EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Iqaluit, Pond Inlet, Cambridge Bay, and Gjoa Haven, when those four communities did their hamlet administrative by-laws, they voted at that time that if fee simple land was available and when it became available, anyone who had an equity lease that was paid off would automatically have their land turned over for no fee other than the administrative registration fee.
I’ll use my community as an example.
If my community votes “yes” during the plebiscite, according to my understanding of what is being said, it seems like I would have to release the land and I would have to apply for it.
I don’t know if you can reply to the question because the land is very important to me.
I understand that the land titles of churches and stores are very old.
Even though I was asking the question, for the listening public, is there protection?
Because these are old land titles, if there was a “yes” vote in Arctic Bay, what would occur with these entities such as the stores, the RCMP, and the church groups?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Shooyook for his excellent question.
If I’m a homeowner in Arctic Bay and I have a leasehold interest, I don’t have to do anything if I don’t want to, but if I want fee simple, then I have to make an application and the process kicks in.
You have choices, you either apply or you don’t, but it’s not going to harm the individual.
With respect to churches, most of the churches in Nunavut already retain fee simple ownership and they retained it upon division, so that shouldn’t be an issue for them.
Although the RCMP and other federal organizations don’t have fee simple title, they’re excluded from the transfer because they are on land where there could be no sale or transfer without the consent of the federal government.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for a very good response to the concern I have.
I don’t have many concerns, so I just want to express my gratitude for the issue of churches being clarified.
The next name on the list, Mr. Qirngnuq.
I also have a very short question. Since there is going to be a plebiscite on May 9, I want clarification because no one can anticipate the actual results of whether they vote “yes” or “no” to the question.
The other important criterion that causes my wish to be very clear on this is what residency criteria will apply to residents as to their eligibility to vote.
It can affect which side will win, especially if the winning (interpretation ends) percentage (interpretation) is based on the number of voters. What result minimum will determine which side wins?
I am thinking about this matter when raising this question about our communities.
Since youth can vote, not for municipal elections as they are considered underage, but they have opinions about this issue too, although they have not voiced it yet.
I ask this question with that in mind.
Can the minister respond to this question?
I thank Mr. Qirngnuq for the question.
That is a very good question and this is a question that I am absolutely going to defer to my colleague, the Minister of Community and Government Services.
Chairman: For the record, Minister Peterson is deferring the question to the Minister of CGS. Minister Savikataaq.
First of all, to make it clear who is a voter, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement has defined for this plebiscite who a voter is and their definition is a municipal voter.
If you can vote in a territorial election, then you can vote in this plebiscite.
You must be 18 years old and you must be a resident of Nunavut. That’s who a voter is.
As for the outcome, it’s 50 percent plus 1.
We encourage as many people to vote as possible because, if only 10 people vote in a community, those 10 people will decide what the outcome is.
It’s not a percentage of voters; it’s just a percentage of the people who voted.
I encourage everyone to come out and vote because this vote is binding and we want the voters to come and make the decision at the local level for their own community because their vote is binding.
The hamlets and the governments will abide by that vote.
Yes, that is quite clear.
I’m sure the communities will get all of that information.
Not everybody can have the same mind.
I understand the process now and I just thank you now, Mr. Chairman.
In follow-up to my colleague’s question, Mr. Enook, in the event that current owners of leasehold titles acquire the fee simple titles of the same property, will these two titles merge automatically or will the owners be required to apply to have these two titles merged?
I thank Mr. Mikkungwak for the question. I’ll defer that question to Minister Savikataaq.
For the record, Minister Peterson is deferring the question to the Minister of CGS.
I just need a clarification on Mr. Mikkungwak’s question as to when he’s talking about the two owners about merger. I’m not clear on exactly what he means, so if he would just clarify it for me.
I’ll state my question again.
In the event that current owners of leasehold titles acquire the fee simple titles of the same property, will these two titles merge automatically or will the owners be required to apply to have these two titles merged?
I’ll try to answer this and if I’m going in the wrong direction, then the member will let me know.
