Can the minister, due to the critical importance of communication when it relates to these types of projects in our communities, when the plans have been finalized and the dates set inform me as well as the Coral Harbour hamlet council about the proposed plans for this project as well as the dates scheduled for the demolition this summer?
Yes, we will keep the community and the MLA informed of the progress and status of the project. Mr. Speaker, the work started last year for a site to dispose of the material and that work has been completed.
This summer, the demolishment of the infrastructure, the building there, will be completed. We’ve had assistance from CGS. We worked together on this to make sure that the demolition of the hazardous materials were handled properly and that will be done this summer.
Question 583 – 3(3): Federal Bill C-10 and its Implications for Nunavummiut (Elliott)
On October 24, 2011, I first asked questions of the department on the implications of the new federal legislation on crime, Bill C-10, more commonly known as the tough-on-crimes legislation. In earlier responses, the minister had noted that the new legislation will have a significant impact on the number of individuals who will be required to spend time incarcerated.
Can the minister advise the House what steps he and his officials have taken to analyze the financial impact the new legislation may have on the cost of providing correctional services in Nunavut?
Mr. Speaker, there’s no question that Bill C-10 is going to have an impact on crime rates or our correctional facilities and inmates arriving in our correctional facilities in Nunavut.
We estimate that there will be an increase of approximately 25 percent over 20 years, so it will have effects. As far as economic effects, this has not been analyzed fully yet.
Nunavut’s correctional system also includes such programs as on-the-land camps. Can the minister update the House on how the proposed new federal legislation will impact the delivery of important programs such as on-the-land camps?
On-the-land camps are a very good way for rehabilitation for inmates that we have in Nunavut.
There are a few that are being operated. We would like to see more being operated and are open to proposals for that to happen. As far as the effect of Bill C-10 on those camps, it will have very little effect because we’re talking about mandatory minimum sentences that will be going into our facilities.
Can the minister describe what supportive and rehabilitative programs are currently offered within the correction system and whether these programs will be able to continue with the anticipated increase in the number of Nunavut inmates?
I can supply that very detailed list of programs that are offered in our corrections facilities within Nunavut. Many inmates are victims of crime, as well as many victims of crime that we have in our communities. It is a very sad state that we have those victims.
We do have programs, I would just like to say at this time, that assist our victims of crime in communities to allow community justice committees to access programs to offer to rehabilitate victims of crime. We also have a program for victims of crime that will enhance their capability and give them funding to travel to criminal trials that might take place. We are always trying to enable rehabilitation of inmates, and that will continue, Mr. Speaker.
If an individual or an organization would like to offer on-the-land camps across the territory for individuals, who would they contact within your department?
If anybody is interested in offering programs on on-the-land camps, the contract person would be the Director of Corrections, Mr. J.P. Deroy. Even if you are interested, I am not sure if you have the proper infrastructure in place, he would be the man to contact to help you out.
Question 584 – 3(3): Training for Local Radio Operators (Ningark)
I forgot to ask a question a while ago, perhaps due to my old age. This is for the Minister of Community and Government Services.
I forgot to ask the minister during my question period about the local community announcers. Is it going to be that the radio announcers have to take a mandatory course? This is for the Minister of Community and Government Services.
The course that is going to be taken for the radio announcers in the communities will start in September.
At present, they are working with my department, and they will be outlining the courses to be taken by those radio announcers in the communities.
They will learn what they can and cannot say on the radio. This is going to be a very important course, and the radio announcers that are going to be taking the course, the people they are looking for to take the training is being done by the hamlets.
The hamlets are the ones who have the radio stations, and they are the ones who decide who they are going to hire.
The hamlets are always looking for somebody that is capable to do radio announcements, so there will probably be different courses that they will have to take.
This is going to be very important for the radio announcers because they have to follow the rules of the CRTC.
I am pretty sure that the CRTC will probably give out what kinds of courses that they will have to take. Is that going to be the case?
The announcers will be employees of the local hamlets and each hamlet will decide on the selection of their radio announcers, whether they wanted a trained individual or someone who has never operated a radio station.
