EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
That is one major effort that was undertaken involving every community and it involved over 100 participants. Not only that, but it involved a working group internally that started the process back in 2002-03 made up of the Department of CLEY, Justice, Education, Health, Housing and so on.
So a number of projects have now taken place to review some of the barriers that people are facing in trying to seek help or get out of violent situations, which is part of that team.
Also, with that particular team is the RCMP, Qulliq Women’s Council and a number of other agencies like shelters and NTI, all part of that working group.
It involves a lot of stakeholders to try and address violence against women. The report will outline the strategic direction we need to take to develop further at the community level and move forward.
It certainly seems that there is a lot of work under way by a lot of dedicated, committed people.
While there is a working group studying the problem, or the issue, we still have a lot of violence against women, occurring daily in Nunavut.
My question for the minister: can the minister tell us how many recorded instances of violence against women occurred in 2005?
It is a very serious issue and it is one that we are moving forward on and it’s one that involved a number of other stakeholders. So the work of the symposium; I’m looking forward to those recommendations and acting on those recommendations, but it won’t be one department that will be tasked with that but a number of agencies also.
When I released the poster back in the fall, at that time, the statistics that I shared in releasing the campaign around trying to raise awareness and prevention and the whole issue around zero tolerance for violence, was statistics in Nunavut was over 1,000 from what I remember.
So the numbers are very high and those numbers also involved children. And we have, right now, four or five shelters in Nunavut.
So it is a serious issue, which resulted in us organizing the symposium to start tackling the issue and speaking about what some of the solutions may be from our communities in our homes and so on.
So once the report is available, I would be pleased to share it with all members.
Mr. Speaker, when the Legislative Assembly unanimously supported the campaign against violence against women last fall.
We stood in support of a motion. People are studying the situation and the issues; coming up with recommendations.
The bottom line: we are going to have to come up with financial resources to help people in the communities address these issues. There are only so many crisis shelters in Nunavut, I think there are six or seven and they are struggling to remain open. The ladies, the women, and the children can’t leave town because of the housing shortages.
So my question for the minister: what financial resources does she anticipate the Government of Nunavut will have to commit to help women who are trying to escape domestic violence?
Aside from what we have now internally in our budget for supporting those shelters, supporting counselling programs, the recommendations that come out of the symposium, we will receive those recommendations and we will need to examine what the needs are, whether it be for training, whether it be for more treatment programs for families and so on. We need to examine that and then to go forward to the Financial Management Board and to Cabinet on those recommendations.
And I mentioned earlier that those recommendations will not fall on one department but rather a number of other departments: it could be Justice; it could be Education, and so on, as well as CLEY. So we will take coordinated effort from various departments and once we have those recommendations from the Qulliq Status of Women Council taking a coordinating role, we will examine them and move forward with the resources that we need to address the issue of violence against women and children.
Question 269 – 2(3): Court Order to Pay for Services (Tootoo)
With regards to a question to the Minister of Health, she indicated that the Department of Education was also targeted by a judge in this court order; maybe the Minister of Education can inform me whether, on behalf of his department, they have complied with the court order that the judge issued on February 10.
In any case, where a principal, in this case the government, has been asked, in this case a court order, been ordered to do something, then, Mr. Speaker, the prerequisite is to follow out said order.
I have never heard of an outset order before, but maybe that is the same thing that the minister stated that the government are trying to get out of paying what the Judge ordered them to pay.
No, Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect.
What I said was, I think the Hansard will show; that if an order is made by a court, as a body, as a legislative regulatory body, in this case a judicial body, then the government carries out said order.
Has his department followed through with the court order that was issued for them over a month ago yet?
When a court makes a decision and that decision is brought forward to the government, then the government carries out said decision.
Maybe if I put a little more clearly, the minister will answer it properly.
How much money has the Department of Education provided to this family for the care that the Judge ordered them to pay over a month ago?  If he can just tell me how much the family has received from his department since the court order was issued.
I do not have the dollar values or the monetary amount.
What I can say, I think I have said it now three times, is that when a court order is ordered, then the receiving body, in this case the government carries out said order.
Question 270 – 2(3): Court Order to Pay for Services (Tootoo)
Hopefully, we can get a little more out of that recording than what has been coming out of the Minister of Education.
The minister says the government carries out said order.
I am asking him has his department carried out that order and reinstated the funding to that individual.
Yes or no? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a very serious issue when the court makes an order, in this case makes a command, then the government, in this case the department involved, had to carry out said order.
