EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
A copy of your ruling is attached to this item also.
Tabled Document 284 – 3(3): Bill 42, Donation of Food Act (Elliott)
I wish to table a copy of Bill 42, Donation of Food Act.
This bill was tabled without opposition by the Legislative Assembly of Yukon on Monday of last week. I encourage all members to review this legislation with care.
Tabled Document 285 – 3(3): Environmental Rights Act Annual Report for the Period: January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 (Arreak)
I am pleased to table the Environmental Rights Act Annual Report from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
*See Appendix for full text of Response to Petition 3 – 3(3) and Speaker’s Ruling filed with the Clerk.
Tabled Document 286 – 3(3): Financial Assistance for Nunavut Students (FANS) Progress Report (Aariak)
I am very pleased to table the Financial Assistance for Nunavut Students (FANS) Progress Report.
Tabled Document 287 – 3(3): Correspondence from the Auditor General of Canada on the Audit of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation (NBCC) (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table a letter from the Auditor General of Canada on the audit of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation (NBCC). This will be the first year the corporation will receive an audit opinion with no qualification.
Tabled Document 288 – 3(3): Memorandum of Understanding with NWT on Legislation and Regulation of the Northern Employee Benefit Services Pension Plan (Kusugak)
I am pleased to table the Memorandum of Understanding with NWT on Legislation and Regulation of the Northern Employees Benefit Services Pension Plan, as per my commitment to the Assembly on October 23, 2012. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Item 13. Tabling of Documents. Minister of Finance, Minister Peterson.
Tabled Document 289 – 3(3): Grants and Contributions Report for 2011-2012 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 290 – 3(3): Nunavut Liquor Commission’s Annual Report for 2009-2010 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 291 – 3(3): Territorial Corporations’ Responses to 2012-2013 Letters of Expectation (Peterson)
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three documents I would like tabled.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Grants of Contributions Report for 2011-12.
I am also pleased to table the Nunavut Liquor Commission’s Annual Report for 2009-2010.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Territorial Corporations’ Responses to the 2012-13 Letters of Expectation.
Tabling of Documents. Minister of Justice, Minister Shewchuk.
Tabled Document 292 – 3(3): Community Justice Committee and Family Abuse Intervention Act Year-end Report for 2009-2010 (Shewchuk)
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to table the Community Justice Committee and Family Abuse Intervention Act Year-end Report for 2009-2010. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 293 – 3(3): FPT Ministerial Report on the Meeting of the Energy and Mines Ministers in Charlottetown, PEI, September 10 to 11, 2012 (Taptuna)
Tabled Document 294 – 3(3): Canadian Council of Tourism Ministers Meeting from May 10 to 11, 2012 in Saint John, New Brunswick (Taptuna)
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two documents to table.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the federal/provincial/territorial ministerial report on the meeting of the energy and mines ministers in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, September 10 to 11, 2012.
I am also pleased to table the Canadian Council of Tourism Ministers Meeting from May 10 to 11, 2012 in Saint John, New Brunswick.
Tabled Document 295 – 3(3): Interim Report of Members’ Absences from Sitting of the House and Meetings of Committees and Caucuses to the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut for the Period April to June 2012 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 296 – 3(3): Interim Report of Members’ Absences from Sitting of the House and Meetings of Committees and Caucuses for the Period July to September 2012 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 297 – 3(3): Report to the MSB of Contracts for the Legislative Assembly for the Period: April 2011 to March 2012 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 298 – 3(3): 2011-2012 Annual Report for Members’ Indemnities, Allowances and Expenses (Speaker)
The first item is the Interim Report of Members’ Absences from Sitting of the House and Meetings of Committees and Caucuses for the period April to June 2012.
The second item is the Interim Report of Members’ Absences from Sitting of the House and Meetings of Committees and Caucuses for the period of July to September 2012.
The third item is the report to the Management and Services Board on contracting activity for the Legislative Assembly for the year 2011-12.
The fourth item is the Annual Report of Members’ Indemnities, Expenses and Allowances for 2011-12. Thank you.
Bill 46 – Donation of Food Act – Notice
I was getting too anxious.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, I will move that Bill 46, Donation of Food Act, be read for the first time.
Motion 036 – 3(3): Acceptance of the Report of the Integrity Commissioner to the Legislative Assembly Regarding Mr. Fred Schell, MLA (Aariak)
WHEREAS the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has tabled the Report of the Integrity of Commissioner of Nunavut regarding Fred Schell, Member of the Legislative Assembly for South Baffin;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet North, that the sanctions and recommendations contained in the Report of the Integrity Commissioner be accepted.
The motion is in order. Before we go and proceed with the debate on the motion before us, I have a few comments to make regarding the procedure.
