EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Conceivably a person outside of the discipline of the Legislature might be found to be responsible for some of the costs of a review and it would be particularly important in that case to have access to the courts to enforce payment of an order of the Legislative Assembly.
But if the member’s question or concern is would traditional knowledge and Inuit values be brought to bear on the consideration of sanctions, certainly that is the intention and the Integrity Commissioner, I would anticipate would want to get the assistance/wisdom of elders at this stage of the process.
Yes, thank you for the response and I understand your response.
What I am trying to ask is exactly where in this Act is Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
I don't think that was responded to, but it's all right you don't have to respond to it.
That's my last question.
When we go clause by clause there will also be some questions from the members.
The members are given the opportunity to ask questions during clause by clause.
At this time I will give the two individuals an opportunity to ask another question.
Okay he will ask the question when we go clause by clause.
I didn't have any more questions.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman for giving me the opportunity to ask a question.
Under page 2 of the minister's speaking notes, I am not sure that they will use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as the foundation.
It says that it has been designed using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as its foundation is what it said in the minister's opening comments.
Is it like that as well in English.
Is it the same as the Inuktitut.
If any of those seated at the witness table wish to respond they may.
We have been here for pretty close to four hours and Minister Ng already mentioned in his opening comments that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit will be designed into this Act.
Some members have been asking whether they can get a response from the minister and the other witnesses in regards to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
The members at the witness table have tried to explain the concept, or the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit being designed into this Act.
So after saying that, I would just like to say to the members that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit will be designed into this Act.
But Mr. Stanbury and Mr. Ng cannot really answer that part of the question because it is designed into the Act.
Because we are new members I know that it is going to take a little while for Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit to come into force.
I will read the Inuktitut. "
Mr. Chairman this is a comprehensive bill that incorporates four important elements.
It has been designed using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as its foundation".
I just want to find out whether the Inuktitut and the English are exactly the same.
If that is the case it already states that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit will be placed in this bill.
I just want to find out whether the English and the Inuktitut are the same.
Yes, everybody got the copy of the comments.
So Mr. Ng, can you just clarify for the member.
Yes, the English and the Inuktitut is the same Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ng for the response.
The question that Mr. Iqaqrialu had.
It is the same thing in Inuktitut and English.
When we go clause by clause, when we get to section 29 it talks about the elders advising the conflict of interest commissioner and the elders know the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
This is in section 29 so when we get to that the members will have a better understanding.
We have been looking for Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in this Integrity Act, but it is in section 29 that the elders will be giving advice to the Commissioner.
Although it is not in every section of the Act, the elders will be assisting the Commissioner.
The English and the Inuktitut are the same in the opening comments.
The Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit has been questioned by the members.
Just before we got Nunavut, we also stated that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and the values would be incorporated in the legislature and the government.
That's our foundation, so I think everybody knows by now that we never had an Act like this before.
It is a new Act that we are dealing with and it is very different and it is very comprehensive and it is based on Inuit knowledge.
It is not one of those bureaucratic pieces of legislation.
It is directed to the people of Nunavut because we are unique in Nunavut and it can't just be based all on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in every section.
We never had businesses before, but Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is incorporated into this Act because it is unique and it is different.
If it was conflict legislation which it is, but the wording is not used as much.
It's a different title, Integrity Act, and it's following the traditions of the Inuit.
It's just a comment and I didn't hear a question, just to clarify to the members.
I just want to comment a little bit on in regards to the issue.
When a person is in conflict, as we all know in the past when a person is in conflict in our tradition the person who is in conflict was often reviewed in regards to how or why the person is in conflict.
In the past, as we know, this is what our tradition has always been.
Although we are all people, Inuit and qallunaaq, and the Inuit and southern traditions comply in regards to how people resolve their conflicts.
I just want to make that comment.
Clause by clause.
Bill 7, Integrity Act.
Chairperson (interpretation): Definitions, 3.
Chairperson (interpretation): Page 3.
Chairperson (interpretation): Page 7.
Chairperson (interpretation): Availability of Statements. Clause 7.
On clause 6, I would like further clarification.
Within thirty days after a change or event that occurs after the filing of public disclosure statement.
Could you clarify that point or the whole clause.
Mr. Chairman, this is for after the filing of the annual disclosure statement.