Each hamlet has the authority to hire their own employees and we aren’t mandated to oversee these operational issues by dictating who they can hire as a radio announcer.
The hamlets, when looking for local radio announcers will have the discretion to hire who they prefer, whether that is a trained individual or not.
Once they have hired the announcers, I assume they would offer the training as it will now be available in the future for this need.
The hamlets will make their own choices on the selection of radio announcers, including the requisite training they may need.
I don’t like to refer to what I hear in the papers in the House because they don’t run our agenda. (interpretation) However, I noted as I read the papers that this course will be mandatory for all radio announcers as this was brought up at the Baffin Mayors Summit, and I believe a resolution was passed to this effect.
I thank them for their foresight as the course will be mandatory for radio announcers at the local level.
I am unsure whether this is true or not, but based on what I read, I thought it was to be a mandatory requisite for all radio announcers.
This course is indeed a real course, based on previous complaints to the CRTC, as they are the body that the public can send their complaints to. If you are unhappy with anything you hear on the air, or on a radio program, then CRTC is where you submit those complaints.
The complaints have been increasing with more listeners sending complaints to CRTC about radio announcements.
Based on these complaints, the MTO developed a course, in partnership with the Department of Culture, with our department as well as the CRTC and CBC and the communities on a specific course outlining proper protocol when announcing matters in the local radio stations.
This is scheduled to start in September, with the first participants taking the course for local radio announcers.
However, the hamlets are ultimately responsible for these decisions.
(interpretation ends) The hamlet has the final say on who they choose to be their community radio operator. What qualifications they look for, that’s their prerogative and it will remain so. The hamlets decide who they want to hire in any of their positions and it will be up to the hamlets whom they choose to hire.
One with or without radio training, that’s still up to the municipalities.
Question 585 – 3(3): Open Government (Elliott)
One of the seven guiding principles of Tamapta is Tunnganarniq, which is described as “fostering good spirit by being open, welcoming and inclusive.”
Can the Premier confirm if the Government of Nunavut still supports this principle?
The Nunavut government supports and has total faith in all of these principles listed in the Tamapta mandate. (interpretation ends) The Government of Nunavut supports all of the principles.
Some communities are represented in the Legislative Assembly by MLAs who are ministers and some communities are represented in the Legislative Assembly by MLAs who are not ministers.
In a case where a community is represented in the Legislative Assembly by an MLA who serves as a minister, are Government of Nunavut employees permitted to raise concerns directly with their own elected MLA, yes or no?
The ministers represent their community even though they are ministers and they talk with their fellow ministers in regard to the concerns of the people out there who are their constituents.
I am pleased to hear the Premier confirm that the Government of Nunavut is committed to openness and transparency, and I am pleased to hear that the government understands the role of all 19 Members of the Legislative Assembly.
Given this commitment, can the Premier explain exactly why a number of my constituents who are employed by the government have received instructions from their department headquarters that they are no longer permitted to communicate with their elected Member of the Legislative Assembly?
The Government of Nunavut always believes in communication.
I do not know what he is talking about, and if he wants to find out, he can go to the department to find out what he had heard. We want good communication with the people of Nunavut.
I would like to hear the Premier state clearly today for the public record the Government of Nunavut employees who raised concerns with their elected Members of the Legislative Assembly will not suffer any form of reprisal, retaliation, or retribution. Will she make this commitment today, yes or no?
I believe that anyone, even if they work for the Government of Nunavut, has the right to talk about their concerns and needs to their MLAs, and I believe that the Government of Nunavut have to give the people the right to talk to their MLAs.
Members will note that the allotted time for question period, according to our clock, has expired.
*See Appendix for full text of Returns to Written Questions 25 – 3(3) and 27 – 3(3) filed with the Clerk.
Return to Written Question 027 – 3(3): Correctional Facilities, Recidivism Rates and Rehabilitation Programs (Shewchuk)
I have a return to a written question 27 – 3(3) asked by the Member for Quttiktuq on February 27, 2013 concerning recidivism rates and rehabilitation programs.
Mr. Speaker, the return is quite detailed. I have filed it with the Clerk for transcribing into Hansard for the public record and for distribution to all members.
