EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
My question is: why not limit it to specific matters instead of using words, hypothetically, “any matter” that is brought before that person.
Why are we using such a broad authority in this case?
Hon Eva Aariak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We don’t want to be specific. We don’t want to put barriers in the area that this representative can investigate or find out.
If this representative is there to find gaps within the government services, then it is the responsibility of the representative to find those gaps.
Sometimes we don’t know those gaps. It’s dangerous if we start putting specific parameters to the areas that this representative will be looking into. It can be anything that children and youth want to find out more about, that they are concerned about, and perhaps even need help with.
I understand that. I think that’s why I used it.
We can assign any very broad authority to this special representative. If you read that clause, it doesn’t provide that they consult with the parents. Parents are not involved whatsoever with this.
We have assigned all of that responsibility to this establishment representative.
I can go on. The minister did quote part of my concern. Any matter that relates to the children, as long as it involves the interests or rights, he can receive anything brought to him.
The legislation says anything that is brought to his attention. It doesn’t explain how he receives that matter. There is no process.
The scary part of that thing, specifically, is this: “regardless of the source and advise...” Advice can be received that the United Nations may not be agreeing that certain charters in the United Nations charter related to youth and children are not being implemented to follow.
It could be that even that worldwide institution can bring a matter to this special representative because it says any source, that anyhow he receives it, he is going to look into it.
Again, it doesn’t say, “provided that parents concur” with him digging into the review process.
Why are we giving this special representative such broad powers that pretty much do away with the rights of parents in relation to their children?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The representative will not be reviewing the parents or guardians.
The representative will be reviewing the government services.
I wish that was the case.
I think I understand clearly that No. 4(a) means that the special representative can review any matter that relates to the child or youth or to a group of youth that comes to his attention from any source.
It doesn’t say anything he gets from the parents. It doesn’t say that. It doesn’t have to involve the parents whatsoever, and that’s the scary part.
Why is there no connection or at least families giving permission for the special representative to go ahead and review any matter in that case?
I didn’t really hear a question. Madam Minister, I’ll give you the opportunity to respond.
The representative for children and youth legislation has a provision that the representative must inform parents or guardians of a child who is under the age of 12 years or the person having care of the child. That matter is under review of the information and so on.
It is very important for the representative to be conducting himself or herself in a way that is collaborative to the people that he or she is dealing with in regard to children and youth.
Again, I would like to read, because it’s very self-explanatory where it says that “his or her duties may
(a) receive and review any matter in relation to the services of any government department or designated authority as the matter relates to any child or youth or to any group of children or youth that comes to the Representative’s attention regardless of the source and advise, assist and advocate for the child, youth or group.”
Let’s say if there was a gap in the daycare services or a gap in services that are provided by the Government of Nunavut of certain departments or so.
I’ll try and be clear, Mr. Chairman.
I did ask why the parents are not involved and being part of the consultation process prior to studying any matter or reviewing any matter that comes before him or her.
My second point is this: I want to be clear that the special representative’s powers are the ones that we’re dealing with right now. We’re not talking about the parents or parental rights or authority of the parents. That’s not the point.
The point is that the minister did indicate that the special representative will review anything that goes on in relation to government services provided he receives a complaint or anything. It could be a complaint from any source.
That just sort of again scares me. What do you mean by any source?
Could it be someone complaining about youth programs or interests of the youth from outside of Nunavut?
It doesn’t say, “…any source received from citizens of Nunavut.” Why not?
As we will be coming by certain sections of the bill, Bill 22 is more specific to the member’s enquiry and question.
I just want to add that if, let’s say, a child is placed outside of Nunavut under another institution’s care as someone who is from Nunavut, we have an interest in ensuring that this child or youth is being properly taken care of and their rights and interests are protected.
It can be from outside of the territory.
I will have Ms. Macintosh to expand that a little bit further as the legislator for this because it is important.
The wording, “from any source,” is a very important word to be included in there.
As Chair, I will give Ms. Macintosh an opportunity to add to your response.
Ms. Macintosh.
Ms. Macintosh: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think, as the Premier has mentioned, it would be very risky to limit the sources of information that the representative could consider in accepting it.
In many cases, the representative might not know the source of the information. If it comes from somebody by email or over an Internet source or even by telephone, you don’t necessarily know where the person is located when they’re providing that information.
