EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I’m wondering Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Nunavut will be talking to their counterparts in the Northwest Territories to determine how false alarms will be handled to minimize delays for people traveling from the Kitikmeot down to Yellowknife and or Edmonton.
Yes, we will be able to look into it, but I believe we are going to start this coming spring and summer to work at the airport, I am sure the same issue is going to rise here in Iqaluit, especially for the passengers that are going down to Ottawa.
Our departmental officials are aware of this and they are looking at ways of how they can resolve the issue and that’s what I expect to see.
Speaker (interpretation): Second Supplementary. Mr. Peterson.
A friend of mine was traveling to Yellowknife last year.
He went through security and he had some explosive materials or dust on his computer because he worked on the mine.
Then the security people dragged him off to a corner and they shook him down pretty seriously.
That’s the kind of security checks we can be expect plus delays of departing flights.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a concern in my riding about whether or not the people in the Kitikmeot will be expected to pay user fees to fund improvements at the Yellowknife Airport.
It is mentioned in the news release that it will be a $11.2 million expansion.
I am not sure whether the government is going to pay for all of that or through some traveling fees.
Could the Minister clarify that please?
I have not heard, up to date, as to how they are going to be paying for the airport; whether the government or the federal government is going to pay for the whole thing.
So I have not heard of anything to date.
Speaker (interpretation): Final Supplementary. Mr. Peterson.
Could I get the Minister to maybe give me his commitment to come to Cambridge Bay in the next couple of months to sit down to talk to the Hamlet Council in the community and explain how all of these Yellowknife Airport improvements are going to affect people traveling from Cambridge Bay or from the entire Kitikmeot.
If he could give that commitment to come give us an update of when these improvements or new systems are in place; I think it says here January 2006.
A few days ago, I responded to my colleague that I thought I was going to be in Cambridge Bay next month.
Since I had stated that I could meet with the municipal counselors, yes, I can meet with the municipal counselors in the community.
Member for Akulliq. Mr. Mapsalak.
Question 406 – 2(2): Update on Docking Facilities
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and some officials from Transportation toured some of the communities in Nunavut.
They visited the communities that don’t have docking facilities in the communities.
I was wondering if the Minister has heard any news in regards to the consultations that were done in the communities.
Yes, we have discussed this with our officials from the Department of Transportation and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans last spring.
They met and had discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials by touring and consulting with the communities.
They’ve made it an application to the federal government through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Minister.
To date, we have not received any responses to that request.
We have not heard from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but I do expect the response soon.
He already to respond to my second supplementary question.
Do I understand that neither entity nor government body has identified any funds for this.
I have not heard any news about funding, although I know how much we requested, but we have not heard any response.
I met with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans while he visited Iqaluit and I told him the urgency of this request, and the Minister stated that he understood.
For many times he met with Nunavummiut with regards to the same issue and he stated that this was going to be done urgently, but we have not heard any news on funding.
It would be beneficial to the communities that don’t have any breakwater or docking facilities.
Did the federal Minister approach the Government of Nunavut Minister about the community consultations?
The federal Fisheries Minister has mentioned that his officials are working on our request.
There needs to be one more meeting, and then after the last final meeting, it will be given to the Minister, once everything has been set, once all the documents have been clarified, then it will be given to the Minister.
As of now the application has not been given to the Minister as yet.
Question 407 – 2(2): Community Consultations on Wildlife Regulations
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of environment in regards to the amendment to the Bill.
I was wondering if he knew when they will be starting the consultation in the communities.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister responsible for Environment.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Soeajer.
I'd like to send my regards to my constituents of Cape Dorset and Kimmirut.
In regards to the Member's question on the draft regulations, I believe that in two weeks we'll start touring to the communities in regards to the draft regulations.
I am not too sure when they will be completed.
There are many communities within Nunavut, and each community depends on all species for their subsistence hunting.
I was wondering if the Minister can tell me, which of the communities are going to be visited.
Speaker (interpretation): Hon. Olayuk Akesuk
At this time I am not able to tell you which communities will be visited.
NTI and NWNB will also take part in the consultation tours, so I’m not too sure which communities will be toured.
I am sure that the smaller communities will again be forgotten. I was wondering if you have considered touring the smaller communities.
Yes, all of the communities will be treated equally, especially when we are touring the communities with the draft regulations.
We urge all of the communities to read all of the draft regulations.
All of the Chairs of Hunters and Trappers' Organizations will meet together as well.
Also, Members of the Legislative Assembly should meet with their constituents in regards to the draft regulations.
This process will be beneficial to everyone.
