EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The HTO board in Igloolik, in conjunction with the Department of Environment, could discuss this.
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for all fisheries, so we need to include them and the NWMB.
I have been led to understand that the commercial harvest starts on April 1 every year.
Mr. Speaker, does the minister know if the commercial harvest limit had been reached prior to April 1 and that they cannot fish until April 1 has passed?
Who sets the start of the commercial fishing season?
It states here that April 1 is when the commercial harvest will start if the fishermen prematurely reach their limit before they can resume fishing.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know who determines those issues.
As I stated earlier, some things are negotiable.
This basically just follows the fiscal year that starts on April 1. That is for a period of 12 months, starting from April 1 until March 31 of the following year.
We’re open to explain why April 1 is a problem.
I seem to understand to change the date; he is asking why it should be changed.
It’s too close to the spring season.
In Igloolik, we are island people and we travel only to Baffin Island to fish commercially.
That means we have to wait for the ice to form solidly enough to cross, usually around the end of December or early January.
The current quota is quickly used up long before the fishing season is finished.
One of the reasons why the fishermen wanted to change the date from January 1 to December is because it starts to get too warm by April 1.
This affects the quality of the fish, which have to be frozen thoroughly.
Can I ask that this idea be considered, Mr. Speaker?
Members will note by the clock flashing that time is up, that the allotted time for question period has expired. We will move on in our orders of the day.
Written Question 016 – 3(3): Fuel Distribution Service Contracts (Curley)
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Lorne Kusugak, Minister of Community and Government Services.
As of March 7, 2012, broken down by community, with which entities has the Petroleum Products Division of the Department of Community and Government Services entered into a local delivery contract for the delivery of fuel products?
What is the commencement and expiry date of each contract?
With respect to the request for proposals issued for each contract, what entities submitted proposals?
Petition 002 – 3(3): Staffing at the Igloolik Health Centre (Tapardjuk)
I wish to present a petition today signed by 185 residents of Igloolik concerning staffing at the Igloolik Health Centre.
Tabled Document 172 – 3(3): 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Nunavut Status of Women Council (Aariak)
I am pleased to table the 2010-11 Annual Report of the Nunavut Status of Women Council, Qulliit.
Motion 023 – 3(3): Extended Adjournment – Notice (Ningeongan)
I give notice that on Friday, March 9, 2012, I will move the following motion:
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 sitting, it shall be adjourned until May 29, 2012.
Speaker: Thank you, Ningeongan.
Motion 024 – 3(3): Legislative Assembly Appointments – Notice (Elliott)
Maybe we have been working too hard, but I have two tabling of documents that I was trying to get your attention for.
I do have a notice of motion, so thank you. I give notice that on Friday, March 9, 2012, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Nattilik, that Mr. Tagak Curley be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development.
At the conclusion of one item, if you wish to go back to Item 13, you may ask for unanimous consent of the Assembly to go back to that item on the order paper once we have concluded with the item that we are on.
I would like to seek unanimous consent to go back to Item 13 in the Orders of the Day.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to go back to Item 13 in the Orders of the Day, Tabling of Documents.
Tabled Document 173 – 3(3): Suicide and Attempted Suicide in Nova Scotia - 1995-2004 - A Report (Elliott)
Tabled Document 174 – 3(3): Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound (Elliott)
I guess we are getting a little tired, so I’ll take a little stretch while I stand here.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my Member’s Statement on Monday, I will be tabling a number of items this week concerning the kind of work that needs to be done to effectively implement our territory’s suicide prevention action plan.
The item that I am tabling today is a publication from the Province of Nova Scotia’s Department of Health Promotion and Protection.
The second item that I’ll be tabling is a publication that was released yesterday by the Qikiqtani Inuit Association entitled “Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound.”
As members are aware, I have raised the issue of the proposed Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area on a number of occasions in different forums. I encourage all members to review this document with care.
There being none. Please proceed, Mr. Ningeongan.
Motion 023 – 3(3): Extended Adjournment (Ningeongan)
Motion 024 – 3(3): Legislative Assembly Appointments (Elliott)
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters. Bills 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 34 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:15 and Committee resumed at 15:48
Chairman (Mr. Tapardjuk) (interpretation): Thank you. I would now like to call the committee meeting to order.
Thank you. Good afternoon, my colleagues.
In Committee of the Whole, we have been given the following items to deal with by the Speaker: Bills 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 34.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 24 and commence the review of the Department of Justice, Nunavut Arctic College, followed by the departments of Finance, CLEY, Human Resources, and Environment. Mr. Chairman, if time permits, we will proceed with EIA and the Legislative Assembly.