I think it’s very clear, to my mind as a legislative drafter, that paragraph 4(a) is very specific in dealing with government services and the programs and services of a designated authority. It’s not just any matter that anybody raises that has something peripheral to do with children. It’s specifically matters dealing with government services and the services of government agencies that relate to children and youth.
Whether it’s the children themselves who raise the issues or whether it’s somebody who works with the children or a parent, a friend, or somebody outside the system who raises an issue on behalf of the children and youth, I think it would be sort of incumbent on the representative to not ignore that information just because of the source of it.
There are provisions later on, and I think it is section 17, that the representative can make an initial investigation and determine whether or not a matter is trivial or vexatious or not in good faith and can decline to go further with an investigation. It’s not necessarily the case that every matter that comes to the attention of the representative will be fully investigated.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Macintosh. (interpretation ends) Moving right along.
I was actually looking for a bit of clarity and confirmation. In terms of some of the questions that have been coming up, I think the interpretation is being different in how people look at it.
From the consultation that we did in the communities, a lot of people did have misunderstanding of what the actual role of the child and youth representative is.
I think this exercise in terms of going clause by clause, hopefully, will deal with some of those issues.
I just wanted to really make it clear in terms of other members’ concerns about parents being looked at or investigated by the child and youth representative.
I think the Premier has made it clear, but if she could state again that parents will not be investigated in terms of the role of the child and youth representative. Is that correct?
Parents will not be investigated.
What we are talking about here is the investigation of the services that the Government of Nunavut provides.
The minister had mentioned in terms of government programs. We’re talking about all government departments and all programs that are geared toward children and youth. Is that correct?
Is it like that?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): It is like that.
We are on clause 4.
I wasn’t sure with the clarification that I need with item 4(a) specifically.
I want to make it very clear. We’re not dealing with section 17 right now.
If the legal advisor would confirm that, it would be helpful so that I interpret my views clearly. I am dealing with section 4(a), where the power is being crafted, and the minister would like to have this special representative to have powers.
It does not say in section 4(a) that any matter brought before his or her attention will not require consent from the parents.
The representative will be working with parents or guardians in the area that he or she is dealing with. Again, on 4(1), “In addition to any other powers under this or any other Act, the Representative for the purpose of performing his or her duties may…” and that’s the word, “…may
Yes, I understand that clearly.
When we were reading one paragraph, one paragraph gives pretty broad powers to this one agent of the Assembly, in this case, the special representative.
What I had hoped to see is that there be a clearly defined process rather than using any source.
For instance, in my view, that source should have been in this clause and be given a process submitted in writing or to that effect.
Why is it that the government chose to use a very broad, again, wording to say that any source can bring a matter to the special representative without having to either put it in writing or clearly indicating by way of a formal record?
It appears to be not that clear as to how that issue submitted to his attention would be carried out. Could the minister explain further something that I may be missing here?
We want to ensure that children or youth are able to approach the representative, or parents, who may not be able to write or use the computer, but just pick up the phone or approach the office any way that they can.
We want to make it easier to approach the representative with the concern. It can be by the parents or the guardians or children and youth.
If we revert to formalizing how the complaints are put forward, we may be limiting that, just like the same way as the Languages Commissioner.
The Languages Commissioner will receive information and look into matters, even if the enquiry was made through the phone.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I’ll give you an example exactly how it could likely happen when we’re dealing with the interests or rights of children.
In Nunavut, traditionally, we have what we call custom adoptions. I believe we have a Custom Adoptions Act in place.
The way I understood this clause, 4(a), the special representative will be able to… . For instance, if a complaint were submitted to him that a particular custom adoption is something he should look at on behalf of the child, would the special representative view that?
If “any matter” is one of those and, presumably, any individual, regardless of whether he wants to make it formal or not, the special representative would go ahead and look at a custom adoption.
It may be a specific case that he or she does not really particularly have an issue or something with the custom adoption.
I just want to give that as an example, whether that would open up the review as well for the services provided through the Custom Adoptions Act.
Hon. Eva Aariak: If one feels that there is a gap in custom adoption that the Government of Nunavut provides services and if it’s identified, then this is something that the representative will be able to look into.
The representative will be able to look into the programs and services that the government has if there is a gap or if there is a concern.
Moving on. Clause 4. Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation) Clause 20.