Return to Written Question 025 – 3(3): Direct Appointments under Section 18 of the Public Service Act (Ell)
Return to written question on February 26, 2013, No. 25 – 3(3) asked by the Member for Tununiq, Mr. Enook in regard to direct appointments under section 18 of the Public Service Act.
Mr. Speaker, the return is quite lengthy and I would ask that this document be entered into the record as read.
We will also distribute it to the members.
Committee Report 027 – 3(3): Bill 53, An Act to Amend the Medical Care Act (Ningeongan)
I wish to report that Bill 53, An Act to Amend the Medical Care Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 53 immediately moved into the Committee of the Whole.
There is a request for unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) so that Bill 53 can be immediately referred to Committee of the Whole.
There are none and as such, Bill 53 is referred to Committee of the Whole.
*See Appendix for full text of Committee Report 29 – 3(3) filed with the Clerk.
Committee Report 028 – 3(3): Bill 55, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act (Ningeongan)
I wish to report that Bill 55, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 55 immediately moved into the Committee of the Whole.
There is a request for unanimous consent to waive rule 68(6) so that Bill 55 can be immediately referred to Committee of the Whole.
There are none, and as such, Bill 55 is therefore referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report 029 – 3(3): Recommendations for Amendments to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut and Other Matters (Elliott)
I have the honour today of presenting the second report of the Legislative Assembly’s Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges.
As members will recall, the standing committee’s first report of this Assembly was presented to the House on October 27, 2010.
The recommendations presented in that report for amendments to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut were unanimously adopted by the House and came into effect on the first sitting day of the 2011 winter sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
I would like to express my appreciation to my committee colleagues for the collegial manner in which we have worked together.
The recommendations in the standing committee’s report reflect the unanimous consensus of the committee and have been ratified by the Legislative Assembly’s Full Caucus.
For the benefit of all Members of the House and the listening public, I wish to take this opportunity to highlight the standing committee’s recommendations for amendments to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
The standing committee’s first recommendation concerns government responses to reports of standing and special committees.
At present, Rule 91(5) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut provides that the government shall, upon the request of a committee, table a comprehensive response within 120 calendar days to report presented under Rules 91(1) and 91(2).
However, the rules are currently silent with respect to the granting of extensions to government responses to the committee’s reports.
At present, there is no authority for the government to request a formal extension, and there is no authority for the Legislative Assembly to either grant or deny a request for an extension.
This is in contrast to the existing provisions in the rules concerning returns to oral questions, returns to written questions, and responses to petitions.
In order to achieve greater consistency with respect to provisions concerning the extensions, the standing committee is recommending that Rule 91 be amended to allow for the government to file a maximum of two provisional responses to a report of a standing or special committee.
Each provisional response must indicate the reason for the delay in tabling the government’s response to the committee’s report and the date upon which the response will be provided.
This date must be within 30 calendar days of the date of the filing of the provisional response.
The standing committee’s second recommendation concerns the issue of oral question period.
As members will recall, Bill 22, An Act Respecting the Constituencies of Nunavut, received assent during the fall 2011 sitting of the Legislative Assembly. As a consequence, there will be 22 Members of the Fourth Legislative Assembly. The next Assembly is anticipated to convene in November of 2013, following the upcoming general election.
At present, there are 10 Regular Members of the Legislative Assembly. Assuming that there are between seven and nine cabinet ministers in the Fourth Legislative Assembly, it can be anticipated that the number of regular members will be between 12 and 14.
This constitutes a 20 to 40 percent increase in the number of regular members.
An underlying principle concerning the conduct of oral question period in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut is that each regular member is provided with the opportunity to pose questions.
Once a member has posed questions, he or she is not recognized by the Speaker until every other member wishing to pose questions has done so.
In order to accommodate the increased number of regular members while preserving the aforementioned approach to oral question period, the standing committee considered two basic options: increasing the length of oral question period or reducing the number of allotted supplementary questions from three to two.
It should be noted that the length of oral question period in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut is currently among the longest in Canada.