When he’s talking about the two co-owners, is he talking about if it’s a husband and wife that have a lease on the lot and, if he’s talking about that, their two names would be transferred again onto the fee simple title. When the lease is transferred, the owner or owners of the lease will stay the same on the fee simple transfer, if that’s the line of questioning the member is going, if he’s talking about a husband and wife.
I know that on a lease, normally you have the husband and wife on the lease as co-owners of the lease or co-signers, if I go any further, if this is the right path I’m going on.
Chairman: Mr. Mikkungwak, is he on the right road?
He’s a little bit derailed, I guess I could say.
You would assume that a married couple would have the same title on leasehold.
My best example here would be, let’s say, I have a house, but the property is attained by a company where the company leases the land, but I have my house sitting on that leasehold title and I pay off my house. How would that work?
I’m not sure how much simpler I can make it or I’m sure the minister has an idea now.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Mikkungwak for his question and I thank my colleague for responding earlier.
Just so I help him get back on the rails, fortunately I came with two lawyers. That’s the benefit of sitting in the witness chair; you can bring lawyers with you and other people that have quite a bit of knowledge about legal and technical aspects of these bills. I’m going to ask my director of policy, Stephen Mansell, to respond to that question.
Chairman: Mr. Mansell.
Mr. Mansell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Thank you for the question.
If there is a “yes” vote in a community or if it’s one of the communities that the minister outlined that is automatic upon a “yes” vote or a community decides, “Yes, we want to have fee simple ownership,” the fee simple title wouldn’t be issued automatically.
The person would still have to go to the Land Titles Office to apply.
If everything is in order and they’re in a community that has decided to allow for fee simple ownership, the merger would occur, but there still has to be that application. The Land Titles Office won’t immediately start issuing the titles.
Out of the two individuals, who would have the sole right to the leasehold title?
I thank Mr. Mikkungwak again for the question.
I will have my director of policy, Steve Mansell, answer that question.
Mr. Mansell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) If there were more than one party on the title, the parties would have to be in agreement to request the fee simple title.
The fee simple title would be issued with the same parties as was on the leasehold title. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I recognize Mr. Mikkungwak again, I would like to welcome Mr. David Iqaqrialu to the House.
Welcome to Mr. Iqaqrialu.
I wanted to do a follow-up on my colleague Mr. Qirngnuq’s question.
In the community of Baker Lake, for example, ten people went to vote, what would be the magic number? Is there a magic number? Five people vote “yes“ and five people vote “no.”
Do seven people have to vote “yes” out of the ten in order for it to become a “yes” vote?
What would be the guaranteeing number or the percentage?
I thank Mr. Mikkungwak for the hypothetical question.
We hope it’s not five versus five.
In the event that there were ten, and again this is hypothetical, I guess six would be the magic number.
An Hon. Member: Low turnout.
I know the voters in Baker Lake will be at a higher number.
There are 25 communities within Nunavut. You guys have identified four communities which already have their legislative proposals and leaseholders who have fully paid their leases in Gjoa Haven, Cambridge Bay, Pond Inlet, and Iqaluit.
I’m not sure, but you may have a number of communities that vote “yes.”
Which communities would have the priority for your department to provide advice to the community on how they are going to arrange their Land Titles Office, legal documentation, and preparation so that people could obtain their land?
What would have to come at the request of the hamlet council of the appropriate community?
I will defer this question to Minister Savikataaq.
For starters, there would be no priority given to any communities that voted “yes.” They would all be treated equal and the same.
In the event that a community votes “yes” or communities, there are several things that would have to happen. First, the government would have to change its hamlets and city administrative laws so that fee simple land title can be had, and then the hamlets would have to change their administrative by-laws so that they can sell land in the event that there is a “yes” vote.
There would be a big educational campaign put on by CG&S and each community in the event that they did vote “yes” to sell land.
It wouldn’t happen overnight; there would be a process.
This would be a learning curve for everyone, for both CGS and the hamlets, because this is something new for us and we will tackle it the best we can.