If there were a substantive change between that and the next anniversary, in other words if you filed a statement today and two months from now there was a significant change in your financial situation then you would be required as a member to within 30 days after that change to provide a supplementary disclosure form to notify the Integrity Commissioner of that change and the public.
Or a family member, anybody that is included as part of this Act, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. The English and the Inuktitut page numbers are different.
In the Inuktitut page 7, clause 6.
Chairperson (interpretation): On the same page.
Chairperson (interpretation): Inuktitut page 8.
On clause 8, a member shall not make a decision or participate in making a decision in the performance of his or her duties of office or otherwise exercise an official power.
Well Mr. Chairman, this clause is intended to say that a member shouldn't make a decision or be involved in a decision where he or anybody that is part of this Integrity Act that is deemed to be a dependant or deemed to be in a conflict of interest situation as a result of his relationship with that member, where that decisions may financially benefit that member or his or her dependant.
In other words, their private interests.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Clause 8.
Clause 12 or 13, Mr. Arvaluk.
Where did this 400 dollar figure come from.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Sorry Mr. Chairman, I’ll point quicker next time.
Mr. Chairman, this is the same amount that came over from the conflict of interest act.
So we decided to leave that value, that monetary amount the same for the purposes of the Integrity Act.
Mr. Arvaluk: This amount may be fairly old because it is coming from the Conflict of Interest Act, that has not been changed according to what the value of those presents or gifts may be.
Mr. Chairman even though that limit is there as you can see, the Integrity Commissioner can authorize individuals to retain a gift of a larger value.
The whole principle here though is that there is a disclosure for that gift that is received by a member.
Mr. Arvaluk anything else.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Never mind it's already been responded to.
On clause 21, Mr. Arvaluk.
This excludes, does 21 exclude regular members, does that not require them to wait six months.
Yes the member is correct it's only for ministers, not non-cabinet members.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 22.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 23.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 24.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 25.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 26.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 27.
Oh, on clause 26, Mr. Iqaqrialu.
Clause 26, for any reason if the Integrity Commissioner determines that he or she should not in respect to any particular matter under this act, the Commissioner on the recommendation of the MSB may appoint a special Integrity Commissioner to act in the place of the Integrity Commissioner in respect to the matter.
Further clarification please.
Mr. Chairman, this means that as indicated here, if there is any reason that the Integrity Commissioner feels that he can't carry out or review a certain matter, for whatever reasons, it could be a conflict, it could be personal circumstances, he may be ill, a family member, whatever the case may be.
It allows for the appointment of a special Integrity Commissioner to deal with that issue until it is concluded.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Clause 26. Agreed.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 28.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 29.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 30.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 31.
Mr. Chairman, on clause 31(2).
A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on a summary conviction and is liable to a fine not exceeding 10 thousand dollars.
I would like further clarification on 31(2).
Which subsection (1) are we talking about here.
Are we talking about 31(1).
You have to look at subsection 1 first of all of clause 31, where it says no employer shall take or threaten any action with respect to the appointment of a person because the person has in good faith provided information to or testified before the Integrity Commissioner.
So this is intended to protect anybody that brings forward a complaint against a member or a minister and not have them be penalized for doing that.
So it is for the protection of anybody that may want to lay a matter before the Integrity Commissioner for him or her to review.
On clause 29 (2) the Integrity Commissioner may consult with elders.
On 31, if there were any contravention would that clause 31 mean that the elders would be involved then if they are liable to be fined not exceeding 10 thousand dollars.
Mr. Chairman, if there was an offence under clause 31 then that would be subject to the court to administer that matter.
It would be up to whoever was presiding over that case to decide whether or not, under the judiciary, whether or not an elder or elders should be consulted on that matter.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Clause 31.
I am sorry. Mr. Iqaqrialu.
I just wanted further clarification on that clause.
No employer shall take or threaten any action with respect to the employment.
What are we talking about.
Are we talking about no employer, who is the employer.
Well, the employer is any business or organization that has employees that are paid by that organization or business or government for that matter.
Primarily here we're probably looking for all intents and purposes at government employees that possibly may have knowledge of members or ministers that they might want to bring forward for review to the Integrity Commissioner so as to protect, like I said any individual that might have a reason to believe that there are circumstances that require a review.
Do you agree with clause 31.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 32.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 33. 33.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 34.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 35.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 36.
Any person including a member who believes on a reasonable grounds that a person has contravened this Act…to protect ourselves according to this clause, can we protect ourselves under this clause.