The mover of the motion speaks first and the seconder speaks second. The mover of the motion has the right to the last reply, which closes the debate.
I rise today to speak to my motion, seconded by Hon. Tagak Curley, to accept the report of the 31st, 2012 from the Integrity Commissioner concerning the Hon. Fred Schell, MLA for South Baffin.
Mr. Speaker, Members of the Executive Council are given positions of power and authority of privilege and trust by the Members of this Legislative Assembly.
In return, we expect cabinet members to behave with honour. We expect them to make decisions that are in the public good. This is what integrity means.
Mr. Speaker, our Integrity Act states clearly and simply: integrity is the first and highest duty of elected office. Without integrity, there can be no trust.
Since day one, I have been clear that this government stands for integrity and this government, under my leadership, will continue to insist that those given the privilege of a ministerial portfolio must act with integrity in all of their actions.
Mr. Speaker, ministers are expected to take responsibility for their actions.
The Members of this House will remember that in 2011, the Integrity Commissioner had already warned Mr. Schell about seeking to advance his personal interests as an elected official. The Integrity Commissioner’s report came shortly after Mr. Schell was voted into cabinet.
At the time I assigned Mr. Schell his portfolio, I told him in no uncertain terms that he would have to be “squeaky clean.” He gave me his word that he would do so.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Schell was well warned. He chose to ignore those warnings.
He continued to exercise the same poor judgment. It was with great disappointment that I received information only a few months later that Mr. Schell had breached the Integrity Act. I then acted quickly to the limits of the powers provided to the Premier under the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act to protect the integrity of the cabinet.
I talked to Mr. Schell. I discussed the options of his stepping down from cabinet. I told him that should he choose to remain in cabinet, an impartial opinion of the Integrity Commissioner would be sought.
Mr. Schell chose not to resign and I removed his portfolio.
Ever since, as further information became available and was disclosed to him, he had the option to resign. He has chosen not to.
So we waited for the Integrity Commissioner to complete his work. We now have the bare facts and unbiased conclusions before us. The report speaks to itself.
Mr. Speaker, we must now act to guard the trust that our constituents have given us.
Mr. Speaker, we, as a House, must now act to maintain the integrity of the Nunavut system of consensus government.
To the motion. Seconder, Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to state that when I seconded the motion, it wasn’t because I was overjoyed to do so. However, we have a responsibility to resolve this issue before us.
I have seconded this motion, and I support the Integrity Commissioner’s report and the appended recommendations which the commissioner wants approved to ensure that events as listed in the report don’t occur again.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why I stand today is because many of the members feel that we aren’t just dealing with the allegations of misconduct or the rules the member broke.
However, it seems that the Premier has chosen this path to the crossroads we stand at today.
Eight months have passed and it has surfaced that the Premier’s Office knew about these issues for over ten months.
Again, these allegations of misconduct came about due to perceptions of conflict because conflict of interest means that a person has put their personal or business needs before their public interest. Further, contravention of the rules, as per the Integrity Commissioner’s report, states that all business interests were supposed to be placed in a blind trust. The member had to appoint a manager or lawyer to manage this business placed in a blind trust.
The reason why I stand today is a cause for concern.
I have no choice but to voice some of the details, as we ought to have a process related to perceptions of misconduct that apply to any minister.
Since the Premier is the leader, she can provide direction and query the member whether or not these conditions have been met.
It is only if we have the proper leadership where we can state that it would be best if the minister was to resign and the minister has to be advised of their options.
Furthermore, we have travelled down this road before by the previous administration where it took 48 hours to complete this process whereby a member resigned when allegations of misconduct surfaced.
It didn’t require an onerous process to determine if any misconduct had occurred, but that the minister in question preferred to resign.
Due to this reason, I can state that the Premier could have exhibited better leadership and dealt with it in that manner. If she had been clear that misconduct wouldn’t be accepted and that if she had applied the rules, she could have told the member that they had to resign. There are many paths that can be taken to resolve this.
Each minister has a conscience when they sit on the government side.
As I informed the Premier, when I resigned due to my principles, I made the statement that if the minister were to appoint someone, I felt that the Nunavut Housing Corporation would be best managed if it were under the economic development and transportation department. She didn’t have to follow that advice either.
Due to these reasons, as there are quite a few contained in the report, there were various avenues we could have followed based on the legislation, and what the members who stand on this side of the House can state is that we aren’t proud of this event with that many rules apparently contravened.
However, we represent Nunavutmiut and we have reached the end of the process up to today.
The details within the report of the Integrity Commissioner are quite numerous.
Due to this fact, although the fine is rather hefty where he recommends that the member pays a $10,000 fine, it includes other recommendations, such as having to meet with the elders of Cape Dorset.
From our perspective, we could speak to some of these issues, but many of us feel that the member ought not to just meet with the elders, but with all of his constituents that he represents.