There will be no priority given to any communities; they all will be treated equally.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. “Non-Land Titles Commissioner’s Leases” are not registered under the territory’s Land Titles Act.
Can the minister indicate how many “Non-Land Titles Commissioner’s Leases” currently exist within Nunavut?
We don’t have that information here at the witness table, unless… . Mr. Savikataaq is shaking his head; he doesn’t have that information either.
Will the merger described in section 108.1 of Bill 15 apply to “Non-Land Titles Commissioner’s Leases” and, if so, what specific legislation will provide for the merger of Commissioner’s Leases into fee simple titles?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Mikkungwak for his question. I’ll have Mr. Mansell answer that question.
Mr. Mansell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) No, it would not apply.
Those Commissioner’s Leases are with CGS because they don’t have a properly defined survey done yet.
If there was to be a fee simple title issued, the survey would have to be done.
The lease would then be sent to the Land Titles Office and then it would be issued.
They would be converted to a standard lease prior to the issuance of a fee simple title. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act. Clause 1.
Some Members: Agreed?
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 15 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 15 can immediately be placed on orders of the day for third reading?
I thank you and your committee for your excellent scrutiny of this very important bill and for your questions about the referendum on May 9.
As Minister Savikataaq stated, it is a very important day to get out and vote. If you’re an eligible voter, get out and vote. It’s for your community.
We would want to ensure that every eligible voter gets out and, of course, we will be doing a lot of consultations between now and the vote.
I would also like to thank my officials who prepared this amendment. Mr. Ahlfors, I think, did the bulk of the work here. Mr. Mansell and Mr. MacKay did a lot of work as well.
I thank them for being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses from the witness table.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I move to report progress.
Your committee has been considering Bills 10, 11, 12, and 15 and would like to report that Bills 10, 11, and 15 are immediately ready for third reading, that Bill 12 is immediately ready for third reading as amended, and that one committee motion was adopted.
Mr. Shooyook. (interpretation ends) The motion is in order.
Bill 10 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 4, 2015-2016 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Aggu, that Bill 10, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 4, 2015-2016, be read for the third time.
Bill 11 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2015-2016 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Aggu, that Bill 11, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2015-2016, be read for the third time.
Bill 12 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Aggu, that Bill 12, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017, be read for the third time as amended.
The motion is carried and Bill 12, as amended, is ready for assent.
Hon. Minister of Justice, Mr. Peterson.
Bill 15 – An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Aggu, that Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act, be read for the third time as amended.
Before we proceed further, Mr. Clerk, will you please determine if the Commissioner of Nunavut is prepared to enter the Chamber to give assent to bills.
Commissioner Nellie Kusugak (interpretation): Members of Legislative Assembly, please be seated.
As Commissioner of Nunavut, I am pleased to give assent to the following bills:
Bill 12, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017;
Bill 13, Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2016-2017; and
Although winter’s blanket still covers the land, our skies grow lighter by the day.
I wish you all a safe return to your constituencies and families.
Thank you for the hard work and dedication for the betterment of Nunavummiut.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I wish to thank all our support staff and personnel, which include our interpreters and audio and video technicians, for assisting us during our sitting.
(interpretation) I also wish to extend my gratitude to the Iqaluit residents who acted as our pages, and we are thankful to them.