Mr. Chairman this is to allow, to specify if an individual wants to bring forward a request for review to the Integrity Commissioner but it has to be in writing.
I don't know, I'm not certain of the member’s question, but I mean, if I can, what I think he is getting to is once that happens obviously the Integrity Commissioner would enquire of the member and try and ascertain some facts around the allegation to see whether or not there are reasonable grounds there that would require him or her to investigate a review further.
So, the member would be given an opportunity of being able to respond or indicate to the Integrity Commissioner his or her views on that particular matter.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 37.
Do you agree with it.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 38.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 39.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 40.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 41.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 42.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 43.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 44.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 45.
Clause 45, Mr. Tootoo.
Just a quick question here is another, it says here that the report requested by the Premier is given only to the Premier, I just want to get a clarification as to why that clause is in there.
To answer this question you have to refer to clause 38, which in that it says that the Premier may in writing request that the Integrity Commissioner review the facts and give a written report as to whether a minister has contravened any, and this is the key here, additional written requirements established by the Premier for ministers.
So in this circumstance, over and above the Integrity Act that we have here, the Premier can ask his or her ministers for additional requirements.
So if he or she feels that those additional requirements may be contravened, then he or she can go to the Integrity Commissioner and ask for his or her opinion on that specific matter.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Clause 45.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 46.
Do you have a question on clause 46 Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk: Just a little clarification here, probably it is done well in Inuktitut.
But on 46 (c) that the member publicly acknowledge his or her conduct or misconduct.
Why people sometimes say misconduct or sometimes people say conduct.
Is conduct a legal form to express that in the Act.
Mr. Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, misconduct is a form of conduct but conduct is a broader term than misconduct.
So we have chosen conduct arbitrarily.
I hope it is better than limiting the terminology to misconduct.
Enoki.
If I publicly acknowledge my conduct by apologizing would I then be forgiven according to Inuit traditions and culture.
The member is correct if that is what the sanction or the recommendation is from the Integrity Commissioner.
When we contravene any statute we are then charged and have to go to court.
If I was charged and if I did not go through the courts for a long time and if I publicly acknowledge my misconduct would I then be forgiven.
Mr. Stanbury: I guess it would be Mr. Chairman, it would be dangerous for me to anticipate what an Integrity Commissioner might recommend in any particular circumstance.
But the effort here is to introduce the concept of public acknowledgement and apology which I understand as an amateur in the field, understand to be part of the Inuit tradition.
I don't think anyone could guarantee that simple public acknowledgement and apology would be the only sanction imposed.
It would depend on all the circumstances.
But of course this is not a court procedure, this is not a breach of a statute in the sense of a court imposing some sanction, this is a process in which the Integrity Commissioner would make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Assembly would decide whether or not the recommended sanction or sanctions would be suitable in the particular case.
The Integrity Commissioner might recommend one or more of the range of sanctions in any particular case depending on the circumstances.
But the ultimate decision would be that of the Legislative Assembly.
Going back to clause 46.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 47.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 48.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 49.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 50.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 51.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 52.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 53.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 54.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 55.
Chairperson (interpretation): Is everyone awake.
Clause 56.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 57.
It states here that the Integrity Commissioner shall at any time that he or she considers appropriate.
So I was wondering if they could clarify that clause for me, where it states, considers appropriate or inappropriate.
Mr. Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, it is possible that the Integrity Commissioner might want to bring to members' attention some situation in the course of working with this Act, some difficulties that might have been encountered in the administration of the Act.
It is hard to anticipate what it might be, but I thought that it would be useful, and I think it is provided for in at least one provincial statute, I thought it might be useful to give the Integrity Commissioner the possibility of making a report at other times than just waiting for the end of the year.
He or she might want to bring something to the attention of members that they might want to take action on before waiting for an annual report.
Clause 57.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 58.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 59.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 60.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 61.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 7, Integrity Act as a whole.
Chairperson (interpretation): Does the committee agree that this Bill 7 is ready for third reading.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Minister Ng and your officials.
Thank you for appearing in front of the committee and you look good in those t-shirts.
I would, Mr. Chairman just a few closing remarks. I would like to thank the witnesses that appeared with me, Mr. Stanbury and Mr. Armstrong.
Also Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Mike Spakowsky were the ones that drafted the legislation along with significant input from the law clerk Sue Cooper.