Using this method, we will have the best feedback in regards to the draft regulations.
As you mentioned, Nunavut Wildlife Management Boardm Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the GN will need to work closely together to make sure this process goes well because the Bill and Regulations will have an impact on Nunavummiut.
Speaker (interpretation): First Supplementary. Mr. Kattuk.
I was asking the Minister if the smaller communities are going to be visited as well by the consultants.
We are not conducting the consulations alone as Government of Nunavut. We will partner up with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
I can’t tell you which communities will be visited, but all of the communities of Nunavut are more than welcome to make their submissions in regards to the draft regulations.
Question 408 – 2(2): Children and Adult Group Homes in Iqaluit
Mr. Speaker, as all Members will know, there are two group homes located here in Iqaluit; one of them in the Education Minister’s riding, and one in the Premier’s riding, I believe or else they are both in the Education Minister’s riding.
My question for the Minister of Health and Social Services is, these boarding homes that are operating here, I believe one is an adult group home and one is a children’s group home, are they run by the Department of Health and Social Services staff or are they contracted those services out to a contractor?
Speaker (interpretation): Minister responsible for Health and Social Services. Ms. Brown.
Yes, the issues that are raised by my colleague are both being run by the Department of Health and Social Services through contract.
Speaker (interpretation): First Supplementary. Mr. Tootoo.
Is the Minister aware if both of these facilities have individuals staying in them that have limited capacities and abilities to be able to get around through outside of the group home and I know as anyone who has been around the city has seen a green van at each facility.
Are those vehicles the responsibility of the contractor or are they owned, operated, and maintained by the Department of Health and Social Services?
Those vehicles that he is referring to are owned, operated, and maintained probably by the Department of Health and Social Services from what I understand.
Speaker (interpretation): Second Supplementary. Mr. Tootoo.
As I mentioned earlier that we know that individuals staying in those group homes sometimes are not able to get around on their own, and also, one would assume that sometimes there are emergencies where the contractors that are in the group home or staff in there may be required to rush someone out of the facility, whether it be to the hospital, or wherever, or taken to appointments, and stuff like that.
I understand that those vehicles are used for.
Right now can the Minister confirm or not that one of the facilities, the vehicle that they have is not operating and that one of those facilities is, whether or not, is without a vehicle at their disposal right now.
Thank you to my colleague for those excellent questions.
The elders group home’s vehicle will be replaced with a new vehicle on the sealift.
We know that this vehicle will be on the sealift.
We have asked Community and Government Services so that it could be tendered out.
To me, that sounds like a liability to the government if one if the group homes does not have transportation readily available that they needed for any of those people staying in those group homes.
Why is it that the department has not given this facility a vehicle to use in the meantime until their new vehicle comes up on the sealift?
If the vehicle requires repairs, the Government of Nunavut is responsible.
Also the Government of Nunavut will provide a substitute vehicle if required.
The elder’s bus is also available for persons with disability, who require help with transportation within the City.
Tabled Document 137 – 2(2): Resolutions Passed at the 2005 Nunavut Association of Municipalities Annual General Meeting
I am pleased to table the Resolutions that were passed by the Nunavut Association of Municipalities during their 2005 Annual General Meeting.
Once again I would like to encourage my colleagues to take some time to read through these well prepared resolutions.
I urge the government to take action on these resolutions.
Tabled Document 138 – 2(2): Environmental Impact Statement for Eastmain -1-A
In my Member’s Statement I mentioned that I would be tabling that NTK assessment report.
Speaker (interpretation): Please pass on the documents to our clerk. Tabling of Documents.
Tabled Document 139 – 2(2): Nunavut Electricty Subsidy Program Contribution Policy
I wish to table the following document; the Nunavut Electricity Subsidy Program Contribution Policy.
This policy is designed to provide residential and commercial power customers with equitable power rates for power consumption.
Tabled Document 140 – 2(2): Sport North Financial Statements
I would like to table the Sport Nunavut Lottery financial statements.
Tabled Document 141 – 2(2): Annual Report of the Director of Child and Family Services 2003/04
Tabled Document 142 – 2(2): 2003/04 Report on Home and Community Care Services
Tabled Document 143 – 2(2): 2004 Tobacco Control Act Annual Report
I would like to table the Annual report of the Director of Child and Policy Services 2003/04.
The other one I would like to table is the Community Home Care services.
I would also like to table the 2004 Tobacco Control Act Report.
Speaker (interpretation): Tabling of Documents. Mr. Picco.