During the Third Legislative Assembly, to date, regular members have posed over 1,000 original oral questions. However, members do not always use their full allotment of three supplementary questions. Statistics indicate that members, on average, use their full allotment of three supplementary questions on less than half of the occasions that they pose oral questions.
The standing committee is, therefore, recommending that Rule 39(4) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly be amended to reduce the number of allotted supplementary questions from three to two.
The standing committee’s third recommendation concerns the issue of petitions.
In his ruling of November 5, 2012, the Speaker stated that the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges exists to consider matters arising under our Rules.
As of the adjournment of the fall 2012 sitting of the Third Session of the Third Legislative Assembly, a total of 72 petitions had been presented in the House by MLAs since April 1, 1999.
All three petitions presented to date during the current Third Session of the Third Legislative Assembly have concerned employees and/or former employees of the Government of Nunavut. Two of the three petitions presented in the House contained allegations against current employees of the Government of Nunavut.
Concerns have been expressed about the appropriateness of permitting petitions, which become matters of public record, to include potentially libellous or defamatory allegations against identifiable individuals.
Although Rule 43(5) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut provides that a member presenting a petition shall be answerable for any impertinent or improper material that it contains, the Rules do not provide a precise definition of what constitutes “impertinent or improper material,” or the exact process by which a member “shall be answerable.”
A review of publicly-accessible documents from other Canadian legislatures concerning petitions indicates that a range of practices exist with respect to petitions. Some jurisdictions provide little guidance concerning petitions. Others provide extensive guidelines.
Canadian jurisdictions also differ with respect to the permissible contents of petitions. For example, some jurisdictions explicitly prohibit petitions from containing requests for the expenditure of public funds. Others permit such requests.
Some jurisdictions explicitly require that petitions be addressed only to legislatures. Others permit them to be addressed to the legislature or to the government. Some jurisdictions explicitly prohibit the use of petitions to make allegations against identifiable individuals.
Others are silent on the issue.
Having reviewed this issue with care, the standing committee’s position is that the purpose of petitions is to provide members of the public with a means to convey concerns to the Legislative Assembly and the government regarding matters of public policy, not to pursue grievances against specific individuals.
The standing committee is also mindful of the importance of recognizing that such individuals do not have the opportunity to defend themselves.
The standing committee is, therefore, recommending that Rule 43(5) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly be amended to provide that a petition may not contain potentially libellous, false, defamatory, scandalous, or groundless statements or allegations against any identifiable individual or official.
I would also like to take this opportunity to note that the Speaker’s Guidelines for the Use of Portable Hand-Held Electronic Devices, Laptop Computers and Other Technologies in the Legislative Assembly Chamber and Committee Rooms will be included as an appendix to the next edition of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. These guidelines were agreed to by the Full Caucus during the fall 2012 sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking all members for the valuable contributions and comments that have been received by the standing committee during the course of its deliberations.
Pursuant to Rule 91, I move that the report of the standing committee be received and adopted by the House, its appendix entered into the record as read, and its recommendations for amendments to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly be deemed to have been accepted, effective the first sitting day of the spring 2013 sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Do members agree with the chairman’s request?
Speaker: There is an agreement and it shall be done so.
Tabled Document 339 – 3(3): Member’s Statement about Nutrition North Program that is not working for Nunavut (Schell)
I would like to table my Member’s Statement today.
Tabled Document 340 – 3(3): Correspondence to Nunavut Impact Review Board Concerning Kiggavik Technical Review (Aupaluktuq)
I have the honour of tabling today copies of recent correspondence sent to the Nunavut Impact Review Board concerning the Kiggavik project near my community of Baker Lake. The correspondence was submitted to NIRB by the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board and the Canadian Arctic Resource Committee. I respectfully encourage all of my colleagues to review these documents with care.
Tabled Document 341 – 3(3): Natural Resources Conservation Trust Fund Financial Statements March 31, 2010 (Arreak)
I am pleased to table the Natural Resources Conservation Trust Fund Financial Statements for 2010.
Motion 046 – 3(3): Extended Adjournment (Enook)
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3, that when the House concludes its winter 2013 sitting, it shall be adjourned until May 7, 2013.