The youth are Pauloosie Ningeongan, Gooteliak Ekho, and Mosesee Pitseolak.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Monday, May 30, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Pages 1798 – 1827
Opening Prayer 1798
Money Message 1798
Members’ Statements 1798
Returns to Oral Questions* 1806
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 1806
Oral Questions 1807
Returns to Written Questions* 1824
Tabling of Documents 1824
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills 1826
Orders of the Day 1826
Monday, May 30, 2016 1798
222 – 4(3): New NNI Policy (Angnakak) 1798
223 – 4(3): Birthday Wishes to Granddaughter (Akoak) 1800
224 – 4(3): Congratulations to Sanikiluaq’s 2016 High School Graduates (Rumbolt) 1800
225 – 4(3): Tribute to Etulu Aningmiuq (Joanasie) 1801
226 – 4(3): Remembering Peter Suwaksiork (Savikataaq) 1801
227 – 4(3): Success of Volleyball and Soccer Teams from Whale Cove (Kuksuk) 1802
228 – 4(3): Remembering Joanasie Kuniliusie (Keyootak) 1804
229 – 4(3): Installation of the Radio Transmitter in Pangnirtung (Mike) 1804
230 – 4(3): Tribute to Fundraising Efforts in Kugaaruk (Qirngnuq) 1805
Return to Oral Question 255 – 4(3): Recording Traditional Law (Clerk) 1806
Return to Oral Question 273 – 4(3): Medical Transient Centre in Churchill, Manitoba (Clerk) 1806
Return to Oral Question 277 – 4(3): Status of Children’s Group Home in Rankin Inlet (Clerk) 1806
295 – 4(3): RCMP and Inuit Language Training (Mikkungwak) 1807
296 – 4(3): Search and Rescue Initiatives (Rumbolt) 1809
297 – 4(3): New NNI Policy (Angnakak) 1810
298 – 4(3): Emergency Management Programs (Akoak) 1812
299 – 4(3): Status of Coroner’s Inquest (Joanasie) 1814
300 – 4(3): Medical Travel Issues with Airlines’ Codeshare Agreement (Okalik) 1815
301 – 4(3): Community Justice Committee Appointments and Revocations (Joanasie) 1817
302 – 4(3): President of the Qulliq Energy Corporation (Okalik) 1818
303 – 4(3): Landfill Sites and Hazardous Materials in Nunavut (Angnakak) 1819
304 – 4(3): Education Act Consultations (Akoak) 1821
Return to Written Question 007 – 4(3): Government of Nunavut Responses to the Resolutions Adopted at the 2014 and 2015 Annual General Meetings of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities (Clerk) 1824
Return to Written Question 008 – 4(3): Government of Nunavut Presentation to the Canada Transportation Act Review (Clerk) 1824
Return to Written Question 009 – 4(3): Economic Activity, Tax Revenues, and Tax Rebates (Clerk) 1824
Return to Written Question 010 – 4(3): Annual Fuel Purchases by the Government of Nunavut (Clerk) 1824
Return to Written Question 011 – 4(3): Services and Benefits for Out-of-Territory Dialysis Patients (Clerk) 1824
130 – 4(3): Letter of Instruction to the Commissioner of Nunavut (Taptuna) 1824
131 – 4(3): Correspondence from NTI Vice-president James Eetoolook (Okalik) 1825
132 – 4(3): Resolutions Adopted at the 2016 Annual General Meeting of the Northern Air Transport Association (Mikkungwak) 1825
133 – 4(3): 2014-2015 Annual Report of the Representative for Children and Youth (Speaker) 1825
134 – 4(3): 2014-2015 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut (Speaker) 1825
135 – 4(3): Languages Commissioner of Nunavut’s Systemic Investigation Report – Investigation into the Qikiqtani General Hospital’s Compliance with the Official Languages Act (Speaker) 1825
025 – 4(3): Early Adjournment (Mikkungwak) 1826
Bill 17 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2016-2017 – Notice 1826
Bill 18 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017 – Notice 1826
Mr. Tony Akoak, Ms. Pat Angnakak, Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk, Mr. Joe Enook, Hon. George Hickes, Mr. David Joanasie, Mr. Pauloosie Keyootak, Hon. George Kuksuk, Mr. Steve Mapsalak, Hon. Johnny Mike, Mr. Simeon Mikkungwak, Mr. Paul Okalik, Hon. Keith Peterson, Mr. Emiliano Qirngnuq, Hon. Paul Quassa, Mr. Allan Rumbolt, Mr. Alexander Sammurtok, Hon. Joe Savikataaq, Mr. Isaac Shooyook, Hon. Peter Taptuna.