Committee Motion 012 – 3(3): Bill 40, Representative for Children and Youth Act (Elliott)
I would like to put forward the following motion on Bill 40, Representative for Children and Youth Act, motion to be moved in committee:
I move that clause 44 be amended by striking out “by order of the Commissioner” and substituting “by order of the Commissioner on the recommendation of the Management and Services Board.”
Chairman (interpretation): There are procedures to follow.
To the motion. Before we start, I have comments to make as to procedures.
Every member wishing to speak can speak to the motion for a total of 20 minutes.
The mover of the motion speaks first. The mover of the motion has the right to the last reply.
I would first like to ask the mover of the motion if he has any comments. Mr. Elliott.
On behalf of the Speaker and the Management and Services Board, I am pleased to move the motion that is before the Committee of the Whole today.
As members will recall from the Speaker’s recent correspondence of August 28 to the Premier, a request was made for this amendment to be prepared.
As members are aware, the representative for children and youth’s status as an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly will result in a significant number of responsibilities being assumed by the Management and Services Board and the Office of the Legislative Assembly.
In addition to undertaking the recruitment and selection of the representative, the board will have overarching responsibility for ensuring that the necessary financial, administrative, and logistical infrastructure is in place to enable the representative to commence his or her duties in an effective and efficient manner.
Consequently, it is essential that the new legislation be brought into force in a planned and deliberate manner.
Given that the responsibility for ensuring that this occurs rests with the Management and Services Board, it is appropriate for clause 44 of Bill 40 to be amended to provide that the Act or any portion of the Act comes into force on the recommendation of the board.
On behalf of the Speaker and the board, I wish to thank the sponsoring minister for agreeing to the amendment that is before us today.
Do members have any comments to the motion?
We’re on clause 44. Clause 44, as amended. Do you agree?
Do members agree to Bill 40, as amended?
Chairman (interpretation): Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 40 can be immediately placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Madam Minister, I will give you an opportunity to make closing remarks at this time.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me an opportunity to make closing remarks.
I thank each and every one of you, all Members of the Legislative Assembly, for recognizing a very important issue and for understanding current affairs. I am very pleased that you are able to let your position be known in this House.
I would also like to thank all the people at the cabinet level, who agreed that we are to table this legislation. I thank the regular members for giving their great advice why we need to bring this legislation up.
I thank each and every one of you. Let us remember that it has been a while since the members wanted to see this legislation passed. Now it’s eventually here.
This legislation is very important for youth and children’s programs and services.
I would also like to thank the people who worked very long hours on this legislation and also the people who have been in support of this legislation for a long time, such as NTI and others. Other provinces have been in support of us to see this legislation pass.
I would like to thank the Child and Youth Representative Advisory Committee because they worked very hard to draft this legislation. I would like to thank the Department of Justice legislation drafters and also the people of the Department of Justice.
I would like to thank all Nunavummiut for providing their input during the consultation process of this legislation. Thank you for providing your support and advice.
I would like to thank Rhoda Audla because she’s always busy working at the department, and to my right, Daniel Vandermeulen. I thank each and every one of you.
Before we proceed, using my discretion as the Chair, we will take a break and I will ring the bells to call you back into the Chamber.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out. We will now take a break.
>>Committee recessed at 17:25 and resumed at 17:41
Bill 58 – Public Service Act – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): We can now resume our meeting.
We will now be dealing with Bill 58, Public Service Act, reprint.
Minister Peterson is the lead minister.
Does the committee agree to bring in Minister Peterson and his officials to the witness table?
Minister Peterson, welcome. For the record, please introduce your witnesses.
To my right is Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance, and to my left is Anne Macintosh, Legal Counsel for the Department of Justice.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. Mr. D’Arcy, welcome. (interpretation ends) Ms. Macintosh, I haven’t seen you in a long time.
(interpretation) Welcome.
Minister Peterson, if you have any opening comments on Bill 58, I now give you the opportunity.
I am pleased to appear and speak to Bill 58, the Public Service Act.
The new Public Service Act introduces a number of improvements. With the inclusion of modern language and the updating of a wide variety of legislative references, Bill 58 provides a solid foundation for several key initiatives.
The new Public Service Act recognizes the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, provides the inclusion of the Priority Hiring Policy, internship programs, and Inuit language legislation.
