EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Tabled Document 295 – 2(4): NNI Contracting Appeals Board Annual Report 2007-2008 (Netser)
Tabled Document 296 – 2(4): Evaluation of the Business Development Centres in the Kitikmeot, Kivalliq and Qikiqtaaluk Regions (Netser)
Tabled Document 297 – 2(4): Ministerial Meeting Report – F/P/T Northern Development Ministers Forum, August 27-28, 2008 from Dept. of Economic Development and Transportation (Netser)
I have a number of documents to table. One is referring to the Iqaluit Airport Master Plan; and (interpretation ends) the NNI Contracting Appeals Board Annual Report for 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08; (interpretation) and an evaluation of the Business Development Centres in the Kitikmeot, Kivalliq and Qikiqtaaluk regions; and the last document is the Northern Development Ministers’ Forum in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, August 27 to 28, 2008.
Tabled Document 298 – 2(4): Ministerial Meeting Report – National Aboriginal Women’s Summit, July 2008 from Dept. of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs (Brown)
Tabled Document 299 – 2(4): Qulliit Status of Women Council Annual Report 2007-2008 (Brown)
I am pleased to table the following document: the National Aboriginal Women’s Summit II, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, July 2008. I am very pleased to table the Nunavut Qulliit Status of Women Council Annual Report for 2007-2008.
Motion 046 – 2(4): Comprehensive Audit of the Government of Nunavut’s Evaluation and Award Process in Relation to RFP 2007-52: Standing Offer Agreement for Medical Travel on Scheduled Airlines – Notice (Curley)
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I give notice that on Friday, September 19, 2008, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Baker Lake, that the Legislative Assembly recommends that the Executive Council of Nunavut, pursuant to section 47 of the Nunavut Act, advise the Commissioner of Nunavut to request the Auditor General of Canada to undertake a comprehensive audit of the Government of Nunavut’s Evaluation and Award Process in relation to RFP 2007-52: Standing Offer Agreement for Medical Travel on Scheduled Airlines, and report thereon to the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable.
Motion 045 – 2(4): Acceptance of the Report of the Acting Integrity Commissioner to the Legislative Assembly Regarding Mr. David Simailak, MLA (Tootoo)
WHEREAS the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has tabled the Report of the Acting Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut regarding Mr. David Simailak, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Baker Lake;
AND WHEREAS the Acting Integrity Commissioner has made certain recommendations in his report dated September 8, 2008;
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The motion is in order.
Members, before we proceed with consideration of this motion, I wish to advise members that the relevant provisions of the Integrity Act concerning the Legislative Assembly’s consideration of a report of this nature have been placed in your motion binders for reference.
I would also remind members that section 48 of the Act allows the Legislative Assembly to either accept or reject all of the recommendations contained in the report.
Accordingly, the motion before the House cannot be amended to accept or reject only certain sections of the report. The motion must be voted on as it is.
A reminder about our procedures:
Every member has the right to speak once to the motion for a total of 20 minutes
The mover of the motion speaks first and the seconder speaks second
To the motion. (interpretation) Member for Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
As the mover of this motion, I wish to offer some comments for the public record today and I would first off like to begin by thanking my colleague from Cambridge Bay for seconding the motion.
The matter in question is one that must be dealt with by the Legislative Assembly as a whole and it is my hope that today’s vote on the motion will be unanimous.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, on February 28 of this year, the House considered a motion to accept the recommendations contained in the report of our former Integrity Commissioner.
At that time, I offered a number of comments and observations that I believe are relevant to the matter before us today.
When the Members of the First Legislative Assembly of Nunavut passed the Integrity Act in 2001 under the midnight sun in Cambridge Bay, we had high expectations that our statutes would be among the strongest of its kind in the nation. Seven years later, I continue to believe that we have a sound piece of legislation.
When we developed and passed the Integrity Act, one of our concerns was to achieve the goal of ensuring that elected officials do not use their positions for personal gain, while not creating unnecessary disincentives to running for office with respect to people, who are active in the business community, who wish to bring their ideas and entrepreneurial energy to the floor of this House.
The Integrity Act establishes the parameters within which MLAs and ministers are expected to execute the powers and responsibilities that have been entrusted to them. It is the responsibility of all of us in this House to adhere to these provisions.
The two key provisions of the legislation in this regard are sections 8 and 10.
Section 8 provides that and I’ll quote it, “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 or perform an official duty in the exercise of his or her office if the member knows or reasonably should know that in doing so there is an opportunity to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest.”