Are we in agreement to deal with those items in Committee of the Whole?
Minister Shewchuk, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: I would.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses to the table.
Thank you, Minister Shewchuk, Minister of Justice.
On my right, I have the Acting Deputy Minister of Justice, Norman Tarnow.
On my left, I have the Director of Corporate Services, Christine Bens. Also, Mr. Chairman, in the Gallery, I have with me the ADM of Justice, Rebekah Williams, and the Director of Corrections, J.P. Deroy.
Welcome, Mr. Tarnow and Ms. Bens.
If you require further witnesses from amongst your staff, it is clear that you will request their inclusion and once they have been escorted in, we can commence with the introductions.
The minister already made his opening comments and so did the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Wellness, Ms. Ugyuk.
The floor is open to any member for general comments. I suggest to members that wherever possible you ask your detailed questions during the page-by-page review.
At this time, the floor is open for general comments.
Can you clarify if we can now make general comments on the opening comments of the Minister of Justice?
We’re now on general comments.
It would be best if you could ask your detailed questions during the page-by-page review so that we don’t keep going back and forth.
We would like to hear general comments at this time.
I just want to comment on the minister’s opening comments for the Department of Justice yesterday. The minister mentioned that there have been two judges appointed for Nunavut.
I think we’re all aware, particularly in the smaller communities, that court hearings are constantly deferred to a later date due to capacity restraints placed on the court system.
I occasionally hear about cases, even outside of our sessions, where people become so anxious that they start becoming suicidal due to the continual deferment of their court cases.
I know that this has an impact on the Nunavut Suicide Prevention Strategy, which was drafted by Nunavut Tunngavik, the Nunavut government, the Embrace Life Council, as well as the RCMP.
People become worried and it leads to what I hate to say: suicide.
I hear about it all the time and it reaches alarm over suicide.
It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, as elected members, that we have the insight into the thought processes of any individual, whether they are youth, adults, female, or male, and become aware if they’re have thoughts of suicide.
Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we can’t peer into anyone’s mind.
Even though we want to help, it is impossible to help in those cases.
Many of us have been personally affected, elected officials, along with our relatives and children by this issue.
I truly wish we could look into a suicidal person’s mind so we could help.
Unfortunately, we cannot.
So therefore, when we see our relatives or their friends who seem troubled, we should give advice to try and turn their minds back towards life.
Yes, this is true because only through working together, whether it is one person, their parents, their friends, the community, the populace in the 25 communities, the hamlets, the Nunavut government, as well as the federal government, can we provide the proper assistance to those in need.
When we proceed to the page-by-page review, I will ask questions at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The floor is open for general comments at this time.
Directorate. $13,346,000.
I would like direction from you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if it would be an appropriate question to ask or whether I should ask it on another page.
Under Directorate, it states the “Directorate, Corporate Services and Policy and Planning,” and “Also, the Directorate liaises between the Government of Nunavut and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.” When we go to the next page, we go to Law Enforcement.
I would like direction from you, Mr. Chairman, as to whether I should ask my question under Directorate or Law Enforcement.
Under Directorate, it states here that they deal more with the territorial policing agreement between the government and the RCMP.
Under Law Enforcement on the next page, it deals specifically with the RCMP and it would be more appropriate if you ask your question then.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that direction.
I will ask my question when we go to the next page.
My question is with respect to the Human Rights Tribunal.
Minister Shewchuk may recall during one of our standing committee meetings that I used an example and tried to provide clarification about the situation in Coral Harbour, where the tribunal is, along with its staff.
They have faced constraints when people have requested assistance to deal with their complaints. Due to the way it was set up, when the tribunal’s staff meet with the people, various areas are lacking and this is causing the tribunal to be unable to provide assistance.
I have noted that the Human Rights Tribunal is scheduled to undergo a comprehensive review and that the findings would be tabled in 2012-13, this new fiscal year.
The area that seems to be missing, as per my earlier comments to the minister, is if the findings have been submitted to the department. I wonder if it can now be responded to at this time. Based on my understanding, I wonder if the missing content has been included in this review.
I thank the member for that very important question too.
When I became the Minister of Justice a few months ago, in a detailed briefing, I was brought up to speed on the Human Rights Tribunal in Nunavut.
The member is right that at present, there are three full-time employees. They are located in Coral Harbour and there is a Human Rights Tribunal board.