I have answered that question now three times in the other questioning, and I will answer it again by saying yes.
Thank you, Mr. Minister for indicating that the department will follow through on that order that was issued by the Judge and the courts.
Can the minister give me an idea or family some hope of when they can expect to see some funding or actual cheques being received from the department?
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it was over a month ago that that court order was issued and, as of last week, the family still has not received a single penny from the government.
Can the minister indicate, for me and for the family involved, when they can expect to get a cheque from the government to pay for the services that their son requires?
Again, there are political matters and so on within government and departments, and there are legal matters. This public forum is not the place to get into legal decisions and legal judgements made by a judge.
In this case, the judge has made an order. The Government of Nunavut was a party to that order.
It’s my understanding Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated several times now, that the Government of Nunavut is in carrying out said order. Now that order contained different parts. The member is talking about what he has read in the paper; there are other parts to any type of court order.
So all I’m trying to indicate, on behalf and for the government in the member’s questioning, is that the government takes the court order made by the judge in question, serious, and are trying to act on it given that circumstance.
I’m aware that there are a number of different circumstances and issues related in that particular order, but the one in particular that I was asking the minister on was the financial support to the family for providing those services that their child needs.
When will the Department of Education, when can that family expect to get any money out of the government to pay for those services that were cut off by the government over two years ago?
I think the answer has been pretty plain.
There was an order made by the court to the government. The government reviews that order and then tries to implement what has been stated.
But at the same time, there is a context of the total issue of what was before the court at that time. And again, I’m not a lawyer and I can’t get into that.
It’s my understanding in the information provided to me that the order is being followed up and being implemented based on the best available information that the government has and so on.
These are the types of transactions that occur here.
So that’s the information that I have and I hope maybe that helps answer the member’s question.
That doesn’t help very much.
I was trying to get an idea of when this family can get some financial support that has been cut off completely by the government for over two years now.
It was so bad that the judge even said that it was reflected very badly on the government for the way that it handled this particular case.
And like I said, on February 10, issued an order for the government to pay for those services and reinstate the funding that was required to this individual.
The minister doesn’t seem to be able to say how long it takes to process a cheque in his department.
It’s obvious it knows what kinds of services are required; I’m sure it was all spelled out very clearly in the courts.
If the minister would give a date; is it going to be another month? Is it going to be another week? Is it going to be another year?
Or another two years before this family can expect to see some aid, finally, that the court ordered from the government?  That’s all I’m looking for; if he can give me, and them, some indication of when they can finally look forward to receiving some support, financially, from the government that they cut off over two years ago.
Mr. Speaker, the decision made by the court was a preliminary one.
This is ongoing in the context of a human rights complaint, and so on. So, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that at the end of the day when the court order makes the decision or judgment, or in this case, an order, then the lawyers representing the family and the Government of Nunavut will have to sit down, and then they talk about the order.
They negotiate the offer, as it were. In my understanding, that is what is occurring.
If that had happened yesterday, this morning or on Friday afternoon, I’m not privy to that information.
My understanding is that both parties had to get together on it, and that’s my answer to the member. I’ve said it several times.
Everyone understands that these types of cases occur on a different basis within government.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the people involved are trying to do their best. The order has been presented. It is being followed up by the parties involved including the legal staff within government, as well as from the family, and that’s where it is.
We’ll go back to the Orders of the Day. Item 7.
I would like consent to go back to Item 5.
Speaker (interpretation): The member is seeking unanimous consent to go back to Item 5, Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery.
My wife is right behind me. I think James just left. I was going to acknowledge both of them.
I would like to acknowledge my wife, and I would like to welcome her to the building here. We are both from Arviat.
Thank God there was no airplane leaving today.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to acknowledge someone. I would like to acknowledge my wife, Martha.
She and I have been married for 30 years.
Going back to Item 7.
Reply to Opening Address 003 – 2(3): Mr. Peter Kilabuk
Mr. Kilabuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another first for me today as I will humbly attempt to do my first reply to an opening address ever, so bear with me.
Mr. Speaker, if I do not accomplish my goal today, I will again at a later time, if an opportunity allows.
Mr. Speaker as we all know, solid foundations do not fall easily.
They are even stronger when a number of foundations are formed to serve as a base.
This theory, as you know Mr. Speaker, is applicable in the knowledge base of Inuit; a solid foundation proven over thousands of years in its own unique way despite it being the world’s most harsh and fragile environment.