Section 10 provides that “A member shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made or to be made by another person so as to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest.”
Mr. Speaker, on July of this year, I exercised my right under section 36 of the Integrity Act to formally request the Acting Integrity Commissioner to review whether or not the law had been contravened.
As the Act required, I swore an affidavit attesting to my belief that the Act had, in fact, been contravened. My affidavit set out the grounds for my belief.
I did so with the full support of the Standing Committee of Government Operations and Accountability.
My basis for making a request under section 36 of the Act were the contents of the documents that were subpoenaed in 2007 and 2008 in relation to the Standing Committee of Government Operations and Accountability’s hearings on the Report of the Auditor General to the Legislative Assembly on the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I did not make this request lightly. However, each and every one of us in this House has a job to do and I have always worked to fulfill my responsibilities regardless of how difficult or unpleasant a situation might be on a personal level.
As the House is aware, this is the first time that a report of this nature has been made to the Legislative Assembly.
The actions and reputations of individuals have come under scrutiny.
However, I believe that it was incumbent for me to act.
I want to take this opportunity to note my appreciation for the thorough, professional, and comprehensive manner in which Mr. Pickell undertook this review and prepared his report.
His report speaks for itself and confirms my belief that the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit, under the leadership of their Chairman, Mr. Mapsalak, made an excellent decision recommending Mr. Pickell for this important office.
The unanimous vote in this House last week on his appointment further confirms the merits of this decision.
Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the report with care and would like to take this opportunity to share with the House today some observations on its contents.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the findings in the report concerning the former minister’s relationship with companies in which he had an interest, the Acting Integrity Commissioner report states that and I’ll quote it, “Mr. Simailak told me that he never thought anyone would find out about the emails that were exchanged between himself and people like Mr. Wilkinson. I believe him.
But Mr. Simailak has been caught receiving information about his business interests that he never should have received.” I found this comment to be troubling.
I also found the following passages of the report to be disturbing, which contains and concerns the issue of advice that had been provided by the former Integrity Commissioner to Mr. Simailak’s Executive Assistant, Mr. Lalande, an individual who also served in that capacity to the former Finance Minister, Kelvin Ng, who held that office between 1999 and 2004, and I’ll quote this provision section in the report.
It says, “In his written response to Mr. Tootoo’s Affidavit containing the allegations, Mr. Simailak says:
‘I was informed some time after I resigned as Minister [in December of 2007] by [Mr. Lalande] … that he had had a telephone conversation with the former Integrity Commissioner regarding unsolicited emails requesting arranging meeting, etc. The former Integrity Commissioner directed him to forward those emails to appropriate departments.
[Mr. Lalande] had apparently had the same conversation with the former Integrity Commissioner during the previous Nunavut Government [and] was given the same direction.’”
This advice concerns the issue of appropriate boundaries between the minister’s office and private companies.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to avoid reaching the conclusion that the kind of activities that are detailed in the report also took place in the tenure of the First Legislative Assembly and the first government.
To me, it calls into question the integrity of a number of decisions that were made during that time, including the awarding of certain major contracts and leases.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I will state that the government could clear the air on such matters by ensuring that disclosures and withdrawals that take place under the Act are properly disclosed.
This may be an area that would benefit from further consideration in legislative amendments during the next Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, the report also determined that section 10 of our legislation, which prohibits MLAs from using our offices to improperly further another person’s private interest, was violated through the former minister’s attempt to influence his most senior departmental official into giving contract work to Mr. John Todd, the former Minister of Finance in the Government of the Northwest Territories and former Cabinet colleague of Mr. Ng, who I mentioned a few moments ago.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what work was actually produced by Mr. Todd but I do know that it is a responsibility of this government to reveal to the House how much he has been paid.
Mr. Speaker, the report also contains a number of valuable forward-looking recommendations that will help the Members of the Third Assembly to arrange their affairs appropriately.
It is recommended in the report that all trust agreements approved by the Integrity Commissioner include provisions that ensure that MLAs and I’ll quote it, “shall not knowingly and wilfully, or negligently, solicit or receive any information that may not be properly disclosed to the elected member pursuant to the provisions of the Integrity Act.”  The report also recommends that trust agreements ensure that an elected MLA “shall not take any action to obtain, and shall take appropriate action to avoid receiving, any information with respect to his or her business.”