However, the recommendation we are being asked to approve by Mr. Pickell, the Integrity Commissioner, are ones we want supported by all members because Nunavutmiut have had to wait almost an entire year to see this resolved. Due to this reason, I would appreciate if all members were to support this motion.
I feel that it is incumbent on me to speak to this motion for a number of reasons that all members should be aware of.
It has been an honour and a privilege to serve Nunavummiut in my capacity as a minister.
The many challenges have led to a great learning experience, and I believe I have fostered good working relationships among respective members.
For that, I am deeply grateful.
As a minister, I have provided productive and meaningful input into the issues facing my portfolio and to government as a whole in addition to carrying out my daily tasks and responding to the concerns of members and their constituents across Nunavut.
For the public record, I would like to mention that although my portfolios were removed, I continued to fulfill my duties and obligations as a minister, including attending meetings of the Executive Council and Financial Management Board, while contributing to discussions and voting to best represent my constituents and the territory.
I felt that I could be more instrumental at the table because I had already been stripped of my portfolio and, frankly, had nothing to lose.
I regret that this entire process may have been a burden for the Executive Council members who’ve had to take on additional responsibilities.
I am relieved that we are finally dealing with the Integrity Commissioner’s report.
This experience has been stressful and gruelling, something that I would not wish upon anyone. For this reason alone, I believe it is necessary to share my story in hopes that other members are well informed so this never happens to another member of the legislature.
Before I go on, I would like Nunavummiut to understand very clearly that I admit there was wrongdoing.
I am not here to speak to the specifics of the report. I only wish to share my experiences about the procedures leading up to the allegations with the Integrity Commissioner.
On September 30, 2011, I was sworn into cabinet.
The Premier announced on October the 5, 2011 that I would assume the responsibility of the Department of Human Resources, effective immediately.
As members are aware, prior to becoming a minister, the former Deputy Minister of Justice, Janet Slaughter, filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner’s office regarding my conduct as an MLA.
Prior to being voted in as a minister to cabinet, I discussed this investigation specifically with Premier Aariak and with a number of the members.
The commissioner’s report concerning that complaint was made public on October 18, 2011. That day when Premier Aariak was questioned whether she was aware of the situation, she said, “Absolutely not.
He was a regular member when the investigation was going on.
This is private information until the Integrity Commissioner [decides] what he has to do and then it was released.”
I had just become a minister.
The moment I was notified the report was coming, I informed the Premier of the investigation and made her aware to expect the report.
Subsequently, CBC reported the Premier’s contradiction, which led to the Premier’s staff emailing CBC in an attempt to clarify the situation by stating the Premier did, in fact, have a conversation with me “some time between September 28 and October 5.”
As a minister, I worked persistently on two of the territory’s most challenging portfolios.
Did I enquire about HR matters?
You bet I did. That was my job.
There were specific HR issues I needed to be informed about to ensure the hiring process was not flawed. That is the duty of the minister.
On March the 8, 2011, I was summoned to a meeting with the Premier’s Principal Secretary, Paul Crowley, and the Cabinet Secretary, Dan Vandermeulen.
At the meeting, they stated they had legal information in their possession. In fact, they waved a document in my face, but refused to share it with me. They alleged this information would get me in trouble with the Integrity Commissioner.
Of course, I questioned them about the legal information. Again they refused to disclose the legal information and evidence they supposedly had. These officials told me to resign from cabinet or they would file a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner, and they would also ensure I was stripped of my portfolios.
Mr. Speaker, who in this government is taking orders from whom?
In the interest of openness and transparency, I would expect the Premier to table the alleged evidence and recommendations her officials waved in my face on March 8, 2011.
This is the same alleged evidence and recommendations the Premier told members, the media, and the public that she had based her decision on to strip me of my portfolios.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that everyone should have the right to know what they are being accused of.
Was I scared? You bet I was.
Who wouldn’t be? Some would consider this blackmail.
I was told to resign without knowing what I did wrong and, in fact, without ever receiving any communication from the Premier herself.
Is that leadership?
Understandably, I was confused. What did I do?
As a minister, I felt I was working diligently on my files. At no time did I intentionally try to mislead the legislature or cause undue harm to others in my position. In my mind, the motive to seek my resignation must have involved a statement I had made in the legislature that same day.
As you may remember, I stated that the Nunavut Housing Corporation would not be giving any more social housing money unless the corporation did another audit. As far as I know, the corporation was agreeable to this audit. I left the meeting with the Premier’s senior officials taken aback as to what was going on.
Consequently, the next day, I met with the Premier to get some answers. The Premier did not have an explanation. However, she did follow through on the words of Mr. Vandermeulen and Mr. Crowley, and stripped me of my portfolios.