Looking into the history of this, when the Human Rights Act was enacted in 2004 and the tribunal was formed, I think there were some key pieces of the puzzle left out because things have been brought to my attention that the tribunal is not functioning as it should be in our territory. With that understanding, we did a review. We have expert people who reviewed our tribunal system.
That report has just been completed. We are under review of it right now. There are some recommendations in there that I know already.
One of the pieces that were missing out of the tribunal when it was formed was there was no Human Rights Commission formed along with the tribunal. It was a body within its own. Within that body, the staff that is in it, I believe, is lacking some direction.
They are lacking support and they are lacking exposure to the public and to the communities across the territory.
So we need to look at these and this report has addressed those issues. Like I say, it’s preliminary. I am committed to table that report at our next sitting, Mr. Chairman.
During our standing committee meeting, I stated that when people say they want to make complaints to a lawyer, the present staff has been unable to take further action and I told the minister that.
People have learned that plaintiffs are supposed to be made to feel welcome, but once the word “lawyer” is mentioned, staff become agitated and cause plaintiffs to feel like dropping their complaints.
I believe that has happened too many times now.
I related that to the minister, that people would be informed that if a complaint comes forward, they are missing staff who are welcoming at the tribunal office. You mentioned that you have a staff of three.
I suggested that a fourth member be hired whose role would be to assist with complaints.
Plaintiffs are sensitive to the way they are treated and easily intimidated from going further. The reason why I asked the question is because that seems to be the missing link that people notice. The three employees, in trying to carry out their duties, are made unable to be accommodating.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make this last comment. The people of Nunavut are just beginning to comprehend the process of submitting complaints to a body that can assist them. This body is very much in demand and should not be a barrier.
I wanted to comment on it and direct it as a question as to whether what we discussed will be made available.
This is basically just a comment, Mr. Chairman. That is all.
That was just a comment, but would you like to respond, Minister Shewchuk?
I thank the member for voicing his opinion and thoughts.
As I said before, this tribunal definitely needs to be looked at and reviewed, and input from all members and all interested parties are very much accepted.
It’s going to take some time to review it and put something that is user-friendly and a system that works and servers a purpose of what the tribunal is for.
In the meantime, however, though, we do have what we have and I know one of the issues is that people do not know what the tribunal is and what the purpose of it is. We can do a better job of getting information out to the communities and part of that is through, hopefully, our GLOs that we will have hired in all communities too.
I wanted to ask this question, but I want to start by thanking the minister for having travelled to Ottawa last winter to speak to Bill C-10 and its possible impacts.
It has already passed through the Senate committee. Can the minister elaborate as to the timeframe when the government will have to implement it? That is my first question.
If the minister could speak to some of the reports that have surfaced indicating that it will have a negative impact on our correctional facilities causing overcrowding upon implementation of the legislation.
I want him to speak to this due to the reason that there were inter-jurisdictional consultations.
If the minister can update us, I would appreciate it. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
I would be pleased to do that for the member.
Bill C-10 is an omnibus bill which includes nine distinct Acts.
It was considered by the Conservative government and brought forward to the Senate committee on December 16.
In January, we voiced our concerns about C-10 and the consequence it would have on Nunavut and our justice system.
Prior to that, in January, I attended the justice ministers’ meeting, F/P/T, of all jurisdictions in PEI and spoke about C-10 with both the federal Minister of Public Safety and the federal Minister of Justice.
I think, on February 1, I appeared before the legislative Senate committee in Parliament and I would be pleased to table my presentation to all members too.
I spoke about Bill C-10 and the effects it would have on our territory and spoke in-depth on it.
There was great reception to hear what we had to say and we left that room voicing our opinion and feeling good that they would have an understanding of Nunavut.
That Senate committee reviewed and listened to 110 witnesses in total.
I believe it was around there anyway. The Senate committee now has reviewed the bill and they have turned it back to Parliament.
So yes, we have voiced our concerns and our opinions and I’ll just briefly state some of them, Mr. Curley.
We have concerns about the mandatory minimum sentencing here that’s going to take place with C-10 and the challenge it would give us in our correctional facilities and how we handle that.
We have concerns about the Gladue Supreme Court case, which allowed for flexibility in decision in sentencing.
We have concerns about funding for victims of crime and crime prevention and rehabilitation programs that we have in our territory.
So those were the highlight main issues too, but we spoke as much as we can speak.
I think whatever comes out of it comes out of it, but we are going to be prepared and have to be prepared for the consequences and there’s no question that the federal government knows somewhat what those consequences are going to be to Nunavut.
In regard to implementation, part of our presentation was that we want to see this implemented, if it is implemented, over five or six years.