Bill 58 also provides for the disclosure of wrongdoing, more commonly referred to as whistle-blowing, and creates an ethics officer function to investigate any disclosures. These provisions outline the steps for making a complaint, powers of investigation, and protect employees from reprisal.
Political activity provisions in the proposed legislation have been changed to reflect case law, federal statutes, and commonly held practices.
These sections provide clear direction on what activities public servants can be involved with and removes obstructions to participation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the standing committee for their hard work. Your suggestions and our collaborative discussions have led to significant improvements to this bill. I welcome questions and comments from members.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation) If the chair of the standing committee, Mr. Ningeongan, has any comments, you may proceed.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I wish to provide opening comments on behalf of my colleagues as we begin consideration of Bill 58, the proposed new Public Service Act.
Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, Bill 58 received second reading on March 18, 2013 and was subsequently referred to the standing committee for consideration.
For the benefit of the permanent public record and Nunavummiut who are following our proceedings today, I wish to take this opportunity to provide an overview of the standing committee’s deliberations concerning Bill 58.
Mr. Chairman, the amended and reprinted version of Bill 58 that is before the Committee of the Whole today reflects a number of amendments that were made to the bill during the sponsoring minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
These amendments included measures to:
Clarify the minister’s responsibilities in relation to the government’s obligations under Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement;
Strengthen provisions concerning the issue of nepotism in the government’s hiring process;
Ensure greater consistency between the Public Service Act and the Nunavut Elections Act; and
Provide that Part 6 of the new Public Service Act, which concerns disclosure of wrongdoing and the creation of the ethics officer, to come into force on the earlier of April 1, 2015 or a day to be fixed by order of the Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the standing committee’s clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 58, a motion was adopted to report the bill back to the House as amended.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 58, as amended and reprinted, to all members.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. (interpretation) Before we proceed, let me remind the members that we are now on general comments, but if you have any questions in regard to the bill, please wait until we go clause by clause.
I would like to ask if there are any general comments.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to welcome the minister and his officials.
It took a while for the government to draft up Bill 58, the Public Service Act.
I am in support of this bill because I have seen many problems occurring when there are employment opportunities out there.
Mr. Chairman, one thing that some government employees noted is that sometimes nepotism occurs within the departments.
This has to stop. The government needs to hire based on merit.
For that reason, the amendment to this bill, I believe, will be more in support of this, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to my opening comments, I think, again they will concentrate on one or two items.
I think this bill is definitely long overdue. We need to give our workers in the public service an opportunity to report any wrongdoing without fear, without being limited to their conscience as well as to the consequences from anybody within the authorities within government.
I think that principle is very important. They will now be able to have an opportunity to disclose any wrongdoing that may be known or the person wishes to report.
We have known it as whistle-blowing. So that’s an important change. Hopefully we won’t have to use it that much in our public service.
The second point is that the ethics officer created, I think, is really quite important. That’s essential to the public service.
The other point I wanted to raise, and I will only raise it as a point, is that there appears to be a change as to the minister’s role in assigning powers, duties, functions, authority, and so on.
Traditionally, it has always been the practice of the minister to assign the powers, duties, and functions to the deputy ministers.
If they want a particular assignment given, they do it through the deputy minister, as the deputy minister, as the head of the department, knows exactly which group of officials down the chain are able to effect change if the minister so desires. That always has been the case.
Letters of authorizing deputy ministers, traditionally and occasionally, have been tabled in the legislature.
Now the very important change in this legislation, and I’m sure all of you have read this, including the press, is that the minister is now seeking authority to be able to assign duties, functions, and authorities to any employee in the public service.
There will be a little competition going on. “How did you get to be a favourite public servant assigned powers, duties, and authorities which I never get to do, even as middle management in the public service?”
That is the only concern I have other than the whole issue.
I think it’s moving further from the previous track, which is always respect the working relationship with the deputy.
Now we’re changing it that any minister will now be able to assign powers, functions, or authorities, if there’s an important thing going on, to any employee.
It may not happen often, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be the deputy minister or ADM. It could be a manager or director. Not only that, they will be able to consider assigning it to even junior officers. That may not happen, but that’s the only concern I have with this bill.
I think it is timely that we take a 20-minute break at this time.
>>Committee recessed at 17:54 and resumed at 18:12
Chairman (interpretation): We now can proceed.