Speaker (Hon. Joe Enook) (interpretation): Can you say the opening prayer, please, Mr. Shooyook.
Speaker (interpretation): Good afternoon, Nunavummiut, (interpretation ends) Mr. Premier, (interpretation) and members.
At this time, I would like to inform the House that two of our colleagues are unable to be here today.
The Member for Rankin Inlet North, Mr. Tom Sammurtok, is unable to be here today, but we believe he will be arriving here on Wednesday.
Also the Member for Amittuq, Mr. Qulaut, won’t be here today.
Before we proceed to the orders of the day, let me first read the letter from the Commissioner of Nunavut. I’ll read it in English.
Bill 17, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2016-2017; and
Bill 18, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017.
Sincerely, Hon. Nellie Kusugak, Commissioner of Nunavut.
(interpretation) We will now proceed to the orders of the day.
Member’s Statement 222 – 4(3): New NNI Policy (Angnakak)
Welcome back, everybody, to Iqaluit.
I’m looking forward to a real productive spring sitting with all of my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the recently announced changes to the NNI Policy.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the work that went into this process over the past four years by both the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
Mr. Speaker, as you and members will recall, I have asked a number of questions and raised a number of concerns about the NNI Policy over the past few years.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some areas where solid progress has been achieved, as well as identifying some issues that I feel still need some work.
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to note that the new NNI Policy, which is scheduled to come into effect on April 1, 2017, now applies very clearly to the contracting and procurement activities of the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
However, it is not clear to me whether QEC will voluntarily choose to follow the NNI Policy over the next ten months before the changes formally come into effect, and I hope that they do.
Mr. Speaker, we have all heard many concerns from our constituents about what actually constitutes an “Inuit-owned firm” and what actually constitutes a “local firm.”
I am pleased that sections 16 and 17 of the new NNI Policy allow for greater incentives to be provided to firms that demonstrate higher levels of Inuit ownership, control, and management.
I am also pleased to see the definition of what constitutes a “Nunavut resident” being tightened up.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to conclude her statement today.
Mr. Speaker, I am also hopeful that the new range of penalties that are contained in the new NNI Policy for failure to meet promised levels of Inuit labour will prove to be effective.
Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, the changes to the NNI Policy are not scheduled to come into effect until April of 2017, so there is still some time to do some fine-tuning.
As members will recall, the current NNI Policy provides for one member of the contracting appeals board to be appointed on the recommendation of the business community.
I am, frankly, disappointed that the proposed new NNI Tribunal will not reserve at least one seat to be appointed on the recommendation of the business community, and I am disappointed that section 9.3 of the revised policy does not recognize the importance of having a business background on the part of the tribunal’s membership.
Mr. Speaker, although the current NNI Contracting Appeals Board is not perfect, at least we know what recommendations it has made to the government by way of its annual report, which is required to be made public.
Mr. Speaker, it is simply unacceptable that the proposed new NNI Policy does not require the new NNI Tribunal to report publicly on its work.
I strongly urge the minister to rethink this aspect of the policy.
If the tribunal is allowed to make all of its recommendations in secret, it will have very little credibility in the eyes of the public, the business community, or the Members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed that although section 9.24 of the new NNI Policy provides that the government “shall implement all recommendations given by the Tribunal to the greatest extent possible,” it also provides the government with an escape hatch to ignore any recommendation of the tribunal so long as it certifies in writing that it is unable to do so “for reasons of sound procurement management and public policy.”
In other words, maybe it’s saying, “We will do what you suggest, unless we don’t want to.”
Mr. Speaker, at the very least, businesses and the public need to be provided with a much clearer explanation of what the government means by the language in this section.
Otherwise, this tribunal will be seen by the public and the business community as having no real teeth at all.
Mr. Speaker, I will have appropriate questions for the appropriate minister at the appropriate time on these important issues.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Members’ Statements. Member for Gjoa Haven, Mr. Akoak.
Member’s Statement 223 – 4(3): Birthday Wishes to Granddaughter (Akoak)