Mr. Crowley and Mr. Vandermeulen were also present for this meeting.
On March 11, the Premier issued a news release and stated, “I have recently been informed by Government of Nunavut officials that Mr. Schell has acted in conflict of interest and abused his authority as Minister.”
CBC also reported on March 12 that “she requested a report from the Integrity Commissioner.”
Finally, more than 40 days later, Mr. Vandermeulen filed the complaint and requested a review on April 23, 2012.
Mr. Speaker, I find the Premier’s claim that she had just learned of an investigation of one of her cabinet ministers by the cabinet secretary that had been going on for several months very puzzling.
Mr. Vandermeulen’s signed affidavit to the Integrity Commissioner included over 20 allegations. The majority of those allegations were entirely dismissed.
My hon. colleague from Rankin Inlet North’s comment regarding a witch hunt does not seem too farfetched, does it?
I must say that some of the allegations put forward seemed bizarre.
I was left with the impression that the Premier’s officials were trying to throw anything and everything in the review so at least one allegation against me would stick.
Like some of my colleagues, I, too, have concerns about whether the Premier is being well served by her staff. In fact, her Principal Secretary, Paul Crowley, her right-hand man, was indeed served with a subpoena to force him to appear at the Integrity Commissioner’s hearing. The Premier said, and I quote, “I did not know that the principal secretary was subpoenaed, and I don’t even know what date it was…” The Premier was unable to explain to another Member of this House why her senior official needed to be subpoenaed.
It is my understanding that all witnesses requested to appear at the hearing were well informed in advance.
To be clear, a subpoena is only issued when an individual refuses to voluntarily appear as requested to the Integrity Commissioner.
It’s curious that Paul Crowley was the only government witness the Integrity Commissioner forced to appear. To me, this shows disrespect to our legislation and this legislature.
The Premier claims she didn’t even know her own senior official was subpoenaed, and even said, “I think I was very well served.”
Does this give you confidence in her judgment?
There are a couple more questionable matters I would like to address.
I was forthcoming on all of my personal business matters that could present a conflict of interest. Having said that, the Premier chooses a minister’s portfolios. If the Premier was, as she claims, well advised, why did she choose to assign portfolios that could be construed as conflict of interest?
Did she or her staff not review the public disclosure statements that we all file annually? This decision makes me wonder whether it was an oversight or intentional.
Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Premier and her staff to pursue this process will undoubtedly cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has consumed uncountable hours from public servants to do the jobs they were hired to do. I would have thought that a Premier in charge of leading the government could have taken more appropriate action to immediately resolve the issue.
Again, is this leadership?
Every single member should be wary. The bureaucracy is limiting our ability to do our job. By far, the most important right accorded to members is the exercise of freedom of speech.
I quote from Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members, first report, April 29, 1977, this is “…a fundamental right without which we would be hampered in the performance of our duties.
It permits us to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express our opinion as we see fit, to say what we feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interests and the aspirations of our constituents.”
From experience, I can attest the bureaucracy has become far too powerful under this Premier.
As I recall from the recent hearing, I made enquiries to the Deputy Minister of Human Resources, Joe Kunuk. This deputy went directly to the Cabinet Secretary, Dan Vandermeulen, regarding my enquiries. Not once did he suggest to me that my enquiries were inappropriate.
In fact, as I recall, he answered all of my questions. I do understand that the bureaucracy is meant to assist the Premier and ministers, but in my experience, that certainly was not the case.
I am uneasy regarding a certain portion of this bureaucracy. We need to be cautious when we express our freedom of speech. Otherwise, the officials may reprimand us and prohibit our ability to perform our duties.
I question the appropriateness of allowing the bureaucracy to use the full weight of this government’s resources to vigorously pursue any Member of this House. I believe that our legislation should be reviewed to properly address this matter.
Now that the commissioner’s report is complete, a process that should have taken 90 days to resolve has taken well over seven months. I believed this whole affair would be expedient.
It has taken much longer than anyone anticipated.
Mr. Speaker, I think members will understand why I can say now that I have no confidence in the Premier’s leadership, and why I’m concerned with the level of authority that has been delegated to the Premier’s staff.
Nunavummiut need leadership, not readership.
The last eight months have been stressful to my family, my colleagues, and me.
As a father, I love and admire my children very much. For that reason, I acknowledge my mistakes. I want my children to learn from my mistakes and I want them to know that admitting our mistakes and dealing with the consequences is honourable.
I accept the Integrity Commissioner’s report. Today, effective immediately, I am resigning from my position as a Member of the Executive Council of Nunavut.
Thank you, fellow members. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Members will note that the member has resigned effective immediately from the Executive Council.
Madam Premier, do you have any last reply?
None. The debate is now closed.
We will now vote.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded vote.