Tabled Document 144 – 2(2): News and Insight on Public – Private Partnerships
I would like to take this opportunity to table the Public: Private News and Incites on the public: private partnerships.
Mr. Speaker, I think the article on page 21 is of particular note.
Motion 022 – 2(2): Amendment to Rule 39 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly - Notice
I give notice of motion for an amendment to Rule 39 in the Legislative Assembly.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, May 5, 2005, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay that Rule 39 be amended by adding the following Sub-Section:
A Minister shall provide a Return to Oral Question within seven calendar days unless the Minister files a provisional return with the Clerk indicating:
more time is required
the reason for the delay
the date upon the information will be provided
A Return to Oral Question may be filed with the Clerk of the House when the House stands adjourned for prorogue.
A return shall be deemed for all purpose to have been presented or laid before the House.
A return shall be tabled at the appropriate points in the daily order of business at the first opportunity when the House sits.
At the appropriate time, I will be seeking unanimous consent to deal with my motion today.
Motion 023 – 2(2): Amendment to Rule 41 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly - Notice
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): I also would like to make a notice of motion in the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
I give notice that on Thursday, May 5, 2005 I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay that Rule 41 be amended by adding the following Sub-Section:
A return to a written question may be filed with the Clerk of the House when the House stands adjourned or prorogued.
A return shall be deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House.
A return shall be tabled at the appropriate point in the daily order of business at the first opportunity when the House sits.
Motion 024 – 2(2): Amendment to Rule 44 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly – Notice
I give notice that I will be making a motion to amend Rule 44 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly on Thursday, May 5, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay that Rule 44 be deleted and replaced by 44.1. under the item Tabling of Documents, the Speaker or a Member may provide the House any document which is required to be laid before the House in accordance with any Act of Nunavut or Canada or pursuant to any motion or rule for the Legislative Assembly or which may be in the public interest.
A Member may make a brief factual statement to identify the document.
And 44.2., any document will be required to be laid before the House in accordance with any Act of Nunavut or Canada or pursuant to any motion or rule of the Legislative Assembly.
It may be filed with the Clerk of the House when the House stands adjourned or prorogued.
Such documents shall be deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House and any such document shall be tabled at the appropriate point in the daily order of business at the first opportunity when the House sits.
And Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I will be asking unanimous consent to deal with my motion today.
Motion 025 – 2(2): Compensation Program for Nunavut Residents Suffering Losses as a Result of the Quality of Gasoline – Notice
I give notice that on Thursday, May 5, 2005, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I move, seconded by honorable Member for Akulliq, that the Legislative Assembly recommends that the Government of Nunavut introduce no later then the summer of this year, a comprehensive compensation program for resident who have suffered damage to their snowmobiles, outboard motors, ATV’s, or other property as a result of the quality of gasoline supply in Nunavut communities.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Notices of Motion.
Motion 026 – 2(2): Amendment to Rule 68 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly - Notice
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, May 5, 2005, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Nattilik, that Rule 68 be amended by adding the following subsection and renumbering the existing sections accordingly:
(2) The sponsor of a Bill may, without notice, under the item “Motions”, move that a Bill be ordered into Committee of the Whole after the 120 calendar days have passed and no motion to extend the period for the Standing Committee to review the Bill has been adopted by the House.”
I’d like unanimous consent to waive rule 41, the rules of the Legislative Assembly to deal with my motion today.
Speaker (interpretation): The Member is seeking unanimous consent to make his motion today.
Motion 022 – 2(2): Amendment to Rule 39 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Mr. Speaker,
WHEREAS the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges has reported to the House;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that Rule 39 be amended by adding the following subsections:
(6) (interpretation ends) A Minister shall provide a Return to an Oral Question within 7 calendar days, unless the Minister files a provisional return with the Clerk indicating:
that more time is required;
the reason for the delay; and
The date upon which the information will be provided.
A Return to an Oral Question may be filed with the Clerk of the House when the House stands adjourned or prorogued.
A Return shall be deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House.
A Return shall be tabled at the appropriate point in the daily order of business at the first opportunity when the House sits.
Speaker (interpretation): The Motion in order.
Motion 023 – 2(2): Amendment to Rule 41 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly
I would like to make a motion on the amendment to Rule 41 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
WHEREAS the Standing Committee of Rule, Procedures and Privileges has reported to the House:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that Rule 41 be amended by adding the following subsection:
A Return to a Written Question may be filed with the Clerk of the House when the House stands adjourned or prorogued.
All those in favour of the motion. All those opposed.