This is what we should stand on as we move forward with the building of this government, Mr. Speaker, a supply of solid foundations.
Mr. Speaker, as members know, there are many differing views in how Nunavut housing should be done, housing should be handled, who should do what and what the expectations are for different age groups and different communities.
Mr. Speaker, as a result, many attempts are made daily in trying to answer questions or issues using mostly western science. Many attempts of which are often expensive, misleading, not based on Inuit foundations or are just not sufficient to answering questions or needs.
While at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have available to us this unique Inuit knowledge from a unique group of people including those of our elders.
(interpretation ends) Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we should be prepared to treat them as equal participants, and partners involved in the solution thinking process and recognize them with respect, with courtesy through kindness and by name.
Mr. Speaker, how good it feels to just hear somebody’s name being called.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to make plans for the journeys we want to take it is important to know where we come from. It is also important to know who we are, how we got here, and what we have got in plans for the journey we want to take.
Not necessarily to a specific point or time, because the world for us will never end until the end of time, (interpretation) especially if we are serious about being based on foundations that have brought us to where we are today.
Applications have proven Inuit knowledge and its resource; we cannot allow it to go any further.
Mr. Speaker, the silence of not using the Inuit knowledge base and resources in our government has to be broken.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, in English terms, if I were to mention stone-age with a level of understanding, how far back stone-age was, and maybe I exaggerate to the specific terms when stones and natural tools were used as equipment, most non-Inuit would probably say as much up to thousands of years ago.
Just that perception of natural tools and the land and wildlife is what I am interested in Mr. Speaker. For example, Inuit living independently with no dependency on the outside for metal tools, fabrics, and products for practices.
And now if we look back to see when that was for many Inuit, it was shockingly just a mere 50 to 70 years ago, Mr. Speaker. In that form or another of being totally independent, is it not amazing, Mr. Speaker, how our people have adapted and ended with the new lifestyle in just a very short period of time.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, amongst us are the Inuit with that unique knowledge base, at the very best of times we make them follow nothing but the best of western world science and practices. No wonder there is confusion, Mr. Speaker, and no wonder there is uncertainty. We do this while serving people who are totally dependant on the natural resources and wildlife, because of their unique lifestyles and activities, of course, with modern tools.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have to understand all aspects of the people we serve.
For many of us that were born after the introduction of the non-Inuit western science, lifestyles and practices, it is crucially important, I feel, to remember that there is this unique Inuit knowledge base still available today.
I will come back to this in a bit.
Mr. Speaker, for many of us, we are almost as Qallunaaq in practice as non-Inuit can live.
So does this make that certain group of people with Inuit knowledge unique, or maybe even what we can classify as almost an extinct group of people because of their unique knowledge base of Inuit, Anninaq.
Mr. Speaker, I think is important that we recognize that there really is this group of people that we can consider unique. But, Mr. Speaker, together with them we can save this knowledge through the solutions they can pass us. And only then will we be able to write the knowledge in stone as per the language that was used in this House last week by our capable Mr. Premier.
(interpretation) Mr. Speaker, to try and improve my case further, I will use an example everybody knows about all too well; scientists and biologists are studying the polar bear and its population, the movements they’ll have and reproduction in the new environment caused by global warming.
The only thing the western scientists have not been able to do is get the bear to speak. (interpretation ends) Everything else along it has been tried Mr. Speaker, and in a way, this is encouraging to see all levels of government working together to make sure a plan can be carried out and seen through, and quite frankly Mr. Speaker, regardless of what plan that may be.
At the same time Mr. Speaker, it bothers me to know that we don’t have the same plans and commitment to all of the Inuit knowledge of what we hear often is very quickly disappearing.
(interpretation) I’ll be very honest Mr. Speaker. I am not ashamed to say that I have never had to depend on a polar bear carving or even for food as our fathers and grand fathers may have.
Many of us simply do not know anywhere near enough about it, but, lucky for us there are still some elders and those a bit younger still around with that knowledge, including the knowledge from every aspect of Inuit lifestyle and its practices.
Mr. Speaker, based on the Inuit knowledge, I am bothered to know those who are made to wear collars in the harsh environment and that they are put to sleep while their lips are being tattooed.
(interpretation ends) And then, at the same time, because of this western science, they ask us and our constituents not to eat the polar bear meat.
What a waste Mr. Speaker.
And all because the western science says it should be.