It cannot happen right away and most jurisdictions are in agreement with that too.
I hope that provides information for you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask an additional question on the example that the minister used in English about minimum sentencing.
Once the bill is implemented, it means that people who commit crimes would stay longer in the correctional facilities.
Can the minister elaborate further using more than one example?
We have only one correctional facility here and it’s way overcrowded.
When we don’t have other facilities, what are we going to do if the bill is passed and implemented? Have you discussed this matter with the federal government as to whether they would support getting another correctional facility?
I’ll try and give a little bit more clarity to the times of sentencing we’re talking about for certain crimes. With C-10, the minimum sentencing is going to be mostly for severe crimes. I’ll go through a list quickly.
Crimes like prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, trafficking in persons, kidnapping, abductions of persons, assaults on children, motor vehicle theft, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, arson, and things like that that they plan on having no leeway on sentencing.
So on minor crimes, we’re still going to have that flexibility.
However, I want this to be clear to all the members and the committee and people across Nunavut watching this. In C-10, we cannot forget about the victims of crime and serious crime needs to be dealt with in serious ways.
That’s very important to understand.
Along with those serious crimes, I think what we have to focus on is that these crimes don’t happen and we need to put some focus on crime prevention.
Yes, that is clearer now. Also, I’m in support of the minister’s last comments.
We’re sensitive to victims of crime, especially children, to respect them in our community and in homes.
Victims of crime go through sad times, especially when children have been victimized. They need support; long-term support when it is child victims.
We will always want to be updated by the minister and we offer him our support.
Has the federal government indicated or do you expect to see another agreement on this issue for a year or many years?
I wonder if there might be some possibility because we do need support and it will be expensive. Our correctional centre here is deteriorating because of age.
I wonder if the minister can add some comment because we know that our own resources are not going to be adequate in Nunavut when this legislation applies uniformly across Canada.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Curley.
I have and I will continue to lobby the federal government at all levels with all contacts that I have and through our MP on what this bill is going to do to us.
We do have some figures that I can give you, maybe when we get to the corrections side of things, on what we foresee our future growth and our correction needs. We have forecasted some numbers. It will grow and we are going to need different facilities, newer facilities.
Yes, and I am very happy to hear that.
Nunavutmiut need to be updated once the federal government starts to implement that. We will also have to assist the federal government because the correctional centre here is overcrowded and obsolete and we have to rectify that.
That will be one of our questions.
What I would like to hear is about the Inuit Employment Plan.
I believe that the new correctional facility in Rankin Inlet is going to be completed this year.
With the job openings that will be created, have you considered including it in the Inuit Employment Plan?
If so, will training be included as part of that?
That has absolutely been thought out. We will be recruiting for Rankin Inlet very shortly and we will hire as many beneficiaries that we can and train those people.
As long as they can have the basic skills to come to us with entry-level qualifications, we will provide training to people there.
Our Chairman should make the statement that Inuit customs are to be respected.
At least that is our stated position.
When defining Inuit qualifications, one should look at their knowledge of the Inuit culture, their ability to speak Inuktitut, and their respect of the Inuit culture.
Will this be part of their qualifications? I’m referring to the Inuktitut language and being a resident of that community where the government employees are working.
That is the question I want to ask. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
They absolutely will.
Skills can be relevant and as long as there are equivalencies, I assure you that in the new correctional centre in Rankin Inlet, there will be a number of beneficiaries hired because of the need for Inuktitut and programs we will provide.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. Minister Shewchuk, I would like to remind you that I am not the Speaker but that I’m the Chairman, for your information.
Yes, that is quite a clear response.
I have another question. I want to know if the Rankin Inlet healing centre that is to be created will be just geared towards men.
Yes, it is just men’s correctional facility/healing facility.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): This is my final question at this time.
In my view, I believe that this healing centre will be full, but that cannot be helped.
Can the minister tell me how many spaces are set aside in the facility? Additionally, in the eventuality of the centre being opened, I would want to know what the timeline is for the opening of this facility. Upon its opening, will you be transferring some inmates to the facility in Rankin Inlet?
The facility is built and is going to house 48 inmates.
Yes, some of the Kivallirmiut will be moved back there.
Just to break that down a little bit, as the bedrooms are broken down by risk of offenders, there are 32 medium-risk, 14 low-risk, and 2 segregation cells.
The facilities are nearing completion based on my understanding, so I would like to know what the status of the accommodation facilities is.
Can the minister briefly provide an update as to whether the construction is complete?
When can we expect the facility to start providing these services?