There's also as you know the Director of research Mr. Alex Baldwin and many of the Legislative staff, the Clerk, Mr. Quirke and many of the other Legislative staff involved in this.
And of course all the members for their input over the course of the MSB meetings and the caucus meetings that we had on this to bring it to where we are today and finally put some conclusion to this.
The Act was well done and we are glad that we completed this item.
We still have Bill 7 to deal with and now Bill 5.
Bill 5 is very short.
The Loan Authorization Act 2001-2002.
Does the committee agree that we are going to deal with Bill 5.
Bill 5 – Loan Authorization Act, 2001-2002 – Consideration in Committee
The purpose of the Loan Authorization Act is to facilitate lending to municipalities.
The Loan Authorization Act sets the upper limit for municipal loans for the 2001-2002 fiscal year at 2 million 500 thousand dollars.
The government is requesting a loan limit of 2 and a half million dollars to ensure that we are able to meet the needs that may arise in municipalities.
If the requirements do not materialize the loans will not be made.
The Departments of Community Government and Transportation and Finance and Administration advance loans only after a careful scrutiny.
Only applications of merit are recommended to the Minister of Finance for approval.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. You can take a seat with your officials at the witness stand.
Mr. Chairman as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Services, I would like to let the members know that we reviewed Bill 5 – the Loan Authorization Act, 2001-2002.
Members of the committee are aware that this piece of legislation is introduced on an annual basis with the only substantive change from year to year being the upper loan limit being allowable under the Act.
Members have no difficulties with the core principle of the bill as it constitutes a vehicle by which municipalities may access funds for development purposes.
Members have noted with interest that the 1999-2000 Loan Authorization Act established an upper limit of 10 million dollars.
The 2000-2001 Act established a limit of 5 million dollars and this year, the 2001-2002 Act establishes a limit of 2 million 500 thousand dollars.
Mr. Chairman, this raises the question as to whether this represents a trend towards less demand for loans from municipalities or perhaps whether the criteria established by the government for making such loans has become more stringent in recent years.
The committee would recommend that when loans are made to municipalities under the authority established by this Act, that all members of the Legislative Assembly be formally advised in writing by the government as to which municipalities have received loans and for what purposes and in what amount.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening comments and the committee recommends passage of bill 5 to all members.
A Member: Hear, hear
We can go to the bill.
I would like to ask the minister if anyone is going to join him at the witness stand.
We will proceed.
Bill 5. Loan Authorization Act, 2001-2002.
In respect to the committee's concern of decreasing amounts, I guess my direct question would be is there a sign that there are fewer requirements for loans from the government for land development and things like that. What does that declining amount represent.
Minister Ng.  Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I couldn't speak about the reasons specifically why there would be declines. There is a possibility that there are enough developed lots in the majority of municipalities that there isn't a significant land development that is required.
It could be that they are finding conventional sources of financing, commercial sources of financing that may be competitive to the municipalities.
Or it could be that they are financing internally, having the capabilities being in a strong financial position to be able to carry the debt on their own land development.
So, there's certain other avenues certainly open to municipalities besides loans from the Government of Nunavut.
Mr. Arvaluk: Does that, the land development under this program include for the communities who may lack gravel for example, and may require crushing of rocks to obtain crushers and things like that.
No. It's not for any capital equipment Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Loss of Authority.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 5 as a whole.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 5, Loan Authorization Act, 2001-2002 as a whole.
Chairperson (interpretation): Does the committee agree the Bill is ready for third reading.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Minister for appearing in front of the committee.
I think we have completed the items.
I would now like to report progress.
The Speaker is able to come back into the House.
Item 20. Report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Puqiqnak.
Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bill 7 and Bill 5 and would like to report that Bill 7 and 5 are ready for third reading.
Mr. Alakannuark will second the motion.
Bill 5 – Loan Authorization Act, 2001-2002 – Third Reading
Mr. Speaker I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Rankin South/Whale Cove that Bill 5 – the Loan Authorization Act, 2001-2002, be read for the third time.
Bill 5 has had third reading.
Bill 11 – Supplementary Appropriations Act No. 1, 2001-2002 – Third Reading
Mr. Speaker I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Baffin South that Bill 11, Supplementary Appropriations Act No. 1, 2001-2002 be read for the third time.
Bill 11 has had third reading.
Bill 7 – Integrity Act – Third Reading
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to close off today with the third reading of Bill 7.