At this time I would like to seek unanimous consent to deal with a motion dealing with an amendment to Rule 44 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
The Members seeking unanimous to deal with the amendment to Rule 44.
Motion 024 – 2(2): Amendment to Rule 44 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly
WHEREAS the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges has reported to the House:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that Rule 44 be deleted and replaced by:
Under the item “Tabling of Documents,” the Speaker or a Member may provide to the House any document which is required to be laid before the House in accordance with any Act of Nunavut or Canada or pursuant to any Motion or Rule of the Legislative Assembly, or which may by in the public interest.
A Member may make a brief factual statement to identify the document
Any document required to be laid before the House in accordance with any Act of Nunavut or Canada or pursuant to any Motion or Rule of the Legislative Assembly may be filed with the Clerk of the House when the House stands adjourned or prorogued.
Such documents shall be deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House.
Any such document shall be tabled at the appropriate point in the daily order of business at the first opportunity when the House sits.
I seek unanimous consent to deal with my motion dealing with an amendment to Rule 68 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
The Members seeking unanimous consent to deal with the motion today.
Motion 026 – 2(2): Amendment to Rule 68 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly
The sponsor of a Bill may, without notice, under the item “Motions”, move that a Bill be ordered into Committee of the Whole after the 120 calendar days have passed and no motion to extend the period for the Standing Committee to review the Bill has been adopted by the House.
Motion 027 – 2(2): Amendment to Motion 26-2(2)
I move, seconded by the Member for Nanulik that the motion be amended by the following, and further I move that this amendment not come into effect until May 1, 2006 so that further study on the matter may be undertaken.
Speaker (interpretation): The amendment is in order.
The same rules apply to regular motions as amendments.
The Members can speak for 20 minutes to the motion but the mover of the amendment will have the last opportunity to speak to the motion.
The mover of the motion. Mr. Curley.
The intent of my motion, as I tried to explain during caucus, and I don’t think it was clear, that Rule 68, it works.
We are given four months or 120 days before they get the report, to have the opportunity but at this time that 120 days will still apply as long as no motion is given to extend.
(interpretation ends) The sponsor of a bill, without notice.
That to me is very dangerous wording because what we’re dealing with is a closer rule in the house, a formalized closure where you are now cut off after exhausted attempts to bring the Bill from the committee.
If it doesn’t work and there is notice, the Minister or sponsor of a Bill, any Minister can put forward a motion to close the debate.
We have eight Ministers and there’s only a few of us.
If they get one or two more, the Minister would be able to introduce and proceed with a Bill.
So, I’m asking for further study on this.
I want the Clerk to study the rules of other legislatures to see whether they have a formalized a closure rule structured in their rule book.
I bet you will not find a closure rule in any given legislature.
I appreciate all the attempts to try and define procedures by my colleague but I think we need to study it a bit more because we’re dealing with the democratic rights of the group.
There may be an opportunity to introduce extending a Bill being considered but it would mean we would forever have to vote on procedure.
Speaker (interpretation): To the amendment.
I had an opportunity like Mr. Curley to sit in a different Assembly in the past.
Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee of this house, duly appointed by the Members of the House had decided about this amendment.
When a Bill is ordered into Committee of the Whole Mr. Speaker, indeed it doesn’t activate a closure clause.
Indeed what that Bill does when it goes to Committee of the Whole, it provides for full debate among the Members.
Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the original amendment here being made to our rules would be that you would allow for conducive and expeditious debate on a Bill.
Mr. Speaker, allowing a Bill to be ordered into Committee of the Whole, gives every Member of the house, as the Members know, an opportunity to debate the Bill.
The members can then take the Bill back out of the Committee of the Whole, as it was put in with changes or amendments or other opportunities that we have within the rule.
I do not agree with the amendment, unless there was a better basis of delaying it until 2006.
I would suggest that your staff and the clerk’s staff would have reviewed the rules and laws and the prerogatives.
I am sure that the rules committee, which is appointed by all members, would have looked at the amendments themselves.
I do not believe that any Member here is trying to shut down the democratic process by ordering closure.
I too, like Mr. Picco, would like to rise and voice my opposition to this amendment.
We all know that the standing committees have a hundred and twenty days automatically to view any Bill that is brought before them.
They also have the opportunity to ask for an extension, if required.
Having sat in this legislature during the First Assembly; that was something that was required, from time to time, to be done.
Also as indicated in my report yesterday as chair of the rules committee, since the Member bought up his concern looking at this closure rule, to try and see it in that way.
I have not been able to try and understand how it could be considered a closure rule, or a formalized closure as the Member called it, to close debate on any Bill.