Mr. Speaker, and further to this, polar bears go through great fear while trying to run away from helicopters.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, how these people in Nunavut that rely so heavily on the Inuit knowledge, imagine how they feel about this Mr. Speaker?  This is because we have made the western science knowledge to be the dominant force.
And yet, at the same time, we don’t take the time to ask.
Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is Inuit knowledge teaches us to be respectful. (interpretation) Inuit knowledge teaches us to respect our wildlife and all forms of living species, especially if one has no plans of utilizing it.
Mr. Speaker, many of us are yet to be convinced that the best of the western science is as complete as we have been led to believe.
With some sense of urgency, my constituents ask that the Inuit knowledge be used to see if we really need to collar polar bears, or if we even need to put them to sleep.
Personally I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, but it sure is worth looking into.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I believe, and am convinced without question, we should make the people our priority first, especially when we talk about a unique age group and its very knowledge base we are missing in our solution thinking process.
Mr. Speaker, why do we not open our minds and try to understand better to include everybody involved with the proven foundation of the Inuit; to work side by side with the best of what western science has to offer and vice-versa.
I think it needs to be said Mr. Speaker; a few staff members knowledge is not effective enough anymore. It has to be the government’s knowledge as a whole, and use the unique Inuit knowledge to become more effective.
Mr. Speaker, I say this with a belief that we should do this if we don’t want to be running in the same spot any longer than we need to.
When I got elected in the first and second term Mr. Speaker, I was tasked with voicing the needs and issues with my constituents, which I try to do.
And for the record Mr. Speaker, I will not claim to represent the constituents of my colleagues in this House, and their concerns, but I know there are very many similarities they have voiced.
Mr. Speaker, there appears to be more plans in place for the polar bear than for the participation of my constituents in the age group I am talking about.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker; more documented plans and resources to save the bears than putting into use the people’s knowledge as part of the solution thinking process of their own government; knowledge with so much potential, if applied and used as the other foundation and base of the western science.
Mr. Speaker, I’m not saying this government has not done anything for Inuit. I know it has; I’ve been a part of it.
But specifically to the missing plans and commitments of resources I’m talking about, the Inuit knowledge certainly needs to be included to better help us through the solution thinking process with and for our constituents.
(interpretation) Perhaps here’s the plan: I know that staff member of any process can stand proudly to say; “Here is the plan, and here is where we are, because we do not have a complete plan yet.”
Since 1999, we have heard from people who all seem to be part of the solution and thinking process; not just from elders, but also from people with Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit knowledge, and adults, the certain age groups with unique knowledge I was referring to.
Mr Speaker isn’t it sad; people are asking who will be a part of this immersion.
This is a question from the group of people with the answers.
And, furthermore Mr. Speaker, if we go back to the first days when people started talking about self government, isn’t this group of people and organizers who were spoken to and asked how or what they wanted this government to be like?
What their aspirations were in the forming of this government?
This raises many more questions, but I will not go on because I do not know enough about the history in the presence of those who do.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, what I’m getting at is: where did we go wrong to allow so much slack, to not allow people to be a part of the solution taking process?
After all have we not made commitments to be an IQ oriented government?
Clearly, looking back, we didn’t have the plan; and we don’t have the plan today to use the knowledge base in doing our work.
No, I am not putting this government down for a job not done, yeah, maybe some constructive criticism, but let this be a reminder to us all.
And if you ask me Mr. Speaker, do I stand proud to say what this government has done for this certain age group?
I think that is a question rightfully passed onto this government to answer instead. After all, I am just an MLA raising an issue.
If we look around us to see what is here, in comparison to what is not in the short 57 years Mr. Speaker, some of our constituents remember communities where we are living today. They were aware our partners from western science-oriented groups of people tend to say, “They were at an out-post camp, disconnected from the community.”
Disconnected Mr. Speaker, how narrow-minded we can get Mr. Speaker?
These were the people that were connected to the environment, lived and made the culture we say we are so proud of, and yes we are proud of our culture.
Even though we have as little as we do of what true life was like before the irreversible changes in Inuit lifestyle and practises happened, simply because we have a sense of connection.
After all this time, Mr. Speaker, we still have not made plans to make our constituents unique knowledge our priority in this government, case in point.
Just knowing we are linked to a group of Inuit that once lived a totally self-sustaining life, makes us proud further.
That was threatened from the time they became dependent on tools, equipment, food and practises of the non-Inuit.
Dependency was getting stronger and the need sliding towards basic tools and practises.