It is also recommended in the report that “all senior public servants and Ministerial political staff be briefed by the Integrity Commissioner on the provisions” of the legislation.
I also continue to believe that we need a system to formally register and regulate the activities of paid lobbyists.
Mr. Tootoo: This is an issue that has been commented on in past reports to the Legislative Assembly from the Integrity Commissioner’s office, as is the issue of developing conflict of interest guidelines for senior officials and strengthening protection for whistle-blowers.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the recommendations and sanctions contained in the report are clear, firm, and appropriate as they relate to this matter, which is why I moved the motion that is before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I do recognize that this has been a difficult time for my colleague from Baker Lake. Although it has been a tough lesson, I am confident that Mr. Simailak will follow the recommendations contained in the report. I would like to say that I personally believe that he is, in a sense, also a victim in this situation whose trust in others has been betrayed.
I believe that he placed his trust in other individuals who have since walked away.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I’ll conclude my comments by stating that I will be calling for a recorded vote on the motion at the appropriate time.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, Premier Okalik.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I wasn’t really planning on talking but I must say that I was humbled by Mr. Simailak’s response when I requested that I had lost confidence after seeing the emails, that I could no longer support him as minister. He was very cooperative and very helpful in making sure that he did not harm our government’s reputation.
So I must say, in his defence, that he acted with honour when I asked that he step down from his portfolio and that I was very impressed with his conduct in that way.
But I must say that it was disappointing to see those emails and I advised Mr. Simailak that I did not feel that was appropriate and that he had to step down, unfortunately, and he did the honourable thing.
I must say, in my discussions with the Integrity Commissioner, that I have second thoughts on these issues of blind trust, that future ministers should avoid them.
My colleague from Cambridge Bay pointed out clearly that we live in a very small territory and everybody knows everybody, and the issue of blind trust doesn’t necessarily work for our territory.
So to be open and up front about your business and personal interests is the best way to go and to avoid any potential for conflict.
We have discussed this in Cabinet and that we will be voting in favour of the motion to maintain the integrity of our government, and that we do hope that we never have to go through this for future governments.
It’s a very difficult situation to put us in and unfortunately these things happen, and we have to act quickly and decisively.
But I must say that there are other priorities that were mentioned by my colleague and that we have to be careful in our House. We’re dealing with Mr. Simailak and past issues that may have taken place is out of our hands in some cases and we can’t act on them, but we have to be careful in our proceedings that we deal with these matters as they come before us. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Premier Okalik. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Member for Hudson Bay, Mr. Kattuk.
At this time, I will not be supporting the motion for a reason I wish to voice first.
My reason is… maybe if I state this first prior to my reason.
When we first created Nunavut, Inuit customs, perspectives, wishes and issues close to their hearts were to be the basis of our new government. However, I wish to state in the House, as you all know, that I continually advocate that Inuit customs, traditions, and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit should be incorporated into the government.
You know very well that I have been an advocate of it.
In regard to the motion and the report, it doesn’t conform to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, at least from my perspective, as it does not include an Inuit perspective and issues dear to my heart.
We have to integrate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit into all aspects of government.
The reason why I will be voting against this motion is because it’s not in line with Inuit traditions. With respect to any future motions, the Inuit custom is not to single out another individual and all motions in the future should incorporate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
Today, we are singling out an individual in this motion and pointing a finger therein.
I was advised that this is contrary to Inuit customs and traditions as practiced by our forefathers and by our parents.
You should never belittle or disparage another person, nor should you try to bring anyone down or elevate yourself over another Inuk.
I grew up being advised daily that everyone has to be treated equally and this is the reason I will be voting against the motion.
However, I completely understand the reason for the motion.
I’m not saying that the Cabinet and the MLAs are just going to be doing whatever they please.
That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m referring to is my choice in using my Inuit tradition which I’m voicing here in the Assembly.
Further, in looking at the report, I think it also breaches the Canadian Constitution. It seems to be contrary to the rights listed in it.
Every individual has the right and the freedom to handle their own affairs.
If this motion is approved to censure Mr. Simailak, then his constituents will not have the freedom to choose, at least in my opinion. It will be up to his constituents in Baker Lake to decide for themselves on this matter. I would also like to say that the penalty amount is too large.
For these two reasons, I will not be supporting the motion.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Kattuk. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Member for Rankin Inlet North, Mr. Curley.
I also would like to rise in regard to the motion for the reason that I’m about to voice.
First of all, I would like to clarify that we were talking about a report we received last week from the Integrity Commissioner. As I stated at that time, it was going to be difficult and stressful to deal with the conduct of our colleague.
First of all, I would like to say that we have to adhere to the rules that apply to the Members of the Legislative Assembly.
One thing that I’m concerned about when it comes to businesses is that there are always those who go through difficult times. This is primarily due to the concern of making a profit for your company, which is a never-ending quest. It’s also difficult since you don’t know how long the business will survive.
However, with respect to this issue and in looking at the Integrity Commissioner’s report, it clearly identifies the lack of support by our government, our Cabinet, and our Government House Leader.
I can state unequivocally that our colleague didn’t make this mistake unilaterally when he fell short of complying with the rules applicable to ministers. The government also fell short of its mandate and they could have drafted up more policies to apply to businesses owned by members.
I know that the Executive Council, the ministers, can get together and draft up a policy or even make it a regulation, outlining what the ministers can and cannot do.
There has to be a regulation or a policy related to this issue if you wish to be the Premier.
What I’m saying is that the next government has to have a guideline that clearly specifies what a Cabinet Minister can or cannot do, that completely binds the minister and protects them from lobbyists.
This has been brought up here in this House from time to time, including the need to have lobbyists registered in Nunavut, which I raised in a question myself.
If all of these rules were in place, then this situation may not have occurred.
Due to this reason, Mr. Speaker, I want to state that I’m also working hard on this issue because I personally know our colleague who we are discussing.
What I can say is that he is a very good individual, who had a proper upbringing from good parents. However, if any of us are pressured enough by our businesses to make them profitable, then all of us can commit errors in judgement.
Due to these reasons, the recommendations contained in the Report of the Integrity Commissioner should not be the only thing we have to focus on, the Cabinet has to support this as well.
We cannot fail any member who is a minister and we have to have the proper rules in place. We cannot just tell the deputy ministers that they cannot conduct themselves in a certain manner.
This is unacceptable and has to be in writing.
Even though this is a difficult situation that we have to deal with, Mr. Speaker, I will have to support the recommendations in the motion today.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Member for Arviat, Mr. Alagalak.
Indeed, I am full of compassion for and I empathize with the individual that we’re dealing with.
But I believe he put himself in the situation and if I were to say this in English, (interpretation ends) volunteering for this event. (interpretation) It is as if he has volunteered for this initial process since it will lead to more understanding of the rules in place to protect the public.
I know that the younger people will be getting into politics in the future and we have to teach our youth how to deal with the myriad of legislation that applies to members, especially in censuring members.
This incident shows the people that we take our business seriously.
This individual has agreed to undertake this process and he knows that he will have to accept whatever decision is arrived at. I know he will not disagree with the decision and that he will not back away from it.
We feel compassion for the person as Inuit didn’t traditionally censure individuals. We would resolve situations or issues through negotiations and deliberations, coming to a consensus, and then forgiving each other.
Based on our current situation, we cannot live like that anymore.
In the Inuit homelands, our government was the starting block and legislation seemed to be quite easy to deal with. Even though we would also have to pass through those challenges, we would pass the legislation.
But in order to deal with more complex issues we are certain to face in the future, we will have to draft more legislation.
We didn’t know anything about legislation, but there are hundreds that we have dealt with in less than 20 years. Due to the fact that the majority of our people were unaware of the law, many people have been taken to court for breaking laws. There are many young people who commit suicide due to their ignorance of the Acts and legislation.
For that reason, I will not be in support of this motion, especially since we are dealing with one of our colleagues in this manner.
Further, I know his parents quite well, as well as his relatives and his life.
However, all things must eventually pass and this, too, will eventually pass.
One thing that I feel thankful about as a result of this process is that this will show the young people in Nunavut that everybody needs to adhere to laws and legislation.
It shows how one must conduct oneself and to be a good person in Nunavut.
It will also show the public that this government is accountable.
I am very pleased to have undertaken this process because somewhere down the road, more incidents like this may occur. There’s a lot of legislation that will trip us up and cause problems down the road since there are many pieces of legislation.
As I stated earlier, this will come to pass and there will still be opportunities in upcoming years.
In spite of that, I would like to state my appreciation to our young people who are in school and who are readying for their careers.
They will eventually replace us as politicians. We have envisioned the Government of Nunavut going far into the future and it is slowly acknowledging Inuit customs. We wish our government to be proud of Inuit, their values, traditions, and also their language which will become a working language.